F
fix
Guest
The problem is not about more compelling arguments. No argument will convince those who refuse to be convinced. IOW, truth is hate to those who hate the truth. Prayer and fasting are needed.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
First, scripture indicates that those who practice such behavior will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. There is only one other destination and we cannot desire that anyone enter there. The Lord destroyed not only those who practiced such behavior, but the physical location in which they lived. If one was to truly detest the homosexual person, he/she would remain silent and not point out the sinfulness of their behavior.
Another thought: Is not SSA (same sex attraction) just another cross to bear? At least one member here described it as exactly that. And, as much as it is said to be impossible, that person came out of a homosexual relationship and after receiving graces from God, was able to marry and bear a family. Now, this is anecdotal in nature, but does show that all things are possible to God.
If an individual’s DNA reveals them to be male, and their physiology and reproductive system is male, why should anyone assume that they are somehow intended to “mate” with another male? It goes against the natural law, morality and science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Cause of Catholic Apathy to Homosexual Agenda
Considered at the Start of the Year of the Priest1**
**by Thomas L. McFadden
The April 23, 2009 edition of The Rhode Island Catholic featured a column entitled “Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage”. The column was written by the Bishop of Providence. The Most Rev. Thomas Tobin decried the “abysmal” Catholic apathy and said it must be overcome to oppose those who are “fiercely determined” to impose homosexual “marriage”. With bluntness uncharacteristic of many bishops, he noted that the homosexual lobby is well-organized, well-funded and determined to impose its agenda on all of the citizens—human history, culture and moral principles notwithstanding. He added that anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.
Bishop Tobin said also that if only 5% to 10% of Rhode Island’s Catholic population became involved in the issue “we could have an enormous impact and help Rhode Island maintain its moral sanity.” Without actually saying so, the Bishop was referring to the laity. However, the Bishop noted that the typical Rhode Island Catholic’s response to the homosexual agenda being imposed on everyone was indifferent. He attributed that indifference to “not wanting to judge people” and that Catholics “give rationalizations about the decline of Catholic influence.” Perhaps he was also including his clergy in the latter statement.
The picture Bishop Tobin described of Rhode Island’s Catholics seems to be typical of New England’s Catholics because that region of the country has taken the lead in passing pro-homosexual legislation. But hasn’t New England been voting for liberal, secular, pro-abortion politicians for decades? Barney Frank, representing Massachusetts in Congress since 1981 and now calling the shots as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee immediately comes to mind. He is not only a homosexual himself but had a man he paid for sex running a prostitution ring out of his Capitol Hill Apartment in 19892. The people of Massachusetts didn’t seem to care. Is it realistic of Bishop Tobin to expect his flock to suddenly reverse course on their own initiative?
more…
Considered at the Start of the Year of the Priest1**
**by Thomas L. McFadden
The April 23, 2009 edition of The Rhode Island Catholic featured a column entitled “Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage”. The column was written by the Bishop of Providence. The Most Rev. Thomas Tobin decried the “abysmal” Catholic apathy and said it must be overcome to oppose those who are “fiercely determined” to impose homosexual “marriage”. With bluntness uncharacteristic of many bishops, he noted that the homosexual lobby is well-organized, well-funded and determined to impose its agenda on all of the citizens—human history, culture and moral principles notwithstanding. He added that anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.
Bishop Tobin said also that if only 5% to 10% of Rhode Island’s Catholic population became involved in the issue “we could have an enormous impact and help Rhode Island maintain its moral sanity.” Without actually saying so, the Bishop was referring to the laity. However, the Bishop noted that the typical Rhode Island Catholic’s response to the homosexual agenda being imposed on everyone was indifferent. He attributed that indifference to “not wanting to judge people” and that Catholics “give rationalizations about the decline of Catholic influence.” Perhaps he was also including his clergy in the latter statement.
The picture Bishop Tobin described of Rhode Island’s Catholics seems to be typical of New England’s Catholics because that region of the country has taken the lead in passing pro-homosexual legislation. But hasn’t New England been voting for liberal, secular, pro-abortion politicians for decades? Barney Frank, representing Massachusetts in Congress since 1981 and now calling the shots as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee immediately comes to mind. He is not only a homosexual himself but had a man he paid for sex running a prostitution ring out of his Capitol Hill Apartment in 19892. The people of Massachusetts didn’t seem to care. Is it realistic of Bishop Tobin to expect his flock to suddenly reverse course on their own initiative?
more…
E
edwest2
Guest
By attempting to make this an issue that refers only to me, you are trying to turn this into a “that’s only your opinion” argument. You are also attempting to accuse the Church of not giving equal time to complaining about all issues that concern it. The Church has, does and will continue to say certain practices are wrong. However, when a new phenomenon like gay marriage appears and the LGBT community is actively promting it, then yes, the Church will put an emphasis on it because the matter is going through a legal process right now. One that is unprecedented in North America. I have already stated my views on homosexuality yet you continue to paint me as one of “them.”
Nothing has changed in the Church over the last 40 years. What has changed is the massive, well organized secular/anti-theist campaign to poison the body of Christ. The Sexual Revolution in 1968. Wife swapping in the movie, Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice, 1969. The opening of a large number of porn bookstores everywhere in the 1970s, and topless go-go bars. The creation of a propaganda organization called the National Organization for Women to scare women to death about men. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Which created fertile ground for no-fault divorce in the 1980’s. Followed by porn on cable.
You are concerned about the effect the Church will have on non-Catholics. Who is telling the truth? The Church or the LGBT community? When I read that Homosexuality was removed as a disorder by non-scientific vote in 1973, I ask, why?
Peace,
Ed
W
WillieWonka
Guest
That is true. A certain subset will not be convinced by anything. These subsets represent both pro and anti gay marriage people. However, another subset of people simply disagrees with you and has different values than you. They don’t accept your arguments because they don’t subscribe to either the assumptions or the values on which they rest.
D
DOShea
Guest
To address the last question first, they need first understand that their sexuality does not exist in a vaccuum. Their struggle with issues, while personal, is no more, no less that anyone who struggles with an inclination toward sin, except to say that the issue they struggle with is more in the spotlight of society’s eye. Why is it there, and who is forcing it there?
These matters, for the Church at least, are not matters concerning mental exercise or matters dealing in who’s reasonable argument is better than the next. They are matters of basic, fundamental truth. That means what a concensus thinks or says is totally irrelevant; what one individual versus another individual might think is irrelevant. What matters is truth.
We have Scriptural evidence that anything outside of a natural 1-man, 1-woman relationship is revealed as flawed and sinful. The early Church Fathers taught and wrote consistently with this truth. For centuries nothing except this truth was accepted anywhere by anyone. In the post-modern era, however, where societal views have increasingly shifted from a collective knowledge as more superior than an individual’s to just the opposite, the facts of truth begin to blur. We see this everywhere in relativism… your “truth” is not my “truth.” The self-refuting logic, the fallacy of it is that there is no absolute truth except the one absolute that there is no absolute truth.
When one steps outside the bounds of “I alone know what’s best for me,” and accept that no, perhaps someone else knows better, we can again embrace concepts and truths that have stood the test of time for centuries without ill effects. While that may sound like an appeal to return to a medieval sense of morality, it isn’t, it’s much more than that. It is returning to truth at the source rather than what the late-model philosopher thinks truth is now.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI speaks of several aspects that bear on the particular truth in question, such as Gods will, unselfish love, natural law, and revelation. Selfless love seems to be one theme, and a sharp contrast can be seen in any comparison of that, framed in the setting of a man-woman marriage and family rearing, and any other kind of love that doesn’t serve God’s divine will and is based on something less than selflessness. PP6 even mentions the consequences of ignoring the truth, which in the 41 years since it has been around have come true just as he reasoned they would. It is difficult, then, to make the case that the Church isn’t teaching “the right stuff.” They are, it’s just that when the teaching is not accepted and the predicted perils of ignoring them come true, it does not follow that we need a “new truth,” only that we give pause to ignoring the existing one. All of society is effected by these choices, families, friends, Churches… it touches everything.
As this applies to homosexuality, the focus of any condemnation of it is necessarily centered around the sin. While I don’t equate these two, a metaphor is certainly appropriate; an alcoholic struggles with alcoholism long after recovery or treatment. Minus the booze, they are still who and what they are. They struggle, they manage, they get through the troublesome pull of it. No one thinks they are “flawed” when they can plainly see them standing sober, though on the inside there may be much turmoil. Likewise, the person with homosexual tendencies is not, himself, flawed minus the sin of the act. They are capable, through grace, to manage to avoid the sinful acts that are the source of their fall from grace and thereby eternal life. That is their free-will choice to make. Because they have this free-will choice, and some choose to exercise it in a way that results in sin, does not place a burden on everyone else to honor their choice and elevate it the level of “any ol’ choice.” It isn’t any ol’ choice. It’s the choice of heaven or hell and the willful, wanting of hell, justified by the false idea that because of what they are, they can’t ever have God’s grace to attain heaven unless man changes the truth to accept freely chosen sin is now a source of grace. That’s not going to happen.
Activists, however, think otherwise. They seek to force upon society the idea that there is no difference at all between tendency and action. Using the accepting of the person with the tendencies as a weapon, they seek to disrupt truth by claiming foul when there is dispute between accepting person versus act. They are playing an age-old game of sleight-of-hand. I place the truth into the magic hat and pull it out… see there - a new truth, every bit as good as the old, uncomfortable one.
Well truth isn’t subject to change.
No amount of trying to intellectually reason around the basic truth of it changes what is truth. All that is is mental arithmetic that serves no purpose than to distort the truth and weaken the will of anyone seeking to have it. This is what happens when one tries to “reverse-engineer” the condemnation of sin itself into a conceived defect someplace within the person that mitigates the sin in some way. The human soul is not made on a production line. It is made by God and its destiny is placed in the hands of each soul via a human existence and interaction with truth. Interact favorably with truth, and it matters not what the soul or the person is, was, could’a been, should’a been, etc. The truth is given by God and leads to God. So does the Church, which is Truth.
F
fix
Guest
IOW, they reject what is true for various reasons. That subset is not different form the rest.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
It was removed form the DMS because the committee couldn’t find any reasons to leave it in there.
You might ask what the criteria are for inclusion in the DMS. Once you have those criteria, then apply them to homosexuality and construct an argument that supports its inclusion as a disorder.
I often find folks complaining because homosexuality was removed from the DMS, but have never seen an argument based on DMS inclusion criteria for putting it in the DMS.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
Check it out, right? I’m catholic. My brother is gay. We love our brother no more or less even after him breaking the news. My brother and I are room mates. Yes, we’re like the “Odd Couple” Complete opposites, we get along great (I just want his dog to stop pooping in my bathroom, lol) But seriously, I think Catholic intolerance towards gays IF AT ALL in quite miniscule. There are a few gay people in my young adult group when we served dinner at the homeless shelter. I CAN say with great certainty that there is QUITE the intolerance from gays TOWARDS catholics. One example would be the anti catholic rally in the street across the street from a catholic church in san francisco. Police have instructions to not arrest people for fornicating in the street because it was seen as a form of expression. The bulk of the demonstrators are gay. I’d like to ask, how, where or when was there ever a CATHOLIC demonstration against gays?
E
edwest2
Guest
People prefer the truth. This matter will rest on what is actually true.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
D
DOShea
Guest
The committee had reasons, written by those who objected to having it removed. They neither responded to them not, apparently, considered them.
Which committee are we talking about? They historically operated on no fixed set of criteria other than those they set for themselves and their own arbitrary vote. The committee sets the criteria, then applies the cause to the criteria, then votes on it. Is that objective or subjective?
Back to same question… which set of criteria? Did the committee reject on the basis of incusion criteria, or their own reasons for removing it?
F
fix
Guest
They disagree because they will not accept what is true, for various reasons.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Well, if the committee acts on its own criteria, then what’s the basis of the complaint about removing homosexuality from the DMS? If there is no fixed set of criteria, and they set them for themselves, then what is the basis for complaint? What is the basis for the inclusion of anything? Removal of anything?
J
Jason_1977
Guest
I’ll say one thing. The gay community wants a lot of freedoms & rights & equality, but how much responsibility are they willing to take for their freedom? Freedom curtails responsibility. I have responsibilities as a gun owner, I have responsibilities as a driver of a personal vehicle, so what responsibilities is the gay community going to take? I have nothing against them, but I have spoken to a few about this topic. I have a problem with a group called N.A.M.B.L.A. It stands for NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY-LOVE ASSOCIATION. THIS group wants reform & wants to be able to allow for relations between boys and adults so long as they’re consentual. THIS is the boy hunting facet of the gay community. OBSERVE:
We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people.
I would like to see the gay community start to condemn this group. I’d like the ACLU to no longer defend this group. As long as the gay community says nothing and does nothing about its own… I will maintain that the gay community isnt responsible enough to handle the freedoms it desires. It sounds cold, but it’s very true. It has a lot of house cleaning to do before I can sit back and say, yeah, it’s different, but nobody is at risk & nobody is getting hurt. The elimination of NAMBLA will be the greatest good the gay community can do for itself. If I was gay, I’d make that my first priority.
We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people.
I would like to see the gay community start to condemn this group. I’d like the ACLU to no longer defend this group. As long as the gay community says nothing and does nothing about its own… I will maintain that the gay community isnt responsible enough to handle the freedoms it desires. It sounds cold, but it’s very true. It has a lot of house cleaning to do before I can sit back and say, yeah, it’s different, but nobody is at risk & nobody is getting hurt. The elimination of NAMBLA will be the greatest good the gay community can do for itself. If I was gay, I’d make that my first priority.
L
LaSalle
Guest
Subjective fact?
Subjective; The child said he “feels really sick” today.
Objective: The child appears to be pale and he has a red, raised rash on his arms and legs.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
They are campaigning for individual freedoms, not group freedoms. Individual freedom does not dmand group action. For example, Catholics retain religious freedom even though they have not acted as a group to get rid of the bishops that enabled the abusive priests. This is as it should be.
W
WillieWonka
Guest
Good. So, LaSalle says, “Well, it’s an objective fact - Gay relationships are morally wrong.”
That sure sounds subjective.
G
gearhead
Guest
NAMBLA is about as representative of the gay community as the Real IRA is representative of the Catholic community.
- Status