Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[acarlson]

This is entirely untrue. This is a classic example of the problems that are caused by scholasticism. To blame everything on the devil that you don’t understand.

Christianity is not dualistic, God gives each of us our own crosses to bare and for a homosexual person that is SSA. But, to whom much is given, much is expected, and those with many crosses to carry are glorified by God.

Now wouldn’t that be a surprise, in heaven to see the homosexuals who have been put through so much disdain and cruelty in this life, yet who struggled to remain chaste and faithful to God, and they might very well be exalted over the heterosexuals!

There is absolutely no medical evidence to support homosexuality being a choice, and twins in which one is homosexual, the other is 70% more likely to experience SSA. Such a fact does not mean that it is moral behavior, (I have OSA but that doesn’t mean I can fornicate) but I find it appalling that Christians do not have more sympathy for people who have that cross, and I suspect it is because they are an easy target for judgment as their sin is easy for us to avoid. Any why homosexuality is singled out as a sin is beyond me. Adultery just as prevalent and IMO does far more damage to families, not to mention betrayal, deception, and at times even downright malignity.

Let’s just remind ourselves what the propositions (1) and (2) were:

1. Do you think homosexuality is like a **disease **that must be cured?
2. If so, do you think that by prayer homosexual feelings will just go away in time ?

Regarding [1]: If by “like a disease”, you are saying that the condition suggests something is “amiss” with the individual (be it brain, hormones, DNA, whatever…), I tend to agree, though I have no idea of the nature of what is amiss. The Church admits it has no competence to make pronouncements on medical matters and it makes none. The Church explicitly states that the cause is not known. The Church does not assert that it “must be cured”. There is NO requirement for the SSA to be eliminated for the individual to be pleasing to God (or to achieve salvation). The SSA is not sinful.

Regarding [2]: It is hardly insightful to conclude that God will do what God wishes to do! Further, that SSA may not leave an individual cannot be pointed to as evidence that a person is not “capable or willing of salvation”.

Your posts (especially these two) seem to be the ones aligned with the Church’s teachings. We as Catholics, bearing the full truth of God and salvation, need to do a better job of proclaiming this specific truth – especially in the face of many who confuse true homophobia (actually hating people with SSA, and not the “opposing same-sex marriage means you’re homophobic” homophobia the media loves) with God’s truth.

 

[Godspells]

“Hair colour” refers to variation of an individual’s hair colour, not what colour they like.

Are all the “variations” of individuals that I listed earlier what you would call “natural variations”?

The other variations, while I suppose are technically “natural”, are innately harmful. Homosexuality is not.

I believe it occurs in about 5-10% of the population, within the range of “normal”. And a similar percentage I believe exhibit symptoms of Protestantism worldwide.

Do you think having no inclination to engage in a reproductive act is a natural variation?

If it wasn’t, I don’t think we would have any monks or nuns.

 

[Rau]

The other variations, while I suppose are technically “natural”, are innately harmful. Homosexuality is not.

Harmful is in the eye of the afflicted. Those who suffer with the orientation (I’m not referring to suffering prejudices and mistreatment) may disagree with you. However, if you see all those conditions as “natural variations”, I’m clear on your meaning and have no objection to it.

To my question: *“Do you think having no inclination to engage in a reproductive act is a natural variation?” *

You answered

If it wasn’t, I don’t think we would have any monks or nuns.

I think you are saying that would-be priests, nuns, etc. have no inclination to engage in a reproductive act. That is, no (heterosexual) sex drive. You realise that is nonsense don’t you? For them (in general), the will and capacity to choose one course does not mean they are asexual!

 

[Godspells]

I think you are saying that would-be priests, nuns, etc. have no inclination to engage in a reproductive act. That is, no (heterosexual) sex drive. You realise that is nonsense don’t you? For them (in general), the will and capacity to choose one course does not mean they are asexual!

Yes, it was, I realize now that I look at it, that was a poor comparison, so I retract it.

 

[Elizium23]

Second, decrease in fertility rate, or rather the population growth rate, is a natural process that occurs after a nation industrializes. Usually after an initial population explosion as a result of longer life spans and medical advances, people start to limit the number of children they have 1) because they have them later in life to pursue other goals first and 2) because more children survive to an elder age.

Having smaller families certainly seems more advantageous than people starving to death because of food shortages due to overpopulation.

Overpopulation is a myth posited by the Population Control agenda in order to scare people into sterile sex and abortion. “Food shortages” are a canard, and frequently a problem of distribution, or First World greed, or waste such as overuse of crop space for fuel.

Meanwhile, fertility rates in the Western world have stayed bizarrely low despite expectations that it would rise in the natural cycle. The success of Population Control, and its widespread homosexuality, contraception, abortion, etc. etc. is clearly the culprit here. It is only the countries and cultures which resist the exportation of the Culture of Death which will survive the decimation that has been occurring since Roe v. Wade.

 

[Rau]

Overpopulation is a myth posited by the Population Control agenda in order to scare people into sterile sex and abortion. “Food shortages” are a canard, and frequently a problem of distribution, or First World greed, or waste such as overuse of crop space for fuel.

Meanwhile, fertility rates in the Western world have stayed bizarrely low despite expectations that it would rise in the natural cycle. The success of Population Control, and its widespread homosexuality, contraception, abortion, etc. etc. is clearly the culprit here. It is only the countries and cultures which resist the exportation of the Culture of Death which will survive the decimation that has been occurring since Roe v. Wade.

There is no need to see an “agenda” behind a view held about the comfortable carrying capacity of the earth. Sure, some people may have an axe to grind. Others may have genuine anxiety about the health of the environment as man impacts it, yet they have no attraction to abortion, homosexuality, contraception or anything else you may deem part of the “agenda”.

Frankly, I have no idea what that capacity might reasonably be, or how the current population compares with it. But I am absolutely certain the carrying capacity is not infinite, and that as a result, the birth rate cannot much exceed death rate continuously indefinitely! Either the birth rate will be subdued at some point, or the death rate will rise - at some point - of necessity. **

 

[Havard]

Oh, OK. Fair enough. This is essentially the position I’ve taken too. Governments promote a great deal of marriages that the Catholic Church would probably not condone. Though aside from the absolute prohibition of divorce, I think Catholics have a good theology on marriage.

As I see it, marriage is a sacrament, and so there is no marriage that is “not” a sacrament. So the Church defines what marriage is. The state can do whatever it wants. Christians can be Christians no matter what our government does.

The state represents the will of the people though, right? Within the context of the Constitution, as it is currently amended?

Anyway, the point I’m getting to is that in this case, the policy concern hinges on the unique procreative aspect of the heterosexual couple. Proponents of traditional marriage recognize this unique aspect that only heterosexual couples possess, and that as a matter of sociology, anthropology, and history, it is they who are the cornerstone of society. You don’t have to be a theist to subscribe to that notion.

When you open the door to same-sex marriage in the civil context, what then exactly is marriage in the civil context a recognition of? Since the unique procreative aspect of heterosexual couples is not necessary, what are we saying is necessary? And what now is the interest we are trying to promote? Love? Commitment? Then why don’t we offer more rights and benefits to every relationship? And what about those poor single people? The whole purpose of regulating marriage in the civil context becomes a lot more questionable.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t doubt that a proportion of people go in for anal sex and multiple partners. But what that proportion is viz a viz the population of homosexuals, I have no idea. The “community” to which you refer is itself only a subset of homosexuals.

I am sorry Rau, but you were wrong to state:

“…but I suspect you are assuming that anal sex is as common in same sex relationships as vaginal sex is in opposite sex relationships. That’s incorrect - anal sex is not common-place. I’ve seen figures quoted in other threads and they were quite low.”

According to the CDC…Nationwide, not just one community…:

The “proportion viz a viz the population of homosexuals” is 44 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals for AIDS and 46 times higher for syphilis.

You know how these infections are transfered.

Clearly that means sodomy is still the most popular form of sexual entertainment within the gay community.

Honestly, Rau. You can’t help these people by covering up or misinterpreting statistics.

Being a homosexual is risky. There is no other way to put it.

 

[Godspells]

The state represents the will of the people though, right? Within the context of the Constitution, as it is currently amended?

Anyway, the point I’m getting to is that in this case, the policy concern hinges on the unique procreative aspect of the heterosexual couple. Proponents of traditional marriage recognize this unique aspect that only heterosexual couples possess, and that as a matter of sociology, anthropology, and history, it is they who are the cornerstone of society. You don’t have to be a theist to subscribe to that notion.

When you open the door to same-sex marriage in the civil context, what then exactly is marriage in the civil context a recognition of? Since the unique procreative aspect of heterosexual couples is not necessary, what are we saying is necessary? And what now is the interest we are trying to promote? Love? Commitment? Then why don’t we offer more rights and benefits to every relationship? And what about those poor single people? The whole purpose of regulating marriage in the civil context becomes a lot more questionable.

There are married couples that don’t want to have kids. I think the main thing here is that people see homosexuals suffering both because of systematic discrimination led by some rather zealot Christians, notably westburo baptists. There are also legal ramifications when it comes to inheretence, power of attorney, etc.

I completely understand the desire to protect the traditional family and I also believe that the dissolution of the nuclear family is the chief cause of most of the worlds problems. But that in and of itself is not reason to prohibit same sex marriage as it pertains to the secular definition. Honestly, having children out of wedlock is far more damaging than same sex marriage, but there is not nearly the passion of protest against that as there is against gay marriage. I believe that is because in our self righteous mandate we like to single out less common sins, to help us feel better about our own common sins. Anti-gays commonly cite Romans 1 as proof that homosexuality is the final drop of depravity. They tend not to read past Romans 2 which tells them that they are just as bad.

 

[Godspells]

I am sorry Rau, but you were wrong to state:

“…but I suspect you are assuming that anal sex is as common in same sex relationships as vaginal sex is in opposite sex relationships. That’s incorrect - anal sex is not common-place. I’ve seen figures quoted in other threads and they were quite low.”

According to the CDC…Nationwide, not just one community…:

The “proportion viz a viz the population of homosexuals” is 44 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals for AIDS and 46 times higher for syphilis.

You know how these infections are transfered.

Clearly that means sodomy is still the most popular form of sexual entertainment within the gay community.

Honestly, Rau. You can’t help these people by covering up or misinterpreting statistics.

Being a homosexual is risky. There is no other way to put it.

Sodomy is risky, but I am not aware of anything that indicates same sex sodomy is any riskier.

The risk is also dependent on promiscuity.

The ABCs of eliminating risk: Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms. Practicing any of these lowers risk to about zero.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Sodomy is risky, but I am not aware of anything that indicates same sex sodomy is any riskier.

Let’s take baby steps…

According to the CDC, the rate of STDs is considerably higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. A homosexual engaging in sodomy has a greater chance of contracting an STD.

Therefore same sex sodomy IS riskier.

The risk is also dependent on promiscuity.

So who is more promiscuous? Homosexuals or heterosexuals?

The ABCs of eliminating risk: Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms. Practicing any of these lowers risk to about zero.

There is one more for homosexuals…give straight sex a try.

 

[Rau]

I am sorry Rau, but you were wrong to state:

“…but I suspect you are assuming that anal sex is as common in same sex relationships as vaginal sex is in opposite sex relationships. That’s incorrect - anal sex is not common-place. I’ve seen figures quoted in other threads and they were quite low.”

According to the CDC…Nationwide, not just one community…:

The “proportion viz a viz the population of homosexuals” is 44 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals for AIDS and 46 times higher for syphilis.

You know how these infections are transfered.

Clearly that means sodomy is still the most popular form of sexual entertainment within the gay community.

Honestly, Rau. You can’t help these people by covering up or misinterpreting statistics.

Being a homosexual is risky. There is no other way to put it.

Anal sex is risky. Promiscuity is risky.

The infections you list don’t require anal sex to be transferred. Your stats don’t identify how commonplace Anal sex is. I did some further research and the spread of numbers quoted was very wide, some down at 30% (of men), some much higher.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Anal sex is risky. Promiscuity is risky.

I am glad you agree. Both are traits of homosexual men.

The infections you list don’t require anal sex to be transferred. Your stats don’t identify how commonplace Anal sex is. I did some further research and the spread of numbers quoted was very wide, some down at 30% (of men), some much higher.

Interesting. I used Center for Disease Control data. Where did you get yours?

It seems reasonable to conclude that in order to reach an epidemic level of STD’s within the gay community there MUST be some sort of sexual activity. So if gays are not promiscuously enjoying anal sex, how are they transmitting so much disease?

 

[Rau]

I am glad you agree. Both are traits of homosexual men.

Both [anal sex; promiscuity] are traits of human beings! Anal sex would clearly be more prevalent among sexually active homosexual men than sexually active heterosexual men, but I could not find consistent data. The CDC figures you referenced were not addressing prevalence of anal sex. Promiscuity data is also not easy to find that would be considered “credible” data. I found this [but offer no view on reliability]:

There is only a one percentage point difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals in their promiscuity: 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer sexual partners; 99% of straight people have had the same number. Tellingly…just 2% of gay people that are having 23% of the total reported gay sex.

Of course, as with all statistics, there are flaws. This sample is largely North Americans who use the internet to find dates. How, therefore, can it be representative of the general population? But are those people – gay or straight – who go online looking for love and sex really going to be less promiscuous than those that don’t? I doubt it.

It seems reasonable to conclude that in order to reach an epidemic level of STD’s within the gay community there MUST be some sort of sexual activity. So if gays are not promiscuously enjoying anal sex, how are they transmitting so much disease?

Plainly, and not in debate. I only pushed back on the other poster who appeared to suggest, that anal sex was to gay couples what vaginal sex is to heterosexuals. From what I’ve read, that is not right, as many homosexuals feel the same way about that act as I do (ie. yuk.).

 

[CaliLobo]

I see this thread has been revived.

Let’s get back to the original question: Is it wrong to NOT oppose secular gay marriage?

I interpret the question as this: Just because you believe homosexuality is a sin, does it necessarily mean that you have to** actively oppose it politically**?

The answer is no. I believe the Bible clearly mandates Christians to oppose sexual sin, including homosexuality, in their personal lives. But the Bible is not clear that Christians must **politically oppose **the rights of gays to get marriage licenses equal to that of straights.

The Bible predated democracy; therefore it is an anachronism to say that God mandates us to politically oppose secular gay marriage rights. Such a teaching is yet another flawed effort by the Magisterium (not the Bible!) to repress and guilt people into compliance. Now, the cat is out of the bag. As education has increased, people see the evil that the Magisterium has spread.

People now can think for themselves, and know that just because you believe something is an evil, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you must oppose it politically. You can oppose it in your personal life, and that would be enough.

To oppose gay marriage rights politically, in fact, goes against the teachings of the Bible. It is unloving. It creates an underclass of citizens who are not treated equally, something that Jesus never did. It makes gays feel unwelcome in the Catholic Church and hurts Catholic efforts to evangelize the world, which is something that Jesus never intended. It politically imposes Catholic values on a secular society, which is something that Jesus never did while on earth in Roman times.

Let us also consider that the Bible arguably spoke against pederasty and temple prostitution, and not necessarily consensual gay relationships in the verses that are often quoted…

It is 2014 AD now, and in today’s era, humans are creating societies in which gays and straights can coexist equally. Does Jesus care about the way secular laws are being written? I don’t think so. Jesus cares more about whether the Church is preaching the Gospel and evangelizing the world.

There is nothing that says that Holy Tradition must remain obstinate and stagnant, with no opportunity to update it to make it relevant in 2014 AD. This is why the Protestants are flourishing today and Catholics are declining.

Stop saying that the Catholic Church is okay because it has a billion members. That’s not a real number; everyone on CAF agrees that most Catholics aren’t even attending Mass.

Read the actions of Jesus in the Bible and you will agree with me on what his priorities were.

Love your God with all your heart, strength, mind, and spirit. Love your neighbor as yourself.

(I also want to add that it is tragic that I can’t enter the Catholic Church because of my perfectly reasonable beliefs on this issue, which other Catholics agree with me on. I am agreeing more with Catholicism on other areas, agnostic purgatory has its drawbacks and it would be nice to have a belief system I can firmly be grounded in, but it is my opinions on social justice issues that make CAF members say that I am ineligible to enter the Church.)

 

[Rau]

I interpret the question as this: Just because you believe homosexuality is a sin, does it necessarily mean that you have to** actively oppose it politically**?

One is not expected to take a public stand on every matter. But everyone is entitled to express a view, and if asked to vote on the matter, it would be odd indeed for a sincere Catholic to vote in favour of enabling the State to affirm and acclaim sexual relationships between persons of the same sex (ie. “gay marriage”.)

The answer is no. I believe the Bible clearly mandates Christians to oppose sexual sin, including homosexuality, in their personal lives. But the Bible is not clear that Christians must **politically oppose **the rights of gays to get marriage licenses equal to that of straights.

Marriage is a sexual institution. I fail to understand why the State would want to affirm and acclaim a sexual relationship between two person of the same sex. I for one have no wish to see my State do that, for by doing so, it promotes to the young and naïve that same sex sexual relationships are perfectly fine and worthy. And for what reason?

The Bible predated democracy; therefore it is an anachronism to say that God mandates us to politically oppose secular gay marriage rights…

God doesn’t mandate that we acquiesce to the inclinations of our elected representatives either. How odd if, in a democracy, God expected his followers to stay quiet, and thus support those who seek to propagate an evil! Do you not see that the actions of the State serve to establish norms of behaviour? Why should we fail to exercise our democratic right if, by failing to do so, we enable the State to establish “gay marriage” as the the same thing as “Marriage”.

People now can think for themselves, and know that just because you believe something is an evil, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you must oppose it politically. You can oppose it in your personal life, and that would be enough.

People have always been able to think for themselves. It’s not a 21st century thing.

To oppose gay marriage rights politically, in fact, goes against the teachings of the Bible. It is unloving. It creates an underclass of citizens who are not treated equally, something that Jesus never did. It makes gays feel unwelcome in the Catholic Church and hurts Catholic efforts to evangelize the world, which is something that Jesus never intended. It politically imposes Catholic values on a secular society, which is something that Jesus never did while on earth in Roman times.

Marriage is a sexual relationship - what biblical (New Testament) precedent or authority can you point to that favours, or even accepts, marriage between 2 men or 2 women? By your reasoning, Gays would only feel “welcome” in the Catholic Church if the Church would marry them! Are there no bounds to what must be accepted in the name of being “loving” towards those that want something?

Cali, we all face “eligibility criteria” in life. You can’t have an Engineering degree if you can’t pass the exams. Sorry, but those folks not quite bright enough to pass those exams are going to be denied. They may need to accept a “lesser” career. You can’t have your freedom if you’re not a law-abiding citizen. A group of people can’t be “Married” if they don’t meet the criteria (2 in number, one male, one female, of the requisite age, neither already married). All these criteria are reasonable.

If you want to argue that same sex ‘couples’ have a case for an accommodation under the law that goes to matters such as shared assets, mutual care, inheritance and so forth - do so by all means. I for one don’t have a problem with that. But don’t call it Marriage!

…It is 2014 AD now, and in today’s era, humans are creating societies in which gays and straights can coexist equally. Does Jesus care about the way secular laws are being written? I don’t think so.

Really??..why would Jesus care that the nations affirm and acclaim **sexual **relationships between 2 men, thus leading children to think this is entirely fine? Any why would he care if his followers quietly acquiesced to all that?

There is nothing that says that Holy Tradition must remain obstinate and stagnant, with no opportunity to update it to make it relevant in 2014 AD. This is why the Protestants are flourishing today and Catholics are declining.

There is nothing to say that Holy Tradition should sway with the breeze, or move with “the times” either. Tradition tends not to change a lot. Kind of like morals, and right and wrong.

I also want to add that it is tragic that I can’t enter the Catholic Church because of my perfectly reasonable beliefs on this issue, which other Catholics agree with me on.

I am agreeing more with Catholicism on other areas, agnostic purgatory has its drawbacks and it would be nice to have a belief system I can firmly be grounded in, but it is my opinions on social justice issues that make CAF members say that I am ineligible to enter the Church.)

I’m not able to comment on your ability to “enter the Catholic Church”. But I find nothing reasonable in the reasons you’ve given in this thread for your support for gay “marriage” (and by implications gay sexual relations), nor on other threads for your support of contraception and abortion.

 

[Elizium23]

Please remember that it is not simply the introduction of a new type of civil union that we oppose. It is not merely the ability of homosexuals to have their relationships condoned. It is the redefinition of marriage into something it is fundamentally not.

These are not objections on a purely Christian basis, these are objections on an anthropological secular basis that the redefinition of marriage is bad for society. The redefinition of marriage, away from the fertile union of one man and one woman, as the fundamental building block of the family and society, is inherently dangerous, not to mention nonsensical. Now there have always been nontraditional families and changing laws will do little to stop that, but if we actively encourage inherently infertile unions and do other things, like support no-fault divorce, abortion, contraception, and all the other things that undermine strong family units then society will inevitably decay. The State has a compelling interest to encourage a man to find a woman and settle down for a long-term (preferably lifetime) commitment to start a family, bear children, and raise them lovingly, and be there for them long after the children have moved away from home. These are things that cannot be done effectively by unions that are not one man and one woman. It is against human nature to do otherwise; Christians believe that God has written this law in our hearts, and so we are among the groups who oppose the redefinition as it’s been proposed.

 

[CaliLobo]

One is not expected to take a public stand on every matter. But everyone is entitled to express a view, and if asked to vote on the matter, it would be odd indeed for a sincere Catholic to vote in favour of enabling the State to affirm and acclaim sexual relationships between persons of the same sex (ie. “gay marriage”.)

Marriage is a sexual institution. I fail to understand why the State would want to affirm and acclaim a sexual relationship between two person of the same sex. I for one have no wish to see my State do that, for by doing so, it promotes to the young and naïve that same sex sexual relationships are perfectly fine and worthy. And for what reason?

It’s not so odd when you consider Jesus’ second commandment, and that there is nothing in the Bible saying that equality should NOT be promoted. In fact, the Bible can be analyzed to conclude that we are all children of God, and that we all have equal dignity. This is what has fueled the black civil rights movement.

The State affirms and acclaims same-sex relationships to protect the people in those relationships and to ensure that they get the property, inheritance, and child custody rights that straight people get.

You have agreed multiple times that you support laws that help gays live together. My contention is, that because “civil union” does not do the job of protecting gay couples and their children well enough, and because equality is a value in the modern world that the Bible does not oppose (rather, it supports), it is therefore imperative to ensure equality for gays by extending them the right to marriage.

God doesn’t mandate that we acquiesce to the inclinations of our elected representatives either. How odd if, in a democracy, God expected his followers to stay quiet, and thus support those who seek to propagate an evil! Do you not see that the actions of the State serve to establish norms of behaviour? Why should we fail to exercise our democratic right if, by failing to do so, we enable the State to establish “gay marriage” as the the same thing as “Marriage”.

You may find this unfortunate, but that is the reality of living in a democracy and a pluralistic society. Wake up–not everyone is Christian and not everyone believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. For some couples, marriage is nothing but a piece of paper, as it doesn’t change the nature of their relationship, as they’ve been having sex and living together before marriage.

You are jumping to a conclusion by saying that by legalizing something, it establishes a norm of behavior. Cannabis is legal in some places, but it doesn’t establish a norm that smoking it is normal. Alcohol is legal in most places, but it doesn’t establish a norm that drinking it is normal. The same can be said for tobacco, prostitution, pornography, clothing-optional recreation, tattoos, piercings, motorcycle gangs, guns, dangerous sports, dangerous hobbies, everything.

In the end, those that wish to participate will, and those that don’t wish to participate will not. People are still free, sentient beings, and the State doesn’t have the power to force their behavior. You can bring a horse to water but can’t force it to drink.

Therefore, regarding extending marriage to gays, so what if it “normalizes” gay relationships? In the end, those that wish to be gay will be gay, and those that don’t wish to be gay will not be gay. Of course, what stopped gays before from being gay in the first place? And more importantly, what is stopping Christians from remaining Christian? You see, nothing changes with the extension of marriage rights to gays.

Legalization of the gay lifestyle is required to ensure peace in a pluralistic society.

Marriage is a sexual relationship - what biblical (New Testament) precedent or authority can you point to that favours, or even accepts, marriage between 2 men or 2 women? By your reasoning, Gays would only feel “welcome” in the Catholic Church if the Church would marry them! Are there no bounds to what must be accepted in the name of being “loving” towards those that want something?

Cali, we all face “eligibility criteria” in life…

There is no such authority, but Jesus’ second commandment states that we are to love each other as we love ourselves. Is it loving to deny civil rights to others? Jesus has also given us the Great Commission. But instead we are alienating gays from the church!

Most gays aren’t Christian, and the government is secular. Of course they don’t care about biblical authority. And neither is it the Christian’s place to impose the Bible on gays or the government. We know this because in the Bible, Jesus never did anything to overthrow Rome politically. He was more concerned about the spiritual battle of evangelism.

Really??..why would Jesus care that the nations affirm and acclaim **sexual **relationships between 2 men, thus leading children to think this is entirely fine? Any why would he care if his followers quietly acquiesced to all that?

Already addressed above. It’s not quiet acquiescence. It’s following Jesus’ second commandment and the Great Commission.

In the end, children who think it is fine will think it’s fine, and children who don’t think it’s fine will not.

Also, please concede that it’s possible that the Bible spoke against temple prostitution and pederasty, and NOT consensual homosexual relationships.

 

[CaliLobo]

There is nothing to say that Holy Tradition should sway with the breeze, or move with “the times” either. Tradition tends not to change a lot. Kind of like morals, and right and wrong.

So sit back and observe. Which church is running better to you? Which church is doing a better job of preaching, teaching, missions, evangelism, building community, and studying the Bible? It is clear that the Protestant Evangelical churches (with flexible tradition) are running circles around the Catholic Church (with obstinate tradition).

Why are Catholics switching to Protestantism and saying that they are experiencing Jesus for the first time?

 

[Elizium23]

So sit back and observe. Which church is running better to you? Which church is doing a better job of preaching, teaching, missions, evangelism, building community, and studying the Bible? It is clear that the Protestant Evangelical churches (with flexible tradition) are running circles around the Catholic Church (with obstinate tradition).

Why are Catholics switching to Protestantism and saying that they are experiencing Jesus for the first time?

Islam is growing too, so what? Secular humanism is growing, who cares? Atheism is on the rise. All it shows is that Satan is still active in the world in a big way. Deception of millions is nothing new under the sun.