Engaging in

[hyperdulia again]

Let's leave aside the rather odd argument that the "gay gene" would not get passed along (most gay men throughout history have married women and most lesbians have married men) and that GLBT activists have pumped our culture full of pro-gay propoganda. There have been cultures that viewed homosexuality as inborn the native Americans, Polynesians, and Slavs in there pre-Christian days viewed it as a sign of being marked by the gods for some special purpose/as carrying magical powers.

But all of this is beside the point the Church does not require of her GLBT children any particular view of the origins of their sexual inclinations. People can have their opinions, but they cannot make dogmatic statements and bind others into believing them. Church teaching is that whatever the origin of homosexuality, non-procreative sexual intercourse is a sin.

Edited November 8, 2004 by hyperdulia again

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Nov 4 2004, 04:45 PM']
Tab A, Slot B...thats the ONLY way it works, right?

RIGHT. [/quote]
The vulgarity of the above makes me blush. And I am not a generally blushable person.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:22 PM'] The vulgarity of the above makes me blush. And I am not a generally blushable person. [/quote]
May be vulgar but it gets straight (no pun intended) to the point of the argument, unlike all this nonsense the pro-gay people say to prance around the issue.

Sodomy is un-natural and unhealthy.

Sexual intercourse (between man and woman) can create new human life.
Sodomy breeds only disease, filth, and misery, and death.
The only life it increases is bacterial life.
The homos have rebelled against nature, and nature has paid them back.

And since there is zero actual evidence for a "gay gene," it is pointless and silly to discuss this mythical entity. - "The gay gene made me do it!"

"The theft gene made me do it!"
"The lying gene made me do it!"
"The murder gene made me do it!"
"The child-abuse gene made me do it!"

[azaelia]

If you only knew the terrible health risks homosexuals face, you'd probably rethink this argument. Anything that causes such pain, damage and disease cannot be a healthy lifestyle.

And if sex isn't procreative, then what is it for? God didn't create us as selfish beings. We are called to be selfless and self-giving. The sex act was not made for merely our pleasure or as a unitive act alone. Unity is a part of the sex act, but without the preocreative aspect sex is reduced to a selfish act used for only the pleasure of the persons involved. Without the pro-creative aspect, there is no acceptance of responsibility. No "I love you so much that I want to have children with you." Merely, "I love you so much that I want to give you pleasure, but not children."

I'm sorry if that was incoherent.

[hyperdulia again]

Azaelia, I hope you don't think my post was an apologia pro homosexuality. It wasn't. I just think it's of no consequence whether or not homosexuality is genetic.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='socrates']Sexual intercourse (between man and woman) can create new human life.
Sodomy breeds only disease, filth, and misery, and death.
The only life it increases is bacterial life.
The homos have rebelled against nature, and nature has paid them back.[/quote]

Whoa! Gadfly of Phatmass.

Hold back on the rhetoric a little bit here... we're called to love sinners (and the Pope has explicitly in recent days called for charity to homosexuals) and this definately does not cut it.

Hyper is right... whether a moral action is attributed to genetics means little, save maybe some mitigation of sin as in the case of alcoholics, and does not seek to resolve the root of the moral dilemma.

[azaelia]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Nov 9 2004, 01:04 PM'] Azaelia, I hope you don't think my post was an apologia pro homosexuality.  It wasn't.  I just think it's of no consequence whether or not homosexuality is genetic. [/quote]
I wasn't referring to you. I was referring more to diarygirl than anyone, although my rant was more directed to the world at large.

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 9 2004, 01:05 PM'] [quote name='socrates']Sexual intercourse (between man and woman) can create new human life.
Sodomy breeds only disease, filth, and misery, and death.
The only life it increases is bacterial life.
The homos have rebelled against nature, and nature has paid them back.[/quote]

Whoa! Gadfly of Phatmass.

Hold back on the rhetoric a little bit here... we're called to love sinners (and the Pope has explicitly in recent days called for charity to homosexuals) and this definately does not cut it.

Hyper is right... whether a moral action is attributed to genetics means little, save maybe some mitigation of sin as in the case of alcoholics, and does not seek to resolve the root of the moral dilemma. [/quote]
My post is hating the sin, not the sinner!

If we had true charity for people engaged in a sodomite "lifestyle" we would do all we could to keep them from these degrading, filthy, and unhealthy practices, with all the misery (both physical and spiritual) they bring to those involved.

Everybody is so PC now. Homosexuality is now America's great sacred cow. Sodomites can obscenely mock and attack Catholics, the Church and Christ Himself all they like, but no one can say anything at all negative about the sin of homosexuality without being labeled a bigot and perhaps sent away to sensitivity camp!

It's time to stop mollycoddling these people and speak the truth.
They attack our religion and values, and it's time to fight back!

If the other side keeps winning, and we keep backing down, it will soon be illegal for us to profess our faith in public! It's already happening in Canada, Holland, and Sweden.

Wake up, people!

[God Conquers]

Yo, I was talking about where you said "homos", which is clearly a disparaging remark.

And hating the sin also means loving the sinner at the same time....

There is a difference between saying "Sodomy is bad and will hurt you" and saying "Sodomites are dirty filthy, breed bacteria and are miserable"

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 9 2004, 12:04 AM'] Sodomy breeds only disease, filth, and misery, and death.
The only life it increases is bacterial life.
[/quote]
Please note, I said "sodomy" (the sin of Sodom).

[God Conquers]

Still, the tone of the statement implies the characteristics of what is bread apply to the people who are breeding them.

I'm not a proponent of Political Correctness believe me. I do urge caution though when applying loaded language in this context. Your goal should be to help someone turn away from sin, not to make them feel like garbage.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 10 2004, 01:37 AM'] Still, the tone of the statement implies the characteristics of what is bread apply to the people who are breeding them.

I'm not a proponent of Political Correctness believe me. I do urge caution though when applying loaded language in this context. Your goal should be to help someone turn away from sin, not to make them feel like garbage. [/quote]
Added to that, we DO have a few members here at PhatMass who are homosexual, and while they are trying to live chaste lives according to the teachings of the Church comments which include terms like "homo" don't really do much to encourage them--I know the statement doesn't apply to them specifically but it does affect them. I've seen it happen in the past and this can be an extremely touchy subject. A word to the wise would be listen to God Conquers' advice with an open mind, he's not saying that you shouldn't say anything at all, just to be cautious how you say it. We want to bring people closer to Christ and sometimes "loaded language" only drives a wedge.

Edited November 10, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 10 2004, 12:49 AM']
Whoa! Gadfly of Phatmass.

Hold back on the rhetoric a little bit here... we're called to love sinners (and the Pope has explicitly in recent days called for charity to homosexuals) and this definately does not cut it.

Hyper is right... whether a moral action is attributed to genetics means little, save maybe some mitigation of sin as in the case of alcoholics, and does not seek to resolve the root of the moral dilemma. [/QUOTE]
My post is hating the sin, not the sinner!

If we had true charity for people engaged in a sodomite "lifestyle" we would do all we could to keep them from these degrading, filthy, and unhealthy practices, with all the misery (both physical and spiritual) they bring to those involved.

Everybody is so PC now. Homosexuality is now America's great sacred cow. Sodomites can obscenely mock and attack Catholics, the Church and Christ Himself all they like, but no one can say anything at all negative about the sin of homosexuality without being labeled a bigot and perhaps sent away to sensitivity camp!

It's time to stop mollycoddling these people and speak the truth.
They attack our religion and values, and it's time to fight back!

If the other side keeps winning, and we keep backing down, it will soon be illegal for us to profess our faith in public! It's already happening in Canada, Holland, and Sweden.

Wake up, people! [/quote]
Phatmass is hardly a bastion of political correctness. However, we do try to practice charity around here. We do our best not to label people [even in a political year], and remember all people are made with an eternal soul in the image and likeness of God.

[Mary's Knight, La]

okay try to follow me on this:

if we want to know the purpose of a thing we must try to figure out how it is seperate from all other things e.g. we don't use anything but a hammer to hit a nail when we have a perfectly good hammer available:

to know if gay sex is wrong we must know the purpose of sex how is intercourse different from other actions: assuming mechanics exist for the sake of results let's look at the results. 1) pleasure 2) child can come of it.

does result 1 qualify: NO, humans derive pleasure from any number of acts, eating, drinking, reading, listening to particularly good music, and even posting on chat forums.

assuming sex has a purpose at all we are left with result 2 but let's make sure sex has a purpose

child -- can any other natural act produce a child, none that i can think of and certainly no act before we had progressed technologically.

so there as long as you subscribe to intelligent design you must admit the purpose of sex is tied to the creation of a child. Homosexual intercourse cannot do that and thus runs against the purpose of sex and is un-natural.

[Winchester]

It is ludicrous to assert something like this cannot be proven wrong without faith. nothing can be proven wrong without some sort of faith in eternal truth. Murder cannot be proven immoral, only undesirable in society.

Without faith, there is only pragmatism, and I caution all Catholics against falling in that trap by trying to prove functionality with too much fervor.