Homosexual politics

[FireFromHeaven]

How should the catholic teachings on homosexuality be applied? Should we allow it for secularists and non Catholics who think it is ok as long as we are not forced to agree? How should I talk about this in political debates in a way that a secularist will understand, agree and not think I am bigoted and misinformed?

 

[edwest2]

The short answer is to refer to the natural order. The only way to get the next generation of human beings is by the union of one man and one woman. This is true of both secular and religious people. While we should respect homosexual persons, and that they can choose to live how they wish, we should also understand that same-sex marriage is to impose on the institution of marriage a definition that does not apply. And even if laws are passed that grant the label of marriage to homosexual persons, it is not marriage as commonly understood, Further, there is enough evidence to show that children will be taught about gay sexual behavior as being OK. This is far beyond the teaching requirements of any school, public or religious, since young minds are not yet mature enough, emotionally and intellectually. In other words, they cannot fully comprehend as an adult would. This amounts to indoctrination by force of law.

Here is what the Church tells us:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

No one should be bullied, threatened or physically harmed for being gay, and the same holds true for straights doing the same to other non-homosexual persons. Sadly, some teens, in particular, have this nasty habit of picking on the “fat” kid, or the weakling that is not as physically strong as they are, or the nerds, etc.

You may hear the words hate and bigot, but these words do nothing to further a reasonable discussion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[EasterJoy]

Most people who are successful in politics do not give two figs about whether or not others want to make ad hominem attacks because they disagree with them. Rather, they have well-reasoned arguments that are in keeping with the boundaries of the spirit and the letter of national law, and they stick with them. When someone makes an ad hominem attack, they call it what it is and steer the conversation back to the debate about the facts.

 

[DexUK]

The only way to get the next generation of human beings is by the union of one man and one woman

I don’t think anyone need worry about the so-called homosexual agenda leading to the ending of the human race because we end up not breeding enough replacements for ourselves. People are only going to be attracted to those they are attracted to, whether or not someone tells them that homosexuality is ok or not. Homosexuality isn’t ‘contagious’!

I don’t see why same gender formalised partnerships have to be called ‘marriage’ though: we call men and women by different names because they are different from each other, therefore the various ways in which human beings can be partnered can be called different names depending on the nature of the partnership. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, for the comfort and companionship of the other and in order to be open to the creation of new life. Clearly a male-male partnership cannot do that and neither can a female-female partnership because they have very different possibilities and outcomes for the pairing, regardless of the moral aspect (which is particular to and even differs between religions).

I don’t know why the State doesn’t get out of the ‘marriage’ business entirely. Leave ‘marriage’ to religions: it’s a sacrament and religions can choose to give that sacrament to whomever they choose as befits their beliefs. If the State simply provided a legal structure, without the application of pseudo-marriage-like ceremonies (as in the UK with “registry office weddings”) then all it would need would be a legal document and a witness. Clergy could witness that document every bit as much as a neighbour or a notary. Just file it like you’d file your tax return. That way there’d be no arguments… marriage would exist purely on its sacramental basis and legal rights, as pertain to the State and its legislation would exist independently, for use by whomever so wishes to obtain them. No homosexual is going to want to avail themselves of a sacrament that a religious denomination doesn’t believe they should have because they would have to believe in that denomination’s religious tenets in order to want it in the first place - and if they did, they wouldn’t want it! This would completely nullify any arguments.