Homosexuality as sexist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FaithBuild18 said:
You are not in the position of defense. Traditional moral theology is the position of defense, the position that people such as yourself are trying to uproot, reform, or scrap entirely. It is the city, and the LGBT social movement is the attack trying to rip down its walls, raze its foundations, and erect a new city in its place. Traditional moral theology had claim on this issue LONG before the post-modern LGBT social movement.
Click to expand...
Well, the city os always morphing, isn’t it. There are at least eight forms of legitimate marriage in the Bible, and we’ve kind of whittled it downt to one. At least If I had a daughter, I couldn’t trade her to a prospective husmand for three goats. Or maybe we ought to go back to those foundations? Is that what you are asying? I mean, that is the origins of the traditions you defend, eh?
 
NeedImprovement said:
Yet it makes perfect sense that without this Truth , personal (less objective, at least) reference points come into play ( to take its place) ; one consequence being that the new “truth” usually ends up being relative to some degree or another .
Click to expand...
Any “truth,” except for God as Such, is necessarily relative. Objective “truth” in the world is sense/reason related and restricted to the bandwith of human awareness. How can it not be relative? As a postulate? Even to say that "God IS’ is a symbolic assertion relatiing to a mentally constructed "understanding: unless one has seen God face to face. And even then, God is true as God for that individual, and such an experience has to be spoken only as a pointer and in interpretable symbols.
 
NeedImprovement said:
From : Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
TRUTH.
Click to expand...
All relatively useful, and refered, for heaven’s sake, to the mind is postualated in a dual “reality” with things outside it, and the the mind being, in practce, the most changeable out of control monkey on the planet. And the definition doesn’t include Truth as based on Knowledge by Identity.
Click to expand...
 
Gaber said:
Was Jesus refering to His “person” or to His Self when he said that? Person, especially if you know the deirvation of that word, is itself the lie that needs to be seen through, not sounded through.
Click to expand...
True God and true man.

Silly distinctions based in pseudo-philosophy have no merit.
 
NeedImprovement said:
" It’s a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and truth. You cannot take a vote on the truth."
**Venerable Pope John Paul II : **
Click to expand...
OK, so was this a bid for the Papacy to make the U.S. a territory under Vatican rule? And to put the faith and truth in the same sentence is a big assumption, although a very convenient one in terms of the “assumed close” technique in sales. The statement begs that Adp’s are relevant specifically to Catholicism. They may include it by accident of generality, but, like common courtesy issues taken to be racist slurs in some instances, it is not the point.

The Venerable Pope was perhaps, with all due respect, making a generalized argument-needful for freedom in such a Country as ours-sound as if “It’s about us!!” It’s not. It is about what needs to apply to a very diverse population that includes, but is not made solely of, Catholics, or even Christians. If we bow to the Church on this as a Nation, we also have to accept Islamic, Hassidic, and other religious law as superior to the common law. What then do we have as arbitration between the faiths?

And what of other religions claims to “truth.” Are we to bend to every religion because they are demonstrably covinced that theirs is the OH?&whatever truth? We are dealing, as a Nation, with the necessity and practicality of civil and public law, not religion or morality as seen from faith’s/faiths point of view. How can it be introduced into the religious mind that our faith, or any faith, is not knowledge!? If you don’t feel it is right to marry same sex, then don’t. That is God’s business to sort out, NOT yours! End of story.

And once again:
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism. ~Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...
.
 
Gaber said:
OK, so was this a bid for the Papacy to make the U.S. a territory under Vatican rule? And to put the faith and truth in the same sentence is a big assumption, although a very convenient one in terms of the “assumed close” technique in sales. The statement begs that Adp’s are relevant specifically to Catholicism. They may include it by accident of generality, but, like common courtesy issues taken to be racist slurs in some instances, it is not the point.

The Venerable Pope was perhaps, with all due respect, making a generalized argument-needful for freedom in such a Country as ours-sound as if “It’s about us!!” It’s not. It is about what needs to apply to a very diverse population that includes, but is not made solely of, Catholics, or even Christians. If we bow to the Church on this as a Nation, we also have to accept Islamic, Hassidic, and other religious law as superior to the common law. What then do we have as arbitration between the faiths?

And what of other religions claims to “truth.” Are we to bend to every religion because they are demonstrably covinced that theirs is the OH?&whatever truth? We are dealing, as a Nation, with the necessity and practicality of civil and public law, not religion or morality as seen from faith’s/faiths point of view. How can it be introduced into the religious mind that our faith, or any faith, is not knowledge!? If you don’t feel it is right to marry same sex, then don’t. That is God’s business to sort out, NOT yours! End of story.

And once again:

.
Click to expand...
You want what you want. You want everyone to accept your moral relativism. Catholics are not imposing the Catholic form of marriage on anyone. They support the natural institution of marriage which does not include same sex persons claiming a “right” to marriage.
 
fix said:
You want what you want. You want everyone to accept your moral relativism. Catholics are not imposing the Catholic form of marriage on anyone. They support the natural institution of marriage which does not include same sex persons claiming a “right” to marriage.
Click to expand...
And you want everyone to act relative to our Church’s teaching. And the rest of your statement is self contradictory,as well as opinionated according to your enculturation. Have you looked into the history of marrige as an institution? While St. Polycarp recommended the blessing of a bishop ome 300 years after Jesus, it wasn’t until the sixteenth century that people regularly went to a chuch to be married, and that was most likely because it was the church that kept records. Until then, generally a marriage was simply an agreement, on whatever grounds, between two people. Or maybe you might like the bishop and witnesses to be present at your first consumation, to ensure that the marrigae was actually physically accomplished? That was done, too. Yes, let’s bring that back! And women had not nearly the status they do today in our culture, and even here it is within memory of living people that things started to change for them. Would you sell your daughter for three goats? Or have several wives? Or marry by rape? Hello. All tradidtional forms of marriage. Get real, Apply your “name” to your own mind. “Natural,” my foot.
 
Gaber said:
And you want everyone to act relative to our Church’s teaching.
Click to expand...
Not true. I want marriage to remain as it has been. That truth is known from right reason, common sense, history, and logic. It is not a personal opinion.
And the rest of your statement is self contradictory,as well as opinionated according to your enculturation.
Click to expand...
No, see above.
Have you looked into the history of marrige as an institution?
Click to expand...
Yes, have you?
While St. Polycarp recommended the blessing of a bishop ome 300 years after Jesus, it wasn’t until the sixteenth century that people regularly went to a chuch to be married, and that was most likely because it was the church that kept records.
Click to expand...
When did two men get “married”?
Until then, generally a marriage was simply an agreement, on whatever grounds, between two people.
Click to expand...
Two men? Two women? Two brothers?
Or maybe you might like the bishop and witnesses to be present at your first consumation, to ensure that the marrigae was actually physically accomplished? That was done, too. Yes, let’s bring that back!
Click to expand...
Source?
And women had not nearly the status they do today in our culture, and even here it is within memory of living people that things started to change for them. Would you sell your daughter for three goats? Or have several wives? Or marry by rape? Hello. All tradidtional forms of marriage. Get real, Apply your “name” to your own mind. “Natural,” my foot.
Click to expand...
When did two men get “married”?
 
Gaber said:
How can it be introduced into the religious mind that our faith, or any faith, is not knowledge!? If you don’t feel it is right to marry same sex, then don’t. That is God’s business to sort out, NOT yours! End of story.
Click to expand...
Is this your dogma?
 
Qoeleth said:
I suggest that the recent rise of homosexuality is a reaction made by a patriarchical culture to the movement to give women equal rights. Homosexuals are trying to derive women even of the status in human relationships.

A homosexual is effectively saying “I can go ahead and have a sexual relationship without including women, without having the consent of a woman.” Homosexuality seems to be all about reducing the power and status of women- of making them unnecessary. I think, in spirit and effect, it is almost akin to rape.

Does anyone else see it this way?
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is as old as the hills. There is no “recent rise.”

Do you mean the recent political activity and resulting religious push back?
 
epan said:
Homosexuality is as old as the hills. There is no “recent rise.”

Do you mean the recent political activity and resulting religious push back?
Click to expand...
I agree. What is likely happening is that amongst other phenomena, such as pedophilia, spousal abuse, elder abuse, etc, etc, we as a society are simply dragging our skeletons out and having to look at them in the light of charity. and some folks tie charity to their religious prejudice of what “ought to be” according to their interpretation of a convenient and anthropomorphised “God,” not the Real One. Gandhi, imo, was right about Christians.
 
Gaber said:
Perhaps you misunderstand. You are dogmatic. Freedom and understanding are somewhere on the other side of dogmatism. Try it; you will more than like it.
Click to expand...
Your views are dogmatic, you just deny it.
 
Gaber said:
I agree. What is likely happening is that amongst other phenomena, such as pedophilia, spousal abuse, elder abuse, etc, etc, we as a society are simply dragging our skeletons out and having to look at them in the light of charity. and some folks tie charity to their religious prejudice of what “ought to be” according to their interpretation of a convenient and anthropomorphised “God,” not the Real One. Gandhi, imo, was right about Christians.
Click to expand...
Gandhi? Recent revelations about him show that
his behaviors were less than Christian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top