Why I think most people who accepts homosexuality are hypocrites

[Andromedus]

I admit that I as a person don’t have anything particularly against homosexuality as long as I am not involved in it some way, that would be a bit disturbing for me. But otherwise I actually could not care less than I do about it. Thats probably so because my culture is quite accepting of the phenomenon and we are all influenced by the culture around us, thats a fact. I accept the view of the Church though, even if I don’t really understand why God has anything against homosexuality, but I think and hope that he got his reasons, even if I don’t quite understands them myself. I expressed this view in another thread about the ordination of priests regarding why women cannot become priests, but thats another matter.

For some time now I been thinking that homosexuality actually can be compared to incest quite good, which is not accepted in my culture and most people would probably react as ‘‘unenlightened’’ as us Catholics and other Christians regarding this. Sure, with incest you got the problem of inbreeding and the effects it might have on the child and this is probably something most people would bring up if you compare the two. But lets say that a mother and a son, a brother and a sister or some other incestuous sort of relationship is a sexual one, but they use contraception. Then that problem would not exist. Of course, contraception is never 100 % safe, but lets say then that one of the persons in the relationship is infertile. Or if it is a same-sex incestuous relationship? What are you supposed to say then? You often hear people who don’t regards homosexual acts as a sin that it is wrong to stand in the way of two loving persons who are adults etc etc. But I would guess that they don’t count a relationship like the one described above, so they are really hypocrites.

So in my view, if you can accept one of those things then you should also accept the other one, atleast if you are consistent. They might think that it is not the same thing, but whats the difference? It is two persons who says that they love one another and they are in a sexual relationship and nobody will be hurt of their actions. They might say that it doesn’t feels the same, or that ‘‘its just not the same thing’’ and I agree. It doesn’t feels like the same thing to me either, but that is because of my culture who accepts one of them but despises the other. Perhaps I don’t have any real rational reasons to dislike any of those, none of them hurts another human being but my feelings tells me thats not the case. Which of course is because of the culture, but there has been cultures were incestuous relationships has been accepted. But I believe in an objective moral law and according to me that moral law comes from the Christian God, and someone who believes that can’t say ‘‘its ok, it is acceptable in my culture’’. So basically, the usual persons who thinks only homosexuality is acceptable of those two things needs to change their view or accept that they are moral nihilists who thinks homosexuality is more acceptable because it better suits their ‘‘taste of morality’’. Or you can perhaps come up with some other reason why one of them is ok, I would really like to hear what that would be, honestly. But most people who accepts homosexuality will have to accept one of the first two alternatives, if they choose the nihilist one then they will have to accept that they are not better than us, at least not objectively speaking.

Since this is not my mouther-tounge I would probably have expressed myself better in my own language but since nobody except perhaps one or two persons on this forum would have been able to understand me then I really don’t have a choice. However, I think people understands my point anyway.

 

[Houguy82]

My regrets if I’m off base on this reply; I may not have followed you as well as I would’ve liked. If I understand your point of if a person is willing to accept homosexuality, they should also be willing to accept other forms of sexual relashionships ?

Yeah, If that’s what you were getting after, I agree with you completely in regards to acceptance of others. There’s a quote I try to remind myself of “different strokes, for different folks.” … Everyone is different, and what is good for you, may be contrary to another. Basically if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything atall… I aree with you there

That’s probably my single biggest complaint about this forum site as a whole… People sometimes forget that just because their opinion matters to them, doesn’t necessarilly mean it is worthwhile to others. And sometimes our thoughts are better left off of the paper. (My own included ! )

 

[cerad2]

But I would guess that they don’t count a relationship like the one described above, so they are really hypocrites.

Instead of guessing perhaps you could provide some actual data?

 

[mark_a]

I admit that I as a person don’t have anything particularly against homosexuality as long as I am not involved in it some way, that would be a bit disturbing for me. But otherwise I actually could not care less than I do about it. Thats probably so because my culture is quite accepting of the phenomenon and we are all influenced by the culture around us, thats a fact. I accept the view of the Church though, even if I don’t really understand why God has anything against homosexuality, but I think and hope that he got his reasons, even if I don’t quite understands them myself. I expressed this view in another thread about the ordination of priests regarding why women cannot become priests, but thats another matter.

For some time now I been thinking that homosexuality actually can be compared to incest quite good, which is not accepted in my culture and most people would probably react as ‘‘unenlightened’’ as us Catholics and other Christians regarding this. Sure, with incest you got the problem of inbreeding and the effects it might have on the child and this is probably something most people would bring up if you compare the two. But lets say that a mother and a son, a brother and a sister or some other incestuous sort of relationship is a sexual one, but they use contraception. Then that problem would not exist. Of course, contraception is never 100 % safe, but lets say then that one of the persons in the relationship is infertile. Or if it is a same-sex incestuous relationship? What are you supposed to say then? You often hear people who don’t regards homosexual acts as a sin that it is wrong to stand in the way of two loving persons who are adults etc etc. But I would guess that they don’t count a relationship like the one described above, so they are really hypocrites.

So in my view, if you can accept one of those things then you should also accept the other one, atleast if you are consistent. They might think that it is not the same thing, but whats the difference? It is two persons who says that they love one another and they are in a sexual relationship and nobody will be hurt of their actions. They might say that it doesn’t feels the same, or that ‘‘its just not the same thing’’ and I agree. It doesn’t feels like the same thing to me either, but that is because of my culture who accepts one of them but despises the other. Perhaps I don’t have any real rational reasons to dislike any of those, none of them hurts another human being but my feelings tells me thats not the case. Which of course is because of the culture, but there has been cultures were incestuous relationships has been accepted. But I believe in an objective moral law and according to me that moral law comes from the Christian God, and someone who believes that can’t say ‘‘its ok, it is acceptable in my culture’’. So basically, the usual persons who thinks only homosexuality is acceptable of those two things needs to change their view or accept that they are moral nihilists who thinks homosexuality is more acceptable because it better suits their ‘‘taste of morality’’. Or you can perhaps come up with some other reason why one of them is ok, I would really like to hear what that would be, honestly. But most people who accepts homosexuality will have to accept one of the first two alternatives, if they choose the nihilist one then they will have to accept that they are not better than us, at least not objectively speaking.

Since this is not my mouther-tounge I would probably have expressed myself better in my own language but since nobody except perhaps one or two persons on this forum would have been able to understand me then I really don’t have a choice. However, I think people understands my point anyway.

The Church has a succinct way of putting what you described: It is sinful to separate the procreative from the uniative.

It works for any kind of sexual immorality.

I remember when I was a kid sometimes we heard of someone being charged with a “crime against nature”. We don’t hear that term anymore.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I admit that I as a person don’t have anything particularly against homosexuality as long as I am not involved in it some way, that would be a bit disturbing for me. But otherwise I actually could not care less than I do about it. Thats probably so because my culture is quite accepting of the phenomenon and we are all influenced by the culture around us, thats a fact. I accept the view of the Church though, even if I don’t really understand why God has anything against homosexuality, but I think and hope that he got his reasons, even if I don’t quite understands them myself. I expressed this view in another thread about the ordination of priests regarding why women cannot become priests, but thats another matter.

For some time now I been thinking that homosexuality actually can be compared to incest quite good, which is not accepted in my culture and most people would probably react as ‘‘unenlightened’’ as us Catholics and other Christians regarding this. Sure, with incest you got the problem of inbreeding and the effects it might have on the child and this is probably something most people would bring up if you compare the two. But lets say that a mother and a son, a brother and a sister or some other incestuous sort of relationship is a sexual one, but they use contraception. Then that problem would not exist. Of course, contraception is never 100 % safe, but lets say then that one of the persons in the relationship is infertile. Or if it is a same-sex incestuous relationship? What are you supposed to say then? You often hear people who don’t regards homosexual acts as a sin that it is wrong to stand in the way of two loving persons who are adults etc etc. But I would guess that they don’t count a relationship like the one described above, so they are really hypocrites.

So in my view, if you can accept one of those things then you should also accept the other one, atleast if you are consistent. They might think that it is not the same thing, but whats the difference? It is two persons who says that they love one another and they are in a sexual relationship and nobody will be hurt of their actions. They might say that it doesn’t feels the same, or that ‘‘its just not the same thing’’ and I agree. It doesn’t feels like the same thing to me either, but that is because of my culture who accepts one of them but despises the other. Perhaps I don’t have any real rational reasons to dislike any of those, none of them hurts another human being but my feelings tells me thats not the case. Which of course is because of the culture, but there has been cultures were incestuous relationships has been accepted. But I believe in an objective moral law and according to me that moral law comes from the Christian God, and someone who believes that can’t say ‘‘its ok, it is acceptable in my culture’’. So basically, the usual persons who thinks only homosexuality is acceptable of those two things needs to change their view or accept that they are moral nihilists who thinks homosexuality is more acceptable because it better suits their ‘‘taste of morality’’. Or you can perhaps come up with some other reason why one of them is ok, I would really like to hear what that would be, honestly. But most people who accepts homosexuality will have to accept one of the first two alternatives, if they choose the nihilist one then they will have to accept that they are not better than us, at least not objectively speaking.

Since this is not my mouther-tounge I would probably have expressed myself better in my own language but since nobody except perhaps one or two persons on this forum would have been able to understand me then I really don’t have a choice. However, I think people understands my point anyway.

One reason homosexual acts are wrong is that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, additionally homosexual acts by their very nature can not be procreative (if it can not be procreative it is mortal sin regardless of the sexes).

Something is incredibly wrong if someone is attracted to an immediate family member, the brain is designed to imprint on people they were raised with such as their parents or siblings, this process can also occur on unrelated people that are very close (for example if you’ve been best friends since kindergarten you frequently have imprinted on them too)

 

[Lethe]

I assume you only mean consensual incest? Which is often not the case.

I think the problem with allowing even consensual incest (apart from a general feeling of disgust I have of it…) is that it cannot be easily regulated. If incest were allowed, then it would be easy for parents to sexually groom their children.

Families live together and your relatives are considered appropriate adults to be around you as a kid, and what’s more, safe adults. If incest were allowed, there would not be that non-sexual, unconditionally loving safe base within the family. Everything would break down.

I don’t think the same can be said about homosexuality because the only difference between it and accepted heterosexual relationships is gender. I understand why Catholicism rejects homosexuality, but I don’t think it would cause the same societal breakdown and potential for abuse as allowing incest.

 

[Conor7]

My non-hypocritical response:

I support gay marriage and so you would likely ask: Where do you draw the line? Polygamy? Incest? Animal-human marriage? These tend to be the normal questions.

The fact is, I have no problem with two consenting adults who love each other getting married. No matter which side you fall on this debate, nearly everyone can see the logic behind this. Sure there are opponents of same-sex marriage, but these opponents understand why supporters of gay marriage feel they way they do. So no problem there - we agree to disagree, but we have an understanding.

As for polygamy, I don’t have much of a problem with this either. The things is, were polygamy to become legal, polygamists are so-far-and-few-between that the average person is extremely unlikely to meet any. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that homosexuals make up a large minority in this country. Who doesn’t know a gay couple? Additionally. the majority of polygamists practice plural marriage on the basis of religiosity. Freedom of religion in this great country of ours is A-OK with me.

Admittedly, incest has a major creep factor. But, essentially the creep factor and the confusing familial relationships incest creates is why it is illegal. Siblings are not that much more likely than unrelated couples to have a baby born with birth defects. Sure the rates increase as each generation continues to couple with their siblings, but how many of us know a child of 10 generations of incest? Perhaps we’ll just let gay brothers marry and we won’t worry about deformed children.

Finally animal-human relationships. Well, animals are not consenting adults - case closed.

Fair enough?

 

[Houguy82]

Conor7:

I’m pretty sure that was the perfect response, and I’m pretty sure I want to marry the response b/c I’m in love with it ROFL.

No seriously man, Well said cheers !

 

[sw85]

My regrets if I’m off base on this reply; I may not have followed you as well as I would’ve liked. If I understand your point of if a person is willing to accept homosexuality, they should also be willing to accept other forms of sexual relashionships ?

Yeah, If that’s what you were getting after, I agree with you completely in regards to acceptance of others. There’s a quote I try to remind myself of “different strokes, for different folks.” … Everyone is different, and what is good for you, may be contrary to another. Basically if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything atall… I aree with you there

That’s probably my single biggest complaint about this forum site as a whole… People sometimes forget that just because their opinion matters to them, doesn’t necessarilly mean it is worthwhile to others. And sometimes our thoughts are better left off of the paper. (My own included ! )

Nope. This is wrong. In fact, it’s positively evil.

You have a DUTY IN CHARITY to discourage others from sin – to chastise them if necessary. To fail to do this is a sin in and of itself.

This is NOT opinion. It is revealed truth. And you are required to offer full assent of faith to it.

 

[Leegal]

I admit that I as a person don’t have anything particularly against homosexuality as long as I am not involved in it some way, that would be a bit disturbing for me. But otherwise I actually could not care less than I do about it. Thats probably so because my culture is quite accepting of the phenomenon and we are all influenced by the culture around us, thats a fact. I accept the view of the Church though, even if I don’t really understand why God has anything against homosexuality, but I think and hope that he got his reasons, even if I don’t quite understands them myself.

Respectfully disagree. The argument fails, and I cut the quote down. It does not take into account the true teachings of the Church. You cannot make an argument that equates incest to homosexuality. But I cut that part out here.

The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin – regardless of orientation. But equating it with incest (a secular crime too) is more argument than is necessary, and not found within the Church’s teaching. The reason why the practice is a sin is sex outside of marriage is condemned by the Church and it promotes a misunderstanding of family in practice – but so does cohabitation between two adults of the opposite sex in an umarried state.

The convincing argument for a Catholic should be what does the Church teach? And remember, God is Love. The Church teaches us that people are more than their orientation and labels are to be avoided. You are labeling people based on their orientation and breaking them down – which the Church cautions against doing.

“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

There is no equating with incest, even in the act, which is sinful, but even the Church believes that in sin there are things that make one more or less culpable. We don’t need such comparisons to be convinced. If you do read the Church teaching, the second paragraph of 11 cautions us against unfounded and demeaning generalizations.

I do not advocate for this lifestyle, but I fear that generalizations and comparisons foster misunderstanding of something that only God understands and knows the cause. Homosexuals who remain chaste can live a full life in Communion with the Church. So, can unmarried men and women who also must abstain.

Read this.

 

[Leegal]

Nope. This is wrong. In fact, it’s positively evil.

You have a DUTY IN CHARITY to discourage others from sin – to chastise them if necessary. To fail to do this is a sin in and of itself.

This is NOT opinion. It is revealed truth. And you are required to offer full assent of faith to it.

Equating it with incest is the opinion ONLY of the original poster, and not within Church teachings. The Church does not work this way.

The letter to the Bishops cautions us against making assumptions of this kind as they are demeaning. The letter also cautions against those with agendas who promote the lifestyle or practice within the Church. But that does not negate the fact that the argument was an unfounded comparison. I found it offensive to compare it with incest.

I won’t speak for the poster with whom you disagree, but that was what bothered me about the argument. The only thing that matters is what the Church teaches.

 

[Houguy82]

Nope. This is wrong. In fact, it’s positively evil.

You have a DUTY IN CHARITY to discourage others from sin – to chastise them if necessary. To fail to do this is a sin in and of itself.

This is NOT opinion. It is revealed truth. And you are required to offer full assent of faith to it.

Why ? Because you say so ? Methinks not bud try again. How about judge not lest ye be judged, people in glass houses should’nt throw stones, etc. Those don’t count ? Was it really something more like “Hate is COOL… but only if you don’t like the other person” ?

 

[Conor7]

Conor7:

I’m pretty sure that was the perfect response, and I’m pretty sure I want to marry the response b/c I’m in love with it ROFL.

No seriously man, Well said cheers !

I’m not sure if you’re mocking me or asking my post out on a date.

 

[Houguy82]

HAHA, not mocking you at all sir you have my word. You honestly did take the words right out of my mouth.

 

[sw85]

Equating it with incest is the opinion ONLY of the original poster, and not within Church teachings. The Church does not work this way.

The letter to the Bishops cautions us against making assumptions of this kind as they are demeaning. The letter also cautions against those with agendas who promote the lifestyle or practice within the Church. But that does not negate the fact that the argument was an unfounded comparison. I found it offensive to compare it with incest.

I won’t speak for the poster with whom you disagree, but that was what bothered me about the argument. The only thing that matters is what the Church teaches.

Well, it certainly is the case that when you separate marriage from its procreative context, there is no real reason to prohibit any other sexual obscenity or perversion. This is why the widespread acceptance of contraception precipitated an unprecedented collapse in sexual morality. So even though the acts themselves are qualitatively different, they certainly can be said to share a metaphysical common ground.

Why ? Because you say so ? Methinks not bud try again. How about judge not lest ye be judged, people in glass houses should’nt throw stones, etc. Those don’t count ? Was it really something more like “Hate is COOL… but only if you don’t like the other person” ?

Pointing out that something is a sin is NOT judgment in the Biblical sense.

In fact you have a duty, exhibited by CHRIST HIMSELF (i.e., when he chased the money-changers from the temple with a whip), to chastise sinners and urge them toward repentance.

 

[Houguy82]

I’m tired of arguing with you ( at least for tonight I have a headache, and still need to eat dinner so I can go to work in the morning).

If you really want to at least hear what I’m trying to tell you, read this I truly hope maybe you’ll understand that I’m not telling you that your interpretation of the faith is any less valid than mine. I just want you and others to see how you aren’t being chaste, your’e not helping people towards repentance; you are being hatefull. Remind yourself how powerfull the word hate is, and read that again. Your comments are hatefull. Read this below I wrote in another thread, I don’t expect you to somehow change your opinion, I don’t expect it to have any effect on you atall. But I hope at least next time you want to pick the arguments back up you will understand that your comments arent’ those of chaste help, and that of a martyr, but theyre basely destructive, and purely hateful in nature:

I’m not allowed to marry because people whom have never known me don’t like me, and even though I’ve been in a loving monogomous relashionsip for 8 years, and at a few months shy of my 30th birthday I’m starting to remind myself how no event in my life would compare to that of the love I would have for my children; but those same people that say I’m not allowed to marry because I’m evil also say that I’m such a horrible person that I the last thing I should ever be allowed to do is know what it feels like to walk your child to their first day of kindergarten and kiss them goodnight, to teach them to drive, to have the silly little arguments that teens have with their parents, to watch them graduate from school, to help them move into their dorm, to walk my daughter down the aisle.

I’m not saying that my opinions on the catholic faith’s teachings are any more correct than anyone elses’ I’m just hoping that maybe one person at a time I can get people to understand how hatefull these posts are, how much they literally tear at the fibres of my soul to hear a perfect stranger tell me I’m not human enough to marry, and raise a child.

 

[Conor7]

Houguy, you are my hero. I completely, 100% agree with you. These homophobic threads that keep popping up here are base and dehumanizing. I see very little in the way of Christian charity.

I live my life by two commandments: Love the lord your God will all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself, as dictated by Christ.

When I go to bed with my Bible at night, why is everyone so concerned about who is lying next to me? Don’t you guys have your own sins to count? I’m pretty occupied keeping track of mine.

 

[Houguy82]

Conor thank you. And if you run out of sins to count lemme know b/c I sure know I’ve got a few that I can spare.

 

[John21652]

Conor7:

I’m pretty sure that was the perfect response, and I’m pretty sure I want to marry the response b/c I’m in love with it ROFL.

No seriously man, Well said cheers !

What you see as a “perfect response” is nothing more than a shallow attempt at justifying an opinion as shallow as the logic that holds it up.

If you weren’t so busy rolling around on the floor laughing, you might see it.

Actually, that’s probably not true, because your moral blindness is the reason why you think Conor7’s response is “perfect” and it’s why you are rolling around on the floor laughing. You should stop, before you hurt yourself.

Firstly, incest is a gross misuse of the sexual faculty. I’m sure you get that. Well, homosexuality is a gross misuse of the sexual faculty PLUS it is a completely disordered use of the sexual faculty.

Seeing how you are busy rolling around on the floor, I’ll put it into plain terms so you can get it without having to stop and think too hard. Those who practice incest at least put things where they are meant to be put. Homosexuals, on the other hand, put things where they were never meant to go. Get it now?

Even your hero Conor7 wrote incest has an ‘ick factor’. Sheeesh, how much more icky is it when someone shoves their sex organ up an anus?

You don’t need to be an Einstein to know that was never meant.

 

[Corki]

Respectfully disagree. The argument fails, and I cut the quote down. It does not take into account the true teachings of the Church. You cannot make an argument that equates incest to homosexuality. But I cut that part out here.

The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is a sin – regardless of orientation. But equating it with incest (a secular crime too) is more argument than is necessary, and not found within the Church’s teaching. The reason why the practice is a sin is sex outside of marriage is condemned by the Church and it promotes a misunderstanding of family in practice – but so does cohabitation between two adults of the opposite sex in an umarried state.

The convincing argument for a Catholic should be what does the Church teach? And remember, God is Love. The Church teaches us that people are more than their orientation and labels are to be avoided. You are labeling people based on their orientation and breaking them down – which the Church cautions against doing.

“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

There is no equating with incest, even in the act, which is sinful, but even the Church believes that in sin there are things that make one more or less culpable. We don’t need such comparisons to be convinced. If you do read the Church teaching, the second paragraph of 11 cautions us against unfounded and demeaning generalizations.

I do not advocate for this lifestyle, but I fear that generalizations and comparisons foster misunderstanding of something that only God understands and knows the cause. Homosexuals who remain chaste can live a full life in Communion with the Church. So, can unmarried men and women who also must abstain.

Read this.

As sins go, homosexual activity is much closer to incest than it is to cohabitation. The latter act is sinful only in its context. Both incest and homosexual acts are gravely disordered. No change in context can ever make them less sinful.