"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[Jea9]

Ah, well I can only plead that I was otherwise occupied. Let’s see:

I assure that in my part of the country you can swing a dead cat in the summer without running into a gaggle of tee-shirted youths, from (generally Protestant) church groups at virtually any recreational facility or venue. From CNN center, to Stone Mountain to the Braves games. Simply by being Protestant these folks are objectively in mortal sin (their individual culpability is of course far beyond our ken and based on their own level of knowledge etc). If you’re not just as upset by Bugtussle Baptist Church Youth Day at Stone Mountain, as you are at Gay Day at Stone Mountain. Then I would ask why?

I’ve never seen these sorts of things…honestly. However, the town I live in has a rather large (for our small town) Mormon community. I know, I came from it. And you can bet your bottom’s dollar that if they are having a “Mormon Day” somewhere, I WILL be offended, and I WILL take my kids away from it. BTW, you can’t say they are “objectively IN mortal sin”. To be IN mortal sin one has to have full knowledge that it IS gravely sinful, they have to willingly choose it, and it must be gravely sinful. Now, being outside of the Church is objectively grave matter, but that does not place a person in mortal sin in and of itself. And I’ll elaborate on that in a minute.

Both of these behaviors are objectively sinful. But I’ve never seen anyone post on this board that their vacation was ruined because “such and such place” served say cheeseburgers, or that they saw people eating steaks on a Lenten Friday.

Or that they where upset because the woman in front of them at Publix was buying condoms in front of their child. Why not? if they are so upset at witnessing sin, why haven’t we seen these types of posts?

Maybe because people aren’t running around with their cheeseburgers in front of others saying “ha ha look at me I’m eating meat, what are YOU going to do about it?!” Or because they aren’t waving their box of condoms in the air…I’m CERTAIN if a child saw someone pick up a box of condoms and it had an outrageous picture on it, the child would be scandalized as would the parent.

My question is an effort to determine whether individuals who claim to be upset when “forced to witness sin” are upset with ALL sins they witness? or only some?

If its only some sins, why those sins?

My elaboration. There are two different kinds of sins as we all know, mortal and venial. Whether a person is in mortal sin we will NEVER know. We only know what is grave matter. In fact, one could even argue that a homosexual person is not culpable. But, I would disagree. I would disagree with a person who says they were never taught that fornication was wrong, so they continue to jump from one partner to another (whether they are gay or straight, doesn’t matter). The truth is that there are also two different types of “law”. There are those laws that Catholics are bound to because we have been taught through Holy Mother Church that they are wrong, but objectively, most people would not see the error. Think, eating meat on Fridays and attending Mass under pain of mortal sin. Then there are those laws that are written on our hearts, that we KNOW to be the truth, because God told us so. I was not always religious and I made a lot of bad choices, if you had asked me then if I thought God was OK with them, I might have tried to back it up with “times are different”, but if you really nagged me I would have KNOWN that God was not happy with the choices I made. I can say this from my own experience, as well as dealing with others that I’ve tried to correct. My niece in particular…I did ask her if she thought God was happy with her choice to live with her boyfriend. And, after a very long pause, she told me “no, I know He’s not, but it feels right to me”. She is purposely choosing something contrary to God’s will. She is going against those laws that are written on her heart, and she WILL have to answer for it. This is why sins of a sexual nature tend to inflame so much, because deep down everyone KNOWS that it’s wrong, they just don’t care.

 

[Jea9]

You understand that I’m asking about violence because society has used violence in the past to attempt to stop homosexual behavior. In fact, several countries still inflict the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

And last month a same sex couple was sentenced to 14 years in prison for being a same sex couple. The Prime Minister of the country (Indonesia??) agreed to commute the sentence on condition that the two men not see each other.couple. So I don’t think I’m being alarmist or hysterical when I ask about violence.

This is my question. EXACTLY HOW do we stop accepting it as “normal”

You give two examples. NO Marriage and NO health insurance!. Got it. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to make Gay people go away, or slink back into the closet.

Those two examples are the ones in the forefront of my mind because they are something that are being dealt with right now. I think that disallowing marriage would go much further than you are willing to admit.

What else are you willing to do to protect your children from seeing same sex couples?

One Catholic school expelled the children of a lesbian couple? Does that work for you? (The Diocese overruled the school).

Yes, it does. I hadn’t heard the diocese overruled the school, I’m going to look into that because I can’t imagine Archbishop Chaput giving in.

I didn’t say ANYONE wanted to beat Gays. I asked how far you’re willing to go?

The question still stands.

What else are you willing to do to protect your children from seeing same sex couples?

Ahhhh, well I suppose using “vitriolic” language that is meant to be inflammatory is OK for you then, just not for others? How is using these examples different than the language you opposed gmarie using?

But to your question; what I’m willing to do is keep my children away from it. I’m willing to not take them to theme parks that support (again, Disney and most of these theme parks aren’t “supporting” these things, but they cannot deny access to a specific group of people) these festivals. If the theme park is not actually supporting it, then I will just avoid during those times. I’m willing to do everything in my power as a voting American to get, and keep, people out of office that want to further the gay agenda. I’m willing to not purchase items from companies that are blatant in their support for homosexual “equality” (the quotes are because I don’t believe that is what they’re after). I’m willing to shelter my children because I don’t think that just because it’s “out there” they HAVE to see it. Not until they are at an age where they can understand and defend themselves.

 

[BillP]

I thought I’d add my “thoughts” to this site because I’m a native San Franciscan and the “gays” have literally taken over the city. The part of the city that they live in had to close theCatholic grammar school because there just weren’t enough children in the area. Several of my long-time friends grew up in that area, and it was considered to be a family-oriented part of the city. Some time back I went downtown on a Sunday and I must have missed something in the newspaper a/c the street car was filled with gays – and they were all over one another – kissing, hugging, etc. And to be truthful I don’t like to see anyone act like that in public. I think it is definitely personal!!!
The city is still a beautiful city, but if you come here you will definitely see many, many gays!!

I see this as the “march of time”. If you go to NYC, you’ll find that the Chinese have “taken over” Little Italy. All that’s left of it is about three blocks of Mulberry St, surrounded by Chinatown. I suspect that the three blocks of Mulberry St is only kept for the tourists. Same - same.

As far as kids, many, many of the public schools in many major cities are closing (as are many Catholic parishes) as families move out to the suburbs.

Ironically (in view of my recent post about potential responses to Gays) the entire reason San Francisco** is** so heavily Gay is that 30 or 40 years ago it was one of the only places in the US a gay person could live without hiding their sexual orientation or having to constantly worry about getting the **** beaten out of them on a regular basis.

 

[BillP]

I think that disallowing marriage would go much further than you are willing to admit.

On this we disagree. They haven’t ever been allowed to marry. And can only do so now in five states plus DC, so you’ve pretty much already got that one.

What else are you willing to do to protect your children from seeing same sex couples?

Nothing. I don’t care if they see same sex couples. I mean we live in Atlanta, it was pretty much inevitable that at some point while we were out and about it would happen. And as I said upstream their response was “eewww yech!” but then they felt the same way about deep kissing in general (when they were old enough to ask about that).

Yes, it does. I hadn’t heard the diocese overruled the school, I’m going to look into that because I can’t imagine Archbishop Chaput giving in.

Archbishop Chaput didn’t over rule the school. Cardinal O’Malley in Boston over ruled the school in Boston.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/boston-archdiocese-contradicts-decision-of-school-to-withdraw-admission-of-child-with-same-sex-parents/

Ahhhh, well I suppose using “vitriolic” language that is meant to be inflammatory is OK for you then, just not for others? How is using these examples different than the language you opposed gmarie using?

I’m sorry, what part of:

• Just frown at them and make faces?
• Lock them up in prison until they promise to stop?
• Deny them employment or a place to live until they promise to stop?
• Should we verbally abuse them?
• “Lightly” physically abuse them by throwing trash or non-injurious projectiles at them?
• “Heavily” physically abuse them by throwing rocks or injurious materials at them? (This one may have some resonance with Old Testament fans!)
• Kill them? (Mathew Shepard certainly isn’t flaunting his homosexual lifestyle in anyone’s face these days!)

Did you find “vitriolic”?

In some countries some ort all of these things are commonplace. And virtually all countries have, at one time or another made sodomy a capital crime. I’m simply asking you and masondoggy what measures you consider appropriate.

But to your question; what I’m willing to do is keep my children away from it. I’m willing to not take them to theme parks that support (again, Disney and most of these theme parks aren’t “supporting” these things, but they cannot deny access to a specific group of people) these festivals. If the theme park is not actually supporting it, then I will just avoid during those times. I’m willing to do everything in my power as a voting American to get, and keep, people out of office that want to further the gay agenda. I’m willing to not purchase items from companies that are blatant in their support for homosexual “equality” (the quotes are because I don’t believe that is what they’re after). I’m willing to shelter my children because I don’t think that just because it’s “out there” they HAVE to see it. Not until they are at an age where they can understand and defend themselves.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

 

[solemnwarrior]

My son once asked me, ’ Dad, why are those two ladies holding hands’.

I told him, ’ they love each other very much and they’re not ashamed or afraid.’

Gay Day at a theme park wouldn’t have ruined my families day. We would have thanked the Lord for all the love that was being highlighted by the public displays of affection.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Everyone may hate me for saying this, but let’s try to remember that we’re sinners as well.

Oh dear not this oneliner again.

There is a world of difference between repentant sinners and obstinate sinners.

Furthermore it would in itself be a sin to accept another persons sins as ok.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I cannot believe Catholics are trying to defend Gay Pride Day. Can nothing be objectively wrong any more?

Even among the 12 there was a Judas.

 

[Jea9]

On this we disagree. They haven’t ever been allowed to marry. And can only do so now in five states plus DC, so you’ve pretty much already got that one.

Let me try to rephrase. I mean a FULL stop, as in, no more seeing it on the ballots, no more listening to it on the news. That they know that it is NOT a possibility.

Nothing. I don’t care if they see same sex couples. I mean we live in Atlanta, it was pretty much inevitable that at some point while we were out and about it would happen. And as I said upstream their response was “eewww yech!” but then they felt the same way about deep kissing in general (when they were old enough to ask about that).

I guess that’s where we, and masondoggy, and most others on this thread disagree. We shouldn’t have to see it. Just like we shouldn’t have to shield our kids from the Abercrombie and Fitch displays or the Victoria’s Secret store. It shouldn’t happen.

Archbishop Chaput didn’t over rule the school. Cardinal O’Malley in Boston over ruled the school in Boston.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/boston-archdiocese-contradicts-decision-of-school-to-withdraw-admission-of-child-with-same-sex-parents/

Oh, forgive me, I thought we were talking about the one in Boulder, I think.

I’m sorry, what part of:

Did you find “vitriolic”?

In some countries some ort all of these things are commonplace. And virtually all countries have, at one time or another made sodomy a capital crime. I’m simply asking you and masondoggy what measures you consider appropriate.

The insinuation that because we are against “gay pride” celebrations that we would want be advocating throwing things, “lightly” or “heavily” physically abusing people. But mostly your comment about Matthew Sheperd, I’m pretty sure that everyone here knows what happened to that poor kid; it was a particularly hate-filled, violent, and disgusting crime. It was certainly meant to incense.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I love how people quote this part of Christ, without the rest. He also said to her to go and sin no more. That’s a VERY important part of what He told this woman.

And we are actually called to judge the ACTIONS, not the person.

AB SO LUTE LY.

We can not judge the state of anyone’s soul. But we are indeed called to judge actions.

Their actions are sinful and misleading and contrary to decent public behavior.

 

[BillP]

Let me try to rephrase. I mean a FULL stop, as in, no more seeing it on the ballots, no more listening to it on the news. That they know that it is NOT a possibility.

Well in a democratic society, I’m afraid that isn’t possible. There’s simply no way to tell what a future Congress or electorate will decide to do. Even a constitutional amendment probably wouldn’t suffice as several of those have been repealed.

I guess that’s where we, and masondoggy, and most others on this thread disagree. We shouldn’t have to see it. Just like we shouldn’t have to shield our kids from the Abercrombie and Fitch displays or the Victoria’s Secret store. It shouldn’t happen.

I understand how you feel. Now, then I was asking how far you were willing to go to not see it. You’ve answered and I appreciate it.

The insinuation that because we are against “gay pride” celebrations that we would want be advocating throwing things, “lightly” or “heavily” physically abusing people. But mostly your comment about Matthew Sheperd, I’m pretty sure that everyone here knows what happened to that poor kid; it was a particularly hate-filled, violent, and disgusting crime. It was certainly meant to incense.

There was no “insinuation” intended. It was honest request for information. The Mathew Shepard comment was designed to point out that even in this day and age, Gay people are killed (illegally for the most part, but legally too in 7 seven countries!) simply for being Gay. As far as being “meant to incense”, you’re absolutely right. We should ALL be incensed when God’s Children are killed (legally or illegally) because they are Gay!

 

[solemnwarrior]

AB SO LUTE LY.

We can not judge the state of anyone’s soul. But we are indeed called to judge actions.

Their actions are sinful and misleading and contrary to decent public behavior.

In public, I think they’re showing love for one another. Love between two people is a wonderful thing.

 

[BillP]

I love how people quote this part of Christ, without the rest. He also said to her to go and sin no more. That’s a VERY important part of what He told this woman.

No it isn’t, because the woman never repented, admitted she was wrong, or even said she was sorry. This story is not about the woman, its about the Pharisees!

The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught committing adultery; and making her stand there in the middle 4 they said to Jesus, ‘Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, 5 and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?’ 6 They asked him this as a test, looking for an accusation to use against him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. 7 As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, ‘Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.’ 8 Then he bent down and continued writing on the ground. 9 When they heard this they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until the last one had gone and Jesus was left alone with the woman, who remained in the middle. 10 Jesus again straightened up and said, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ 11 ‘No one, sir,’ she replied. ‘Neither do I condemn you,’ said Jesus. ‘Go away, and from this moment sin no more.’

And we are actually called to judge the ACTIONS, not the person.

Not by Jesus we’re not. At least not that I’ve ever seen.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Originally Posted by masondoggy

Way, way off topic, but BillP really misunderstands and misrepresents the Catholic Church’s teachings about both Protestantism and mortal sin. I don’t want to say more about it here because that discussion belongs on a different thread.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Not by Jesus we’re not. At least not that I’ve ever seen.

Well if you don’t look then of course you will not see.

Jesus: “Do not judge according to appearance, but **judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
**
And note well also you yourself have judged others several times on this thread, do you know what the word is for someone who does not practice what he preaches? Jesus used it on the Pharisees.

“Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?” (Romans 2:1-3).

“He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17:15).

“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:17,18).

 

[Jea9]

Not by Jesus we’re not. At least not that I’ve ever seen.

Really? How about, if your brother is doing something wrong go to him yourself, and if he does not correct then go with more people and if he still doesn’t, then take it to the Church. I am SO not good at quoting Biblical passages, I have no idea where this is from, and I’m aware that it is most often used to support the hierarchy of the Church.

Are we not told that we are our brother’s keeper? And that to whom much was given, much will be expected? Are we not called to bring the Gospel to those around us? How would that not include explaining what is sin and what isn’t sin? We are certainly not called to judge another’s soul, but if we are called to bring the Gospel, that includes explaining what constitutes sin, venial and mortal.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Really? How about, if your brother is doing something wrong go to him yourself, and if he does not correct then go with more people and if he still doesn’t, then take it to the Church. I am SO not good at quoting Biblical passages, I have no idea where this is from, and I’m aware that it is most often used to support the hierarchy of the Church.

Are we not told that we are our brother’s keeper? And that to whom much was given, much will be expected? Are we not called to bring the Gospel to those around us? How would that not include explaining what is sin and what isn’t sin? We are certainly not called to judge another’s soul, but if we are called to bring the Gospel, that includes explaining what constitutes sin, venial and mortal.

Here you go Jea:

"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matt 18:15-17

 

[Jea9]

Here you go Jea:

"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matt 18:15-17

Thanks! I was thinking I might even have it wrong and that it was from the Acts and not “technically” from Jesus (as in, in one of the Gospels).

 

[ac_claire]

This is my question. EXACTLY HOW do we stop accepting it as “normal”

Well not by jumping to any of the silly extremes you list out of nowhere in post #152. I wouldn’t personally approach two gay people who were kissing in public, but if my daughter witnessed it I’d certainly talk to her about it afterwards, and explain why it was wrong. *All *the different ways it was wrong. I would hate for her to grow up thinking that that kind of thing is normal or morally neutral.

One Catholic school expelled the children of a lesbian couple? Does that work for you? (The Diocese overruled the school).

I didn’t say ANYONE wanted to beat Gays. I asked how far you’re willing to go?

The question still stands.

What else are you willing to do to protect your children from seeing same sex couples?

The only person bringing up these extreme scenarios is you. Why even bring up “how far are you willing to go?” I’m willing to go so far as to do everything I can to prevent my child from seeing those kinds of things…and if it ever happened anyway, or if the subject came up seperately, my husband and I would make sure she understood that what she saw was wrong.

I never said anyone was wrong to be upset when forced to witness sin. My question is an effort to determine whether individuals who claim to be upset when “forced to witness sin” are upset with ALL sins they witness? or only some?

I know this was directed at Jea, but I’ll answer too anyhow. I am upset when I witness any sin out in public. Especially sins against chastity and modesty, like the PDAs we’ve been talking about. I’m sure I’d be even MORE super upset if it was my daughter who was witnessing it.

Why assume that the Catholics on this thread have a special place of “hatred” in their hearts for homosexuals? Don’t mean to sound like I’m picking on you specifically, Bill, but you’ve been insinuating that from the very beginning of this thread. Sin is sin in my book, it’s all bad.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Thanks! I was thinking I might even have it wrong and that it was from the Acts and not “technically” from Jesus (as in, in one of the Gospels).

:tiphat:

 

[NoAvailableName]

BillP,

You’re constant bringing up Protestants in comparison with gays is very irritating.

As to your point of tolerance, consider this example:

Is a 14 year old boy who watches a porno learning to better show tolerance toward adulterers, or is he being tempted to sin?

You can tolerate sinners without being excited about increasing your impressionable child’s exposure to them.