Common smoke screens presented by gay Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter martino
  • Start date Start date
Not open for further replies.


One indisputable fact is that God loves all of us whether we are gay, straight, or some other thing. I am not here to argue who God loves and doesnt love, that is nothing more than a smoke screen anyway. The Church doesn’t teach that God doesn’t love gay people, so the implication is erroneous.

Another diversionary tactic is to point out some of the outrageous practices found in the Old Testament, for example, they used to stone adulterous women to death as a penalty. The argument is that since we no longer do that, then we cannot retain any portion of the Old Testament without being inconsistent or unfair in some way. That means that the story of Sodam and Gomorrah can not be used as a defense against homosexual acts, because we no longer stone women to death! How rediculous!! First of all, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God inflicted death on the evil doers as opposed to “people” inflicting their own punishments, as in the case of the adulterous woman. Furthermore, adultery is still wrong, that hasn’t changed and it never will, just like homosexual behavior was wrong then as will always be! Let us not be fooled by false arguments.

We are often reminded that the Catholic Church is not perfect and that she has changed certain practices and beliefs over her 2000 year history. A favorite example is that the Church disallowed the teaching that the earth revolved around the sun, but has since come around to the truth of our solar system. Its true that the Church was wrong when it came to the solar system and eventually changed her position. To some this proves that the Church can err and does err, leaving the door open to any and all opposing views to be changed. Once again this is merely a smoke screen and let me show you how. The Church does not claim to be infallible on matters regarding the solar system or science in general. Those in the Church are capable of error any time they give their own opinion on an issue. The key is this, homosexuality is a matter of morals and the Church does teach that she is infallible in matters of faith and morals. The attempt to compare apples to oranges accomplishes nothing except to further confuse many misinformed Catholics.

OH, how about this one, “since the divorce rate is so high with heterosexual couples, the Church should change her teaching on the sin of homosexuality”. If that statement makes sense to you then you should probably stop now and go read the funny papers. An idiot can see that the divorce rate is so high because so many people disregard Church teaching. The solution to disobedience is not more disobedience!! That is like saying, “well since my son repeatedly breaks his curfew, I am going to solve that problem by removing the curfew!!!” Would anyone say that is responsible parenting? The curfew is in place as a safeguard for the child, removing the safeguard only puts the child at greater risk! But you dont need me to tell you that, its common sense.

Along the same lines, it is often spouted that the Church has lost its hold on the bedroom and that most Catholics already disobey the Church on sex outside of marriage, contraception, adultery and all the forms of sexual immorality. So again the argument is that since nobody likes these teachings, the Church is obligated to remove them. Ok, so now we just decide for ourselves what is sinful and what is not. If the Church has no place teaching on sin, then what is the purpose? If your position is that you are the only one that can decide for you what is sinful, what are you even doing in the Church to begin with? Go out there and become your own god, that way you get to set all the rules and you can even make it so that you go right to heaven. But remember that according to your rule, everyone else will be able to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. Someone may decided that torturing you is a good thing to do, and you would have to agree with them. After all, who are you to tell someone else what is or isnt sinful.

Finally, the Church has never contradicted any doctrine of the faith in all her 2000 years and never will. Because the Truth is unchanging, what is true today will be true tomorrow, you can count on that. And who would want it any other way? :hmmm:
I can only comment that this is an excellent post and your reputation points will reflect accordingly. 👍
I also want to make it clear that I am not out to attack homosexuals. I love all people as the Church teaches. I only want to protect the Church from those who wish to attack Her!

The truth shall set you free!😃
The Four Sins which Cry to Heaven for Vengence
  1. Willful Murder
  2. The sin of Sodom
  3. Oppression of the poor
  4. Defrauding the laborer of his wages
There has been alot of debate about this - which sin is worse - this or that, The bottom line is sin is sin. But if you want to get particular - this is Church teaching!
Gay is not a synonym for homosexual. A homosexual is someone who engages in certain activities with a person of the same sex. A gay person is happy, merry, joyful, etc.

Gay is not a synonym for homosexual. A homosexual is someone who engages in certain activities with a person of the same sex. A gay person is happy, merry, joyful, etc.

I appologize to all gay people that don’t refer to themselves as “gay”
Martino, you did a nice job of *presenting * the counterarguments without being argumentative. Great job. 👍

Biblically, the one I see is the story of the stoning of the prostitute. If Jesus “accepted” her, then we should accept homosexual behavior, we are told. But the homosexual counterargument never includes the fact that Jesus concluded with “Go, and sin no more.”

We must extend our hearts and prayers to homosexuals, but we should never be accepting of either the homosexual lifestyle or any component thereof.
Bottom line is that all sex outside marriage is sinful. Temptation to sin is not sinful unless one consents to the temptation. For a group of people to identify and label themselves based on a temptation is ludicrous, at best. This might imply that they feel they must give in to the temptation, which is sinful. Perhaps we, as a society, watch too much Animal Planet and believe that we have to give in to every impulse we have. Lack of impulse control almost always ends up getting us in big trouble, one way or the other.
For a group of people to identify and label themselves based on a temptation is ludicrous, at best. .
That is an awesome point, hadn’t thought of it like that!👍
I often hear the argument that if you don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle, that’s not loving or accepting (with the implication being that it’s not Christian), when in fact it is totally loving because we are concerned about the state of their souls and their separation from God. What could be more important and loving than that?
I often hear the argument that if you don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle, that’s not loving or accepting (with the implication being that it’s not Christian), when in fact it is totally loving because we are concerned about the state of their souls and their separation from God. What could be more important and loving than that?
Yea, it’s this new kind of twisted logic that attempts to turn the Truth up side down. I am convinced that people in general have lost the ability to think properly. We come to false conclusions based on false premises and the problem continues to be compounded. Im not sure of other threads, but we (in this thread) have yet to hear a single justification as to why so many people think the Church is wrong on the issue of homosexuality. I had read an earlier thread that was started by a gay Catholic and then closed so that nobody was allowed to cross examine his claims, that is what inspired me to start this thread hoping to draw some of these folks out of the woodwork.

Hey maybe we scared them off!! :rolleyes:
Let me quote what I said in another thread…it might help others to combat those living the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexuality is abnormal. Abnormal being, “deviant from the norm.” Does that mean homosexuals should be discriminated
against? No. Does, that mean homosexuals should be scorned? No. But, I do find it absurd when individuals try and act as if homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. I’m sorry, it’s “abnormal.” I’ve always found it amusing when people try to rationalize to me that homosexuality is normal. They begin to go into this long dissertation about how there are various animal species that exhibit “homosexual behavior.” I’m sorry, first
off they don’t exhibit “homosexual behavior.” These species exhibit “bisexual behavior.” If there were quote a “homosexual exhibiting” species, they would be extinct. That’s right, extinct. The function of sex is to prolong the longevity of our species through procreation. Homosexual species don’t propagate – they can’t – it’s against their biological function. Plus, let me clear up the fact, as humans, we have the pleasure of having logic, rational thought, the ability to reason. Wild animals do not possess
this ability.

The “gay gene”, etc.

So, often gay rights activists try to claim that homosexuality is definitely genetic…they point to Dr. Dean H. Hamer who located a “gay gene.” This is not truthful. I’ll explain. Hamer’s DNA research focused on a part of the X chromosome at Xq28. He analyzed the sequence in 40 pairs of homosexual brothers…he concluded that the same genetic markers exised in ~ 83% of them. Activists misinterpret his research…saying it proves homosexuality is definitely genetic. But, in his report…Hamer even states:

“The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his plea plants.” (Hamer and Copeland)

Dr. George Rice replicated Hamer’s research…and produced different results…he concluded, “Our data does not support the prescence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.” (Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28)
Eusebius of Caesarea:
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

The Apostolic Constitutions:
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).

The Didache:
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr:
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Basil the Great:
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).
Matthew 16:18-19: And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Or, in Latin…

Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis

Apostolic Fathers:

Cyprian of Carthage:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Optatus of Milevus:
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They 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.

In conclusion…the Church is right…they are wrong.*
Scientific periodicals…regarding the alleged gay gene.

CMA: “If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be indentical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions.”

The Bailey and Pillard Study: “environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality.”

Dr. Simon Levay Study: “To many people, finding a difference between gay and straight men is equivalent to proving that gay men are “born that way.” Time and again I have been described as someone who “proved that homosexuality is genetic,” or some such thing. I did not. My observations were made only on adults who had been sexually active for a considerable period of time. It is not possible, purely on the basis of my observations, to say whether the structural differences were present at birth, and later influenced the men to become gay or straight, or whether they arose in adult life, perhaps as a result of the men’s sexual behavior.”

Dr. A Dean Byrd (University of California at Berkley): "Professor Breedlove concluded that the brain is not a static organ. It changes and adjusts to behavior, and in the case of his study, specifically to sexual behavior. Thus, when someone engages in a particular act repeatedly, certain neural pathways in the brain are strengthened. Since the brain is a physical organ, when these neural pathways are strengthened, it is reflected in the chemistry of the brain. Someone who repeatedly plays basketball will have a different brain than someone who studies rocket science. Likewise, a homosexual person’s behavior likely causes a different resulting brain structure. Studies such as LeVay’s, even if conclusive, show only what science already knows about the brain.
Pope John Paul II (June 4, 2004):

“Rights are at times reduced to self-centered demands: the growth of prostitution and pornography in the name of adult choice, the acceptance of abortion in the name of women’s rights, the approval of same sex unions in the name of homosexual rights…”

“In the face of such erroneous yet pervasive thinking, U.S. Bishops should stress to congregations their special responsibility for evangelizing culture and promoting Christian values in society and public life.”

Approved by Pope John Paul II…

“Marriage exists solely between a man and woman … Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior … but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.”

(“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, July 31, 2003).

The document, which was two years in the making, called on Roman Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills legalizing gay marriage, and where they already exist, work towards repealing them.

In regards to adoption…

“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such (homosexual) unions would actually mean doing violence to these children … (placing) them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”
The comparison between racial rights and homosexual rights (a moral issue)…is fallacious.

At no point in history were homosexuals considered 3/5 a person. At no point in history have homosexuals been denied that right to vote. At no point in history have homosexuals been sent to different schools. At no point in history have homosexuals been forced to use separate water fountains…restaurants…public bathrooms, etc. At no point in history have homosexuals been forced to sit in the back of a bus.

Homosexuality is deviant…abnormal behavior. If one recognizes a homosexual marriage…then one must recognize other abnormal relationships…polygamy…beastality…etc.
WOW! Thanks for all the information! However you were a little vague in your conclusion!!:rolleyes: just kidding!!
Not open for further replies.