While Jefferson was opposed to slavery, he owned hundreds of slaves. Apparently, while he opposed the concept of slavery, he was just fine living the reality of the lifestyle which his was afforded by having slaves to work his 5,000 acres.While your at it, look up your own Thomas Jefferson’s attempts to eradicate slavery and long before the Civil War.
To be fair, as a younger gay guy who had 7 years of martial arts instruction under my belt, along with a love of boxing and wrestling, I stood up to straight thugs at any opportunity when I say any harassment going on. I never came to blows with any of them. Once they sized me up, they always shut up and went away. If I had grown up in the 1970’s I probably would have been in plenty of fights.Thank you for your response. I was young, angry and stupid 30+ years ago. I should not have beaten up guys who we thought were homosexual. And I’ve been condemned for this repeatedly here and elsewhere.
When people ask me why I was so violent, I found the best explanation is W. H. Auden, British poet in world war 1. Read him at night school for college.
I and the public know
What all school children learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
It’s a fact of life. Sorry about that.
Meltzerboy, do you have an opinion on when sexual orientation is “fixed”? By that I mean when it is likely to be already determined? The estimates that I have heard most recently are by the age or two years, perhaps five years old, at the latest. If you talk to gay folks, they are pretty certain that it occurs by a very early age - 2 or 3. But I have never heard of the same question being asked of straight people. Do they tend to have same - sex attraction at an early age?Your final statement I find interesting. I think you’re saying gay people, because they unconsciously know they have same-sex attractions which are counter to nature, are driven to commit suicide. This may actually be one of the reasons, but the other may be the torture they are often subjected to. It’s not necessarily an either-or situation. But if this is one of the reasons, surely you don’t believe gays consciously choose to have these attractions, given the fact the unconscious mind, according to Freud, has such a strong influence on conscious decisions. I also don’t believe this attraction is a conscious choice due to the pain it inflicts both internally and externally, unless one believes gays suffer from sexual masochism or psychosis. Assuming the pain is not chosen, then the gay effort you speak of (I notice you didn’t say “gay agenda” though you may have meant that) is probably designed to find some inner peace in an attempt to stay alive, an effort which would be aided by reducing the discrimination gays are subjected to. The desire to live with dignity is not unique to gays: think of Black people’s struggle in the US, Native Americans, the Jewish people throughout history, the Palestinians today, women, the elderly, the disabled. Yes, these groups’ behaviors do not infringe upon the natural order, while gay people’s behavior does. But where did this unnatural attraction and behavior originate? Was it gays’ own choice to live this way, knowing (consciously and unconsciously) they would be rejected and despised? Are gays choosing to emulate the Jewish people, a priesthood who suffers to redeem humanity, or follow in the footsteps of Jesus, the suffering servant? No, their unnatural attraction is not the product of free will (and Freud, the arch defender of biological and psychological determinism would agree): they were created this way by G-d, for what purpose we do not know. Environment may shape their sexual orientation early in life; but this nurturing influence too was not their choice. One might argue, by this logic, it isn’t the murderer’s choice either to kill but he is still held accountable for his actions since they destroy the social fabric. It is true with regard to the murderer. The question remains, however, do we wish to equate a gay person seeking inner peace and wishing not to be ridiculed, ostracized, rejected by family, peers, and Church, and possibly physically beaten, even killed, to the social impact of a murderer? Logic may say there’s no qualitative difference, only a difference of degree, and if society gives an inch, gays will take a mile, for it’s a slippery slope. But this kind of logic is not the exact equivalent of reason, and reason requires us to specify the differences between a murderer and a gay person, just as reason requires us to understand the differences between a murderer and a woman who makes an agonizing choice to terminate a pregnancy to save her own life or as a result of being raped. G-d is in the details.
It would have done me some good to have my rear end booted around by a homosexual. Sure I would have been shocked.To be fair, as a younger gay guy who had 7 years of martial arts instruction under my belt, along with a love of boxing and wrestling, I stood up to straight thugs at any opportunity when I say any harassment going on. I never came to blows with any of them. Once they sized me up, they always shut up and went away. If I had grown up in the 1970’s I probably would have been in plenty of fights.
Yes - acting is when you pretend. You cannot pretend to have sex if you’re actually having it - homosexual or otherwise.Women and girls attempting to get the attention of/arouse males is heterosexual behavior. Even if it appears to be homosexual behavior on the surface.
You know what acting is don’t you?
Just because an actor plays the role of a president, stripper, banker, priest, or horse thief, that doesn’t really make him or her any of those things.
I agree with Angry, it’s not a homosexual behaviour if the women do not find each other attractive and are doing it for a heterosexual reason - to get the attention of a man.Yes - acting is when you pretend. You cannot pretend to have sex if you’re actually having it - homosexual or otherwise.
Your argument is weak and is a textbook case of moral relativism.
As a new convert, my I suggest that you be careful about falling prey to moral relativism. This argument is preposterous. You sound like former President Clinton who tried to blur the lines of sexual conduct when he got caught. Having homosexual sex with somebody ISN’T homosexual activitiy if you’re not attracted to the person?? What sort of nonsense is that?**I agree with Angry, it’s not a homosexual behaviour if the women do not find each other attractive and are doing it for a heterosexual reason - to get the attention of a man.
Woah, woah, calm down. I find your post very aggressive with all the bold and the multicoloured words, do not talk to me like the enemy and show some respect towards me as your sister in Christ.As a new convert, my I suggest that you be careful about falling prey to moral relativism. This argument is preposterous. You sound like former President Clinton who tried to blur the lines of sexual conduct when he got caught. Having homosexual sex with somebody* ISN’T* homosexual activitiy if you’re not attracted to the person?? What sort of nonsense is that?
What about the group of guys who go out and try to bed the ugliest women in the bar - all in the name of a bet? Are you saying that this ISN’T sex because the women were perceived to be ugly and unattractive in the first place?
While we’re at it - let me ask you another question: Why did you convert to the Catholic Church if you KNEW that the Church condemns homosexual behavior?
And you are in a state of moral relativism. I can choose to slit somebody’s throat just to impress a girlfriend or boyfriend but that doesn’t make me a killer? This is a preposterous position you are taking and one that is in complete and total opposition to the Church.Woah, woah, calm down. I find your post very aggressive with all the bold and the multicoloured words, do not talk to me like the enemy and show some respect towards me as your sister in Christ.
Could you please point me to the part in my post which leads you to believe that I do not agree with the Church’s stance on homosexuality? How dare you try and suggest that I disagree with the Church, how dare you put words in my mouth, how dare you suggest I should not have converted!
Your examples are not at all similar to the one Angry gave. Homosexual behaviour is always homosexual behaviour, heterosexual sex is always heterosexual sex, homosexual sex is always homosexual sex. However - can you describe it as homosexual if one of the participants does not find the other attractive and is only doing it for display? You can describe it as a homosexual act but it is not intrinsically homosexual as there is no desire on either side.
Language matters. The type of analogy which is made does influence the reader. A disparaging comparison can encourage rancor. I would encourage people to be kind. I have said unkind things, which I regret.John’s comparison of homosexual urges to bank robbery was made by Catholic Answers staff also - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=550425
Elvis - I see your point that the act itself is sinful, regardless of intent. Or, perhaps in this case, you see the intent as making the act sinful? Please clarify that, if you will. Do you also place the sin of two girls kissing as being of the same moral significance as slitting someone’s throat? I don’t see the analogy as being appropriate, in that sense. Murder is an act with a victim, who may die in a state of mortal sin. Slitting the throat is a violent and painful act. Surely, you don’t equate violent murder with two girls kissing, or do you?And you are in a state of moral relativism. I can choose to slit somebody’s throat just to impress a girlfriend or boyfriend but that doesn’t make me a killer? This is a preposterous position you are taking and one that is in complete and total opposition to the Church.
I simply ASKED you WHY you converted – not that you shouldn’t have converted at all. If you converted because you want the fullness of truth that is found only in the Church - make sure you remain faithful to that truth.
As for the color and boldness – I’m not angry at all. It’s just my style of posting. On the other hand -* your* use of exclamation points . . .
I believe the term is explanation mark. And I only used one, so what about it? Is that overuse?And you are in a state of moral relativism. I can choose to slit somebody’s throat just to impress a girlfriend or boyfriend but that doesn’t make me a killer? This is a preposterous position you are taking and one that is in complete and total opposition to the Church.
I simply ASKED you WHY you converted – not that you shouldn’t have converted at all. If you converted because you want the fullness of truth that is found only in the Church - make sure you remain faithful to that truth.
As for the color and boldness – I’m not angry at all. It’s just my style of posting. On the other hand -* your* use of exclamation points . . .
The homosexual act is gravely sinful - ANY TIME.Elvis - I see your point that the act itself is sinful, regardless of intent. Or, perhaps in this case, you see the intent as making the act sinful? Please clarify that, if you will. Do you also place the sin of two girls kissing as being of the same moral significance as slitting someone’s throat? I don’t see the analogy as being appropriate, in that sense. Murder is an act with a victim, who may die in a state of mortal sin. Slitting the throat is a violent and painful act. Surely, you don’t equate violent murder with two girls kissing, or do you?
Elvis, So, in your opinion, there is little or no difference between the case two girls kissing, or teh case of one girl slitting the throat of the other? You hold this also to be the teaching of the Church?The homosexual act is gravely sinful - ANY TIME.
Whereas venial sin damages our relationship with God - Mortal sin severs it and cuts us off from his grace. Homosexual sext is gravely sinful, as is heterosexual fornication and, yes, murder. Any one of these sins can cut us off from God’s grace, so they ALL have en equal effect on the state of our souls.
**Moral relativism seeks to diminish **the severity of sin by injecting one’s own rationalizations into it.
As I stated earlier - your point of view is that of a moral relativist.I believe the term is explanation mark. And I only used one, so what about it? Is that overuse?
You were certainly trying to imply I did not agree with Church teaching, I found that offensive, especially as it was groundless.
Your analogy doesn’t work. The killer is indeed still a murder. Two girls kissing are still engaging in a homosexual act, but it is not a “full” homosexual act as they do not have homosexual tendencies. What is so objectionable about that? I’m not talking about sin here either, by the way.
A correct murder analogy would be a soldier killing someone in the line of duty, e.g. during a “just war”. They are still killing someone, but is it a killing on comparison with a drive by shooting?
Absolutely.Elvis, So, in your opinion, there is little or no difference between the case two girls kissing, or teh case of one girl slitting the throat of the other? You hold this also to be the teaching of the Church?
Why do you think that Jesus went so far as to make the point that all a man has to do is LOOK at a woman lustfully and he has ALREADY committed adultery in his heart? (Matt. 5:28)Elvis, So, in your opinion, there is little or no difference between the case two girls kissing, or teh case of one girl slitting the throat of the other? You hold this also to be the teaching of the Church?
That’s because you don’t fully understand the Church’s teaching on mortal sin vs. venial sin.**I find the “murder” analogy to be spiteful. There are many other behaviors which would make a more apt analogy, and the fact the it was elaborated on with the graphic phrase, “slitting the throat” in order to intentionally create a disturbing mental image, makes it even more offensive.