Gays

[Nec5]

I do NOT sit idly by. I behave like a kind and loving Christian and I do my best to love my neighbor even when it is difficult. The example of this alone will do more to change hearts than hundreds of you people “casting out” the gays (whatever the heck that means) or holding your little protests.

Incest is so wrong partially because of inbreeding and the corruption of the gene pool. That is what I meant by saying it’s a different scenario.

And gay couples have disproportionately adopted and given wonderful homes to countless children with AIDS or with SEVERE handicaps that would have simply DIED in orphanages because these oh-so-loving straight couples you’re so excited about don’t want anything to do with them. A great number of gay couples just have so much love to give that they will take whatever child they can get, be they emotionally or physically handicapped or dying of a horrible disease. They take these children in and love them and care for them, grateful for the mere CHANCE to be parents while so many straight couples sit around for years waiting for the PERFECT, white, healthy, beautiful, infant baby because they won’t accept anything less. THAT is obeying the commandment Jesus gave to us. LOVE.

And in case you are not aware, a cactus is not a sentient being. A cactus cannot love you back. A cactus cannot express itself physically, verbally or emotionally because it is a plant and not a person. Do you understand?

1. For the last 50 years, your way of “non-judgment” was the standard inside and outside the Church. The result? Europe is gone and the US and the rest of the West has one foot in the immoral grave. Your personal Jesus approach is an incredible failure. You cannot preach the Gospel without discussing the Devil and his lures (i.e. normalization of sexual abominations). The apostles and Christ mentioned the Devil dozens of time. Today, we do not, and we preach the gospel of non-judgment.
2. Your response to the incest issue is both judgmental and bigoted. Where’s your love? These loving couples can adopt and give all their extra love and attention to children from orphanages too. Stop judging.
3. Who are you to judge whether a man or woman can marry a cactus? If it makes that man or woman happy, why can’t you just accept it with love and embrace them and their actions? Maybe these folks will adopt all those needy children too.
4. And what of polygamy? Surely, they can choose to adopt too or have healthy babies, yes? Stop discriminating.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to pick and choose gays as a normal lifestyle, then we can pick anything as normal. To argue otherwise is hypocrisy.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

1. For the last 50 years, your way of “non-judgment” was the standard inside and outside the Church. The result? Europe is gone and the US and the rest of the West has one foot in the immoral grave. Your personal Jesus approach is an incredible failure. You cannot preach the Gospel without discussing the Devil and his lures (i.e. normalization of sexual abominations). The apostles and Christ mentioned the Devil dozens of time. Today, we do not, and we preach the gospel of non-judgment.
2. Your response to the incest issue is both judgmental and bigoted. Where’s your love? These loving couples can adopt and give all their extra love and attention to children from orphanages too. Stop judging.
3. Who are you to judge whether a man or woman can marry a cactus? If it makes that man or woman happy, why can’t you just accept it with love and embrace them and their actions? Maybe these folks will adopt all those needy children too.
4. And what of polygamy? Surely, they can choose to adopt too or have healthy babies, yes? Stop discriminating.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to pick and choose gays as a normal lifestyle, then we can pick anything as normal. To argue otherwise is hypocrisy.

The U.S and Europe are no worse off than society has been throughout History. I love how people like you always think that the world is going to Hell and nothing has ever been this bad and moral permissiveness is the reason for it all. The truth is, things happen in cycles. Things are liberal for awhile and there is a puritanical conservative backlash. The world is no better and no worse than it was 2-3,000 years ago and in 2 or 3,000 more years, the same will likely be true.

Your knee-jerk reactions and lack of logic are becoming tiresome. I said incest is objectively wrong because of inbreeding and the genetic results (i.e. children with preventable genetic disorders). That’s science, not bigotry.

You and this cactus issue are spiraling into crazytown. A cactus is not a human being and cannot consent to enter into a contract. A cactus cannot therefore marry, own property or incorporate a business. I don’t even want to think about the logistics of consummating the marriage.

And I already said that polygamy is right up there with gay marriage as far as things people should have the civil right to do. People can have 15 children with 5 women out of wedlock, so why shouldn’t the state issue them a license to do so? At least their offspring would be legally protected in the event of the dissolution of the relationship unlike most children born out of wedlock.

Also, stop putting words into my mouth. I never said the gay lifestyle was normal. That is not my argument.

 

[Nec5]

The U.S and Europe are no worse off than society has been throughout History. I love how people like you always think that the world is going to Hell and nothing has ever been this bad and moral permissiveness is the reason for it all. The truth is, things happen in cycles. Things are liberal for awhile and there is a puritanical conservative backlash. The world is no better and no worse than it was 2-3,000 years ago and in 2 or 3,000 more years, the same will likely be true.

Your knee-jerk reactions and lack of logic are becoming tiresome. I said incest is objectively wrong because of inbreeding and the genetic results (i.e. children with preventable genetic disorders). That’s science, not bigotry.

You and this cactus issue are spiraling into crazytown. A cactus is not a human being and cannot consent to enter into a contract. A cactus cannot therefore marry, own property or incorporate a business. I don’t even want to think about the logistics of consummating the marriage.

And I already said that polygamy is right up there with gay marriage as far as things people should have the civil right to do. People can have 15 children with 5 women out of wedlock, so why shouldn’t the state issue them a license to do so? At least their offspring would be legally protected in the event of the dissolution of the relationship unlike most children born out of wedlock.

Also, stop putting words into my mouth. I never said the gay lifestyle was normal. That is not my argument.

You’re a relativist. People like yourself gave the same cyclical argument right before Rome fell. They said, “Oh, you’re just looking at things through rose colored glasses. We’ve always had our problems”. Then it was sacked. And I never said it’s the worst it has ever been in recorded history. I will say that we’re pretty much getting to that point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

I could write a book on the decline of the West since the early-mid century based on a steady moral direction away from God. You would write each and every trend off as relativists always do.

Try some reading comprehension. For the third time, what about incest couples? Why can’t they marry and adopt? There’s nothing objectively wrong about that. And not every incest couple produces serious genetic problems. And what is objectivity anyway but a point of view much like your view of history?

Again, the cactus. Why can’t we judge marrying a cactus to be okay? I’m not talking about property rights; I’m talking about recognition and acceptance. Stop changing the subject.

Your argument is about the gay lifestyle as normal and acceptable. If it was neither normal nor acceptable, you wouldn’t be arguing for gay adoption and civil acceptance.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You’re a relativist. People like yourself gave the same cyclical argument right before Rome fell. They said, “Oh, you’re just looking at things through rose colored glasses. We’ve always had our problems”. Then it was sacked. And I never said it’s the worst it has ever been in recorded history. I will say that we’re pretty much getting to that point of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

I could write a book on the decline of the West since the early-mid century based on a steady moral direction away from God. You would write each and every trend off as relativists always do.

Try some reading comprehension. For the third time, what about incest couples? Why can’t they marry and adopt? There’s nothing objectively wrong about that. And not every incest couple produces serious genetic problems. And what is objectivity anyway but a point of view much like your view of history?

Again, the cactus. Why can’t we judge marrying a cactus to be okay? I’m not talking about property rights; I’m talking about recognition and acceptance. Stop changing the subject.

Your argument is about the gay lifestyle as normal and acceptable. If it was neither normal nor acceptable, you wouldn’t be arguing for gay adoption and civil acceptance.

Ah, the old Rome argument. Somehow I knew that would come about. As if allowing gays to marry has anything to do with the inherent problems caused by militaristic imperialism and the expansion of an empire.

Again, I keep answering your question about incest and you keep harping on it. It is GENETICALLY unsound for the same reason it is unsound to inbreed dogs. Inherited defects will be compounded and magnified until the gene pool is totally corrupt. Yes, they could theoretically adopt, but the chance of pregnancy remains. Unless you force these people to be sterilized, which is absurd. I want LESS government intrusion into my private life, not more.

And re: the cactus, I am not changing the subject. If you cannot see why an inanimate object does not have legal rights to enter into contractual civil agreements (which is the whole POINT of this thread), then you need serious help.

Again, I never said gay the gay lifestyle was normal. What I AM saying is that people like you raise sexual sins to a ridiculous and unhealthy level. Why not make it illegal to lie, or to skip mass on Sunday? These things are actually part of “the big 10” and I don’t see you rushing out to change the laws regarding these issues. You people are obsessed with sex and what people are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I for one do NOT want to live in a theocracy.

 

[Nec5]

Ah, the old Rome argument. Somehow I knew that would come about. As if allowing gays to marry has anything to do with the inherent problems caused by militaristic imperialism and the expansion of an empire.

Again, I keep answering your question about incest and you keep harping on it. It is GENETICALLY unsound for the same reason it is unsound to inbreed dogs. Inherited defects will be compounded and magnified until the gene pool is totally corrupt. Yes, they could theoretically adopt, but the chance of pregnancy remains. Unless you force these people to be sterilized, which is absurd. I want LESS government intrusion into my private life, not more.

And re: the cactus, I am not changing the subject. If you cannot see why an inanimate object does not have legal rights to enter into contractual civil agreements (which is the whole POINT of this thread), then you need serious help.

Again, I never said gay the gay lifestyle was normal. What I AM saying is that people like you raise sexual sins to a ridiculous and unhealthy level. Why not make it illegal to lie, or to skip mass on Sunday? These things are actually part of “the big 10” and I don’t see you rushing out to change the laws regarding these issues. You people are obsessed with sex and what people are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I for one do NOT want to live in a theocracy.

Then explain Sodom and Gomorrah. Morality does topple empires. The entire Old Testament is a testament to that reality. Try reading it. It practically beats the reader over the head with this pattern.

Outlawing gay marriage is not a theocracy unless you believe the country to this point was theocratic because it followed Judeo Christian philosophy as a baseline for cultural cohesion. You are attempting to change one of the fundamentals of this philosophy.

Your sickening view of relativistic values is the true culprit for this country’s decline. Again, you dodge all the questions. Why can’t incest couples adopt? The chance for pregnancy? That sounds like government intrusion to me, which you claim to be against. Who are you to decide they aren’t disciplined? What if one is naturally sterile?

I guess your kind just cannot connect the dots between moral behavior and societal decay. You pick and choose yet claim to be objective. For that reason, the devil scores another victory and the church withers away. It is pathetic.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Thank you for the info about Eve Tushnet. I’ve been reading her blogs and I just can’t stop.

Great! I’m pleased some good seems to have come of this thread.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Then explain Sodom and Gomorrah. Morality does topple empires. The entire Old Testament is a testament to that reality. Try reading it. It practically beats the reader over the head with this pattern.

Outlawing gay marriage is not a theocracy unless you believe the country to this point was theocratic because it followed Judeo Christian philosophy as a baseline for cultural cohesion. You are attempting to change one of the fundamentals of this philosophy.

Your sickening view of relativistic values is the true culprit for this country’s decline. Again, you dodge all the questions. Why can’t incest couples adopt? The chance for pregnancy? That sounds like government intrusion to me, which you claim to be against. Who are you to decide they aren’t disciplined? What if one is naturally sterile?

I guess your kind just cannot connect the dots between moral behavior and societal decay. You pick and choose yet claim to be objective. For that reason, the devil scores another victory and the church withers away. It is pathetic.

Oh dear. GOD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, just like God intervened and punished many, many people and nations in the OT. He established a pattern of punishment and retribution early on. He did this because later on, His Son would come to change that pattern altogether. Jesus came to befriend mankind and show mercy and forgiveness. The Old and New Testaments, taken together, are meant to show a stark contrast between God’s vengeance and man getting what he deserves and the love and mercy of Christ where man is undeservedly saved through grace. To put it simply, God doesn’t do that anymore!

Our founding fathers also saw no problem with human slavery, or depriving women of the right to vote, or in letting children work 12 -hour days in pencil factories. This country is and always has been Judeo-Christian in philosophy when it wants to be and then at other times not so much. Using the argument that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles as a reason to ban gay marriage is selectively ignoring a huge portion of our history.

Again with the incest. It is not in the best interest of humanity to corrupt the gene pool, period. No laws should be made to make that the norm or society would see many, many problems, such as a huge increase in the number of abortions and a marked increase in the disabled population. These laws are made to protect society and the gene pool and no-one is going to spend the time and effort and taxpayer money to make new laws for the .00001%% of sterile incestuous couples. Gays comprise 10% of society. Deal with it.

And I never said that I see no connection between morality and the well-being of society. What I AM saying is that it is not right for you to force your religious beliefs on a large portion of the tax-paying public simply because you have a problem with homosexuals. They pay taxes too and they have a right to the same government benefits that the rest of us share.

 

[The_Bucket]

Oh dear. GOD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, just like God intervened and punished many, many people and nations in the OT. He established a pattern of punishment and retribution early on. He did this because later on, His Son would come to change that pattern altogether. Jesus came to befriend mankind and show mercy and forgiveness. The Old and New Testaments, taken together, are meant to show a stark contrast between God’s vengeance and man getting what he deserves and the love and mercy of Christ where man is undeservedly saved through grace. To put it simply, God doesn’t do that anymore!

Our founding fathers also saw no problem with human slavery, or depriving women of the right to vote, or in letting children work 12 -hour days in pencil factories. This country is and always has been Judeo-Christian in philosophy when it wants to be and then at other times not so much. Using the argument that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles as a reason to ban gay marriage is selectively ignoring a huge portion of our history.

Again with the incest. It is not in the best interest of humanity to corrupt the gene pool, period. No laws should be made to make that the norm or society would see many, many problems, such as a huge increase in the number of abortions and a marked increase in the disabled population. These laws are made to protect society and the gene pool and no-one is going to spend the time and effort and taxpayer money to make new laws for the .00001%% of sterile incestuous couples. Gays comprise 10% of society. Deal with it.

And I never said that I see no connection between morality and the well-being of society. What I AM saying is that it is not right for you to force your religious beliefs on a large portion of the tax-paying public simply because you have a problem with homosexuals. They pay taxes too and they have a right to the same government benefits that the rest of us share.

I’d pretty much agree with everything here except a) that gays are likely NOT 10% of the population, more like 6-7% but that’s a trivial matter and b) our Founding Fathers DID see slavery as evil but didn’t have the guts to do anything about it for fear of causing disunity.

The point is that there were plenty of evils in the 1950s that were treated as the norm and perfectly acceptable. We’ve moved in a direction of being oversexed since then, but we’ve also moved away from de jure and de facto segregation, institutionalized biogtry, lynchings, race riots and minority marginalization.

America is a great place and the best country in the world. Our present and our history is checkered, but really no moreso than any other nation. I really get a kick out of people romanticizing the 1950s; I doubt anyone of color would do the same. And I love how others romanticize the Middle Ages. I doubt religious minority groups, especially Jews, who were frequently rounded up and killed when times got tough would do the same. Heck, I doubt many devout Catholics at the time would do the same since the Church was, at times, insanely politically corrupt and the seat of Rome itself turned into a site for sexual depravity with cardinals and popes begetting children and God knows what else.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think you misunderstand me. I am not faulting anyone here for answering the OP’s question. That’s what this forum is for. I am faulting people who feel the need to do this “in the real world”; people who feel like they HAVE to say something when they encounter a gay person, be it a snide comment under their breath or a full-on sermon. I am mostly taking issue with people like a previous poster (I forget who it was, and I am far too lazy to go back and check) who said that we should “cast them out”. Unless someone asks, as is the case here, I think everyone should just mind their own business and try to set a good Christian example. THAT is the way to preach the gospel most effectively, as St. Francis was well-aware.

As far as bestiality goes, an animal cannot consent to sex. Comparing bestiality to homosexuality takes all of the emotional aspects out of it and turns homosexuality into a strictly biological urge and perversion, which it is not. Nobody wants to share their life and grow old with and live out their hopes and fears and dreams with a sheep. That is the difference. As far as polygamy goes, well, it’s another issue. I personally believe that to be more dangerous than gay marriage because of all the children involved, but again, the only marriages I am concerned about are marriages sanctioned by God, not civil unions, which is essentially what all state-sanctioned marriages are.

Like I said, I would like it if people stopped obsessing over everyone else’s sex lives and just tried to be more charitable toward their fellow man. I think that would go a long way towards making the world a better place.

OK…first off, I will agree with you on this much: most of the time, it is not our business to treat some people less politely than we treat others, in order to signal our disapproval of what we suspect their sins to be. It is only sex outside of marriage that is wrong, not being gay. That two people dare to hold hands does not have to be interpreted as a sign that they’re have a sexual relationship. If the people are not confronting us with their sexual relationship and insisting that we approve of it, we ought to treat them with justice and charity and leave them alone. Even if others do have an immoral sexual relationship, after all, they still need a shelter from the elements, a place to call home. It will not tarnish our moral lives to eat in the same restaurant with them. It is not a tacit approval of immorality to treat those we suspect of being immoral with the recognition that there isn’t a sin that could make them into less than human beings.

The Church does not forbid gays from having emotional attachments with anybody, including each other. As I think I posted earlier, the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon did not oppose a law that would have allowed adults who cannot marry from having a legal union that allowed them tax and other advantages in order to care for each other. It was the gays who opposed broadening this opportunity to couples without a sexual relationship, so that only people who claimed a homosexual relationship could “share their life and grow old with and live out their hopes and fears and dreams” together.

Do you see the difference? Just as some heterosexuals obsess over whether some guy who seems to like flamboyant clothes and gardening too much or some pair of women who are a little too fond of comfortable shoes, no-fuss hair, and holding hands while they window shop may be engaging in immoral sexual activity, not a few of the gays are obsessing over getting the rest of us to grant societal approval to their sex lives!

I think you will find there are lots of heterosexuals who would be open to minding their own business about the sex lives of adults who want to live out their lives with another person whom they cannot marry if those couples didn’t insist on making their sex lives into the defining reason for their union. These couples don’t want to consider that their sex doesn’t make their union into a “value-added” for society over couples who live together but don’t have sex!

In other words, this is not simply an issue of getting heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to live and be left alone. For gay activists, that wouldn’t be enough. They want approval. Well, if you ask for societal approval, you’ve asked for society to discuss you and come to a group opinion about you. You’d better be very ready to hear an opinion that you don’t like. That other people, when asked, have a very different view of you than you do or that they aren’t ready to make your sexual living arrangements out to be identical to other ones that are in plain biological fact very different doesn’t make them into bigots.

 

[The_Bucket]

In other words, this is not simply an issue of getting heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to live and be left alone. For gay activists, that wouldn’t be enough. They want approval. Well, if you ask for societal approval, you’ve asked for society to discuss you and come to a group opinion about you. You’d better be very ready to hear an opinion that you don’t like. That other people, when asked, have a very different view of you than you do or that they aren’t ready to make your sexual living arrangements out to be identical to other ones that are in plain biological fact very different doesn’t make them into bigots.

They can ask for my approval all they want but they won’t get it. They’ll get indifference and no condemnation, but if they ask me to approve of what they do I’ll never give it to them. Just as I’ll never give cohabitating couples or divorcees (sans annulment) my approval either.

All of these sexual relationships are gravely sinful, but I don’t see it as the role of the civil government to cast judgment or even make a discernment on the subject. If they ask me if I’m going to vote for gay “marriage” I’ll say no, but I’d never flip out against it either. It’s of no consequence to me.

 

[Zelie_Louis]

Thanks to all who participated CHARITABLY in this discussion. It is now closed.