LGBT equality same as black equality

[RobbyS]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic. Again. You miss the point.

All of that would be pertinent to the conversation if we were talking about sodomites. I was under the impression that we were talking about same-sex attracted folks. Now, same-sex attracted folks can be sodomites. So can opposite-sex attracted folks. But neither are sodomites by virtue of their attraction to one sex or the other. If two same-sex attracted folks are in a relationship, they do not engage in sodomy unless they actually engage in a sodomitical act. The fact of their relationship does not necessitate the commission of any particular act any more than a dating man and woman are necessarily fornicating simply because they’re in a dating relationship.

But here’s the problem: you assume that two same-sex attracted people in a relationship are sodomites. You assume that every same-sex attracted person desires not a loving relationship with another person of the same sex but that they necessarily desire to commit sexual sin by virtue of their same-sex attraction.

Now, to bring all this back to the thread title, I do not believe that LGBT equality is exactly the same as black equality for a number of reasons I could get into. But I cannot help but think that when a whole group of folks in a particular out-group are characterized as necessarily desiring what is evil that some sort of bias is being exhibited by the literal demonizing of the out-group. And one bias need not be identical to another bias in order to be analogously destructive, demeaning or dehumanizing.

Your use of the language of disease is telling in this context. Indeed, it looks like you believe that same-sex attracted folks are fundamentally diseased in a way that opposite-sex attracted folks are not. They’re fundamentally different, in other words: that’s what I hear you saying. I hear you saying that opposite-sex attracted folks are healthy. They can desire good things, though they may desire them inappropriately. They can turn rotten, sure. But same-sex attracted folks are rotten from the start–they can only desire bad things in bad ways. They’re different. They’re moral monsters out to corrupt opposite-sex attracted folks and all the good things opposite-sex attracted folks desire.

Since that’s what you seem to be saying, it would be hard for me to imagine that you have a sense that the human dignity of a same-sex attracted person is equal to that of an opposite-sex attracted person.

I wouldn’t expect him to. But then again, that’s not what I was talking about… I was talking about same-sex attracted folks. But your default position is that all same-sex attracted folks are or desire to be active sodomites. Such a position is shameful.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I think you dismiss the option that same sex attraction is a disorder. They are not culpable for it, anymore than a deaf person is culpable. But it is a disorder. And the sodomite is like the deaf people who denounce any among them who wants to hear!

 

[RobbyS]

The point of marriage is for the procreation of children. That is the whole reason socially to get married. In the Catholic sense it is to have children and raise them as a member of the Body of Christ that is the Church. Now with couples of the same gender, procreation is inherently impossible. Where the individuals involved are of the opposite gender procreation is always possible. Therefore it is always good when it is between a man and a woman and never good when it is other than that. I hope that this helps explain it for you.

And let us not forget that marriage is an institution that is designed not for the sake of two persons who want exclusive rights to sex, but for the purpose of providing a safe environment for children. Primarily these are children of their own issue, although the children may be adopted. and it is further recognized that children benefit more from having a father and mother, the exceptions proving the rule.

But any argument is really futile, because same-sex marriage is really just a devise to discredit monogamous marriage, especially as understood in western society. It is as much as threat to monogamy as the polygamy practiced by the 19th century Mormons.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Mark,

You say you are not defending Sodomy. I understand. Just answer this simple question then, yes/no…

A male/male relationship that sodomizes is acceptable or not acceptable to you…without qualifiers.

E-prime is an attempt to eliminate prejudice in speaking and not meant to do anything other than clarify feelings rather than judgement. It is like writing poetry using syllabic formula, pentameter or the like. It is just something that is used and not anything other than that. In this context…

Sodomy is good
Sodomy is evil

as opposed to

I like sodomy
Sodomy makes me feel…whatever

Concerning your premises concerning sodomy…a simple

two men, commit sodomy, is it sinful or not…without any outside parameters. Just the act itself…no issue about a committed relationship, one night stand, love, or any other parameter…just the act…

So, in reference to your map…my map…I am driving…I see a deer…that deer is crossing the road…

I see a need to stop and avoid the deer and protect the life of the deer
I see a chance to get dinner without a gun, hit the deer, take it home

The deer is the deer…my map determines my actions

I see two men, engaging in sodomy…

I see a sinful act

What do you see?

Since this thread is about LGBT and race…I see LGBT and do not equate that to race.

Sodomy itself is sinful, a relationship that it occurs in is not necessarily sinful unless the relationship is based on something sinful.

Don’t forget the “200 animals” myth

• conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth

Shalom
God bless

Did you actually just cite conservapedia?

 

[mangy_dog]

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

One is a human rights racial issue.

The [L-G-B-T] actualization- is an unnatural, immoral, abnormal evil. It’s tennets are a doctrine of demons and it’s public agenda a manisfestation of Lucifer’s web of deceit and lies.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

The question you have to ask yourself is can two people of the same sex share a relationship similar to that of a man and woman. The answer is yes. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs within our humanity. It is as sinful as when a man lusts over his own wife. As Jesus says to lust over a woman is to commit adultry in your heart. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are sinful. You just think that homosexuality is totally perverse and disregard the true intamacy that two people of the same sex share. That intamacy is not sinful. Rather, It is the lust of any sexuality that is sinful. So you should put your self on the same level of sin as a homosexual because this lust is contained within you; and if you say it isn’t I will never believe you because I wasn’t born into this world yesterday.

Condemn homosexuality, condemn your own sexuality.

 

[fix]

The question you have to ask yourself is can two people of the same sex share a relationship similar to that of a man and woman. The answer is yes. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs within our humanity. It is as sinful as when a man lusts over his own wife. As Jesus says to lust over a woman is to commit adultry in your heart. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are sinful. You just think that homosexuality is totally perverse and disregard the true intamacy that two people of the same sex share. That intamacy is not sinful. Rather, It is the lust of any sexuality that is sinful. So you should put your self on the same level of sin as a homosexual because this lust is contained within you; and if you say it isn’t I will never believe you because I wasn’t born into this world yesterday.

Condemn homosexuality, condemn your own sexuality.

Sorry, but your language is too imprecise to be accurate. The inclination toward homosexuality is objectively disordered. That is not a sin but it is not ordered toward the good. Heterosexuality is not disordered and is ordained by our Lord.

Homosexual acts are always disordered and sinful. Heterosexual sexual acts outside marriage are sinful.

Intimacy needs to be defined properly before we claim it is good or evil.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Sorry, but your language is too imprecise to be accurate. The inclination toward homosexuality is objectively disordered. That is not a sin but it is not ordered toward the good. Heterosexuality is not disordered and is ordained by our Lord.

Homosexual acts are always disordered and sinful. Heterosexual sexual acts outside marriage are sinful.

Intimacy needs to be defined properly before we claim it is good or evil.

“Heterosexual acts” can be sinful in marriage too.

 

[fix]

“Heterosexual acts” can be sinful in marriage too.

I was referring to the marital act.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I was referring to the marital act.

Sodomia imperfecta is still heterosexual sin. Why does sodomy by heterosexuals barely ever get mentioned even though it’s fairly common?

 

[fix]

Sodomia imperfecta is still heterosexual sin. Why does sodomy by heterosexuals barely ever get mentioned even though it’s fairly common?

I mentioned the marital act, not a perversion of the marital act.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I mentioned the marital act, not a perversion of the marital act.

Why isn’t sodomia imperfecta considered under heterosexual acts?

 

[CopticChristian]

The question you have to ask yourself is can two people of the same sex share a relationship similar to that of a man and woman. The answer is yes. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs within our humanity. It is as sinful as when a man lusts over his own wife. As Jesus says to lust over a woman is to commit adultry in your heart. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are sinful. You just think that homosexuality is totally perverse and disregard the true intamacy that two people of the same sex share. That intamacy is not sinful. Rather, It is the lust of any sexuality that is sinful. So you should put your self on the same level of sin as a homosexual because this lust is contained within you; and if you say it isn’t I will never believe you because I wasn’t born into this world yesterday.

Condemn homosexuality, condemn your own sexuality.

Sacred,

You are confused.

Heterosexual…a person

Homosexual…a person

Heterosexuality implies people that ACT sexually with those of the opposite sex

Heterosexuality, acting, is not always sinful however can be sinful…

Homosexuality implies people that ACT sexually with those of the opposite sex

Homosexuality, acting, is always sinful…

I condemn heterosexuality…why? These acts are ordered towards procreation…unless they are not ordered towards procreation and are disordered…or outside the bounds of marriage…

I codemn homosexuality…why? Because these acts are disordered and not ordered towards procreation…

I can condemn sin. I can condemn heterosexuality that is not ordered towards procreation, ie birth control, abortion, rape, incest, adultery…homosexuality…

Rethink this…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Sodomia imperfecta is still heterosexual sin. Why does sodomy by heterosexuals barely ever get mentioned even though it’s fairly common?

What do you base your statement on anal sex in married people being fairly common?
,

 

[fix]

Why isn’t sodomia imperfecta considered under heterosexual acts?

I mentioned only licit marital acts. Why are we listing illicit acts?

 

[CopticChristian]

Sodomy itself is sinful, a relationship that it occurs in is not necessarily sinful unless the relationship is based on something sinful.

Did you actually just cite conservapedia?

Dakota,

You have answered a question formulated for Mark, so we know how you see it…and the question is does Mark agree?

Is Mark able to answer for himself?

 

[Brendan]

. It is as sinful as when a man lusts over his own wife. As Jesus says to lust over a woman is to commit adultry in your heart. Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are sinful…

But the Canonical definition of Lust is:

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse. Every such criminal indulgence is a mortal sin, provided of course, it be voluntary in itself and fully deliberate. - Catholic Encyclopedia

For a man to have a desire to have sex with his wife, even desire with a strong passion, is not Lust.

Lust can only occur within marital bounds when one spouse seeks to do acts which are "contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse.

Since marital union and marital sex are impossible in a homosexual act, any sexual desire willfully entertained is Lust. Likewise between heterosexuals outside of the marital bond.

But the desire for the marital act within the bond of marriage is not Lust and no sin is commited in such desire.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

What do you base your statement on anal sex in married people being fairly common?
,

It includes oral sex too which is somewhat common amongst heterosexuals

I mentioned only licit marital acts. Why are we listing illicit acts?

Those are still “heterosexual acts”

Dakota,

You have answered a question formulated for Mark, so we know how you see it…and the question is does Mark agree?

Is Mark able to answer for himself?

Me replying did not bar Mark from replying

 

[CopticChristian]

It includes oral sex too which is somewhat common amongst heterosexuals

Those are still “heterosexual acts”

Me replying did not bar Mark from replying

Dakota,

Thank you. You say two men in a sodomite relationship are in a sinful relationship because sodomy is sin. Correct? So the question for Mark is…

as an Anglican in the Anglo-Catholic tradition

Believing as his monikor says…Deo Volente/GodWilling

believing he is Under the Mercy,

and that All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!/Thanks be to God

offering thanks to God…

does Mark agree that two men in a sodomite relationship are in a sinful relationship because sodomy is sin? or

does Mark believe that Christ stands by two men in a sodomite relationship blessing it with grace, it is His Will and he shows Mercy because these two men love each other and for that God is to be thanked?

Mark has yet to answer…

two men in a sodomite relationship without qualifiers are in a sinful relationship, because sodomy is sin…yes or no?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota,

Thank you. You say two men in a sodomite relationship are in a sinful relationship because sodomy is sin. Correct? So the question for Mark is…

as an Anglican in the Anglo-Catholic tradition

Believing as his monikor says…Deo Volente/GodWilling

believing he is Under the Mercy,

and that All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!/Thanks be to God

offering thanks to God…

does Mark agree that two men in a sodomite relationship are in a sinful relationship because sodomy is sin? or

does Mark believe that Christ stands by two men in a sodomite relationship blessing it with grace, it is His Will and he shows Mercy because these two men love each other and for that God is to be thanked?

Mark has yet to answer…

two men in a sodomite relationship without qualifiers are in a sinful relationship, because sodomy is sin…yes or no?

If the relationship is about sodomy then yes the relationship is sinful.

You didn’t answer his question, is sodomy the main focus of their relationship or is it incidental to it?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Why isn’t sodomia imperfecta considered under heterosexual acts?

It includes oral sex too which is somewhat common amongst heterosexuals

If I may,

Anal sex or oral sex is not what comes to mind when someone speaks of the marital act, regardless if a percentage of sexually active heterosexuals engage in said acts as foreplay or to orgasm of the partners.

When done in the context of lust (which is not the same as desire) as replacement to the marital act, i.e., penis-in-vagina sex, anal and oral sex are sins and misuse of the sexual organs. In fact, anal sex in particular is known to present more health risks than any other sexual act that condom use is more if not always associated with it for it to be performed safely.

A CAF member, an admitted homosexual, asserted that sodomy (anal penetration) is not the sine qua non of homosexual relationships, as not all homosexuals in same sex relationships engage in it. This is not hard to believe, because, one would think, any homosexual who is protective of his own health would avoid such habit or practice.

Regardless, in referring to two males performing a homosexual act, what comes to mind is anal sex, more than not, not excluding oral sex, mutual masturbation, or other ways to arouse the other, to the end of achieving orgasm. Each act and all of it is disordered and sinful.

Of course, when unmarried heterosexuals engage in sodomia imperfecta, it is as wrong, disordered, sinful. Sodomia imperfecta between a man and a woman not married to each other, taken to its full sexual conclusion, is wrong and sinful, but NOT unnatural.

In your argument and in defense of Mark’s position in this thread, do you wish to erase, to break the concept that the homosexual act is unnatural? If so, are you not contributing to the effort of homosexualists to normalize the homosexual act, for it to be at par with heterosexual sex? This is the bottom of it all, the underlying reason why gays insist on legislation no less than homosexual ‘marriage’ that would be completely at par with heterosexual marriage.

Dakota, while you admit to being same sex attracted yourself, you disclaim on the outset that homosexual act is wrong and that same sex ‘marriage’ is wrong. ; yet, you buoy the reasoning of Mark who has yet to admit that sodomy is sinful. Admiring his manner of argumentation is one thing, but alignment with his reasoning is another. Are you conflicted that the homosexual act is sinful?
,