How can people say homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic13 said:
Maybe it has something to do with homosexuals clinging to their sin at a much higher rate than heterosexual fornicators.
Click to expand...
Really?
The fact that homosexual sexual relationships spread disease is an effective case.
Click to expand...
It’s a valid argument for monogamy, regardless of same/sex or otherwise. The yawning deficiency in the case is that it doesn’t go the extra distance to compel the elimination of the sexual contact. It’s an argument for a kind of moderation, but not more. And I note it’s not an argument the Church has ever used.
 
There are already laws for fornicators, if they live together for so long, it’s a common law marriage.

It seems like you are the only one who thinks “spreading disease” is an effective argument against homosexuality. It truly isn’t. Sorry, but monogamy would stop the spread of disease. It wouldn’t stop the spread of sin.

And fornicators definitely cling to their sin.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
There are already laws for fornicators, if they live together for so long, it’s a common law marriage.

It seems like you are the only one who thinks “spreading disease” is an effective argument against homosexuality. It truly isn’t. Sorry, but monogamy would stop the spread of disease. It wouldn’t stop the spread of sin.

And fornicators definitely cling to their sin.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Rau said:
She eschews the intrinsic evil of sexual relationships between same sex partners, the only thing the Catechism finds sinful about homosexuality.

What more is it that you wish her to do to earn your respect?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church says that even homosexual orientation is disordered and recommends people pray in order change to approach Christian perfection, which of course does not mean having SSA.
*
“At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of”

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”*
 
BrassAnkles said:
The Catholic Church says that even homosexual orientation is disordered and recommends people pray in order change to approach Christian perfection, which of course does not mean having SSA.
*
“At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition* or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being** “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of**”

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Click to expand...
Agree with all that. As I said, she eschews that which is sinful. She agrees with the statements in the Catechism. What precisely must she do, in your opinion, to be faithful to the Church teaching?
 
Rau said:
She eschews the intrinsic evil of sexual relationships between same sex partners, the only thing the Catechism finds sinful about homosexuality.

What more is it that you wish her to do to earn your respect?
Click to expand...
She and joie de vivre also support homosexual unions, which of course would involve homosexual sex, which is against Catholic Church doctrine that fights homosexual civil unions in every country that it is proposed.

Also, the Catholic Church cautions us to be wary of persons who defend homosexuality in general:
*
“One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”*

which is exactly what the aforementioned persons do. The Catholic Church says we should be wary of the real motives of persons who do this.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
There are already laws for fornicators, if they live together for so long, it’s a common law marriage.

It seems like you are the only one who thinks “spreading disease” is an effective argument against homosexuality. It truly isn’t. Sorry, but monogamy would stop the spread of disease. It wouldn’t stop the spread of sin.

And fornicators definitely cling to their sin.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep responding but keep avoiding the question I asked in the OP?

And don’t start with the strawman arguments. I never said fornicators don’t cling to their sin.
 
BrassAnkles said:
She and joie de vivre also support homosexual unions, which of course would involve homosexual sex, which is against Catholic Church doctrine that fights homosexual civil unions in every country that it is proposed.

Also, the Catholic Church cautions us to be wary of persons who defend homosexuality in general:
*
“One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”*

which is exactly what the aforementioned persons do. The Catholic Church says we should be wary of the real motives of persons who do this.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Click to expand...
We speak of SMGS.

She exchews same sex sexual relationships - she does not endorse same sex sexual acts, she argues such are immoral and supports the Church in this regard. She agrees with the Catechism.

What precisely must she do, in your opinion, to be faithful to the Church teaching?
 
Catholic13 said:
Why do you keep responding but keep avoiding the question I asked in the OP?

And don’t start with the strawman arguments. I never said fornicators don’t cling to their sin.
Click to expand...
Why can’t you realize your argument is a poor one? 🤷

Don’t chastise me like I’m a child, telling me “don’t start…” You’ve done this a few times to people in this thread and it is rude. Learn how to speak/type to people.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
Why can’t you realize your argument is a poor one? 🤷

Don’t chastise me like I’m a child, telling me “don’t start…” You’ve done this a few times to people in this thread and it is rude. Learn how to speak/type to people.
Click to expand...
My argument is true but how is it poor besides you don’t agree with it?
 
Rau said:
We speak of SMGS.

She exchews same sex sexual relationships - she does not endorse same sex sexual acts, she argues such are immoral and supports the Church in this regard. She agrees with the Catechism.

What precisely must she do, in your opinion, to be faithful to the Church teaching?
Click to expand...
Both smg and joie de vivre supports the recognition of homosexual unions in society and use the same tactics that the Catholic Church says are used by the gay lobby. This with promoting that SSA is innate can cause people to be confused about the permanence of their condition. The Church teaches that those with SSA should pray for change. See SMG’s commentary below:

*"I do honestly think marriage should just be completely done away with from a legal point of view. Gays & lesbians mean it in a secular sense of gaining partnership abilities (car insurance rates, joint bank accounts, mixed credit, hospital visitation, legal/medical authority, etc. etc.), religious mean it in a religious sense, and it just makes everyone mad.

Legalized universal civil unions that make no assumption of sexual activity and only speak to legal authorities [medical visitation/authority, inheritance, etc.] and financial purposes [banking/credit, etc.], which any two people could enter into, including siblings or friends or life partners/spouses, would be the way to get out of this mess. We could have separate governmental childrearing benefits, to keep that reserved for marriages, and leave the recognition of marriages up to the Church. "*

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=895608
 
OK, Catholic13, let me answer the two questions in your original post.
  1. People can say this as easily as people can say the opposite, and by using vague language it’s even easier to defend their assertions.
  2. Yes, lots of people have insights. Many people have already offered some on this thread, but you don’t seem to welcome some of these contributions.
 
Nixbits said:
OK, Catholic13, let me answer the two questions in your original post.
  1. People can say this as easily as people can say the opposite, and by using vague language it’s even easier to defend their assertions.
  2. Yes, lots of people have insights. Many people have already offered some on this thread, but you don’t seem to welcome some of these contributions.
Click to expand...
This forum is to defend the faith and discuss Catholic doctrine, not change because it is popular at any given moment. Catholic13 is doing a great job in this regard.
 
Catholic13 said:
My argument is true but how is it poor besides you don’t agree with it?
Click to expand...
What is being explained it that your argument that homosexuality hurts people - resting on disease control - is a poor, weak, ineffective - because the good end you point to (disease control) is equally well achieved by means that do not involve accepting that homosexuality hurts people! We need only conclude that multiple partners hurts people. Monogamous homosexuality is not a disease threat and thus does not hurt people by spreading disease. That’s where your argument leads, but I suspect it is not where you intended to go!

Do you see now?

Truly, I don’t know how this can be explained any more clearly.
 
It seems like you are the only one who thinks “spreading disease” is an effective argument against homosexuality. It truly isn’t. Sorry, but monogamy would stop the spread of disease. It wouldn’t stop the spread of sin.
.

Why isn’t it effective besides “I think it isn’t effective” <–the quotes would be you speaking.

Say something like your argument isn’t effective because …and then state your reason
 
BrassAnkles said:
This forum is to defend the faith and discuss Catholic doctrine, not change because it is popular at any given moment. Catholic13 is doing a great job in this regard.
Click to expand...
Don’t make me laugh.

To be honest, Catholic13’s and your bigotry and hate towards homosexuality hurts much more of society. Can’t you see that?

Here, from your own Catechism, I quote:

**They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **

By even creating this thread, Catholic13 is doing the exact opposite of that. I am offended by this bigotry and hate.
 
frobert said:
Fair enough. I understand that according to your world view, relative to your faith, you believe that the means risk reduction education is worse than the sexual sin itself and does not justify a reduction in HIV and other STDs. You brought up a drastic comparison that I find similar to the medieval belief that burning witches would save their souls. I am glad your world view is not the prevalent one even within other main stream christian denominations.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality does hurt people, especially young persons.
 
Catholic13 said:
It seems like you are the only one who thinks “spreading disease” is an effective argument against homosexuality. It truly isn’t. Sorry, but monogamy would stop the spread of disease. It wouldn’t stop the spread of sin.
.

Why isn’t it effective besides “I think it isn’t effective” <–the quotes would be you speaking.

Say something like your argument isn’t effective because …and then state your reason
Click to expand...

Omg. It is ineffective because monogamy would stop the spread of disease. Like, multiple people have said this. I truly don’t know how to make this any more clear.
 
BrassAnkles said:
Homosexuality does hurt people, especially young persons.
Click to expand...
Telling a young gay person that their being Gay is wrong, evil and hurts people…THIS is what hurts them and can do irreversible damage.

Once again the very first response to this thread pretty much eviscerated it so I’ll repeat it from Daddygirl:

"Well…because it’s not homosexuality that spreads diseases.
It’s sex.
Heterosexuality can spread diseases, too.

So it’s not homosexuality, as you say, that “hurts” people.

You are incorrect to say that “any type of sexual activity outside a committed marriage causes harm by spreading disease”.
This is not the case.

And actually, some could turn your question around and ask:
How can people say that condoms hurt anyone, when they prevent disease from spreading in society?"

Therefore to sum up, this is an epic fail thread. Epic fail. It’s sad you are actually trying to defend and justify Catholic13’s blatant lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top