The issue of gay intolerance

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSalle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
SSA.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t unless I was convinced I was going to hell because of it, but nothing that ingrained is as easy as taking a pill. Would you?

There is a way out without taking a pill, and that is Jesus Christ. Ask Him to come into your heart and for His grace, and He will help you overcome. “Nothing is impossible with God.”
 
ladybri77 said:
I wouldn’t unless I was convinced I was going to hell because of it, but nothing that ingrained is as easy as taking a pill. Would you?
Click to expand...
Having SSA does not put you in hell. The act does.

The reason I ask because many times posters state they are “struggling” with SSA. If a pill were available the struggle would be over.
 
buffalo said:
Having SSA does not put you in hell. The act does.

The reason I ask because many times posters state they are “struggling” with SSA. If a pill were available the struggle would be over.
Click to expand...
Ya it would, but nothing’s that easy. It’s in the struggle we die to self and grow strong in the Lord if we resist the temptation.
 
We are called to holiness and self mastery. Nothing really worth doing is easy and we all have crosses to bear. For some, Same Sex Attraction, for others, Opposite Sex Attraction. The Catholic Church gives us two viable choices: chastity or heterosexual marriage.

Who controls our own sexuality except us? We need to ask God for His help, for His grace.

Peace,
Ed
 
kall said:
So in this case it’s written by Neil Whitehead, who is not only indoctrinated in his own dogma but is also a teacher of religious studies.

Why is it that no legitimate scientists write this stuff nor support it?
Click to expand...
They may believe in God, but they ARE legitimate scientists. Legitimate scientists do believe in God in some cases, you know.
 
antunesaa said:
I think dr. Mengele’s spirit is alive and kicking in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. And where do you think Hitler’s ideas about races and white supremacy came from? From the Nordic origins of the glorious German white race, of course…
Click to expand...
I have to object to this one. I don’t know where you are from or get your information. I am from Scandinavia and know a bit about the history of this region. White race is not of Nordic origin nor will ever be. Nordic people are originated form Southern European people, even Finns though their language originates from East. During WW2 the only country in Europe that actually saved Jews from Hitler was Danmark and lots of Jews run up to Sweden to hide from Hitler.

And you have to remember that racial purity before WW2 was supported by most of western nations including USA…

On the abortion issue you are right though, Scandinavia is horrific.
 
Originally Posted by kall forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*So in this case it’s written by Neil Whitehead, who is not only indoctrinated in his own dogma but is also a teacher of religious studies.
Click to expand...
Why is it that no legitimate scientists write this stuff nor support it?*
Click to expand...
For a website by and about scientists of various fields who are also proud to be Christians, please see this site, Biologos, founded by the former head of the Human Genome Project.

biologos.org

I may not agree with all their conclusions, but it certainly is an interesting site. I have yet to read every page, but I’ve made a start.
 
**Kall **- I don’t pay attention to who wrote what. I don’t know Cohen or Whitehead - I go strictly by what I read.

Did you read any of it yet? Have you specific arguments about what has been written? Please give the information a chance. I’ve only reached Chapter 5 (I majored in Math but minored in science) and I’ve found it to be sound and balanced.

I think it would be better, wouldn’t it, if we stuck to debating information instead of getting hung up on the source.👍
🙂
 
Sorry I’ve been away for a while.
zachforn said:
The only reason I brought up the fact that there are a lot more gay couples who want children than you seem to be willing to admit is because some of your argument revolves around the opinion that only heterosexual couples want to have children. I was merely pointing out the fact that gay couple want children too.
Click to expand...
Granted. But it is not “natural” in any way or form for gay couples to have children.
  1. You seem upset that female gay couples that want fertility treatments will drain national resources. Where does this assumption come from? All of the research I have done demonstrates that state based health insurance plans do not cover in vitro fertility treatments, in fact most private health care insurance plans do not either. If a couple wish to pursue IVF they’re on their own. So, no worries, there will be no draining of national resources.
Click to expand...
The most viable option for private IVF treatment is a shared-risk plan. But funds apportioned for IVF treatment in such plans merely takes away funds that could be used for more worthy life-saving causes. Then the provider could claim public funds for those other causes. It is a domino effect. So claiming it would not be a drain on national resources is simply not true.
  1. Now it seems your only other argument is that “Natural Law” denies that a female gay couple has potential to have babies. I guess my question is what is “Natural Law”? Since we’re are speaking about legalities here, secular laws, I’m not looking for what Catholics believe Natural Law is or what Aquinas thinks Natural Law is. I want to know is how does the U.S. Legislative Body (and other various state legislative bodies) define Natural Law.
To have this discussion (you want to have it right, a discussion, a dialog, not just monologue?), to have this discussion we, more importantly, you, have to be able to keep separated the Catholic understanding of Natural Law, and the secular understanding of Natural Law. Because, we are discussing laws in the secular arena.
Click to expand...
I don’t think your position is sincere. You want to separate Natural Law from its religious roots. But the homosexual agenda seeks to invade the religious sphere and redefine marriage altogether for purely self-serving reasons that do not benefit society much, if at all. So really, if you want to defend the homosexual agenda, you are already on shaky ground since it is based on hypocrisy.

If homosexuals want equal treatment, they should do it through a legal redefinition of “civil union,” not a redefinition of marriage. Marriage is an inherently religious institution. Don’t go around trying to restrict the matter to the secular sphere whilst the homosexual agenda simultaneously tries to invade the religious sphere.
So, now we have to look at how “Nature” behaves. It is well established that homosexual and bisexual activity in species other than ours goes on. Now, I want to pause here, because I don’t want to get into a haggle over wording. I don’t care what it’s called, or what you want to call it, “activity” “behavior,” “homosexual intention,” instinct," however it’s termed, in nature, in some species, two animals of the same sex engage in sexual activity.

Ok, so, in a secular understanding of Natural Law we see what humans call “homosexual activity” out in nature, thus, in some instances, homosexual behavior is natural.
Click to expand...
This is otherwise called a “red herring.” We’re talking about MARRIAGE (a particular facet of Natural Law), not whether homosexual acts occur in nature. Marriage is, and always has been, the solemn, monogamous union of MALE and FEMALE for the perpetuation of the human race and society. Who gives a hoot if monkeys engage in homosexual activity? That’s not marriage.
In nature are there living beings that use or incorporate third parties, or incorporate tools or technologies in the cycle of reproduction of their species? The simple answer is Yes…in nature third parties and technological assistance is witness all the time. Many, many, many plant varieties depend at times on the third party assistance of various insects to become fertilized. Many of these species don’t rely exclusively on insect activity, just as humans don’t rely exclusively on IVF, but the insets can and sometimes do help. Many reptilian and bird species have to use their technologies to create areas for embryonic development, i.e.nests. The list goes on and on. This is all to the point that in the natural world, just as in humans, third parties and technologies are in fact used in the reproductive cycle. Thus, it is “natural.”
Click to expand...
So, it seems we have addressed your major concerns about two gay females marrying: they will not drain national finances and they have the potential, naturally (with a secular understanding of Natural Law), to contribute children to our society.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but no cigar. Examples of third-party procreation that you have given occur inherently and exclusively in those certain species. That is the ONLY way for those species to reproduce. IN other words, that is the NATURAL way for them to reproduce.

IN CONTRAST — well, you get the picture.
 
rinnie said:
It is sad but true. Everyone wants to hear that they are good, and God loves them and they are getting into heaven. They don’t want to hear that if they sin, that sin can keep them from getting into heaven. Seems to be the devil is sure tricking alot of people.

I would rather have someone hate me for sticking up for God, then to love me for letting them think that the devil isn’t trying to turn them away from God. I figure the hate is worth it, if they at least know the truth, and can turn back to God. Then they can love me in the next world hopefully. It would be worth the hate in this world.👍
Click to expand...
Abbe Trochu’s biography details what the Cure d’Ars experienced in converting him,self and his parish. It is well worth reading in these times. Quietly disagreeing, although soothing to the conscience, is not Christian love where we are commended to love one another by correcting one another in Christ. The chapter on the Cure’s great trials show us the way.
 
A person who turns away from God is a Person who is in the state of Sin. For us to accept sin , we in turn also turn away from God. So sin is unacceptable.

So for a person who is sinning against God asking a person to accept it is impossible for a Christian. A Christian hates sin, not the sinner. SO we pray for the sinner to come back to God. But we will never embrace sin, because God and Sin are opposites. If you are of God and you want to be close to God, you must separate yourself from sin.

You cannot say you love God, and love sin. ITs impossible. So you must ask for the help of God to show you that. Its really easy tosee if you sleep with someone of the same sex it is a sin. No one can deny that. Just because God loves a sinner does not mean a sinner loves God. If a sinner refuses to Choose God over sin, they they do not love God like they claim.

God will never force himself on anyone. But God will never accept someone in sin, unless they repent and turn away from that sin. So its up to us. do we choose God or sin. Any sin is taking a shot at God. If you are in sin, you are separated from God. Easy as that.

And to accept sin is to also turn a blind eye to God.
 
Some people say gay marriage won’t harm heterosexuals. But laws have consequences. Just think about Catholic Charities and Boston. I thought MarriageNewsNow.com did a nice job of explaining some of the real world consequences of gay legalization: tinyurl.com/qs7vfy
 
GW said:
Some people say gay marriage won’t harm heterosexuals. But laws have consequences. Just think about Catholic Charities and Boston. I thought MarriageNewsNow.com did a nice job of explaining some of the real world consequences of gay legalization: tinyurl.com/qs7vfy
Click to expand...
That’s why I believe that the homosexual agenda (heck, any anti-Christian liberal agenda) is really self-serving, and is not about promoting the good of society.
 
neophyte said:
I’m baffled by this concept of “gay marriage”. Homosexuals aren’t prohibited in any way from getting married, the problem is that they don’t wan’t to get married - they’re homosexual. They don’t want to be in an intimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

What they’re really asking for is to have marriage redefined as something it’s not. It’s as if they’d have arsenic redefined as beef wellington, or Agent Orange redefined as fertilizer.

This accusation of being “intolerant” is just a fuzzy bat. Intolerent of what? Intolerant of homosexuals, as if I’d have them treated as less than human merely because I insist on the correct definition of words? Nonsense. That accusation is the product of sloppy thinking.
Click to expand...
Hold your horses mister. Marriage is by definition a sacrament between two people that love each other. Homosexuals don’t not want to get married they just don’t want to get married to someone they don’t love.get your facts straight:p
 
jeffman88 said:
Hold your horses mister. Marriage is by definition a sacrament between two people that love each other. Homosexuals don’t not want to get married they just don’t want to get married to someone they don’t love.get your facts straight:p
Click to expand...
The true “spiritual” sense of marriage ordained and blessed by God is that of a heterosexual union between two adults who love one another and for procreation, not more than one wife, not more than one husband, not a same sex union, not a mother marrying her son, a daughter marrying her father, a brother and sister marrying one another, etc. Although these groups will probably push for their “rights” in the future now that homosexual “marriage” is being legalized. They are already trying to legalize incest in Europe. What next.
 
This entire topic originates with the assumption that there are “homosexuals” as opposed to people who engage in homosexual acts. The homosexual agenda for the last forty years or so was based on getting society to accept that there are homosexuals and therefore establish a group identity, similar to an ethnic one, which could be codified into law. They have generally been successful in obtaining that goal.

Once that was accomplished, then the basis was laid for discrimination laws, including marriage.

I don’t want to debate this point. I merely mention it because everyone seems to be skirting all around this issue. The Church condemns homosexual sex as did Paul and the Old Testament. Neither recognized any distinct group of individuals centered on homosexual sexual activity.

Thus, the Church cannot be said to be intolerant of a group of people, only of distinct actions. This is no different than saying that there is no group of individuals with the inherent mark of being murderers. They only become such upon murdering. It is murder that the Church is intolerant of. In fact, to the Church the word “homosexual” (or “heterosexual,” for that matter) as a noun does not rightfully exist.

I am well aware that many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, will adamantly dispute this lack of a distinction. I am simply trying to explain matters as I believe the Church sees it, as well as many other religions and people.
 
ladybri77 said:
The true “spiritual” sense of marriage ordained and blessed by God is that of a heterosexual union between two adults who love one another and for procreation, not more than one wife, not more than one husband, not a same sex union, not a mother marrying her son, a daughter marrying her father, a brother and sister marrying one another, etc. Although these groups will probably push for their “rights” in the future now that homosexual “marriage” is being legalized. They are already trying to legalize incest in Europe. What next.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see that happening. It’s the result of this crazy idea that sex is just for pleasure. The law against incest is based on real scientific evidence that it will produce children that will suffer through deformity. It is not that such children are not valuable in God’s eyes - the law against incest is not against the possible offspring, but against the willful act that will lead to suffering,

But nowadays, a lot of people think it is OK to separate sex from love, or love from an openness to life. So just let incest occur, and abort the child. Yeah, I can definitely see that happening in this liberal culture.

We must oppose this slow destruction of the moral fabric of our societies.
 
Dear brother Don,
Don_Schneider said:
This entire topic originates with the assumption that there are “homosexuals” as opposed to people who engage in homosexual acts. The homosexual agenda for the last forty years or so was based on getting society to accept that there are homosexuals and therefore establish a group identity, similar to an ethnic one, which could be codified into law. They have generally been successful in obtaining that goal.

Once that was accomplished, then the basis was laid for discrimination laws, including marriage.

I don’t want to debate this point. I merely mention it because everyone seems to be skirting all around this issue. The Church condemns homosexual sex as did Paul and the Old Testament. Neither recognized any distinct group of individuals centered on homosexual sexual activity.

Thus, the Church cannot be said to be intolerant of a group of people, only of distinct actions. This is no different than saying that there is no group of individuals with the inherent mark of being murderers. They only become such upon murdering. It is murder that the Church is intolerant of. In fact, to the Church the word “homosexual” (or “heterosexual,” for that matter) as a noun does not rightfully exist.

I am well aware that many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, will adamantly dispute this lack of a distinction. I am simply trying to explain matters as I believe the Church sees it, as well as many other religions and people.
Click to expand...
I might be one of the few who have sympathy for those who think homosexuality is “the way they are.” My best friend in highschool was homosexual. I was the first person he confided in, and he told me that it is the way he always felt, and I had no reason to think he was lying. This was over 20 years ago, when there was not even such a thing as a “homosexual agenda” AFAIK. and we hadn’t even graduated from HS.

Like I said, I feel sympathy - that is not to say I am 100% convinced. For I have also had male heterosexual friends who have confided in me that when they were young, or very young, they do recall feeling a certain attraction to the same sex. They also told me it disappeared around the time of puberty. My theory is that EVERY child feels a certain attraction to the same sex at some point in his/her life. This is that stage when our psyche’s are involved in accepting “heroes” and “role models” in our lives. I do believe that without proper guidance, this natural psychological “hero worship” can be twisted into sexual attraction. This might be the case especially if a boy or girl does not have the proper male/female role models in their lives.

Personally, however, I cannot completely discount the possibility of the “I have always felt that way” mentality.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top