C
Corki
Guest
Yes, and all of it is immoral.
How is it misleading? Must one list every single possible activity that is involved in the lifestyle?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
djames99
Guest
The whole of Scripture and the doctrine of the Catholic Church is dedicated to how we are to live “our style of life”.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Who cares if it’s considered offensive by Catholics? We aren’t called to evangelize to practicing Catholics. “The gay lifestyle,” when read/heard by a practicing gay person, typically reads as “druggie alcoholic sex addict f****t.” It is completely irrelevant how you mean it; no phrase does more harm to evangelization (other than maybe the WBC’s signs or the “gays caused 9/11” extreme and moronic stuff) than “the gay lifestyle.” You could get your point across easily by saying someone was “actively gay” or a “practicing gay person” with no pejorative taken by an actively gay person, but you persist in using the phrase. Why? What good is there to say “oh I didn’t intend to tell you to stay far away from my religion” if that’s the effect of your language?What is offensive about the phrase “the gay lifestyle”? Someone who is actively engaged in the practice of same-sex activity is definitely leading a gay lifestyle, I don’t know how that could be considered offensive by Catholics?
When I was in college [before I was Catholic], I told one of my friends once that I was going to get a “de [hair] cut." Where I came from, "de” had a completely neutral meaning, and its offensiveness or not came from the tone used in. Apparently, where I went to college it was considered highly offensive, and she got super-mad at me. So I stopped using it out of politeness and charity. Why is it so hard to convince others to change their language to non-offensive terms that have the exact same amount of clarity to Catholics?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
It’s no more a lifestyle than there is an “alcohol drinkers lifestyle”.Yes, and all of it is immoral.
How is it misleading? Must one list every single possible activity that is involved in the lifestyle?
M
Midwest88
Guest
I meant should not, not should - just to clear that up. “gov’t shouldn’t legislate morality”Law is morality one way or another, so the whole “gov’t should legislate morality” is rather meaningless.
W
weller2
Guest
Seriously, these countries in Africa see a growing problem with cultural imperialism from the “developed” West. I don’t have any Nigerians as close enough friends where I would feel comfortable discussing this with them, but I am very close with a couple of Ugandan families and have discussed the similar Ugandan bill with them when it first came out…and that, exactly, is the concern. They are desperately concerned that this cultural rot that has corrupted the developed world will spread and infect their society as well.
The report authored by Rev. Dr. Kapya Kaoma, an Anglican priest originally from Zambia, investigates the Pat Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, the Mormon-led Family Watch International, and the Roman Catholic Human Life International, as well as a network of Christian dominionists known as the Transformation Movement or New Apostolic Reformation. The report details ACLJ’s efforts to influence the constitution-writing process in Zimbabwe and Kenya, and the anti-LGBT and anti-reproductive justice activities of the other groups in such countries as Uganda, Malawi and Zambia.
politicalresearch.org/resources/reports/full-reports/colonizing-african-values/Although anti-abortion and anti-LGBT legislation were established by British colonial governments, U.S. Christian Right groups label human rights supporters as “neocolonialists” imposing liberal sexual mores on Africa. Hiding behind African staff, these groups have established local offices and befriended key African political and religious leaders. The charismatic beliefs shared by many African Christians and American religious conservatives has also created an opening for the U.S. right-wing to exploit.
W
weller2
Guest
I have no problem with particularly severe penalties being prescribed for those who intentionally teach heresy as orthodoxy.
The Church’s penalties are ecclesial, so any severity of punishment would not include punishment proper to the State (such as imprisonment, executions, etc.), but if the legislator of a Catholic State chose to put civil penalties on an individual convicted of the crime of heresy…that would be appropriate. Again, burning at the stake might be a bit severe in these days.
The Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, Независна Држава Хрватска, NDH; German: Unabhängiger Staat Kroatien; Italian: Stato Indipendente di Croazia), often referred to simply by the abbreviation NDH, was a World War II puppet state of Nazi Germany[4] established in part of Axis-occupied Yugoslavia. The NDH was founded on 10 April 1941, after the invasion of Yugoslavia by the Axis powers. The NDH consisted of most of modern day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with some parts of modern-day Serbia. The regime targeted Serbs, Jews and Roma people, as part of a large-scale genocide campaign in places such as the Jasenovac concentration camp.[5][6]
The Roman Catholic Church was also openly supportive of the government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_State_of_CroatiaA notable part of the racial legislation was the religious conversion laws, the implications of which were not understood by the majority of the population when they were published on 3 May 1941. The implications become clear following the July speech of the minister of education, Mile Budak, in which he declared: “We will kill one third of all Serbs. We will deport another third, and the rest of them will be forced to convert to Catholicism.” Racial laws were enforced until 3 May 1945, when they were abolished.[98]
Indeed, burning at stake was considered excessive and other methods were preferred:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petar_Brzica[Brzica] is notorious for having won a contest in which he used a curve-bladed knife, also called a srbosjek, to kill newly arrived concentration camp prisoners.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Brzica boasted of winning the contest by killing the largest number of prisoners - 1360 people.[13][14] Some other sources set Brzica’s “record” at a lower number, between 670 [15] and 1100.[16]
O
One_point
Guest
Propaganda. You would think these Africans have no opinion on homosexuality and are just waiting for Americans to tell them what to think. About influences, NOTHING comes close to the pressure American leftists have placed on Africans to get them to accept their values.
A good example is the Kenyan Constitution writing process. This process was done through gathering the views of Kenyans all over the country for a number of years, allowing them to elect representatives who then sat down to debate and write the constitution. The people clearly rejected abortion without even the church which also participated. They rejected any idea of a gay marriage and insisted on a definition of marriage only between man and woman. The first draft was defeated, then the second attempt was done taking most of those views and leaving other things. By this time, Obama was in office, then pressure was brought to bear on the constitution writers and politicians to change the two clauses banning abortion and non-traditional marriages, so that the definition of marriage was changed and the prohibition of abortion became wish washy.
If there have been any influence from the American right, it’s merely a counter and is nowhere near as great as the pressure from the left which is being conveniently labeled “human rights defenders” in that article. Of course these human rights include pressuring Africans to provide abortion. Human rights indeed! I have even seen Transparency International attempting to use African levirite marriages to falsely state that theres an African cultural basis for homosexual unions. What propaganda!
These hostilities you witness are because this practice is despised and hated by those communities. No American evangelist can produce this rejection in Africans because its already there. There was a poll done last year around Obama’s visit to Africa about whether homosexuality should be accepted. African countries beat Islamic countries in terms of most severe rejection! 98%, 96% and such figures saying No. Please read this:
pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
Do you think American evangelists produced this near universal rejection? They must be more powerful than the UN, EU, US and all those groups working in Africa for many years put together! No way. That is propaganda. The left just hates to admit that the natural and near universal human attitude is to reject homosexual practices so they come up with all sorts of explanations for the fact that virtually all non-modern and non-Westernized human societies have rejected it.
H
hu324b
Guest
Man should not be making Laws to punish people for things like this - its for God to judge - these are private sins that only harm the sinner - its not contagious - how does it harm any of us - we just don’t like it and see it as a sin - is that a good reason? I’m sure there are some who would like to kill them all or lock them up for life - that is based on hatred which will consume you and make you worse than the people you are judging. A lot of married people commit these exact same sins with their partners and then judge those who do it with the same sex and some how think they are not guilty of the same sins. You don’t have to be gay to commit the act of sodomy not to mention other sexual acts.
O
One_point
Guest
To clarify, Neither do I support jailing gays who are active in any country, but the arm-twisting approach of the western left is not the way to do it. This is not something to just shove down other societies, you must allow some kind of organic transformation of attitudes to happen first. Let it become better known or understood, let the discussion start happening slowly. When you come with pressure and threats, most of these people are unexposed to other cultures and ways of life, many uneducated and adhere to a very traditional way of looking at family concepts, they will react and over-react seeing it as neocolonial. How does that benefit gay Africans? Before this western movements started finding their way to Africa, anti-sodomy laws were not even enforced! I know that because I lived in a city where gay people did make a modest presence. No police involvement, no mob attacks, only much gossip. But now you hear all these things happening, and its done out of panic. This is not a clever approach.
C
Corki
Guest
So? I think both are lifestlyes. One is morally disordered and the other is morally neutral. But there are certainly activities that make up a lifestyle of someone who drinks alcohol in the same way that there are activities that make up aa active homosexual’s lifestyle.It’s no more a lifestyle than there is an “alcohol drinkers lifestyle”.
“Lifestyle” is not some kind of dirty word. It’s merely a descriptor.
C
Corki
Guest
So? I think both are lifestlyes. One is morally disordered and the other is morally neutral. But there are certainly activities that make up a lifestyle of someone who drinks alcohol in the same way that there are activities that make up aa active homosexual’s lifestyle.It’s no more a lifestyle than there is an “alcohol drinkers lifestyle”.
“Lifestyle” is not some kind of dirty word. It’s merely a descriptor.
W
weller2
Guest
If, per your own link, 96% of Ugandan population does not agree with homosexuality, why is gay marriage even on the table? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the gov’t would push to outlaw somethink which is not only illegal, but its legalisation has not been seriously proposed? And if proposed, it would be never passed by democratic means?Propaganda. You would think these Africans have no opinion on homosexuality and are just waiting for Americans to tell them what to think. About influences, NOTHING comes close to the pressure American leftists have placed on Africans to get them to accept their values.
Contrary, it’s a very clever approach: divide et impera.Before this western movements started finding their way to Africa, anti-sodomy laws were not even enforced! I know that because I lived in a city where gay people did make a modest presence. No police involvement, no mob attacks, only much gossip. But now you hear all these things happening, and its done out of panic. This is not a clever approach.
The entire conflict is manufactured and by taking a side (does not matter which one) you are advancing the agenda of whoever manufactured it in the first place.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Joie’s point was that the person who has a glass of wine once a week at dinner and the party-hardy type are both living an “alcohol drinker’s lifestyle.” But I highly doubt the former person would appreciate you calling them such.So? I think both are lifestlyes. One is morally disordered and the other is morally neutral. But there are certainly activities that make up a lifestyle of someone who drinks alcohol in the same way that there are activities that make up aa active homosexual’s lifestyle.
It is an extraordinarily dirty and offensive word. Just because you don’t take it as offensive does not mean it isn’t offensive. There are high school guys that use “ft" all the time and argue until they’re blue in the face that it’s not offensive, because their intent isn’t referring to it as a gay slur. And they’re wrong too. “The gay lifestyle” is literally the worst possible phrase you can use in terms of offensiveness to the community, worse even than "ft” or “d**e.” You could just as easily use “actively gay,” so why do you persist in using something that is very offensive to the community?“Lifestyle” is not some kind of dirty word. It’s merely a descriptor.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Why not?Doesn’t change the fact that gov’t shouldn’t legislate morality
What is wrong with governments legislating along moral lines? The Church is constantly speaking out in favour of and against laws which are not in line with Christian morality. Are also you saying that the Church also should keep its nose out of such things?
Are you arguing for purely secular government?
W
weller2
Guest
Um, because this strawman is central to the entire argument?You could just as easily use “actively gay,” so why do you persist in using something that is very offensive to the community?
If homosexuality is not freely chosen, then the entire moral argument against gays falls flat.
M
markomalley
Guest
If one is tempted to commit murder, society expects the individual to hold that temptation in check and not act upon it. If one is an alcoholic, one is not given a pass for constantly walking around drunk. If one is a pedophile, society still expects the individual to hold his temptation to mate with children in check.If homosexuality is not freely chosen, then the entire moral argument against gays falls flat.
Why do you wish to grant a pass to this one sinful temptation? Should everybody with sinful temptations be given a pass by society to act on their temptations?
S
SMGS127
Guest
Not true. Natural law still governs our actions, and while our attractions (or pretty much any other involuntary thoughts we have) have no bearing on our moral status, or our level of merit, or our standing in God’s eyes, etc., our behavior certainly does. While it is certainly hard to be Catholic with only SSAs, it is not the end of the world some people make it out to be. There are many celibate vocations available, and of course a person with only SSAs can still get married to someone of the opposite sex if they want to have a Catholic marriage, a partnership between two people designed to raise children in an ideal home. Physical attraction and romantic love are not required for a Catholic marriage at all, although the latter can certainly be had for members of the opposite sex even by those with no OSAs whatsoever.Um, because this strawman is central to the entire argument?
If homosexuality is not freely chosen, then the entire moral argument against gays falls flat.
In short, being gay does not give one license to violate moral law. But that still does not excuse Catholics who use very hurtful terms like “the gay lifestyle” or “homosexualist” or “f****t,” if only they simply claim ignorance of (or deny outright) its harm.
C
Catolico65
Guest
That’s man’s opinion of government, not God’s. Read the Bible. God is not impressed by separation of Church and state.Doesn’t change the fact that gov’t shouldn’t legislate morality and the Church shouldn’t support gov’t overreach in any case.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
The word “lifestyle” refers to a way of life, see the surfer lifestyle which does not include all of those who surf or motorcyclists and the biker lifestyle.So? I think both are lifestlyes. One is morally disordered and the other is morally neutral. But there are certainly activities that make up a lifestyle of someone who drinks alcohol in the same way that there are activities that make up aa active homosexual’s lifestyle.
“Lifestyle” is not some kind of dirty word. It’s merely a descriptor.
It is a descriptor which gets used wrong rather often.
Indeed.Joie’s point was that the person who has a glass of wine once a week at dinner and the party-hardy type are both living an “alcohol drinker’s lifestyle.” But I highly doubt the former person would appreciate you calling them such.
It is an extraordinarily dirty and offensive word. Just because you don’t take it as offensive does not mean it isn’t offensive. There are high school guys that use “ft" all the time and argue until they’re blue in the face that it’s not offensive, because their intent isn’t referring to it as a gay slur. And they’re wrong too. “The gay lifestyle” is literally the worst possible phrase you can use in terms of offensiveness to the community, worse even than "ft” or “d**e.” You could just as easily use “actively gay,” so why do you persist in using something that is very offensive to the community?
I don’t think it is “extraordinarily dirty and offensive word”, I just think it is dumb and incorrect usage.
Comparing it to alcoholism is rather poor as you can’t be one without ever having a drinkIf one is tempted to commit murder, society expects the individual to hold that temptation in check and not act upon it. If one is an alcoholic, one is not given a pass for constantly walking around drunk. If one is a pedophile, society still expects the individual to hold his temptation to mate with children in check.
Why do you wish to grant a pass to this one sinful temptation? Should everybody with sinful temptations be given a pass by society to act on their temptations?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.