Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Mannyfit75]

Homosexual is also against natural law and it is not merely religious issue. If you look at the biology of a man and a woman, both were made for one another. If you look at homosexual behavior, this include anal sex and oral sex, and other sexual simulation. The man and a woman by natural law was given this to give offsprings for the survival of the human race.

Homosexual unions do not produce life because two men cannot produce a child. Second, I have read from a military reservist who is a doctor and have seen persons who live the life of homosexual lifestyle have “medical problems” mainly from STD, and other medical complications. To put it simply, the penis was not made to fit inside the anal hole. Sorry to be graphic, but that is what gay men do with one another.

Heterosexual also do it but it is wrong. Anal sex and even oral sex is wrong. The sexual union is only between a man and woman through marriage. Studies also show that homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender are more sexually active than heterosexual which can lead to more STDs. The missionary position is the only proper way to have sex and it should be between a married man and woman

 

[Zatzat]

Homosexual is also against natural law and it is not merely religious issue. If you look at the biology of a man and a woman, both were made for one another. If you look at homosexual behavior, this include anal sex and oral sex, and other sexual simulation. The man and a woman by natural law was given this to give offsprings for the survival of the human race.

By your definition you could also argue that heterosexuals who masturbate are going against natural law. Where’s the giant bombastic thread and special interest groups that condemn masturbation?

Are wild animals that engage in homosexual behavior, are those animals, living in a natural environment…behaving unnaturally?

Homosexual unions do not produce life because two men cannot produce a child. Second, I have read from a military reservist who is a doctor and have seen persons who live the life of homosexual lifestyle have “medical problems” mainly from STD, and other medical complications. To put it simply, the penis was not made to fit inside the anal hole. Sorry to be graphic, but that is what gay men do with one another.

1. Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex.
2. Some married heterosexuals engage in anal sex.
3. Was the penis made to fit inside a mouth? An awful lot of heterosexuals engage in fellatio, and yet, according to your post…that runs contrary to the natural law, in that it won’t produce a child. Are you going to start a thread condemning heterosexual fellatio?
4. Lesbians can become pregnant through artificial means and give birth to a child.
5. Lesbians don’t have penises. What objection could you possibly have with lesbian sex, as they aren’t sticking anything where it doesn’t " naturally" belong.

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

You’ve got to be kidding me?

You want me to believe that your God is concerned by which position his validly and sacramentaly married worshipers procreate in their loving union?

 

[Mannyfit75]

By your definition you could also argue that heterosexuals who masturbate are going against natural law. Where’s the giant bombastic thread and special interest groups that condemn masturbation?

Are wild animals that engage in homosexual behavior, are those animals, living in a natural environment…behaving unnaturally?

Wild Animals do not have a free will like we humans do. Humans can decide right and right. Animals by their nature live only for survival. It is ridicules to assumed that if animals can have homosexual behavior, so can humans. That is wrong.

Homosexual behavior as St. Paul calls "exchanging the natural for the unnatural.

1. Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex.

The majority of male homosexuals do and it is wrong. Homosexual behavior is wrong and immoral. It is disgusting, and perhaps the most perverted sin that fits in line with other sexual immoralities.

1. Some married heterosexuals engage in anal sex.

According to Church teaching, anal sex is not proper. Only the mission position is permitted. Any marriage heterosexual couples who commit this act should go to confession if they are Catholic.

1. Was the penis made to fit inside a mouth? An awful lot of heterosexuals engage in fellatio, and yet, according to your post…that runs contrary to the natural law, in that it won’t produce a child. Are you going to start a thread condemning heterosexual fellatio?

I condemn any sexual act that is not proper in their design. There have been reported medical cases of individuals who engage in oral sex that have contracted Sexually Transmitted Diseases. I have seen images in my entire military career when we were brief on awareness of sexually transmitted diseases.

1. Lesbians can become pregnant through artificial means and give birth to a child.

In the eyes of the Church, that is a misuse of science. Child birth should be conceived through natural means via union between married man and woman. Lesbianism is wrong in itself.

4) Lesbians don’t have penises. What objection could you possibly have with lesbian sex, as they aren’t sticking anything where it doesn’t " naturally" belong.

Lesbian sex involve the high risk of transmitted STDs.

You’ve got to be kidding me?

You want me to believe that your God is concerned by which position his validly and sacramentaly married worshipers procreate in their loving union?

I am not kidding and I am serious. The view of human sexuality has been corrupted since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. So that is 50 years of generations of American youths that have been corrupted in the name of “Free Love.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

In addition to my own statement I like to quote Q&A from the Chastity Website:

**If ten percent of animals are homosexual, how can it not be natural for some humans to be born that way as well? **

Here are three things to consider:

First: It is true that some animals engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex. However, when human scientists view this, they often read their own agendas into the animals’ motives. For example, imagine two scientists observing dogs at a park. If one male dog mounts another, a scientist with an agenda to prove that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom might consider this behavior as proof for his theory. However, a scientist with experience studying dogs would explain that mounting is an expression of social dominance. Furthermore, animals in heat exhibit all sorts of strange mating behavior. But that does not determine the animal’s sexual identity as being “homosexual.” One homosexual scientist noted that while some animals do engage in same-sex mating behavior “it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.”[1]

Second: It is not true that ten percent of animals are homosexual. Do you really believe that one in ten cats is homosexual? That 10 out of every 100 houseflies are homosexual? That 100 out of every 1000 goldfish are homosexual? If these animals were inherently homosexual, how would they pass this on to future offspring? They would all die out, because nature frustrates homosexuality. It is a self-defeating trait. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals… For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”[2]

Third: Do animals give us a model for moral living? If some animals practice cannibalism of their young, does this mean anything for humans? Why compare ourselves to the beasts? Why look down to the animals to see how we should live? Why not look up to God, and who he calls us to be? After all, who really wants to pattern their life after animals?

The origins of homosexuality are not simple to understand. Those who have these attractions are often at a loss to explain where they come from. All they know is that they feel this way, and that’s where they’re at. So we should love them, respect them, and invite them to the live virtue of purity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Considering that 10% of the population is gay, don’t you think the Church just needs to get with it?

There are three things to consider here.

First, let’s look at where that “10%” figure comes from. The man who proposed that statistic was named Alfred Kinsey. Back in the 1940’s, when he did his “research,” the general population wasn’t very open to divulging their sexual lives. So he looked elsewhere to find his data.

He arrived at the 10% number by sampling 5300 white male subjects. Of these, 2800 of them were sex offenders or other criminals. He also sought out male prostitutes, and homosexual activists at gay bars. From this bunch, he came to the conclusion that ten percent of all guys are homosexual. Needless to say, those who have studied his methodologies aren’t convinced with his conclusions.

Secondly, it appears that the actual numbers for homosexuality are far lower than Kinsey proposed. Paul Cameron Wrote a book called The Gay Nineties, and in it he estimates that the national average of men is 3% and for women it is 1.5%. Regardless of what percentage of the population is gay, this does not determine the morality of a person’s actions, or the teaching of the Church. For example, if 10% of the population has shoplifted, this would not make the behavior ethical. So, the Church does not look to modern culture to determine her teaching. She looks to divine revelation, as found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Thirdly, no matter what percentage of the world has same-sex attractions, they must all be treated with dignity, respect, and love, and called to lives of holiness.

 

[Mannyfit75]

For further reading go to chastity.com/chastity-qa/homosexuality/homosexuality

Homosexual Persons should seek the life of holiness and abstain from all sexual activity. God does not want us to die in our sin. He wants us to be pure. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who are pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

To see God is totally happiness. Homosexual sexual behavior gives a false sense of happiness. It is more of an addiction like alcoholism.

If you have ever taken a class in psychology, you probably learned about Pavlov’s dog. Pavlov was a guy who rang a bell every time he was about to feed his dog. By doing this, the dog came to associate the bell with food, and would begin salivating at the sound of the bell. This is known as a trained response.

The human mind can be trained in the same way. In fact, the pleasure center of the brain is the most easily trained part of the human mind. This place in the brain is called the Medial Pre-optic Nucleus (MPN), and when the body experiences great pleasure, as in a sexual release, this part of the brain is rewarded. According to the research of Dr. Douglas Weiss, when a person experiences sexual arousal, the brain releases endorphins that help train the MPN to associate pleasure with whatever the person is doing, looking at, smelling, and so on.[1] Unconsciously, a person forms a bond between a particular image, scent, or another person through sexual intercourse such as homosexual intercourse.

 

[Zatzat]

Only the mission position is permitted.

When can we expect you to create a thread outlining the wrongs that married couples commit when having sex in other than the missionary position?

On another note, I didn’t know that the Roman Catholic Church believes that only the missionary permission is permissible in the eyes of God.

Are you suggesting the missionary position is the official Vatican approved sex position for married Catholics? If so, I genuinely didn’t know that.

I condemn any sexual act that is not proper in their design.

By sheer numbers alone, more married heterosexuals of all religious stripes are engaging in the sin of oral sex.

By sheer numbers alone, more heterosexuals of all religious stripes are committing the sin of masturbation.

Which begs the question, where are your threads rallying the worlds 2 billion + Christians to fight against the immorality and sinfulness of masturbation and oral sex between married heterosexuals?

Lesbian sex involve the high risk of transmitted STDs.

Two monogamous married lesbians are no more at risk of catching an STD than married heterosexuals. Not sure what your point is.

 

[chrysostim83]

I fail to see how Christians aren’t speaking out against the evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the “homosexual inclination” (whatever that may be). Our Mother Church has issued numerous documents on this subject; She backs out of charities when non-discrimination laws threaten to compromise the obviousness of Her opposition to homosexual relationships; Her message is so well-known throughout the world that most gay people are convinced they couldn’t become Catholic without giving up their identity and self-respect. And aren’t we Catholics continually to be found making our Church’s teaching known in workplaces, newspapers, blogs, and forums like these? What more could anyone want?

 

[Major_Tom]

By sheer numbers alone, more married heterosexuals of all religious stripes are engaging in the sin of oral sex.

By sheer numbers alone, more heterosexuals of all religious stripes are committing the sin of masturbation.

Which begs the question, where are your threads rallying the worlds 2 billion + Christians to fight against the immorality and sinfulness of masturbation and oral sex between married heterosexuals?

:clapping: Nice one…!

 

[Mannyfit75]

:clapping: Nice one…!

If they commit sin they ought to repent and then preach the immorality of homosexual behavior. Homosexual marriage is contrary to the natural law and it is evil. God does not wish mankind to die in sin, but to return to him.

Like I said, it is time for Christians to stand up against Homosexual Activist. If not, they are cowards and hypocrites.

This new covenant established by Jesus have become immoral, but letting their passions dictate their behaviors. They have abandon God for the pleasures of this world.

“Blessed is a Christian who keeps the precepts of God, and remain righteous. Woe to that Christian who does not repent for his own sins.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Two monogamous married lesbians are no more at risk of catching an STD than married heterosexuals. Not sure what your point is.

The sin of homosexual behavior should never be approved

 

[St_Francis]

…By sheer numbers alone, more married heterosexuals of all religious stripes are engaging in the sin of oral sex.

By sheer numbers alone, more heterosexuals of all religious stripes are committing the sin of masturbation.

Which begs the question, where are your threads rallying the worlds 2 billion + Christians to fight against the immorality and sinfulness of masturbation and oral sex between married heterosexuals?..

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. There was a huge outcry (and subsequent backing-off) when Jocelyn Elders recommended masturbation as the “cure” for “teenage hormones.” (Not quoting her directly, those are just in quotes because those are not really what they are.)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Civil authorities have no authority to claim what is morally right, especially when demand of homosexual marriage. I like to quote CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

The Church teachings require all Catholic politican or Christian politican to fight for the traditional marriage.

Here it is:

1. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

1. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

1. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10

 

[Mannyfit75]

((continues))

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

[Mannyfit75]

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

1. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

 

[Mannyfit75]

From the social order

1. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

1. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

 

[Mannyfit75]

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[hellopeople]

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.

That is hypocritical IMO. If they kick kids out for this, they should do a moral background check for every parent. Maybe they should kick kids out that have parents that have been divorced and been remarried as well. Right?

 

[hellopeople]

Let’s face facts here. They do not want to listen. Anyone who has seen protests at a Gay Pride Parade would see that they’re an oversensitive, hostile, and violent bunch when it comes to people accosting them regarding their lifestyle.

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.

 

[hellopeople]

Yes, the gay agenda is wrong. Yes, there are those out there who hate the Truth. And yes, there are also those out there who are simply ignorant of God’s one true Church.

The arrogance on this board is astounding.