Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Mannyfit75]

I do no such thing. A Catholic who does not know that sex outside of marriage is immoral will not have his understanding affected for the worse by my post. Any thinking Catholic would have understood my statement to apply to the sexual act within marriage as you so rightly assumed.

Good.

 

[Realist]

Reality,

I will remain against homosexual marriage because that is not what God made us to be. “Male and Female he created them.” He didn’t made us any other way.

I wasn’t aware that gays thought people weren’t created as males and females.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Although I do not agree that being homosexual is wrong, I do wholeheartedlyshare in Realists query here regarding if Manny and any others believe that gay marriage is based only on sexual lust? Surely if two people were purely displaying lust for one another, that would mean they would likely not bother with wanting to get married anyway. Surely to get married would denote two people in love in the binding pursuit of happiness? Does Manny therefore not think that two people of the same sex can even be in love, or be allowed the right to civil marriage?

NB - The constitutional guarantee of the pursuit of happiness, should mean that everybody should have the right to marry the person of their choice and be happy in that marriage.

Despite this, homosexuals are not being treated with respect. We are being told that our relationships are disordered, that they are not worthy of the same legal certification of others. See mannys post:

Marriage is not a new concept. It has also been declared a civil right by multiple court rulings. There is a difference in the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals, many simply seem too narrow-minded to see it - The right to marry the person they are in love with. Mannyfit this has nothing to do with lust…

First point: Despite comments from posts such as DanteAlighieri 's saying “homosexual sex – no matter how much affection is involved – is inherently lustful.” Marriage has been deemed a fundamental right by multiple court rulings. Clearly this “lust” concept is not shared by all.

But lets get to my second point: the constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness. Do you think that happiness can be found by marrying someone that one does not love? This is the key point.

The notion that one can only marry a person that one is “in love with” is a relatively new one in human history. Marriage requires the ACT of love – that is, a total self-giving; sacrifice for the good of the other in order to help the other get to heaven. Yes, one can find true happiness in a marriage with a spouse one does not “love” (affection) if the marriage is full of real love (sacrifice). Marriage is the image of Christ’s relationship with the Church.

With regards to the notion of marriage as a civil right, let me point out that nobody here is advocating that gay people be denied the “right” to marry. A gay man is perfectly capable (perhaps with help and counseling and prayer) of overcoming that tendency and having a holy marriage with a woman. But calling a homosexual union a marriage is like calling a car a horse: they are not the same thing, and the language is NOT interchangeable.

It is also worth noting that, in these cases enshrining marriage as a civil right, the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman – was assumed by all involved, which is made clear both by the circumstances of the cases and the fact that nothing to the contrary was stated or implied by the decisions. In other words, no precedent was created to suggest that the definition of marriage itself was open to interpretation, so this whole “gay marriage is protected by the Constitution” thing is absurd.

What would be the difference between allowing homosexual “marriage” and allowing a man to marry three women? What if that man could present a really compelling emotional appeal saying that this relationship made him “happy”? The only difference is that such a relationship could be open to life, but that is only one of the requirements for a valid marriage.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Realist]

Dante, a cursory glance at the Oxford English Dictionary would suggest the fluidity of language. Marriage has meant many things in many cultures. It’s meant many things in our own culture. What marriage is is redefined by each generation. Granted, this redefinition is larger than some redefinitions of generations past, but redefinition itself is not uncommon.

 

[jdnation]

I don’t have time to read the entire thread, but I would like to clear something up if it hasn’t already been cleared up.

It is misleading to say that penetration of the anus/mouth during intercourse is itself a sin.

The Church–in her infinite wisdom–teaches that anal and oral sex as well as mutual masturbation are acceptable as a part of foreplay, but must be oriented to vaginal intercourse and the possibility of procreation.

Sorry for the explicit nature of this post. I just wanted to make myself clear.

So long as they are between a married couple and directed towards proper intercourse and procreation, there is no sin committed.

However, such acts can be vices and traps that are better off not being indulged in. Anal intercourse also is healthily unsafe and can lead to infections. Those parts of the body were not designed with intercourse in mind and can lead to problems. The psychology involved in that sort of thing is also disturbing. Not all fetishes are to be recommended or practiced. Some couples may also like to dress up as a priest and a nun to have intercourse because for whatever reason it excites them, but that really doesn’t make it a good idea, and it becomes a mockery and perhaps even a desecration of holiness in the pysche of the person. Anal sex and indulgences in other activities that focus on the pleasure and the primary emotion or fixations on certain parts of the body rather than your partner as a whole person are dangerous and can make one obsessed with stimulation by reducing their partner in their eyes. Sex ought to be more than that, where one can fully appreciate the other person, where they can look into their eyes and throughout intercourse keep in mind the human person who they are committed to and have an entire history with, and let those things fill their mind as they are joined together in the full realization of each other and their connection established and held by God Himself. This should be all the stimulation one should need. To instead replace this with fetishes is to reduce and miss out on the immense experience that a couple could be having… You would be missing out on something far more profound and joyful… So while there is nothing wrong with foreplay, one must not make that an end in itself, nor place so much importance on it especially when it could be so much better. Some things in particular ought to be discouraged because they could be psychologically or naturally disordered, or just plain unsafe, or simply a barrier to a more expressable and fuller union. Not to mention, that they run the danger of having one climax at the wrong time from over stimulation and lack of control. So common sense says that we ought to avoid the more dangerous route and travel by safer paths. This is left up to the discretion of the couple who should keep in mind that sin and the dangers of hell are always before them.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Dante, a cursory glance at the Oxford English Dictionary would suggest the fluidity of language. Marriage has meant many things in many cultures. It’s meant many things in our own culture. What marriage is is redefined by each generation. Granted, this redefinition is larger than some redefinitions of generations past, but redefinition itself is not uncommon.

But things themselves do not change their nature – they either are X or are not X. I am speaking of the dictionary definition of the word marriage, but rather the truth of what marriage is and is not. It is a sacred union ordained by God to unite a man and a woman and to reflect His love for the Church: total self giving, total union, and the begetting of life that mirrors that love.

That which you would call “fluidity of language” is the deliberate redefinition of a concept (marriage) to suit one’s own world view. This is not fluidity; it is relativism.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Realist]

That which you would call “fluidity of language” is the deliberate redefinition of a concept (marriage) to suit one’s own world view. This is not fluidity; it is relativism.

shrug

That’s called language. Your argument is going to be a tough sell to those who don’t share your faith. But on the bright side, you can continue to not respect the marriages of people who aren’t married by the Catholic Church.

 

[hellopeople]

I don’t think Christians are scared of speaking out against homosexuals, I just think that many Christians don’t agree with the church’s stance on homosexuals.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

shrug

That’s called language. Your argument is going to be a tough sell to those who don’t share your faith. But on the bright side, you can continue to not respect the marriages of people who aren’t married by the Catholic Church.

This is a complete dismissal of what I said, not a response. You are on a Catholic forum, responding to a post by a Catholic in a thread started by a Catholic that was originally addressing Catholics. You can’t reasonably expect me to argue from a non-Catholic perspective.

Nonetheless, my argument was about what marriage IS. I made a case for it and your response was to shrug and blow it off. Do you not have an actual counterargument? If not, why are you here?

Finally, your little closing comment was condescending and uncalled for. This is not about respecting or disrespecting people; it’s about what is TRUE.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Hereswith]

I think that it is easy to feel intimidated by the loudness of liberal political voices. I think that even Christians have to choose their battles, day by day, and according to their own available emotional energy.

And I agree with you, I think a lot of the time Christians/Catholics are afraid to speak up against the gay agenda, because they just don’t feel like getting beat down.