Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[donsnow]

Why cant there just be “religious marriage” and “legal marriage?”

I understand the religious reasons for not allowing homosexual religious marriage. But looking from a political perspective, marriage is a social institution. I provides legal benefits for both parties involved. If we are to force homosexuals to partake in different social institution (civic unions/domestic partnerships) that has the same exact function as our existing social institution of marriage, that is the definition of discrimination. Think about the fallacies of “separate but equal” back in the time of MLK. Separate never really is equal, as already demonstrated in states’ contemporary “civic unions/domestic partnerships,” and as demonstrated in our country’s past. A political leader can not institute discrimination. Don’t make this any harder on Obama.

What do you think?

Good morning, Willpower,

Well, let’s factor in history. A lot of young folks nowadays aren’t taught the importance of history. Some of us older folks have let brainwashing that tears up the roots of history distract them from the fact that history still has the same impact as before our roots were torn, starting in the 1960’s. Sort of like, can’t see the trees for the forest.

Okay, what does history have to do with this?

Very simple: in the beginning of history, marriage was a Divine, neither legal nor social, institution.

That is to say, marriage is a Divine gift, just like our being made in the image of God and just like each person’s freedom of choice are Divine gifts.

And, since the 1750’s (not a typographical error, I mean seventeen fifties), very recent in 6,000 years of human history, the legalization and socialization of this Divine gift has obfuscated its origin. But, legal and social changes do not change the Divine origin of marriage, and its gift to both individuals and to society status.

Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.

And, that’s the whole crux.

When you put God and His Holy Roman Catholic Church first, the secular legalities and social norms become no longer distractions nor obfuscations. There is no other secular relationship equal to marriage, it has primacy of place among human relationships. And, there’s not any legal measure nor social rights movement that can change that moral truth. They can pervert it, obfuscate it or destroy it. But, they can’t change it.

And, Satan’s attempts to change that, sparking resistance from God and His people, is the spiritual background to the political, legal and social fooforaw going on in America.

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

Good morning, Willpower,

Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.

And, that’s the whole crux.

Good morning Don,

Could you elaborate a bit on how two men or women exercising their free will to marry/commit themselves to each other civicly, perverts your free will choice to marry/commit yourself to a woman religiously?

Are they not both free will commitments?

Please explain how one perverts or destroys the other? Who has broken your leg?

Satan?

jomoco

 

[Darryl1958]

Good morning, Willpower,

Well, let’s factor in history. A lot of young folks nowadays aren’t taught the importance of history. Some of us older folks have let brainwashing that tears up the roots of history distract them from the fact that history still has the same impact as before our roots were torn, starting in the 1960’s. Sort of like, can’t see the trees for the forest.

Okay, what does history have to do with this?

Very simple: in the beginning of history, marriage was a Divine, neither legal nor social, institution.

That is to say, marriage is a Divine gift, just like our being made in the image of God and just like each person’s freedom of choice are Divine gifts.

And, since the 1750’s (not a typographical error, I mean seventeen fifties), very recent in 6,000 years of human history, the legalization and socialization of this Divine gift has obfuscated its origin. But, legal and social changes do not change the Divine origin of marriage, and its gift to both individuals and to society status.

Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.

And, that’s the whole crux.

When you put God and His Holy Roman Catholic Church first, the secular legalities and social norms become no longer distractions nor obfuscations. There is no other secular relationship equal to marriage, it has primacy of place among human relationships. And, there’s not any legal measure nor social rights movement that can change that moral truth. They can pervert it, obfuscate it or destroy it. But, they can’t change it.

And, Satan’s attempts to change that, sparking resistance from God and His people, is the spiritual background to the political, legal and social fooforaw going on in America.

God loves you,
Don

That is much wisdom in this. Marriage is what it is. It is man and woman becoming one flesh in both a procreative and unitive sense to complete themselves as they were originally created.

Like 7+6=13, this is a basic truth about marriage. Others can insist that it is 7+7=13, or some other nonsense, they can even pass laws to enforce this as being so, but they can never change the basic truth of what marriage is, any more than they can change the basic definition of what it means to be thirteen.

A society that operates under the assumption that 7+6=13, and 7+7=13 are eqally valid expression of 13, are at a distinct disadvantage compared to any society that maintains the basic truth or what 13 really is.

When it comes to marriage, and sexuality in general, the West has moved into such a disadvantageous position.

When it comes to something as basic as marriage, truth very much matters. The Church does not teach this out of contempt or intolerance for homosexuals, but out of love for mankind.

 

[Willpower]

… in the beginning of history, marriage was a Divine, neither legal nor social, institution.
…That is to say, marriage is a Divine gift
…the legalization and socialization of this Divine gift has obfuscated its origin. But, legal and social changes do not change the Divine origin of marriage, and its gift to both individuals and to society status.
…Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.
…put God and His Holy Roman Catholic Church first, the secular legalities and social norms become no longer distractions nor obfuscations. There is no other secular relationship equal to marriage, it has primacy of place among human relationships.
…And, Satan’s attempts to change that, sparking resistance from God and His people, is the spiritual background to the political, legal and social fooforaw going on in America.

God loves you,
Don

Thank you for your response.

I understand that marriage is a divine gift from God. I understand the religious reasons for maintaining it as the union between a man, woman, and God.

The problem is, however: Obama is not a priest. Marriage may have religious origins, but today the word has a legal function as a social institution that provides legal benefits for the parties involved. Obama is a political leader who has to maintain the integrity of the minority on a legal basis. The religious belief that homosexuals should not marriage is not a legal reason for maintaining the stance that they legally cannot marry. He cannot let his actions be controlled by the concerns of religious groups, if there is to be a separation between church and state. This is especially true in the case that adherence to religious concerns would embed the legal definition of discrimination.

As I said before, If we are to force homosexuals to partake in different social institution (civic unions/domestic partnerships) that has the same exact legal function as our existing social institution of marriage, that is the legal definition of discrimination.

For these reasons, I argue for the distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage. As you said, “legal and social changes do not change the Divine origin of marriage.” I have no doubt that Christians will remember the intrinsically divine nature of marriage, as that would even be illustrated repeatedly by the fact that the church only recognizes religious marriage.
But we cannot impose that upon the society at large without solid legal argument. Despite however much Obama may personally be against same-sex marriage, he has to make legal decisions on a basis of legal reasoning. The fact that “marriage has always been… " is not sufficient legal reasoning to assert that " legal marriage should always be…” And as I said, this is especially true when it can be illustrated that separate but equal would lead to the vice of discrimination against homosexuals.

I do not believe that a broader legal definition of marriage would obstruct the religious definition of marriage. But I do believe that it would prevent generations of tension, anger, and divisive discrimination that might only cause people to hate Christians even more.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If we are to force homosexuals to partake in different social institution (civic unions/domestic partnerships) that has the same exact function as our existing social institution of marriage, that is the definition of discrimination.

That is quite true, and the reason opposing gay marriage is not discrimination is that the function of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is *not *the same as that of marriage between people (whether two or more, of whatever sex) whose relationship is not expressed, consummated, or defined with acts of the type that may result in generating new human life.

If marriage is anything but the union of one man and one woman, then it becomes about people’s love and commitment for each other. But if that’s what marriage is, why can’t I marry my brother? My mother? A roommate? Or a whole group of people who intend to permanently share the benefits and burdens of domestic life?

What sets those relationships - fraternal, filial, same-sex romantic, roommates, etc. - apart from marriage is, quite simply and obviously, sex: sexual intercourse. The state has a vested interest for obvious reasons in ensuring children’s health, happiness, and safety. For that reason, it has always known that when acts of the kind that may produce new children - a.k.a. sexual intercourse - occur, that it makes sense to legally encourage monogamy, permanence, and exclusivity in the individuals committing said acts.

So do you see how sexual orientation is actually a red herring in this debate, Willpower? Advocates of traditional marriage are not against gay relationships per se (at least not secularly/legally), but rather are against a societal shift away from keeping marital recognition and encouragement uniquely for those who commit to traditional marital values like monogamy and exclusivity when they intend to engage in acts of the kind that most often lead to new life.

A relationship between members of the same sex has no more or less to do with the ends of marriage than that of two monks living together in a religious order.

 

[donsnow]

Good afternoon, Willpower,

Your forum “handle” (Willpower) speaks of another gift of God … the power to exercise our freedom of choice.

Okedoke, to you post, then.

Citizen, President Barak Hussien Obama II’s Constitutional responsibilty and duty requires him to “…maintain the integrity …” of the minorities and of the majority. He’s responsible for every citizen’s rights and liberties … but, it’s each citizen’s responsibility to maintain our respective integrity. This is where you and I differ, I think. It’s gives a whole different view to the Gay Rights’ demands. With this view in mind, President Barak Hussien Obama II goes astray when he enforces alleged rights of any one segment of the population and neglects the rights of all the other segments of our population.

I have no idea where from where you have obtained the concept of homosexuals being forced to do anything, much less to “…partake in different social institution (civic unions/domestic partnerships)…” They don’t have to do that. They don’t have to desecrate marriage, either. I tried to explain how they do that in my previous post to you.
And they certainly don’t have to try to subdue or bend non-gay citizens to their viewpoint, either.
As a matter of fact there are only two things that both militant and other gays have to do:

1. Learn to accept an honest critique without terming it hate speech or burying it in a verbal storm of diatribe. Which, you don’t do that, thank you.
2. Accept that they live in a world different from theirs and that that world doesn’t have to change to suit them. That goes far beyond being tolerated.

“But we cannot impose that on society without solid legal argument.” Again, you appeal to legalities in these days when our laws have been corrupted from overuse, misuse and abuse. Again, you appeal to legalities instead of morals.

Well, as a matter of fact, “Legal precedence” does enshrine the view that because it has been so it may remain so.

Actually, I see a reverse discrimination: imposing civil unions or such of gays on society discriminates against godly marriage. I explained that in my previous post to you.

Oh, Willpower, don’t you know what Jesus tells those of who follow Him? He says we will be hated, persecuted, brought before judges, imprisoned and even killed for His name’s sake. He very plainly lays out the consequences for following him. So, I know the price of standing up for His Holy Roman Catholic Church and her teachings, which teachings are God’s teachings.

There is a moral distinction between legal and religious marriage. Legal marriage does not fear God and religious marriage does fear God. God has been pushed out of legalities. Consequently, legal has become more often wrong than right.
There’s an old saw from the 1950’s that I’ve seen come more and more true as the law has been abused, misused and overused to rip out this nation’s roots and reapply a godless philosophy of government: “Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.”
Oh, that has become so true since the Marxist counter-revolution to our 1776 Revolution has gained steam and increased headway in America.
You see, Willpower, I want you to see that the Gay Rights is a small part of the 1960’s “Sexual Revolution” which was and remains a small part of this Marxist counter-revolution that I hope I have brought to your attention. History tells all. But, who learns history, nowadays?

Oh, I once thought the Catholic Church should not have Christ’s teaching put into secular laws. However, since without godly morals, all legalities become a vicious legal tyranny of the minority over the majority. And, that’s just as evil as a legal tyranny of the majority over the minority. Without God’s love and truth enshrined in law, the law becomes a necessary evil. It’s just that simple. So, in that light, I accept the Church’s teachings becoming law in society. I submit to you that it is the Holy Roman Catholic Church’s responsibility to impose social justice that grants God’s love and truth equally to all citizens. If some citizens reject that, they’re free to do so. But, they’re not free from the eternal moral consequences.

Now, I am no better a sinner than any gay or other kind of sinner. We’re all equal before God in that we’re all made in His image and we all have the same freedom of choice. We’re also all equal in the sight of God because all of us adults are sinners in His view. He has sent Jesus Christ to free us from our sins. We have the freedom to accept His son or to reject him. We can choose to free ourselves from sin or to wallow in sin. That’s life. But, God loves us all and wants us all free from sin. Any law that precludes that choice is evil.

That’s where I’m coming from.

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

Good morning Don,

Could you elaborate a bit on how two men or women exercising their free will to marry/commit themselves to each other civicly, perverts your free will choice to marry/commit yourself to a woman religiously?

Are they not both free will commitments?

Please explain how one perverts or destroys the other? Who has broken your leg?

Satan?

jomoco

Please Don, don’t ignore a fellow christian’s questions, that I may learn who’s broken thy leg?

If it be satan? Then denounce the evildoer, right?

But what if it be Jesus measuring our tolerance, compassion, and willingness to forgive, leaving vengeance and judgement in His worthy hands?

jomoco

 

[donsnow]

Please Don, don’t ignore a fellow christian’s questions, that I may learn who’s broken thy leg?

If it be satan? Then denounce the evildoer, right?

But what if it be Jesus measuring our tolerance, compassion, and willingness to forgive, leaving vengeance and judgement in His worthy hands?

jomoco

Hi, jomoco,

I notice that the way you posted, keeps your original question from appearing in the quote. However, I remember the question and will repeat it here:

"Could you elaborate a little bit on how two men or women exercising their free will to marry/commit themselves to each other civicly, pervert your free will choice to marry/commit yourself to a woman religiously?

"Are they not both free will commitments?

"Please explain how one perverts or destroys the other? Who has broken your leg?

“Satan?”

Okedoke, here’s my argument as I wrote it in my post #200 on this page of this thread:

"That is to say, marriage is a Divine gift, just like our being made in the image of God and just like each person’s freedom of choice are Divine gifts.

And, since the 1750’s (not a typographical error, I mean seventeen fifties), very recent in 6,000 years of human history, the legalization and socialization of this Divine gift has obfuscated its origin. But, legal and social changes do not change the Divine origin of marriage, and its gift to both individuals and to society status.

Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.

And, that’s the whole crux."

Emphasis added since my original post, but I have quoted that text verbatim without adding nor deleting any words nor punctuation. .Just like I faithfully quoted you.

In the first place, I haven’t said I was perverted. I’m single and celibate to avoid [hetero]sexual sin. I understand there are also homosexuals who are celibate, to avoid sexual sin. I said that God’s divine gift is “to society” as well as the individual.
Let me ask you a question. Would you want gay relations between consenting partners likened unto bestiality?
Now, let’s look at my question from post #200 “Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.”

And, I think you won’t like bestiality being compared to gay relationships, either. Because they are distinctly different.
Likewise, a society rejects gay unions when they are compared to a godly marriage.

Let me state here, that married heterosexuals who commit adultery desecrate their own marriage. They also pervert the society in which they live. So, perversion is not restricted to gays. Any sexuality (and I can think of five different kinds of sexuality) which is not in a conjugal marriage restricted to one man and one woman is a perversion of the procreative act with which God gifted humanity. Gay sexuality is one of the remaining four human types of human sexuality which perverts society.

Not the individual. There’s so much individuality of thought, nowadays that our social structure and social solidarity suffer. Although gay unions don’t pervert godly marriage, they are not comparable without bringing perversion into the society and into peoples’ thinking. People who cling to godly ways of thinking reject gay unions. So do godly societies. There remains in America remnants of godly societies and godly marriages and godly individuals. It’s evil, to force a gay way of thinking onto them.

My allegorical leg is not allegorically broken. I’m allegorically missing an allegorical leg, but that’s not the topic of this thread.

And, no, I will not condemn you. The Jesus Christ I follow says: “I have not come to conde3mn the world, but to save it.” That’s not one of my sins of the heart. I repeat, I’m no better a sinner than any type of sexual sinner, but put this in context: because there are no “special” sinners and so gays are not special. Just a different kind of sinner. The context in which I think and write is generally scriptural. And, St. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles truthfully wrote, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

I ask you, who is any sinner, to judge any other sinner?

God loves all sinners and wants all sinners free of sin. That’s freedom. Freedom to choose sin puts you in fief to Satan. He has no freedom, just sexual bondage of one type or another, as well as other kinds of bondage.
That’s why I’m celibate, because I have seen godless sexuality for what it really is: sex slaves of Satan. And, Satan I rebuke in Jesus’ name.

Oh, I in closing, I think that gay demands for some kind of legal union is still in bondage to Satan: the bondage of greed, the bondage of the love of money. Because legal relationships will open society up to bestowing financial benefits on gays. So, don’t prate to me about freedom. I have loved and served a godly freedom all my life, and earned every benefit I have, by the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

God loves you,
Don

 

[jomoco]

Hi, jomoco,

I notice that the way you posted, keeps your original question from appearing in the quote. However, I remember the question and will repeat it here:

"Could you elaborate a little bit on how two men or women exercising their free will to marry/commit themselves to each other civicly, pervert your free will choice to marry/commit yourself to a woman religiously?

"Are they not both free will commitments?

"Please explain how one perverts or destroys the other? Who has broken your leg?

“Satan?”

Okedoke, here’s my argument as I wrote it in my post #200 on this page of this thread:

"That is to say, marriage is a Divine gift, just like our being made in the image of God and just like each person’s freedom of choice are Divine gifts.

And, since the 1750’s (not a typographical error, I mean seventeen fifties), very recent in 6,000 years of human history, the legalization and socialization of this Divine gift has obfuscated its origin. But, legal and social changes do not change the Divine origin of marriage, and its gift to both individuals and to society status.

Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.

And, that’s the whole crux."

Emphasis added since my original post, but I have quoted that text verbatim without adding nor deleting any words nor punctuation. .Just like I faithfully quoted you.

In the first place, I haven’t said I was perverted. I’m single and celibate to avoid [hetero]sexual sin. I understand there are also homosexuals who are celibate, to avoid sexual sin. I said that God’s divine gift is “to society” as well as the individual.
Let me ask you a question. Would you want gay relations between consenting partners likened unto bestiality?
Now, let’s look at my question from post #200 “Now, if you had a gift from someone so dear to you, would you want it perverted by somebody else? I think not.”

And, I think you won’t like bestiality being compared to gay relationships, either. Because they are distinctly different.
Likewise, a society rejects gay unions when they are compared to a godly marriage.

Let me state here, that married heterosexuals who commit adultery desecrate their own marriage. They also pervert the society in which they live. So, perversion is not restricted to gays. Any sexuality (and I can think of five different kinds of sexuality) which is not in a conjugal marriage restricted to one man and one woman is a perversion of the procreative act with which God gifted humanity. Gay sexuality is one of the remaining four human types of human sexuality which perverts society.

Not the individual. There’s so much individuality of thought, nowadays that our social structure and social solidarity suffer. Although gay unions don’t pervert godly marriage, they are not comparable without bringing perversion into the society and into peoples’ thinking. People who cling to godly ways of thinking reject gay unions. So do godly societies. There remains in America remnants of godly societies and godly marriages and godly individuals. It’s evil, to force a gay way of thinking onto them.

My allegorical leg is not allegorically broken. I’m allegorically missing an allegorical leg, but that’s not the topic of this thread.

And, no, I will not condemn you. The Jesus Christ I follow says: “I have not come to conde3mn the world, but to save it.” That’s not one of my sins of the heart. I repeat, I’m no better a sinner than any type of sexual sinner, but put this in context: because there are no “special” sinners and so gays are not special. Just a different kind of sinner. The context in which I think and write is generally scriptural. And, St. Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles truthfully wrote, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

I ask you, who is any sinner, to judge any other sinner?

God loves all sinners and wants all sinners free of sin. That’s freedom. Freedom to choose sin puts you in fief to Satan. He has no freedom, just sexual bondage of one type or another, as well as other kinds of bondage.
That’s why I’m celibate, because I have seen godless sexuality for what it really is: sex slaves of Satan. And, Satan I rebuke in Jesus’ name.

Oh, I in closing, I think that gay demands for some kind of legal union is still in bondage to Satan: the bondage of greed, the bondage of the love of money. Because legal relationships will open society up to bestowing financial benefits on gays. So, don’t prate to me about freedom. I have loved and served a godly freedom all my life, and earned every benefit I have, by the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

God loves you,
Don

But your view presupposes that homosexuals are not of the same divine origins that we all have a right to claim as an act of freewill.

So homosexuals represent evil satan whereas good catholic law abiding heterosexuals represent more divine origins than homosexuals?

Help me out here Don?

jomoco

 

[The_Reginator]

But your view presupposes that homosexuals are not of the same divine origins that we all have a right to claim as an act of freewill.

So homosexuals represent evil satan whereas good catholic law abiding heterosexuals represent more divine origins than homosexuals?

Help me out here Don?

jomoco

??????

Interesting how people can see the same thing but read it differently.
Don said no such thing.
In essence he is saying that we all sin. Giving in to homosexual desires is one kind of sexual sin. We are free to accept or refuse evil. To accept evil without repenting is to accept the chance of spending eternity without God.
Would you mind pointing out where Don suggests that homosexuals do not have a divine origin? I just can’t see it. (But my tummy’s growling – maybe that’s affecting my vision.)

• Reg.

 

[Willpower]

Thank you for the insight that I have received by reading the responses to my post thus far.

There were some faults in reasoning in the responses (for instance: even people who are past menopause are still able to get married and do not have to apply for civic unions/domestic partnerships–both are institutions which pale in comparison to marriage. This weakens the argument of marriage being defined as a procreative union). But overall, I have a better understanding of why the church is against it.

I have to say, though: If DOMA is not repealed, I strongly encourage that measures are taken to ensure that those seeking civic unions/domestic partnerships have an application process as well as legal benefits that are equivalent to that of marriage. Anything short of that would be divisive discrimination against homosexuals. As it stands, the bulk of states’ civic unions and domestic partnerships pale gravely in comparison to marriages.

 

[jomoco]

??????

Interesting how people can see the same thing but read it differently.
Don said no such thing.
In essence he is saying that we all sin. Giving in to homosexual desires is one kind of sexual sin. We are free to accept or refuse evil. To accept evil without repenting is to accept the chance of spending eternity without God.
Would you mind pointing out where Don suggests that homosexuals do not have a divine origin? I just can’t see it. (But my tummy’s growling – maybe that’s affecting my vision.)

• Reg.

We are all as God made us, including homosexuals.

The true essense of both your and Don’s argument is that they choose homosexuality, rather than being born of God that way.

I disagree, and choose not to judge them, or discriminate against them whatsoever.

jomoco

 

[Darryl1958]

??????

Interesting how people can see the same thing but read it differently.
Don said no such thing.
In essence he is saying that we all sin. Giving in to homosexual desires is one kind of sexual sin. We are free to accept or refuse evil. To accept evil without repenting is to accept the chance of spending eternity without God.
Would you mind pointing out where Don suggests that homosexuals do not have a divine origin? I just can’t see it. (But my tummy’s growling – maybe that’s affecting my vision.)

• Reg.

Don Snow did not say any such thing of course.
It doesn’t matter. People will presuppose and read in between the lines until Don Snow says exactly what people need him to say in order to disagree with the Christian position.

 

[The_Reginator]

We are all as God made us, including homosexuals.

The true essense of both your and Don’s argument is that they choose homosexuality, rather than being born of God that way.

I disagree, and choose not to judge them, or discriminate against them whatsoever.

jomoco

What Don and I are saying has nothing to do with whether or not gays are born as homosexuals or not.
The only important point here is that no one that God has been created in His image (all of us) can wilfully participate in any sort of sinful behaviour without consequences.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I was born with a sexual inclination towards dogs. That my be a part of my make up but I can never give in to it. I may have been born with a sexual attraction towards women. That may be part of my make up but I cannot give in to the desire to have sex with a lady I am not married to. Does that make sense to you now?

 

[jomoco]

What Don and I are saying has nothing to do with whether or not gays are born as homosexuals or not.
The only important point here is that no one that God has been created in His image (all of us) can wilfully participate in any sort of sinful behaviour without consequences.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I was born with a sexual inclination towards dogs. That my be a part of my make up but I can never give in to it. I may have been born with a sexual attraction towards women. That may be part of my make up but I cannot give in to the desire to have sex with a lady I am not married to. Does that make sense to you now?

How convenient for you that as a heterosexual christian you can act on your natural inclinations and gain both heaven and societal acceptance.

Whereas the homosexuals get spat upon societally and legally, then denied heaven for following the same God given natural inclinations you say are evil, and not of God.

Are Homosexuals made by God as they are, inclinations and all?

I certainly wouldn’t judge you for lying with dogs. And if you married one I wouldn’t think of it as perverting or destroying heterosexual marriages either civil or religious.

As long as you don’t gore my ox or break my leg, I say your doings are your own business, go in peace.

jomoco

 

[rlg94086]

I certainly wouldn’t judge you for lying with dogs. And if you married one I wouldn’t think of it as perverting or destroying heterosexual marriages either civil or religious.

As long as you don’t gore my ox or break my leg, I say your doings are your own business, go in peace.

jomoco

You’ve just summed up your complete lack of a moral compass. Thanks.

 

[jomoco]

You’ve just summed up your complete lack of a moral compass. Thanks.

Why would my moral compass go askew because i choose not to judge and shun homosexuals as evil?

That’s not my bag at all. Too medieval for me thank you.

jomoco

 

[donsnow]

That is much wisdom in this. Marriage is what it is. It is man and woman becoming one flesh in both a procreative and unitive sense to complete themselves as they were originally created.

Like 7+6=13, this is a basic truth about marriage. Others can insist that it is 7+7=13, or some other nonsense, they can even pass laws to enforce this as being so, but they can never change the basic truth of what marriage is, any more than they can change the basic definition of what it means to be thirteen.

A society that operates under the assumption that 7+6=13, and 7+7=13 are eqally valid expression of 13, are at a distinct disadvantage compared to any society that maintains the basic truth or what 13 really is.

When it comes to marriage, and sexuality in general, the West has moved into such a disadvantageous position.

When it comes to something as basic as marriage, truth very much matters. The Church does not teach this out of contempt or intolerance for homosexuals, but out of love for mankind.

Good evening Darryl1958,

Thank you, sir.

I think the Church also teaches God’s truth from a love for God.

God loves you,
Don

 

[The_Reginator]

That is much wisdom in this. Marriage is what it is. It is man and woman becoming one flesh in both a procreative and unitive sense to complete themselves as they were originally created.

Like 7+6=13, this is a basic truth about marriage. Others can insist that it is 7+7=13, or some other nonsense, they can even pass laws to enforce this as being so, but they can never change the basic truth of what marriage is, any more than they can change the basic definition of what it means to be thirteen.

A society that operates under the assumption that 7+6=13, and 7+7=13 are eqally valid expression of 13, are at a distinct disadvantage compared to any society that maintains the basic truth or what 13 really is.

When it comes to marriage, and sexuality in general, the West has moved into such a disadvantageous position.

When it comes to something as basic as marriage, truth very much matters. The Church does not teach this out of contempt or intolerance for homosexuals, but out of love for mankind.

 

[donsnow]

But your view presupposes that homosexuals are not of the same divine origins that we all have a right to claim as an act of freewill.

So homosexuals represent evil satan whereas good catholic law abiding heterosexuals represent more divine origins than homosexuals?

Help me out here Don?

jomoco

Good evening, jomoco,

I sincerely apologize for not making myself clear.

1. All humans are created in the image of God.
2. All humans are gifted with freedom of choice (that’s how I understand free will).
3. All humans who have attained the age of reason are sinners.

I’m sorry I didn’t state those precepts more clearly in my previous posts.

People of all sexualities (I will not be limited to the discussion of just one sexuality - that’s reverse discrimination) have the same divine origin: made in the image of God. That’s been a recurring theme in all my posts, so I have not presupposed anything. Since we’re all of divine origin, we will have to answer to our Creator (either in this life or in the next) for what we did to His image in which we were made. He has every right to expect us to take care of that image of Himself which he gave us.

There are few sinners who willingly represent Satan … most of those that do are at least Adepts in the Black Arts. Most sinners are unknowing or unwilling slaves of Satan by putting sex first, or by putting money first, or by putting control, power, worldly goods etc. first.

Even sinners are supposed to put God first. Then, they can find deep regret and/or remorse, truely repent and begin to enjoy God’s love.

God loves all mankind. When we respond to God’s love by loving God, we see things differently.

When a person’s view includes all sexualities rather than only homosexuality, then that person could plainly see what I’m writing. As you can see in this post, I include all sinners, of which sexual sinners are only a part. And among all the sexual sinners, homosexuality is a minority. But, when a person is “hung up” on only one kind of sexuality, they lose sight of the context in which sexuality occurs and of in which sin occurs. That’s been my observation in these matters.

In this context, who is one sinner to judge any other sinner? I’m not any better sinner than any other kind of sinner.

I don’t judge sinners of any kind. I let people judge themselves to me by their word and/or by their actions. There is good fruit from God’s people and bad fruit from Satan’s slaves.

Did I state that plainly?

My signature is not an empty phrase.

God loves you,
Don