Homosexuality

[Seeker2010]

The Sexual Revolution was a failure.

You posted that article before. The pharmacist should have lost his license. And how, exactly, are you measuring ‘failure’ in this statement?

The time is up. Everybody got their big chance over the last 40 years to show us Christians that their ‘alternative lifestyle’ was better than our normal, established, functional way of living.

Time is up? I think not. In fact, I think it will continue to accelerate.

 

[buffalo]

I was born in the mid 1950s, and the shrill, angry voices of the antiwomen women have done their best to paper over the reality of what was going on. Their Leftist colored glasses cannot allow them to see anything other than disorder and class conflict. What a wretched world to live in.

God bless,
Ed

I am curious as to how you would define anti-women women.

Would the Suffragettes of the late 19th and early 20th century fall into that category?

Would they?

Susan B Anthony List

Notable Women

                                                                                                          Did you know that many of our nation’s most legendary women  leaders were pro-life? The often untold truth of history is that the  very women who fought to earn the right to vote also promoted a  consistent respect for human life.

Courageous women leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton recognized that authentic women’s rights could never be built upon the broken rights of innocent unborn children. They believed that abortion was just a tool of oppression used against women.

Today the Susan B. Anthony List honors their legacy by advancing the voice of pro-life women in our political process. Much to the chagrin of old guard feminists and abortion advocates, Susan B. Anthony’s brand of original, authentic pro-life feminism resonates with today’s increasingly pro-life America.

Our Mission is central to the success of the pro-life movement. We raise up strong women leaders to boldly challenge abortion groups and the nation’s number one abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Our pro-life women leaders dispel the myth that women need abortion in order to flourish. They tell the truth. And their voices make a difference for innocent unborn children and their mothers.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am curious as to how you would define anti-women women.

Would the Suffragettes of the late 19th and early 20th century fall into that category?

---

Anyone who calls the family “a comfortable concentration camp” is no friend of women or the family. Betty Friedan

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinem. Publisher of Ms. magazine and yes, that’s where that word came from.

Go to the National Organization for Women web site and see what they are for. By the way, NOW has a ‘no position’ position on prostitution. And they don’t seem to be bothered by Female Chauvenist Pigs as portrayed on Sex and the City.

now.org/

God bless,
Ed

Are you going to give me a straight answer, or just keep on giving examples of the kind of feminists that you don’t approve of?

 

[edwest2]

---

Anyone who calls the family “a comfortable concentration camp” is no friend of women or the family. Betty Friedan

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinem. Publisher of Ms. magazine and yes, that’s where that word came from.

Go to the National Organization for Women web site and see what they are for. By the way, NOW has a ‘no position’ position on prostitution. And they don’t seem to be bothered by Female Chauvenist Pigs as portrayed on Sex and the City.

now.org/

God bless,
Ed

Are you going to give me a straight answer, or just keep on giving examples of the kind of feminists that you don’t approve of?

---

A “straight answer”? Perhaps you’d like to give me a fill in the blanks questionnaire. Radical, Leftist, Marxist, Class Warfare Feminism is precisely what I mean. NOW is pro abortion, anti-man, and all about being a victim. It is not solution oriented, it’s only about war and power.

And it is directly connected to what some call the ‘gay rights’ movement.

God bless,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That’s what Catholics do.

I was under the impression that the Catholic Church considered homosexuality a grave disorder. As well as being a grave sin.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Are you going to give me a straight answer, or just keep on giving examples of the kind of feminists that you don’t approve of?

---

A “straight answer”? Perhaps you’d like to give me a fill in the blanks questionnaire. Radical, Leftist, Marxist, Class Warfare Feminism is precisely what I mean. NOW is pro abortion, anti-man, and all about being a victim. It is not solution oriented, it’s only about war and power.

And it is directly connected to what some call the ‘gay rights’ movement.

God bless,
Ed

So your not opposed to all feminists then?

Like the ones struggling (for the most part unsuccessfully) to give women the right to drive and have freedom of movement in Saudi Arabia, or the ones trying to make sure that girls get an education in Afghanistan?

 

[edwest2]

Here is a document from the Vatican that I think you’ll find helpful.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

---

A “straight answer”? Perhaps you’d like to give me a fill in the blanks questionnaire. Radical, Leftist, Marxist, Class Warfare Feminism is precisely what I mean. NOW is pro abortion, anti-man, and all about being a victim. It is not solution oriented, it’s only about war and power.

And it is directly connected to what some call the ‘gay rights’ movement.

God bless,
Ed

So your not opposed to all feminists then?

Like the ones struggling (for the most part unsuccessfully) to give women the right to drive and have freedom of movement in Saudi Arabia, or the ones trying to make sure that girls get an education in Afghanistan?

I like these feminists.

 

[edwest2]

So your not opposed to all feminists then?

Like the ones struggling (for the most part unsuccessfully) to give women the right to drive and have freedom of movement in Saudi Arabia, or the ones trying to make sure that girls get an education in Afghanistan?

I like these feminists.



I had hoped my detailed, adjective laden description would be enough to stave off the best hair splitters.

In my view, and you should read what Pope John Paul II had to say, the kind of feminism I describe is the type of feminism currently championed by the media, NOW, Planned Parenthood and the entire culture of death.

Instead of realizing its grave deformities of the heart, it embraces them. The Radical, Leftist, Anarchist Feminists go up to women and say, “Here. I want you to be just as distorted as I am. Do it.” And then they go out to slay men, families and babies in the womb.

The media calls a normal woman - “Uncle Woman,” a traitor to the leftist feminist ideal.

God bless,
Ed

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Fellow Catholics,

If our agnostic / atheist brothers reject natural law and religious-based reasoning why same sex unions are wrong, there is really nothing more we can say. As Catholics, we just shake the sand off our feet and move on, with a sincere parting prayer for their conversion.

We should not forget that St. Paul exhorted Timothy to constancy in his second epistle, discussing the character of heretics of latter days. He reminds followers of the great profit of the knowledge of the scriptures:

[1] Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. [2] Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, [3] Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, [4] Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: [5] Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.
A word on the natural law reason:

People have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another complementing human, according to what nature designed, i.e., the natural sex pairing of a man and a woman. Thus, people have the intuition concerning the homosexual act – this behavior is wrong because it is unnatural. Man and man, woman and woman, are not natural pairings, as with man and another species with mating ability.

Further, natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. Harm to another or society is not limited to the immediate and physical.

The argument by those who do not agree to natural law reasoning against same sex unions is that since homosexuality does not purportedly affect other people or society, everybody should just sign on to the proposition that it is normal, should be fully accepted and even promoted or celebrated. That pleasure from sex with another of the same sex makes it a “natural” act, and that end alone qualifies it to be considered natural. The “end” of mating is not just pleasure, although pleasure is indeed a gift.

Unbelievers would just have more contorted counter-arguments, for sure. I wish unbelieving posters in this thread open their minds to the spirit that lies under the Catholic way of thinking on all sinful behavior including homosexual acts. They forget that non-Catholics have this view on homosexual behavior as well, e.g., Jews, other Christians, Muslims, etc. We as Catholics are not expected to pass judgment but we have the duty to point out wrong behavior in a charitable and truthful manner.

Because some Catholics are homosexuals with the motivation to align with and push for the proposition that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, and the forceful gay agenda, our Church has an even bigger challenge.

I am not looking to spar with our hard-hearted agnostic posters here. Seriously, I think they are not participating in this forum for an honest debate, but do so to pull more Catholics to the heresy that St. Paul has warned us about, and to simply agitate the faithful.

Peace and blessings.

. . . . . .

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Are you going to give me a straight answer, or just keep on giving examples of the kind of feminists that you don’t approve of?

---

A “straight answer”? Perhaps you’d like to give me a fill in the blanks questionnaire. Radical, Leftist, Marxist, Class Warfare Feminism is precisely what I mean. NOW is pro abortion, anti-man, and all about being a victim. It is not solution oriented, it’s only about war and power.

And it is directly connected to what some call the ‘gay rights’ movement.

God bless,
Ed

All war is about power in the end.

The ‘war’ between the sexes in no different.

Besides this is hardly a new thing. Conflict between men and women has been going on at least since recorded history began. But men have virtually always had the upper hand (on the group level at least), and while I think its unjust to be hated just for being a man (as the truly radical feminists would), I am not surprised that the other side would eventually try to strike back.

There have always been male misogynists in positions of authority, in government, society, and religion, using their power to demean, degrade, and generally harm women. This is nothing new.

What is new is that there are now a lot of women in positions to do the reverse. How can we men act surprised that these women want to retaliate against patriarchy?

I mean there are still large sections of the world where young girls have their privates cut and mutilated to keep them ‘pure’ (which is usually also tied to local religion).

This is not hype, empty rhetoric, or exaggeration, men (although not necessarily all the men) in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan are waging a violent war against women and girls. Yet people like you consider Planned Parenthood more of a threat.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am not looking to spar with our hard-hearted agnostic posters here. Seriously, I think they are not participating in this forum for an honest debate, but do so to pull more Catholics to the heresy that St. Paul has warned us about, and to simply agitate the faithful.

Peace and blessings.

. . . . . .

I am interested in honest debate, and have made a genuine effort to be polite and reasonable in my posting (although I admit my last post may have been somewhat rude).

I have made a deliberate effort to pose challenging yet thoughtful questions to the Catholics on this board to see if there is anything to the FAITH & REASON slogan I keep hearing about from the modern Church. Yet I have also tried to intelligently and thoughtfully answer all the questions posed to me, this seems like reasonable debate to me.

However, I have repeatedly been insulted in this thread, despite the fact that I have not insulted anyone on this board (except maybe Ed).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am not looking to spar with our hard-hearted agnostic posters here. Seriously, I think they are not participating in this forum for an honest debate, but do so to pull more Catholics to the heresy that St. Paul has warned us about, and to simply agitate the faithful.

Peace and blessings.

. . . . . .

I am interested in honest debate, and have made a genuine effort to be polite and reasonable in my posting (although I admit my last post may have been somewhat rude).

I have made a deliberate effort to pose challenging yet thoughtful questions to the Catholics on this board to see if there is anything to the FAITH & REASON slogan I keep hearing about from the modern Church. Yet I have also tried to intelligently and thoughtfully answer all the questions posed to me, this seems like reasonable debate to me.

However, I have repeatedly been insulted in this thread, despite the fact that I have not insulted anyone on this board (except maybe Ed).

Ed, I apologize for the rudeness of my last post.

I was mad because NE Catholic insulted me and I got you and him confused.
Sorry about that.

 

[edwest2]

---

A “straight answer”? Perhaps you’d like to give me a fill in the blanks questionnaire. Radical, Leftist, Marxist, Class Warfare Feminism is precisely what I mean. NOW is pro abortion, anti-man, and all about being a victim. It is not solution oriented, it’s only about war and power.

And it is directly connected to what some call the ‘gay rights’ movement.

God bless,
Ed

All war is about power in the end.

The ‘war’ between the sexes in no different.

Besides this is hardly a new thing. Conflict between men and women has been going on at least since recorded history began. But men have virtually always had the upper hand (on the group level at least), and while I think its unjust to be hated just for being a man (as the truly radical feminists would), I am not surprised that the other side would eventually try to strike back.

There have always been male misogynists in positions of authority, in government, society, and religion, using their power to demean, degrade, and generally harm women. This is nothing new.

What is new is that there are now a lot of women in positions to do the reverse. How can we men act surprised that these women want to retaliate against patriarchy?

I mean there are still large sections of the world where young girls have their privates cut and mutilated to keep them ‘pure’ (which is usually also tied to local religion).

This is not hype, empty rhetoric, or exaggeration, men (although not necessarily all the men) in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan are waging a violent war against women and girls. Yet people like you consider Planned Parenthood more of a threat.

---

People like you. Yeah, they’re all like that. People who turn the womb into a death chamber are better than those who practice genital mutilation? Are you just playing - look, it’s worse over there? How about we stay with, look at what’s happening over here. And besides, what are your plans to stop genital mutilation?

Patriarchy? What the heck is that? Only brainwashed women believe in patriarchy. And how are they striking back? Please, all I’m reading here is feminist overthrow the males fantasies. And then what? Start a feminist dictatorship?

Was that in the last issue of True Radical Feminist Fantasies?

I think it’s nothing more than a feel-good fantasy to imagine running over to Pakistan and Afghanistan and saving women from those tyrannical males. We’ve got troops in Afghanistan right now. Do you think part of their mission is saving women from men?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I am interested in honest debate, and have made a genuine effort to be polite and reasonable in my posting (although I admit my last post may have been somewhat rude).

I have made a deliberate effort to pose challenging yet thoughtful questions to the Catholics on this board to see if there is anything to the FAITH & REASON slogan I keep hearing about from the modern Church. Yet I have also tried to intelligently and thoughtfully answer all the questions posed to me, this seems like reasonable debate to me.

However, I have repeatedly been insulted in this thread, despite the fact that I have not insulted anyone on this board (except maybe Ed).

Ed, I apologize for the rudeness of my last post.

I was mad because NE Catholic insulted me and I got you and him confused.
Sorry about that.

Hey, no problem.

Ed

 

[St_Francis]

There are also predatory homosexuals. Predatory is predatory, and should be punished regardless, but it does NOT spread homosexuality. Saying it over and over again doesn’t change that fact. You’re either straight, bi, gay, or transgendered. Very, very few people wake up one day with a different orientation than they had the day before. I’m sure it happens from time to time, but not frequently enough to be statistically significant.

Seems your assuming facts not in evidence, not that that shocks me.

Suicide rates are actually down pretty significantly: suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#death-rates

Sorry, I meant teen rates.

Aside from that, I think that we are looking at the same coin from such different angles that we cannot agree on what it is. We can keep saying the same things in different ways, but without one of us moving, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere. But I am happy that we were able to discuss this amicably–thanks!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Patriarchy? What the heck is that? Only brainwashed women believe in patriarchy.

God bless,
Ed

Actually, lots of people believe in patriarchy, and some of them are proud supporters of it. Some of them are even women.

Here is a Protestant Church’s rather creepy take on it:
visionforumministries.org/home/about/Biblical_patriarchy.aspx

And here is an article by a Pastor Robert L Davis, which shows what happens when you take Biblical Patriarchy to its logical (though unhealthy) extreme:
urbanpioneering.com/Volume12/femininemain.htm

It essentially takes the idea of God the Father and stretches it as far as it can go.

 

[Newbie2]

That’s where you lose me. You seriously believe that God literally spoke to a lucky few people, at least he used to? That for some reason he gave ‘The Truth’ to a hand-picked select few, and created a system wherein the rest of us just have to take their word for it? That seems so preposterous to me that I have a hard time believing ANYONE buys it, but to each their own, I suppose.

Yep. That’s a pretty close description of how it works. That’s why it’s called “faith”.

Question: Do you believe ancient history as written in the history books? If you do, then you’re taking the word of the ancient authors, no? Same sort of thing, yet I don’t think you’d find it preposterous as to how history is handed down to us and how we accept it as fact.

Sure, some archeological evidence exists to back up much of History, but when an ancient text says “Emporer Joe Blow decreed such and such” it isn’t always “provable” with evidence beyond that that was written by a witness…and even at that, may not have been an eyewitness.

What I find interesting is that people take as “Gospel truth” (pun intended) the factuality of ancient writings, some of which only 1 or so copies exist, yet dismiss the Historical nature of Scripture, especially in the New Testament, where there are eyewitness accounts of Jesus being seen alive after the Resurrection.

Forgive me, I must have missed a post, or perhaps misunderstood a post, for I don’t remember seeing an explanation. To clarify my question, if Leviticus is accurate when it proclaims homosexuality to be ‘an abomination’, why is it not equally accurate when it declares that different crops should not be planted side by side, or that wearing different types of cloths at the same time is immoral?

OK, that’s a valid question, thank you for clarifying.

I think you’re confusing Levitical law with Natural law. Levitical law has to do with the laws of Moses, given to the Israelites, which regulated most areas of their lives as Children of Yahweh.

Natural law is more of a modern understanding; particularly Catholic, but not necessarly limited to Catholic Theology. According to Natural law, certain “things” were ordered by the Creator, in this case that males and females were meant to pair up, not males-males or females-females. Natural law is reflected in Scripture, though not explicitly spelled out in Scripture (you won’t find the term “Natural Law” in Scripture), and Natural Law and Scripture are not contradictory.

Now one can make the case that wearing clothes of different materials is not a principle found in Natural law, and that is so, however, that does not mean Natural Law contradicts Scripture.

 

[Seeker2010]

Do you believe ancient history as written in the history books?

Truth is I haven’t studied much ‘ancient’ history (I like history don’t get me wrong, but most of what I’ve actively studied has been colonial America onward) so I don’t really have an opinion on the matter. But ancient texts are frequently accompanied by forensic evidence. A book may tell us Tut was pharaoh, but we also have his body to study as an example. Furthermore, I suspect that there are many errors and falsehoods within the texts of ‘ancient history’ it’s just we have absolutely no way of knowing it.

I don’t think you’d find it preposterous as to how history is handed down to us and how we accept it as fact.

There is a big difference between ‘Emperor Joe Blow called for a census in 150 AD’ and ‘I personally spoke with God and he said…’

The former is administrivia, and in most cases likely documented in multiple places. The latter requires belief that A: God talks to people, AND B: This person is credible and truthful. Since God apparently stopped talking to people some 2,000 years ago, and I’ve never met anyone (credible, nutcases on the subway don’t count) who has actually spoken to him, nor have I ever spoken with him myself, I question the veracity of those who claim to have. (Note: I think you know this, but ‘speak’ in this context means a two-way conversation.)

If God can talk to people, why isn’t he? If he really wants me to follow the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or which ever holy book is right), can he not just tell me so directly? Believe you me, if he did, and I believed it was legitimate and not some mental illness on my part, I would. No discussion, no debate.

But he’d rather punish me for all of eternity for deciding some guys from thousands of years ago who claimed to speak with him didn’t really do so.

I think you’re confusing Levitical law with Natural law.

No, that’s not what I asked.

Homosexuality is an abomination, right? Says so right there in the Bible, Leviticus 20:18 (I think.) Ergo, because it says so, right there in Leviticus, God thinks homosexuality is an abomination.

But within the lines of Leviticus are other things God thinks is bad. Not stoning disobedient children. He instructs us to put to death anyone who works on the Sabbath. (Sure hope I never have a need for emergency medical care on a Sunday.) The whole multi-crop and multi-fabric things. All right there in the same book where God declares homosexuality as an abomination.

So, is Leviticus the word of God? Do the rules and regulations therein still apply, or no? Cause if they don’t, you can’t point to it and say, see, right there, it’s an abomination. But if they do, why are ya’ll skipping over the other parts? Shouldn’t you be marching in the street demanding justice for those who work the Sabbath? Those who wear cotton and linen together?

 

[Captain_America]

Homosexuality is unnatural, a substantial psychosexual developmental error, a disorder; and acting upon such impulses is immoral action.