[New Law: Restaurants Must Permit Gays to Publicly Exhibit Affection]
Looks like it's time for UK Catholics to get out of the restaurant, hotel and B&B business.
Can anyone else see that everyone has 'rights' these days except Christians, and that it is escalating?
[Why is non-religious "gay marriage" not ok?]
The union of two members of the same sex is simply not marriage. To say that it is, leaves the union that marriage has always been without a word to identify it.
If we begin to assign the word “cat” to dogs, we are left without a word to describe that small feline that people have for pets.
Further, changing the name of a thing does not change the nature of what that thing is. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The relationship of two people of the same sex will always be that—regardless of what one calls it. It will never ever be the union of two persons whose individual sexualities complement and complete each other in every way. Only marriage is that. We are talking honesty here. To say that two different things are the same is simply not the truth!
Many people critisize the catholic church because it would hand heretics over to the authorites for their false teachings. from there the authorities would often execute heretics by burning at the stake.
I believe that these actions, at the time, were justified because heresy is the cause for the damnation of souls and we execute people for murdering the body but heretics murder thousands of souls with their false teachings. Think about it, which is worse, for one person to die or for thousands to be led astray into hell because of false teachers and descievers.
People often forget that the tiniest sin against a perfect, eternal God is intolerable. That ANYONE is allowed to enter heaven is an incomprehensible act of mercy.
(What concerns me about how some Catholics view marriage, it can come across that it's all about reproduction, rather than love.)
Marriage being about love is a rather new idea, and looking at the current state of marriage, not a good one.
My husband and I are very protective of our daughter, I admit that. Last night, she came to me and insisted she wanted to talk to me about our rules. A few she brought up:
1) She isn't allowed to lock the bathroom door. She can close it, and we knock before coming in, but it isn't safe to lock doors.
2) She isn't allowed to go over to her friends' houses. I am just not comfortable letting her go. Who knows who we live around? However, her friends are allowed coming over, and she can have one stay the night.
3) No boys are allowed. She is allowed to have male friends, but they aren't to be at the house, even when my husband and I are home. I know how teenage boys are.
4) She doesn't know her own password to her internet account. She's only to be online when my husband and I are at home, so we can keep watch over what she's doing.
5) She isn't allowed to watch/listen to movies or music unless we check it out beforehand. Even anything rated G. I no longer trust the MPAA.
6) We drive her to school, and we pick her up. She wishes to drive.
7) There is no door to her bedroom. She has a walk in closet, so she dresses in there.
8) No piercings, jewelry, or tattoos, of course! Also, no painted nails.
In raising the dead, Jesus proved that evolution is not responsible for all of life on earth. This refutes Darwinian theory. I don't know how Catholics can give such unqualified support for evolution, myself.
Sex is short for sexual intercourse. The definition of intercourse is "Dealings or communications between persons or groups." So, sexual intercourse is intercourse between the sexes. As such, there's no such thing as homosexual sex.
["Well, duh, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not marriage should only be allowed for a male/female couple."]
Do you believe that the definition of gravity should be changed, too? Some people might think the current definition of gravity is unfair.
[Of course gays can live with out sex. Anyone can. The question is why they should. Emphasis in original]
Because nobody should have SSA [Same Sex Attraction]. Nor does anybody that has it, want it. Regardless of whether or not people accept it as nomal.
To develop SSA, is like being robed of your sexuality, having your identity stolen. Its not the same as being Born black. If two gay couples who were in love with eachother, woke up one day as hetrosexuals, their marrige, their desire to have gay sex, and their love for eachother would end. They would nolonger see eachother the same way, since these things were based only upon the fact that they had a disorded nature, and had given in to that diordered nature.
In rape, the victim is lowered to that of a mere object to be used to achieve the rapists own ends. That use of someone as an object is pure hatred.
When one masterbates, they are most often using an image of another to satisfy their own sexual desires. In the same token, they are using the other to achieve their own ends. That is still hatred.
Thus I see no difference.
Homosexual behavior is a truly disgusting form of sexual abuse, but homosexuals can't see it or experience it. Why? It must be the deception of Satan
[Why are people still afraid of teaching about homosexuality as if it's something that can be taught or caught?]
That is precisely the point. It is something that can be taught, promoted or "caught" - not like a virus but like a bad habit especially to vulnerable youth with emotional insecurities. It is a deviant unhealthy behavior reflecting severe emotional retardation. Why on earth should any reasonable person accept the teaching and promotion of such dysfuntional behavior expecially in a school setting?
Any belief by the under thirty crowd that homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle choice is a perfect example of the affect of indoctrination in school and the media intended to promote this societal blight. Don't be naive and believe that abnormal, unhealthy and even destructive behavior cannot be taught to people who otherwise would not be inclined to behave in this manner. Terrorist suicide bombers are another perfect example of such an affect.
[In a thread about why atheists think Christianity is illogical]
Why ask atheists when you can read Hebrews 11:1 and have it from Paul himself?
Don't think 'illogical' is a slur. Not caring about logic is one of Christianity's greatest strengths, and one of the worst things one can do for the faith is to try to justify it through logic.
I do not believe anyone who is intellectually honest can be an aetheist.
[My daughter says she is an atheist?]
There's a very interesting movie out there which you can get at a Catholic bookstore. I think it's called "Science Tests Faith." I watched it a few months ago and it talks about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. This movie shook me to the core. It was quite overwhelming. Maybe you can get her to watch it. I know it might take more than a movie but keep trying. Get a gallon of water and get it blessed by a priest and add it to whatever your family drinks. Receive Communion and offer it up for her and her conversion.
My sister too has left the church."...pray to a God that may or may not exist!" That's what my sister says. Even though it's tough I'm not giving up and you shouldn't either. I pray God will open your daughter's eyes too. Stay strong, she'll come back. Keep praying.
I believe that it is fair to conclude from this that Catholics, as members of their Church, have an obligation to do all that they can to “defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.” Unless and until the Church specifically states otherwise, good Catholics may disagree on how to apply the principles the Church outlines in documents like this one, but they must ask themselves whether they are disagreeing for the sake of upholding a right understanding of marriage or for the sake of soothing their conscience so they can avoid personal inconvenience.
You ask why there is a difference between attempts at same-sex marriage and other types of invalid marriages contracted between heterosexuals. I think the answer is that there is nothing that inherently prevents marriage between heterosexuals, indeed marriage was created to be heterosexual, and so invalid marriages between heterosexuals could foreseeably be regularized at some point. So, while there may be a need for family members to avoid a particular heterosexual marriage, there is no need on a social level for a vendor to decline to offer services (unless he feels strongly that he should in a particular situation).
The same does not hold true for homosexual unions. Homosexual unions are invalid by their very nature and can never be regularized. Indeed, by their very nature, they are not merely destructive to the individuals involved but to society as a whole. If they become “normalized,” such “normalization” may well destroy civilization, and that is not an exaggeration. For that reason, I believe that all who are asked to participate in any way in such an event should refuse because such an event threatens not only the family but the larger society, of which the family is the essential building block.
[various quotes from one thread]
[yes, had I continued with the pregnancy, I would not have lived]
I scanned many of your earlier posts and I can offer sympathy for your many troubles and your confusion, nonetheless whether one doctor or 100 doctors said that (in their opinion) you would die during the pregnancy, they offered their OPINION. You chose to decide life/death in place of allowing God to act in that regard. Your CHOICE was to kill your child and "save" yourself. You acted in the place of God's action. That's the entire story. I hope you are able to return to faithfulness to the teaching of the Church ASAP.
-----------------------------------------------
[It´s much the same issues as when there´s a fallopian tube pregnancy - the same arguements emerge. The fetus doesn´t have any possible chance at life, and is endangering the mother´s life by continuing the pregnancy, certain death if the pregnancy advances far.]
Many differences in place - and still abortion is NOT allowed. Get back to me when you've become a moral theologian.
-----------------------------------------------
Would you say that it's better for one martyr to to die when two were called to die?
Yes, the first thing is to "love God with all your heart and soul", then the rest follows.
Also I just want to say that I have actually been in reparative therapy. They do not "zap you" that is kind of a reference to early attempts at therapy done I don't even know how long ago. The therapy now has evolved and (if it is not outlawed) will continue to evolve, to build upon the desire to turn toward whatever heterosexual functionality a person has (most even gay men have some) and learn creative and even pleasant ways of turning away from same-sex fantasies, and making that turning away from evil a sort of routine habit that becomes "second nature". I have heard the analogy of ruts in a dirt road applied.
The more you drive through the rut with porn or even homosexual fantasy that you voluntarily stick with and daydream about, the deeper the rut gets. But if you learn to turn away from that "rut" and stay out of it as much as possible, God can and will fill in those ruts to some extent. It is different for everyone. Some have a sort of bisexuality, others have deep-seated homosexuality to the point where they are repulsed by heterosexuality. But avoiding inappropriate sexual thoughts and filling our minds with scripture and other good thoughts is key.
Lastly I just want to say that despite all God did for them, some of the Israelites ACTUALLY DID want to return to Egypt! It's a great lesson for us.
So what could we do to restore the dignity of marriage?
First, honor the commitment to fidelity and permanence. Make divorce difficult. Require grounds for divorce. Eliminate no-fault divorce. The very fact that it exists vitiates the marriage vows even as they are spoken. Assign and enforce alimony as liquidated damages when one abandons a lifetime commitment.
Make adultery a civil offense with civil penalties, as well as a ground for divorce and alimony.
Limit the availability of contraception. It is contraception, after all, that first broke the link between marriage and children, and ultimately led to children being treated as commodities.
That's a start.
In san fransisco theres a protestant church thats especially for gays. I saw it on a reality t.v show called 30 days , and a straight protestant was debating with the gay pastor. The straight guy was firing bible veres at her ,and her only defence was "jesus loves every body". The defence was pretty sad.
They also have TV shows such as Ellen and GLEE that were created for the single purpose of brainwashing the public into thinking that marriage should be redefined.
[When asked what the underlying psychological "disorder" behind homosexuality is, and not really answering the question at all:]
Man is a rational being meant to dominate and control his passions and appetites in accordance with what he was made to be in the image and likenes of his Creator.
Desire that contradicts natural and moral law = disordered desire = symptom of underlying psychic disturbance.
Homosexual desire = disordered desire = symptom of an underlying psychological disturbance.
I predict a much higher conversion rate to Christianity for homosexual Atheists than for hetrosexual Atheists, starting in the near furture. The reasoning is simple: Homosexual Atheist are going to become aware much more easily that their sexuality is based on evil spirits than will the heterosexuals. God love us all, but the Holy Spirit will lead repentant homosexuals to a much higher spirituality, analogous to the parable of the Prodigal Son.
People everywhere, especially conservative Christians, are experiencing a low morale these days, and all the more so if Clinton is elected president, but they forget that God can bring good out of evil. No matter who is elected, things are going to be just fine because we are one nation under God, and He has not abandoned us.
__________________
In addition we have twisted the meaning of pedophilia in an attempt to hide the overwhelmingly homosexual component of abuse. Homosexual rape , statutory or not , of post-pubescent boys is passed off as pedophilia rather than the homosexual action it really is . As an example the media continually talks about pedophilia priests when in reality there was very little pediophilia involved and very little abuse of girls involved
It's Divine Law.
Masturbation is an unchaste behavior. Masturbation is the "gateway sin" to other sexual sins.
If we learn chastity, etc., then boys will not do this. The only reason why boys do it is because they hear others talk about. So they get curious and try.... But like drugs, masturbation is addictive. Also, as boys grow, masturbation leads to an objectification of women. Masturbation also (unlike popular myth) typically does not make a man a better lover, but rather a more selfish lover.
Finally, masturbation separates the love of another person from the congeal act, meaning it makes it more difficult to "make love" when married.
As someone who used to be addicted to this sin (and still sometimes suffers from withdrawal) masturbation is very dangerous as you grow. It also leads to porn addiction, etc. which is usually very bad for a marriage.
My suggestion: whenever you feel the urge to masturbate, start praying multiple "Hail Marys" until the urge goes away.
I pray this helps.
God bless and Happy Easter!
I suggest that the recent rise of homosexuality is a reaction made by a patriarchical culture to the movement to give women equal rights. Homosexuals are trying to derive women even of the status in human relationships.
A homosexual is effectively saying "I can go ahead and have a sexual relationship without including women, without having the consent of a woman." Homosexuality seems to be all about reducing the power and status of women- of making them unnecessary. I think, in spirit and effect, it is almost akin to rape.
I have never heard of a person who was "proud" to have an illness. A pedophile who remains chaste is the same as a homosexual who remains chaste there is no sin. It is when they engage in sex that it becomes sin and there is not a bit of difference between them. When you state that it is not a sin to be a homosexual that does not engage in it you are correct but that is equally true of a pedophile. It makes no difference who is hurt. I would postulate that there is no such thing as a sin not being harmful. Homosexual acts hurt the people involved. Look what it has done to our country. There is movement similar to the beginning of homosexuals to make pedophilia acceptable. I disagree strongly that it hurts no one. Do you believe committing a mortal sin doesn't hurt you?
In reality there is no such thing as 'homosexuals' there are homosexualist - that is persons who performs homosexual acts.
We are all born hetersexuals, but a misguided few will participate in homosexual acts which would would then make them homosexualist.
Though someone may have had in the past Committed homosexul acts, but has repented and living a chaste life according to his/her vocation in life, well that person should not be considered a homosexualist anymore, unless they still actively commit homosexual acts. Homosexual is not a noun but an adjective.
The only reason I can think of for homosexuals to adopt children is because they want to have sex with them.
Before everyone gets all nuts on me look at the first man to adopt children in Florida. Then he went to jail for molesting them.
Besides that homosexuality is an abberation and children shouldn't be turned over to abberrant people to rear.
[Army promotes first woman to four-star general]
I find this saddening. Women have been masculinated enough these days because of things like feminism and modernism. By god given nature and law, women are to be humble, quiet, meek, proper, submissive and not try to emit authority over their husbands or others. These types of jobs go against everything in a womans God given maternal instinct and nature and suppresses them unnaturally.
My daughter is a sophomore in high school. She attends a local public high school. (No Catholic High School in area.)
Her literature teacher assigned a book that has a lot of objectionable content. I saw it when she was doing homework and idly picked it up so I’d have something to do while she was finishing up a math problem, and flipped it open and that was the beginning.
“In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote. It has some graphic violence. It also has prostitution, sodomy, rape, gang rape by “queens” on a 16 year old boy, children watching their mom have sex with random men, child molestation, and so on.
I sent an email to the teacher objecting to the content and asking to meet.
She is allowing my daughter to use a different book. We have not yet met-we will this week.
I asked my daughter about the class, and she started crying. The book before this was “The Highest Tide” by Jim Lynch. In it, a boy is obsessed with his adult babysitter’s female anatomy, describes it often, and “has his way with the sheets” when thinking about her. It also discusses graphic terms for sexual pleasure and where it is located in women, and uses excessive profanity.
My daughter said she can’t get it out of her head, she feels dirty and she is ashamed because it made her curious and she has been wanting to find more stuff like it, but she hasn’t, but she is so ashamed.
I am livid.
She wrote about her disgust with the objectification of women in the first book. Her teacher said “Boys will be boys.” I know that isn’t much, but it was an adult woman talking about masturbation to my daughter without my consent.
I think by secular standards the stuff was mild. By my standards, it was deplorable. I need help navigating with my ideological point of view in this sea of filth. On line it appears that these books are not common, but also not rare, in the high school setting. Therefor this isn’t a case of a piece of literature that will unanimously be understood as inappropriate.
I plan to meet with the principal and the teacher as soon as I have my case together. I have typed up the objectionable passages—eight pages, 31 seperate passages from just one of the books! I am going to ask the teacher to read a few out loud to us in the meeting. The language is prohibited by the school handbook. I don’t know why they think out loud and written would be different.
But once the news hit and thoae groups were forced to report on it, those women suddenly felt in the clear. Which means they think those groups are enough now.
What is really happening is that the report hit and those groups reluctantly cut Weinstein loose, and once he lost his protection, now it was safe to come out and accuse him— More than safe, now you get hero-points and sympathy for just making the accusation, proof no longer required. But before the NYT report hit, these allegations were apparently well-known and widespread. Until the media gave the go-ahead, his victims obviously felt like they had no back-up, but once the media gave the go-ahead, they feel no fear at all.
I believe Weinstein is probably a pervert, but I’m disposed to believe that. I think all of these Hollywood progressives and liberal men are perverts. I don’t know why the NYT decided to take down him in particular, but dollars to dimes says there are more of his type still out there but since they aren’t being cut loose yet, there’s no accusations being put forward. Which means these women do trust the media’s power to protect them and their careers— But they don’t trust the media to actually do so.
It seems to me that atheism is, if properly considered, treason.
In countries with the Queen as Head of State, she is held to be ‘Queen by the Grace of God’. In the USA, the Pledge of Allegiance involves expressing belief in ‘one nation united under God.’ It seems that by believing the God does not exist, a rejection of the notion of the Sovereign Divine Right of the Crown is negated, as well as the notion of a ‘nation united under God.’ Therefore, it seems that atheists are guilty, ipso facto, of treason, at least in the USA and Commonwealth countries.
(On whether or not it is a sin to perform an abortion to save a mothers life)
One thing we need to keep in mind is that doctors are not gods. There have been cases of doctors telling a woman "one more pregnancy will kill you", the woman ignoring the admonition, and going on to deliver a baby and live. Only God knows the hour and moment a person will die. Not only do miracles occur, but also fallible men make mistakes.
I remember a thread in which a woman vehemently defended her mother (to the point of calling her a saint) who had aborted the poster's older brother or sister because a doctor said she would certainly die if she didn't. Her mother may or may not be a saint now due to repentance, but the effects of her error have had lasting effects on those around her; for one, her daughter's conscience is not properly formed due in part to this action.
This isn't a matter of putting the life of a baby over that of his mother. This is a matter of putting our faith in the medical machine rather than in God. And only God can save your immortal soul, which is ultimately what matters.
It is our right and duty to disobey "Positive Law" (including judicial rulings) that go against God's Natural law. You may not like it, but it is the truth.
Besides, when did open-mindedness become a virtue? I don't think it is bad per se, but i certainly don't think it trumps obedience, for example. I realize it, like tolerance, are two pillars of the liberal mindset (no offense intended here), but that does not make it of value in and of itself either.
Yes, at the core it is hollow, meaning empty.
Atheism argues one thing and one thing only, that there is no God. This is a negative that implies a hundred other negatives that go nowhere. That is what I experienced as an atheist in my youth. The negative effects of atheism on my life were profound. It was only when I began to see the negative effects of atheism on others (and on society at large) that I was able to look in the mirror and see them in myself as well.
What is positive about atheism? Nothing.
What is positive about religion? Everything, so long as you have the right religion. Some radical religions are also negative, but none of them are so hollow as atheism.
This is not to say that atheists cannot be upstanding citizens in society or have virtues that commend them. But it is to say that atheism cannot spring from fundamental roots that grow happiness in our lives.
I do not say that religion is a guarantee of happiness, since too many people by the lip service they give to their faith show in their lives that their faith is not authentic.
The true desire to see God, however, inspires hope and virtue in a way that atheism can never do.
Regardless of your own personal opinions, if you engage in acts that cause your husband to ejaculate outside of you, then that is point blank masturbation. It is nothing else. And masturbation is ALWAYS GRAVELY SINFUL. It doesn't matter if your ovaries are there are not, it doesn't matter if your uterus is there or not, it doesn't matter if your husband had a vasectomy. Masturbation is masturbation. Some people don't like to hear that the Church is making calls on what can or cannot be done in the privacy of their own bedroom, but I for one am quite happy that She is looking out for our souls. It's one less thing for me to worry and wonder about.
People in the Moral theology forum are certainly free to disagree with Church teaching. However if those people happen to be Catholic, and disagree with Church teaching, they may be placing their souls at risk. Therefore it is not a good idea.
Freedom is the ability to choose the good. Being able to choose the evil, or promoting evil detracts from our ability to choose the good. Therefore, it detracts from our freedom for condoms to be legal.
Sinners have no place in the Church or in its educational establishments. Sometimes the love of Christ demands we show people to the street. This is a spiritual work of mercy.
No. I’m saying the alleged victims here kept their mouths shut for years rather than risk something. This is revealing for two reasons. One, they thought Harvey Wienstien had the power to completely destroy their career (or worse) regardless of any rape charge. Two, who was it they were afraid of? Mean old conservatives? Fox news? Brietbart?
Nope. They were scared of the feminists, the leftist media, and Hollywood progressives. Very interesting how that works.
Not to make too fine a point of it, but Hitler killed about 10 million. In the United States alone, we have killed something like 54 or 55 million killed through abortion, and that is just in the U.S. Include all the other countries which promote and approve abortion, and the number is incredible.
Pretty much makes ISIS the "junior varsity" team our President declared them to be; they are just more efficient in using graphic imagery
If his holiness would like to crusade the middle east, he would first need to wage war against liberalism, as the cursed EU wouldn't support a new crusade. We would need to reinvent feudalism and righteous monarchies. The holy inquisition would need to be reestablished.
Fundamentalists and Atheists appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. Think about it.
1. When interpreting Scriptures, both factions insist on a literalist translation, ignoring genre, original audience, and idiom.
2. Both insist that their own view is 100% correct, and all else are absolute fools, decreeing themselves to be the final arbiters of truth.
3.Fundamentalists will not discard their misguided faith under any circumstances.
4.They are militant in 'evangelizing' the unwashed.
Thoughts?
I feel like God wants us to have a big loving family, and my wife and I feel called to have many more children, so naturally we turned to adoption. Unfortunately, many of the Houston area Christian adoption agencies aren't accepting any new parents, or aren't having informationals( the first step) for a year or so. There is one great agency, who claims to be Christian, but they allow same sex couples and single parents to adopt children. They are able to get us started immediately, but I have been postponing as I think giving a child to a same-sex couple is morally evil, and the Adoption agency is the prime agent of the moral evil. Would I be materially cooperating with evil by adopting a child from here?
No! On the contrary; you would be rescuing a child who would otherwise be denied a family life with both a mother and a father. Get to it!
Also sporting events have gay pride days, even the MLB teams promote it which has made me find some different hobbies.
What’s the worst is that religions promote homosexuality as well. I’ve gone by many Protestant church’s and even Jewish places where the rainbow flag is draped publicly outside.
(On why one-piece swimsuits are appropriate but a two-piece is not)
I heard Jason Evert speak once and he explained that the belly button is the "window to the womb", a most sacred part of a woman's body, and therefore should be protected. He also drew an analogy between the "veil" that protects the Body of Christ in the tabernacle and clothing as a veil for the belly button.
[This is a Roman Catholic Board]
A woman cannot becoem a priest in a similar manner that a man cannot become pregnant. A woman attempting to become a priest would be an attempt at a homosexual marriage.
Priests are married to the Bride of Christ...not the groom of Christ.
A priest stands in Persona Christi. Similarly it would be like a woman playing the role of Clark Kent in the Superman (woman) movie.