Being “Homosexual” is a sin…

Of Course “Being” A Homosexual Is A Sin

Being a homosexual, it it means anything, means embracing a certain style of behavior, dress, mindset and mannerisms. Most dress and mannerisms are not sins, but some mindsets and many behaviors are.

Sodomy is a most grievous sin, one that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Participating in or encouraging others to participate in or even to think well of any sinful act is itself sinful. Lust is a sin; therefore, encouraging lust is also a sin. Pride parades and Pride masses, for example, encourage lust.

To claim (with serious intent) to bewhat you are not is a sin. There are no such things as homosexuals (or necrophiliacs, pedophiles, ecosexuals, etc.) in any ontological or metaphysical sense. Therefore to claim to be a homosexual in this sense is a sin. “Being” a homosexual necessarily only means embracing and endorsing certain set of behaviors, which are sinful, or to boast of suffering certain temptations.

It is not a sin to have a temptation, only to give in to one. It is a sin to lay claim to a temptation as if the temptation is a virtue. It is impossible for anybody to be their temptation. Temptations do not define beings or essences, even permanent temptations. If temptations defined being then we would have Miser Pride Parades and Glutton celebrations. We’d also have gluttonophobia, a medical insult to be cast at those who dislike the sin of gluttony.

It is absurd—logically, biologically, or morally—for anybody to define themselves by their temptations toward certain sins. So it is a sin to say God created people as their temptations. It is thus a sin to publicly boast, as many do, that “God made me suffer constant temptations to sodomy, which makes me special.” If temptations made people into special beings, then necrophiliacs, masturbators, adulterers, zoophilies, ecosexuals, those with other lusts, the greedy, the slothful, the wrathful, the envious, and the impious could all boast of their special gifts and qualities. And, of course, they could claim to be these sins.

Some (and even some well known priests who ought to know better) say the Church has always treated homosexuals, or those with other lusts, badly, or that it has discriminated against them. This is false. It is not only false, but impossible. Since there are no such creatures as homosexuals, the Church could not have treated people which do not exist badly. The Church has, in its past, discriminated against those who practice or who openly advocate sodomy. It now, if anything, openly courts those who boast of having these temptations, or in indulging in them.

Discrimination is good. The Church necessarily discriminates against kinds and types of sins, and against the people advocating or indulging in them. You, dear reader, discriminate, too, in either agreeing or disagreeing with this argument. It is impossible not to discriminate when a decision must be made. It is only true the Church has not always treated every single individual justly. Yet no institution run by people has, or will. Plus, those who claim to indulge in sodomy cannot lay claim to preferential treatment.

Having, encouraging, or requiring people to say “I am a homosexual” or “I am a man who is a woman” or “I am a necrophiliac” or whatever, must necessarily increase sin. It causes sin first by the false identification. It encourages sin by suggesting the normality of the acts, which are then engaged in more often, or by suggesting that mortal sins are venial or even sinless.

There is no such thing as the “LGBT community” in any ontological sense. There are only men and women, boys and girls. Having a group self-identify by their temptation is already absurd; to have a group self-identify by claiming not to be able to help oneself but to given in to a temptation is a sin. As is giving in to the temptation.

We could not have summarized it any better than Lifesite’s Martin M. Barillas (in an article about a faithless priest who encourages sodomy):

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” It adds: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CCC 2357).

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons says Catholics have a “duty” to oppose same-sex “marriage.”

It is, as is and always has been obvious, impossible for two men to marry each other.

Telling a person he is, or a person claiming to be, a homosexual (or necrophiliac or miser or etc.) is to embrace a lie. No one ever has to give in to temptation. Adopting a manner of living that with greater frequency than otherwise puts one in the way of temptation is nonsensical. To encourage embracing this manner of living, knowing it will increase temptation, and so also the giving in to temptation, is itself therefore sinful.

To say one is a homosexual (or necrophiliac or miser or glutton or etc.) is to claim that temptations are always and ever permanent fixtures, that God in His mercy cannot eliminate or lessen them for any person. And that is perhaps the biggest sin of all.

Never use the enemy’s language

Author: Alfred E. Neuman

73 year old geek, ultra-conservative patriot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.