"Catholic Priest to Gay Couple: Get Divorced & You Can Have Communion"

The church believes that Gayness expressed publicly promotes promiscuity with kids.

The church seems right, that Abortions, Welfare, illegitimacy, etc are common when sexual discussions and exhibitions of behavior are wide open.
The more prudent sexual behaviors existed in 1950 and before, when sexual openness was not tolerated.

 

The Gay Community tries to twist the verses round in ways which appear confused about man-on-man sex.
This verse below they can not twist so easily:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But in spite of scripture, the Facts tell people today that Child abuse is coupled with sexual promiscuity:


Statistics on Fatherlessness
CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS
(*)
It’s a Fact
Here’s why:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
(Source: Center for Disease Control).

80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source:
Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on the State of High Schools).

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*:
(*)
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
• 24.3 times more likely to run away
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
• 10.8 times more likely to commit rape
• 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
• 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
•(*) 6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions
(*)

Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce**

 

Exactly Dave. To the promoters of gay marriage, which parent don't kids need, a mother or father? I say we let kids over a certain age decide if they want to be placed in a mother/father home or not.

 

Biological, 2 parent home is safest environment for children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc...-environment-f

linky linky

and it's from the CDC no less

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.

 

To say sodomy is an abomination and against the will of God isn't judgmental, it is simply stating a fact. You are pretty judgmental yourself about opposing viewpoints.

OK, I will clarify just for you, the act is perverted, same-sex feelings alone are not.

What is this thread about?

No, but when you see a mass movement trying to legitimize the other sins let me know and I'll give my opinion, as I'm doing here.

Yes he did, on the road to Emmaus. Most authors of the inspired Word of God didn't meet Jesus while on this earth, so what?

 

It is judgemental. You can't possibly know the hearts and minds of every gay person and say they can't be a christian. To claim they aren't christian is judgmental. That is your original claim.

OK. Perversion is a subjective term. So what you feel is perverted isn't to others. Having sex not in the dark, under the covers, and not in the missionary position is perverted.

The catholic church and its stance on gays.

When I see a mass movement outlawing 2nd marriages then I will say you have a beef. Until then, it's peanuts you're worried about.

1 brief vision isn't meeting anything. He could've been suffering from heat stroke.

 

No, that is God's claim in the NT, I'm just repeating it.

I disagree, but you're trivializing what God calls an abomination. His standard for sex is a man and woman in a lifelong married state.

So why ask me why I'm talking about gays on this thread?

I'm not talking about outlawing anything, I'm talking about the attempt to call good what God has called evil, and to put a question mark where He has put a period.

Or not. As I've said before here and will continue to say, IF God exists miracles such as Jesus' appearance to Paul are no big deal.

 

Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Also what God said.

No. Read the OT. Unless God changed.

Just wondering if you hold the same contempt for all the other abominations. Take 2nd marriages for example, your stance. Is it the same stance as your gay stance?

God calls all sin evil. Even yours. But good for you allowing gays to marry. Even is you disagree.

OK. But paul's teaching is in conflict in places with Jesus' teachings. I won't go into them, but there are at least 2 posters here very well versed on the topic. Giftedone and trevorw. I tend to agree with most of their posts, for a long long time, I wondered why Paul had so much importance in the NT, when he never met Jesus and really has no clue what Jesus' message is/was.

 

You misunderstand this passage, it means don't judge hypocritically. In other words, it would be wrong for me to make my argument here if I was involved in homosexual sin. Jesus said FIRST take out the beam in your own eye, the implication being then you can, and should judge other sin. Jesus judged the sin of others all the time, but he was sinless and didn't need to take that first step.

See http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html

Yes, it is wrong except in the case of adultery. But that isn't the subject of this thread.

Cite please. Because they have different emphasis' and audiences doesn't mean they conflict.

I reject their arguments, and Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus. The early church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided Paul's writings were canonical, and he certainly thought he was writing inspired by the Lord.

 

Now what are you getting yourself into. You claim that the OT laws are no longer valid (including two men lying together) and then you turn around and claim that it is valid ?

Which is it ?

Second: Sodomy is never condemned in the OT. Men having sex is condemned and that is it. There is no condemnation for oral sex, anal sex between man and woman.

There is no condemnation for a man going outside of marriage for sex. Married women were not allowed to play but men were. They could have concubines, prostitutes .. do pretty much as they pleased.

 

The OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws are not valid, see Galatians. The moral code as expressed in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere were reinforced in the NT are valid. Pretty elementary, and settled for 2,000 years.

Not quite. http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-anal-sex-sodomy.html

That was never God's will, some did those things, with predictable bad results. What the Bible describes it doesn't always prescribe.

Jesus said in Mark 10:6"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.…

Genesis 2:24
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Also see Deut. 22:28-29
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

Here, we have an unwed woman and a man who sleep together. The woman has lost her virginity to the man. Due to this, the man is forced to pay a “fine” or properly marry the woman to cover her shame and make sure she is provided for. This shows that sex before marriage for men was not without its consequences in the Old Testament.

 

That's the cop out for allowing sinners to be hypocritical. I asked if sins are ranked and some sins are more sinful than others. IMO, all sins are ranked equally. So if one sins, then one should not judge the sins of another. But your free to believe as you wish.

No its not. Just wondering if you'd treat divorcees who remarry and it wasn't adultery, the same as you treat gay people. As I'm sure you know way more divorcees than gays.

Fine. No way was the holy church guided by the HS. I reject your claim.

 

You do realize that verse in Deuteronomy is a it rape, right? It condemns a raped woman to a life with her rapist. And another thing: you can't write law with your religion. The day a law gets passed in the US just to appeal to priests is the day I publicly sacrifice a goat to Satan just for the sake of civil disobedience.

 

No it doesn't, it is a bad translation. It means that was what happened to a man who corrupted a virgin, he was forced to be an honest man, unlike today. See http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

Knock yourself out. What motivates someone to vote is none of your business.

 

Whether or not they were married in a Church doesn't matter in term of the legality of their civil marriage.

Civil marriage and religious marriage should be totally independent from each other anyway, as it is in most civilized countries!
This would resolve a LOT of the gay right issue!

 

So all of a sudden OT laws are valid. Which is it valid or invalid. Who cares what Galatians says since that is not from the mouth of Jesus ?

What do you mean "not quite" ?? Your link does not contradict anything I said.

You do not know Gods will. Almost all of the patriarchs including Moses had concubines. The rules of Adultery were the rules of Adultery and it was not adultery for a man to sleep with other women or with a prostitute.

So what ... this says nothing about a man sleeping around outside the marriage bed. Second, we are talking about the OT Law definition of Adultery.

Nothing mentioned about a dude sleeping around and the fact that all the patriarchs did not consider it Adultery.

Not adultery .. not a concubine. . and obviously not a prostitute. Well ...she becomes a concubine after he rapes her.. Nice law LOL

Sex before marriage is not condemned. The woman in this case is considered the property of the Father and that property has been devalued without his consent. It is not Adultery... the man has to pay.

This says nothing about prostitutes, concubines, or sex slaves .... all of which were fair game for men.

Consider the story of Judah and Tamar Genesis 38

You can go read the entire passage for yourself... I have just posted the important parts. The double standard is presented clearly.
No problem for Judah to go to a temple prostitute (common throughout OT times) ... God forbid his daughter in law did such a thing !

Women had few rights. A man could sell is daughter into sex slavery to his Israelite buddy.

Exodus 21

Nothing like having a sex slave !

There are numerous other passages.

This is from the Jewish Virtual Library

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/adultery.html

A woman was property an so taking another mans wife was akin to stealing. Men could do as they pleases as long as it was not with a married woman. In particular another Israelite married woman. Likewise a man could not just go out and use some Israelite virgin without consequence. She could however be sold to him as a sex slave.

 

When it restricts my civil rights, it's my business. Vote all you want, but human rights ought to be guaranteed, not voted upon.

 

You are very incorrect with what you are trying to use with these Scriptures to condemn Gay and Lesbian people. Romans 1:26-27 does not speak to homosexuality at all. It mostly speaks to prostitution, idolatry and other things.

You need to study the following written by Biblical Experts on this very subject matter that you and others need to learn so as to avoid the continuance of condemning LGBT people by using this and other like Scriptures.

Romans 1 - What Historical And Religious Context Did Paul Address In First Century Rome?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html

 

That is incorrect use of Scripture. Even those who are anti-Gay admit that this Scripture does not speak about homosexuality or the condemnation of Gays and Lesbians but rather to temple prostitution.

Malakoi is NEVER used in the Bible to mean homosexual
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html

 

Not really.

A. Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist: 'I believe it explicitly relates to homosexuality. It has been understood that way in the Christian Church from the earliest era.'

T. Crater: 'It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- it's pretty clear what the meaning is...A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible.'

 

Here's a Biblical expert who says otherwise:

http://carm.org/does-romans-1-condemn-homosexuality

- - - Updated - - -

What civil rights of your do you imagine are being restricted?

- - - Updated - - -

You lost me when you said it doesn't matter what Galatians says because Jesus didn't say it. Jesus, being God, did inspire Galatians and every other book of the Bible.

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

You are suffering from the delusion that just because you believe this religious statement to be true, not only does everybody else, but even worse, that we should be forced to live as if it were true under the color of law. You are living in the wrong country if that is what you hope to accomplish.