Where to Draw the Line on Gay Rights

[kooldood]

As in, considering the Church’s teaching, what rights should gays have (i.e. the Church would of course allow gays to vote, but would it right for married gays to have certain priveliges because of their “married” status?)

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Living a gay lifestyle, i.e. committing gay sexual acts is a mortal sin. -note Sodom and Gomorrah-
Gay marriage by the state is not recognized by the Church. The Church will never allow the sacrament of marriage for gays. Voting rights are up to each country.

People who are gay are in need of prayers. It is both a psychological issue and a spiritual issue.

 

[gmcbroom]

When you say draw the line on gay rights what exactly do you mean? The previous poster is correct in that it is up to the individual countries whether to outlaw gay rights or not. The moral christian law is that it is a Mortal sin and that is the province of God and not man. So what more do you want? God as much as admitted he didn’t like it so those that practice will receive a just punishment. If you want the sectarian laws to change you must have political backing to make that happen. So go to the national leaders and have it outlawed (It won’t be easy and circumstances have to be perfect for it to occur but it did happen in the past…doubt me remember Nazi Germany, that started the same way). It won’t stop it, but it will make you feel better and that does count. Personally, I’m not gay and it doesn’t bother me that some are. It is not for me to judge. Are you qualified? If people don’t like the laws where they live they can either change the laws or move to another country where the laws are more in line with their philosphy.

 

[fix]

I suggest looking at this.

 

[ljubim]

As in, considering the Church’s teaching, what rights should gays have (i.e. the Church would of course allow gays to vote, but would it right for married gays to have certain priveliges because of their “married” status?)

I would say no public acts of intimacy (kissing for example) would be reasonable, for the sake of mental health… No, nobody should have different priveleges if married, whether normal or perverted

 

[St_Francis]

… No, nobody should have different priveleges if married, …

Married people form the foundation and the future of society, and so society should support them if they want them to continue to do so.

 

[gmcbroom]

You would ban Public Displays of Affection? You would have teens getting arrested, oh not first but after the gay issue was resolved, then boys and girls would be next. That could in effect only allow the rebellious kids to reproduce, and reproduce they would. You would screw the good law abiding people; and actually I think in a way that has already happened. Doubt me? Ask around atleast in the US. I would say a good majority of people with multiple children probably started young by an accidental pregnancy ( we could aleways ask a sociologist to find the data). Those that waited usually paid the price. Sounds bad in reactionary way but it makes sense. So no, making one groups practices illegal is really not a good idea.

 

[Tietjen]

As in, considering the Church’s teaching, what rights should gays have (i.e. the Church would of course allow gays to vote, but would it right for married gays to have certain priveliges because of their “married” status?)

Since it is impossible for members of the same sex to actually be “married” there can be no “priveliges” for the status of being married. Even if the civil government recognizes and allows homosexual marriage, the Church would most certainly not. As for homosexuals rights… a homosexual should have all the rights that any other unmarried man or woman has.

 

[puzzleannie]

As in, considering the Church’s teaching, what rights should gays have (i.e. the Church would of course allow gays to vote, but would it right for married gays to have certain priveliges because of their “married” status?)

they already enjoy all civil rights. no state is denying them any civil rights. they have the right to marry according to the same natural law that applies to every human being, under all state laws, under the same conditions that apply to everyone else: one man and one woman who are otherwise free to marry. They already have the right to give their money to anyone they wish the same way everyone else does, through proper estate planning. They already have the right to vote, serve on juries, and are prohibitted only from the same actions everyone else may not do in public: those which offend the sensibilities of others, ie public sex acts. Those laws apply to everyone not matter what form the egregious deliberate offensive act takes. They have the right to employment under the same conditions that apply to everyone else, namely that they have the bona fide occupational qualifications for a particular position. No change in any civil law is required. Criminal laws apply to everyone and everywhere when they prohibit sex with minors, soliciting for prostitution, public acts that infringe on the rights of others, forced sex, rape etc. The whole civil rights issue is a smokescreen for those activists who have one goal only: to destroy traditional marriage and family. Those with that goal are only incidentally allied with the so-called gay rights movement and are merely using that as a tool.

In any case it is not the Church who gives or denies civil rights, it is the civil authority.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

As in, considering the Church’s teaching, what rights should gays have (i.e. the Church would of course allow gays to vote…

Except in Uganda, where the Catholic Church has no problems with Gays not being allowed to live. It has registered no objections to “habitual homosexuals” incurring the death penalty, nor priests in confessionals having to inform on them within 24 hours or face 3 years in jail.

 

[St_Francis]

Except in Uganda, where the Catholic Church has no problems with Gays not being allowed to live. It has registered no objections to “habitual homosexuals” incurring the death penalty, nor priests in confessionals having to inform on them within 24 hours or face 3 years in jail.

We do not know this. We do not know what the bishops there think, nor do we know why they have not yet commented. Because of the admonition to talk to one’s erring brother in private first, it could be that the bishops are working behind the scenes discussing it privately with the legislators.

For example, the issue with Sen. Patrick Kennedy was dealt with privately and made public two years later *by the senator. *

ETA: In addition, we can’t really expect the bishops to be much better educated on this issue than the general public, and the general public here in the USA is not knowledgeable about the issues surrounding those who are intersexed.

 

[kooldood]

I said considering the Church’s teaching… not what the church teaches. I am asking for your opinion.

 

[ljubim]

Married people form the foundation and the future of society, and so society should support them if they want them to continue to do so.

That’s true… I guess I’m thinking more along the lines of private clubs and free groceries sort of thing I agree with you.

 

[ljubim]

You would ban Public Displays of Affection? You would have teens getting arrested, oh not first but after the gay issue was resolved, then boys and girls would be next.

Yes, PDA between gays is disturbing… imagine two men making out and you have to shield your children from this. I’m not talking holding hands, I’m talking holding butts and wild kissing.

That could in effect only allow the rebellious kids to reproduce, and reproduce they would. You would screw the good law abiding people; and actually I think in a way that has already happened. Doubt me? Ask around atleast in the US. I would say a good majority of people with multiple children probably started young by an accidental pregnancy ( we could aleways ask a sociologist to find the data). Those that waited usually paid the price. Sounds bad in reactionary way but it makes sense. So no, making one groups practices illegal is really not a good idea.

Wait… are you saying that premarital sex leads to big happy families? Or am I not understnading you correctly?

How about changing zoning laws to get rid of adult bookstores and whorehouses? Or saying that Mormons cannot practice polygamy, or old men marrying young children for their religion and or perversions? Anarchy has gotten people nowhere… a base level of civility is required for society to survive.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

We do not know this. We do not know what the bishops there think, nor do we know why they have not yet commented. .

monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Church_leaders_back_govt_on_anti-gay_Bill_95758.shtml (Dec 10)

At least 200 senior religious leaders in Uganda have thrown their weight behind the government backing it not to “yield to pressure” from donor countries that are demanding the withdrawal of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill before Parliament.

Under their umbrella organisation of the Inter-religious Council of Uganda (IRC), the clerics have recommended that the government should think of cutting diplomatic ties with countries that are bent on forcing homosexuality on Ugandans.
…
At their three-day meeting in Entebbe this week, the spiritual leaders came up with several recommendations that are opposed to homosexuals.

“Government should cut ties with donor communities and other groups which support ungodly values such as homosexuality and abortion,” one of the resolutions reads.
…
Bishops from the Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist churches as well as Muslim kadhis agreed to defend the Bill in their centres of worship.

As the Evangelist Rick Warren (who originally backed the bill) said:

First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice.

Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities.

Priests too. The Hysteria has reached such a height that now at least some Ugandan Catholic Bishops are supporting laws that would violate the sanctity of the confessional.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

I would be prepared to render unto Caesar what is his and allow the state legislate for gays but all the while drawing the line at what was in the interests of children and society at large.

Clearly allowing Gay adoption would be wrong. Clearly Gay marriage is an oxymoron and whilst legislatures can, have and will legislate for this The Church has to be upfront teaching the faithful that these unions whilst civilly recognised are not marriages in the eyes of God or of His Church.