Gay Marriage Debate

[Nacho45]

That’s right you don’t know, but seeing as we have lived next to our neighbors for over 12 years and know many of the same people, I think I do know. Ironically, there is another male gay couple moving right next door to them. Maybe God is challenging them to treat others as they would like to be treated; however, they never seemed to so them before. They missed that Golden Rule.

Unless they have explained themselves in detail, you are guessing and as mentioned before, passing judgement which you and similar minds seem to frown upon.

 

[Nacho45]

Well, you are quite the “rule” follower. I am not sure every culture follows your simple etiquette.

You may be right or I may be right, or neither of us maybe right. My point was that only God knows what is right and what the full truth is and we has living human beings cannot fully know it, see it or understand it.

Unless God chose to explain/reveal it to us. Then we can know, do know and hopefully accept.

 

[theCrow]

Seriously? Did you just dare him? How old are you? Of course you have your opinion, but it doesn’t mean you are right.

We had a wonderful male gay couple living across the street from us, whether they were chaste was none of our business, just like my sex life was none of theirs. They were extremely pleasant, helping the elder widows, talking to neighbors, helping anyone who need it.

The very strict Catholics next door didn’t even acknowledge they existed and they stopped speaking to us because we associated with these men. Without thinking twice I would throw the so called God loving Catholics out of our neighborhood and keep the gay couple. They had more goodness, class, and decency then the one sitting in a Catholic church every Sunday. Apparently, more than you also.

This is a beautiful and perfect response.

 

[theCrow]

No, the Westboro “church” is not a Church and not even an ecclesial community, it’s a gaggle of lawyers looking for lawsuits. Their logic is: picket events and incite violence. Then sue the perpetrators of assault.

If two homosexuals are holding hands, holding each other, or kissing, then they are not celibate. They have not committed an abomination but they are in sin, and a near occasion to mortal sin.

The culture is changing because it has a death wish. The culture is morally corrupt and God’s plan is to have it destroy itself. It will do so neatly, just as others have throughout history. The Church will endure and remain until the End of Days.

It’s truly a shame that you think 2 gay people, even just holding hands, are “in sin.” If only other so called God loving Catholics would show more compassion, and just for a split second, just try, try to imagine that these 2 people could, you know, actually LOVE each other. Well then, I don’t believe God would consider that a sin at all. In fact, if MORE people of any sexual orientation, just held hands and LOVED each other, instead of being literally obsessed with what other’s choose to do in their bedroom, well then, this world would be a better place.

 

[Prodigirl]

This is precisely the kind of polarized argument that so amuses me until I am just ready to vomit.

I thank the Original Poster for his/her willingness to reclaim the embrace of Christ and to state it so simply and eloquently. Those who are threatened quote the previous Pope, not the current Pope; they quote the dogmatic, man-made Catechism of Christian Doctrine instead of the alleged words of Jesus; they judge judge judge judge judge without a thought as to what it means to love and to be true to oneself, the way one is made by the Creator.

Like the topic of abortion, it will never, ever, ever be settled. Each person has picked up his own pitchfork and is wielding it furiously and purposefully, as if Christ Himself were pulling the strings. There is so much fear among us that we are bootstrapped and we prohibit any development of opportunities to learn, particularly to learn what love is and what acceptance is and what mind-your-own-business-they-will-pay-for-their-own-transgressions-it-does-not-affect-you means. (Let me add that there is a modicum of what I consider Enlightenment among these posts, and I find it delightful and refreshing.)

Reading many of these comments has highlighted for me why I am a cradle Catholic who a) understands the real meaning of the word “catholic”, and b) why I am so bitterly sorry that Catholicism as it is today does not work for me. I’m not a cafeteria Catholic. I cook for myself. I leave out the toxins and the stuff that I believe is inherently bad for me.

I do this because my Creator gave me free will. Don’t try to correct me, people. You can live the way you choose, and so can I.

Thanks, OP!

 

[Rau]

…The very strict Catholics next door didn’t even acknowledge they [a gay couple] existed and they stopped speaking to us because we associated with these men. Without thinking twice I would throw the so called God loving Catholics out of our neighborhood and keep the gay couple. They had more goodness, class, and decency then the one sitting in a Catholic church every Sunday. Apparently, more than you also.

I hope you acknowledge that the behaviour (as you’ve described it) of these so-called “strict Catholics”, does nothing to reflect the proper or typical behaviour of “Catholics” (strict or otherwise), but reflects solely on them. Nothing at all about Catholicism or Catholic teaching suggests such behaviour.

In the same way, your inclination to “without thinking twice…throw the so called God loving Catholics out of our neighbourhood” is also not reflective of Catholic attitudes or behaviour.

I find it odd that the expression “strict Catholic” is nowadays used to refer to one who strictly follows various visible conventions, but pays now heed to whether they actually try to live the lessons their faith teaches.

 

[Rau]

This is precisely the kind of polarized argument that so amuses me until I am just ready to vomit.

I thank the Original Poster for his/her willingness to reclaim the embrace of Christ and to state it so simply and eloquently. Those who are threatened quote the previous Pope, not the current Pope; they quote the dogmatic, man-made Catechism of Christian Doctrine instead of the alleged words of Jesus; they judge judge judge judge judge without a thought as to what it means to love and to be true to oneself, the way one is made by the Creator.

Like the topic of abortion, it will never, ever, ever be settled. Each person has picked up his own pitchfork and is wielding it furiously and purposefully, as if Christ Himself were pulling the strings. There is so much fear among us that we are bootstrapped and we prohibit any development of opportunities to learn, particularly to learn what love is and what acceptance is and what mind-your-own-business-they-will-pay-for-their-own-transgressions-it-does-not-affect-you means. (Let me add that there is a modicum of what I consider Enlightenment among these posts, and I find it delightful and refreshing.)

Reading many of these comments has highlighted for me why I am a cradle Catholic who a) understands the real meaning of the word “catholic”, and b) why I am so bitterly sorry that Catholicism as it is today does not work for me. I’m not a cafeteria Catholic. I cook for myself. I leave out the toxins and the stuff that I believe is inherently bad for me.

I do this because my Creator gave me free will. Don’t try to correct me, people. You can live the way you choose, and so can I.

Thanks, OP!

I’m not sure what you are trying to say, unless it is simply that you are free to believe and do as you please. OK, I agree.

I note you prefer to focus on the words of Jesus rather than the words of the Catechism. But I just remind you that both are brought to you by the Catholic Church. So, I’m not sure why you are confident the Church got one right, and the other wrong?

What about Catholicism “does not work for you”?

To recap the OP’s point, it was:

adrianbcp:

“The point I’m trying to make is that if homosexuals want truly love each other, they should be able to get married just like anyone else.”

Presumably you agree with this sentiment? Personally - I find it incredibly radical, not because I deny for a second that 2 persons of the same sex may love each other, but because marriage is not an institution to be taken up by all persons who love each other. What do you understand is the nature of marriage?

 

[shelby_sun]

This is precisely the kind of polarized argument that so amuses me until I am just ready to vomit.

I thank the Original Poster for his/her willingness to reclaim the embrace of Christ and to state it so simply and eloquently. Those who are threatened quote the previous Pope, not the current Pope; they quote the dogmatic, man-made Catechism of Christian Doctrine instead of the alleged words of Jesus; they judge judge judge judge judge without a thought as to what it means to love and to be true to oneself, the way one is made by the Creator.

Like the topic of abortion, it will never, ever, ever be settled. Each person has picked up his own pitchfork and is wielding it furiously and purposefully, as if Christ Himself were pulling the strings. There is so much fear among us that we are bootstrapped and we prohibit any development of opportunities to learn, particularly to learn what love is and what acceptance is and what mind-your-own-business-they-will-pay-for-their-own-transgressions-it-does-not-affect-you means. (Let me add that there is a modicum of what I consider Enlightenment among these posts, and I find it delightful and refreshing.)

Reading many of these comments has highlighted for me why I am a cradle Catholic who a) understands the real meaning of the word “catholic”, and b) why I am so bitterly sorry that Catholicism as it is today does not work for me. I’m not a cafeteria Catholic. I cook for myself. I leave out the toxins and the stuff that I believe is inherently bad for me.

I do this because my Creator gave me free will. Don’t try to correct me, people. You can live the way you choose, and so can I.

Thanks, OP!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigirl View Post
This is precisely the kind of polarized argument that so amuses me until I am just ready to vomit.

I thank the Original Poster for his/her willingness to reclaim the embrace of Christ and to state it so simply and eloquently. Those who are threatened quote the previous Pope, not the current Pope; they quote the dogmatic, man-made Catechism of Christian Doctrine instead of the alleged words of Jesus; they judge judge judge judge judge without a thought as to what it means to love and to be true to oneself, the way one is made by the Creator.

Like the topic of abortion, it will never, ever, ever be settled. Each person has picked up his own pitchfork and is wielding it furiously and purposefully, as if Christ Himself were pulling the strings. There is so much fear among us that we are bootstrapped and we prohibit any development of opportunities to learn, particularly to learn what love is and what acceptance is and what mind-your-own-business-they-will-pay-for-their-own-transgressions-it-does-not-affect-you means. (Let me add that there is a modicum of what I consider Enlightenment among these posts, and I find it delightful and refreshing.)

Reading many of these comments has highlighted for me why I am a cradle Catholic who a) understands the real meaning of the word “catholic”, and b) why I am so bitterly sorry that Catholicism as it is today does not work for me. I’m not a cafeteria Catholic. I cook for myself. I leave out the toxins and the stuff that I believe is inherently bad for me.

I do this because my Creator gave me free will. Don’t try to correct me, people. You can live the way you choose, and so can I.

Thanks, OP!

I’m not sure what you are trying to say, unless it is simply that you are free to believe and do as you please. OK, I agree.

What she is saying is a blatant, public rejection of the Catholic Church and its teaching in order to justify her own personal choices.

I am sorry that you agree, Rau. Catholics are not necessarily “free” to believe as we please.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

To recap the OP’s point, it was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianbcp
“The point I’m trying to make is that if homosexuals want truly love each other, they should be able to get married just like anyone else.”

I agree with you here, Rau, but I would like to say something about love in relation to homosexuality.

I find it incredibility hard to believe that there is anything “loving” in sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. I don’t see anything “loving” about mutual self-destruction.

You don’t have to be a psychiatrist to notice that a homosexual union is a kind of narcissism. It is like trying to unite with yourself in a mirror.

There is love of God.
There is parental love. (a parent’s love for his child and a child’s love for its parent)
There is marital love. The love shared by a man and woman that leads to marriage.
Then there is friendship. Friendship can be so strong that it seems like love…and maybe it is…but friends don’t hurt each other.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree with you here, Rau, but I would like to say something about love in relation to homosexuality.

I find it incredibility hard to believe that there is anything “loving” in sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. I don’t see anything “loving” about mutual self-destruction.

Zoltan,

You’re terribly badly informed. First of all, not all gay people engage in anal sex – it’s far rarer than you might think. Second, anal sex doesn’t involve all those sorts of consequences, certainly not when done in a considerate way. (Choking???)

There are real concrete bad consequences of gay sex, but it doesn’t help anyone if we exaggerate them. Gay people know very well that your description is quite incorrect.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, I see, choking was supposed to be a reference to oral sex. Well, uhhhh, to quote gay rights activist John Corvino, if a person finds himself choking, “he’s doing it wrong.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan,

You’re terribly badly informed. First of all, not all gay people engage in anal sex – it’s far rarer than you might think. Second, anal sex doesn’t involve all those sorts of consequences, certainly not when done in a considerate way. (Choking???)

There are real concrete bad consequences of gay sex, but it doesn’t help anyone if we exaggerate them. Gay people know very well that your description is quite incorrect.

Thank you for the enlightenment, Prod.

I was simply relying on various published clinical studies that don’t exactly shed a very positive light on anal sex and its relationship to the gay community.

Perhaps you could explain the “Gay Bowel Syndrome”…

Or explain why some diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexuals as a result of anal intercourse are so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.

Then we have syphilis at epidemic levels in gay communities, according to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, one of the agencies with the most experience of sexually transmitted diseases among gay and bisexual men.

I’m sorry Prod, but if your gay friends “know very well that my description is quite incorrect.” then their well-being is not your concern.

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what states are doing when they redefine marriage to include same sex relationships and grant same sex couples legal status. It makes same sex relationships appear more socially acceptable.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thank you for the enlightenment, Prod.

I was simply relying on various published clinical studies that don’t exactly shed a very positive light on anal sex and its relationship to the gay community.

Perhaps you could explain the “Gay Bowel Syndrome”…

Or explain why some diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexuals as a result of anal intercourse are so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.

Then we have syphilis at epidemic levels in gay communities, according to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, one of the agencies with the most experience of sexually transmitted diseases among gay and bisexual men.

I’m sorry Prod, but if your gay friends “know very well that my description is quite incorrect.” then their well-being is not your concern.

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what states are doing when they redefine marriage to include same sex relationships and grant same sex couples legal status. It makes same sex relationships appear more socially acceptable.

Zoltan,

I didn’t claim that anal sex was a healthy practice.

I did claim that it doesn’t invariably lead to bleeding, pain, and disease. If a monogamous gay couple were to read that claim, they would probably laugh.

It’s never a good evangelistic idea to say things that are so unqualified as to make non-Christians amused by your naivete.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Oh, I see, choking was supposed to be a reference to oral sex. Well, uhhhh, to quote gay rights activist John Corvino, if a person finds himself choking, “he’s doing it wrong.”

Very wise words to live by…(?)

Maybe we should have John lecture Jr. High students on “how to do it right”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan,

I didn’t claim that anal sex was a healthy practice.

No, but you “sugar coated” it.

I did claim that it doesn’t invariably lead to bleeding, pain, and disease. If a monogamous gay couple were to read that claim, they would probably laugh.

Then they would be one of the very few (statistically wise) who don’t turn up in clinics for treatment of rectal problems.

It’s never a good evangelistic idea to say things that are so unqualified as to make non-Christians amused by your naivete.

Just being honest, Prod. Just being honest.

You may not believe this but I am concerned for gays. More so than the vast majority of non-Christians who’s laws require homosexuals to be stoned to death. Are those the folks I am amusing?

 

[Rau]

I agree with you here, Rau, but I would like to say something about love in relation to homosexuality.

I find it incredibility hard to believe that there is anything “loving” in sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. I don’t see anything “loving” about mutual self-destruction…

When I said 2 homosexual persons may love each other, I was not suggesting that they were engaging in sex acts. Sex acts are not intrinsic to love, though they may be desired.

 

[Rau]

What she is saying is a blatant, public rejection of the Catholic Church and its teaching in order to justify her own personal choices.

I am sorry that you agree, Rau. Catholics are not necessarily “free” to believe as we please.

It’s a semantic point I suppose. She has “free” will, but by virtue of her Catholic faith, she acts wrongly to dissent.

 

[shelby_sun]

I agree with you here, Rau, but I would like to say something about love in relation to homosexuality.

I find it incredibility hard to believe that there is anything “loving” in sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. I don’t see anything “loving” about mutual self-destruction.

You don’t have to be a psychiatrist to notice that a homosexual union is a kind of narcissism. It is like trying to unite with yourself in a mirror.

There is love of God.
There is parental love. (a parent’s love for his child and a child’s love for its parent)
There is marital love. The love shared by a man and woman that leads to marriage.
Then there is friendship. Friendship can be so strong that it seems like love…and maybe it is…but friends don’t hurt each other.

Are you for real? The more you talk the more misinformed and limited you seem.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

When I said 2 homosexual persons may love each other, I was not suggesting that they were engaging in sex acts. Sex acts are not intrinsic to love, though they may be desired.

Then why describe these persons as homosexuals…if they do not engage in homosexual sex???