I give up.
Originally Posted by C_ntua
Really? Let's turn the table and ask you, what do you know?
My point is that if you asked back then anybody "why would a man have homosexual activity with another man", you would propably never get the answer "because they are in love". It could exist, but people didn't think so.
There's no manner of knowing this for sure. Paganic rituals were commonplace. In fact, Leviticus chapter refer to these in several places. One of these pagan Gods has already been alluded to on this thread in verse 20-2; Moloch. Adding to that, the world was made up of a larger number of individuals living in other places of the planet and having different cultures. Some of which agreeing to and performing homosexual activities. Still from Leviticus, 20-23 "And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." clearly indicating there's other nations perform these actions without guilt as part of their culture.
So, I am simply saying that back then people of the same sex were not thought to be able to be in love. And form a marriage under God.
And for all we now about homosexuality it is a romantic and a sexual attraction. There is no evidence, neither it makes any sense, the biology of homosexuality was different back then. It is quite acceptable to deduce that this romantic attraction was well known. People weren't dumb just because they lived in ancient times.
Not otherwise. They are sinners wether they were a couple or not. The sin is not in being homosexual, but in performing an homosexual act.
Yes, and that is why I say couple. Because otherwise they are sinners to the church anyways.
There's nothing wise about a death penalty for homosexual activity. But to answer your statement directly, Leviticus mentions homosexuality and fornication in different verses. Clearly one is not the same as the other. So there's fornication and there's homosexuality. Both distinct sins.
Let me get more clear. What I am saying is that homosexuality would be considered a sin back then, because the idea of a married homosexual couple didn't exist. It was out of the question. Thus, a homosexual act would be done for the "wrong" reasons. God was being more "wise" than "revealing a truth".
I don't believe. I know for a fact and the church agrees.
But the bottom line is that you believe that the church is against homosexuality. So, why should a catholic homosexual demand to get married. That was my whole point on the topic. Which you never actually answered.
And if any catholic homosexual demands to get married by the church (and I personally don't know of any, but agree there certainly must exist quiet a few) they are certainly questioning the church doctrine on this matter. This is no different from the group of priests within the catholic church that currently demand the right to be married, for instance. Questioning the church doctrine has become quite an habit on the past decades. I wonder why...
And why not? You would find the answer yourself if you studied the Catholic church more in debt and learned that the condition of sin is not grounds for removal from the church, neither is sin grounds for loss of faith.
You are giving arguments against your initial point. If by those verse in Leviticus it is so obvious for you, why would a homosexual even consider to be catholic???
Do you plan top leave the catholic church next time you lie? What about greed? glutony? What if you ever sleep with a married woman? And when you decide to have sex before you get married? All these are capital sins. Why should you be a Catholic the moment you practice one of these sins?
I honestly don't know what you are doing. The church is against homosexuality. I'm totally confused as to why you want to debate "in case it isn't". I think you are taking a step larger than your leg in this whole debate. In fact I'm convinced.
EDIT: Lets not get too distracted from the original topic. I have to remind you that I am using both options here. The church being against or not homosexuality. In both cases I disagreed in a sense on what you are saying.