Printable View
Maybe someone here could clarify something for me. Where in the NT does it state that homosexuality is a no-no? It's been quite some time since I read the bible but I don't recall Jesus ever saying that homosexuals are an abomination. Just wondering who decided they were, if Jesus did not.
This is not relevant to the discussion at hand IA. It's the belief of the Roman Catholic church that it's wrong. The issue is the right of them to discriminate, based on their belief system, hence my drug-users/battered women example.
With a bit of digging I came up with Paul in Romans.
Yes TH it might be slightly off topic but I was just trying to discover where this attitude towards homosexuals came from.
So if Jesus didn't say anything negative about homosexuals but some bloke a few hundred years later did, what has that to do with Jesus?
My view is that the best candidate for adopting children should be the only criteria here, regardless of age, skin colour, sexual orientation etc etc...
Well, St. Paul's ministry was 20 years after the death of Jesus (he did get into that big fight with St. Peter, remember?) But I don't understand it either. It's not like Jesus plays favorites with sins. Okay, let's just assume homosexuality is a sin (and there's plenty of things Jesus assumed his audience knew were wrong that he didn't mention explictly, he didn't forbid child sacrafice or incest directly either). Jesus does say that sin is sin, and in unites all in defiance of God's will. There's no "not so bad' sins versus 'ooh, that one's awful" sins. Only we humans do that, because we focus on sin as behavior, not attitude and content of heart. Sin is the lack of fulfilling God's will to the best of your ability, and constantly scouring your conscience and checking your pre-conceived notions to make certain you're not complacent. As God's number one command is to love each other, any bigotry of any form is de facto sinful.
But again, very very off topic.This is about the right of free association, not whether homosexuality is really a sin or not.
Sigh, that's part of the problem with Catholicism. The church tends to adapt to its surroundings. Ever noticed how important Mary is in South America, while in Africa she's barely even mentioned. You'd think these people were following a different religion, but nope, all Catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Of course, somewhere along the way, the Church caught on that being homophobic seemed damn close to having morals to some of the more conservative people in the wast. So they went ahead and made it one of their core issues, since what's the point of religion if it doesn't preach morals ? The thing with the catholic church is, they tend to assemble the choir and check out their interests before they start preaching to them. Even now, they have good reason to act homophobic, most 'liberals' who don't care about such things aren't the church going kind, a lot of people in the church are traditionalists, conservatives, and quite a few of them probably don't agree with this whole 'gay' thing. Not unlike some members of this board. It's of course vital for the church to keep these people on their side, otherwise they'd be preaching to entirely empty buildings.
Homophobia being an integral part of Catholicism ? Please, half the clergy is probably gay, the other half likely has more serious issues with their sexuality. A life of chastity is appealing to a certain kind of people, people who hate their own sexuality. Besides, the great Mother Church has covered up dozens of homosexual relationships of its priest (as well as heterosexual relationships and well, some far less moral 'relationships'), it's not doctrine, it's convinient and no religion does real-politik better than the good ol' Catholic church.
EDIT: congrats on your senior membership by the way don, I hadn't noticed yet, is it a recent promotion ?
Three things. First,
Pretty much my exact stance on the issue. The question of government money being used makes it more complex, and with that in mind they should certainly comply with the regulation. However, in practical terms that probably means the end of their services which I think is a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Second, on Jesus' take on homosexuality, homosexuality is condemned several times in the letters of the new (Christian) testament, though I am unaware of Jesus making any personal comments on the matter. As Don pointed out, Jesus did not speak out against every sin in existence, so he was not necessarily in opposition to this standpoint. Furthermore, in spite of some Christian sects' claims to the contrary, I do not believe Jesus claims to have rendered insignificant the entire old (Hebrew) testament, which also contains numerous condemnations of homosexuality and which I think is given a higher status in Catholicism than in many protestant churches.
Third, Don's been a senior member for ages. Longer than I have, I think. :santa3: <--picture this guy minus the hat
Ajax
It's not really hard to find an answer if you bother yourself to spend a few minutes looking....Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
The Catholic Church is not "homophobic" at all and homosexuals are allowed to be priests, nuns, ect, and I have no doubt that quite a few are. The problem with homosexual priests would come from those that are actively homosexual- of course there would be a somewhat similar problem with priests who are actively heterosexual.Quote:
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, 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.
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.
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.
Working on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
They have the "right" to force whatever they can. Their purpose is to govern, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
I don't recognise this description of the Catholic Church at all. If the church behaved in the way you suggest it would have ditched its inconvenient opposition to contraception and remarriage after divorce.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I am not sure about this. There are other things between couples that the Catholic church would see as sinful, remarriage after divorce and polygamy. Do they refuse to place children with people to whom these apply? The Cardinal's moral position on this is genuine but is the vehemence with which he promotes the position rooted in subconscious homophobia? I suspect it is. I may be doing him an injustice, but I have encountered precisely this inconsistency from committed Christians in other cirmcumstances, for example comdemning films that portray homosexual relationships whilst being quite happy with James Bond whose sexual behaviour does not match Christian ideals!Quote:
The Catholic Church is not "homophobic" at all and homosexuals are allowed to be priests, nuns, ect, and I have no doubt that quite a few are. The problem with homosexual priests would come from those that are actively homosexual- of course there would be a somewhat similar problem with priests who are actively heterosexual.
Depends on the rest of the Spanish laws say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Scenario a) You may not discriminate on providing goods and services based on gender.
Then yes they have to perform said marriages.
Scenario b) You may not discriminate on providing goods and services based on gender. You may discriminate on providing goods and services based on club membership.
Then as long as they are not club members they could be denied.
I don't think any religion should be above the law. Certain cults have been found encouraging child sex acts but stating that it gets them closer to God. I would have to say the laws of the land outweigh those of the religion. If the religion wants different laws then it has to go work through the same democratic process as the rest of the nation... ie votes and/or special interest groups. So if the religion didn't like scenario A they would have to go and work the process to go to at least scenario B.
I don't know the answer to that- but I would hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
In south america la virgen maría is much more prominent than both jesus christ and god. Statues and shrines are everywhere. Local saints have almost equal importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
The church has definitely evolved to play to a pagan population's perception of how a god or gods should be worshipped. Great cathedrals were erected not just as places of worship but as visual, even idolatrous, monuments reminders of the christian god's dominion. Inside catholic churches there are idols galore, something which is definitely frowned upon in the bible: "Thou shalt have no graven images" (Exodus 20:4). The catholic and orthodox churches, when converting former idolaters had to give them new idols, when converting former polygamists gave them more than just a single entity without physical form. It took their old religious festivals and replaced them with new ones, Yuletide with Christmas, easter also being originally a pagan fertility festival (the real reason for the eggs and bunnies). The church adopted these and twisted them to meet it's needs.
Really just making a virtue out of necessity, that. It was a given the common folk would not give up their traditional festive days, invocations to guardian spirits and whatever, so if Christianity was to really take root it had to co-opt the lot. It should tell something that traditional "witchmen" and similar magicians, as well as assorted other "pagan" paraphenelia including simple spells, rhymes and sacrifices to sundry supernatural forces, are well documented in much of Finland from as late as 1800s. And as part of the Swedish kingdom we were among the very first to go officially Protestant, which in principle should have purged all sorts of "lingering pagan influences" from the Christian practice...
:shrug:
Life was difficult and uncertain, and applying to the supernatural was a psychological coping mechanism - an attempt to gain some influence over the fickle weather that could devastate crops and cause famine, ward off diseases whose actual workings nobody comprehended, and similar incomprehensible and overwhelming hazards of daily existence. Similarly there are some pretty solid reasons why professions like sailors and other seamen and soldiers were particularly prone to all manner of superstition (the ubiquitous invocation of the divine in war cries and military symbols being merely the most "official" expression of this).
Part of the problem of the Church today is that it is slow to react to social changes. It tries to fit into society and then 'guide' society, but it failed to keep up with current evolutions. Partly because the ones in charge are all old and thus still have the old morals, as do a lot of their supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Another problem is that due to their globalisation, people don't really understand what their church stands for anymore, they expect a uniform policy, it's harder for the church to do something in one place without the other place finding out.
For the record, the Catholic Church here doesn't mention a thing about contraceptives, that's mostly an issue with the African clergy, I think. All priests that I know ignore the rules against giving divorced people communion. Priests here also 'bless' second marriages, which isn't quite the same as real catholic wedding of course, but they are moving with the times.
So the church is slowly debasing what it stands for to try to be all things to all people. This isn't supposed to be a franchise organisation, it is supposed to be the church of God and speak for God on Earth, with the head of the Church infallible on church related issues.
For the Church to ignore its own tenants it becomes something of a farce.
~:smoking:
Eh, I dunno. By all accounts the cheerfully debased and corrupt Late Medieval Church that happily turned a blind eye to almost anything as long as it got its tithes was way preferable to the rank fanaticism and mutual persecution of the Reformation era...
Puritanism in general just sucks rocks and makes life difficult for the average Joe and Jane.
Indeed, it's almost always been this way. The Chruch is far more concerned with unison and its own power than anything else.
They're a bit like a political party. They start out with an agenda, then have to make some compromises because otherwise tney won't get elected (or people go to another church) and once they get in power they have to keep their support up, so they constantly 'betray' their own principles, and eventually lose track what their principles are, or better: the principles of their 'followers' become their principles. And really, is that such a bad thing ?
Heck, in a sense it sounds almost like "democracy by default"...
Why do you do expect the pope to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because the Catholic church finally decided that he is in 1870?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
For once Catholics do something right and in accordance with God's will.
Kudos to them for that.
Lot of misinformation in this thread. God, Jesus, and all of the apostles very clearly condemned "homosexuality" in almost all of the books in the Bible.
All sins are not equal to each other, that is also misinformation, and highly ridiculous.
You know what the most pathetic thing is?
This law will benefit no one, had it not been passed homsexuals would still be allowed to adopt and 200 more children a year would find homes.
As is the only result will be those childrn not getting placed, and maybe needing new homes. After all can a Catholic orphanage operate with the knowledge that the children in their care might go to homosecuals.
:thumbsdown:
Bad all round.
Wow! Cynical much? Has it ever dawned on you that in the past, homosexuality wasn't a big issue for the church because there was a reason that people referred to it as "the love that dare not speak it's name"? I think until 30 years ago, homosexuality was strictly underground throughout the Christian world, and the reason the Church didn't speak out against it was that for the most part, it wasn't being thrust into everyone's faces constantly as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Sure, there have always been homosexuals. But it's only been within the past 30 years that people have felt that their choice of sexual partner entitled them to special victim class status and felt a need to regale us all with pride marches and demands for community centers. The gay lobby's stated goal of being treated equally strikes me as rather Orwellian, as they're generally complaining about NOT receiving special treatment (that's not the case here, hence the use of the term 'generally').
As for your use of the term homophobia, I'd like to get you on record here as to what exactly that means. Is it the belief that homosexuality is immoral conduct that makes one homophobic? Or is it not 100% endorsement of the homosexual lobby? I'm just curious, because that term comes up a lot, and I've never gotten a firm defintion on it, or when I do, gay-issue advocates seem to misuse it. It seems to be some sort of slur that means since you don't agree with a particular gay advocacy position, you're a bigot. Or did I miss something?
Thanks for the congrats on my senior member status (nobody was more shocked than I) ~:pat: I think it came about last May.
Well said, annoys the crap out of me. And I think that it is impossible for a heterosexual not to be homophobic to a certain extent. Comes with being heterosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Uh, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I am strictly hetero (boobs FTW), and could care less if someone I know is gay. I am a pretty judgmental guy too (for example, I think the predominance of reality shows and the new American Idol craze is a sign that Americans have about as much depth as a kiddie pool).
This "us" and "them" attitude is totally bogus and is holding our country back. Heteros don't automatically hate Homosexuals, and gay men don't hate women. By your rules, straight men should hate men, since they don't want to have sex with them.
Please don't project your own insecurities on the rest of us.
What makes you think gays don't deserve a victim class? ~:confused: You said yourself 30 years ago they wouldn't say anything about their sexuality out of fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
I'll have to allow Fragony to answer for himself, but I think he was projecting... that homosexuals will conclude that at some level all heterosexuals are homophobic to some degree. You answered based on the definition of homophobia relating to bigotry against homosexuals, but there's plenty of exampes of people that aren't bigoted against homosexuals but don't agree with the gay lobby's on a particular position. The gay lobby would claim the disagreement stems from the hetero's innate homophobia, of which all us heteros must be guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rameusb5
Victim class I would argue but I might be willing to entertain. I could make the argument that they're 'victims' only because they chose to be (not that they chose to be gay, that they chose to tell everyone that that they were).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
But I said 'special victims class'. Why does my bigoted grandfather mean that I have to pay to build a gay community center and pay for gay sex education classes?
Can I get special victim status? As an Irish Catholic, my grandfather got shot in the chest and almost lynched by a gang of klansmen in the late 30's. Does that mean I should start receiving government checks?
Hehe there is always one, boohooohooo me so insecure, why internet not believe I kiss girls???Quote:
Originally Posted by Rameusb5
I couldn't care less if someone is gay, one of my best friends is gay(ohhhh suepect!!!!), and he is nice enough not to be very gay about it. Do you enjoy watching two men kiss? I don't, I find it a repulsive sight. That doesn't mean I hate them for doing it.
By the way, what are you wearing?
Just lie all the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen
Well, I was just reading on another forum where somebody was telling stories about his two twin brothers, one of which was gay. The other brother kept coming back with black eyes and nearly broken bones. Such is the rural south apparently.Quote:
But I said 'special victims class'. Why does my bigoted grandfather mean that I have to pay to build a gay community center and pay for gay sex education classes?
Can I get special victim status? As an Irish Catholic, my grandfather got shot in the chest and almost lynched by a gang of klansmen in the late 30's. Does that mean I should start receiving government checks?