Gay and Lesbian Catholics Will Enter Catholic Cathedrals Nationally On Pentecost Sunday

Yahoo News ^ | May 23, 2006

[AnAmericanMother]

. . . homosexuals want to have the same liberties as everyone else gets and that would include legal and financial liberties such as married people enjoy . . .

This is a smokescreen. It is also false.

The same rights and liberties are available to everybody. The idea that married people get some sort of special break is not true. Nor is the idea that homosexuals, being unable (or unwilling) to marry a person of the opposite sex, somehow have some financial disadvantage. Rights of inheritance, the ability to visit somebody in the hospital, and familial relationships can be established without marriage by the use of legal methods already in existence, such as adult or virtual adoption, trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.

Unfortunately the real goal is to destroy marriage as an institution. Sort of like the naughty child breaking things that other people have, because they don't have one.

Even more unfortunately, these petulant children are grown up and can do some real damage by co-opting sleazy politicians and lazy or sympathetic clerics.

[cicero's_son]

Come on in! Everyone is welcome.

The confession booths are usually near the back.

[Old_Mil]

I think you should investigate an Independent Christian Church. I hope you can find where you live a church community like the one I am now a happy member. The Church is led by our elders, members of the congregation, not a hierarchy separated from the church. I see them every week (well, most weeks) and not just on Sundays. They are of us, not above us. They are guided by the The Bible and prayer. The preaching minister is important to decision making, but at the end of the day, he is just a hired hand. We don't have un-Christian policies shoved upon us.

The problem with this is that church leadership exists on a continuum from episcopalian through presbyterian to independent. While independently led Christian churches are much easier to corrupt individually, it's more difficult to get them all moving in one direction.

Episcopalian or Presbyterian churches on the other hand are very difficult to corrupt individually, but once the train goes off the tracks (as it has with the ELCA, the Methodists, and the Epsicopalians) it's time to abandon ship. The Southern Baptist Convention is the only church group that I know of which has engaged in the fight against homosexuality and liberalism and won. Independent churches have fallen victim to everything from the holy laughter movement (people rolling on the floor, barking like dogs, etc) to anti-vaccination campaigns. While I'm glad that you have found a place to attend with a clear conscience it probably requires you to be more vigilant than ever about

[VRWCmember]

And eating shrimp is an abomination as well...as is touching pig skin

Actually those things were ceremonially unclean rather than an abomination.

[jughandle]

After 30 years, I'm finally getting Confirmed on Pentecost Sunday! Hope they don't try to interrupt mass....

[VRWCmember]

Do you understand what it means not to condemn?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also understand what it does not mean. For example "not to condemn" does not mean "to condone"; it also does not mean "to advocate"; it also does not mean "to make excuses for"; it also does not mean "to pretend that wrong is right".

[Old_Mil]

Why do you obsess with these threads? Are you really that fearful of some two percent of the population?

Not at all. I just don't like you people, in the same way that I don't like Nazis, child molesters, people who beat their wives, people who kick their dogs, thieves, and liars.

After all, from a moral perspective, there is no difference between homosexuality and such things.

Does that clear it up for you?

[trisham]

That two percent of the population is the only reason Cher still has a career. Wouldn't you be fearful?

**************

That's reason enough for me.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I would also say that those who believe in sins and disapprove of sinfullness do not have the right to demand that sinners change - unless the sinner is deliberately harming others and breaking the law.

1. Depends on how you define demand. A call to repentance, which is the God given role of the church, would be a demand, in your view?

2. What about public nudity? Sex in public restrooms? For that matter, sex in public? Is anyone hurt by that? How? How about polygamy? Prostitution? Bestiality? Etc.

I would argue that the whole of society is harmed by homosexuality. And when you place homosexuality into a protected class status such as race, you are using the power of government to force immoral attitudes on everyone. It is oppressive to the mission of the church.

[Sunsong]

That two percent of the population is the only reason Cher still has a career. Wouldn't you be fearful?

LOL - I didn't realize it.

[Sunsong]

But I'm not a perfect human being. I'm a sinner. A real big one. I fall short of the ideal which my Church holds before me. And when I see people attempting to manipulate the Church for their own selfish ends, I get angry.

Then, it seems to me, since you see yourself as a "real big sinner" that you are not in a position to throw stones. Wouldn't you be more effective if you dealt with your own sins first, sort of got the beam out of your own eye, before attacking and condeming others?

[dcnd9]

They need to change their behavior, not the church!

[Sunsong]

I am reinterating the behavior described in the Scriptures as an abomination.

I ask again, since eating shrimp is considered an abomination in the Old Testament - do you also work to stop the practice of eating shrimp? Do you work to stop people from touching pig skin? Do you work hard to expose and shame those who are prideful? I am asking if you are consistent or if it is just this one particular "abomination" that you focus on?

Someone has done some research on some of the other "abominations" listed:

…Sexual sins of any kind are considered "abominations" to the Lord. See Leviticus 18: 18 - 30, paying particular attention to verses 27 - 30, which refer to "all these abominations" -- after various kinds of sexual activities apart from marriage have been mentioned. A similar list is repeated in Leviticus 20, concluding that God's people ought not to do these things "after the manner of the nations which I cast out before you." We find that the levitical laws also forbade remarriages of divorced couples, calling such an act an "abomination." Leviticus 24: 1 - 4. When we consider that Christ amplified these laws to include the lustful thought, who is without sin to cast the first stone?

Dishonest business practices are named as an "abomination" in Deuteronomy 25: 13 - 16, Proverbs 11: 1 and Proverbs 20: 10. It seems that scrupulously honest business practices are required of any professing to be the Lord's people. Do our practices pass the careful scrutiny of the Omniscient One?

Oppressive treatment of others and a haughty attitude are considered as "abomination" in Proverbs 2: 31 - 32, and a "froward heart" is again mentioned in Proverbs 11:20. I wonder if some of the actions of conservative Christians towards gay people might not fall into these categories of "abominations."

A list of six "abominations" are also given in Proverbs 6: 16 - 19:

These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Who can claim innocence from all these "abominations"? Are all the sure dispensers of judgments on gay people free from a "proud look" or "false witness"? (Who can be sure that words repeated are absolutely true?) Or sowing discord in God's congregation?...

gladventist

[dcnd9]

I see you are once again grasping at straws to justify same sex behavior. On many of your post you do this just as you accuse others of hate who simply have their opinion of same sex and disagree with you.

[dcnd9]

None of us are claiming we don't sin but we try not to intentionally engage in sin [like engaging in same sex] and then flaunt it as normal.We acknowledge it and repent of it [in other words try not to repeat it].

[Sunsong]

The same rights and liberties are available to everybody. The idea that married people get some sort of special break is not true. Nor is the idea that homosexuals, being unable (or unwilling) to marry a person of the opposite sex, somehow have some financial disadvantage. Rights of inheritance, the ability to visit somebody in the hospital, and familial relationships can be established without marriage by the use of legal methods already in existence, such as adult or virtual adoption, trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.

That is what is in dispute, isn't it. They say they want the same liberties as everyone else. You say they want to destroy marriage as an institution. My understanding is that they do not believe that the legal options already in existence are fair. Trying to prove that their real agenda is to destroy the institution of marriage will take more than hatred - it will take real evidence.

[Sunsong]

Actually those things were ceremonially unclean rather than an abomination.

Actually no, they are listed as abominations:

god hates shrimp

[MHGinTN]

Your feeble attempt at homosexual apologetics is almost laughable, almost. You behave as an agitprop for the homosexual agenda. You accuse and judge and smear and formulate childish parallels. You also conveniently ignore the things posted to you in favor of playing with your straw man constructs. Thanks anyway, I don't play word games with superficial, immature apologists for degeneracy. Perhaps you can find someone else to try and aggravate and pull them into your apologetics for identifying people by their sexual proclivities. Feed your twisted 'up is down and wrong is right' obsession with someone else.

[dcnd9]

Why do you insist all disagreement with you is "hatred"?

The Overhauling of Straight America: this information, written by 2 gays, explains the gay agenda
http://www.leavethekidsalone.com/ltka_html/overhaul_2.htm

[Sunsong]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also understand what it does not mean. For example "not to condemn" does not mean "to condone"; it also does not mean "to advocate"; it also does not mean "to make excuses for"; it also does not mean "to pretend that wrong is right".

I am sure you are not condoning, advocating or making excuses for homosexual behavior. It is condeming that I am questioning.