|
Post by katy777 on Mar 10, 2021 23:45:32 GMT
Good point. But homosexuality is not a sin if one is chaste. What about wedding rings for homsexuals?
Being healthy is a choice. Condoms were created to prevent birth, not a barrier for disease.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 11, 2021 0:38:23 GMT
Some very good points. HIV doesn’t discriminate between heterosexual/homosexual or female/male. The virus is simply seeking a host. Interestingly the story shared about a family friend potentially could have been lived out differently in the current medical environment. PrEP use by a HIV negative partner and an undetectable viral load in an HIV positive partner could allow for sexual relations with an extremely low likelihood of viral transmission. It is worth noting a significant amount of the population at risk for HIV infection are heterosexual.
I would be very careful saying, ‘being healthy is a choice.’ There are many persons suffering from ill-health by no fault of their own. These person cannon simply make a choice to ‘be healthy.’
In regard to ‘wedding rings’ among homosexual couples recall there exists no ‘valid marriage;’ there was no ‘valid wedding,’ hence there are no ‘wedding rings.’ Of course a ring in and of itself is not sinful, as has been well demonstrated in this thread. If a homosexual ring wearing person was to insist to another person a given ring was a ‘wedding ring,’ this might have potential for scandal if this other person was unaware of ‘invalidity’ of such a ‘wedding.’
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Mar 11, 2021 2:45:48 GMT
Some very good points. HIV doesn’t discriminate between heterosexual/homosexual or female/male. The virus is simply seeking a host. Interestingly the story shared about a family friend potentially could have been lived out differently in the current medical environment. PrEP use by a HIV negative partner and an undetectable viral load in an HIV positive partner could allow for sexual relations with an extremely low likelihood of viral transmission. It is worth noting a significant amount of the population at risk for HIV infection are heterosexual. I would be very careful saying, ‘being healthy is a choice.’ There are many persons suffering from ill-health by no fault of their own. These person cannon simply make a choice to ‘be healthy.’ In regard to ‘wedding rings’ among homosexual couples recall there exists no ‘valid marriage;’ there was no ‘valid wedding,’ hence there are no ‘wedding rings.’ Of course a ring in and of itself is not sinful, as has been well demonstrated in this thread. If a homosexual ring wearing person was to insist to another person a given ring was a ‘wedding ring,’ this might have potential for scandal if this other person was unaware of ‘invalidity’ of such a ‘wedding.’ Staying healthy is a choice is for those already healthy, but made the choice to protect themselves with an item usually used as a barrier to life
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 11, 2021 3:59:31 GMT
Good point. But homosexuality is not a sin if one is chaste. What about wedding rings for homsexuals? Being healthy is a choice. Condoms were created to prevent birth, not a barrier for disease. I find it a little distasteful --- I won't say "embarrassing", I don't embarrass easily, I'm too old for that nonsense --- to discuss these mechanics with a member of the opposite gender. but condoms are tubes with one end open and one end closed. They are basically a type of balloon. True, they were invented with sinful activity in mind, but they need not be used that way. Used by two male homosexuals, there is no question of avoiding pregnancy, because men don't get pregnant. Their only purposes would be hygiene and prevention of disease. Neither of those things are sinful. Indeed, it behooves us to keep ourselves from being contagious to others, if we can. I would go so far as to say, that using a condom for the despicable act which is non-procreative, would be "one less sin" because you have almost entirely avoided the possibility of getting sick or making someone else sick. By contrast, either exposing yourself to illness, or exposing others to your own illness, seems to "add to the sin".
|
|
toddy
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by toddy on Mar 12, 2021 3:13:39 GMT
Homosexuality is sin of immoral sexuality with or without condom according the gospel. But the problem is those who sell condom to homosexual people become another sinner partner to promote immoral sexuality.
This is accident question more than the hidden trick. Wrong is right, right is wrong, because of the beginning sin.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 12, 2021 4:26:11 GMT
Homosexuality is sin of immoral sexuality with or without condom according the gospel. But the problem is those who sell condom to homosexual people become another sinner partner to promote immoral sexuality. This is accident question more than the hidden trick. Wrong is right, right is wrong, because of the beginning sin. It is quite clear homosexual inclinations are not immoral. It is also quite clear homosexual sexual acts are immoral, along with many heterosexual sexual acts. All heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage are immoral, as well as some within the confines of marriage. The list of sinful heterosexual acts within marriage may vary according to how strict a sexual moralist stance is taken. A strict sexual moralist position may label many potential intra-marriage acts as sinful. How would those selling a condom know if a consumer is a heterosexual or homosexual? As has been well demonstrated in this thread, condoms may be used in morally acceptable ways. How would the seller know the end use of the product? Would you argue the seller must interrogate the consumer as to how the product will be used?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 12, 2021 11:46:41 GMT
Homosexuality is sin of immoral sexuality with or without condom according the gospel. But the problem is those who sell condom to homosexual people become another sinner partner to promote immoral sexuality. This is accident question more than the hidden trick. Wrong is right, right is wrong, because of the beginning sin. It is quite clear homosexual inclinations are not immoral. It is also quite clear homosexual sexual acts are immoral, along with many heterosexual sexual acts. All heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage are immoral, as well as some within the confines of marriage. The list of sinful heterosexual acts within marriage may vary according to how strict a sexual moralist stance is taken. A strict sexual moralist position may label many potential intra-marriage acts as sinful. How would those selling a condom know if a consumer is a heterosexual or homosexual? As has been well demonstrated in this thread, condoms may be used in morally acceptable ways. How would the seller know the end use of the product? Would you argue the seller must interrogate the consumer as to how the prodI'uct will be used? I'm not quite clear what "toddy" was getting at in the last two sentences, but I can say that it is a gut-level reaction, for a Catholic to jump to the conclusion that things such as the condom or the birth control pill are "evil in themselves", a kind of Manichaean dualistic way of looking at them, because since they are usually used for sinful purposes, they've got demons in them, cooties on them, what have you, and somehow the material thing itself becomes evil. I've seen fundamentalist evangelicals take a similar approach to alcohol, and some liberals/leftists do likewise concerning guns. There is no material thing that is evil in itself, or if there is, I've never heard of it. Idols consecrated to demons, if such a thing exists, would come close, and these can always be either exorcised or destroyed.
|
|