Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[BillP]

and who gets to define morality? what about Natural Law?

Should all private lobby groups be banned from attempting to, in your words, “define morality”? what about the AARP or NRA or ATLA or any of the other thousands of groups that want their voices heard? or is it only Catholics that need to shut up and sit down? why can’t Christians be heard in the public sphere?

Nope, everyone gets to be heard. Catholics are free to speak (and, individually, vote!) whatever is on their minds. Similarly, The Church can say whatever she likes and even enforce her dictates on her members.

However, being heard doesn’t imply or require being accommodated.

How does being “heard” equate to being “accommodated”?

The Church has been heard on this matter. I doubt she will be accommodated. The majority of people simply don’t agree that this is a significant impingement of religious liberty. The Republicans will probably attempt to use it as an election issue, indeed they appear to have already started. Given the popularity of ABC among the population at large, I doubt they will get much leverage from it. Note that the popularity of ABC doesn’t in any way validate its morality, but it does mean it will be covered by insurance.

In our society, the authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed. Which means that the opinions of the majority (with a few exceptions pertaining to the rights of the minority) determine the content of public morality.

 

[BillP]

The Catholic Church is part of the public forum. When Paul went to Athens and later to Rome, he exercised his right as a Catholic to persuade others to his way of thinking. He was punished for his efforts, just as Catholics today are punished in the public forum for speaking their mind. The Catholic Church obviously has no ruling authority in the U.S. and that’s as it should be. But it has the same right than anybody else has, to speak the truth and oppose the lie.

That seems to bother you no end. Curious indeed, becasue no one here has even suggested the Catholic Bishops should be running the government, even though the government seems to think it should be running the Catholic hospitals.

Yep, you seem to be o.k. with the decline of public morals so long as they are all consenting adults.

Your words in black and white. I leave you to wallow in them

Well, I don’t know about wallowing.

I’m not really sure I understand the concept of “public morals” as far as I can tell we’re each responsible for our own actions and whether those actions are sinful or virtuous. I think when you attempt to governmentally enforce certain norms of behavior contrary to public opinion you run into both practical (think of the disaster that was Prohibition and is the “War on Drugs”) and legitimacy (think “no taxation without representation”) issues.

None of this speaks to the morality or immorality of the underlying behavior, but rather of what is possible and practical in a democratic society. As Catholics we’re not “off the hook” just because the law permits certain behaviors.

If we expect, say Baptists, to permit us to drink alcohol in the course of Mass, we can’t without being the basest of hypocrites demand that atheists be denied access to condoms.

 

[michelleds]

Nope, everyone gets to be heard. Catholics are free to speak (and, individually, vote!) whatever is on their minds. Similarly, The Church can say whatever she likes and even enforce her dictates on her members.

However, being heard doesn’t imply or require being accommodated.

How does being “heard” equate to being “accommodated”?

The Church has been heard on this matter. I doubt she will be accommodated. The majority of people simply don’t agree that this is a significant impingement of religious liberty. The Republicans will probably attempt to use it as an election issue, indeed they appear to have already started. Given the popularity of ABC among the population at large, I doubt they will get much leverage from it. Note that the popularity of ABC doesn’t in any way validate its morality, but it does mean it will be covered by insurance.

In our society, the authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed. Which means that the opinions of the majority (with a few exceptions pertaining to the rights of the minority) determine the content of public morality.

unfortunately, you are missing the MAIN issue on the HHS mandate and religious liberty. HOWEVER, since this is not the correct topic for that discussion, I’m not going down that road.

 

[BillP]

unfortunately, you are missing the MAIN issue on the HHS mandate and religious liberty. HOWEVER, since this is not the correct topic for that discussion, I’m not going down that road.

I don’t think so. But as you say that’s an issue for another thread.

As far as homosexuality, the same fact pattern applies. The Church is free to speak her mind as to the morality of sexual behavior between members of the same sex, and she is free to refuse to marry same sex couples. What she cannot expect is that she dictate the legal requirements for either sexual behavior (between consenting adults) or secular marriage to society at large.

 

[michelleds]

I don’t think so. But as you say that’s an issue for another thread.

As far as homosexuality, the same fact pattern applies. The Church is free to speak her mind as to the morality of sexual behavior between members of the same sex, and she is free to refuse to marry same sex couples. What she cannot expect is that she dictate the legal requirements for either sexual behavior (between consenting adults) or secular marriage to society at large.

and Natural Law?

 

[BillP]

and Natural Law?

The short version? As it is interpreted by the Church it is binding for Catholics, but not the basis for legislation in a democratic society.

The longer version is that the concept of Natural Law as being something “indelibly written on the hearts of men” seems to require a consensus among men before it can truly be identified as a “Natural Law”, if enough people disagree then it probably isn’t really a Natural Law. Stealing, Murder and Rape are all pretty good examples of this I know of no society that has ever not condemned these crimes.

Matters of sexual morality and marriage seem to be much more fluid. Various societies have accepted polygamy, polyandry, pederasty, pre-marital sex and all sorts of other things that are outside our societal norms. This (at least!) raises the question of whether there is any particular Natural Law on sexual ethics beyond the consent required to preclude Rape.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

Because those are totally homosexual acts right?

I notice the defenders of homosexuality, when talking about Sodom, always cite Ezekiel instead of Genesis, or Romans, or Corinthians, or Jude.

Genesis 19:

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

I’m not sure what version you are using, but there appears to be a difference with the DRB
veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Genesis_19

AND fail to cite the next verse in Ezekiel.

I had to manually type it as I couldn’t directly C/V it, so I got lazy

in re: DV’s statements about “friend” above

the word “friend” is so loaded with potential meanings and innuendoes that it is nearly impossible to communicate clearly any longer. DV is correct that in an age of superficiality where everyone and anyone is a “friend” combined with an age in the not too distant past (and in some places still to this day) saying that someone is your “friend” was meant in certain gay circles to mean the person you were having sex with.

so now we have Facebook friends, work friends, work husbands, friends with benefits, baby’s daddies, baby’s mommas, ad nauseum. we’ve always had best friends, now we have BFFs.

perhaps that is really where the frustration comes in. it is a linguistic/communication frustration wherein it doesn’t feel like you are giving credit to the special nature of a friendship because that word seems to have too many meanings and all seem superficial and non-descriptive.

but I would again suggest that inserting the word “romantic” as an adjective just continues to muddy the waters, especially, to Dakota’s never-ending chagrin, we are not in a medieval time period.

Actually I’m using it in an early 20th century usage…

LOL. Use of English in a more incorrect manner, eh? Tell you what, go ahead with your esoteric interest and fascination with romantic friendship (even wedded friendship) in the absence of objective studies. The most there are are letters, poems and philosophical essays. There may or may not have been sex going on with certain same sex ‘friendships,’ but since it was a taboo during the age to which you refer, there is no way to tell. It is all interpretation by proponents of the romantic friendship hypothesis.

Glad you brought up said verse, as Deo Volente did in that thread that was pulled by the mods.

The next time you quote it, don’t forget v 50. The full verse in Ezekiel from DRBO follows:
[46] And thy elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister that dwelleth at thy right hand is Sodom, and her daughters. [47] But neither hast thou walked in their ways, nor hast thou done a little less than they according to their wickednesses: thou hast done almost more wicked things than they in all thy ways. [48] As I live, saith the Lord God, thy sister Sodom herself, and her daughters, have not done as thou hast done, and thy daughters. [49] Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. [50] And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination,’ with the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.

Good day!
,

I have not said nor have I ever implied that sex was going on in the relationships

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

I am citing the Bible available at the USCCB website here. usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/

I would think you would cite the Bishops’ preferred Bible. But I can see why you don’t. The Bishops’ Bible is more graphic.

"Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

The DRB version is no longer on the list of approved translations. Too archaic, I suppose.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

I am citing the Bible available at the USCCB website here. usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/

I would think you would cite the Bishops’ preferred Bible. But I can see why you don’t. The Bishops’ Bible is more graphic.

"Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

The DRB version is no longer on the list of approved translations. Too archaic, I suppose.

The DRB bible is actually the Bible used by this site…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill
**
The short version? As it is interpreted by the Church it is binding for Catholics, but not the basis for legislation in a democratic society.**

Yes, I see where you are coming from. You are afraid Catholic want to turn America in a theocracy.

That argument won’t wash.

Sodomy was a crime from the start of this country. It was not made a crime by Catholics, but by people who understand that it is a crime against nature. No civilization before ours has dared to celebrate sodomy as our does. This shows how far public morality has sunk.

Catholics have every right to speak against the crime, and to actively promote a society in which, if the crime must be tolerated, at least it doesn’t have to be celebrated and protected under the law.

But you are o.k. with celebrating and protecting sodomy as a civil right? You are o.k.with sodomites adopting heterosexual children? You are ok. with education programs by which heterosexual young children (many of them Christian) will be instructed to view sodomy as just another sexual lifestyle? You probably wouldn’t recognize that as an infringement of the rights of Catholics to teach children their morality, as opposed to the morality of sodomites.

Would you also say that Catholic employers **have to pay for abortion insurance **for their employees?

Keep wallowing!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

As I said, we can see why you go to this website instead of the USCBC websie.

 

[razredge]

So what exactly is Dakota arguing for?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

So what exactly is Dakota arguing for?

Nothing, or actually that both sides are invalid, (the LGBT side is more invalid)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

razr

The short version? As it is interpreted by the Church it is binding for Catholics, but not the basis for legislation in a democratic society.

Not exactly sure about that. My sense (correct me) is that she thinks the only sin of Sodom was in-hospitality. Scripture makes it clear everywhere that the inhospitality was in the demand of the Sodomites that the male strangers come out of the house so they could have sex with them. Scripture also makes it clear in many different places that this is a wicked sin (even Jesus weighs in … ).

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill

Stealing, Murder and Rape are all pretty good examples of this I know of no society that has ever not condemned these crimes.

You also don’t know of any society before ours that tolerated men marrying men. So that alone alone is a telling sign of the moral lunacy we are up against.

Bill, you have made a lot to-do about Catholics telling other people how to think.

When the ancient civilizations of of Greece and Rome were at their decadent worst, there was no Catholic Church to influence them. So why do you suppose these civilization, sexually debauched as they were, never entertained the idea of men marrying men?

Don’t you think the natural law was transparent to them? They didn’t need the Catholic Church because common sense was sufficient to steer them away from that path to moral lunacy. The Catholic Church today is simply on the side of common sense, an ally of our human nature, encouraging men to behave with honor and dignity.

Can you not see that? Are you willing to cave in to the immoral and unnatural demands of immoral and unnatural men? Do you think the Catholic Church should just shut up and retire from the battlefield of public morality?

 

[razredge]

razr

The short version? As it is interpreted by the Church it is binding for Catholics, but not the basis for legislation in a democratic society.

10:14

Ok does she mean legislating same sex marriage or an outright ban on homosexual activity?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

razr

The short version? As it is interpreted by the Church it is binding for Catholics, but not the basis for legislation in a democratic society.

Not exactly sure about that. My sense (correct me) is that she thinks the only sin of Sodom was in-hospitality. Scripture makes it clear everywhere that the inhospitality was in the demand of the Sodomites that the male strangers come out of the house so they could have sex with them. Scripture also makes it clear in many different places that this is a wicked sin (even Jesus weighs in … ).

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

Lot’s reason for why they shouldn’t do it was because

Bill

Stealing, Murder and Rape are all pretty good examples of this I know of no society that has ever not condemned these crimes.

You also don’t know of any society before ours that tolerated men marrying men. So that alone alone is a telling sign of the moral lunacy we are up against.

Bill, you have made a lot to-do about Catholics telling other people how to think.

When the ancient civilizations of of Greece and Rome were at their decadent worst, there was no Catholic Church to influence them. So why do you suppose these civilization, sexually debauched as they were, never entertained the idea of men marrying men?

Don’t you think the natural law was transparent to them? They didn’t need the Catholic Church because common sense was sufficient to steer them away from that path to moral lunacy. The Catholic Church today is simply on the side of common sense, an ally of our human nature, encouraging men to behave with honor and dignity.

Can you not see that? Are you willing to cave in to the immoral and unnatural demands of immoral and unnatural men? Do you think the Catholic Church should just shut up and retire from the battlefield of public morality?

Marriage has also never before been so debased that basically it is societal recognition of love and children aren’t seen as being an essential part of it.

 

[John21652]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)
I recall them with a sigh–their absence seems to serve you as little more than a confirmation of your mis-apprehensions.

Those missing threads were seen by others. The fact that those threads now cannot be seen does not alter the fact that you were writing stuff that was incredably anti-catholic and you were challenged for it

…I therefore continue to insist that our love for God is erotic, that St. John’s canticle demonstrates this, and that the Song of Songs supports it conclusively. That such eroticism is illustrated metaphorically does not alter the fundamental reality: our love for God is erotic.

The quote from Deus Caritas Est you so kindly supplied below contradicts your opinion that our love for Go is erotic. His Holiness wrote “The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized.” In other wors, erotic love transforms itself and changes into a selfless love that, as his Holiness points out, puts the other before self.Erotic love is selfish; it seeks to serve its owner an to ‘own’ the other. In human male-female relationship terms, it is juvenile and possessive. Anyone who has courte, won, marrie and remained in a long term relationship will unerstand this. men who remain possessive, still within the confines of ‘eroctic’ love, are sai to be immature. This growth from erotic through to selfless love is metaphor for a deepening relationship with God. To actually say someone feels an erotic attraction for God is ludicrous

John, check out the Holy Father’s first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est,” in which he writes:In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions [between eros and agape] have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love—eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other.

See above

John, it’s clear you have a very definite idea about what and who homosexual folks must truly be based on a set of assumptions regarding your belief in the activities and priorities of a particular lobby.

Are you now saying the gay lobby doesn’t speak for all homosexuals? After all, they pretend they do when they seek to influence legislators. Like those legislators who are assailed with the gay lobby propoganda, I am led to believe that gays want the right to practice sodomy (buggery) when and as they wish and for the rest of us to leave them alone. You yourself have written on this forum of the so called benefits of this homosexuality. Thus, we do not have to assume anything.

It’s clear I’m not going to change that or alter your perspective in the least. You know it all already.

No you wont. And changing the tone and tenor of your posts will not either. You have prevaricated and equivocated on this issue for a long time now. I stick with the Catholic Church’s position and the Natural Law argument that underpins it. Both have been proven to be true an correct down through history, despite what the gay apologists would have us believe.

And that’s fine. I will no longer try to convince you otherwise. I’m beginning to suspect that my attempts to do so have stemmed from pride, a conviction that I could somehow get through to you. Like the proverbial dog who returns to his vomit, I keep, in my pride and hence my folly, continuing to engage with you. It’s a futile endeavor, and I’m sorry for it.

Good; you are learning. I will also, as others have done, not stand by and allow you to proseltyze unchallenged either. Others have challenged you on this.

By the way, for you, I recommend The Mayor of Casterbridge by Hardy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

Those missing threads were seen by others. The fact that those threads now cannot be seen does not alter the fact that you were writing stuff that was incredably anti-catholic and you were challenged for it

My memories as well.

 

[Elizabeth502]

John, check out the Holy Father’s first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est,” in which he writes: (blah, blah)…

The fact that you are actually insinuating that the above encyclical in any way promotes the idea that all human erotic relationships, no matter with whom, are potentially in the category of purified love or altruistic love, or equivalent to disinterested non-sexual love, is unbelievably offensive to knowledgeable Roman Catholics everywhere. (Knowledgeable, as opposed to brainwashed by the lamestream media.)

While caritas can have a fleshly, sensual, felt dimension, that does not mean that all erotic relationships emanate from the caritas of God, are related to it and are blessed by it. That is not the meaning of that encyclical. And no pope writes an encyclical which contradicts doctrine, and the world view which is fundamental to that doctrine – a world view which entails an Ordered universe, including but not limited to what is sexually ordered.

This is just more of the same from Mark: word manipulations and concept manipulations to create a “universe” with different moral realities than the fundamentally ordered one created by God.