Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[Cor_Cordis]

So, you are unable to answer my question. Why am I not surprised?

rossum

I did answer.

I objected to the inherently disordered pathology of lesbianism. I simply stated that in the interactive form a question.

Sodomy is not the only dysfunction of the overall disorder of same-sex relationships, you know. There are gender specific dysfunctions within the overall pathology. Proving once again (contrary to the implied nature of the dysfunction itself) that genders are not interchangeable.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

False. There is gay civil marriage. Civil marriage is defined in civil law, not in religious law. There is indeed no gay Catholic marriage, but there is gay civil marriage.

rossum

That is still not “marriage”.

No more so than “open monogamy” in homosexual relationships are … “monogamous”.

 

[HansTrappist]

False. There is gay civil marriage. Civil marriage is defined in civil law, not in religious law. There is indeed no gay Catholic marriage, but there is gay civil marriage.

rossum

There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. It doesn’t really exist, nor will it ever exist.

It only “exists” by virtue of Satan’s word - which is an illusion, a deception, an abomination.

It is contrary to God’s Word - the only word that matters.

 

[josh987654321]

In reading some of my comments, I can see how they would be very hurtful to a homosexual, saying that their desires are disordered, not natural or normal behaviours, no doubt this is why alot would suffer from depression and things, It would be a very heavy cross to carry as a homosexual, I think most people on here who defend homosexuality are thinking that by pretending homosexual desires are normal that it will relieve the weight of their crosses, their heart is in the right place, they are just incorrect because it will not work, deep down inside homosexuals would always know that their desires are disordered, no matter how hard they try to mimic a hetrosexual lifestyle.

I apologise for any offense my previous posts may have caused to anyone, I have been viewing things from a selfish perspective, which was to find a way to tell other hetrosexuals like me to oppose homosexual desires with me, which was wrong of me, I should have been looking at it from a perspective of someone who is homosexual to oppose homosexual desires.

Id like to find a way to help homosexuals, with controling their desires and living a full life, one which is content with themselves, as yes they may have some disordered desires, but we all have disordered desires including hetrosexuals that we must not act on, but that does not mean that there is something wrong with them, or that they themselves are disordered and they still have an opportunity to lead a very full and normal life through Christ, that they are no different to any other person who leads a full and fruitful life.

Again I sincerely apologise for the Insensitivites of my previous posts.

Thank you for reading
Josh.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

In reading some of my comments, I can see how they would be very hurtful to a homosexual, saying that their desires are disordered, not natural or normal behaviours, no doubt this is why alot would suffer from depression and things, It would be a very heavy cross to carry as a homosexual, I think most people on here who defend homosexuality are thinking that by pretending homosexual desires are normal that it will relieve the weight of their crosses, their heart is in the right place, they are just incorrect because will not work, deep down inside homosexuals would always know that their desires are disordered, no matter how hard they try to mimic a hetrosexual lifestyle.

I apologise for any offense my previous posts may have caused to anyone, I have been viewing things from a selfish perspective, which was to find a way to tell hetrosexuals to oppose homosexual desires with me, which was wrong of me, I should have been looking at it from a perspective of someone who is homosexual to oppose homosexual desires.

Id like to find a way to help homosexuals, with controling their desires and living a full life, one which is content with themselves, as yes they may have some disordered desires, but we all have disordered desires including hetrosexuals that we must not act on, but that does not mean that there is something wrong with them, or that they themselves are disordered and they still have an opportunity to lead a very full and normal life through Christ, that they are no different to any other person who leads a full and fruitful life.

Again I sincerely apologise for the Insensitivites of my previous posts.

Thank you for reading
Josh.

sigh

And here we go again with the predictable and inevitable “using accurate terms to describe the dysfunctional nature of homosexuality is hateful” :crying:

This is nothing more than a shallow attempt to stifle dissent.

Here is the terminology used in the Catechism. It is only a matter of time before its definitions are deemed “bigoted and hateful” as well:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances can they be approved. **

 

[Cor_Cordis]

In reading some of my comments, I can see how they would be very hurtful to a homosexual, saying that their desires are disordered, not natural or normal behaviours,

Can you also see how the advocates of homosexuality are using disingenuous, dishonest, and hurtful tactics to damage our society, advance religious intolerance, and possibly corrupt untold generations of innocent children?

Or is your disdained alignment only towards the feigned facade of aggressive “victim-hood” tactic adopted by the homosexual advocates?

If they are so terribly offended, then why are they on a Roman Catholic web site that is dedicated to the advancement of honest Catholic orthodoxy, to begin with?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

In reading some of my comments, I can see how they would be very hurtful to a homosexual, saying that their desires are disordered, not natural or normal behaviours, .

The venerable St. Anthony of Padua was known as ‘The Hammer Of The Heretics’.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I suppose then, that every person who has a mother should abstain from all involvement in deciding women’s rights issues, or any piece of legislation involving women… out of love and concern for them.

Good analogy, my response…

All stress response’s are not equal created equal.

 

[fix]

False. There is gay civil marriage. Civil marriage is defined in civil law, not in religious law. There is indeed no gay Catholic marriage, but there is gay civil marriage.

rossum

The law can claim there is a square circle but no such thing exists.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Or is your disdained alignment only towards the feigned facade of aggressive “victim-hood” tactic adopted by the homosexual advocates?

Could it be the poster is considering the tone of his posts in an attempt to conform to the teaching of the Church?

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

[fix]

In reading some of my comments, I can see how they would be very hurtful to a homosexual, saying that their desires are disordered, not natural or normal behaviours, no doubt this is why alot would suffer from depression and things, It would be a very heavy cross to carry as a homosexual, I think most people on here who defend homosexuality are thinking that by pretending homosexual desires are normal that it will relieve the weight of their crosses, their heart is in the right place, they are just incorrect because it will not work, deep down inside homosexuals would always know that their desires are disordered, no matter how hard they try to mimic a hetrosexual lifestyle.

I apologise for any offense my previous posts may have caused to anyone, I have been viewing things from a selfish perspective, which was to find a way to tell other hetrosexuals like me to oppose homosexual desires with me, which was wrong of me, I should have been looking at it from a perspective of someone who is homosexual to oppose homosexual desires.

Id like to find a way to help homosexuals, with controling their desires and living a full life, one which is content with themselves, as yes they may have some disordered desires, but we all have disordered desires including hetrosexuals that we must not act on, but that does not mean that there is something wrong with them, or that they themselves are disordered and they still have an opportunity to lead a very full and normal life through Christ, that they are no different to any other person who leads a full and fruitful life.

Again I sincerely apologise for the Insensitivites of my previous posts.

Thank you for reading
Josh.

Not everything that some find offensive is offensive. Be aware that many people can read these posts. You may be helping many people to see the error of the homosexual agenda.
There is such a thing as taking illegitimate offense. Claiming hurt when one hears what is true does not always mean the speaker was wrong.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Could it be the poster is considering the tone of his posts in an attempt to conform to the teaching of the Church?

Could it be that the terminology should still remain?

Could it be that my “tone” is relative to the “tone” of the homosexual advocates in here?

Could it be that you are passing judgement on my* intentions*?

 

[fix]

Could it be that the terminology should still remain?

Could it be that my “tone” is relative to the “tone” of the homosexual advocates in here?

Could it be that you are passing judgement on my* intentions*?

You bring a great perspective to our post modern mind-set. The CCC does not call us to be effete. The entire truth must be accented not just one part of the equation. Also, the techniques of the “gay” left have become so much ingrained in our cultural awareness that a robust defense of Christian doctrine is now suspect and seen as uncharitable. What a mess.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

A question for everyone:

Should the Catechism suddenly change its “hateful” terminology to accommodate the victim-hood mentality of the same-sex marriage advocates?

Should the Church make that implied admission of “bigotry and hate”?

Should the Church surrender the last vestiges of its Religious Liberties?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Could it be that the terminology should still remain?

Could it be that my “tone” is relative to the “tone” of the homosexual advocates in here?

Could it be that you are passing judgement on my* intentions*?

Terminology is acceptable, but when using ‘tones’ one should consider their intent and conforming to the whole teaching of the Church on a matter. After all, the Church uses the terminology and teaches ‘They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’

I can’t see what’s in your heart. Only you and God know your intent.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You bring a great perspective to our post modern mind-set. The CCC does not call us to be effete. The entire truth must be accented not just one part of the equation. Also, the techniques of the “gay” left have become so much ingrained in our cultural awareness that a robust defense of Christian doctrine is now suspect and seen as uncharitable. What a mess.

Proper orientation.= Man/Woman=marriage/children=life. We are contending with diabolical disorientation. And for sure not just in the gay paradigm.

 

[fix]

A question for everyone:

Should the Catechism suddenly change its “hateful” terminology to accommodate the victim-hood mentality of the same-sex marriage advocates?

Should the Church make that implied admission of “bigotry and hate”?

Should the Church surrender the last vestiges of its Religious Liberties?

The thing is the CCC can be used as a cudgel on both ends. It can be used to destroy without including true love and it can be used to destroy by including false love.

Much of the problem is one of interpretation.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You bring a great perspective to our post modern mind-set. The CCC does not call us to be effete. The entire truth must be accented not just one part of the equation. Also, the techniques of the “gay” left have become so much ingrained in our cultural awareness that a robust defense of Christian doctrine is now suspect and seen as uncharitable. What a mess.

Too many Catholics have been swayed by the mindless thought-process of our shallow pop culture, fix.

There’s a reason same-sex marriage is championed by so many so-called “catholics”.

The Church needs a housecleaning ASAP. And one does not clean the temple out without turning over a few tables. If that were possible, Our Lord would have done so.

May God have Mercy on us all.

 

[fix]

Proper orientation.= Man/Woman=marriage/children=life. We are contending with diabolical disorientation. And for sure not just in the gay paradigm.

I agree it is diabolical. Even stating that will bring condemnation from some.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Terminology is acceptable, but when using ‘tones’ one should consider their intent and conforming to the whole teaching of the Church on a matter. After all, the Church uses the terminology and teaches ‘They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.’

I can’t see what’s in your heart. Only you and God know your intent.

When will you use the “hateful and bigoted” terminology of the Catechism, PS?

When?

And when did your perception of “tone” become the definable arbiter of “tolerance”?

And when will you* tolerate *my “tone”?