New Poll: Do you think Homosexual Acts are Sinful?

[CMatt25]

But we are not talking about makeing civil unions illegal…people want to make them LEGAL. And the next step…MORAL. Because too many people think what is legal is moral. .

And some want to say because they believe homosexual acts are immoral then the next stop is to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians and keep civil unions illegal.

 

[CMatt25]

Who’s casting stones, now?

Instead of assuming that I don’t support being nice to homosexuals in order to save them from slavery to sodomy and sin, you might want to read back a few posts and see that I was talking about having the stones to defend the Church from inaccurate accusations and perceptions about the sex abuse scandal. As for homosexuals, they do need to hear that practicing homosexuality is wrong, a mortal sin, and will lead to Hell if they do not repent of it. Sugarcoating the truth doesn’t impress the truth upon anyone.

I merely was asking what you thought about honey vs stones. I wasn’t assuming a thing. I don’t assume to know all things. But I think you gave your opinion based on your belief of what the truth is. So thanks. God bless and peace.

 

[Dokimas]

Don’t you have 4 of them? Why can’t you loan one???

Maybe they’re the wrong size?

 

[Carlan]

I do think that homosexual acts are sinful, BUT I also think that heterosexual acts before marriage are sinful, lying is sinful, not caring for the poor is sinful, jealousy is sinful, pride is sinful, etc. Until I am not guilty of sin, I will not condemn others.

Sharmin, you do not have to worry about condemning anyone that is God’s call only.
We must judge behavior though, so that we can discern good and evil.
We cannot judge a persons homosexual’s behavior, we can declare our belief that it is an abomination and sinful,Scripture says so.
Fiat Voluntas Tua
secut in Coelo
et in terra. .
Peace,Carlan.

 

[Dokimas]

What does that have to do with defending the Church from false accusations?

No one is bashing anything; the facts are that sexual abuse happens much more often in Protestant churches than it does in the Catholic Church.

Don’t believe me? Click here and here for proof. Sexual abuse is reprehensible and needs to be rooted out and stamped out wherever it occurs, but the facts are that the Church is on the low end of the problem.

Yes, Jesus did; He and the Father are one and in the Old Testament, Lex Talionis is taught - and has never been rescinded, because it is about a just and merciful response in proportion to a crime (because in the ancient world, punishments far exceeded the offenses - today it is the opposite).

However, pointing out that the Church is being unjustly accused, and that contemporary hotspots of sexual abuse are being ignored in favor of media Catholic-bashing, has nothing to do with Lex Talionis. It’s merely defending the Church, something all too few Catholics have the stones to do these days.

This is from Jesus:

Matthew 5:
38 ¶ "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 "**But I tell you **not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 ¶ "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

Are you saying that it’s alright to bash someone just as long as you think you are defending your church?

 

[jmcrae]

No because Jesus told us not to cast stones and knowing the entire truth about everything depends on how omniscient we are.

You’re the only one talking about “throwing” stones. Other people were using the metaphor for having the strength of character not to be blown around by the winds of fashion.

 

[CMatt25]

What exactly do you mean “that’s the thought process many Catholics use”? What thought process do we use?

Admittedly I am a latecomer to the discussion, but I think I’ve followed enough to be able to formulate some thoughts. But I am confused as to what thought process you’re referring.

PR, the thread swayed off topic just a bit when a couple Catholics said they were tired of hearing about the scandal when another poster asked if it should be brought up too. I only meant many Catholics, to make it easier for them to swallow the scandal, do so by saying Apostolic successors are fallible. That’s fine I guess if that’s how one wants to handle it. I’m fallible too.

For instance, and not to beat a dead horse but just as a for instance, I might not know better than to miss Mass on a weekday Nov 1 and not believe I’m committing mortal sin for which I face hell. But I know better than to molest a child or to cover it up. And some higher up the food chain than I did not. That’s all I meant.

 

[Contarini]

Sorta like it not being the grandest leap if left unchecked for someone like Dubya to have prayed about war, and while not having God or His angels speaking God’s words directly into his ear, believing he was being inspired.

Did he ever claim he was inspired? As I understand it, all that he said was what any Christian would say–that he sought God’s guidance and was trying to follow it. We are all at liberty to think that he heard God wrong on that occasion. I think he did, and I doubt that President Bush would deny my religious as well as civil right to think so.

Fine lines.

You really don’t seem to like those fine lines, do you? Well, I’m afraid they are there. And trying to replace them with big “no trespassing” zones inevitably does more harm than good. I think you probably recognize this when you see conservatives doing it.

Edwin

 

[Lycorth]

I merely was asking what you thought about honey vs stones. I wasn’t assuming a thing. I don’t assume to know all things. But I think you gave your opinion based on your belief of what the truth is. So thanks. God bless and peace.

I don’t have “my belief of what the truth is”, I have only the Church’s teachings, to which I assent.

I was clearly using a metaphorical expression which was then used against me. Why, I don’t know.

This is from Jesus:

Matthew 5:
38 ¶ "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 "**But I tell you **not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 ¶ "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

Are you saying that it’s alright to bash someone just as long as you think you are defending your church?

Again, no one is “bashing” anything. If I have to offend someone’s sensibilities when I must defend the Church’s reputation or Church teaching, that’s not my problem nor am I commanded by God to respect feelings or be politically correct.

Furthermore, you quote verses without the slightest knowledge of the time and place Jesus gave those instructions or to whom. If the Lord wanted pacifism of us, He would have commanded it through Church teaching. No such teaching exists, but there are teachings regarding just war and self-defense, supporting the notion of both.

If by proving that Protestant churches are far more rife with sexual abuse than the media would have you believe that the Catholic Church is means I’m “bashing” Protestants, then I’m bashing Protestants, I guess. My intention was not to “bash” Protestants but rather to point out facts and defend the truth. I’m (not) sorry if that offends you.

 

[Contarini]

N
And "Thou shalt not commit adultery in the strictest definition, is a bit difficult for the gay person to accomplish since in most places they are not allowed to have a spouse in the first place of which to commit the adultery against.

You’re begging the question when you say “they are not allowed.” We don’t believe that “spouse” can ever be used in the context of a same-sex relationship. It isn’t a civil decision. It’s a question of natural law.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The result is the same on the harassed, made miserable, excommunicated, banished, abused, tortured, and/or dead.

I’m not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that the Church is as likely to be responsible for horrific acts in a society where it has some influence as in a genuine theocracy, then I think you’re absolutely wrong.

If you mean that governments that are not theocracies still manage to kill and abuse an awful lot of people, then I completely agree, and that’s why blaming everything on “theocracy” is silly.

Typical American rhetoric (particularly from secular/liberal folks) assumes in the teeth of the evidence

a. that European governments were "theocratic’; and
b. that whatever bad things are done by governments in countries with state churches are somehow the fault of the Church–that a state Church always exacerbates and never restrains state violence.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

And some want to say because they believe homosexual acts are immoral then the next stop is to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians and keep civil unions illegal.

Having “civil unions” is not related in any way to civil rights. Civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a day’s wage in exchange for a day’s work, and the right to reasonable housing and medical care. No Catholic is saying that we should do bad things to homosexuals merely because they are homosexual.

Playing house and pretending that you are “having sex” with a member of the same sex (this is physically impossible), while I’m not thinking it should be illegal, shouldn’t be recognized under the law as having any kind of status equal to marriage.

Marriage is important to society because it produces children. Marriage and family life need to be supported because well-adjusted children grow up to be contributing citizens.

Homosexual unions, by contrast, contribute nothing of value to society, and distract from the things that do.

 

[LongJourney]

There are gay men who mistakenly married women, hoping this would “cure” them, or at least reduce gossip. When such men take male lovers, can you count this as adultery? It is so in my mind.

 

[PRmerger]

knowing the entire truth about everything depends on how omniscient we are.

Good thing the CC does not claim to know the “entire truth about everything”!

She has preserved enough for us to make a “leap of faith” into the arms of our Beloved.

 

[Lycorth]

I’m not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that the Church is as likely to be responsible for horrific acts in a society where it has some influence as in a genuine theocracy, then I think you’re absolutely wrong.

If you mean that governments that are not theocracies still manage to kill and abuse an awful lot of people, then I completely agree, and that’s why blaming everything on “theocracy” is silly.

Typical American rhetoric (particularly from secular/liberal folks) assumes in the teeth of the evidence

a. that European governments were "theocratic’; and
b. that whatever bad things are done by governments in countries with state churches are somehow the fault of the Church–that a state Church always exacerbates and never restrains state violence.

Edwin

Amen. Confessional states don’t have a perfect track record, but secular states have a far worse one. But when that is pointed out, then it becomes “oh, let’s not turn this into a numbers game” because then the unavoidable facts of secular government versus religious government cannot be ignored.

Having “civil unions” is not related in any way to civil rights. Civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a day’s wage in exchange for a day’s work, and the right to reasonable housing and medical care. No Catholic is saying that we should do bad things to homosexuals merely because they are homosexual.

Playing house and pretending that you are “having sex” with a member of the same sex (this is physically impossible), while I’m not thinking it should be illegal, shouldn’t be recognized under the law as having any kind of status equal to marriage.

Marriage is important to society because it produces children. Marriage and family life need to be supported because well-adjusted children grow up to be contributing citizens.

Homosexual unions, by contrast, contribute nothing of value to society, and distract from the things that do.

Amen. “Gay marriage” is impossible, because marriage is a sacrament designed and intended by God for a man and a woman alone to engage in. Only heterosexuals can have valid sex, as homosexual “sex” is invalid and not actually real sex; sex was also designed and intended by God to be between a man and a woman and only within the boundaries of the sacrament of marriage, to which only an adult man and an adult woman of free will can enter in to.

Gays don’t need civil rights - they need the Church and conversion.

 

[CMatt25]

Having “civil unions” is not related in any way to civil rights. Civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a day’s wage in exchange for a day’s work, and the right to reasonable housing and medical care. No Catholic is saying that we should do bad things to homosexuals merely because they are homosexual.

Playing house and pretending that you are “having sex” with a member of the same sex (this is physically impossible), while I’m not thinking it should be illegal, shouldn’t be recognized under the law as having any kind of status equal to marriage.

Marriage is important to society because it produces children. Marriage and family life need to be supported because well-adjusted children grow up to be contributing citizens.

Homosexual unions, by contrast, contribute nothing of value to society, and distract from the things that do.

Ok well maybe we’ll call it civil unions and not marriage. And ok then married couples who can’t reproduce aren’t as important to society or contribute nothing of value to it. Neither do singles. Peace.

 

[Contarini]

Amen. Confessional states don’t have a perfect track record, but secular states have a far worse one. But when that is pointed out, then it becomes “oh, let’s not turn this into a numbers game” because then the unavoidable facts of secular government versus religious government cannot be ignored.

I would agree that we shouldn’t play the numbers game, actually. I don’t think one can easily make the case that either religious or secular states are more violent. One can cherry-pick one’s data to make either case, of course.

The only meaningful thing to be said about this, I think, is the tautology: whatever sanctions violence is violent!

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Ok well maybe we’ll call it civil unions and not marriage.

Why does it need any kind of legal status at all?

And ok then married couples who can’t reproduce contribute nothing to society.

They can set a good example to the young, and they still have a natural instinct to take care of children, meaning that they can care for their nieces and nephews and other children - an instinct that homosexual persons lack.

 

[Contarini]

Why does it need any kind of legal status at all?

I think a case can be made for giving people who are deeply involved in each other’s lives some legal way of recognizing this. Whether those people are involved in a sexual relationship or not does not have to be the government’s business.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

And ok then married couples who can’t reproduce contribute nothing to society. Neither do singles then. Peace.

I knew that argument was forthcoming.

And I must say, I struggle with that one, too. It does seem inconsistent to argue that since homosexual unions can’t reproduce they are invalid, yet conclude that an infertile heterosexual couple’s marriage remains valid.

Better people than I will certainly be able to address this argument, however. Looking forward to the responses!