Then there's that filthy thread about the Pope and his sexual habits - heaping verbal abuse of the lowest kind is not an intelligent response and can only provoke disgust in anyone who reads it.
I note you ignore the reasons behind that thread...you know, the Pope using his Christmas message to pretty much just insult anyone who identifies as LGBT.
Surely, one of the most important religious leaders in the world should behave with a little more decorum?
Laws against interracial marriage were an obscenity since marriage between any man and any women is 'an honourable estate'. (although I don't believe that prohibition ever applied in the UK - it was an American thing surely? And a Hitlerian one?)
There was no legal ban in the U.K, but culturally and socially it was certainly frowned upon.
Marriage between men? A lot of people find that silly and outside a clear definition of what marriage is. It's a question of semantics really.The argument will rumble on, I daresay, I only weish that people would discuss it properly instead of pretending that they are Rosa Parks or an oppressed black American. It's too silly for words to speak in those terms.
And what about marriage between women? There is a lot more to LGBT than just gay men.
There certainly is a similarity between inequality because of sexuality, or inequality because of race.
Both involve rights being impinged upon, based solely on something that the person cannot control.
As Jesaya has already said, Desmond Tutu sees the similarity and I'd trust his opinion more than yours..
you avoided it and I have many defences to the same old homophobic nonsense, "bigot" and "homophobe" are words that apply for reasons that are repeatedly pointed out to people, one of the last defences by the homophobes is to whinge when accurate terms are used
It does annoy me that people are more annoyed by your use of the word bigot and homophobe, than they are about the people actually wanting to curtail the rights of others!!
But why do you believe that? Nowhere in the bible does Jesus state that homosexuality is abhorrent or that SSM is abhorrent. In fact Jesus said nothing at all on the subject of homosexuality. So why do you, as a follower of Jesus Christ, believe that you know more about what God finds abhorrent than his own son?
Jesus spread a message of love and peace for all mankind, and mankind includes heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals and yes even homosexuals, because God made man that way.
The poster challenged the bit in bold below with "Really" (?) which I why I say that it is a stupid post.
Was the Archbishop really "attacking harmless gays" or declaring opposition to the idea of "gay marriage"?. There's quite a difference.
Not from where I sit. Aside from trying to deny me the opportunity to marry my partner, he is also perpetuating the belief that gay people don't deserve equal treatment. People who promote prejudice - and that is exactly what he is doing - are definitely attacking.
Not from where I sit. Aside from trying to deny me the opportunity to marry my partner, he is also perpetuating the belief that gay people don't deserve equal treatment. People who promote prejudice - and that is exactly what he is doing - are definitely attacking.
The bishops and likes of Peter Bone keep saying that there is no public support for gay marriage - as usual from the anti equality side, its a falsehood:
Not from where I sit. Aside from trying to deny me the opportunity to marry my partner, he is also perpetuating the belief that gay people don't deserve equal treatment. People who promote prejudice - and that is exactly what he is doing - are definitely attacking.
Tosh. One is highly emotive language designed to ATTACK his beliefs and discredit him for having the audacity to maintain them, the other just reports what happened.
Regarding "not deserving" (more emotive stuff that misses the point), one would think there was no such thing as a civil partnership.
But why do you believe that? Nowhere in the bible does Jesus state that homosexuality is abhorrent or that SSM is abhorrent. In fact Jesus said nothing at all on the subject of homosexuality. So why do you, as a follower of Jesus Christ, believe that you know more about what God finds abhorrent than his own son?
Jesus spread a message of love and peace for all mankind, and mankind includes heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals and yes even homosexuals, because God made man that way.
I will try and answer your question.
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
Divine Law
The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
Natural Law
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
"I Was Born This Way"
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
The Ten Percent Argument
Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.
But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.
But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.
Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)
Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.
"You’re Just a Homophobe"
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
The Call to Chastity
The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).
Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
Don't flatter yourself love, there's nothing intelligent about your views.
... and yet another accusation of stupidity or idiocy on this thread directed at anyone who doesn't wholly support the concept of "gay marriage". I suppose this makes this response 'intelligent', somehow ..
It does annoy me that people are more annoyed by your use of the word bigot and homophobe, than they are about the people actually wanting to curtail the rights of others!!
One exclaimation mark would suffice. Perhaps it's because anyone who doesn't declare their unwavering support for gays being able to be married is automatically and lazily branded a bigot or homophobe. If civil partnerships are available, rights are hardly being curtailed.
... and yet another accusation of stupidity or idiocy on this thread directed at anyone who doesn't wholly support the concept of "gay marriage". I suppose this makes this response 'intelligent', somehow ..
One exclaimation mark would suffice. Perhaps it's because anyone who doesn't declare their unwavering support for gays being able to be married is automatically and lazily branded a bigot or homophobe. If civil partnerships are available, rights are hardly being curtailed.
hi Scrilla. If someone stopped you from getting married and said that you marrying the person you loved was destroying marriage, ruining families, poisonous and immoral, how would you feel.
... and yet another accusation of stupidity or idiocy on this thread directed at anyone who doesn't wholly support the concept of "gay marriage". I suppose this makes this response 'intelligent', somehow ..
One exclaimation mark would suffice. Perhaps it's because anyone who doesn't declare their unwavering support for gays being able to be married is automatically and lazily branded a bigot or homophobe. If civil partnerships are available, rights are hardly being curtailed.
The problem being, when folks are being stupid and idiotic, its difficult not to accuse them of stupidity and idiocy.
Tosh. One is highly emotive language designed to ATTACK his beliefs and discredit him for having the audacity to maintain them, the other just reports what happened.
Regarding "not deserving" (more emotive stuff that misses the point), one would think there was no such thing as a civil partnership.
Discredit? He hasn't validate a word of the tosh that he has spouted so it has no credibility to discredit.
As for the civil partnership, maybe you would like to tell us all why the hell should we gay people have that whilst straight people have something else. Do you have a valid point or anything to back that up?
We will not be discriminated against and that is that! Anyone who think that we should be, is a homophobe and as disgusting and socially unacceptable as a filthy racist.
Was the Archbishop really "attacking harmless gays" or declaring opposition to the idea of "gay marriage"?. There's quite a difference.
If someone opposed your right to marry because of your sexual orientation would any such distinction be that important? Would you not with some justification regard it as an attack on harmless heterosexuals.
hi Scrilla. If someone stopped you from getting married and said that you marrying the person you loved was destroying marriage, ruining families, poisonous and immoral, how would you feel.
Well, putting things a little more accurately, no one would stop ME from getting married, marriage might be just one of many things not available to me and all other people who don't meet certain criteria. A civil partnership is an equivalent partership, which omits the religious aspect: the religion where the disapproval originates, so if I wanted to be 'joined' with another person, I could.
Regarding people and their claims: "destroying marriage", "ruining families", "poisonous", "immoral", I honestly can't see why that would trouble me if I was doing what I wanted to do. It's not as if any of us live through life without disapproval. I've had plenty. It would be bizarre to want a marriage rather than have a civil partnership when all it really introduces is the participation of a religious institution whose participation is wholly unnecessary and which views me with disapproval!
Well, putting things a little more accurately, no one would stop ME from getting married, marriage might be just one of many things not available to me and all other people who don't meet certain criteria. A civil partnership is an equivalent partership, which omits the religious aspect: the religion where the disapproval originates, so if I wanted to be 'joined' with another person, I could.
Regarding people and their claims: "destroying marriage", "ruining families", "poisonous", "immoral", I honestly can't see why that would trouble me if I was doing what I wanted to do. It's not as if any of us live through life without disapproval. I've had plenty. It would be bizarre to want a marriage rather than have a civil partnership when all it really introduces is the participation of a religious institution whose participation is wholly unnecessary and which views me with disapproval!
A marriage does not have to be a religious marriage. Nor does being religious mean you have to disapprove of people caring for people of the same gender.
If some religions want to make up nonsensical reasons, for disapproving of what other people do freely and without harming unwilling parties, they can do that. But why should that in any way matter in what the law is?
Well, putting things a little more accurately, no one would stop ME from getting married, marriage might be just one of many things not available to me and all other people who don't meet certain criteria. A civil partnership is an equivalent partership, which omits the religious aspect: the religion where the disapproval originates, so if I wanted to be 'joined' with another person, I could.
Regarding people and their claims: "destroying marriage", "ruining families", "poisonous", "immoral", I honestly can't see why that would trouble me if I was doing what I wanted to do. It's not as if any of us live through life without disapproval. I've had plenty. It would be bizarre to want a marriage rather than have a civil partnership when all it really introduces is the participation of a religious institution whose participation is wholly unnecessary and which views me with disapproval!
You know little about what you speak of. I'm gay and don't want a civil partnership. I'd like to marry. However, that doesn't mean I want to get married in a church, there is civil marriage, too. And civil marriage isn't religiously affiliated at all.
It's all too easy to say that gays have civil partnerships therefore should stop moaning when you're straight and can already choose to marry.
I really dislike the arrogance of that viewpoint. You might as well say "I'm all right, Jack"...
Well, putting things a little more accurately, no one would stop ME from getting married, marriage might be just one of many things not available to me and all other people who don't meet certain criteria. A civil partnership is an equivalent partership, which omits the religious aspect: the religion where the disapproval originates, so if I wanted to be 'joined' with another person, I could.
Regarding people and their claims: "destroying marriage", "ruining families", "poisonous", "immoral", I honestly can't see why that would trouble me if I was doing what I wanted to do. It's not as if any of us live through life without disapproval. I've had plenty. It would be bizarre to want a marriage rather than have a civil partnership when all it really introduces is the participation of a religious institution whose participation is wholly unnecessary and which views me with disapproval!
It seems you are not aware of the institution of civil marriage. A secular arrangement that has been available to heterosexual couples since 1836.
Well, putting things a little more accurately, no one would stop ME from getting married, marriage might be just one of many things not available to me and all other people who don't meet certain criteria. A civil partnership is an equivalent partership, which omits the religious aspect: the religion where the disapproval originates, so if I wanted to be 'joined' with another person, I could.
Regarding people and their claims: "destroying marriage", "ruining families", "poisonous", "immoral", I honestly can't see why that would trouble me if I was doing what I wanted to do. It's not as if any of us live through life without disapproval. I've had plenty. It would be bizarre to want a marriage rather than have a civil partnership when all it really introduces is the participation of a religious institution whose participation is wholly unnecessary and which views me with disapproval!
Well you dodged the question.
ok then.
You are aware that a civil partnership isn't just a non-religious service? it's only for gay people.
Many gay people are religious, many regions welcome gay people.
I am sure you know this so I didn't challenge your IQ by asking this.
I asked you simply if you would mind if you were barred from marriage because your relationship was considered evil.
It's not just a matter of "equivalent" although separate is not equal anyway, it's the added condemnation and that a church who you are (lets say) not even a member of, will seek to actively bar you from getting married and encourage others to block you from doing what you want, which isn't even getting married necessarily, just being equal and treated as a human being.
If it's just the same then why not just let gay people marry.
As for the civil partnership, maybe you would like to tell us all why the hell should we gay people have that whilst straight people have something else. Do you have a valid point or anything to back that up?
Simply because no matter how much society tries to engineer 'equality' things are actually different. To paraphrase you, what the hell do you gay people have against a civil partnership? It offers what marriage offers without the participation of the organisation who follow the 'homophobic' book. Why would anyone WANT the involvement of disapproving people, when it's wholly optional?!
We will not be discriminated against and that is that!
You are being discriminated against. Men have no wombs and woman don't have convenient penises. By calling people gay, straight, asexual, it's an act of discrimination. It doesn't mean it's significantly negative. There is nothing significantly negative about a civil partnership. It doesn't involve the negative view of the church.
I searched for something that would explain better than I ever could what it is I believe.
Lol! It's almost like a parody site. If so, that page would start with a statement along the lines of: "when fighting the good fight against same sex marriage, feel free to use this crib sheet to help you formulate your replies".
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
Dude, just cut to the chase, no need for these verbose statements, you could have just said the following:
The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).
Does that chapter/verse/whatever explicitly state that there was homosexuality involved?
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
I don't remember the word homosexuality used in the account of Sodom..
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9).
Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.
Is that explicitly stated, or is that just your interpretation?
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
So a woman can lie with whoever she wants? Lucky lesbians/gay women!
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
All I learned from this is that Paul is a bit of a filthy voyeur..
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
Given that the word homosexual didn't come into use until much after this Paul would have been dead, I do wonder how he managed to use it..
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.
Interspecies breeding, although rare, does occur though. I'm not about to get into a discussion about the moral rights and wrongs of it, but it happens.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man.
Just because you state something as a fact doesn't make it so.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
Morals are not wholly innate, and even if they were, that would be irrelevant to a discussion on sexuality..
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
This is such a muddled mess I don't know where to start. I might just skip it. It doesn't make much sense anyway.
Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.
But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.
But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.
Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)
Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.
I wouldn't care if I was the only LGBT identifying person in the world, it doesn't give you the right to deny my civil rights..
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
Homophobia has little to do with fear, and a lot to do with discrimination. The part that most people who object to this term often forget, is they are only called a homophobe, when they come out with something homophobic!
The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).
Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
I think I'm losing the will to live here, you've spouted a lot of bullshit as if it's fact, and are using this as a reason to deny people rights?
Maybe I can make some shit up and suggest that Catholics should have less rights based on whatever happens to be in my head?
... and yet another accusation of stupidity or idiocy on this thread directed at anyone who doesn't wholly support the concept of "gay marriage". I suppose this makes this response 'intelligent', somehow ..
I never claimed that my response was intelligent, I merely responded in kind:).
One exclaimation mark would suffice. Perhaps it's because anyone who doesn't declare their unwavering support for gays being able to be married is automatically and lazily branded a bigot or homophobe. If civil partnerships are available, rights are hardly being curtailed.
It's not lazy. Wanting to curtail the rights of others based on their sexuality is homophobic.
Civil partnership is not marriage, therefore it's not equal. It's not difficult dear.
hi Scrilla. If someone stopped you from getting married and said that you marrying the person you loved was destroying marriage, ruining families, poisonous and immoral, how would you feel.
Exactly, I can tell you I feel ****ing infuriated by it all.
Comments
Well whoever stated that certainly doesn't speak for me, or any other LGBT identifying person. They speak for themselves.
I note you ignore the reasons behind that thread...you know, the Pope using his Christmas message to pretty much just insult anyone who identifies as LGBT.
Surely, one of the most important religious leaders in the world should behave with a little more decorum?
Don't flatter yourself love, there's nothing intelligent about your views.
There was no legal ban in the U.K, but culturally and socially it was certainly frowned upon.
And what about marriage between women? There is a lot more to LGBT than just gay men.
There certainly is a similarity between inequality because of sexuality, or inequality because of race.
Both involve rights being impinged upon, based solely on something that the person cannot control.
As Jesaya has already said, Desmond Tutu sees the similarity and I'd trust his opinion more than yours..
It does annoy me that people are more annoyed by your use of the word bigot and homophobe, than they are about the people actually wanting to curtail the rights of others!!
I'm a big fan of Lynne, she has good old common sense about her.
But why do you believe that? Nowhere in the bible does Jesus state that homosexuality is abhorrent or that SSM is abhorrent. In fact Jesus said nothing at all on the subject of homosexuality. So why do you, as a follower of Jesus Christ, believe that you know more about what God finds abhorrent than his own son?
Jesus spread a message of love and peace for all mankind, and mankind includes heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals and yes even homosexuals, because God made man that way.
Not from where I sit. Aside from trying to deny me the opportunity to marry my partner, he is also perpetuating the belief that gay people don't deserve equal treatment. People who promote prejudice - and that is exactly what he is doing - are definitely attacking.
Spot on.
http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll
Regarding "not deserving" (more emotive stuff that misses the point), one would think there was no such thing as a civil partnership.
Which only exists because the government is afraid of upsetting the hateful.
There is zero reason to keep it separate, other than to treat it as inferior.
I will try and answer your question.
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
Divine Law
The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.
Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.
But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
Natural Law
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
"I Was Born This Way"
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.
But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
The Ten Percent Argument
Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.
But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.
But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.
Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)
Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.
"You’re Just a Homophobe"
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
The Call to Chastity
The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.
The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.
"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).
Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).
One exclaimation mark would suffice. Perhaps it's because anyone who doesn't declare their unwavering support for gays being able to be married is automatically and lazily branded a bigot or homophobe. If civil partnerships are available, rights are hardly being curtailed.
hi Scrilla. If someone stopped you from getting married and said that you marrying the person you loved was destroying marriage, ruining families, poisonous and immoral, how would you feel.
The problem being, when folks are being stupid and idiotic, its difficult not to accuse them of stupidity and idiocy.
Hey, I love the sinner, just not the sin eh?
Discredit? He hasn't validate a word of the tosh that he has spouted so it has no credibility to discredit.
As for the civil partnership, maybe you would like to tell us all why the hell should we gay people have that whilst straight people have something else. Do you have a valid point or anything to back that up?
We will not be discriminated against and that is that! Anyone who think that we should be, is a homophobe and as disgusting and socially unacceptable as a filthy racist.
If someone opposed your right to marry because of your sexual orientation would any such distinction be that important? Would you not with some justification regard it as an attack on harmless heterosexuals.
Regarding people and their claims: "destroying marriage", "ruining families", "poisonous", "immoral", I honestly can't see why that would trouble me if I was doing what I wanted to do. It's not as if any of us live through life without disapproval. I've had plenty. It would be bizarre to want a marriage rather than have a civil partnership when all it really introduces is the participation of a religious institution whose participation is wholly unnecessary and which views me with disapproval!
A marriage does not have to be a religious marriage. Nor does being religious mean you have to disapprove of people caring for people of the same gender.
If some religions want to make up nonsensical reasons, for disapproving of what other people do freely and without harming unwilling parties, they can do that. But why should that in any way matter in what the law is?
You know little about what you speak of. I'm gay and don't want a civil partnership. I'd like to marry. However, that doesn't mean I want to get married in a church, there is civil marriage, too. And civil marriage isn't religiously affiliated at all.
It's all too easy to say that gays have civil partnerships therefore should stop moaning when you're straight and can already choose to marry.
I really dislike the arrogance of that viewpoint. You might as well say "I'm all right, Jack"...
It seems you are not aware of the institution of civil marriage. A secular arrangement that has been available to heterosexual couples since 1836.
Well you dodged the question.
ok then.
You are aware that a civil partnership isn't just a non-religious service? it's only for gay people.
Many gay people are religious, many regions welcome gay people.
I am sure you know this so I didn't challenge your IQ by asking this.
I asked you simply if you would mind if you were barred from marriage because your relationship was considered evil.
It's not just a matter of "equivalent" although separate is not equal anyway, it's the added condemnation and that a church who you are (lets say) not even a member of, will seek to actively bar you from getting married and encourage others to block you from doing what you want, which isn't even getting married necessarily, just being equal and treated as a human being.
If it's just the same then why not just let gay people marry.
Simply because no matter how much society tries to engineer 'equality' things are actually different. To paraphrase you, what the hell do you gay people have against a civil partnership? It offers what marriage offers without the participation of the organisation who follow the 'homophobic' book. Why would anyone WANT the involvement of disapproving people, when it's wholly optional?!
You are being discriminated against. Men have no wombs and woman don't have convenient penises. By calling people gay, straight, asexual, it's an act of discrimination. It doesn't mean it's significantly negative. There is nothing significantly negative about a civil partnership. It doesn't involve the negative view of the church.
Round and round we go.
You should probably quote your source, unless you expect people to believe you came up with all that patronising crap yourself.
Take your common sense views and get the hell out of here!!!
Careful, you'll get told off for not debating the subject intelligently now.
By all means http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
I searched for something that would explain better than I ever could what it is I believe.
Lol! It's almost like a parody site. If so, that page would start with a statement along the lines of: "when fighting the good fight against same sex marriage, feel free to use this crib sheet to help you formulate your replies".
A civil partnership is not marriage. Therefore, there is not equality.
What exactly is natural law?
Dude, just cut to the chase, no need for these verbose statements, you could have just said the following:
Sucking cock=bad.
Not that I think it's bad of course:).
Does that chapter/verse/whatever explicitly state that there was homosexuality involved?
I don't remember the word homosexuality used in the account of Sodom..
So equally, it might not refer to that?
Is that explicitly stated, or is that just your interpretation?
So a woman can lie with whoever she wants? Lucky lesbians/gay women!
All I learned from this is that Paul is a bit of a filthy voyeur..
Given that the word homosexual didn't come into use until much after this Paul would have been dead, I do wonder how he managed to use it..
So why do some denominations not agree with this?
So if something occurs in nature it's all fine and dandy?
Some female spiders eat their partner after copulation, I'm not sure I'd want to do that. Even if it is 'natural'..
Interspecies breeding, although rare, does occur though. I'm not about to get into a discussion about the moral rights and wrongs of it, but it happens.
Just because you state something as a fact doesn't make it so.
Bestiality and homosexuality are in no way comparable, and it is quite insulting for you to suggest so.
That being said, something that occurs in nature cannot therefore, be unnatural...
Morals are not wholly innate, and even if they were, that would be irrelevant to a discussion on sexuality..
This is such a muddled mess I don't know where to start. I might just skip it. It doesn't make much sense anyway.
I wouldn't care if I was the only LGBT identifying person in the world, it doesn't give you the right to deny my civil rights..
Homophobia has little to do with fear, and a lot to do with discrimination. The part that most people who object to this term often forget, is they are only called a homophobe, when they come out with something homophobic!
I think I'm losing the will to live here, you've spouted a lot of bullshit as if it's fact, and are using this as a reason to deny people rights?
Maybe I can make some shit up and suggest that Catholics should have less rights based on whatever happens to be in my head?
I never claimed that my response was intelligent, I merely responded in kind:).
It's not lazy. Wanting to curtail the rights of others based on their sexuality is homophobic.
Civil partnership is not marriage, therefore it's not equal. It's not difficult dear.
Exactly, I can tell you I feel ****ing infuriated by it all.