Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

[bov]

Very simple answer to this. We live in a fallen world. Why does any birth defect happen, wouldn’t a loving God stop that? This world is fallen, that is why.

pathia, that is my point. Homosexuality is not a birth defect. And if it was, it would be the only birth defect that God made, which if acted on, (and not repented from prior to death) would be be gravely contrary to His will and would be condemed for it.

 

[bov]

So, if God loved those who Sodomized their bodies, why did he blow up (or burn down) those in Sodom and Gomorah who were degradating their bodies in himosexual acts? The act of homosexuality is gravely offensive to God.

Homosexuality is only a choice to a small extent, whether they want to pursue it (to maybe get out of the US Miitary) or not to pursue it (in order to evade persecution). Otherwise, it doesn’t seem to be a choice, considering the amount of mistreatment that comes with it. There is no gay gene… that, I think, is a given–but an embryo can obtain too much (if a girl) or too little (if a boy) testosterone that it can mess with future orientation.

Keep in mind: Sex is different than gender.

I have a feeling God didn’t create people gay just to condemn them. Everyone has a purpose in life. You know that. Perhaps they are here for us to learn how to truly love our neighbor regardless of orientation.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[pathia]

So, if God loved those who Sodomized their bodies, why did he blow up (or burn down) those in Sodom and Gomorah who were degradating their bodies in himosexual acts? The act of homosexuality is gravely offensive to God.

Inhospitality and the fact that even if you interpret the verses as sexual advances towards the angels, they were going after ANGELS and it was going to be RAPE. I see the verses as condemning inhospitality, rape and maltreatment of his servants by his children. Who wouldn’t be really ticked off at that idea?

 

[bov]

What so you think is harder… for a homosexual to refrain from the act, or for a heterosexual to abstain from contraception. The Church has defined both to be seriously contrary to the will of God. But, over 85% of “Catholics” use contraception. Allot of prayer is needed.

Though I certainly can’t know it, I believe the lines to receive that pill would probably be pretty short. As a chaste homosexual who would love nothing more than to get married and raise a family, I’d be in that line for sure. However, for many homosexuals, especially the ones who have been attracted to members of the same sex since they were old enough to remember, taking that pill would feel completely unnatural to them. A person’s sexuality is a significant piece of the puzzle that makes them who they are. If I had a dime for every time someone has told me that my sexuality isn’t natural I’d be rich. The problem is, when referring to my nature (that is, the only thing I’ve ever known), the statment isn’t true. My sexuality, regardless of how it got there, is the only thing I’ve ever known. It feels as natural to me as does the need to eat and breathe. That being said, I know what God asks of me. The truth is, many people with SSA don’t feel the same way I do. The lines to receive that pill would be pretty short, for the similar reasons that the lines to receive a pill that makes you homosexual would be short. For people on both sides of the sexuality spectrum, swallowing that pill just wouldn’t feel natural.

Just my two cents!

Peace!

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

So, if God loved those who Sodomized their bodies, why did he blow up (or burn down) those in Sodom and Gomorah who were degradating their bodies in himosexual acts? The act of homosexuality is gravely offensive to God.

Really I thought it was because they were unkind to strangers?

Well, I can’t speak for God on whether it’s offensive to Him or not (no matter what the Bible says), but I am pretty sure that someone up there is testing our Love for each other… if not, then, something is horribly wrong.

 

[wabrams]

Inhospitality and the fact that even if you interpret the verses as sexual advances towards the angels, they were going after ANGELS and it was going to be RAPE. I see the verses as condemning inhospitality, rape and maltreatment of his servants by his children. Who wouldn’t be really ticked off at that idea?

You left out the part about the crowd being offered women to rape instead of men and they rejected that idea.

 

[bov]

Men having sex with men and women with women is what made God so angry. They were hospitable with each other, but not with God.

Inhospitality and the fact that even if you interpret the verses as sexual advances towards the angels, they were going after ANGELS and it was going to be RAPE. I see the verses as condemning inhospitality, rape and maltreatment of his servants by his children. Who wouldn’t be really ticked off at that idea?

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

Why can’t there be a separation between church and state? I understand that Catholics find homosexuals sinful, and I respect that. Think what you want to think. But when it comes down to the legal level, why can’t same-sex couples get the same benefits as heterosexual couples? If the state abolished all marriages on the legal level, and granted civil union certificates to ALL couples, this would be resolved. Churches could marry whoever they want, and could still refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

@teachccd

Ask him if this applies to pedophiles as well…

Pedophiles are different. They are attracted to people below the legal age to marry. That’s why they can’t marry children. If a 60 year old wanted to marry an 18 year old, and she consented, I see nothing wrong with that. And don’t bring up the “I want to marry an animal or some other weird thing” argument. The same goes for that, too. Animals cannot sign a contract can they? A marriage license is basically a contract.

 

[RobbyS]

Why can’t there be a separation between church and state? I understand that Catholics find homosexuals sinful, and I respect that. Think what you want to think. But when it comes down to the legal level, why can’t same-sex couples get the same benefits as heterosexual couples? If the state abolished all marriages on the legal level, and granted civil union certificates to ALL couples, this would be resolved. Churches could marry whoever they want, and could still refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

@teachccd

Pedophiles are different. They are attracted to people below the legal age to marry. That’s why they can’t marry children. If a 60 year old wanted to marry an 18 year old, and she consented, I see nothing wrong with that. And don’t bring up the “I want to marry an animal or some other weird thing” argument. The same goes for that, too. Animals cannot sign a contract can they? A marriage license is basically a contract.

You forget the intent of the marriage laws. It is not to ratify the sexual attraction of two persons but to protect the rights of children born to a couple and to tranmit property from one generation to another. They anticipate the future of society. A gay marriage anticipates nothing except the end of the relationship, by death, or more likely, divorce. Gays have a point when they say they are no worse than the straight couple who chose not to have children, but they are no better either.

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

But why can’t they be EQUAL? Civil unions do not have some of the benefits that marriages have.

 

[RobbyS]

But why can’t they be EQUAL? Civil unions do not have some of the benefits that marriages have.

Because civil unions have to do with the mutual interests of the two partners and nothing to do with children. The marriage laws protect societies interest in the issue of the union, and not just property. Marriage laws look ahead thirty and sixty years in anticipation of the contributions not just of two persons but of an additional ten, twenty, or thirty persons, and to provide an orderly regulation down through the years of their contributions to society.

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

What about same-sex couples that adopt children?

 

[JLSamuel818]

Why can’t there be a separation between church and state? I understand that Catholics find homosexuals sinful, and I respect that. Think what you want to think. But when it comes down to the legal level, why can’t same-sex couples get the same benefits as heterosexual couples? If the state abolished all marriages on the legal level, and granted civil union certificates to ALL couples, this would be resolved. Churches could marry whoever they want, and could still refuse to marry whoever they wanted.

@teachccd

Pedophiles are different. They are attracted to people below the legal age to marry. That’s why they can’t marry children. If a 60 year old wanted to marry an 18 year old, and she consented, I see nothing wrong with that. And don’t bring up the “I want to marry an animal or some other weird thing” argument. The same goes for that, too. Animals cannot sign a contract can they? A marriage license is basically a contract.

Really, I am trying to say this carefully and respectfully. Traditional marriage is between one man, and one woman. So it is written. Any other form of marriage is sinful and wrong, with that said, homosexual marriage is right there bestial marriage. It’s outside of traditional marriage and therefore we as a Christian people can not accept it.

Understand where the word and practice of “marriage” came from, it came from God. The word itself is sacred because God has created the practice of marriage. Anything sinful with the practice of marriage will and should be opposed by any Christian church. Again, the practice originated from God, and it must not be soiled by divorce, bestiality, homosexuality, pedophilia, lust, and anything else immoral and wrong.

For me it is not the separation of state and church, but defense of the true definition of marriage. If two of the same gender would like to be in a relationship together, however wrong it may be, it is just fine. Some want to be together and that’s fine, wrong, but fine. But when two of the same gender is saying “I want to ‘marry’ you” to another person of the same gender, that’s when we need to protect the word’s true definition.

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege.

With much respect,
_Samuel

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

Thank you for just proving my point. By leaving “marriage” up to the church, that will maintain it’s sanctity. By making all legal matters between two people who love each other and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives called “civil unions”, we end this whole dispute! Everyone will get equal rights, and if a certain church doesn’t mind marrying gays, they do that. The whole point of the anti-Prop 8 campaign is to get equal rights for gays!

 

[JLSamuel818]

Thank you for just proving my point. By leaving “marriage” up to the church, that will maintain it’s sanctity. By making all legal matters between two people who love each other and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives called “civil unions”, we end this whole dispute! Everyone will get equal rights, and if a certain church doesn’t mind marrying gays, they do that. The whole point of the anti-Prop 8 campaign is to get equal rights for gays!

Sorry to spoil your bubble. But I was a huge supporter of Prop 8, going on their tour, and several protests.

The campaigns wanted “marriage”, not civil unions. Check their website, they wish marriage.

Again, nothing to do with rights. I don’t know why that was brought up. Prop 8 has nothing, nothing to do with rights. It has do with that specific privilege.

Again, not rights, but privileges. One more time, not rights, it is the privileges.

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

Okay, I said ANTI-Prop 8. Anyway, we got a little off topic here. My proposal is that the state stays out of marriage, and grants “civil union”, or “domestic partnership” licenses to EVERY couple. Then, if a heterosexual couple wanted to get married by a church they could do that. Now, why don’t you guys tell me what’s wrong with that.

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for just proving my point. By leaving “marriage” up to the church, that will maintain it’s sanctity. By making all legal matters between two people who love each other and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives called “civil unions”, we end this whole dispute! Everyone will get equal rights, and if a certain church doesn’t mind marrying gays, they do that. The whole point of the anti-Prop 8 campaign is to get equal rights for gays!

It is natural law. Anything else can never be equal.

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

What is a natural law?

 

[cristininha]

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and his colleagues at National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (www.narth.com) have some excellent and helpful articles on their web site. I think you can get some good answers there. Dr. Nicolosi has worked with hundreds of men with same-sex attraction. He sees same-sex attraction as a drive to repair a man’s damaged sense of masculinity. This emotional need sometimes seems to the man to be a physical need, and so is sometimes expressed physically. When the man’s emotional needs are met, the physical attraction toward men is often lessened, and sometimes he begins to experience a natural desire for women.

In the case of women, same-sex attraction is more often felt as an emotional need rather than expressed physically. According to this site, the origin of same-sex attraction in women is more complex than for men. I highly recommend this Catholic-friendly web site.

P.S. This site does not insist therapy is necessary. It does insist, however, that it should be available to those who desire it.

The problem with the NARTH’s approach is that they are a group of “experts” who believe and assume there is something intrinsically wrong and pathological about homosexuality and that it can be “healed”, when in fact no one can prove that. That’s why NARTH is a fringe organization.

 

[Roamin_Catholic_1]

What is a natural law?

I apologize, that came out wrong. I know what a natural law is. I was wondering what you thought the natural law was.