The issue of gay intolerance

[rossum]

Every single time that this issue makes it to the ballot box, where the people can collectively express their will, they always place laws which regulate marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Of course, this is in America. I wouldn’t expect the same in GB where morals are so lax.

I was not talking about just America or the UK, I was talking about, as ladybri77 originally put it, “MOST people who have ever lived and are living now”, which covers a lot more than just the USA and the UK. My point is valid; there are a great many people, past and present, who do not see marriage as monogamy.

But, that in itself is not an argument for, or against, homosexual marriage.

It is an argument against marriage being exclusively the Christian monogamous version. My point is that there do exist different versions of marriage. All that is happening is that another version is being allowed, slowly.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

The comparison between slavery and homosexuality is a straw man. Someone earlier who supports the comparison stated that the Bible was misinterpreted to support slavery. That is only partially true. The Bible indeed talks of slavery as a reality during the times the Bible was written. What the Church has always combatted, a teaching that has never changed, is the idea of the INequality of men. Slavery was a social institution, and it was justified for many reasons - punishment for treason, punishment for crimes, spoils of war, etc. But the Church has never, EVER supported the idea of slavery based on some inherent INequality of men. The teaching on the inherent equality of all human beings has NEVER changed in the Church, though the social institution of slavery existed at one time, and now no longer exists.

So the comparison is completely invalid. People should not confuse purely social, secular institutions which can change over time, on the one hand, with timeless Truths that the Church preserves, on the other. Slavery was a purely social institution, NOT a divine institution, and it needed to be abolished. Marriage, on the other hand, is a DIVINE insitituion. It’s origins, means, and ends are divine, and they cannot change. That it is between a man and a woman is of DIVINE prescription, based on the Natural Law, and that can never change.

Blessings

Excellent answer. Thanks for that clarification!!

 

[ladybri77]

That’s poppycock. Homosexuals, and homosexual advocates are appealing to some ethereal concept that orientation is CAUSED. Orientation is a choice. People choose heterosexuality because that’s how God made us - male for female (or as I heard before - God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).

You are attracted to the opposite sex, aren’t you? You have feelings for them? Well, the opposite can be true also. Then it is up to the individual to delve deep and see what is CAUSING the aberrant feelings since most people who have them know that there is SOMETHING WRONG when they feel this way… There is ALWAYS an underlying factor as to why people feel aberrantly. And I know, it’s a sin issue, but once the psychological and emotional sin issues are resolved, the person is sometimes restored to “natural” feelings for the opposite sex. Believe me, I have seen this happen. There are many testimonials from God loving Christians who have experienced His healing in a huge way.

“All things are possible with God”. Verse?

 

[PEPCIS]

What I’m saying is that homosexuals are not united by a shared ideology. Contrary to conspiracy theories, there is no Gay Agenda. Individual gay people, and specific gay organizations, may have their own agendas, but there is not one unified manifesto representing all gay people under one unified ideology.

That’s only true in the sense that not all Republicans are unified in their approach to politics. But, there is a Republican platform which outlines the fundamentals that all Republicans can/should hold to.

The same thing can be found in the Homosexual community. Here are some homosexual strategies that I found easily by googling. These have been in effect for quite some time.

STRATEGY #1: Confuse homosexual with gay.
STRATEGY #2: Accuse anyone who dissents as being homophobic and intolerant.
STRATEGY #3: Keep repeating the lie: `There is absolutely nothing wrong with the homosexual or lesbian person.’
STRATEGY #4: Keep repeating the lie: ‘Homosexuals are born that way.’
STRATEGY #5: Work as volunteer counselors in schools
STRATEGY #6: Encourage gay teachers to come out to their students as role models
STRATEGY #7: Introduce as many Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA) into the schools as possible (there are now over 1,000 chapters nationwide).
STRATEGY #8: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
STRATEGY #9: Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
STRATEGY #10: Make the “victimizers” look bad.
STRATEGY #11: Make gays look good.
STRATEGY #12: Solicit Funds(Get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause)

You can find other strategies that have been in operation for quite some time, some more evil than others.

 

[ladybri77]

Pepcis, I’ll put this question out to you again. Did you have feelings of attraction for the opposite sex, or did you just choose them over the other sex?

 

[ladybri77]

By the way, I am a heterosexual woman who is attracted to men and who sometimes struggles with same sex attraction. But I choose to remain celibate in my thoughts and actions and try to honor God with both.

“As we all struggle with our flesh in various ways at times.”

 

[rinnie]

I wouldn’t go to any doctor that said that the best chance I have is a 50-50 chance in living. I’d get a second opinion.

I agree, I was just kidding! But what I was saying is someone said going to a Priest would give you a 50% chance. The way I see it a 50% chance is better then no chance at all! Personally I feel going to a Priest could give you a 100% chance. But thats not what was said!

 

[rinnie]

You are attracted to the opposite sex, aren’t you? You have feelings for them? Well, the opposite can be true also. Then it is up to the individual to delve deep and see what is CAUSING the aberrant feelings since most people who have them know that there is SOMETHING WRONG when they feel this way… There is ALWAYS an underlying factor as to why people feel aberrantly. And I know, it’s a sin issue, but once the psychological and emotional sin issues are resolved, the person is sometimes restored to “natural” feelings for the opposite sex. Believe me, I have seen this happen. There are many testimonials from God loving Christians who have experienced His healing in a huge way.

“All things are possible with God”. Verse?

I believe the Pope commented on this before. He said that he does not know why people are attracted to the opposite sex, and believes it could be open to science as a gene factor. But he said that while he does not deny these feelings do and could exist its what you do that counts. He said everyone has crosses to carry. And with God they are possible to carry. But just because the tendency to sin could be there, still has to be acted upon. And you can control what you do, not how you feel. Thats really the point. We all have the urge to sin. But do we or don’t we give in to it is the question.

So if a person does have this problem it is better to live a life alone and with God, then to give into the sin. ITs like you carry your cross in this world, but choose God, and you will get your reward in heaven kind of thing. ITs all about God and Faith. I mean sorry you may not like it, but it is what it is.

 

[ladybri77]

So if a person does have this problem it is better to live a life alone and with God, then to give into the sin. ITs like you carry your cross in this world, but choose God, and you will get your reward in heaven kind of thing. ITs all about God and Faith. I mean sorry you may not like it, but it is what it is.

Right which is what I do and what I advocate others to do. Pepcis was saying that people choose to feel this way which is wrong. If you read my post on page 12, you will know where I stand.

 

[ladybri77]

That’s poppycock. Homosexuals, and homosexual advocates are appealing to some ethereal concept that orientation is CAUSED. Orientation is a choice. People choose heterosexuality because that’s how God made us - male for female (or as I heard before - God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).

And since I can be attracted to both, I happen to choose men. How is that sinning?

 

[rinnie]

Right which is what I do and what I advocate others to do. Pepcis was saying that people choose to feel this way which is wrong. If you read my post on page 12, you will know where I stand.

You are 100% correct. You choose to do what God said, you cannot choose what you feel. No one can. Its like if a man has a problem with being faithfull. He does not choose to feel this way, but it haunts him none the less. But to say that because he had the feeling of lust toward another women is an excuse to commit adultery is unreal. You cannot control what you feel, but you can control how you react on them.

 

[rinnie]

Pepcis I have to disagree with you also. I am a women, Thank God I never have had feelings for women. But here is the thing, I am a very happily married women. But there are times a Man comes on to me, and is very very good looking. I think wow! Would I for one split second wonder what if. Heck yes I do, I can’t help it. A good looking Man turns me on, always has. But to react and cheat on my Husband, thats a sin.

Same thing. I can’t control what I feel, but I can control what I do. Now you are talking mortal sin from venial sin. yes venial sin for even thinking what if, Mortal sin for doing it. BIG DIFFERENCE!

 

[CWBetts]

I didn’t read all the thread so forgive me if I am repeating anything. The purpose of a marriage is not simply a contractual arrangement for finacial benefit. It is a sacrement established by God. The purpose of marriage is to produce and educate children. Period. The fact that the state has taken upon itself to grant benefits to true marriages is completely irrelevant. The purpose of marriage is to produce and educate children. I don’t think I ned to explain that a sexual union of two men or two women cannot produce children. This is why the Church is against homosexual behavior (contrasted with same-sex attraction). The sexual union must laways be open to the possibility of producing life. To use marital intimacy as nothing more than sensual pleasure perverts human sexuality. This is the very core of chastity: to use our bodies in a way that is pleasing to God. Atheists and cafeteria CHristians might see chastity as a continual “no”. THey confuse chastity woth abstainance. Chastity is a continual “yes”. Rather than saying “yes” to self and carnal pleasure, it is a “yes” to God.

 

[zachforn]

…whether you want to admit it or not, marriage should **NOT **be based on ideology but in reality. Whether you believe in God or not, it has been about one man one woman since anything has ever been recorded on the subject.

The marriage ceremony pre-dates Christianity by at least a thousand years, so it wasn’t “invented” by Christianity. And there are polygamistic marriages dating back to the early days of the Egyptian empire.

 

[rinnie]

The marriage ceremony pre-dates Christianity by at least a thousand years, so it wasn’t “invented” by Christianity. And there are polygamistic marriages dating back to the early days of the Egyptian empire.

But the point still remains the same women and man.

 

[zachforn]

The government does not restrict people from doing that. I don’t believe gays should be given preferential treatment just because their partner is of the same sex. Married heterosexuals can potentially contribute to a society in a way that gay couples cannot. Identically, married people can potentially contribute to a society in a way that a single person cannot. Based on that, gay couples should not be given preferential treatment over single people as far as immigration is concerned. That is fair and equitable.

But “gay marriage rights” is not at all about equitableness and fairness, is it? If a gay couple’s contribution to a society they want to immigrate to is no different from the contribution of a single person, then why should a gay person be permitted to immigrate into that country differently from any other single person? Please explain.

You seem to be fixated on a single potential contribution that heterosexual couples can give society. Out of all the contributions and boons that a loving union between two people can bring to a society (stable local community, less crime, united purchasing power *, community involvement, improvement, etc. [all contributions that single people don’t bring to the table at the level that a married couple does]), out of all the contributions that gay married couples can bring you focus on one. WHY?

And besides that is no longer the case, because ALL gay female couples have the potential of giving birth through various contemporary birthing options. Not all of them will work towards this potential, nor will all married couples, but the potential is there for ALL female gay couples.

In this light do you now have a legal, societal (nonreligious) reason to deny them the benefits that others are given.*

 

[CWBetts]

You seem to be fixated on a single potential contribution that heterosexual couples can give society. Out of all the contributions and boons that a loving union between two people can bring to a society (stable local community, less crime, united purchasing power *, community involvement, improvement, etc. [all contributions that single people don’t bring to the table at the level that a married couple does]), out of all the contributions that gay married couples can bring you focus on one. WHY?

And besides that is no longer the case, because ALL gay female couples have the potential of giving birth through various contemporary birthing options. Not all of them will work towards this potential, nor will all married couples, but the potential is there for ALL female gay couples.

In this light do you now have a legal, societal (nonreligious) reason to deny them the benefits that others are given.*

Explain to me how the natural union between two women produce a child. IVF is a mockery of the beauty of procreation.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Every law in the US is a moral law, and reflects the religious beliefs of its people.

I disagree.

I think that is fairly obvious. But you disagree based on ignorance of the issue, because you’ve bought into the propaganda that the homosexual lifestyle is inherently safe, and is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.

Unfortunately, homosexuality carries with it dangerous sexual practices that harm both “partners”. When two men engage in sodomy, the act produces small tears in the lining of the colon. At this point, sperm is able to enter into the bloodstream of one of the men.

Even without the prospect of HIV/AIDS, sperm overloads the immune system because it is chock full of antigens which the immune system attempts to isolate. This means that the immune system is unable to properly deal with infections that may arise because it is too busy dealing with the myriad other antigens from the sperm invasion.

rossum:

How do the laws of marriage reflect the views of the Moslem and fundamentalist Mormom citizens whose religious beliefs include polygamy?

Are you now suggesting that a Christian society should embrace all manner of deviancy?

rossum:

How do those laws reflect the religious beliefs of Catholic citizens who do not accept divorce? The laws are a compromise between many different groups with many different ideas. Currently the compromise seems to be shifting.

Very true. The laws are shifting. But this debate is not strictly about whether or not the laws are shifting, but whether or not a Christian culture has a right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. The answer to that is obviously “yes.”

 

[PEPCIS]

I was not talking about just America or the UK, I was talking about, as ladybri77 originally put it, “MOST people who have ever lived and are living now”, which covers a lot more than just the USA and the UK. My point is valid; there are a great many people, past and present, who do not see marriage as monogamy.

Your point is a specious effort to endorse a lifestyle of deviancy. Even in the UK and throughout most of the world, polygamy is outlawed. This has been the case for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Laws against Homosexuality and polygamy have been made on religious grounds, because (as I’ve said before) there is no other basis for law except in morality. Once you separate law from morality, then anything can go. That means that laws which forbid beastiality or polygamy would no longer be sustained, because they would no longer have a religious anchor.

rossum:

It is an argument against marriage being exclusively the Christian monogamous version.

Not exactly. Predominantly Christian.

rossum:

My point is that there do exist different versions of marriage. All that is happening is that another version is being allowed, slowly.

Yes, we already know that. Doesn’t make it right or moral.

 

[PEPCIS]

"fairytail:

. . . the general position is now that sexual orientation (not just homosexuality or bisexuality, but heterosexuality too) is caused by a complex array of factors including both “nature” (biological) and “nurture” (environmental) causes.

PEPCIS:

That’s poppycock. Homosexuals, and homosexual advocates are appealing to some ethereal concept that orientation is CAUSED. Orientation is a choice. People choose heterosexuality because that’s how God made us - male for female (or as I heard before - God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).

You are attracted to the opposite sex, aren’t you? You have feelings for them? Well, the opposite can be true also.

How is this relevant? Orientation is a choice. People choose heterosexuality because that’s how God made us - male for female (or as I heard before - God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve). People choose homosexuality in rebellion to God’s design.
ladybri:

Then it is up to the individual to delve deep and see what is CAUSING the aberrant feelings since most people who have them know that there is SOMETHING WRONG when they feel this way…

I certainly can understand what it is that you are trying to express. When I was in my teens, and into my 20’s, I had uncontrollable anger issues. I say “uncontrollable” because I seemed to always be in a rage. I sought prefessional help, and was told that my anger issues came from a bad relationship with my step-father.

I told my counselor that I couldn’t help myself, and that I was the way that I was solely because my step-father made me this way. But the counselor then informed me that I could no longer (from that day forward) use that excuse, because I was now fully informed that I was in control of my own feelings, and only I could control them.

The point being that my anger was a result of events that were largely outside of my control. Now, that I’ve made that statement, it’s time to tie the two together to see the relevancy.

Even though those events were outside of my control, my feelings were in my control. I alone made the choices which allowed my anger to well up inside. Why is it that another child in the exact same situation would mature into an individual with no anger issues, yet I was loaded with those issues? Because each individual is a unique person, and makes personal choices which effect the outcome of their actions/reactions.

A person that becomes a homosexual does not become one without any personal accountability. Just as I would have been personally responsible if my anger had caused me to hurt another person, so too the homosexual must accept his personal accountability for what he feels, and for how he expresses those feelings.
ladybri:

There is ALWAYS an underlying factor as to why people feel aberrantly.

Sure. But you cannot downplay presonal responsibility and accountability. You do that whenever you claim that homosexuals are not responsible for becoming who they are. Homosexuals are people too, and that means that they are just as responsible for the sin of homosexuality as a man who rapes because he was molested and abused as a child.
ladybri:

And I know, it’s a sin issue, but once the psychological and emotional sin issues are resolved, the person is sometimes restored to “natural” feelings for the opposite sex. Believe me, I have seen this happen. There are many testimonials from God loving Christians who have experienced His healing in a huge way. “All things are possible with God”. Verse?

And I agree with you. I don’t want for us to be at opposite ends on this. And I think that really we are probably closer than what we realize.

Hopefully my post has served to point out why it is that I disagree with the way that you have worded your thoughts. Because I don’t think that we are really seeing things that differently.

Peace to you.