Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

De Maria

Doesn't the title of the thread sums up the author's intent?

Is Homosexuality Wrong?

Then the first question reads, and I quote:

Without using religion, ... please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong,....

Should I have ignored that part of the question?

And it seems to be the main idea of the entire article because, logically speaking, if homosexuality is wrong, then it is wrong to have homosexual marriage, which is the next question:

why gays should not have the right to marry,

To put it differently, if homosexuality is not inherently wrong, then gays should have the right to marry.

I believe I've also answered this part of the question.

So, I've reread the question and I come up with the same conclusions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

talaniman

The state isn't forced, people put it on a ballot by petition and its voted on.

talaniman

Absolutely, thats what we have been saying.

talaniman

How so??

De Maria

That is your problem Synnen. Your view continues to be that everyone must agree with you or they are being offensive. I wasn't arguing, just expressing my views.

If you could, you would.

Did you read that in my message? Where?

An adoption by a heterosexual couple is a natural way of raising a child as they provide father and mother. What is unnatural is a homosexual union and therefore, by extension, it is unnatural for a homosexual couple to raise a child as father and father or mother and mother.

Not with a capital G no.

My God is God with a capital G.

Are you dragging this back into a religious discussion? As for me, homosexuality is condemned as a sin in my religion.

Ok. Its a belief based on nothing more than opinion. I can understand that. As for me, I agree but for religious reasons. My religious reasons seem to correspond to your common sense.

Oh, oh! I recognize that 'but hey!" You're getting ready to twist my words.

Please show me where I said that I wanted to have sex in front of ANY children, let alone my own. Pleeasse. Otherwise, accept that you are simply making a derisive comment because, well I don't really know why you behave like this. Perhaps this is how your religion teaches you to behave.

I happen to agree. But go ahead twist my words and insult me again. That is the way you apparently discuss things with people with whom you don't agree 100%.

I don't accuse. I prove that people twist my words by quoting whatever they attribute to me and comparing it to what I actually said.

Where? Since you didn't quote me I don't know what you are talking about. Should I simply go through my entire message and try to figure out where I twisted your words? Thats too much work. If you feel I twisted your words, prove it.

But wait, I quote everything that people say and I address each idea point by point. So I couldn't have twisted your words. Maybe you mean that I didn't understand what you meant, is that it?

Did I say they were harmed? I asked you if you meant that they were harmed? Read my words again:

First you said:
I know people with gay parents (yes, two moms or two dads) and they're completely straight.

And the last part of my response reads:
But it is strange that you would mention this. Do you mean that the children were not "harmed" by the experience?

In other words, why did you mention that they turned out "straight"? Staight is another word for "fine" or "healthy" correct. After all, the alternative to straight is bent or deformed. Or is there another alternative of which I'm not aware?

I've already listed my opinions. And I've tried to substantiate them with current data on the matter.

So, since you have stated that you are through addressing me, then perhaps we can agree to disagree.

Bye,

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

I did also.

And I also came back.

Sounds as though you still feel that way. But you are mixing concepts. The fact that Catholics sin can't be blamed on the Catholic Church teaching it. The Catholic Church teaches not to sin. If we sin, we do it in spite of Catholic teaching, not because of it.

Many but not all. There are also many who don't pick and choose but who observe all the teachings of the Catholic Church as best they can.

Again, not all. Many, perhaps even most. Some from ignorance of the teachings others from a simple case of disobedience. But not all.

True.

Where is that in the Bible?

The Catholic Church teaches that birth control is a sin because husband and wife must be open to the complete life giving love that God gives them through the giving of their bodies one to the other. But I don't see the teaching that tattoos are a sin in any of the Scriptures or Catechisms.

Or do you mean a tattoo displaying sinful matter? Such as a tattoo of a bad word or a blasphemous icon? Those would be sinful not because they are tattoos but because of what they display.

Now we are having a religious discussion. But since you are displaying a grave misunderstanding of the Church which you claim to believe, I feel that I must respond.

First, I have no idea what you are talking about. The Church does not condemn those of a gay lifestyle. They condemn themselves by persisting in a sinful situation. Have you ever seen any Church official go to a homosexual and drag him or her by the ear into Church? I haven't. But the Church teaches the doctrines of Jesus Christ, you are free to obey or disobey as you chose. But you know the consequences of your actions.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about. The Church doesn't go search for homosexuals and ask them for money.

The Church addresses all sinners and asks that they convert, leave their sin behind and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. If the homosexual leaves the sin behind, he becomes a former homosexual. He does not continue in that sin.

After any sinner converts and becomes a member of the Church, then the Church asks for tithes and other types of non-monetary support still in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I've known homosexuals who feign Catholicism in order to live peacefully at home. I've heard that some former homosexuals have embraced the teachings of the Church and have left their sin behind. I hope your aunt is no longer practicing the gay lifestyle. But that is between her and God. The Church has definitely taught her without any equivocation that the gay lifestyle is a sinful lifestyle and no matter how often she goes to Church, if she doesn't leave that lifestyle behind, she will not receive any grace from God.

Hm? Did I misunderstand what I just read above? If you truly believe the Catholic Church is full of faith, hope and love, then obey Her.

No, its based on the Word of God in Tradition and in Scripture. And the most important teaching is the Holy Eucharist which is our source and summit because it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are mixing truth and error.

Your priest would not condemn you if you interpreted a verse of Scripture differently than he. I've interpreted many Scriptures differently than my priest. But neither he nor I were interpreting the Scripture apart from the Church. Both our interpretations fell under the Catholic umbrella.

Case in point. I believe that Luke 16, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a description of a man in purgatory, my priest believes it is a man in hell. But both fit under the Catholic umbrella. Therefore neither of us has sinned.

But if you, believe that Scripture is telling you that you can have an abortion or that you can use artificial birth control, or that homosexuality is not sinful, then tell that to your priest and see if he doesn't correct your interpretation according to the teaching of the Church.

And if you persist in your error, he won't condemn you, you will condemn yourself either to hell or to purgatory depending on the seriousness of your sin.

Sincerely,

De Maria

retsoksirhc

Hey everybody, look at post #361. It's from De Maria, and I actually got all the way through it. I had gained hope for her. But then she posted two more times, with the giant list of whatever that I don't think any of us has actually read.

De Maria: Do you really think you're going to change anyone's mind with a obscenely long boring post about nothing but counterpoints to someone who wasn't arguing with you in the first place? I'm pretty sure most of what is said here isn't personal. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. Have you already stated you case in re: to the OP? If so, then you don't need to say it again and again. And again. And again.

If you're like me, you stick around to see other opinions. If you're unlike me, you feel like everyone who has an opinion that doesn't match yours is attacking you. Newflash: it isn't. People don't agree on things. You can see it in your precious Christianity every day. Look at all the denominations...

Go ahead and correct factual inaccuracies. FACTUAL, not HYPOTHETICAL. As much as you want to push the bible down everyone else's throat, it CANNOT be proven. YOU may believe it is true. FACTUALLY, it is unknown.

sassyT

So... you dont think a person should be allowed to marry their dog... Is that because your religion says so??
no.. i didnt think so, so i dont see why you (and other supporters of gay marriage here) have been accusing me of imposing my "religious" beliefs on the matter. I told you before, i dont support gay marriage, not because of my religion but just because i dont see it as something that should be considered valid in the same way you dont think people marrying animals should be valid, independent of your religious beliefs.

Synnen

I don't think a person should be able to marry a dog because--I'll repeat myself again, here, and maybe you'll GET it this time--a dog or other animal can not give consent to be married. Honestly, I don't think you understand what consent means. It means that both parties AGREE, openly, that they are willing to enter into marriage with each other. Since I've never heard of anyone who speaks fluent "Bark", a dog can not give consent, even through an interpreter.

Are you comparing homosexuals to animals? Really? Are they "less" than you? Are their feelings less "valid" than yours?

retsoksirhc

Sassy, there used to be a lot of Americans who thought Black people's citizenship shouldn't be considered valid, independent of their religious beliefs too. That doesn't make it right.

Speaking for myself, People shouldn't marry their pets because the pets can't consent. They're not physically capable of expressing the same emotions that we do. Furthermore, they wouldn't have any benefits, because they have no monetary income, can't express interest in adoption, so next of kin is unneeded, and they wouldn't be able to spend anything that is willed to them. These things make a legally recognized union between a person and a domestic animal completely unnecessary.