Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Syntax]

The arrogance on this board is astounding.

No person is “arrogant” simply because he calls upon people to stand up for what he thinks is right.

You just don’t like the conviction displayed in this thread.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think this is a bit unfair. What would you do if someone came and protested something your church was doing? I know that these gay people don’t belong to the religion of homosexuality, but they feel strongly about their rights and I don’t think that you should go and protest. I don’t blame them for being upset about people protesting their lifestyle.

Where pray tell have I even advocated the silly antic of protesting the gay pride parade? Stupid as I find the parades themselves, you obviously don’t know how to read before opening your mouth. If I were to decry something as futile and pointless as confronting gays, why would I advocate it? I’m only pointing out the obvious fact that homosexuals are not spared from being labeled a violent, foul-mouthed, and oversensitive minority. That pig Perez Hilton is a prime prize of an example, that’s for sure.

 

[Zatzat]

( on married heterosexuals engaged in the sin of fellatio and of the billions of persons who masturbate)

Someone said “Nice one!” in response to this, but the reason Christians are not rallying around this is that no one is trying to use the government to force normalisation of these activities down our throats.

Those who masturbate ( majority of humans) and those married heterosexuals who engage in fellatio aren’t trying to use the government to normalize the activities, for the simple fact that no is trying to deny them their civil rights or discriminate against them. Further, one could easily argue that both activities are so mainstream and practiced by the majority of human beings, that they already are normalized.

Masturbation is a sin, homosexual sex is a sin. Yet, when’s the last time group of Christians organized themselves and protested against the worlds masturbators?

Imagine you have a Presidential candidate, picture some scandalous headlines that deal with past sinful behavior…

1. ’ Presidential hopeful had Gay sex in college '.
2. ‘Presidential hopeful was the recipient of fellatio in college.’

‘3) Presidential hopeful masturbated while in college.’

1. ’ Presidential hopeful had intercourse in other than the missionary position with his wife.’ ( That’s one of the OP’s concerns)

Now, which of those 4 past sinful actions would most impact our imaginary candidate?

 

[andyandely1997]

All sex outside of marriage,which is only between one man & one woman, is a mortal sin. But trying to justify homosexual behavior by pointing to heterosexual sin is an invalid arguement. Two wrongs do not make a right. A sin is a sin, no matter what we think. Our current culture tends to think a sin can stop being a sin, because we are so enlightened. Christ is unchangeable. Our pride does not stop a sin from being a sin.

I believe the Church needs to hit all sexual sin head on, for if we tend to only focus on homosexual sin, we start to lose credibility. But this is not an excuse to let homosexual sin get a pass. Plus, the homosexual community has brought the spotlight on themselves by trying to push gay marriage within the U.S.

As far as kids being hurt, do not blame the Church. Blame any heterosexual or homosexual adult who puts their life above the kids. We want to do what makes us happy first, kids maybe second & God last. Our pride leads us astray & then we want to blame the Church for taking a stand, please, give me a break. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions today; always an excuse, always somebody else is at fault.
A kid deserves a Mom & a Dad, but our society has allowed homosexual couples to adopt. Again, putting the adult before the kid. So the Church is forced to take a stand for Christ, and unfortunately, the kids are the ones that get hurt. All parents will have to answer to God about how they raised their kids, especially, if you have had them baptized. If baptized, parents have made vow before God to raise them in the Christian faith. And too many parents take this vow lightly.

 

[Newbie2]

I read about that and there is a Catholic School that kick out kids who’s parents are lesbian or gay. I support that diocese because the life style of homosexual is contrary to the natural law and God’s law. Human beings are born heterosexual. Homosexuals are confused people. They need to seek God rather than themselves.

Why kick the kids out? What sin did the children commit?

Yeah, that’s a little tricky, isn’t it?

Homosexual agenda…just what is that?

I think most people would agree that the “homosexual agenda” refers to the attempts of the homosexual activists that push the notion that we all must accept homosexual behavior not only as “normal” but going so far as to advocate silencing those of us who consider it morally objectionable. As well, the indoctrination of school-aged children, when in school and away from their parents, is part of this agenda. “Gay rights”, “gay marriage”, etc. are all part of the activists agenda.

**The missionary position is the only proper way to have sex **and it should be between a married man and woman

Whoh, whoh, whoh. Where did you get this idea? Married man and woman, agreed. But the “missionary position” the “only proper way”???

When you write stuff like that, please at least try to justify it, OK?

But to address the point in the OP, how would you suggest we “speak out” against homosexuality, specifically in the USA where I live? I used to write my congressman and Senators when any “Pro-gay marriage” legislation came up, and I used to get a nicely worded, condecending letter back from them, telling me how they were working so very hard for me (in vague generalities).

I still send things, occasionally. I send out the action postcards from the American Decency Society, mostly to corporations that are pushing the Homosexual agenda as described above.

What else to do?

 

[hellopeople]

No person is “arrogant” simply because he calls upon people to stand up for what he thinks is right.

You just don’t like the conviction displayed in this thread.

No, its arrogance.

 

[Magnanimity]

Those who masturbate ( majority of humans) and those married heterosexuals who engage in fellatio aren’t trying to use the government to normalize the activities, for the simple fact that no is trying to deny them their civil rights or discriminate against them. Further, one could easily argue that both activities are so mainstream and practiced by the majority of human beings, that they already are normalized.

Masturbation is a sin, homosexual sex is a sin. Yet, when’s the last time group of Christians organized themselves and protested against the worlds masturbators?

Imagine you have a Presidential candidate, picture some scandalous headlines that deal with past sinful behavior…

1. ’ Presidential hopeful had Gay sex in college '.

…

Now, which of those 4 past sinful actions would most impact our imaginary candidate?

There are so many responses called for here, but let me just jump right in. You have too many issues here which are not kept properly distinguished.

First, you would agree that having gay sex is separate and distinct from advocating gay marriage, correct? If so, then your illustration about the imaginary candidate is not nearly as powerful as you imagine. Sexual experimentation in college, especially when such has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to redefine marriage is supposed to shock and awe the American public? Even if it does, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

Second, the OP’s opinions about sexual positions are his alone, so don’t think for a moment that your criticism of him here extends beyond to the wider Church.

Third, you need to be clear on Catholic interpretations of sexual ethics before you start using these terms of fellatio and masturbation. If you believe that most sexually active Catholic couples do not orally stimulate each other’s genitalia nor engage in mutual (and self!) stimulation during the conjugal act, then you are incredibly mistaken. It would probably be of some use to you to appreciate the common Catholic understanding of some relevant Church teaching (eg, Humanae Vitae).

Fourth, you’re actually going to have to argue that gay marriage is a civil right, just as a polyamorous individual would have to argue that polygamy is a civil right. In neither case have the American people seen fit to ‘expand’ marriage in these ways. Marriage itself is a civil right, but it is far from being obviously true to the American public that gay marriage is such a right.

Fifth, the important and crucial disanalogy between oral sex/masturbation on the one hand and gay marriage on the other, is that the latter involves a reconstitution of marriage (and hence, the family). But, who would argue that whether or not to engage in oral sex/masturbation has anything to do with a redefinition of marriage and the family?

These posts get so inherently confused when gay sex is treated as the same thing as, or in some way entails, gay marriage. There never has been this connection at any previous time in human history. Why would it exist now?

 

[Syntax]

No, its arrogance.

Is one’s passionately objecting to polygamy, bestiality, or man-boy sex an instance of arrogance too?

 

[Zatzat]

I believe the Church needs to hit all sexual sin head on.

Should Christians openly condemn and rally against all sexual activities that do not result in conception, just as they do against homosexual acts. I would sincerely respect such a stance.

However, the majority of Christians cherry pick which sexual sins they will condemn and rally against it.

I do not respect that.

 

[Syntax]

Should Christians openly condemn and rally against all sexual activities that do not result in conception, just as they do against homosexual acts. I would sincerely respect such a stance.

However, the majority of Christians cherry pick which sexual sins they will condemn and rally against it.

I do not respect that.

You’ve completely misunderstood the Official Catholic position. Read Magnanimity’s post #44 to you before you continue drawing faulty analogies.

 

[Zatzat]

You’ve completely misunderstood the Official Catholic position. Read Magnanimity’s post #44 to you before you continue drawing faulty analogies.

Quite the contrary…Chaste homsexuals are Ok. Homosexual sex acts are a sin.

I understand very well what the Catholic Church teaches.

One need only browse through this very forum, let alone other Christian forums, to see first hand what sexual sin concerns the majority of Christians.

Homosexual sex acts.

Need I remind you that there are protestants who will openly condemn homosexual sex acts, yet declare masturbation a sinless act.

 

[Syntax]

Quite the contrary…Chaste homsexuals are Ok. Homosexual sex acts are a sin.

I understand very well what the Catholic Church teaches.

One need only browse through this very forum, let alone other Christian forums, to see first hand what sexual sin concerns the majority of Christians.

Homosexual sex acts.

Homosexual acts are a sin just like masturbation and sodomy. Catholics rally against homosexual marriage and attempts to promote **gov’t sanction **of this sin just as they would if certains groups of people in society promoted sanctioning of masturbation and sodomy. There is no “cherry picking” going on here.

Need I remind you that there are protestants who will openly condemn homosexual sex acts, yet declare masturbation a sinless act.

So? Catholics believe protestants would be wrong on this score.

 

[Zatzat]

Homosexual acts are a sin just like masturbation and sodomy. Catholics rally against homosexual marriage and attempts to promote **gov’t sanction **of this sin just as they would if certains groups of people in society promoted sanctioning of masturbation and sodomy. There is no “cherry picking” going on here.

Christian groups openly fight against homosexuals from being able to marry.

Name one Christian group that openly fights against married heterosexuals who engage in anal sex together, from being able to get married.

Heterosexuals get to commit all sorts of sexual sin, without fear of being openly condemned by special interest groups.

Yet, another sexual sin, homosexuals getting married, draws the ire of Christian special interest groups.

I don’t get it.

 

[Syntax]

Christian groups openly fight against homosexuals from being able to marry.

That’s right. Marriage is a protected institution between man and woman, and has been that way for 2000 thousand years. And we fight to protect that institution.

Name one Christian group that openly fights against married heterosexuals who engage in anal sex together, from being able to get married

What individuals do in the privacy of their homes doesn’t outright and **publicly threaten **the institution of marriage between man and woman. But promotion of same-sex unions, on the other hand, does publicly threaten the institution of marriage. The homosexual community’s attempt to promote their unions as a publicly recognized institution is what is problematic, not the homosexual himself or what he does in private.

Further, Catholics don’t hunt down sodomizing homosexuals in the privacies of there own homes just as they don’t hunt down private masturbators. So I don’t know what you are even talking about here. You are drawing faulty comparisons.

Heterosexuals get to commit all sorts of sexual sin, without fear of being openly condemned by special interest groups.

So do homosexuals. Like I said, no Catholic is seeking to lock homosexuals up for their behavior. The issue on the table is** marriage **and **promotion of sinful behavior **in that marriage, not people’s private sex lives.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The issue boils down to christians deciding if some people should not have the same legal rights as others. We have seen this before, and now we no longer must tolerate the christian agenda that people of different pigmentation of skin can not marry, or have the same legal rights. We have seen this before, where the first country that allowed women to vote was Finland, if I am not mistaken. Some young people here may not know that, or who was behind all these atrocities.

 

[Syntax]

The issue boils down to christians deciding if some people should not have the same legal rights as others. We have seen this before, and now we no longer must tolerate the christian agenda that people of different pigmentation of skin can not marry, or have the same legal rights. We have seen this before, where the first country that allowed women to vote was Finland, if I am not mistaken. Some young people here may not know that, or who was behind all these atrocities.

Skin color obviously has nothing to do with marriage. Homosexuality does–very much so!–have everything to do with marriage–just as polygamy, bestiality, and man-boy sex does. So implying homosexual unions are just as benign as unions of people with different skin colors is a totally disanalogous comparison.

Further, I’ve never heard that disallowing people of different skin colors to marry was ever part of Christian Doctrine as a whole. It might have been a cultural phenomenon at one time among some slave-owning christian racists. But I’m quite certain this “rule” was never advanced as part of the basic tenets of christianity at large.

 

[Lethe]

What individuals do in the privacy of their homes doesn’t outright and **publicly threaten **the institution of marriage between man and woman. But promotion of same-sex unions, on the other hand, does publicly threaten the institution of marriage. The homosexual community’s attempt to promote their unions as a publicly recognized institution is what is problematic, not the homosexual himself or what he does in private.

How? How does homosexual marriage threaten the institution of marriage?

And there are actually many people who would openly admit they have anal sex, or masturbate. It is not just a private issue. Maybe time would be better spent trying to get laws against most internet porn, which portrays far more repugnant things than ‘vanilla’ homosexual sex, and certainly does threaten relationships, as seen from many posts on this forum.

 

[Syntax]

How? How does homosexual marriage threaten the institution of marriage?

Well if you don’t think there exists any ideal for marriage to live up to, of course you’re going to think there is nothing problematic about legalizing same-sex unions. But let me ask you this: would you not think that if we legalized incestual marriages, polygamy, and man-boy unions that this public act would threaten the institutiuon of marriage by having a direct impact on the cultural values of society and how people perceive their sexual and familial roles? Where do you draw the line between what is, and is not, acceptable? There are many people who try to push for the legalization of these things too, and it sounds distasteful to much of society–and for good reason. So it’s a cultural war concerning one’s values and the spiritual well-being of future generations.

And there are actually many people who would openly admit they have anal sex, or masturbate. It is not just a private issue.

And whoever talks openly about it should be reprimanded. I don’t want to hear about. But that’s not the issue.

You know just as well as I do that the no one is trying to push a **legal **agenda about masturbation and anal sex. The legalization of gay marriage is rapidly becoming just as big a political issue as abortion. So your comparison of the widespread legal agenda concerning marriage with whatever passing concern one may have about what a couple does in the bedroom is just flawed from the start.

Maybe time would be better spent trying to get laws against most internet porn, which portrays far more repugnant things than ‘vanilla’ homosexual sex, and certainly does threaten relationships, as seen from many posts on this forum.

Of course! People have been trying to get pornography banned for years!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Skin color obviously has nothing to do with marriage. Homosexuality does–very much so!–have everything to do with marriage–just as polygamy, bestiality, and man-boy sex does. So implying homosexual unions are just as benign as unions of people with different skin colors is a totally disanalogous comparison.

Further, I’ve never heard that disallowing people of different skin colors to marry was ever part of Christian Doctrine as a whole. It might have been a cultural phenomenon at one time among some slave-owning christian racists. But I’m quite certain this “rule” was never advanced as part of the basic tenets of christianity at large.

It may not have been a basic tenent of christianity “at large”.
Can I ask you when it was Okay for a christian to marry a Jew in a christian church?
It is now, amoung most christians.

Was it always?

 

[Syntax]

It may not have been a basic tenent of christianity “at large”.
Can I ask you when it was Okay for a christian to marry a Jew in a christian church?
It is now, amoung most christians.

Was it always?

If there were any “rules” legislating against this, they would only be rules concerning religious differences between people, not racial differences between them. And I’m sure you can find the answer for yourself, because I’m not sure.