"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[pnewton]

Color me as skeptical and lacking in Charity, but I’ll be more likely to give the “righteously angry” the benefit of the doubt when they start railing against all sinfullness equally and not picking and choosing the sinfulness they choose to correct based on what they find personally distasteful.

This is a forum. The comments are based on the topic of the thread.

You may take issue with me for “praying that God will fix” the OP, but you misunderstand. That wans’t said out of arrogance or a sense that I am in any way better than the OP.

I wrote explicitly that I thought is was “by no means arrogant.” The accusation was that we were being holier than thou. I was only pointing out that no one posted about themselves, with that one exception.

And sometimes you don’t need to point out to a direct statement, you can read between the lines.

And sometimes when you assume, you engage in slander. A sinful condition like hate must never be assumed or unfairly assigned to another.

 

[pnewton]

Do you really think we were better off when society was less tolerant?

• When Countries had laws specifying the death penalty for following the “wrong” religion?
• When US States imprisoned people for marrying outside their race?
• When governments executed people for acting on SSA?
• When Gay people were denied the ability to make a living?
• When those who divorced were socially ostracized?

REALLY?

I think you know the answer to that. None of those things are good. But yes, I think there are many things we should be less tolerant of, like abortion and pornography.

Your questions draw extremes. The mirror of your questions would be for me to ask you if you thought we would be better off with tolerance toward those who wanted to marry their pet iguana, or tolerating rape. For that matter, why not just have anarchy, the ultimate tolerant state. Yet everyone here knows extremes make poor data and only serve to increase rhetoric.

 

[Rascalking]

And sometimes when you assume, you engage in slander. A sinful condition like hate must never be assumed or unfairly assigned to another.

Unfair is the key word. I wonder though-if someone was subtly,between the lines anti-Catholic, would you say the same thing to them?

 

[gardenswithkids]

It is very ironic that what you see as increased licentiousness, I see as increased compassion.

Do you really think we were better off when society was less tolerant?

…Color me as skeptical and lacking in Charity, but I’ll be more likely to give the “righteously angry” the benefit of the doubt when they start railing against all sinfullness equally and not picking and choosing the sinfulness they choose to correct based on what they find personally distasteful. …

"Intolerance will not be tolerated!"

I question if our society is really, truly any more tolerant than it was in the past. What we will or won’t tolerate has changed. On this thread a couple posters express intolerance towards the op’s views. Some will tolerate homosexual acts but will not tolerate anyone objecting to homosexual acts. That’s not tolerance–it’s hypocrisy.

 

[mamacita]

**As much as I don’t agree w/ them having their ‘own day’ at the parks, etc, I almost wonder if it’s better to do it that way than for them to scandalize our kids on ALL days of the summer…that way they can all go there and get it out of their system on the same day. KWIM? I don’t agree w/ groups being considered ‘special’ and getting their ‘own’ day, but I guess in some way it’s better than them going on all other days randomly? Hope I’m making sense, lol.

Now I know I will be calling places in advance before allowing my kids to be exposed to this lifestyle. If you wanna be gay, then fine. But PDA (public display of affection) is totally out of line in my opinion.**

 

[Serap]

I had no idea this type of stuff was going on Gay week at Disney???

I have no issues with homosexuality. It is a very heavy cross to bear and the person is called to chastity…a very difficult life to live.

I would not want my children going to Gay Pride Day here in my city or go to a children’s theme park on Gay Day. We all know what happens on those days…for the most part, the people are very well behaved, but then you get that 20% that show up wearing leather pants and make inappropriate displays in public.

 

[Consecrated]

Look, I took exception to a poster referring to “French Kissing” as “sticking their facial parts down each others throats” and characterized it as intentionally inflammatory, hateful and dehumanizing.

You defended the OP’s characterization:

And further amplified your views that “french kissing” itself was “dehumanizing”

I replied that in fact it is no such thing. That you only consider it "dehumanizing because of who is doing it. And asserted that you would not characterize “French Kissing” as “sticking facial parts down each others throats” when done by married, opposite sex people in private. An assertion that you confirm in the post above.

Therefore, it is inflammatory to so describe the act when it is done in a different context. It is patently an attempt to inflame and dehumanize those you disagree with. QED.

this is getting ridiculous. Any act of foreplay (of which french kissing is arguably one) is indeed very different in different contexts and between different people. Deep kissing is GOOD within the bounds of marriage and in a private setting, and BAD, (dehumanizing, wrong, sinful) etc., without. Simple as that. So, to paint the action as bad by the use of strong language, when it is, in fact, bad, is not hateful or vitriolic. It may very well be inflammatory, and in some cases a poor choice of words, but we can’t always help how our words are taken.

QED indeed

(i had to look that up lol)

 

[PPeterson]

I actually laughed out loud when I saw this. As said earlier, religious convictions are judged very harshly by our society today* as* intolerance.

No they are not. If you express a religious conviction you might face ridicule, argument, and hard feelings, and loss of social status. You also are likely to be supported by the large number of other people around today who endorse similar convictions. Thus you can feel maligned by the “Mainstream Media” yet vindicated by the wall street journal opinion page and your favorite journal. That’s in today’s secular society. Hardly a brutal martyrdom.

Contrast this with times when churches did actually run the show (as I mentioned 500 years ago). The consequences of unpopular opinion were significantly more severe.

I do not want to be shown by nonchristians what it means to be nonjudgemental. They do not get it.

Some do some don’t.

Rather we are not to judge except as we are willing to be judged.

clearly. However, some of us are not so enthusiastic about being judged. This looks like it’s just two different approaches to the same lesson. I see the invitation to stop judging and thus escape judgement as an opportunity to hope for mercy from God if I refrain from judging others.
You seem to read it as a primarily a guideline telling you what prerequisites you must meet in order to continue judging. It looks like you can make a case for either of these.

As to your interpretation of “pearls before swine,” I am not sure that’s completely relevant here. I think that’s more of an exhortation to not get into pointless round and round arguments about important or sacred things with people who aren’t willing to listen, or who only want to mock what you have to say.

BTW, that’s my last post for this topic.

 

[graceandglory]

I’m looking for the “fat, white, anglo-american, hetrosexual day festivals” - anyone seen any?

Yeah, it’s called NASCAR.

 

[stephe1987]

PDA is not something you should be doing at a family theme park, even if you’re heterosexual! Being out in public is not the appropriate time or place for that sort of thing.

 

[OSUbride0708]

Hahah my mom was commenting on the fact that she wondered why there were wayyyy more gay couples than usual, people wearing gay pride shirts, men dressed as women, etc. She thought it was some weird coincidence.

 

[PatriceA]

PDA is not something you should be doing at a family theme park, even if you’re heterosexual! Being out in public is not the appropriate time or place for that sort of thing.

This.

We’ve been to Disney when it was Gay Pride Day and honestly, they were very discreet about it all. There wasn’t any outward signs of display or anything. They were to involved in the Disney experience to be so apparant.

 

[ac_claire]

You may think I too am one of the arrogant ones, but I never pulled out the “I’m praying that God will fix you” card for someone I disagree with here. You may think I am judgemental, but I have not accused anyone of hatred here.

I see a reflection of what has become a serious problem in our society. The biggest sin is intolerance and no one may judge anyone, unless the judge them to be judgemental. Righteous anger (anger at sin and the way it destroys the sinner and the innocent bystander) is not hatred of anything, except the sin.

If you think someone has been arrogant or holier than though, could you show us where anyone has said anything about oneself and one’s own spiritual practices, besides the one person who says he will be praying for others, of course. (lest there be any misuderstanding, I think - opinion only - such a statement is inappropriate in context, but is by no means arrogant.)

Amen to this!

 

[ac_claire]

There is nothing perverted about passionate kissing. Period. It’s inapproariateness (to the extent that it exists) is entirely based on the context of the act. I guarantee that the OP doesn’t characterize passionate kissing as “sticking facial parts down each other’s throats” when it is him/her and their spouse in the privacy of their bedroom. Therefore usage of that phrase was a deliberate attempt to stir up hatred and indignation among those reading her post.

And right there you are judging the poster’s heart and intentions. So do you openly embrace and excuse your own hypocrisy, or is it your opinion that being judgemental is ok only if the particular judgement you’re making is that someone else is judgemental?

This begs the question if one must tolerate all things as a Catholic? or are we required to only tolerate the good?

How do you get out of this without being labeled as judgmental?

You can’t, IMO. I just don’t worry about being labeled “judgemental”…As you can see in this thread and others, it’s turning into a pretty much meaningless accusation.

 

[BillP]

And right there you are judging the poster’s heart and intentions. So do you openly embrace and excuse your own hypocrisy, or is it your opinion that being judgemental is ok only if the particular judgement you’re making is that someone else is judgemental?

I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong shop. I said nothing about the OP or any other poster being judgmental. I simply replied to one poster who was concerned about appearing judgmental:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6774337#post6774337

That not being judgmental was the only way I knew to avoid appearing judgmental.

So no hypocrisy here.

As far as “judging the posters heart and intentions” if someone deliberately uses inflammatory language (“sticking their facial parts down each other’s throats”) when referring to one group, but not to the exact same actions performed by another group, then no “judgement” is required to divine the “heart and intentions”. Its is patently an attempt to inflame the readers and stir up hatred toward those individuals.

Seriously, do you not get that?

 

[Serap]

I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong shop. I said nothing about the OP or any other poster being judgmental. I simply replied to one poster who was concerned about appearing judgmental:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6774337#post6774337

That not being judgmental was the only way I knew to avoid appearing judgmental.

So no hypocrisy here.

As far as “judging the posters heart and intentions” if someone deliberately uses inflammatory language (“sticking their facial parts down each other’s throats”) when referring to one group, but not to the exact same actions performed by another group, then no “judgement” is required to divine the “heart and intentions”. Its is patently an attempt to inflame the readers and stir up hatred toward those individuals.

Seriously, do you not get that?

I have to admit that I have never seen gays sticking their tongues down eachother’s throats even when I lived in the gay section of my city while in university.

What I did see, was men wearing heals and dresses…men prostitutes and lots of leather. I only ever saw them holding hands.

What bothers me is the sleazy leather outfits and the jokes like, “Nice ### Peter!” Some of them do act inappropriately like this. It’s almost like this small percentage of these men purposely have to make a point of saying, “We’re here and we’re queer!!!”

That’s what I wouldn’t want my DD to see. The small percentage that make the rest look bad.

It’s just a lot for a child to process.

I also wouldn’t take my child to a nightclub where they would see lots of sleazy dressed people dancing provocatively. To me, it’s the same type of thing and our society for some reason, has made it ok when gays do it.

 

[ac_claire]

As far as “judging the posters heart and intentions” if someone deliberately uses inflammatory language (“sticking their facial parts down each other’s throats”) when referring to one group, but not to the exact same actions performed by another group, then no “judgement” is required to divine the “heart and intentions”. Its is patently an attempt to inflame the readers and stir up hatred toward those individuals.

Seriously, do you not get that?

No, I just don’t agree with it. By (what seems to be) your own criteria of what constitutes “being judgemental”, I don’t see the difference between what you’re doing here and what you are insinuating the poster was doing. If you’re trying to show the difference between judging hearts and jusging actions…well, seems like the person did in fact see some sticking of facial parts down others’ throats. No, it’s not pretty but could just be an accurate description of what the person saw. I don’t know because I wasn’t there. Neither were you. But you’re still judging that the person had bad intentions with that description.

It’s your opinion (your judgement) that that kind of scene should bother a person no less when it’s two men or two women than if it’s a heterosexual couple. I’d be bothered by both, but yeah the heterosexual couple would probably bother me less. Because aside from the gross PDA aspect, the very fact of a man and a woman being a “couple” wouldn’t in itself be scandalous. With the same-sex couple, it would be.

 

[Serap]

No, I just don’t agree with it. By (what seems to be) your own criteria of what constitutes “being judgemental”, I don’t see the difference between what you’re doing here and what you are insinuating the poster was doing. If you’re trying to show the difference between judging hearts and jusging actions…well, seems like the person did in fact see some sticking of facial parts down others’ throats. No, it’s not pretty but could just be an accurate description of what the person saw. I don’t know because I wasn’t there. Neither were you. But you’re still judging that the person had bad intentions with that description.

It’s your opinion (your judgement) that that kind of scene should bother a person no less when it’s two men or two women than if it’s a heterosexual couple. I’d be bothered by both, but yeah the heterosexual couple would probably bother me less. Because aside from the gross PDA aspect, the very fact of a man and a woman being a “couple” wouldn’t in itself be scandalous. With the same-sex couple, it would be.

I’m just being honest and maybe it’s not a good thing, but it would bother me A LOT more if it were a gay couple.

 

[BillP]

I have corrected Protestants within my family and without, but I have also educated them on those things in which we disagree (and in which they see as myths)…

What wasn’t the question. The question was, If you see a group of people who are manifestly “sinning” in a public place, what do you do/how do you feel about it?

Examples given included

• a Protestent Church Group (you can tell cause they’re all wearing “Bugtussle Baptist Church” Tee-shirts
• Seeing someone in the checkout line with a package of condoms in their grocery cart
• An affintity group of IVF families at your local amusement park (again you can tell by their tee-shirts).

My point is that if you don’t feel the same way about each of these situations as you did about the Gay Day participants, then it ain’t “generic sinfullness” that’s bothering you, but this particular sin.

To my mind that’s what’s “wrong” in this situation. If you get bent out shape about Gays, but not about Protestants, Contraceptors or IVFrs then you can hardly claim that its “sin” that bothers you.

 

[ac_claire]

I’m just being honest and maybe it’s not a good thing, but it would bother me A LOT more if it were a gay couple.

Of course it would. I would call that normal.