Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Syntax]

though we havent killed eachother because we dont live in the same state. all of george straits ex’s live in Texas…all mine live in Arkansas.

Sorry, buddy, I didn’t know.

not a clue what they are talking about.

Ok, cool…

There’s not a “they.” I was just ascribing multiple names to StrawberryJam. I like “PeanutButterRock” better.

 

[Syntax]

Mostly, I’m just a very avid reader of psychology. I love studying how the human mind and emotions work. And in reccent years, this has crossed over into an interest in how psychology, homosexuality and religion can overlap. Of course, there are many who identify themselves as happily homosexual, but my point wasn’t exactly that they’re miserable, but that there’s a lot more going on in their wiring than just deciding to be gay. There’s dozens of theories about what makes a person feel attracted to the same sex. Everything from “being born gay”, to repressed childhood sexual trauma, to a lack of testosterone in early development, to a lack of strong, paternal figure, to strong feelings of isolation as a child and the desire to feel loved by anyone who’s offering, to just experimenting, to an overly oppressive upbringing, to being unable to distinguish between the love felt for a friend and the love felt for a spouse.

And if it was, per chance, a choice, that opens up a whole new can of worms for, what compels a person to make that choice?

I personally think there is no one, single reason why a person identifies as gay, but rather, it’s a mix of reasons, different for each person. Some things could have happened extremely early on in life, resulting in the story often told of, “I;ve always felt this way. I’ve never realted to the opposit4e sex like I was suppose to”

Now, I’m NOT a psychologist, just someone who’s interested, so I can’t give credentiols to any of these theories. Just puttin’ then out there

Just a thought…

I’ve never understood how answering the question of whether being gay is a “lifestyle choice” or somthing that one is “born with” is supposed to have any relevence to the question of whether or not acting on one’s homosexual impulses is morally right or wrong. They are just two different questions. In logic, you can’t derive an “ought” from and “is” anyway, so however the first question is settled, that still doesn’t change the answer to the latter question.

I always found the “nature vs. nurture” question with respect to SSA a **red-herring **about the actual question at stake, and it is pretty lame that people will get caught up in thinking they have to answer the first question before they answer the latter question…So it’s just a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[shondrea]

@ Syntax- I’m not trying to get in any side of this debate. I have my belief on the subject, and I don’t see the need in debating it here. I was just throwing my two cents in. I hate foru debates, with a burning passion. I’d rather debate IRL.

ANYway, I wasn’t trying to post that for the reasoning of providing support for any side. I just posted it because it’s relevant to my interests.

 

[Syntax]

@ Syntax- I’m not trying to get in any side of this debate. I have my belief on the subject, and I don’t see the need in debating it here. I was just throwing my two cents in. I hate foru debates, with a burning passion. I’d rather debate IRL.

ANYway, I wasn’t trying to post that for the reasoning of providing support for any side. I just posted it because it’s relevant to my interests.

I knew you weren’t taking sides…I was just informing you of my opinion…lol!

Thanks for listening.

What is “IRL”? “Independent-republican-liberal”? That would be one confused individual…

 

[shondrea]

Ah, ok! I tend to misread posts very often!

IRL means In Real life. See, I just dislike long forum debates. I use to be so hooked and emotionally involved in them, I’d do little else than just refresh the page waiting for new posts. So, I prefer to discuss, IRL No refresh button required

 

[Syntax]

Ah, ok! I tend to misread posts very often!

IRL means In Real life. See, I just dislike long forum debates. I use to be so hooked and emotionally involved in them, I’d do little else than just refresh the page waiting for new posts. So, I prefer to discuss, IRL No refresh button required

ha ha! Ok, got it.

Yeah, this stuff becomes addicting quick. I understand. Similarly, I try to have decent intellectually stimulating conversations on here, but then some loud-mouthed ninny comes along saying something totally off the wall and uninformed, and I take the bait getting lost in irresolvable disagreements–or I end up having to edit someone’s logical errors throughout a discussion as if I were grading a terribly written essay…ugh…

 

[shondrea]

I know how you feel. I haven’t survived over a year of Gaia’s forums for nothing o.0 Though it ade me pretty good at spotting legitimate from illigitimate/not serious answers

 

[Syntax]

I know how you feel. I haven’t survived over a year of Gaia’s forums for nothing o.0 Though it ade me pretty good at spotting legitimate from illigitimate/not serious answers

haha!

That’s so funny you say that, since I am just now learning this. Just today I refrained from diving right into a conversation with an individual I knew wouldn’t go anywhere. Ya know: someone who likes to hide behind his safe “suspension of belief” default position while taking pot-shots at all poorly-formed religious answers?..So I asked him what his intentions were right from the get-go: “Is your intention to Pot-shot, debate, find constructive solutions, or flaunt your ego?”…He refused to answer, so I left.

I just joined a couple months ago, and I am learning to cut my losses, I guess. It’s stress management.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The reason why the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and abortion is not prevailing is that so many members (Christians) are morally compromised, not just in behavior, but in their opinions. On the one hand, they preach Christian love and responsibility on topics like homosexuality and abortion, but on the other hand, they embrace selfishness and materialism on most other subjects (taxes, economics, guns). Thus they are (somewhat rightly) viewed as hypocrites.

 

[nsper7]

The reason why the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and abortion is not prevailing is that so many members (Christians) are morally compromised, not just in behavior, but in their opinions. On the one hand, they preach Christian love and responsibility on topics like homosexuality and abortion, but on the other hand, they embrace selfishness and materialism on most other subjects (taxes, economics, guns). Thus they are (somewhat rightly) viewed as hypocrites.

Guns, even killing (if it is in self-defense or part of a Just War), are not sinful in themselves. In terms of taxes, a person has to pay them, but in a democracy, one can vote for politicians that they feel will have fiscally conservative views, which is is not sinful.

One problem is that we fail to differentiate between things that are objectively immoral (abortion, homosexual activity) and things that are are not objectively immoral.

 

[Zatzat]

why are the homosexual parents sending their child to a Catholic school whose religious teachings are going to be directly contrary to their own lifestyle and choice of a partner? .

Lots of Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe and ad hear to. Why would it be any different for same sex couples, who are Catholics and choose to send their kids to Catholic school?

I wonder how many practicing Catholics engage in the act of masturbation?

Why don’t I ever see comments such as;

Why are the masturbating parents sending their child to a Catholic school whose religious teaching are going to be directly contrary to their own lifestyle and choice to masturbate?

Again, one particular kind of sexual sin, homosexual sex acts, seems to get signaled out.

 

[Zatzat]

And let’s allow all the members of NAMBLA to marry all the young boys they want. Oh, and don’t forget to extend the right to marry animals too. After all, primates are sentient beings just like humans. They have language, culture, societies, and freely express love and emotions to those close to them.

In many, if not all, secular Western nations, the law, in it’s wisdom, has declared that children cannot give their consent to marry or have sexual relations with adults. Not religious laws, but secular laws.

Animals cannot consent to marriage or sex with a human.

The key is consent. Your extreme examples are pure fail.

Especially taking into consideration the tragic history of religious groups forcing children into marriage with adults.

 

[Newbie2]

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.”

Reference, please, for your claim that the missionary position is the only acceptable way for married folks to have sexual relations?

Methinks you fail to understand what is meant by “free love”. It is not how necessarily one expresses it i.e. which “position” they take, but with whom. Remember, you’re making the “positional” claim as it relates to married heterosexuals.

 

[Syntax]

The key is consent. Your extreme examples are pure fail.

huh? But what happens when two or more parties do consent?

Women are not “forced” into sharing their husband with multiple wives, they choose to. And some children under the age of 18 will consent to sleep with adults all the time.
And what about a sister’s consenting to marry her brother’s proposal to marry her? Should that not be allowed?

Animals cannot consent to marriage or sex with a human.

How do you know? Does a Chimpanzee not have a free will? Many animals love their owners, some even try to have sex with them. So if they wanted to marry, they should be allowed to marry because both parties really love one another.

That’s the same argument for same-sex unions, right? That it should be perfectly permissible for two or more persons who “really love one another” be allowed to marry if they wanted to? So where do you draw the line?

 

[Syntax]

Lots of Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe and ad hear to. Why would it be any different for same sex couples, who are Catholics and choose to send their kids to Catholic school?

huh?? I don’t know of any same-sex couples who are practicing Catholics. It would be just as stupid if you called yourself “pro-life” while believing that abortion was permissible, or calling yourself a “humanitarian” but then torturing prisoners in a POW camp, or calling yourself a “faithful republican” while cheering at Obama’s campaign rallies. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Why are the masturbating parents sending their child to a Catholic school whose religious teaching are going to be directly contrary to their own lifestyle and choice to masturbate?Again, one particular kind of sexual sin, homosexual sex acts, seems to get signaled out.

You are missing the point. The child is withdrawn from the school for the sake of the welfare of the child, not because of his parent’s sin. His parents are NOT Catholic, they disagree with Catholic teaching, while outright opposing and defying it.

It would be just as duplicitous and pointless to send your child to the Boy Scouts but then openly disagreeing with all the princples of the Boy Scout pledge in front of your Child everytime he comes home from Boy Scout camp. What’s going to happen to the Child? He is going to be torn apart between two different sets of values, lifestyles, and cultures.

It’s not an issue of sin: it’s an issue of stupidly sending your child to a place where you don’t think he belongs begin with. The parents need a reality check!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

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.

Manny, since started reading your posts ages ago, I have always respected your passion for the Church and your desire to spread the truth. You are truly a blessing to this forum.

That said, however, I am afraid you are mistaken in the statements I quoted here. The Church condemns a sexual act that ends in a climax that is not procreative – in other words, the man must climax inside the woman’s vagina. This does not preclude anal sex in and of itself, unless it leads to an improper climax. Now, since there is a great risk of infection if a couple were to, er, “switch”, it is clearly not a good idea to fool around with anal sex in a marital act.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is nothing to support your assertion that only the missionary position is permitted. The only requirements of which I am aware are that the act must be a) within a valid marriage, b) unitive in nature, and c) procreative in nature.

I suppose one could argue that certain positions may not be unitive, but that sounds like a matter of personal opinion and conscience. There is nothing inherently immoral (as far as I am aware) about any sexual position. Can you provide a source? If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected; if it’s just your opinion, however, it would be best for you to qualify your statement as such.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Zatzat]

huh?? I don’t know of any same-sex couples who are practicing Catholics. It would be just as stupid if you called yourself “pro-life” while believing that abortion was permissible…

Loads of Catholics take a pro choice / pro artificial contraception / pro euthanasia stance, especially in the Western world.

On another note, as an outsider, I’m curious to know how you seemingly get to decide who is a Catholic and who isn’t a Catholic?

His parents are NOT Catholic,

So, baptized and confirmed Catholics who choose to masturbate or married Catholics who engage in fellatio ( without trying to conceive as a conclusive act) or use artificial birth control…they’re not Catholics either?!

What ever happened to that thing Jesus said, about someone condemning a man for having a splinter in their eye, all while the person holding judgement has a giant log stuck in their eye?

 

[Zatzat]

huh? But what happens when two or more parties do consent?

So long as there isn’t an unfair tax advantage, what’s the harm if someone has 10 wives?

And some children under the age of 18 will consent to sleep with adults all the time.

In the country where I live, the age of consent where a youth can consent to sexual relations with an adult, is age 16. Our society, through the law, has collectively decided that persons under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult.

And what about a sister’s consenting to marry her brother’s proposal to marry her? Should that not be allowed?

Sure, why not, again, so long as there aren’t any unfair tax advantages?

How do you know? Does a Chimpanzee not have a free will? Many animals love their owners, some even try to have sex with them. So if they wanted to marry, they should be allowed to marry because both parties really love one another.

What an odd post? If your claiming that animals can willingly give their informed consent to choose to have sex with a human?

huh? But what happens when two or more parties do consent?

So long as there isn’t an unfair tax advantage, what’s the harm if someone has 10 wives?

And some children under the age of 18 will consent to sleep with adults all the time.

In the country where I live, the age of consent where a youth can consent to sexual relations with an adult, is age 16. Our society, through the law, has collectively decided that persons under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult.

So where do you draw the line?

Fairness and informed consent.

 

[Syntax]

So long as there isn’t an unfair tax advantage, what’s the harm if someone has 10 wives?

ha ha! You’re certainly free to believe that. But you’ll even have quite a number of liberal feminists thinking you’re a pig for allowing such male sexism.

In the country where I live, the age of consent where a youth can consent to sexual relations with an adult, is age 16. Our society, through the law, has collectively decided that persons under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult.

Hey maybe the marriage law is just as discriminating in your country as the marriage laws are in mine. Perhaps 14 is the appropriate age to allow a person to sleep with others. After all, we don’t want to be “unfair” to those 14 year olds.

Sure, why not, again, so long as there aren’t any unfair tax advantages?

ha ha! That’s repulsive. Talk about inbreeding and wholesale family dysfunction!

What an odd post? If your claiming that animals can willingly give their informed consent to choose to have sex with a human?

In case you aren’t aware, primates will actually go through a complicated and sorted process of choosing a mate: this is definitely qualifiable as “informed consent.” And I don’t doubt this kind of attraction happens among them toward the human animal trainers they constantly interact with when they are stripped from their natural habitats.

Fairness and informed consent.

So Koko the Chimpanzee wants to marry you, and you want to marry Koko the Chimpanzee. The principle of “Fairness and informed consent” says you should allow it. LOL!

 

[tjm190]

So long as there isn’t an unfair tax advantage, what’s the harm if someone has 10 wives?

At present, a marriage can only exist between- (1) Two (2) consenting (3) human (4) adults (5) of the opposite gender (6) who are not closely related (7) that are not currently married.

Each of those 6 conditions preclude some potential marriages- certainly it is possible for a man to love two women, a woman who doesn’t love him, his dog, a child, another man, or his sister, or somebody who is already married. Yet, for some reason, we as a society have decided that condition (5), and only condition (5), is discriminatory. I fail to see why.

But as for your remark, if we allow marriage with unlimited partners then marriage becomes, essentially, meaningless. If everyone can get married to as many people as they want, whenever they want, and if the government offers some incentive to do so, then there’s no reason not to. So, the government will most likely stop offering that incentive. Perhaps they’ll stop offering marriages.