Homosexuality: Never to be approved + every sign of injustice to be avoided

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To my fellow Catholics, please note the propaganda at work here. You are being called names with the purpose of questioning Church teaching. You are being falsely accused by anonymous others. The way you look at this issue is being grossly distorted. Why? To cause you to doubt. To allow those who hate the Church to try to convince you that you hate.

Pray for these people that they may see the truth. Do not be fooled or take the bait.

Peace,
Ed
 
epan said:
I could give many examples. I imagine that you could too.

For example, heretics are no longer burned to death.
Click to expand...
So by adapt you mean by the “how” the Church carries out it’s mission, not change the mission itself?

Certainly, the Church will not change it’s stance regarding homosexuality. Perhaps how it goes about combatting the error of homosexuality is what you mean.
 
To the original post - I think a lot depends on tone and whether the person making the Catholic point is doing so out of love and concern that they gay person does not fall into sin or whether they just feel justified about throwing some stones.

There is no doubt that homosexual acts are sins. So is adultery, pre-marital sex, etc. Paul tells us that sexual sins are indeed grave because you sin against your own body.

So I can see that someone can have a right concern for those that commit these acts and a government that endorses them. They should be allowed to speak out against these things without being labeled a bigot or homophobe. FREE SPEECH WORKS BOTH WAYS.

But we, as Christians, are told that we should speak the truth in love. Many times Jesus was confronted with repentant sinners and was always compassionate. The Church’s teaching is to have compassion on those who have this type of disordered attraction which encouraging them not to sin.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
So by adapt you mean by the “how” the Church carries out it’s mission, not change the mission itself?

Certainly, the Church will not change it’s stance regarding homosexuality. Perhaps how it goes about combatting the error of homosexuality is what you mean.
Click to expand...
I never suggested, nor implied, that the Church will do anything, other than adapt to the current situation. How it will adapt will unfold over time.
 
edwest2 said:
To my fellow Catholics, please note the propaganda at work here. You are being called names with the purpose of questioning Church teaching. You are being falsely accused by anonymous others. The way you look at this issue is being grossly distorted. Why? To cause you to doubt. To allow those who hate the Church to try to convince you that you hate.

Pray for these people that they may see the truth. Do not be fooled or take the bait.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Please point out the propaganda and “name calling.”

If your post is in response to mine, then speak up. If not, I would like to know what you mean.
 
andrewstx said:
Which homosexual asked you for permission? Is that not just a bit presumptuous? How many homosexuals have you asked for permission for your marriage?

No, I am not a homosexual personally, but I do tire of the lip service given to homosexuality is a disorder but the desire is not in itself a sin only the acts. Practically every thread on this subject descends to nearly hatred while the fact that SSA is not sinful in and of itself is avoided a lot.

I get a feeling this comes from the far right politics most on this board have.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, always. But the majority is not everyone and not all are born attracted to the opposite sex. And not everyone with SSA is a promiscuous monster marching in parades near nude.

It’s more fun to “pile up, gang up” on the small minority isn’t it?

As I said, I am not a homosexual but neither am I a far-right person who despises homosexuals and believes all of the negative stereotypes. All I ask for is respect for all as the catechism asks for and is often ignored.
Click to expand...
Your remarks only go to prove the point: any discussion about the unnatural sexual habits of a small percentage of human beings immediately draws near hysterics and over the top accusations of hatemongering, injustice, downright untruths generalizing any dissention in discussions about a very real issue, shutting the door on the use of reason and logic to address the perversion being touted as the poor good folks being persecuted if a word of dissention is spoken. Speaking the mere truth is somehow associated with hatred by people such as yourself. It is theatrical, untruthful and damaging to society to try to shut down honest communication in such a manner…
 
Used2beSherryG said:
Your remarks only go to prove the point: any discussion about the unnatural sexual habits of a small percentage of human beings immediately draws near hysterics and over the top accusations of hatemongering, injustice, downright untruths generalizing any dissention in discussions about a very real issue, shutting the door on the use of reason and logic to address the perversion being touted as the poor good folks being persecuted if a word of dissention is spoken. Speaking the mere truth is somehow associated with hatred by people such as yourself. It is theatrical, untruthful and damaging to society to try to shut down honest communication in such a manner…
Click to expand...
I think the problem is the disconnect between science and religion. The mainstream of behavioral science says one thing, the Catholic Church says another thing. So, each sees the other as false.

This problem has occurred in the past, over issues of heliocentrism, etc…

One of the more interesting aspects of this problem, is that the Church has been very cautious in the areas of hard physical science, since it made such horrible errors in the past with astronomy, and other “hard” sciences. Now that behavioral science is becoming more robust, the problem is arising again.
 
epan said:
I never suggested, nor implied, that the Church will do anything, other than adapt to the current situation. How it will adapt will unfold over time.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. I do agree that the Church will adapt to the situation over time. An example that comes to mind is the Church’s position that salvation is only found within the Church. What that means today certainly has a different tone than the tone applied during other periods of Church history.
 
edwest2 said:
See post #27.

Ed
Click to expand...
Sorry. But your reply appears to be non-responsive. Of course, you are not required to answer any question directly, if you don’t want to. No worries here. I was just concerned that there might be something about my own posts which needed clarification, since yours immediately followed mine.
 
casey_cates said:
To the original post - I think a lot depends on tone and whether the person making the Catholic point is doing so out of love and concern that they gay person does not fall into sin or whether they just feel justified about throwing some stones.

There is no doubt that homosexual acts are sins. So is adultery, pre-marital sex, etc. Paul tells us that sexual sins are indeed grave because you sin against your own body.

So I can see that someone can have a right concern for those that commit these acts and a government that endorses them. They should be allowed to speak out against these things without being labeled a bigot or homophobe. FREE SPEECH WORKS BOTH WAYS.

But we, as Christians, are told that we should speak the truth in love. Many times Jesus was confronted with repentant sinners and was always compassionate. The Church’s teaching is to have compassion on those who have this type of disordered attraction which encouraging them not to sin.
Click to expand...
Speaking the Truth in love is challenging is today’s environment. Imagine the following conversation:

Homosexual: This is such an exiciting time to be an American. The principles this country were founded on are coming true with every passing generation to the point where even someone like me will have equal protection under the law. I can now get married to the person I love and care for.

Catholic: I understand your excitement about the recent changes handed down by the Supreme Court, but these changes are not good for society nor are they good for you.

Homosexual: People said the same thing about race relations 40 years ago. Time has proven that allowing people to have equal rights has been a good thing for this country. People said that mixing races of people was bad for society. The opposite has proven to be the case.

Catholic: Comparing race and sexuality are not the same thing. Homosexual persons were never barred from marrying another person of the opposite sex. Marriage has always throughout human history, until recently, recognized marriage as between a man and a woman.

Homosexual: All we want is to have the same things heterosexual persons have. Did you know that I was denied access to a very good homosexual friend of mine as he was dieing in the hospital because I was not part of his family or married partner? His family refused to see him and didn’t allow me to see him even though he wanted to see me.
There’s many complications. Where does one go from here? The truth must continue to be expressed, but it’s not cut and dry and merely a matter of anatomy. Obviously there is a danger to society by taking the rearing of children completely out of the equation of marriage as having children is a physical impossibility for homosexual sexual encounters. Persons with homosexual attraction want to be loved like anyone else. It’s easy for a heterosexual person to essentially tell the homosexual that they ought to be required by law to carry their cross and therefore be denied sexual relations with someone of be same sex.
 
Noboday said being a Christian was easy. My responses in this scenario to the person making the argument are these:
Marriage is not a “right” to any and all. It is not subjective. Can siblings marry? Can an adult and child marry? Are you being discriminatory in denying their “right” to marriage?
 
Who’s stopping homosexual persons from engaging in sexual behavior? If you were in a mall, could you pick out the homosexual person? Of course not. No one can. Can you pick out the white, the black, the Oriental? Of course you can.

I don’t care or think about the person in line in front of me at a store: Is he gay? None of my business. It doesn’t matter. I pay for my items and leave.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Who’s stopping homosexual persons from engaging in sexual behavior? If you were in a mall, could you pick out the homosexual person? Of course not. No one can. Can you pick out the white, the black, the Oriental? Of course you can.

I don’t care or think about the person in line in front of me at a store: Is he gay? None of my business. It doesn’t matter. I pay for my items and leave.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
So would you then oppose two homosexual persons from obtaining a marriage certificate? Is that your business or also none of your business?
 
casey_cates said:
Noboday said being a Christian was easy. My responses in this scenario to the person making the argument are these:
Marriage is not a “right” to any and all. It is not subjective. Can siblings marry? Can an adult and child marry? Are you being discriminatory in denying their “right” to marriage?
Click to expand...
Those I have conversed with on the matter called it a matter of having the opportunity to marry. Heterosexuals have that opportunity to marry those of the opposite sex while homosexuals do not have the opportunity to marry those of he same. In other words, “opportunity to pursue happiness” viewpoint.

I agree it’s slippery slope. Not looking forward to the ramifications. Somehow Christians need to be able to demonstrate that taking this road is disastrous and not the next best thing for humanity.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
So would you then oppose two homosexual persons from obtaining a marriage certificate? Is that your business or also none of your business?
Click to expand...
Why was it even on the ballot when I went to vote? No one needs my permission to live how they want, but for some strange, never explained reason, they wanted my approval? Why? As a friend of mine said, “Why do they need my permission?”

It’s a big mystery to me. I don’t care if half my neighbors are gay but keep it out of my face. Whatever happens in private is private. But no, that was not good enough. In the past, I worked with gay, lesbian and bisexual people and we got along. Now it’s in your face. Approve or get branded with some kind of name. That is wrong. 100% wrong. Keep your emotions to yourself. OK? Do I hate dope smokers as people? Of course not. I just don’t want to be there smoking dope with them. Do I hate guys who go to bars to get wasted? No. I don’t want to get involved in drinking liquor.

It’s very simple but all I hear are loud, emotional words that don’t apply to me at all. Stop the evangelizing, OK?

Ed
 
**Those I have conversed with on the matter called it a matter of having the opportunity to marry. Heterosexuals have that opportunity to marry those of the opposite sex while homosexuals do not have the opportunity to marry those of he same. In other words, “opportunity to pursue happiness” viewpoint.

I agree it’s slippery slope. Not looking forward to the ramifications. Somehow Christians need to be able to demonstrate that taking this road is disastrous and not the next best thing for humanity.**

We must talk in different circles because I hear that we are denying rights. But even if you use the word opportunity. It is the same difference. Marriage is not an opportunity for any and all for the reasons stated. So to deny a polygamist would be deny his “opportunity.” Same sex cannot marry. Look at the defintion: To combine or blend agreeably (freedictionary.com) Only heterosexuals can consummate the marriage in the way in which sex is designed.
 
casey_cates said:
**Those I have conversed with on the matter called it a matter of having the opportunity to marry. Heterosexuals have that opportunity to marry those of the opposite sex while homosexuals do not have the opportunity to marry those of he same. In other words, “opportunity to pursue happiness” viewpoint.

I agree it’s slippery slope. Not looking forward to the ramifications. Somehow Christians need to be able to demonstrate that taking this road is disastrous and not the next best thing for humanity.**

We must talk in different circles because I hear that we are denying rights. But even if you use the word opportunity. It is the same difference. Marriage is not an opportunity for any and all for the reasons stated. So to deny a polygamist would be deny his “opportunity.” Same sex cannot marry. Look at the defintion: To combine or blend agreeably (freedictionary.com) Only heterosexuals can consummate the marriage in the way in which sex is designed.
Click to expand...
Although Catholics may believe that homosexuality is wrong and evil, outside of Catholicism, homosexuality is scientifically normal, and an immutable characteristic among certain human beings. It is also culturally equal to heterosexuality.

Therefore, outside of Catholicism, there is nothing wrong with it. That is why gay marriage is a valid civil right.

Someday gay marriage will be recognized all over the world, and people in the future will look at us, the people of 2013, with disgust and disdain. Much like how we look at slaveowners of the 1800s with disgust. They will question why we even thought of discriminating against gays in this way to begin with.

I don’t want to look at my children and grandchildren and admit to them, with embarrassment, at how I used to oppose the civil rights of gays.

That is another reason why I support gay marriage rights. I do not wish to be on the the wrong side of a civil rights issue.

I understand what Jesus’ love truly is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top