The Silencing Of Christians On The Matter Of Homosexuality

[Ice_nine]

discrimination isn't always a bad thing. When an army goes to fight a war, I sure as hell hope they discriminate between civilians and combatants. When the city hires bus drivers, I hope they discriminate against people who have a pooty driving record, and women who are clearly inferior drivers .


So sure, the church discriminates between women and men for the priesthood and positions of institutional authority. Who cares? She also discriminates against mentally ill (a schizophrenic will likely be disallowed from the priesthood). She even discriminates against children by not allowing them to marry! And she discriminates against the healthy by not conferring the sacrament of divine unction.

Ergo, the church hates women, schizophrenics, children, and healthy people.

I luvs logic.

[Annie12]

I don't think that religion's teachings should be criticized by people who are not of that religion. I would never criticize a Jew for what they believe or any other religion. Their teachings are their business. So, I don't think the Government should be able to make judgements on what a religion teaches. Opinions are different. every person is entitled to his or her own opinion but If the Government starts making judgements about religion it's like giving a kid an ice cream cone and then steeling it back. Religion had rights before gays(on the marriage issue), so lets just keep it that way.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Annie12

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1341846252' post='2453899']
As a christian, I can't even refer to same sex liaisons as marriage, because marriage is a combination of two different items i.e. ying and yang, not ying and ying, two different but complementary natures becoming something new. Two males or two females are can't be combined since they have essentially the same natures ( albeit with different personalities), there is no real union possible.
[/quote]

Two different people are two different items. That is a logical fact. As for the rest of your post, I guess that when the Bible refers to polygamous marriages the author of that text is mistaken? The definition of marriage is not static. It's not even static in the Bible.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1341928546' post='2454317']
So, I don't think the Government should be able to make judgements on what a religion teaches.
[/quote]
Secular, government defined marriage is different from Catholic defined marriage, so why the need for Catholics to align government defined marriage to be that of Catholic defined marriage?

[Luigi]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1341957539' post='2454484']
Two different people are two different items. That is a logical fact. As for the rest of your post, I guess that when the Bible refers to polygamous marriages the author of that text is mistaken? The definition of marriage is not static. It's not even static in the Bible.
[/quote]

The definition of marriage really is pretty darned static.

There have been a few cultures that allowed polygamy, but usually in response to disproportionate populations of women & men, or (this is where it originated in Islam, according to my friend Said) as a way to keep widows and their children from starving.

Polygamy shows up in the Bible with Solomon. Interestingly, though, Abraham didn't take any additional wives when Sarah was barren, although his son Isaac had two wives. Solomon is the only other person I can think of that had multiple wives, and he had lots of them. But by the rabinic period, when Jesus was around, polygamy was gone from Israeli culture.

Joseph Smith got into lots of trouble - in fact, they stoned him to death - for permitting polygamy in Mormonism. The Church itself eventually rejected polygamy, and they still fight the radical (in the sense of "back to our roots") groups that claim it is permitted.
And I don't believe it was Catholics that stoned him, either.

But for the last couple of milennia, in all of Western culture (and I consider that almost everyone on this board has been formed by Western culture), marriage has been amazingly static.

[Luigi]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341958982' post='2454496']
Secular, government defined marriage is different from Catholic defined marriage, so why the need for Catholics to align government defined marriage to be that of Catholic defined marriage?
[/quote]

For the entire history of the country (223 years under the Constitution and a couple of hundred years previously as well), secular government-defined marriage has aligned with not only the Catholic definition of marriage but the broader Christian definition of marriage as well. And the Jewish definition of marriage. And everyone who has immigrated to this country has abided by the secular government definition, even if their culture of origin permitted other forms back home.

The one exception is slaves. In some states, they were not allowed to marry. In many situations, slaves who were married were separated when they were sold. And these have always been considered part of the injustice and tragedy of chattel slavery. And I've heard Black intellectuals argue that the after-effects of that lack/destructio of marriage are still being felt in the Black community to this day.

You keep trying to make the definition of marriage a strictly Catholic issue - as if Catholics ever controlled this country in any sort of absolute way. To the contrary, Catholics were systematically suppressed in the twelve of the thriteen original colonies; many of them had their taken from after the Revolutionary War by the new American - supposedly 'liberal' - leaders of the country. The Know-Nothing Movement burned nuns out of convents and attacked cathedrals. The No-Irish-Need-Apply experience was at least as much anti-Catholic as it was anti-immigrant. The secular, American-government definition of marriage [i]aligns[/i] with the Catholic definition, but it was imposed on the nation by Catholics as you seem to imply.

The definition of marriage is not [i]just[/i] about religion - it's about cultural norms, history, tradition, sociology, psychology, taxes, and just about everything else you cna think of.

If you want to change the definition of marriage, you're up against a lot more than the Catholic Church.

[Luigi]

Correction to the above (I was in a hurry - I should have done an editing read-through):

1. Many of the Maryland Catholics (Maryland was the only colony that permitted Catholics) had the LAND taken away from them after the Revolutionary War. That's why so many of them moved to Kentucky - to find the religious freedom they couldn't find in the newly-minted states.
2. [color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The secular, American-government definition of marriage [/font][/color][i]aligns[/i][color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] with the Catholic definition, but it was NOT imposed on the nation by Catholics as you seem to imply.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Sorry about the lack of clarity and any confusion it caused. [/font][/color]

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

masterbation is lust, beastiality is lust, paedophilia is lust,incest is lust. You can't define love because it is a power beyond our comprehension but we can define lust.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1341870812' post='2454091']
Aw, that noble superior atheist "morality"!

If it's [i]other[/i] people who are being murdered, who gives a s[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]hi[/font]t, just so long as you feel your [i]own[/i] life isn't threatened?
[/quote]
If "we" see a pregnant woman being attacked by an assailant, some of us (a high percentage) feel the need to put our own lives at risk and to violently stop the assailant.
If "we" see a pregnant woman walk into an abortion clinic, the vast majority of us will not resort to violence.

I don't think "we" are so different.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1341996581' post='2454610']
masterbation is lust, beastiality is lust, paedophilia is lust,incest is lust. You can't define love because it is a power beyond our comprehension but we can define lust.
[/quote]
Lust is also a natural part of procreation. Without lust we would discontinue as a species.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1341879929' post='2454145']
I think the idea of 'debate' is one that is ambiguous. Debate would entail that both parties are speaking with the same terms and on the same level-headed style. Most discussions I have seen either on here or in person are often passionate and quite argumentative.

Also, considering Moral Truth, which is not as clear cut to 'pagans' and 'non-believers'. Simply stating or pointing them out isn't going to prove anything to them, on the grounds because in essence it doesn't matter to them. To their mindset they are just rules handed down in some book or whatever.

And to the 'watering down', how do you expect for 'we', Catholics to evangelize, offer love and conversion to others, when we tear into our own ranks, because they don't measure up to [i][b]our[/b][/i] idea of holiness or orthodoxy? I am not saying that we embrace the heretics here, but I am saying that we need to get away from pointing fingers at one another and grow up. It's not just about believing or not understanding or not knowing, it's simply not Loving.[/quote]

Again, I'm not really clear on exactly who and what you are criticizing here. If you are talking about people posting on Phatmass, I don't think most people on here defending the Church's moral teachings are engaging in uncharity. Stating and explaining the Church's teachings on this topic when they are attacked is not uncharitable or "pointing fingers," but should be the duty of every faithful Catholic when discussing such issues on a Catholic message board which supposedly has the goal of preaching Catholic truth.

Yes, it will require more explaining to convince unbelievers of such moral truths (it is unlikely, for instance, that an atheist who does not believe in objective morality or an intrinsic meaning or purpose to human sexuality will easily come to an agreement with the Church on matters of sexual morality), but that does not mean that the Catholic position should never be stated in the first place.

My point was that overall, I think there is too much timidity and and "caution" regarding the teaching of sexual morality (including, but not confined to homosexual issues), rather than too little. More clear and unambiguous teaching is needed from both clergy and laymen alike.



[quote]To the terms of Instructing, well no one likes being criticized (constructive or otherwise) and meanwhile this doesn't skip over the fact of correcting behavior let's look at the reality. If we do instruct or point out an insufficiency/destructive behavior (cause that's what Sin is.) in another, then we have to in a delicate and courteous manner of which they would be open to such a statement/comment. The problem with trying to generalize a method is that with people any number of situations could a occur and given that each human person is uniquely individual and unique, makes the situation inherently vague and abstract.

To your friend analogy I stand by that, but to a complete stranger should you tell him that his cursing is inexcusable? A friend is someone you know for hopefully a little bit longer than a moment and are oftentimes more open to hear what you have to say. Most people these days don't give a beaver dam.[/quote]

I agree with you here that the means of instruction will vary in the circumstance. I generally wouldn't advocate running around screaming at homosexual strangers about how wicked they are, as it would generally be about as effective as going in bars and screaming at random drunks about the evils of alcohol abuse.
However, I think that when one is in a position to do so, one should charitably yet firmly explain the Church's moral teachings.

If you're talking about posting in a Catholic message board, where people come to learn about and discuss the Catholic Faith, I believe there is no need to avoid clearly stating the moral teachings of the Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1342125719' post='2455120']
Lust is also a natural part of procreation. Without lust we would discontinue as a species.
[/quote]

Lust is not a natural part of anything, because lust is only concerned with its own pleasure.

[stevil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1342128810' post='2455130']
Lust is not a natural part of anything, because lust is only concerned with its own pleasure.
[/quote]
People don't only procreate out of duty. Like all animals we have a natural desire for sexual intercourse.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1342125595' post='2455117']
If "we" see a pregnant woman being attacked by an assailant, some of us (a high percentage) feel the need to put our own lives at risk and to violently stop the assailant.
If "we" see a pregnant woman walk into an abortion clinic, the vast majority of us will not resort to violence.

I don't think "we" are so different.
[/quote]
The truth is that many people have, and do, put themselves at risk at protests of abortion clinics (such as in "Operation Rescue"), facing arrest, and often violence and brutality by police and abortion mill "escorts" by (non-violently) blocking the entrances to abortion mills with their bodies.

And a few (much less than the media would have you believe) have in fact resorted to violence against abortionists for the purpose of saving babies from abortion. (I don't agree with that method because it does not in fact actually save babies, but, in a society where abortion is protected by law, it merely hurts the pro-life cause, and women can easily go elsewhere to have abortions.)
But the fact remains that people are in fact willing to risk their safety to save the unborn.

Also, while there are plenty of heroes willing to risk their lives to save a woman from an assailant, there are also plenty of cowards who will avoid getting involved rather than risk their own lives and safety, particularly if the woman being attacked is a stranger.

But the truth is that whether or not people are willing to save another human being is irrelevant to the morality of killing or assaulting that human being.

And the immorality of murder or assault certainly has nothing to to with whether or not you or I or anyone else feels personally threatened.

Assaulting a woman remains wrong and immoral whether I feel personally threatened by the attacker, or whether or not I feel compelled to risk my life to save her - as does killing a child, born or preborn.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1342125719' post='2455120']
Lust is also a natural part of procreation. Without lust we would discontinue as a species.
[/quote]
You don't understand the Catholic meaning of the sin of lust - which pertains specifically to disordered sexual desire.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Socrates

[Annie12]

<p>[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1342129233' post='2455131']
People don't only procreate out of duty. Like all animals we have a natural desire for sexual intercourse.
[/quote]
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=843
this might help you understand the Catholic viewpoint better.