Homosexual U.K. Documentarian Says Gay Lifestyle a "Sewer" of Casual Degrading Sex,

By Hilary White LONDON, September 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A British homosexual journalist admits that his documentary on the London gay scene is likely to “burn every bridge in the gay world I’ve got.” Simon Fanshawe is a writer and broadcaster who created the documentary…

Full article…

Wow! What a powerful indictment of the homosexual lifestyle.

But then, it is not surprising.

Quite how this is news when Fanshaw’s article and documentary date from 2006, I can’t imagine.

He did say that gay-haters should “go right back into the shameful dungeon of discrimination” and that might be news to some people, I suppose.

This seems very appropriate and timeless.

Chapter 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.

24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. God delivered them up… Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Thing is that the ‘news’ section should, at least in theory, be about ‘current’ events rather than the ‘timeless’ - it’s not as if there aren’t other places on CAF for the thread, after all.

Of course, since it’s from one of CAF’s ‘bots’ there was no decision involved.

Gays and lesbians are unable to procreate children with their same-sex lovers, so these types of relationships must be based purely on lust.

O Rly? Love doesn’t enter into the picture at all?

If you looked around, I bet you could even find examples of loving heterosexual relationships in which children don’t enter the picture. Or are such relationships purely based upon lust, too, in your opinion?

This speaks to the eternal future of these souls, as well. Do you mean you do not see the connection here?

As I said, there’s not exactly a shortage of fora here for the thread. My point is just that the ‘bot’ has chosen here (when the matter cited isn’t ‘news’) rather than one of the others.

The Pope refers to this as a fractured or incomplete love. God’s plan is for us to have complete love.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

As far as the idea that ‘love’ negates God’s commandments:

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Yes. There most certainly are heterosexual relationships based purely on lust.

The “love” expressed by homosexuals to each other is not real love. It most certainly is based on either lust or sinful love. Yex, love most certainly can be sinful. At least according to Pope John Paul II. Don’t believe me, consider a man who is cheating on his wife and who is “in love” with his mistress. That is another example of sinful love.

Love is not always right.

I love how some believe they can categorize feelings others may have that they themselves have never experienced.

One doesn’t have to be gay to experience love. Love is more than a feeling, an emotion. It is an ACTION. An action that requires selflessness.

Active homosexuals aren’t the only ones who act upon this self-indulgence BTW. Heterosexuals subvert the selflessness of a truly loving act by contracepting.

I was responding to how posters on here seem to think that their love feels different than others’. You affirmed my point - one doesn’t have to be gay or straight to experience love. It’s not my responsibility or any other posters’ to define love.

Sure it is - as Christians we are to proclaim the love of Christ to the world.

Love is not a feeling. Love is a choice. Lust is a feeling. Affection is a feeling. Love is a choice and and action. It is not what you claim it is.

Homosexual activity is in all cases, circumstances and motives absolutely evil. Period. Disagree if you like, but if you do, do not claim to be Catholic.

Hey, are you reading what you are writing? You **have attempted to **define love. Of course, you got it all wrong.

It is absolutely the imperative of Christians to define love. Christianity is based on love of God and love of neighbor. The Church has defined love. See my previous post.

No, I didn’t. I only know what love is like when I feel it/do it/experience it, and don’t claim to know what it is for other people.

And I’m not Catholic.

And that makes all the difference. The Catholic posters here are using a definition of love which is based on the Church’s natural law philosophy/theology, and not the commonsense meaning which most people use in everyday life.

To some degree it is to be expected, since CAF is a Catholic forum attached to an apologetics website. This can make discussions frustrating if you aren’t Catholic, but, after all, this is a special interest forum, and non-Catholics are more or less outsiders.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.