So is it impossible to argue against same-sex marriage?

[Jennifer123]

the blatant and not so blatant insinuations that homosexuals are lesser members of Christ’s body will cease.

Recognizing, condoning and allowing secular recognition of “gay marriage” will not solve this problem.

 

[sydcatholic80]

This may be true but it doesn’t mean it is inherently genetic, and even if that is the cause it is not relevant. Many genetic traits are undesireable in that its active participation can lead one away from the life Christ wants for us.

Yes, but I was not arguing against Church teaching, but rather the way that people who don’t experience SSA like to try and tell us that we have ACTIVELY CHOSEN a SINFUL path.

I am living a life of chastity as is required by my faith, but it is hurtful to be continually told it is of my choosing. If it was as simple as a choice, would I really choose life alone in celibacy?

The Church in her Catechism reinforces that the genesis is unknown. That lone says we don’t know what the cause is. So it is presumptuous of those who do not suffer it to automatically know it is a choice or not. Me saying this is not arguing for same sex marriage. I am arguing the point of choice.

At least acknowledge that.

 

[Larowyn]

Yes, but I was not arguing against Church teaching, but rather the way that people who don’t experience SSA like to try and tell us that we have ACTIVELY CHOSEN a SINFUL path.

I am living a life of chastity as is required by my faith, but it is hurtful to be continually told it is of my choosing. If it was as simple as a choice, would I really choose life alone in celibacy?

The Church in her Catechism reinforces that the genesis is unknown. That lone says we don’t know what the cause is. So it is presumptuous of those who do not suffer it to automatically know it is a choice or not. Me saying this is not arguing for same sex marriage. I am arguing the point of choice.

At least acknowledge that.

I’m not saying that it is a choice, I’m just saying that it’s important to remember that homosexuality may or may not be something completely natural and that the possibility that it is the result of a subconscious choice cannot be eliminated just because it would be too difficult to handle.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I’m not saying that it is a choice, I’m just saying that it’s important to remember that homosexuality may or may not be something completely natural and that the possibility that it is the result of a subconscious choice cannot be eliminated just because it would be too difficult to handle.

Why is it so important to so many people that homosexuality be a matter of choice or environment?

If homosexuality is a choice, or is determined by environment, then it can be controlled or cured. It is then the homosexual’s fault that they are disordered and it is ok to treat them with contempt, discrimination and even violence. The danger of having a homosexual child can be mitigated by the right environment.

What would be “too difficult to handle” for the anti-gay folks is the possibility that people really are homosexual from the moment sperm meets egg.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I’m continually astonished that those who shriek for homosexual “rights” have so little concern for their souls.

And that would include the ACLU.

Nowhere is it written that we have to ‘tolerate’ evil.

 

[sydcatholic80]

I’m continually astonished that those who shriek for homosexual “rights” have so little concern for their souls.

And that would include the ACLU.

Nowhere is it written that we have to ‘tolerate’ evil.

A homosexual person is not evil.
A homosexual act is.

Please be sure to understand that distinction.

Josh

 

[Larowyn]

Why is it so important to so many people that homosexuality be a matter of choice or environment?

If homosexuality is a choice, or is determined by environment, then it can be controlled or cured. It is then the homosexual’s fault that they are disordered and it is ok to treat them with contempt, discrimination and even violence. The danger of having a homosexual child can be mitigated by the right environment.

What would be “too difficult to handle” for the anti-gay folks is the possibility that people really are homosexual from the moment sperm meets egg.

You are reading more into what I wrote than is necessary. No one here said that it is fine to be hateful to homosexuals or anyone else.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You are reading more into what I wrote than is necessary. No one here said that it is fine to be hateful to homosexuals or anyone else.

Let’s look at this statement from the Church .

“Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons.” “Homosexual persons have the same rights as all persons. Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious and mentally ill people.” Further it states: “An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc. does not arise.”

So, gay people have the same rights in the first sentence, but the rest of the document says it’s totally ok to deny them the right to work, housing and employment because they’re really mentally ill and disordered. The way this reads, it’s perfectly ok to discriminate because of “some overt behavior”. What is overt behavior? Does he speak with a lisp? Does she never wear dresses? Does he wear pink shirts?
Later on, this same document states that if gays speak out for rights to work, housing or employment we shouldn’t be surprised if those efforts result in violence. So it’s our fault that people beat us up when we speak out?

I want to believe that the mixed message the above document sends was unintended and that the Church really does care about her gay children and doesn’t want them to be discriminated against. However, when messages like this are sent, it continues the pervasive opinion that we are somehow second class citizens or maybe shouldn’t be part of the Church at all.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

A homosexual person is not evil.
A homosexual act is.

Please be sure to understand that distinction.

Josh

Don’t condescend to me. I know the difference, just as I know the true aims of the ACLU.

Or shall I quote Lenin?

 

[Larowyn]

Let’s look at this statement from the Church .

So, gay people have the same rights in the first sentence, but the rest of the document says it’s totally ok to deny them the right to work, housing and employment because they’re really mentally ill and disordered. The way this reads, it’s perfectly ok to discriminate because of “some overt behavior”. What is overt behavior? Does he speak with a lisp? Does she never wear dresses? Does he wear pink shirts?
Later on, this same document states that if gays speak out for rights to work, housing or employment we shouldn’t be surprised if those efforts result in violence. So it’s our fault that people beat us up when we speak out?

Is it also your fault if you freely choose to live a sinful lifestyle just because you’re convinced that it’s the way it should be? I can’t imagine explaining that to God: “hey God, let me into heaven. I’ve led a good life, even though I was abusing my body by having things inserted into orifices not designed to have things inserted into them and essentially making a mockery of your creation. After all, you did repeal the restrictions on sins of the flesh sometime around 1999. Right? God?”

 

[sydcatholic80]

Don’t condescend to me. I know the difference, just as I know the true aims of the ACLU.

Or shall I quote Lenin?

I haven’t mentioned the ACLU in this thread. Are you confusing me with someone else?

You are quite venomous and vicious.
I have said nothing offensive on this thread, and don’t deserve an attack from you.

You are neither God nor judge.
Get off your high horse.

 

[sydcatholic80]

Is it also your fault if you freely choose to live a sinful lifestyle just because you’re convinced that it’s the way it should be? I can’t imagine explaining that to God: “hey God, let me into heaven. I’ve led a good life, even though I was abusing my body by having things inserted into orifices not designed to have things inserted into them and essentially making a mockery of your creation. After all, you did repeal the restrictions on sins of the flesh sometime around 1999. Right? God?”

Read the thread on permissible sex. The people on there think its ok for a straight married couple to engage in sodomy as a form of foreplay so long as the man does not let his seed spill in that act.

 

[Gaurdian]

From the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

1. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
2. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
.
.
.
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

This is pretty self explanatory and should not need a lot of discussion.

 

[Larowyn]

Read the thread on permissible sex. The people on there think its ok for a straight married couple to engage in sodomy as a form of foreplay so long as the man does not let his seed spill in that act.

It’s not okay, is it? Last I checked it was wrong.

 

[sydcatholic80]

It’s not okay, is it? Last I checked it was wrong.

I never said it was right, but it is confusing to read other Catholics talking about it in another context where it wasn’t perceived as wrong.

Quite plainly, I follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue. I am not arguing against you. But with your words, you are attacking EVERYONE in an unjust way.

Keep your language specific. Don’t accuse all homosexual (SSA) people of being inherently sinful. I have the same capacity for sin as you do. I am not somehow more sinful that yourself. Thats the implication of much of the way things are worded on this forum.

Feel free to defend the churches position, but remember to treat others with respect and dignity. There seems to be a hateful tone on this forum towards ALL homosexual people.

 

[Larowyn]

I never said it was right, but it is confusing to read other Catholics talking about it in another context where it wasn’t perceived as wrong.

Quite plainly, I follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue. I am not arguing against you. But with your words, you are attacking EVERYONE in an unjust way.

Keep your language specific. Don’t accuse all homosexual (SSA) people of being inherently sinful. I have the same capacity for sin as you do. I am not somehow more sinful that yourself. Thats the implication of much of the way things are worded on this forum.

Feel free to defend the churches position, but remember to treat others with respect and dignity. There seems to be a hateful tone on this forum towards ALL homosexual people.

I haven’t said that homosexual people are more sinful than anyone else.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Is it also your fault if you freely choose to live a sinful lifestyle just because you’re convinced that it’s the way it should be? I can’t imagine explaining that to God: “hey God, let me into heaven. I’ve led a good life, even though I was abusing my body by having things inserted into orifices not designed to have things inserted into them and essentially making a mockery of your creation. After all, you did repeal the restrictions on sins of the flesh sometime around 1999. Right? God?”

How do you know what choices I or anyone else have made regarding sexuality??? How DARE you make such assumptions about anyone!

This is EXACTLY the attitude that I have been talking about. This person, who knows NOTHING about my life has already decided what is going to happen to people after death. The last time I checked God had not delegated the decision of who gets into Heaven to anyone on earth.

 

[GratefulDad]

How do you know what choices I or anyone else have made regarding sexuality??? How DARE you make such assumptions about anyone!

This is EXACTLY the attitude that I have been talking about. This person, who knows NOTHING about my life has already decided what is going to happen to people after death. The last time I checked God had not delegated the decision of who gets into Heaven to anyone on earth.

'Trolling, trolling, trolling
Keep those posters rolling
trolling, trolling, trolling, Rawhide"
.
.
.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Yup. Still blissfully unconcerned with the state of the soul, still bent on giving in to the flesh.

 

[Fitswimmer]

'Trolling, trolling, trolling
Keep those posters rolling
trolling, trolling, trolling, Rawhide"
.
.
.

When you can’t debate intelligently, resort to insults. That tells me all I need to know.

Have a nice day.