www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Jerusalem bans gay pride parade

Dear Yuhannon,
Happy to see you on this thread. That so-called "partial constitution" isn't worth the paper it's not written on, as you and I (and others) are only too well aware. One really must ask, insistently, how it is possible to encourage a "State" whose basic premise is religious discrimination.

I've never seen one of those Gay Pride parades, so I wouldn't know what goes on at them. Since I have lived in several large cities, where presumably such festivities take place, it can't be that difficult to avoid them - which I've made no effort to do either; I just go about my business.

The only Orange parade I've ever actually seen was a rather pitiful one that I happened to catch a glimpse of by driving past the street where it was held - there couldn't have been more than fifty people. Unfortunately, in some countries (including Scotland, I gather) these affairs are a lot more intimidating. I'd be inclined to consider the Orange parades as more similar to a Ku Klux Klan demonstration than to a Gay Pride parade. However, I cheerfully admit that I've never attended either a KKK demo or a Gay Pride parade, nor do I intend to. Then again, I've also never attended a presidential inauguration. However, you may be reassured to learn that as a child I was taken to Santa Claus parades once or twice. Otherwise, my experience is limited to peace demonstrations and the like.

By the way, I just realized earlier today that Ku Klux Klan is thought to derive from the Greek κυκλοσ. Yet another piece of useless information.

Incognitus

Alice,

This is the last time I will comment on this thread but actually gay pride parades were not and are not symbolic of what you seem to think they are. They came out of years of discrimination and harrassment of gay people by police etc before the late 60's (if you talk to gay people of that generation, you would understand what people went through) and they are a celebration and a reflection that such discrimination is now a thing of the past. That is something I'm glad about because I have heard the stories of what people went through in the past and it was not at all Christian. I know you mean very well and have the best of intentions but I guess we must agree to disagree about these things and that's fine But I just want people to see gay people as individuals first and not as part of a "mass" group which I have heard some on the right speak of them as. I know too many people to think that is right or just or Christian.

Peace,
Brian

Thank you Neil and Ignognitus for your good posts!

Democracy?
Democracy skipped that part in which people who pay taxes have the right to determine where is the tax money going!

I am a Christian, and I will not pay taxes to support the homosexual community in any way.
Now they are demanding the right to express, they are costing the country thousands of shekels so they can get proper security, next they will demand money and support for getting married, having children in medical ways (starting with sperm, egg doners ending with cloning - both ways are non Christian and ANTI-Christ and ANTI-Christian, and both ways costs the governments millions) ...

So ya I am with democracy- they want to express themselvs - NOT ON MY COST! NOT WITH MY TAX MONEY!

EXACTLY RIGHT !!!!

antonius

There is nothing "gay" about being inclined to acts that are so revolting that they cannot be spoken of publicly without causing feelings of extreme revulsion and nausea. We need to stop using the language of the devil and recognize that the politically correct evolution of sexual perversion to sexual deviancy to sexual preference to sexual orientation is a lie of the "father-of-lies." Souls are at stake, not the least of which are those propagating the lies who need to be told so in no uncertain terms.

Let us consider the case of Matthew Shepard.

The genesis of hate crimes legislation can be traced to the tragedy of Matthew Shepard. At the very least, the Shepard murder arguably served as one of its primary catalysts. However, neither the Shepard murder, nor that of any other individual, demands "hate crime" legislation, in particular, legislation based on the lie that something called "sexual orientation" exists in an innate final sense with voluminous evidence to the contrary to particularly include pro-homosexual sources. [Reference NARTH, The National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality]. What is interesting is that "sexual orientation" is never defined by its legislative proponents. There are many "sexual orientations" which, like homosexuality, are abnormal, i.e., masochism, sadism, necrophilia, and pedophilia, to name a few. Are these behaviors deserving of unequal treatment under the law in a protective hate crimes sense similar to homosexuality? Do the murders of masochists, sadists, necrophiliacs, and pedophiliacs demand more punishment than that of a member of our family because the former are hate crimes and the latter is not? Is this "equal justice under the law," which was a founding tenet of this country? The suggestion is insane, but insanity has the USA in a death grip in order that vice be made a virtue. Legislators proposing such skewed laws ought to be ashamed of themselves. They open the country to embarrassing ridicule for nothing other than acquiescing to the demands of the pro-sodomite agenda. Is this what our Armed Forces fought and died for since our country was founded, a freedom too far, a freedom confused with license?



Just where does the promotion of aberrant behavior as a civil right end? The entire premise is ludicrous, as anarchy is the inevitable result. Good states are classically defined by their promotion of societal common good as referenced in Aristotle's Politics, and refined in Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which saw the need for a unity, not separation, of Church and state for a "good" state to exist, i.e., the Church must be a necessary moral beacon for the state. How can the legitimization of behavior that is so filthy it cannot be described without conveying the most revolting feelings be considered "tending toward the common good"? The pro-sodomy lobby takes advantage of this very revulsion for homosexual acts, knowing full well that many individuals do not have the stomach for rightly describing them publicly.

This is the consequence of conceding the field to militant homosexual advocates who politically bastardize the language. They tell us that sodomy is "gay," and that "sexual perversion" somehow evolved to "sexual deviance," then to "sexual preference," and finally to "sexual orientation" - an evolution necessary to anesthetize the public as to what is really going on. The final "evolved" state, "sexual orientation," has been proven to be a lie many times over, as previously addressed. Even if there were a "gay" gene, does that make the aberrant behavior of homosexuality any less so? There have been genetic arguments made for alcoholism, adultery (promiscuity) and serial killing. Certainly, no one would argue for the acceptability of such ruinous behavior just because it is "in our genes."

The real tragedy of the discussion of Matthew Shepard's death is the absence of human reason illumined by faith and consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God.

An example of the lunacy surrounding the Shepard case is Katie Couric of NBC blaming Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council for the Shepard murder.

This is patently ridiculous and, as a Roman Catholic, I strongly protest the inference by a representative of NBC news that those who genuinely love individuals inclined to homosexual acts by telling them the truth of the well documented physical, psychologiical, and especially spiritual ruin associated with their lifestyles are the reason for their problems.

Matthew Shepard's death was horrible because he was a human being indistinguishable from other human beings whose life was snuffed out because a Commandment of God was violated. He joins a group of individuals who have met brutal death as a prelude to meeting their Maker. At least Shepard's death is recognized as punishable by law. Infants at the moment of birth in this country currently have no such protection. Their lives are brutally terminated by the puncturing of the back of their skulls by scissors while they hang kicking almost totally out of the womb, and the subsequent sucking out of their brains while their lifeless little bodies go limp. And that's the "law" in the United States of America, according to an activist judiciary who is allowed to consistently usurp its constitutional authority by most recently overturning the Partial Birth Abortion ban. Does it not strike the country as hypocritical that senators like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are mute when it comes to the hate involved in the brutal killing of innocents in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers' wombs?

The real tragedy of Matthew Shepard's death is that it is somehow elevated to a higher plane whereby the lifestyle of the individual carries a higher precedence than the intrinsic worth of the individual himself as a creation of the Almighty. We do not need to search for the reasons for this crusade. They are well known and the modus-operandi of a group of people who will use anything, any individual, to suit their agenda which is the forced acceptance of sexual deviancy as normal upon society as a whole.

I would ask this group to please explain to me how Matthew Shepard's death differs from that of any number of similar brutal deaths occurring in the world to include partial birth infanticide? I would ask this group how Matthew Shepard's death differs from that of a Wisconsin priest whose throat was slashed from ear to ear - the priest having the courage to speak out against the hedonism engulfing the world in a new dark age to include, in particular, sexual deviancy. I would ask this group why equal treatment under the law is being perverted by raising the gravity of Shepard's death to insinuate that, somehow, his is "especially tragic" because of the lifestyle that he lived. How is it that his death is singled out, or for that matter, any death singled out as being a greater cause for concern than someone else's? Hate of some sort has to be involved in practically every murder, or any crime, for that matter. There is nothing unique about Shepard's case in that regard. What is unique is the call for greater penalties in his case.

Should a person who kills an alcoholic be seen as deserving of a greater sentence because of the lifestyle his victim led? No. Not in a rational world that values life from conception to natural death. Aha, but that's the rub, isn't it?

People of faith and reason must never lose sight of the fact that the truth cannot be compromised. If an alcoholic was brutally murdered, the act would be condemned. There would not be a cry for the promotion of alcoholism, however, because it is recognized that such behavior is destructive. There is absolutely no difference between this and the Shepard situation. Except, that is, in the minds of those who would have us believe that being normal is abnormal, and vice-versa, e.g., the demonization of something called heterosexism, which is a threat to the acceptance of sodomy as a civil right in an affirmative action sense.

I do not believe the family and friends of Matthew Shepard have different feelings than those of serial killing victims. We are created equal in the eyes of God, the soul being the great "equalizer", that which distinguishes man from the animals.

What is different, sadly, is the exploitation of Shepard's death by those who would trash the Constitution of this country and coerce a populace into accepting activities which are held in anathema by their faith, and contrary to right reason, i.e., common sense. Many "clergy", and I use that term loosely, blame the Church for creating an atmosphere of hostility which led to Shepard's death. They forget the very reason for their existence and that of the Church - to caution mankind that there is a greater death to be feared than natural. The supernatural is totally ignored. What they fail to see is that the people who love individuals inclined to homosexual acts the most are those who are telling them the truth about their lifestyle, about a death far more final than anything of this world. They intentionally confuse hate for the sin with the sinner, an absolute prerequisite for those seeking to further the sodomite agenda.

Authentic pastoral care identifies the causes of confusion regarding Church teachings. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims that Jesus has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that He somehow approves of it, or that all of Scripture's moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous. They ignore the fact that the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled.

For Christians, Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, another concept not directly mentioned in Sacred Scripture but still fully taught if one examines the underlying evidence. If Jesus is God, if Christians believe in a Triune God of Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three Persons in ONE God, than how can it be said that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality" given that Sacred Scripture is the "inspired Word of God?" Moreover, the Bible itself records that much of what Jesus said was never written down. Jesus Himself wrote nothing. What we find in the Bible is the direction to hold fast to the teaching and Sacred Tradition of the Church which He founded upon the Rock that is Peter, "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth." Above all, Jesus came to fulfill the old law, in particular, its moral force, not to abolish it. In doing so He would have obeyed the Fourth Commandment "Honor thy Father and thy Mother." One honors their parents by first and foremost obeying them, in particular, in light of the consequences to the "cities of the plain" in Genesis 19 commanded by the ONE TRIUNE God, as referenced in New Testament Jude.

What should be noticed is that there is a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behavior. The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for specious theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony.

Scripture is very clear on the teaching against homosexuality. An eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in 1 Cor 6:9, he lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God. Saint Paul is distinguishing the importance of supernatural death over natural death, the former having eternal consequences as opposed to the latter.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul specifically addresses the sodomite condition with its dire consequences as an example of the blindness which has overcome mankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry, in particular the worship of the "god-in-the-mirror", has led to all kinds of moral aberrations. Homosexual relations are a function of the resulting disharmony due to the work of the devil, who prowls the world like a raging lion seeking the ruin of souls. Finally, in 1 Timothy 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, Paul singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage, the latter, procreation, being the primary purpose of marriage since man is procreating to populate Heaven in accord with God's plan at creation, not just for survival of the species. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. In particular, this immorality is magnified by the oxymoronic contention that sodomites can be married, which is blasphemous, in complete ignorance of the natural law of God, which is a participation in His divine eternal law.

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the sodomite condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual. This is the root of the exploitation of Matthew Shepard's death on the part of militant sodomite activists.

To respect the dignity of those inclined to homosexual acts refers to an ontological dignity resulting from man being made in God's Image and Likeness, not a moral dignity having priority, which is a function of man knowing right from wrong, to which those inclined to sodomitic acts are NOT deserving of respect but rather revulsion.

The real tragedy of Wyoming's Matthew Shepard is the hypocrisy of those who lament his early brutal death but forget the equally unnecessary brutal deaths of a generation of young people from a disease, AIDS, which has had a known cure for some time - obedience to the natural law of God rooted in the Decalogue knowable through reason not just revelation. A cure which is ignored by the disciples of diversity, an umbrella which covers any and all forms of freedom for the totally autonomous unencumbered self, i.e., a freedom which is confused with license.



Thus, the evil that individuals inclined to homosexual acts are doing to themselves goes unquestioned by those calling for hate crimes legislation. This should come as no surprise because the former spokesman for the pro-sodomite Human Rights Campaign, David Smith, now works for Ted Kennedy. Smith's concerns are more related to demanding that society make him comfortable with his vice under force of law following sodomite Svend Robinson's Canadian example. A rational society is not obliged to accommodate Smith, Robinson and their ilk, a truth that needs to be made crystal clear to our legislators at all levels of government. Our response to groups like the Human Rights Campaign, and their executive, legislative,and judical facilitators, should be that



We do not recognize the legitimacy of your promotion of proven changeable, aberrant behavior in the name of "civil rights," which apply solely to innate, immutable characteristics such as ethnicity and skin color - or constitutionally protected religious freedoms. We do this to prevent anarchy, which is the inevitable result of your selfish demands for "special rights" to accommodate vice. We do this for eternity's sake in the light of the marriage, not divorce, of faith and reason, which is something that Constitution guarantees that we can do. We especially do this in formal recognition that all man-made laws are subsidiary to God's for man's natural well-being leading ultimately to his final supernatural salvific end.

Thus I'm in agreement with Antonius and Lawrence, who are in agreement with Holy Mother Church.

Friends,

I do live in a large city. I have had the misfortune of having to see some of the gay pride parades that go on in Chicago. In fact the news usually carries some of it. I applaud Incognitus for being able to close his eyes more quickly than I can and apparently he's able to not be driving near the parade when it was going on. I've seen the disgusting behavior, or at least a glimpse of it, that Holy Name Cathedral must tolerate each year as the parade goes past it.

Taking pride in the behavior I've seen in those parades would get the rest of us put in jail if we expressed such things in public. I believe that it is impossible for a Christian to defend such actions. At the same time the existence of such things as these parades simply shows again that this is not a Christian country.

Now, what to do. If we do not live in a Christian country and we can get arrested for expressing Christian beliefs as was demonstrated once again in Philadelphia only a few months ago what option is there?

First, once we realize that public displays of Christianity are not protected in this country we are then faced with two options. A. Curl up in the corner and die, as we have been doing. B. Stand up, get arrested if need be, and proclaim our positions.

Second, How might we do that? Street corner preaching? Billboards? TV? Radio? Though I find them anoying, Parades?

Eli,

I spent several minutes trying to access the link provided. Without having to pay some fee for it I could not access it. I suspect that I'm better off having not been able to. Am I correct?

Dan L

StLouisix,

Was that your lengthy article or someone elses. If it was someone elses would you give them credit, please? If it was yours it was excellent, at least what I've read so far. It is rather long, though.

I'm not sure if you named the set of stupid laws to which you refer or not. I think you are referring mostly to the so called "hate crime" laws which are nonsensical in the extreme and rather damaging to freedom. I find it quite troubling that they haven't all been reversed by the Supreme Court. For that matter if the legislators are going to single out a few people against whom hate crimes can be committed many of which are just perversions of decency why not make a hate crime law against killing babies?

Christians turned a perverse world upside down nearly 2,000 years ago. Let us pray that we have the courage to do it again.

Dan L

That was my article.

You are an excellent writer. Have you published this or do you intend to? Are you a journalist by training?

I'll comment on the contents later when I've time to finish the article.

Dan L

Thank you for your kind words. I'm a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State doing mathematical and acoustical research. My first love is philosophy. Just finished an MA program with Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, CT via distance ed. And yes, I believe that piece has been published, though I can't recall exactly where. I have articles for various Catholic websites around the country and some overseas to include Fidelity Magazine in Australia.

"we can get arrested for expressing Christian beliefs as was demonstrated once again in Philadelphia"

I think I missed this - can someone tell me what happened in Philadelphia?

I haven't in the least gone out of my way to avoid those parades or close my eyes to them - they simply haven't intruded upon my concentration and, to the best of my knowledge and memory, I've never so much as caught a glimpse of one.

Incognitus

Certainly we are now ruled by a minorities authoritarism.

These gay parades are an abomination, and these people are not tolerant nor peaceful at all. Last saturday I believed that such "parade" was over and went with a couple of friends to take a beer to a bar that is near downtown Mexico City. That zone used to be the classic touristical zone, full of pubs, cafes, theaters, etc., today it has become a refuge for homosexuals... well, we found a big group of these persons (a mob I'd rather say) and gathered around my car, started kicking it, broke the windows of the car, etc...

I would like to say that they were an exception, but every year gay parades become more violent against heterosexual people.

And what I believe is the worst part is that they do not need a special permit for making these kind of parades, they just inform the City's authorities and there you go. I we, Catholics, want to do a public procession in the street, we need a special authorization from the federal Secretary of State because a Catholic procession would "offend" the other minority religions... gimme a break!!

Isn't it ironic that in a country that has a population of 85 million Catholics (85% of our population) we can not have a procession?? Where's freedom then?

Oh well, think I'd better get back to find some band aids for my car... and should confess about all that I thought about those... whatever.

God bless

huummm

Just a wild thought:
Imagin this: Someone with guts, like myself , having a black flag with a golden logo saying "Gay-Day, Dark-Day" on his window! ... well democracy aint it? this is a silent protest!
BUT I BET the Times, CNN, BBC and other "friends" will call this person "Natzi" - "Closed" - "Antihuman" etc.


---
Dan,
What link?
and if your payingn - keep out my policy says: "free is good"

Eli,

It wasn't your link at all. My computer has been infested with porn purveyors and try as I might I can't get rid of them. I've used Norton, Adaware, Spybot over and over. They slow down my computer. Put porn pop ups and make all sorts of words into links to porn. Besides sending my computer to the store to get it cleaned out I don't know what to do.

Dan L