LGBTQ+ Everyday life and customs

Thank you for your answer. I know that the mainstream is not interested in Christian doctrine and therefore my argument seems weak.
Yes, I am convinced that this way of life is sinful.
And I also know that all human beings are sinners. But to deny sin because of that, i.e. to want to justify evil, would be wrong.
I know that the Catholic Church has become a minority, especially in the West. And also that the Church (German Bishops' Conference) is on a very dangerous wrong track.
And that is precisely why I find it extremely important to openly express my point of view while I still can.

Of course, you can also argue non-religiously. I will try to make a corresponding contribution soon.

What I meant is that you are using a set of values that only apply to the community you belong to: Catholics, and eventually Christians/religious (at worse, it only applies to a small group of Catholics you belong to). People outside this circle have no proper reason to embrace them provided that they don't embrass let's say the existence of Jesus.

Another thing to point out is simply that even the Church gets some reforms. For instance, you mention the 6th commandment which is about adultery. It is commonly extended to homosexuality and such, but nothing prevents another view to emerge that allows any sort of sexuality related to LGBTQqsdjfzeizsf+ like homosexuality (not to mention that LGBTzsqsdje+ is not only about sexuality. Some are trans/non-binaries dunno what stuff that can be compatible with heterosexuality).
After all, changes have occured multiple times, and knowledge of the world also evolves.

Thanks fpr your explanations. I know what you mean.- And of course, changes occure. But the divine law (including the 6th commandmend) cannot be changed. It is everlasting.
We should seriously examine supposed findings that obviously violate divine law. -

It's not about violation necessarily in my opinion. For instance, if you take darwinism (Evolution), it does contradict the idea of creationism, but it doesn't question anything like creation/origin of life by God. Probably that's why John Paul II accepted the theory as valid for the Church; because it's just our understanding of the world that is increasing.
Once again, isn't the 6th commandment about adultery? If so, then homosexuality is a further interpretation, and if something in the Bible can be interepreted/seen through another angle, then nothing goes against an eventual change in the future.

Ok, now I understand what you are getting at. 🙂

Yes, the 6th commandment refers to adultery.
There are always 3 conditions necessary for a valid marriage to take place, again this is part of divine law:
1. Unity
2. fertility
3. indissolubility.
Let's just take fertility: this criterion alone is absolutely unfulfillable in a homosexual relationship. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman cannot produce children. It is biologically and naturally impossible. Since the second, necessary condition is not met, a non-heterosexual relationship can never be a marriage. Accordingly, every sexual act in such a relationship is extramarital -> thus a violation of the 6th commandment.
Furthermore, a marriage is "sealed" by the union of a man and a woman. - A real union cannot take place in non-heterosexual couples (and now please no details, there could be children reading along!!).

General note: we should generally not interpret the Bible in a way that might somehow be possible from the text. We should try to understand what God wants to tell us. What the truth is.

That's an extension. It is not refered to in the commandments themselves, only adultery is mentionned, a short sentence. Once again, nothing prevents the Church to change its mind in the future.
Even if we admit your point, then fertility is a problem for people who have fertility issues shouldn't make a valid marriage, and marriage should be invalidated for women past their 40-50's...

Regarding Darwinism: the theory of evolution is a theory. Not a proven fact. But I won't go into that now, so as not to get off topic 😉
And I think Johannes Paul II. accepted it, because it does not contradict the divine law.-

Gravity is just a theory, not a proven fact. If I jump from the 10th floor, certainly will I not splash myself on the ground. To say it otherwise. A theory in science doesn't carry the same meaning as in daily language, it is not a hypothesis but an explanation that is supported by facts and experimentation. Evolution is a theory, and one of the most robust at that.

I don't care what other people do: they can be gay, lesbian or whatever they want, I don't care! I'm not lesbian by the way.

um why has religion been involved here?

current Catholic law.

I think it is impossible.

I suppose it speaks for itself. "You" think it's impossible, yet, my point was to say that is wasn't immuable, and even if you changes will not happen, nothing prevent them. hence, homosexuality could perfectly be accepted tomorrow.

You cite Pope John Paul II - do you know his theology of the body?

No.

Is there any indication in Scripture that God intended marriage differently? That homosexual acts are something intrinsically good? No. On the contrary: cf. See, for example, Romans 1:24-27.

It would be interesting to get an historical to that part of the text. That ebing said, it is written that it's God himself who gave them desires and such as if he was punishing them for not being good to him. Moreover, it is stipulated that homosexuality here is unatural. However, homosexual intercourses are natural and found in many species; sometimes in very rare case, homosexual relationships also exist in nature. This part, to me, as to be taken as a lack of knowledge from the people who wrote the text, which is understandable giving the era.
There are other cases that are interesting in the Bible, which I knew too little unfortunately. Among them, an explanation to be so much against homosexuality could partially be because of what happened to the chosen people in Babylon were homosexuality was very accepted.

Back to the Romans, more interesing would be to have a "purer" version for the French version for isntance is blurry and doesn't explicitly specify sexual relations.

the Holy Scriptures.

They are partly human to the least, and humans are fallible and influencable by their environment to an unimaginable point.

Lastly, on Darwin: I don't think we need to discuss that any further here. I accept that you and very many are convinced of that. I am not. Neither objectively contradicts the fact that God created the world. It is a different conception of how. There are plausible arguments for both sides.

never said it was going against God, quite the contrary. What you are convinced or not though doesn't matter as a scientific theory is proven by fact and this one is of the strongest one for observations all are coherents. A bit of embryology or behavioural ecology shows a lot of patterns as well that would help one understanding. Unfortunately, many people are uninterested and show a lack of understanding of the theory, even among its supporters.
Evolution never said that humans descend from the apes and I don't know how such misconception is still alive in 2022. Humans are apes, and chimpanzees or gorillas are as evolved as humans, and they sure keep evolving, but in a different way (hands of chimpanzees did change much more than ours for instance).

Personally, I think it is illogical that God should choose this extremely long diversions - with what purpose?

Yet God is transcendant, isn't he? In French, we have a saying regarding this "Les voies du Seigneur sont impénétrables" which are related to probably Romans 11 something.

Lots of people see the LGBT+ through the prism of their own experience in things without report. As a blind, I can be sometimes victime of validism. There are less blind people than LGBTQ+ I believe. But if something happens against us, I'll have proud. Look at Afro-American people in the 60s and even nowadays, look at feminism, every minority or community treated like it will unite under a flag.

Not every Christian believe in Mary.

Back to the Romans, more interesing would be to have a "purer" version for the French version for isntance is blurry and doesn't explicitly specify sexual relations.

-> Could you explain that a little bit more detailed, please? I can translate the Latin original, if you can send it to me.

We have English/German/French translations of the Bible. Those are translations of a translation (of a translation?). As someone may know, when you translate something, there is some content loss. Since the French version doesn't explicitly mention "sexual relations", but English does, there might be better indications in the source text (either in koine greek or in hebrew).

-> Shall we really take the animals as idols in sexuality? I remind you that in the animal world there is also incest, rape, plural marriage and things like that. - but does that make it permissible for us humans too?!

Unless there is some sexuality among pebbles, they are the only reference you could have when it comes to "natural", and for long, some ecclesiastic took birds like blue tits as model of monogamy (despite blue tits being tremendous cheaters).
So no, I don't think we should make a call to nature, because ass you said many things happen in the animal kingdom that are unacceptables in a human society. However, that is what is done in the part of the Bible you suggested me to read.
I think I've already told pro-LGBT/homosexuality that it wasn't a good argument either here.

Thank you. Maybe I am not well enough informed here. - It is the most important, that God created everything. "Genesis confirmed by natural scientists" (Drei Linden Filmproduktion) and the visions of Anna Katharina Emmerich still shape my idea of creation today. Both recommendable.

I don't know and couldn't find the first one, and I'd take metaphorically the second. In any case, having a (small) background in biology and evolutionnary biology makes my understanding of Evolution less little, and also is the reason of my faith which is probably very different from most Catholics like you, and, to stay on topic, probably more accepting homosexuality, if not LGBTdsdfez+.

We have this saying in German as well. - But Romans 11 is very clear, in my view. -

I meant the saying comes from Romans 11:33.

The rainbow flag has only 6 colours - in contrast to the natural rainbow with 7 colours. In the Holy Scriptures, the rainbow is the sign of God's covenant with His people. A sign of faithfulness to His commandments.
The rainbow flag is a revolutionary sign. The LGTB rebels against the divine order.
One colour is missing: sky blue. The colour of Mary, which also symbolises purity.
Just a coincidence?

Most likely. In an old version,t here was 8 colours, including sky blue.

But according to the Bible the childreen of Adam and Eve were paired with each other so we come from incest and that is a sin, as you say we are ALL sinners, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" said Jesus Christ.

I'm genderfluid and omni, and I'm proud to be part of the lgbt+ community.
I think people should accept different opinions from theirs and respect those who have different ideas.
Why is being gay or lesbian so "weird" or "disgusting" or "unacceptable" for homophobes?
I mean, everyone has the right to be whoever they want to be.
Why can you decide to be atheist, but not gay? Is there any difference? No, it's just something personal, it's your choice, your private life.
I can't choose who to love. I fall in love, and that's it.
I really don't understand those who say: "Being gay is wrong. God will punish you" or something like that. If God really hated lgbt people and didn't want them to.. "happen" let's say so, or to be lgbt, then he wouldn't have created them. Right?
If he has control on everything, he could have just made all of us straight. But he didn't, so he accepts lgbt people.
Why do we have to be considered different? This is nonsense.
And why is someone who doesn't feel comfortable in their body ridiculous? It's not their fault if they're born in the wrong body and now want to change it, or identify differently. I can't choose my body at birth, but I can decide to be who I want to be during my life.

The rainbow flag has only 6 colours - in contrast to the natural rainbow with 7 colours. In the Holy Scriptures, the rainbow is the sign of God's covenant with His people. A sign of faithfulness to His commandments.
The rainbow flag is a revolutionary sign. The LGTB rebels against the divine order.
One colour is missing: sky blue. The colour of Mary, which also symbolises purity.
Just a coincidence?

Oh c'mon
If God didn't accept lgbt people he wouldn't have let them happen. He would have just said "No" , and wouldn't have created them.
Obviously God loves everyone, as you all always say. Lgbt is a part of everyone.

Why can you decide to be atheist, but not gay? Is there any difference?

Because the first is a choice you can make after thinking about the existence of God while the second is a natural condition which is determined at least partly by your genes. It's like saying "why can't you choose to be naturally blond or have blue eyes", well, you can't. You can pretend to be what you aren't, but you inevitably have brown hairs.
You even say it yourself: you can't choose who to love.

Adam and Eve were perfect and had the explicit mandate to fill the earth with descendants. Their children would also have been perfect - also perfectly healthy. Because of their rebellion against God, Adam and Eve lost their perfection, yet their children could still safely intermarry.
This was only forbidden a a long time after. (see Genesis 18:6-17).

On the second point: "Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I do not condemn a single person. - But let us also look at what Jesus says in the following: "Sin no more from now on."
-> We must not declare sin to be a "right".
->A person often cannot help his homosexual inclination. A person with homosexual inclination can even become a saint. Not the inclination is a sin, only homosexual practices (by the way, they would also be in a heterosexual marriage).
-> God is not unjust. There is not a single perfect human being. Everyone carries inclinations within themselves with which they have to struggle. That comes from original sin.

If you are so convinced, you should dedicate yourself to being a missionary instead of wasting time here, right?

Yes, I was catholic before and I know that the most important virtue is charity, more than faith 😉 so being a good person should be what matters

Comparing homosexality with paedophily is quite a problem. Children can't consent but to homosexuals are. And maybe we should open a topic about problems in the Catholic institution one day.

Comparing homosexality with paedophily is quite a problem. Children can't consent but to homosexuals are. And maybe we should open a topic about problems in the Catholic institution one day.

Exactly

Well, I'm part of LGBT community. I'm female trans. It's not easy to come out. Believe me, I know.

Why can you decide to be atheist, but not gay? Is there any difference?

Because the first is a choice you can make after thinking about the existence of God while the second is a natural condition which is determined at least partly by your genes. It's like saying "why can't you choose to be naturally blond or have blue eyes", well, you can't. You can pretend to be what you aren't, but you inevitably have brown hairs.
You even say it yourself: you can't choose who to love.

I didn't understand what you wanted ti say.
I meant love isn't a choice. So why do people hate LGBT+ when they did nothing wrong?
That wasn't a serious question, just ironic one.
There obviously isn't any difference because they both are your choice and pieple should respect them