Jesus Wants Gays to Be Happy

[stanczyk]

Your right many are much more frank. You must have missed the posting where someone asked what was wrong with premarital sex. I did not see any responses that were wishy washy in that thread in response to his question.

I get what you’re saying, and there are a lot of Catholics who view homosexually and sex outside of marriage, in a detached way, as equivalent. That’s because it’s true.

But in actual practice, there is a huge problem of Catholic intolerance toward homosexual lifestyle that you simply don’t see toward the sex-outside-of-marriage lifestyle. It seems pretty clear that it is in large part based on prejudice and homophobia.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin, so is homosexual sex. But Catholics certainly seem to have a much easier time being Christ-like to straight people who have sex outside of marriage than to homosexuals.

 

[buffalo]

I get what you’re saying, and there are a lot of Catholics who view homosexually and sex outside of marriage, in a detached way, as equivalent. That’s because it’s true.

But in actual practice, there is a huge problem of Catholic intolerance toward homosexual lifestyle that you simply don’t see toward the sex-outside-of-marriage lifestyle. It seems pretty clear that it is in large part based on prejudice and homophobia.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin, so is homosexual sex. But Catholics certainly seem to have a much easier time being Christ-like to straight people who have sex outside of marriage than to homosexuals.

One has to deal with the worst sins first. If we knock off the worst ones then we eventually tackle the lesser. Over time what happens? Society gets better.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention?

All faithful Catholics are “outraged” not at “sin,” per se, but at the masquerading of sin as virtue – whether that be sexual sin, greed, exploitation of the poor, etc. If you see more ink poured regarding homosexuality, it’s only because no other “cause” or group campaigns so vigorously against the Catholic Church for its doctrinal integrity on traditional marriage (including as that applies to heterosexuals), and against promiscuous, extra-marital sex which opposes natural law. (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc)

Haven’t seen any adulterers publish screeds lately against the Roman Church. :dts: Haven’t seen any heterosexual cohabiting couples publish hit-pieces about the oppressive nature of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If either did, they would be greeted with adamant disapproval by mainstream orthodox Catholics, not limited to clergy. And in fact, one group has done so recently, and has been opposed far more stridently by practicing Catholics & orthodox Catholic politicians than anything published by homosexuals: that group are the radical single, unmarried feminists who feel entitled to government reimbursement for the contraception which enables their unlimited fornication. (See active threads on CAF World News.)

But then, in order to notice that, a person would have to have been paying attention.

You have expressed this much better than I can. You have captured this issue very well.

DGB

 

[Corki]

I get what you’re saying, and there are a lot of Catholics who view homosexually and sex outside of marriage, in a detached way, as equivalent. That’s because it’s true.

There may be some that view it that way but they aren’t equivalent any more than assault is equivalent to murder - both are mortal sins (or felony crimes) but they are not equivalent.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I get what you’re saying, …

Okay, so you get Nate’s point. Do you get what Elizabeth502 and He Man are saying in their posts 35 and 38 respectively?
,

 

[michelleds]

I get what you’re saying, and there are a lot of Catholics who view homosexually and sex outside of marriage, in a detached way, as equivalent. That’s because it’s true.

But in actual practice, there is a huge problem of Catholic intolerance toward homosexual lifestyle that you simply don’t see toward the sex-outside-of-marriage lifestyle. It seems pretty clear that it is in large part based on prejudice and homophobia.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin, so is homosexual sex. But Catholics certainly seem to have a much easier time being Christ-like to straight people who have sex outside of marriage than to homosexuals.

although you ignored my previous post, I’ll once again point out that you have made a huge, unsupported assertion. You say that “It seems pretty clear that it is in large part based on prejudice and homophobia.” Other than bald assertion, where is the evidence for such a claim?

Furthermore, homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriage are, in fact, not the same beast. the homosexual inclination is a disordered inclination. homosexual sex can never be licit, in any circumstance. the inclination to heterosexual sex is not disordered. it is, in fact, properly ordered; however, outside of the marriage, it is illicit.

you might have noticed that Catholics get very passionate about abortion. Perhaps you’d like to try your hand at creating a false dichotomy and calling Catholics aborto-phobes, prejudiced and bigots?

Maybe you’d prefer it if Catholics just sat down and shut up about the whole homosexual sex acts issue, huh? if we did, it’d make it so much easier, right?

 

[jwinch2]

…Furthermore, homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriage are, in fact, not the same beast. The homosexual inclination is a disordered inclination. Homosexual sex can never be licit, in any circumstance. The inclination to heterosexual sex is not disordered. It is, in fact, properly ordered; however, outside of the marriage, it is illicit…

This is an important point. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[LovePatience]

although you ignored my previous post, I’ll once again point out that you have made a huge, unsupported assertion. You say that “It seems pretty clear that it is in large part based on prejudice and homophobia.” Other than bald assertion, where is the evidence for such a claim?

The evidence is that conservative Catholics generally do not get angry over other sins.There are “pet” sins.

 

[Corki]

The evidence is that conservative Catholics generally do not get angry over other sins. Look at how many support Gingrich, three time divorcee. Last I heard, divorce was a sin, and he is living in adultery and mortal sin. There are “pet” sins.

That is not true. He converted to the Church after his most recent marriage. His former marriages have been resolved.

 

[Tigg]

I get what you’re saying, and there are a lot of Catholics who view homosexually and sex outside of marriage, in a detached way, as equivalent. That’s because it’s true.

But in actual practice, there is a huge problem of Catholic intolerance toward homosexual lifestyle that you simply don’t see toward the sex-outside-of-marriage lifestyle. It seems pretty clear that it is in large part based on prejudice and homophobia.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin, so is homosexual sex. But Catholics certainly seem to have a much easier time being Christ-like to straight people who have sex outside of marriage than to homosexuals.

You really don’t see the difference between sexual sin vs the deliberate attempt to distort a sacred institution, tear down the very foundation of society and contemptuously spit on the natural law? The goal of the gay movement is not content to merely be left alone in order to indulge their lifestyle, but to demand and procure society’s acceptance and blessing upon their perversion thru SS marriage via legislation. The tolerance they demand from society will not be extended to us and they, like yourself, will call us homophobics for our defense of the moral good and for not embracing their repugnant behavior. A little different, wouldn’t you say, from co-habitation and pre-marital sex.

 

[jwinch2]

hancaquam.blogspot.com/2012/03/its-not-about-your-feelings-its-about.html

It’s not about your feelings. . .it’s about the Truth!
The Soft Tyranny of Sentimentalism
Elizabeth Scalia

If 20th-century atheism rode in on the backs of totalitarian regimes, the 21st-century has delivered unto the world an anti-God, anti-Church movement that fits seamlessly into shallow, postmodern popular culture. Having no need for uprisings and the hardware of destruction, the new fog of faith has crept in on the little cat feet of Sentimentalism and it now sits on its haunches, surveying its splendidly wrought sanctimony.

Sentimentalism is the force of feel-goodism, the means by which we may cast off the conventions of faith and casually dismiss those institutions that refuse to submit to the trending times and morals. The Sentimentalist trusts his feelings over hallowed authority or the urgings of his reason, frequently answering hard religious questions with some noble-sounding phrase like "The God I believe in wouldn’t . . . " (fill in the blank). What fits in that blank is typically some tenet of traditional faith that isn’t currently fashionable, some moral demand that pop culture considers impossible—and hence, not worth even trying. Thus the Sentimentalist, while believing he follows the inviolate voice of his conscience, is really sniffing after trends, forming his heart according to the sensus fidelium of middlebrow magazines and public radio.

A Sentimentalist cannot reconcile religious convictions—whether rooted in scripture, tradition, or cultural practice—that do not correspond with his own considered feelings, which for him are both weighty and principled. Convinced that the people he loves cannot possibly be denied anything they want by a just God, or that the same just God would not permit deformities, illness, war, childhood abuse, or any of the human sufferings common to us all, he will not participate in a Church so fault-riddled and out-of-step with a generous and enlightened generation as . . . his own.

. . .]

Sentimentalism nearly reigned supreme in the priestly formation programs of the 70’s and 80’s, thus producing a generation of pastors who casually dismiss Church teaching in favor of “following one’s heart.” This Disneyesque approach to caring for God’s children has inevitably bequeathed to us a generation or two of Catholics so sensitive, so imperiled by reason, authority, and tradition that the merest suggestion that Behavior X might be a sin or self-destructive is met with poo-poo’s and derisive giggles.

How often have you heard/read the phrases “out of step with the culture” or “throwback to pre-Vatican Two” or “turning back the clock on reform”? All of these should be a loud, glaring warning that the speaker/writer is shoveling postmodern dung and calling it Something New. The whole “Spirit of Vatican Two” project has been a long, disastrous experiment in global sentimentalism and, thankfully, the biological clock tracking this failed agenda is winding down.

Unfortunately, it will take two generations to completely purge the ectoplasm of the “Spirit” and re-catechize Catholics in the truth of the faith.

Read the whole thing: patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Soft-Tyranny-of-Sentimentalism-Elizabeth-Scalia-08-22-2011?print=1. . .it is WELL worth your time.

 

[stanczyk]

You really don’t see the difference between sexual sin vs the deliberate attempt to distort a sacred institution, tear down the very foundation of society and contemptuously spit on the natural law? The goal of the gay movement is not content to merely be left alone in order to indulge their lifestyle, but to demand and procure society’s acceptance and blessing upon their perversion thru SS marriage via legislation. The tolerance they demand from society will not be extended to us and they, like yourself, will call us homophobics for our defense of the moral good and for not embracing their repugnant behavior. A little different, wouldn’t you say, from co-habitation and pre-marital sex.

There is no attempt to distort the sacred institution of marriage. Church marriage-- the sacred institution of marriage-- will be just fine.

Extending Christian compassion and equal protection under the law to homosexual hardly amounts to “embracing” their lifestyle. And when hypocrites are willing to tolerate straight couples living out of wedlock, but are intolerant of homosexual couples, it can be because of nothing other than homophobia and prejudice.

 

[Corki]

There is no attempt to distort the sacred institution of marriage. Church marriage-- the sacred institution of marriage-- will be just fine.

Isn’t an attempt to redefine the sacred instituation of marriage as only applying to “Church marriage” a distortion? The sacred institution of marriage has been around long before the Church was founded. Even now, the Church recognizes as sacred and even Sacramental many marriages that are not “Church” marriages.

 

[lizaanne]

Jesus Wants Gays to Be Happy

And by the measure of God, true and complete happiness is being with Him in eternity. So - if Jesus wants gays to be happy, then He clearly wants them to be in heaven. And you don’t get to heaven by living in a constant state of mortal sin.

Marriage has nothing to do with this. Everyone, married or single, is called to live a chaste life. Period. We don’t need to muddle the conversation with stuff that is irrelevant to the bottom line, which is: live a holy life and then you WILL be happy, if not in this life, then truly in the next.

~Liza

 

[FaithBuild18]

Actually I take no shame in pointing out homosexual acts as particularly more sinful than heterosexual pre-marital acts. The former is a distorted, repulsive, heinous crime against God’s plan for man and woman, severing that plan in half and only focusing on man OR woman. The latter is at least ordered, though sorely misapplied and void of committment. Homosexual acts have absolutely no potential to ever be moral. Heterosexual acts are only wrong in context, and in fact are encouraged in the right context. Homosexual acts are wrong in absolute terms, heterosexual acts are only wrong in contextual terms. That creates a pretty big difference between the two, in my humble little simple-minded opinion.

St. Paul gives the solution to those who cannot control their heterosexual lust. “Let them marry” he says, “stop depriving each other.” No such advice is found for homosexuals, who are knowingly punished in the OT.

Go ahead, fire away.

 

[michelleds]

And when hypocrites are willing to tolerate straight couples living out of wedlock, but are intolerant of homosexual couples, it can be because of nothing other than homophobia and prejudice.

Once again, you are casting aspersions and making claims with no evidence. this is the third time I’ve pointed this out. you have ignored the other two times so I can only draw the conclusion that you are a dishonest debater and incapable of honesty in your arguments.

You don’t understand your own faith and the foundations of theology as evidenced by your repeated attempts to equate heterosexual sexual sin and homosexual sexual sin. You have continually ignored cogent and well-spoken opponents and continue to immaturely make your scurrilous statements.

Stop insulting good Catholics and learn to debate properly.

 

[stanczyk]

Stop insulting good Catholics and learn to debate properly.

A “good” Catholics wouldn’t be looking for ways to rationalize prejudice against homosexuals as if it was some sort of virtue. It is only for God to sit in judgment. It is for the “good Catholics” to treat all others with Christ-like compassion.

There is no way around it, no matter what your attempted rationalization, the moral duty of Catholics to extend compassion to homosexuals. The “good Catholics” should be compassionate to all sinners, not selectively compassionate to some while selectively outraged about the types of sin against which they harbor personal prejudice.

It’s a sinful lack of compassion based on prejudice and dressed up a piety. No excuse can change it. No sophistry from its proponents will changes that fact. It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

 

[michelleds]

A “good” Catholics wouldn’t be looking for ways to rationalize prejudice against homosexuals as if it was some sort of virtue. It is only for God to sit in judgment. It is for the “good Catholics” to treat all others with Christ-like compassion.

There is no way around it, no matter what your attempted rationalization, the moral duty of Catholics to extend compassion to homosexuals. The “good Catholics” should be compassionate to all sinners, not selectively compassionate to some while selectively outraged about the types of sin against which they harbor personal prejudice.

It’s a sinful lack of compassion based on prejudice and dressed up a piety. No excuse can change it. No sophistry from its proponents will changes that fact. It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Compassion leads some to try to show active homosexuals that their choices are mortal sins.

Nowhere on here have I seen evidence of this alleged prejudice, unless you mean that telling someone that having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin. The people on here who have spoken out about homosexual sex have also spoken out about premarital and extramarital sex, anal sex, contraceptives, abortion, and pornography. Where exactly are you deriving this allegation of prejudice?

extending compassion does NOT require approving of sin.

Have you read Romans? St. Paul was pretty clear about the wages of sin and all that. if I don’t want my brother or sister to follow a path that Scripture and the Church teach is wrong, then should I sit idly by? if I see you on a street corner about to step out in front of a bus, should i just watch and assume that if God wants you to live, He’ll send an angel?

 

[LovePatience]

Furthermore, homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside of marriage are, in fact, not the same beast. the homosexual inclination is a disordered inclination. homosexual sex can never be licit, in any circumstance. the inclination to heterosexual sex is not disordered. it is, in fact, properly ordered; however, outside of the marriage, it is illicit.

The important distinction is between venial and mortal sin. That is where the consequences are.

 

[LovePatience]

Compassion leads some to try to show active homosexuals that their choices are mortal sins.

Nowhere on here have I seen evidence of this alleged prejudice, unless you mean that telling someone that having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin. The people on here who have spoken out about homosexual sex have also spoken out about premarital and extramarital sex, anal sex, contraceptives, abortion, and pornography. Where exactly are you deriving this allegation of prejudice?

There is a lack of compassion. Homosexuals have high suicide rates. Society has a role to play in this; many studies have shown that the rate of gay suicide goes up when they “come out” to a parent who is disapproving or when they live in a conservative area versus a liberal area. One example is the frequency of gay teen suicides in Michelle Bachmann’s area.

According to the Cathechism,

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

If we compare homosexuals and heterosexuals, it seems the “mortality” of the sin may be diminished in homosexuals because there is greater suffering/trial in leading that lifestyle than in leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The question as to where the compassion is to show those hellbound non homosexuals their sins exists. Also, there is no teaching from Jesus that this sort of compassion is actually a form of compassion. In fact, Jesus said often that we should not judge. The only people that he judged were religious hypocrites - the prostitutes, adulterers, he protected from religious hypocrites. The only times he got angry was for the honor and respect due to God - there is no example of him getting angry due to sexual sins.