FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: New Evangelization: Legalize homosexuality, promote civil partnerships
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(02-06-2013, 08:30 AM)Cordobes Wrote: [ -> ]From the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, appointed by this Holy Father, and a member, appointed by this Holy Father, of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization:

"..the Catholic Church opposes legal sanctions against homosexuality and favors legal protections for unmarried people living together.."If a country outlawed homosexuality, I would work to overturn it,"...Archbishop Paglia also called for greater efforts to ensure legal protection and inheritance rights for people who are living together, but not married."

"But do not call it marriage," he said.

Good to know we shouldn't call it marriage though. Many thanks to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia for exercising that teaching magisterium.

"Democracy needs solid and stable families," he said. The sharing, caring and sacrificing people learn in their families are what spurs them to extend their defense of the rights of others to the social and political realm, and to protect and care for weaker members of society."

It is also good to know that family can be of some use to liberal democracy.

Apologies if this has already been posted in another thread.

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/201302/de...says-26850
(02-06-2013, 08:39 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Who compels you to twist the words ? He did not say legalize homosexuality. He said we, as all, including homosexuals are children of God with equal dignity. The Father of Lies is Satan, and now you know why many wonder about trads like you.

tim

The bishop is twisting his own words.  He is essentially saying that homosexuals should be protected (legally) as couples living together, (using "human dignity" as the reason) and that homosexuality (but I think he means sodomy*) should be legal.  Just don't call it marriage.  Give them all the benefits of being married, and then just call it a different name.  And THEN he talks about consequences, and oh the consequences he talks about!  The words "mother, father, brother and sister" might disappear from our vocabulary... and while I share as much concern for etymological integrity as the next trad, that's hardly the "big fish to fry."

*Some may contend that the bishop is referring simply to people with SSA, and that SSA shouldn't be made illegal.  I would disagree that this is what he means.  Show me a single country that has outlawed SSA.  Or has the term "being homosexual" (and clearly defining this as SSA) under the "illegal" column in their constitution.  On the other hand, there ARE a few countries who have outlawed sodomy, which is the normally considered mode of homosexual actions.  Even some states still outlaw it.

Please do provide evidence to the contrary (that countries outlaw SSA).  If this IS what the bishop meant (we shouldn't outlaw SSA) then he chose his words very poorly, and doesn't know what he's talking about (unless, of course, it turns out 20-25 countries DO outlaw SSA, in which case it turns out that I don't know what I'm talking about).

ETA: and of course, his appeal to protecting democracy is... icky.
Mith's post illustrates what happens when ambiguous statements like the Bishop’s are made.  It leads to speculation and uncertainty.

By the way; I am supportive of homosexual behavior being criminalized.  It violates the natural moral law and has no right to exist.  Duty/obligation to tolerate can be debated.

Polygamy, adultery, scat porn, bestiality, and pedophilia are all illegal.  I say add homosexual behavior to the list.
(02-06-2013, 04:37 PM)Adam_Michael Wrote: [ -> ]Mith's post illustrates what happens when ambiguous statements like the Bishop’s are made.  It leads to speculation and uncertainty.

By the way; I am supportive of homosexual behavior being criminalized.  It violates the natural moral law and has no right to exist.  Duty/obligation to tolerate can be debated.

Polygamy, adultery, scat porn, bestiality, and pedophilia are all illegal.  I say add homosexual behavior to the list.

It's beyond ambiguous I think, Adam.  It's almost self-contradictory.  It's at least nonsensical.  And to preface all of that filth with "the Catholic church believes/teaches..." ugh.
(02-06-2013, 04:24 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 08:39 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Who compels you to twist the words ? He did not say legalize homosexuality. He said we, as all, including homosexuals are children of God with equal dignity. The Father of Lies is Satan, and now you know why many wonder about trads like you.

tim

The bishop is twisting his own words.  He is essentially saying that homosexuals should be protected (legally) as couples living together, (using "human dignity" as the reason) and that homosexuality (but I think he means sodomy*) should be legal.  Just don't call it marriage.  Give them all the benefits of being married, and then just call it a different name.  And THEN he talks about consequences, and oh the consequences he talks about!  The words "mother, father, brother and sister" might disappear from our vocabulary... and while I share as much concern for etymological integrity as the next trad, that's hardly the "big fish to fry."

*Some may contend that the bishop is referring simply to people with SSA, and that SSA shouldn't be made illegal.  I would disagree that this is what he means.  Show me a single country that has outlawed SSA.  Or has the term "being homosexual" (and clearly defining this as SSA) under the "illegal" column in their constitution.  On the other hand, there ARE a few countries who have outlawed sodomy, which is the normally considered mode of homosexual actions.  Even some states still outlaw it.

Please do provide evidence to the contrary (that countries outlaw SSA).  If this IS what the bishop meant (we shouldn't outlaw SSA) then he chose his words very poorly, and doesn't know what he's talking about (unless, of course, it turns out 20-25 countries DO outlaw SSA, in which case it turns out that I don't know what I'm talking about).

ETA: and of course, his appeal to protecting democracy is... icky.

Well put.  I am not comfortable with the Church adopting democracy in its modern, republican form like it did the Roman imperial system or feudalism.  Both of the latter eventually accepted the primacy of the Church to teach doctrine and morals.  The former, like communism, does not agree that the Church is the ultimate voice of morality and doctrine. 
Outlawing homosexuality is like outlawing alcoholism. Dumb idea based on ignorance.
You cannot outlaw sickness. And you must defend the sick against foolish governments. Defending them against being outlawed has nothing to do with condoning the idea of homosexual marriage.

I missed the part where the bishop said we should defend the legal rights of "homosexual couples". If he did say this, it would be ambiguous, but even then not necessarily problematic. It would depend on what exactly he was suggesting we defend, their right to "be homosexuals", which is a right we should defend, because again, you cannot punish illness; or some legal recognition of them as "couples", which I think would be wrong.
(02-06-2013, 10:43 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Outlawing homosexuality is like outlawing alcoholism. Dumb idea based on ignorance.
You cannot outlaw sickness. And you must defend the sick against foolish governments. Defending them against being outlawed has nothing to do with condoning the idea of homosexual marriage.

I missed the part where the bishop said we should defend the legal rights of "homosexual couples". If he did say this, it would be ambiguous, but even then not necessarily problematic. It would depend on what exactly he was suggesting we defend, their right to "be homosexuals", which is a right we should defend, because again, you cannot punish illness; or some legal recognition of them as "couples", which I think would be wrong.

Homosexuality is different than Same Sex Attraction, just as Alcoholism is different than Drunkenness.

Same Sex Attraction and Alcoholism should not be illegal.  They do not necessarily consist of full consent of the will.

Homosexuality and Drunkenness however should both be illegal.  Both are immoral and violate the natural moral law.  Both should be criminalized.
(02-06-2013, 11:14 PM)Adam_Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 10:43 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Outlawing homosexuality is like outlawing alcoholism. Dumb idea based on ignorance.
You cannot outlaw sickness. And you must defend the sick against foolish governments. Defending them against being outlawed has nothing to do with condoning the idea of homosexual marriage.

I missed the part where the bishop said we should defend the legal rights of "homosexual couples". If he did say this, it would be ambiguous, but even then not necessarily problematic. It would depend on what exactly he was suggesting we defend, their right to "be homosexuals", which is a right we should defend, because again, you cannot punish illness; or some legal recognition of them as "couples", which I think would be wrong.

Homosexuality is different than Same Sex Attraction, just as Alcoholism is different than Drunkenness.

Same Sex Attraction and Alcoholism should not be illegal.  They do not necessarily consist of full consent of the will.

Homosexuality and Drunkenness however should both be illegal.  Both are immoral and violate the natural moral law.  Both should be criminalized.

It depends on how you are defining homosexuality, which appears to be in fact the acting on homosexual temptation. Homosexuality, properly, is the same as same-sex attraction. It is the tending toward members of the same (homo) sex for the fulfillment of sexual desire in that attraction.

The difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is that giving into heterosexual temptation is more in line with natural order, despite the potential for sin: fornication, sodomy, degradation of the partner, onanism, etc.

If you are defining homosexuality as acting on this urge, I think you are misapplying the traditional definition. SSA is a fairly new, PC term. Homosexual is the traditional term. I think the term you might be going for, if wishing to conjoin the urge with action, is sodomite. But even that might be up for debate depending on the evolution of the term in linguistics.

Quote:..the Catholic Church opposes legal sanctions against homosexuality and favors legal protections for unmarried people living together..

I haven't seen where anyone has specifically commented on the line above.  This all by itself would seem to be utterly inexcusable in a bishop.
(02-06-2013, 11:20 PM)SMKMI Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 11:14 PM)Adam_Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 10:43 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Outlawing homosexuality is like outlawing alcoholism. Dumb idea based on ignorance.
You cannot outlaw sickness. And you must defend the sick against foolish governments. Defending them against being outlawed has nothing to do with condoning the idea of homosexual marriage.

I missed the part where the bishop said we should defend the legal rights of "homosexual couples". If he did say this, it would be ambiguous, but even then not necessarily problematic. It would depend on what exactly he was suggesting we defend, their right to "be homosexuals", which is a right we should defend, because again, you cannot punish illness; or some legal recognition of them as "couples", which I think would be wrong.

Homosexuality is different than Same Sex Attraction, just as Alcoholism is different than Drunkenness.

Same Sex Attraction and Alcoholism should not be illegal.  They do not necessarily consist of full consent of the will.

Homosexuality and Drunkenness however should both be illegal.  Both are immoral and violate the natural moral law.  Both should be criminalized.

It depends on how you are defining homosexuality, which appears to be in fact the acting on homosexual temptation. Homosexuality, properly, is the same as same-sex attraction. It is the tending toward members of the same (homo) sex for the fulfillment of sexual desire in that attraction.

The difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is that giving into heterosexual temptation is more in line with natural order, despite the potential for sin: fornication, sodomy, degradation of the partner, onanism, etc.

If you are defining homosexuality as acting on this urge, I think you are misapplying the traditional definition. SSA is a fairly new, PC term. Homosexual is the traditional term. I think the term you might be going for, if wishing to conjoin the urge with action, is sodomite. But even that might be up for debate depending on the evolution of the term in linguistics.

Point well taken.  Thank you.

I would like to clarify that I support the criminalization of homosexual behavior, not simply being attracted to persons of the same gender.
Pages: 1 2 3