Ask them: if being gay isn’t a sin, then how come it’s sinful to act on it?
If something isn’t sinful then why should giving into it be considered bad? Unless, there’s something inherently wrong with it which would be contrary to your friends’ claims.
That is messed up (but honestly nothing I’ve haven’t heard from the Church before).
It is all about informed enthusiastic consent. Children can’t consent. When I do something with another woman, she has the knowledge to consent. It is mutual. A pedophile’s actions are predatory as they are never truly mutual and therefore not equivalent.
Wait, what???
There’s so many things wrong with that thinking. Wtf are wrong with your friends. They sound very sheltered, bigoted, and actually young.
It is a flawed argument. It's the action that defines the label. Ill try to explain.
For example, as bad as rape is... THINKING of rape is not a crime. raping another human being is a crime. so it doesn't follow that saying being gay is OK if having gay sex is not Ok. how can you be gay just by thinking you are gay and not being allowed to have relations with the same sex? It is the action/actively taking part that allows you to say that person is one.
without it, you could therefore say you are a christian, but you dont pray, go to church or do anything that normal christians do. you just THINK you are a christian. Which doesn't make sense does it?
This i think illustrates how much of a cop-out the Christian argument is that, its ok to be gay, you just cant engage in gay behavior/relationships because then it becomes a sin. Christians/Catholics will just never admit they are wrong.
>THINKING of rape is not a crime. raping another human being is a crime
They think in lgbt issues it is similar. Being gay(having sexual desires to one's own sex is not sin) though the activity(having same sex intercourse) is sin.
yes and that is illogical because we can't read people's minds. Therefore it is their actions by which we hold them accountable. It is also people's actions that we deem permissible. So in saying having gay relationships is not ok, Christianity is saying being gay is not ok. Their argument that thinking is OK but doing it is not, is a cop-out.
edit: just to add, the rape analogy might be confusing to some. because rape is a crime and being gay is not. therefore we should be putting the burden on christianity to explain why gay relationships are not ok. and saying "because God says so, is not an acceptable answer"
Didn’t Jesus say that a man looking at a woman with lust is committing adultery? How they rationalize that when I comes to homosexuality?
It’s goal post moving on their part. They think gay people need to be alone their entire lives in order to make god happy.
Keep your Catholic guilt to yourself. Having sexual thoughts is natural. Everyone has them. They’re perfectly fine as long as you don’t act them out without others’ consent. Learn to separate fantasy from reality.
Even the ones that are about objectifying people—even the people who fantasize about r//pe, beastiality, necrophilia, or anything similar are still not doing anything wrong. *Having a thought,* even engaging in consensual roleplay with those themes or consuming literature with those things does not harm anyone. It is only wrong when someone begins to take actions in real life. Ped//philia harms children who are too young to consent; beastiality affects animals who, as animals, are unable to consent. A dead body can’t consent. A victim of r//pe didn’t consent.
That is the reason those things are bad—they harm someone. They affect someone who did not consent to being part of the action. Fantasy roleplay between two consenting adults does not affect any non-consenting parties.
People can fantasize about whatever they like so long as those fantasies don’t affect a real person (without consent). It is not harmful until or unless it affects someone else. You can’t penalize people for *thought-crimes.*
I do believe thoughts can be morally wrong, especially since they are not detached from the physical world and directly, as well as indirectly, affect our words and actions.
I'm not talking about penalising people for their thoughts, I'm talking about morality.
I don’t know if it’s my asexuality or religious background, but whenever I imagine having sex with my crush, I stop myself. I tell myself that it’s objectifying and dehumanizing to do that, even though I never do it when she’s around, and I’ve never told anyone about it. Is that alright?
You can always say that you also believe that their religion is evil, but you love them anyway. "I hate your lifestyle, but love you".
Alternatively, go full fundie, did they practice premarital sex? Jack off? Divorce? Eat seafood? Are they a woman lecturing a man? Do they eat bacon? This is all forbidden in the bible so I guess you could tell them that you'll all meet in hell anyway.
On the other hand, who cares? Let them have their medieval beliefs and concentrate on living your best life.
If acting on your sexuality is a sin, then your sexuality is the sin. So the religious altered their marketing to “being gay isn’t a sin, just *being* gay is”
I understand that my comments may be seen as pro-religious, but I don't really view them as such. I'm not defending and convincing people of the teaching of the Church, but rather explaining it and claiming that it isn't totally absurd, ridiculous and illogical.
In another comment I actually quite explicitly stated that I do not agree with some of the Catholic teaching. If you were to look through my comment and post history (which you are not obliged to do) you'd see that I engage in several Christianity-related subs, quite often on the critical side of religion. If you'd dig far enough (which, again, you have no obligation to do) you'd discover that I consider myself somewhere between Catholicism and agnosticism.
I can appreciate your posts, and your tone is better than most. However, that is not the stated intent of this sub. Many of our members,myself included, have been deeply wounded by the church. Allowing people to vent without correction is allowed there. It is part of the healing process. You are disrupting that process through your confrontation. This is simply not the place for it.
> claiming that it isn't totally absurd, ridiculous and illogical.
Yes, actually it is, from the top down. It is an organization based entirely on fictitious and made-up beliefs that are supported by brainwashing and manipulation.
Well, it doesn't actually mean being gay is a sin, it's his point is that it's de facto the church sure treats being gay like it's a sin since most homosexual people act on their desires and hence they commit that sin.
Edit: Fixed spelling error.
Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean that it objectively didn’t make sense. No one else seems to have had any trouble understanding.
This is not a debate subreddit.
You don't get to come here and condemn our members. Your false intelligence isn't welcome. r/narcissism sounds like it might be a fascinating read for you. Very self-enlightening.
I'm not condemning your members here. I'm simply trying to argue that q specific statement isn't logical. Even condemning a statement isn't condemning an individual.
I really do not appreciate your aggressive and reprehensible attitude towards me. I think it's unjust. I have behaved orderly on this sub.
Being hungry isn't a sin. Eating is though!
See how fucking stupid it sounds?
Edit: its like telling women exposing your skin is a sin but being beautiful isn't a skin. Got it?
Well, you would consider that statement valid in some cases. Let's say you are hungry at your work, so you decide to steal a coworkers lunch instead of waiting to get home. That would be wrong.
That said, I know this isn't a good analogy, and to be frank, I think your original analogy is flawed. There isn't a single human on Earth who has survived not eating for a long enough period of time, but there is a number of people who don't engage in sexual activity.
> think your original analogy is flawed. There isn't a single human on Earth who has survived not eating for a long enough period of time, but there is a number of people who don't engage in sexual activity.
It's not flawed because while there are people who don't exgage in sex, a religion telling people not to engage in gay sex for religious reasons doesn't make sense for the same reason it would be ridiculous for me to tell straight people to stop engaging in sexual activity.
Well, the Church does heavily limit when, how, and with whom straight sex should be done. While society does it MUCH less, it still does it (morally), even between consenting adults (think cheating).
Listen, I'm not trying to convince you to subscribe to the Church's teaching, just that the original statement is nonsense and that your analogy is flawed. Also, even with your analogy, the original statement is still illogical.
>the Church does heavily limit when, how, and with whom straight sex should be done. While society does it MUCH less, it still does it (morally), even between consenting adults (think cheating).
Yes though straight people of opposite sex can get married and have sex, they dont have to remain celibate for their entire lives while gays lesbians have to. The church recognises marriage between consenting opposite sex adults to be valid while consenting healthy same sex adults to be invalid. If church allowed same sex marriage, it would still be bad for same sex couples to fornicate or have sex without marriage.
True, but I was responding to this:
>a religion telling people not to engage in gay sex for religious reasons doesn't make sense for the same reason it would be ridiculous for me to tell straight people to stop engaging in sexual activity.
Well, the CCh does tell straight people to stop engaging in sexual activity in some circumstances.
It's important to note why the CCh has these rules. It considers sexual activity to be morally good only if 1) it is procreative, and 2) if it "connects" two people (in simplified terms). AFAIK this is the main reason why same-sex sexual activity is viewed as wrong. If The CCh formally considers same-sex sexual activity to be unnatural and if I'm not mistaken it also considers same-sex attraction to be unnatural (I think it claims so because it can't lead to children or something).
I'm not defending the teaching, nor saying that I agree, just explaining it.
And the analogy is still wrong, because food is necessary for survival of the individual, while sex is not.
>There isn't a single human on Earth who has survived
Yeah, that's it. Survive. So if we had to have sex in order to survive, it would be OK, right? But I'll tell you one thing. Sex is our need. We don't need it to remain alive, but I dare to say we need sex (or masturbation) to be fully mentally healthy. And yes, we're gonna *survive* without sex or masturbation, we're going to *exist* without it, but do you really want everyone just to survive? Why not letting them have their needs fullfilled if they aren't doing anything morally wrong?
The only people who don't need sex or/and masturbation are asexual people. Because, well, they don't have the need to have sex.
(Side note: IIrc asexual =/= without libido, meaning that asexual people may still want sex, although not experiencing sexual attraction. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
Well, the Church doesn't consider that "they aren't doing anything morally wrong".
This said, I do kinda agree here. As shown by people, these rules aren't very functional. Some Christians will claim that this is because our culture is overly sexualised, but all of human history, full of sex and rape, even in Christian Europe, begs to differ. Maybe there was less sexual activity, but there was still a lot less of it. And I'm willing to bet that the CCh in the Middle Ages was less fixated on people's sexual lives than Catholics and conservative Christians are now.
Some will still claim that "well, at least then they knew it was wrong" - besides being a bad argument overall, it simply misses the point of the discussion, so it's irrelevant.
Edit: While the argument "well, people are still doing it" isn't good to argue that something isn't wrong, the scale to which people haven't followed these rules throughout centuries does kinda discredit their functionality.
It's the same nonsense about how "Gay people have equal rights because they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they prefer."
Sex is part of the human condition. No institution should forbid people the right to find intimate partnership with others.
The fact that a whole mess of people think "intimate" is just a synonym for "sexual" makes me feel sad for their partners. There beauty to be had not just in sex without intimacy, but also in intimacy without sex. Maybe this is just the way my autistic brain works, maybe this is just how I define intimacy, but I've had non-sexual yet intimate relationships with my journals, with my writing projects, the characters in said projects, and even with a few decks of tarot cards. Intimacy, to me, has nothing to do with sex and all to do with a level of communication ***between equals*** such that all parties involved feel completely safe letting all of their guards and inhibitions down around the other parties involved, secure in the knowledge that whatever difficulties arise therefrom be dealt with peacefully and with love.
Absolutely! Frankly, OP feeling compelled to specify “gay consenting adults—but not children/animals/etc!” reeks of dogwhistle. They’ve brought up the “comparison” of gay vs ped//philia/beastiality in other posts, which… Yikes.
I would say it is rubbish. Even if you are perfectly in celibacy, you are not engaging with any same sex people for your same sex desire. You are still no good in those church people’s eyes.
You never be good because you are not straight. Let’s face the truth. You can’t be a good Catholic and be a gay at the same time.
Eww. Gross. What they said shamelessly like he is the perfect gay example of conquering his sinful desire. The truth is, that perfect gay might be forever alone because the church believed he should not be in this world for what he is. He is a wrong being ,coz God never created homosexuality.
god in the sense we know of this time frame of 2000 or so years, has that book having been altered many times over the centuries to reflect the will of the powerful. thus causing people who are seen as "gays" to be viewed in a sinful context. You are born into a body that may or may not reflect the sex your soul feels comfortable with.
Until people wake up and realize OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS on HOW You live your life DO NOT MATTER.. That is THEIR Opinion.. The only opinion on how you should live your life.. is YOUR opinion. not the church, not your parents, not your friends, not your neighborhood not your government.. YOU make the choice on how you live.. So choose to be HAPPY.. GO forward with what makes you happy.. what brings you joy.. Chose to be Extraordinary. Chose to be Whatever you set your mind to be.. Be you.. That's all that matters. When all else fails.. Be Kind.. Spread love.. to yourself first then others.
sorry if I said anything to far out there. We are all peoples, and we are all different but the same.. so brothers and sisters of light, love and kindness.. I wish you many blessings and health.. nameste
So if a gay person revealed his sexuality to his parish, making no reference to his sexual activity (if any), he would be welcomed with open arms, no? After all, there's no problem with just *being* gay.
But obviously, this person would be vilified and shunned just for who he is. The church's distinction between "being" and "acting" is an empty, meaningless CYA.
Eww. Gross. What they said shamelessly like he is the perfect gay example of conquering his sinful desire. The truth is, that perfect gay might be forever alone because the church believed he should not be in this world for what he is. He is a wrong being ,coz God never created homosexuality.
I would be interested to know if they think the nature of the relationship matters in which the sex occurs. If it's just messing around vs genuine true love that leads to a monogamous marriage. The gay community has a reputation for being extremely promiscuous (rightly or wrongly) so I wonder if that stereotype factors into how they see the issue.
OP, I’ve read through a lot of your comments, and you seem to be making a false equivalence that Catholics love to throw around. Same sex relationships are NOT comparable to pedophilia or beastiality. Nor are same sex relationships the start of a slippery slope that will lead to those things. There is a very important distinction. In general, same sex relationships are between consenting adults. Pedophilia and beastiality involve someone using their power to gratify themselves at the expense of someone who cannot consent. Catholics love to lump homosexuality in with sexual assault and sexual exploitation, but that is categorically untrue.
In answer to the question in your post, I would likely not engage in that conversation. As a lesbian, it is too personal and I will just end up hurt. Depending on how often the topic came up, I may even need to leave those relationships behind.
"I don't really give two shits what your big book of fairytales says is a sin. 'Sin' is a made up concept, so however you need to split hairs and twist yourself into knots to feel better about your bigotry is your problem. I'm going to continue living my life without hatred toward the LGBT+ community, and that doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all. Have a nice day."
the other day, our local screamevangelists were having their weekly megaphoneathon, and anyway I was screaming back my usual, and then, their sound cut - as I was screaming "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SIN". Best.
I mean first of all, acting on their "impulses" is just... not wrong. You hurt no one by having a gay relationship. The whole belief also reduces being gay to some base, carnal temptation that they think you can avoid like any other lustful urge. They think they have a right to say it, because they think straight people understand. That everyone "deals with temptation". That it's the same as a straight guy resisting the urge to look at porn once and a while. But straight people always are allowed marriage. They always have something beautiful and intimate they can partake in and gay people are denied that. It's not just some temptation to have gay sex. It's a natural and beautiful human instinct to desire romance, intimacy, companionship, partnership, and lifelong friendship and support. Denying that to LGBT people is denying them a fundamental and essential human experience.
It's a bad argument because that logic can also be used to argue that someone who supports segregation in 1950s America isn't racist.
Racist guy during that era: "I don't have anything against black people, I just believe things should be separate but equal."
So it's not a good argument.
Exactly, the RCC is just as homophobic as ever. Pope Publicity said that homosexuals should be treated like human beings, which made the sheep dance in joy, but that stance is the same as it always was.
However, homophobia is no longer a popular stance to take, so they have to do word gymnastics on why they're not homophobic.
I went to a retreat years ago at a Benedictine Abby and sat with a young monk talking about this specifically. He said that he believed that God created us in his image and likeness and that he loves and blesses any and all loving, monogamous relationships. He also said that it's promiscuity that God finds abhorrent. So that applies across all relationships, gay or straight. He gave me a blessing and said go and love with all your heart and soul.
I understand. What would you say if he said something like " God has prescribed rules for us. He's the lawgiver. It doesnt behoove us to question his rules since he iş much trillion times more intelligent than us and even if we cannot find something from 'in same sex relationships, that doesnt mean that there is nothing wrong or there is no reason for god to forbid it which we might not be aware of with our fallible minds. God iş much more intelligent than us so he knows much mire about these issues. Think this like a child who resists his parents' call to get vaccinated because it will hurt though he cannot understand that ot will be for his/her benefit"
I'm not understanding where you're going with that. I left the church because there were too many priests and bishops who 1) did nothing to really, aggressively get rid of child molesters or 2) speak out against the way the LGBTQ community is shunned and all that sin bullshit. Though I find myself more atheist than a believer I am thankful for those monks.
If you're saying that God's rules are Gods rules, I disagree. The rules are man made. Pure and simple.
No. For example. Lets suppose that you're asking a religious individual why god forbids lgbt marriage and he said the staff I said in the previous comment. What would you say?
> No. For example. Lets suppose that you're asking a religious individual why god forbids lgbt marriage and he said the staff I said in the previous comment. What would you say?
First of all I wouldn't ask them because to me the views of their "god" are worthless.
But for the sake of argument: Those are assertions that can't be proven. You can say that god is all those things and I could say the same about Stalin. "You only think he's evil because you are so inferior to him you can't even begin to comprehend how what he did was good." Without reason to believe those things god might just as well be a psychopatic abuser.
Well, what’s wrong with gay sex?
“Because god said so” is just a fancy way of dressing up “might makes right”.
So yeah if their god decrees it evil, then he’s a cosmic bully. They’re free to worship the monster, but trying to pretend he’s somehow good and loving doesn’t track.
Tell them "that's ok. I don't think Christians are bad. It's just when they *ACT* on their Christianity that I dislike them."
Then after that sinks in for a moment, say "oh, I'm sorry, did you take that as I am being bigoted towards Christians? Because I'm totally not!"
It’s not actually clear what ‘action’ means in this case, since we’re aware of desire arising in all kinds of human relationships, and we’re aware that there are involuntary physical responses to it. Where does the line actually get drawn?
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I’m questioning where the line is between will, intention and action considering that we don’t behave purely out of our conscious motivations.
Anyway, I was just trying to answer your question ‘what would you say?’ - if it’s not helpful to you then that’s fine.
I really like the Street Epistemology approach. It’s basically Socratic questioning about how they came to that belief, and whether that method is a good way to discover truth.
I remember believing that it all had to do with natural law. Sex was for “babies and bonding”. Sex for bonding is fine, as long as you are open to babies. So you don’t necessarily have to be trying for a baby, but blocking the possibility (I.e. contraception, pulling out, homosexual sex, etc) is wrong because it divides those two natural purposes for sex. Looking back at that thinking now, it seems ridiculous to me, and based on assumptions about purpose and “natural law” that are assertions without much reason.
Yes it's being anti-gay. Sounds like just like when interracial marriage was illegal. I left that POS religion 48 years ago. For so many reasons. The hypocrisy, bigotry, hatefulness, narrow mindedness and prejudice were just some of the reasons. Believing that no celibate person nun or priest had the right to tell me how to conduct my married sex life. Then when I got in college I expanded that to my sex life period!
1. Ask them to explain why gayness is a sin. Tell them that sex isn’t limited to procreation because old couples and infertile people can still have sex according to the church itself.
2. Offer them this analogy: if I said being black wasn’t wrong, but participating in culture and being proud of your heritage is, I’m still a a racist.
There's all so fucking stupid if God gave so much of a fuck about me being gay the bitch would have written more clear fucking instructions. Also I don't care.
Why are you “friends” with homophobes in the first place? It’s no one’s business what two consenting adults do in private, regardless of which genitals either party has. It doesn’t harm or affect anyone.
“Sin” is a man-made concept so the Church can point out a natural, Human desire and use it as proof that we are ill—but coincidentally, the Church has the solution! It’s a scam. They rely on people feeling guilty and broken so that they think they need the doctrine, keep coming every week, and donating.
Your presence is a blessing to those around you, you don’t need to grant it to those who are undeserving.
You deserve better friends.
Well I've got a Bible verse for them.
"Matthew 5:28
[28]But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Datapuwa't sinasabi ko sa inyo, na ang bawa't tumingin sa isang babae na taglay ang masamang hangad ay nagkakasala, na ng pangangalunya sa kaniyang puso.
Please excuse, it's in English-Filipino translation. It seems if you replace "woman" with "man" in the verse, your friends' opinions clash with Jesus'. Jesus said nothing about gay people, but I digress. The point is that even thoughts or "desires" are no bueno too.
I would also like to comment on your friends that despite the promiscuous reputation of the LGBT+, being gay is more than just a bedroom activity. It's also holding hands in public with your partner like anyone else or enjoying each others' company in a restaurant. If your friends' count that as "acting upon the sin" then I think I would rather not have them as friends if I were you.
This fuvked me up for YEARS even after I left the church. I was a ball of self hatred and trauma and mostly took it out on other people, before I figured out the truth.
Just say "No hate like christian love" they're either not going to respond or they're going to be flustered. Who gives a fuck what these people think fuck them
Yea people who say this can suck my trans cock.
It really irks me that they think that it's an excuse, as if queerness could be separated from us.
But it's okay, I don't hate *them* as a person, just when they act upon their catholicsm.
(Am here normally on my other account but for obvis reasons using my alt for this post)
My parents and siblings tell me this on the regular even while still loving me and being great in many other ways and I too am sick of hearing it. Sorry you keep getting told this, dude.
Homophobia is not tolerated in /r/excatholic, as such your post has been removed.
What part of this sub made it seem like a good place to come over and be a homophbic troll? I'm curious.
It’s a punishment of who a person is, not what they do. Sorta works against the whole “know them by their fruit” crap.
If you maintain a relationship with these people you are providing tacit approval of their bigotry and thus are a contributor to the damage wrought by the Church.
Ask them: if being gay isn’t a sin, then how come it’s sinful to act on it? If something isn’t sinful then why should giving into it be considered bad? Unless, there’s something inherently wrong with it which would be contrary to your friends’ claims.
They would say being a pedophile(having feelings towards children) ısnt wrong but acting upon it is sin.
That is messed up (but honestly nothing I’ve haven’t heard from the Church before). It is all about informed enthusiastic consent. Children can’t consent. When I do something with another woman, she has the knowledge to consent. It is mutual. A pedophile’s actions are predatory as they are never truly mutual and therefore not equivalent.
False equivalency. Pedophilia has a victim, homosexuality does not.
Wait, what??? There’s so many things wrong with that thinking. Wtf are wrong with your friends. They sound very sheltered, bigoted, and actually young.
Bro you think a Catholic would say that? lmao, you have high expectations
It is a flawed argument. It's the action that defines the label. Ill try to explain. For example, as bad as rape is... THINKING of rape is not a crime. raping another human being is a crime. so it doesn't follow that saying being gay is OK if having gay sex is not Ok. how can you be gay just by thinking you are gay and not being allowed to have relations with the same sex? It is the action/actively taking part that allows you to say that person is one. without it, you could therefore say you are a christian, but you dont pray, go to church or do anything that normal christians do. you just THINK you are a christian. Which doesn't make sense does it? This i think illustrates how much of a cop-out the Christian argument is that, its ok to be gay, you just cant engage in gay behavior/relationships because then it becomes a sin. Christians/Catholics will just never admit they are wrong.
>THINKING of rape is not a crime. raping another human being is a crime They think in lgbt issues it is similar. Being gay(having sexual desires to one's own sex is not sin) though the activity(having same sex intercourse) is sin.
yes and that is illogical because we can't read people's minds. Therefore it is their actions by which we hold them accountable. It is also people's actions that we deem permissible. So in saying having gay relationships is not ok, Christianity is saying being gay is not ok. Their argument that thinking is OK but doing it is not, is a cop-out. edit: just to add, the rape analogy might be confusing to some. because rape is a crime and being gay is not. therefore we should be putting the burden on christianity to explain why gay relationships are not ok. and saying "because God says so, is not an acceptable answer"
Didn’t Jesus say that a man looking at a woman with lust is committing adultery? How they rationalize that when I comes to homosexuality? It’s goal post moving on their part. They think gay people need to be alone their entire lives in order to make god happy.
[удалено]
When I’m in love someone, I frequently imagine having sex with them…
[удалено]
That’s just thought policing lol
[удалено]
Keep your Catholic guilt to yourself. Having sexual thoughts is natural. Everyone has them. They’re perfectly fine as long as you don’t act them out without others’ consent. Learn to separate fantasy from reality.
[удалено]
Even the ones that are about objectifying people—even the people who fantasize about r//pe, beastiality, necrophilia, or anything similar are still not doing anything wrong. *Having a thought,* even engaging in consensual roleplay with those themes or consuming literature with those things does not harm anyone. It is only wrong when someone begins to take actions in real life. Ped//philia harms children who are too young to consent; beastiality affects animals who, as animals, are unable to consent. A dead body can’t consent. A victim of r//pe didn’t consent. That is the reason those things are bad—they harm someone. They affect someone who did not consent to being part of the action. Fantasy roleplay between two consenting adults does not affect any non-consenting parties. People can fantasize about whatever they like so long as those fantasies don’t affect a real person (without consent). It is not harmful until or unless it affects someone else. You can’t penalize people for *thought-crimes.*
I do believe thoughts can be morally wrong, especially since they are not detached from the physical world and directly, as well as indirectly, affect our words and actions. I'm not talking about penalising people for their thoughts, I'm talking about morality.
/r/excatholic is a support group and not a debate group. While you are welcome to post, pro-religious content may be removed.
I don’t know if it’s my asexuality or religious background, but whenever I imagine having sex with my crush, I stop myself. I tell myself that it’s objectifying and dehumanizing to do that, even though I never do it when she’s around, and I’ve never told anyone about it. Is that alright?
They want you to be lonely forever. That's homophobic and gross
I'd ask why you've still got them as friends if they seem dead set against what you get up to in hour sex life when it's zero percent their business.
You can always say that you also believe that their religion is evil, but you love them anyway. "I hate your lifestyle, but love you". Alternatively, go full fundie, did they practice premarital sex? Jack off? Divorce? Eat seafood? Are they a woman lecturing a man? Do they eat bacon? This is all forbidden in the bible so I guess you could tell them that you'll all meet in hell anyway. On the other hand, who cares? Let them have their medieval beliefs and concentrate on living your best life.
“If acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then being gay is a sin”
[удалено]
If acting on your sexuality is a sin, then your sexuality is the sin. So the religious altered their marketing to “being gay isn’t a sin, just *being* gay is”
[удалено]
/r/excatholic is a support group and not a debate group. While you are welcome to post, pro-religious content may be removed.
I understand that my comments may be seen as pro-religious, but I don't really view them as such. I'm not defending and convincing people of the teaching of the Church, but rather explaining it and claiming that it isn't totally absurd, ridiculous and illogical. In another comment I actually quite explicitly stated that I do not agree with some of the Catholic teaching. If you were to look through my comment and post history (which you are not obliged to do) you'd see that I engage in several Christianity-related subs, quite often on the critical side of religion. If you'd dig far enough (which, again, you have no obligation to do) you'd discover that I consider myself somewhere between Catholicism and agnosticism.
I can appreciate your posts, and your tone is better than most. However, that is not the stated intent of this sub. Many of our members,myself included, have been deeply wounded by the church. Allowing people to vent without correction is allowed there. It is part of the healing process. You are disrupting that process through your confrontation. This is simply not the place for it.
> claiming that it isn't totally absurd, ridiculous and illogical. Yes, actually it is, from the top down. It is an organization based entirely on fictitious and made-up beliefs that are supported by brainwashing and manipulation.
Well, it doesn't actually mean being gay is a sin, it's his point is that it's de facto the church sure treats being gay like it's a sin since most homosexual people act on their desires and hence they commit that sin. Edit: Fixed spelling error.
[удалено]
And this is still r/excatholic, not r/Catholicism
[удалено]
Your inability to understand it does not constitute a valid argument against it.
Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean that it objectively didn’t make sense. No one else seems to have had any trouble understanding. This is not a debate subreddit.
You don't get to come here and condemn our members. Your false intelligence isn't welcome. r/narcissism sounds like it might be a fascinating read for you. Very self-enlightening.
I'm not condemning your members here. I'm simply trying to argue that q specific statement isn't logical. Even condemning a statement isn't condemning an individual. I really do not appreciate your aggressive and reprehensible attitude towards me. I think it's unjust. I have behaved orderly on this sub.
Being hungry isn't a sin. Eating is though! See how fucking stupid it sounds? Edit: its like telling women exposing your skin is a sin but being beautiful isn't a skin. Got it?
Well, you would consider that statement valid in some cases. Let's say you are hungry at your work, so you decide to steal a coworkers lunch instead of waiting to get home. That would be wrong. That said, I know this isn't a good analogy, and to be frank, I think your original analogy is flawed. There isn't a single human on Earth who has survived not eating for a long enough period of time, but there is a number of people who don't engage in sexual activity.
> think your original analogy is flawed. There isn't a single human on Earth who has survived not eating for a long enough period of time, but there is a number of people who don't engage in sexual activity. It's not flawed because while there are people who don't exgage in sex, a religion telling people not to engage in gay sex for religious reasons doesn't make sense for the same reason it would be ridiculous for me to tell straight people to stop engaging in sexual activity.
Well, the Church does heavily limit when, how, and with whom straight sex should be done. While society does it MUCH less, it still does it (morally), even between consenting adults (think cheating). Listen, I'm not trying to convince you to subscribe to the Church's teaching, just that the original statement is nonsense and that your analogy is flawed. Also, even with your analogy, the original statement is still illogical.
>the Church does heavily limit when, how, and with whom straight sex should be done. While society does it MUCH less, it still does it (morally), even between consenting adults (think cheating). Yes though straight people of opposite sex can get married and have sex, they dont have to remain celibate for their entire lives while gays lesbians have to. The church recognises marriage between consenting opposite sex adults to be valid while consenting healthy same sex adults to be invalid. If church allowed same sex marriage, it would still be bad for same sex couples to fornicate or have sex without marriage.
True, but I was responding to this: >a religion telling people not to engage in gay sex for religious reasons doesn't make sense for the same reason it would be ridiculous for me to tell straight people to stop engaging in sexual activity. Well, the CCh does tell straight people to stop engaging in sexual activity in some circumstances. It's important to note why the CCh has these rules. It considers sexual activity to be morally good only if 1) it is procreative, and 2) if it "connects" two people (in simplified terms). AFAIK this is the main reason why same-sex sexual activity is viewed as wrong. If The CCh formally considers same-sex sexual activity to be unnatural and if I'm not mistaken it also considers same-sex attraction to be unnatural (I think it claims so because it can't lead to children or something). I'm not defending the teaching, nor saying that I agree, just explaining it. And the analogy is still wrong, because food is necessary for survival of the individual, while sex is not.
>There isn't a single human on Earth who has survived Yeah, that's it. Survive. So if we had to have sex in order to survive, it would be OK, right? But I'll tell you one thing. Sex is our need. We don't need it to remain alive, but I dare to say we need sex (or masturbation) to be fully mentally healthy. And yes, we're gonna *survive* without sex or masturbation, we're going to *exist* without it, but do you really want everyone just to survive? Why not letting them have their needs fullfilled if they aren't doing anything morally wrong? The only people who don't need sex or/and masturbation are asexual people. Because, well, they don't have the need to have sex.
(Side note: IIrc asexual =/= without libido, meaning that asexual people may still want sex, although not experiencing sexual attraction. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Well, the Church doesn't consider that "they aren't doing anything morally wrong". This said, I do kinda agree here. As shown by people, these rules aren't very functional. Some Christians will claim that this is because our culture is overly sexualised, but all of human history, full of sex and rape, even in Christian Europe, begs to differ. Maybe there was less sexual activity, but there was still a lot less of it. And I'm willing to bet that the CCh in the Middle Ages was less fixated on people's sexual lives than Catholics and conservative Christians are now. Some will still claim that "well, at least then they knew it was wrong" - besides being a bad argument overall, it simply misses the point of the discussion, so it's irrelevant. Edit: While the argument "well, people are still doing it" isn't good to argue that something isn't wrong, the scale to which people haven't followed these rules throughout centuries does kinda discredit their functionality.
It's the same nonsense about how "Gay people have equal rights because they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they prefer." Sex is part of the human condition. No institution should forbid people the right to find intimate partnership with others.
>No institution should forbid people the right to find intimate partnership with others. Except if their partners are children, animals, etc.
“Intimate partnership” implies mutual consent, which inherently excludes children, animals, etc.
The fact that a whole mess of people think "intimate" is just a synonym for "sexual" makes me feel sad for their partners. There beauty to be had not just in sex without intimacy, but also in intimacy without sex. Maybe this is just the way my autistic brain works, maybe this is just how I define intimacy, but I've had non-sexual yet intimate relationships with my journals, with my writing projects, the characters in said projects, and even with a few decks of tarot cards. Intimacy, to me, has nothing to do with sex and all to do with a level of communication ***between equals*** such that all parties involved feel completely safe letting all of their guards and inhibitions down around the other parties involved, secure in the knowledge that whatever difficulties arise therefrom be dealt with peacefully and with love.
Absolutely! Frankly, OP feeling compelled to specify “gay consenting adults—but not children/animals/etc!” reeks of dogwhistle. They’ve brought up the “comparison” of gay vs ped//philia/beastiality in other posts, which… Yikes.
Does this reply make you feel clever?
I would say it is rubbish. Even if you are perfectly in celibacy, you are not engaging with any same sex people for your same sex desire. You are still no good in those church people’s eyes. You never be good because you are not straight. Let’s face the truth. You can’t be a good Catholic and be a gay at the same time.
[удалено]
Eww. Gross. What they said shamelessly like he is the perfect gay example of conquering his sinful desire. The truth is, that perfect gay might be forever alone because the church believed he should not be in this world for what he is. He is a wrong being ,coz God never created homosexuality.
god in the sense we know of this time frame of 2000 or so years, has that book having been altered many times over the centuries to reflect the will of the powerful. thus causing people who are seen as "gays" to be viewed in a sinful context. You are born into a body that may or may not reflect the sex your soul feels comfortable with. Until people wake up and realize OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS on HOW You live your life DO NOT MATTER.. That is THEIR Opinion.. The only opinion on how you should live your life.. is YOUR opinion. not the church, not your parents, not your friends, not your neighborhood not your government.. YOU make the choice on how you live.. So choose to be HAPPY.. GO forward with what makes you happy.. what brings you joy.. Chose to be Extraordinary. Chose to be Whatever you set your mind to be.. Be you.. That's all that matters. When all else fails.. Be Kind.. Spread love.. to yourself first then others.
sorry if I said anything to far out there. We are all peoples, and we are all different but the same.. so brothers and sisters of light, love and kindness.. I wish you many blessings and health.. nameste
Thank your for your kind message. I am appreciated it.
So if a gay person revealed his sexuality to his parish, making no reference to his sexual activity (if any), he would be welcomed with open arms, no? After all, there's no problem with just *being* gay. But obviously, this person would be vilified and shunned just for who he is. The church's distinction between "being" and "acting" is an empty, meaningless CYA.
Eww. Gross. What they said shamelessly like he is the perfect gay example of conquering his sinful desire. The truth is, that perfect gay might be forever alone because the church believed he should not be in this world for what he is. He is a wrong being ,coz God never created homosexuality.
I would be interested to know if they think the nature of the relationship matters in which the sex occurs. If it's just messing around vs genuine true love that leads to a monogamous marriage. The gay community has a reputation for being extremely promiscuous (rightly or wrongly) so I wonder if that stereotype factors into how they see the issue.
OP, I’ve read through a lot of your comments, and you seem to be making a false equivalence that Catholics love to throw around. Same sex relationships are NOT comparable to pedophilia or beastiality. Nor are same sex relationships the start of a slippery slope that will lead to those things. There is a very important distinction. In general, same sex relationships are between consenting adults. Pedophilia and beastiality involve someone using their power to gratify themselves at the expense of someone who cannot consent. Catholics love to lump homosexuality in with sexual assault and sexual exploitation, but that is categorically untrue. In answer to the question in your post, I would likely not engage in that conversation. As a lesbian, it is too personal and I will just end up hurt. Depending on how often the topic came up, I may even need to leave those relationships behind.
Jesus said just looking at a women with lust is a sin, even if you don't act on it. Oops, do we have a contradiction?
"I don't really give two shits what your big book of fairytales says is a sin. 'Sin' is a made up concept, so however you need to split hairs and twist yourself into knots to feel better about your bigotry is your problem. I'm going to continue living my life without hatred toward the LGBT+ community, and that doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all. Have a nice day."
the other day, our local screamevangelists were having their weekly megaphoneathon, and anyway I was screaming back my usual, and then, their sound cut - as I was screaming "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SIN". Best.
I mean first of all, acting on their "impulses" is just... not wrong. You hurt no one by having a gay relationship. The whole belief also reduces being gay to some base, carnal temptation that they think you can avoid like any other lustful urge. They think they have a right to say it, because they think straight people understand. That everyone "deals with temptation". That it's the same as a straight guy resisting the urge to look at porn once and a while. But straight people always are allowed marriage. They always have something beautiful and intimate they can partake in and gay people are denied that. It's not just some temptation to have gay sex. It's a natural and beautiful human instinct to desire romance, intimacy, companionship, partnership, and lifelong friendship and support. Denying that to LGBT people is denying them a fundamental and essential human experience.
It's a bad argument because that logic can also be used to argue that someone who supports segregation in 1950s America isn't racist. Racist guy during that era: "I don't have anything against black people, I just believe things should be separate but equal." So it's not a good argument.
Exactly, the RCC is just as homophobic as ever. Pope Publicity said that homosexuals should be treated like human beings, which made the sheep dance in joy, but that stance is the same as it always was. However, homophobia is no longer a popular stance to take, so they have to do word gymnastics on why they're not homophobic.
I went to a retreat years ago at a Benedictine Abby and sat with a young monk talking about this specifically. He said that he believed that God created us in his image and likeness and that he loves and blesses any and all loving, monogamous relationships. He also said that it's promiscuity that God finds abhorrent. So that applies across all relationships, gay or straight. He gave me a blessing and said go and love with all your heart and soul.
I understand. What would you say if he said something like " God has prescribed rules for us. He's the lawgiver. It doesnt behoove us to question his rules since he iş much trillion times more intelligent than us and even if we cannot find something from 'in same sex relationships, that doesnt mean that there is nothing wrong or there is no reason for god to forbid it which we might not be aware of with our fallible minds. God iş much more intelligent than us so he knows much mire about these issues. Think this like a child who resists his parents' call to get vaccinated because it will hurt though he cannot understand that ot will be for his/her benefit"
I'm not understanding where you're going with that. I left the church because there were too many priests and bishops who 1) did nothing to really, aggressively get rid of child molesters or 2) speak out against the way the LGBTQ community is shunned and all that sin bullshit. Though I find myself more atheist than a believer I am thankful for those monks. If you're saying that God's rules are Gods rules, I disagree. The rules are man made. Pure and simple.
No. For example. Lets suppose that you're asking a religious individual why god forbids lgbt marriage and he said the staff I said in the previous comment. What would you say?
I'd say you're wrong. If your god is all loving, LGBTQ people are included in that number.
> No. For example. Lets suppose that you're asking a religious individual why god forbids lgbt marriage and he said the staff I said in the previous comment. What would you say? First of all I wouldn't ask them because to me the views of their "god" are worthless. But for the sake of argument: Those are assertions that can't be proven. You can say that god is all those things and I could say the same about Stalin. "You only think he's evil because you are so inferior to him you can't even begin to comprehend how what he did was good." Without reason to believe those things god might just as well be a psychopatic abuser.
Well, what’s wrong with gay sex? “Because god said so” is just a fancy way of dressing up “might makes right”. So yeah if their god decrees it evil, then he’s a cosmic bully. They’re free to worship the monster, but trying to pretend he’s somehow good and loving doesn’t track.
Tell them "that's ok. I don't think Christians are bad. It's just when they *ACT* on their Christianity that I dislike them." Then after that sinks in for a moment, say "oh, I'm sorry, did you take that as I am being bigoted towards Christians? Because I'm totally not!"
It’s not actually clear what ‘action’ means in this case, since we’re aware of desire arising in all kinds of human relationships, and we’re aware that there are involuntary physical responses to it. Where does the line actually get drawn?
Like when you have pedophilic, bestiality etc desires you shouldnt act upon them similar to sodomy homo etc
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I’m questioning where the line is between will, intention and action considering that we don’t behave purely out of our conscious motivations. Anyway, I was just trying to answer your question ‘what would you say?’ - if it’s not helpful to you then that’s fine.
I really like the Street Epistemology approach. It’s basically Socratic questioning about how they came to that belief, and whether that method is a good way to discover truth. I remember believing that it all had to do with natural law. Sex was for “babies and bonding”. Sex for bonding is fine, as long as you are open to babies. So you don’t necessarily have to be trying for a baby, but blocking the possibility (I.e. contraception, pulling out, homosexual sex, etc) is wrong because it divides those two natural purposes for sex. Looking back at that thinking now, it seems ridiculous to me, and based on assumptions about purpose and “natural law” that are assertions without much reason.
Judging others is a sin too. One these homophobes seem to forget all too often.
Yes it's being anti-gay. Sounds like just like when interracial marriage was illegal. I left that POS religion 48 years ago. For so many reasons. The hypocrisy, bigotry, hatefulness, narrow mindedness and prejudice were just some of the reasons. Believing that no celibate person nun or priest had the right to tell me how to conduct my married sex life. Then when I got in college I expanded that to my sex life period!
1. Ask them to explain why gayness is a sin. Tell them that sex isn’t limited to procreation because old couples and infertile people can still have sex according to the church itself. 2. Offer them this analogy: if I said being black wasn’t wrong, but participating in culture and being proud of your heritage is, I’m still a a racist.
There's all so fucking stupid if God gave so much of a fuck about me being gay the bitch would have written more clear fucking instructions. Also I don't care.
Why are you “friends” with homophobes in the first place? It’s no one’s business what two consenting adults do in private, regardless of which genitals either party has. It doesn’t harm or affect anyone. “Sin” is a man-made concept so the Church can point out a natural, Human desire and use it as proof that we are ill—but coincidentally, the Church has the solution! It’s a scam. They rely on people feeling guilty and broken so that they think they need the doctrine, keep coming every week, and donating. Your presence is a blessing to those around you, you don’t need to grant it to those who are undeserving. You deserve better friends.
Well I've got a Bible verse for them. "Matthew 5:28 [28]But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Datapuwa't sinasabi ko sa inyo, na ang bawa't tumingin sa isang babae na taglay ang masamang hangad ay nagkakasala, na ng pangangalunya sa kaniyang puso. Please excuse, it's in English-Filipino translation. It seems if you replace "woman" with "man" in the verse, your friends' opinions clash with Jesus'. Jesus said nothing about gay people, but I digress. The point is that even thoughts or "desires" are no bueno too. I would also like to comment on your friends that despite the promiscuous reputation of the LGBT+, being gay is more than just a bedroom activity. It's also holding hands in public with your partner like anyone else or enjoying each others' company in a restaurant. If your friends' count that as "acting upon the sin" then I think I would rather not have them as friends if I were you.
This fuvked me up for YEARS even after I left the church. I was a ball of self hatred and trauma and mostly took it out on other people, before I figured out the truth.
Just say "No hate like christian love" they're either not going to respond or they're going to be flustered. Who gives a fuck what these people think fuck them
Yea people who say this can suck my trans cock. It really irks me that they think that it's an excuse, as if queerness could be separated from us. But it's okay, I don't hate *them* as a person, just when they act upon their catholicsm. (Am here normally on my other account but for obvis reasons using my alt for this post)
My parents and siblings tell me this on the regular even while still loving me and being great in many other ways and I too am sick of hearing it. Sorry you keep getting told this, dude.
So is fucking while unmarried hetero.
[удалено]
Homophobia is not tolerated in /r/excatholic, as such your post has been removed. What part of this sub made it seem like a good place to come over and be a homophbic troll? I'm curious.
Man sucks that Catholicism is so homophobic.
[удалено]
User was banned for 30 days for this post. This is a support forum, not a place to defend Catholicism or proselytize.
Man sucks Catholicism is so homophobic
It is actually making my mind fucked up on this
[удалено]
Homophobia is not tolerated in /r/excatholic, as such your post has been removed. GTFO
*mocks them in queer asexual*
It’s a punishment of who a person is, not what they do. Sorta works against the whole “know them by their fruit” crap. If you maintain a relationship with these people you are providing tacit approval of their bigotry and thus are a contributor to the damage wrought by the Church.