Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[nickybr38]

As long as they;'re consenting adults, you don’t (see Solomon, David and pretty much every Old testament patriarch).

Um, no, attempts to marry dogs, children or inanimate objects fail on consent. It is impossible for minors and non-humans to give effective consent. That’s why we have out current laws against statutory rape and bestiality.

What else have you got?

Well, it’s not my argument but I’ve got incest.

How about when brothers want to marry sisters and fathers want to marry daughters? If they are both adults, what’s the harm?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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!’”

 

[BillP]

Well, it’s not my argument but I’ve got incest.

How about when brothers want to marry sisters and fathers want to marry daughters? If they are both adults, what’s the harm?

Well, I wouldn’t want to marry my sister, but it evidently worked for Cain and Abel, so I wouldn’t outlaw it… again, consenting adults in a Republic with religious freedom…and all that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill
**
It is impossible for minors and non-humans to give effective consent. That’s why we have out current laws against statutory rape and bestiality. **

Yes, much to the dismay of NAMBLA.

We used to have laws against sodomy. Now it’s celebrated. Does that make you content?

And why is adult consent the only criteria for criminal acts. You mean if masochists consent to be savagely tortured by sadists, the state should license Pain Parlors?

 

[BillP]

Bill
**
It is impossible for minors and non-humans to give effective consent. That’s why we have out current laws against statutory rape and bestiality. **

Yes, much to the dismay of NAMBLA.

We used to have laws against sodomy. Now it’s celebrated. Does that make you content?

Yep. And my wife approves too!

And why is adult consent the only criteria for criminal acts. You mean if a masochist consents to be savagely tortured by a sadist, the state should license Pain Parlors?

Yep. As long as both parties are consenting adults, I’m ok with it.

Wouldn’t DO it mind you, but don’t feel called to interfere in the sex lives of other adults.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill
**
Wouldn’t DO it mind you, but don’t feel called to interfere in the sex lives of other adults. **

Evidently, even to the point of defending sodomy? A fine soldier of Christ you turned out to be!

 

[michelleds]

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!’”

AND fail to cite the next verse in Ezekiel.

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.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Does this make any more sense or should I just give up? in some ways I’m trying to put into words things I’ve only thought about, not spoken about.

Michelle, I had been meaning to comment on this, if only to say, “yes–that makes sense.” I think the sort of relationship that we’ve been talking about on this thread is, indeed, a grace. And one does not shop for grace. One simply receives it.

If there is no sexual behavior, it is friendship. Noble friendship, attracted friendship (between those attracted to the other sex, or between those attracted to their same sex), or any other way one wants to describe the friendship. But it is not an activated sexual bond.

Elizabeth, if the only sorts of relationships in one’s life are family, friends, all the other people in the world with which one must deal, and potentially one’s spouse, then yes, you’re right, such a relationship is a friendship. Though the reality of the relationship–the depth of love in it–may actually be belied by the word “friend” (overused as it is in this age of Facebook). But that is perception, not reality.

With InSearch, I also commend you for your very straightforward explication of what chastity means. I like, in particular, your parenthetical: “love, not lust; practices which mirror the dignity of their relationship, as opposed to degrading that relationship; mutuality not manipulation.”

I wonder why same sex friendship is such a difficult concept for some self admitted homosexuals.

InSearch, it’s not that it’s particularly hard to grasp–it’s simply that in an age in which a “friend” can be little more than someone who clicks a link on a website, or a drinking buddy, or just a plain old good pal, calling the person with whom you are deeply (and chastely!!) in love a “friend” doesn’t necessarily describe the depth of the relationship adequately or accurately. But perhaps that’s beside the point–as I mentioned to Elizabeth above, perception is not reality (though, granted, it’s often difficult to distinguish between the two, InSearch…) so you’re right, “friend” seems to be the best word to describe such a relationship.

It seems you can’t make up your mind about what it is you appreciate about my posts.

Well hello, John.

There is quite a gulf between elucidating and insinuating.

Indeed there is–you have mastered both, hence my inability to make up my mind. Actually, the sentiment was “find and elucidate” followed by (through the magic of the conjunction “or”) “insinuate.” But I think we would both do well to move past pedantry. It’s not particularly becoming to either of us.

Let’s face it, your posts over the months have ranged between outright propogandising to the sublime manipulation of the homosexual issue as a whitewash for what it really stands for.

and later

You and others have made numeous posts about the importance of sex in homosexual relationships. I recall many of your posts lauding the sexuality of homosexual relationships.

I am aware that you have interpreted my posts in this way, but I am unaware that that was my intention. One of the things I’ve learned, and been happy to learn, through these various posts and conversations is that there is a definite way in which Roman Catholics discuss certain things and issues–terminologies are very particular. There is not only a right way and a wrong way to believe, there is apparently a right way and wrong way to talk about it: a very particular vocabulary must be used in a particular way if you want to stay on the “right” side of an issue. That’s been my experience, at any rate. An observation which would be innocuous or obvious to many outside these fora can easily become a major offense in them–all because of a contextually infelicitous use of a term or phrase. I’ve certainly blundered along in this way in many posts, oblivious to my offence until it gradually occurred to me (and only recently), that it wasn’t so much that what I was saying was wrong, but that how I was saying it couldn’t be seen or heard as right.

I’ve also learned, thanks to your tutelage in particular and that of InSearch to a lesser degree, that despite attempts at correcting the record, previous mis-steps will never be seen as such: their offence will be ever-green.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

You do recall those threads that were closed down, don’t you DeeVee?

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

If metaphor is required, then the reality is not the same as that which the metaphor portrays, otherwise it would not be called metaphorical.

I could say, “Winston Churchill was a lion.” Of course I don’t mean that Winston was a big tawny feline. I mean, of course, that qualities one associates with the leonine (courage, ferocity, nobility, etc.) are possessed by Churchill as well. The point of using a metaphor is that the metaphor illuminates the reality which it describes–they share certain fundamental properties. If this principle did not obtain, metaphor would be impossible. 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 Song of Songs is allegorical, so between the two, the real meaning of our relationship with God as accounted for by the likes of St. John of the Cross is far removed from the possible reality of a relationship with a Supreme being.

I think you will find that an allegory is an extended metaphor. Regarding the rest of the sentence, are you saying that St. John has an insight into the real meaning of our relationship with God, but such an insight is far removed from any possible relationship with God we could actually have? As that makes no sense to me and I am convinced you meant something more comprehensible, I will reserve further comment.

Imagine the headlines around the world if the Pope made this claim.

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.

The idea of two homosexuals in some sort of platonic relationship denies the very existence of the attraction the homosexual lobby claims is a valid one. Yes, it might be possible, but highly improbable too.

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

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.

I wish you peace and happy days.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[BillP]

Bill
**
Wouldn’t DO it mind you, but don’t feel called to interfere in the sex lives of other adults. **

Evidently, even to the point of defending sodomy? A fine soldier of Christ you turned out to be!

Guilty!! (but then who isn’t??)

Check Christopher West for advice on “finishing one’s wife orally” (which is sodomy at least here in GA.) some guy went to prison for 2 years!! for doing that to his wife (with her consent!!) is that the kind of society you want to live in??

 

[michelleds]

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

in an age in which a “friend” can be little more than someone who clicks a link on a website, or a drinking buddy, or just a plain old good pal, calling the person with whom you are deeply (and chastely!!) in love a “friend” doesn’t necessarily describe the depth of the relationship adequately or accurately. But perhaps that’s beside the point–as I mentioned to Elizabeth above, perception is not reality (though, granted, it’s often difficult to distinguish between the two, InSearch…) so you’re right, “friend” seems to be the best word to describe such a relationship.

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.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

As a mediaevalist I have a proclivity to use words in a sense older than the 20th century. The usage you are using is from the 1940s, about when the term gay started being used to refer to homosexuals. Pardon me ma’am, but you are in fact using English in a more incorrect manner.

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.

Ezekiel 16:48-49
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.

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!
,

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill

**Check Christopher West for advice on “finishing one’s wife orally” (which is sodomy at least here in GA.) some guy went to prison for 2 years!! for doing that to his wife (with her consent!!) is that the kind of society you want to live in?? **

Bill, I want to live in a society where I am free to speak my mind against sodomy. As the government encroaches more and more upon our religious freedoms, speaking out is increasingly dangerous to do. You want to live in a society where you are free to defend sodomy, or at least not speak out against it. You will be forever loved and thanked by all sodomites.

Not a distinction I would care to share with you.

"A personal conscience that is not consistent with authentic Catholic teaching is not a Catholic conscience. The Catholic faith cannot be used to justify positions contrary to the faith itself. It is a matter of personal integrity for people who call themselves Catholic to act in a manner that is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.” from a letter by Cardinal George of Chicago and the Bishops of Illinois.

 

[BillP]

Bill

**Check Christopher West for advice on “finishing one’s wife orally” (which is sodomy at least here in GA.) some guy went to prison for 2 years!! for doing that to his wife (with her consent!!) is that the kind of society you want to live in?? **

Bill, I want to live in a society where I am free to speak my mind against sodomy. As the government encroaches more and more upon our religious freedoms, speaking out is increasingly dangerous to do. You want to live in a society where you are free to defend sodomy, or at least not speak out against it. You will be forever loved and thanked by all sodomites.

Aren’t you doing that right now? Whats the problem? You are free to speak your mind. the rest of us are free to ignore you…win-win!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill

**Aren’t you doing that right now? Whats the problem? You are free to speak your mind. the rest of us are free to ignore you…win-win! **

And you, apparently, are free to ignore the Catholic Bishops.

 

[BillP]

Bill

**Aren’t you doing that right now? Whats the problem? You are free to speak your mind. the rest of us are free to ignore you…win-win! **

And you, apparently, are free to ignore the Catholic Bishops.

A) It depends on your definition of sodomy. I don’t know of any teaching by the Bishops that prohibits what I’m talking about (I’m trying to be delicate here) in all circumstances.

B) While I may choose to live my life in accordance with the dictates of the Bishops, that doesn’t mean that I am entitled to require the 225 million Americans who aren’t Catholic do so. In fact, doing so is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It’s worse than useless, it not only won’t work, but it annoys the pig.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bill

A) It depends on your definition of sodomy. I don’t know of any teaching by the Bishops that prohibits what I’m talking about (I’m trying to be delicate here) in all circumstances.

You can’t be so poorly educated about sodomy if you have been following our threads.

While I may choose to live my life in accordance with the dictates of the Bishops, that doesn’t mean that I am entitled to require the 225 million Americans who aren’t Catholic do so.

You are not good with the English language?

There is no way Catholics can “require” all Americans to behave as Catholics.

What you are **not doing **is expressing any concern whatever that the public morality today is degraded and perverse. You sound like you are saying … “What, me worry?”

Your own words below:

"Yep. As long as both parties are consenting adults, I’m ok with it."

 

[BillP]

Bill

A) It depends on your definition of sodomy. I don’t know of any teaching by the Bishops that prohibits what I’m talking about (I’m trying to be delicate here) in all circumstances.

You can’t be so poorly educated about sodomy if you have been following our threads.

**While I may choose to live my life in accordance with the dictates of the Bishops, that doesn’t mean that I am entitled to require **the 225 million Americans who aren’t Catholic do so.

You are not good with the English language?

There is no way Catholics can “require” all Americans to behave as Catholics.

What you are **not doing **is expressing any concern whatever that the public morality today is degraded and perverse. You sound like you are saying … “What, me worry?”

Your own words below:

"Yep. As long as both parties are consenting adults, I’m ok with it."

No, I simply reject the idea that the Catholic church is entitled to define “public morality” (in a legal sense) for a nation of 300 million people only 25% of whom are Catholic. In my view they are limited to defining morality for the 25% of us who ARE Catholic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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

 

[michelleds]

No, I simply reject the idea that the Catholic church is entitled to define “public morality” (in a legal sense) for a nation of 300 million people only 25% of whom are Catholic. In my view they are limited to defining morality for the 25% of us who ARE Catholic.

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?