L
LaSalle
Guest
You’re using the religious argument. In which case you’re preaching to the choir. But could you address the questions posed?
- Status
L
LaSalle
Guest
This is the flood gates argument. It does carry weight. It’s just going to let in all kinds of moral depravity. Is this really going to be a big problem? How real is it? Do the numbers show that there are more of these people than there are gays? There will always be whack jobs around. You really need a huge lobby for anything to take root. These depravities have never had such a huge following as gays have had. Gays have been around … well, for probably as long as man.
You figure the deeper the troubles they make for themselves, the better our position looks. There are consequences for such behaviour in this life. We will maintain the straight path and provide the shining light - we’re already doing that now for the mess we already have.
Zoos??
I don’t accept it … God doesn’t accept sin too, but He allows it to take it’s natural course. For sure, it’s going to be a harder world to live in, we’ve adapted to the divorce courts, we’ll deal with whatever is thrown at us … but history shows that the next generation always gets wilder and wilder, we just have to be up for any challenge. Nothing’s gonna happen to the Church, yeah, we might take a bit of a beating … but it’s Divinely protected, and we’ve seen much worse.
I’ve been drawing the gay analogy to having different religions in our midst and no one has shown how it isn’t the same yet. I mean Islam allows a man to marry 4 wives, yet we still live ‘harmoniously’ with them.
E
edwest2
Guest
The next generation is with us now. There is still time for all of us to sit them down, tell them the truth and encourage them to live it. I just see way too many who are not willing to control their kids in public. A good example needs to be set. There is time to do that right now.
In the Old Testament, a king heeds the warning of one of God’s prophets and orders the people to repent. It was for their own good.
Oh yes, we are assured that God will have the final victory, but until His coming, we must help everyone we can into His kingdom. We must be the salt of the earth because if the salt loses its savor, it is thrown out and men trample it underfoot.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you know what natural law is?
L
LaSalle
Guest
Yes, control your kids by all means. Let’s not control other people’s kids.
We’re not in OT times. We don’t have a King. Our Govt is not a religious instituition. Let’s adapt to what we do have and not harken back to OT times. The good ole days are gone … been gone for a while now …
Amen! We must help everyone we can into His Kingdom … and you think we do this by being perceived as intolerant? If anything it repels people rather than attracting people.
The point that Bishop Fulton Sheen makes about intolerance stands, we must never cave in and say that gay sex is not wrong … but there’s a difference in doctrine and practice. People are seeing an intolerant church; simply stating that God doesn’t permit gay sex is not solving the problem and neither is insisting that ‘marriage’ is only marriage if it’s between opposite sex, it cuts no ice and merely contributes to the perception that we are intolerant.
If we think that marriage is not marriage unless it’s between peeps of the opposite sex - FINE. We think divorce is wrong too … but we let people divorce, the church remains having her doctrine and rules on divorce. If anything, divorce, cheapens marriage more than gay sex will ever be able to.
Look at history, slavery, mixed marriages, refusal of burial for suicides … all practices we changed. In fact, we’ve ended up defending that it was a cultural practice that did not reflect the doctrine at all.
This is going to be a similar situation.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is not going to be a similar situation. Right now, in Massachussetts, the State is Forcing kids in first grade to read a gay story book, and It’s not a parental notification issue. Got that?
Everyone wants to be left alone to do what they want? Then leave those kids alone. Let the parents raise their own kids, not the State, and not LGBT organizations.
The world hates the Church because it makes some of them feel things they don’t want to feel. On another forum that I moderate, they let ne know what they want: We never want to feel guilty or sinful or ashamed again.
Peace,
Ed
Everyone wants to be left alone to do what they want? Then leave those kids alone. Let the parents raise their own kids, not the State, and not LGBT organizations.
The world hates the Church because it makes some of them feel things they don’t want to feel. On another forum that I moderate, they let ne know what they want: We never want to feel guilty or sinful or ashamed again.
Peace,
Ed
L
LaSalle
Guest
I get it. It’s not natural to indulge in gay sex. So let’s not. But why insist that others not indulge in gay sex as well?
We can’t stop people from sinning. We must try, of course, but certainly not by coming across as intolerant and interfering.
We want people to be saved and the Church teaches that people in other religions may be saved if they make their way to God in the best manner they know how to; so we constantly try to draw people to our Church for the full truth. Persuasion and prayer, we don’t try to stop them from going to their temples and mosques. We allow them to do what they want to do … and simply engage them in dialogue and pray for them.
L
LaSalle
Guest
Sure it is, Ed. People teach that it is OK to get divorced too; school sexuality prgrammes, even Christian sexuality programmes, teach that it is only responsible to take proper artificial contraceptives. But we must teach our kids that all that is wrong. There are a plethora of morally objectionable things being taught to our kids, and let’s not forget the morally corruptable influences they’re constantly bombarded with by their peers and society in general too… it is our jobs as good Catholic parents to ensure that we set them straight. Gay sex is just one of the numerous morally corrupt teachings we have to deal with. The fact that we make it out to be so special when compared to other morally corruptable values only reinforces the perception that we’re intolerant.
If you think it’s wrong for your state to force your kids to read certain books, then make sure you know what your kids read. Do you need to depend on whether the school tells you about it first! What’s so hard to get?
The world hates the Church because Jesus said they would. No matter what we do.
Yeah, I know they want never to feel guilty or ashamed … then tell them that you don’t control how they feel and let them know exactly where the church stands on this issue as stated clearly in the CCC. … and like the divorcees … tell them - fine, do what you want, get divorced but know exactly where the church stands on this issue.
How did Jesus get people to repent? He merely told them the truth and never insisted that they follow Him. Like the rich young man in Luke 18:18 - who asked how he could get eternal life. Jesus told him to follow the commandments, which he said he was already doing, then Jesus asked him to sell everything. The man couldn’t. His wealth prohibited him from gaining eternal life … did Jesus outlaw wealth or forbid people from being rich? It was an obstacle to eternal life, just like gay sex and every other mortal sin.
No, we shouldn’t kick up a big fuss, we just make sure we persevere to teach the truth and hope and prayer that people will listen. As Tim Staples likes to say … we’re in sales, not management.
E
edwest2
Guest
“we” make it out to be so special? Who are you talking to?
Did Catholics start gay marriage?
Did Catholics put up all those billboards showing gay men kissing each other?
Are Catholics going to court to fight for “gay marriage”?
Who made this special? Who decided it was suddenly OK for two people of the same sex to get “married”? Who?
Don’t lump the title of this thread with other things. Stick to the subject.
Peace,
Ed
Did Catholics start gay marriage?
Did Catholics put up all those billboards showing gay men kissing each other?
Are Catholics going to court to fight for “gay marriage”?
Who made this special? Who decided it was suddenly OK for two people of the same sex to get “married”? Who?
Don’t lump the title of this thread with other things. Stick to the subject.
Peace,
Ed
L
LaSalle
Guest
So we’re treating this the same way we’ve treated artificial contraceptives and divorce?
J
JimG
Guest
There should always be a conscience clause to ensure that no one is required to violate the tenets of his or her own religion. But the gay community is not tolerant enough to tolerate someone’s religious beliefs.
L
LaSalle
Guest
I don’t follow … you’re suggesting that there be a clause to allow people not to serve gays if they don’t want to?
B
buffalo
Guest
If we teach our kids that it is wrong, we should be willing to take that to the voting booth and influence the public square in discussions and debate.
C
cranster
Guest
N
Newbie2
Guest
Years ago, I received a letter by a newly formed local gay publication, soliciting advertising. Historically, our business has grown and continues to grow by word-of-mouth, and we generally don’t advertise besides having a small ad in the yellow pages, so I intended to throw the letter out.Why refuse to serve gays? first of all, that’s going against catholic teaching. We’re supposed to treat them fairly. I may not agree with a Muslim. but I certainly would serve him on a social and commercial arena. This refusing to serve someone who is gay is precisely the discrimination we want to avoid.
Let’s say there was some sort of an event to be advertised for a local “gay bar”. Free condom night. You get a free condom with every mixed drink that you buy. Let’s also say that the bar owner came to your privately owned mom-n-pop print store and asked you to design and print advertising flyers for the event. You, recognizing that your particpation in helping them to advertise this event, is at best morally questionable and at worst aiding in the “hooking up” of homosexuals, decline their business.
Since when is following one’s own conscience properly labeled “intolerance”??
Did we cave in by allowing people who committed suicide to be buried in Christian cemeteries?
Nope. Entirely different matter.
I’m not suggesting changing our doctrine, that is not possible. So there is no caving in just because we allow them to marry whoever they want.
Marriage, as defined by the Church, is between a man and a woman. Recognizing anything else is indeed “caving in”.
In any case, I would really appreciate it if you can show me why it’s only a label and not real intolerance.
However, as it sat on my desk, I read it more closely. The publisher of the gay monthly magazine said that if we didn’t advertise, our and any other business that chose not to advertise with them would be listed in a section that was contacted by the publisher and choose not to advertise…and that the readers could decide for themselves what this meant. i.e. it was pretty clear that if we did not advertise we were to be labeled as homophobic, Anti-gay, however thinly veiled.
So, me and my business was to be labeled as intolerant. Can you explain to me why this was not only a label, and had no basis in fact?
Granted, this may be an isolated incident. However, it illustrated clearly to me that in general, for gay activists, “intolerance” is not a universal principle. My beliefs cannot be tolerated, yet I must tolerate their behavior and accept the concept of “gay marriage”.
Exactomundo.
J
JimG
Guest
Examples can and probably are already being multiplied. Catholic photographers who pretty much specialize in Catholic weddings will be forced to cover gay weddings; the evangelical printer who does a lot of religious print work will be required to print flyers and programs for gay events; will priests be sued if they refuse to perform gay weddings? Maybe. Eventually everyone will be required to give de facto approval of the gay lifestyle as a matter of law.
T
tm30
Guest
St. Thomas More, pray for us. We need to be prepared to put our necks on the line for our faith. That time is coming quickly…and for some it’s already here.
L
LongingForLight
Guest
I think LaSalle Has a really good point here: We are losing our free-speech and religious freedom rights before civil “rights” and so on.
There are also good points being made about how every-day people will be called on to implicitly support gay rights - photographers or florists at weddings. Catholic charities being required to allow adoptions to gay couples (I don’t think they are required to allow adoptions to co-habiting couples - please correct me if I am wrong). Paralleling this are the contraception debates, where a Catholic pharmacist doesn’t want to prescribe the birth control pill - I forget if they can legally decline or not at the moment. And also paralleling is the abortion debates. There are concerns about the rights of medical practitioners who are pro-life.
There is considerable confusion about where religious freedom starts and where it ends. Joe the Plumber should, clearly, not discriminate by refusing to fix a broken pipe in the home of a homosexual couple because they are homosexual, any more than he should do this more a co-habiting couple. This does not in any way endorse their behavior; it is Christian concern for our neighbor.
But would Jim the Catholic Florist be supporting a homosexual wedding by knowingly being the florist for a homosexual wedding? Is this wrong? Or is his job to sell flowers, and he cannot be culpable for how they are used? If he sells the flowers, can he also set them up at the church? My opinion is that Jim still isn’t crossing the line, actually - he’s still not in the realm of religious freedom. But it’s definitely more gray. The photographer might be crossing the line, since by photographing he must also be present and witnessing. Witnessing a non-marriage as a marriage seems like a clear breach of Catholic faith. But this is also pretty gray. A Catholic who works with marriage licenses will also be in a sticky situation if presented with a license for homosexual marriage.
Then we get back into clear-cut cases: A Catholic church cannot be used for a homosexual wedding ceremony, and any other faith that believes a homosexual relationship cannot be a marriage has the same right to refuse to let their facilities be used for a homosexual wedding ceremony. In-vitro fertilization is another area of conflict - homosexual marriages will create more pressure for Catholic hospitals to perform the procedure.
There are also “slippery slope” concerns, and for me, these are more pressing. If we allow homosexual marriage, why not polygamy? Beastial marriages? Why not incentuous marraiges? Don’t two sisters who love each other dearly and work together to care for their aging parents deserve tax breaks, health insurance benefits, and so on just as much as two homosexuals? Why not similar mother-son relationships, to care for an aging father? What if you want to marry your roommate in college to save a few dollars by filing jointly with two college students in your household? What about if you want to simplify things for your small business by marrying your business partner so you can file jointly?
Sure, there’s currently some abuse of marraige laws as-is, but why open the doors to all of these concerns? Especially before we’ve even decided, as a country (the US), what marriage is about.
Is it about:
(a) Supporting sex
(b) Supporting love
(c) Supporting religious beliefs
(d) Supporting households
(e) Supporting families, especially biological ones
(f) Endorsing monogamous sex
(g) Supporting partnerships of any kind
and so on.
Each of these ideas of marriage calls for VERY different laws and regulations.
Personally, I believe that L-marriage should be about (b) through (f), but I don’t believe that is how the US sees marriage anymore. It’s about semi-committed sexual love now. And that’s not good for society. Whatever else L-marriage supports, it needs to support society - since it comes with costs attached that society has to pay (tax laws, healthcare laws, etc.).
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear hippyprincess,
I’m sure that there are Christian communities that hate gays, but the Catholic Church is not one of them. The Church explicitly makes a distinction between a homosexual tendency and a homosexual lifestyle. It is the latter that the Church rejects as sinful. The former is not sinful in and of itself. Everyone has an inclination to sin, but that in itself is not condemnable. It is giving in to the temptation that cuts one off from God.
Don’t gays who have civil unions obtain the same benefits as married people? Why must gay people insist on co-opting a term that has always had RELIGIOUS significance?
A
AndyF
Guest
LaSalle:
Of course we aren’t tolerant.
We are as tolerant has scripture intends us to be in this issue, and that is zero. The class “abomination” doesn’t leave too much room to maneuver, and I’m pretty sure God knows what he is saying when he assigned this absolute.
In fact it would be spiritually suicidal for anyone to white wash the offense, and I see many who aren’t phased by taking on God’s Authority on the matter, and some even go so far as to try to sanctify the abomination further by submitting to the demonic ritual they call a marriage. To be sure, God doesn’t preside at this “wedding”, something else does.
In times like these one can stand proud that our Church can be counted on not to give in to the secularly correct Sodomic way of life that so many other religions have resigned themselves to. When man has even gone so far as to blindly identify with sin, the eyes of the Church will guide him still. Catholics tap into this strength and resolve by guiding these people back to the Truth, so they know to remain strong and unwavering.
Andy
Of course we aren’t tolerant.
We are as tolerant has scripture intends us to be in this issue, and that is zero. The class “abomination” doesn’t leave too much room to maneuver, and I’m pretty sure God knows what he is saying when he assigned this absolute.
In fact it would be spiritually suicidal for anyone to white wash the offense, and I see many who aren’t phased by taking on God’s Authority on the matter, and some even go so far as to try to sanctify the abomination further by submitting to the demonic ritual they call a marriage. To be sure, God doesn’t preside at this “wedding”, something else does.
In times like these one can stand proud that our Church can be counted on not to give in to the secularly correct Sodomic way of life that so many other religions have resigned themselves to. When man has even gone so far as to blindly identify with sin, the eyes of the Church will guide him still. Catholics tap into this strength and resolve by guiding these people back to the Truth, so they know to remain strong and unwavering.
Andy
- Status