Jesus Wants Gays to Be Happy

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And finally, do you and your ilk not find it the epitome of irony to come on to CAF, call us names, tell us we’re homophobic, judgmental, biased, prejudiced and just plain mean, AND THEN TELL US THAT ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE?!?
Claiming to be a Christian while heaping wrath and judgment upon homosexuals is religious hypocrisy-- perhaps the worst kind of sin. Jesus rebuked hypocrites, those who claimed to be holy but threw stones at sinners. Calling out religious hypocrites for their homophobia and prejudice is simply telling to truth, and following in the tradition of Christ to save the sternest rebukes for those who falsely claim to be holy.
 
The issue about feelings vs. truth is not about Catholic doctrine. It is about personality type. .
I beleive the discussion was in regards to Feelings vs Truth. What you brought up was Feelings vs Thinking. Not the same thing.

A person can things about false things. So thinking is not the same things as Truth.

Thus, personality types do not come into play. A person can feel that 2+2 should equal more than 4, but no amout of feelings will make it so.
 
I never said that the category of eunuchs was limited to those of physical deformities, nor does the author of the page I cited. As I mentioned, and as I will mention again, the definition of eunuch varied, but did not in any way mean people supposedly “born” with “same-sex attraction.” There was zero acceptance of such a notion in the ancient world – the very audience to which Mt 19:12 is addressed. Further, the author of the page in question makes the important point about the context of marriage (which could only be, and have been, between males and females) as a further limitation on this text from the gospel of Matthew.

There is zero authentic Catholic support for your positon. Zero. That includes the Fathers of the Church. Please stop trying to represent otherwise to those reading this discussion forum.
Yes, you did. You said that the category of eunuchs was limited to impotence.

You are arguing a straw man as no one ever argued that this has to do with same-sex marriage. Perhaps you could show where someone did?

Even the author of the piece you posted interpreted sees Church Father Clement of Alexandria’s quotation for what it is. “In this case, that the word eunuch was understood by Clement of Alexandria to mean a person who doesn’t desire women such as the alleged temperament of a male homosexual.” - from the piece that you posted. :rolleyes:
 
Claiming to be a Christian while heaping wrath and judgment upon homosexuals is religious hypocrisy-- perhaps the worst kind of sin. Jesus rebuked hypocrites, those who claimed to be holy but threw stones at sinners. Calling out religious hypocrites for their homophobia and prejudice is simply telling to truth, and following in the tradition of Christ to save the sternest rebukes for those who falsely claim to be holy.
One more time.
  1. the Catholic Church, which you claim to be a member of, says that homosexual sex, same sex activities, is wrong and can never be right.
  2. stating that teaching is not, in any way, “heaping wrath and judgement” on someone.
  3. you are now calling us “religious hypocrites” in addition to homophobes, prejudiced and other nasty names.
  4. Jesus Christ did not and would not have said that engaging in homosexual sex was okay.
 
The issue is that while the media wants to hog-tie teen suicide and teen bullying together, there is no quantitative support for such a position.
I checked your link, and it didn’t work. There is quantitative support for the link between bullying and suicide. Pretty much every study on this topic says the same thing.

“Bullying, Depression, and Suicidality in Adolescents.” Klomek, A. B. Marrocco, F. Kleinman, M. Schonfeld, I. S. Gould, M. S. JOURNAL- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY. 2007, VOL 46; NUMB 1, pages 40-49
Literature review excerpt:
Studies reporting on the relationship between bullying and suicidal ideation usually find that victims manifest higher levels of suicidal ideation than nonvictims ( [Rigby and Slee, 1999] and [van der Wal et al., 2003]). Other studies have found an increased prevalence of suicidal ideation among both victims and bullies ( [Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999] and [Roland, 2002]). Most studies assessing the relationship of bullying and suicide attempts have found that victims were more likely to attempt suicide than those not involved ( [Cleary, 2000], [Eisenberg et al., 2003] and [Mills et al., 2004]). Kim and colleagues (2005) were the first to demonstrate an increased risk of suicide attempts among both victims and bullies.
Other than this, I never suggested that we should say"if you really want to/feel like you were born that way…you should just do what you want." And I’m not even going to reply to a statement directed to “me and my ilk.” How condescending. :rolleyes:

I, and many others, think that the hypocrisy in the movement is hurting it. I suggest that you read the article, “Do We Have a Pro-Life ‘Good War’ and an Anti-SSM ‘Bad War’?” nationalreview.com/corner/284483/do-we-have-pro-life-good-war-and-anti-ssm-bad-war-david-french Hardly a liberal media bias issue when even the conservative media sees the hypocrisy? 😉
I’ve seen this reality on college campuses. Speak to conservative college students and you’ll generally find enthusiastic pro-life support and deep ambivalence about — if not outright hostility to — preserving traditional marriage. Younger conservatives want to talk about life. They don’t want to talk about sexuality. In the larger culture, support for life is growing, with the percentage of Americans identifying as pro-life now in rough parity (and sometimes exceeding) the percentage of Americans calling themselves pro-choice. And while there’s no question that the media has long exaggerated public support for same-sex marriage (marriage amendments keep winning in state after state), there’s also no question that general polling trends are decidedly negative.
I agree with Tim’s explanations, but I’d like to add another. After more than a generation of no-fault divorce, the very concept of “traditional marriage” is seeping out of our cultural DNA, replaced, sadly, by the core conviction that marriage is no longer a covenant, but a contract — specifically a contract for the fulfillment and enjoyment of adults. Our churches not only acquiesced in this cultural change, many of them continue to facilitate it even as they argue against same-sex marriage. There are many taboos in the modern evangelical church, and one of them is “judging” anyone’s divorce.** Even wayward and unfaithful spouses will rationalize their betrayals through long lists of real and imagined slights, and church discipline for adultery and divorce is largely a thing of the past.
What kind of message does this send? Imagine the incredulity of a Christian college student — themselves too often the product of a broken home, where they had a front-row seat to their parents’ contentious festival of self-love — watching a thrice-married fellow congregant rail against gay marriage. It just doesn’t add up**.
May his soul rest in peace. Let’s look at Jamiel Terry, Randall Terry’s dead gay son, who initially worked with Randall Terry on legislation to prohibit same sex civil unions.

This is an article on beliefnet.
Do you believe your homosexuality is part of your genetic makeup?
I believe sexuality can be tampered with. I do believe there are people who are genetically predisposed to be attracted to the same sex. But sexuality can depend on environment. There’s no way I would have come out if my parents had stayed married. Because I wouldn’t have gone down the questioning of my identity, I wouldn’t have gone down that path if they had stayed married. That was the trigger for me to come out, not the trigger that I was gay.
How did that affect that decision?
It made me question everything I had been raised with. It made me question truth, it made me question morality. Before that, I would have said indefinitely that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Now I’m like, it’s kind of good sayings and I’m sure that God had something to do with it, but it was written by men, so it can be fallible. As for the divorce, in my eyes, he was doing something wrong. So I was like, if he’s doing something wrong and it’s making him happy, and God knows his heart, then God knows my heart, and I want to be happy too.
 
General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
 
I checked your link, and it didn’t work. There is quantitative support for the link between bullying and suicide. Pretty much every study on this topic says the same thing.

“Bullying, Depression, and Suicidality in Adolescents.” Klomek, A. B. Marrocco, F. Kleinman, M. Schonfeld, I. S. Gould, M. S. JOURNAL- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY. 2007, VOL 46; NUMB 1, pages 40-49
Literature review excerpt:
The Live Science link provided by michelleds was broken but easy to look up. Here it is:

Is There a Gay Teen Suicide Epidemic?

Bullying is bad and nobody is suggesting otherwise. However, the studies suggest a correlation, not causation, that bullying causes teens to commit suicide.

Bullying-Suicide Link Explored in New Study by Researchers at Yale July 2008
Researchers at Yale School of Medicine have found signs of an apparent connection between bullying, being bullied and suicide in children, according to a new review of studies from 13 countries published in the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health.

but

The way the studies were designed made it impossible for researchers to determine conclusively whether bullying leads to suicide. In addition, the authors report that most of the studies failed to take into account the influence of factors like gender, psychiatric problems and a history of suicide attempts.

From this Correlation or Causation exercise, one can see that headlines of articles in the popular media often misrepresent the research on which they are based. Many of the headlines on left leaning sources suggest causal relationships when, upon closer reading of the article itself, one finds that the research was correlational in nature, and the headline is not justified.
You might also read this abstract of a study: Young, Gay, and Suicidal: Dynamic Nominalism and the Process of Defining a Social Problem with Statistics by Tom Waidzunas from the Department of Sociology in Northwestern University

Since 1989, widely circulating statistics on gay teen suicide in the United States have acted as catalysts for institutional reforms, scientific research, and the creation of an identity category “gay youth.” Yet these numbers originated not from a scientific research study but as a risk estimates developed by a social worker and published in a government document. Many people within the public took up these numbers as scientific facts, attributing their author the status of scientific researcher. In effect, the numbers became “black boxed,” often traveling without citation. Drawing on Ian Hacking’s “dynamic nominalist” perspective, this article utilizes interviews with the author of these statistics and other key claimants, along with textual analysis, to trace the origins, uptake, and effects of these figures. While making vital policy contributions, the numbers have led to some ironic consequences including the fostering of gay youth identification with suicide as a potential correlate of their identity and the potential antigay redeployment of decontextualized numbers. They have also led to a reaction in the form of “resilience” narratives.

It is not surprising that gay activists overstate the number of teens who commit suicide, attributing it to bullying. Why? Could it be because of their own distress over their sexual orientation? Readers need to divide facts and agenda driven opinion.

Unfortunately, social media, the craze of this age, provides an additional vehicle for bullying. In this linked article Social Media Aids Bullying in Adolescent Suicides, according to researcher Stephen Roggenbaum of the University of South Florida:

"Although bullying might have been assumed to be the reason for those suicides, that assumption is incorrect. The factors influencing suicide are so dynamic there is not just one cause.

There is no link between bullying and suicide,” he said. “In an effort to report those cases, it seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back – not necessarily the reason for the suicide. Instead, the effects of bullying are the factors leading to suicide. Bullying can be a contributing factor leading to anxiety, depression, loneliness, and low self- esteem, he said. Those are the risks of suicide."
 
What bugs me is one gay teen kills himself and the media flips.

Do you have any idea how many straight teen males kill themselves each year?
 
I, and many others, think that the hypocrisy in the movement is hurting it. I suggest that you read the article, “Do We Have a Pro-Life ‘Good War’ and an Anti-SSM ‘Bad War’?” nationalreview.com/corner/284483/do-we-have-pro-life-good-war-and-anti-ssm-bad-war-david-french Hardly a liberal media bias issue when even the conservative media sees the hypocrisy? 😉
And what was the close or conclusion of the article?

The battle over marriage, frankly, needs to broaden. We shouldn’t necessarily speak of “defending traditional marriage” when traditional marriage has already been mortally wounded by no-fault divorce. Perhaps we should instead emphasize marriage restoration over marriage defense. What do social conservatives want? To restore marriage to its rightful place and definition in our culture (which includes defining it as a covenant, not a contract) and to repair what is broken. To be sure, making and winning such an argument is an immense cultural challenge, but as the pro-life movement has demonstrated, courage, persistence, and truth can turn the tide.

It is not saying social conservatives should just roll over on SS"M." The Pope includes SS"M" in the culture of death, which covers, abortion, contraception, euthanasia and same sex ‘marriage.’
May his soul rest in peace. Let’s look at Jamiel Terry, Randall Terry’s dead gay son, who initially worked with Randall Terry on legislation to prohibit same sex civil unions.
This is an article on beliefnet.
So, what is the point of your linked article from beliefnet, a Christian site providing “a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness to people of all spiritual traditions.”

We Catholics are aware that there are Christian denominations that have set aside the teaching on same sex relationships / acts. Recall that the Catholic Church battled against divorce and no-fault divorce, but the dominant Protestant and secular forces were the victors in the civil law arena on these issues.

Are you suggesting that the moral teaching on same sex relationships / acts should be revised by the Catholic Church as these Christian denominations have done, as a show of compassion to our homosexual brothers and sisters? Perhaps, if you are Catholic as you say you are, and not the cave in type, you might read and contemplate on what the OP provided in Post 8.
,
 
What bugs me is one gay teen kills himself and the media flips.

Do you have any idea how many straight teen males kill themselves each year?
I am not sure if you are directing this to me and if your question is a rhetorical one. Anyway, I don’t believe there is data that provides an answer to your question.

But the number and rate being used by pro-gay sources on homosexual teen suicide, repeated and sensationalized in the media, are unreliable. That did not prevent the Obama administration in policy formulation for public schools with the appointment of the openly gay safety school czar Kevin Jennings, who resigned in 2011 in disgrace. Mr. Jennings focused on anti-gay bullying policy (surprise ?!) in schools instead of bullying in general, and the introduction of gay-friendly books as required reading for young children.

michelleds provided in Post 71 the the National Institute on Mental Health link, which listed risk factors, without category of death by suicide by sexual orientation, much less from bullying. The following is from CDC data as of October 2009, with information consistent with that from NIMH.

For youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death. It results in approximately 4400 lives lost each year. The top three methods used in suicides of young people include firearm (46%), suffocation (37%), and poisoning (8%).

Deaths from youth suicide are only part of the problem. More young people survive suicide attempts than actually die. A nationwide survey of youth in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the United States (U.S.) found that 15% of students reported seriously considering suicide, 11% reported creating a plan, and 7% reporting trying to take their own life in the 12 months preceding the survey. Each year, approximately 149,000 youth between the ages of 10 and 24 receive medical care for self-inflicted injuries at Emergency Departments across the U.S.

Suicide affects all youth, but some groups are at higher risk than others. Boys are more likely than girls to die from suicide. Of the reported suicides in the 10 to 24 age group, 84% of the deaths were males and 16% were females. Girls, however, are more likely to report attempting suicide than boys. Cultural variations in suicide rates also exist, with Native American/Alaskan Native and Hispanic youth having the highest rates of suicide-related fatalities. A nationwide survey of youth in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the U.S. found Hispanic youth were more likely to report attempting suicide than their black and white, non-Hispanic peers.

Several factors can put a young person at risk for suicide. However, having these risk factors does not always mean that suicide will occur.

Risk factors:

History of previous suicide attempts
Family history of suicide
History of depression or other mental illness
Alcohol or drug abuse
Stressful life event or loss
Easy access to lethal methods
Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others
Incarceration

Straight teen suicides do not capture the fascination of national media. But gay teen suicides land the front cover of Newsweek.

It has been said before in this forum, the suffering and perceived rights of homosexuals are somehow always portrayed as more special than those of heterosexuals.

And in this thread, it seems that it is being proposed by two posters that since Catholics are giving a pass to heterosexuals engaging in pre-marital sex, they should also do the same to homosexuals having sex! As if the first premise is a given, and speaking of the immorality of homosexual acts is necessarily a manifestation of religious hypocrisy.
,
 
If I may speak from personal experience for a moment:

I went to a Christian school. I’ve seen a lot of the gay bullying going on. There’s three things that really struck me about it:

(1) I would say the majority of those targeted were not homosexual. I was both a target myself and friends with several who were targeted. The reason for me? Not showing sufficient interest in the opposite sex/not having enough boyfriends and not appearing to want one. Others I knew were targeted for displaying “feminine” or “masculine” traits (such as a guy enjoying fashion), or for having lots of opposite-sex friends.

(2) The “homosexual” label was applied based on attraction, rather than action, by both sides. This led to the stigmatizing of people who experienced same sex attraction, even if they were completely celibate. Young adults experiencing same sex attraction ended up being left to find a path on their own, afraid to admit their struggles.

(3) Even with the openly gay people, there were lines crossed that were clearly inappropriate. Theft/vandalism, threats of violence…there is no belief on which these are appropriate. Even just calling someone a derogatory name is inappropriate.

The way I figure, you are free to express your beliefs. If in an appropriate type of relationship with someone, you are free to tell them that you think their behavior is sinful. Once they are aware of your beliefs, however, it is neither helpful nor appropriate to keep reminding them. And it is of course never appropriate to insult or harass someone.
 
Eunuchs were frequently homosexual in ancient times. To be more precise, in antiquity eunuchs were considered, along with virginal women, to be part of a “third sex.” It is anachronistic to try to apply modern notions of sexuality and gender to antiquity.
Actually, re-read my posts, as well as the page I cited. There are other sources as well which elaborate on what eunuchs were, how they were employed, and what their social status was. Again, there was no sense that people who engaged in homosexual behavior --whether those did or did not include the varied categories and umbrella term, “eunuchs” – ***were “born that way.” *** That is what is utterly anachronistic relative to the ancient Mediterraneean (biblical) audience.

Nor were members of the Roman military, and the ancient Greek intelligentsia, both of which engaged in homosexual behavior, considered to be “born that way.”

Anyone who was classified as a “born” eunuch would not have been one who merely engaged in homosexual behavior. ‘From birth’ referred to physical conditions which were many, but all of which prevented natural marriage. The phrase did not refer to anything approximating “orientation,” “attraction,” “identity,” etc., which are modern terms and concepts and not the ways in which the ancients discussed & understood sexuality (according to ancient documents).

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct once again the anachronism being inappropriately bandied about.

Have a nice day. 🙂
 
Claiming to be a Christian while heaping wrath and judgment upon homosexuals is religious hypocrisy-- perhaps the worst kind of sin. Jesus rebuked hypocrites, those who claimed to be holy but threw stones at sinners. Calling out religious hypocrites for their homophobia and prejudice is simply telling to truth, and following in the tradition of Christ to save the sternest rebukes for those who falsely claim to be holy.
I find your post to be very judgmental and unfair to those who oppose homosexuality. You assume much of that which you cannot know.

Secularists would say we judge harshly because for them, the world is all there is. How dare we judge against actions that go with the flow of modern society? It is not religious hypocrisy to wish for our brother the greatest good – eternal life. You are confused with passing judgment vs admonishing the sinner (a spiritual work of mercy.) Or perhaps you are not quite convinced the Church is right in her teaching. Christian discernment of sinful actions is a work of the Spirit and we are called to defend the good. We cannot say “you are going to hell for your actions”, but we MUST say, “your actions are seriously sinful and contrary to the divine and eternal law.”
 
I find your post to be very judgmental and unfair to those who oppose homosexuality. You assume much of that which you cannot know.
Then you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the debate. I oppose homosexuality just as I oppose all sin.

A Christian must treat homosexuals with the same compassion as any other sinner. Attempting to argue for anything less is indefensible.

Rebuking Christian hypocrites for their poor treatment of homosexuals it right and just. As has been wisely pointed out above by the intelligent poster LovePatience, Jesus was compassionate to all manner of sexual sinners, including homosexuals, but sternly rebuked those religious hypocrites who falsely claimed to be holy while attacking sinners.

Recall that he who has not sinned should cast the first stone, before you throw stones at homosexuals.
 
Actually, re-read my posts, as well as the page I cited. There are other sources as well which elaborate on what eunuchs were, how they were employed, and what their social status was. Again, there was no sense that people who engaged in homosexual behavior --whether those did or did not include the varied categories and umbrella term, “eunuchs” – ***were “born that way.” *** That is what is utterly anachronistic relative to the ancient Mediterraneean (biblical) audience.
The above statement is false. The prevailing attitude of the time was that sexual attraction, whether homosexual or heterosexual, was due to natural inclination.
Nor were members of the Roman military, and the ancient Greek intelligentsia, both of which engaged in homosexual behavior, considered to be “born that way.”
Again, this is false.
Anyone who was classified as a “born” eunuch would not have been one who merely engaged in homosexual behavior. ‘From birth’ referred to physical conditions which were many, but all of which prevented natural marriage. The phrase did not refer to anything approximating “orientation,” “attraction,” “identity,” etc., which are modern terms and concepts and not the ways in which the ancients discussed & understood sexuality (according to ancient documents).
This is also false. Your argument is simply incoherent. You are saying that eunuch couldn’t be homosexual because the ancients had no concept of homosexual attraction, yet engaged in homosexual behavior on a mass and institutional scale? Your argument is not only false but internally contradictory.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct once again the anachronism being inappropriately bandied about.

Have a nice day. 🙂
You have failed to correct me on anything, but rather you have made clear your own lack of knowledge about the subject.
 
Actually, re-read my posts, as well as the page I cited. There are other sources as well which elaborate on what eunuchs were, how they were employed, and what their social status was. Again, there was no sense that people who engaged in homosexual behavior --whether those did or did not include the varied categories and umbrella term, “eunuchs” – ***were “born that way.” *** That is what is utterly anachronistic relative to the ancient Mediterraneean (biblical) audience.

Nor were members of the Roman military, and the ancient Greek intelligentsia, both of which engaged in homosexual behavior, considered to be “born that way.”

Anyone who was classified as a “born” eunuch would not have been one who merely engaged in homosexual behavior. ‘From birth’ referred to physical conditions which were many, but all of which prevented natural marriage. The phrase did not refer to anything approximating “orientation,” “attraction,” “identity,” etc., which are modern terms and concepts and not the ways in which the ancients discussed & understood sexuality (according to ancient documents).

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct once again the anachronism being inappropriately bandied about.

Have a nice day. 🙂
The quote from Church Father Clement of Alexandria quite clearly states the “true eunuch” is able but “unwilling” to have sex with women. He was trying to clear away that misconception that it was only “physical conditions” and not personal desire that characterized eunuchs.
 
I am not sure if you are directing this to me and if your question is a rhetorical one. Anyway, I don’t believe there is data that provides an answer to your question.

But the number and rate being used by pro-gay sources on homosexual teen suicide, repeated and sensationalized in the media, are unreliable. That did not prevent the Obama administration in policy formulation for public schools with the appointment of the openly gay safety school czar Kevin Jennings, who resigned in 2011 in disgrace. Mr. Jennings focused on anti-gay bullying policy (surprise ?!) in schools instead of bullying in general, and the introduction of gay-friendly books as required reading for young children.

michelleds provided in Post 71 the the National Institute on Mental Health link, which listed risk factors, without category of death by suicide by sexual orientation, much less from bullying. The following is from CDC data as of October 2009, with information consistent with that from NIMH.

For youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death. It results in approximately 4400 lives lost each year. The top three methods used in suicides of young people include firearm (46%), suffocation (37%), and poisoning (8%).

Deaths from youth suicide are only part of the problem. More young people survive suicide attempts than actually die. A nationwide survey of youth in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the United States (U.S.) found that 15% of students reported seriously considering suicide, 11% reported creating a plan, and 7% reporting trying to take their own life in the 12 months preceding the survey. Each year, approximately 149,000 youth between the ages of 10 and 24 receive medical care for self-inflicted injuries at Emergency Departments across the U.S.

Suicide affects all youth, but some groups are at higher risk than others. Boys are more likely than girls to die from suicide. Of the reported suicides in the 10 to 24 age group, 84% of the deaths were males and 16% were females. Girls, however, are more likely to report attempting suicide than boys. Cultural variations in suicide rates also exist, with Native American/Alaskan Native and Hispanic youth having the highest rates of suicide-related fatalities. A nationwide survey of youth in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the U.S. found Hispanic youth were more likely to report attempting suicide than their black and white, non-Hispanic peers.

Several factors can put a young person at risk for suicide. However, having these risk factors does not always mean that suicide will occur.

Risk factors:

History of previous suicide attempts
Family history of suicide
History of depression or other mental illness
Alcohol or drug abuse
Stressful life event or loss
Easy access to lethal methods
Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others
Incarceration

Straight teen suicides do not capture the fascination of national media. But gay teen suicides land the front cover of Newsweek.

It has been said before in this forum, the suffering and perceived rights of homosexuals are somehow always portrayed as more special than those of heterosexuals.

And in this thread, it seems that it is being proposed by two posters that since Catholics are giving a pass to heterosexuals engaging in pre-marital sex, they should also do the same to homosexuals having sex! As if the first premise is a given, and speaking of the immorality of homosexual acts is necessarily a manifestation of religious hypocrisy.
,
Do you realize that the studies to establish these factors suffer from the same “problems” as the studies to establish the link between bullying and suicide? Or that listing these factors is not meant to say other factors do not play a role? Anyways, “stressful life event or loss” would seem to be inclusive of bullying.
 
The above statement is false. The prevailing attitude of the time was that sexual attraction, whether homosexual or heterosexual, was due to natural inclination.
The prevailing attitude was that attraction was meaningless, given the covenant required of all who adhered to Jesus’ words, to whom Mt 19:12 was addressed. It was also the prevailing attitude that sexual behavior was not determined or deterministic, regardless of “circumstances of birth.” But even that is immaterial, because there is no credible Catholic or Christian non-Catholic scripture scholar who supports the contention of any person on this thread that Mt 19:12 refers to “born homosexuality.” That is a modern, psychological (not physical, which is the world in which the ancients “dwelt”), post-Freudian concept which has no authenticity in the audience of those to whom this passage was addressed.
You are saying that eunuch couldn’t be homosexual because the ancients had no concept of homosexual attraction, yet engaged in homosexual behavior on a mass and institutional scale?
No, I didn’t say that. I said (again) that the word eunuchs had several meanings during the time period in which Mt19:12 was written, and according to knowledgeable scripture scholars who have studied NT and OT for years, in the anthropological/cultural context necessary to understand the application of this passage, the phrase “There are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb” is not synonymous with men or women who were sexually attracted to their own sex (supposedly “from birth”). There existed the concept, rather, of those who had various inborn conditions which restricted them from covenantal heterosexual marriage. That most often referred to physical incapacities, not emotional “orientation.”

It’s not only important to learn your faith, as michelle has reminded you; it’s especially important to be knowledgeable about history.

Homosexuality was considered a chosen (and forbidden) behavior in Judaism, regardless of whether one was or was not primarily attracted to the same sex. The great majority of Roman political officials and military officials who engaged in it were heterosexuals, and most were married to women. Ditto for the Greeks who engaged in it. Judaism distinguished itself from such practices, and thus Jesus, a Jew, could never have and would never have approved of the practice.
 
Then you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the debate. I oppose homosexuality just as I oppose all sin.

A Christian must treat homosexuals with the same compassion as any other sinner. Attempting to argue for anything less is indefensible.

Rebuking Christian hypocrites for their poor treatment of homosexuals it right and just. As has been wisely pointed out above by the intelligent poster LovePatience, Jesus was compassionate to all manner of sexual sinners, including homosexuals, but sternly rebuked those religious hypocrites who falsely claimed to be holy while attacking sinners.

Recall that he who has not sinned should cast the first stone, before you throw stones at homosexuals.
Oh, please show me posts which would indicate we are religious hypocrites as you charge.

Jesus, as compassionate healer, challenged and drew sinners out of their sin by their recognition and acknowledgment of their own wrong doing in light of the moral good. He never affirmed them in their sins. True compassion is shown for the condition from which they suffer when empathy is extended for those who are wounded and suffer from a disordered nature. True compassion must always distinguish between right and wrong and a “live and let live” attitude is a false compassion not caring enough to show the sinner the moral order as ordained by God.
 
…but I am against gay marriagebecause that would FORCE our Church along with every other church in te country to marry gays. This is why us Catholics get worked up about gay marriage not because we dont understand them. If the state was just going to give out a certificate saying gays were married, i wouldnt like it because its just promoting more immorality in our culture but i wouldnt make a big deal of it because i would know that according to my faith it isnt a real marriage.
How does this FORCE the church to marry gay couples?

I mean, divorce is legal. And it doesn’t FORCE the church to allow the divorce or annul the marriage does it? We do as you already say you would do. Sure, they are divorced according to the state. But we KNOW they are still married. Right???

Abortion is legal. I don’t see Catholic hospitals FORCED to carry out abortion. We know they are legal, but we REALLY know murder was allowed.

It does make it harder to live in a world of opposing beliefs. But I don’t recall we were told it was going to be easy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top