Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[Mirdath]

Love by the church is defined as a will and commitment to continue towards your spouse, not a feeling, feelings come and go, so love cannot be coming and going. The feelings are what someone gets when they are in love. In the marriage vows, thats what you commit to, for better or for worse, until death does us apart.

I wouldn’t say that is love itself, but it is a necessary attribute of love. ‘For better for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part’ follows naturally if one loves someone, does it not? And why, exactly, is an entire group of people supposed by the Church to be unable to do this? Why does Catholic teaching insist that homosexuals are spiritually and emotionally incapable of lifelong, loving commitment to another person?

 

[JFonseka]

I wouldn’t say that is love itself, but it is a necessary attribute of love. ‘For better for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part’ follows naturally if one loves someone, does it not? And why, exactly, is an entire group of people supposed by the Church to be unable to do this? Why does Catholic teaching insist that homosexuals are spiritually and emotionally incapable of lifelong, loving commitment to another person?

I am not sure about the exact Church’s teaching on this, but I’m just going to speculate.

Jesus’ love for the church was unreserved, it wasn’t held back, he loved his Church so much he took on all of their sins and died for us. Similarly a husband must love his wife like so and vice versa and the husband should be prepared to die for his wife, they draw a parallel between Jesus/Church and husband/wife, because the Church is referred to as Christ’s bride, and children are seen as the products of love between a man and a woman, people use contraception to avoid getting pregnant, that is reserved love and contrary to God’s message, homosexuals cannot get each other pregnant by themselves, and the fact that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of nature, clearly seen by the fact that they cannot reproduce like that & it is also against God’s teaching.

Considering consummation is the completion of a marriage bond, and that ‘anal sex’ and ‘oral sex’ is not allowed by the Catholic church, those are the main means by which homosexual sex can take place. And those specific acts of sex are viewed as lust, not love. The purpose of semen is giving life, just like the communion we receive at church is giving life to us. I’m not good at explaining this. Read John Paul II’s theology of the body:

christopherwest.com/works.asp

Scroll down where you will see the articles on theology of the body.

 

[Mirdath]

Jesus’ love for the church was unreserved, it wasn’t held back, he loved his Church so much he took on all of their sins and died for us.

Jesus died for humanity, not the Church; and the Church may be his bride, but every person on the planet is not.

Similarly a husband must love his wife like so and vice versa and the husband should be prepared to die for his wife, they draw a parallel between Jesus/Church and husband/wife, because the Church is referred to as Christ’s bride, and children are seen as the products of love between a man and a woman, people use contraception to avoid getting pregnant, that is reserved love and contrary to God’s message, homosexuals cannot get each other pregnant by themselves, and the fact that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of nature, clearly seen by the fact that they cannot reproduce like that & it is also against God’s teaching.

So homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce. Unlike contracepting heterosexual couples, they do not choose to be homosexual specifically to avoid pregnancy. Infertile couples are the same way. If God can get around the one, why can’t he get around the other? After all, he managed to skirt an equally dire impediment to pregnancy rather spectacularly around the turn of the first century!

Considering consummation is the completion of a marriage bond, and that ‘anal sex’ and ‘oral sex’ is not allowed by the Catholic church, those are the main means by which homosexual sex can take place. And those specific acts of sex are viewed as lust, not love. The purpose of semen is giving life, just like the communion we receive at church is giving life to us.

And why are they considered purely lustful? Sure, the procreative purpose is not fulfilled, but the unitive purpose is certainly at work. There is plenty of semen to go around!

How can the Church enter the minds of every person on Earth and presume to tell whether he or she is acting out of lust or love?

 

[tigster]

Everyone is human, so there should be equal rights for gays as well as others. God Bless all.

 

[JFonseka]

Jesus died for humanity, not the Church; and the Church may be his bride, but every person on the planet is not.

Well he died for everyone, christian or non-christian. My point was in the analogy.

So homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce. Unlike contracepting heterosexual couples, they do not choose to be homosexual specifically to avoid pregnancy. Infertile couples are the same way. If God can get around the one, why can’t he get around the other? After all, he managed to skirt an equally dire impediment to pregnancy rather spectacularly around the turn of the first century!

They may not choose to be homosexual specifically, but the inability of homosexuals to reproduce is evidence in itself that it’s not natural, leaving aside God’s law, and taking a secular perspective, a male and a male cannot reproduce by itself, so it defies nature. Infertile couples maybe due to something they cannot avoid, if something has happened to one of the spouses that they cannot reproduce again, that is beyond their ability to control. I have no idea what dire impediment to pregnancy in the 1st century you are referring to is, unless…you are referring to the early Christian’s stance against contraception.

And why are they considered purely lustful? Sure, the procreative purpose is not fulfilled, but the unitive purpose is certainly at work. There is plenty of semen to go around!

I don’t know the answer to this fully, but I think in JPII’s theology of the body he does address that issue but I cannot remember everything he said, it’s fairly long, go read it yourself. It’s not a unitive purpose it the eyes of God, it may be legally a union, but a union takes place in marriage between a man and a wife when the Holy Spirit binds them, there is no union by God in homosexual marriages, to claim there is, is a contradiction to the teachings in the Bible.

How can the Church enter the minds of every person on Earth and presume to tell whether he or she is acting out of lust or love?

Most people seem to confuse love and lust themselves, just look at today’s world, there are so many divorces, rapes, people in and out out of relationships, but you want to question the church’s authority on what is love and lust when people themselves don’t seem to recognize what love and lust is. Though it may seem unfair to label a homosexual marriage as having no love, I don’t know what the definition of love by the Church is fully, but I’m sure it has been derived by scriptural teachings, perhaps that is why they presume, but if you note what I said earlier on, I am not sure on the Church’s exact teachings, I am speculating on some issues. The best would be to read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, it’s long I guess, but nevertheless it is interesting and answers a lot of questions.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve been reading this thread for several days and I have learned much from both Mirdath and brianwalden. If I may I would like to ask a question of you Mirdath. If I understand correctly from your postings, you believe that a marrige should be recognized by the government if it meets these two criteria:

• It is between two consenting adults.
• It does no intristic harm to society
  Are these fair statements?

If so, then I ask you if the government should recognize a marriage between me and my sister?

 

[Mirdath]

They may not choose to be homosexual specifically, but the inability of homosexuals to reproduce is evidence in itself that it’s not natural, leaving aside God’s law, and taking a secular perspective, a male and a male cannot reproduce by itself, so it defies nature.

Yet many, many species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. How is that defying nature?

And God’s law has nothing to do with civil law, unless I am unwittingly living in a theocracy.

I have no idea what dire impediment to pregnancy in the 1st century you are referring to is, unless…you are referring to the early Christian’s stance against contraception.

Actually I was referring to the conception of Jesus

It’s not a unitive purpose it the eyes of God, it may be legally a union, but a union takes place in marriage between a man and a wife when the Holy Spirit binds them, there is no union by God in homosexual marriages, to claim there is, is a contradiction to the teachings in the Bible.

So far in this thread, we’ve been concerned with civil marriage, which isn’t a Church-sanctioned union (and thus, if you believe the Church, not God-sanctioned). I do not want to see the Catholic Church forced to accept same-sex unions. The law of the Church is not the law of the land, and I’m fine with that.

Most people seem to confuse love and lust themselves, just look at today’s world, there are so many divorces, rapes, people in and out out of relationships, but you want to question the church’s authority on what is love and lust when people themselves don’t seem to recognize what love and lust is. Though it may seem unfair to label a homosexual marriage as having no love, I don’t know what the definition of love by the Church is fully, but I’m sure it has been derived by scriptural teachings, perhaps that is why they presume, but if you note what I said earlier on, I am not sure on the Church’s exact teachings, I am speculating on some issues. The best would be to read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, it’s long I guess, but nevertheless it is interesting and answers a lot of questions.

Yes, I want to question it – I am questioning it! A great number of those sins against marriage, against sex, and against the body are being actively committed or abetted by members of the Church. Compared to that, actively homosexual Catholics pose a minuscule problem. What reason, then, does Rome have to concentrate so much on the issue of homosexuality? They are tearing through the house trying to swat a fly, stepping over and around the pack of wolves running through the halls.

It is not ‘unfair’ to label a same-sex relationship loveless merely because of the parties’ genitalia, it is slanderous. Is it not enough to simply forbid it? And again, I hold that that is the Church’s prerogative, to define the marriages it will permit its followers; but it has no authority to define it for those who are not adherents to the faith.

iamrefreshed:

If I may I would like to ask a question of you Mirdath. If I understand correctly from your postings, you believe that a marrige should be recognized by the government if it meets these two criteria:

* It is between two consenting adults.
* It does no intristic harm to society

Are these fair statements?

If so, then I ask you if the government should recognize a marriage between me and my sister?

Being close family raises serious questions – at absolute best – as to whether there truly is informed consent (this concern includes adoptive siblings); and inbreeding is a recognizable harm to society. As a general guideline, then, I would not support recognition of incestuous unions within the immediate family.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Being close family raises serious questions – at absolute best – as to whether there truly is informed consent (this concern includes adoptive siblings); and inbreeding is a recognizable harm to society. As a general guideline, then, I would not support recognition of incestuous unions within the immediate family.

Thanks for the reply. I expected a different answer based on reading all of your previous posts.

Why would you question consent? We are of age and sane. We both hold jobs and contribute to society.

Could you address your consent issue then we can discuss inbreeding?

 

[JFonseka]

Yet many, many species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. How is that defying nature?

And God’s law has nothing to do with civil law, unless I am unwittingly living in a theocracy.

It still does defy nature, homosexual behaviour does not produce offspring. I do not know why animals do it, could it be because they are not robots and actually do think and feel urges? There could be other reasons, but animals and human’s are not the same, humans have better control of themselves (or should be able to) our intelligence is far greater to be able to discern between right and wrong, and animals don’t. My usage of the word nature as in ‘natural’ is there a birth that takes place from homosexual behaviour? Regardless of whether it’s an animal or not? Reproduction is the result of sexual behaviour in animals, (the majority) so that is the natural.

Actually I was referring to the conception of Jesus

Please explain more, frankly I do not get the point you are trying to make. Sorry!

So far in this thread, we’ve been concerned with civil marriage, which isn’t a Church-sanctioned union (and thus, if you believe the Church, not God-sanctioned). I do not want to see the Catholic Church forced to accept same-sex unions. The law of the Church is not the law of the land, and I’m fine with that.

No one is going to force anything on anyone, however we can strongly argue as to what is immoral and what isn’t. The vatican isn’t going to send their swiss guards running to the government just because it legalizes same sex marriages. The topic was regarding, what is the big deal? And I have put some reasons as to why I thought it was a big deal.

Yes, I want to question it – I am questioning it! A great number of those sins against marriage, against sex, and against the body are being actively committed or abetted by members of the Church. Compared to that, actively homosexual Catholics pose a minuscule problem. What reason, then, does Rome have to concentrate so much on the issue of homosexuality? They are tearing through the house trying to swat a fly, stepping over and around the pack of wolves running through the halls.

There is nothing the Church can do in fullness to stop any sin from happening, it is upto the individual to do what they do keeping in mind what they have been taught. Adultery seems to have been there forever in the public eye, where as homosexual marriages are being legalized, if something immoral is being legalized, the Church obviously tries to stop it, adultery isn’t being legalized, it’s already allowed, hence why the Church isn’t putting in as much effort on that, they can’t go running to each person that commits a sin against the body. The knowledge of what a Catholic should and should not do is there, it’s upto the individual to take that and apply the teachings of Jesus into their life.

It is not ‘unfair’ to label a same-sex relationship loveless merely because of the parties’ genitalia, it is slanderous. Is it not enough to simply forbid it? And again, I hold that that is the Church’s prerogative, to define the marriages it will permit its followers; but it has no authority to define it for those who are not adherents to the faith.

God’s law doesn’t apply to a select few, it’s not the Church that made it up, they use the law and apply it correctly to the modern times. Another problem is we don’t want to see a society that accepts the ‘sin of homosexuality’. And by this I mean homosexual acts itself. Hate the sin, not the sinner. What does homosexual marriages mean? Where there is a marriage, there is obviously sex. The Church is doing nothing wrong in condemning the sin, to be quiet about what is contrary to God’s word is to go against what God wants us to do. We aren’t supposed to stand by and let sins taking place, but that being said, we can’t stop every sin that takes place. The legalization of homosexual marriages, essentially means a greater temptation for those curious and homosexuals who are trying to lead a Christian life of chasteness, because now the law allows it and there is a greater acceptance of homosexual acts.

Being close family raises serious questions – at absolute best – as to whether there truly is informed consent (this concern includes adoptive siblings); and inbreeding is a recognizable harm to society. As a general guideline, then, I would not support recognition of incestuous unions within the immediate family.

Homosexual behaviour is harmful to society too, the kids from the future generations come to see homosexuality as ok, and hence will not stop to think about doing something with their friends, curious behaviours in childhood and henceforth. This is indeed the culture of death. I am sorry if you can’t see what this means for the future generations.

 

[JFonseka]

Being close family raises serious questions – at absolute best – as to whether there truly is informed consent (this concern includes adoptive siblings); and inbreeding is a recognizable harm to society. As a general guideline, then, I would not support recognition of incestuous unions within the immediate family.

How about if there was contraception used between a sister and a brother in their marriage and they did not plan on having children ever.

Would it be ok for more of the populace to engage in such a thing, if the law allows it?

How about a mother and a son? A father and a daughter, leaving aside the church’s teaching, as this involves only people who do not adhere to the faith, but their own wants and needs. What is wrong with such marriages or relationships to take place if there are no children to come forth from such marriages?

 

[Abiien]

Equal Rights?
Gays do have equal rights too, they can just as much marry soeone of opposite sex as well.
Its up tothem.
Its not a matter of equal rights to marry someone of their own gender.
not freedom of religion, BY FAR.
For this was founded on the Catholic Christian religion, and no other religions contain the marriage the US marriage is based on but the christians.

 

[Polaris]

Equal Rights?
Gays do have equal rights too, they can just as much marry soeone of opposite sex as well.
Its up tothem.
Its not a matter of equal rights to marry someone of their own gender.
not freedom of religion, BY FAR.
For this was founded on the Catholic Christian religion, and no other religions contain the marriage the US marriage is based on but the christians.

Really, so a homosexual can marry ia woman n the Catholic church… Hmmm So that whole impediment to marriage thing was thrown out the window?

 

[Mirdath]

Could you address your consent issue then we can discuss inbreeding?

I object to incest for the same reason I object to arranged marriage: how can one tell if both parties truly want to be married and have full knowledge of what it entails? How is an outside agency to determine that neither side is pressuring the other into it? Of course, if free informed consent is shown to be had by both parties and you have shown yourselves capable and willing to deal with a child who might have congenital defects, sure, if you want it so badly I’m not going to stop you from marrying your sister.

Now, since this thread is not about my views on incest, how about we get back on topic?

JFonseka:

I do not know why animals do it, could it be because they are not robots and actually do think and feel urges?

I would venture a ‘yes’.

My usage of the word nature as in ‘natural’ is there a birth that takes place from homosexual behaviour? Regardless of whether it’s an animal or not? Reproduction is the result of sexual behaviour in animals, (the majority) so that is the natural.

Many heterosexual acts do not result in pregnancy. Is it only ‘natural’ if a child proceeds from it?

Please explain more, frankly I do not get the point you are trying to make. Sorry!

If God can get a virgin pregnant without the involvement of any other party, surely he could get a lesbian or a gay man pregnant? He’s been willing to work around the problem of not having a heterosexual union before, is all I’m saying.

There is nothing the Church can do in fullness to stop any sin from happening, it is upto the individual to do what they do keeping in mind what they have been taught. Adultery seems to have been there forever in the public eye, where as homosexual marriages are being legalized, if something immoral is being legalized, the Church obviously tries to stop it, adultery isn’t being legalized, it’s already allowed, hence why the Church isn’t putting in as much effort on that, they can’t go running to each person that commits a sin against the body.

And why not? Adultery being the more pervasive, more common evil, why is it lower on the Church’s list of priorities? Why is fighting a potential harm better than combating an actual evil? Why focus on the sins of a few? Yes, it takes more effort, but as they say, it ain’t easy being Catholic.

The knowledge of what a Catholic should and should not do is there, it’s upto the individual to take that and apply the teachings of Jesus into their life.

And the individual does not have to be Catholic.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I object to incest for the same reason I object to arranged marriage: how can one tell if both parties truly want to be married and have full knowledge of what it entails? How is an outside agency to determine that neither side is pressuring the other into it? Of course, if free informed consent is shown to be had by both parties and you have shown yourselves capable and willing to deal with a child who might have congenital defects, sure, if you want it so badly I’m not going to stop you from marrying your sister.

Now, since this thread is not about my views on incest, how about we get back on topic?

To be fair to me, this is on topic. You stated your criteria for what you consider to be required for a marriage to be recognized by the government. I introduced a scenario whereby your criteria could be objectively tested.

You waffled on your answer within one post. You went from a no to an incestuous marriage to a yes.

Can you explain your change of heart?

 

[goofyjim]

Maybe we should stop attempting to call it marriage. But on the other hand we should stop throwing stones at the sinners. There are far worse sins committed than romantic love between two men or two women. As has been well pointed out even Ezekiel stated that Sodom was destroyed for its lack of hospitality, not homosexuality per se. This led later on to the Hebrew people putting a law on the books against homosexual behavior. But before that did God approve? Or maybe it doesn’t really matter to God anyhow and it is we as humans who have decided to ban the act.

 

[terri_fortner]

I object to incest for the same reason I object to arranged marriage: how can one tell if both parties truly want to be married and have full knowledge of what it entails? How is an outside agency to determine that neither side is pressuring the other into it? Of course, if free informed consent is shown to be had by both parties and you have shown yourselves capable and willing to deal with a child who might have congenital defects, sure, if you want it so badly I’m not going to stop you from marrying your sister.

Now, since this thread is not about my views on incest, how about we get back on topic?

I would venture a ‘yes’.

Many heterosexual acts do not result in pregnancy. Is it only ‘natural’ if a child proceeds from it?

If God can get a virgin pregnant without the involvement of any other party, surely he could get a lesbian or a gay man pregnant? He’s been willing to work around the problem of not having a heterosexual union before, is all I’m saying.

And why not? Adultery being the more pervasive, more common evil, why is it lower on the Church’s list of priorities? Why is fighting a potential harm better than combating an actual evil? Why focus on the sins of a few? Yes, it takes more effort, but as they say, it ain’t easy being Catholic.

And the individual does not have to be Catholic.

So many things wrong with this statement it is rediculous! A. Incestuous relationships must be maintained for many generations for deformitys to result, yes I am sure it happens in the first string, but as the line of relationships continues, the chances of having mental and physical deformities is increased.

B. This thread is about What the big deal is with Gay marriage. It is not about trying to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and you are right. (and that goes for both sides).

C. It is natural because in nature a child COULD result from the act weather or not a child does is purely up to God.

D. God made a virgin pregnant because that was what he wanted to do. God cannot do wrong, so he would never make someone who is commiting a mortal sin miraculously pregnant. He wouldn’t do it because doing it would be promoting sin, and that is the devil’s domain, not God’s. (I told ya’ll he is a good devil, he knows what we want and he wants to give it to us. Where as God knows what is best and what is right, and He wants to give that to us).

E. Because the potential for homosexuality to harm all people is far, far greater than the potential for adultry to harm all people. Adultry is something that is usually kept between the parties involved, but homosexuality is something that is not kept between the people involved. It violates my right as a parent to raise my children to know this act is a sin, and to love the sinner but not the sin. What about my rights are my rights not as important as the rights of the other sinners out there?

Finally, a note, in my first point I reminded what I feel the OP meant, and I feel we have more than answered the question here. If we want to debate is it right or is it wrong maybe a new thread needs to be started witht he topic of is Gay marriage wrong, not why do you have a problem with it. Settlers came to America to escape RELIGIOUS persecution. They wanted to be allowed to practice their faith without being killed, now we are not being killed just told what we can and cannot believe in that Faith. They were free to be homosexual in Europe, but they didn’t want that that, they wanted to be free to follow Christ, and ALL of his teachings including the ones that somepeople didn’t agree with. Remember at the time of Christ people thought he was a nut, and that he was a fake, and that the things he said were blasphamy. Because he spoke the truth and he told the people things they did not want to hear, like homosexuality is a sin.

 

[emily47017]

To be fair to me, this is on topic. You stated your criteria for what you consider to be required for a marriage to be recognized by the government. I introduced a scenario whereby your criteria could be objectively tested.

You waffled on your answer within one post. You went from a no to an incestuous marriage to a yes.

Can you explain your change of heart?

there are subtle and not-so-subtle power dynamics in families, as anyone who’s spent 15 years in therapy trying to get over their mothers could attest. even siblings – ostensibly equal – having grown up with unique mixtures of rivalry, loyalty and hero-worship can find themselves locked into emotional patterns that aren’t given to healthy marriage.

for these reasons, full consent is questionable. in some cases, it’s impossible.

 

[goofyjim]

So many things wrong with this statement it is rediculous! A. Incestuous relationships must be maintained for many generations for deformitys to result, yes I am sure it happens in the first string, but as the line of relationships continues, the chances of having mental and physical deformities is increased.

B. This thread is about What the big deal is with Gay marriage. It is not about trying to convince the rest of us that we are wrong and you are right. (and that goes for both sides).

C. It is natural because in nature a child COULD result from the act weather or not a child does is purely up to God.

D. God made a virgin pregnant because that was what he wanted to do. God cannot do wrong, so he would never make someone who is commiting a mortal sin miraculously pregnant. He wouldn’t do it because doing it would be promoting sin, and that is the devil’s domain, not God’s. (I told ya’ll he is a good devil, he knows what we want and he wants to give it to us. Where as God knows what is best and what is right, and He wants to give that to us).

E. Because the potential for homosexuality to harm all people is far, far greater than the potential for adultry to harm all people. Adultry is something that is usually kept between the parties involved, but homosexuality is something that is not kept between the people involved. It violates my right as a parent to raise my children to know this act is a sin, and to love the sinner but not the sin. What about my rights are my rights not as important as the rights of the other sinners out there?

Finally, a note, in my first point I reminded what I feel the OP meant, and I feel we have more than answered the question here. If we want to debate is it right or is it wrong maybe a new thread needs to be started witht he topic of is Gay marriage wrong, not why do you have a problem with it. Settlers came to America to escape RELIGIOUS persecution. They wanted to be allowed to practice their faith without being killed, now we are not being killed just told what we can and cannot believe in that Faith. They were free to be homosexual in Europe, but they didn’t want that that, they wanted to be free to follow Christ, and ALL of his teachings including the ones that somepeople didn’t agree with. Remember at the time of Christ people thought he was a nut, and that he was a fake, and that the things he said were blasphamy. Because he spoke the truth and he told the people things they did not want to hear, like homosexuality is a sin.

Disagree with E completely. I just don’t see how homosexuality harms anyone. If one sees it as a sin then it harms their relationship with God, but noone else is injured anymore than in adultery.

 

[terri_fortner]

Disagree with E completely. I just don’t see how homosexuality harms anyone. If one sees it as a sin then it harms their relationship with God, but noone else is injured anymore than in adultery.

Two men kissing in a romantic embrace:

My children see this display they think it is okay, they mimic it, and voila, it has harmed they little souls (they may have other sins there, but Less sin is better than more).

Someone with Anger sees it thinks it is wrong, starts letting this anger eat at him, carrys it around until he explodes, and harms someone. Voila harmed his soul… (he may have other sins there too, but again less sin is better).

Someone asks a question on a forum, and someone else is offended, tempers flair, and words exchanged, and noone has even committed the act, and it has harmed way more than just the people directly involved.

When we allow things that were once sins to be sins no more, then we are harming all people’s souls (believers and nonbelievers will all be judged).

Adultry is a sin, and no one is trying to change that fact. Homosexuality is a sin as well, but there are people out there who are trying to change that fact.

There will come a time when people call out to Him and he will reply I don’t know who you are, but you aren’t any of my people.

 

[goofyjim]

Two men kissing in a romantic embrace:

My children see this display they think it is okay, they mimic it, and voila, it has harmed they little souls (they may have other sins there, but Less sin is better than more).

Someone with Anger sees it thinks it is wrong, starts letting this anger eat at him, carrys it around until he explodes, and harms someone. Voila harmed his soul… (he may have other sins there too, but again less sin is better).

Someone asks a question on a forum, and someone else is offended, tempers flair, and words exchanged, and noone has even committed the act, and it has harmed way more than just the people directly involved.

When we allow things that were once sins to be sins no more, then we are harming all people’s souls (believers and nonbelievers will all be judged).

Adultry is a sin, and no one is trying to change that fact. Homosexuality is a sin as well, but there are people out there who are trying to change that fact.

There will come a time when people call out to Him and he will reply I don’t know who you are, but you aren’t any of my people.

Yes, but then the adulterers will be crying out as well. And the cat is out of the bag since the Catechism addresses the issue of homosexual inclination. IMO, they should have left in the phrase they do not choose their condition. This way the innocent child wouldn’t feel so all alone in the world havign SSA, which there is nothing wrong with.