Pro-Gay in the name of tolerance

[Mirdath]

The probelm is being vocal is not necessarily extreme. The position’s one may hold could be extreme.

I’m not understanding that, could you rephrase it?

Such laws, and their supporters, are extremists. They want to make inverted behavior a matter of “equality” and “rights”. The position is absurd.

Actually I think it’s more preventing bad business practices Gay money is just as green as straight money. Such practices are also reminiscent, and not in a good way, of those of many establishments in the early-mid 20th century which refused to serve blacks.

Why shouldn’t homosexuals be considered equal to everyone else? Is there any good, plausible reason for treating them as second-class citizens? All people have certain rights and responsibilities – not just all straight people. Discriminating against people based solely on what they do behind the bedroom door is completely unjustifiable.

Do you find my statements extreme?

At times, yes As I’ve said, I don’t take issue with such beliefs as long as nobody tries to force me to change for them.

JimO:

Look, I’ve always been a “live and let live” person. I like people and I have gay friends. I don’t want to impose my beliefs on anyone, but if someone sees hope in my faith and asks, I’ll gladly share my experiences with them, but I generally avoid religious and moral discussons (except here on these fora where it’s expected, of course ). What changed my perspective somewhat was becoming a parent and seeing how many people out there have an intense interest in imprinting their views on my kids, that’s all. It’s made me much more vocal about my convictions for the sake of my kids, who mean more to me than life itself.

hey, that’s great Your kids’ upbringing is your responsibility, yes – but that of the rest of us isn’t!

 

[fix]

I’m not understanding that, could you rephrase it?

What is it you do not understand? Being vocal is not, in itself, extreme. Would you consider those who spoke out against racial discrimination in the 1960s extremists?

Actually I think it’s more preventing bad business practices Gay money is just as green as straight money.

Such laws are extreme and unjust. They impose the bad conduct of some on others who do not want to have anything to do with it. It would be like mandating a business sell pornography. The owner has a conscience and certain rights. Their is no reason to violate them to accomodate the desires of some.

Such practices are also reminiscent, and not in a good way, of those of many establishments in the early-mid 20th century which refused to serve blacks.

More extremism. Voluntary conduct is not equivalent to race.

Why shouldn’t homosexuals be considered equal to everyone else?

They are equal. They are equal in dignity. They are equal in rights.

Is there any good, plausible reason for treating them as second-class citizens?

Just discrimination is not mistreating them. Their conduct produces consequences.

All people have certain rights and responsibilities – not just all straight people. Discriminating against people based solely on what they do behind the bedroom door is completely unjustifiable.

Based on what logic? Just discrimination is needed and necessary.

At times, yes As I’ve said, I don’t take issue with such beliefs as long as nobody tries to force me to change for them.

No one can force another to change a belief. That seems impossible. One can offer information, but how can one force another to stop holding a belief? What we can do is change the civil law so that improper, and disordered, behavior is not inflicted on the population.

 

[BlazingBolt]

Nobody is making you have gay sex. Is it so unbearable to you that other people like to have sex differently that you must butt in on it? If you leave them alone, they won’t come after you.

The Church as well as all religions have moral rules regarding sex and sexuality. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as immoral sex or that sexual behavior is morally neutral? The same rules apply to men and women and hetero as well as homo-sexuals. Nobody is bothering homo-sexuals or trying to stop them (at least they shouldn’t be) as the Church even says we should not discrimate against them or treat them as second class citizens. People have every right to sin and lead sinful lives. We simply hold the position that it is sinful behavior and incompatible with being a Catholic. To be a Catholic you must turn from sin and turn toward God. We also reject the idea that it should be promoted as an equal and alternative lifestyle and would say it is morally wrong just as having a causal hetero-sexual lifestyle is immoral. I saw an episode of Studio 60 on the sunset strip and Matthew Perry’s character condemned the religious view “because it said homo-sexual love was inferior to hetero-sexual love”. This is a ridiculous position as far as sexually active love goes because homo-sexual relationships are undeniably by there very nature inferior in that they have no potential to produce life.

They’re going to die eventually anyway; what you do by letting them live their own lives is potentially sentencing them to a happier, more fulfilling life. Is it more moral to want them to deny what they are? That’s a living death and a curse, not a sign of friendship.

This is one of the main problems I have with our current culture and it is one of the big lies of the gay culture. Your sexual orientation IS NOT WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE. It is demeaning to define yourself by it or to think that sexual fullfillment is what is going to bring you happiness. From my Catholic point of view that is “worshipping an idol”. Pursuing sexual desires is not a path to happiness whether your hetero or homo. Being a Catholic homo-sexual I am sure would be a struggle and a mighty cross to bear but finding fulfillment in God will be more fullfilling and bring more happiness than allowing yourself to be ruled by your body and it’s desires. I can tell you living like this absolutely is not a living death or a curse as all Catholics do it on some level. Is it anymore difficult for a homo-sexual to live celibate than it is for a hetero-sexual? Are all the religious who take vows of celibacy or the faithful who wait until they are married miserable?

 

[Mirdath]

What is it you do not understand? Being vocal is not, in itself, extreme. Would you consider those who spoke out against racial discrimination in the 1960s extremists?

It was phrased kind of oddly. I agree with this though.

Such laws are extreme and unjust. They impose the bad conduct of some on others who do not want to have anything to do with it. It would be like mandating a business sell pornography. The owner has a conscience and certain rights. Their is no reason to violate them to accomodate the desires of some.

How is the business owner’s conscience violated by the actions of others? The conscience second-guesses the self, not everyone else.

More extremism. Voluntary conduct is not equivalent to race.

If that conduct (voluntary or no, and I’d dispute that it is necessarily) doesn’t harm you, discriminating against someone because of it makes about as much sense to me as discriminating based on race.

They are equal. They are equal in dignity. They are equal in rights.

Just discrimination is not mistreating them. Their conduct produces consequences.

er, what? Homosexuals have equal dignity and rights to others but they are justly discriminated against? You contradict yourself. Equal dignity means I should not be treated as a second-class citizen. Equal rights means that the government should afford me the same services and protections it does you such as civil marriage and divorce, employability, and the opportunity to patronize a place of business without regard to any personal characteristics I may or may not possess.

Based on what logic? Just discrimination is needed and necessary.

Who defines ‘just’? You? With all respect, you’re not an arbiter I would choose. The Church? Same problem.

What other people do in bed isn’t your business. Discriminating against them for that is unreasonable, immoral, and dare I say it, unchristian.

No one can force another to change a belief. That seems impossible. One can offer information, but how can one force another to stop holding a belief? What we can do is change the civil law so that improper, and disordered, behavior is not inflicted on the population.

(emphasis mine)

That is exactly what I meant by ‘forcing me to change’. I would still believe as I do now – that’s hard, but sadly still possible, to change through coercion – but you would make it illegal to be me. I’d have to act in accordance with your ideal laws, even though I ordinarily would not, just to remain free.

How many fingers, Winston?

 

[JimO]

hey, that’s great Your kids’ upbringing is your responsibility, yes – but that of the rest of us isn’t!

I know what you’re saying, but you’ve simply demonstrated the very problem that I’ve been discussing. You don’t want the kids of “the rest of us” indoctrinated in my belief system. You also state that you want a neutral morality in the public school system. I assume that you agree this is an unattainable ideal. Thus, if someone’s morality is taught in school, you want it to be yours and I want it to be mine and everybody wants it to be theirs. Okay, whose do we use? That of the majority? That of the group with the loudest voices? That of the group with the best lawyers?

So, bringing it full circle, when the gay community demands that their morality is taught in the schools and Christians object, we are called intolerant homophobes. When Christians demand that Christian morality is taught, we are accused of forcing our morality on others. As I said, personal tolerance is easy to espouse when little is at stake, but put someone’s kids in school and teach them something contrary to their moral code… Tolerance simply does not go both ways in practice in the public arena no matter how tolerant you might appear to be personally. You can tolerate my Catholic beliefs fine as long as I keep them to myself…

 

[BlazingBolt]

I personally don’t have a problem with civil unions between homo-sexuals, however not allowing Gay marriage can not be called discrimination because homo-sexuals already have exactly the same marriage rights as hetero-sexuals. My opinion is only the radical militant Gays want to call it marriage, I have even heard Elton John speak against wanting to call it marriage. Allowing a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman would be an entirely new right all toghether. The right to marry someone you love argument is weak too because you can’t define love legally and their is also potential to be on a slope of allowing people to marry pets that they “love” and other such non-sense.

Homo-sexuals should not be discrimminated against, this is the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Mirdath]

This is a ridiculous position as far as sexually active love goes because homo-sexual relationships are undeniably by there very nature inferior in that they have no potential to produce life.

Inferior by Church standards, yes. For some people, having children is not the be-all and end-all of a relationship – loving one another is. By such a standard, they are equal.

Is a loving, caring homosexual relationship inferior to an abusive, emotionally void heterosexual relationship according to Church thinking? I’m genuinely curious here; if you consider all homosexual relationships beneath the level of heterosexuality, what consequences does this have?

This is one of the main problems I have with our current culture and it is one of the big lies of the gay culture. Your sexual orientation IS NOT WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE. It is demeaning to define yourself by it or to think that sexual fullfillment is what is going to bring you happiness. From my Catholic point of view that is “worshipping an idol”. Pursuing sexual desires is not a path to happiness whether your hetero or homo.

You know what, I’m in complete agreement with this

It is still a very large part of one’s identity, but it’s by no means all of it. And relationships are not the only route to happiness; but they are one. I don’t believe they should be denied to anybody merely because the participants happen not to have 100%-tab-a-slot-b-compatible genitalia.

I can tell you living like this absolutely is not a living death or a curse as all Catholics do it on some level.

Denying someone the capacity to express love is a curse. If medieval epics teach us anything, it’s that unrequited love is a slayer of maidens and men worse than the bubonic plague.

Is it anymore difficult for a homo-sexual to live celibate than it is for a hetero-sexual? Are all the religious who take vows of celibacy or the faithful who wait until they are married miserable?

No, it isn’t – except for the fact that heterosexuals (and bisexuals, if they fall in love with someone of the opposite sex) have the option not to be celibate. They can marry and have sex – but the Church denies such an expression of love for its homosexual members. Celibacy is far from a miserable experience, as long as it is chosen and not thrust upon one without another choice.

I personally don’t have a problem with civil unions between homo-sexuals, however not allowing Gay marriage can not be called discrimination because homo-sexuals already have exactly the same marriage rights as hetero-sexuals.

Actually, they don’t have the same civil/secular marriage rights yet in most places. Stuff like joint tax filing, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance after death – all rights heterosexual couples can get, but not homosexual.

My opinion is only the radical militant Gays want to call it marriage, I have even heard Elton John speak against wanting to call it marriage. Allowing a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman would be an entirely new right all toghether.

Calling it something else doesn’t sound bad to me – actually, why not get rid of the use of the term ‘marriage’ in a civil sense altogether? No matter who you’re intending to spend the rest of your life with, you get a civil union license, and then, if you like and they let you, get married at a church or however you want to do the ceremony. Everybody wins!

The right to marry someone you love argument is weak too because you can’t define love legally and their is also potential to be on a slope of allowing people to marry pets that they “love” and other such non-sense.

‘Someone you love’ should never be the criterion for marriageability. Consent is. Pets, children, rocks, trees, and the Berlin Wall cannot give informed consent, therefore they cannot be married. That particular slippery slope argument is founded on erroneous postulates.

 

[BlazingBolt]

All sexual activity is immoral by church standards if it does not have the potential to produce life. This is why contraception is forbidden. This type of sex is not a true expression of love from the Catholic perspective.

The inablity to define love legally is more my point. You can’t say a homo-sexual doesn’t have the same rights because they are not allowed to marry someone they “love”. They have exactly the same marriage rights because they can legally marry some one of the opposite sex was my point.

You completely twist things and miss the point by bringing up dysfuntional or abusive heteo-sexual relationship and the fact that they exist is irrelevant. I do wonder however what is the “divorce rate” of homo-sexuals as we already know they have many more partners over their lives statistically. The sexual relationship is objectively inferior because it has no natural potential to generate life.

The argument of “not being able to express your love” is ridiculous. Love between people is not some cosmic destiny as it often portrayed in story and legend and if not being able to have sex with some one is a curse that is lust not love. I love my wife but am currently celibate because my marriage has not yet been con-validated by the church. This is no curse.

The “option to not be celibate”??? What are you talking about? Religious and the faithful do not have this right? Do they not have sexual desires?

 

[JimO]

Pets, children, rocks, trees, and the Berlin Wall cannot give informed consent, therefore they cannot be married. That particular slippery slope argument is founded on erroneous postulates.

I happen to believe that someone will eventually try to marry a pet…and will likely succeed. The reason? You say that animals cannot give informed consent. Says who? Apes can respond in sign language. Many claim their pets understand and are self aware. Many people value animal life more than human life. It’s a logical next step.

 

[fix]

How is the business owner’s conscience violated by the actions of others? The conscience second-guesses the self, not everyone else.

If a B&B owner does not want to rent to an openly gay couple why must he subject himself and children to it?

If that conduct (voluntary or no, and I’d dispute that it is necessarily) doesn’t harm you, discriminating against someone because of it makes about as much sense to me as discriminating based on race.

How is chosen conduct equal to unchosen race, age , gender, ect?

er, what? Homosexuals have equal dignity and rights to others but they are justly discriminated against? You contradict yourself. Equal dignity means I should not be treated as a second-class citizen. Equal rights means that the government should afford me the same services and protections it does you such as civil marriage and divorce, employability, and the opportunity to patronize a place of business without regard to any personal characteristics I may or may not possess.

No contradiction. We justly discriminate everyday, even you. You never chose to avoid certain conduct?

Who defines ‘just’? You? With all respect, you’re not an arbiter I would choose. The Church? Same problem.

All rights and justice comes from the creator. I see the chronic problem here is relativism.

What other people do in bed isn’t your business. Discriminating against them for that is unreasonable, immoral, and dare I say it, unchristian.

Unjust discrimination would be wrong, but that is not at issue here. How would we know about bedroom conduct unless they declare it publicly?

That is exactly what I meant by ‘forcing me to change’. I would still believe as I do now – that’s hard, but sadly still possible, to change through coercion – but you would make it illegal to be me. I’d have to act in accordance with your ideal laws, even though I ordinarily would not, just to remain free.

No law can force you to stop believing. Law can stop you, and me, from acting contrary to the good of society. And it ought to do just that.

How many fingers, Winston?

…“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” There are a lot of Humpty Dumptys around in our time, turning words inside out to turn the moral order upside down. They call vice “liberation” and infanticide “health care.”…

Orwell optimistically thought that the decay is reversible, but “to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.” By definition, however, regeneration is not the desire of the degenerate. The clarity of thought urged, for instance, by Pope Benedict is considered scandalous. The historian Toynbee said that civilizations die, not by invasion, but by suicide. Under the guise of sophistication, the moral lights of culture begin to dim when wordplay is considered an amusing game and not a sinister plot…

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=509

 

[fix]

Consent is. Pets, children, rocks, trees, and the Berlin Wall cannot give informed consent, therefore they cannot be married. That particular slippery slope argument is founded on erroneous postulates.

I always marvel at this argument. Why would consent be sufficient to make an action morally good or civilly acceptable? It may be necessary for marriage, but it can’t be sufficient. How can one bind another to an immoral and unnatural act? It would be like me asking someone to kill me and claiming that is moral and legal simply because there is consent.

Marriage is more than an act of consent.

 

[Mirdath]

All sexual activity is immoral by church standards if it does not have the potential to produce life. This is why contraception is forbidden. This type of sex is not a true expression of love from the Catholic perspective.

Yet the Church allows sterile heterosexuals to marry and have sex.

The inablity to define love legally is more my point. You can’t say a homo-sexual doesn’t have the same rights because they are not allowed to marry someone they “love”. They have exactly the same marriage rights because they can legally marry some one of the opposite sex was my point.

But they aren’t attracted to people of the opposite sex. They have absolutely no desire to marry someone with different genitalia – and the government shouldn’t care about love anyway, but consent. If two heterosexuals want to get married, they can. If two homosexuals want to get married, in most places they can’t, no matter how loving their relationship. This is neither fair nor just. Saying they should just shut up and marry someone with opposite genitalia if they want to have sex is ignorant and offensive.

You completely twist things and miss the point by bringing up dysfuntional or abusive heteo-sexual relationship and the fact that they exist is irrelevant. I do wonder however what is the “divorce rate” of homo-sexuals as we already know they have many more partners over their lives statistically.

You’re right, I missed your point. I thought for a moment there that you didn’t regard homosexuals as entirely lower-class than heterosexuals. Oops.

And yeah, that question is irrelevant – this entire tack is, we’re supposed to be discussing the nature and extent of ‘tolerance’. But like I said, I’m genuinely curious. This happened to be a convenient place to ask you.

The argument of “not being able to express your love” is ridiculous. Love between people is not some cosmic destiny as it often portrayed in story and legend and if not being able to have sex with some one is a curse that is lust not love. I love my wife but am currently celibate because my marriage has not yet been con-validated by the church. This is no curse.

Sex may be a dirty, sweaty, animal ritual, but it’s also the most primal and basic expression of total, passionate love we have. Is there lust involved? Of course there is, otherwise it’s cold and unloving and generally no fun at all!

Even the Church does not restrict the ‘good’ motives for sex to pure, mechanical procreation: it regards it quite highly as an expression of marital love. But you’re not allowed to show your love for another this deeply if you aren’t of opposite sexes.

The “option to not be celibate”??? What are you talking about? Religious and the faithful do not have this right?

Read it again, I said they do (well, not religious who take a vow of chastity, but they give it up voluntarily) – homosexuals don’t have that right at all, according to the Church.

 

[Mirdath]

I happen to believe that someone will eventually try to marry a pet…and will likely succeed. The reason? You say that animals cannot give informed consent. Says who? Apes can respond in sign language. Many claim their pets understand and are self aware. Many people value animal life more than human life. It’s a logical next step.

When an animal can pass the Turing test, communicate at a high school level, and prove its self-awareness and sentience, I will have no objections should someone (else!) want to marry it and both parties consent. I would object if someone wanted to keep that animal as a pet – it is human, in spirit if not in form. If intelligent aliens came to earth, would you object if one of them got married to a human being? Same principle.

fix:

If a B&B owner does not want to rent to an openly gay couple why must he subject himself and children to it?

Replace ‘gay’ with ‘black’ and see how you like it. Homosexuality isn’t like trying to get into a five-star restaurant with a mohawk and jeans.

How is chosen conduct equal to unchosen race, age , gender, ect?

The chooseability of the orientation is debatable at best. As for chosen conduct – well, let’s look at that example you gave just now again. Replace ‘gay’ with ‘heterosexual’; how would you feel if you and your hypothetical wife tried to get a room together and were denied because you were straight? Why must anyone subject him- or herself and (gasp!) children to your rampant heterosexuality? Do unto others, fix.

No contradiction. We justly discriminate everyday, even you. You never chose to avoid certain conduct?

Avoiding certain conduct myself isn’t discrimination at all. Now, I may try not to go to certain city neighborhoods alone at night – that could be considered just discrimination. But that discrimination is an assessment of risk, and completely independent of how much one approves of another’s hairstyle, skin color, piercings, taste in music, or choice of significant other.

All rights and justice comes from the creator. I see the chronic problem here is relativism.

The underlying problem is that you can’t logically prove the existence of that creator, let alone his interest in ethics and morals. People have tried it – it’s impossible.

Unjust discrimination would be wrong, but that is not at issue here. How would we know about bedroom conduct unless they declare it publicly?

Voyeurism, obviously – which is wrong in and of itself, but entirely too prevalent a thing in modern society. Rumor-mongering (it doesn’t have to be true for it to be accused). Libel.

And yes, people out in public proudly giving out the details of their sex lives. If you want to kick someone out of your establishment for doing that, I have no objection.

No law can force you to stop believing. Law can stop you, and me, from acting contrary to the good of society. And it ought to do just that.

Exactly right.

But I do not see how homosexuality is at all detrimental to society, assuming there’s a large enough population of heterosexuals to assure its continuance.

The moral lights of culture begin to dim when wordplay is considered an amusing game and not a sinister plot

As someone who prefers to think of and use words as daggers and barbs, I heartily appreciate this To me, wordplay is not a game but a dance, and a very dangerous one at that.

Marriage is more than an act of consent.

Quite right, but consent is definitely a prerequisite that should never be overlooked.

 

[fix]

Replace ‘gay’ with ‘black’ and see how you like it. Homosexuality isn’t like trying to get into a five-star restaurant with a mohawk and jeans.

Why should I replace the two words? That would make no sense as they are in no way equivalent. Claiming to be “gay” is a political tool. One’s behavior and inclination does not warrant suspending the natural moral law so that society must adopt to base standards.

The chooseability of the orientation is debatable at best. As for chosen conduct – well, let’s look at that example you gave just now again. Replace ‘gay’ with ‘heterosexual’; how would you feel if you and your hypothetical wife tried to get a room together and were denied because you were straight? Why must anyone subject him- or herself and (gasp!) children to your rampant heterosexuality?

Why would normal behavior be deemed wrong? That lack of rational thought is what concerns so many today.

Do unto others, fix.

That is exactly what I am doing. I would hope someone would correct me if I tried to pass vice off as virtue.

Avoiding certain conduct myself isn’t discrimination at all. Now, I may try not to go to certain city neighborhoods alone at night – that could be considered just discrimination. But that discrimination is an assessment of risk, and completely independent of how much one approves of another’s hairstyle, skin color, piercings, taste in music, or choice of significant other.

No, just discrimination is excluding behavior that is objectively wrong. It includes society’s obligation to preserve the moral order.

The underlying problem is that you can’t logically prove the existence of that creator, let alone his interest in ethics and morals. People have tried it – it’s impossible.

Plenty of proof is available. The proofs are not lacking. That many refuse them does not mean the proof is poor. It may mean accepting the proof would include changing the way we lead our lives. That is what so many do not want. Frustrated wishes concern too many more than practicing right conduct.

Voyeurism, obviously – which is wrong in and of itself, but entirely too prevalent a thing in modern society. Rumor-mongering (it doesn’t have to be true for it to be accused). Libel.

No, what about presenting oneself with one’s “husband” when both are men? No need to peep.

But I do not see how homosexuality is at all detrimental to society, assuming there’s a large enough population of heterosexuals to assure its continuance.

Yes, the heart of the matter. Among many things public, and legal, acceptance of such unions begins to unleash antisocial attitudes, license, and grave moral disorder.

As someone who prefers to think of and use words as daggers and barbs, I heartily appreciate this To me, wordplay is not a game but a dance, and a very dangerous one at that.

Yes, words like homophobe, hate, intolerant, love, and others have been hijacked to be used in a culture war. We see here in these fora.

 

[BlazingBolt]

Yet the Church allows sterile heterosexuals to marry and have sex…

The Church does not allow them to sterilize themselves or to perform sex acts that are inherently sterile. They are having anatomically correct sex that would normally be fertile and everythings else is up to God.

But they aren’t attracted to people of the opposite sex. They have absolutely no desire to marry someone with different genitalia – and the government shouldn’t care about love anyway, but consent. If two heterosexuals want to get married, they can. If two homosexuals want to get married, in most places they can’t, no matter how loving their relationship. This is neither fair nor just. Saying they should just shut up and marry someone with opposite genitalia if they want to have sex is ignorant and offensive…

This is exactly the problem, it is not about who you are attracted to when it comes to morallity, that is irrelevant. It is obsurd to even imply that attraction or natural desire has anything to do with morallity. Pedophiles are attracted to children and some think the laws are unfair and unjust and can find children willing to consent. Prostitution has consent all the way around and yet the moral and civil law both prohibit it. The exact same moral and legal laws apply to everyone regardless of who they are attracted to. How can this be unjust. Nobody is saying a homo-sexual should shut up and enter in to a hetero-sexual marriage, that is obsurd. Morally we say they should remain celibate and not allow themselves to be ruled by their sexual desires. Saying that legally they currently have exactly the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they should, it is just pointing out that there is no discrimination. I don’t think most people are against them gaining some civil rights regarding civil matters but don’t try and say that religions should be forced to marry them because they have some civil right to it.

Sex may be a dirty, sweaty, animal ritual, but it’s also the most primal and basic expression of total, passionate love we have. Is there lust involved? Of course there is, otherwise it’s cold and unloving and generally no fun at all!

Even the Church does not restrict the ‘good’ motives for sex to pure, mechanical procreation: it regards it quite highly as an expression of marital love. But you’re not allowed to show your love for another this deeply if you aren’t of opposite sexes.
.

Just because you desire homo-sexual sex does not make it morally acceptable.Morally you shouldn’t even be out dating looking for romantic homo-sexual relationships where you feel the need to physically express it. And the whole argument is pretty empty because I have never heard any homo-sexual assert it is only acceptable to have sex in a seriously commited deeply loving relationship. Married couples are not allowed to engage in sodomy, mutual masturbation, or contracepted sex as none of these are considered true expressions of love. The Churches moral position is that the sexual union is sacred and honors God. You can not seperate God from love, that is like defining love for yourself, and that is why none of the morally prohibited sex acts are considered expressions of love. God designed sex to work a certain way and it is immoral to take it and distort it how we want to our own desires and then try and call it love.

Read it again, I said they do (well, not religious who take a vow of chastity, but they give it up voluntarily) – homosexuals don’t have that right at all, according to the Church.

Again, they all have the same rights. Desires do not make things right. We all prohibited from homo-sexual act whether we desire them or not.

 

[Mirdath]

Why would normal behavior be deemed wrong? That lack of rational thought is what concerns so many today.

Homosexuality isn’t abnormal either – it occurs with animals. It’s only your moral standards that qualify it as ‘unnatural’.

Plenty of proof is available. The proofs are not lacking. That many refuse them does not mean the proof is poor. It may mean accepting the proof would include changing the way we lead our lives. That is what so many do not want. Frustrated wishes concern too many more than practicing right conduct.

The proofs are lacking – or at the very least, they’ve got severe holes and weaknesses. Even Immanuel Kant, who was religious, took the time to break proofs of the existence of God because he believed that to try to shoehorn divinity into logic was a useless exercise.

Yes, the heart of the matter. Among many things public, and legal, acceptance of such unions begins to unleash antisocial attitudes, license, and grave moral disorder.

I invite you to actually back that statement up – in pm or another thread though.

everything else fix said

I am not going to debate the morality or immorality of various forms of sex with you. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and while I can muster a certain amount of respect or at least apathy towards yours you don’t seem to be able to do the same for mine.

BlazingBolt:

It is obsurd to even imply that attraction or natural desire has anything to do with morallity.

Funny, that’s one of my beliefs. It is absurd – which is why saying that acting on homosexual attraction or desire is naturally sinful is kind of weird to me.

Pedophiles are attracted to children and some think the laws are unfair and unjust and can find children willing to consent.

Please note the qualifier ‘informed’ in front of it. Children cannot give informed consent.

Prostitution has consent all the way around and yet the moral and civil law both prohibit it.

Some moral laws, and some civil laws. It’s still legal in Nevada. I personally apply the none-of-my-business rule to it.

The exact same moral and legal laws apply to everyone regardless of who they are attracted to. How can this be unjust.

Because people are not exactly the same. To say that every child in group A gets candy while the kids in group B do not because everybody in B happens to be wearing blue is hardly just, is it?

Saying that legally they currently have exactly the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they should, it is just pointing out that there is no discrimination.

But it is discrimination. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry people they love; homosexuals are not. Pretty plain distinction there.

don’t think most people are against them gaining some civil rights regarding civil matters but don’t try and say that religions should be forced to marry them because they have some civil right to it.

I haven’t; in fact, I’ve said the exact opposite in this very thread. Twice, I think. I even proposed that we do away with civil ‘marriage’ and have civil unions for all, and religious marriages for those who want them (assuming the church agrees). That way it’s win-win.

Morally you shouldn’t even be out dating looking for romantic homo-sexual relationships where you feel the need to physically express it.

‘Morally’ according to a source I do not draw my moral standards from. You’re free to disagree, all I ask is you say your piece and not harp endlessly on it.

And the whole argument is pretty empty because I have never heard any homo-sexual assert it is only acceptable to have sex in a seriously commited deeply loving relationship.

Sex is only acceptable or even worth having in a serious, loving relationship. Go

You can not seperate God from love, that is like defining love for yourself, and that is why none of the morally prohibited sex acts are considered expressions of love.

I don’t buy it. Expressions of love between people are whatever expressions and actions are meaningful to them.

 

[goofyjim]

I have read that same thing…for years. Homosexuality is genetic? Where is the proof of that. The Human Genome project has looked at every gene on the chromosome and guess what…no gay gene found. So, if people still want to sell that one, they are going to have to work on the science first.

Now, as far as charity goes…I am all about it. I do not, nor will I ever, believe that the Church should turn anyone away. My Church is full of sinner, and I am one of them. However, the Church should NEVER bend to the will of the people. I do not care that it is “cool” to be gay now. I do not care that secular society has accepted the gay lifestyle. The Church, the Bible, and the Pope all maintain that homosexuality is sin…so I say it is too.

Homosexual acts are a sin. Homosexuality as a condition is not.

 

[BlazingBolt]

Natural desire makes something not sinful is what you believe? Just because animals do it makes it OK? You don’t think these beliefs are obsurd?

So then we should live by the law of the jungle?

That is the crux of it, as a Catholic we believe we are more than just animals and that we are called to a higher purpose. We allow our rational minds to control how we act and not our animal instincts. We believe divine revelation has shown us how to live and we strive to live as God wants us to.

The candy argument is non-sense as well. It is unjust that I can not run like LaDanian Tomlinson? It is unjust I can’t sing like Whitney Houston? It is unjust when one person is born rich and one is not? Is it unjust that everyone does not receive candy?

I have also repeated over and over how it is not discrimination yet you don’t get it. Love is not something that can be defined legally so you can’t say they are discrimnated against because they can’t marry someone they love.

 

[rlg94086]

The desire or temptation is not the sin. Entertaining those desires and taking action are the sins. We may have some of the same instincts as animals, but we are capable of self-mastery for a higher purpose.

Natural desire makes something not sinful is what you believe? Just because animals do it makes it OK? You don’t think these beliefs are obsurd?

So then we should live by the law of the jungle?

That is the crux of it, as a Catholic we believe we are more than just animals and that we are called to a higher purpose. We allow our rational minds to control how we act and not our animal instincts. We believe divine revelation has shown us how to live.

 

[goofyjim]

I have read all the theories of what causes homosexuality. I did not fit any of those form the overbearing mother or distant father bs. I came from a perfectly normal family. Yet I turned out to be homosexual in orientation only. I think this should be presented as evidence that there is something biological involved. I do not engage in the acts but I am sick to death of both the gay agenda on the left and the religious right who insinuate a connection between AIDS and the homosexual condition as though it is God’s divine punishment on a group of people. The false following of visions in Bayside, NY tried this and was condemned by the Church. While we don’t have to tolerate homosexual acts we can tolerate the orientation instead of rushing the person off to a psychiatrist to reverse it. Let’s just view it as God’s humorous form of population control. If everyone were wired for heterosexuality and producing babies by the dozen then the world would overpopulate itself.