God Loves Homosexuals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iloveu2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what you are trying to suggest is that they are all the same and deserve the same treatment, is that right?
All the same in what way? Are they all sins? Yes, most assuredly. Are all individuals expected to be chaste in their sexual lives and live according to the laws of God? Yes.

What do you mean by “treatment”? Should adulterers be treated the same as those acting on same-sex inclinations? Yes, in that we should expect them to repent and live chaste lives.
I guess that I dont see the acts as the same thing.
I never said the *acts *were the same, although the *desires *are all intrinsically disordered, and are sinful when acted upon.

Christ commands us to love our neighbor. That includes pedophiles. By the logic being presented in this thread, we must accept sinful behavior (homosexuality) in order to love homosexuals. By that same logic, then, we must also accept sinful behavior (pedophilia) in order to love pedophiles. It’s the same concept, two different sins.

Also by the logic presented in this thread, in order to love my mother I must approve of and accept her adulterous affair, otherwise I’m not loving my mother.
 
Why is your default posiiton that God calls them into a gay relationship? Why isn’t the default position chastity? Heterosexuals are called to be chaste.

Do you see yet how wrong the logic is?
Logic has long gone in this thread. It is about subjectivity alone. I feel this way therefore this is right.
 
Actually that isnt logical, that is pretty much extremism (is that a word?).

Again you are being extreme.
How so?
Lets look at it this way, is every hetrosexual marriage a positive and good enviroment for all involved?
No, because we’re all sinners. But the fact that we all sin does not mean that people are then able to justify sin. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more,” and “Be perfect, like your Father in Heaven is perfect,” not "Go ahead and sin because everybody else does it, anyway.
Im sorry but NARTH is hardly a source, much less a reliable or impartial source. You would be better off looking elsewhere.
And why would that be? What is your proof that NARTH is not reliable?
Lets settle down a bit, there isnt any need for this.
Any need for what? I don’t understand.
Well he put his own needs before his child, parents are not meant to do that. Children always come first.
But after re-reading it, it doesnt seem as though he was actually fit to be a parent with all the issues that he had.
Society would disagree with you, as would some of the posters in this thread. Actually, I would bet that most pro-gay activists would think he was being a terrific parent, teaching his daughter “acceptance” of the homosexual lifestyle from such a young age.
 
In a committed stable gay relationship where mutual love and concern is lived out…just as in straight relationships, there is no more violence in these relationships than in their committed, stable, loving straight counterparts. One can find violent relationship in straight unions as well…the battered womens shelter in your local area will bear this out.

Infidelity is an issue that straight people have been dealing with for millenia…infidelity knows no sexual orientation. Alchohol and drug abuse is rampant in the straight community as well, but those who live with a “Christian ethic” of love for one another, love for God, love for their communtiy, whether gay or straight do not exhibit substance abuse. Sexually transmitted disease among those who live in committed lifelong stable relationships is no more prevelant among gay people than among straight people who live in loving, committed live long relationships.

The straight lifestyle is also full of violence, drug and alchohol abuse and sexually transmitted disease. That one’s sexual orientation insures that behavior IS THE MYTH! And THE MYTH is based on a religious bias that has no basis in the reality of commited loving same sex relationships.
What do any of your arguments have to do with making same-sex “marriage” good? You’re stating that because heterosexual marriages have problems, that makes a case for same-sex “marriage”?? Does that also make a case for bestiality for instance?

Vickie
 
Logic has long gone in this thread. It is about subjectivity alone. I feel this way therefore this is right.
We have to get back to it fix.

publisher will have to go back into his meetings and show them the light they see is distorted. He cannot continue in good faith to believe otherwise.

He will have to show them the pure light. If not he is obstinate and he will have to continue his search for the truth.
 
The whole world is not going to adopt that position and serilize themselves…FACT!!!

We are not talking about “the whole world” we are talking about those individuals who wish to enter into a unitive relationship in the exact same way that those humans who cannot have children chose to enter into their relationships.
Comparing the natural sterility of a married couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union is downright ridiculous!.

Vickie
 
Biologically the “pieces and parts fit”…I have no arguement with that.

Humanity is diverse, human sexuality is complex and diverse…two same sex people can come together in mutual love for one another and form a life long loving bond which may or may not include sexual expression. Relationships is much more than sex…but if sex is the base denominator, then sex between two people of the same gender is possible, but procreation is not…homosexuality is a natural part of human existence…it is natural and occurs across the animal kingdom as a natural occurance…humans fit within this natural order in regard to homosexuality.
And you claim not to be influenced by the homosexual agenda! All the assertions you make are debunked in “Defending a Higher Law”! Claiming that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is another of their premises.

“Animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sounds, odors, touch, tastes and images. They do not have the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore it isnot infrequent that animals confuse one sensation for another or one object with another.”

Vickie
 
And you claim not to be influenced by the homosexual agenda! All the assertions you make are debunked in “Defending a Higher Law”! Claiming that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is another of their premises.

“Animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sounds, odors, touch, tastes and images. They do not have the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore it isnot infrequent that animals confuse one sensation for another or one object with another.”

Vickie
Amen!

In addition, cannibalism and infanticide also exist in the animal kingdom. Wouldn’t it be logical to argue that infanticide and cannibalism should be acceptable for humans to do as well? After all, it “happens in the animal kingdom,” which must mean it’s “natural.” Some animals kill potential rivals while seeking a mate. Wouldn’t it be logical to argue that human males should be allowed to kill off all other competitors for a woman’s affections?

The fundamental difference between animals and humans is that animals do not have a choice when it comes to acting on their insincts, however disordered those instincts might be. Disordered inclinations exist in the world because the world is fallen, due to original sin. But we, as humans, have been endowed with the capability to recognize disordered instincts and choose whether or not to act on them.
 
The fundamental difference between animals and humans is that animals do not have a choice when it comes to acting on their insincts, however disordered those instincts might be. Disordered inclinations exist in the world because the world is fallen, due to original sin. But we, as humans, have been endowed with the capability to recognize disordered instincts and choose whether or not to act on them.
That’s absolutely true. I think sometimes where those with a homosexual orientation become annoyed is when they are told over and over how unnatural (and sometimes how evil) their desire (not even the act, just the desire) is. It’s true that the “pieces don’t fit”, therefore it is physically unnatural. However, when it comes to the attraction or a desire for love and physical intimacy, that to the homosexual person feels completely natural. It’s most likely all they have ever known. It’s as natural to them as the need to eat and breathe. It feels as natural to them as it does for a heterosexual to desire love from someone of the opposite sex. What comes naturally to one may not come naturally to another. I don’t know if any of that makes sense, but I thought I’d try!

All we can do is continue to show love by showing how God really does know best, even if it doesn’t always feel natural. Father knows best. 😃 Have a great week!
 
Seems like we’ve come quite a distance…“even if we had evidence to support that children…”…which we do by the way…I wouldn’t say “perfect” by any stretch of the imagination, but then I don’t know any “perfect” children…other than my own of course:) .

You said this quite well…it is your “belief that gay marriage is still invalid”…a religious belief…that has no bearing on civil law and should two people of the same sex be able to raise a child in a stable, loving albeit “alternative family” structure other’s religious belief should not be an impediment to them doing so.
Sorry, But I have to disagree. We don’t have evidence. I’ve checked and done psychological reports on the subject. Evidence doesn’t support EITHER claim.

And yes, it is my belief. Based on the belief that homosexual actions and marriage is wrong and consequently harmful to society, then I would be a pretty poor Catholic if I supported the view politically. So my beliefs are taken to my political actions as all of ours ought to be.
 
A psychologist cannot prove what is or is not moral through surveys or studies. They can measure parameters and choose subjective endpoints to compare, but that does not determine good or evil.

That is why starting from an erroneous position is so wrong. Claiming homosexual acts are neither good nor bad is an incorrect postion to hold.
Absolutely! I was simply stating that this whole argument on evidence is ridiculous because there is no evidence. We should focus on the moral implications and beliefs as opposed to evidence that doesn’t exist.
 
Intent and design from a purely secular standpoint I agree is difficult for religious people. I too hold religious beliefs. My intent was not to remove religious beliefs from your views, but simply to point out that civil law which approves/disapproves of same sex unions be used and not others religious beliefs.

My religious belief, based also on modern psychological evidence is that same sex unions are not ‘evil’…they do not go against the “natural order”. Yes, they are different…but different isn’t evil.

If two people of the same sex wish to establish an “alternative family” with children in a stable, loving environment, they should be allowed to do so. It does not hurt society in any way shape or form…it does go against manys religious belief, but we should not establish government to enforce religious belief.
The problem with going about this in a psychologial light is that psychology can not tell us what is right or wrong. It can help us fix percieved problems in our lives, but it doesn’t matter how “normal” it is. Just because something is prevelant, doesn’t make it right. Psychology is designed to help the client fix whatever percieved problems they feel they have in their lives, whether they are really problems or not to the rest of society doesn’t matter. At least not to some extent. Absolute evils such as murder which everyone believes is wrong is definately adressed. But in general, psychology can not help or hurt any religious argument because it has really nothing to do with religious beliefs or morals.
 
Furthermore, God ALREADY KNOWS what you are to become, before you are even born…any arguements with that???
We all have crosses to bear. That has been stated numerous times before. They’re all different and at varying levels of intensity, but crosses nonetheless. God wouldn’t give us something we couldn’t handle, at least not without the right tools. What we do with our crosses is what determines the peace and joy in our lives.
 
Booklover and Hasikelee,
I’m hoping that maybe I can offer some (name removed by moderator)ut into this discussion that may help. I am a devout Catholic man who believes in the teachings of the Church. I am also homosexual (ssa, whatever term you prefer). I believe God is calling me, as He calls everyone, to live a chaste life. In my case this would also be a single life, as I believe marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. I see some terrible misconceptions in a few of your posts that I hope I can help to shed some light on.

If those children do become neurotic, they will have plenty of company with the children of many heterosexual marriages. I feel that children are by far best off with one father and one mother. What we can’t ignore, however, is that some kids are in fact being raised by same sex couples (whether we like it or not). I believe the best thing we can do is to be supportive of those children. We can do that by acting charitably towards them AND their parents. By assuming those children will become neurotic are we helping the situation at all?

You really cannot make this statement unless you are a homosexual who is incapable of friendship without erotic connotations. This is a blanket statement that is usually not true at all. Those are the kind of blanket statements that do much more damage than good.

Again, how do you know that homosexuality is focused on sexual intercourse? Is heterosexuality focused on intercourse? More often than not, it seems that those who believe homosexuality is only about sex are heterosexuals. As someone who had dealt with a homosexual orientation my entire life, I can tell you for a FACT that it encompasses much, much more than a desire for sex. Probably without even realizing it, a statment like yours above accuses even those who live by the Church’s teachings of being incapable of having healthy friendships with those of the same sex and of being completely focused on sexual intercourse. Both statements are untrue. Many on the board get frustrated when non-Catholics come in and say, “The Church teaches this or that…” when we know it isn’t true. This is the same kind of thing. You make a declaration I know not to be true about something you CAN’T know is true unless you are experiencing it yourself. Does that make sense?

You are right, some people wear their sexuality like a costume. I came to realize how much of a problem this is for people on a different thread. I was asked numerous times why I would identify myself as homosexual if I wansn’t living the lifestyle. People assume that someone who says, “I am homosexual” is practicing the lifestyle. This isn’t always true, so we should be careful. I say this out of respect especially for the very young people who are coming to terms with themselves and who are identifying themselves as gay when they haven’t even come close to living the “gay lifestyle”. When speaking about sexuality, the only way I can answer the question truthfully is to say that I am homosexual. That is my orientation, it is not who I am but I can’t pretend it isn’t there. When I identify myself as homosexual I am NOT identifying myself by my own sin. Being gay is not the sin, we have to remember that. Even someone who leaves the “homosexual lifestyle” more often than not STILL has a homosexual orientation. As much as you are confused by why people identify themselves by their sin, I am confused why people assume sinfulness when someone identifies their sexuality truthfully.

For the young teenager dealing with it, it is frighteningly true. I know this from personal experience!

Anyways, I just hope that people can come to a clearer understanding, myself included. I hope you all have a wonderful week!
very powerful words. Well spoken indeed! Thanks for joining us here!!!👍
 
Biologically the “pieces and parts fit”…I have no arguement with that.

Humanity is diverse, human sexuality is complex and diverse…two same sex people can come together in mutual love for one another and form a life long loving bond which may or may not include sexual expression. Relationships is much more than sex…but if sex is the base denominator, then sex between two people of the same gender is possible, but procreation is not…homosexuality is a natural part of human existence…it is natural and occurs across the animal kingdom as a natural occurance…humans fit within this natural order in regard to homosexuality.
WHAT??? :eek: Are you trying to tell me that there are homosexual animals??? Where have you seen that!!!
 
And you claim not to be influenced by the homosexual agenda! All the assertions you make are debunked in “Defending a Higher Law”! Claiming that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is another of their premises.

“Animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sounds, odors, touch, tastes and images. They do not have the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore it isnot infrequent that animals confuse one sensation for another or one object with another.”

Vickie
Animals also eat their own feces but I wouldn’t recommend it for humans either.
 
Amen!

In addition, cannibalism and infanticide also exist in the animal kingdom. Wouldn’t it be logical to argue that infanticide and cannibalism should be acceptable for humans to do as well? After all, it “happens in the animal kingdom,” which must mean it’s “natural.” Some animals kill potential rivals while seeking a mate. Wouldn’t it be logical to argue that human males should be allowed to kill off all other competitors for a woman’s affections?

The fundamental difference between animals and humans is that animals do not have a choice when it comes to acting on their insincts, however disordered those instincts might be. Disordered inclinations exist in the world because the world is fallen, due to original sin. But we, as humans, have been endowed with the capability to recognize disordered instincts and choose whether or not to act on them.
…However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.

“You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it’s for dominance, it’s for this, it’s for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it’s just for sexual pleasure,” Wolfe told LiveScience.

Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

**Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

“In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed,” Bockman told LiveScience. “In some bird species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females, a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest**.”

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the “laws of nature” can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. “A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past.” msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/?GT1=8717
 
Homosexuality has been documented in almost 500 species of animals, signaling that sexual preference is predetermined. Considered the closest living relative to humans, bonobos are not shy about seeking sexual pleasure. Nearly all of these peace-loving apes are bisexual and often resolve conflict by the “make love, not war” principle. They copulate frequently, scream out in delight while doing so, and often engage in homosexual activities. About two thirds of the homosexual activities are amongst females.
 
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks

The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

“The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing,” says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. “You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males.”

Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top