Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation

[Polaris]

Homosexuals must be treated with the same dignity and justice as anyone else. This includes housing and jobs.

Generally, it is when homosexuals begin to act on their homosexual urges where the problems for them begin.

Hence, areas such as “marriage” and adoption.

Pope John Paul II described homosexual “couples” adopting children as “doing violence to the child”. Those are strong words and they came from the Pope. The Church has always excluded homosexuals from adoptions. That is as it should be. It is not done because they Church thinks the children will be molested. It is done so the children can have a chance at a normal upbringing and learn Christian values. Active homosexuals are, but definition, not living a lifestyle consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Saidly this is not the teachings of the church. They are to be treated with dignity of the human person, appearently the same as a criminal, though they have no choice in the matter. Housing and employment go under the oh so vague “Just Discrimination” …because you have to protect the innocent from the Goofyjims of the world though he does no wrong. For instance they can not be teachers or fight in the military. How having SSA and chaste affects teaching mathmatics or fighting for something you believe in is beyond me.

 

[rpp]

Saidly this is not the teachings of the church. They are to be treated with dignity of the human person, appearently the same as a criminal, though they have no choice in the matter. Housing and employment go under the oh so vague “Just Discrimination” …because you have to protect the innocent from the Goofyjims of the world though he does no wrong. For instance they can not be teachers or fight in the military. How having SSA and chaste affects teaching mathmatics or fighting for something you believe in is beyond me.

Firstly, what I said is the teaching of the Church as best as I understand it.

Secondly, I take great offense when you say that people have to be protected from the “Goofyjims of the world”. Goofyjim, as far as I can tell from his forum posts, is a faithful Catholic who is chaste an well behaved here on the forums.

But even if he were not, there is no reason to posts what you did about him. It was most disparaging.

 

[Polaris]

Firstly, what I said is the teaching of the Church as best as I understand it.

Secondly, I take great offense when you say that people have to be protected from the “Goofyjims of the world”. Goofyjim, as far as I can tell from his forum posts, is a faithful Catholic who is chaste an well behaved here on the forums.

But even if he were not, there is no reason to posts what you did about him. It was most disparaging.

You missed the point I think that the church has done a great harm to the GoofyJims of the World!

I respect him more than most of the other posters in this group and it angers me that he could get kicked out of a house for saying he has SSA.

And here you Go For the offical teaching

1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
2. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
3. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

The most basic rights can be thrown away according to the church because oh no they exhibit an outward sign of having SSA

 

[goofyjim]

Saidly this is not the teachings of the church. They are to be treated with dignity of the human person, appearently the same as a criminal, though they have no choice in the matter. Housing and employment go under the oh so vague “Just Discrimination” …because you have to protect the innocent from the Goofyjims of the world though he does no wrong. For instance they can not be teachers or fight in the military. How having SSA and chaste affects teaching mathmatics or fighting for something you believe in is beyond me.

I do not seek a teaching or military career. But there is no protecting the innocents of the world from me because I am no harm. So I have the right to live where I choose and outside of the other two professions have the right to any job of my choice.

 

[goofyjim]

I live a chaste life but there is more and more mounting evidence that there are prenatal factors in determining homosexual orientation (not behavior, that’s another matter). Therefore it does constitute a minority protected status. If one wants to forbid us from teaching and the military that’s fine but stay away from our other rights of employment and housing.

 

[Polaris]

I do not seek a teaching or military career. But there is no protecting the innocents of the world from me because I am no harm. So I have the right to live where I choose and outside of the other two professions have the right to any job of my choice.

Jim you misunderstood what I was saying. Part of my post was sarcasm and anger I have towards the church because my closest friend is Gay. I think you should be able to live anywhere you want and work where you want. I believe in the biological evidence and get mad when the church likens SSA to a mental Disease. Gays are Not danger to themself and others. Where the church comes of saying you should be institutionalized for something you did not even do and does not even affect others bothers me. Also why cant a person teach who has SSA or Fight. You might not want to do those things but others who have SSa are great teachers or wonderful sodiers who are chaste should have every right to do that.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim you misunderstood what I was saying. Part of my post was sarcasm and anger I have towards the church because my closest friend is Gay. I think you should be able to live anywhere you want and work where you want. I believe in the biological evidence and get mad when the church likens SSA to a mental Disease. Gays are Not danger to themself and others. Where the church comes of saying you should be institutionalized for something you did not even do and does not even affect others bothers me. Also why cant a person teach who has SSA or Fight. You might not want to do those things but others who have SSa are great teachers or wonderful sodiers who are chaste should have every right to do that.

Well you sure didn’t come off that way. I have a dear friend I met a year ago who is almost twenty years younger. We were in a residential program and I could tell he was gay, or at least accepted the lies that you have to be actively gay. I began by cautioning him not to come out to his family or anyone for that matter. Threw him for a loop because he admitted he could never tell I leaned that way. He has bought the lies hook, line and sinker that you can’t live without sex. He doesn’t keep in touch but I would love to get him a copy of Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage”. You might try this for your friend because it is not just about following a bunch of rules. It is about the glorified way God originally intended us to be.

 

[Polaris]

Well you sure didn’t come off that way. I have a dear friend I met a year ago who is almost twenty years younger. We were in a residential program and I could tell he was gay, or at least accepted the lies that you have to be actively gay. I began by cautioning him not to come out to his family or anyone for that matter. Threw him for a loop because he admitted he could never tell I leaned that way. He has bought the lies hook, line and sinker that you can’t live without sex. He doesn’t keep in touch but I would love to get him a copy of Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage”. You might try this for your friend because it is not just about following a bunch of rules. It is about the glorified way God originally intended us to be.

Im sorry if it came across as against you. I forget sometimes that tone is not carried well in print, and my control of the english language is somewhat wanting to boot. A gang buster combination if there ever was one.

Hes a dear friend, and hes smarter than the average bear. He would be fine with the church if it was just a matter of chastity, but its what the church teaches as “just discrimination” (a term that urks me ) and what it teaches about how acts of violence against SSA members should be understood. Its quite disturbing to me and him. I was shocked when the seem to down play it and even seem to excuse the violence when a country supports SSA members.

 

[blessedtoo]

I believe in the biological evidence and get mad when the church likens SSA to a mental Disease.

Sorry. If you want to try quoting Church teaching on the issue of homosexuality, better get your facts correct. The Church has never stated that SSA is a mental Disease. She is not a psychiatric or medical institution.

Where the church comes of saying you should be institutionalized for something you did not even do and does not even affect others bothers me.

No need to be “bothered” because the Church has NEVER stated that those with SSA should be “institutionalized”. Please do not throw around incorrect statements like this. It’s irresponsible.

You missed the point I think that the church has done a great harm to the GoofyJims of the World!

Wrong again. The Church fully supports those with SSA (and heterosexuals who are unmarried) who are living chaste lives. Jim receives alot of support here at CAF for his courage. But he is also the first to admit that:

See this is where I disagree with the Church. While I don’t act on it for health reasons, I do embrace my attraction as a good thing.

and this indicates a misunderstanding of the disordered nature of SSA. A statement like this begs the question, what if there were suddenly a cure for all STD’s and Jim didn’t need to worry about the “health” risks any longer?

Gays are Not danger to themself and others.

I could give you links to stats that illustrated the rampant promiscuity in the homosexual community, the STD’s, the higher mortality rate, the predatory behavior, but I’m gonna argue this instead. If placing a man or woman with SSA in an environment will present unlimited temptations for them, then why would the Church take that chance? With everything we have been through (scandals, child molestations, child abuse) in the last 20 years, shouldn’t the Church err on the side of caution?

its what the church teaches as “just discrimination” (a term that urks me )

So my employers, who are Christian, should be forced to hire someone who practices a lifestyle that is in total contrast with their beliefs? Who is discriminating against whom?

For instance they can not be teachers or fight in the military.

What are you talking about?? The democrats are currently debating whether to overturn the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for homosexuals in the military. They are most certainly allowed to teach and fight.

How having SSA and chaste affects teaching mathmatics or fighting for something you believe in is beyond me.

So are you trying to say that those folks with SSA who are leading chaste lives in accordance with Church teaching are the one’s who are being discrminated against? How would anyone even know their orientation unless they were broadcasting it, and do you think it likely that the goofyjim’s of the world, or any of the other members on this forum who live chastely, are out there proclaiming their gayness?

 

[Polaris]

Too big to answer at once

Sorry. If you want to try quoting Church teaching on the issue of homosexuality, better get your facts correct. The Church has never stated that SSA is a mental Disease. She is not a psychiatric or medical institution.
QUOTE]

They do not liken it to a mental disease? Let me quote it Again! and Highlight. And if she is not comparing it to that why woud she state it int the Paragraph

SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

It seems from this they do to thats what bother me!

 

[Polaris]

What are you talking about?? The democrats are currently debating whether to overturn the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for homosexuals in the military. They are most certainly allowed to teach and fight.

Im not talking about the secular world Im talking about the church.

 

[Polaris]

So my employers, who are Christian, should be forced to hire someone who practices a lifestyle that is in total contrast with their beliefs? Who is discriminating against whom?

If you did not know his orientation when you hired him and found out years later when somone outs him should you have the right to fire him?

And since you think its choice, Im guessing well so is religion, but that is also protected. What hapens if a protestant fires you from a position because your Catholic or refuses to rent an apartment to you because you catholic. How come that is protected?

 

[Polaris]

I could give you links to stats that illustrated the rampant promiscuity in the homosexual community, the STD’s, the higher mortality rate, the predatory behavior, but I’m gonna argue this instead. If placing a man or woman with SSA in an environment will present unlimited temptations for them, then why would the Church take that chance? With everything we have been through (scandals, child molestations, child abuse) in the last 20 years, shouldn’t the Church err on the side of caution?

Ok then well if the church want to use statistics to see how it treats its members. Ill give you a suggestion. Look into female child molestation. Look who the main monsters that do this are and then tell me about how we have to be careful but not with straight men, especially fathers. Should we not err on the side of caution when we suggest marriage is good because obviously it is not?

Also I was talking about chaste member with SSA the church still believe they should be discriminated against. If you are asked about you sexual orientation even if you are chaste you are required by the church to tell the truth. Your rights are restricted even if you do no wrong. That is another concept that should bother you. You could fire a person for not even sinning. This is wrong.

 

[blessedtoo]

They do not liken it to a mental disease? Let me quote it Again! and Highlight. And if she is not comparing it to that why woud she state it int the Paragraph

Absolutely not. In fact, if you re-read the paragraph you will see that it does not say that SSA is a mental disorder but that discrimination “even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.” That is a completely different issue. And with regard to your other point:

Also I was talking about chaste member with SSA the church still believe they should be discriminated against.

This statement clearly contradicts your claim as it states that
only those who display **“objectively disordered external conduct” **(read: public proclamations; broadcasting their orientation) can be legimately limited in their participation in these occupations.

 

[blessedtoo]

Im not talking about the secular world Im talking about the church.

Same Source

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment

Since the Church no longer has it’s own army, I guess this is not a concern any longer. With regard to teaching and working with children within a Catholic environment, all employees are called to uphold the basic moral teaching of the Church. If I am co-habitating with a live-in lover, I have no right to expect to be hired in a Catholic High School teaching young children. If I have 5 children and no husband, I should not expect to work as a coach of a Catholic School girl’s basketball team. My lfiestyle is in direct contradiction to everything the Church teaches. It would send a terribly confusing mixed message.

 

[blessedtoo]

If you did not know his orientation when you hired him and found out years later when somone outs him should you have the right to fire him?

Based on this scenario, it seems to me that if I employed someone for years without knowing anything about his orientation and he/she had made no public proclamation or expression that might conflict with my beliefs and my business concept, then I would not necessarily feel compelled to believe the word of the “outer”. If, however, there was scandal involved it could present a problem.

And since you think its choice, Im guessing well so is religion, but that is also protected. What hapens if a protestant fires you from a position because your Catholic or refuses to rent an apartment to you because you catholic. How come that is protected?

Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. It is a constitutionally (and God given) protected right. Having sex with members of your own gender is your private right, but it does not grant you special status as a protected class - nor should it.

 

[Polaris]

Since the Church no longer has it’s own army, I guess this is not a concern any longer. With regard to teaching and working with children within a Catholic environment, all employees are called to uphold the basic moral teaching of the Church. If I am co-habitating with a live-in lover, I have no right to expect to be hired in a Catholic High School teaching young children. If I have 5 children and no husband, I should not expect to work as a coach of a Catholic School girl’s basketball team. My lfiestyle is in direct contradiction to everything the Church teaches. It would send a terribly confusing mixed message.

Apparently you did not read number eleven. It just says those with the orientation not the exhbition of it. They could be living a perfectly chaste life but they are a second class citzen in the eyes of the church.

 

[Polaris]

Absolutely not. In fact, if you re-read the paragraph you will see that it does not say that SSA is a mental disorder but that discrimination “even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.” That is a completely different issue. And with regard to your other point:

This statement clearly contradicts your claim as it states that
only those who display **“objectively disordered external conduct” **(read: public proclamations; broadcasting their orientation) can be legimately limited in their participation in these occupations.

Your mixing my two seperate quotes very dishonorable.

 

[Polaris]

Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. It is a constitutionally (and God given) protected right. Having sex with members of your own gender is your private right, but it does not grant you special status as a protected class - nor should it.

Say Im a athiest do you have the right to discriminate against me? I do not believe in God, Obviously I am gravely disordered. Are you going to refuse to hire me? Are you going to refuse to give me housing? This is my religous right is it not? I should be protected from you.

 

[blessedtoo]

Apparently you did not read number eleven. It just says those with the orientation not the exhbition of it. They could be living a perfectly chaste life but they are a second class citzen in the eyes of the church.

Here is everything you posted:

1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

Nor is it comparable to freedom of religion.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

“To take into account” does not nececessarily mean to exclude. It is advisable to fully consider the sexual orientation before making decisions regarding the positions listed above.

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. **They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. **This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.

If after consideration the individual expresses this disordered conduct blatantly, it is prudent to minimize the possibility of harm to others.

This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

This type of just discrimination would also apply equallly in cases where someone with a physical or mental illness who may act out or be contagious would endanger the common good.