Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation

[blessedtoo]

I do not view adoption by homosexual couples as harmful to a child. All adoptions force prospective parents to go through enough checks based on if they are able to support the child. Sexual preference is not a red flag, Children are being raised in many, many different family structures and this is just one of the new ones. Done of this of course invalidates or “attacks” the “traditional” family structures, those will continue on.

This is about forming bonds of togetherness and not a “us vs them” matter breaking bonds of togetherness.

Your personal opinion is in direct opposition to the facts. Do a little bit of study about the issue before tossing around talking points. Nearly all studies done on the issue of child raising agree that children do best with a mom and a dad who are married. Anyone who has even given a passing glance at the literature knows that kids raised in single parent homes are at a great disadvantage. Children raised without the necessary model of male and female are deprived of a normal experience and have a much more difficult time adjusting, despite what the culture would have you believe. The child raising “experiment”, which began with the divorce culture, and the single mom culture, has been an abysmal failure. Should we continue to use our children as guinea pigs?

 

[Polaris]

Your personal opinion is in direct opposition to the facts. Do a little bit of study about the issue before tossing around talking points. Nearly all studies done on the issue of child raising agree that children do best with a mom and a dad who are married. Anyone who has even given a passing glance at the literature knows that kids raised in single parent homes are at a great disadvantage. Children raised without the necessary model of male and female are deprived of a normal experience and have a much more difficult time adjusting, despite what the culture would have you believe. The child raising “experiment”, which began with the divorce culture, and the single mom culture, has been an abysmal failure. Should we continue to use our children as guinea pigs?

So the “Traditional family” is the perfect unit of a society. So there has been a perfect society. Where there is no hatred, no war, no famine, no selfishness, no racism, no rape, no sexism, no child abandonment no starvation, If a system works as perfectly as you see it none of these effect would be there. The traditional family based upon a male superiority construct is an abysmally failure. It insured prodigy, yet let no peace exist, for someone must always be superior, maybe a family based on a construct of love is a way to go.

 

[blessedtoo]

So the “Traditional family” is the perfect unit of a society. So there has been a perfect society. Where there is no hatred, no war, no famine, no selfishness, no racism, no rape, no sexism, no child abandonment no starvation, If a system works as perfectly as you see it none of these effect would be there. The traditional family based upon a male superiority construct is an abysmally failure. It insured prodigy, yet let no peace exist, for someone must always be superior, maybe a family based on a construct of love is a way to go.

Your analysis is immature. There is no “perfection” on earth. To think that a world without suffering is possible is to deny all that Christ taught us. Attempting to draw a parallel between all the evils in the world and some perceived failure of the traditional family is silly. And dragging in feminist rhetoric is a strawman.

Does the whole world believe in Christ? Are we all without sin? Does everyone alive have a perfect understanding of God’s love and the love we are to have for one another? Humans are severely fallabile. So do you suggest we not even try to achieve the goal Christ set for us? Shall we just muck it up even more with all our brilliant human inovations?

 

[Polaris]

Your analysis is immature. There is no “perfection” on earth. To think that a world without suffering is possible is to deny all that Christ taught us. Attempting to draw a parallel between all the evils in the world and some perceived failure of the traditional family is silly. And dragging in feminist rhetoric is a strawman.

Does the whole world believe in Christ? Are we all without sin? Does everyone alive have a perfect understanding of God’s love and the love we are to have for one another? Humans are severely fallabile. So do you suggest we not even try to achieve the goal Christ set for us? Shall we just muck it up even more with all our brilliant human inovations?

Immature Hmm Here is an idea volunteer at a womens shelter. See what the Traditional family does to a women and her children. Sure there are a lot of single moms but there is also a lot of married woman running from there husbands. I personaly suggest talking to a women raped by her husband and then here how th good catholic priest told her to stay with him because it was unfair for her to deny him, after all it is his right. Now tell me I am immature.

 

[blessedtoo]

Here is an idea volunteer at a womens shelter.

Don’t need to. I was a tenant of one once myself. Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. There are bad husbands, bad wives, bad people. So what? That is not an indictment of the traditional family, but rather an indictment of bad people.

A truly Catholic understanding of marraige and family is the best safeguard against domestic abuse.

The issue is, and will continue to be, that children deserve to be raised with a married mother and father. Even the most committed liberal will admit to this.

 

[Exalt]

Yes. It’s illegal for a newspaper to publish biblical verses relating to homosexuality, since that’s “hate speech,”

Because it is hate speech.

“Being a Christian is abomination. All Christians should be stoned to death!”

Just because it’s someone’s holy scripture doesn’t mean it isn’t hate.

 

[goofyjim]

Going back to the OP, the only thing I agree with is that you should not be able to fire someone based on sexual orientation. If people started doing this those who experience a homosexual orientation would be forever unemployed. Not my idea of justice. They have a right to make a living just like everyone else.

 

[Polaris]

Going back to the OP, the only thing I agree with is that you should not be able to fire someone based on sexual orientation. If people started doing this those who experience a homosexual orientation would be forever unemployed. Not my idea of justice. They have a right to make a living just like everyone else.

I will agree with that, but please convince me that the church does. The more I read by the church the more I see how it basically wants people with SSA to live in a hermitage somewhere in the desert as to not infect other people in order to protect ‘society’. Im getting angrier and angrier because even if your celibate your less than human and deserving of just discrimination. Your not doing anything wrong but your still ourrupting those around you and a danger to the heterosexual family. It makes no sense. Then the church says the homosexaul is in no need of protection because they should remain in the closet because no one would know. So if I told someone that was a gay, or had SSA and then that person tells the world, violence done towards me is my own fault and should be expected. The documents are clear Gays are an abomination and should be welcomed as long as they hide all signs of it and at the same time some how even closted they should be discriminated against when getting a job because they should devulge it then??? How this makes sense I do not know… That is justice in the eyes of the church. Be in the closet, apply for a job and share it because you need to protect “society”. I know Gods way is not my way but if this is right reason and justice in his system. We are all in trouble.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Your personal opinion is in direct opposition to the facts. Do a little bit of study about the issue before tossing around talking points. Nearly all studies done on the issue of child raising agree that children do best with a mom and a dad who are married. Anyone who has even given a passing glance at the literature knows that kids raised in single parent homes are at a great disadvantage. Children raised without the necessary model of male and female are deprived of a normal experience and have a much more difficult time adjusting, despite what the culture would have you believe. The child raising “experiment”, which began with the divorce culture, and the single mom culture, has been an abysmal failure. Should we continue to use our children as guinea pigs?

It may be true that it is the “ideal” setting, but just because it is “ideal” does not discount other family models. In all family models, traditional and non-traditional it comes down to the individual people themselves. There are many single moms, same gender couples, grandparents, etc… that can do just a good job as a standard mother/father makeup. One mom, two moms, two dads, etc… does not by itself create a problem.

That is why for adoption for example (up until recently) all agencies looked at each couple wanting to adopt as individual cases, and did not make blanket decisions based on stereotypes.

 

[fix]

It may be true that it is the “ideal” setting, but just because it is “ideal” does not discount other family models. In all family models, traditional and non-traditional it comes down to the individual people themselves. There are many single moms, same gender couples, grandparents, etc… that can do just a good job as a standard mother/father makeup. One mom, two moms, two dads, etc… does not by itself create a problem.

That is why for adoption for example (up until recently) all agencies looked at each couple wanting to adopt as individual cases, and did not make blanket decisions based on stereotypes.

Does it not come down to truth? I mean in your reasoning where does the moral law enter? Is everything to be determined by popular opinion or sociological surveys?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Does it not come down to truth? I mean in your reasoning where does the moral law enter? Is everything to be determined by popular opinion or sociological surveys?

That is where the ongoing debate on the church as to just what “truth” is. In day to day terms it is a variable grey area over time periods as times change, people think differently. The Church has never been and never will be a uniform organization, just like everything else in life. Strict uniformity in any organization leads towards a eventually decline.

 

[blessedtoo]

That is where the ongoing debate on the church as to just what “truth” is. In day to day terms it is a variable grey area over time periods as times change, people think differently. The Church has never been and never will be a uniform organization, just like everything else in life. Strict uniformity in any organization leads towards a eventually decline.

What Church is still debating the truth? There is no grey area to truth. That is a contradiction in terms. Truth exists or it does not. The Church has never wavered in her teaching and has maintained uniformity throughout the ages. After 2,000 years, I would hardly call her an organization in decline.

 

[blessedtoo]

It may be true that it is the “ideal” setting, but just because it is “ideal” does not discount other family models.

Wrong. A model, by definition, is something which sets an example, which gives direction and guidance. A model in itself is something one aspires to. It is not a slip-shod, make-shift throw together that society comes up with to suit the whim’s of individuals.

In all family models, traditional and non-traditional it comes down to the individual people themselves.

Wrong. It comes down to the children - remember them? It comes down to what is best for them and throughout history and to the present, there is no dispute among experts and most of society that the best environment for raising children is with a married mother and father.

There are many single moms, same gender couples, grandparents, etc… that can do just a good job as a standard mother/father makeup.

Wrong. They can do a good job, but not “just as good”. By it’s very nature, parenting of children by the biological mom and dad is the natural order. While substitutes may suffice, are unfortunately necessary, and may even do well, they will never be “as good as”.

One mom, two moms, two dads, etc… does not by itself create a problem.

You might want to do some research before throwing out baseless opinions. Look at the stats on the drop out rates, the crime rates, the drug addiction and suicide rates for children raised in single parent households. While the idea of homosexual adoption is perhaps too new to track stats for, I believe it’s safe to assume these kids will not fare much better and in fact, will have even more problems to contend with as they try to adjust to their parents disordered lifestyles.

That is why for adoption for example (up until recently) all agencies looked at each couple wanting to adopt as individual cases, and did not make blanket decisions based on stereotypes.

I don’t know what this means. Catholic adoption agencies do not make “blanket” decisions based on stereotypes. They place children in the most ideal adoptive situations, understanding, as does most of society, that a child is entitled to grow up with a mother and father.

 

[fix]

That is where the ongoing debate on the church as to just what “truth” is. In day to day terms it is a variable grey area over time periods as times change, people think differently. The Church has never been and never will be a uniform organization, just like everything else in life. Strict uniformity in any organization leads towards a eventually decline.

Christ is truth. There is no debate in the Church about truth. There may be questions and even rebellion. but no authetic debate about the truth that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong.

 

[zackonattack]

Because it is hate speech.

“Being a Christian is abomination. All Christians should be stoned to death!”

Just because it’s someone’s holy scripture doesn’t mean it isn’t hate.

I’m sorry, but we are all choking to death on political correctness. So what if someone thinks something is “hate speech.” Get over it and go on with life. Are you so unsure of your faith, or your beliefs that if someone “insults you” you go to pieces and can’t handle it? I’m called evey name in the book for being a Catholic fundamentalists. Bring the insults on. Expose your self and your ideas for what they are—NOTHING!!! I’m sick and tired of everyone being “offended.” Grow up!!! As the song says, “No one every promised you a rose garden.” I, for one, will continue to quote the inerrant Holy Scriptures come what may. I’m “offended” every day by having to listen to **** music—I mean rap “music.” But I roll up the window and turn my Opera music up, or by blue grass. I don’t go in to a crying jag and try to get that stuff outlawed, or to file a hate charge against the “artist,” and that stuff is nothing but hate. Anyone with an IQ of 1 knows that.

 

[Sheeniac]

That is where the ongoing debate on the church as to just what “truth” is. In day to day terms it is a variable grey area over time periods as times change, people think differently. The Church has never been and never will be a uniform organization, just like everything else in life. Strict uniformity in any organization leads towards a eventually decline.

Interesting. As an EM, I would hope that you would know that as Catholics we believe in the existence of Truth. Relativism has no place in the Church.

I do agree that the Church isn’t a uniform organization, but we all should have certain things in common.

 

[zackonattack]

Interesting. As an EM, I would hope that you would know that as Catholics we believe in the existence of Truth. Relativism has no place in the Church.

I do agree that the Church isn’t a uniform organization, but we all should have certain things in common.

That’s the problem with 99 percent of “education” these days. They brainwash kids into thinking that everything is relative. I wonder if the teachers are ABSOLUTELY certain that everything is relative. Truth is a person, Jesus Christ, who is the WAY, THE TRUTH and the LIFE. One has to go on basic presuppositions, and one of those presuppositions is that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, which is the second person of the Triune Godhead. All I can do is show people the ABSOLUTE THRUTH, and they can accept it or reject it. There is nothing to argue about. Here is what is true, there is what is false. Don’t agree. Fine, don’t agree. Christians are not looking for agreement (or they shouldn’t be), they are for expressing what is True. If they do that, job done!!!

 

[medic101st]

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.

I just want to throw it out there… is the the Church in charge of science, or medicine, because they seem to think so. The American Medical Association teaches that Homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind. In fact, there is evidence that it may be genetic. If that is the case, I can’t see why God would “program” someone to be attracted to someone of the same sex, and then punish them for acting on it. I must then dissagree with the inevitable arguement that it is just their “cross to bear,” and that they shouldn’t even consider a relationship with someone they are attracted to. I don’t know, I just don’t see a loving God playing mind games like that.

I do not want to stop being Catholic just because I’m also open to information from outside the church on this issue. In fact, Agree with 99.999% of Church teachings. I simply think that the Church is a human institution, that makes mistakes. And, they are a little slow keeping up with science… they still have not officially accepted heliocentrism. I certainly don’t think that they are anywhere near accepting the research connecting homosexuality with the Xq28 protein. I’ll stick with the Church, and be understanding of their slow pace in the science realm, i guess as long as they are able to be understanding of my differing oppinion on the matter.

 

[blessedtoo]

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.

I just want to throw it out there… is the the Church in charge of science, or medicine, because they seem to think so. The American Medical Association teaches that Homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind. In fact, there is evidence that it may be genetic. If that is the case, I can’t see why God would “program” someone to be attracted to someone of the same sex, and then punish them for acting on it. I must then dissagree with the inevitable arguement that it is just their “cross to bear,” and that they shouldn’t even consider a relationship with someone they are attracted to. I don’t know, I just don’t see a loving God playing mind games like that.

I do not want to stop being Catholic just because I’m also open to information from outside the church on this issue. In fact, Agree with 99.999% of Church teachings. I simply think that the Church is a human institution, that makes mistakes. And, they are a little slow keeping up with science… they still have not officially accepted heliocentrism. I certainly don’t think that they are anywhere near accepting the research connecting homosexuality with the Xq28 protein. I’ll stick with the Church, and be understanding of their slow pace in the science realm, i guess as long as they are able to be understanding of my differing oppinion on the matter.

This is a very old thread. There are currently two threads discussing homosexuality.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3445338#post3445338
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=225000