D
davidv
Guest
Why?
- Status
S
Soulewolf
Guest
because sex isnt just an act used to procreate. Sex is the physical act of Love.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
My guess would be that the homosexual is uncomfortable with the idea of natural law because homosexual sex simply is repulsive to most people, and homosexuals just can’t deal with that fact. So if there is no natural law, then we can all pretend there is nothing repulsive about homosexual sex.
What then is the point of homosexual sex? It cannot be for children. It can only be for sexual pleasure. If sexual pleasure is the ultimate criterion, then why not extend that justification to sex with animals, if it so pleases a man or woman to have sex with animals? After all, if there is no natural law against sex between men, or sex between women, why should there be a natural law against sex with animals?
Does anyone in this thread believe that it is natural to have sex between men and animals? If it is not natural, then there certainly **is **such a thing as unnatural sex!
What then is the point of homosexual sex? It cannot be for children. It can only be for sexual pleasure. If sexual pleasure is the ultimate criterion, then why not extend that justification to sex with animals, if it so pleases a man or woman to have sex with animals? After all, if there is no natural law against sex between men, or sex between women, why should there be a natural law against sex with animals?
Does anyone in this thread believe that it is natural to have sex between men and animals? If it is not natural, then there certainly **is **such a thing as unnatural sex!
L
Leela
Guest
What makes me uncomfortable with natural law is that it is used to condemn whatever you think is icky as if thinking something is icky is the same as rationally arguing that it is immoral. Above you confirm what I have contended all along–that natural law theory is nothing more than the attempt to borrow the authority of Nature to bolster your current prejudices. It doesn’t work on me or on most people these days. It doesn’t lend any extra weight to your claim that you find homosexuals icky to say that it is only natural that you think so. It is the same sort of argument that people used to oppose biracial marriage which still feels icky to a lot of us facing the prospect of our sisters or daughters dating a black man. But most of us who feel icky recognize that that icky feeling may be natural or not. It doesn’t matter whether it is natural. It is still irrational and we know it would be immoral to act upon such racial biases in discriminatory ways. So it will be with homosexuality when bigotry toward homosexuals will be as socially unacceptable as bigotry based on race is becoming today. It won’t happen over night. It will still feel icky for a while, but right is right whether or not it feels icky. Feeling icky doesn’t excuse bigotry.
Best,
Leela
A
Abu
Guest
Great post (#759) Charlemagne II
You can see the failure to reason from cause to effect in those who debunk what the pagan philosophers were able to see – typical of the chaos now present in society, from East to West.
The inability to even know the meaning of love – that equates love with sexual pleasure solely while trying to eliminate the natural gender difference and procreation, one essential end of the marital act, speaks volumes.
The typical confusion of Leela that “bigotry toward homosexuals will be as socially unacceptable as bigotry based on race is becoming today” is the irrationality that blocks the understanding of the inbuilt natural moral law.
Since we are all made equal (NOT identical; NOT interchangeable) in the image and likeness of God, we all have this human dignity regardless of race, sex, age, ethnic background or colour, and we all should be treated as children of God with the same human rights, without discrimination. This includes those with homosexual/lesbian orientations or inclinations. However homosexual/lesbian orientation is an objective disorder or compulsion similar to a compulsion to gambling or alcohol, and sexual orientation has no quality comparable to race, sex, ethnic background or colour.
We all possess God given rights to discriminate against immoral, unhealthy, ugly, society-disturbing behaviour. We all possess rights to live in peace and decency, not to have to lock up our children for their protection, and rights to defend the basic elements of our civilisation.
TYPES OF DIFFERENCES
**Skin Colour ** – is genuinely accidental: it has no bearing as to whether anyone is human; it has no moral significance: whether one is a good person.
**Gender ** – this is not genuinely accidental, because God has created this differentiation and made it central to our imaging of Him. “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen1:27). Therefore gender differentiation is part of what it means to be a human. “God looked at everything He had made, and He found it very good” (Gen 1:31).
**Sexual Orientation ** – not genuinely accidental because this orientation is a disorder, for God created male and female for each other. (“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” [Gen 2:24]). Unlike a mere orientation, a homosexual activist lives the “lifestyle” in sexual acts and sexual relationships that are immoral. This has both human and moral significance, and so not like other differences that are accidental and insignificant. There are many recorded cases of males with homosexual orientations who have been helped to overcome this state, and some who have married successfully. Many homosexuals abhor the destructive attitudes and actions of homosexual activists (the immoral ‘gay’ subculture).
The apparently deliberate propensity to confusion based on pure prejudice identifies the perpetrators as irrational and making their own trouble.
You can see the failure to reason from cause to effect in those who debunk what the pagan philosophers were able to see – typical of the chaos now present in society, from East to West.
The inability to even know the meaning of love – that equates love with sexual pleasure solely while trying to eliminate the natural gender difference and procreation, one essential end of the marital act, speaks volumes.
The typical confusion of Leela that “bigotry toward homosexuals will be as socially unacceptable as bigotry based on race is becoming today” is the irrationality that blocks the understanding of the inbuilt natural moral law.
Since we are all made equal (NOT identical; NOT interchangeable) in the image and likeness of God, we all have this human dignity regardless of race, sex, age, ethnic background or colour, and we all should be treated as children of God with the same human rights, without discrimination. This includes those with homosexual/lesbian orientations or inclinations. However homosexual/lesbian orientation is an objective disorder or compulsion similar to a compulsion to gambling or alcohol, and sexual orientation has no quality comparable to race, sex, ethnic background or colour.
We all possess God given rights to discriminate against immoral, unhealthy, ugly, society-disturbing behaviour. We all possess rights to live in peace and decency, not to have to lock up our children for their protection, and rights to defend the basic elements of our civilisation.
TYPES OF DIFFERENCES
**Skin Colour ** – is genuinely accidental: it has no bearing as to whether anyone is human; it has no moral significance: whether one is a good person.
**Gender ** – this is not genuinely accidental, because God has created this differentiation and made it central to our imaging of Him. “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen1:27). Therefore gender differentiation is part of what it means to be a human. “God looked at everything He had made, and He found it very good” (Gen 1:31).
**Sexual Orientation ** – not genuinely accidental because this orientation is a disorder, for God created male and female for each other. (“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” [Gen 2:24]). Unlike a mere orientation, a homosexual activist lives the “lifestyle” in sexual acts and sexual relationships that are immoral. This has both human and moral significance, and so not like other differences that are accidental and insignificant. There are many recorded cases of males with homosexual orientations who have been helped to overcome this state, and some who have married successfully. Many homosexuals abhor the destructive attitudes and actions of homosexual activists (the immoral ‘gay’ subculture).
The apparently deliberate propensity to confusion based on pure prejudice identifies the perpetrators as irrational and making their own trouble.
I
inocente
Guest
A text that is used against homosexuals is Romans 1:26-27 (all quotes from NIV):
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
But read the whole section (1:18-32) as it applies to two good Catholics in a loving monogamous relationship.
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness
The two good Catholics are not godless and do not suppress the truth by their wickedness.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
The two good Catholics glorify God and give thanks to Him, their hearts are not darkened.
The remainder of the chapter, including 1:26-27, cannot then be used against the two good Catholics, whatever their sexual orientation (did I forget to mention that they may or may not be gay?
).It applies to those who “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles”, who reject God to the extent of denying their own conscience. The full wrath of God falls on them - they are given over to “shameful lusts” and “depraved minds”, “filled with every kind of wickedness”.
To read the text without the Spirit would be to torture scripture, deny the love of God and overlook the substantive fact that while Jesus is never slow to criticize, He never once mentions homosexuals. Paul says in 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the gospel”.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Are you really that desperate?A text that is used against homosexuals is Romans 1:26-27 (all quotes from NIV):
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
But read the whole section (1:18-32) as it applies to two good Catholics in a loving monogamous relationship.
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness
The two good Catholics are not godless and do not suppress the truth by their wickedness.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
The two good Catholics glorify God and give thanks to Him, their hearts are not darkened.
The remainder of the chapter, including 1:26-27, cannot then be used against the two good Catholics, whatever their sexual orientation (did I forget to mention that they may or may not be gay?
.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
*But most of us who feel **icky *recognize that that icky feeling may be natural or not. It doesn’t matter whether it is natural. It is still irrational and we know it would be immoral to act upon such racial biases in discriminatory ways. So it will be with homosexuality when bigotry toward homosexuals will be as socially unacceptable as bigotry based on race is becoming today. It won’t happen over night. It will still feel icky for a while, but right is right whether or not it feels icky. Feeling icky doesn’t excuse bigotry.
You are only speaking for yourself and those who think against nature. You are not speaking for Plato and Saint Paul, who both found it not only icky (your word), but also shameful. Nor are you speaking for the mass of humanity who now and forever will find it both icky and shameful because the mass of humanity have and will refuse to be seduced by this particular serpent. If you think otherwise, you are only imagining a future that will never be.
Live with it.
*But most of us who feel **icky *recognize that that icky feeling may be natural or not. It doesn’t matter whether it is natural. It is still irrational and we know it would be immoral to act upon such racial biases in discriminatory ways. So it will be with homosexuality when bigotry toward homosexuals will be as socially unacceptable as bigotry based on race is becoming today. It won’t happen over night. It will still feel icky for a while, but right is right whether or not it feels icky. Feeling icky doesn’t excuse bigotry.
You are only speaking for yourself and those who think against nature. You are not speaking for Plato and Saint Paul, who both found it not only icky (your word), but also shameful. Nor are you speaking for the mass of humanity who now and forever will find it both icky and shameful because the mass of humanity have and will refuse to be seduced by this particular serpent. If you think otherwise, you are only imagining a future that will never be.
Live with it.
E
edwest2
Guest
L
Leela
Guest
Sure it is. You probably believe that you have good reasons for opposing gay marriage just as bigots of the past thought that they had good reason for opposing interracial marriage. Just as you think gay marriage is completely different from civili rights, past opponents of interracial marriage thought it was a completely different issue from that of slavery. But it wasn’t. It was still bigotry and a lack of imagination for what the world could be like without such irrational fears.
You are on the wrong side of history on this one. In another generation, bigotry toward homosexuals is as likely to be as unacceptable as bigotry based on race. There will most likely still be some anti-homosexual bigots out there just as there are still racists today. But there will be a social and perhaps legal cost to acting on your bigotry just as someone would face some extremely uncomfortable social pressures espousing a doctrine opposing interracial marriage today. I know you probably think the world is coming to an end as we begin to treat homosexuals like humans deserving of respect and the same rights as anyone else, but it won’t. Everyone isn’t going to suddenly see how great it is to be gay, start having a kitschy taste for furniture, and stop having children or stop thinking Clint Eastwood is cool or anything. It’ll be okay. Promise. Clint Eastwood will always be cool.
Best,
Leela
A
Abu
Guest
Leela has continued to wallow in confusion, totally unable to answer post #781 which demolishes the puerile arguments equating race discrimination with fact of the homosexual disorder, and the true rights which all mankind deserve.
E
edwest2
Guest
Do you know what’s going on in Massachusetts right now?
massresistance.org/
Kids are being forced by the State to read gay storybooks and parents can’t opt out.
God bless,
Ed
I
inocente
Guest
There’s another possibility. The Church upholds the theory of evolution, and that may have a sting in its tail.
Evolution can be quite subtle. No one yet knows if homosexuality is an adaptation that gives advantage, but there are various speculations. As an example, a homosexual in a family or small tribe could provide an extra pair of hands to aid the survival of the family (and his/her proxy genes), but without making any babies that would add to the load.
If further research shows a definite evolutionary advantage for a proportion of a population to be homosexual, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural will find itself in competition for survival against science.
I
inocente
Guest
No. Could you help me work out where this sola scriptura-ist went wrong?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
leela
*
You are on the wrong side of history on this one. In another generation, bigotry toward homosexuals is as likely to be as unacceptable as bigotry based on race. *
History has nothing to do with it. Nor is it a matter of bigotry. Slavery has always been unnatural, though promoted and even tolerated. It has always been regarded as shameful by right-thinking people. Homosexuality has always been unnatural, though promoted and even tolerated. It has always been regarded as shameful by right-thinking people. That is history’s verdict. so you are the one who is on the wrong side of history.
*
You are on the wrong side of history on this one. In another generation, bigotry toward homosexuals is as likely to be as unacceptable as bigotry based on race. *
History has nothing to do with it. Nor is it a matter of bigotry. Slavery has always been unnatural, though promoted and even tolerated. It has always been regarded as shameful by right-thinking people. Homosexuality has always been unnatural, though promoted and even tolerated. It has always been regarded as shameful by right-thinking people. That is history’s verdict. so you are the one who is on the wrong side of history.
L
larkin31
Guest
kids in classes have gay parents. what’s the beef? What is wrong with a gay storybook? There are gays in many many works of literature, and there are and have been many gay writers.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*kids in classes have gay parents. what’s the beef? What is wrong with a gay storybook? There are gays in many many works of literature, and there are and have been many gay writers. *
But surely you get the point. There is a gay agenda to force their values on children through the schools, with or without parental consent. Can you imagine forcing the children in public schools to read anti-gay literature with or without parental consent? So shouldn’t that be a two-way street, or do you want the gays to have it all their way?
*
What is wrong with a gay storybook?*
What you are really asking is: “What is wrong with a pro-gay storybook?”
Then what’s wrong with an anti-gay storybook?
Either tolerate both or do not tolerate either!
*kids in classes have gay parents. what’s the beef? What is wrong with a gay storybook? There are gays in many many works of literature, and there are and have been many gay writers. *
But surely you get the point. There is a gay agenda to force their values on children through the schools, with or without parental consent. Can you imagine forcing the children in public schools to read anti-gay literature with or without parental consent? So shouldn’t that be a two-way street, or do you want the gays to have it all their way?
*
What is wrong with a gay storybook?*
What you are really asking is: “What is wrong with a pro-gay storybook?”
Then what’s wrong with an anti-gay storybook?
Either tolerate both or do not tolerate either!
A
Abu
Guest
Correction. Please refer to post #761 for the facts.
Leela has continued to wallow in confusion, totally unable to answer post #761 which demolishes the puerile arguments equating race discrimination with the fact of the homosexual disorder, and the true rights which all mankind deserve.
E
edwest2
Guest
The truth is worth defending. When something like the gay lifestyle is promoted to children by force, by the State, the people will reject this.
massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/
The Church isn’t telling people what to do by force but it offers its wisdom and observation for the benefit of all.
God bless,
Ed
- Status