Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

[ActRaiser]

Scripture:
Scripture is clearly against living a ****sexual life style. It is against lust in general, as well.

However, at least with heterosexual lust you can have a legitimate marriage. Whereas according to the scriptures you can't have a real marriage between a woman/woman, and man/man. However, there is a certain lack of discussion in the Bible about ****sexuality.

I'm sure that there were some ****sexual Israelites who simply lived a heterosexual lifestyle without doing same-sex sins.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Scripture:
Scripture is clearly against living a ****sexual life style. It is against lust in general, as well.

However, at least with heterosexual lust you can have a legitimate marriage. Whereas according to the scriptures you can't have a real marriage between a woman/woman, and man/man. However, there is a certain lack of discussion in the Bible about ****sexuality.

I'm sure that there were some ****sexual Israelites who simply lived a heterosexual lifestyle without doing same-sex sins.

Scripture is Scripture; Tradition is Tradition; reason is reason; and experience is experience. If we want to glean what each says, it is best we give specific details about it. If we are to ***ume each has equal authority in determining what God has to say as asdf has stated, I myself only adher to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; reasoning and experience without God's revelation is only man's reasoning and man's experience. William James speaks about the mystical experience being nontransferable. To say that I experienced God in a ****sexual act or to say I experienced God in a heterosexual act is mere opinion based on a perception of the individual. However, I believe life is an act of God, so in a heterosexual act where a baby is born... I believe such experience as shared by other parents attests to the miracle of life and from God... ****sexual couples do not get this from their unions. Hence experientially, they are defunct in this act. It is also defunct, because Tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox Church, view marriage as a Sacrament. ****sexuals have always been denied marriage in the Christian Tradition until some Protestant sects deny Tradition, deny Scripture (or reinterpret it).

[ActRaiser]

Sex, however, is God's give gift excluding birth as well. Otherwise he would not allow pleasure to be experienced with infertile men and women.

I find that despite the good intentions of Christians, they don't understand the real reasons why ****sexuality is a sin, despite the fact they know it is.

I might need more elaboration as well, but non-birth is not a reason.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Sex, however, is God's give gift excluding birth as well. Otherwise he would not allow pleasure to be experienced with infertile men and women.

I find that despite the good intentions of Christians, they don't understand the real reasons why ****sexuality is a sin, despite the fact they know it is.

I might need more elaboration as well, but non-birth is not a reason.

If you are going to present a position that God is ok with the ****sexual lifestyle, you better start on a position of offense and not defense. If you position is only a negation, it is not a viable pro-God defense. I would hope that you could start with a Scripture quote, from a quote found in Tradition. At that moment, we can present reasoning with the Scripture or reasoning with Tradition. Experience, is in my opinion the weakest of the quadrilateral since it is open to man's experience only. The Scripture's attest to a long history of interaction between God and mankind... as such, if we are to state of such experiences even in our own day and age, it must also be consistent with the experiences found within Scripture and Tradition. New prophecies are not going to trump old ones. So far, it seems you have not presented a case that stands on the agreement of any one pillar of the quadrilateral.

[ActRaiser]

Actually, what I said was that I believe ****sexuality is wrong based on Scripture.

Fertility is not a reason for ****sexuality being a sin.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Actually, what I said was that I believe ****sexuality is wrong based on Scripture.

Fertility is not a reason for ****sexuality being a sin.

I am not stating that fertility is a reason for ****sexuality being a sin, I am saying it is a sin for many reasons; first of all it opposes God in direct contradiction to Scripture (especially if the ****sexual claims they are Christian); secondy of all, it flys in the face of raising children with mother and father. http://parenting.families.com/blog/h...ted-in-schools.
What kind of responsible parents is it when gays deny the right of the mother, or lesbians deny the right of the father? The children are the battleground for LBGT activism.

Now, it should be up to asdf to present his quadrilateral support for the lifestyle. Unfortunetly, he seems to be silent because there is none when you delve into the Greek or Hebrew in the Scriptures or even in the writings found in Tradition. The reasons he uses are today's media talking points. Get past them into the writings of the Church in history and he is in big problems... his quadrilateral crumbles.