Wrong to Support LGBT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xdz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would not support them because it’s like saying, “I don’t care what God says.” I mean you can talk to them, but it’s wrong what they do. We pray for their conversion. That’s all we can do, God will do the rest.
 
They don’t need to realize Satan is manipulating them. It’s a fallen world, and everyone’s mind and heart are clouded by sin. But not everyone believes the lie that a same sex couple can be “married.” Such lies have only one source.
 
And I never said or implied that you don’t have that right. But you seem to be missing the point that, when you quote someone in this forum their words are set apart visually so that it is “painfully obvious” that they are not your words. So you are not the one using them. You bear no blame or credit for how someone else uses words, phrases, or acronyms to put forth their ideas. At the same time, your editing of the words that someone else uses is denying them the right to use the terms they choose to express their ideas. That seems hypocritical to me.

And a the term “alternative lifestyle” is much broader and vaguer that LGBT ever was. Others have provided multiple examples of alternative lifestyles that have nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality.

In short, the solution is to leave quotes alone, or do not quote in the first place and let the reader refer back to the relevant post on their own if your delicate sensibilities do not allow you to cease meddling with others words.
 
CilladeRoma said:
This is the most despicable thing I have read in this thread. The idea that you would invite a person whom you love to dinner but exclude their S.O. to prove some point is the antithesis of what it means to be a Christian. 😒😠
Click to expand...
If I was invited to dinner and I knew that my significant other had intentionally been excluded, I wouldn’t go.
 
There is definitely something though to the “good order” (or harmony) line of reasoning. I don’t know how Aquinas could have consistently argued that intellect was itself greater in man than woman and would be surprised if that were his meaning: from what I recall he believed all human beings were created with the lowest possible order of intellect (a tabula rasa), which was the reason we (for Aquinas) could be multiplied as unique individuals yet all remaining the same in one species or kind (whereas angels are each their own species for Aquinas, their particular knowledge and purpose being what specifies them in their kind). I think, then, that by ‘the force of intellect preponderating in men,’ he means something like human passions or emotions aren’t as forceful or influential on a man’s intellect as they are upon a woman’s, as it were obscuring her reason either more often or to a greater degree than a man’s.

One thing I have noticed is that it is rather undeniable that a man does typically almost have an impulsive need for orderliness, particularly adult men and fathers, both in their domestic households but also e.g. in the workplace. Men do appear to have a stronger antipathy toward anarchy or disorderliness of any kind - to speak frankly, disorderliness or anarchy can drive him crazy. All one needs to do to see this is look at typically male institutions like the military, where arguably orderliness can be established and enforced almost to a fault. I think women and children can have a moderating influence on this impulsive need of men, which in itself is obviously a good thing as it prevents unnecessary troubles, confusion or suffering but when taken to an extreme can become stifling*.

*I’m reminded here of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, where Ferris Bueller’s best friend is rather constantly almost demoralized because his father runs his house with such orderliness that it doesn’t even feel like a home for his son, but more like trapped living in a museum: they have all the niceties, toys and creature comforts life could possibly afford, but everything is to be treated like a rare collector’s item, so far from providing enjoyment they become a nuisance and a burden almost exclusively.
 
Last edited:
Having dinner with 2 people is not creating scandal.

I don’t like the fact that my brother-in-law is a racist. He speaks deplorably about other races and economically disadvantaged people.

However, he is married to my sister. I cannot not even imagine not inviting both of them to dinner.

They know we are Christians by our love.
I do not see any love at all in refusing to eat with someone because you don’t like how they sin.
 
Last edited:
There is more to a relationship that just sex.
Would you invite a heterosexual couple to dinner who is living together but not married?

Would you invite a couple who may be Catholic but did not follow valid forum to get married to dinner?

If you say no to both situations, at least you are consistent.

If you try to say that they are different situations, then I just know that you have an issue with gay people.
 
My gay friends are not going to come to dinner and have sex on my dining room table.
They are going to act like any other people whom I’d invite to dinner.
We will talk about work, our families and what is happening on Blue Bloods & Game of Thrones.

I get the impression that you think that gay people have sex on their brains all day, everyday.
I really hope that isn’t true.
 
When civil partnerships for gay couples were due to become law in the UK I remember many a priest denouncing them and asking for prayers and petitions to stop such a law (although Cardinal Nichols was one of the few who looked at it from a very rational and legal viewpoint). In my honest opinion I could see nothing wrong these partnerships as they allowed legal rights, were never going to be a church affair as they were simply a civil matter, and were very distinct from marriage (for example, a civil partnership cannot be dissolved due to adultery as the concept does not exist in a civil partnership - it only pertains to marriage).
It’s pointless to say gay marriage doesn’t exist - it exists in law and is legally binding upon those involved in it. To say it doesn’t exist is the linguistic equivalent of putting one’s fingers in the ears and singing loudly. Perhaps it would be better to follow the thought of an archbishop I heard a couple of years ago: when Catholics refer to marriage, call it by its proper title of ‘Sacramental Marriage’, for all other types they are just simply a marriage.
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
This is the most despicable thing I have read in this thread. The idea that you would invite a person whom you love to dinner but exclude their S.O. to prove some point is the antithesis of what it means to be a Christian. 😒😠
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying this. My advice to the invitee would be to go get some self-esteem and stay away from people like that.

I am always left scratching my head when these scenarios are presented. It is as if the person passing judgement believes they are just that wonderful that others would tolerate that kind of attitude or behavior from them.
 
Last edited:
Never mind LGBT people. Friends who are DEMOCRATS? That’s the worst.
 
It is not meant to be serious nor is it a jab at you. I myself am a registered Democrat and have always voted Democrat for the past 50 years. However, like you, I am evolving into an Independent because I see little value in either major political party.
 
You have an odd way of twisting things to make things personal and justify your own judgement of people. Please do point out where I have defined marriage in opposition of God.

I will pass on your comments to the Archbishop should I see him again - unlikely as he was visiting the UK but you never know.
 
CilladeRoma said:
There is no reasoning with a bigot.
Click to expand...
Well you of course know this individual far better than I, so perhaps you might be right in his case it is neither the time nor season to be reasoning with him. Still, bigoted thinking by today’s standards was almost universal in previous times, and it was by reasoning that people were persuaded to begin to take a different approach. So I wouldn’t necessarily condemn all bigots - or even racists in some cases, for that matter - to being beyond the reach of reason.
 
My point is really a simple one.

I don’t know why Person A would invest much time or interest in a relationship with Person B, when Person B is the type who would exclude Person A’s significant other from a dinner invitation. Doesn’t really matter what the reason is. Seems time would be better spent in a less negative environment.

That is pretty much all I was saying.
 
Last edited:
This entails engaging those who are sinners, not shunning them.
Where would we be if Christ shunned sinners when walking the earth!
 
I am reminded of a Catholic lady whose nephew was cohabiting with his girlfriend. When the couple would come to visit, she always greeted the warmly and was hospitable. But she always gave them separate bedroom, one upstairs, one downstairs, moving her 13 year old son to the sofa.
 
We aren’t Christ. We are sinners.
Not only are we not called to countenance someone else’s sin, we are called to avoid near occasions of sin ourselves.
Parenthetically, this is one reason I won’t watch HBO or other television porn like Game of Thrones, Westworld, etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top