10 Rules for Talking to Gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melinda_Selmys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deo_Volente said:
Grace & Peace!

I hope, Michelle, that at this point in our relationship (such as it is) we both realize that when it comes to psychoanalyzing each other and guessing each other’s motivations, *neither *of us is in possession of very well-honed skills. 😉

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
VERO CRAS!
Click to expand...
True, Mark. 🙂

Now, I want to point out where I agree with you. :eek: We must love. We must love our neighbors as ourselves.
Before we do anything, we must love. Out of our obligation to love comes any and all of our other responsibilities to each other. [snip] Others’ disagreements read, to me, as if they were saying, “No–when you encounter gays, above all you must correct or chastise them.”
Click to expand...
As I’ve said a couple of times on this thread, and ISoG even quoted me saying it:
I would like to add something that is so frequently overlooked and ignored–every single person has a personality and a style and maybe even a mission. What is important as an area of apologetics to person A won’t be the same priority for person B. While person A has a gruff style, person B is sweetness and light. it doesn’t mean that that one is better than the other or one is wrong. I think it’s silly to expect us all to deal with the same situtation in the same way or to have the same effects.
Click to expand...
I am of the impression, and several posters have said as much, that they either (a) would be uncomfortable having an apologetics discussion or debate in real life, or (b) would handle the situation very differently depending on the situation. Please note that some posters are coming at this from a one-on-one with someone you know situation and others are coming at it from an encounter on a street situation. Seeing where someone is coming from is important for both sides.

Someone’s dear friend of 10 years, a cradle Catholic, crying and asking for advice is a far different situation than being accosted at the Pizza Hut by your waiter demanding to know if you’re a homophobe because you’re wearing a crucifix. while I would pray that I would handle both situations with love, I don’t think I should probably try to hug the Pizza Hut dude.

In loving others, I would extend that love to the posters on this thread and make the most favorable assumption about them, not the least favorable; to-wit, I would assume that the posters on this thread would respond lovingly and appropriately should they find themselves in a situation–whether it be a debate, a consolation, or a discussion.

Mark, your comments about love have made me think quite heavily the past couple of days. I want to make sure that I don’t get so carried away with the intellectual aspects of the argument that I neglect loving my neighbor.
 
Sometimes love is the first step to greater understanding (don’t take this to mean acceptance)… Opening your trap and yelling “Your a sinner!” “Your disordered!” “Your sick!” “Your going to hell!”

Isn’t going to get someone to listen to you…

Now personally I’m gay… I like to dialogue with conservatives Catholics especially… But whenever a Christian (doesn’t have to be a Catholic) opens their mouth and the first thing that comes out is “sodomite” or “satan” I’m turned off instantly.

Just like if the first thing that would came out of my mouth would be “I love you” (it the gay way lol) or “gay sex rocks” that would be a turn off to any Christian (Catholic included)…

I like the OP’s suggestions… They’re well thought out and their agreeable to any party on the opposite divide of this issue. I think both parties get carried away in a debate like this…
 
Catholicpotato said:
Context context context…Do you not know the historical story of God’s people extending to us? You write off entire points, commands and books of sacred scripture because of a sentence in another part of sacred scripture??? You have some dangerous ignorance of sacred scripture and indeed your own faith.
Click to expand...
There is nothing sacred about stoning people.
The catholic faith is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
And Vatican II teaches one should follow his or her conscience does it not?
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
There is nothing sacred about stoning people.
The catholic faith is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
And Vatican II teaches one should follow his or her conscience does it not?
Click to expand...
Nothing beats first hand knowledge. I recommend every literate person read the WHOLE Bible. Along with Church teaching this is the only way the context can be understood. Your statement about nothing sacred about stoning people shows your lack of understanding of the Old Covenant. Which is the only lens in which the New Covenant contains any Truth at all.
 
Alright I’m not going to moderate this fight… Let the match begin! DING

The floor is your gentlemen/ladies…

I do not know enough of the Catholic faith to follow (thank G-d)…
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
Maybe in the USA/new roman empire.
Killing is wrong.
Period!
Click to expand...
Has nothing to to with the USA or any country on earth. You state a Truth. “killing is wrong” But your greying of the faith contradicts your assertion. MURDER is wrong. Yes. So are homosexual acts. How do you point to the Church to defend a position and yet ignore it on others?
 
Catholicpotato said:
I get what you are trying to say but this is not true. I understand your point but we must try to be accurate here. The New fulfills the old. It does not “nullify it”

There is a lack of understanding of the “old testament” on this thread. One only has to read how sacrifices were done in the temple and the placement of the lamp stands to understand the significance and marriage of the old and new.

We are however WAY off topic.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the Old Testament is invalid I’m saying that the laws in it are no longer in force.
oreoboy said:
Sometimes love is the first step to greater understanding (don’t take this to mean acceptance)… Opening your trap and yelling “Your a sinner!” “Your disordered!” “Your sick!” “Your going to hell!”

Isn’t going to get someone to listen to you…

Now personally I’m gay… I like to dialogue with conservatives Catholics especially… But whenever a Christian (doesn’t have to be a Catholic) opens their mouth and the first thing that comes out is “sodomite” or “satan” I’m turned off instantly.

Just like if the first thing that would came out of my mouth would be “I love you” (it the gay way lol) or “gay sex rocks” that would be a turn off to any Christian (Catholic included)…

I like the OP’s suggestions… They’re well thought out and their agreeable to any party on the opposite divide of this issue. I think both parties get carried away in a debate like this…
Click to expand...
Being polite gives you ground to use
LVCIVS_DEI said:
There is nothing sacred about stoning people.
The catholic faith is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
And Vatican II teaches one should follow his or her conscience does it not?
Click to expand...
Part of the Bible is poetry, some is laws, others are history, but it is still Scripture
 
Catholicpotato said:
Nothing beats first hand knowledge. I recommend every literate person read the WHOLE Bible. Along with Church teaching this is the only way the context can be understood. Your statement about nothing sacred about stoning people shows your lack of understanding of the Old Covenant. Which is the only lens in which the New Covenant contains any Truth at all.
Click to expand...
With all due respect that is not an argument, that is a statement. 🤷
If you don not agree with me than that is fine, but you talk like i am some kind of dumb fool.
 
Catholicpotato said:
Has nothing to to with the USA or any country on earth. You state a Truth. “killing is wrong” But your greying of the faith contradicts your assertion. MURDER is wrong. Yes. So are homosexual acts. How do you point to the Church to defend a position and yet ignore it on others?
Click to expand...
I do not ignore them, i just say i personally do not agree with them.
Or am i not allowed to have an opinion?
And all killing is wrong not just murder.
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
With all due respect that is not an argument, that is a statement. 🤷
If you don not agree with me than that is fine, but you talk like i am some kind of dumb fool.
Click to expand...
You can say “I believe this or that” all you want. Heck, you can even believe those things. But if you are identifying yourself as a Catholic and then believing things the Church does not about the religion you profess, no one will take you seriously.
I can say I don’t believe water is wet. But it is.
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
I do not ignore them, i just say i personally do not agree with them.What is the difference?
Or am i not allowed to have an opinion?Sure, you can have any one you want. Free will and all…
And all killing is wrong not just murder.Can you show proof for this? This is not what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
 
Catholicpotato said:
You can say “I believe this or that” all you want. Heck, you can even believe those things. But if you are identifying yourself as a Catholic and then believing things the Church does not about the religion you profess, no one will take you seriously.
I can say I don’t believe water is wet. But it is.
Click to expand...
We shall see about that.
And only one man can speak for the whole church.
And its not you.
 
LVCIVS_DEI said:
We shall see about that.
And only one man can speak for the whole church.
And its not you.
Click to expand...
Actually many can speak for the Church. All the Popes, Church doctors, Bishops, Cardinals, writers of Holy scripture. Actually by our baptism we are CALLED to speak for the Church. Just make sure you are speaking within the Church…

Those who can and do speak for the Church HAVE spoken. And it does not match up with your opinion…
 
40.png
Catholicpotato:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
"2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person"
"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top