I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Sorry, Adam fell, but God didn’t push him.
No, they are designed that way (just look at the parts), anymore than a man born blind or deaf (like my son) is designed that way.
- Status
No, they are designed that way (just look at the parts), anymore than a man born blind or deaf (like my son) is designed that way.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
In charitable and gentle ways of course, I think we do our brothers and sisters in Christ, a HUGE disservice by calling sins, disorders. Calling sins something that they can never overcome, because they have no control over, and therefore do not require to repent. That is why sin is so downplayed in our society, because much of it, is called something else…disorders. Or syndromes.
If I were living a sinful life…say, sleeping with married men, while I’m married, for example–I would really hope that someone would point out my sin for me, even if I discard it as having any value, a seed has been planted. It’s up to me what I do with the counsel. I wouldn’t call adultery, a disorder. And we shouldn’t call homosexuality a disorder, either. It’s sin. Like other sexual sins.
People live in sin every day. I have mortally sinned in my life…thankfully, I decided to take Christ’s hand to lift me out of it. But, if I called it a disorder, I would still be swimming in sin. That’s the thing…I would rather tell someone he/she is living in sin (with great love and charity) than tell him/her that what they have is an uncontrollable disorder. There’s no hope for change,if someone is misguided like this.
I would rather have them angry with me for telling them the Truth, than couching it in a way to spare their feelings, but allow them to hurt their soul. My sister had been living with a man who was still married…and he left his wife for her. I told her back then, that what she and he are doing is wrong. While my sister has some issues from our childhood, she was still living in sin. I still treated my sister with dignity and respect, but I wasn’t going to wish her well, as she embarked on a life of sin. Same if my kids were to tell me they’re gay.They’ll hear the Truth from me, but then we’ll all go on with life…I won’t tell my kids that they have a disorder, if they come to me someday to say they’re gay. I will still treat them with the utmost love and dignity I would show anyone. I think that some people don’t show love for sinners, and that is NOT what we’re called to do as Catholics. We are called to love the sinner, but point out the sin–in HOPES OF HELPING THEM SEE IT AND REPENT. If someone that I’ve tried to help, doesn’t want the help…tells me I don’t have a clue…tells me that being gay is their choice, etc…that is fine. I don’t take offense. But, I don’t believe in calling sin something that it isn’t.
That’s just how I see it, anyways.
If I were living a sinful life…say, sleeping with married men, while I’m married, for example–I would really hope that someone would point out my sin for me, even if I discard it as having any value, a seed has been planted. It’s up to me what I do with the counsel. I wouldn’t call adultery, a disorder. And we shouldn’t call homosexuality a disorder, either. It’s sin. Like other sexual sins.
People live in sin every day. I have mortally sinned in my life…thankfully, I decided to take Christ’s hand to lift me out of it. But, if I called it a disorder, I would still be swimming in sin. That’s the thing…I would rather tell someone he/she is living in sin (with great love and charity) than tell him/her that what they have is an uncontrollable disorder. There’s no hope for change,if someone is misguided like this.
I would rather have them angry with me for telling them the Truth, than couching it in a way to spare their feelings, but allow them to hurt their soul. My sister had been living with a man who was still married…and he left his wife for her. I told her back then, that what she and he are doing is wrong. While my sister has some issues from our childhood, she was still living in sin. I still treated my sister with dignity and respect, but I wasn’t going to wish her well, as she embarked on a life of sin. Same if my kids were to tell me they’re gay.They’ll hear the Truth from me, but then we’ll all go on with life…I won’t tell my kids that they have a disorder, if they come to me someday to say they’re gay. I will still treat them with the utmost love and dignity I would show anyone. I think that some people don’t show love for sinners, and that is NOT what we’re called to do as Catholics. We are called to love the sinner, but point out the sin–in HOPES OF HELPING THEM SEE IT AND REPENT. If someone that I’ve tried to help, doesn’t want the help…tells me I don’t have a clue…tells me that being gay is their choice, etc…that is fine. I don’t take offense. But, I don’t believe in calling sin something that it isn’t.
That’s just how I see it, anyways.
S
sanctamaria17
Guest
AMEN!!!
We don’t make fornication or adultery illegal, why is gay marriage illegal?
Abortion, I believe the government should ban because it’s a human rights issue, outside of religion. Anything religious however has no place in the government. Because our government, first and foremost is a secular government.
We should be living our faith ourselves and through the Church, not through a political entity.
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
With all due respect, for you and I have agreed on other issues
How cafeteria of you.
Gay marriage not only codifies an disordered (genetically or otherwise) activity, it promotes the disorder as something which is a healthy alternative to the ordered. It creates a situation where it is a healthy and acceptable to rear children (the facts of the long term effects may not be known for decades, obviously)
Religious beliefs are the cornerstone of modern laws. Were it not for Christians, the belief that it’s okay to murder one’s children might be perfectly acceptable universally, ditto sex with children, animals or any number of practices that religion first outlawed.
T
Thinks4Himself
Guest
I have to wonder the reasoning for quoting scripture to someone when they already disclosed they are not a believer.
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
Gay marriage is a personal issue; and science, as far as I know, does not deem homosexuality a disorder. Now, MAYBE that was concluded due to liberal political pressure, or PROBABLY it was the result of extensive study. All I know is, a small portion of every population is gay, and it is NONE of , OR THE GOVERNMENT’S, business what two honest, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens do intimately in the privacy of their home.
Also, the United States was founded by devout Deists (and some religious Christians, but only one Catholic) who were dedicated to the Enlightenment. Again, America is a secular liberal democracy; I’m sure that if I said that Sharia law shold be imposed on Americans, YOU would be up in arms.
Pick your batles?
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
But as I said, as long as the Catholic Church remains steadfast on her beliefs, while most other “churches” fold to secularism, then I will be comforted.
E
Exalt
Guest
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that my post had such a tone that you felt it would be appropriate to say that I’m responding to you as an “attack.” Could you re-read my post again? I clearly said that I appreciated how you took a tone of understanding. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I found it refreshing. I was giving my insight as a non-believer and a gay person. I thought you might find it insightful.
In regards to the section you quoted, you asked what the Church should do in regards to a *legal *issue. I asked that you keep religion and state separate. As I said, if you would like some more reasons for that, just ask and I can start typing up some of my thoughts.
E
Exalt
Guest
There’s a difference, though.
I find it very strange that you’re trying to twist this around and say that I’m somehow hateful because I don’t want you to dissolve my family. In fact, gay marriage would pretty much have no impact on you. I’m not going in the voting booth and demanding Catholic marriages be dissolved. But people in California are going to go to the voting booth and decide of gay marriages are going to be dissolved.
S
sanctamaria17
Guest
Not every law has been based on religious beliefs, nor are Christians the only religion that ban having sex with children, animals, etc (btw, for a long time, Catholic girls were considered “marriageable” at the age of twelve. No different from historic Jews, Muslims or any other society at that time. That’s still a child).With all due respect, for you and I have agreed on other issues
How cafeteria of you.
Gay marriage not only codifies an disordered (genetically or otherwise) activity, it promotes the disorder as something which is a healthy alternative to the ordered. It creates a situation where it is a healthy and acceptable to rear children (the facts of the long term effects may not be known for decades, obviously)
Religious beliefs are the cornerstone of modern laws. Were it not for Christians, the belief that it’s okay to murder one’s children might be perfectly acceptable universally, ditto sex with children, animals or any number of practices that religion first outlawed.
Also, I don’t see how allowing two honest, CONSENTING, law abiding, tax paying citizens to have their own family as they see fit (many of whom ARE NOT BOUND by Church law, as they are not Catholic) is “cafeteria” of me. I didn’t say the Church should be allowing people of the same sex to marry. I said that the government, as a SECULAR government, should have no business dictating whom you decide to commit to for the rest of your life. I love my faith, I still don’t want to see this government trade in it’s secular constitution for the Code of Canon Law.
G
GratefulDad
Guest
Because, with God all things are possible.I have to wonder the reasoning for quoting scripture to someone when they already disclosed they are not a believer.
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
The words “as they see fit” . Hmmmm. In many relationships only one person is a tax payer. A man marries a dog, is that okay in your tax paying world?
I didn’t use all religions, though I could have used Judeo-Christian which is that on which our nation was founded. BTW, when the life expectancy was 35 years, a 13 year old bride was not out of the question.
Could you please give me a list of the laws on the books which aren’t traceable to the ten commandments?
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
That’s a rude statement. This is a forum. Everyone who wishes to voice an opinion is allowed to do so, in a respectful way.
The topic of Deism among the founders is an off topic red herring. The jury is still out, regardless. The question of same sex marriages is a state issue. As we have seen, when left to the states, they tend to side on a definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
Homosexuality as any birth disorder appears to have a genetic predisposition, if not direct link. It is deemed disorder because it deviates from the order of science. Spin it anyway you like.
The long term effects of bringing children up in same gender families will not be known, obviously, in the short term. The effects of gender neutralization of our society, will likewise, not be known for a long time.
R
RyanML
Guest
I love how people throw around the word “abomination” and they have no idea what it really means, biblically. The Hebrew word is to’ebah and it simply means “ritually unclean”. It has nothing to do with morality. Here’s a few other things that are “abominations” according to the Old Testament holiness code: sex with a woman during her period, harvesting the corners of a field, eating fruit from a young tree, cross-breading livestock, sowing a field with mixed seed, shaving or getting your hair cut, tatoos, a disabled person being a priest, charging interest on a loan, wearing clothes made from a blend of textile materials (like polyester), eating “impure” foods like shrimp, and so on and so forth.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
A point of information for the poster who said that ‘science’ did not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
In fact, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual) **had **homosexuality listed as a disorder until the early 1970s, when a small but vocal group from the APA (American Psychological Association) lobbied to have it removed.
Even now in the 4th edition (DSM-IV) while it is no longer a ‘disorder’, in the discussion regarding sexual behaviors, there is notice that there are homosexuals who, despite knowing that the APA has graciously decreed that they are not disordered, are just as ‘unhappy’ as those who suffer from ‘decreed disorders’. Not because other people ‘make’ them suffer, but because they feel ‘unhappy’ AS homosexuals. They truly would prefer ‘not’ to be such, even if they are surrounded by ‘caring’ people who ‘support’ them in every way, even when society ‘adores’ them, even if they have never ever experienced anything other than positive feedback from every person, every word or idea or situation ever given them.
In fact, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual) **had **homosexuality listed as a disorder until the early 1970s, when a small but vocal group from the APA (American Psychological Association) lobbied to have it removed.
Even now in the 4th edition (DSM-IV) while it is no longer a ‘disorder’, in the discussion regarding sexual behaviors, there is notice that there are homosexuals who, despite knowing that the APA has graciously decreed that they are not disordered, are just as ‘unhappy’ as those who suffer from ‘decreed disorders’. Not because other people ‘make’ them suffer, but because they feel ‘unhappy’ AS homosexuals. They truly would prefer ‘not’ to be such, even if they are surrounded by ‘caring’ people who ‘support’ them in every way, even when society ‘adores’ them, even if they have never ever experienced anything other than positive feedback from every person, every word or idea or situation ever given them.
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
It wasn’t intended as rude; when you’re a political science major attending and being active at a politically-charged campus, this type of posting occurs. I apologize for the offense none-the-less.
Who classifies homosexuality as a disorder? I know Exodus Minstries will, but I’m talking science. Well, straight children living with gay parents are no more likely to be gay then GAY children born and living with straight parents.
A
a_cermak
Guest
I attended my brothers-in-law marriage recently. I was one of the best people (one couple per side) and both grooms dressed in white tuxes. The ceremony, flowers, vows, etc. were pretty much the same you would find in any wedding, even included a unity candle. The reception was pretty much typical (except the food was much, much better–we’re talking filet mignon & sea bass!) of any other wedding as well. They chose matching rings so a thread had to be tied into one so we would know which was the ones and which the others (they wear different sizes, but unless you look real close, it’s hard to tell).
In their case, they don’t appear to take on any kind of gender roles, each is himself in the relationship. Other gay people I have known have been more gender role bound. It just depends on the couple. I would say that gay couples seem more fluid and comfortable in their roles because they have made a conscious choice to be who they are because there is not much preconceived for them.
And when it all comes down to it, so much of what we think of as gender roles are simply social customs & conventions and not anything bound by biology.
I think a poster has pointed out something profound though. There is a radical difference between stopping gay marriage from becoming law and overturning gay marriage where it has become law. If you do the first, I may disagree with it but will probably assume you arrive at your position from certain values. The second, in which the intent is to dissolve families, I can think of no word but mean. Certainly those already married should be grandfathered in as is the case with the Iowa married gay couple.
The Catholic Church does not recognize the marriages of people who divorce and then remarry (without annulment), it doesn’t recognize marriages of those who are considered too close of kin (and trying to understand those lines in the canon law are confusing), yet it has not seen fit to encourage its adherents to oppose those items in the civil law, so why fuss over civil gay marriage?
In their case, they don’t appear to take on any kind of gender roles, each is himself in the relationship. Other gay people I have known have been more gender role bound. It just depends on the couple. I would say that gay couples seem more fluid and comfortable in their roles because they have made a conscious choice to be who they are because there is not much preconceived for them.
And when it all comes down to it, so much of what we think of as gender roles are simply social customs & conventions and not anything bound by biology.
I think a poster has pointed out something profound though. There is a radical difference between stopping gay marriage from becoming law and overturning gay marriage where it has become law. If you do the first, I may disagree with it but will probably assume you arrive at your position from certain values. The second, in which the intent is to dissolve families, I can think of no word but mean. Certainly those already married should be grandfathered in as is the case with the Iowa married gay couple.
The Catholic Church does not recognize the marriages of people who divorce and then remarry (without annulment), it doesn’t recognize marriages of those who are considered too close of kin (and trying to understand those lines in the canon law are confusing), yet it has not seen fit to encourage its adherents to oppose those items in the civil law, so why fuss over civil gay marriage?
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
Well! A poly sci major! Just wait until you get into the real world of litigation or policy formation, then you’ll see some action!
Anything outside the natural order is by definition, disordered. If many of the genetics guys are right, then there s a district gene malformation which may predispose, if not cause homosexuality. There have been results on both sides of the question. There is a distinct gene malformation which can cause blindness, deafness and retardation. It doesn’t render the individual incapable of humanness, but does limit some of the ability to fulfill the heart’s desire.
As for the long tern effects of same sex parenting, as I have said, it’s a long term study, not one based on self reporting, one generational or anecdotal, but at least a few decades in the making.
R
Roamin_Xian
Guest
Links?Well! A poly sci major! Just wait until you get into the real world of litigation or policy formation, then you’ll see some action!
Anything outside the natural order is by definition, disordered. If many of the genetics guys are right, then there s a district gene malformation which may predispose, if not cause homosexuality. There have been results on both sides of the question. There is a distinct gene malformation which can cause blindness, deafness and retardation. It doesn’t render the individual incapable of humanness, but does limit some of the ability to fulfill the heart’s desire.
As for the long tern effects of same sex parenting, as I have said, it’s a long term study, not one based on self reporting, one generational or anecdotal, but at least a few decades in the making.
How do you know homosexuality wasn’t intended? I contend here and now that homosexuality was intended to help control populations, no different then infertility.
I concur; it will certainly take some time to compare parenting between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
H
Hortense
Guest
There are two general sets of values in in play here. One set holds that there is a social contract between individuals, and any conduct is OK as long as it does not hurt someone else. These are folowers John stuart Mill. They also tend to be what we call liberals in this country.
The other set recognizes the values of the first, but they also see the family, clan, tribe, and group as being equally important in the social contract as the individual. Hence, they value those practices which have developed that enhance the group as well as the individual. They tend to be what we call conservatives in this country.
So, we have two different baisc views of society, and, as with abortion, each side will argue from the their own set of values. Neither can win the argument. (That should be apparent by now.)
Conservatives say gay marriage will change a time honored practice that supports the family unit. Liberals say, “So what?”
Unfortunately, each projects their own values on the other and expects the other to adopt them. So, once again, where logical argument fails because of differing seminal assumptions, it is thrown into politics.
The other set recognizes the values of the first, but they also see the family, clan, tribe, and group as being equally important in the social contract as the individual. Hence, they value those practices which have developed that enhance the group as well as the individual. They tend to be what we call conservatives in this country.
So, we have two different baisc views of society, and, as with abortion, each side will argue from the their own set of values. Neither can win the argument. (That should be apparent by now.)
Conservatives say gay marriage will change a time honored practice that supports the family unit. Liberals say, “So what?”
Unfortunately, each projects their own values on the other and expects the other to adopt them. So, once again, where logical argument fails because of differing seminal assumptions, it is thrown into politics.
- Status