Then please explain this:
Sorry, but the Church is wrong on this one. You won't find many Protestant churches agreeing with you.
This is me, and not any appeal to authority. I've always figured the "sin" in heterosexual lust was entertaining with approval (if not glee) the notion of using a child of God for my pleasure, self-esteem, yatta yatta. I mean, fish gotta swim, etc., and in general it's good thing that guys and gals and so forth. So it ain't the urge to merge itself which is sinful, but the urge to merge giblets without also joining selves in a muturally sacrificial and beneficial covenant inwhich God is the third party.
I have yet to meet a guy of the guy persuasion who has not committed this sin. Mind you. I haven't asked every guy I meet, so maybe that's wrong.
I do think that the homosexual urge to merge is intrinsically disordered, but that the urge itself is not so dreadfully culpabale; bad but not culpable; more a wound than a blow
Care to comment, edumicate, "share"?
Lust is sinful no matter who for by whom.
They're two separate issues.
What D-fender said (6784). A heterosexual who is aroused by a member of an opposite sex and not his spouse is not sinning; he is merely being a healthy human being. Likewise, a homosexual aroused by some situations is simply being what he is. There is no engagement of the mind, not lusting and no sin. Once one begins to seek arousal outside of marriage, he is sinning, but it is already acting out as soon as the decision to seek the situation is made. He will, of course, make it worse by deepening the illicit contact, in degrees.
Exactly!