New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[superblue]

I think maybe some Catholics confuse Secular marriage with Catholic marriage. They are not the same thing. Secular marriage is generally a marriage as recognised by the government giving certain legal rights. A Catholic marriage is a marriage as recognised by the Catholic church. Generally Catholic marriage comes with a secular marriage as well. But most secular marriages aren't Catholic marriages. I can understand that your religious beliefs pertain to Catholic marriage, but I don't know what they have to do with secular marriage?
 

 

 

Bingo, has nothing to do with secular marriage at all, considering first that even civil marriages among HETEROSEXUALS outside the Catholic Church is still in the eyes of the Church considered an invalid marriage if not " living in sin " . 

 

The church does nothing not one thing condoning heterosexual civil marriages, yet gets bent out of shape and woe to the world when homosexuals want to be married ? 

All of a sudden the fabric and sanctity of marriage IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is some how at risk, when the same amount of outrage and moaning and being butt hurt is not applied to those who are heterosexual and civilly married outside the church.There is really no good reason or facts to explain why homosexuals should not be allowed full civil marriage rights, as there is a separation of church and state and the state can not force the church to perform the sacrament of marriage for homosexuals. 

 

Civil homosexual Marriage is nothing but another platform for winning votes ( which is a surprise voting even still matters )   And for our government  or political party, to act like they are taking a moral stance on the issue is a flat out joke.

 

But I love the Churches explanation on homosexuality, it's wrong, because they can not procreate, and natural law, the end. An then woooooooops sex scandal, really, so homosexuality is so wrong, but the church felt it okay at the time and still now to allow SSA men into the seminary, make exceptions to the rule, and still teach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, but the only pathetic answer that they come up with for a reason is procreation and natural law, and yet will never be able to answer why people are even homosexual to begin with. The Church has no place to talk about homosexuality, and should at best, merely offer counsel to those homosexuals who choose to explore a heterosexual life.

Thank God we do not have an option to vote for any change, merely follow and hope that God finds the time to fix the Church when He isn't busy.

[Lumiere]

Another Book: Mathew Vines, "God and the Gay Christian"

[superblue]

What about homosexual teachers that are qualified to teach but find due to Catholic schools that they have less employment opportunities than non gay teachers?

That is a crock too, I agree, especially when the teachers in Catholic schools, are not necessarily even Catholic themselves ! So people are expecting kind caring teachers and can end up with just as much of a whack job as any public school.

 

But then again the answer is it is a private school, just like how for a while the boy scouts were private, then gays were allowed, next girls will be allowed and it will go from boy scouts, to scouts, yet there will still be the girl scouts ( go figure ).

 

But I am pretty sure it has to do with funding, of the school, since the school is a catholic school, and is not receiving public funding I imagine it falls under the separation of church and state, there for the diocese is in its right to not hire anyone for any reason.

 

Doesn't mean it is morally right.  If I had the option to choose a heterosexual non catholic teacher who really didn't care about the catholic faith, versus a homosexual, who is kind and honest, is respectful at the very least of the catholic faith, honestly cares about the education of children, I would choose the homosexual to teach my child.

 

But to fear a homosexual teacher, as if they are going to do something harmful to a child then ya have to fear the heterosexual teacher as well.

 

 

That and hiring homosexual teachers in a Catholic school would be sending mixed messages to a diocese that are not prepared for such a change.

[superblue]

 

 

There is a difference between denying services based on a person's sexual orientation and denying services for a specific event that is against one's religious beliefs.  "I won't sell you food because you are gay" is discrimination.  "I do not want to provide services for a same-sex wedding because I think they are wrong" is following through on one's beliefs.

 

Thank you for cooperating with my wish for civil discussion.

 

What you have stated here was debated and lost on CAF, hardly anyone went with agreeing that it is discrimination, everyone there belly ached about how it is religious freedom and woe is me the sky is falling. If ya don't believe me try bringing it up there see how long it lasts till all the superior intellects smash ya to bits.

[Kateri89]

Why hasn't this been moved to the debate table?

[superblue]

Why hasn't this been moved to the debate table?

or the lame board

[Perigrina]

Another Book: Mathew Vines, "God and the Gay Christian"

 

This book is not written from a Catholic perspective and is not compatible with Catholic teaching.  It is written by an evangelical Christian and assumes the position of Sola Scriptura which we, as Catholics, know is a basically flawed understanding.  

[Perigrina]

Why hasn't this been moved to the debate table?

 

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.

[Benedictus]

People are not being allowed to decide what is morally acceptable, or at least not to act on that decision.  People who think that same-sex marriage is not acceptable are forced to support these weddings.  They are not asked because they are the only baker, florist, or reception hall available.  They are asked because they believe that same-sex marriage is wrong.  Minding one's own business is exactly what is not happening. Owners of businesses are asked so they can be coerced to provide services they do not want to provide.  

 

This is not about protecting anybody's rights.  It is about taking away the right to follow one's religion. 

 

You would then presumably support any business refusing to serve, as examples, women, Catholics, the disabled, and people of ethnic minorities? I personally think it's irrational for any business to refuse legitamate custom on such grounds. Of course this has impications where professionals, health related or otherwise, refuse to treat people. It also makes any religious person doing such things seem an ignorant and horrible person. So its impact goes beyond their business. I'm sure as Catholicism declines in the West it would be seen as a persecution on a massive scale if Catholics where refused service at the only local supermarket or cake store. I'm glad businesses can't operate in this negative way in my country. Thankfully most wouldn't dream of doing so anyway!

It's up to the government and the community to decide on what basis they want businesses to operate. I don't see an inclusive framework as problematic. People can adjust or change their manner of operations so it doesn't personally put them in a conflict with anyone seeking a service.

 

[superblue]

It's up to the government and the community to decide on what basis they want businesses to operate. I don't see an inclusive framework as problematic. People can adjust or change their manner of operations so it doesn't personally put them in a conflict with anyone seeking a service.

 

 

The " government " did decide in one instance already,

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/colorado-baker-gay-ruling-_n_4401050.html

 

now if one wants to support discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs, that is on who ever, and no one could care two beans on what a community thinks as long as there is some group that can sue and cry foul based on being " unfair " .Though ya never see anyone suing Muslims or Jews for not serving pork, go figure.  Double standards in America galore.Where are the pig farmers at to protest and demand that their product be served to all religions?

 

 

U.S.A

[Credo in Deum]

 

But I love the Churches explanation on homosexuality, it's wrong, because they can not procreate, and natural law, the end. An then woooooooops sex scandal, really, so homosexuality is so wrong, but the church felt it okay at the time and still now to allow SSA men into the seminary, make exceptions to the rule, and still teach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, but the only pathetic answer that they come up with for a reason is procreation and natural law, and yet will never be able to answer why people are even homosexual to begin with. The Church has no place to talk about homosexuality, and should at best, merely offer counsel to those homosexuals who choose to explore a heterosexual life.

Thank God we do not have an option to vote for any change, merely follow and hope that God finds the time to fix the Church when He isn't busy.

 

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely disordered. It has made no claims to know the causes of homosexuality.   To be honest the genesis of homosexuality and what causes it is a moot point since even if someone was born a homosexual, this does not take away their ability to control their own actions.    Our actions are always guided by a moral principle and so the Church has every right and place given to it by God to talk about the morality of homosexual acts.   I would suggest you pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic faith, since your stances have been very phishy to say the least. 

[Perigrina]

You would then presumably support any business refusing to serve, as examples, women, Catholics, the disabled, and people of ethnic minorities? I personally think it's irrational for any business to refuse legitamate custom on such grounds. Of course this has impications where professionals, health related or otherwise, refuse to treat people. It also makes any religious person doing such things seem an ignorant and horrible person. So its impact goes beyond their business. I'm sure as Catholicism declines in the West it would be seen as a persecution on a massive scale if Catholics where refused service at the only local supermarket or cake store. I'm glad businesses can't operate in this negative way in my country. Thankfully most wouldn't dream of doing so anyway!

It's up to the government and the community to decide on what basis they want businesses to operate. I don't see an inclusive framework as problematic. People can adjust or change their manner of operations so it doesn't personally put them in a conflict with anyone seeking a service.

 

I am not aware of any belief systems which teach that it is immoral for a person to be a woman, Catholic, disabled or an ethnic minority.  So I am not sure what religious grounds there could be for such behaviour or how it could be an exercise of anybody's religious freedom.  The closest thing I can think of is an extreme form of Orthodox Judaism that does not allow unmarried men to interact with women.  If such a man were a store clerk he might refuse to serve a female customer.  Do you think that he should be forced by law to do so?

 

Having laws against discrimination is reasonable, if fairly applied.  In Canada, there is no legal recognition of discrimination against Catholics (it is not possible by definition), although the other groups you mentioned would be protected.  I am actually fine with anti-discrimination laws including homosexual people among the protected groups.  Church teaching is opposed to unjust discrimination against homosexual people.

 

Allowing people who have moral objections to same-sex marriage to refrain from supporting it is not discrimination against any group of people.  It is a principled response to an action one believes is immoral.  It carries a natural consequence of loss of business.  Why should the government impose further penalties, especially when doing so is a violation of freedom of religion? 

[superblue]

The Church teaches that homosexual acts are gravely disordered. It has made no claims to know the causes of homosexuality.   To be honest the genesis of homosexuality and what causes it is a moot point since even if someone was born a homosexual, this does not take away their ability to control their own actions.    Our actions are always guided by a moral principle and so the Church has every right and place given to it by God to talk about the morality of homosexual acts.   I would suggest you pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic faith, since your stances have been very phishy to say the least. 

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.

[add]

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.

 

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

[Benedictus]

The " government " did decide in one instance already,

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/colorado-baker-gay-ruling-_n_4401050.html

 

now if one wants to support discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs, that is on who ever, and no one could care two beans on what a community thinks as long as there is some group that can sue and cry foul based on being " unfair " .Though ya never see anyone suing Muslims or Jews for not serving pork, go figure.  Double standards in America galore.Where are the pig farmers at to protest and demand that their product be served to all religions?

 

 

U.S.A

 

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.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Benedictus