Catholic homosexuals

This is a discussion on Catholic homosexuals within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; I suggest you do. A large portion of Dallin H. Oaks speech is exactly the type of thing that is ...

  1. #76
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    I suggest you do. A large portion of Dallin H. Oaks speech is exactly the type of thing that is being discussed here. You should then be able to get more to the point. Otheerwise you will force me to repeat my arguments.
    It really is an interesting speech, and there is an mp3 version available if you want to listen to it.

    Anyways, the speaker (Dallin H. Oaks) makes several good points in his talk that I will just reiterate:

    1. The Constitution of the United States provides for a freedom of religion as a central freedom of the people.
    2. The government does have a responsibility to weigh how religious freedom should co-exist with its own governmental responsibilities, and often times these do conflict.
    3. The people do have a democratic right to express their religious ideals in a political debate, and should require "no secular justification". It is a constitutional right.
    4. By defending their views on "traditional" marriage, voters are in no way trampling on the civil rights of others. Rather, they are upholding their civil rights to express their views and beliefs.

    Mario F., there were also several posts in this thread which I purposely did not respond to or address, such as the back-and-forth between you and laserlight about different scriptural interpretations, etc. I didn't feel it was important for me to respond to those, and that's tangential to the point of the thread anyways.

    I also understand from your previous posts that you feel it to be intolerant of religions to oppose same-gender marriages. I would offer this as a response: I don't think tolerance is the central issue here. The issue regarding "religious opposition to same-gender marriage" is an issue of a religious person's right to follow and obey a higher law according to the dictates of his own conscious.

    As a quick illustration of this principle, I refer you to the story of King Saul, who at one time was waging war against the nation of the Amalekites. Saul was given a commandent by God to destroy everything, but instead of follow that commandment he thought that he'd save a few things for himself to use as sacrifices. When the prophet Samuel came, he uttered this age-old and true testimony: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (1 Samuel 15:22)

    Now, that whole explanation was tangential to the discussion. The main points of my post are the four which I illustrated above and summarized from the remarks of Dallin Oaks.
    Last edited by DavidP; 01-25-2010 at 02:16 PM. Reason: I edited this post to clarify my meaning.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  2. #77
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    I also understand from your previous posts that you feel it to be intolerant of religions to oppose same-gender marriages.
    Nope. You are wrong. That's not how I see it. But I'll reply later today and hopefully make my point clear once and for all. Also have a few things to say about that speech. It's not such a wonderful speech.

    For now, it's a shower, dinner and walking the dog. Cheers.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #78
    Registered User jeffcobb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Henderson, NV
    Posts
    875
    I spent (waster IMO) the first formative years of my life in a really strict Catholic setting and for me it was one long exercise in hypocrisy. I came out of it pretty much agnostic...
    C/C++ Environment: GNU CC/Emacs
    Make system: CMake
    Debuggers: Valgrind/GDB

  4. #79
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    What on earth are you talking about? Have you ever read Leviticus, 20? It starts with "And the Lord Said to Moses". And what's that about homosexuality not existing back then?

    Oh my God! Can it be I discovered a true hypocrite. I demand salvage rights!
    Sorry, I apologize. Thought of it as another book (haven't read any english version, only greek). Though, in greek it has a similar name. So, yeah, those words are the "words of God".

    But homosexuality didn't exist back then as it does now. Isn't that kind of obvious? You think back then people would even think of a man being in love with another man? Having sex without loving the other is pretty much a sin. Not exactly, lets not get into details, my point is that there wasn't, as far as I know, a homosexual couple that would function the same (being in love, in respect with each other, a couple in society) as a normal couple. The term is new. Do you think society would accept them for them to be known back then??
    Homosexuality was practised back then, just in a different sense.

    So there are false hyprocrites? :P

    As for the actual passages that refer to homosexuality, they are over analyzed in the net. Read here for example and tell me your arguments on those arguments.

    Still, that passage in leviticus, refers to heterosexual men going with other men, it does not? That is what I understand from the "as with other women" part. It cannot be talking about male homosexuals, since it would not have the "with other women" part there. Of course then bisexuality might be a sin according to that passage. But, ok, lets leave that.

    EDIT: People use too freely the word "hypocrite". You think I am stupid enough that people woudln't see my accused "bluff"? Or that I wouldn't know that you read leviticus since you posted from it? Please. I only read the passage you posted and a few above and below. And as I said, thought of it as another book, thus didn't have in mind that it was something god told Moses. So where is the hyprocrisy exactly?
    Last edited by C_ntua; 01-25-2010 at 04:58 PM.

  5. #80
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    So, about
    I also understand from your previous posts that you feel it to be intolerant of religions to oppose same-gender marriages.
    I made the point earlier that the issue is not with the church acceptance or not of homosexuality or it tagging this behavior as sinful. For a purely moral point of view garnered from the way I was brought up, I find it that position of the church deplorable. But there certainly exists an historical reason for it as well as a secular doctrine supporting it. This does not in itself constitute intolerance.

    Instead, I call intolerance the arguments put up by the catholic church when they touch the integrity of the homosexual community as a whole. And This happens when the highest representative of this church in Portugal and the Pope in the Vatican both defend that gay marriage destroys the moral and ethical values of the society and that the homosexual behavior in general does the same. This is no different from any other speech of intolerance as we heard them before in history.

    And because of this, let me tell you this is the part of the speech you quoted I liked the most. That is exactly what I perceive as a wise and thoughtful stance on the issue of homosexuality by a church that condemns it. Let me quote it again:

    We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity.
    No BS. Simply doctrine. No attack on the integrity of the involved individuals. Congratulations. But more...

    As advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.
    Precisely. And by doing so, they also guarantee they follow their own presets of love and respect to all human beings regardless of how they conduct themselves, on this case, sexually. Of the homosexuals I know, I can guarantee you they all will only have to say good things about these quotes.

    ...

    Now I hope I made myself clear on what i feel constitutes intolerance by the church against the gay community.

    As for other matters...

    We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders
    .

    But with this there must come also responsibility (which from the earlier quotes, I take it you church advocates) and the acceptance that there will be criticism. And not read criticism as an attempt to quiet your religion.

    By publicly spreading your faith you must accept that you expose yourself for interpretation, analysis and debate. Religious freedom is that too and although I can guess from the nature of the speech there has been some incidents and he's addressing these issues in particular, I cannot avoid critizing this part of his speech:

    Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.
    I would ask of you to explain this part to me. As I read it right now this is religious fascism.

    Finally...
    Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion...Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation.
    No. In fact, this is the typical move where you turn the offender into a victim. I'm honestly already used to that argument. I heard it so many times, it lost its appeal. It's just not fun anymore. It's boring and beat.

    What happens in fact is that religion has always been hostile to atheism. Religion cannot accept atheism. While for a good number of atheists, religion is very well accepted and even supported within a society.

    Such is my case as an atheist (and let me tell you, partial towards existential nihilism). For your information, I'm at the forefront on any debate defending religious freedom and have always supported the idea my two daughters should have religious values taught to them at a tender age. But just like me, many others I know.

    Atheism is simply and only the negation of theism. There's no agenda to destroy religion. It no longer annoys me this fixation on atheism. These days it just amuses me, because it is another revealing factor of how religions based on the notion of a higher being have so much trouble coping with their own faith.

    Atheism is your worst enemy not because it actively seeks to destroy your faith. It is because it is the antithesis of what you believe in. And yet, ironically enough other religions are (and have been towards history) much worse enemies of other faiths than atheism ever was and probably will ever be.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 01-25-2010 at 05:08 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  6. #81
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Instead, I call intolerance the arguments put up by the catholic church when they touch the integrity of the homosexual community as a whole. And This happens when the highest representative of this church in Portugal and the Pope in the Vatican both defend that gay marriage destroys the moral and ethical values of the society and that the homosexual behavior in general does the same. This is no different from any other speech of intolerance as we heard them before in history.
    I agree on what you are saying. Wouldn't use the word "intolerance". But it is harse and unfair. And unjustified as well. I distinguished between "religious" and "political" marriage. In this case, it refers to "political" marriage as well. Which the Catholic Church shouldn't speak off, since it is a social matter.
    As for destroying ethical values, the Church shouldn't even care about them. Its goal is not for people to have ethical values and function well in society. But to have values so they can be "saved". It should made clear that if christianity helps or not society is secondary. And especially the more educated religious figures, as the Pope, should know all the above.

    EDIT: About atheism.
    I have heard a lot of atheists being against religions. A lot merely become atheists because they oppose religion. There are a lot of religious men that oppose atheism as well, since it as something evil.
    Last edited by C_ntua; 01-25-2010 at 05:02 PM.

  7. #82
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    But homosexuality didn't exist back then as it does now. Isn't that kind of obvious? You think back then people would even think of a man being in love with another man?
    I wouldn't know where to start. So we go to the usual suspect. Wikipedia.

    No. It's no obvious at all. Homosexuality seems to have been ever present in humanity. Certainly homosexual social behavior may have changed throughout the centuries. But the human sexual drive is a biological attribute that takes a lot of mental power to stop. And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that sexual intercourse has not take place since the early days of mankind, even when were just still trying to decide if we should leave the trees.

    The wikipedia link shows more than enough evidence you are almost certainly wrong. But most importantly you should stop and think for a moment if it makes sense at all to believe such a thing. For instance:

    - By observing that in ancient Greece, homosexuality is fairly documented among nobles and historical figures. That it was a "common", although condemned and thus secret activity.

    - That many tribes in Asia, Africa and South America accepted homosexuality as a natural practice.

    - That the need for one of the oldest books in the bible to address the issue is surely revealing of its existence.

    - That homosexuality is fairly documented in the whole of history mankind.

    [/quote]The term is new. Do you think society would accept them for them to be known back then??[/quote]

    Yes! It actually was by a representative number of cultures and civilizations.

    As for the actual passages that refer to homosexuality, they are over analyzed in the net. Read here for example and tell me your arguments on those arguments.
    The point being that the issue is not so much what interpretations one can make of the text, but what one can take at face value, which is the kind of interpretation you can expect from the vast majority of followers.

    In any case, I find that interpretation humorous at best. Especially point 4, that reads "Nor does the naming of the death penalty mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Also punishable by death in the Law is disobedience to parents (no age specified), picking up sticks on the Sabbath, adultery, and many other actions."

    Still, that passage in leviticus, refers to heterosexual men going with other men, it does not? That is what I understand from the "as with other women" part. It cannot be talking about male homosexuals, since it would not have the "with other women" part there. Of course then bisexuality might be a sin according to that passage. But, ok, lets leave that.
    No that passage is not concerned with whether the person in question is homosexual or heterosexual. It simply describes in the Aaronid priest concerns with homosexual acts.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  8. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    It really is an interesting speech, and there is an mp3 version available if you want to listen to it.

    Anyways, the speaker (Dallin H. Oaks) makes several good points in his talk that I will just reiterate:

    1. The Constitution of the United States provides for a freedom of religion as a central freedom of the people.
    2. The government does have a responsibility to weigh how religious freedom should co-exist with its own governmental responsibilities, and often times these do conflict.
    3. The people do have a democratic right to express their religious ideals in a political debate, and should require "no secular justification". It is a constitutional right.
    4. By defending their views on "traditional" marriage, voters are in no way trampling on the civil rights of others. Rather, they are upholding their civil rights to express their views and beliefs.
    DavidP, I know you addressed this primarily to Mario F., but I hope you'd allow me to enter a discussion with you on this subject.

    I would like to specifically discuss point 4. "By defending their views on 'traditional' marriage, voters are in no way trampling on the civil rights of others. Rather, they are upholding their civil rights to express their views and beliefs." I assume this is generally referring to voters who voted in favor of Prop 8 (or the equivalent in other states/countries). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    If that's the case, then I'd point out that there is a difference between expressing views and beliefs and imposing them on others through law. Anti-gay marriage advocates may express their preference for their version of marriage as much as they like. That is one of their civil rights. But that does not include enacting legislation that imposes their preference for a definition of marriage upon the entire community.

    In addition, I believe that prop 8 clearly violates the civil rights of others. If (civil) marriage is a right, then not allowing people access to that institution violates their right to it. I wonder how one would argue otherwise.

    Perhaps you could address that and the difference between expressing one's beliefs and imposing those beliefs on society.

  9. #84
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    I chose to not address that part because I'm not familiar with LDS Church involvement in Proposition 8. For the most part I looked at the issue during the whole period in a somewhat distant way, as I have both trouble understanding the whole process and the huge amount of money involved, and -- I'm afraid -- I was skeptic of the No chances in a country that is known around these parts mostly as traditionalist and conservative.

    In any case, what troubled me most was the fact that the Yes won by a rather small margin in such a populated state. Instead of raising flags in commemoration, anyone on the Yes side and on their right mind, should instead question if what they just did was indeed the right thing. The divide was brutal as revealed by the numbers and no one should commemorate victory under such circumstances when what is at stake is not putting someone in power, but instead removing the current right to civil marriage from someone.

    However, not ever before in history has the homosexual debate been so fracturing. In USA and in the rest of the World. It is obvious things will only keep improving from here and the day will come when human and civil rights will finally be upheld in the general number of western societies.

    EDIT:
    BTW, I received a couple of mormons on my home last year, David. I forget their names but if they are still around these parts (I believe they are) I could get in touch with them. Nice folks. But not very receptive to my atheist and defeating views
    Still I got their contact for the house were they are staying here in Cascais and we had a nice and lenghty chat on spiritual matters. Naturally an attempt at conversion was shyly made by your compadres, which was promptly refused. Strangely enough this atheist here didn't try the same, or attempted against their life or ever spoke ill of your church. On the contrary I was happy they showed up and wanted to know all about your church.

    Yeah. Atheists. Careful. We will eat your children.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 01-25-2010 at 06:21 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  10. #85
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    Homosexuality was practised back then, just in a different sense..
    Do I have to quote myself?
    I already said it was precticed, but not in the same sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F.
    - By observing that in ancient Greece, homosexuality is fairly documented among nobles and historical figures. That it was a "common", although condemned and thus secret activity.

    - That many tribes in Asia, Africa and South America accepted homosexuality as a natural practice.

    - That the need for one of the oldest books in the bible to address the issue is surely revealing of its existence.

    - That homosexuality is fairly documented in the whole of history mankind.
    You don't give me evidence of homosexual couples. People that would follow the catholic church's values concerning relationships with the sole difference of being the same sex. It is one thing having sex and another think having a relationship with a more romantic sense.

    Quoting from the link you posted
    "The formal practice, an erotic yet often restrained relationship between a free adult male and a free adolescent, was valued for its pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control, though occasionally blamed for causing disorder"
    Clearly not your typical catholic homosexual couple.

    Haven't read everything in the link, but I seriously don't think that homosexuals existed in the sense they exist today. Don't forget also that in order to prove your point you would have to give examples of well-known societies that had homosexual couples, not some tribes that nobody knew at that time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F.
    The point being that the issue is not so much what interpretations one can make of the text, but what one can take at face value, which is the kind of interpretation you can expect from the vast majority of followers.
    ...
    No that passage is not concerned with whether the person in question is homosexual or heterosexual. It simply describes in the Aaronid priest concerns with homosexual acts.
    If what you said was true, why wouldn't it just say so? Why does it says "man should lie with other mans as they do with woman?". It would say that "men shouldn't lie with other men" only. If it talks about male homosexuals, why would they lie with another woman, since they don't like them?
    I would expect the vast majority of people to think that God here actually refers to heterosexuals.
    Other may see it differently of course.
    Last edited by C_ntua; 01-25-2010 at 06:29 PM.

  11. #86
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    C_ntua, you really need to open your eyes and smell the grass. You are coming to me as a rather young individual. Smart, but young. In itself not a bad thing, of course. But either you wisen up and read more carefully, or I will have to move on. Lets try this again:

    I already said it was practiced, but not in the same sense.
    This makes no sense at all. What means "same sense"? And exactly what evidence you have of what you are saying? None. You just adopted a generalist stance that cannot be disproved by me or anyone else, but cannot be proven by you in any way. This is purely speculation on your part and has no place in any serious debate. Drop it.

    You don't give me evidence of homosexual couples. People that would follow the catholic church's values concerning relationships with the sole difference of being the same sex. It is one thing having sex and another think having a relationship with a more romantic sense.
    This is ridiculous. There's no difference in the eyes of the church. Well, in fact there is one. The homosexual couple that performs sex for sex without any romantic attachment is also incurring in the sin of fornication.

    But how do you propose I give you evidence of homosexual couples in ancient times? And since when this will constitute proof of them not existing when a) all evidence points to homosexuality existing in those times, b) a large portion of the world population lived in rural areas away from the close scrutiny of the church and c) daily events in any society were at large not documented and any such historic documents would surely be destroyed by now by the ravages of time.

    And finally what does it matter if there were couples or not? How can this ever constitute matter for debate if the church does not condone homosexuals, but instead homosexual activity?

    If what you said was true, why wouldn't it just say so? Why does it says "man should lie with other mans as they do with woman?". It would say that "men shouldn't lie with other men" only.
    Let me bring the quote back: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

    Meaning, if a man lies with another man as he would with another women. That is, if he would perform with another man the same acts expected of him with a woman.

    The text has been translated on any bible I know simply to mean a man that has sex with another man or performs homosexual activities with another man. The presence of "woman" is being used as comparison to reveal the true meaning of "lie". You couldn't use lie only, because men used to sleep with other men quiet frequently in those times. For the vast majority of the population, houses where small and with just one division that was used as sleeping quarters for the whole occupants. On the army, men slept all together, often in pairs and more to gather body heat during the cold nights and as a sign of comradery. Wandering Priests often slept with other men when invited to sleep in followers homes. They also slept with other priests on small monasteries. There was then (and there is today) no problem whatsoever between two men sharing the same bed.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 01-25-2010 at 07:08 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #87
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Meaning, if a man lies with another man as he would with another women. That is, if he would perform with another man the same acts expected of him with a woman.
    Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
    If he was expected to perform the acts with another woman, wasn't he also be expected to be heterosexual?

    My point is that if you asked back then anybody "why would a man have homosexual activity with another man", you would propably never get the answer "because they are in love". It could exist, but people didn't think so.

    So, I am simply saying that back then people of the same sex were not thought to be able to be in love. And form a marriage under God.

    Evidence? None of course. As you have none. This is not a simple matter. What I say is my knowledge from sources, claimed to be "historical". Haven't search the matter more in debth. So, if you understand what I am saying, but disagree then I don't have anything more to add.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    This is ridiculous. There's no difference in the eyes of the church. Well, in fact there is one. The homosexual couple that performs sex for sex without any romantic attachment is also incurring in the sin of fornication.
    Yes, and that is why I say couple. Because otherwise they are sinners to the church anyways.

    Let me get more clear. What I am saying is that homosexuality would be considered a sin back then, because the idea of a married homosexual couple didn't exist. It was out of the question. Thus, a homosexual act would be done for the "wrong" reasons. God was being more "wise" than "revealing a truth".
    Today the standards have changed. Homosexuals have shown that they can have a relationship out of love and other "good" values.
    ----------------

    But the bottom line is that you believe that the church is against homosexuality. So, why should a catholic homosexual demand to get married. That was my whole point on the topic. Which you never actually answered. You are giving arguments against your initial point. If by those verse in Leviticus it is so obvious for you, why would a homosexual even consider to be catholic???

    EDIT: Lets not get too distracted from the original topic. I have to remind you that I am using both options here. The church being against or not homosexuality. In both cases I disagreed in a sense on what you are saying.
    Last edited by C_ntua; 01-25-2010 at 07:34 PM.

  13. #88
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,578
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
    If he was expected to perform the acts with another woman, wasn't he also be expected to be heterosexual?
    I give up.

    My point is that if you asked back then anybody "why would a man have homosexual activity with another man", you would propably never get the answer "because they are in love". It could exist, but people didn't think so.
    Really? Let's turn the table and ask you, what do you know?

    So, I am simply saying that back then people of the same sex were not thought to be able to be in love. And form a marriage under God.
    There's no manner of knowing this for sure. Paganic rituals were commonplace. In fact, Leviticus chapter refer to these in several places. One of these pagan Gods has already been alluded to on this thread in verse 20-2; Moloch. Adding to that, the world was made up of a larger number of individuals living in other places of the planet and having different cultures. Some of which agreeing to and performing homosexual activities. Still from Leviticus, 20-23 "And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." clearly indicating there's other nations perform these actions without guilt as part of their culture.

    And for all we now about homosexuality it is a romantic and a sexual attraction. There is no evidence, neither it makes any sense, the biology of homosexuality was different back then. It is quite acceptable to deduce that this romantic attraction was well known. People weren't dumb just because they lived in ancient times.

    Yes, and that is why I say couple. Because otherwise they are sinners to the church anyways.
    Not otherwise. They are sinners wether they were a couple or not. The sin is not in being homosexual, but in performing an homosexual act.

    Let me get more clear. What I am saying is that homosexuality would be considered a sin back then, because the idea of a married homosexual couple didn't exist. It was out of the question. Thus, a homosexual act would be done for the "wrong" reasons. God was being more "wise" than "revealing a truth".
    There's nothing wise about a death penalty for homosexual activity. But to answer your statement directly, Leviticus mentions homosexuality and fornication in different verses. Clearly one is not the same as the other. So there's fornication and there's homosexuality. Both distinct sins.

    But the bottom line is that you believe that the church is against homosexuality. So, why should a catholic homosexual demand to get married. That was my whole point on the topic. Which you never actually answered.
    I don't believe. I know for a fact and the church agrees.

    And if any catholic homosexual demands to get married by the church (and I personally don't know of any, but agree there certainly must exist quiet a few) they are certainly questioning the church doctrine on this matter. This is no different from the group of priests within the catholic church that currently demand the right to be married, for instance. Questioning the church doctrine has become quite an habit on the past decades. I wonder why...

    You are giving arguments against your initial point. If by those verse in Leviticus it is so obvious for you, why would a homosexual even consider to be catholic???
    And why not? You would find the answer yourself if you studied the Catholic church more in debt and learned that the condition of sin is not grounds for removal from the church, neither is sin grounds for loss of faith.

    Do you plan top leave the catholic church next time you lie? What about greed? glutony? What if you ever sleep with a married woman? And when you decide to have sex before you get married? All these are capital sins. Why should you be a Catholic the moment you practice one of these sins?

    EDIT: Lets not get too distracted from the original topic. I have to remind you that I am using both options here. The church being against or not homosexuality. In both cases I disagreed in a sense on what you are saying.
    I honestly don't know what you are doing. The church is against homosexuality. I'm totally confused as to why you want to debate "in case it isn't". I think you are taking a step larger than your leg in this whole debate. In fact I'm convinced.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 01-25-2010 at 09:27 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #89
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    I would ask of you to explain this part to me. As I read it right now this is religious fascism.
    I think that some of the meaning of the statement might have gotten lost as I tried to pair down the quotations to make them fit and be of reasonable length in my original post. Here is the entire quote in context:

    "Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

    The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights."


    I don't see how this could denote a fascist meaning. Although it is true that there are other freedoms that are infringed upon quite often, he is obviously focusing on religious freedoms for the purpose of his audience.

    I believe it is true that in recent years there has been a common trend of attempting to silence religious voices in public debates. That shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

    No. In fact, this is the typical move where you turn the offender into a victim.
    I agree that this quotation is a bit rough, and my purpose in using it was not to offend Athiests in any way. I actually have some very good friends who are athiests, and are not hostile towards religion in any way.

    The point I was hoping to convey by using that portion of his speech is found primarily in the part that says, "Such forces...would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation."

    This goes along with what I was saying about the previous quote. There is a large faction that is pretty much opposed to religiously-based persons influencing law, because of a misinterpretation of the separation of church and state.

    I chose to not address that part because I'm not familiar with LDS Church involvement in Proposition 8.
    To bring you up to speed on that: the LDS church itself donated no money (so far as my knowledge goes) to the movement, although it did speak strongly about it. The Church does not take political positions except when the issue at hand directly concerns the core doctrine of the church, and in this case it most definitely does. Therefore, the LDS church did encourage members to fight for "traditional" marriage. Members of the church (but not the church itself) did donate quite a bit of money to the cause. I don't know any numbers, though.

    If that's the case, then I'd point out that there is a difference between expressing views and beliefs and imposing them on others through law. Anti-gay marriage advocates may express their preference for their version of marriage as much as they like. That is one of their civil rights. But that does not include enacting legislation that imposes their preference for a definition of marriage upon the entire community.
    Now, Daved, let me answer your question (since I've given the background and brought Mario F. up to speed).

    I understand very well the problem of imposing ones views on others. Often times this can lead to a "minority tyranny" or even a "majority tyranny" when one group tyrannically imposes its views on others.

    However, to fully understand the issue, you have to realize the impact this legislation would have had on churches in California. It wasn't simply a matter of allowing same-gender couples to marry in civil courts. In fact, California already had a law allowing same-gender civil unions with all the same rights as marriages. Instead, the implications of it would have (according to my knowledge) even held churches accountable if they refused to marry same gender couples. It was a matter of preserving the freedom of religion as well.

    However, not ever before in history has the homosexual debate been so fracturing.
    Might I extend upon this comment and say that never in the history of the United States has the entire nation been so fractured? And I don't mean just about the debate of same-gender marriages, but also of health care, the wars we are fighting, the economy, and everything else going on. Sorry...this was a tangent...

    I received a couple of mormons on my home last year, David.
    Glad to hear it
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  15. #90
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Do you plan top leave the catholic church next time you lie? What about greed? glutony? What if you ever sleep with a married woman? And when you decide to have sex before you get married? All these are capital sins. Why should you be a Catholic the moment you practice one of these sins?
    I commented on that in another post (though was quoting lasesight and not you).
    A homosexual is willingly being one. He is not doing it "by accident". Yes, a homosexual act is considered a sin, not being a homosexual. But by "being a homosexual" implies that you want to have a homosexual act. Otherwise you wouldn't be considered one.

    By being a homosexual, I mean willingly wanting to have homosexual acts. I consider homosexual a person that wants to have such acts. If somebody wanted to lie, he wouldn't believe in a religion telling him not to lie. If he doesn't want to lie, but he lies, then it is completely different.

    A homosexual wanting to get married (and to have sex with his partner) is actually asking to sin. Isn't that contradictive??

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    And if any catholic homosexual demands to get married by the church (and I personally don't know of any, but agree there certainly must exist quiet a few) they are certainly questioning the church doctrine on this matter. This is no different from the group of priests within the catholic church that currently demand the right to be married, for instance. Questioning the church doctrine has become quite an habit on the past decades. I wonder why...
    Yes, that is what I am being saying. That they would questioning the church. That would be their approach. I disagree when I hear things that they have the "civil right" to be married. When it something completely religious. They can either have a civil marriage, either question the belief of homosexuality is a sin. The fact that people are asking for the church to change its ideas is ridiculous. They can either accept it or not accept it. Or argue on the churches believes (a thelogical discussion).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I honestly don't know what you are doing. The church is against homosexuality. I'm totally confused as to why you want to debate "in case it isn't". I think you are taking a step larger than your leg in this whole debate. In fact I'm convinced.
    If it is or not is debatable. At least by many christians. As a lot of things are as well. Personally, I don't think it matters for this discussion. I don't have anything more to add on the "if christianity is against homosexuality". We can as well consider it being against it for this topic.

    You started the post saying that the church goes against human rights. I am trying to tell you that
    1. A religious marriage is different than a civil one. So non-catholic homosexuals shouldn't care at all about the opinion of the church. Neither do they care about religious marriages.
    2. A homosexual catholic wouldn't ask to willingly sin, by getting married and having sex with his partner. That is contradictive.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. The pope
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-06-2005, 03:06 AM
  2. Religion
    By gnu-ehacks in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 239
    Last Post: 01-26-2002, 10:44 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21