|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 27, 2005 17:05:18 GMT -5
I agree with you evanescence, but for a couple who have no concept of God's law, they will believe that their behaviour is morally acceptable because they are strongly committed to each other. All we can do is pray that they see the light.
|
|
Ana
Catechumen
Posts: 14
|
Post by Ana on Aug 28, 2005 11:20:55 GMT -5
The jury is still out on masturbation as this is a selfish act if it becomes addictive behaviour - for occasional use though, I 'blame' the One who created all our desires in the first place!  Even occasional masturbation is sinful, because we are sinning against God. It is absurd to blame God for our inability to control ourselves. I am trying to be harsh with this statement, but the fact of the matter is we have to die to self and dying to self means we put God first in everything without trying to blame him for short comings. But there is a difference. When we follow our own desires instead of God's will engaging in a homosexual relationship - even if it is consensual - the other person is being sinned against. Our number one duty is to draw people towards God and a homosexual relationship put distance between a person and God. Additional, sin extends beyond the two people directly involved in the sinful action. (I’ll discuss this farther down in the post.) I do not believe our wires are crossing, but I believe the modern viewpoint of sin is entering into the process. When we sin against God, we are sinning against mankind. Sin is not personal or private. Sin is actually public and sexual sin directly involves the entire community. Through immoral sexual activity, even if consensual, we sin against the other person by using them as sexual objects instead of respecting them as God's creation and putting our own disordered sexual desires first. This aspect cannot be removed from any form of sexual sin - including 'occasional' masturbation. Another aspect of homosexuality is this is a direct sin against humanity too. Today, children and young adults are growing up with an inappropriately formed understanding of sexuality, which leads them into sin. The young people growing up today are not learning how to control themselves and the understanding that every sexual impulse is to be acted on even when it hurts others – humanity as a whole does counts. This is the ultimate desire of selfishness. Sexuality is God given, but acting on disordered sexual desires is not |
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 28, 2005 12:44:06 GMT -5
Oh dear, Ana.  Bull, meet china shop!!  OK, back to where I started as I don't feel sure that you have understood my stance on gay marriage! Yes, homosexuality is sinful and against God's Law. No, I do not agree with homosexual marriages within the church or any other religious establishment which teaches it as wrong. This would be pure hypocrisy. What I do think is acceptable - in spite of my own personal beliefs, and in spite of the fact that I'd rather it did not happen at all - is a civil ceremony, where a non-religious homosexual couple can make a public statement of their love and commitment to one another as well as clearing up legal red tape such as that which I mentioned in my first post. Not that I see how a civil ceremony should be a major deal to catholics either as you don't recognise them as valid anyway. lol Ana - of course I don't literally blame God for desires - that's why I put it in inverted commas!! I praise and thank God for every single aspect of my humanity, including my desires and my shortcomings - we only learn to die to self by learning from experience first, because until we have experience, we don't know who we truly are. (a bit deep but I hope it makes sense ) Did you read my reply to evanescence just above? We, as Christians might not like what is going on in the world but homosexuality and other immoral behaviour is a sad reality. Many have no concept of God's law or sin. Judges 21:25, NJB - 'In those days there was no king in Israel, and everyone did as he saw fit.' A homosexual couple without this concept if they are totally committed to sharing their lives with one another will not see their behaviour as selfish. They are giving of themselves to each other. Although I do not agree with their behaviour, neither do I see them as being selfish to each other - yes they are to God because they are violating His law, but not to each other. I hope if nothing else that we can agree to disagree on this point. What we can do is pray that they will one day come to understanding through the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. He is the only one who can change people. (((Ana)))  (In the Christian sense!) |
|
Ana
Catechumen
Posts: 14
|
Post by Ana on Aug 28, 2005 19:17:59 GMT -5
What I do think is acceptable - in spite of my own personal beliefs, and in spite of the fact that I'd rather it did not happen at all - is a civil ceremony, where a non-religious homosexual couple can make a public statement of their love and commitment to one another as well as clearing up legal red tape such as that which I mentioned in my first post. Not that I see how a civil ceremony should be a major deal to catholics either as you don't recognise them as valid anyway. These so called civil marriages are a big deal, because they are still a sin against humanity although they are not recognized by the Church. By supporting homosexual unions of any form, a person is condoning a sinful lifestyle. Oops, I meant to say I am not trying to be harsh with this statement. I am not exactly sure what your point is and your argument makes no sense to me. Although there will be times when there is no 'king' that does not mean natural law changes. People might not see their behavior as selfish, but the fact it is selfish behavior does not change. Just as a person can deny Christ as Savior and the Son of God that denial does not change the fact Christ is Savior and Son of God. The homosexual couple is sinning against society and betraying mankind. This sin moves beyond their immediate relationship. As Christians, we are suppose to love the sinner, but hate the sin without condoning the sin. Loving the sinner does not mean we condone their sin or support the legalization of their unions. This does not make a person a 'homophobe' or otherwise disrespectful. For a Christian, this means adhering to Christian doctrine instead of falling prey to relativism, which dictates if they believe they are not sinning or being selfish, then all is well. |
|
|
|
Post by hippo393 on Aug 29, 2005 11:41:00 GMT -5
... there are two people whose desire is to share completely with one another. I still see no difference between this and and a married couple having the same desire to share with one another. Based on this reasoning, what's the difference between those examples and polygamy, polyandry, and beastiality? If the mutual desire is evident among corresponding parties, what's the diffo? |
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Aug 30, 2005 17:21:04 GMT -5
Ana: That's ok - i figured that was what you did! I meant that because they have not made God the ruler of their lives, they are doing what they see as being right, even though its wrong. That's a sad fact of life, whether we like what they do or not. I agree with you in part. I don't condone their sin, I only support civil marriage largely to cut all the legal red tape which I feel is fair treatment and no, it's not all well. From a Christian POV it's not okay. Yes love the sinner, hate the sin, but the world isn't Christian and we shouldn't try to impose our morality onto non-christians. Pray for them and guide them to it - yes. Bludgeon them over the head with it and all you win is an enemy. On the subject of the selfishness of two people being deeply in love with each other regardless of sexual orientation, you are not going to change my views and I'm not going to change yours so there's no point spending however long arguing the same point again. Your views don't worry me, I'm happy that you hold them so strongly. Hippo: Outside the God/Christian/Law/high morality box, none.  - Although I think you'd be really hard pressed to find a man or woman who is happy to share their husband/wife with another in a lifelong commitment of love and sharing of everything!! (look at all the aggro the OT patriarchs caused by having extra partners! - strange, we didn't hear God condemning their actions though ) and bestiality - having sex with an animal - I doubt whether the animal would be able to express its intentions of love and lifelong commitment! Enlighten me, please!! Blessings |
|
lisa
Catechumen
Posts: 8
|
Post by lisa on Oct 23, 2005 4:22:57 GMT -5
I voted "yes". I did so, not because I'm gay, or even know any gays. I voted yes, because I think each person deserves happiness. And it's not my place to judge or decide for them what is right or wrong.
Furthermore, I think marriage as more of a legal contract between two consenting adults.
JMO
lisa
|
|
|
|
Post by displacedheretic on Nov 16, 2005 9:22:17 GMT -5
Do I personally believe in gay marriage? NO. And I voted accordingly. Do I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on others? NO. Sometimes I wish I did...
Unfortunately, this is what happens when we live in a country that guarantees "freedom of religion". Such a constitutional right also implies freedom from religion. The teaching of evolution as "fact" and the promotion of atheism doesn't help. Non believers deeply resent having the religious views of others imposed upon them. I work in government, and the issue of gay marriage even divides members of the political parties, including the one I work for. Many are practicing Catholics.
We need to ask ourselves: "In a democracy, do we elect leaders to represent their own views or the views of their constituents?" Ideally, legislation should reflect the will of the majority.
I believe that legalizing gay marriage could have, over time, far reaching effects on the very fabric of society, and not in a good way. What's next? Legalization of polygamy? Where does it end? But the gay community has powerful lobbyists, and this can sometimes override the personal convictions of the majority of people. Many are afraid to speak out because they'll be accused of being politically incorrect, or even worse, "promoting hate".
I think that such an important issue that could drastically change society should be decided by referendum. I don't think most people would vote in favour of the legalization of gay marriages. I believe most are simply afraid to speak out because doing so could mean political, economic and social suicide for them.
W
|
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Dec 13, 2005 20:03:13 GMT -5
This thread seems to assume several things that we're nervous about discussing: 1.) That homosexuality is a genetic versus a learned behavior. 2.) That homosexuality can be controlled and or that it is the same as heterosexual sex 3.) That homosexuality is not associated with any other moral ills I have never been presented with proof that homosexuality is genetic. The strongest external indicator as I understand it is male birth position (that is the 3rd son is more likely than the first to be homosexual) which leads one to believe that the problem is not genetic. There are also startling cases of people going "un-gay" almost overnight such as Ellen's former girlfriend (name eludes me at the moment). Nature and reason teach us that the homosexual act is an aberration. Put simply the parts don't work that way. While homosexual acts do occur in animals they are usually due to sexual frustration (penned animals of the same sex for example). Third, and probably most important, it appears that homosexual behavior is self-destructive. Anal sex causes tearing. Male homosexuals are more often involved in child rape (for more information please see the very conservative Family Research Council link found here www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3). All of which we don't talk about much...well...because it is a protected category in just about every state in the Union and most of Western Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Dec 13, 2005 20:10:29 GMT -5
Ana: - Although I think you'd be really hard pressed to find a man or woman who is happy to share their husband/wife with another in a lifelong commitment of love and sharing of everything!! (look at all the aggro the OT patriarchs caused by having extra partners! - strange, we didn't hear God condemning their actions though ) This has already happened in the Netherlands. We do however have God condeming multi-partner marriages. We have Jesus' orders to that effect (the making of one flesh from man and woman) and consistant tradition that those with multiple wives were excluded from communion. I believe that there are negative remarks made in the old testament too but my memory is hazy right now. It has been very seriously argued that they do both enjoy it and are looking for commitment. |
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 10, 2006 23:44:43 GMT -5
I think you're right that accepting christ, will cleans us of our sins, but that does not mean that every aspect of our nature will be changed. I have friends who are homo/bisexual. In the cases I've witnessed (I'm not a psychologist, but nonetheless, I speak based on observation) homosexual desires seem to stem from a moral vacuum. That is, they don't know what is right or wrong, or they don't care, thus everything in their universe becomes "morally" acceptable. There was a study I heard about. If you want to look it up you can, but to be honest I sadly can't site the source on this one. None the less it made sense to me. A group of people who claimed to be (disgusted) by homosexuality were shown a video of "homosexual acts". Their bodily and mental funcions were monitered and showed "excitement". People who claimed to have no problem with it did not respond, at least not nearly as much as the other group. This actually makes sense, because people are often disgusted by things because they see something of themselves in those things. It seems that will a person may have "feelings" for members of the same sex, those "feelings" can't be any different, or any stronger than feelings held by heterosexuals. If a heterosexual can abstain from immoral acts because of moral convictions, there is no reason a homosexual individual should not be able to do the same. Thus I don't see "natural orientation" if that is what it is, as an excuse. Nonetheless, I don't condemn anyone, least of all for havng "feelings". Feelings cannot be helped, but actions can (as was pointed out by someone else here). Since marriage is an action, a homosexual marriage would be an action based on immoral feelings, and thus an immoral act. From another perspective, if marriage is the spiritual joining of two people, and this joining is facilitated by god, then if it is wrong it will not be facilitated by god. It seems that there is no such thing as a marriage without gods consent. If this is true, then there is (in reality) no marriage without god. So we really shouldn't be worried about gay marriage, because if it's wrong then it doesn't exist. Skeptictank since Jesus taught us that it is not the action that is wrong but rather the thought and inclination behind the action (actions are, after all, a manifestation of the heart) then being a homosexual and not acting on it is not the answer. I don't really understand whether homosexuality is learned or genestic or anything else, and I would never condemn anyoneone who was happy in their sexual orientation if that person did not claim to have a relationship with God. However, when homosexuals demand hat God accept them as such I am more concerned. At the risk of being viewed as totally homophobic, I believe that God has laid down certain practices as incorrect for our sakes, because he alone knows what is best for us and wants us to be hapy and healthy. I also believe one can repent of being homosexual and that God will set him (or her) free from this mindset whatever its origin. The problem arrises when something is recatagorised as "all right" or accaptable so as not to upset or offend people. You cannot recatogorise sin. Yes, maybe a great many homosexuals are content in their sexuality and lifestyle, but this does not make their sexuality and lifestyle correct befoe a holy God. All it does is point to the fact that our society is devolving morality-wise and will continue to do so until Jesus returns. But supression of sin in our lives is not the answer - the answer is Jesus casting our sin as far away as the east is from the west. A living relationship with Jesus will not make us suffer sin, but be set free from it and its repecusions. That said, I know that God would never reject someone seeking him because of any sin, God just slowly works to heal and save us one bit at a time. We all of us have wrong inclinations ande mindsets, many of which we probably don't realise are even wrong until the spirit convicts us. We certainly are in no place to judge. God doesn't have a list of acceptable sin and a list of unacceptable sin, we're saved because f Jesus and his blood is effective no matter the sin, hurt, probem, illness or trauma. And Hippo393, English is my second language and I used to get quite mixed up with all the semantic shifts taking place. Very confusing sometimes. Ah well, given time I'm sure English will be quite unrecognisable to anyone under twenty-five, let alone those of us who have a mixed cultural background. I guess I'm just a bit of a sad act. Whatever one of those is?  |
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 12, 2006 22:42:32 GMT -5
There was a study I heard about. If you want to look it up you can, but to be honest I sadly can't site the source on this one. None the less it made sense to me. A group of people who claimed to be (disgusted) by homosexuality were shown a video of "homosexual acts". Their bodily and mental funcions were monitered and showed "excitement". People who claimed to have no problem with it did not respond, at least not nearly as much as the other group. I've heard of this study too. The problem is nobody seems to be able to cite it. Until I see a citing I'm not going to give it much weight. Up to a point, right? At some level it turns from an incidental thought to an act of will which is why Jesus speaks in strong terms about practicing adultry with the eyes. There is a difference between the practiced thought, "boy I'd love to do X and Y" and the incidental, "hot". I think this may confuse allow with condone. It is clear that God allows all sorts of evil action: gay marriage, murder, sickness, bad parenting, and twisted rulers. However, none of this is condoned. The world contains the twisted and the holy because it is created by God but changed by the fall. Christians should cling to, "everything well spoken of," and, "flee from evil." We would expect Christians to follow the standards set in the Bible where marriage is exclusively for a man and woman and destined for eternity. This is established not only in scripture but, as Catholics would put it, "the constatnt Tradition." since Jesus taught us that it is not the action that is wrong but rather the thought and inclination behind the action (actions are, after all, a manifestation of the heart) then being a homosexual and not acting on it is not the answer. Agreed. Condem is a a fairly wide term. If you mean that you wouldn't speak out about thier behavior then I think you do them harm. Homosexual behavior leads to known problems. Such is the price of violating natural law. If you mean speak abusively then I agree. I can't imagine any of the apostles saying something like this. Paul especially was keen on, "leading his body like a slave." Jesus set the patern by, "learning obedience even upto the Cross." True, but that saving requires our willful co-operation. God does not lead us kicking and screaming. Hence CS Lewis warns us that Christians aren't the best people, but that they are the best they can possibly be in this world. |
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Jun 18, 2006 17:45:10 GMT -5
I don't know how the rest of you feel on this matter which is the main reason why I left this topic alone because my angle was being overlooked - do you differentiate between a 'civil ceremony' and a 'marriage'?
I certainly do. To me a civil ceremony is merely a piece of state legality with God not involved at all. A marriage is a ceremony which takes place within a religious setting in the presence of ones' God.
That is why I have no problem with the former, but would disagree with the latter.
I would rather that homosexual practice didn't occur at all (I've said that all along!) but whilst it is here with us, I don't see why a couple can't make a public declaration of their love for one another and at the same time cut a lot of legal red tape on issues such as inheritances - in a civil ceremony!
And finally, just to throw a complete spanner in the works - what would hapen if that genetic link was found?
edit - there's an ad at the top of the page for 'gay and lesbian wedding rings' - **is it a sign** lol!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 18, 2006 19:10:07 GMT -5
I don't know how the rest of you feel on this matter which is the main reason why I left this topic alone because my angle was being overlooked - do you differentiate between a 'civil ceremony' and a 'marriage'? You are correct. Their is a difference however the current weight of law is that civil union is the same as a civil marriage. So, I view it as a strange slippery slope. Marriage is first, not a right, it is a privledge, so why are they being granted a privledge? Why should my taxes support thier behavior (they will get breaks that they didn't have before) when those privledges are supposed to be for the raising of children? TNSTAAFL = There is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch |
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Post by Meagan on Jun 16, 2007 11:16:54 GMT -5
I voted yes.
While there are many reasons, I'll narrow it down to two.
A) I personally am not offended by it. Marriage in the eyes of God, imho, is not quite the same as marriage in the eyes of the state.
B) It's a matter of health care as well, especially in light of the fact that many gay/lesbian couples are adopting. And yes I support that, because at the moment being a citizen of MI, the foster care is in a Very bad state. It is a hot topic of discussion amongst our politicians of late. I would rather see a gay/lesbian couple who have love to give adopt a child and get them out of the foster care system.
Does this mean that unless the couple is married the child would not be covered by one partner's health care? No, not at all. And that's not the worry. The worry is that in these situations, one parent who chooses to remain at home would have to go uncovered as the majority of insurance companies would not cover them.
On the other hand, in the event that a gay/lesbian couple enters into a relationship with children already playing a role, the problem still becomes that both parents must work in order to receive health care for the stay at home parent AND The child in question.
It's already been a problem here in the state of MI since gay marriage was voted down a few years back.
I think it's one thing for a church to sanctify gay marriage and another thing for the government to hand out a piece of paper which says you're married.
Would I stand behind a church which sanctifies gay marriage?
No, even if I weren't a Christian at the time, because of my previous bible knowledge, I just don't see a way around the principle of homosexuality being a sin.
Just my .02
|
|
Bull, meet china shop!! 
(In the Christian sense!)
