Pope's stance on gays 'like Hitler'

[trustmc]

St.Sharky:

Theres a difference between not being homosexual and and finding homosexuality sinful. Not all heterosexuals find homosexuality as… sinful as most of the people here

Does this mean you find homosexuality only somewhat sinful, though not as sinful, as the people on this thread?

 

[Libero]

trustmc:

I wasn’t comparing alcoholism with homosexuality. I was showing how common people can misuse the “natural” argument to justify any and every behavior that is common in nature. Hepburn’s answer applies to all of them. And, yes, all sin infects nature. It’s why each of us are in dire need of grace and a Savior (also said nicely, BTW). Consider how the “private behavior” of consenting adults have led to the global AIDS epidemic, with all of its misery, disease and death spead among even innocent children, and then tell us again how sin does not affect the rest of nature.

Mike

But AIDS is not a gay disease… it is easier for homosexuals to contract AIDS - but then again, many studies show that it is easier for blacks to contract AIDS (due to resiliance levels). Besides that, the rate of AIDS among heterosexuals is now higher than among homosexuals.

And yes, whilst I agree with you that you can manipulate the natural argument to support most points of view, does this argument not also quell the idea that homosexuality is a choice, or psychologically determined?

 

[St.Sharky]

trustmc:

Does this mean you find homosexuality only somewhat sinful, though not as sinful, as the people on this thread?

Sorry about that, I meant it as a figure of speech. What I mean to say is that just because one is not homosexual one does not have to find it sinful.

 

[BlindSheep]

ElJay:

Dont feel sad about homosexuals, we’re perfectly happy the way we are

Well, that may be, but I still feel sad. As I see it, if you are happy it is because you are unaware of the harm you are doing to yourself.

A mortal sin? Oh no! If i was anything other than atheist i would probabally have to care!

Good point. You don’t care what the Church teaches, so therefore, there is no reason for you to demand the Church teach differently, is there? But I was referring to my own feelings on the matter, and as a Catholic, I do care.

Nice try everyone - but i’m not convinced that today’s the day i convert and start some research into genetically modifying myself so i am not a walking sin.

And you are free to ignore us.
You do make a false assumption, though, when you characterize our beliefs as being that you *are *a “walking sin”. Catholics do not believe homosexual attraction is a sin, since it is not a deliberate choice. We believe homosexual sexual activity is a sin. Therefore, you are not a “walking sin” in our view, rather, you sin when you have sex.

 

[ElJay]

BlindSheep:

Well, that may be, but I still feel sad. As I see it, if you are happy it is because you are unaware of the harm you are doing to yourself.
Good point. You don’t care what the Church teaches, so therefore, there is no reason for you to demand the Church teach differently, is there? But I was referring to my own feelings on the matter, and as a Catholic, I do care.

And you are free to ignore us.
You do make a false assumption, though, when you characterize our beliefs as being that you *are *a “walking sin”. Catholics do not believe homosexual attraction is a sin, since it is not a deliberate choice. We believe homosexual sexual activity is a sin. Therefore, you are not a “walking sin” in our view, rather, you sin when you have sex.

I do not demand the church teach differently, i demand that people stop using their religion as an exuse to actively discriminate against and deny rights to homosexuals. You’r entitled to your beliefs, and by all means belive them, but unless these beliefs come under threat within your own church (homosexual ministers or whatever) please keep your opinions to yourselves and let society make legitimate decisions without the influence of religion where it is not needed.

 

[St.Sharky]

ElJay:

I do not demand the church teach differently, i demand that people stop using their religion as an exuse to actively discriminate against and deny rights to homosexuals. You’r entitled to your beliefs, and by all means belive them, but unless these beliefs come under threat within your own church (homosexual ministers or whatever) please keep your opinions to yourselves and let society make legitimate decisions without the influence of religion where it is not needed.

True, for in America and most free countries we have this conept of ‘separating the state and the church’. So discriminate all you want, but expect homosexuals to call for foul play to human rights organisations sooner or later (as they have every right to)

 

[LRThunder]

St.Sharky:

True, for in America and most free countries we have this conept of ‘separating the state and the church’. So discriminate all you want, but expect homosexuals to call for foul play to human rights organisations sooner or later (as they have every right to)

And what rights are really being violated? I’d agree if we were talking about the treatment that African-Americans received happening to gays and lesbians. They can eat at any restaurant they choose, drink from any water fountain, don’t have to pay poll taxes or take literacy tests, etc.

One shouldn’t confuse conveniences with rights. Let me know if there are similar or same abuses as African-Americans suffered under, and I’ll echo the call for equal rights. But the right to adoption or civil union is not guaranteed in the Constitution for anyone.

 

[Marilena]

“Referring to statements from Rome, especially by Pope Benedict, Senator Norris said that “he would not take moral instructions from a man with a swastika on his arms,” a reference to the Pope’s membership of the Hitler Youth Movement in 1940s Germany.”

Pope’s stance on gays ‘like Hitler’
belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=684160

I really get cranky when people attack the pope! Bendedict XVI
Was NOT a Nazi! Swatiska’s on his arms? What a crappy thing
to say! I adore Benedict XVI! He is a wonderful pope, and
good for him for taking the stance he has!!! Long live Pope Benedict XVI!!! He has our support!!!

 

[LRThunder]

“Referring to statements from Rome, especially by Pope Benedict, Senator Norris said that “he would not take moral instructions from a man with a swastika on his arms,” a reference to the Pope’s membership of the Hitler Youth Movement in 1940s Germany.”

Pope’s stance on gays ‘like Hitler’
belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=684160

I really get cranky when people attack the pope! Bendedict XVI
Was NOT a Nazi! Swatiska’s on his arms? What a crappy thing
to say! I adore Benedict XVI! He is a wonderful pope, and
good for him for taking the stance he has!!! Long live Pope Benedict XVI!!! He has our support!!!

What Senator Norris fails to realize is that membership in that group in Germany was mandatory. No child or teen could refuse.

 

[Marilena]

LRThunder:

What Senator Norris fails to realize is that membership in that group in Germany was mandatory. No child or teen could refuse.

That’s right!!!

 

[Marilena]

Our pope! God bless him!!!

 

[ElJay]

LRThunder:

And what rights are really being violated? I’d agree if we were talking about the treatment that African-Americans received happening to gays and lesbians. They can eat at any restaurant they choose, drink from any water fountain, don’t have to pay poll taxes or take literacy tests, etc.

One shouldn’t confuse conveniences with rights. Let me know if there are similar or same abuses as African-Americans suffered under, and I’ll echo the call for equal rights. But the right to adoption or civil union is not guaranteed in the Constitution for anyone.

I’m assuming you’re not gay? If you were denied these things as a hetrosexual there would be outcry, if you and your wife were unable to have a child but were told you weren’t allowed to adopt - how would you feel??? Being told you can never raise a child because of the company you keep would devastate a lot of people.

 

[bones_IV]

ElJay:

I’m assuming you’re not gay? If you were denied these things as a hetrosexual there would be outcry, if you and your wife were unable to have a child but were told you weren’t allowed to adopt - how would you feel??? Being told you can never raise a child because of the company you keep would devastate a lot of people.

“‘Deo omnis gloria. All glory to God.’ It is an emphatic confession of our nothingness. He, Jesus, is everything. We, withou him, are worth nothing: nothing. Our vainglory would be just that: vain glory; it would be sacrilegious robbery. There should be no room for that ‘I’ anywhere” (J. Escriva, The Way, 780, Navarre Study Bible).

 

[BlindSheep]

ElJay:

I do not demand the church teach differently, i demand that people stop using their religion as an exuse to actively discriminate against and deny rights to homosexuals. You’r entitled to your beliefs, and by all means belive them, but unless these beliefs come under threat within your own church (homosexual ministers or whatever) please keep your opinions to yourselves and let society make legitimate decisions without the influence of religion where it is not needed.

The trouble with that, you see, is that I am part of society. I, and the others who share my beliefs, have the right to vote. And like anyone else, we will vote based on what we believe is right and best for society. How can you ask us to compartmentalize our beliefs, and vote contrary to what we are certain is true? And how dare you tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves? We have as much right to express our opinions as you do yours.

 

[BlindSheep]

ElJay:

I’m assuming you’re not gay? If you were denied these things as a hetrosexual there would be outcry, if you and your wife were unable to have a child but were told you weren’t allowed to adopt - how would you feel??? Being told you can never raise a child because of the company you keep would devastate a lot of people.

Sure it would devastate them, but that in itself does not mean a child should be placed with them. Children are people, not commodities that people have a right to “own”.
There are straight couples who are denied adoption for various reasons. There are also biological parents who lose their parental rights. Children are not possessions, they have rights of their own.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Sure it would devastate them, but that in itself does not mean a child should be placed with them. Children are people, not commodities that people have a right to “own”.
There are straight couples who are denied adoption for various reasons. There are also biological parents who lose their parental rights. Children are not possessions, they have rights of their own.

I mostly agree with you, but for so many children it isnt a choice beteen same-sex adoption or mixed-sex adoption, but between same-sex adoptions and no adoption.

\

Anyway, so what if you cant have children naturally? Deal with it!

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

I mostly agree with you, but for so many children it isnt a choice beteen same-sex adoption or mixed-sex adoption, but between same-sex adoptions and no adoption.

First of all, that is impossible to prove since you cannot prove that a child would not have been adopted by a heterosexual couple if they had not already been adopted by a homosexual couple -
and secondly, no adoption is preferable to adoption into some homes, wouldn’t you agree? I feel homosexual homes fall into that category.

Anyway, so what if you cant have children naturally? Deal with it!

What are you talking about? What about it?

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

I don’t know if there was ever a point in history when homosexuality was a common temptation to everyone.

The ‘model’ for sin was that all sins are there for everyone and equal for everyone, and this is really exemplified by the “I’m poor but I dont take drugs” sort of arguments. The assumption was and is that if one person could resist sin X, everyone could.

For a long time homosex just sat in the fornication bracket until the natural law arguments became formalised.

trustmc:

Still, that homosexual desires are not universal doesn’t mean that they are not sinful. Murder is not a universal temptation. Neither is rape or pedaristry.

It’s a difficult combination you have there. homosexuality, murder and umm, rape and pedastry… The very combination should raise an eyebrow because “one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isnt the same”. The only similarity they have is the claim they are sins. Hmmm, can you see the problem with that?

And I rather doubt your assertion about murder, I think that is rather a common temptation. But that’s an aside.

Anyway, 3 have victims, one does not, doesnt this bother you?)

What is universal to mankind is the inclination to pervert sexuality in general. This perversion takes on many forms, to include lusting after pornography, masturbation, voyerism, exhibitionism, premarital sex, adultery and prostitution. Some of these sins are more common than others, but not a single one of these sins are universal.

Hmmmmm. I think the reverse argument could be made, that these are true expressions of sexuality, but that is a different argument.

Homosexual desires are prevalent among just 2-5% of the American population according to one of your previous posts.

The 2% represents men who self-identify as gay and are public about their sexual orientation. I have no doubt that many more men have homosexual experiences, and I suspect that 1-2% are probably homosexual, but dont admit it.

If I’ve read you correctly, you assert then that for about 95% of the population homosexuality is sinful, but not so for the 2-5% who have actual inclinations towards that behavior.

They dont have inclinations. They are homosexual. And I’m pretty sure it not a sin for them. I think it would probably be a sin for them to sleep with women.

I guess a good lawyer could argue then that a client arrested for child molestation did nothing wrong given that such behavior would be perfectly natural for him, with the only objection being if the child consented or not.

Define child? There is no universal age of consent, and as noted before marriagable age was 12 and up in other times.

Oh, and by the way, again you compare a victimless crime with a rape. Surely you can see the difference?

Additionally, the constant conflation of homosex with rape, murder and pedastry just creates the link in the mind. Examination of the facts shows there is no similarity.

Sexual disorientations of any form are objectively disorded no matter how many ways they are manifested. Sex is necessary for procreation,

They are only objectively disordered if you view the production of children as sexs’ only function. Clearly the unitive function exists.

While homosexual activity may not have an obvious and immediate victim,

Wow! you finally have managed to make the distinction.

it nonetheless reinforces the dangerous notion that sex is primarily for pleasure and only incidental to procreation,

No it doesnt. That’s just in your head.

Therefore no sex act that is not open to procreation within a lifelong relationship committed to conceiving and rearing children will be morally upheld by the Catholic Church. Giving credence to those heterosexual married couples who, through no fault of their own, are baren still upholds the procreative design of sex, and does not – like homosexuality – affirm a perversion of it that reinforces further abuse.

Mike

Homosexual couples are incidentaly barren. People do not ‘go gay’ to thwart the grand design and avoid having children. They use contraceptives.

In anycase, the church still recognises the benefits of marriage and sex to barren couples. Gays are just like any barren couple.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

They are only objectively disordered if you view the production of children as sexs’ only function. Clearly the unitive function exists.

This is quite a leap. You don’t have to view the production of children as sex’s only function to believe this. One could see the two functions as intertwined, that is, if the procreative function is deliberately thwarted (contraception) the unitive function is distorted as well. Similarly, a union which, by the very nature of the combination of partners is infertile (“homosex”) would also distort the unitive aspect of sex…

Gays are just like any barren couple.

No. A barren couple is barren because something is not functioning in the body of one or the other partner, while gays are barren because the pairing itself is dysfunctional.

 

[Digger71]

ElJay:

I’m assuming you’re not gay? If you were denied these things as a hetrosexual there would be outcry, if you and your wife were unable to have a child but were told you weren’t allowed to adopt - how would you feel??? Being told you can never raise a child because of the company you keep would devastate a lot of people.

ElJay,

There is a great deal of denial on these boards about homophobia and anti-gay discrimination. I have come across posts where queer-bashing is denied, or more amusingly claims that most violence experienced by gays is when two men are fighting over a third.

In the case of adoption the argument has to come from what will benefit the child, not the gay couple. The argument against gay adoption is that it is not ‘ideal’ for the child. The choice is not between a same-sex couple and a mixed-sex couple, but between a same-sex couple and a state home.

State homes are known for their lack of direct care and love, and are implicated in all sorts of social problems from drug-use to prostitution.

Two fears are markedly manifested.

The first is that the child will be confused about their sexuality. This is, of course, rot. If gay people grow up gay despite all the indictrination, images, and social norms thrust at them, there is no reason to suspect hetersexual children would be different.

The second is the idea that the children will suffer sexual abuse; though most abusers of male children either do not have adult sexualities, or prefer the opposite sex in age-peered relationships.