Is Gay Marriage Considered a Sin?

[POI]

For debate:

Is same sex marriage a sin?
If so, where does the Bible say this?
Further, why is it a sin?

[JoeyKnothead]

Homosexuality is an abomination in God's view according to the scriptures and "gay marriage" is an oxymoron; marriage is between a man and woman and occurrs upon having sexual intercourse, the scriptural joining together of the flesh. If you don't believe in the bible, this is all a moot point not worthy of further discussion.

It's worthy for further discussion because a bunch of Bible beaters want to enforce their definition of marriage on everybody.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I do not think many Christians will dare touch this topic because the world has become so secular, they are scared to share their beliefs.

Is same sex marriage a sin?

According to the Roman Church, yes.

If so, where does the Bible say this?

Paul comes to mind in Romans.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Further, why is it a sin?

This is the more difficult question to answer because it requires getting into the natural law as discussed in philosophy, which is not about what happens in nature. It deals with the essence of a being, what it is in itself and from this we can figure out those laws applied to men that never change, such as it is the essence of a man to life, so murder is wrong.

Of course, a Christian could keep it very simple and just say, it is sin because God says so. To the believer no more explanation is necessary. But the rational mind wishes to understand.

It is the essence of man to reproduce with the opposite sex, so to have sexual relations where the end is not for the possible production of children is against the natural law and thus sin.

However, the church teaches that it is not sin to be gay. You can be gay all you wish. You just cannot act upon those desires. Yes, a gay person doesn't choose who he is sexually attracted to, but he does choose if he acts.

A pedo also doesn't choose to be attracted to children. They ought to obtain from those desires.

A gay believer could look at this in a positive way. God has called him to be chaste like Paul.

1 Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.

I suspect unbelievers will not like any of this. Why would they? Should gays be killed? NO. Should gays be mistreated? No. We should love gays and encourage them to be holy to God. God is giving them a chance to be like Saint Paul. Maybe God is even calling them to the priesthood. ( rolls eyes as the jokes)

[POI]

(U) I do not think many Christians will dare touch this topic because the world has become so secular, they are scared to share their beliefs.

(ME) Well, I commend your bravery But I am not one of those 'stereo-typical' atheists or "new age liberals", in which FOX news tries to portray right now

The objective of this post, is like most others. To undermine the credibility of the Bible. Here is my current hypothesis.

Whoever wrote these verses are homophobes. Period. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote these verses, thinks same sex 'togetherness' is icky.

(U) Of course, a Christian could keep it very simple and just say, it is sin because God says so.

(ME) Being that the Bible does not elaborate, I'd say the 'might makes right' response seems most logically appropriate. Don't you?

(U) To the believer no more explanation is necessary. But the rational mind wishes to understand.

(ME) Yes. But again, God gives no explanation. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote these verses, thinks same sex 'togetherness' is icky. How about you?

(U) It is the essence of man to reproduce with the opposite sex, so to have sexual relations where the end is not for the possible production of children is against the natural law and thus sin.

(ME) Well, we know this cannot be a logical reason. Many women cannot reproduce. And most are not gay. And since they are not having sex until marriage, and could not be tested, they would not find out until much later. So what is the man to do, practice polygamy?

(U) However, the church teaches that it is not sin to be gay. You can be gay all you wish. You just cannot act upon those desires. Yes, a gay person doesn't choose who he is sexually attracted to, but he does choose if he acts.

(ME) Why would god 'create' some men and women gay? If it's not a choice, then god did it, right? Or maybe the devil is doing this?

(U) I suspect unbelievers will not like any of this. Why would they? Should gays be killed? NO. Should gays be mistreated? No. We should love gays and encourage them to be holy to God. God is giving them a chance to be like Saint Paul. Maybe God is even calling them to the priesthood. ( rolls eyes as the jokes)

(ME) I have to, sorry. You threw me a soft one up the middle. It's just too easy

Maybe this is why so many "gays" become priests and nuns?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #33]

You forgot to hit respond, so I was not notified you responded.

Whoever wrote these verses are homophobes. Period. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote these verses, thinks same sex 'togetherness' is icky.

Or, they understood natural law. Or, they truly believe God said no gay sexual acts and trust God knows best.

(ME) Being that the Bible does not elaborate, I'd say the 'might makes right' response seems most logically appropriate. Don't you?

In this case, it would not be might makes right. It could be God knowing all history sees that gay acts are not good for humans. Those reasons might be unknown to us because we lack much knowledge of human history, and are mostly completely ignorant of the future.

(ME) Yes. But again, God gives no explanation. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote these verses, thinks same sex 'togetherness' is icky. How about you?

I do not think it is icky. Aquinas did not either. It is against the natural law only in one regard, in that it doesn't fulfill one end purpose, which is to bring about offspring. It is why animals have the desire, for reproduction, the survival of the species.

And going against this end is not icky, as you put it. But it is going against the reproductive purpose of coming together sexually. Yes, masturbation does also, unless it is for the end purpose of reproduction such as during the sexual act with your proper lover.

However, gay lovers do fulfill other ends, like unity, love, or bringing happiness to each other. There is nothing icky about those ends.

(ME) Well, we know this cannot be a logical reason. Many women cannot reproduce. And most are not gay. And since they are not having sex until marriage, and could not be tested, they would not find out until much later. So what is the man to do, practice polygamy?

Maybe you can ask this question differently. I don't understand exactly what you are asking. Some people cannot reproduce, but that doesn't stop Abraham and Sarah trying.

(U) However, the church teaches that it is not sin to be gay. You can be gay all you wish. You just cannot act upon those desires. Yes, a gay person doesn't choose who he is sexually attracted to, but he does choose if he acts.

(ME) Why would god 'create' some men and women gay? If it's not a choice, then god did it, right? Or maybe the devil is doing this?

I am wondering if you read the part where I said God can be calling gays to the priesthood, or in the case of females to be a nun, a call to the righteous life. BTW, a gay person can become a Saint in the church.

Maybe this is why so many "gays" become priests and nuns?

I am not sure if the ratio of gays among nuns and priests is higher than the normal population, but if so, that is awesome. They are doing right by their disposition by refraining from gay acts.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #33]

You forgot to hit respond, so I was not notified you responded.

Whoever wrote these verses are homophobes. Period. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote these verses, thinks same sex 'togetherness' is icky.

Or, they understood natural law. Or, they truly believe God said no gay sexual acts and trust God knows best.

(ME) Being that the Bible does not elaborate, I'd say the 'might makes right' response seems most logically appropriate. Don't you?

In this case, it would not be might makes right. It could be God knowing all history sees that gay acts are not good for humans. Those reasons might be unknown to us because we lack much knowledge of human history, and are mostly completely ignorant of the future.

(ME) Yes. But again, God gives no explanation. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote these verses, thinks same sex 'togetherness' is icky. How about you?

I do not think it is icky. Aquinas did not either. It is against the natural law only in one regard, in that it doesn't fulfill one end purpose, which is to bring about offspring. It is why animals have the desire, for reproduction, the survival of the species.

And going against this end is not icky, as you put it. But it is going against the reproductive purpose of coming together sexually. Yes, masturbation does also, unless it is for the end purpose of reproduction such as during the sexual act with your proper lover.

However, gay lovers do fulfill other ends, like unity, love, or bringing happiness to each other. There is nothing icky about those ends.

(ME) Well, we know this cannot be a logical reason. Many women cannot reproduce. And most are not gay. And since they are not having sex until marriage, and could not be tested, they would not find out until much later. So what is the man to do, practice polygamy?

Maybe you can ask this question differently. I don't understand exactly what you are asking. Some people cannot reproduce, but that doesn't stop Abraham and Sarah trying.

(U) However, the church teaches that it is not sin to be gay. You can be gay all you wish. You just cannot act upon those desires. Yes, a gay person doesn't choose who he is sexually attracted to, but he does choose if he acts.

(ME) Why would god 'create' some men and women gay? If it's not a choice, then god did it, right? Or maybe the devil is doing this?

I am wondering if you read the part where I said God can be calling gays to the priesthood, or in the case of females to be a nun, a call to the righteous life. BTW, a gay person can become a Saint in the church.

Maybe this is why so many "gays" become priests and nuns?

I am not sure if the ratio of gays among nuns and priests is higher than the normal population, but if so, that is awesome. They are doing right by their disposition by refraining from gay acts.

I'm going to be offline a few days, or longer. I'll touch on this when I return.

Thnx

[POI]

Or, they understood natural law. Or, they truly believe God said no gay sexual acts and trust God knows best.

What do you mean by 'natural law' exactly? Further, other animal/species practice homosexual sex. Why is their 'nature' to seek relations with the same sex?

The assumption, with the least amount of additional assumption(s), would be to conclude that whoever wrote these passages thought gay relations are 'icky'. Therefore, it must be a "sin".

Other than thinking it's gross, WHY is it bad? Since God cares not to elaborate, and leaves you only to speculate, why in the heck would you choose an option which requires mental gymnastics? Just assume the Bible writer thinks it's gross, and viola.

In this case, it would not be might makes right. It could be God knowing all history sees that gay acts are not good for humans. Those reasons might be unknown to us because we lack much knowledge of human history, and are mostly completely ignorant of the future.

You are, AGAIN, applying unfounded assumptions. God merely commands that it is a sin. Which-is-to-mean, he does not like it. Therefore, it's bad. "Might Makes Right" 101 here....

I do not think it is icky. Aquinas did not either.

It only matters what the author wrote. And the author wrote that it is an abomination. I say the author thinks so, because it is icky. This assumption requires the least amount of additional follow-up or explanation. Your assumption(s) requires more 'spin'.

And going against this end is not icky, as you put it. But it is going against the reproductive purpose of coming together sexually. Yes, masturbation does also, unless it is for the end purpose of reproduction such as during the sexual act with your proper lover.

"Reproduction' cannot be the determining factor, as many cannot reproduce.

However, gay lovers do fulfill other ends, like unity, love, or bringing happiness to each other. There is nothing icky about those ends.

And if they wish to express this 'unity' and 'love', it is an abomination. Why?

I am wondering if you read the part where I said God can be calling gays to the priesthood, or in the case of females to be a nun, a call to the righteous life. BTW, a gay person can become a Saint in the church.

This does not address my question. Why would god 'create' some people gay? Why not just 'create' all attracted to the opposite sex?

Your followup response does nothing to address this... All your followup points out, is that one must refrain from any sexual relations.

I am not sure if the ratio of gays among nuns and priests is higher than the normal population, but if so, that is awesome. They are doing right by their disposition by refraining from gay acts.

You missed my joke here... It's safe to say that many homosexual males enter the priesthood, being that many were/are caught having sex with other males.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

What do you mean by 'natural law' exactly? Further, other animal/species practice homosexual sex. Why is their 'nature' to seek relations with the same sex?

What I mean by natural law-

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/natural-law

Animals do not seek relations with the same sex, anymore than my dog seeks relations with my leg. You would have to demonstrate that animals are actually attracted to the same sex. I am sure my dog is not attracted to my leg.

Other than thinking it's gross, WHY is it bad? Since God cares not to elaborate, and leaves you only to speculate, why in the heck would you choose an option which requires mental gymnastics? Just assume the Bible writer thinks it's gross, and viola.

God gave us the ability to reason the natural law.

AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:00 pm
In this case, it would not be might makes right. It could be God knowing all history sees that gay acts are not good for humans. Those reasons might be unknown to us because we lack much knowledge of human history, and are mostly completely ignorant of the future.

You are, AGAIN, applying unfounded assumptions. God merely commands that it is a sin. Which-is-to-mean, he does not like it. Therefore, it's bad. "Might Makes Right" 101 here....

What is the point if you don't read? Read what I said again. I quoted right above your quote.

It only matters what the author wrote. And the author wrote that it is an abomination. I say the author thinks so, because it is icky. This assumption requires the least amount of additional follow-up or explanation. Your assumption(s) requires more 'spin'.

But it doesn't. I do not find it icky, so why should I assume they did?

"Reproduction' cannot be the determinin ... reproduce.

Sure it can, because they are choosing to do an sexual act that ought to be capable of producing offspring, but it cannot. The person that cannot get pregnant or produce enough sperm is still doing the proper act for reproduction.

This does not address my question. Why would god 'create' some people gay? Why not just 'create' all attracted to the opposite sex?

God doesn't create people gay. Our species evolves in such a way that this genetic failer occurs, just like God doesn't create children with two heads.

You missed my joke here... It's safe to ... her males.

If a male gets caught being gay, why would that motivate him to join the priesthood?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

No, because I already responded to those points before and I do not go in circles.

[POI]

Animals do not seek relations with the same sex, anymore than my dog seeks relations with my leg. You would have to demonstrate that animals are actually attracted to the same sex. I am sure my dog is not attracted to my leg.

Who said anything about dogs? What about any species, aside from humans, who do not seek to merely find a hole to 'hump'?

God gave us the ability to reason the natural law.

You are not answering the question. Some of us desire relations with the same sex. Why would god ever 'create' species this way, if it is unnatural? And again, aside from God thinking it's yucky, why is same sex relations, in marriage, a sin?

But it doesn't. I do not find it icky, so why should I assume they did?

The Bible states it is an abomination. Why else is it so? Logically, because many heterosexuals think it is gross. What this demonstrates, is that a heterosexual wrote this verse. And likely also thinks homosexuality is a choice, because the author was likely a bronze-aged underdeveloped villager, who does not know the first think about basic science. But I digress...

Sure it can, because they are choosing to do an sexual act that ought to be capable of producing offspring, but it cannot. The person that cannot get pregnant or produce enough sperm is still doing the proper act for reproduction.

The law was issued by god, not humans. God would know that many cannot reproduce. Hence, it would make little sense that the criteria would be for reproduction.

God doesn't create people gay. Our species evolves in such a way that this genetic failer occurs, just like God doesn't create children with two heads.

Interesting.... Sounds like you are going to use evolution, when it is convenient, and dismiss it, when it is not convenient.

Case/point: If god made man in his own image, what did this Adam look like? Oh, let me guess, this is meant to be "figurative"?

If a male gets caught being gay, why would that motivate him to join the priesthood?

The joke is no longer funny, when I have to keep explaining it....

Homosexuals join the priesthood, because they are told not to have sex with women. And they say... "no problem". Get it?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #39]

Who said anything about dogs? What about any species, aside from humans, who do not seek to merely find a hole to 'hump'?

We would have to show they have an attraction for the same sex and not just gay behaviors.

You are not answering the question. Some of us desire relations with the same sex. Why would god ever 'create' species this way, if it is unnatural? And again, aside from God thinking it's yucky, why is same sex relations, in marriage, a sin?

I am saying God doesn't creation species that way. It is how their bodies evolved. God creates the soul specially, not the bodies, so species evolve.

The Bible states it is an abomination. Why else is it so? Logically, because many heterosexuals think it is gross. What this demonstrates, is that a heterosexual wrote this verse. And likely also thinks homosexuality is a choice, because the author was likely a bronze-aged underdeveloped villager, who does not know the first think about basic science. But I digress...

Or the writer understood the natural law and came to the same conclusion I did.

The law was issued by god, not humans. ... roduction.

The natural law is not about what we are or are not capable of doing. It deals with the teleology of our nature. The purpose of sex is reproduction, so gays are against the natural law in this way. Their act is not even capable of producing children. If a woman has messed up insides and the doctors think she cannot have children, it is still in her to do so. God can work within her nature so that she gets pregnant.

There is no working within the nature of gays for sexual reproduction.

Interesting.... Sounds like you are goi ... onvenient.

Rather, I fully accept evolution.

Case/point: If god made man in his own image, what did this Adam look like? Oh, let me guess, this is meant to be "figurative"?

I have mentioned this more than once, but I cannot remember if I said it directly to you yet. Aquinas shows that our souls are made in the image and likeness of God. This is also in the catechism.

The joke is no longer funny, when I have to keep explaining it....

Homosexuals join the priesthood, because they are told not to have sex with women. And they say... "no problem". Get it?

Yeah, but they are told not have sexual interactions at all.