Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lokabrenna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a damning formulation. Although to be clear i was not referring solely to the issue of same sex marriage, but the issue of homosexuality as a whole. I don’t agree with the churches position on homosexuality and I believe the church does persecutes homosexuals who practice homosexuality.
The Church isn’t persecuting homosexuals, period. To claim that something is a sin----adultery, fornication, masturbation,rape, molestation, prostitution, homosexual acts—is not to persecute people. It is to instruct them.
 
I agree. I’m just saying that that should be the focus of the debate-that and whether or not denying same-sex marriage infringes upon the rights of those living in a free society. The “we shouldn’t legislate morality” card doesn’t really work.
Gotcha. And like many Catholics, I have nothing against homosexuals who are living in chastity being members of the Church. Supporting homosexual “marriage” inside or outside the Church, however, is wrong for all Catholics.
 
and the truth of the matter is-it hasn’t happened. Even in the liberal bastion of NYC, not one single Catholic church has had to fight against gay people who “demand” that they marry them. It hasn’t happened in any other American place that already allows gay marriage.

However, it’s a fear card that keeps getting played over and over and over hoping that people won’t notice the lack of actual evidence.

There are a great many things that secular society says is legal to do that my Church says is not ok for me to do. I have no trouble obeying those rules without the force of a secular law. To me, the choice to obey the Church IN SPITE OF the laws of secular society makes faith stronger. I think about the Orthodox Jews that own the deli up the street from me, they aren’t asking everyone in America to stop eating pork, to worship on Saturday or stop putting dairy and meat on the same plates-but they are doing it. They close that deli on Friday night before sundown and don’t reopen until Sunday, even though they know they’re losing potential customers on those busy Saturday mornings.

Keep standing up for traditional marriage, continue to encourage people to understand the entire Theology of the Body and WHY the Church believes that gay marriage is wrong in the larger context. Those arguments are harder to make, they don’t fit on a bumper sticker but they are the real truth.
lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
Code:
A Catholic bishop in Calgary was the target of complaints filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he issued a pastoral letter urging Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage.

An Alberta pastor, also the target of a complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, was ordered to never again publicly express his religious belief that homosexuality is immoral and was required to pay $5,000 to the complainant as “damages for pain and suffering."

A Human Rights Commission complaint was also filed against a Catholic priest for quoting from the Bible, the Catholic Catechism, and papal encyclicals.
lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages

cc.org/blog/christians_sued_not_allowing_homosexual_ceremonies

radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/proposed-law-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

christianpost.com/news/court-canadian-commissioners-must-wed-gay-couples-48443/

I could post more…

I think we’re (Canada) is headed to a scary, scary place where religious liberty is very much trampled on in the face of ‘human rights’. So everyone else gets their rights protected but individuals and churches will have their rights trampled on.

It’s a delicate balance and someone is dropping the ball.
 
Dale_M;9795709 [QUOTE said:
]The Catholic Church has long advocated using government to impose morality. The campaign against same-sex marriage is just one recent example.
The reasons I have posted against government mandating so-called “gay marriage” are secular.

Forcing me to pay for a so-called “gay marriage” at the federal level violates my Constitutional rights.

The Church has shown an interest in maintaining the stability of society with regards to issues like cloning, abortion and marriage but it also needs to take a good hard look at states rights and the freedom to screw up.

Had the Catholic elite actually paid attention to what was in the AHA, for instance, this contraception nonsense would not have caught them by surprise.
Government routinely spends money on policies which not all citizens agree with. The invasion of Iraq is a major case in point, but so are such things as spending on the space program or on federal education grants.
The federal government should not be involved in education and should not have gone to war in Iraq.

As for the space program, that’s debatable since airspace and defense are involved, but most of the scientific advances come from R & D in private contracts, so it really isn’t comparable to your point .
 
Marc Anthony;9796090 [QUOTE said:
]The thing is, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. All laws legislate morality to one extent or another.
Laws also by their very nature discriminate. I discriminate whenever I pick one brand of cheese over the other at the store.
The real question is whether or not this is putting the legislation of morality OVER the values held in a free society like the United States.
The way it needs to be done is to allow the Constitution and the laboratories of democracy (ie the states) work.

So for instance in states like VT, MA, NY or even IA were there are gay rights, it’s worth noting that those states are losing population and/or influence due their secular, liberal nature. In fact, Iowa recently recalled three republican judges who legalized so-called “gay marriage” over the will of the people.

That action may be unprecedented.

In New York, NOM helped primary out some lawmakers who legalized so-called “gay marriage” there.

50 years ago, NY had 45 electoral votes. Now, they have 29. Texas used to have about 24. Now they have 38.

See a pattern here?

What happens in societies that invest in nonsense like so-called “gay marriage” is they basically throw their money away, and people take notice. Same-sex couples cannot reproduce themselves, and despite the progressive choke-hold on the social sciences, research is starting to show that same-sex relationships are often unstable and unsuitable for children.

The pattern I see here is the same pattern with co-habitation. In the late 60s and 70s, people said it was “no big deal” but in the 80s and 90s, research came out showing it was costly and quite detrimental.

States that have legalized “gay marriage” will soon find out (one way or another) that it isn’t much of an investment and all it is largely a bunch of people huddling together trying to look and feel good in front of someone different, and that is what they are paying for.

To be clear, same-sex activity is not the main reason why this happens, but it really does show a measure of social decay and decline.

Note that no state with legalized gay rights, including the great state of Iowa, have a birth rate that can replenish the population.
At what point is the enforcement of morality infringing on the rights given to us in the U.S. Constitution?
Whenever your behavior interferes with your neighbor’s Constitutional rights. Marriage, abortion, bailouts, education and health care are NOT Constitutional rights and were meant to be dealt with at the state level regardless of whether they existed or not when the Constitution was written.

Forcing me to do business with someone because they are gay or taking the fruits of my labor and giving it to them violates my Constitutional rights.

What so many Americans do not understand is that there is Constitutional right to many of the things they think are “rights”.

They also do not understand the plenary police power of the states. In fact, aspiring politicians used to** run for federal office* before*** state or territorial office because the states and territories used to have all the power.
 
I agree. I’m just saying that that should be the focus of the debate-that and whether or not denying same-sex marriage infringes upon the rights of those living in a free society. The “we shouldn’t legislate morality” card doesn’t really work.
If we’re going to be successful at this, we need to focus more on the secular reasoning, and believe me, it’s there and works just like it does on any other progressive cause.

The nuts and bolts are all about emotion, feeling pleasure, equality of outcome, why we have to pay for it… all the usual nonsense from post-modern liberal “causes”.

The drawback to drumming up posts and editorials that quote Scripture, is that the other side laughs in their sleeves and turns the discussion over into eating shellfish (it’s my understanding this was/is the first thing that pops up on wiki) and ancient Jewish laws that not even the Orthodox sects follow to the letter anymore.

Arguing it from an economic standpoint—ie, if you want gays and whomever else (yes, it’s already happening) to marry and get the government involved, you are most certainly going to foot the bill.

That means you work more for less.
 
If we’re going to be successful at this, we need to focus more on the secular reasoning, and believe me, it’s there and works just like it does on any other progressive cause.

The nuts and bolts are all about emotion, feeling pleasure, equality of outcome, why we have to pay for it… all the usual nonsense from post-modern liberal “causes”.
I guess that’s true. At least, what you said about religious folk needing to use secular arguments.
The drawback to drumming up posts and editorials that quote Scripture, is that the other side laughs in their sleeves and turns the discussion over into eating shellfish (it’s my understanding this was/is the first thing that pops up on wiki) and ancient Jewish laws that not even the Orthodox sects follow to the letter anymore.
Lots of atheists do this, but normally because they’re not interested. If I’m honest, if you quote the Bible I’m really just going to pull a blank and ignore you, or at the very most ask you for evidence that the Bible is correct or divinely inspired. I myself avoid bringing up Leviticus or Deuteronomy or other Old Testament laws as I’m aware that they’re irrelevant. I sometimes argue that Romans 1:26 - 1:32 tells Christians (possibly only Protestants, as Catholics seem to have their own teachings away from the Bible) that homosexuals ought to be put to death.
Arguing it from an economic standpoint—ie, if you want gays and whomever else (yes, it’s already happening) to marry and get the government involved, you are most certainly going to foot the bill.

That means you work more for less.
How is it going to have that much of an affect on me economically? Do elaborate, please. 😃
 
Think about what it involves, and how degrading it is, and then realize how disgusting homosexual practices are.
 
Think about what it involves, and how degrading it is, and then realize how disgusting homosexual practices are.
Is it degrading? I quite like it. Between two women, that is. It makes me feel funny. In my pants…



As for the men, they can do what they please. I don’t quite see how two women is any worse than a man and a woman, though, or how it’s anymore degrading. I don’t necessarily see how anal sex is anymore degrading than other forms of sex, either.
 
I thought that this might be directed at me and for the sake of clarity, I thought that I should address this.

I am not gay. I live with my spouse, she doesn’t believe in marriage, with our two children and my 15 month old nephew who we are fostering because his intellectually disabled mother (my sister) is unable to care for him and his pedophile father is not allowed to have contact with him.

Its not another homosexual coming in. I am sorry for any confusion caused.
I don’t think he was saying that, Elric. The term often seems to be used to indicated someone who is not necessarily homosexual him or herself, but is militant for a homosexual agenda or “cause,” which we know can even be a misguided or confused Catholic at times.
 
Think about what it involves, and how degrading it is, and then realize how disgusting homosexual practices are.
I think that’s quite an unfair statement. I wouldn’t say that the relationships I have had were degrading or disgusting. On the contrary, I found them fulfilling and loving.
 
If post #230 isn’t something to get banned from these forums over, then I don’t know what is.
 
Think about what it involves, and how degrading it is, and then realize how disgusting homosexual practices are.
…I’m probabaly going to be hated by all of the other Catholics on here…and Anglicans, and Lutherans, and ever other Christian on this site.

First of all, I am Catholic, I love God with all my heart. Praying the rosary gives me great joy, I respect the Bible, and I just love learning anything new about my beliefs.

Now, I don’t want to say that homosexuality isn’t a a choice, or that it’s not a sin, because according to the Bible, everything I’ve been raised with, it is a choice, and it is wrong. I don’t understand why it is what people call “degrading” or that they have no morals…because the only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual relationship is that…a woman and woman or man or man are with each other, and can’t produce a baby. In my opinion, their practices aren’t anymore disgusting than heterosexual practices are. I believe that love is love…I know that this is cliche, but I don’t think love knows a gender. I think gays deserve to be just as happy as straights. I think God wants them to be happy(I’m not saying to legalize gay marriage) I’m just saying that He loves them…and I’m sure everyone here knows that. I just think that sometimes people don’t think about that a woman and woman can be just as in love as a man and a woman. I’m not trying to put down anyone here, or offend anyone. I’m a very proud Catholic, I just think homosexuals need a little more understanding than what some people give them.
 
I appreciate you well-meant if heavily qualified support. I would however challenge you to give an account of the respects in which homosexuality is wrong, and the evidence that it is a choice.
 
I appreciate you well-meant if heavily qualified support. I would however challenge you to give an account of the respects in which homosexuality is wrong, and the evidence that it is a choice.
That’s the problem…the only evidence that I have that it’s wrong is in Leviticus…and no evidence that it’s a choice. I’m probably considered a bad Catholic for that, but it’s just something in me supports it.
 
That’s the problem…the only evidence that I have that it’s wrong is in Leviticus…and no evidence that it’s a choice. I’m probably considered a bad Catholic for that, but it’s just something in me supports it.
Well, if you have nothing to compel you to believe it is immoral besides a a biblical book full of antiquated laws and nothing whatsoever to compel you that it is a choice, I don’t see why you would believe those things. I mean, I know that you hold onto them because you were taught that way, but it is important and healthy always to question one’s positions and refine them to be more critically robust.
 
Very charitable commentary, Sneaux.

I can understand why a person would think homosexual sex is disgusting. I have more an aversion to lesbian sex. Actually, maybe both. But actually… heterosexual sex strikes me as being disgusting too. Now that I’m a bit older anyways.

The human body in general - with all its fluids and odors and bacteria - is not always that appealing.

I don’t know… I’m not asexual. I imagine it depends on the hygiene and degree of good looks and good physiques of the couple - and not their sexual orientation - as to how “sickening” the thought of the couple is for me.

But I think you might rethink the point about homosexuals having a choice. Being homosexual or lesbian is simply having an attraction to members of your same sex. That attraction is arguably not a conscious choice. But as with heterosexuals are choice comes in when we decide to act.

But sexual urges are not easy things. Food and sex are supposedly the basic core drives of humans and other animals if you listen to the science of biology. So, it’s not surprising humans have a significant vulnerability in the area of sex.
 
Well, if you have nothing to compel you to believe it is immoral besides a a biblical book full of antiquated laws and nothing whatsoever to compel you that it is a choice, I don’t see why you would believe those things. I mean, I know that you hold onto them because you were taught that way, but it is important and healthy always to question one’s positions and refine them to be more critically robust.
It’s not just the bible but the long tradition of the Catholic Church.

Catholics do not just look to the bible.

Whether or not it is moral is a philosophical or theological question.

But in terms of the purpose of human genitalia even the science of biology recognizes the purpose - and design - as reproductive. So, this aligns well with what the Catholic Church teaches as the primary purpose of sexual intercourse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top