Wrong emphasis in same-sex marriage?

[jjr9]

Is that why we don’t need ministries to homosexual persons? Because they’re mythical?

Quite the contrary we all need Grace from the Lord and should strive to bring all to the Lord
and Eternal Life.

I believe it is cruel and a stumbling block to encourage people to believe they are something
that doesn’t exist.

What is your truly right and just reason to believe anyone incapable of OSA?

God bless

 

[jjr9]

I’m curious as to why you think this. Why do you think that someone with exclusive attraction to people of the same sex is a “myth”, when the majority of people have exclusive attraction to people of the opposite sex?

OP - I’m also curious as to why you think not criminalising homosexuality is liberal? That seems an extreme stance to take.

Lou

I believe without Grace from the Lord anyone is susceptible to any temptation each of us
has our own life circumstances and Satan will tailor our temptations to best serve his purpose;
to keep souls from the Lord.

If you want to know what drives “LGBT people” to their confusion St Paul stated it quite clearly in Rom 1:24-28:
( Ref: usccb.org/bible/romans/1 )

24Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts* for the mutual degradation of their bodies.v 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.w 26Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.x 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

OP - I’m also curious as to why you think not criminalising homosexuality is liberal?

That’s what amazes me so much when I read some of the posts on the CA Forum: I mean the comments that aren’t satisfied with wanting to criminalize homosexual acts, but will then go on to suggest that those of us conservatives who don’t favor criminalization are really liberals and not conservatives at all.

 

[Lou2U]

Here’s why I think it’s liberal. Most societies historically, and even currently, have considered, or do, consider it unacceptable, and this has been supported by laws. This:

• Christian countries (including England), until relatively recently, in historical terms.
• Muslim countries (still now).
• African countries.

So, it is only the ‘modern liberal West’, and maybe some ancient Greeks that thought it was OK. But the ancient Greeks who thought it was OK, also though pedophilia was fine.

I believe the non-acceptance of homosexual behaviour (not only sodomy, but also generally ‘acting like a homosexual’) is against an innate moral law. For example, in Jamaica, were the people are famously tolerant of different races and creeds and not at all religious extremists, strong anti-homosexual sentiment has spontaneously arisen.

So you think non criminalising of homosexuality is liberal because it is new? Or do you mean that same sex marriage is liberal because it is new? Also, what do you mean ‘acting like a homosexual’?

Look, it is possibly inevitable that some homosexuals will exist, as a rare kind of biological condition (like hermaphrodites)- but what I do object to is them parading around openly (which any form of marriage implies). I mean, if a couple of men introduce themselves as ‘a couple’, what do they expect right-thinking people to do? Treat them like everyone else, shake their hands, act as if ‘everything’s OK’??

I think not…

I’m curious as to why you think homosexuality could be considered a ‘rare biological condition’. As I said to another poster, if the majority of people are heterosexual and are only attracted to members of the opposite sex, why is it so hard to believe that there are also people only attracted to members of the same sex?

To answer your second point, yes, I do think they should expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect as any other couple. Perhaps other couples you meet are fornicating, or they are in an invalid marriage, or they are using contraception - why should the homosexual couple be treated any differently to those other couples?

That’s what amazes me so much when I read some of the posts on the CA Forum: I mean the comments that aren’t satisfied with wanting to criminalize homosexual acts, but will then go on to suggest that those of us conservatives who don’t favor criminalization are really liberals and not conservatives at all.

Yes, it’s quite worrying at times. Although I have seen many times of these forums that people wouldn’t want to ‘live in a theocracy’, I do wonder how true that is sometimes. Of course you would want the place you live to match up to your values, but in interests of society and the vast differences within it, there has to be some give.

Lou

 

[goout]

Natural law arguments tend to rely on either 1. God or 2. Shaky teleological claims. And I’ve found most of the teleological claims are supported in argument by an appeal to the divine. Usually using words like “what it was created for” or “how it was designed”

Huh?
Please take a basic human physiology class.
Thanks
(And tell us if they appeal to the bible in that class)

 

[Peter_J]

So you think non criminalising of homosexuality is liberal because it is new? Or do you mean that same sex marriage is liberal because it is new? Also, what do you mean ‘acting like a homosexual’?

I’m curious as to why you think homosexuality could be considered a ‘rare biological condition’. As I said to another poster, if the majority of people are heterosexual and are only attracted to members of the opposite sex, why is it so hard to believe that there are also people only attracted to members of the same sex?

To answer your second point, yes, I do think they should expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect as any other couple. Perhaps other couples you meet are fornicating, or they are in an invalid marriage, or they are using contraception - why should the homosexual couple be treated any differently to those other couples?

For the record, I don’t believe the earlier claim about "the mythical ‘homosexual person’ " (frankly, it’s stuff like that that makes me think I ought to spend more time away from the forum and the Internet in general) but I also don’t accept that most people are attracted to strictly one gender.

Yes, it’s quite worrying at times. Although I have seen many times of these forums that people wouldn’t want to ‘live in a theocracy’, I do wonder how true that is sometimes. Of course you would want the place you live to match up to your values, but in interests of society and the vast differences within it, there has to be some give.

Lou

Discussion forums never stop surprising me.

 

[jjr9]

For the record, I don’t believe the earlier claim about "the mythical ‘homosexual person’ " (frankly, it’s stuff like that that makes me think I ought to spend more time away from the forum and the Internet in general) but I also don’t accept that most people are attracted to strictly one gender.

Discussion forums never stop surprising me.

I understand that normalization of SS behavior is sadly the norm today and the fiction of a
so called “homosexual person” who is incapable of OSA makes a compelling argument, all
be it untrue, if one sets aside a morality defined by the Lord.

I have had many people rationalize their belief that the mythical “homosexual person” real
and I have had many people claim scientific proof that the mythical “homosexual person” real.
None of the so called scientific proof is verifiable. Do you have something of substance that
sustains your belief? I am curious.

I had a Priest tell me it is an ‘earthly fact’ I agree with him unfortunately he believes it is true.

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

Just a thought …

OP - I’m also curious as to why you think not criminalising homosexuality is liberal? That seems an extreme stance to take.

the fiction of a so called “homosexual person” who is incapable of OSA makes a compelling argument, all be it untrue, if one sets aside a morality defined by the Lord.

I wonder if conservative Catholics like myself, who don’t want to criminalize homosexual acts *and *also believe that homosexuals do exist, are actually doubly liberal, or doubly morality-rejecting or what-have-you.

Sometimes I’m not sure if this forum is more amusing or troubling. (Maybe I should rewatch the LutheranSatire video with the whole “If you fight for a country with gays, we’ll say you’ve endorsed sodomy” thing. That’s simply amusing since it’s satire. )

 

[jjr9]

Just a thought …

I wonder if conservative Catholics like myself, who don’t want to criminalize homosexual acts *and *also believe that homosexuals do exist, are actually doubly liberal, or doubly morality-rejecting or what-have-you.

Sometimes I’m not sure if this forum is more amusing or troubling. (Maybe I should rewatch the LutheranSatire video with the whole “If you fight for a country with gays, we’ll say you’ve endorsed sodomy” thing. That’s simply amusing since it’s satire. )

Is the substantive reason for your belief in the mythical “homosexual person” as real here?

Perhaps you could let me know your understanding of what the Magisterium defines as a
“homosexual person”. Clearly people engage in SS behavior if this is your criteria to declare
someone a “homosexual person” you are not in accord with the Magisterium’s definition.

God bless

 

[hu324b]

If it was to be criminalized just how would it be enforced - do we put cameras in everyone’s homes - do we search for it in the night - I think it ridiculous and dangerous to have such laws. What about regular marriage should we have laws in place to make sure they perform only the sexual acts were ok with?

It would be a impossible law to enforce - its for God to judge not us. Guess what God loves each and everyone of those people as much as anyone else. How would you prove any of it?

It is not for us to punish others for their sins - and how can you pick certain sins and want to apply punishment and allow other sins to go unpunished - its being a hypocrite - who here is free of sin? Dangerous road to go down - if you truly want to help and change people get down on your knees and pray for these people - that’s what God wants not for us to punish them.

 

[Qoeleth]

If it was to be criminalized just how would it be enforced - do we put cameras in everyone’s homes - do we search for it in the night - I think it ridiculous and dangerous to have such laws. What about regular marriage should we have laws in place to make sure they perform only the sexual acts were ok with?

It would be a impossible law to enforce - its for God to judge not us. Guess what God loves each and everyone of those people as much as anyone else. How would you prove any of it?

It is not for us to punish others for their sins - and how can you pick certain sins and want to apply punishment and allow other sins to go unpunished - its being a hypocrite - who here is free of sin? Dangerous road to go down - if you truly want to help and change people get down on your knees and pray for these people - that’s what God wants not for us to punish them.

OK- it would be hard to enforce.

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals. Like racism- there’s lots of racist people around (maybe they can’t help it), but if a person ‘comes out’ and says, ‘I’m racist’, they could be charged with a crime (I think…)

Eventually, people would stop talking about them, and the whole thing would die out, or slip out of visibility…

 

[Peter_J]

I’d think I need to revise my earlier statement,

That’s what amazes me so much when I read some of the posts on the CA Forum: I mean the comments that aren’t satisfied with wanting to criminalize homosexual acts, but will then go on to suggest that those of us conservatives who don’t favor criminalization are really liberals and not conservatives at all.

because I think I’m actually more amazed by

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals.

 

[Lou2U]

For the record, I don’t believe the earlier claim about "the mythical ‘homosexual person’ " (frankly, it’s stuff like that that makes me think I ought to spend more time away from the forum and the Internet in general) but I also don’t accept that most people are attracted to strictly one gender.

Discussion forums never stop surprising me.

I think that there’s a lot more openness to this topic than ever before. When I was looking up some studies, I saw that the vast majority of people still identify as heterosexual, which is why I said what I did, but the results also showed that the younger generations were more likely to consider themselves bisexual, or at least not rigidly heterosexual. The idea that sexuality is like a scale, or a spectrum, does make a lot of sense to me. Some are further along the scale than others.

OK- it would be hard to enforce.

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals. Like racism- there’s lots of racist people around (maybe they can’t help it), but if a person ‘comes out’ and says, ‘I’m racist’, they could be charged with a crime (I think…)

Eventually, people would stop talking about them, and the whole thing would die out, or slip out of visibility…

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Do you mean people shouldn’t “identify” as homosexual? What do you mean by “identify”?

Lou

 

[at9009]

I think that there’s a lot more openness to this topic than ever before. When I was looking up some studies, I saw that the vast majority of people still identify as heterosexual, which is why I said what I did, but the results also showed that the younger generations were more likely to consider themselves bisexual, or at least not rigidly heterosexual. The idea that sexuality is like a scale, or a spectrum, does make a lot of sense to me. Some are further along the scale than others.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Do you mean people shouldn’t “identify” as homosexual? What do you mean by “identify”?

Lou

Basically they are saying they want LGB people’s freedom from prosecution dependent on their ability to stay closeted. It’s not like that type of view has any potential to lead to a witch hunt type attitud and tells celibate lgb/ssa christians you’re only welcome if you are able to keep your cross to yourself or else. Nope nothing wrong here apparently

 

[Peter_J]

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals. Like racism- there’s lots of racist people around (maybe they can’t help it), but if a person ‘comes out’ and says, ‘I’m racist’, they could be charged with a crime (I think…)

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Do you mean people shouldn’t “identify” as homosexual?

Basically they are saying they want LGB people’s freedom from prosecution dependent on their ability to stay closeted. It’s not like that type of view has any potential to lead to a witch hunt type attitud and tells celibate lgb/ssa christians you’re only welcome if you are able to keep your cross to yourself or else. Nope nothing wrong here apparently

Just to throw my :twocents: in here, the above paragraph wouldn’t be terribly surprising to me if it had stopped at just saying that people shouldn’t identify as homosexual. That is (unfortunately) a pretty common way of thinking.

It’s when we get into trying to ban people from identifying as homosexual (along with other ideas in that same paragraph) that I start to think we’re in left field.

 

[hu324b]

OK- it would be hard to enforce.

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals. Like racism- there’s lots of racist people around (maybe they can’t help it), but if a person ‘comes out’ and says, ‘I’m racist’, they could be charged with a crime (I think…)

Eventually, people would stop talking about them, and the whole thing would die out, or slip out of visibility…

What does that change? Out of sight out of mind? Nothing solved at all by what you are saying. Even if you put everyone in jail for it it would still not change anything - it would only be to please you and accomplish nothing but bring more fear and hatred in the world - don’t we have enough of that? Like I said if you want to do the right thing get down on your knees and pray for them. No likely I bet.

 

[Peter_J]

Not likely I bet.

Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.

 

[Tagetes]

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals. Like racism- there’s lots of racist people around (maybe they can’t help it), but if a person ‘comes out’ and says, ‘I’m racist’, they could be charged with a crime (I think…)

In the U.S. people of color make up the largest part of the LGBT community. I dread to imagine how they must feel reading this.

 

[Qoeleth]

I think that there’s a lot more openness to this topic than ever before. When I was looking up some studies, I saw that the vast majority of people still identify as heterosexual, which is why I said what I did, but the results also showed that the younger generations were more likely to consider themselves bisexual, or at least not rigidly heterosexual. The idea that sexuality is like a scale, or a spectrum, does make a lot of sense to me. Some are further along the scale than others.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Do you mean people shouldn’t “identify” as homosexual? What do you mean by “identify”?

Lou

Basically they are saying they want LGB people’s freedom from prosecution dependent on their ability to stay closeted. It’s not like that type of view has any potential to lead to a witch hunt type attitud and tells celibate lgb/ssa christians you’re only welcome if you are able to keep your cross to yourself or else. Nope nothing wrong here apparently

Just to throw my :twocents: in here, the above paragraph wouldn’t be terribly surprising to me if it had stopped at just saying that people shouldn’t identify as homosexual. That is (unfortunately) a pretty common way of thinking.

It’s when we get into trying to ban people from identifying as homosexual (along with other ideas in that same paragraph) that I start to think we’re in left field.

No- look, it’s very simple. A lot of the time people have to refrain from expressing their sexual tendencies. For example, you don’t say to some fellow, “I feel sexually attracted to your wife.” Or a 70 year old grandpa doesn’t say, “I’m attracted to that 18 year old”, or “I’m attracted to (whatever fetish).”

Same thing with homosexuals. It’s fine, if they keep their preferences to themselves. And don’t act on it. And don’t try to push their ‘culture’. They might seem a bit effeminate or whatever, but, as long as they don’t ‘come out’, they can be given the benefit of the doubt by everyone. This is especially so in Church, we need to accept people charitably. As for witch-hunts, that’s absurd. Most Catholics would prefer to know the less about it the better, and would rather deliberately overlook the matter, if possible.

I think it will actually be easier and better for them in the long term.

It worked perfectly well like that until the late 20th Century. No reason why it wouldn’t work today…

 

[at9009]

Witch hunts have happened in the past so it’s not unreasonable for them to happen again. Example, ancetodal but a friend of mine in the military dealt with bis CO doing his best to try and get my friend to out himself so he could be kicked out. It got so bad and the abuse was so awful that he attempted suicide. was anything done… nope, the guy faced no reprocussions and no one said or did anything to stop it. This just be closeted else discrimination is kinda on you type attitude could easily lead to that. Not everyone would do thst but still a substantial minority might. You don’t have to worry about that but i would. You can act like you think it will be better but just because it makes you happier doesn’t mean it will be. You think treating a person’s cross should be hidden or else is a good environment then you’ve never dealt with that experience. It is rather toxic and leads to lots of stress.

Also a persons sexuality is not just reducible to who they are attracted too and to suggest otherwise is rather frustrating. It seems from my perspective that you haven’t talked really with anyone who deals with this issue within the church, otherwise youd might have some perspective for how much thst type of wanted policy would only encourage them to leave.

To be honest if the church pushed that kinda of policy, there is a good chance I wouldn’t feel comfortable coming to mass. I see people like Ron Belgau and Eve Tushnet as examples for how one can be open and on fidelity with the church and would wager by being open they are and will convert more hearts and minds than a policy that pushes all of those needed discussions and support to the dark shadows and secret meetings.