Posted on 08/10/2003 4:36:04 AM PDT by JesseHousman
Editor, Naples Daily News:
Once again the moribund hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church makes a pronouncement that is supposed to shake all of us into moral rectitude. This time they speak out against gay marriage as an act contrary to "natural moral law."
Why is it contrary? Because it follows that a loving union between people of the same sex cannot result in progeny.
Following this logic, is any conjugal act between a married, post-menopausal, heterosexual couple (where the female is definitely past child-bearing age) an act contrary to natural moral law, since no progeny will result?
The church would say no, because this physical act is the result of the "holy" love between a man and a woman. The church is silent on why the love between a married, post-menopausal, heterosexual couple is more sacred than the love between two men or two women.
Oh, they will cite scripture as condemning same-sex love. But that boat won't float because scripture condemns many acts and has numerous behaviors proscribed which the church conveniently overlooks. Why are these other forbidden behaviors overlooked? Because the times have changed since the Good Book was written (by men) and the church has survived these many years by interpreting scripture in a relational manner to the times. Didn't someone once ask, "Is man made for the law or the law made for man?"
The church itself teaches that the law of the Old Testament is abrogated by baptism. The freedom obtained in baptism is intended to make room for a new guide or principle. That new guide is Jesus. And nowhere does His testament condemn homosexuality.
There is only one "natural moral law" that stands the test of time and runs as a seamless thread through all cultures.
That is the principle that states: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I think that is what the lesson of faith in the Prince of Peace was — no more and no less. It is time for the Catholic Church to be truly catholic and get back on track with it original mission.
— Daniel del'Ala/Naples
Homosexuals have committed most of the horrifying mass murders of history. After delving in an activity pleasing to the devil, which is homosexual behavior, they become truly unbalanced without repentence and kill their sexual conquests; in some cases by the scores.
There are also many testimonials from former homosexuals, many now married with children.
You will also find articles about the harrassment suffered by anyone publishing research that contradicts current unscientific fashionable psychology regarding homosexuality.
It's kind of eye-opening, if you first have an open mind about such things.
Dudoight makes an interesting point here, but may I humby add this? Using the same logic as the author of the article discussed, "His testament" never literally condemned pedophilia, did He? Does that mean it's OK?
Of course not! Christ did not repeal the Ten Commandments, one of which is Thou shalt not commit adultery. The revelation that followed the commandments fleshed out their meaning (the Bible is much more than the history of the Jews!), and adultery is any abuse of sexuality. One cannot divorce Jesus from the revelation that preceeded Him. He completed it. He did not destroy any God-revealed truth.
From Bill Bennett's The Broken Hearth:
Well, rejoin homosexual rights activists, if procreation is central to marriage, then for the sake of consistency we should not allow sterile or older couples to marry either. As debater's points go, this is exceptionally weak. One can believe that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage without insisting that only people who can and will have children be allowed to marry. Aristotle defined mature as "that which is, always or for the most part." A person may be born without a hand, but it remains natural that humans have two hands..Just so, heterosexual couples who remain childless do not violate the norm, or change the essence, of marriage. Two men who marry do.BTW, I highly recommend the book.
The inevitable moral equivalency argument. The critical factor overlooked here is that there is more than a logical dimension to this argument; there is a moral component as well. Putting it in logical terms, the union between the post-menopausal couple takes place between two people who once WERE capable of producing progeny, but no longer are since doing so would be inadvisable. Sex between two people of the same sex could NEVER produce progeny; it is not a function of age, but of biology. And the biology exists because people of the same sex were never intended to produce progeny. That inability is more than coincidental.
However, even if you remove the logical argument entirely, the fact remains that Judeo-Christian law condemns homosexuality. It should be rejected not because you can build a good argument against it, but simply because it's WRONG!
Homosexuality is a hate crime against Creation.
Syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of "packers" who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs.
In addition to this outbreak, recent reports have suggested increases in gonococcal infection in several western states and in the frequency of unprotected anal sex among "the rangers."
Some of the "pirates" may be recruiting sex partners in anonymous venues more often now than in the recent past.
The high proportion of fagolinis with syphilis, rectal and pharyngeal gonorrhea, and chlamydial infection who also were infected with HIV is of particular concern. The self-destructive deviants with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection.
Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention efforts in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STD threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts.
Thanks to the "gay agenda" in government and the schools, and the sympathetic liberal press, here's how this well hidden epidemic threatens the rest of us:
A. The next time you hear, "Hi, my name is Bruce, I'll be your wait-perthson," you may want to wonder, "Where have those hands been?" and "What's going on back there in the kitchen?"
B. Are the taxpayers being forced to pay Billions of dollars for disease treatment and research for this deliberately irresponsible and promiscuous "civil rights class."
C. The 50 states don't have a "health care crisis," they have a "health insurance crisis." Why do you suppose that is?
God and nature have exacted terrible retribution. This lifestyle has proved to be a deathstyle.The comment comes from a critique of Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind. The whole essay can be read here. A longish but excellent read.
Stopped? As in shot? What do you mean by "STOPPED"--arrested? Or maybe a pink star sewn onto their clothes?
[The activists'] aim: to stamp out “hegemonic heterosexuality”—the traditional view that heterosexuality is the norm—in favor of a new ethos that does not just tolerate homosexuality but instead actively endorses experimenting with it, as well as with a polymorphous range of bisexuality, transgenderism, and transsexuality. The educational establishment has enthusiastically signed on. What this portends for the future of the public schools and the psychic health of the nation’s children is deeply worrisome.Read the whole article at frontpage.com. That your first impulse is to drag Nazi oppression into this escapes me.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Kathy, Kathy, Kathy.
What are we to do with you?
First, there aren't hundreds of millions of perverts in the world. There are, unfortunately, several millions of them still practicing their filthy methods of achieving orgasms.
God has given each of us a soul and has allowed us free will to either lead a decent life or live like a freaking animal buggering anybody that is agreeable.
Unfortunately, many who aren't agreeable, get buggered and murdered by homosexuals.
I just had to answer your question that seemed to be crying out in the darkness of unenlightenment for an answer.
I'm still not sure why you see sinister implications in the word "stopped." You seem to equate vigorous opposition to someone's politics with Nazi repression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.