Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[Kelley_Green]

*** But this is evidence of hetero nuttery…
youtube.com/watch?v=6bDjkKnO_cM&NR=1

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

But it is relevant, unless of course, all manner of discourse/ evidence reference will abandon scripture. Judaic tradition is innately entwined law and religion. So too is the Christian tradition. Separation of Church and state can only go so far before it comes unhinged in illogical extremes. Rather than summarily toss scripture out of court, I think it best we examine it with greater depth in it’s context.

Okay, I see what you’re saying. I don’t necessarily disagree in principle, but here in the United States (is that where you’re from too? I don’t want to make assumptions) we wouldn’t get anywhere proposing certain laws if our only or principal justification were Scriptural. And I do admit that I do agree with separation of church and state to that extent; otherwise, what would stop members of other religions - like Islam - from imposing their religious practices on everyone if they gained a majority? Separation of church and state protects everyone - Christians and people in other faiths - from legal religious interference.

Homosexuals marrying, or socially forced to marry, heterosexuals is morally wrong. What on surface appears to be fulfilling a one man one woman criteria is an anathema to the very institution. The spirit of the law is circumvented. Heterosexuals need no instruction how to be heterosexual because it comes natural to them. We’re the majority, always have been, always will be, and when the law gets authored it’s presuming it’s universal. It presumes too much at times. Homosexuals have always existed in some percent or another and our relationship with them needs to evolve. That’s really all I’m trying to get across.

Okay, I agree completely. I guess our points don’t actually contradict each other. I was simply pointing out that New Testament assertions about sexual ethics apply to everyone regardless of sexual orientation (and nowhere does it advocate making anybody get married, so it’s not going to force any gay person into marriage).

Reminds me of a phenomena in marriage- which matters more? What a man meant to say or what his wife heard? The sloppy caricature is a mirror of the sloppy statements not bearing up to reality. The sloppy caricature stands firm as an opportunity for hierarchy to clarify the teachings to the flock.

Fair enough.

To better illustrate my point, how are gays supposed to introduce themselves in a congregation? “Pleased to meet you, my name is abomination.”? Revised edition; ‘objectively disordered’? That diagnostic statement is inherently claiming it is a (mental) disease.

As I said before, I don’t define anyone by their sexual orientation. St. Paul and the consistent teaching of the Church have always actually recommended the evangelical counsels for everyone, straight or gay, with celibacy as a higher vocation.

So to answer your question, a gay person should introduce himself or herself in a congregation with his or her name. His or her sexual orientation is none of our business. To us I believe (s)he should be principally a son or daughter of God and a brother or sister in Christ.

Homosexuality requires correction, medicinal remedy, modification/ adaptation to conform to our idyllic hetero uniformity.

I don’t want to belittle this point, because to a certain extent what you’re saying is true. Gay people are a minority, as - quantitatively speaking - heterosexuality is the norm. Still, in a Christian spiritual context, all things of this world will pass away, including engaging in sexual intercourse. Our Lord even says that marriage won’t happen at all in heaven. If in a broader Christian context we’re living in true eschatological anticipation in preparation for and participation in the imminent Kingdom of God, then none of us should be engaging in true uniformity to the things of this world in any sense.

That doesn’t negate your point, of course; gay people are a minority who often don’t fit in. Still, it’s a travesty that they sometimes feel unwelcome in a community whose regular members themselves ought to feel out of place in this world as mere travelers heading to their true heavenly destination.

Although not implied by decree, what is stated in the congregations is that homosexuality IS contagious by way of ‘indoctrination’. Propaganda campaigns in California sponsored by religious groups, Catholics weighing in with their 2 cents, said so. The official stamp was the Mormon Church but it was a collusion between Cardinal/ Bishops office in California and various religious groups. This behavior grievously detracts from whatever real point they mean to make.

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks you can “catch” homosexuality like it’s some kind of communicable disease. What these Prop 8 campaigns and such feared was the possibility of children being taught in schools that there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage, and things like that. You can argue with them on that, of course, but unless I’m gravely mistaken, no one can be seriously ignorant enough to think that someone can “become” homosexual later in life simply through being around gay people.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Jesus is credited with a single act of violence that brought no physical harm to a person- get these money changers out of my father’s house. His rebuke, memory serves me correctly, was exclusively reserved for those in positions of authority abusing it/ misrepresenting in service to self aggrandizement. Do you know of exceptions to that fairly narrow criteria? At what point in the teachings of Jesus did he take it upon himself to enforce by writ or sword universal conformity to any given thing? To my knowledge, never.

True, but we literally weren’t talking about physical violence 'til you brought it up just now.

My point was that things that are hard to hear and may even seem condemnatory are not necessarily - simply by virtue of that - against the way Jesus taught, since some of his recorded teachings do not seem nice.

His rebuke points at serious character flaws inflicted upon others. Can we honestly equate homosexuality with a character flaw as if it were a question of free will to be nor not to be hetero?

Was the non-Jewish woman to whom Jesus said, “It is not right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs?” a Gentile by choice? Was her non-Jewish status a character flaw?

Of course not. She didn’t choose her race/nationality.

Was the man who wanted to bury his father before following Jesus exhibiting a character flaw by wanting to honor his father and bury the dead? I think not.

I admit, however, that these points probably aren’t relevant here, since actually I wouldn’t trust myself or 99% of others I know with the harshness that our Lord, in His wisdom and benevolence, could get away with.

An institution that has no real grasp of what gay actually means

Who does have a grasp on that? Sexual orientation is an ideologically loaded subject in today’s society, subject to all sorts of perspectives, distortions, and question-begging. Many apply a sort of “sexuality essentialism” to sexual orientation - as if sexuality is the last stronghold that has not fallen to postmodern, post-structuralist deconstructionist breakdowns - and then act surprised when matters are not so simple. The Kinsey scale alone is enough to reveal that every ideological position on homosexuality is at best an oversimplification, at worst a distortion.

Kelley Green, I truly don’t think anyone really understands sexual orientation. The Church, at least, admits how much she doesn’t know through not positing theories of origin or commenting on how it does or does not shape one’s identity.

No worries about hurting my feelings. The truth never hurts me.

Okay, thank you. I was just afraid that - since I didn’t quite understand exactly what your last couple points were - I might be caricaturing or misrepresenting your words. If that happens, please do call me out on it so I can correct it.

Homophobia is a real phenomena in (many) males not exclusive to Christendom. I hope the Church will seriously examine it, and it’s relationship to Christian teachings. If the last thing someone heard before they were beaten to a pulp was leviticus, Christianity’s name is being evoked as justification. That needs to end permanently.

Indeed. The Catechism has some pretty negative things to say about bigotry and discrimination against gay people as it formally and explicitly endorses all respect and equality for them in society, but I do agree that we Catholics should put that respect into practice better than we do now.

Promote the cause, defend marriage… nothing I’m doing in my life today has any impact as to the quality or quantity of healthy marriages in main stream America beyond the private encouragement I’ve offered counseling couples (in capacity of friend or relative) in trouble.

See below (next post).

What is true for yourself is not true for all because marriages are not in character identical to one another.

Well, of course not. But that doesn’t mean there’s not something they all share. It’s the same with any word we use - not all chairs can be completely different, or else we wouldn’t call them all “chairs.”

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

My question to you specifically, being a Christian married guy-- why doesn’t the specific category of ‘holy matrimony’ solve this for you? Not one poster has acknowledged that statement.

Because marriage is not and has never been a purely or even principally religious phenomenon, nor should it be. No one religion - not even the complete, diverse set of them - has a monopoly on human relationships that can be understood on a purely natural level.

Should two atheists who love each other be forced to join some kind of religious organization in order to enjoy the status of recognized marriage? That hardly seems any fairer. Marriage may be (and I believe is) relevant in religion, but it’s not a religious matter itself, and religion has no right to take it over.

the burden of proof it harms your marriage is upon you. I’m more than willing to hear that evidence.

I can speak only for myself, but I do not maintain that legal recogniation of same-sex relationships as marriage would hurt my marriage (if I were married, which I’m not).

But it would legally and socially further dilute the connection - critical to fostering stable environments in which to bring children into the world - between exclusive, monogamous, sexual love and procreation.

 

[Kelley_Green]

but here in the United States (is that where you’re from too? I don’t want to make assumptions)

100% American mutt.

Okay, I agree completely. I guess our points don’t actually contradict each other. I was simply pointing out that New Testament assertions about sexual ethics apply to everyone regardless of sexual orientation (and nowhere does it advocate making anybody get married, so it’s not going to force any gay person into marriage).

New testament is applicable to Christians, which varies greatly in interpretation. How that should extend to a larger secular society, and globally as we intend to lead by positive example, is another matter.

I have a huge problem with individuals in free society taking it upon themselves to vote the rights of others (to self determine) away.

As I said before, I don’t define anyone by their sexual orientation. St. Paul and the consistent teaching of the Church have always actually recommended the evangelical counsels for everyone, straight or gay, with celibacy as a higher vocation.

So to answer your question, a gay person should introduce himself or herself in a congregation with his or her name. His or her sexual orientation is none of our business. To us I believe (s)he should be principally a son or daughter of God and a brother or sister in Christ.

Being gay is not the worst thing a human being could be, but measured by sheer vitriol response from hetero’s, it’s worse than any crime you could name. If it’s none of our business, then why are we having this conversation?

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks you can “catch” homosexuality like it’s some kind of communicable disease… unless I’m gravely mistaken, no one can be seriously ignorant enough to think that someone can “become” homosexual later in life simply through being around gay people.

It’s the cornerstone of social conservative arguments and it’s right here in this thread. Serious ignorance is afoot, most of which is willful. Indoctrination means what?
youtube.com/watch?v=z2RwfWFRwvY
While I hear posters in this forum question gay’s ability to parent, I hear their own inability to parent a potentially gay child. Shall we have social services intervene when religious hetero couples are psychologically endangering their gay child? Perhaps a gay adoption service for hetero couples so morally repulsed by their gay child that they’re willing to abandon/ disown them? How many gay run away children are there?

What these Prop 8 campaigns and such feared was the possibility of children being taught in schools that there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage, and things like that.

There’s something vastly wrong with schools or churches indoctrinating children to hate or fear gays. Reminds me a whole lot about race relations. There’s no such thing in the school yard until adults inflict their own malevolent garbage upon them.
Malevolent; gays are not child molesters- youtube.com/watch?v=MmqNiFJyI28
Willful ignorance from a Catholic school professor inflicted on hetero kids with gay parents: boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/10/firestorm_over_piece_on_gays_in_catholic_paper/?s_campaign=8315

Where is the evidence of ‘objectionable’ material from heteros?
youtube.com/watch?v=UKQXd0MpZA8

Does it even begin to make a dent in this?
youtube.com/watch?v=iKk8qYIf4oI
westorlandonews.com/2010/09/29/gay-teen-kills-himself-because-of-bullying-parents-say/
truecrimereport.com/2010/04/cheyenne_williams_lesbian_teen.php
newsweek.com/2008/07/18/young-gay-and-murdered.html
articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-15/news/29149203_1_party-crashers-anti-gay-slurs-jamaica-hospital
youtube.com/watch?v=3Y5CbtXoO74
youtube.com/watch?v=O4FwElTaEAU
youtube.com/watch?v=CR3dLh9-GnI
… and there are far too many stories just like it.

True, but we literally weren’t talking about physical violence 'til you brought it up just now.

The originating question was what would Jesus do… at very least, he would not get violent or incite someone into suicide. Leviticus does not trump the 10 commandments. The slightest inconvenience imposed upon a christian you’ll hear exaggerated claims of persecution. Meanwhile, gays are genuinely persecuted for thousands of years and it’s considered normal. This isn’t just about gay marriage or Christendoms cruel treatment of them. Christendom (as whole) has instructed it’s flock to refuse to allow them to exist.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

New testament is applicable to Christians, which varies greatly in interpretation. How that should extend to a larger secular society, and globally as we intend to lead by positive example, is another matter.

I agree 100%. I wanted to emphasize only that New Testament prohibitions on homosexual activity clearly do not apply only to heterosexual Christians.

I did not mean or intend to imply that the New Testament’s moral injunctions should be legally binding.

If it’s none of our business, then why are we having this conversation?

Because this conversation - at least, what I saw it as - isn’t about sexual orientation but what should legally constitute marriage in our society. The two have become related topics, but I did not and do not intend to comment on or involve myself in matters of particular individuals’ sexual orientation.

It’s the cornerstone of social conservative arguments

No, it’s really not. No one I know - even the most ignorant social conservative - thinks homosexuality is communicable from one person to another. That’s just a bizarre caricature, a straw man.

There’s something vastly wrong with schools or churches indoctrinating children to hate or fear gays.

I agree completely. My experience, however - of both my own church and others - does not include the religious vilification of gay people. Granted, the Catholic Church does teach that homosexual activity is gravely immoral, but that’s an entirely different thing than homophobia.

Bullying, imagining gay people as child molesters, discrimination against children based on their parents’ being a same-sex couple, etc. - those are indeed all horrible.

The originating question was what would Jesus do… at very least, he would not get violent or incite someone into suicide.

Of course I absolutely agree.

This isn’t just about gay marriage or Christendoms cruel treatment of them. Christendom (as whole) has instructed its flock to refuse to allow them to exist.

Gay people have indeed faced discrimination and intolerance and still do; this must change.

I disagree, however, that Chrisendom has “instructed its flock to refuse to allow them to exist.” At best, that statement reflects an anachronistic imposition of modern post-Freudian categorizations upon earlier centuries. Many earlier European cultures - Renaissance England, for example - didn’t even view the sexual difference between men and women as a hard-and-fast, objective/intrinsic distinction, so they certainly would not have even understood the idea of there being an implicit difference between “straight” people and “gay” people.

Sexual orientation is perhaps the only personal distinction today that has ironically remained immune to postmodern deconstructionist tendencies.

 

[Jessup]

A legitimate response. However if homosexuality is so clearly harmful as you suppose, why is opposition to homosexuality so strongly correlated with religious beliefs? Moreover, why would people with more direct contact with gay people be more supportive of gay marriage? END QUOTE]

 I can't believe this is even debated in this country. As people in society marriage should be protected as preservation of community and family. This includes banning Gay marriage, nude bars, pornography, and in my personal beliefs prohibition as I am strait edge. ( sXe for life!) 
  When these elements are pushed forth in society it leads to desensitization of other things. As the agenda is shoved further and further down the throats of Americans we'll become desensitized to it and in the next 100 years be debating if pedophiles should be allowed " loving relationships"
 I spent time around gays growing up going to punk rock shows and dating woman who had gay friends. Any gay person I ever met had very messed up emotional problems and constantly fished the people around him or her for participation and lifestyle fraternity. The gay culture and community is not ok, or alright it's not family oriented, and its not prosperous for society. It is the catalyst for the decomposition of family values that has affected generation x and beyond. 

 The only reason gays want marriage legal is so we in society can make them feel better about themselves.

Cheers! Jessup

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… As the agenda is shoved further and further down the throats of Americans we’ll become desensitized to it and in the next 100 years be debating if pedophiles should be allowed " loving relationships"…

They have been talking about that since the 50’s. The gay agenda avoids pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles, and practitioners of adult incest like the plague because they cannot differentiate their disorder from these others. After all. A dead body is not someone that can be hurt, nor is sex with a horse harming anyone, No one is hurt when adult mothers and sons, fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers have sexual relations. These are all things that make most people vomit. So the homosexual agenda is intolerant and bigoted against these other disorders because it is politically convenient. Zoophiles are beginning to agitate for a representation in the gay agenda, though, so it will be interesting to watch the fallout.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

TheTrueCentrist;7822653:

A legitimate response. However if homosexuality is so clearly harmful as you suppose, why is opposition to homosexuality so strongly correlated with religious beliefs? Moreover, why would people with more direct contact with gay people be more supportive of gay marriage?

I can’t believe this is even debated in this country. As people in society marriage should be protected as preservation of community and family. This includes banning Gay marriage, nude bars, pornography, and in my personal beliefs prohibition as I am strait edge. ( sXe for life!)

How does gay marriage effect the preservation of community and family? Accepting that homosexuals do exist and many do want to have a long term relationship equivalent to that of marriage, what would banning gay marriage do? All it does is create segregation because people aren’t going to stop being gay just because you tell them to, they will exist whether they can be married or not and by keeping them from being married all that is accomplished is discrimination. People are supporting the notion that these people do not deserve the same rights as others and that does not fit with any reasonable definition of freedom or equality.

When these elements are pushed forth in society it leads to desensitization of other things. As the agenda is shoved further and further down the throats of Americans we’ll become desensitized to it and in the next 100 years be debating if pedophiles should be allowed " loving relationships"

So you equate homosexuals to pedophiles? Desensitized to what? To equality? Freedom from discrimination? Could you support the claim that if we accept the “gay agenda” we will in any time frame be debating the legality or morality of pedophilic relationships?

I spent time around gays growing up going to punk rock shows and dating woman who had gay friends. Any gay person I ever met had very messed up emotional problems and constantly fished the people around him or her for participation and lifestyle fraternity.

It’s a shame that many do have such a horrible experience and I can assure you that prejudice and discrimination do nothing to help many homosexual people.

The gay culture and community is not ok, or alright it’s not family oriented, and its not prosperous for society. It is the catalyst for the decomposition of family values that has affected generation x and beyond.

How is it a catalyst for the decomposition of family values?

The only reason gays want marriage legal is so we in society can make them feel better about themselves.

Or because they want long term monogamous relationships with the same benefits as those of heterosexual couples.

 

[Eugenius]

I can’t believe this is even debated in this country. As people in society marriage should be protected as preservation of community and family. This includes banning Gay marriage, nude bars, pornography, and in my personal beliefs prohibition as I am strait edge. ( sXe for life!)

Interesting that you don’t mention banning divorce, which is attacking the sanctity of marriage and winning at a rate of 50%. Don’t you think we need to preserve the families and communities we already have instead of trying to scapegoat someone else for our own failures?

 

[Francine_48]

If I may weigh in,I do not feel gay marriage is harmful to society,and it should not be put in the same category as pornography or nude bars.And it is up to the individuals persons conscience,whether or not they receive communion.

From Kelly Green:*

While I hear posters in this forum question gay’s ability to parent, I hear their own inability to parent a potentially gay child. Shall we have social services intervene when religious hetero couples are psychologically endangering their gay child? Perhaps a gay adoption service for hetero couples so morally repulsed by their gay child that they’re willing to abandon/ disown them? How many gay run away children are there?

So true kelly,

Because of a lack of acceptance,a lot of gay teens end up in homeless shelters after running away from home,or some commit suicide,because of the idea drummed into their head that they are deviant or sinful.I live in nyc where there are a number of shelters for gay teens.*

 

[Kelley_Green]

I agree 100%. I wanted to emphasize only that New Testament prohibitions on homosexual activity clearly do not apply only to heterosexual Christians.

Sorry to get windy on you but I have to. This isn’t about winning or losing. It’s about getting our eyes all back up on that higher calling (religious, American, and adult leadership alike).
Applying ONLY to hetero christians- really so sure about that? In the context of conversation between 2 fallible hetero men, one being inspired by divine but having a primitive brain with which to communicate in a primitive language to other primatives sharing common philosophy of old covenant, just how would he be going about explaining concepts 5,000 x’s more potent than Einstien’s theory? Shall I beat up a dead guy of 2,000 yrs ago and negate all good because of his limitations in that moment? He was giving instruction to a hetero male in the spirit of a physician describing a cure to a specific patient. The idea is NOT to abolish medicine, or deny the validity of religion altogether, but to accept the penance of a failure and learn from his errors minus the need for wholesale vilification. Forcing what is a singular failed experiment to be foisted onto humanity perpetually is madness.
This ‘cure’ dogmatically followed by homosexuals creates disease. Women meted out the same dose meds for heart disease as men have died because it treated their physiology as identical to male. We are different, but we are all human and that’s the real definition of equality that folks are still hemming and hawing around for self serving purposes. The world itself contradicts their world view, and so, they commence to force square pegs in round holes through secular and religious writ. Some folks gaze upon the sea of humanity with love, and others compulsively think of running a lawn mower over anything that fails to conform to provincial and often arrested development self worshiping definitions. This aspect of western culture deserves it’s own category in DSM.

Reading the Bible with a womans perspective as subtitles inclusive of context I did not miss the spirit of the lesson equally applicable to hetero females & homosexuals about licentious sex, and yet, if you insist womankind conform to defective male uniforms by clinging to the letter of the law adhering to linear male thinking she’s technically off the hook entirely! Look again and see how often people use Pharisee and Sadducee logic to justify all of this. That logic is something Jesus rebuked and it’s presently institutionalized by theologians. The few having honest conversations about this subject are select branches of protestants & jews.

No matter who you (general pronoun) insert in the scapegoat dujour slot as paradigms go you (general pronoun) are in effect disgracing your own uniforms and blaming civilization over what is factually self inflicted. It’s the same thing for blacks and gays. Out of cultural habit people drive around it blind to it entirely. How much more absurd can this get when American Catholics are embracing the very same WASP supremacy mentality they fought against? They forget where they come from.

 

[Kelley_Green]

We as a Christian community regardless of denomination need to aspire for that higher calling impossible to pursue when too many are spending their lives chasing scapegoats to serve their real agenda of avoiding self examination. The Church goes wayward when the flock expect others to police them externally when it is their job to police themselves as individuals embracing self discipline. It yields an over abundance of boys in mens bodies and that’s more needful of attention than rounding up the usual suspects gays have been given as the blame for all things wrong in the world. Handy distraction that keeps people occupied chasing down the wrong guy so the social crimes continue on in perpetuity as they have with blacks and women.

Boil this down to bones I’m listening to social conservatives claim they’re justified breaking into anothers home dictating their lives to them through writ because they feel their own ‘lifestyle choice’ is threatened. Universal rules forum of policy making is heterosexual a choice? Is the Vatican OK with equal justice removing gay children from the custody of their hetero birth parents because they failed to honor the child as they are on religious grounds? That policy resembles a self fulfilling prophecy- so irrationally fearful of something they only run headlong into it.

What’s calling itself social conservative lacks the fortitude of Amish to put their money where their mouths are by fully owning their choices and limit their influence on the world to the myopic version they mean to live out. They have no business influencing mass scale policy applicable to all universally as a result anymore than ivory tower clergy do. This is the difference between what it means to be a genuine conservative or claiming to be social conservative when you’re (general pronoun) really just an authoritarian personality looking to control others but not yourself. Walking your own talk and leading by example is genuinely conservative. It’s Christian and American too. Had they been authoring policy encouraging people to own their own lives as fully as possible, I could take them seriously. Instead they take the higher calling of politics, religion, and parenthood and make a mockery of all using children as human shields for their agenda. No matter how much you and I are in agreement about anything, targeting fellow Americans with malevolent policy is what adjective? I assure you it’s not Christian, American, or anything else worth a salt.

You cannot claim yourself innocent if this is what you’ve thrown yourself in with. Please clean it up or better still establish another political position that is fair and consistent with the values you mean to promote. You genuinely have my ear but would do better to articulate precisely what you mean to defend. All ‘sides’ have something to defend, and progress is only made when all sides are realizing all in equal need of defense. That should be the real purpose behind public policy. We may be in agreement about many things, but once that agreement lands in the hands of Gingrich it’s turned into an anathema. You and I and the rest of America do have a problem and it’s not with each other. It’s with the clowns negotiating in bad faith making ludicrous of the sacred and claiming themselves victims.

 

[sw85]

Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

Hi TheTrueCentrist,

You are confusing marriage the civil institution with marriage the sacrament. Catholics are not lobbying to have the state forbid access to sacraments. They are lobbying to have the state forbid access to a civil institution (or rather, to have the state continue forbidding access to it) to those who are obviously unqualified for it.

This institution exists because it serves the common good: providing a legal framework within which the characteristic activity of married couples (producing and raising children) can be most fully realized. This is obviously a matter of public interest. Why, in the absence of the procreative character which homosexual unions must necessarily lack, should the state endorse them?

 

[jmcrae]

In the context of conversation between 2 fallible hetero men, one being inspired by divine but having a primitive brain with which to communicate in a primitive language to other primatives sharing common philosophy of old covenant, just how would he be going about explaining concepts 5,000 x’s more potent than Einstien’s theory? Shall I beat up a dead guy of 2,000 yrs ago and negate all good because of his limitations in that moment?

This is absolutely ludicrous. The civilization that St. Paul lived in was, in many respects, more advanced than our own. Keep in mind that the burning of libraries and artworks that brought on the Dark Ages had not yet occurred. We are still climbing up out of the rubble of that vandalism, and probably will be for many more centuries.

St. Paul certainly knew about homosexuals, and homosexuality. He had access to more books on the subject in his neighborhood library than exist in the world today.

 

[Eugenius]

…This is obviously a matter of public interest. Why, in the absence of the procreative character which homosexual unions must necessarily lack, should the state endorse them?

Does your comment also apply to heterosexual couples that are unable or chose not to have children? The absence of the procreative character is present there too.

 

[ddarko]

A legitimate response. However if homosexuality is so clearly harmful as you suppose, why is opposition to homosexuality so strongly correlated with religious beliefs? Moreover, why would people with more direct contact with gay people be more supportive of gay marriage?
pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647

Even IF what you say above is true, why does that make the original proposition “Homosexuality is disordered and harmful”?

The fact that all of them are religious has nothing to do with the proposition it-self.

If rape victims say “I got raped and it left me scarred for life”, are you going to accuse her of being biased? Or do you think it true, just because she got raped? The logical thing to do is to evaluate the evidence objectively. So the fact that people are religious has nothing to do with whether its true or false.

Secondarily, if homosexuality clearly leads to some real world harm (i.e. non-spiritual/quantifiable) then I would expect to see plenty of good literature linking the two. However, the preponderance of the literature making such claims is religious in nature.

Actually there are enough literature.

I advice you to go and read research comparing AIDS spread between Heterosexual couples and Homosexual couples.

Also, I advice you to read articles discussing the lasting aspect of Homosexual relationships, and the psychological problems like depression among such groups.

Lastly, I advice you to read studies on merely the simple act of homosexual sex and long term medical conditions (anal cancer) that arises due to the disordered method of having intercourse (especially among male couples).

The evidence is there to see. People just think “It’s love so what they have must be good”. Many don’t reason out. If they did, the orld would have a lot less problems after all.

The advantage to the religious is that they have access to an entire history of thought. So they don’t need to re-invent the wheel and can simply adopt the principles.

God Bless

 

[sw85]

Does your comment also apply to heterosexual couples that are unable or chose not to have children? The absence of the procreative character is present there too.

Think of it in purely secular terms.

We have a drinking age of 21. Why? Most people who are 20 years and 364 days old are exactly as mature as people who are 21 years and 0 days old.

We have it because measures to assess “maturity” are necessarily intrusive and arbitrary. We have a drinking age to serve as a rough proxy for maturity.

Likewise with fertility. Efforts to measure fertility are necessarily intrusive and arbitrary. We use sex as a qualification for marriage to serve as a proxy for fertility. (Which is why I said that homosexuals “must necessarily” lack the procreative character of marriage; infertile heterosexual couples do not lack that fertility as a matter of necessity but merely of circumstance).

 

[jessiepie]

The study by R. Green that you mentioned says:
“Concerns that being raised by a homosexual mother might produce sexual identity conflict and peer group stigmatization were not supported by the research findings.”

M. Cretella is a religious activist, she works for NOM, as does Gallagher.
K. and P. Cameron work for the religious Family Research Institute.
P. Cameron was expelled from the APA for non-compliance with an ethics investigation.

Why are the most negative sources religiously motivated? If homosexuality were truly harmful, why haven’t non-religious researches had the same findings?

Edit
“Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children.” that you cited found:
"Results revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the 2 groups of couples differ; lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed.’

Any study on homosexuals choosing to rear a child is deeply flawed because there is no way to get a TRUE random sample. To be able to have a child via-unatural ways (invitro, surrogacy etc) requires a high level of affluence. The same goes for adoptions, one has to have good finacial means and also under go a vigorous screening process. Studies examining homosexual “parenting” are flawed and only focus on the very privelaged in America.

 

[jessiepie]

How does gay marriage effect the preservation of community and family? Accepting that homosexuals do exist and many do want to have a long term relationship equivalent to that of marriage, what would banning gay marriage do? All it does is create segregation because people aren’t going to stop being gay just because you tell them to, they will exist whether they can be married or not and by keeping them from being married all that is accomplished is discrimination. People are supporting the notion that these people do not deserve the same rights as others and that does not fit with any reasonable definition of freedom or equality.

So you equate homosexuals to pedophiles? Desensitized to what? To equality? Freedom from discrimination? Could you support the claim that if we accept the “gay agenda” we will in any time frame be debating the legality or morality of pedophilic relationships?

It’s a shame that many do have such a horrible experience and I can assure you that prejudice and discrimination do nothing to help many homosexual people.

How is it a catalyst for the decomposition of family values?

Or because they want long term monogamous relationships with the same benefits as those of heterosexual couples.

THERE IS NO DISRIMINATION AGAINST GAY PEOPLE. All people are given the choice to civilly marry someone of the opposite gender who is not a relative once they reach age 18 (or 16 with parental consent). what the gays want is SPECIAL treatment