Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[John21652]

That’s just an opinion of course

mitex, Michelle’s opinion on this is one opinion I think you should value over many, many others. Take heed.

 

[mitex]

mitex, Michelle’s opinion on this is one opinion I think you should value over many, many others. Take heed.

I never said I didn’t? But it’s one perspective and I respect her opinion there’s room for differences.

 

[John21652]

I never said I didn’t? But it’s one perspective and I respect her opinion there’s room for differences.

No you didn’t. However, I’m just going to repeat, for your benefit, that you should value Michelle’s opinion on this way, way higher than anyone else’s. Don’t respond. Just take note.

 

[Brother_Art]

He does it by one of two ways:

(1) Swinging both ways, by copulating with a female heterosexual or homosexual friend, who has no more moral standards than the homosexual man (Disgusting)

or

(2) Using reproductive technologies, such as anonymous egg donation, combining with his sperm. (Charming, just like many amoral heterosexual couples do, in a process divorced from the mutuality & exclusivity of exclusive heterosexual love.)

Correction: I should have said, “…of his own?”

 

[Hadrianus]

We’ve had a couple of threads on this very issue. I believe that identifying oneself as “gay” is expressing an attachment to sin. Others do not agree with me. They believe that either (1) the modifier “chaste” or “celibate” is sufficient to alleviate such attachment, or (2) that the modifier isn’t necessary and this identity is somehow part of their “core” and therefore, no one should try to take that away from them.

I believe that we are not to be attached to the things of this world; that “sexual identity” is a thing of this world; therefore, I do not want to be attached to such.

We are all called to holiness, to be Saints. The Saints weren’t running around identifying themselves with things of this world and by their example, I don’t believe we should either.

I agree; though I have, reluctantly, accepted the use of the word “gay” as shorthand for those who experience an attraction to their own sex. You raise a good point in saying that sexual identity is a thing of this world, and thus cannot be part of someone’s ‘core’. Sexuality, as opposed to gender, has no place in heaven, and thus cannot be a part of the essence of human nature. This is something which the modern world has lost sight of completely.

 

[GMSMPTH]

GMS

**They may even be good parents and I am completely for homosexuals adopting because there are too many orphans in this world to discriminate against someone for a particular taste which, if they are careful, their children won’t even know about. **

To be that careful they would have to live in a dungeon.

I disagree. My aunt and her “friend” had two children each of their own from previous marriages (aunt widowed, the friend divorced due to physical abuse). It wasn’t until just recently that I overheard a conversation that implied they were together. I spent plenty of nights at there house (they lived in town and I could walk to school from there house). I’m older than all of their children and I still didn’t pick up on it. I spoke with my mother about it and she insisted I not tell the kids. I think a couple are old enough now (13 and 16), but I respect my mother’s wishes. Nevertheless, I’m fairly certain they don’t know and see it as a friendship/financially beneficial living arrangement.

 

[GMSMPTH]

Yet another one climbs out of the woodwork to pretend he has the impramatur of a priest behind what is posted. Sheeesh, it’s all too obvious.And you actually needed a clergyman to point that out?!!.
What a revelation.
“more fully” could mean any number of things. One thing is for sure, they can never love the ‘same’.
They can’t reproduce, yet they ‘may’ even be good parents. Well, that’s like saying an elephant would make a good bird if it only had feathers.
So, you want people who nature decrees can’t breed to now be parents. Wow, that’s real social engineering and thumbing your nose at mother nature in the process.
Nature already discriminates against them being parents once they adopt the gay lifestyle. Why should they get extra special treatment to allow them what nature doesn’t?
Yeah right. So there’ll be none of this two mummies or two daddies in a bed then, eh? Therefore, if that is true, the poor kids will get not even a semblance of role modelling about marriage. It’ll be just like a whole bunch of friends all sharing a house. Sheeesh, I think someone has been reading tea leaves.
You don’t say. people for a long time have known a lot of things about marriage, one of which is love and another is responsibility. The latter is not exactly a hallmark of homosexual relationships. Quite the reverse, actually.
And criminalised at various times. The tolerance of people to the homosexuals waxed and waned according to just how vulgar they became.
And that is the social importance of marriage. Destroy it, remove marriage away from the procreative aspect and you have gone a long way towards rendering it utterly meaningless. Society has gone a good way towards achieving that already and the results are already not pretty. A few more steps and western society will be consigned to the dustbin of history, like so many civilisations before it.

I’ve actually had several priests tell me this, but I wasn’t aware I had to defend my point to that extent. My original opinion was completely for homosexual marriage and if I weren’t aware of my own tendencies to compensate for other people’s (your) bigotry, I would hold that opinion now. I mean love in the same way. God is love, God shares love with all of us and expects us to share it among ourselves. Homosexuals may take that love and give it to someone of the same sex in a platonic manner. That’s fine. When they use sex itself incorrectly, that is a sin. That’s not fine. We cannot prevent all sin and I think that we also have bigger fish to fry. Your metaphor is inaccurate as we are all of the same species and created in the image of God. Again, God is love and to give love to a child in need is no sin at all, no matter your previous sins. Think how many unborn might be saved if we weren’t so bigoted about who’s raising them (homosexuality does not cause the same harm to a child that a crackhead or murderer might so don’t even go there). Which is the greater sin here: killing your unborn child or allowing a loving, but imperfect person to adopt them? Would the 15 year old mother, who’s own mother won’t allow her child or grandchild shelter under her roof, be any better a caretaker than someone who, due to their lack of attraction to the opposite sex, has no child of their own. Would it not be better to give that child a fighting chance than for that poor girl to give up hope and run as fast as she can to Planned Parenthood?

P.S. If you believe homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and not a natural occurrence than how do you also believe that “nature already discriminates” against them?

 

[John21652]

I’ve actually had several priests tell me this,

Your original post on this issue, way back in post #51 began with the statement that you had spoken to a very wise priest on this matter. Not just any priest. No, you spoke to a “very wise Priest”. That is an attempt on your part to base your opinion on someone from within the Catholic Church who has some extraordinary wisdom on the subject. Well, that is a nonsense. A “very wise priest” would tell you the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption. The Priest you spoke to was certainly not wise. That is, of course, if you really did speak to a Priest, because you now say you spoke with many priests.

but I wasn’t aware I had to defend my point to that extent.

To the Nth degree.

My original opinion was completely for homosexual marriage and if I weren’t aware of my own tendencies to compensate for other people’s (your) bigotry, I would hold that opinion now.

Here your attitude towards other people’s opinions becomes all too obvious. Anyone with a strong moral conviction is, in your opinion, a bigot. That’s the standard gay and lesbian approach to deflecting opinion away from the morality which opposes their desires and demands.

I mean love in the same way. God is love, God shares love with all of us and expects us to share it among ourselves. Homosexuals may take that love and give it to someone of the same sex in a platonic manner.

Oh, so now it’s platonic love?! Homosexuality is supposedly predicated upon a mutual attraction between two people of the same sex. Here, your use of the word platonic contradicts what the gay and lesbian lobby have been telling us for a long time, which is the sexual attraction they experience is a normal basis for their relationships. Now, you wish to whitewash that away and claim they will all now live in platonic happiness forever more. Pull the other one.

That’s fine. When they use sex itself incorrectly, that is a sin. That’s not fine.

Then homosexuality, by definition, is a sin. t is the basis for homosexual unions.Those who engage in it are in sin. I

We cannot prevent all sin and I think that we also have bigger fish to fry.

There is no need for us to simply rollover and say one more sin wont hurt. This one just happens to be very insidiously dangerous to human society.

Your metaphor is inaccurate as we are all of the same species and created in the image of God.

I take it you are referring to what I wrote about two mummies and two daddies sharing a bed? That was no metaphor. It was a blunt portrayal of the distortion of marriage that the pro gays would wish upon us and it is no proper role modelling for kids.

Again, God is love and to give love to a child in need is no sin at all, no matter your previous sins. Think how many unborn might be saved if we weren’t so bigoted about who’s raising them (homosexuality does not cause the same harm to a child that a crackhead or murderer might so don’t even go there).

Oh, too funny. You begin by telling us all about the loving God and yet you tell us we should emulate His love by condoning something His creation decreed was an impossibilty, which is same sex child production and rearing. You, however, want to fiddle with all that and anyone who gets in the way of what is not normal is a bigot. On your logic, all of humanity has been bigoted for thousands of years; mother nature is bigoted and therefore, so too is God. Honestly, you’d make anyone’s head spin with that effort…

Which is the greater sin here: killing your unborn child or allowing a loving, but imperfect person to adopt them?

Perhaps you could explain why it is that Catholics, who work very hard to save babies from death and who have worked very hard to place saved babies in adoptive homes where a mother and a father are ready, willing and able to provide love and sustenance in a normal household, are being forced to close the doors of their adoption agencies because of the bigotry of their opponents who want to make the abnormal normal?

Would the 15 year old mother, who’s own mother won’t allow her child or grandchild shelter under her roof, be any better a caretaker than someone who, due to their lack of attraction to the opposite sex, has no child of their own.

So now motherhood is just a “caretaker role”. And the natural affections of a mother are no better than any stranger? Oh, please shout that out loud for all the mothers of the world to hear. They’ll pin your ears to the nearest wall, I’d reckon and so they should.

Would it not be better to give that child a fighting chance than for that poor girl to give up hope and run as fast as she can to Planned Parenthood?

Your one track mind can only think of Planned Parenthood as an example? The Catholic Church has lots of strategies in place to deal with such a scenario. Oh yeah, you wouldn’t dream of sending that girl to them, though, would you, because they are bigots who would favour heterosexual families.

P.S. If you believe homosexuality is a “lifestyle”

For practicing homosexuals, it certainly is. The gay lobby even promote the gay and lesbian lifestyle, don’t they?

and not a natural occurrence

So is schizophrenia and great efforts are made to control it. So, what’s your point here? Just because something occurs, it is normal? On your logic, we should stop trying to prevent cancer.

than how do you also believe that “nature already discriminates” against them?

Around 3% of the population are homosexual. That 3%, unlike the other 97%, cannot breed because of their disordered attractions. Rather obvious, don’t you think?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I disagree. My aunt and her “friend” had two children each of their own from previous marriages (aunt widowed, the friend divorced due to physical abuse). It wasn’t until just recently that I overheard a conversation that implied they were together. I spent plenty of nights at there house (they lived in town and I could walk to school from there house). I’m older than all of their children and I still didn’t pick up on it. I spoke with my mother about it and she insisted I not tell the kids. I think a couple are old enough now (13 and 16), but I respect my mother’s wishes. Nevertheless, I’m fairly certain they don’t know and see it as a friendship/financially beneficial living arrangement.

There’s a difference between a Boston marriage and a lesbian couple so depending on how they are “together” there could quite easily be nothing wrong with at all.

Since marriage is no longer about children and is far more about a shared household I don’t understand why we shouldn’t give many legal privileges to people in a long term shared household, why shouldn’t we have domestic partnerships?