Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

[tm30]

If two people want to have sex without thinking about conception, or being able to conceive, in any way they feel fit, then it has nothing to do with me as long as it doesn’t scare the horses. And to be blunt, it has nothing to do with you either.

So sex is merely defined as fitting your penis into some orifice? What about jamming it in someone’s ear? Is that sex, too? In the most scientific terms possible, that’s retarded.

If they want to get married, then the fact that they can’t procreate is meaningless if you don’t think that the main reason to get married is to have children. I don’t think it’s the main reason so the argument is meaningless.

Oh do-tell. What is the main reason to get married?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Catholics believe that homosexual sex is a sin, but we also believe that we all struggle with sin. When I decided to convert to the Catholic faith there were some points of view and sinful habits that weren’t compatible with being a Catholic. I gave up those points of view that weren’t Catholic. I still struggle with some of my old sinful habits, but I don’t blame the Church for my sins.

If liberals don’t agree with what the Catholic Church teaches there are other religions that do agree with them. The door to the Catholic Church is open for those who want to enter and for those who want to leave.

All the protests from the left show that they have a bad case of the forbidden fruit syndrome. Contraception, abortion, and acceptance of the “gay lifestyle” is available everywhere with the only exception being in Catholic institutions. But gay activists want to force everyone to agree with them and tell them that what they are doing is a right.

Here in Canada the noise isn’t as loud in the US. Gays can get “married” here in any civil court or in any place of worship that will accept them. There are still those who harass the Catholic Church about the refusal to marry gays, but they are a very small minority. The laws pretty much prevent one side from being too negative on the other. Being too negative about the Church can be construed as religious discrimination, and being too negative about homosexuality can be construed as hate speech. The negative part about it is that you won’t see too much verbal opposition from the Church regarding gay marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So sex is merely defined as fitting your penis into some orifice? What about jamming it in someone’s ear? Is that sex, too? In the most scientific terms possible, that’s retarded.

 

[CopticChristian]

My impression is that they don’t really care what anyone else thinks, until others try to prevent them from getting the rights which they believe are due to them. The Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, plus a variety of other denominations oppose what they want. So, there is conflict to be resolved in the legislatures and the courts.

Epan,

You have championed what you call “rights they believe due them”…you believe as I read your posts that they deserve these "rights’…Those that oppose, oppose for whatever reason and those that oppose do not see them as rights as you have championed.

 

[CopticChristian]

‘Homosexuality is wrong’ is not The Truth. It is a religious belief. It is your religion that believes it. There are other religions that don’t hold to that. There are people who have the same religion as you who do not hold to that. If it is your ultimate intent to have everyone believe exactly what you believe, you are advocating a theocracy. If that is not the case, then you must accept that others will hold different views to you and you surely must support that freedom.

Well there’s me thinking you guys were declaring it an abomination and punishable by death since the Church started. That’s pretty much in your face from Day 1 isn’t it? At least you’ve toned it down a little since.

You misunderstand me. I don’t want your opinions (and I’m glad you didn’t say The Truth) to be stifled. I think you have every right to declare homosexuality wrong. I’ve got no problem if you don’t want your church to marry gay people. I would appreciate it if you did ‘cast your vote’ against it because that indicates to me that you consider that being in the majority counts.

I agree with you heart and soul that the majority should have a say in what happens in one’s own country. I’d love you to make up a few bumper stickers along the lines of ‘We’re the majority and that’s what counts!’

But being in the majority doesn’t mean that the statement ‘Gay Marriage is Wrong’ is a fact. It’s just the majority opinion. When, in a short time, the majority thinks that ‘Gay Marriage is OK’, it won’t be a fact either. It will be the majority opinion. You can then peel that sticker off and give it to the gay couple down the road. They’d appreciate the irony.

Reformed/Calinistic/Protestants that adhere to “Dominionism” believe in a Theocracy with plans to execute homosexuals. The OHCAC believes in a participatory Theonomy as discussed in Veritatis Splendor.

 

[Bradski]

So sex is merely defined as fitting your penis into some orifice? What about jamming it in someone’s ear? Is that sex, too? In the most scientific terms possible, that’s retarded.

Jamming it in someone’s ear? That would be aural sex, wouldn’t it?

Oh do-tell. What is the main reason to get married?

It’s a public affirmation of a couple’s commitment to each other. That’s how the bride at the last wedding I went to described it (my daughter’s actually). I don’t include ‘making babies’.

 

[CopticChristian]

Whatever the definition of marriage, it won’t affect you in the slightest.

Well, let’s agree to something, shall we? Those on both sides of the debate can put forward their views and we will let the people decide. Let’s keep it to a simple majority vote. Would you be happy with that?

The longer you hold a belief the more truthful it becomes?

I don’t support it in any way. You should be free to act in whatever way your conscience and your faith dictates. I would support your right, for example, not to have to provide services such as abortion or contraception. I would support your right to be able to refuse to marry a gay couple in church. I support your right to argue against changing the definition of the term marriage.

I think we should be open and honest in our debate and I believe that ultimately, the people themselves will decide what is acceptable.

I thought this was a reasonable debate. If we can steer away from some of the more extreme xases of rhetoric I think that will be a good thing.

Long may it continue to do so.

I’ve been around long enough to know that Karoleck. But I guess it’s worth reminding everyone of the fact now and then. When I talk about homosexuality as in ‘the church believes that homosexuality is wrong’, I’m talking about homosexual acts. I appreciate ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach.

I wouldn’t ‘uphold what is written in everyones heart’ unless I could see that there would be no detrimental effect on society in general. I see no problem with gay marriage (and I mean zero problem) so I have no problem in supporting a move to have it accepted.

The fact that you don’t see two male birds making a nest in and that therefore two women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other for a lifetime is ‘unatural’ is…well, nonsensical. There’s a fair proportion of people who are gay. There’s no getting around that, so to call it unnatural is simply wrong. It occurs in nature – obviously, therefore it is natural.

I don’t really have a problem with that insomuch as you feel personally that you have to uphold what you believe to be natural moral laws. But I’d rather you didn’t insist that everyone else has to obey your rules as well. I’m frustrated by the fact that you consider you know what’s best for the ‘common good’. I think that I know what’s best, but I wouldn’t want to impose my will on anyone else. I’d rather leave it to the people to decide.

How does a woman explain to her lifelong gay partner that she’d like to be intimate with her, but it doesn’t fit in with love, forgiveness, compassion, generosity, hope and kindness? They can experience all those emotions, but once they get into bed they become null and void? I don’t get that.

Do you think that less heterosexual people will get married if gay people are allowed to do so? Do you think that allowing gay marriage will result in more divorces? That hasn’t been ther case elsewhere. Do you have good reasons for believing it may happen in America?

Anomalies do occur in Nature.

 

[Bradski]

Anomalies do occur in Nature.

I’m not sure of the point you are making. But yes, I agree. There are aspects of nature that are a departure from the norm. That doesn’t make them unatural, just less prevalent.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure of the point you are making. But yes, I agree. There are aspects of nature that are a departure from the norm. That doesn’t make them unatural, just less prevalent.

Brad,

The fact that you don’t see two male birds making a nest in and that therefore two women loving each other and wanting to commit to each other for a lifetime is ‘unatural’ is…well, nonsensical.

Then you have to conclude that these, in my opinion, abnormal relationships, occur in nature as anomalies and are less prevalent.

You have concluded that something that occurs in nature is not unatural ipso facto, however that doesn’t equate to the entirety of what unhatural can be and how someone sees something as unnatural.

1. not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events

2a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse

b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived

c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected

Your conclusion reveals your bias and narrow minded view of what you want me to accept.

So while you take only a portion of the definition of the usage of the word and conclude, I take the entirety of the usage of the word and conclude unnatural when it comes to what you say are things that occur such as same sex couples. I see them as unnatural, perverse anomalies, that are not in accordance or normal in the course of events, lacking ease and naturalness and inconsistent with what is reasonable and expected.

 

[Lochias]

To an extent you are correct. We wouldn’t want a child to do something that we knew was harmful or dangerous. You don’t let your kid play in the storm drain because you know the risks. We know that some things are wrong. But that doesn’t tie in with gay marriage.

But that’s just it…we do view homosexual sex and gay marriage as harmful and dangerous. We know it to be wrong by dint of our faith, and by the results in society that we can see happening right now.

You believe it’s wrong for a variety of reasons, but others disagree. There are honestly held positions on both sides (leaving out the homophobic and anti-religious brigades). It’s up to us to put forward our case as well as we can and let those who have not decided what they believe is acceptable or not.

Believing as we do that gay marriage and homosexual acts are harmful in many ways, we cannot simply state our case once, and be silent. Love for fellow man dictates that we cannot.

Note that I am not saying what is correct or not, but what is acceptable or not (although I do believe that allowing gay marriage is the correct thing to do).

“Acceptable” depends entirely on point of view and is mutable, whereas Catholics must abide by a universal truth and constant that is objective, and not swayed by what the majority may consider to be “acceptable” at any given time.

I think you’ve reversed the argument to suggest that what I was saying is that if something appears in nature then it is acceptable to humans. That is obviously not the case. You wouldn’t get many men willing to marry if the female was hell bent on eating you immediately after sex.

What I am saying is that a significant minority of people are gay and that therefore, by definition, you can’t call it unnatural. Yes, they won’t be able to produce offspring, but neither can a 90 year old couple but it’s not unnatural for two people of that age to fall in love and want to get married. I can’t stop anyone using that argument, but it doesn’t register with me at all. It’s entirely inconsequential in the factors I use in coming to me personal decision on this.

To dismiss such things is entirely your choice.

I have to a certain extent. Enough, I hope, to be able to say, yes – I do get it. I just don’t agree with it.

You’ve definitely got a deeper understanding than some others who come here simply with an axe to grind, and such efforts are greatly appreciated (and needed for good dialogue, on a Catholic forum), but I’d say you’ve got a ways to go yet to really understand the principles behind the Catholic argument (based on some of your responses so far). Looking deeper into Church tradition and writings of the early Church fathers will speed you along quite a ways, if you’re interested in such.

I encourage it precisely for the reasons you mention above…to be fully informed about the issue. It’s a big challenge when it comes to an entity with thousands of years’ worth of history, but ultimately rewarding, even if you choose not to believe it.

 

[tm30]

Jamming it in someone’s ear? That would be aural sex, wouldn’t it?

indeed…

It’s a public affirmation of a couple’s commitment to each other.

So is going to the Prom.

That’s how the bride at the last wedding I went to described it (my daughter’s actually). I don’t include ‘making babies’.

So…no different than masturbating. Got it.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Whatever the definition of marriage, it won’t affect you in the slightest.

To the contrary, the crux of the gay “marriage” debate isn’t about what homosexuals are free to do, it’s how the society around them must treat their relationship. Homosexuals are already free to profess whatever they want to each other; they are free to live together; they are free to engage in whatever physical acts to which they both consent. What we’re talking about now is how those uninvolved in the relationship must treat them. What benefits must private and public organizations extend? What housing arrangements must property owners be willing to accept, etc. etc.

And this doesn’t touch at all with the general cultural effect of redefining what “family” means. We are in the process of redefining western civilization away from the Judeo-Christian ethic on which it was founded. What remains will be interesting to see, but it will be much different from what we have seen through history.

 

[Bradski]

So while you take only a portion of the definition of the usage of the word and conclude, I take the entirety of the usage of the word and conclude unnatural when it comes to what you say are things that occur such as same sex couples. I see them as unnatural, perverse anomalies, that are not in accordance or normal in the course of events, lacking ease and naturalness and inconsistent with what is reasonable and expected.

I appreciate that and understand your definition of ‘unatural’ (although I don’t agree with it in this case). But perverted is easily, and commonly, tacked on to any description of a gay person and you may have to be specific about what you mean. I’m going to suggest that the language often used in this context is part of the problem.

Let’s say you were in a social group and you called someone’s sister a pervert. I’m sure you’d understand the reaction from some people.

But that’s just it…we do view homosexual sex and gay marriage as harmful and dangerous. We know it to be wrong by dint of our faith, and by the results in society that we can see happening right now.

This is one of my problems with religion. Not faith, or belief, but specifically religion where one has to ‘follow the rules’ if I may. I was ardently homophobic in my younger days. But for a variety of reasons, which I won’t bore you with now, I came to realise that I was wrong, at a personal level. Not that homosexuality was ‘right’, but that most of what I believed of homosexuals was wrong.

I was able to make my own decision on this. If I were a Catholic, then I wouldn’t have had that opportunity.

I encourage it precisely for the reasons you mention above…to be fully informed about the issue. It’s a big challenge when it comes to an entity with thousands of years’ worth of history, but ultimately rewarding, even if you choose not to believe it.

Indeed it would be. Indeed, has been up to this point. There’s nothing that says an atheist cannot learn something from religion.

So…no different than masturbating. Got it.

So you think that making a lifetime commitment to someone you love is like masturbation. I think that says more about you than I’d like to know.

And I’ll pass on the fact that you made such a crude comment as a direct response to my mention of my daughter’s wedding. I’ll just assume it was thoughtless and crass rather than done with any malice.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

I see more gay people attacking protestants than I ever hear of them having beef with the CC.

 

[Lochias]

This is one of my problems with religion. Not faith, or belief, but specifically religion where one has to ‘follow the rules’ if I may. I was ardently homophobic in my younger days. But for a variety of reasons, which I won’t bore you with now, I came to realise that I was wrong, at a personal level. Not that homosexuality was ‘right’, but that most of what I believed of homosexuals was wrong.

I was able to make my own decision on this. If I were a Catholic, then I wouldn’t have had that opportunity.

Are you equating Catholics with homophobes? Why would a Catholic upbringing stop you from loving your fellow man, homosexual or otherwise? Do you know many Catholic people who are homophobic? Would you mind describing what “homophobic” means to you?

And, what’s wrong with following the rules? Is there any rule you can name off the top of your head that prevents a Catholic from loving his or her fellow person? I have followed the rules of Catholic authority all of my life, and apparently unlike you (and I don’t mean this as an insult) I have never been homophobic in my life. The rules of the Catholic church state that I am to love my God, and to love my neighbor. Could it be your own interpretations of or lack of interest in following the rules that is coloring your experiences, rather than the rules themselves? I

Indeed it would be. Indeed, has been up to this point. There’s nothing that says an atheist cannot learn something from religion.
.

True indeed.

 

[Crescentinus]

It all comes down to this question.
What standards of morality tells the homosexualists to shove their views down people’s throats?

 

[Lokabrenna]

But…I think they attack the Catholic church because the church teaches that their life is bad and sinful and that some Catholics try to interfere with their getting married or adopting children, etc, by protesting, etc…
If they attack the church, I think it’s because they feel the church attacks them.

I think they might say…they’d stop attacking the church if the church would stop attacking them?

I’d say this. I honestly don’t care if the Catholic church wants to dictate to it’s own flock who can and cannot get married according to its doctrine. I’m not Catholic and I have no interest in being Catholic. My tradition (although small) is not opposed to same-sex marriage, and neither is the closest kindred to my house, and I’m sure many other Pagans would say the same (it varies by religion and individual grove/coven/kindred/whatever group). It’s when Catholics (or other religious groups) try to ban same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption for everyone (not just Catholics) that I and other LGBT+ individuals go on the offensive.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’d say this. I honestly don’t care if the Catholic church wants to dictate to it’s own flock who can and cannot get married according to its doctrine. I’m not Catholic and I have no interest in being Catholic. My tradition (although small) is not opposed to same-sex marriage, and neither is the closest kindred to my house, and I’m sure many other Pagans would say the same (it varies by religion and individual grove/coven/kindred/whatever group). It’s when Catholics (or other religious groups) try to ban same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption for everyone (not just Catholics) that I and other LGBT+ individuals go on the offensive.

So,

If I were on a vanic Pagan website called **Vanic Pagan Answers **and I was telling all the Pagans that they should understand my position and that they were too liberal would that go over well?

 

[Lokabrenna]

So,

If I were on a vanic Pagan website called **Vanic Pagan Answers **and I was telling all the Pagans that they should understand my position and that they were too liberal would that go over well?

Given that one of the “founders” (Nicanthiel Hrafnhild) of my tradition is a married gay man, I do not think that would go over well at all. But, I don’t understand how that relates to this discussion. The OP asked a question, I answered it…

 

[VikingNormandy]

sometimes i think im gay yet never begin -maybe im too"bibled"

getting older i feel i may as well get married and have kids-but never begin

yes the left wing gays should shut up and stop trying to change things so much-let people have traditions

after all we arent in francos Spain-i dont like the loud mouth left

and they think theyre so great just because they sleep with a person and many seem like theyre being gay just to rebel against the parents or someone

i dont find them interesting or nice

not all gays are like that though