Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Recommended Posts

I would like to know if you think homosexuals have the right to get married. Do you think there are any reasonable objections to gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know if you think homosexuals have the right to get married. Do you think there are any reasonable objections to gay marriage?

 

 

They are free to do what they wish, the objections are reasonable and so is objections to strip bars drugs and alchohol, however people will do as they please and as long as there is laws set in place to preserve that foul behaviour then there isnt much one can do about it accept say that i disagree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are free to do what they wish, the objections are reasonable and so is objections to strip bars drugs and alchohol, however people will do as they please and as long as there is laws set in place to preserve that foul behaviour then there isnt much one can do about it accept say that i disagree with that.

 

Why do you see it as "foul behavior"? Why do you compare it to strip bars, drugs and alcohol when these things don't even have anything to do with homosexuality? Why do you have such a demented view of what homosexuality is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know if you think homosexuals have the right to get married. Do you think there are any reasonable objections to gay marriage?

 

Well what is the purpose of marriage?

 

One life long partnership, love, and affection (can a homosexual couple experience this? IN short yes)

 

The second part of marriage is procreation. This a homosexual couple can not do it is not physicaly possible.

 

Homosexuality goes against natural law. It is a perverse act as it goes against God's design. But since you don't believe in God that part does not matter to you.

 

So in short no they do not have the right to "get married".

Edited by workingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

religon does not have a monopoly on marriage.

 

That is not what has been said. There is civil marriage in most countries. This still does not change the purpose of marriage.

 

That also does not change God instituted marriage. But if one does not believe in God...... well why argue that point. The topic is "gay marriage".

Edited by workingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You stated gays did not have the right to get married, by what right are you refering?

 

Legally in most states. See my post above #4. Take for example in the state that I live Minnesota gay marriage is not legal. So therefor "gays" do not have a right to get married. Then there is the morrality of it from my end of it from my end, and it goes against naturaly law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And these states that ban gay marriges, who many are down to religous intolerance as apposed to any other reason?

 

Dont live in the states, legal here in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And these states that ban gay marriges, who many are down to religous intolerance as apposed to any other reason?

 

Dont live in the states, legal here in the UK.

 

Well in the states that do not allow it some have it in there state constitutions some have putt it up to a vote and the masses do not want it. Other states it is being disccussed. It has been accepted over all that it is between a man and a woman for marriage. That is untill recently when the homosexual commuity started challenging this. So as of right now it is a state by state issue. So if one were to get married in a state that did allow gay marriage a state that does not would not have to recognise it.

 

For many people it might just boil down to a religious or morality issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality from your end eh, what religon do you follow?

 

Me I am a Roman Catholic. I think the RCC is quite clear on its teachings of homosexual marriage and behavior. Love the sinner/hate the sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

innalhamdulillahi was-salaatu was-salaam 'Alaa Rasoolallah.

 

Love the sinner/hate the sin.

 

Lets look at some examples where that makes no sense whatsoever:

 

My sister was raped. I love him (rapist) but I hate rape?

My mother was killed. I love him (murderer) but I hate the murder? :sl:

 

 

In Islam we don't accept this. Rather -

 

Here are some various methods of how to deal with it:

 

Hate the sin, and distance yourself from the sinner (avoid them until/if they repent, so its recognized by them that it is unacceptable)

Hate the sin, and STOP the sinner (IF the sin involves harming people/society)

Hate the sin, and PUNISH the sinner (so people will know the consequence and avoid it and it will secure the society)

Hate the sin, speak up against it (so the evil of it is made clear and the devil will not be able to entice (knowledge power)

 

Hate is a wonderful thing. I hate to stick my head in the toilet. If hate is done properly then its healthy. Just like if love is done properly it is healthy.

 

Moderation in love and hate is recommended. Both love and hate if done improperly are harmful for the person.

 

Note: Hate is not a licence to curse, abuse, wrong, to be unjust to people, or etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PUNISHMENT FOR HOMOSEXUALITY

 

 

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

 

The crime of homosexuality is one of the greatest of crimes, the worst of sins and the most abhorrent of deeds, and Allaah punished those who did it in a way that He did not punish other nations. It is indicative of violation of the fitrah, total misguidance, weak intellect and lack of religious commitment, and it is a sign of doom and deprivation of the mercy of Allaah. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.

 

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“And (remember) Loot (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)?

 

81. ‘Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins).’

 

82. And the answer of his people was only that they said: ‘Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!’

 

83. Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment).

 

84. And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimoon (criminals, polytheists and sinners)”

 

[al-A’raaf 7:80-84]

 

“Verily, by your life (O Muhammad), in their wild intoxication, they were wandering blindly.

 

73. So As‑Saihah (torment — awful cry) overtook them at the time of sunrise.

 

74. And We turned (the towns of Sodom in Palestine) upside down and rained down on them stones of baked clay.

 

75. Surely, in this are signs for those who see (or understand or learn the lessons from the Signs of Allaah).

 

76. And verily, they (the cities) were right on the highroad (from Makkah to Syria, i.e. the place where the Dead Sea is now)”

 

[al-Hijr 15:72-76]

 

al-Tirmidhi (1456), Abu Dawood (4462)and Ibn Maajah (2561) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

 

Ahmad (2915) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “May Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot, may Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot,” three times. This was classed as hasan by Shu’ayb al-Arna’oot in Tahqeeq al-Musnad.

 

The Sahaabah were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed. Some of them were of the view that they should be burned with fire, which was the view of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and also of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), as we shall see below. And some of them thought that they should be thrown down from a high place then have stones thrown at them. This was the view of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him).

 

Some of them thought that they should be stoned to death, which was narrated from both ‘Ali and Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them).

 

After the Sahaabah, the fuqaha’ differed concerning the matter. Some of them said that the homosexual should be executed no matter what his situation, whether he is married or not.

 

Some of them said that he should be punished in the same way as an adulterer, so he should be stoned if he is married and flogged if he is not married.

 

Some of them said that a severe punishment should be carried out on him, as the judge sees fit.

 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah be pleased with him) discussed this issue at length, and he mentioned the evidence and arguments of the fuqaha’, but he supported the first view. This is explained in his book al-Jawaab al-Kaafi’ li man sa’ala ‘an al-Dawa’ al-Shaafi, which he wrote to deal with this immoral action. We will quote some of what he said:

 

Because the evil consequences of homosexuality are among the worst of evil consequences, so its punishment is one of the most severe of punishments in this world and in the Hereafter.

 

The scholars differed as to whether it is to be punished more severely than zina, or whether the punishment for zina should be more severe, or whether the punishments should be the same. There are three points of view:

 

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Khaalid ibn al-Waleed, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas, Maalik, Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Imam Ahmad according to the more sound of the two reports from him and al-Shaafa’i according to one of his opinions, were of the view that the punishment for homosexuality should be more severe than the punishment for zina, and the punishment is execution in all cases, whether the person is married or not.

 

Al-Shaafa’i, according to the well-known view of his madhhab, and Imam Ahmad according to the other report narrated from him, were of the view that the punishment for the homosexual should be the same as the punishment for the adulterer.

 

Imam Abu Haneefah was of the view that the punishment for the homosexual should be less severe than the punishment for the adulterer, and it is a punishment to be determined by the judge (ta’zeer).

 

Those who favoured the first view, who are the majority of the ummah – and more than one scholar narrated that there was consensus among the Sahaabah on this point – said that there is no sin that brings worse consequences than homosexuality, and they are second only to the evil consequences of kufr, and they may be worse than the consequences of murder, as we shall see below in sha Allaah.

 

They said: Allaah did not test anyone with this major sin before the people of Loot, and He punished them with a punishment that He did not send upon any other nation; He combined all kinds of punishment for them, such as destruction, turning their houses upside down, causing them to be swallowed up by the earth, sending stones down upon them from the sky, taking away their sight, punishing them and making their punishment ongoing, and wreaking vengeance upon them such as was not wrought upon any other nation. That was because of the greatness of the evil consequences of this crime which the earth can hardly bear if it is committed upon it, and the angels flee to the farthest reaches of heaven and earth if they witness it, lest the punishment be sent upon those who do it and they be stricken along with them. The earth cries out to its Lord, may He be blessed and exalted, and the mountains almost shift from their places.

 

Killing the one to whom it is done is better for him than committing this act with him, because if a man commits sodomy with another man, in effect he kills him in such a way that there is no hope of life after that, unlike murder where the victim is wronged and is a martyr. They said: the evidence for that (i.e., that the evil consequences of homosexuality are worse than those of murder) is the fact that in the case of murder, Allaah gives the next of kin the choice: if he wishes he may have him executed and if he wishes he may let him off, but He enjoined executing the homosexual as a hadd punishment, as the companions of the Messenger of Allaah were unanimously agreed, and as is clearly indicated by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and there is no evidence to the contrary; rather this is what his companions and the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (may Allaah be pleased with them all) did.

 

It is narrated from Khaalid ibn al-Waleed that he found a man among one of the Arab tribes with whom men would have intercourse as with a woman. He wrote to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) and Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq consulted the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib had the strongest opinion of all of them, and he said: “No one did that but one of the nations, and you know what Allaah did to them. I think that he should be burned with fire.” So Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid and he had him burned.

 

‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: The highest point in the town should be found and the homosexual should be thrown head first from it, then stones should be thrown at him.

 

Ibn ‘Abbaas derived this hadd punishment from the punishment that Allaah sent upon the homosexuals of the people of Loot.

 

Ibn ‘Abbaas is the one who narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the words: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” This was narrated by the authors of al-Sunan and was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan and others. Imam Ahmad quoted this hadeeth as evidence, and its isnaad meets the conditions of al-Bukhaari.

 

They said: and it is narrated that he said: “May Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot, may Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot, may Allaah curse the one who does the action of the people of Loot,” and it is not narrated that he cursed the adulterer three times in one hadeeth. He cursed those who do a variety of major sins, but he did not curse any of them more than once, but he repeated the curse for the homosexual three times. The companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) agreed unanimously that the homosexual is to be executed, and none of them differed concerning that. Rather they differed as to the method of execution. Some people thought that this difference means that they disagreed about executing him, so they narrated it as a matter concerning which the Sahaabah differed, but it is a matter concerning which there was consensus among them, not a matter of difference.

 

And they said: Whoever ponders the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“And come not near to unlawful sex. Verily, it is a Faahishah (i.e. anything that transgresses its limits: a great sin), and an evil way (that leads one to hell unless Allaah Forgives him)”

 

[al-Isra’ 17:32]

 

and what He says about homosexuality (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“And (remember) Loot (Lot), when he said to his people: Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)?”

 

[al-A’raaf 7:80]

 

will see the difference between them. When Allaah mentioned zina, He described it as a “great sin” (faahishah – indefinite) among other great sins, but when He mentioned homosexuality, He called it “the worst sin” (al-faahishah – definite). This suggests that it contains all the essence of evil and sin.

 

End quote from al-Jawaab al-Kaafi (p. 260-263).

 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: With regard to homosexuality, some of the scholars said that the hadd punishment for it is the same as the hadd punishment for zina, and it was said that it is less than that. But the correct view on which the Sahaabah were unanimously agreed is that both are to be killed, the active and the passive partners, whether they are married or not. The authors of al-Sunan narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” And Abu Dawood narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas concerning the unmarried person who commits a homosexual act that he said: He is to be stoned. And something similar was narrated from ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him). The Sahaabah did not differ concerning the ruling that the homosexual is to be executed, but they differed concerning the methods. It was narrated from Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he is to be burned, and from others that he is to be executed.

 

It was narrated from some of them that a wall is to be knocked down on top of him until he dies beneath it.

 

And it is said that both should be detained in the foulest of places until they die.

 

It was narrated from some of them that he should be taken up to the highest place in the town and thrown down from it, to be followed with stones, as Allaah did to the people of Loot. This was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas. According to the other report, he is to be stoned. This was the view of the majority of the salaf. They said: because Allaah stoned the people of Loot, and stoning is prescribed for the zaani by analogy with the stoning of the homosexual. Both are to be stoned, whether they are free or slaves, or one of them is the slave of the other, if they have reached the age of puberty. If one of them has not reached the age of puberty, he is to be punished but not stoned, and none is to be stoned except one who has reached puberty. End quote from al-Siyaasah al-Shar’iyyah, p. 138.

 

Secondly:

 

The one to whom it is done is like the one who does it, because they both took part in the sin. So both are to be punished by execution, as it says in the hadeeth. But two exceptions may be made to that:

 

1 – One who is forced into sodomy by means of beating, death threats and the like. He is not subject to any hadd punishment.

 

It says in Sharh Muntaha al-Iraadaat (3/348): There is no hadd punishment if the one who has been sodomized is forced into it, such as if the one who did it overpowered him or threatened him with death or beating and the like. End quote.

 

2 – If the one to whom it was done is a minor and has not reached the age of puberty. There is no hadd punishment in this case, but he should be disciplined and punished in a way that will deter him from committing this crime, as stated above in the quotation from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah.

 

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in al-Mughni (9/62) that there is no difference of opinion among the scholars concerning the fact that the hadd punishment should not be carried out on one who is insane or a boy who has not yet reached the age of puberty.

 

And Allaah knows best.

Edited by Abdul Waduod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah,

innalhamdulillahi was-salaatu was-salaam 'Alaa Rasoolallah.

 

 

 

Lets look at some examples where that makes no sense whatsoever:

 

My sister was raped. I love him (rapist) but I hate rape?

My mother was killed. I love him (murderer) but I hate the murder? :sl:

 

 

In Islam we don't accept this. Rather -

 

Here are some various methods of how to deal with it:

 

Hate the sin, and distance yourself from the sinner (avoid them until/if they repent, so its recognized by them that it is unacceptable)

Hate the sin, and STOP the sinner (IF the sin involves harming people/society)

Hate the sin, and PUNISH the sinner (so people will know the consequence and avoid it and it will secure the society)

Hate the sin, speak up against it (so the evil of it is made clear and the devil will not be able to entice (knowledge power)

 

Hate is a wonderful thing. I hate to stick my head in the toilet. If hate is done properly then its healthy. Just like if love is done properly it is healthy.

 

Moderation in love and hate is recommended. Both love and hate if done improperly are harmful for the person.

 

Note: Hate is not a licence to curse, abuse, wrong, to be unjust to people, or etc..

 

Ok normaly I would disect this a little but I keep having problems with the web page closing and recovering when I segment the above so my appologies.

 

So you drew a couple of sins in compairison. Yes homosexuality is a grave sin, but it is not the same as rape or murder. That is a bit of apple and orang compairison. All are grave sin. In Christianity we are called to forgive also. Forgiveness does not mean that it is ok and you can keep doing it. But it does mean not to hold it over some one. Forgivness can be extreamly hard, and at times downright impossible. When we feel we can not forgive we let God do the forgiving for us. Unforgivness can lead to hate and usualy hate applied wrongly. Forgivness also does not mean justice should not be done. Due punishment is to be applied also.

 

Hate as you point out can be used properly. Hate is also very dangerous. What starts out as proper hate can turn into improper hate quite quickly. Also in the examples of hate why do you do those actions. Not just out of hate but out of love. Love for others, love of a ordered society that should follow God.

 

So I will agree with you to a point that if hate is done properly can be very healthy. But IMHO hate and love often go hand in hand.

 

God's peace and blessings be uppon you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok normaly I would disect this a little but I keep having problems with the web page closing and recovering when I segment the above so my appologies.

 

So you drew a couple of sins in compairison. Yes homosexuality is a grave sin, but it is not the same as rape or murder. That is a bit of apple and orang compairison. All are grave sin. In Christianity we are called to forgive also. Forgiveness does not mean that it is ok and you can keep doing it. But it does mean not to hold it over some one. Forgivness can be extreamly hard, and at times downright impossible. When we feel we can not forgive we let God do the forgiving for us. Unforgivness can lead to hate and usualy hate applied wrongly. Forgivness also does not mean justice should not be done. Due punishment is to be applied also.

 

Hate as you point out can be used properly. Hate is also very dangerous. What starts out as proper hate can turn into improper hate quite quickly. Also in the examples of hate why do you do those actions. Not just out of hate but out of love. Love for others, love of a ordered society that should follow God.

 

So I will agree with you to a point that if hate is done properly can be very healthy. But IMHO hate and love often go hand in hand.

 

God's peace and blessings be uppon you.

 

I don't see that 'homosexuality' is directly and automatically a 'sin'. Presumably you are refering to to one or more 'sex acts' between consenting adult males (although the term also can apply to females). I wonder what you would consider a 'sex act' to begin with? Holding hands perhaps? This is a pretty common practice in middle eastern countries between friends of the same sex, by the way, yet you would very rarely see it in the UK for example, where homosexuality isn't illegal.

Secondly it is a 'victimless crime', unless violence is used. You may disagree with this perhaps.

Thirdly it is impossible to know what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. Therefore it is practically impossible to police homosexuality, which is one of the main reasons why it has been legalised in various countries.

 

Also I think that any person or religion which perpetrates hatred is simply evil. You seem to see love and hatred as black and white.

For example love often includes the concept of 'compassion', which in turn includes the concept of tolerance, even though we may not like it.

We who follow laws in the west, at least, know that crimes cannot just be acted upon through blind hatred, but must be dealt with by the criminal justice system. I understand that some people cannot forgive, but equally there are those who can.

What leads to hatred is the thought or reality that the criminal has 'got away with it', more often than not, I believe.

 

regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Ron_Shirt_Anon' timestamp='1329127893' post='1254541']

I don't see that 'homosexuality' is directly and automatically a 'sin'. Presumably you are refering to to one or more 'sex acts' between consenting adult males (although the term also can apply to females). I wonder what you would consider a 'sex act' to begin with? Holding hands perhaps? This is a pretty common practice in middle eastern countries between friends of the same sex, by the way, yet you would very rarely see it in the UK for example, where homosexuality isn't illegal.

 

Well that is your prerogative. Yes I am refering to consenting adults male or female. Noholding hands is not a sex act. That is a public display of affection or like you point out a cultural norm. I am refering to a coitis act or the "marriage" of people in a homosexual life style and these people trying to pass off as (for lack of a better term) husband and husband or wife and wife.

 

Secondly it is a 'victimless crime', unless violence is used. You may disagree with this perhaps.

Thirdly it is impossible to know what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes. Therefore it is practically impossible to police homosexuality, which is one of the main reasons why it has been legalised in various countries.

 

Yes, I do disagree. It is not victimless. When children are attempted to be raised in this type of enviroment there are far more ramifications that are neggative. And yes there are bad heterosexual parents also. It goes against natural law and norms set forth by God.

 

I am not asking for the morality police to check bedrooms that obviously is obserd. What happens in conssenting adults bedrooms is between them and God.

 

Also I think that any person or religion which perpetrates hatred is simply evil. You seem to see love and hatred as black and white.

 

Well I don't perpetrate hatred nor does the RCC. But one also can not be afraid to call a spade a spade. The two conditions of love and hatred are very complex things to articulate and deal with.

 

For example love often includes the concept of 'compassion', which in turn includes the concept of tolerance, even though we may not like it.

 

Yes but it is all a very thin and fine line.

 

We who follow laws in the west, at least, know that crimes cannot just be acted upon through blind hatred, but must be dealt with by the criminal justice system. I understand that some people cannot forgive, but equally there are those who can.

What leads to hatred is the thought or reality that the criminal has 'got away with it', more often than not, I believe

 

That is why we do have a justice system. And just so I am clear I am not asking for a homosexual witch hunt. When one has a dificult time forgiving one should let God do the forgivness through them and for them.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I felt my position on homosexuality needed to be clairified I would quote what the RCC teaches about it. So from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

 

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141[using large font size is not allowed] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142[using large font size is not allowed] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

I would also like to offer a in breef from the CCC on offences of marriage.

 

[/url]2392 "Love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being" (FC 11).

2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

 

I hope this clears things up a little.

Edited by workingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I would like to offer this tract on homosexuality. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality"]Here[/url] is the link for below.

 

 

Tracts Homosexuality

 

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

 

Divine Law[using large font size is not allowed]

 

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality#"]history[/url], Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

 

Reinterpreting Scripture[using large font size is not allowed]

 

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality#"]Confirming[/url] this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality#"]worship God[/url]. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

 

Natural Law[using large font size is not allowed]

 

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

 

"I Was Born This Way"[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

 

The Ten Percent Argument[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

 

"You’re Just a Homophobe"[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

 

The Call to Chastity[using large font size is not allowed]

 

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,

Church of St. John the Baptist

210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010

Web: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_couragerc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_couragerc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)[/url]

 

 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Edited by workingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know if you think homosexuals have the right to get married.

The question, as I see it, should be: do they have the right to live. Unfortunately Islam doesn't allow the killing of homosexuals. Lucky them.

However, Islam says that they should be beaten by sandals/shoes and humiliated in public everywhere they go, until they stop their filth and quit homosexuality for good.

 

P.S. the topic title is funny. Gay rights? they should have none, with one exception: the right to be crushed like a fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question, as I see it, should be: do they have the right to live. Unfortunately Islam doesn't allow the killing of homosexuals. Lucky them.

However, Islam says that they should be beaten by sandals/shoes and humiliated in public everywhere they go, until they stop their filth and quit homosexuality for good.

 

P.S. the topic title is funny. Gay rights? they should have none, with one exception: the right to be crushed like a fly.

 

Lucky to live? Sounds like someone whose wishes go against what Allah has decreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I would like to offer this tract on homosexuality. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality"]Here[/url] is the link for below.

 

 

 

Tracts Homosexuality

 

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

As long as there is doubt about the veracity of the Catholic's claim to the truth and to the Catholic's claim to act morally one can doubt the Church's claim to arbitrate in God's ( if such a being exists) behalf.

 

 

 

Divine Law[using large font size is not allowed]

 

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality#"]history[/url], Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

 

Divine law also mandated genocide, infanticide, wholesale slaughter of livestock and wanton destruction of children for merely making fun of a prophet's hair. Divine law seems to be lacking in the moral weight necessary to judge.

 

 

 

Reinterpreting Scripture[using large font size is not allowed]

 

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality#"]Confirming[/url] this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcatholic(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/tracts/homosexuality#"]worship God[/url]. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

human nature seems to be a rich ideal for homosexuality as you'll see.

 

 

Natural Law[using large font size is not allowed]

 

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

There are plenty of things that aren't "natural" shoes, airplanes, and iphones. We shouldn't remove these things if they are deemed "unnatural". Secondly intuition can be deceptive. Our sight can deceive us, our hearing can lie, we understand cognitive deceptions such as group think, in and out groups, propensity to defer to authority, and to family and relatives at the expense of strangers. This makes our moral intuitions suspect in that we may need more explanations than simply "gut instinct" shouldn't be the moral arbitrator. Before race and tribe were instinctual lines to draw the moral landscape, and not any longer.

 

 

"I Was Born This Way"[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

In some sense this is right and wrong. It is wrong in that homosexuality is natural because it has continuously been a part of the human experience throughout known history and yes there is at least a hormonal link to homosexuality and a weaker genetic one as well. And it's right because just because just because something is natural doesn't mean it should be accepted.

 

 

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
The question is why is alcoholism not accepted. One should say that alcoholism is self debilitating as well as placing one's self and others in danger. No such danger exists in homosexuality. No one is hurt by two consenting adults engaging in a loving relationship or a sexual one if they so choose.

 

 

 

 

"You’re Just a Homophobe"[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

 

This is right, but there are zero secular reasons for discriminating against homosexuality so one is merely left with an appeal to authority, which isn't that appealing of a position.

 

 

T[using large font size is not allowed]

he Call to Chastity[using large font size is not allowed]

 

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,

Church of St. John the Baptist

210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010

Web: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_couragerc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_couragerc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)[/url]

A question is why do the Judeo Christian heritage get president over say Native American religions that claim that homosexuality is a mix and the male and female 'spirits' and should be exaulted. There isn't a reason at all to presume that one is superior to the other except for cultural imperialism. It is quite rich to claim that homosexuality is against the "natural order" but to command people to be chaste until marriage which is explicitly described as resisting the "natural order" in order to follow God. I guess we just can't make up our minds.

 

 

 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='xocoti' timestamp='1329556737' post='1254788']

Divine law also mandated genocide, infanticide, wholesale slaughter of livestock and wanton destruction of children for merely making fun of a prophet's hair. Divine law seems to be lacking in the moral weight necessary to judge.

 

Hmmmmm I see no lacking in divine law. And what wanton destruction of children are you refering to. The RCC does not destroy children nor does the RCC promote genocide or infantcide. The RCC does not error in faith or morals.

 

 

 

 

human nature seems to be a rich ideal for homosexuality as you'll see.

No human nature is full of sin.

 

 

 

There are plenty of things that aren't "natural" shoes, airplanes, and iphones. We shouldn't remove these things if they are deemed "unnatural". Secondly intuition can be deceptive. Our sight can deceive us, our hearing can lie, we understand cognitive deceptions such as group think, in and out groups, propensity to defer to authority, and to family and relatives at the expense of strangers. This makes our moral intuitions suspect in that we may need more explanations than simply "gut instinct" shouldn't be the moral arbitrator. Before race and tribe were instinctual lines to draw the moral landscape, and not any longer.

The things you list are man made not made by God. A bit of a strawman argument.

 

 

 

In some sense this is right and wrong. It is wrong in that homosexuality is natural because it has continuously been a part of the human experience throughout known history and yes there is at least a hormonal link to homosexuality and a weaker genetic one as well. And it's right because just because just because something is natural doesn't mean it should be accepted.

It is wrong because God made it wrong. There were Biblical Cities destroyed over this sin. Read the book of Genesis. That does not mean one is born to be homosexual.

 

 

The question is why is alcoholism not accepted. One should say that alcoholism is self debilitating as well as placing one's self and others in danger. No such danger exists in homosexuality. No one is hurt by two consenting adults engaging in a loving relationship or a sexual one if they so choose.

 

O there is plenty of danger in homosexuality. Especialy if this homosexual couple thinks they have a right to raise a family. Especialy since they have no natural way of conseving one. So when they think they have the same rights as a heterosexual couple they are wrong. It is not the same type of relationship. One was ordained by God and one was not.

 

 

 

This is right, but there are zero secular reasons for discriminating against homosexuality so one is merely left with an appeal to authority, which isn't that appealing of a position.

Realy no secular reasons. How about some of the highest std transfer raits. Drug addicts are higher.

 

 

 

A question is why do the Judeo Christian heritage get president over say Native American religions that claim that homosexuality is a mix and the male and female 'spirits' and should be exaulted. There isn't a reason at all to presume that one is superior to the other except for cultural imperialism. It is quite rich to claim that homosexuality is against the "natural order" but to command people to be chaste until marriage which is explicitly described as resisting the "natural order" in order to follow God. I guess we just can't make up our minds.

 

It is a false/pagan religion that the native americans practice. That is why it is fallen. It went against God's word and plan. No, one can be called to a life of chastity. This would apply to homosexuals, religious life, priest hood, and single heterosexuals. Some people are not called to mairriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump.!

 

Where did our athiest thread starter go?

 

I was a little busy. I'll try to catch up with all my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×