Gay Professor has my class convinced that Gay marriage is good!

[melbourne_guy]

Yeh it was pretty much the same at my old catholic highschool i graduated from 2 yrs ago. There was a teacher i used to argue about gay rights with, i laughed it off at the end of the day. All my school friends would support me though, but for all the wrong reasons. The number one most used insult at our school was “Fag”, so there was a predjudice vibe against gays. But the otherside of it was that there was a growing number of leftwings who hated religion and openly supported gay marrriage, and sadly they had the support of most of the catholic school teachers.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Yeh it was pretty much the same at my old catholic highschool i graduated from 2 yrs ago. There was a teacher i used to argue about gay rights with, i laughed it off at the end of the day. All my school friends would support me though, but for all the wrong reasons. The number one most used insult at our school was “Fag”, so there was a predjudice vibe against gays. But the otherside of it was that there was a growing number of leftwings who hated religion and openly supported gay marrriage, and sadly they had the support of most of the catholic school teachers.

Hello Melbourne Guym from this elderly Melb girl, I b et I could almost name the school in question. But I wont. The problem as I see it begins at teachers college, (ACU) where RE teachers taught and continues through to parents leaving the faith and morals to teachers and not being that interested it themselves.
On a parent teacher night. All parents head towards the maths teacher/english teacher/ IT teacher/ etc. How many headed towards RE teachers to see how their child went in RE classes. This then leads to teachers not caring and knowing that her/his pupils dont care either and nothing is reported which would otherwise be reported.
Its a whole string of events which ultimately contributes to the situation we have today, of a gay professor espoujsing gay marriage in a catholic college and getting away with it.
We need the Lord himself to intervene. Its getting to hard.
GraceAngel
From Melbourne.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What I want to know is what is all this talk about whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual acts or does Jesus condemn homosexual acts? We all know Paul does very clearly. So if people want to sit here and question and debate the canon of scripture, they should start a new thread and people would be happy to discuss it there. This thread is about the OP and her professor.

Please do her the courtesy of staying relevant to her post.

I am not condemning or condoning homosexual acts.
What I am saying is there is no good cause to condemn ‘civil partnerships’ between same sex partners.
These partnerships are not for the purpose of giving a blessing to an un-natural sexual relationship, but to give rights of protection and attorney to people who have formed a deep friendship for life, and co-habit for reasons of friendship and ecconomics.
Calling it ‘marriage’, and especially ‘gay marriage’ is an error of judgement, leaving the door open for attacks by queer-bashers.
It is not marriage, but is a legal partnership, based on some of the legal aspects of marriage.
The OP is concerned, or so states, with the institution of ‘civil patnerships’, under the mistaken name of ‘gay marriage’. The un-natural practices are not explicitly associated with the partnership, though I imagine, it was intended to be implicit.
The partnerships per se can do nothing but good. If some people choose to read into the partnership, more than there is, that is between them and G_D.

 

[drafdog]

perez639;1908391 Nobody cares about the traditional family anymore. /QUOTE:

Neomi,
I am confused by this ascertion that seems to equate permanent homosexual familial unions with the abondonment of traditional familial structures. Why is it necessarily “either/or” and not “both/and”?
I am almost sixty years old. One of my best friends while at university was a homosexual. We enjoyed one another’s company and shared an interest in music. This was a wonderful but conflicted young man. He would have been happier, I suspect, if he had had the hope of a permanent, loving relationship condoned and supported by society in which he could share with another the hopes, fears, joys and problems of daily life. The kind of life you hope to lead with your future spouse.
I am not sure that it would help to legalize civil unions between homosexuals such as we have between heterosexuals. Since no one has tried the experiment on a wide basis, we have no data to conclude one way or another. Let us at least be kind enough to these members of the Body of Christ and give them a chance to try.
To our friend who was asked about sharing a room with a homosexual: You didn’t consider all your options. Having a roommate who is a homosexual would probably not upset you if the person were of the opposite sex. The point is to keep a fraternal relationship between roommates, and avoid the complication of emotional relationships while your full time occupation is advanced education.
To our friends who are concerned about disagreement with the Pope: Would you be a Christian today if discension with the Pope were punished by excommunication from the very onset? Paul disagreed loudly with Peter and effected changes that allow most of us to be admitted to the Church. Or are you espousing that you be circumcized to signify your admission to the People of God?
Don’t push against discension too hard; it is not always heretical.

The Father’s Love be with you all. Your Brother,
Matthew

 

[blessedtoo]

I am confused by this ascertion that seems to equate permanent homosexual familial unions with the abondonment of traditional familial structures. Why is it necessarily “either/or” and not “both/and”?

Since you are a new member, I will provide for you the information you clearly need to understand why the Church holds her position on this issue. The moral decline of marriage began decades ago with the advent of artifical birth control, no fault divorce, abortion, radical feminism, and the homosexual rights movement, along with other factors. All of these things combined have led to the breakdown of the family. The Church, in her wisdom, has held that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is to be reserved for the married partners who are to remain open to the possibility of God gifting them with a child. There is no wiggle room on these issues and the state has always agreed that benefits should be given to married partners who are comitted to eachother and the raising of offspring who will become future contributing members of society.

If such rights are extended simply to facilitate the mutual affection between two individuals, there is no real benefit to society in such an arrangement. The state is not in the business of making people feel good or subsidizing personal happiness. If that were the case, then any group of people or even business partnerships could claim benefits.

tfp.org/tfc/1049_reasons_to_oppose_same-sex_%5Emarriage%5E.htm
For a look at how same-sex “marriage” may have influenced other countries marriage rates:weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

I am almost sixty years old. One of my best friends while at university was a homosexual. We enjoyed one another’s company and shared an interest in music. This was a wonderful but conflicted young man. He would have been happier, I suspect, if he had had the hope of a permanent, loving relationship condoned and supported by society in which he could share with another the hopes, fears, joys and problems of daily life. The kind of life you hope to lead with your future spouse.

This is where Catholics go off the rails on this issue. You meet or know a homosexual who is a “good and wonderful” person, you empathize (as any good person would) and want them to “feel” better. Suddenly, all the things you know to be true are tossed out the window because you think if this wonderful person could just get what they want, all would be well. If you hang around the forums long enough, you will see that most of us know, are related to, (or have been) homosexuals and have found ways to show our real Christian love without sacrificing truth. Perhaps your friends conflict had more to do with the fact that inherently, he was wrestling with the very nature of his same sex attraction and what that might mean in terms of his relationship with God.

Since no one has tried the experiment on a wide basis, we have no data to conclude one way or another. Let us at least be kind enough to these members of the Body of Christ and give them a chance to try.

The reason this “experiment” has never been tried is because it completely opposes natural law and civilizations that have attempted to normalize it have not succeeded. “Kindness” is a completely misleading word. It is not “kind” at all to normalize behavior which is proven to cause rampant disease, significantly lower mortality rates, extreme promiscuity, and confusion in society (read some of the threads of young adults here who are questioning their sexuality). As members of the Body of Christ, we are not sent out to give folks a “chance to try” their sin. We are called to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. It is the height of “unkindness” to encourage people to remain in their sin.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The reason this “experiment” has never been tried is because it completely opposes natural law and civilizations that have attempted to normalize it have not succeeded. “Kindness” is a completely misleading word. It is not “kind” at all to normalize behavior which is proven to cause rampant disease, significantly <> mortality

I think you meant ‘higher’ here

• rates, extreme promiscuity, and confusion in society (read some of the threads of young adults here who are questioning their sexuality). As members of the Body of Christ, we are not sent out to give folks a “chance to try” their sin. We are called to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. It is the height of “unkindness” to encourage people to remain in their sin.*

Dear Blessed,
We hear much of natural law, but no-one can say what is natural, or what is beastly. Indeed, it seems that in a true analysis, the two are the same.

Homosexual rape, and homosexual play is not uncommon in the kingdom of the lower animals, so it is unjust to deem it un-natural.

This thread, though, is not concerned with homosexuality per se, (see OP), but with an institution which might, if used properly, ammeliorate all the problems you quote against homosexual practice in your paragraph which I have quoted.

The idea behind the civil partnerships which have been introduced in some countries, is to encourage the ‘Gay’ society to change, at least, the most dangerous and offensive practices of their affliction into a safer, and more acceptable form.
Primarily:
To encourage permanent closed one-to-one relationships,
and,
Prevent cross-association between ‘Gays’ and ‘Straights’, whereby those whose allignment is marginal, may be tipped the wrong way.

This thread is about the partnerships, not about homosexual practice.
The two are not necessarily associated.
Monasteries and nunneries are closed single sex associations, but you do not howl about these.

 

[fix]

Really? My will is already made out. My best friend will get the house, but he has to pay inheritance tax. If we marry he wont have to. And the best part is, we can get married and not have sex. So he gets the full value of what i give regardless of the fact he is gay and I am not.

I think that is just (why should only a spouse get those inheritance rights) and fair (he deserves it).

Catholic marriage is not about property, state sanctioned marriages are normally about property.

They’re different, get over it.

It is not about taxes. It is about legitimizing what is illegitimate. People want that mantle of legitimacy from the state to further their agenda of normalization.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It is not about taxes. It is about legitimizing what is illegitimate. People want that mantle of legitimacy from the state to further their agenda of normalization.

Hi, Fix,
This is not about Catholic Marriage, it is about civil partnership.
If you want to live in a state where the government is controlled by the church, then you might want to live as a Saudi in Saudi Arabia, and live by Shariah law.
For me; no thanks.
Be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

 

[blessedtoo]

The idea behind the civil partnerships which have been introduced in some countries, is to encourage the ‘Gay’ society to change, at least, the most dangerous and offensive practices of their affliction into a safer, and more acceptable form.
Primarily:
To encourage permanent closed one-to-one relationships,
and,
Prevent cross-association between ‘Gays’ and ‘Straights’, whereby those whose allignment is marginal, may be tipped the wrong way.

Voci,
You’ve been on every thread re: this issue beating this same drum. I’m still unsure about your intention. If you are trying to make the case that by allowing “civil unions”, and keeping homosexuals from integrating with the rest of society, we will “eradicate” homosexuality, you could not more more wrong. See Cardinal Ratzinger:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
In addition, I think you are purposely confusing people by making this claim that the civil union is somehow not the same threat as marriage. See the USCCB statement:

“What are called ‘homosexual unions,’ because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative, cannot be given the status of marriage,” the committee said.

americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

We hear much of natural law, but no-one can say what is natural, or what is beastly. Indeed, it seems that in a true analysis, the two are the same.

No, they are not. I suggest you do a search on these forums for an excellent definition of natural law. You are obviously confused.

This is not about Catholic Marriage, it is about civil partnership.

Voci,
You can call it whatever you want but the fact remains that the Church is opposed th the legal recognition of any union of homosexuals. As Catholics, we are obligated to uphold the teaching of our Church and confusing people on these threads with fancy terminology is not going to work. And this is no different from what the OP’s teacher is doing in this class.

 

[fix]

Hi, Fix,
This is not about Catholic Marriage, it is about civil partnership.
If you want to live in a state where the government is controlled by the church, then you might want to live as a Saudi in Saudi Arabia, and live by Shariah law.
For me; no thanks.
Be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

I do not wish to be controlled by the dictatorship of relativsm.

I see the flaw in your argument is that you think the Church is the problem. The Church speaks the truth. The real problem is moral relativsim. I am concerned we are becoming like ancient Rome.

 

[blessedtoo]

If you want to live in a state where the government is controlled by the church, then you might want to live as a Saudi in Saudi Arabia, and live by Shariah law.
For me; no thanks

.
This comment illustrates that you don’t understand the government’s secular interest in preserving marriage (or the recognition of “unions”) between a man and a woman. See:
tfp.org/tfc/1049_reasons_to_oppose_same-sex_%5Emarriage%5E.htm
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0064.html

 

[Joe_Stong]

The fundamental problem when dealing with someone with SSA is that they’re not so attracted because they’ve calmly sat down and argued themselves into the goodness of the attraction… so there’s a point at which arguing against their idea of it being good is useless.

You can’t argue someone out of a position they didn’t argue themselves into to begin with.

What you can do however is show them with actions, words (pre-argument words - laying the foundation or principles and criteria for judgments so they can arrive at the truth on their own time and fashion), and attitudes that lead them to feel the attraction of goodness and truth of the Gospel lifestyle.

For example, virtually all homosexuals share an incredible sense of being persecuted, alienated, and lonely. They experience negative family patterns and interpersonal confusion while “straight” but then when welcomed into the active homosexual subculture by apparently ‘friendly’ people experience an enourmous human euphoria, a love for “who they are”… thus this experience of acceptance seals in their minds the “rightness” of their SSA and LIFESTYLE more than any counter-argument about danger, shorter life expectancy, suicidal ideations, etc. are likely to provoke.

This is why the Church counsels us to show them individually great love and charity - not just to preach to them about the sinfulness of the act, but to show them that there is a viable life full of warm friendships and fun in living the Gospel “Way” of chastity or celibacy.

This powerful need all people have for friendship, acceptance, love, welcome is also why those with SSA exhibit explosive emotions when confronted with people who disagree with the rightness of their attraction… they can’t separate their attraction from their very being. So while we may distinguish between them as individuals and their attraction, they feel us rejecting them along with their attraction.

This is why their counter arguments are so full of non-sequiturs like arguing that since they can fly airplanes, invent useful gadgets, operate heavy machinery, hold executive level jobs, and do other obviously difficult things, all while being “gay”, their gayness must be OK too. But we’ve never argued that SSA totally vitiates their being, mind, and willpower. No one ever claimed that SSA makes they totally stupid, totally incapable of holding a job or doing amazing things. (One saw this in the Military policy as all sorts of pilots, interpreters, veterans came forward showing their amazing exploits, as “proof” that their gayness wasn’t a problem…to which the obvious answer was: no one ever said gayness precludes people from flying planes… the only issue has always been the double whammy of hygene and unit morale in as much as the SSA and ACTION, apart from their qualities and persons is involved.

But their sense of self is so wrapped up in their sexual understanding that they can’t differentiate the two. And this being the case, is another phenomenological proof for the psychologically disordered aspect of this attraction.

People with other disorders don’t become less human beings, less capable of brilliance or good work either. Millions of people who suffer from genetic or environmental disposition towards Depression also can and do amazing work, love, care for others, fly planes, and hold down demanding jobs with no one the wiser.

But they don’t do all these things BECAUSE depression makes them better, they do these things inspite of the genetic or environmental disorder that is depression.

And the Church’s teaching of dealing with people AS PEOPLE who have crosses, rather than crosses who happen to be people is the same. We are all called to friendship with Jesus Christ - all called to be members of one family, one body, albeit in different ways and serving different functions.

We are called to charity - with all our weaker brothers and sisters, clearly distinguishing them from their weaknesses and getting them to see themselves apart from their crosses too.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voci,
You’ve been on every thread re: this issue beating this same drum. I’m still unsure about your intention. If you are trying to make the case that by allowing “civil unions”, and keeping homosexuals from integrating with the rest of society, we will “eradicate” homosexuality, you could not more more wrong.

Dear Blessed,
I never imagined that eradication could be thereby achieved. I only hoped thereby, that by such an institution, ‘Gay’ persons might co-exist with ‘Straight’ society without mutual aggravation.
Like prostitutes, ‘Gays’ have been with us from the beginning of history, and not even Adolph Hitler’s ‘final solution’ had any significant effect on the situation, even in the ranks of the SS!

See Cardinal Ratzinger:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The link above is clearly based on the following extract:

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27).

which is factually incorrect, so cannot have the Kharisma of infallibility.
Man is created male, female, intersex and neuter. For support of this assertion, see:
who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

In addition, I think you are purposely confusing people by making this claim that the civil union is somehow not the same threat as marriage. See the USCCB statement:

americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

No, they are not. I suggest you do a search on these forums for an excellent definition of natural law. You are obviously confused.

Voci,
You can call it whatever you want but the fact remains that the Church is opposed th the legal recognition of any union of homosexuals. As Catholics, we are obligated to uphold the teaching of our Church and confusing people on these threads with fancy terminology is not going to work. And this is no different from what the OP’s teacher is doing in this class.

I will answer these other two points later.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No, they are not. I suggest you do a search on these forums for an excellent definition of natural law. You are obviously confused.

Forgive me for this extended quote, but i dispise quoting out of context, so I try always to give good context.

Q: I am not a Catholic. The Catholic Church often speaks about natural law, but I think this concept restricts the freedom inherent in being a Christian.

Theologians whom I admire in other areas (like C.S. Lewis), however, favor the idea of natural law. Even so, I still don’t see where they are coming from.

A: The concept of natural law is a way of saying that people can know that some things (for example, stealing) are wrong even if they have never read the Bible. “Keeping holy the Lord’s day,” on the other hand, requires reading the Bible to know of such a command.
**
Put another way, natural law is a way of saying that we can know some things from human reason. In those areas we are not totally dependent on God’s revelation via the Scriptures because God is already acting through our reason.
**
Faith and reason cannot be opposed because they arise from a single source (God, who is truth). At times, people may think their faith triumphs over facts (for example, those who accused Galileo of heresy for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun). At other times, people may make false claims for human reason (for example, Enlightenment thinkers who denied the reality of Original Sin).

Rereading C.S. Lewis’s masterpiece Mere Christianity may help you see both the usefulness and limitations of the natural law concept in a new light.

The section which I have emboldened, seems to go to the heart of the matter.
It clearly appeals to logic and reasoning, and when applied to the false assumption that Man is created male and female only, without intersex, and without neuter, the assertions thereby stand: but the addition of intersex and neuter invalidate the conclusion based on the false premise.

Voci,
You can call it whatever you want but the fact remains that the Church is opposed th the legal recognition of any union of homosexuals.

Since you do not want the Christian equivalent of Shariah law, you will have to accept the laws of the land from your democratically elected government, and you will have to accept that the majority cannot oppress a minority, unless that minority practice is **actually **damaging to other members of the greater society.
You are entitled, indeed duty bound to advise that they are acting in a manner which is perilous to their souls, but you may not endeavour to force the issue.

As Catholics, we are obligated to uphold the teaching of our Church and confusing people on these threads with fancy terminology is not going to work. And this is no different from what the OP’s teacher is doing in this class.

I am very sorry if you find my words confusing. I have attempted always, at the expense of brevity, to be precise.
The OP was concerned about a ‘Gay’ professor advocating ‘Gay marriage’, which I endeavoured to explain was actually a civil partnership, which though it embodied some of the civil rights of marriage, is not marriage, for indeed, marriage is the coupling of male and female for the procreation of children.
Some ‘Gays’ might like to call the partnership ‘marriage’ as a convenient shorthand.
Some queer bashers might like to so call it as a means of bashing.
This is a very dangerous subject, and tempers easily become enflamed. Careful linguistic precission is essential to avoid un-necessary conflagration.

 

[fix]

Since you do not want the Christian equivalent of Shariah law, you will have to accept the laws of the land from your democratically elected government, and you will have to accept that the majority cannot oppress a minority, unless that minority practice is **actually **damaging to other members of the greater society.
You are entitled, indeed duty bound to advise that they are acting in a manner which is perilous to their souls, but you may not endeavour to force the issue.

Again, sounds like relativism. When segregation was in force does that mean those laws should not have been decried as unjust?

Your definition of damaging to others needs to be expaned to be authentic.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I do not wish to be controlled by the dictatorship of relativsm.

I see the flaw in your argument is that you think the Church is the problem. The Church speaks the truth. The real problem is moral relativsim. I am concerned we are becoming like ancient Rome.

Dear Fix,
You clearly speak from faith, and in that, I do not criticize.
The problem is the appeal to natural law, where the reasoning therein is based on a false premise.
As for Ancient Rome, you do not have the slightest inkling of how oppressive Rome was, even to the patricians, never mind to the plebs or slaves. The gospels give a mere hint. what they do not make clear, is that crucifixion was not a punishment reserved for the most malignant, it was indeed quite common.
I advise you to read ‘Tacitus: Annals of Ancient Rome’

 

[fix]

Dear Fix,
You clearly speak from faith, and in that, I do not criticize.
The problem is the appeal to natural law, where the reasoning therein is based on a false premise.
As for Ancient Rome, you do not have the slightest inkling of how oppressive Rome was, even to the patricians, never mind to the plebs or slaves. The gospels give a mere hint. what they do not make clear, is that crucifixion was not a punishment reserved for the most malignant, it was indeed quite common.
I advise you to read ‘Tacitus: Annals of Ancient Rome’

What false premise? As for ancient Rome please see our current abortion rate as one evidence for vast decay. We are in decline.

 

[fix]

What false premise?

As For ancient Rome you may want to look at the abortion rate as one small indicator of vast decay.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

.
This comment illustrates that you don’t understand the government’s secular interest in preserving marriage (or the recognition of “unions”) between a man and a woman. See:
tfp.org/tfc/1049_reasons_to_oppose_same-sex_%5Emarriage%5E.htm
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0064.html

Dear Blessed,
I have looked.
The first link is to a bunch of rabid queer bashers, but the second link, if you follow it through to the final notes, gives quite a balanced analysis.

 

[fix]

Dear Blessed,
I have looked.
The first link is to a bunch of rabid queer bashers, but the second link, if you follow it through to the final notes, gives quite a balanced analysis.

You are being facetious?