06bc81 No.827606
Are romantic non-sexual relationships viable for same-sex attracted people? The Bible takes an austere stance when non-procreative sex is involved, but how are christians to act in a close relationship where there's an absence of sexual intercourse? To be more specific, is making out with a member of the same sex considered to be a lustful act despite abstaining from having sexual intercourse?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d4fa63 No.827609
I believe the Bible instructs us to stone them if they are male, and they're unclean if female. I seem to recall being corrected about the latter.
The state won't let us do that anymore.
The Catholic Church, who's flag you fly falsely, calls sodomy a sin that cries out for God's vengeance.
I accept the teachings of the church. If you want to be a sodomite, one of the many protestant denominations will be glad to have you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
698592 No.827610
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827611
>>827609
Sodomy and relationships are different things.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827615
>>827611
Having simple friendships is obviously not gay at all. These attempts of making them more than that is fishy to me. The people pushing for it to be recognized/formalized in some way are obviously queers. Just more cowardly than usual.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827616
>>827615
I'm pretty sure wanting to spend your life with someone you like isn't just "friendship", and that abstaining from sex isn't "sodomy".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827618
>>827616
It is friendship. And there's nothing wrong with a lifelong friend. But why formalize it? What's the point of this?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d4fa63 No.827619
>>827611
Sodomy is a mortal sin.
Homosexual relationships are a venial sin, because they lead to a mortal sin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d4fa63 No.827620
>>827606
>romantic non-sexual relationships
a contradiction, to be sure. Don't judge the replies based on confusion caused by your equivocating.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827623
>>827619
But without sexual intercourse there can be no sodomy.
>>827618
Because friendship isn't as intense as the kind of love i'm speaking about.
>>827620
Childless couples who refrain from having sex aren't a contradiction though, or are they just friends?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827627
>>827623
>Because friendship isn't as intense as the kind of love i'm speaking about.
"Intense" still sounds romantic on some level.
There's also familial love, brotherly love, and divine love.. do you mean it's intense in one of these other categories?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d4fa63 No.827628
>>827623
>But without sexual intercourse there can be no sodomy.
A venial sin is one that leads to a mortal sin.
You've already said it was romantic and not platonic, thus venial sin.
>Childless couples who refrain from having sex aren't a contradiction though, or are they just friends?
Church says the should be married if they're going to live together, even if there can be no children.
Also Church says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I think you have your answer in Church teaching. I cannot change Church teaching.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb93a0 No.827629
>Are romantic non-sexual relationships viable for same-sex attracted people?
no
>how are christians to act in a close relationship where there's an absence of sexual intercourse?
With condemnation
> is making out with a member of the same sex considered to be a lustful act despite abstaining from having sexual intercourse?
Do you really have to ask? Are you struggling with homosexuality yourself?
I'll rephrase the question, you tell me
<Is making out with a 7 year old girl sexually inappropriate?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827630
>>827627
Romance has too much of a sexual connotations to it, familial and brotherly love don't really cut it, and divine love is between man and God.
>>827628
What if it doesn't always lead to it? Are the intentions of people carved on stone?
>>827629
You're conflating sex with relationship.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb93a0 No.827631
>>827630
>You're conflating sex with relationship.
No I'm not, I'm rejecting the practice of any same sex romantic activity from a Christian moral view
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827632
>>827631
define romantic activity
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827633
>>827630
>Romance has too much of a sexual connotations to it, familial and brotherly love don't really cut it, and divine love is between man and God.
Then it's not of God, whatever it is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb93a0 No.827634
>>827632
I don't think I need to.
Anything more than you would do with your dad or your brother.
You are at a point of cognitive dissonance and you will not find reconciliation. It is either Christianity or homosexuality. Any so-called Christian groups who have embraced homosexuality in the last century have done so by abandoning Christian doctrine.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827637
>>827634
But since we're at it, how would you define David and Johnatan's relationship? >Brotherly love
I don't think it matches the intensity of what i'm speaking about
>Friendship
They loved each other more than "any woman", does mere friendship surpass the love for the opposite sex?
>homosexuality
there is no sexual attraction involved, but all the same we can clearly see there's a physical intimacy between the two
I'd say romance is the fittest word for what the two experience, but the term is too often mistaken for sexual attraction, what's the best connotation for their love?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb93a0 No.827638
>>827637
Romantic always implies sexual attraction. I have had meaningful close relationships with men and it is good, like frodo baggins and samwise gamgee.
Someone who is facing same sex attractions has the obligation to further remove himself from temptation in the same way an alcoholic can't go to a pub.
If he really is a fag reprobate, I don't really have any advice.
The love of David and Jonathan is brotherly love
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827639
>>827637
>>827637
>But since we're at it, how would you define David and Johnatan's relationship? >Brotherly love
That's exactly what it was.
You actually think the King of Israel could have been a homosexual (or at least bisexual, since he obviously got in trouble with ladies), and that people wouldn't have stoned him on the spot. He had many enemies, in the midst of Bronze Age society, and even they didn't make this charge.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827640
>>827638
>Romantic always implies sexual attraction
that's not true, sex differs greatly from the affection a couple give to each other.
>>827639
>That's exactly what it was
>Their souls were bound as one
are you really going to call that brotherly love?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827642
>>827640
Yes, I would. And everyone around them knew that too.
This is why faggots deserved instant stoning, and in the medieval era, at least got castrated. Homosexuals try to endlessly confuse matters and aren't worth debating, at the end of the day.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827643
>>827642
Isn't killing someone a mortal sin?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb93a0 No.827644
>>827640
>that's not true
Yes it is
Let's just take the easy road on this conversation and define words by their popular understanding. Romance always implies a sexual element.
>>827643
Execution is not murder
Leviticus 20:13
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6b0589 No.827645
>>827643
Murder is. But God enacted laws and processes for an orderly society, that contained such punishments and were beyond the motivations of any single individual.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
06bc81 No.827646
>>827644
There's a lot of rules in Leviticus that christians aren't applying to real life, like wearing clothes made from two different fabrics.
>>827645
The punishment of killing someone isn't murder?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bb93a0 No.827648
>>827646
Fine, don't accept Leviticus as God's will for human governments today. You still have to see that God viewed execution for homosexuality as just at least at some point in time and not constituting murder.
The unavoidable conclusion here is that homosexuality is an abomination before God.
Here on /christian/ we argue about the exegetical and historic doctrine to find what is true about God's will. If you just want a false sense of Christian support you can go to r/christianity
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7cdb71 No.827651
>>827606
>romantic
>non-sexual
Pick only one.
>making out
is sexual. I doubt you'd make out with your parents or your siblings.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9ddc35 No.827663
the government should kill them, simple as
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b4b628 No.827722
>is making out with a member of the same sex considered to be a lustful act despite abstaining from having sexual intercourse?
If you make out with another man, then you are simply in mortal sin for two reasons: fornication and sodomy..
The mere act of touching someone in gratifying lust, let it be fondling or kissing, is fornication. If you were a married man and go out and kissed another woman, you would obviously have adulterated her. So where is that principle when you apply it to the grave sin that is sodomy?
>Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman and is a grave sin (CCC 2353). St. Paul condemns fornication in his epistle 1 Corinthians 6:18. All aspects of intimate contact associated with the marriage act also constitute fornication for Jesus said, "I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 9:28). If lustful looks are adulterous, how much worse is lustful physical contact?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
927083 No.827772
>>827606
You're a fag and should repent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.