The Inconsistency of Sins of Lust

 I never fully understood when Catholics say that crimes of lust are the least of the sins, especially when issues of pre-marital sex, infidelity or homosexual acts are discussed. I personally believe that sins of lust are actually more grave than lay Catholics make it out to be, mainly because they themselves are caught under the "love is divine" aspect of it (i.e. John C. Wright) - or they themselves have committed sins of lust. Here's an example of the inconsistency:

It is said that passionate kissing outside of marriage is near mortal sin (according Aquinas). I think that's absurd in many cases. Yet infidelity, pre-marital sex and homosexuality are said to be "the least" grave sins hence why in hell sexual partners are supposedly in the first circle of hell. C'mon.

If there's one thing where I find the Church vague is it's this. 

Abortion when under certain situations.

One thing I have not heard much about, when it comes to reasons for abortions - besides the rape, dangerous child birth and incest situations - is aborting a baby when physical abnormalities, genetic disorders (down syndrome), or - one day, non-straightness, can be detected. Physical abnormalities and genetic disorders, at least in the cast of down syndrome, can be detected months before the final four weeks. If a non-straight gene is found, and there are some studies that show non-straights have some sort of larger gland in their brain - once that becomes definitive 'proof', it would be perfectly fine - without much controversy - to abort a baby who isn't straight.

Now the defense for aborting a baby with physical abnormalities or genetic disorders is that the compassion is directed towards not wanting that human to live a life of mocking and hardship. Well, despite the current social shift towards same-sex "marriage" and the acceptance of non-straights when they "come out" to their parents, there still seems to be an insecurity of non-straights that isn't really found in straights. There is still is a stigma - innate really - when it comes to non-straights and them walking hand in hand with their partner in public.

I'll paint this scenario. Let's say I have a child, and that there is medical technology and knowledge of science has expanded that onr can detect a child's sexuality early within its development. If abortion is legal, where morality has absolutely no place in it, just a women's choice to choose either to abort  or to have the baby, then the mother has every right to abort the child if it's not straight - if she so chooses to for whatever reason. If I embrace "choice" and body sovereignty to its logical conclusion, and with advancement of technology growing every year, with science expanding its knowledge on the human mind and body, then there will come a point where "surprises" are only surprises because of not using medical technology and current science to know almost everything about ones baby before it's birth.

So, LGBT people: You're fair game, if there is no law that protects you in this case, to abort if there ever comes a time where medical technology & discovery ever advances to a Gattaca like plain.

After all, if ever a law to protect babies who are shown to have same-sex attraction comes into existence, then it proves that, indeed, the LGBT, is a protected class due to their sexuality - a sexuality, if they aren't bisexual, produces nothing and their relationships give nothing of substance back to society.

My mother on contraception and abortion.

"They're just avoiding the consequences."

True.

More picture here.

Note: the first picture are of twins - boy & girl (blue & pink blanket distinction). The second are of twin boys (blue blanket). 

The flood gate is slowly creaking open - or least it should open.

Says Fredrik Deboer. Deboer suggests that polygamy should be next on the table, in all seriousness, since same-sex mirage was mad law of the land over at Politico.

The article was brought to my attention as I quickly skimmed topics over at CAF. Within the thread I found this comment.

 SofiaS writes:

You DO realise that the Bible is a lot more supportive of polygamy than of same sex marriage? Right?

You also DO realise that no one wants to stop you being Catholic. They just want to stop you stopping them from marrying the person they love in a legally recognised ceremony.

I've commented and documented the anger that resides in people like SofiaS here and here.

Posters like SofiaS come in two forms in terms of their posting habits. First form is the consistent poster. The consistent poster's post count lines up with his join date. He expresses his criticism in a somewhat reasonable way. The second form is "I'm only here for the food" poster. This poster just stops by to comment on topics that irate him. Out of the two forms SofiaS is the latter. Sofia's join date of CAF is dated June 2014; since then she has only posted eleven times as of June 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm. Like Mr. Fatalism, who posted at What's Wrong With the World, the second form tend to posts very confrontational if not snarky posts. Within these confrontations the second form also tell believers the history of their faith that they do not share nor believe in.

"I've studied your book."
"No, you haven't. You just read it."

What both the first and second form have in common is there appeal to scripture to play the devil's advocate. The profile of either form may fall under a liberal theist or pantheist, but most common is as a secularist (atheist/humanist); both forms are rather foreign to the philosophy present in a given site/forum, though there's at least one of them that accomplishes saying that Christians aren't allowed to eat shell fish (at least one) when it comes to topics critical of same-sex romance and acts. The second form mostly concentrates on gender & sexual identity, and the LGBT "community" or any other marriage form outside of one-man-one-woman. Rarely do each show up on topics about family or aspects of the mass. The second form is always absent on matters of immigration and usury. That stuff is way out of their bounds.