Gays

[mkingdomlvr]

well, something about this sounds vaguely familiar so i will say this:

Roeder was guilty of taking the laws of capital punishment enforcement into his own hands…

not murder…

murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person. If you think Tiller was innocent…

so on the “sin scale” where does Roeder fit against gay people? Would you welcome him into your Church before a gay person?

Not meaning to go off topic- but as far as criminal law is concerned, what he did was murder. He had the requisite intent and he took the life of another human being. He didn’t kill the MD while he was in the act of performing an abortion, he did it in a Church, surrounded by innocent people, endangering them as well. He did not take the law of capital punishment in his own hands, because abortion is legal and is not a death penalty crime in the US. What we personally feel about abortion is not part of the definition.

 

[Newbie2]

Go read through the Dr Tiller threads and look at the language used to describe Roeder. Then take a look at the threads on gays, and look at how gay people are described-miserable, disordered, maladjusted, perverted, deviant…etc. You won’t see ANY of those terms used to describe a murderer. You’ll see, “yes, he did a bad thing BUT he was a hero to so many babies who will now be born!!”

You claim in your first paragraph that you do not see gay people holding hands in public, then you say that Catholics view homosexuality as more sinful because it’s more “visible” and “public” than other sins. Well, which is it?

You need to read more carefully, friend. Read my post again. I wrote that I (personally) do not see that many gay people holding hands in public. Tell you the truth, I can’t tell by looking at a person whether or not they are gay regardless if they are holding hands with a person of the same sex or not.

The “public” nature of homosexuality as a sin, and perhaps I should have spelled it out better for you, is that when two homosexuals are living together, publically, it’s a very visible thing for most people. Again, to tell you the truth, I don’t make judgements about two people of the same sex living together. Unless they reveal their “lifestyle”, I don’t know if they’re sexually involved. It’s not really any of my business either.

In terms of comparison to a murderer, I don’t really see posts here where people assert that the sin of homosexual acts is worse than the sin of murder, but if I see one, I’ll be perfectly willing to refute such a notion. But I will say that you seem to imply that this a common Catholic position, and I retort that I believe that you’re mistaken in this aspect.

My theory is that the higher homosexuality is on a person’s “sin” scale, the fewer actual homosexuals they know. It’s not that it’s public, it’s that the image many people have of homosexuals is the TV news coverage of the gay pride parade and that’s who they think all gay people are.

I think that theory has some validity. Sexual sin is sexual sin, regardless of whether it’s hetersexuals fornicating or commiting adultry or masturbation or that of homosexual sin. Perhaps it’s not a great idea to try to split hairs and try to decide what type of sin is “worse”, in terms of sexual sin.

 

[AndyF]

Is being gay a sin? or is it just the act of it??? What i think is that being gay is not a sin, since it is biological. But, I do think it’s a sin if they act on it. But, than what should those peopl e who are gay do?? marry a woman, even though they are attracted to men? That must be really difficult!! Any thoughts on this ??

No such thing as “being” anything. HS is just another sin, but I admit it is subtle and difficult to rid of. Society has come to identify these people with the sin, and most of the time at the insistence of the victim, so the sin “becomes” them, and they are wrongly labelled because they consider it a condition not an affliction. That is a disservice to the victim where they need sympathy and understanding, not condonment of the practice.

The sin is so deceptive that they feel the affliction is normal, and demons ensure they receive a constant supply of delectable enticements and mental stimulas.

Calls for Rosary,devotions,sacrifice and charity.

Andy

 

[passus]

No such thing as “being” anything.

I *am *a human. Prove me wrong.

HS is just another sin, but I admit it is subtle and difficult to rid of.

Uhh…“HS?”

Society has come to identify these people with the sin, and most of the time at the insistence of the victim,

Victim? Since when do we refer to sinners as victims? Or is this just a special word you use for gay people?

…so the sin “becomes” them, and they are wrongly labelled because they consider it a condition not an affliction.

Since when do refer to sins as afflictions?

That is a disservice to the victim where they need sympathy and understanding, not condonment of the practice.

You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing the practice of homosexuality from the condition of, or predisposition to, homosexuality.

The sin is so deceptive that they feel the affliction is normal, and demons ensure they receive a constant supply of delectable enticements and mental stimulas.

How do you know this?

 

[jibbler]

can someone tell me where in the bible (besides Leviticus) that it says being gay is wrong?

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

Sure it’s also in 1 Corinthians, and Romans

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. - Romans 1:26-27

When it comes to serious and grave sins I do not have a hierarchy of sins an idea a previous poster mentioned that catholics have (I’m sure there are some people who do rank sins in this manner though). All grave sins are a serious matter how God chooses to handle these actions is up to him.

 

[Newbie2]

can someone tell me where in the bible (besides Leviticus) that it says being gay is wrong?

It ain’t “being gay”, it’s participating in homosexual activity.

But see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

[mkingdomlvr]

There are 7 places in the entire Bible that refer to the sin of homosexual acts.

The word adultery is mentioned FORTY times.

The word “forgiveness” is in the Bible FIFTY THREE times.

The word “love” appears THREE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN times.

and then of course there is the glaring omission of the sin of homosexuality in the Gospels. Jesus made the time to speak about adultery and divorce-why wouldn’t He have mentioned homosexuality? It would seem like the perfect time to bring that up, don’t you think? If it was such a grave sin, why do we not have HIS word on the subject. He told us so much else about how to live, why leave this out? Also, if divorce was important enough for Jesus to spend time on, why do Catholics leave that issue alone to focus on the evil of gay marriage?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

If the church changes its stance on the GLBT community then it’s lost a part of its control on the flock when it comes to telling people what to think.

Yes, it’s all because the church wants to control people’s thoughts. (Does this mean I need a tinfoil hat for when I go to church?) Couldn’t be because of what the bible says!

Many people might even leave the church and therefore there is less money coming in. It’s really nothing more than discrimination for financial purposes.

But think of all the money they’d get from people who are trying to get them to deny the truth.

If they were concerned with making money, they would change their view on this and several other issues. Thankfully, the’re not.

and then of course there is the glaring omission of the sin of homosexuality in the Gospels.

Jesus made the time to speak about adultery and divorce-why wouldn’t He have mentioned homosexuality? It would seem like the perfect time to bring that up, don’t you think?

It might be because the people he was preaching to were straight. And isn’t adultery still adultery, even if it’s with a man?

St Paul seems to be concerned with it, he lumped it in with all manner of sins
Romans 1:

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

 

[Newbie2]

There are 7 places in the entire Bible that refer to the sin of homosexual acts.

The word adultery is mentioned FORTY times.

The word “forgiveness” is in the Bible FIFTY THREE times.

The word “love” appears THREE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN times.

and then of course there is the glaring omission of the sin of homosexuality in the Gospels. Jesus made the time to speak about adultery and divorce-why wouldn’t He have mentioned homosexuality? It would seem like the perfect time to bring that up, don’t you think? If it was such a grave sin, why do we not have HIS word on the subject. He told us so much else about how to live, why leave this out? Also, if divorce was important enough for Jesus to spend time on, why do Catholics leave that issue alone to focus on the evil of gay marriage?

Two separate issues, friend.

So-called “gay marriage” apparently wasn’t a social issue at that time in history.

Oh, and we don’t leave it alone. That why there’s really no such thing as divorce in the Catholic church; it’s a social matter. Either there was a marriage for life or the marriage never occured.

Jesus never said anything about abortion either, did he?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

If it was such a grave sin, why do we not have HIS word on the subject.

We have His Father’s word on the subject

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;

He told us so much else about how to live, why leave this out?

It’s spoken of in the old testament. It’s spoken of in St Paul’s letters. The aduience He was speaking too may have been all straight, or, since I think he was speaking to Jews, they already knew not to do that.

Also, if divorce was important enough for Jesus to spend time on, why do Catholics leave that issue alone to focus on the evil of gay marriage?

Maybe because right now gay marriage is an important political issue?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Two separate issues, friend.

So-called “gay marriage” apparently wasn’t a social issue at that time in history.

Oh, and we don’t leave it alone. That why there’s really no such thing as divorce in the Catholic church; it’s a social matter. Either there was a marriage for life or the marriage never occured.

Jesus never said anything about abortion either, did he?

Gay marriage wasn’t, but there were clearly gay people-because they’re mentioned in those other 7 references. Yet, we have no recorded condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus. We do however have record of Him condemning hypocrites, the money changers ripping off the faithful in the Temple, false prophets, swearing, lust (He doesn’t say “just gay lust”, so that means everyone), divorce, doing good deeds to impress others, abusing others in words or deeds, lying, hatred, being selfish, forgetting the poor and a host of other things-why if homosexuality is SO evil did He not bring it up?

As for abortion-Jesus did condemn murder. Abortion as we know it today definitely did not exist during his day, so you could say the same thing about abortion as you’re trying to say about gay marriage.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Gay marriage wasn’t, but there were clearly gay people-because they’re mentioned in those other 7 references. Yet, we have no recorded condemnation of homosexuality from Jesus

So the word of His Father or the divinely inspired writings of St Paul don’t cut it? We’re just going to ignore those?

We do however have record of Him condemning hypocrites, the money changers ripping off the faithful in the Temple, false prophets, swearing, lust (He doesn’t say “just gay lust”, so that means everyone), divorce, doing good deeds to impress others, abusing others in words or deeds, lying, hatred, being selfish, forgetting the poor and a host of other things

Are you implying that the people you’re arguing with are any of those? You’re probably right, but that still doesn’t mean we can ignore the old testament and other biblical books.

-why if homosexuality is SO evil did He not bring it up?

I think he said to keep, except where he noted otherwise, the old testament. Keeping the old testament would definantly involve keeping leviticus 18:22

As for abortion-Jesus did condemn murder. Abortion as we know it today definitely did not exist during his day,

False. From what I understand, the ancient greeks would hit women in the abdomen with a (sledge?)hammer, and various people would make potions designed for abortions.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

So, mkingdomlvr, I have a question for you: Are you saying that St Paul’s letters and Leviticus don’t matter and never did, are you ignoring them, are you saying they don’t apply now, or something else? How did you reach said conclusion?

 

[mkingdomlvr]

So, mkingdomlvr, I have a question for you: Are you saying that St Paul’s letters and Leviticus don’t matter and never did, are you ignoring them, are you saying they don’t apply now, or something else? How did you reach said conclusion?

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m simply suggesting that the emphasis Catholics and other Christian denominations place on homosexuality is completely out of proportion to the emphasis placed on it in Biblical times. I wonder why it is that Catholics and other Christians ignore other sins that were clearly important enough for Jesus to condemn and the Gospel writers to include in order to place so much energy on those 7 verses? Is it because those other sins hit a little too close to home? Is it because groups and individuals need an “other” to be more sinful than they are, in order to feel better about themselves and gay people are this generation’s “other”?

If we really want to follow Jesus and live His words, shouldn’t we pay attention to what He paid attention to FIRST, and then move on to the rest?

As far as Leviticus, when Catholics start living ALL of the laws in Leviticus, I’ll take them more seriously. As it is, they pick out the ones about gay people and tell me that all the other ones were eradicated by Jesus.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Medical Association states that homosexuals are not born that way. No one should commit violence against another person except in cases of clear self defense.

The only reason this issue is mentioned so often is because in the midst of the sexual revolution (1969), the gay rights movement began. Then the sexualization of America began.

1969 The movie Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice introduced viewers to “wife swapping,” better known as Swinging.

The Hippies yell free love! Toss marriage out the window and cohabitate with their “old ladies.”

In the 1970s Adult Bookstores, topless go-go bars and in 1973, legalized abortion.

Also in 1973, gay activists have homosexuality removed arbitrarily from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. No scientific research was involved.

In 1978, while the National Organization for Women was scaring women to death about men, they tried to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. It didn’t pass.

And now, in the present, there is already talk of Beyond Gay Marriage with multiple conjugal partners. And the same Gloria Steinem of Ms. Magazine is a signatory of a document supporting this.

I recommend the following article for Catholics:

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I

wonder why it is that Catholics and other Christians ignore other sins that were clearly important enough for Jesus to condemn and the Gospel writers to include in order to place so much energy on those 7 verses? Is it because those other sins hit a little too close to home?

Could be. Maybe they don’t ignore them. Go and post a thread on divorce if you like, you’ll find most people here won’t approve of it.

Is it because groups and individuals need an “other” to be more sinful than they are, in order to feel better about themselves and gay people are this generation’s “other”?

I think the extra emphasis is because it’s a political issue right now that could be affected either way.

If we really want to follow Jesus and live His words, shouldn’t we pay attention to what He paid attention to FIRST, and then move on to the rest?

I think it’s best to try to live by them all at once.

As far as Leviticus, when Catholics start living ALL of the laws in Leviticus, I’ll take them more seriously. As it is, they pick out the ones about gay people and tell me that all the other ones were eradicated by Jesus.

Well, some of them were, from what I understand. These include the stuff about eating Kosher. Others weren’t. In addition to stuff like leviticus 18:22, you have, for instance Leviticus 26:1. Those still aplly

Leviticus 26:1

'You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God.

 

[estesbob]

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m simply suggesting that the emphasis Catholics and other Christian denominations place on homosexuality is completely out of proportion to the emphasis placed on it in Biblical times. I wonder why it is that Catholics and other Christians ignore other sins that were clearly important enough for Jesus to condemn and the Gospel writers to include in order to place so much energy on those 7 verses? Is it because those other sins hit a little too close to home? Is it because groups and individuals need an “other” to be more sinful than they are, in order to feel better about themselves and gay people are this generation’s “other”?

After calling homosexual behavior an abomnation there is not a whole lot else that can be said. If it is indeed a mortal sin the amount of emphasis placed on it is irelevant. in my experience the reason it is discussed so much is we dont have a lot of prople trying to convince us that adultery, incest and promiscouity are good.

If we really want to follow Jesus and live His words, shouldn’t we pay attention to what He paid attention to FIRST, and then move on to the rest?

As far as Leviticus, when Catholics start living ALL of the laws in Leviticus, I’ll take them more seriously. As it is, they pick out the ones about gay people and tell me that all the other ones were eradicated by Jesus.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I Could be. Maybe they don’t ignore them. Go and post a thread on divorce if you like, you’ll find most people here won’t approve of it. I think the extra emphasis is because it’s a political issue right now that could be affected either way.

I think it’s best to try to live by them all at once.

Well, some of them were, from what I understand. These include the stuff about eating Kosher. Others weren’t. In addition to stuff like leviticus 18:22, you have, for instance Leviticus 26:1. Those still aplly

Leviticus 26:1

So who decided which pieces of Leviticus still apply to us? Why, out of ALL that legalism do we only have the condemnation of homosexuality? We follow the 10 Commandments, where you find the same instruction as Lev 26:1, but no condemnation of homosexuals there either.

I’m sure most people here don’t approve of divorce, but how often do you see divorced Catholics treated like homosexuals? You don’t, because there are more of them. They’re treated with compassion, they’re not called perverts, deviants or disordered. You don’t see Catholics who use ABC treated like homosexuals either. People will tell them they’re wrong, but they’re not condemned the way homosexuals are. People who commit adultery aren’t condemned the way homosexuals are.

I’m not saying that homosexual acts aren’t sinful according to the Church, or that the Church should change Her position on that. What I am saying is that we Catholics have allowed other critical aspects of our faith to slide in order to expend energy condemning homosexuals-whether they’re having sex or not.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

So who decided which pieces of Leviticus still apply to us? Why, out of ALL that legalism do we only have the condemnation of homosexuality?

We don’t. Leviticus also condemns, for instance, incest and idolatry, which are still forbidden. I think all that no longer applies are certain mosaic laws, such as eating kosher, because the new testament specifically states they no longer apply.

We follow the 10 Commandments, where you find the same instruction as Lev 26:1, but no condemnation of homosexuals there either.

Leviticus 18:22 is reaffirmed in Romans 1.

I’m sure most people here don’t approve of divorce, but how often do you see divorced Catholics treated like homosexuals? You don’t, because there are more of them.

I’ve actually seen more gays than divorced catholics on the forum.

They’re treated with compassion, they’re not called perverts, deviants or disordered.

There are at least 2 threads I can think of involving gay catholics. What happened? Did a bunch of people rush in to condemn them and call them perverted deviants? Actually, no. Myself and a bunch of others told them to live according to church teaching and stay celibate, and some people reccomended a group called “courage” dedicated to that purpose.

You don’t see Catholics who use ABC treated like homosexuals either. People will tell them they’re wrong, but they’re not condemned the way homosexuals are.

Once again, read the threads. People who use ABC are flat out told they’re wrong, while gays are told what the church says they need to do.

People who commit adultery aren’t condemned the way homosexuals are.

I’ve never seen a thread where someone said adultry is fine, I think it would get a worse reaction than ABC and much worse than someone saying “I’m gay”.

I’m not saying that homosexual acts aren’t sinful according to the Church, or that the Church should change Her position on that. What I am saying is that we Catholics have allowed other critical aspects of our faith to slide in order to expend energy condemning homosexuals-whether they’re having sex or not.

I think I misunderstood what you were saying then. The reaction I see most commonly in the “Hi, gay here”, etc, threads, is that people rush to encourage them to stay celibate, not to pick on them.