New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[superblue]

please see: Gospel reading "John 3:16-18"

That still doesn't change that one must blindly believe every single little detail that the Church teaches and when people run around beating their chest screaming about how the Church gets everything right all the time on every matter out in the world, based off of their interpretation of scripture, doesn't make it so, and what is even worse is that the Church absolutely refuses to be open minded to even the remote possibility that they are ever wrong on anything. The only time the Church is ever wrong is when they are flat out embarrassed into admitting they made a mistake. An that is hard for the die hard cheerleaders of the church to accept.    It is absurd to think that God specifically created homosexuals ,so that in turn the Church can turn around and label them sinners and all they need to do is control their " behavior".

 

Please read the book of Ruth, why not.

[Kateri89]

In my experience, moderators are usually volunteers with limited time to read their forums. The most common reason for them to not have reacted to a problem is that they have not seen it. It tends to be more helpful to report problematic posts/threads rather than to complain about them within the thread.

Another common reason is that the moderator does not think it is a problem.

I'm not complaining but this thread is clearly a debate.

[Credo in Deum]

I got your phishy and where you can stick it,  it isn't a moot point and just because the church teaches something doesn't mean they have a clear understanding on it nor does it mean the issue is over nor does it mean they are right on the matter.

 

When the Church sets down doctrine on faith and morals not only do they have a clear and true understanding on the matter, it also is 100% right.

[Perigrina]

I have been thinking that many of the people here are too young to remember how the homosexualist movement came to be, so it may be useful to talk about that background.  I was into "gay rights" before it was cool, so I was personally involved in some of this.  Let me tell you about America at the end of the millennium:

 

http://youtu.be/1hNGj30peTs

 

Rent does a pretty good job of portraying what it was like before there was a treatment for AIDS.  People kept on dying and dying and dying.  Most of them were homosexual and society, as a whole, just didn't care.  AIDS is a horrible way to die, slow and painful.  To the physical suffering was added rejection and isolation. The common attitude was that they were getting what they deserved.   I was appalled by the lack of compassion.  I was also appalled by the hypocrisy.  People who did not blink at fornication, contraception or divorce looked down on people who committed homosexual sins against chastity.  While some people based their objections to homosexual sins on Catholic teaching and consistent moral teachings, many based their response to homosexuality on EEWWWW.

 

AIDS created a crisis that brought homosexual people into political activism in a way they never had been previously.  Before this, for the most part, qwerties just wanted to have fun.  Experiencing the world as a place where everybody hates you and wants you to die changes people.  This is a major factor behind the anger and militancy we see today.

 

My generation and my parents generation failed in compassion and consistency.  My children's generation and my grandchildren's are likely to bear the consequences of our sins.  When a group comes to power this way, there is a trajectory towards tyranny.  The French Revolution opposed genuine injustice and yet devolved into the Reign of Terror.  The story that began with Rent is one that I expect to end like Dialogues of the Carmelites, with the nuns walking toward the guillotine.

 

 

http://youtu.be/UzFC0fgPevo

[Perigrina]

I'm not complaining but this thread is clearly a debate.

 

I am afraid it is, although that was not my intent.  I am not familiar enough with the dynamics of the phorum to have predicted this.  Please feel free to report this thread and ask it to be moved.

[add]

Please read the book of Ruth, why not.

 

any Particular passage, I looked at it quick but I didn't see anything related to this thread

[fides' Jack]

I realized that we could not have a discussion about the book, but I thought we might discuss the quote I included.  I did not intend it as a debate subject.   I did expect the Spanish Inquisition, but I am surprised that so many non-Catholic views are expressed here. 

 

Pay attention to profile tags.  Unless something has changed recently, dUSt does a pretty good job of making it clear that if you express anti-Catholic views, you're not listed as a Catholic.

 

From what I've read of this thread, I've seen at least 1 poster deserving a phishy tag.

[stevil]

Allowing people who have moral objections to same-sex marriage to refrain from supporting it is not discrimination against any group of people.

The majority of people in developed nations tend to view marriage and family as n important and basic human right.
If you take a look at article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This clearly shows that it is recognised by the UN that marriage and family are fundamentally important to humans and that the concept of marriage isn't unique to a particular religion.
It is strikingly obvious that they haven't mentioned "without any limitation due to sexual orientation" but they also haven't stated that marriage must be constrained to one man and one woman.
Of course, the Catholic church don't recognise the UN's authority on matters concerning marriage but on the flip, non Catholics, which represents the majority of people in the world, don't recognise the Catholic church's authority on matters concerning marriage.

From my own non Catholic perspective it appears that Catholics are singling out a group (homosexuals) and trying to interfere with their ability to marry and form families (which I also see as a fundamental human behaviour).
I would have sympathy for the Catholic position if gay marriage were harming people in society or causing society to become unstable, but it is not.
To me it seems that it is a case of one group of people looking over the fence and telling people outside their group how to live. Not only telling, but taking actions to ostracise (by refusing to provide goods and services, by voting against gay marriage, by making public statements that gay marriage is immoral).

Sure it's a free country, and sure, you believe that your god doesn't like gay marriage but there are many people whom are not Catholics and do not believe in your god and do not believe in the authurotiy of your Church on such matters. We do not believe that there is anything wrong with two consenting adults committing to each other in a loving relationship (a family). To us, it appears threatening, aggressive, oppressive and discriminatory when an organisation focuses on a group and try to impede them and their lifestyle whilst allowing others not in that group to live a married lifestyle.

I'm not trying to be combative with you on this, but I do wonder if some Catholics are able to view the world from beyond their own group and beliefs. Are you able to understand why non Catholics see this as discrimination and infringement on basic human rights?

[HisChildForever]

Sure it's a free country, and sure, you believe that your god doesn't like gay marriage but there are many people whom are not Catholics and do not believe in your god and do not believe in the authurotiy of your Church on such matters. We do not believe that there is anything wrong with two consenting adults committing to each other in a loving relationship (a family). To us, it appears threatening, aggressive, oppressive and discriminatory when an organisation focuses on a group and try to impede them and their lifestyle whilst allowing others not in that group to live a married lifestyle.

I'm not trying to be combative with you on this, but I do wonder if some Catholics are able to view the world from beyond their own group and beliefs. Are you able to understand why non Catholics see this as discrimination and infringement on basic human rights?

 

I understand. In general, I try not to get offended when a person holds a differing belief. Using this as an example, I won't be offended if I see a gay couple holding hands in Central Park, but I would appreciate for that couple to be respectful of my beliefs as well. I'm not offended that Protestants don't believe in the Real Presence and I'm not offended that Muslims think another man took Christ's place on the cross. In other words, I don't think that gays, Protestants, Muslims--or any other group--think they're better than me because they disagree with things I believe; so, in turn, I hope they don't think I view myself as "better than" because I disagree with their beliefs.

[superblue]

When the Church sets down doctrine on faith and morals not only do they have a clear and true understanding on the matter, it also is 100% right.

Wrong, all they have are guidelines in which to base their decisions, they did not all sit around at a table and God just popped down one day and instructed everyone on what to set into doctrine and on faith and morals, they didn't say a special prayer requesting an answer and then double checked with each other if they all got the same answer. They are nothing more than simple human beings , doing the best they can with the information they have, and just because they misuse the information given to rationalize things so that they don't feel obligated to debate it or discuss it any further, doesn't mean they are right.  At best the church has 50% of faith, morals, and doctrine correct. And the Church can not expect to be the leader in these regards when scandal after scandal pops up, to then just turn around and hypocritically drop to their knees and start boasting of oh how we are but mere mortals trying to do the Lords' will. Please forgive us, so when there's egg on the Church face, all of a sudden it is a " human church " but when anyone with half a brain questions the church its oh no no no  you are wrong, 2000 yrs, theology degrees, fancy hats, nice robes, doctrine doctrine doctrine.

 

Good grief when we look at our own Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is properly debated to no end, notes are taken, changes are made, wrongs are made right. To think the Church would fall into anarchy by admitting they have no clue why homosexuals are homosexual, more over to admit that they could be wrong about homosexuals in general, isn't going to send the four horsemen of the apocalypse down upon us.  It is very hypocritical of the Church to not be as harsh and critical towards civil marriage taking place out side of the Catholic Church, and then turn around and outcast and cry foul over homosexuals that marry and then at the exact same time allow homosexual men into the priesthood.

 

And then to think that only Clergy are the only ones worthy enough to form a council debate it, take note, vote , and make changes to the church is just as naners, but it is what it is, I don't have to like it I just gota play the game. Still doesn't make the Church 100% right on every little detail in the world just cause they say so, if it did, then I can claim the same for everything I say , just because I said it because I spent time and money studying the issue, but never really spoke to God directly, but believe me because I have an education.

 

Huzza for cannon law and church doctrine, now lets wrap our blind folds on tightly and get in a straight line.

[superblue]

Pay attention to profile tags.  Unless something has changed recently, dUSt does a pretty good job of making it clear that if you express anti-Catholic views, you're not listed as a Catholic.

 

From what I've read of this thread, I've seen at least 1 poster deserving a phishy tag.

it isn't an anti-Catholic view [Edited], it is an opinion , Plenty of Catholics disagree with the church, don't think so, go look at every democratic catholic in America, they are basically voting with a political party that agrees with abortion, then try to rationalize how they are not catholic.

 

[Edited] you can have a different opinion on church views and still be catholic, granted democrats and other catholics may not be as holy as you an others here and especially not on C.A.F , but we are still catholic. 

 

Edited by moderator: personal attack (cmaD2006).  On phatmass we do not call people names.

[superblue]

Not all busineses sell every item. I think you're confusing products with people. The Cake store owner has the option to restrict his wedding cake services, or whatever they do, to very restricted limits, such as only supplying certain religious venues for operational reasons etc. If they want to operate with such restrictions they need to get good legal advice. But I'd guess negative publicity doesn't do them much good.

There was a legal case in the UK of an evangelical couple refusing a same sex couple to stay in their guesthouse. They said they only accepted married couples, although they made no effort to see if opposite sex couples were married. So their 'issue' with same sex couples was stronger than their views on fornication. Anyway, they got sued and paid up. They couldn't figure out how to operate legally -  I'm guessing offering single rooms only either didn't occur to them or wasn't viable! Anyway, they then suffered losses as noone wanted to stay there after all the publicity. I guess not enough Christians who agreed with them made bookings either. I think they closed in the end.

I personally wouldn't want to take my business to someone who was hostile, but sometimes people don't have many choices. The fallout isn't always over things as simple as cake stores or hotels.

 

 

Ah I can clarify, The cake owner thought he/ she had the right or option to restrict service based on religious beliefs , that was why it was taken to court, I am only referencing this particular case with the baker, as of now, they do not have the legal option to refuse service based on religious beliefs.

 

but you are right, why go to a place where you are not wanted ? Then actually trust someone to not spit in your food or give ya hard time while you are there. I'd of went else where too.

[stevil]

Is selling one's services or selling one's products an endorsement of whatever those products or services are used for?
If you make patiseries for a living and someone comes into your shop to buy patiseries then are you under moral obligation to ask your customer for what use they need the patiseries?
Maybe they are going to have a white supremist get together and want to provide patiseries for the attendees, or maybe they are having a Family Planning meeting to discuss how they can best promote contraception and abortion. Or maybe they are putting on a gay wedding, or a secular wedding including a divorcee.
Or maybe a little old lady is having a visit from her grandchildren and wants to supply them with their favourite patiseries.

I would think that if a person is sponsoring, or organising, or promoting an event then they are seen as endorsing the content of that event. But if they are supplying bread, cakes, dishes, restaurant services etc then they are doing business (providing goods and services for a profit).

Any thoughts on this distinction?

[Kateri89]

it isn't an anti-Catholic view [Edit] it is an opinion , Plenty of Catholics disagree with the church, don't think so, go look at every democratic catholic in America, they are basically voting with a political party that agrees with abortion, then try to rationalize how they are not catholic.

 

[Edit] you can have a different opinion on church views and still be catholic, granted democrats and other catholics may not be as holy as you an others here and especially not on C.A.F , but we are still catholic. 

 

Edited by moderator:  personal attack (cmaD2006)

Disagree all you want but the name calling is rude and inappropriate.  Not only that, but to disagree with the church on issues like abortion is to cease to be Catholic.  Being Catholic means that you believe what the church teaches; if you don't, you're not Catholic.  It's really that simple.  I agree with certain beliefs of Protestant faiths but I don't believe them all which is why I'm not Protestant.

 

Catholicism is (like any other religion) a set of beliefs that you can agree with or disagree with.  It's not a buffet table where you pick and choose.  Church teaching on homosexuality is quite clear.  You are obviously free to dissent from that teaching but you can't remain Catholic while doing so.

[Not The Philosopher]

Disagree all you want but the name calling is rude and inappropriate.  Not only that, but to disagree with the church on issues like abortion is to cease to be Catholic.  Being Catholic means that you believe what the church teaches; if you don't, you're not Catholic.  It's really that simple.  I agree with certain beliefs of Protestant faiths but I don't believe them all which is why I'm not Protestant.

 

Catholicism is (like any other religion) a set of beliefs that you can agree with or disagree with.  It's not a buffet table where you pick and choose.  Church teaching on homosexuality is quite clear.  You are obviously free to dissent from that teaching but you can't remain Catholic while doing so.

 

It is perhaps worth specifying that dissenting Catholics are indeed sacramentally and canonically Catholics - they've been baptized and confirmed, and that can never be undone. They're just heretical, and hence not persisting in the faith of the Church.