Gay?

[Maggie]

1. OK. Should we oppose people from marrying infertile partners?

I don’t know the answer to that. But I will consider it.

2. I bring up the issue of contraception in response to the people who say they oppose homosexuality because it is a sin. I think there must be something else motivating them to select this particular sin for their attention since it is much less common than the contraception that they ignore. So what is it?

Generally, my opinion is that people in general are threatened by it, grossed out by it, or frightened by it. “They” (to group all non-homosexuals together ) are afraid of the stereotypes of promiscuity (which we know are false) confused by the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia (which are not the same), or simply do view one as a lesser sin and one as a greater sin. The latter, in my opinion, is a speck/log issue and contraception is an item that should be addressed within the church to a greater degree than it is, but it is not currently on attack within the secular world and therefore not currently being scrutinized within the church at the same level.

Perhaps you could choose to see the church’s response to the homosexual union issue as a reaction to their failed response at the time of the contraceptive issue… what lessons they learned from not reacting strongly enough because of societal acceptance and social upheaval then they are choosing not to repeat now. While contraception has taken hold in society because they did not react strongly enough, they have a chance now to step up to the plate and react before this takes further root. So by fighting this battle it gives them leverage to go back and fight a battle they lost ground on the first time through.

3. Where do contraception and homosexuality rank among all other sins? Is there something like a numerical sin index?

Not sure, I don’t think it’s numerical, but you have mortal and venial, I’m not sure whether both are mortal and one more grave than the other, I’m simply not a theologian. Both are mentioned at different points as abominations, and I think that it makes sense to ask people to consider both before condemning one, not because one does not merit condemnation, though none merit our condemnation - only that we cease to do it - for only God can judge a man, but because both merit examination of conscience, sincere repentance, and cessation.

 

[Ken]

Maggie:

I don’t know the answer to that. But I will consider it.

Generally, my opinion is that people in general are threatened by it, grossed out by it, or frightened by it. “They” (to group all non-homosexuals together ) are afraid of the stereotypes of promiscuity (which we know are false) confused by the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia (which are not the same), or simply do view one as a lesser sin and one as a greater sin. The latter, in my opinion, is a speck/log issue and contraception is an item that should be addressed within the church to a greater degree than it is, but it is not currently on attack within the secular world and therefore not currently being scrutinized within the church at the same level.

Perhaps you could choose to see the church’s response to the homosexual union issue as a reaction to their failed response at the time of the contraceptive issue… what lessons they learned from not reacting strongly enough because of societal acceptance and social upheaval then they are choosing not to repeat now. While contraception has taken hold in society because they did not react strongly enough, they have a chance now to step up to the plate and react before this takes further root. So by fighting this battle it gives them leverage to go back and fight a battle they lost ground on the first time through.

Not sure, I don’t think it’s numerical, but you have mortal and venial, I’m not sure whether both are mortal and one more grave than the other, I’m simply not a theologian. Both are mentioned at different points as abominations, and I think that it makes sense to ask people to consider both before condemning one, not because one does not merit condemnation, though none merit our condemnation - only that we cease to do it - for only God can judge a man, but because both merit examination of conscience, sincere repentance, and cessation.

Good points. The social acceptance of divorce, contraception, and abortion was surely a defeat for the Church, and it may have chosen a different tactic in meeting social change. This could explain the Church’s opposition to homosexuality.The Church has a history, institutionmal memory, and continuity of leadership that allows it to act over long time periods.

However, does this explain the opposition of individuals? Many people who weren’t even alive when divorce, contraception, and abortion were approved are staunch opponents of homosexuality. I can’t see them as reacting to a defeat they didn’t experience. Abortion was approved in 1973. A person would have to be at least forty to have any experience with that decision.

There are also many opponents who are happily going through life with two kids. One might conclude that there are many who practice one sin, while condemnng another. I doubt they have any intentions of confronting contraception after defeating homosexuality.

We also see Catholic annulments in the US soaring from 300 in 1960 to 60,000 in 2000. It has simply been accepted as a way to end marriage for Catholics. Many of these folks also oppose homosexuality.

So, do I have an answer for the individual motivation of the opposition? No, but I do have a speculation. I suggest there has been a social taboo against homosexuality that has held for many years. A taboo induces people to oppose something without really having a reason. This taboo is currently breaking down.

Some people are not under its influence, and some still are. The general social gains that homosexuals have made in the past thirty years indicate the taboo is quickly crumbling. I don’t really know how to construct a social taboo, and I think that is the frustration the opposition faces. They want to reinstate the taboo, but they really don’t know how to do that.

 

[Ptero]

I suggest there has been a social taboo against homosexuality that has held for many years. A taboo induces people to oppose something without really having a reason. This taboo is currently breaking down

Okay, so it’s a taboo issue now!

Again, without an agreed upon notion of an objective moral foundation in which a culture can agree on what is right and what is wrong- what will determine whether or not something is just an old-fashioned taboo?

What about prostitution, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, murder (beyond the murder of the preborn which has fallen prey to the loss of taboo that you speak of), aren’t they just silly old taboos too?

Your logic of arguing that just because a few individual gays want to lower the age of consent doesn’t mean that all do has nothing to do with the reality you yourself are constructing by calling it a taboo problem! If anything you are proving the point that without an agreed upon moral code many laws we have now can and will be thrown out the window.

So taboos are just silly old people, under a magical spell, who don’t know better?

After reading your post Ken I realized that you must be young enough, or younger enough from myself that you could suggest that we don’t remember Roe vs Wade and therefore aren’t or cannot claim to be affected by it.

I would argue first that many are old enough to remember the before and after, many have done about faces in their own lives because of being affected by it. I would also argue that just because we remember isn’t why abortion or homosexuality are wrong and hurtful.

I would argue that objectively they are wrong because along with the relaxing of laws on contraception, and divorce laws, they hurt not only some individuals affected but they hurt the health of the culture who are being numbed into a lack of love and respect for life and their fellow man
.

 

[Ken]

I suggest there has been a social taboo against homosexuality that has held for many years. A taboo induces people to oppose something without really having a reason. This taboo is currently breaking down

Okay, so it’s a taboo issue now!

Again, without an agreed upon notion of an objective moral foundation in which a culture can agree on what is right and what is wrong- what will determine whether or not something is just an old-fashioned taboo?

What about prostitution, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, murder (beyond the murder of the preborn which has fallen prey to the loss of taboo that you speak of), aren’t they just silly old taboos too?

Your logic of arguing that just because a few individual gays want to lower the age of consent doesn’t mean that all do has nothing to do with the reality you yourself are constructing by calling it a taboo problem! If anything you are proving the point that without an agreed upon moral code many laws we have now can and will be thrown out the window.

So taboos are just silly old people, under a magical spell, who don’t know better?

After reading your post Ken I realized that you must be young enough, or younger enough from myself that you could suggest that we don’t remember Roe vs Wade and therefore aren’t or cannot claim to be affected by it.

I would argue first that many are old enough to remember the before and after, many have done about faces in their own lives because of being affected by it. I would also argue that just because we remember isn’t why abortion or homosexuality are wrong and hurtful.

I would argue that objectively they are wrong because along with the relaxing of laws on contraception, and divorce laws, they hurt not only some individuals affected but they hurt the health of the culture who are being numbed into a lack of love and respect for life and their fellow man
.

I’ve been discussing two very different issues. The first is the claim that all homosexuals support a lowering of consent ages because some homosexuals support it. This has been the discussion spurred by the remarks of Cestusdei.

The second issue is why indivuduals are motivated to select a particular sin for opposition, while ignoring other sin all around them. This is why I introduced contraception.

I suggested the taboo as a reason people select one particular sin for opposition while they ignore or practice a much more widespread sin. The taboo suggestion has nothing to do with the notion that if some homosexuals favor something, then all homosexuals favor it. Sorry if my language was imprecise or my writing unclear.

Definitively identifying a taboo is difficult, and I can’t provide a simple test. But one indication may be that people cannot provide a reason for their opposition beyond simple obedience or unsupported generalizations.

For example what does “hurt the health of the culture who are being numbed into a lack of love and respect for life and their fellow man” mean? What are the particular, observable injuries to the culture, and why are they attributed to homosexuality?

 

[Maggie]

Ken:

So, do I have an answer for the individual motivation of the opposition? No, but I do have a speculation. I suggest there has been a social taboo against homosexuality that has held for many years. A taboo induces people to oppose something without really having a reason. This taboo is currently breaking down.

I think this holds at least a grain of truth, and from my experiences (I certainly cannot speak for anyone else) those resisting the crumbling of the taboo are from both sides of the sexual fence. The complication arises from the lumping together of the taboo against homosexual practices and homosexuals as people. Even those who would not “out” themselves or label themselves as “gay” are forced to defend themselves as a whole person when trashed or denied that personhood for something that they see as a cross they bear.

However, remember, that even as we fight to recognize homosexuals as people and declaim the homosexual act as sin, even if it is done out of simple obedience and we have to struggle within ourselves to fight what we view as injustice against our friends, we can only fight to separate the two, as is true obedience, but we are called to obedience. I cannot, by my wishes or desires, make homosexual acts not sinful, nor by the practice of another sin lessen the impact of the sin of my brother.

Oh, and I (think I) figured out what I was saying wrong about sin earlier… RE mortal and venial, mortal (or deadly) requires grave matter, both of which homosexual acts and contraception are, and full consent of the will. So both could be mortal. But only God knows the extent of the consent of another person’s will, so I still think we oughtn’t to be judging each other.

 

[cestusdei]

Ken,

The fact remains that homosexuals were the ones who worked to lower the age of consent. Other homosexuals did NOT work to oppose this. The folks that opposed it were…the Christians. Now you can try to talk around it, but anyone who knows “gay” culture knows how they worship youth, speak about intergenerational love, and laud intitiation into the lifestyle. You are just trying to change the subject and avoid the facts. But the fact is no one else is trying to lower the age of consent. You can’t explain it. I can. It is obvious why they want this.

Maybe you could clarify for us, do you believe and accept the official teaching of the Church that homosexuality is an objective moral disorder and all homosexual acts are always sinful?

 

[Ken]

cestusdei:

Ken,

The fact remains that homosexuals were the ones who worked to lower the age of consent. Other homosexuals did NOT work to oppose this. The folks that opposed it were…the Christians. Now you can try to talk around it, but anyone who knows “gay” culture knows how they worship youth, speak about intergenerational love, and laud intitiation into the lifestyle. You are just trying to change the subject and avoid the facts. But the fact is no one else is trying to lower the age of consent. You can’t explain it. I can. It is obvious why they want this.

Maybe you could clarify for us, do you believe and accept the official teaching of the Church that homosexuality is an objective moral disorder and all homosexual acts are always sinful?

I accept your report that gays worked to lower the age. However, you have no basis to attribute support for that to all gays.

I am not changing the subject at all. The subject is whether the fact that some gays supported lowering the age means all gays supported it. I am squarely facing it.

It is fallacious to hold that the positions of some people with a certain characteristic must be shared by all people with that characteristic. An entire group is not defined by the characteristics of some individual members. I think this is the fallacy of composition.

Does the fact that some Catholic priests have a certain characteristic mean that all Catholic priests share that same characteristic? I say no.

 

[SojournerOf78]

cestusdei:

I’m a Catholic priest. That’s why I said when I meet them they tend to be honest one way or the other. No mortal sin makes people happy. The human person was not designed to experience joy by means of mortal sin.

I just have a personal question…

I notice that everybody’s opinion on homosexuals is all wishy washy and fuzzy wuzzy.

I know we are supposed to show love but is showing love acting like people that are completely immoral in the sight of the Almighty and who are on their way to eternal destruction are A-OK because they seem to be ‘happy’ ???

I just want to know, what were the Church Father’s opinions and how did they deal with such things? I would honestly like to know because I dont go around policing everybodys actions but I also dont know how to feel or what to think.

PS Please…no posts saying 'Dont Judge" …The scriptures are where these practices are condemned, I didnt make up the rules…Im not talking about judgement but what is our responsibility to these people and to the Lord?

 

[Ken]

SojournerOf78:

I just have a personal question…

I notice that everybody’s opinion on homosexuals is all wishy washy and fuzzy wuzzy.

I know we are supposed to show love but is showing love acting like people that are completely immoral in the sight of the Almighty and who are on their way to eternal destruction are A-OK because they seem to be ‘happy’ ???

I just want to know, what were the Church Father’s opinions and how did they deal with such things? I would honestly like to know because I dont go around policing everybodys actions but I also dont know how to feel or what to think.

PS Please…no posts saying 'Dont Judge" …The scriptures are where these practices are condemned, I didnt make up the rules…Im not talking about judgement but what is our responsibility to these people and to the Lord?

Perhaps your responsibility is the same as your responsibility to Catholics who practice contraception and “are completely immoral in the sight of the Almighty and who are on their way to eternal destruction are A-OK because they seem to be ‘happy’ ???”

 

[Ptero]

Maybe you could clarify for us, do you believe and accept the official teaching of the Church that homosexuality is an objective moral disorder and all homosexual acts are always sinful?

Granted, I haven’t read every post of Ken’s, but I don’t remember him ever stating his beliefs!

I’ve been discussing two very different issues. The first is the claim that all homosexuals support a lowering of consent ages because some homosexuals support it. This has been the discussion spurred by the remarks of Cestusdei.

Issues aren’t unrelated by virtue of them being different!

If you don’t agree that the push by some homosexuals to lower the age of consent warrants proposing that homosexuals can be said to be in favor of this, how is it that you can agree that some Bishops poor handling of sex abuse cases and abusive priests warrants having no trust in any Bsihops?

The second issue is why indivuduals are motivated to select a particular sin for opposition, while ignoring other sin all around them. This is why I introduced contraception.

Who is selecting a particular sin for opposition? I’m not, in case you’re wondering.

Contraception, adultery and abortion (for example), are already legal, although at one time they were not. The opposition to same-sex marriage comes from the current cultural debate and the attempt to change the law regarding marriage.

Definitively identifying a taboo is difficult, and I can’t provide a simple test. But one indication may be that people cannot provide a reason for their opposition beyond simple obedience or unsupported generalizations.

Plenty of people have provided reasoned explanations for their oppostion here Ken.

Obedience is never simple to a free-willed human!

Tells us what you know about obedience that calls you to make this claim.

con’td

 

[WhiteDove]

http://www.home.no/mrweizel/gay thread.jpg

 

[Ptero]

cont’d

To say that changing morals and laws adversely affects the culture is not a generalization. The culture has changed greatly since I was young and I am just 46.

When I went to school we didn’t have metal detectors, or condom machines, or even sex-education that promoted permiscuous behavior. I can attest that the sex education of the late 60’s and early 70’s was very much about warning kids about cause and effect.

When I was a kid no one identified themselves through their sexual orientation, but rather through things they did, or excelled in, i.e., jock, musician, bookworm.

Here’s what I see you doing: If I state a particular about anything, you refute it by saying that the particular is never across the board true. But isn’t that true of any particular? Does that mean that there is no value in any generalization?

What I am suggesting is that what is good for the culture goes beyond what is good for any one individual.

It’s good for children to have a father and a mother. Children model themselves through the adults around them. It’s good to have adults around them that model behavior that will lead them to become adults who also contribute towards the whole of the culture.

Only men can teach their sons to grow up to be men, only women can teach their daughters to grow up to be women.

All the surgeries, posing and modern technology in the world will never eradicate the general differences between the sexes.

We move further and further away from the idea of what is good for the whole with every passing year.

We are, as a whole, infected by the notion of thinking of ourselves only as individuals, and never as a part of the whole. It’s a burden that many don’t even know they’re living with and don’t have to.

“Who am I” is not the only question worth asking ourselves. In fact I would suggest that one can only answer that question in relationship to others.

We are only who we are as we are part of the whole, in relationship to others.

I don’t argue that some actively gay people are happy. I would argue though that promoting a lifestyle that often times includes breaking vows, and promises to each other, spreading diseases, and cannot teach, through their lifestyle as it is lived, any child about what it means to become a “man” or a “woman” a mother or a father, should not be endorsed by the whole.

I don’t though think that making homosexuality in and of itself a crime is warranted, and everyone should be protected under the law from being attaked and physical harmed, but I would make criminal any behavior that knowlingly spreads a virus through purposeful sexual activity regardless of the orientation of the perpetrator.

But, I suppose too that God knows what He’s doing and the crazier the world gets the more people may be blessed by His Grace to seek out His truth.

All sin and suffering is potentially redemptive…

 

[WhiteDove]

http://www.imageyenation.com/Imagez/RichardSimmonsThisThreadIsGay.jpg

 

[Shoshana]

WhiteDove:

http://www.imageyenation.com/Imagez/RichardSimmonsThisThreadIsGay.jpg

You are a hoot White Dove!
Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[Ptero]

PS Please…no posts saying 'Dont Judge" …The scriptures are where these practices are condemned, I didnt make up the rules…Im not talking about judgement but what is our responsibility to these people and to the Lord?

Read 1Cor Ch 5, for St Paul’s take on this.

I think he’s saying that there’s a difference with how we are to treat those within the church and that they are to be held accountable for living immorally but that those in the world are to be judged by God.

This speaks to the heart of my dilemma, that is how political should we be?

I still see the problem being one of reconciling the laws of the past with a future that I fear to be without a moral foundation that can be agreed upon, (and in the USA where once upon a time it was the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments that we agreed upon as a moral foundation which are now being seen as untenable due to the very recent pronouncement of “separation of church and state”) that in the future we will find we cannot justify even a law against murder without someone ultimately crying that that is a Christian value and therefore no longer valid.

 

[Maggie]

cestusdei:

Ken,

The fact remains that homosexuals were the ones who worked to lower the age of consent. Other homosexuals did NOT work to oppose this. The folks that opposed it were…the Christians. Now you can try to talk around it, but anyone who knows “gay” culture knows how they worship youth, speak about intergenerational love, and laud intitiation into the lifestyle. You are just trying to change the subject and avoid the facts. But the fact is no one else is trying to lower the age of consent. You can’t explain it. I can. It is obvious why they want this.

Come on!!! This is precisely the kind of attitude that is not acceptable. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. To say that “homosexuals” worked to lower the age of consent and “Christians” worked to prevent it and that “no homosexuals” stepped forward to prevent implies that no homosexuals are Christians. I know you had to take logic in the seminary and that you know this is the conclusion these two statements result in and you are not or should not be asserting the result. There are Christian homosexuals : even chaste, moral, Catholic homosexuals who understand and accept the teachings of the Church and attempt like any of us to resist the temptations of sin.

The gay lifestyle that you refer to is the same gay subculture within the homosexual community (the flamers, the queers) that make other homosexuals uncomfortable. We heterosexuals would be hard pressed to defend ourselves as a group against the promiscuity of the meat markets and bar scene if called upon to do so. Perhaps it’s time you started defining your subsets. I understand another person’s point about being part of a group, but simply being born black or white or green doesn’t make one automatically one thing or another, and being single and female doesn’t mean that like many other single females I’m hopping in bed from one guy to the next. Neither does being homosexual. Even if you don’t want to take it case by case at least recognize that within a larger group there are sub-groups that might find the same behaviour you are describing distasteful and immoral.

Maybe you could clarify for us, do you believe and accept the official teaching of the Church that homosexuality is an objective moral disorder and all homosexual acts are always sinful?

I accept that homosexual sexual acts are always sinful, just as I accept that heterosexual sexual acts between two unmarried people are always sinful. I accept that homosexuality is an objective moral disorder that I do not understand and cannot judge because God has given me other crosses to bear and I cannot imagine what it must be like for those bearing that cross, no matter how much they might share their pain with me.

 

[SojournerOf78]

Shoshana:

You should be more specific in your stand. Being homosexual is not against Church law. Homosexual acts are.

Blessings,
Shoshana

I guess thievery is bad but a thief is ok…

And a lie is bad but its fine to be a liar…

God isnt going to be sending sins to hell my friend, but people…

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

PS…please pray for me, a sinner

 

[Ken]

**Ptero wrote:

“If you don’t agree that the push by some homosexuals to lower the age of consent warrants proposing that homosexuals can be said to be in favor of this, how is it that you can agree that some Bishops poor handling of sex abuse cases and abusive priests warrants having no trust in any Bsihops”**

Can I assume you meant to say,
“If you don’t agree that the push by some homosexuals to lower the age of consent warrants proposing that ALL homosexuals can be said to be in favor of this, how is it that you can agree that some Bishops poor handling of sex abuse cases and abusive priests warrants having no trust in any Bsihops.” Without the addition of the word “ALL” we have little disagreement about homosexual support of lowered age.

I don’t agree to the proposition that one can have no trust in any bishop, even though some of their number acted like jerks. If you can show where I did, please do. I recall once saying that I trusted some other group more than I trusted bishops. But I never said that all bishops must share the characteristics of some bishops.

Now, I can see where the thought may occur to some people that since some priests are abusive, then all priests are abusive. And I can see the thought may occur to some people that forty years of silence on the matter by Catholic priests indicates approval of abuse. But critical examination of those fleeting thoughts should indicate that they are unwarranted and the products of fallacious thinking.

So, I can also see how the thought may ocur to some people that all gays support lowering the consent age because some gays support it. But, that fleeting thought should also fall to critical analysis.

It’s very simple. The fact that some people with a given characteristic have a certain position does not mean that all people with that characteristic share the same position.

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

 

[SojournerOf78]

Ken:

Perhaps your responsibility is the same as your responsibility to Catholics who practice contraception and “are completely immoral in the sight of the Almighty and who are on their way to eternal destruction are A-OK because they seem to be ‘happy’ ???”

That was a good nonsense answer…As Catholics were supposed to struggle against sin, individually and corporately, we know this.

Thanks for the tossback on the question though, that helped a lot. :banghead:

 

[Ken]

SojournerOf78:

That was a good nonsense answer…As Catholics were supposed to struggle against sin, individually and corporately, we know this.

Thanks for the tossback on the question though, that helped a lot. :banghead:

Maybe someone will provide a better answer. In the meantime just look around church next Sunday. There are probably many more people practicing contraception than homosexuality. Use the way you treat the folks practicing contraception as a model for how to treat homosexuals.