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

[pathia]

Who locked you up?

I was committed by my ‘church family’ at the time. I do not think my family family was totally for it, but they did whatever the church said. Note: Not the catholic church in this case. We weren’t Catholic yet.

 

[hartep]

What is the benefit of “reframing the dialogue” in a completely Godless way? Hasn’t that already been done by the secular gay activist movement?

It is OT, but your comment about contraception as a tool to deal with abortion is out of step with the facts. Many more women have abortions as a result of failed contraception than have abortions because they belied contraception use to be sinful.

I don’t believe I was suggesting reframing the dialogue in a godless way. The dialogue I was talking about was the dialogue about what sexual behavior is appropriate for Christians.

It may indeed be the case that when people believed contraception to be wrong, they did not use it and there was a resultant abortion. My point was that if one throws out the rather bizarre notion that every sexual act must be open to conception, then contraception becomes a legitimate choice for couples. And in that ideological climate, the Church might in some ways promote rational planning by couples and the use of contraceptives. Contraception might indeed fail sometimes. And not all abortions would be prevented, but many more might be prevented.

Clearly, this is not the end all solution to the problem of abortion which is a much more complex aspect of a civilization that is very far from imbued with Christian values.

 

[buffalo]

I was committed by my ‘church family’ at the time. I do not think my family family was totally for it, but they did whatever the church said. Note: Not the catholic church in this case. We weren’t Catholic yet.

Why do you seem so bitter toward the Catholic church and her teachings?

 

[pathia]

Why do you seem so bitter toward the Catholic church and her teachings?

The surgery done to me on as child was at the advice of Catholic priests, not medical professionals. I was baptized Catholic, but then my family became pentecostal for a bit, then returned to the Church later. Most of the therapy done to me, was at the advice of both churches, and the teachings and studies my therapists followed were Dr. Nicolosi, who is Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

The surgery done to me on as child was at the advice of Catholic priests, not medical professionals. I was baptized Catholic, but then my family became pentecostal for a bit, then returned to the Church later. Most of the therapy done to me, was at the advice of both churches, and the teachings and studies my therapists followed were Dr. Nicolosi, who is Catholic.

Do you believe they were honestly working in your best interests based on knowledge at the time? Your parents?

 

[michaelcollins]

Dear Michael, You are just too clever but what is your valid argument in response to mine. The Church (which believe it or not I love) speaks sometimes with forked tongue about natural law and the laws of nature. So you wouldn’t eat your young but you would have sex with your wife and animals do that (have sex with their mates). So rejecting homosexuality on the basis that it is a function of animals isn’t valid. The Church says that a homosexual pairing isn’t open to life but if two elderly heterosexuals marry (she past menopause and he past his climacteric) that union is not open to life either yet the church permits it. What about the friendship and companionship between two people of the same sex and there is a companionship in a sexual relationship that just doesn’t exist between friends just as sexual intimacy between hets. I’m not arguing that the Church should call it marriage but that they should not oppose gay unions for those not of our faith or those of a different conscious.
(Irrelevant question: Do you work for Publishers Clearing House?)

what is a publishers clearinghouse? I am a civil trial attorney.

Yes my argument about eating their young or mates is clever but also true and points out that human behavior cannot be judged on animal standards.

My argument is simple, and for all the gay posters i will make these comments first:

1. I personnally have NO problems with homosexuals;
2. I dont care about the behavior, lifestyle or orientation;
   3.I see no more immorality by gays than by heteros, maybe less who knows;
3. I proscribe to the old joke about you should HAVE to get married, see one of 1st couples in Mass., getting divorce, so you can have the same problems the rest of us do and be subject to the same code of conduct;

Now here is the problem, I converted to catholisim, I try to follow its teachings, to live by its rules, I am a far, far better person who cares more for my fellow man and does more for them than I ever was prior to that time, so in trying to follow the teachings I dont argue with all the rules. Does priestly celibacy which was not always a rule make sense to me? No, I think it would be good to do away with it, but I am a member of a club that I chose, I was not drug out of a crowd and made to become catholic, if priestly celibacy bothers me too much I could join the church of England (as if theyd have me-who knows what moivie that is from?) If gay sin or abortion is a problem there are religions that say those are ok. I have a problem with people who join a club they dont have to then immediately begin telling the club they should be a tennis club not a golf club, does not make sense to me.

End result- I am catholic, social justice, ethics, its not fair while good arguments do not sway me because I follow my churches teachings.

Now the response that churches have not always been right-etc is what I expect, its what I would argue, does not apply to doctrine and dogma, may change some day doesnt shange very often many times, I dont see a big revolution in the catholic church regarding gay behavior. until then I follow the church.

 

[pathia]

Do you believe they were honestly working in your best interests based on knowledge at the time? Your parents?

They didn’t base any choices off of their own knowledge or research, so I don’t know how to answer that question. There was no knowledge on their behalf, they left it always to the church to make the choice, because they were confused. This why I am angry at the church, my parents didn’t really make any choices, they did what the church thought best. Their research was to ask the church what to do, nothing more.

 

[buffalo]

They didn’t base any choices off of their own knowledge or research, so I don’t know how to answer that question. There was no knowledge on their behalf, they left it always to the church to make the choice, because they were confused. This why I am angry at the church, my parents didn’t really make any choices, they did what the church thought best. Their research was to ask the church what to do, nothing more.

So the Church acted in a malicious way?

 

[bellesjoy]

It’s always about the kids. You know what I thought when I was a kid? That people loved other people. I didn’t even really understand that there were boys and girls. You know what made me ‘know’ that homosexuality was bad? My parents and society. I didn’t have any issues understanding anything I saw, people like people and some people love another person enough to be with them forever. Gender didn’t matter, at all. The only reason I thought anything was ‘icky’ was because of the influence of outsiders.

I have a little niece, she’s 4, going on 5 now. She is completely unconfused about my living as an opposite gender. She calls me “Auntle” it’s incredibly cute. She’s not confused at all, she’s less confused than ANYONE else. She lives in a world of fantasy and magic, where anything can happen, because that’s what kids believe at that age. If I wanted to be something else, I can just do it, she doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with it, it doesn’t confuse her, it’s just like what she sees in her stories.

My, your difficulty as a child and the effects you are having on a 4 yr. old speak volumes.
Parents and society are **supposed **to teach children what is right and wrong! Children learn by example what is moral.
Holy Mother Church will not change on this issue, ever. That you can count on. Same sex attraction is a fact, no matter what one believes is the cause. The Church teaches that those with SSA are cherished children of the Father, and as such deserve our love and respect; but they are expected to not act on their attractions.
Those actions are considered morally illict and condemned by the Church.
It doesn’t matter what we think is fair. Marriage is a sacrament, without it you are living outside of your faith.
The law should reflect the benefit of marriage to society, not that someone wants to be called married. No one is preventing any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is and it is open to everyone who wishes to do so. If you don’t want to marry a member of the opposite sex then don’t. There are legal means to address other concerns and many laws that already give protections in general.
I have a daughter who is heterosexual, who has never married. Not because she hasn’t longed for marriage and children, but because it just hasn’t happened for her. She suffers greatly that all around her are happily married in the Church and have growing children now. She is now past the age of childbearing. Fair? Maybe not in the world’s eye, but we know our Lord has a plan for her. Daily she prays for His grace to accept her life as it is and she offers her personal suffering for those in purgatory.
Not all of us are intended by Our Lord to be called to the vocation of marriage. Marriage is not a right, it is a vocation and a priviledge.
Envy of what others have is a serious sin; but our society just views it as a starting place for a law suit.

 

[buffalo]

APA’s New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client’s Right to Self-Determination

The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known:
that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.

March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”
This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.

more…

 

[pathia]

So the Church acted in a malicious way?

The medical facts were known that the surgery had a hideous rate of failure and would likely lead to complications. Thus the doctors said it was probably best to not operate, or make me female anatomically.

However, the advice of the priests was as far as I can tell along the following logic.

1.) It was known I would be sterile and impotent no matter what.
2.) This means I could never consummate a marriage in Catholic fashion.
3.) Therefore ‘function’ didn’t matter, so the surgery that would make me most APPEAR ‘Male and female he made them’ would be best. Regardless of the consequences, because consequences didn’t matter, because I was going to be called to chastity as an adult no matter what.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Thread temporarily closed for editing.