Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Diagram]

Isaac488

Diagram

When you think about it, Leviticus can be referring to lesbians as well. For example, Leviticus 20:10-21 describes the punishments for sexual sins, and notice that the women who were involved had to be punished along with the men:

Quote:

Leviticus 20:10: ""'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:11: ""'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:12: ""'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13: ""If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:14: ""'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
Leviticus 20:15: ""'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."
Leviticus 20:16: ""'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:17: ""'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:18: ""'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."
Leviticus 20:19: ""'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:20: ""'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless."
Leviticus 20:21: ""'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless."

We can see that women were held responsible for sexual sins, just as men were. So even though Leviticus 18:7-22 describes sexual sins from the male perspective, this does not mean that women were excluded from those commands. They're all sins that fall under the same category, which is sexual pervisions, in the same section, Leviticus, and just because lesbians weren't specified in Leviticus 20:13, why does that mean they aren't included? As we just saw, they were included in other sexual pervisions so I don't see why they wouldn't be included in the seuxal pervisions listed in Leviticus 18: 7-22. Unless if there's a difference between the sexual pervisions that I'm missing?

That's the thing, they aren't included because they aren't specified. They've got specified punishments for all of the above except 20:13. (note the bold)
That verse just talks of the two men doing whatever and punishing them. If you look at 20:15 and 20:16 it has specifically stated "If you are a man, don't have sex with an animal, if you are a woman, don't let an animal have sex with you"
so why not say "If a woman lies with a woman as she would with a man kill them both"? I mean...they did it in the bestiality one.

Regardless if it isn't specified, what's so different than this sexual pervision than the other sexual pervisions? They're all sexual pervisions in the end that go under Leviticus hence I don't see why it wouldn't go both ways in Leviticus 20:13. Just because it didn't say lesbians, that doesn't exclude them. If men can be punished for that sexual pervision, then I don't see why a woman wouldn't be punished for it as well. You see both men and woman getting punished for the other sexual pervisions and those pervisions are just as sinful to God as 20:13.

[Isaac488]

Diagram

Isaac488

Diagram

When you think about it, Leviticus can be referring to lesbians as well. For example, Leviticus 20:10-21 describes the punishments for sexual sins, and notice that the women who were involved had to be punished along with the men:

Quote:

Leviticus 20:10: ""'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:11: ""'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:12: ""'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13: ""If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:14: ""'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
Leviticus 20:15: ""'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."
Leviticus 20:16: ""'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:17: ""'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:18: ""'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."
Leviticus 20:19: ""'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:20: ""'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless."
Leviticus 20:21: ""'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless."

We can see that women were held responsible for sexual sins, just as men were. So even though Leviticus 18:7-22 describes sexual sins from the male perspective, this does not mean that women were excluded from those commands. They're all sins that fall under the same category, which is sexual pervisions, in the same section, Leviticus, and just because lesbians weren't specified in Leviticus 20:13, why does that mean they aren't included? As we just saw, they were included in other sexual pervisions so I don't see why they wouldn't be included in the seuxal pervisions listed in Leviticus 18: 7-22. Unless if there's a difference between the sexual pervisions that I'm missing?

That's the thing, they aren't included because they aren't specified. They've got specified punishments for all of the above except 20:13. (note the bold)
That verse just talks of the two men doing whatever and punishing them. If you look at 20:15 and 20:16 it has specifically stated "If you are a man, don't have sex with an animal, if you are a woman, don't let an animal have sex with you"
so why not say "If a woman lies with a woman as she would with a man kill them both"? I mean...they did it in the bestiality one.

Regardless if it isn't specified, what's so different than this sexual pervision than the other sexual pervisions? They're all sexual pervisions in the end that go under Leviticus hence I don't see why it wouldn't go both ways in Leviticus 20:13. Just because it didn't say lesbians, that doesn't exclude them. If men can be punished for that sexual pervision, then I don't see why a woman wouldn't be punished for it as well. You see both men and woman getting punished for the other sexual pervisions and those pervisions are just as sinful to God as 20:13.

If it's such a bad perversion that warrants the death penalty then why leave it out? If it goes both ways then it would state it as it proves that it does. Since it does not then it could mean something else.

[Diagram]

Isaac488

Diagram

Isaac488

Diagram

When you think about it, Leviticus can be referring to lesbians as well. For example, Leviticus 20:10-21 describes the punishments for sexual sins, and notice that the women who were involved had to be punished along with the men:

Quote:

Leviticus 20:10: ""'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:11: ""'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:12: ""'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13: ""If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:14: ""'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
Leviticus 20:15: ""'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."
Leviticus 20:16: ""'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:17: ""'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:18: ""'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."
Leviticus 20:19: ""'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:20: ""'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless."
Leviticus 20:21: ""'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless."

We can see that women were held responsible for sexual sins, just as men were. So even though Leviticus 18:7-22 describes sexual sins from the male perspective, this does not mean that women were excluded from those commands. They're all sins that fall under the same category, which is sexual pervisions, in the same section, Leviticus, and just because lesbians weren't specified in Leviticus 20:13, why does that mean they aren't included? As we just saw, they were included in other sexual pervisions so I don't see why they wouldn't be included in the seuxal pervisions listed in Leviticus 18: 7-22. Unless if there's a difference between the sexual pervisions that I'm missing?

That's the thing, they aren't included because they aren't specified. They've got specified punishments for all of the above except 20:13. (note the bold)
That verse just talks of the two men doing whatever and punishing them. If you look at 20:15 and 20:16 it has specifically stated "If you are a man, don't have sex with an animal, if you are a woman, don't let an animal have sex with you"
so why not say "If a woman lies with a woman as she would with a man kill them both"? I mean...they did it in the bestiality one.

Regardless if it isn't specified, what's so different than this sexual pervision than the other sexual pervisions? They're all sexual pervisions in the end that go under Leviticus hence I don't see why it wouldn't go both ways in Leviticus 20:13. Just because it didn't say lesbians, that doesn't exclude them. If men can be punished for that sexual pervision, then I don't see why a woman wouldn't be punished for it as well. You see both men and woman getting punished for the other sexual pervisions and those pervisions are just as sinful to God as 20:13.

If it's such a bad perversion that warrants the death penalty then why leave it out? If it goes both ways then it would state it as it proves that it does. Since it does not then it could mean something else.

Of course it could mean something else. I mean, what's so different between male sex and female sex that it would be left out? I've read a large portion of the OP and much of it is based on these kind of implications and inferences that one must read very closely in order to see. To interpret the bible, you have to read between the lines, and this exemplifies what I'm saying. Also, I have a question. You do believe that 20:13 isn't referring to homosexuality correct?

[linaloki]

Diagram

Isaac488

Diagram

Isaac488

Diagram

When you think about it, Leviticus can be referring to lesbians as well. For example, Leviticus 20:10-21 describes the punishments for sexual sins, and notice that the women who were involved had to be punished along with the men:

Quote:

Leviticus 20:10: ""'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:11: ""'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:12: ""'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13: ""If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:14: ""'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
Leviticus 20:15: ""'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."
Leviticus 20:16: ""'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:17: ""'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:18: ""'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."
Leviticus 20:19: ""'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:20: ""'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless."
Leviticus 20:21: ""'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless."

We can see that women were held responsible for sexual sins, just as men were. So even though Leviticus 18:7-22 describes sexual sins from the male perspective, this does not mean that women were excluded from those commands. They're all sins that fall under the same category, which is sexual pervisions, in the same section, Leviticus, and just because lesbians weren't specified in Leviticus 20:13, why does that mean they aren't included? As we just saw, they were included in other sexual pervisions so I don't see why they wouldn't be included in the seuxal pervisions listed in Leviticus 18: 7-22. Unless if there's a difference between the sexual pervisions that I'm missing?

That's the thing, they aren't included because they aren't specified. They've got specified punishments for all of the above except 20:13. (note the bold)
That verse just talks of the two men doing whatever and punishing them. If you look at 20:15 and 20:16 it has specifically stated "If you are a man, don't have sex with an animal, if you are a woman, don't let an animal have sex with you"
so why not say "If a woman lies with a woman as she would with a man kill them both"? I mean...they did it in the bestiality one.

Regardless if it isn't specified, what's so different than this sexual pervision than the other sexual pervisions? They're all sexual pervisions in the end that go under Leviticus hence I don't see why it wouldn't go both ways in Leviticus 20:13. Just because it didn't say lesbians, that doesn't exclude them. If men can be punished for that sexual pervision, then I don't see why a woman wouldn't be punished for it as well. You see both men and woman getting punished for the other sexual pervisions and those pervisions are just as sinful to God as 20:13.

If it's such a bad perversion that warrants the death penalty then why leave it out? If it goes both ways then it would state it as it proves that it does. Since it does not then it could mean something else.

Of course it could mean something else. I mean, what's so different between male sex and female sex that it would be left out? I've read a large portion of the OP and much of it is based on these kind of implications and inferences that one must read very closely in order to see. To interpret the bible, you have to read between the lines, and this exemplifies what I'm saying. Also, I have a question. You do believe that 20:13 isn't referring to homosexuality correct?

The problem with your theory is, while the male dominates the view in the other verses, the woman is still involved and punished. In the only verse where the woman is not involved in the sin, man having sex with an animal, there is a second law given banning women having sex with an animal. Yet, in Leviticus 20:13, not only are women not involved in the action, but no separate law is given.

[Star I Rush]

It amazes me that sexual preference is such a big deal, you know? It's not like I introduce myself like "Hi I'm Maggie and I'm straight." O_o

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality. You may say then that it makes me not-Catholic or whatever, but I don't see why. I think God loves you for what kind of person you are, not who you choose to be with, etc.

But maybe I'm just non-realistic :O

[Yuki Goes Rawr]

Star I Rush

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality.

That's a rare thing to hear lately.

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Diagram

When you think about it, Leviticus can be referring to lesbians as well. For example, Leviticus 20:10-21 describes the punishments for sexual sins, and notice that the women who were involved had to be punished along with the men:

Quote:

Leviticus 20:10: ""'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20:11: ""'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:12: ""'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13: ""If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:14: ""'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
Leviticus 20:15: ""'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."
Leviticus 20:16: ""'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:17: ""'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:18: ""'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."
Leviticus 20:19: ""'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible."
Leviticus 20:20: ""'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless."
Leviticus 20:21: ""'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless."

We can see that women were held responsible for sexual sins, just as men were. So even though Leviticus 18:7-22 describes sexual sins from the male perspective, this does not mean that women were excluded from those commands. They're all sins that fall under the same category, which is sexual pervisions, in the same section, Leviticus, and just because lesbians weren't specified in Leviticus 20:13, why does that mean they aren't included? As we just saw, they were included in other sexual pervisions so I don't see why they wouldn't be included in the seuxal pervisions listed in Leviticus 18: 7-22. Unless if there's a difference between the sexual pervisions that I'm missing?

It talks about adultery incest bestiality and prostitution. There is nothing about lesbianism from what I see. neutral

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Yuki The Uke

Star I Rush

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality.

That's a rare thing to hear lately.

Not really. Not all Catholics agree with the Diocese or the Pope. Granted both may be appointed to the RCC. However many would rather just listen to YHVH and Jesus than listen to two men, who for all we could ever know, maybe corrupted.

[linaloki]

xLady Tsukiyox

Yuki The Uke

Star I Rush

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality.

That's a rare thing to hear lately.

Not really. Not all Catholics agree with the Diocese or the Pope. Granted both may be appointed to the RCC. However many would rather just listen to YHVH and Jesus than listen to two men, who for all we could ever know, maybe corrupted.

Well, the official RCC dogma says homosexuality is okay... But many Catholics don't follow official dogma.

[Kaworu 17]

linaloki

Attempted male-male rape, perhaps. But that's less the lesson and more a fact of what occurred.

Not really, since your point was that Jude couldn't be about angelic flesh since angels can't have flesh... but you just admitted that they can, so... Your point falls. Or you're running in circles trying to keep it up while it falls. Whichever.

I accept it. The fact that no one else mentions it gives pause to the thought that Jude was introducing an entirely new lesson from S&G. Since S&G occurred several hundred, perhaps thousand, years prior to Jude, Jews (and very likely many Gentiles) knew the story. So, if the homosexual sex was the big deal about it, why did no one mention it for several hundred years?

You're an angelologist now? Interest. Tell me, if they're metaphysical and have no way to become physical (even though you admitted earlier they could), does that mean you couldn't, say, wrestle with them? Because good ol' Israel has a story to tell you.

And do you have proof that homosexual rape is somehow worse than heterosexual rape?

'enowsh, or יִשְׁכָּבוּ

Which means "mortal". Men, in general, much the same way other languages use it. Like Spanish's ellos.

Also, can you explain, if inhospitality had nothing to do with it, why A) Christ mentioned it and B) when Lot begged the men not to do this, he didn't say "They are men, this is wicked," but rather, "They come under the shadow of my household"?

Yes. That's a possible definition. Or, two fleshes, mortal and immortal. Oh dear, that's two on my side, one on yours.

Did you know homosexuals can be virgins?

*watches the star cross the TV screen*

Also, you have proof homosexuals were never once wed in Judaism? And, even if not, the fact they can be now eliminates that argument somewhat.

If eating rainbow trout was allowed the Scriptures would have recorded a few rainbow trout eating sessions and portrayed them in a positive light.

...Oh, wait, that's silly.

Except that it covers very specific humans. So, if those specific humans didn't do some action, why would Scripture non-sequitir to it?

Wow. You totally missed the point.

If you're going to start assuming that things the Law doesn't specifically say are okay are wrong, then you need to stop everything you're doing, like breathing, because being alive is a sin.

You're not Scripture. The Scripture I'm reading, you know, the ones that are actually real, say that there's one way of laying with a man that isn't cool. And that's temple prostitution.

Since the subject is "Is homosexuality a sin?" and Deuteronomy helps clear up the fact it isn't, I should think that's still on subject. Or is the subject, "How Leviticus tells us to hate those goddamned fags"?

Doesn't say it's not allowed, either. At least, not in every form.

Which is why, since there's no ban on homosexuality, or even all homosexual sex, it's not a sin.

Because they're not baby humans. They're fetal humans. And since the NT didn't declare fetuses humans...

Except that I agree with all of Leviticus 18 and those other chapters. Every single verse in there is something Christians should avoid doing. What I fail to see is where homosexual sex is mentioned in blanket form. Can't see it. Why? Because it's not there.

Wow, you really like your dog, dontcha? Sorry, Charlie, but God did openly disapprove of it. In the OT. And Christ and Paul reaffirmed that section in the NT. There's a s**t ton they DIDN'T reaffirm, too. But as much as you want Fido to fetch your G-spot, God says nay.

Also, if you're seriously arguing bestiality isn't an NT sin, then why are you arguing homosexuality is, since all of your arguments stem from horrendously misinterpreted OT verses?

Male-male sex in the form of rape. Now we’re getting somewhere.

The point was that Jude’s warning of the sins of S&G is not that you shouldn’t have sex with angels. Because angels don’t have flesh outside of that very particular incident and thus that warning would be more laughable and useless than a VCR these days. God gave them human male flesh that one time and the men of S&G wanted that. The point stands.

Well, you’re right. I guess the new lesson that Jude interprets from the S&G is the homosexuality deal. He noticed that no one talked about that in the Scriptures, except maybe Ezekiel, who said that they did “abominable” things, and decided to add his own understanding of it.

Nice try. But the story never says that Jacob wrestled with an angel. It says that he wrestled with a man. Then it is heavily implied that man was God because he “saw God face to face.”
Well, if God considers consensual homosexual sex to be an abomination as per the Old Mosaic law and the “inspiration” he bestowed upon St. Paul, then it makes sense to think that homo rape is worse than hetero rape.

Well, the word can be translated as the gender-neutral person, but it undoubtedly has a very strong connotation towards man. A “mortal man” would be more accurate. However, this still fails to explain why all the men of S&G rejected Lot’s daughters. I mean, surely there had to be a man among them who liked his very generous offering of young inexperienced girls? Guess not.
Oh, inhospitality did have a lot to do with it. But so did the gay rape sex thing, according to Jude and maybe Ezekiel.

Don’t think so. If Jude had meant to say that, he would have used the Greek word for immortal. I’m sure Greek has a word for that. Immortal flesh is also kind of a contradiction. Christ had flesh, and being God, he still died.

Did you know that homosexuals fornicate? *Watches the Warmth of Apollo inflate in the marketplace*
Yes, I have the proof. It’s called the Talmud and history. Not even the officially Jewish state of Israel allows them to be performed. Sorry, the evidence is against you.

That’s true. If cases of atheism had existed, the Scriptures would have recorded them. And, oh wait, they did. It’s called Psalm 14. If the psalmist is talking about it, it means something. That they exist. Where are the lesbians? They don’t exist. Why? Oh, I don’t know. Guess they were too lazy, surely that’s a more probable reason that maybe because it was banned.

Exactly, they didn’t do some action because it was banned. And we all know what the punishment for that was. Pretty simple.

You’re the one who’s missing the point. If you're going to start assuming that things the Law prohibits are okay (just like male-male sex) then you need to give up now ‘cause you’re failing.

Sorry, but the specific Leviticus verse says nothing about temple prostitution. You’re reading stuff that isn’t there. Your Scripture is the false one.

The subject is indeed male-male sex as a whole. Deuteronomy is temple prostitution. Sorry, but just because you are desperate to change the subject I’m not going to let you.

Doesn’t say it’s not allowed? Jeez, I guess you must come from a planet where “abomination” means “i’m lovin it” or something like that. Fail yet again.

Which is why, since Leviticus bans men sleeping with men, it’s not allowed.

Well, you said it. They’re fetal humans. Still humans. The OT doesn’t declare that the guys who went to Lot’s house were angels either, and yet here we are assuming they were indeed angels. The NT doesn’t have to say that fetal humans are human. You already did.

You agree with all of Leviticus 18 except the homo sex part. Picking and choosing. It’s there in verse 22. *Checks* Yes, there it is. Right there in black and white.

Yes, in the OT. But this is the NT, this is a whole ‘nother ball game, son. Neither St. Paul nor Christ affirmed s**t when it came to bestiality. If God doesn't disapprove of it openly, it’s not a sin. And there’s no disapproval of it in the NT.

That’s funny, St. Paul reaffirmed the homo sex prohibitions but you conveniently choose to ignore that. Picking and choosing. Also, if you're seriously arguing homo sex isn't an OT and NT sin, then why are you arguing bestiality is, since all of your arguments stem from horrendously misinterpreted OT & NT verses?

[Kaworu 17]

xLady Tsukiyox

Except that according to the Catholic Church, I'm not a Catholic because I was never confirmed. You can't be a Catholic if you do only half of the rituals. It's either all or nothing. However according to those who were present at my baptism, I am a Catholic because that's what I was baptized, however baptism doesn't really mean much

When you've been raised in Catholicism for a very long time it's very hard to distance yourself away from it. It's like trying to distance a recovered alcoholic from Jack Daniel's or a recovering crack addict trying to distance itself from crack. Just because you say it's easy doesn't mean it is.

No you're just a fool who has no concept of what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes by using Verstehein and you're a really foul troll.

*Laughs* So, you're telling me and trying to convince me so hard of your supposed Catholicism, when you haven't done even the smallest s**t to prove that you are in fact a Catholic?

Ge outta here woman, you're a fraud.

[Kaworu 17]

linaloki

Well, the official RCC dogma says homosexuality is okay... But many Catholics don't follow official dogma.

How are they not following official dogma?

[Kaworu 17]

xLady Tsukiyox

Yuki The Uke

Star I Rush

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality.

That's a rare thing to hear lately.

Not really. Not all Catholics agree with the Diocese or the Pope. Granted both may be appointed to the RCC. However many would rather just listen to YHVH and Jesus than listen to two men, who for all we could ever know, maybe corrupted.

Yes, usually that makes them false Catholics.

Like you.

[Dark Lord Drake]

xLady Tsukiyox

Yuki The Uke

Star I Rush

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality.

That's a rare thing to hear lately.

Not really. Not all Catholics agree with the Diocese or the Pope. Granted both may be appointed to the RCC. However many would rather just listen to YHVH and Jesus than listen to two men, who for all we could ever know, maybe corrupted.

Are you implying that God and Jesus disagree with them?

[Aino Ailill]

Star I Rush

It amazes me that sexual preference is such a big deal, you know? It's not like I introduce myself like "Hi I'm Maggie and I'm straight." O_o

I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with homosexuality. You may say then that it makes me not-Catholic or whatever, but I don't see why. I think God loves you for what kind of person you are, not who you choose to be with, etc.

But maybe I'm just non-realistic :O

The Catechism agrees with you, for the most part.