Can Homosexuality and the Christian Faith Exist Together?

Post Reply New Topic

Here's my intuitive and personal take on it. Ever since I was born - I was raised Catholic. I remember hearing for the very first time what 'gay' meant when I was six years old, from another kid, and I thought it was odd/funny but didn't think much of it.

I, as well as many others can admit to, have had same sex attractions and urges. I think this is normal. I was always, and still am, disturbed by the warmongering and politics that goes on back and forth between the church, and the Gay rights people. I honestly don't think either of them are seeking honesty and purity but are both trying to push an agenda with every day people like you and me caught in the middle, trying to make sense of it. I had to go through this when I was younger, and it was very confusing. This is my honest opinion. I believe God made us all in his image, and therefor nothing that comes out of us as a sign of true or pure love for one another can be bad, but is good. I don't believe homosexual love is impure.
I disagree with the way the radical left tries to force the issue, and think it's a large part of the reason there is so much strife. I also don't believe in gay "marriage". Marriage is between a man and woman. I don't think there is anything wrong with any kind of love in any form, but you have to take the love on its merit but to say there is something wrong with same gender love flat out is just false and incorrect.
That is my personal opinion on the matter.

Last edited by Whathappened on 05 Apr 2015, 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The 'left' isn't forcing anything. If there wasn't so much discrimination against gays, it wouldn't be an issue. When pushing for human rights, there is little that goes too far... Try thinking before writing...

Excuse me? Check yourself. They most certainly are, and maybe you should take your own suggestion.

Where exactly am I wrong? do you really think that gays haven't been discriminated against in this country and elsewhere? Your turn...

Not too bad.

But why deny gays marriage. To deny them destroys the benefits on taxes, pensions and other social benefits that the married enjoy. Sure you might say give those some other way but then you split them even further from the status quo just because they are gay. That is discrimination all over again.

"both trying to push an agenda"

Indeed. The right wants to discriminate and denigrate gays for being the way God made them and the gays are against that discrimination without a just cause.

Choose a side and get of the fence.

Regards
DL

"

Again, from the Catholic perspective, they can't get married, it's impossible as they do not meet the basic criteria. In order for a Catholic marriage to be valid, it has to be consumated. This means engaging in sexual intercourse in a manner that is open to life. Technically, homosexuals are incapable of sexual intercourse and more broadly, their sex acts are always closed to the posibility of creating life.

But why should secular authorities use the Catholic perspective on marriage? And why should non-Catholics care what the church thinks of marriage? I think there are two types of marriage, marriage in the church and marriage as a piece of paper that proves to the government that you now have certain rights concerning taxes and other things. Let the church decide who they marry (in church), and let the government keep marriage open to all us sinners. "Render to Caesar...".
I would also not qualify for a Catholic marriage I think, since I am not a Catholic. That's no reason for the government to deny me the right to marry.

I believe that gays should have the same rights as far as government is concerned, I just think, for the sake of accuracy, it should be called something else. The fact that the heterosexual marriage has the capability and extreme likelihood to create life makes that relationship intrinsically different from a homosexual relationship. Calling them both marriage is like calling both a circle and square a circle.

This is only an issue if creating new life would be the goal of a marriage.
In my eyes, it is not. it's a (common) consequence, but not a goal. hence there is no reason to change the name of the situation: that only introduces potential problems and negates part of the equal rights

Again trying to make them feel like second class citizens...

We agree here and YES, it's par for the course.

My grandfather is a Catholic Priest last century, who serves at the Vatican, in his many priestly hats, as support for legal counsel. In his days of priesthood, he observes rampant homosexuality and heterosexual promiscuity among the priests without marriage.

So yeah, back then, the priests called THAT something else, too.

'JUST GETTING IT ON.'

And that IS well before the reports of all the truly abhorrent sick stuff of Roman Catholic Pedophile PRIESTS developing fetishes for young boys and such, without an appropriate outlet for their sexuality to be EXPRESSED; truly disgusting and sad that is, too.

ANYWAY, seeing the great hypocrisy of the ROMAN Catholic Church at THAT time, my grandfather decides to marry a beautiful 17 year old girl (my grandmother) out of his parish in Taylor County, Florida, and goes his merry Protestant way, which by the way, I do not agree with either, per fine religious details; and starts 'Christ Missions' in New York, New York, as the editor of that magazine there.

Additionally, he writes books like 'Out of the Labyrinth'; 'A Soul of a Priest', and 'Behind the Dictators', per Roman Catholic Church influence on 'Nazi' and 'Fascist' ways of life. Interestingly, additionally, he 'lights up' the 'conspiracy theory' of the so-called 'EVIL Illuminati' started by Jesuit Priests, as a kind of 'GOSSIP' against Jewish leaning religious interests.

THOSE CATHOLIC PRIESTS CAN BE SO DAM CATTY..

HIS BOOKS, ARE All still available to peruse with a Google search, as well.

AND FOR FULL disclosure theRE is no commercial interest for me, pointing that out, as an additional point
of related interest for folks who are interested in the hypocrisies of the Roman Catholic Church, EXPOSED.

And no, he is no 'outlier' like me, capable of free verse poetry; he is an all literal THINKING 'Asperger-like', leaning dude.

His son, my father, finds a mixed American Indian woman over in another place of North Florida, who is a poet (my mother), who provides me the innate gift of creative flow, per a kind of intelligence far beyond the capacity of what my grandfather has to both understand the deeper metaphors of reality, and to express those deeper realities, 'THAT' WAY TOO...

And to be clear, the Catholic Church with his help, and the help of many other folks exposing the hypocrisies within, is much improved, to the point, where I feel comfortable there every Sunday morning sharing the sentiments of love and hope with the singing emotional contagion IN EXPRESSED SPIRIT OF HEART/SOUL WITH hundreds of other folks.

And as already mentioned in this thread, whenever hypocritical statements come up about homosexuals OR SINGLE MOTHERS in the mass by deacons;

me and my Monsignor Mike, in the past, working together,
have put a DEAD END TO THAT; TO DATE..

Change starts and ends with the human heart/soul EXPRESSED AS SPIRIT;

ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL.

FACTS JUST STAGNATE.

EMOTIONS CHANGE.

It doesn't matter if it's the goal or not. The point is, it's a huge difference and I believe it's a disservice to call two very different things the same thing.

So.. if i build a house to test if it resists an earthquake, it's not a house? or didn't i build it.
Is a car that's used for crash tests intrinsically different from one used for transportation?
A marriage is the legal union of an amount of people that want to make their love for each other official; be that 2, 3 or 10 people, be that males, females, hermafrodites; be they gay, straight, bi, pan... nothing is intrinsically different.
step away from your box and see a human as just that: a "human of some description", and there will be no more distinctions to allow or dissallow marriage, or anything else.
The only way to make special rules for a subset of humans is to first define that subset as truly different; and to rationalise the special rules, that subset must then be named 'inferior'

"The point is, it's a huge difference and I believe it's a disservice to call two very different things the same thing." --Bataar

That the difference is huge is your opinion, not a fact.

There was once a time in this nation when women were considered significantly different from men, when people with light skin and blue eyes vastly different from anyone with darker skin, even when animals were considered enormously different from humans (who are, BTW, still animals). It was almost impossible to get many people to treat them with respect and humanity because those "big differences" almost required them to be put into separate categories and therefor supposedly justified differential treatment. The era of Jim Crow taught many people that there's rarely such a thing as "separate but equal."

Some could easily make the case that those with atypical brain functions are inherently different from those with "typical" brains...oh, wait--some already do that in their quest to deny them care, education, and employment...

I will not stand by and let my LGBT friends be treated as if they're something so bizarre or far from the norm.

I change my opinion on this matter completely.
http://girandola.hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Gay-Myths-That-Need-to-Go
There is no gay gene, and people are not born gay/lesbian.
If you do your research, there are many examples of identical twins being two different sexual orientations.

But the fact that a straight man who believes being born lgtb is a myth, does his research, and finds out he is right, will always be dismissed as being homophobic is a sad sad truth.

There is no reason to think being lgbt is a reason to be hated or to hate though, and I agree with them being allowed to marry, as it is their choice to do what they want them selves.

Anyways, I do not hate lgbt or straight people, I hate misinformation.

Dude, you need to get your research from science and not a frigging 'blog'.

There IS A 20% INNATE GENETIC ASSOCIATION FOR HOMOSEXUALITY AMONG TWINS.

JUST CAUSE YOUR 'BLOGGER' DIDN'T CHECK THE CURRENT SCIENCE, DOESN'T MAKE HIM RIGHT.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/14/3293791/study-sexual-orientation-genetic-link/

I've KNOWN LITERALLY almost 100 thousand folks in my life,
straight, gay, and whatever comes with the soup
of human genetic mix.

The ONLY PEOPLE I HAVE EVER FOUND WHO ARE HOMOPHOBES are 'little men',
who are afraid they are gay themselves.

Men who are confident in their masculinity, are not afraid of dudes who like dudes.

Men who are afraid they are little 'p's, and you probably know what I am talking about;
are scared to death that they may like the big 'P's too...

Truly it's a simple as that;

Human scaredy cat nature exposed for all to see.

Whenever I see a homophobe, they make me giggle, and that is all;

AS they are transparent, as their mouth watering looks at porn, and I'M NOT
TALKING ABOUT THE
LITTLE 'p' EITHER.

Homosexuality, is prevalent in the animal kingdom and human's closest primate
cousin the Bonobo engages in homosexual and other promiscuous behavior
freely to avoid Bonobo conflict, aggression, and potential violence; and
that's just Zoology 101, friend.

So, if these 'faux masculine men', need a little 'p', or big 'P' to relax;
it's much better than living life, frustrated and miserable;
aggressive and violent; or whatever,
from never ever expressing
what they truly
are inside.

Meanwhile, the homophobes just expose
what they truly are inside;
through the fears
of what they
are; they
express
through THAT fear.

'Guys like me' are
never fooled by
'them' one 'little'
'bit'.

'We' just 'snicker';
at their weakness;
And that is all.

We have a very effeminate looking and acting
Priest at my Catholic church who always makes
a homophobe comment about pink
when he wears his
Salmon colored robe; and every time he does
that he outs himself so beautiful in his pink
robe he does expose...

But if he is truly a 'real' so-called 'man'
he will NOT be afraid
of
a little
'salmon'.
to color
his

life.

HAHA!
with
GIGGLES TOO.

HUMANS CAN BE SO FRIGGING TRANSPARENT;
WITH TRULY SMART FOLKS
SEEING 'RIGHT'
THROUGH
THEM
WITH
EASE,
LIKE
'ME'..