Is Homosexuality Genetic


The Bible & Homosexuality: How to Respond to Dan Savage’s Attack


From: CATHOLIC ANSWERS

Are Homosexuals Going to Hell?



Q. So if sin is measured in degree does this mean that some souls are redeemable while others are not? is a homosexual going to hell in a hand basket while a person who commits adultery has a chance of being saved? is this right? what is the difference between a ” regular sin” and an abomination? Please explain, any input pertaining to this question will be helpful!!!!

A. An unrepentant adulterer will go to Hell as fast as an unrepentant sexually active homosexual.

Being homosexual or having same-sex-attraction is NOT A SIN.

Homosexual sex, adultery, premarital sex, masturbation, contracepted sex are ALL serious sin. Yet all of these sins can be forgiven if they are repented of in confession and the person honestly intends to stop.

The only sin that cannot be forgiven is rejection of Christ even up to death. A person can be saved even at the last minute, however.

All sin offends our Good and Holy God. But some sin is much more serious and cuts us off from Him and salvation unless we go to confession. Getting irritated with the guy who cuts you off in traffic, or impatient with a spouse are examples of lesser or venial sin for which we still need to repent of and try to avoid. “But the righteous man falls seven times a day.”

Homosexuality: 2. The Truth Question



If you read part one of this commentary (Homosexuality: 1. The Disorder Question), you’ll have noticed that my correspondent begins by asserting her “bona fides” through the statement: “I am a practicing Catholic.” She then goes on to reflect not Catholicism but the prevailing attitudes of the surrounding culture. In this light, her response to the reply outlined in the previous entry—the reply in which I explained the disordered nature of homosexuality—is even more telling:

I’m sure you can quote me the scripture proving that I am against “God’s plan” in this. And furthermore, you can bolster that with what the Magisterium has to say about “God’s plan”. It is really difficult to have a rational discussion about a subject when you are trumped by God. I guess you know what God thinks better than I do. As does the Magisterium. Of course. Silly me for using the brain God gave me.

This, of course, is nothing but vintage late twentieth-century and early twenty-first century self-congratulatory between-the-ears fluff. In the confusion that has characterized Catholic formation (or the lack thereof) over the past couple of generations, even Catholics don’t like being “trumped by God”. It’s so…so…irrational! We moderns have a nearly infinite capacity to portray ourselves as romantic heroes because we so courageously follow the crowd.

To read the rest of Dr. Jeff Mirus’ post click here Catholic Culture

Homosexuality: 1. The Disorder Question


This is one of those blog entries one hates to write. I received an email yesterday (in response to The Lessons of the Scandal: Hypocrisy and Discipline) which began: “I am a practicing Catholic. I do not believe that homosexuality is a ‘disordered state’. Many gay people have the sexuality they were born with. It does not reflect their morals, nor does it reflect their ‘normality’ in terms of sexuality.”

The author went on to argue that whether someone is sexually “disordered” is “not determined by whether they are gay or not but by whether they, for example, are addicted to porn, or perhaps they are promiscuous, or they abuse or use others for their sexual gratification.”

There was a bare possibility that the correspondent was confusing “disordered” with “sinful”, so I responded accordingly.
Please read the rest of this post at Catholic Culture by Dr. Jeff Mirus

Liberal groups urge media boycot of Catholic League’s Bill Donohue



From
The Catholic League
ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR DONOHUE FAIL

April 1, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on recent attempts to censor him:

TV producers have been telling me for years that my critics have implored them never to invite me back on any program. But they always do. While the media are overwhelmingly liberal, they have an obligation to offer different points of view. Hence, their non-stop invitations asking me to speak.

The latest attempt to silence me comes from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Call to Action and the Interfaith Alliance. The three left-wing organizations have joined hands demanding that the media “ignore Bill Donohue.” Their complaint? My telling the truth about the role homosexual priests have played in the abuse scandal.

The data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by homosexuals. By the way, puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys.

No problem can be remedied without an accurate diagnosis. And any accurate diagnosis that does not finger the role that homosexuals have played in molesting minors is intellectually dishonest. The cover-up must end. And so must attempts to muzzle my voice. Everything I am saying is what most people already know, but are afraid to say it. It’s time for some straight talk.

California & Homosexual “Marriage”


Here is a link to the online article I have reproduced below. We, in California will be voting on this issue in November.
But it is of interest for everyone. I thought this was an excellent well- thought out article.

http://ncregister.com/site/article/15099/ 
The National Catholic RegisterCOMMENTARY

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Civil Society



BY JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE

June 8-14, 2008 Issue | Posted 6/3/08 at 10:48 AM

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.

Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.

It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt.

Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

At last report, the Mennonites were considering leaving the province rather than permit the imposition of the state-sponsored curriculum on their children.

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faces a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

The underlying pattern is unmistakable. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” has brought in its wake state regulation of other parts of society. The problem is sometimes presented as an issue of religious freedom, and so, in part, it is. But the issue runs deeper than religious freedom.

McGill University professor Douglas Farrow argues in his book A Nation of Bastards that redefining marriage allows the government to colonize all of civil society.

If same-sex couples can marry each other, they should be allowed to adopt. Anyone who says otherwise is acting against the policy of the state. If same-sex couples can have civil unions, then denying them the use of any facility they want for their ceremony amounts to unlawful discrimination. When the state says that same sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples, school curriculum will inevitably have to support this claim.

Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.

Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.

Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.

By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.

Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.

The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.

In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.

Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.

Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be “gay friendly.” A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to “equality” with straight couples.

The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people’s lives.

Perhaps some people think it is okay to shut down Catholic adoption agencies, because the Catholics have it coming to them: The Church’s enemies are many. Perhaps some people don’t care for Methodists, and don’t care whether they lose their tax-exempt status.

But the Mennonites? These are the most inoffensive people on the planet. They have been pacifists for centuries. Their continued existence here in North America is a testimony to the strength of our ideals of religious tolerance and pluralism, in all the best senses of those terms. But now, in the name of equality of same-sex couples, the Mennonites are being driven out of Quebec.

Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?

Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

Jennifer Roback Morse is the senior fellow in economics at the Acton

Institute and the author of Love and Economics:
It Takes a Family to Raise a Village, newly reissued in paperback.