All homosexual relationships are inferior

[Serious]

Staying out of someones business is not love or tolerance, it’s cowardice and apathy.

I call it respect. To accept that others are capable of making decisions for themselves, and as long as those decisions do not interfere with others, you should respect their decisions. I am not qualified to run your life, and conversely you are not qualified to run my life. If you think that someone else engages in self-destructive behavior, then it is fine to give them ONE friendly warning. That is acceptable. But if they do not agree, then respect them.

Church aside(which is impossible), ignoring people goes against human nature as we are social beings.

The fact that we are social beings (which is true) does not give you the right to poke your nose into someone else’s private life.

Here comes another parable:

An old spinster calls the police and complains that the couple across the street engages in disgusting sexual practices, and that disturbs her privacy. She says that she should not be exposed to such behavior. Two policemen come to investigate. When they look across the street, they see nothing objectinable, and they say so. The old woman says: “Well, from where you stand, you cannot see it, that is true”. She climbs up on top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod and leans way out. And she says: “Come up here and you will see how disgusting they are!”.

That is what self-appointed “do-gooders” do. They interfere where they have no business to interfere. And if someone would reciprocate their rude behavior, they would be so upset!

 

[Serious]

I didn’t realize having a strong belief = being the tyrant of the SSA community.

Having a strong belief is fine. Forcefully interfering with others is not. And that is what he said is his aim.

 

[raaucoin]

I’m just sick of no one responding to me on any of the threads that I post on about this. I’m someone that bears the cross of having SSA every day, and I love the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality. It allows for all people with SSA to live a dignified life as servants and children of God. In fact celibacy is the ONLY avenue for people with SSA *to *live a life of dignity.

And I’m just fed up that all the gay marriage advocates don’t hesitate for a second to call most of the members on here backwards homophobes who aren’t being charitable and who are bashing them/ discriminating against them, etc. But when they see someone with SSA who IS living the Church’s teachings on this matter… nobody responds to anything I post.

Why? Is it maybe that your poorly formed consciences sense deep down that I am actually right?

**SO, with that background in mind, I’m gonna lay down this gauntlet: all homosexual relationships are inferior to the Sacrament of Marriage. **[and all sexual relationships outside of Marriage are inferior]. But, particularly since most “gay” people will not marry according to the Church’s definition, then any relationship they enter into is necessarily sinful. It’s centered around sin and selfishness. Whereas in the Sacrament of Marriage love is centered around God and selflessness.

And I said on another thread apart from being sinful, a homosexual relationship is inferior because they can’t have children, and unlike those called to the Sacrament of Marriage they cannot love God and put God at the center of the relationship. That would be an oxymoron wouldn’t it? Two homosexuals can’t at the same time love God and also sin against him every day by having a relationship… because that sin separates them from the God they claim to love.

Sorry if that sounds like a rant. But, on the last 4 threads no one has responded to me. Which is odd. Because normally you have straight Catholics and straight atheists/ liberal Christians, etc. all discussing their views of “gay marriage” and homosexual relationships. But, when someone who actually has SSA speaks up nobody cares? I know what I’m talking about because I don’t just know** the Church’s teaching on this, I live it every single day!!

My dear friend, I am a little confused. Is it that you are not being acknowledged or do you feel like people don’t care about what you have to say? in either case I’m sorry for your frustration. I have found in my own experience that if no one replies directly to my post it is usually because it is in agreement with a part of a conversation going on. As a woman with SSA who also embraces Church teaching, I have found a GREAT deal of support,&encouragement. Also it is quiite common that if someone posts something true and indisputable there is little response especially from those who would disagree. If we post and it makes someone think and they can not refute but sit with it; haven’t we done our job?—Debate can be interesting and even entertaining but what’s the purpose? to provoke thought and consideration or argument and disagreement for the sake of arguing?

If I’ve totally misinterpreted your post I apologize. Wishing you peace- Raa

 

[raaucoin]

But, particularly since most “gay” people will not marry according to the Church’s definition, then any relationship they enter into is necessarily sinful. It’s centered around sin and selfishness. Whereas in the Sacrament of Marriage love is centered around God and selflessness.

I disagree with you on the implication that gay relationships are automatically NOT centered on God. I was in a relationship with another woman and from day one we constantly prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide us in His will for our lives. We prayed that prayer daily and earnestly. Fully ready to accept whatever that will was and because we in fact were Centered in the Lord, He did lead us out of that life. Sinful? Yes once we realized the Church was right and understood that we were sinning.( We had both received poor catehesis and example) we were both Reconcilled Sacramentally to our God and Church.

 

[ssa_fellow]

My dear friend, I am a little confused. Is it that you are not being acknowledged or do you feel like people don’t care about what you have to say? in either case I’m sorry for your frustration. I have found in my own experience that if no one replies directly to my post it is usually because it is in agreement with a part of a conversation going on. As a woman with SSA who also embraces Church teaching, I have found a GREAT deal of support,&encouragement. Also it is quiite common that if someone posts something true and indisputable there is little response especially from those who would disagree. If we post and it makes someone think and they can not refute but sit with it; haven’t we done our job?—Debate can be interesting and even entertaining but what’s the purpose? to provoke thought and consideration or argument and disagreement for the sake of arguing?

If I’ve totally misinterpreted your post I apologize. Wishing you peace- Raa

I private messaged one of the people who I quoted, and refused to respond to me.

And this forum member (who I won’t named) just PM’d me back and said "I don’t respond to people who use all caps, because that is yelling. But, all your arguments are invalid.

But I don’t respond to people like you".

I was frustrated because it was like I wasn’t being payed attention to in a number of threads. When in fact, people like you and I are the MOST qualified to talk about this.

But yes, you are right, at the end of the day we’re going to get TONS of support from our fellow Catholics and brothers in Christ. And attacks from the other side as well. Anyways, I’m going to keep using my life as a witness for the truths of the Church. And I hope you do as well. And I hope it DOES get people to think about it.

raaucoin:

I disagree with you on the implication that gay relationships are automatically NOT centered on God

Well, you two were definitely an exception to the rule. How many poorly catechized Catholics who are in homosexual relationships with each other pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance every day of their relationship?

[And I’m very glad that your prayers were answered]

Even though your relationship might have been an exception to the rule. How can a relationship be centered around God if those people do not know God enough to know they shouldn’t be in that relationship? I’m just saying, I’m confident that applies to the vast majority of people in homosexual relationships.

Most people with SSA who are faithful to the Church are single. And in both of those cases when I use “vast majority” and “most people” I would be surprised if it wasn’t over 90% in both cases.

 

[ssa_fellow]

Having a strong belief is fine. Forcefully interfering with others is not. And that is what he said is his aim.

There’s a difference between evangelising and forcing something down somebody’s throat.

That’s fine if you live your life with absolutely no concern about how other people live their lives. But, you now Christians believe in sin. Well… if we believe in sin it would be pretty heartless for us to just walk around like you with no concern for other people. “Well, I guess that’s the way they want to live their life, if they want to go burn in hell, that’s their business”.

If you think that’s what Christians do, then you have every right to hate Christians. Unfortunately we’re all called to evangelise and to do everything we can to save our brothers and sisters.

Having conversations with people isn’t “forcefully interfering with other people’s lives”.

Forcefully interfering in people’s lives would be telling Churches they have to provide contraception… so if you are for that then you are a hypocrit.

 

[JNdoum]

I call it respect. To accept that others are capable of making decisions for themselves, and as long as those decisions do not interfere with others, you should respect their decisions. I am not qualified to run your life, and conversely you are not qualified to run my life. If you think that someone else engages in self-destructive behavior, then it is fine to give them ONE friendly warning. That is acceptable. But if they do not agree, then respect them.

The fact that we are social beings (which is true) does not give you the right to poke your nose into someone else’s private life.

Here comes another parable:

An old spinster calls the police and complains that the couple across the street engages in disgusting sexual practices, and that disturbs her privacy. She says that she should not be exposed to such behavior. Two policemen come to investigate. When they look across the street, they see nothing objectinable, and they say so. The old woman says: “Well, from where you stand, you cannot see it, that is true”. She climbs up on top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod and leans way out. And she says: “Come up here and you will see how disgusting they are!”.

That is what self-appointed “do-gooders” do. They interfere where they have no business to interfere. And if someone would reciprocate their rude behavior, they would be so upset!

Sir, you comparison of the old woman is like comparing feeding the homeless to tying them down and force-feeding them. As a Catholic, I do not go around screaming at homosexuals for them to clean up their act. I do not go to LGBT rallies and scream at them about their sin. I do give respect to them, and I do show them love. Take this example, instead. A friend of mine has a severe addiction to drugs. She doesn’t think it’s wrong, and it’s not really hurting anyone, so she figures, why not? So she goes on her merry way doing various intoxicants, until I come around. I tell her the harms that drugs can do to one’s life, I tell her why they’re bad, and eventually she stops. IS this wrong? Is this being “pushy” or “self-appointed do-goody?” Or is your objection to the fact that we may do this to strangers? Are strangers not as deserving of our truth as close friends. Perhaps the person (the SSA person, not the drug addict) will never come to see it my way. But does this mean that I will suddenly believe what they’re doing to be OK? Of course not. Does it mean I still won’t want to show them what I perceive to be truth? Heck no. You are correct in that I have no right to rake them over the coals for it, or to beat them with my metaphorical word stick over it. But if I know what I truly believe is good for them, do I not have the right to tell them? Are you saying that I cannot exercise my freedoms because it’s inconvenient to someone else? Rather like that couple couldn’t practice their “relations” because it disturbed the old woman? What I don’t like about your argument is that you would support it were it not a “religious issue”. Take giving a child a bath. Perhaps the child doesn’t want a bath. Why should we (oh, we are terrible tyrants) force this child to do something like taking a bath when he or she clearly doesn’t want to? Or why should we educate children who don’t want to learn? It is clearly tyrannical giving an education to them, because it’s their opinion that they don’t need one, of course. By your logic, we should just dump kids in the street and not say a word to anyone, for fear that we might end up being too “tyrannical.”

 

[catholismwhattt]

Doesn’t you’re god say to do unto others as you would have them do unto you? and to not judge people, and accept them for who they are? god doesn’t give a **** if you’re gay or not. he just asks for your love. so by discriminating against gay’s and their RIGHT to marry are you not committing sin? yes you are.
John 15:12
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
God loves everyone for who they are, and fyi being gay isn’t a choice, you don’t wake up one day and think hmm I’m gonna be gay today. no you’re born with it and hmmm isn’t everyone one of god’s creations?
Also, I’d like to point out the first amendment of the constitution, which prohibits the making of laws based upon a religion… mhhmm yea up right there is all the reasoning you need to legalize gay marriage. North America is a continent composed of two countries that represent freedom, and while that has had a few “huh” moment such as slavery, women and blacks not being able to vote. you think that being in the 21st century people wouldn’t be so backwards. by not legalizing marriage in the entire content it shows that we aren’t the two countries of freedom. people come here to escape their own countries strict and unorthodox laws because we represent freedom. but are we really even free when there’s this redundant argument going on about it? those of you who take the bible to the letter, what makes you think you’re interpretation of the bible is right? what makes christianity right? your god DEMANDS you honour him as the sole god, and some think back to paganism and how there are many gods and how they demanded you’re love, and think that they were harsh because sacrifices were given to honour them. your god demands love and honour sooo much that if you don’t you’re going to “burn in hell” for all eternity… so much for a loving god. as a child i was brought up catholic and i was terrified of sunday school because i was told if i lie, am mean to someone, or don’t treat them properly i am going to suffer for eternity. what kind of religion threatens people into believing it. you choose to honour god fine, but if you’re gonna live by his rules you have to accept gay marriage because as i stated before due unto others as you would have them do unto you. you don’t let them get married, you’re going against god and well sorry to tell you but by doing that, you’re going to burn in hell for eternity. here’s a quote i urge you all to live by. “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” -marcus aurelius.
that right there is what should determine how you live your life. because lets be honest no one knows if there is a heaven or not or if there is a hell or not, which is why religion is based upon “faith” and “belief” so are you really going to leave this world as the person who was soooo extremely catholic that you disregarded people as equal because of their sexual preference? if the answer to that is yes, then good the world doesn’t need you in it.

 

[sw85]

Welcome to the forums, catholismwhattt. I 't think you’re going to find your sentiments don’t meet with approval here.

Doesn’t you’re god say to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

I expect other Catholics to do their duty to me, so why is this a problem?

and accept them for who they are?

I’m fairly certain it says that precisely nowhere in the Bible.

god doesn’t give a **** if you’re gay or not.

That’s pretty obviously false. He ordered practicing homosexuals killed in the Old Testament. Clearly he doesn’t like such behavior, which stands to reason: He designed us with complementary sexual equipment for a reason.

he just asks for your love.

Specifically, your obedience to His law.

so by discriminating against gay’s and their RIGHT to marry are you not committing sin? yes you are.

(A) No such right exists, your baseless assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

(B) Discrimination is not in and of itself a sin.

(C) You mentioned before that we are “judging” people. What exactly do you think is meant by “judging” people? You seem to think it means “saying that a certain behavior is sinful.” Yet you are accusing us of sin. Is this not, by your standard, judging people?

John 15:12
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

There is more to Catholicism than what’s in the Bible. There is more to the Bible than “love your neighbor.” And there is a lot more to “love your neighbor” than “tolerate every perversion they practice.”

“Love” (i.e., agape, caritas) is not mere toleration. It means willing what is best for another. What is best for another is, by definition, to not sin. That means reminding people of their duty not to sin and chastising them for their failures with respect to that duty, as you imagine you’re chastising us right now (and as I’m actually chastising you).

God loves everyone for who they are,

True. So?

and fyi being gay isn’t a choice, you don’t wake up one day and think hmm I’m gonna be gay today. no you’re born with it and hmmm isn’t everyone one of god’s creations?

This has nothing to do with anything. Are you even aware of why Catholics oppose gay “marriage”?

Also, I’d like to point out the first amendment of the constitution, which prohibits the making of laws based upon a religion… … people come here to escape their own countries strict and unorthodox laws because we represent freedom. but are we really even free when there’s this redundant argument going on about it?

First, it prohibits formal establishment of religion only.

Second, I personally don’t care about the Constitution or the Founders, bunch of deist Freemason traitors. Third, even if I did care about it or the demonic vision of “freedom” they propounded, even that wouldn’t require gay “marriage,” which has nothing to do with “freedom” but with naked power-grabbing by an entitled minority which has no right to have its perversions endorsed by the state.

those of you who take the bible to the letter,

No one here does that. We aren’t Protestants.

what makes you think you’re interpretation of the bible is right? what makes christianity right? your god DEMANDS you honour him as the sole god, and some think back to paganism and how there are many gods and how they demanded you’re love, and think that they were harsh because sacrifices were given to honour them. your god demands love and honour sooo much that if you don’t you’re going to “burn in hell” for all eternity… so much for a loving god.

Two minutes ago you were saying our God of love demands that we tolerate homosexuals. Make up your mind, please.

as a child i was brought up catholic and i was terrified of sunday school because i was told if i lie, am mean to someone, or don’t treat them properly i am going to suffer for eternity.

I sincerely doubt that’s true, given that, like, no one believes it.

what kind of religion threatens people into believing it. you choose to honour god fine, but if you’re gonna live by his rules you have to accept gay marriage because as i stated before due unto others as you would have them do unto you.

do*

You’re not even being coherent anymore.

you don’t let them get married, you’re going against god and well sorry to tell you but by doing that, you’re going to burn in hell for eternity.

This is the God whom, just moments ago, you were accusing of psychopathy? And this coming from a man who, just moments ago, said that saying things like “you’re going to burn in hell for eternity” constitutes sinful judgmentalism! I suspect you’re a troll.

here’s a quote i urge you all to live by. “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” -marcus aurelius.

I challenge you to provide an exact citation for that quote. I’ve read Marcus Aurelius before and that reads like something typed up on the fly by a 13-year-old. To say nothing of the fact you’re insisting Christians order our lives according to a pagan who persecuted Christians.

 

[Dale_M]

There’s a difference between evangelising and forcing something down somebody’s throat.

Yes, there is. And you are correct that as Christians we are called to be concerned about the welfare of our neighbors.

I would add that successful evangelization requires humility, patience and respect. It isn’t impolite or rash, and builds upon a relationship with the other person. I rather suspect that few people are able to carry this off well. At least that is true for Americans, who tend to be brash and eager to speak the truth forcefully and then be done with it.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I’m just sick of no one responding to me on any of the threads that I post on about this. I’m someone that bears the cross of having SSA every day, and I love the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality. It allows for all people with SSA to live a dignified life as servants and children of God. In fact celibacy is the ONLY avenue for people with SSA *to *live a life of dignity.

And I’m just fed up that all the gay marriage advocates don’t hesitate for a second to call most of the members on here backwards homophobes who aren’t being charitable and who are bashing them/ discriminating against them, etc. But when they see someone with SSA who IS living the Church’s teachings on this matter… nobody responds to anything I post.

Why? Is it maybe that your poorly formed consciences sense deep down that I am actually right?

**SO, with that background in mind, I’m gonna lay down this gauntlet: all homosexual relationships are inferior to the Sacrament of Marriage. **[and all sexual relationships outside of Marriage are inferior]. But, particularly since most “gay” people will not marry according to the Church’s definition, then any relationship they enter into is necessarily sinful. It’s centered around sin and selfishness. Whereas in the Sacrament of Marriage love is centered around God and selflessness.

And I said on another thread apart from being sinful, a homosexual relationship is inferior because they can’t have children, and unlike those called to the Sacrament of Marriage they cannot love God and put God at the center of the relationship. That would be an oxymoron wouldn’t it? Two homosexuals can’t at the same time love God and also sin against him every day by having a relationship… because that sin separates them from the God they claim to love.

Sorry if that sounds like a rant. But, on the last 4 threads no one has responded to me. Which is odd. Because normally you have straight Catholics and straight atheists/ liberal Christians, etc. all discussing their views of “gay marriage” and homosexual relationships. But, when someone who actually has SSA speaks up nobody cares? I know what I’m talking about because I don’t just know** the Church’s teaching on this, I live it every single day!!

You state that you bear the cross of SSA.

I have the impression from your tone and content that it is a heavy cross.

The need to pronounce, again and again, your condemnation is telling.

And what further insight are you hoping to share?

 

[Serious]

There’s a difference between evangelising and forcing something down somebody’s throat.

That’s fine if you live your life with absolutely no concern about how other people live their lives. But, you now Christians believe in sin. Well… if we believe in sin it would be pretty heartless for us to just walk around like you with no concern for other people. “Well, I guess that’s the way they want to live their life, if they want to go burn in hell, that’s their business”.

Sure looks like you did not really read what I wrote. I explictly said that giving a friendly advice or warning is perfectly fine. What is not fine is to continue the warning is the person turns off your advice. You did what you considered your duty. The person listened to you and says: “thanks, but no thanks”. If you do not respect this (and you explicitly said that you are NOT going to respect it) then you overstepped the line between evangelizing and started to force your idea down their throat. let me paraphrase the Bible: “You are NOT your brother’s keeper”.

If you think that’s what Christians do, then you have every right to hate Christians. Unfortunately we’re all called to evangelise and to do everything we can to save our brothers and sisters.

Of course I do not hate christians. Most of them are respectable and respectful people. But I do not look kindly on the self-appointed zealots. If there would be a prayer for me, it would be: “Oh, Lord, please save me from the people who want to save me from myself”.

Having conversations with people isn’t “forcefully interfering with other people’s lives”.

As long as those people consent to the conversation, there is no problem. But you indicated otherwise. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you were too upset when you made your opening post.

 

[Serious]

Sir, you comparison of the old woman is like comparing feeding the homeless to tying them down and force-feeding them. As a Catholic, I do not go around screaming at homosexuals for them to clean up their act. I do not go to LGBT rallies and scream at them about their sin. I do give respect to them, and I do show them love. Take this example, instead. A friend of mine has a severe addiction to drugs. She doesn’t think it’s wrong, and it’s not really hurting anyone, so she figures, why not? So she goes on her merry way doing various intoxicants, until I come around. I tell her the harms that drugs can do to one’s life, I tell her why they’re bad, and eventually she stops. IS this wrong? Is this being “pushy” or “self-appointed do-goody?” Or is your objection to the fact that we may do this to strangers? Are strangers not as deserving of our truth as close friends. Perhaps the person (the SSA person, not the drug addict) will never come to see it my way. But does this mean that I will suddenly believe what they’re doing to be OK? Of course not. Does it mean I still won’t want to show them what I perceive to be truth? Heck no. You are correct in that I have no right to rake them over the coals for it, or to beat them with my metaphorical word stick over it. But if I know what I truly believe is good for them, do I not have the right to tell them? Are you saying that I cannot exercise my freedoms because it’s inconvenient to someone else? Rather like that couple couldn’t practice their “relations” because it disturbed the old woman? What I don’t like about your argument is that you would support it were it not a “religious issue”.

I am making an exception here. Usually I do not reply to posts without properly separated paragraphs. I urge you to read the post directly above. I am all for the desire to help others, and have no problem of giving or listening a friendly advice. However, I take exception to “hounding” the “sinners”. I hope you see the difference. And no, religion has nothing to do with it. I do not want self-appointed “do-gooders” to preach to me about the dangers of tobacco. I am more than aware of the danger, but - guess what - I may consider the risks worth the pleasure of the smoking.

Take giving a child a bath. Perhaps the child doesn’t want a bath. Why should we (oh, we are terrible tyrants) force this child to do something like taking a bath when he or she clearly doesn’t want to? Or why should we educate children who don’t want to learn? It is clearly tyrannical giving an education to them, because it’s their opinion that they don’t need one, of course. By your logic, we should just dump kids in the street and not say a word to anyone, for fear that we might end up being too “tyrannical.”

Irrelevant. Children are a special case.

 

[JNdoum]

Irrelevant. Children are a special case.

Thank you for replying, and sorry for ranting. I just get a bit tired of having anti-Catholicism/Christianity fired at me often, so I jump the gun sometimes. It’s sort of pre-emptive. Anyway, why are children a special case? I may be a child now, but I don’t really believe you ever stop being given rules or guidelines. Someone is always going to be in charge of you, and it’s very rarely yourself, even if you become “totally independent.” Also, how do you define proper paragraph structure? I’d honestly like to know for future reference.

 

[Serious]

Thank you for replying, and sorry for ranting. I just get a bit tired of having anti-Catholicism/Christianity fired at me often, so I jump the gun sometimes. It’s sort of pre-emptive.

Don’t worry about it, no harm done.

Anyway, why are children a special case? I may be a child now, but I don’t really believe you ever stop being given rules or guidelines. Someone is always going to be in charge of you, and it’s very rarely yourself, even if you become “totally independent.”

Children are a special case, because they do not have the critical thinking estabilshed yet. One “trains” children first, and starts to “teach” them later. It is completely different from ordering or forcing adults, who either do or should know better. The basic assumption is that children are not developed yet, so they need teaching and training - and yes, sometimes forcing. Adults are adults, and not subject to outside forces, unless they start to infringe on the life of others.

The ethical principle is: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. What they do to themselves is their own business. If you think that their action is detrimental to themselves, you are welcome to give them your opinion - once. If they wish to hear more, then you are also welcome to continue. If they turn down your attempt to help, you need to respect their wish. Pretty simple, huh?

Also, how do you define proper paragraph structure? I’d honestly like to know for future reference.

Just press the “Enter” key, when you are done with a specific line of thought. Even better, press it twice, and you will have an empty line separating the different arguments.

 

[ssa_fellow]

Sure looks like you did not really read what I wrote. I explictly said that giving a friendly advice or warning is perfectly fine.

No you didn’t. You only said a “First warning” whatever that means. But you most certainly did not say “friendly advice”… so you lied about having said that. And that’s why I didn’t understand it. Christians don’t give people warnings. We’re not cops. We care about people’s eternal souls. We don’t walk around and say: hey here’s a warning to stop sinning. So, forgive me if I didn’t understand you, and I’ll forgive you for being ingnorant about the Christian faith.

Serious:

What is not fine is to continue the warning is the person turns off your advice. You did what you considered your duty. The person listened to you and says: “thanks, but no thanks”. If you do not respect this (and you explicitly said that you are NOT going to respect it) then you overstepped the line between evangelizing and started to force your idea down their throat. let me paraphrase the Bible: “You are NOT your brother’s keeper”.

Again Christians don’t warn people. So… we don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that. I didn’t explicitly say that at all. That’s another lie. I said I don’t respect sinners I love them. I do not admire their lifestyle, nor do I accept it. I’m not “okay” with it. Would I support a law illegalizing gay marriage? Yes. Would I support a law illegalizing sodomy? Yes.

How is that paraphrasing the Bible? Do you even know where that’s from in the Bible? I am at a complete and utter loss as to how that is a paraphrase of Genesis 4:8-10.

Serious:

Of course I do not hate christians. Most of them are respectable and respectful people.

Respectful. You really are head over heels for this idea of “respect”. Well… it’s like I already said… Christians are not okay with a “whatever floats your boat” mentality. We are not okay with moral relativism.

This all originates from your misunderstand of what I meant by respect in your post #13 and my post #11. If someone doesn’t want to talk about religion and faith with me do I respect that? Of course. That wasn’t what I was discussing.

I’m saying, as Christians we do not respect homosexual activity. We do not respect that lifestyle. We do not recognize that as a valid lifestyle. Do I respect people who I’ve described as “enshrouded in darkness and enslaved to sin”? Of course I don’t. Respect has nothing to do with Christianity.

Love has everything to do with it. Respect means we think more than 1 world view is valid. Well, we don’t. Love means we want all people to be saved. However, all we can do is plant seeds. At the end of the day it is up to God and their own free will whether or not they want to be saved. God will give them what they desire at the end of the days. If they desire Him they will be saved. If they desire sin (separation from God), then that is what they will be given. Eternal separation from God.

P.S.
Please do not do a 7 multiquote of this post. Please.

 

[jeffspot]

If it makes you happy and feel superior, so be it. That is your view, and who cares? There, you have your answer.

Hahaha - thanks. That was put forth smoother than I would have done.

 

[Serious]

Again Christians don’t warn people.

Many of them do. Those zealots, you know. The ones who wish to create laws against the “sinful lifestyles”. You know anyone like that?

I said I don’t respect sinners I love them. I do not admire their lifestyle, nor do I accept it. I’m not “okay” with it. Would I support a law illegalizing gay marriage? Yes. Would I support a law illegalizing sodomy? Yes.

What a strange way to show your love. By trying to make their personal life “illegal”. I wonder, how would you enforce your law against “sodomy”? Install a police in every bedroom? Or a “telescreen” with a thought police?

Respectful. You really are head over heels for this idea of “respect”. Well… it’s like I already said… Christians are not okay with a “whatever floats your boat” mentality. We are not okay with moral relativism.

Oh, I know that. And I would not dream of forcing you to change it… quite unlike you, who advocates creating laws to enforce your “morality” on dissenters… in the name of “love”, of course.

This all originates from your misunderstand of what I meant by respect in your post #13 and my post #11. If someone doesn’t want to talk about religion and faith with me do I respect that? Of course. That wasn’t what I was discussing.

I see. So you would not be OK with putting the “dissenters” into brainwashing camps. That is nice and commendable. It would be OK, however, to penalize them for violating your proposed “laws”. By the way, what kind of penalty do you have in mind? Stoning, mayhaps? Or flogging in the middle of the marketplace? Time-honored traditions. Just curious, you know.

I’m saying, as Christians we do not respect homosexual activity. We do not respect that lifestyle.

Indeed. It would be enough to tolerate it. But even that is too much to ask.

Respect has nothing to do with Christianity.

No kidding. And if some other group (in power) would not respect christianity, and would try to enforce laws against it… what would your reaction be? I can make an educated guess, or even two of them.

P.S.
Please do not do a 7 multiquote of this post. Please.

So sorry. I was unable to “respect” your wish. I tried, but it just happened to come to 7 quotes. But at least they are not “multi-quotes”.

 

[RobbyS]

If it makes you happy and feel superior, so be it. That is your view, and who cares? There, you have your answer.

Do you really think this is just a matter of opinion?

 

[RobbyS]

Many of them do. Those zealots, you know. The ones who wish to create laws against the “sinful lifestyles”. You know anyone like that?

What a strange way to show your love. By trying to make their personal life “illegal”. I wonder, how would you enforce your law against “sodomy”? Install a police in every bedroom? Or a “telescreen” with a thought police?

Oh, I know that. And I would not dream of forcing you to change it… quite unlike you, who advocates creating laws to enforce your “morality” on dissenters… in the name of “love”, of course.

I see. So you would not be OK with putting the “dissenters” into brainwashing camps. That is nice and commendable. It would be OK, however, to penalize them for violating your proposed “laws”. By the way, what kind of penalty do you have in mind? Stoning, mayhaps? Or flogging in the middle of the marketplace? Time-honored traditions. Just curious, you know.

Indeed. It would be enough to tolerate it. But even that is too much to ask.

No kidding. And if some other group (in power) would not respect christianity, and would try to enforce laws against it… what would your reaction be? I can make an educated guess, or even two of them.

So sorry. I was unable to “respect” your wish. I tried, but it just happened to come to 7 quotes. But at least they are not “multi-quotes”.

Do you think think that homosexual relationships are better than whoring around?That is more than tolerated by the culture, it is celebrated.