Gay marriage : who cares?

[John21652]

yah, well, this is not the first time that when the logic seems to fail them (which it usually does, since the moral code is not actually based on logic but rather prejudice, in the end) the most intense defenders of dogma kind of snap and unravel in these screeds in front of our eyes.

Well, well, well, look at the archetypical hypocrite coming out guns blazing if he thinks he sniffs a weakness in someone’s argument. Larkin, when it comes to illogical arguments, you have set a new standard on CAF. Care, perhaps, to tell all the readers here how you denied the existence of objective truths and then ‘discovered’ gravity?!!

How many times have you tried your darndest to ‘prove’ that the Natural Law is non-existant, and yet all your arguments have devolved into non-sensical rants based on relativism, hedonism and a moral vaccuity which knows no bounds.

Your use of the word “them” differentiates you from those who uphold any form of moral code. You also seem to forget that this is a Catholic forum and you seem surprised when the adherents to the catholic moral code defend it from your innane attacks. Your position is indefensable from the view point of any moral code and you are forced to resort to sarcasm. Just shows what an ungracious individual you are. If you had any semblance of graciousness you’d be able to at least express some admiration for those who seek to adhere to a moral code, even if you diagree with it. But, what would expect from such a morally empty vessel…

 

[larkin31]

Well, well, well, look at the archetypical hypocrite coming out guns blazing if he thinks he sniffs a weakness in someone’s argument. Larkin, when it comes to illogical arguments, you have set a new standard on CAF. Care, perhaps, to tell all the readers here how you denied the existence of objective truths and then ‘discovered’ gravity?!!

How many times have you tried your darndest to ‘prove’ that the Natural Law is non-existant, and yet all your arguments have devolved into non-sensical rants based on relativism, hedonism and a moral vaccuity which knows no bounds.

Your use of the word “them” differentiates you from those who uphold any form of moral code. You also seem to forget that this is a Catholic forum and you seem surprised when the adherents to the catholic moral code defend it from your innane attacks. Your position is indefensable from the view point of any moral code and you are forced to resort to sarcasm. Just shows what an ungracious individual you are. If you had any semblance of graciousness you’d be able to at least express some admiration for those who seek to adhere to a moral code, even if you diagree with it. But, what would expect from such a morally empty vessel…

I love you, too.

 

[John21652]

I love you, too.

I see you are still honing your evasive tactics.

Methinks you love none but yourself.
Hedonists tend to be like that.

 

[larkin31]

I see you are still honing your evasive tactics.

Methinks you love none but yourself.
Hedonists tend to be like that.

Your rant deserved nothing more. You don’t even summarize my arguments or point of view accurately, but your myopia doesn’t merit correction because I no longer care what you think of me or my point of view. You are actually claiming here, in a childish and uncharitable manner, that I don’t love anyone but myself, but you have never met me and have no real idea what I love and don’t love. You even had the audacity to claim that I don’t admire moral persons. That is incredibly wrong and uncharitable of you to say. You appear angry and hurt and vindictive in these posts here. You are taking wild swipes at someone you do not know and simply does not accept what Catholics call logic of faith.

I have plenty of sincere and respectful discussions here with thoughtful and devout posters. But this kind of post here from you deserves no respect from me. You reap what you sow, and you are simply spreading vindictive anger. You should expect nothing but the same back in reply.

 

[John_Pascendi]

I’m sorry if I seemed to be blaming feminists. I was just speculating that some male homosexuality could be an unintended consequence of it in some cases. I’m sorry if this discussion is painful, but what are we supposed to do if it makes some people uncomfortable to discuss? Ignore it? Passing laws without an adequate discussion is going to make many more people uncomfortable.

I searched for “why” the American Psychiatry Association removed homosexuality from it’s list of mental conditions in 1976 and could find no reason why it was removed. One small group of people, by a hypothetical 5-4 vote with one person determining the outcome, could have voted, yet no explanation why is readily available on the internet. Why should people like me spend our time speculating and trying to re-invent the wheel when the professionals probably have the answers? Maybe they gave up the search for causes for political reasons. Maybe they gave up the search because increases in hedonism = leads to world depopulation = less hungry mouths to feed reasons. Maybe they gave up the search for a cause because if only one single human being prefers homosexuality to heterosexuality, then this is a voluntary choice, the person should have the right to make this voluntary choice, and therefore it can no longer be called a condition that needs a cause to be found as long as one sane person free willingly chooses it. Maybe they aren’t saying for political reasons. Curious minds want to know. Once we know, we can understand. But if someone is hiding the truth from the public because “they” have already made the decision what’s good for us, then We The People have the right to know, rather than have some unelected group of puppetmasters pushing their will upon We The People against our will. The pernicious nature of the movement is why some people are against it. Still others worship the unelected media’s propaganda rather than think for themselves. Just sayin, I bet more people know more about this than they are saying and are attempting to force it on the public whether we like it or not. It’s certainly not democracy.

well when I attended college homosexuality was called a mommys complex…the boy had no positive daddy role model and thus fell in love with his mommy.the opposite with lesbians,they hated or simply had no mom and loved their daddy or brother or some male figure and thus they could never make it with another of the opposite sex…I ,myself,dont care who marries who or whom…even a plant or several wives or hubbies…but I frankly dont think they should adopt at all.I think that its better for a young kid to have both a mommy and daddy…I know.old fashioned and all…I always liked Lipton tea…and still do…for some reason I desire a warm cup now…by…later…

 

[PassingThru]

Well, well, well, look at the archetypical hypocrite coming out guns blazing if he thinks he sniffs a weakness in someone’s argument. Larkin, when it comes to illogical arguments, you have set a new standard on CAF. Care, perhaps, to tell all the readers here how you denied the existence of objective truths and then ‘discovered’ gravity?!!

How many times have you tried your darndest to ‘prove’ that the Natural Law is non-existant, and yet all your arguments have devolved into non-sensical rants based on relativism, hedonism and a moral vaccuity which knows no bounds.

Your use of the word “them” differentiates you from those who uphold any form of moral code. You also seem to forget that this is a Catholic forum and you seem surprised when the adherents to the catholic moral code defend it from your innane attacks. Your position is indefensable from the view point of any moral code and you are forced to resort to sarcasm. Just shows what an ungracious individual you are. If you had any semblance of graciousness you’d be able to at least express some admiration for those who seek to adhere to a moral code, even if you diagree with it. But, what would expect from such a morally empty vessel…

John is back!!!

OK, fine. Larkin is the devil incarnate. Did you at least notice a bit of irony in you accusing Larkin of “non-sensical rants”, launching “innane attacks” and being “ungracious”, all in the middle of your ungracious, non-sensical rant full of innane attacks? Sorry, sweet irony finds a home in me!

Well, aside from this tirade of sorts, do you have anything to add to the subject at hand? I know you have been quietly following along, and I am curious to see if you have anything to add, besides the mouthing-foaming bit, of course.

 

[PassingThru]

Hello!?!

Echo!!! (echo echo echo)

We are on about 48 hours, probably more, of not a single answer. We have a few more “angry” posts, with some ranting about gay agendas. Not much else.

Abu, will you finally respond with some sincerity? Will anyone?

(crickets chirping)

 

[davidv]

Hello!?!

Echo!!! (echo echo echo)

We are on about 48 hours, probably more, of not a single answer. We have a few more “angry” posts, with some ranting about gay agendas. Not much else.

Abu, will you finally respond with some sincerity? Will anyone?

(crickets chirping)

“Gay marriage” - an oxymoron. See prior posts as to why.

“Who cares?” - I do. Why? Because I care about the well-being of society. A healthy family (married, one man, one women, and children) is the foundation of a healthy society.

 

[PassingThru]

“Gay marriage” - an oxymoron. See prior posts as to why.

“Who cares?” - I do. Why? Because I care about the well-being of society. A healthy family (married, one man, one women, and children) is the foundation of a healthy society.

Ehhh, David, please read the posts at least a little. That is not the question we are discussing. If you really need a refresher. Ill fill you in.

(Yes that is the OP, but as we are a few 100 posts in, we are being a bit more specific right now)

 

[davidv]

Ehhh, David, please read the posts at least a little. That is not the question we are discussing. If you really need a refresher. Ill fill you in.

(Yes that is the OP, but as we are a few 100 posts in, we are being a bit more specific right now)

Actually with all of the name calling and inuendo it was hard know what question you were referring to. So, I thought that reminding us of the OP might bring that to light.

 

[Havard]

I care… but this is not a legal battle, it’s a cultural one.

Whatever ends up happening with the legal definition of marriage, the injury won’t be caused to the sacrament itself. It’s unassailable. The injured will be all the fools who put more stock in the beltway backscratchers’ definition du jour than the timeless Judeo-Christian one. Eh… eventus stultorum magister.

 

[PassingThru]

Actually with all of the name calling and inuendo it was hard know what question you were referring to. So, I thought that reminding us of the OP might bring that to light.

Understood.

The question we are now trying to actually hammer down is the assertion that Oral sex is natural, and anal sex is not. For simplicity, neither to completion, both as part of a completed marital act. Abu has straddled the fence and supported both sides (and attacked those who disagreed, on both sides. very confusing) We have multiple people attacking anal sex as unnatural. We have some denying that oral sex is at least condoned by the Church. If cornered, they will say it is natural, or dodge the question with insults.

So, no one will actually approach the topic in a straightforward way. Why is one natural and one unnatural.

The frustration lies at people actively participating until faced with supporting a simple assertion. We saw it earlier with people asserting that “what I find pleasurable, is what others find pleasurable.” Basically, they somehow universally decided what pleasure is derived from. Which is dumb. When faced to support this idea, people get more and more irritable, until they eventually make up some excuse, and then run away. We are perilously close to that here, where many have said anal sex is unnatural, oral is not, but when asked to explain, get very violent.

Its a trend.

 

[John21652]

John is back!!!

OK, fine. Larkin is the devil incarnate. Did you at least notice a bit of irony in you accusing Larkin of “non-sensical rants”, launching “innane attacks” and being “ungracious”, all in the middle of your ungracious, non-sensical rant full of innane attacks? Sorry, sweet irony finds a home in me!

Well, aside from this tirade of sorts, do you have anything to add to the subject at hand? I know you have been quietly following along, and I am curious to see if you have anything to add, besides the mouthing-foaming bit, of course.

PassingThru, I have only had cursory glances at this thread, as my time has been limited. However, I did have enough of a look to notice how Larkin will denigrate someone when he *thinks *he may have spotted a weakness in their argument and he does it with no grace. What you describe as the irony in my ‘tirade’ is true to a point. However, you’ve only been here five minutes and you seem to have missed Larkin’s propensity to avoid the hard issues by various means, his propensity to prevarication and the disingenuousness of his debating. He has been called on this a number of times, here and on other threads, yet he persists. My attempts at getting him to come clean on his attacks against the objectivity of certain natural laws and then suddenly admitting that gravity was indeed one is a case in point. He walked away from this and yet when he thinks he can get away with it, he will once again launch into illogical diatribes and in the process shove into the faces of others his hedonistic, morally vaccuous lifestyle. Even you have become caught up in it, which is why you question Abu’s sincerity without addressing his arguments. Abu is nothing, if not very sincere. Once you wake up to this, maybe you will be able to drop the (ish) off your Lutheranism.

Cheers.

 

[larkin31]

Understood.

The question we are now trying to actually hammer down is the assertion that Oral sex is natural, and anal sex is not. For simplicity, neither to completion, both as part of a completed marital act. Abu has straddled the fence and supported both sides (and attacked those who disagreed, on both sides. very confusing) We have multiple people attacking anal sex as unnatural. We have some denying that oral sex is at least condoned by the Church. If cornered, they will say it is natural, or dodge the question with insults.

So, no one will actually approach the topic in a straightforward way. Why is one natural and one unnatural.

The frustration lies at people actively participating until faced with supporting a simple assertion. We saw it earlier with people asserting that “what I find pleasurable, is what others find pleasurable.” Basically, they somehow universally decided what pleasure is derived from. Which is dumb. When faced to support this idea, people get more and more irritable, until they eventually make up some excuse, and then run away. We are perilously close to that here, where many have said anal sex is unnatural, oral is not, but when asked to explain, get very violent.

Its a trend.

Both John and Abu have entirely dropped trying to address the question both of us have asked: why is oral sex allowed but anal sex condemned even between married couples? Abu posted (I think it was he) something about the unnaturalness of openings of the alimentary canal, but when I pointed out that the mouth was part of this same canal, he started calling me the devil (or some such thing) and has since stopped answering everything.

John just keeps talking about gravity. In a thread on moral law, gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and magnetism are all irrelevant. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is irrelevant here. But he will accuse me of dodging, or of some worse character flaw for saying so. Watch. Here it comes…

 

[larkin31]

Well, aside from this tirade of sorts, do you have anything to add to the subject at hand? I know you have been quietly following along, and I am curious to see if you have anything to add, besides the mouthing-foaming bit, of course.

Indeed.

QUESTION ON THREAD TOPIC: What reasoning or logic, moral or otherwise, underpins the Catholic acceptance of oral sex and rejection of anal sex between married couples?

 

[John21652]

Both John and Abu have entirely dropped trying to address the question both of us have asked: why is oral sex allowed but anal sex condemned even between married couples? Abu posted (I think it was he) something about the unnaturalness of openings of the alimentary canal, but when I pointed out that the mouth was part of this same canal, he started calling me the devil (or some such thing) and has since stopped answering everything.

John just keeps talking about gravity. In a thread on moral law, gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and magnetism are all irrelevant. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is irrelevant here. But he will accuse me of dodging, or of some worse character flaw for saying so. Watch. Here it comes…

Actully, I wasn’t in on the oral sex issue!

I am still waiting for you to answer questions from, like, about twenty years ago!

 

[PassingThru]

PassingThru, I have only had cursory glances at this thread, as my time has been limited. However, I did have enough of a look to notice how Larkin will denigrate someone when he *thinks *he may have spotted a weakness in their argument and he does it with no grace. What you describe as the irony in my ‘tirade’ is true to a point. However, you’ve only been here five minutes and you seem to have missed Larkin’s propensity to avoid the hard issues by various means, his propensity to prevarication and the disingenuousness of his debating. He has been called on this a number of times, here and on other threads, yet he persists. My attempts at getting him to come clean on his attacks against the objectivity of certain natural laws and then suddenly admitting that gravity was indeed one is a case in point. He walked away from this and yet when he thinks he can get away with it, he will once again launch into illogical diatribes and in the process shove into the faces of others his hedonistic, morally vaccuous lifestyle.

OK, fine. Which is why I just gave you your point and said he is the devil incarnate. I don’t care how much Larkin gets under your skin. Yes, a bit of sarcasm, but I was asking if you had anything relevant to add, not for more “I hate Larkin” ranting. But, OK.

Even you have become caught up in it, which is why you question Abu’s sincerity without addressing his arguments.

No, no, no, no, no. If you think Larkin has a single thing to do with Abu making contradictory statements, then lashing out when asked to explain, you really have not been following along. This is some weak attempt to attach Larkin to my direct issue with Abu and others, which is yet another form of distraction. Fail.

Abu is nothing, if not very sincere.

Maybe he is, but right now, he is not. Not in any way, shape or form. You have read this thread. You have seen him take BOTH SIDES of the question. That alone is bad enough. But, he has the audacity to then call me every name in the book while arguing BOTH SIDES of the point. Go read. He insulted me for saying oral sex was unnatural. The then insulted me for saying it was natural. I am not crazy. Go read, its there. And its pathetic.

edit: He can insult me all he wants, I dont care either way. Its the flip flopping that is “pathetic”.

Of course, now he is deliberately avoiding the question, or dancing around it. I can be pretty sure this is because he realizes he dug himself a nice hole, and doesn’t have the “sincerity” as you say, to admit which of his countering positions was made just to counter what I said, regardless of what it was. Abu likes me about as much as you like Larkin.

Once you wake up to this, maybe you will be able to drop the (ish) off your Lutheranism.

You dont know me, I wont advise you where to shove this comment.

I only add the (ish) to indicate I don’t follow Lutheran teaching down the line. I was raised Lutheran, but I dont defend every point of Lutherans, particularly Martin himself. I also married a Catholic, in a Catholic Church, and attend every week. Raising children Catholic as well. I would venture to guess I have far more variety in my opinions, and am more flexible in my acceptance of others than you will ever be. I know you see this as a weakness. You would prefer I blindly follow only one set of rules, from one group. Of course, only your group will do. I personally value my ability to at least see differing views, even if they are not my own. I remember your support of being judgmental. You can keep judging. Ill try my best to avoid it.

I don’t participate or directly support any of these topics. I just hate stupid assertions when they are made. The “pleasure” assertion (wasn’t that you, now that I think about it?) was ridiculous. This natural/unnatural assertion is almost as bad. Or at least, making people say really unfounded things as they backpedal from a bad position.

 

[Abu]

Those who reject the natural moral law naturally reject Christ and His Church which affirms that human nature is created by God with the ability to discern this law. She doesn’t teach opinions, prejudices or feelings, She teaches knowledge of the natural moral law and Christ’s truths on faith and morals. Thus anal sexual intercourse whether sodomy or heterosexual is unnatural and gravely wrong, as clearly shown from the natural moral law and from the doctrine of Christ’s Church.

Pope John Paul II teaches in the 1993 encyclical *Veritatis Splendor *(#50): “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.”

The absurdity that God supports homomania and homosexual activity, is easily dispelled as is the fantasy that there is a mere “version” of God and “obscure dictums” in the Christ’s own Church.
When you are ready to listen and to follow Jesus, the Son of God, – and no other man even seriously claimed to be God – you will heed Him: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15). Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament (Gen 19) but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven.
God was very clear: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .” (Jude 7).

In particular, St. Paul condemns in the strongest terms the behavior of pagans who failed to recognize the one true God and lapsed into sexual perversity, as we read in Romans:
“1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Sodomists beware.

The naïve and false idea that the teaching of Christ’s Church may be disregarded or rejected as wrong by Catholics is what is known as dissent.

Dissent is totally untenable.
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

davidv
A healthy family (married, one man, one women, and children) is the foundation of a healthy society.

Exactly, and this understanding is universal, as below. It is now under attack from the relativists, and selfists.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/legalization-of-gay-marriage-destroys-society-says-argentinean-lawyer/November 2010
Legalization of gay ‘marriage’ destroys society, says Argentinean lawyer

Legalizing gay “marriage” would leave “society destroyed, because the family is the basic cell of society,” and “if I destroy the family or undermine it, I am destroying society…”

This is telling it like it is.

There is a fruitful meditation on real marriage at catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=471
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, November 5, 2010.

 

[PassingThru]

Those who reject the natural moral law naturally reject Christ and His Church which affirms that human nature is created by God with the ability to discern this law. She doesn’t teach opinions, prejudices or feelings, She teaches knowledge of the natural moral law and Christ’s truths on faith and morals. Thus anal sexual intercourse whether sodomy or heterosexual is unnatural and gravely wrong, as clearly shown from the natural moral law and from the doctrine of Christ’s Church.

Pope John Paul II teaches in the 1993 encyclical *Veritatis Splendor *(#50): “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.”

The absurdity that God supports homomania and homosexual activity, is easily dispelled as is the fantasy that there is a mere “version” of God and “obscure dictums” in the Christ’s own Church.
When you are ready to listen and to follow Jesus, the Son of God, – and no other man even seriously claimed to be God – you will heed Him: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15). Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament (Gen 19) but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven.
God was very clear: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .” (Jude 7).

In particular, St. Paul condemns in the strongest terms the behavior of pagans who failed to recognize the one true God and lapsed into sexual perversity, as we read in Romans:
“1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Sodomists beware.

The naïve and false idea that the teaching of Christ’s Church may be disregarded or rejected as wrong by Catholics is what is known as dissent.

Dissent is totally untenable.
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

Exactly, and this understanding is universal, as below. It is now under attack from the relativists, and selfists.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/legalization-of-gay-marriage-destroys-society-says-argentinean-lawyer/November 2010
Legalization of gay ‘marriage’ destroys society, says Argentinean lawyer

Legalizing gay “marriage” would leave “society destroyed, because the family is the basic cell of society,” and “if I destroy the family or undermine it, I am destroying society…”

This is telling it like it is.

There is a fruitful meditation on real marriage at catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=471
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, November 5, 2010.

Maybe someone enjoys your shotgun effect.

Ill still consider you too much a coward to answer your own inconsistencies. If you actually own up to your commentary, Ill bother to read your posts.

This post, John21652, is a shining example of the avoidance I was just explaining to you. You read how simple the issue is, as raised by Abu. You can see, here, the volume of pontification he will spew in order to avoid an issue he himself raised.

I had a old co-worker who used an excellent phrase for this type of blathering:

“Diarrhea of the Mouth”

(None of this is to say his sources are wrong, or his point invalid. The point is he is hiding behind a overwhelming volley of irrelevant info)

 

[Abu]

Nice to see you around, John21652. The confused, irrelevant and illogical opinions still exist – like a bad penny they can be counted on appearing, but they can do nothing to counter the reality of the natural moral law and conscience.
BTW, you may have noticed by now the hackneyed attempt to tout perverted anal orgasm, as equivalent to oral stimulation of the genitals which is not orgasmic, as though the Church is irrelevant as well as contradictory in confirming and condemning anal intercourse as unnatural, and therefore immoral – the usual inability to see the wood for the trees. This despite the clear distinction between the two – like chalk to cheese.

But how would vice persist without being fantasized as virtue?

To the scoffer, God means nothing when He proclaims the immorality of homosexual activity – and he is blind to Christ: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).
The mantra that deifies feeling is in stark contrast to the Mother of Jesus who said; “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2:5). Christ has the answer to all of those following their own opinion: “Whoever denies Me before men, him also will I deny before My Father.” (Mt 10:33).
In *Veritatis Splendor *the Holy Father emphasizes: “It is a question of the decision of faith, of the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16.26) 'by which man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering “the full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals.” “Feelings” cannot make truth.
Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).

The myth that homosexual relationships in general are qualitatively the same as heterosexual relationships — a myth that is crucial to the current push for legalization of same-sex “marriage” — is simply not borne out by the evidence.