Disney TV Show Good Luck Charlie features homosexual relationship

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The different dynamics at play remind Lindsey of past experiences in some Christian communities. As soon as Lindsey disclosed anything related to LGBT status, Lindsey was no longer welcome in lay ministry but could warm a pew and could tithe. If you have ever been in that situation personally, we’d venture a guess that you bristled. That reaction is totally normal and totally okay. If you’re a reader who doesn’t understand why that kind of statement might make people bristle, here’s the deal. That statement says, “We’re not interested in getting to know you as a person, but we’ll gladly fill out a receipt for you.” And now, we’re back to Good Luck Charlie. You see, many of the friends who sent Sarah assorted Facebook messages, who don’t want their kids “exposed to the gay lifestyle,” are the same people who send their kids to Sarah (and occasionally Lindsey by proxy) for homework help.

As we’ve shared before, our vocation to celibacy does not make us immune to discrimination. We are just as much members of the LGBT community as people who are currently sexually active or who desire to be sexually active some day. We could very easily be in exactly the same situation as the couple featured in Good Luck Charlie if we were ever to bring a child over to another child’s house to play. Enabling two children to play together is, fundamentally, an act that invites relationship rather than the exchanging of services. When our friends tell us that they don’t want a gay couple broadcast into their living room by television, we immediately question whether we would even want to visit their house for dinner. After all, if a person is threatened by a 58-second display of another’s humanity, how could we possibly feel comfortable being present for 58 minutes to eat dinner… or 30 minutes to play a board game… or 3 days to help them recoup from surgery… or… or… or… The activities people share when they are honestly in relationship with each other are myriad and endless.

It’s especially challenging when so many people who are reacting to the seemingly benign relational exchange in Good Luck Charlie begin their reactions with “I like you and I respect you, but…” We find it incredible that, for some people, the only time they will utter the words, “I like you” in our general direction will be before they issue a scathing critique of our way of life. Are they really rejecting our commitment to radical hospitality that spurs us to be available when their kids need help with their homework? Do they object to our commitment to eat dinner together every night barring truly extraordinary circumstances? Do they want to pathologize our relationship with Christ and with our church family? How could it be that, even though we generally open our lives up to those around us, these “friends” have seen nothing worth praising or viewing as positive?

Sometimes it seems that where many straight, conservative Christians are concerned, LGBT couples have so many strikes against us before ever setting foot in the door. We can only say, “Good luck, Susan and Cheryl. Thanks for your courage in searching for suitable playmate for Taylor.”

source

I attempted to preserve the formatting as best however I had to break it in half due to length. So, what do you think of Sarah and Lindsey’s response?

 

[Catolico65]

When did asking sincere questions to ensure that there is not miscommunication become projecting?

When I answered your question and you continued.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

When I answered your question and you continued.

Dodging the question is not answering it.

 

[Catolico65]

Dodging the question is not answering it.

I stated my beliefs are the same as the Catechism and the CC, that is the truth, notwithstanding your constant speculation.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I stated my beliefs are the same as the Catechism and the CC, that is the truth, notwithstanding your constant speculation.

I’m starting to wonder if this poster is not catholic and just trolling. Every post this person makes is some sort of vitriolic anti gay thing, and when asked to find anything in catholic teaching to support it, they can’t, and just insist that it’s there anyway…

I bring this up because I know people IRL who troll religious sites posting inflammatory things in hopes of getting people to agree so that they can post that thread to Facebook/Reddit/etc in hopes of making the members of that faith look bad. (No, these people are not friends of mine.)

If this is the case, don’t take the bait.

 

[Catolico65]

I’m starting to wonder if this poster is not catholic and just trolling. Every post this person makes is some sort of vitriolic anti gay thing, and when asked to find anything in catholic teaching to support it, they can’t, and just insist that it’s there anyway…

I bring this up because I know people IRL who troll religious sites posting inflammatory things in hopes of getting people to agree so that they can post that thread to Facebook/Reddit/etc in hopes of making the members of that faith look bad. (No, these people are not friends of mine.)

If this is the case, don’t take the bait.

With all due respect the claim of “non catholics trolling” on this site because of ulterior motives appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, after all you are a stated atheist on a Catholic forum.

BTW, I have posted links to the Catechism and the Bible and I expect you cannot accept them because of your stated ideology. Paz.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

With all due respect the claim of “non catholics trolling” on this site because of ulterior motives appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, after all you are a stated atheist on a Catholic forum.

BTW, I have posted links to the Catechism and the Bible and I expect you cannot accept them because of your stated ideology. Paz.

I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just letting people know what can and does happen and what the warning signs are. I like the people on the Family Life forum in particular, and I would feel bad if they were tricked and their words were twisted to make a point on another site.

Also, I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not posing as a catholic to make caricature-esque statements to reflect poorly on members of the faith. But if I am, after 2 years and 4,000+ posts (as an admitted atheist), the plot must run very deep.

 

[Catolico65]

I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just letting people know what can and does happen and what the warning signs are. I like the people on the Family Life forum in particular, and I would feel bad if they were tricked and their words were twisted to make a point on another site.

Also, I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not posing as a catholic to make caricature-esque statements to reflect poorly on members of the faith. But if I am, after 2 years and 4,000+ posts (as an admitted atheist), the plot must run very deep.

If you say so. Still, the fact that you have been exposed to Catholic teaching and still reject it is telling I believe.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I stated my beliefs are the same as the Catechism and the CC, that is the truth, notwithstanding your constant speculation.

You claim that they are. If they are then you should have no problem answer yes or no to simple questions of theology which were settled definitively long ago in the Catholic Church. Your theological argument that homosexuality cannot be something someone is born with appears to stem from a belief that “God cannot create people to sin” (paraphrase) however this incorrectly assumes that homosexuality per se is sinful which it cannot be as a mere inclination is incapable of being sinful in and of itself.

As a result of the Original Sin by Adam man has forfeited things to which he had no right, namely his original holiness and justice. This fallen human nature has been passed down to the descendents of Adam and Eve. In baptism all of our prior sins are remitted, yet the effects of Original Sin, particularly death and concupiscence (the inclination to sin) remain. One could state that the homosexual inclination could be merely a form concupiscence expresses itself in some people without disagreeing with the teachings of the Church.

Scientifically you seem to rest your argument on that “mygenes” site which appears to contain severe errors, for example

Most teenagers will change from SSA. In fact, in the 16 to 17 year age group, 98% will move from homosexuality and bisexuality towards heterosexuality.

In order for that to be true assuming at least 1% of adolescents are LGB either over half of them would have had to be LGB or there is serious double counting

 

[Havard]

Your theological argument that homosexuality cannot be something someone is born with appears to stem from a belief that “God cannot create people to sin” (paraphrase) however this incorrectly assumes that homosexuality per se is sinful which it cannot be as a mere inclination is incapable of being sinful in and of itself.

Sorry to butt in, but I must have missed his/her theological argument post… I thought he just said that he didn’t believe that homosexuality is innate. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t preclude original sin.

 

[Catolico65]

You claim that they are. If they are then you should have no problem answer yes or no to simple questions of theology which were settled definitively long ago in the Catholic Church. Your theological argument that homosexuality cannot be something someone is born with appears to stem from a belief that “God cannot create people to sin” (paraphrase) however this incorrectly assumes that homosexuality per se is sinful which it cannot be as a mere inclination is incapable of being sinful in and of itself.

As a result of the Original Sin by Adam man has forfeited things to which he had no right, namely his original holiness and justice. This fallen human nature has been passed down to the descendents of Adam and Eve. In baptism all of our prior sins are remitted, yet the effects of Original Sin, particularly death and concupiscence (the inclination to sin) remain. One could state that the homosexual inclination could be merely a form concupiscence expresses itself in some people without disagreeing with the teachings of the Church.

Scientifically you seem to rest your argument on that “mygenes” site which appears to contain severe errors, for example

In order for that to be true assuming at least 1% of adolescents are LGB either over half of them would have had to be LGB or there is serious double counting

Homosexuality is disordered, gravely depraved, abnormal, unnatural and not ordained by God. Homosexuality in fact originates from the devil himself.

Regarding answering your question, I have, now be so charitable as to read the Catechism and Bible instead of projecting your misunderstanding.

Regarding you apparent attempt to dismiss the referenced study it might help if you actually read it first before criticizing it. Paz…

 

[Catolico65]

Sorry to butt in, but I must have missed his/her theological argument post… I thought he just said that he didn’t believe that homosexuality is innate. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t preclude original sin.

 

[Abundant]

Thank you for alerting me to this. I actually made my kids stop watching the show when my 10 year old alerted me to the rude behavior. I have a 10 year old son and 5 year old daughter who used to always watch the show together. One day my 10 year old told me that Charlie was a “brat.” I didn’t really think anything of it at the time. A few weeks later, my 5 year old started in with snarky come-backs and a hip on the hand type-attitude. I asked her what had gotten into her and why she thought that was okay. My 10 year old (wise beyond my years apparently) told me…“See mom? I told you she shouldn’t be watching that show. She’s starting to sound just like Charlie and the kids on the show. It’s not good for her.” Mind Blown.

 

[StudentMI]

Your theological argument that homosexuality cannot be something someone is born with appears to stem from a belief that “God cannot create people to sin” (paraphrase) however this incorrectly assumes that homosexuality per se is sinful which it cannot be as a mere inclination is incapable of being sinful in and of itself.

This is something I’ve been confused by as well. Several times Catolico65 has said that homosexual desires stem from personal pride and corruption which means that a homosexual inclination is therefore sinful even if one does not act on the desires. Even the Pope said

The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one.

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_en.html

Saying read the Catechism and the Bible doesn’t back up your argument. Please point out specific verses and paragraphs.

 

[Catolico65]

This is something I’ve been confused by as well. Several times Catolico65 has said that homosexual desires stem from personal pride and corruption which means that a homosexual inclination is therefore sinful even if one does not act on the desires.

I don’t believe that I’ve said SSA is sinful, as it is just temptation. Nonetheless, it was created by the devil and may be the sign of a problem if it is persistent.

I had SSA and asked for it to be removed and it was. Nonetheless, there is real danger of promoting that SSA is normal or even biological, which many do here on this forum. That can cause people that suffer from this to despair because they believe they were born with this condition. This is clearly evidenced in the increasing number of homosexual identifying youths who have suicidal thoughts even though society has all but accepted them. Therefore, this unscientific theory is causing millions of youths to suffer and despair, and Jesus warned us from doing that.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Homosexuality is disordered, gravely depraved, abnormal, unnatural and not ordained by God. Homosexuality in fact originates from the devil himself.

Regarding answering your question, I have, now be so charitable as to read the Catechism and Bible instead of projecting your misunderstanding.

Regarding you apparent attempt to dismiss the referenced study it might help if you actually read it first before criticizing it. Paz…

It is objectively disordered according to the Catechism however the part about grave depravity specifically refers to homosexual acts, not the inclination. As to “not ordained”, everything happens through either his active will or permissive will. Regarding alleged diabolical origins, nothing in the Catechism or any Papal encyclicals seems to suggest that and statements by Pope Francis seem to strongly suggest otherwise (see StudentMI’s link).

I have read them both, several times times cover to cover.

That statement I quoted is either the result of bad data, bad math or data manipulation any one of which discredit said study.

 

[Catolico65]

It is objectively disordered according to the Catechism however the part about grave depravity specifically refers to homosexual acts, not the inclination. As to “not ordained”, everything happens through either his active will or permissive will. Regarding alleged diabolical origins, nothing in the Catechism or any Papal encyclicals seems to suggest that and statements by Pope Francis seem to strongly suggest otherwise (see StudentMI’s link).

I have read them both, several times times cover to cover.

That statement I quoted is either the result of bad data, bad math or data manipulation any one of which discredit said study.

From the Catechism:
*
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. *

Furthermore, the footnotes reference the Bible, which states that homosexual desires are the consequence of arrogance and rejection of God. I recommend you read these passages and accept them instead of rebelling and ignoring them. Paz.

As far as your attempt to discredit the study, I prefer to defer to professionals and not to someone who is not interested in scientific dialog.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“Most teenagers will change from SSA. In fact, in the 16 to 17 year age group, 98% will move from homosexuality and bisexuality towards heterosexuality.”

In order for that to be true assuming at least 1% of adolescents are LGB either over half of them would have had to be LGB or there is serious double counting

Apparently almost all 16-17 year olds are gay or bisexual! Who knew?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

From the Catechism:
*
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law.*

Furthermore, the footnotes reference the Bible, which states that homosexual desires are the consequence of arrogance and rejection of God. I recommend you read these passages and accept them instead of rebelling and ignoring them. Paz.

As far as your attempt to discredit the study, I prefer to defer to professionals and not to someone who is not interested in scientific dialog.

It says homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law, you said

Homosexuality is disordered, gravely depraved, abnormal, unnatural and not ordained by God. Homosexuality in fact originates from the devil himself.

Regarding answering your question, I have, now be so charitable as to read the Catechism and Bible instead of projecting your misunderstanding.

Regarding you apparent attempt to dismiss the referenced study it might help if you actually read it first before criticizing it. Paz…

Homosexuality≠homosexual acts

Apparently almost all 16-17 year olds are gay or bisexual! Who knew?

Even better, the number who identify as LGB is above 2% meaning either over 100% of 16-17 year olds are LGB or that many are rapidly oscillating between LGB and Heterosexual despite the fact part of the definition of sexual orientation is durable.

If the latter then the statement that

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive OSA are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and exclusive SSA people combined. In other words, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays.”

Is a rather dubious unless he is applying double standards which is dubious in a different way.

 

[StudentMI]

Furthermore, the footnotes reference the Bible, which states that homosexual desires are the consequence of arrogance and rejection of God. I recommend you read these passages and accept them instead of rebelling and ignoring them.

See this is what I mean. You are implying that homosexual persons are at fault simply for having such desires because they imply “arrogance and rejection of God.”. Your quote from the Catechism does not support your position and there is nothing in the Catechism to support your position.

As far as Scripture goes, the verse in Romans that you have cited before is cited by the CDF and the Catechism as referring to homosexual acts and not desires. You have not addressed this before when it was pointed out to you. Please respond to this point. I see you also cut off the quote I shared from Pope Francis that states the problem is not the tendency. But from your posts you appear to believe that the tendency is itself a sin.

Finally, it is very uncharitable of you to accuse Joie de Vivre of ‘rebellion’ and ignoring Holy Scripture. Just because he/she disagrees with your interpretation does not imply heresy against the Church.