Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[Cor_Cordis]

That is not quite right. In the post you took issue with, Fergalmyfriend specifically states her objection to how she perceives people on this thread talking about “gay and lesbian people”….
Fergalmyfriend;10488049:

This is my second day on here and this is my first post. I have read this thread through from the beginning and I cannot believe some of the comments; people referring to gay and lesbian people as a parasite on society, a cancer, an evil, a threat, people they don’t want their children exposed to

… basically I feel I am reading a breading ground for hate and it is very disturbing! I am shocked!

I am by no means any kind of expert, I would consider myself a lay person. I go to Church and I always take away the message of love and peace. I try not to judge people as I do not have the right. I sit here and think, ‘what would Jesus think of these comments?’ I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus preaches hate? Where he condemns homosexuality? His was a message of love and I have seen very little of that message through this thread.

First of all, that is dishonest to the core in it’s misrepresentation:

People were not singled out for such criticisms. But rather their ACTIONS were singled out as such.

And of course the “concern” post is followed by the predictable old canard of: “Christians should never judge anything and should tolerate everything!” fallacy.

Such is the tactics in an age when aggressive same-sex advocates are relentlessly perusing unprecedented and unconstitutional means to bludgeon all the moral precepts of observable human design with a legislative sledgehammer, in a brown-shirted attempt to stifle and destroy the religious liberties of all traditional Christianity in our society.

It’s tantamount to repeatedly slapping an innocent victim by suddenly redefining his moral standards as “bigotry” and “hate” while demanding that he should laud honor respect and endless praise upon his dishonest assailant.

And so it goes in this age of madness where “good” is now “bad” and “moral” is now 'immoral" and “truth” is now a “hateful lie”.

May God help us all.

 

[fix]

First of all, that is dishonest to the core in it’s misrepresentation:

People were not singled out for such criticisms. But rather their ACTIONS were singled out as such.

Thank you for pointing that out. It seems the usual tactic.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Masturbation is not the same as foreplay.

Yes. I think we already established that.

Sexual pleasure derived from self-stimulation does not add to the unity between a husband and wife and is therefore disordered.

However, foreplay which involves one partner stimulating the other is perfectly fine as long as the love act is completed in normal nuptial intercourse

Really?

Where does the Catechism state that?

Let’s check it out, shall we?

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is **sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”**139

So yes, self stimulation within the nuptial bounds of mutual self giving is allowed.

Or… are you suggesting that loving human beings are physically incapable of doing two things at once towards the same ultimate ends in the act of love making? :ehh:

If so … perhaps you’re doing it wrong.:blushing:

 

[scipio337]

You could say that about the male gender or female gender (both gay and straight), both would not survive without heterosexuality.

But you are not making a point, just speculating. You will need to face up to the fact that homosexuals and heterosexuals both evolved, the same way.

No amount of homophobia, sexual discrimination, or skewed ancient ‘morality’ will change that.

So now race = national origin = gender = curly hair = sexual behavior.

Your argument (if there is one in there) is all over the map. Some logic, please!

 

[Cor_Cordis]

This is my second day on here and this is my first post. I have read this thread through from the beginning and I cannot believe some of the comments; people referring to gay and lesbian people as a parasite on society, a cancer, an evil, a threat, people they don’t want their children exposed to… basically I feel I am reading a breading ground for hate and it is very disturbing! I am shocked!

I am by no means any kind of expert, I would consider myself a lay person. I go to Church and I always take away the message of love and peace. I try not to judge people as I do not have the right. I sit here and think, ‘what would Jesus think of these comments?’ I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus preaches hate? Where he condemns homosexuality? His was a message of love and I have seen very little of that message through this thread.

This predictable display of misrepresentation and misguided “moral” disdain, is a sure sign that the same-sex advocates in here have sensed that they have lost the intellectual high ground by the very nature of their unsupportable rationale that collapses in on it’s own flawed and self-defeating “logic”.

And this histrionic attempt at pathos is their ultimate attempt to stifle any and all dissent.

 

[PRmerger]

“No skeptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon." -G.K.Chesterton

If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”

This one is going on my list of quotable quotes!

Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with questioning. That is, indeed, the Catholic way. But it’s the stopping at the questioning that limns ignorance.

No one gets credit for simply posing a question. One does get credit for seeking.

 

[Fergalmyfriend]

What did our Lord say about those who would lead children into sin?

Again when did he say it was a sin to be a homosexual? Out of my whole post you deem that an adequate response. It makes no sense to what I wrote.

 

[bellasbane]

Your points have validity. Although in our love for Christ, it automatically evokes and “requires” a hatred of that which is morally repugnant to His teaching. The fine line is a condemnation of the lie which kills the spiritual life and an embrace of the sinner. But you must admit, our defenses are up and we are generally in fight mode because we see the destructiveness surrounding us at every level.

It would be great if you could embrace the sinner, but all I’m saying is that people need to be careful when they throw stones.

I am curious. Who do you think this Christ is that you say you love so much? Have you considered that it may be morally repugnant to his teachings to attack his children - even if they are sinners? Remember, Christ doesn’t love us because we are good.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mat 5: 43-48

That’s Jesus talking. The person you love. Listen to him. Kindness can be a powerful weapon too. You can kill sin with kindness.

 

[PRmerger]

Again when did he say it was a sin to be a homosexual?

This is a strawman, Fergal. Catholicism does not proclaim homosexuality is a sin.

Rather, it is a disordered desire.

Homosexual acts are what are sinful. And gravely so.

 

[90Domer]

Oh for cripes sake.

Should we parse the meaning of what the word “is” is?

Seriously?

So the simple people are either too stupid to understand the meaning conveyed by the researchers, or the simple people are lying.

Meanwhile back in our hyper-gay-sensitive ultra-tolerant “civilized” society, in most media driven studies, homosexuality is given every biological benefit of the doubt (and then some) in order to prevent any ones feelings from getting hurt.

facepalm:doh2:

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[fix]

Again when did he say it was a sin to be a homosexual? Out of my whole post you deem that an adequate response. It makes no sense to what I wrote.

When did He approve of homosexual acts?

 

[Lochias]

Again when did he say it was a sin to be a homosexual? Out of my whole post you deem that an adequate response. It makes no sense to what I wrote.

Wow.

1. When did he say it wasn’t a sin to commit homosexual acts?
2. Do you believe Jesus followed Mosaic law? Do you believe he was a good Jew?
3. If so, why do you think he didn’t mention homosexual acts being a sin? Could it be because it was a well-known already?
4. Do you think that, if he’d wanted to change it, he would have spoken up, like he did with other laws he wanted to abolish at the time?
5. Can you prove that homosexual acts were an accepted practice among the Jews of Jesus’s time?

These kinds of questions are the kind that your argument will never, ever be able to answer to your satisfaction. Jesus KNEW that homosexual acts were against God’s will, so he didn’t HAVE to speak up on it. He was a GOOD JEW, who followed (and later fulfilled, NOT abolished) Jewish law.

 

[fix]

It would be great if you could embrace the sinner, but all I’m saying is that people need to be careful when they throw stones.

I am curious. Who do you think this Christ is that you say you love so much? Have you considered that it may be morally repugnant to his teachings to attack his children - even if they are sinners? Remember, Christ doesn’t love us because we are good.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mat 5: 43-48

That’s Jesus talking. The person you love. Listen to him. Kindness can be a powerful weapon too. You can kill sin with kindness.

Who is attacking people here?

Instead of making these false claims why not answer the arguments?

Instead of focusing on perceived tone why not answer the arguments?

Instead of charging lack of charity why not answer the arguments?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”

This one is going on my list of quotable quotes!

Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with questioning. That is, indeed, the Catholic way. But it’s the stopping at the questioning that limns ignorance.

No one gets credit for simply posing a question. One does get credit for seeking.

To paraphrase Chesterton:

If the skeptic were true to his creed, then he would ultimately doubt his own “doubt”. And if he did so, he would find no objective truth to give his own opinion any …truth whatsoever.

G.K.Chesterton changed my life.

I share the sentiments of C.S. Lewis who credited Chesterton with his “intellectual” conversion:

Lewis said he picked up Chesterton’s ‘The Everlasting Man’ as a confirmed atheist,

and he sat it down as a confirmed believer…

 

[fix]

To paraphrase Chesterton:

If the skeptic were true to his creed, then he would ultimately doubt his own “doubt”. And if he did so, he would find no objective truth to give his own opinion any …truth whatsoever.

G.K.Chesterton changed my life.

I share the sentiments of C.S. Lewis who credited Chesterton with his “intellectual” conversion:

Lewis said he picked up Chesterton’s ‘The Everlasting Man’ as a confirmed atheist,

and he sat it down as a confirmed believer…

If GK posted here can you imagine what people would say? They would call him hater and unloving and much more.

 

[90Domer]

Let’s try this again aprilfloyd, now that you’ve gotten your smokescreen of shocked indignant disdain out of the way.

So if society decides that incest is no longer an immoral or sinful thing, then you’re okay with that. Right?

How about pederasty?

How about bestiality?

How about co-ed bathrooms and showers in public schools?

My dear friend in Christ, I don’t think you will ever get your questions answered. I think some place hot would freeze over first.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Again when did he say it was a sin to be a homosexual? Out of my whole post you deem that an adequate response. It makes no sense to what I wrote.

The more accurate question which is true to the scriptural context should be:

When did Our Lord ever correct and override the already established and understood immoral depravity of homosexuality?

Did I miss that?

Do tell.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again when did he say it was a sin to be a homosexual? Out of my whole post you deem that an adequate response. It makes no sense to what I wrote.

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter: The Protestant preference both for Private Interpretation of Scripture, and of Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, however, all of the most respected Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic scholars on this issue agree, coincidentally, with each other :

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons. (Or, it is a matter of ignorance of the tools of analysis.) It would be one of those three possibilities.

Both abortion and homosexuality were condemned by faithful Jews, and there is no scriptural evidence that Jesus departed from that same fidelity. All of the scriptural evidence points to the contrary – that he was ultra-faithful.

The Gospels were News, as in something different. What was continued by Jesus (Torah, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and later written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

I appreciate that Protestant sects allow for a variety of often contradictory viewpoints on moral issues. The Roman Catholic Church engages in a process (not just with regard to scriptural analysis, but with regard to their approach to Sacred Tradition) which seeks a thread of continuity. That is the same way, for example, the canon of Sacred Scripture was discerned.

 

[bellasbane]

Yes. I think we already established that.

Really?

Where does the Catechism state that?

Let’s check it out, shall we?

So yes, self stimulation within the nuptial bounds of mutual self giving is allowed.

Or… are you suggesting that loving human beings are physically incapable of doing two things at once towards the same ultimate ends in the act of love making? :ehh:

If so … perhaps you’re doing it wrong.:blushing:

Masturbation is disordered because it does not add to the Unity between a husband and wife. It is an inherently selfish act. Nobody but the person doing it “gets” anything out of it.

Clearly this disturbs you for some reason.

However, there are reams of threads on this topic. You really should consult one of them.

 

[fix]

This is my second day on here and this is my first post. I have read this thread through from the beginning and I cannot believe some of the comments; people referring to gay and lesbian people as a parasite on society, a cancer, an evil, a threat, people they don’t want their children exposed to… basically I feel I am reading a breading ground for hate and it is very disturbing! I am shocked!

I have not read every post so please show me where posters have claimed homosexual persons were any of those things.

I try not to judge people as I do not have the right.

Accept you did judge just above this quote, right?

I sit here and think, ‘what would Jesus think of these comments?’ I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus preaches hate? Where he condemns homosexuality?

He condemned all sexual sin. What evidence do you have He excluded homosexual acts?

His was a message of love and I have seen very little of that message through this thread.

He spoke specifically about leading others into sin. Do you think rationalizing deadly sin would be consistent with Christ’s message?