Gays

[JadeStarr]

Remember my friend, some people use homosexuals as the “whipping boys” for what is wrong with the culture. That’s repulsive.

For what it’s worth, I think the majority of Catholics do love our homosexual neighbors, and wish nothing but the best for them. A dear friend of mine is gay, and I would lay down in traffic for him~I’m sure there are other catholics who feel the same way.

Good questions, by the way. I agree with several things you said. I don’t think being gay is a choice, I think your born that way. It’s just my opinion though.

You are NOT alone, not by a long shot.

I have close Gay friends as well and I have no doubt that they would lay down their lives for me.
I have been taken aback by their love and loyalty to me, it’s wonderful to experience.

 

[Crash001]

>>Whether they are a man or a woman, there is nothing wrong with holding hands while walking down the street. Adding the statement, “but if two gay woman are doing the same” changes the entire story. The assumption by Christians is that all sin should be addressed, whether it’s committing adultery, murder, or taking part in homosexual acts. Once you know you are in that state of sin, a person should go to reconciliation / confession and work towards stopping the sinful act so that they can be in union again with God.

See my issue is with the word “assumption”. Just because two people appear one way does not make it so. Am I to assume that a teenage couple holding hands walking down the street are also having premarital sex and look at them with disdain and address the assumed sin? I hope that people keep in mind the old saying about what happens when you assume.

Actually, I wasn’t making the assumption about the way they hold hands because I just don’t know. You had had distinguised couples in that way, a straight couple and a gay couple. A couple holding hands is a couple holding hands in your original post. Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.

Unfortonutely, society has made holding hands something more than just a term of endearment, i.e. holding hands = love/caring.

I was in the city on Saturday night and asked my daughters and a friend (12, 14, and 16) to hold hands and stay together. It was a party atmosphere with lots of adults. I should hope that people found it comforting that a group of girls were holding hands at different points no matter what the reason.

 

[Crash001]

WHAT? Are you telling me that the Church will deny marriage to a paraplegic because he cannot procreate?

Probably not because the paraplegic would be open to procreation as a fundamental reason for getting married.

I know that others in this thread have already stated, but there is no anomosity towards a person with gay tendency’s. If there is, that is a sin in of itself. The disagreement comes with how someone acts on those tendency’s. Again, I shared earlier that my brother is lazy and overeats to the point of obesity. It’s his cross to bear, it’s public (I can see the behavior), but he also has to acknowledge his cross and realize that it’s something he needs to try and work on to become a better person…not to try and convince others that it’s perfectly okay to become lazier and heavier and that we should do it to.

Again, one perspective here…

 

[The_Bucket]

WHAT? Are you telling me that the Church will deny marriage to a paraplegic because he cannot procreate? What about a woman with a hysterectomy? What about 2 people past their child-bearing years? What about a man with erectile dysfunction? This cannot be true. If it is, how absurd. The Bible itself is very clear that marriage does not necessitate children and that a marriage without children can still be wonderful and fulfilling. It also teaches that love between a husband and wife is of huge importance. To diminish that and say that it’s all about procreation and stable families I think is missing the point of why people want to get married in the first place. They want God to bless their love and their union, and IF HE IS WILLING to provide them with children. If the Church wouldn’t marry 2 paralyzed people because they cannot procreate, then would they allow a woman an annulment if her husband has his testicles destroyed in an accident? I cannot imagine that this position is actually true.

The Church’s only reason to deny marriage based on some kind of physical ailment is if one spouse is PERMANENTLY physically incapable of intercourse. That’s it. And in this day and age you don’t see that sort of situation very often. Even paraplegics usually can have intercourse with the assistance of medical technology. Quadreplegics? Well no. But that and like, having the genitals physically removed is pretty much it.

Oh and as far as the rest of the substance of this thread, I’m in the “I don’t care what civil society says is marriage” camp. We allow divorce and re-marriage and God doesn’t and I don’t see people the same people who want gay marriage to remain illegal petitioning to end no-fault divorce.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The Vatican stance on homosexuality irks me in some ways. I understand that homosexuality is a cross to bear for many. I understand that the RCC teaches that practicing homosexuality is wrong. That is of course the prerogative of the Church. What bothers me is that they tell you “This is your cross to bear. Just don’t practice homosexuality.” O.K. So let’s say I’m a Catholic gay man or woman and I decide that I am going to be celibate. I have decided to go through my entire life without the companionship of a partner, a lover, a family in the truest sense of the word. Most likely, I will often find myself to be profoundly lonely, no matter how many friends I surround myself with. Obviously, if I am choosing to do this, I am making a tremendous sacrifice for God and am a very spiritual person. I may even feel that although I may not ever be able to have a family, I CAN channel my energy into my devotion for God. I may feel called to be a priest or a nun (NOT BECAUSE I am gay and running away from it mind you, but because my love for God has called me to a life of religious chastity and devotion to Jesus Christ). One might say I am in a unique position to devote my life to God because of my particular circumstances. Well TOO BAD! The Church doesn’t want me! I literally cannot become a priest or a nun because I am a homosexual. Vatican policy and all that. The same Church that would have me live a life of loneliness and chastity for fear of going to Hell will not support me in my decision to do so by allowing me to devote my life to a higher religious calling within their ranks. Like it or not, current Vatican policy marginalizes and excludes gays from both family and religious life and then tells them that they are "accepted’ as God’s creatures, blah, blah, blah. They need to put their money where their mouth is and start ordaining gay priests and nuns if they are to have ANY credibility on this issue whatsoever.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The Vatican stance on homosexuality irks me in some ways. I understand that homosexuality is a cross to bear for many. I understand that the RCC teaches that practicing homosexuality is wrong. That is of course the prerogative of the Church. What bothers me is that they tell you “This is your cross to bear. Just don’t practice homosexuality.” O.K. So let’s say I’m a Catholic gay man or woman and I decide that I am going to be celibate. I have decided to go through my entire life without the companionship of a partner, a lover, a family in the truest sense of the word. Most likely, I will often find myself to be profoundly lonely, no matter how many friends I surround myself with. Obviously, if I am choosing to do this, I am making a tremendous sacrifice for God and am a very spiritual person. I may even feel that although I may not ever be able to have a family, I CAN channel my energy into my devotion for God. I may feel called to be a priest or a nun (NOT BECAUSE I am gay and running away from it mind you, but because my love for God has called me to a life of religious chastity and devotion to Jesus Christ). One might say I am in a unique position to devote my life to God because of my particular circumstances. Well TOO BAD! The Church doesn’t want me! I literally cannot become a priest or a nun because I am a homosexual. Vatican policy and all that. The same Church that would have me live a life of loneliness and chastity for fear of going to Hell will not support me in my decision to do so by allowing me to devote my life to a higher religious calling within their ranks. Like it or not, current Vatican policy marginalizes and excludes gays from both family and religious life and then tells them that they are "accepted’ as God’s creatures, blah, blah, blah. They need to put their money where their mouth is and start ordaining gay priests and nuns if they are to have ANY credibility on this issue whatsoever.

No way. Putting a young man struggling with same-sex temptations into an all-male environment in seminary is a recipe for disaster, particularly where there are ther men struggling as well. Read up on the stats of clerical abuse-- a huge number were of men who came from one of the two St John’s (one in Boston, one near LA). The abusers were overwhelmingly homosexual, and began (or continued) there non-celibate lifestyles with other seminarians. In more than one case, predator priests blackmailed other priests into silence, by threatening to reveal these past sins.

So no, the Church’s 2000 year policy doesn’t need to jump through hoops to be validated. And Jesus specifically distinguishes between eunuchs from birth and eunuchs for the Kingdom. The entire notion of clerical celibacy as sacrifice presupposes men drawn towards the married life. Admttedly, same-sex attractions are one of the hardest crosses to bear, but God rewards faithful devotion.

 

[The_Bucket]

No way. Putting a young man struggling with same-sex temptations into an all-male environment in seminary is a recipe for disaster, particularly where there are ther men struggling as well.

This is like arguing that putting a young heterosexual man in a co-ed environment is a recipe for disaster.

Read up on the stats of clerical abuse-- a huge number were of men who came from one of the two St John’s (one in Boston, one near LA). The abusers were overwhelmingly homosexual, and began (or continued) there non-celibate lifestyles with other seminarians. In more than one case, predator priests blackmailed other priests into silence, by threatening to reveal these past sins.

Now here I can understand your position. But this stems from a perversion of the seminary that has less to do strictly with homosexual tendencies and more about totally disregarding the call to celibacy from the highest ranks at the seminaries to the lowest student there. It would be just the same if the folks in charge ordered hookers for everyone there.

 

[Chiltepin]

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?
…
Most people say that all gays have an agenda of pushing their life onto others. I don’t have an agenda, I just want to understand why.

I don’t care if someone has a civil union. It would not reflect on my Catholic Marraige at all. The concern is with agenda pushers as you mention (many of whom are straight.)

If we see the gay right to be married become a federally recognized right, there is no turning back. At some point our Church will be branded a discriminatory institution and who knows what action the government would take to punish us or even try to shut us down. Think that is impossible? Consider that an American man is currently attempting to sue the Pope and our Supreme Court said it was ok for him to do that.

Consider the professor who was branded a biggot and lost his job for this email: news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html

Consider that Elena Kagan kicked army recruiters off the Harvard campus because they act in accordance with the federal law regarding gays in the military. Consider Elena Kagan will most likely be a Supreme Court Justice.

These are scary times in America and your freedom of religion will mean nothing to the tolerance police if you believe that homosexuals should not be married in your specific place of worship (liberal translation: you are a biggot.)

Does this sound extreme? I know it makes me sound like a wild conspiracy theorist, but just look at the social and political climate right now. There is a storm brewing.

I understand that homosexuality is a cross to bear for many. I understand that the RCC teaches that practicing homosexuality is wrong. That is of course the prerogative of the Church. What bothers me is that they tell you “This is your cross to bear. Just don’t practice homosexuality.”

This is a very exciting time to be Catholic and I think we are about to see this change some. The writings of John Paul II are already being turned into so many wonderful classes and materials for helping adults understand their Catholic sexuality.

We are seeing a lot of very modern issues and problems being addressed and providing support. For instance there is a pornography addiction support group that I see printed in the bulletin at my parish. I hope that it is only a matter of time before there are programs and support for Catholics with same sex attraction. You are right in pointing out that we simply say it is your cross to bear and then leave them stranded.

I think we seriously under-minister to single adults sometimes. A person can have a vocation to be a single layperson. There is no sacrament for that but it is some people’s calling. They deserve some guidance and to see how they can truly use that to have an exciting life in service of the Lord. Maybe you can help start something like that.

 

[smithm29]

Marriage is a sacrament. Since God instituted the sacrament of marriage, neither the Church nor the state has the authority to change its form or matter. An actual gay marriage, then, is impossible. A gay semblance of a marriage is sacrilege, like female ordination or a non-Catholic receiving communion.

I see no reason why civil benefits can’t be extended to whomever people wish to extend them, as long as the number is limited.

 

[Nec5]

It’s nice to see progressivism rear its head here.

1. Why can’t gays have civil unions as long as the Church and other religious organizations have their own rules? This line of reasoning is indicative of a person brainwashed into believing the nation was founded as a completely secular society. It was not. Marriage, and specifically the attributes associated with Christian marriage, was considered one of the norms in which the government and people thrived. The separation of Church and State argument is the culprit here, which is a separate debate (though the Enemy uses it to move towards gay marriage).

If civil unions are allowed and endorsed, then you will lose yet another brick in the moral foundation of this country (see Founders thoughts on the necessity of Christian virtue for this nation to prosper). It might surprise many here to learn that the early Congress spent public funds on sending Bibles to various schools and locales. The Supreme Court met in a church. Satan did well in having us forget the past and then providing a convincing substitute: humanism.

1. Sin should not be tolerated. If it is tolerated its sure as heck should not be publicly celebrated, which is precisely what our culture does. This explains the OP’s point about hand holding. This country provides a great deal of latitude for behavior but there are limits. By the way, why not allow public nudity? It isn’t hurting anyone, it’s natural, and the health argument is bogus. For the same reason gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and bestiality should be opposed: it is immoral on the grounds of Christian modesty.
2. “I have gay friends and they’re great, nice, supportive, etc.” What does this prove? Is this some diatribe on the duality of human existence? I’ve know clansmen and blank panthers that advocate genocide, and both were fairly fun to be around. Some of our friends beat their wives and abuse their children, and they also help us out when we need it. That does not excuse their behavior or give them or us a “pass”. On the contrary, these folks’ views will often insinuate themselves into your belief system. Eventually, you’ll end up moderating your views on pivotal issues like abortion or homosexuality; the people in this thread are representative of this danger. You’ll look for an “out” or gray area, like civil unions or abortion in cases of a mother’s health or rape/incest. Or you’ll downplay those battles in favor of something else, like poverty and the environment. Both are worthy goals, but these are attempts by the weak willed to avoid confrontation. Another win for the Enemy.
3. “Gay people don’t choose their attraction.” If this isn’t true, then is a matter of free will/choice. Let’s assume it is true. It’s irrelevant. If I must believe that gay people are largely born through genetic factors, then I have to also believe that some men will never be able to be attracted to a single woman. We should accept his fornication and celebrate it as an equal and open lifestyle choice. Others may have an innate attraction to squirrels or donuts or Slim Jims. Therefore, incest and polygamy can also be tolerated and given civil unions. Who are we to judge if people are born certain ways? I’m sure Sodom and Gomorrah was just a mistake.

Sin must be confronted and rejected. Mercy is for the sinner, not the sin. If a gay person continues to demonstrate and advocate immorality, it is our duty as Christians to oppose this person and cast him out as Paul and Christ contend in the New Testament. It is his choice and he must face the consequences. Likewise, if he comes to us for help, we are obliged to help.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m probably going to regret this but I have a few questions.

I don’t understand why some people think that if gays are allowed to marry or have civil unions that somehow it lessens their own marriage vows. Do people think that marriages that are full of hate and abuse lessens a healthy marriage’s vows?

.

because when the state gets in the business of redefining marriage contrary to natural law, they are in effect defecating on my own marriage, denying the reality of my marriage, denying the reality of what the Creator intends by the fruitful union of on man and one woman, denying the reality of human nature and the complementarity of the sexes implicit in creation. It lessens my marriage vows because it distorts and perverts their meaning. You cannot redefine marriage arbitrarily without at the same time denigrating and denying the meaning of marriage itself as an institution.

There is no state or country in the world that currently denies gays the right to marry. Those who have not succumbed to the idiocy and illogic of PCness have simply required them to follow the same rules as everyone else, i.e. one man one woman. There is simpl NO SUCH THING as gay marriage, it is an oxymoron. Marriage and the marriage act is the union of one man and one woman. No other permutation is marriage.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It’s nice to see progressivism rear its head here.

1. Why can’t gays have civil unions as long as the Church and other religious organizations have their own rules? This line of reasoning is indicative of a person brainwashed into believing the nation was founded as a completely secular society. It was not. Marriage, and specifically the attributes associated with Christian marriage, was considered one of the norms in which the government and people thrived. The separation of Church and State argument is the culprit here, which is a separate debate (though the Enemy uses it to move towards gay marriage).

If civil unions are allowed and endorsed, then you will lose yet another brick in the moral foundation of this country (see Founders thoughts on the necessity of Christian virtue for this nation to prosper). It might surprise many here to learn that the early Congress spent public funds on sending Bibles to various schools and locales. The Supreme Court met in a church. Satan did well in having us forget the past and then providing a convincing substitute: humanism.

1. Sin should not be tolerated. If it is tolerated its sure as heck should not be publicly celebrated, which is precisely what our culture does. This explains the OP’s point about hand holding. This country provides a great deal of latitude for behavior but there are limits. By the way, why not allow public nudity? It isn’t hurting anyone, it’s natural, and the health argument is bogus. For the same reason gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and bestiality should be opposed: it is immoral on the grounds of Christian modesty.
2. “I have gay friends and they’re great, nice, supportive, etc.” What does this prove? Is this some diatribe on the duality of human existence? I’ve know clansmen and blank panthers that advocate genocide, and both were fairly fun to be around. Some of our friends beat their wives and abuse their children, and they also help us out when we need it. That does not excuse their behavior or give them or us a “pass”. On the contrary, these folks’ views will often insinuate themselves into your belief system. Eventually, you’ll end up moderating your views on pivotal issues like abortion or homosexuality; the people in this thread are representative of this danger. You’ll look for an “out” or gray area, like civil unions or abortion in cases of a mother’s health or rape/incest. Or you’ll downplay those battles in favor of something else, like poverty and the environment. Both are worthy goals, but these are attempts by the weak willed to avoid confrontation. Another win for the Enemy.
3. “Gay people don’t choose their attraction.” If this isn’t true, then is a matter of free will/choice. Let’s assume it is true. It’s irrelevant. If I must believe that gay people are largely born through genetic factors, then I have to also believe that some men will never be able to be attracted to a single woman. We should accept his fornication and celebrate it as an equal and open lifestyle choice. Others may have an innate attraction to squirrels or donuts or Slim Jims. Therefore, incest and polygamy can also be tolerated and given civil unions. Who are we to judge if people are born certain ways? I’m sure Sodom and Gomorrah was just a mistake.

Sin must be confronted and rejected. Mercy is for the sinner, not the sin. If a gay person continues to demonstrate and advocate immorality, it is our duty as Christians to oppose this person and cast him out as Paul and Christ contend in the New Testament. It is his choice and he must face the consequences. Likewise, if he comes to us for help, we are obliged to help.

I for one will not be “opposing” any gay people or casting them out. I will leave their fate to God. I have enough on my plate worrying about my own sins and weaknesses without adding gays into the mix. It’s pretty easy to judge these people for a sin or a vice that you cannot even imagine isn’t it? I can sit around all day judging people for being gay because I’m straight, so how can I even begin to understand what these people are going through? And your signature, Stop saying “Don’t judge”…is that directed at Jesus? Because He’s the one who said it. All I know is that the Lord said that I will be judged in the same measure I use to judge others, so I’m going for as merciful as possible, because that is how I myself would like to be judged when the time comes.

 

[JW10631]

I consider the act of homosexuality to be repugnant and disgusting. The Church teaches that such acts are sinful and disordered. This teaching has its roots in the laws God gave to Moses.

The latest cause du jour driven by pop culture (more accurately referred to as slop culture) is pushing homosexuality - and labeling anyone who disagrees with them as homophobic. I will not fall for this nonsense. Slop culture dictates nothing I will follow.

People with same sex attraction are called to live chaste lives, just as unmarried heterosexual people. Demanding civil unions or “gay marriage” is the radical homosexual community’s way of shoving their lack of morality down everyone else’s throats.

Unelected judges are forcing this garbage at everyone, just like they did with abortion. Lifetime appointment for judges must end.

 

[Rascalking]

I consider the act of homosexuality to be repugnant and disgusting. The Church teaches that such acts are sinful and disordered. This teaching has its roots in the laws God gave to Moses.

The latest cause du jour driven by pop culture (more accurately referred to as slop culture) is pushing homosexuality - and labeling anyone who disagrees with them as homophobic. I will not fall for this nonsense. Slop culture dictates nothing I will follow.

People with same sex attraction are called to live chaste lives, just as unmarried heterosexual people. Demanding civil unions or “gay marriage” is the radical homosexual community’s way of shoving their lack of morality down everyone else’s throats.

Unelected judges are forcing this garbage at everyone, just like they did with abortion. Lifetime appointment for judges must end.

So, um-that wasn’t you marching in that parade I saw in downtown, huh?

 

[Nec5]

And your signature, Stop saying “Don’t judge”…is that directed at Jesus? Because He’s the one who said it. All I know is that the Lord said that I will be judged in the same measure I use to judge others, so I’m going for as merciful as possible, because that is how I myself would like to be judged when the time comes.

Try reading the Bible and it’s calls to judgment before speaking about that quote out of context. Was Paul wrong in judging? No. The naivety expressed in this thread is emblematic of the disease infesting the culture. If you will not fight the good fight, then at least get out of the way.

As to that comment about that guy attending a gay pride parade, what a joke. It’s the old, “if you attack it strongly you must be a closeted homosexual” routine. Well, wouldn’t that apply to those vehemently opposing polygamy and incest as well? I guess we’ll need to plan a rather large wedding.

 

[Slayd]

I really do appreciate all of your responses so far. I have found that my questions have really made people think about things. I didn’t post these questions to try and change anyone’s mind about anything. Everyone has their own opinions and thoughts on the subject of gays. And if you happen to see me walking down the street holding hands with another female please don’t assume that you know what I’ve been doing in my bedroom, that’s between me and God.

Peace

 

[defenderoftruth]

Try reading the Bible and it’s calls to judgment before speaking about that quote out of context. Was Paul wrong in judging? No. The naivety expressed in this thread is emblematic of the disease infesting the culture. If you will not fight the good fight, then at least get out of the way.

As to that comment about that guy attending a gay pride parade, what a joke. It’s the old, “if you attack it strongly you must be a closeted homosexual” routine. Well, wouldn’t that apply to those vehemently opposing polygamy and incest as well? I guess we’ll need to plan a rather large wedding.

I have to say that your posts Nec5 are always right on target when it comes to moral issues…kudos to you!

BTW, did you notice how everyone that is opposed to “the old view” (that homosexuality is sinful) likes to say “don’t judge” but do they know that Jesus himself also said in John 7:24 “judge not according to appearance but judge a righteous judgment”? Some should stop trying to quote scripture when it suits them. Matthew 7 (judge not verses) is talking about hypocrisy (the whole beam/speck thing)…not “not judging” at all.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I have to say that your posts Nec5 are always right on target when it comes to moral issues…kudos to you!

BTW, did you notice how everyone that is opposed to “the old view” (that homosexuality is sinful) likes to say “don’t judge” but do they know that Jesus himself also said in John 7:24 “judge not according to appearance but judge a righteous judgment”? Some should stop trying to quote scripture when it suits them. Matthew 7 (judge not verses) is talking about hypocrisy (the whole beam/speck thing)…not “not judging” at all.

It is talking about getting yourself together and perfecting yourself morally before you go around telling others what you thing is wrong with them. I suppose you have both done that already?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Try reading the Bible and it’s calls to judgment before speaking about that quote out of context. Was Paul wrong in judging? No. The naivety expressed in this thread is emblematic of the disease infesting the culture. If you will not fight the good fight, then at least get out of the way.

As to that comment about that guy attending a gay pride parade, what a joke. It’s the old, “if you attack it strongly you must be a closeted homosexual” routine. Well, wouldn’t that apply to those vehemently opposing polygamy and incest as well? I guess we’ll need to plan a rather large wedding.

So you’re comparing yourself to Saint Paul now?

 

[Crash001]

The Vatican stance on homosexuality irks me in some ways. I understand that homosexuality is a cross to bear for many. I understand that the RCC teaches that practicing homosexuality is wrong. That is of course the prerogative of the Church. What bothers me is that they tell you “This is your cross to bear. Just don’t practice homosexuality.” O.K. So let’s say I’m a Catholic gay man or woman and I decide that I am going to be celibate. I have decided to go through my entire life without the companionship of a partner, a lover, a family in the truest sense of the word. Most likely, I will often find myself to be profoundly lonely, no matter how many friends I surround myself with. Obviously, if I am choosing to do this, I am making a tremendous sacrifice for God and am a very spiritual person. I may even feel that although I may not ever be able to have a family, I CAN channel my energy into my devotion for God.

I don’t want to discount the sacrafice…It is real. Not nearly as extreme, but I struggle with overeating. For the record, I’m at the upper end of the recommended weight, but not obese. Food/Healthy eating is on my mind all of the time, even more than sex. I fall off the wagon sometime, but do my best to stay the course. I also make life adjustments to help keep me on course, i.e. write down everything I eat. It does affect me emotionally and I continue to look for a more comfortable situation. I even make it known to some friends of my challenges. Why am I saying this? My example is NOT nearly as tough as a person who may have gay tendency’s, but doesn’t act on them, but I do believe you can find ways to control things, even if you go off the wagon sometime, and you don’t necessarily have to promote it as the norm in society. It is wonderful that society embraces conditions as “they do happen” and looks for ways to cope. The problem is that many gays don’t want to even here about or embrace the way that the Catholic Church suggests coping. Penance, Sacrafice, Prayer, Charity, etc. Also, the Catholic Church isn’t say “cover up your cross to bear”, just don’t force it on society as a healthy practice for manking. Homosexual acts in the confines of a marriage are.

I appreciate your honesty and this type of thread makes me appreciate humanity for what it is worth even more. God Bless you on your journey, wherever it may take you.