Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Coder]

Jesus has taught us to go beyond laws of blind obedience to laws of love and true understanding that the Father has our ultimate and overflowing joy as His purpose. Homosexuality is wrong because it does not serve the Father’s plan for the ultimate and eternal joy and fulfillment of His children. Freedom from homosexuality may not be fully understood without understanding the concept that the flesh can be in conflict with our spiritual lives. Jesus tells us that His flesh is from heaven. St. Paul tells us to use our bodies to God’s glory. By cooperating with Jesus we learn to use our flesh for God’s will including the service of others.

Don’t also forget, that the enemy can impede out progress as humans by tempting us with the flesh. Those hours spent in sin and error are much better spent in human development and work that benefits yourself and neighbor for commonwealth and prosperity. Consider the word “defile”. In our computers and filing cabinets we “file” things. Why? Because when we have some order, we can make progress. Do you leave your papers all over the floor? Is there a pile of week-old dishes on your kitchen table? Of course not. When we “defile” ourselves we “break rank” and add to the chaos of our lives. “The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.” Romans 8:6.

Everything that God teaches us is because He loves us. “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32

 

[Catherine_S]

Be careful that your mind isn’t so open that your brain falls out. As Chesterton said, the purpose of opening your mind is like opening your mouth – to shut it again on something solid.

Having an open mind, are you open to the idea that homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are completely and in all respects inherently immoral? If not, I wouldn’t really call it “open”…

God Bless,
RyanL

.

 

[RyanL]

I think a solid case can be made for this argument - giving a license of civil union to everyone and letting those couples decide if they want to go to their church or temple and upgrade to marriage. But as you have seen, its not going to gain much traction in a Catholic forum.

I respectfully disagree.

The purpose of providing government recognition to marriage in the first place demonstrates this clearly enough. The government used (and currently uses) taxes to incentivize marriage. The government has a compelling interest in marriage, as it is the primary and best source of *new *tax payers (in the form of offspring). The more stable the marriage, the more stable the offspring, and the more tax breaks accrued.

Why provide tax breaks to same sex couples? What is the government interest served in these unions?

And before you say “adoption”, note that adoption carries its own tax breaks. No governmental legal recognition of same sex unions is required for this.

So what is left as a compelling government interest? Frankly, I don’t see anything.

If you disagree, I’d be interested in hearing an alternate point of view.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Valke2]

I respectfully disagree.

The purpose of providing government recognition to marriage in the first place demonstrates this clearly enough. The government used (and currently uses) taxes to incentivize marriage. The government has a compelling interest in marriage, as it is the primary and best source of *new *tax payers (in the form of offspring). The more stable the marriage, the more stable the offspring, and the more tax breaks accrued.

Why provide tax breaks to same sex couples? What is the government interest served in these unions?

And before you say “adoption”, note that adoption carries its own tax breaks. No governmental legal recognition of same sex unions is required for this.

So what is left as a compelling government interest? Frankly, I don’t see anything.

If you disagree, I’d be interested in hearing an alternate point of view.

God Bless,
RyanL

If I’m not mistaken, in the US, you can do better on your taxes generally by not filing jointly. Anyone an accountant here?

 

[Valke2]

The gov’ts interest in same sex unions would be similar to other marriages – the promotion of a stable family unit. A stable family unit is more productive and contributes more to the economy. They are better able to take care of each other and thus less likely to need government assistance.

 

[Valke2]

The marriage penalty aspect of the federal tax code was built into the federal tax tables. Higher taxes were required for a married couple who earned the same as two single individuals. It didn’t make any difference if the married couple filed jointly or separately.

From 1913 to 1969, married couples had an advantage when it came to income taxes. However, because of the 1948 income-splitting tax-code which many thought was unfair to singles, the law was changed in 1969. The tax raise of 1993 made matters even worse for married couples. Married folks also took a hit by some targeted tax cuts enacted in 1997.

Prior to 2003, if both spouses earned about the same amount of money, then they ended up in a higher tax bracket and were penalized for being married. Actually, the smaller the difference between what they each earned, the higher the marriage penalty. However, if one spouse earned a good salary, and the other didn’t, then they weren’t penalized. The marriage penalty could affect couples in all income brackets, though. A couple who married could lose earned income tax credits that they had received as singles.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 1996 the average marriage tax penalty was about $1,400 which adversely affected 42% of all married couples. Many believe that some couples chose not to marry because of the tax penalty.

Married couples felt the relief in 2003 and 2004. However, if in 2005, Congress doesn’t renew the changes, the marriage penalty will be reinstated for a few years. Here are the rates:

2005 180 percent of 15 % bracket for singles

2006 187 percent of 15 % bracket for singles

2007 193 percent of 15 % bracket for singles

2008 200 percent of 15 % bracket for singles

2010, a sunset provision kicks in and the marriage penalty once again will be in effect.

marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

SO, the argument that the gov’t puts tax incentives to promote marriage does not seem to be a very strong one.

 

[Karin]

If I’m not mistaken, in the US, you can do better on your taxes generally by not filing jointly. Anyone an accountant here?

actaully 99% of the time it is to your benefit to file jointly…

 

[Karin]

The gov’ts interest in same sex unions would be similar to other marriages – the promotion of a stable family unit. A stable family unit is more productive and contributes more to the economy. They are better able to take care of each other and thus less likely to need government assistance.

Exaclty a “stable family”…two men or two woman are not a family…as much as they like to convince us that they are

 

[Valke2]

Exaclty a “stable family”…two men or two woman are not a family…as much as they like to convince us that they are

The family unit has been redefined.

 

[Karin]

The family unit has been redefined.

hmmm…I guess I will be un-PC and say that I disagree…the family unit does not and is not inclusive of homosexuals…that is simply** perverted** to say that two homosexuals are a family with or without kids …what they are is two sexually disordered people attemtping to appear “normal” and I and my family are not buying their idea or definition of “normal”

 

[nydas]

hmmm…I guess I will be un-PC and say that I disagree…the family unit does not and is not inclusive of homosexuals…that is simply** perverted** to say that two homosexuals are a family with or without kids …what they are is two sexually disordered people attemtping to appear “normal” and I and my family are not buying their idea or definition of “normal”

You dont have to “buy” it. You can think whatever you want about it. But letting your church deicide whats right and wrong in a FREE society is wrong. And if you cant handle that, then move to a country not founded on freedom of religion, and seperation of church and state.

 

[Karin]

You dont have to “buy” it. You can think whatever you want about it. But letting your church deicide whats right and wrong in a FREE society is wrong. And if you cant handle that, then move to a country not founded on freedom of religion, and seperation of church and state.

LOL!!!
Your right I do not have to buy it and I dont…my church just backs me up on what I know is correct and true…

Two men playing “daddy” is not a marriage, normal nor a family…what it is is two men attempting to normalize something that is not normal

 

[nydas]

LOL!!!
Your right I do not have to buy it and I dont…my church just backs me up on what I know is correct and true…

Two men playing “daddy” is not a marriage, normal nor a family…what it is is two men attempting to normalize something that is not normal

Times change. Hundreds of years ago it was “normal” to have slaves. It was “normal” to have many wives. It was “normal” to force your daughter to wed someone she didnt know before she even reacehd the age of 16. And in a decade or 2 it will be “normal” to see homosexuals getting married.

Times change. And as time change, so does the definition of normal.

 

[Karin]

Times change. Hundreds of years ago it was “normal” to have slaves. It was “normal” to have many wives. It was “normal” to force your daughter to wed someone she didnt know before she even reacehd the age of 16. And in a decade or 2 it will be “normal” to see homosexuals getting married.

Times change. And as time change, so does the definition of normal.

That they do…
does not mean I have to agree with the changes or consider them normal

So I have to ask…any gays in your unit in Iraq? are they looking forward to coming home (stateside) and possibly being able to get hitched to their boyfriends or gilrfriends? if they do get married is the Army offering their partners benefits?

 

[nydas]

That they do…
does not mean I have to agree with the changes or consider them normal

So I have to ask…any gays in your unit in Iraq? are they looking forward to coming home (stateside) and possibly being able to get hitched to their boyfriends or gilrfriends? if they do get married is the Army offering their partners benefits?

Actually there are 3 in my unit. And everyone knows there gay to. At least all the soldiers do. Dont know about the NCO’s or Officers.

And again, your right! You dont have to aggree with it or consider it normal. You just have to accept it. Just like i have to accept that your beleifs. I may not agree with them, but i am by no means preventing you from worshiping.

 

[Karin]

Actually there are 3 in my unit. And everyone knows there gay to. At least all the soldiers do. Dont know about the NCO’s or Officers.

and are they looking forward to getting married and would the army offer their partners benefits?

And again, your right! You dont have to aggree with it or consider it normal. You just have to accept it. Just like i have to accept that your beleifs. I may not agree with them, but i am by no means preventing you from worshiping.

so now your equating homosexuality to a religion?

 

[wabrams]

Times change. Hundreds of years ago it was “normal” to have slaves. It was “normal” to have many wives. It was “normal” to force your daughter to wed someone she didnt know before she even reacehd the age of 16. And in a decade or 2 it will be “normal” to see homosexuals getting married.

Times change. And as time change, so does the definition of normal.

Almost all the things you define as “normal” were never normal for the majority of the population; only the top 1 or 2%. So your comparison doesn’t hold any water.

 

[runandsew]

The only question that should come up when someone wants to get married is this: Are they legally able to enter into contract? If the answer is yes, then they can get married. End of story.

Marriage is a covenant, not a contract.

 

[gardenswithkids]

You dont have to aggree with it or consider it normal. You just have to accept it. Just like i have to accept that your beleifs. I may not agree with them, but…

You accept our beliefs?

You continueously allege on this thread that our beliefs against homosexuality are based solely on the Bible, you accuse us of being hateful and write that we misinterpret Jesus’ message. You claim to be “open minded” but–contrary to the title of your thread–you don’t seem open minded enough to even consider the possibility that homosexuality is wrong.

I’m a parent; I tell my children “no” to harmful things because I love them. You may not be open to hearing this, but we’re trying to share with you that homosexuals don’t have to continue to allow other people to sodomize them, and they shouldn’t sodomize other people. While homosexuals may have affection for each another, homosexual acts are neither loving nor normal. They physically harm the body. Not just STDs, but the acts themselves damage the lower GI tract. The “no” to homosexual acts isn’t based on hate; it’s based on love.

 

[blessedtoo]

You dont have to “buy” it. You can think whatever you want about it. But letting your church deicide whats right and wrong in a FREE society is wrong. And if you cant handle that, then move to a country not founded on freedom of religion, and seperation of church and state.

Nydas, do you even read the replies? Gardenswithkids, along with several other posters, has given excellent secular arguments to refute your position yet you keep spitting out the same tired rhetoric about bible and church based beliefs. There are as many natural law reasons as religious reasons to refute your position. If you don’t really want a dialogue, than what do you want?