Gay rights

[franklinstower]

^^^^^^^

I would recommend chastity – absolutely. I also do my best to shelter my daughter from even the concept of same sex marriage but if she is exposed to it I will explain. I will also in my heart wish the very best for my neighbors SSM and support them in any way I can-- primarily through genuine goodwill.

 

[edwest2]

Should your own child desire a same sex relationship, I mean a sexual relationship, how will you advise them? Will you, as a follower of Christ, advise them towards chastity, or will compassion lead you to endorse the relationship they desire?

And if your neighbour, a non-Christian, announced their forthcoming SSM, and your child asks you about it, will you explain to them the proper nature of marriage and how this departs, or will you earnestly join the celebrations?

And in light of those answers, if the State asks you “what do you understand the term marriage” to mean, what will you answer? Will the answer match what you’ve explained to your children?

And lastly, are you aware that in many jurisdictions, the civil “benefits” attached to marriage have been extended to defacto couples including same sex? Access to benefits has not been a significant driver of the call for SSM for quite some time.

Correct. But on one gay marriage advocacy site, if it can’t be called marriage then it makes the couple second-class citizens.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I was raised up within and outwardly exposed to a deeply dedicated non christian community of people-- being deeply in touch with that community I can say that there is just an assumed sentiment that Christians really don’t have any “authentic spirituality” ie love, and all they really do is judge and criticize everything around them, and this is done without a deep love and compassion emanating from within them. In fact the judgment is palpable from a large portion of the Christian community…

This perception which I think is largely accurate runs so deep outside of Christian circles that it has become THE biggest stumbling block that keeps people from Christ at least in the states. This perception is taken for granted by so many people today.

I remember the absolute shock, dizzying confusion and sense of wonderment I had when I became exposed to Christian mysticism, the saints, and contemplative prayer, through a monk who eventually became my spiritual adviser. As far as morality goes – he is as strict as it gets, he is NOT a liberal catholic and yet he did not lead with that, if fact he waited a good while before ever mentioning those things. Instead he would just meet with me and I would bask in the love of Christ which was so easy to find in his presence, so thick and powerful.

Once I became grounded in Gods love and prayer-- not the idea of Gods love, but Gods love itself and Gods peace and Gods humility and many other of Gods attributes *directly *then I was led into the strict end of morality, and I was willing to go because I knew the power of Christ was real, it was not just a religion made up by men. This is the approach that the Pope is presently advocating for, it seems to be what Jesus did way more often than not also.

There are a lot more people who can be reached in this way than can be reached by reasoned arguments, and really almost none who can be anything but repelled by endless criticism, condemnation and judgment from Christians (before they know Gods love is real, and before they know the Christian who is standing against something they are doing loves them), It seems Jesus was hard only on those religious people who made coming to God difficult through their own arrogance and judgment and I think a large portion of Christianity is in a sort of solidarity with the Sadducees and the Pharisees today even though they don’t seem to notice.

For the last ten years I have taken the approach that the monk showed me, that Jesus seemed to take, and that the Pope is advocating for and you know what? I have been lucky enough to participate in bringing lots and lots of people to a relationship with Christ-- the people want what I have and they want the source of it-- Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

Once you do bring these people into a relationship with Christ, how do all of them react to the Church’s teaching about certain gay rights, including SSM?

Ed

 

[Rau]

^^^^^^^

I would recommend chastity – absolutely. I also do my best to shelter my daughter from even the concept of same sex marriage but if she is exposed to it I will explain.

So, you know yourself, and you will teach your children that it is not the right course. But simultaneously, you want your society to adopt the stance that SSM is just the same as marriage, and thus to endorse and celebrate SSM just as it does marriage.

I don’t see the consistency in this.

I will also in my heart wish the very best for my neighbours’ SSM and support them in any way I can-- primarily through genuine goodwill.

I’m not sure how to understand this. We all should wish everyone a good and happy life. We should have goodwill for everyone. We should help people in need. This much is motherhood. But, is there anything that you’d wish for your neighbours which would be at odds with the continuation of their SSM?

 

[franklinstower]

In response to Rau-- Rau in red.

So, you know yourself, and you will teach your children that it is not the right course. But simultaneously, you want your society to adopt the stance that SSM is just the same as marriage, and thus to endorse and celebrate SSM just as it does marriage.

That is putting words in my mouth. I don’t think that SSM is the same-- I don’t know if I could put the right language to this though-- it’s subtle. My marriage is sacred- it is something that God is doing, something God is accomplishing. My marriage is blessed by God in a way that I can participate in but cannot fully understand- God is bringing my wife and I and child together in a way that is holy-- it is a grace from God. I also feel like marriage is one of the ways to become a saint-- it is an invitation to sainthood and union with God. I have no idea whether or not SSM sees it that way *and I don’t care how they see it. *

I want SSM to enjoy the same benefits given to heterosexual marriage* by the state and/or federal government.* I want the perception of gay marriage to be such that they are not constantly burdened by hate, judgment, physical violence and exclusion.

I do share the concern that my daughter will be inundated with messages promoting that way of life. I am uncomfortable with it but not enough to campaign against their ability to be supported by society in the choices they have made. I suppose there is a line that could get crossed by that community that would cause me to change my position but I personally don’t think we will get there.

I’m not sure how to understand this. We all should wish everyone a good and happy life. We should have goodwill for everyone. We should help people in need. This much is motherhood.

Based on this you do understand my position. I feel a great love for that community and the suffering that many of them have endured unnecessarily due to judgment being first on many people minds, and not love, towards them. That is my first feeling towards them and it is a constant even when I have unease about some of their choices. The love does not fade away.

But, is there anything that you’d wish for your neighbors which would be at odds with the continuation of their SSM?

That is none of my business-- that is between them and God. I wish them Gods presence in their lives and Gods will in their lives. How that unfolds, when, in what order is just way above my understanding. I want to be an example of the light of Christ to them–*** if possible, if even that is Gods agenda.***

I think that’s why the Pope has said we don’t need to talk about these issues all the time– we are losing people because of it.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think that SSM is the same

It is the assertion of the pro-SSM advocates, and now of the State (in the US) that SSM is every bit the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. We are not speaking of the difference between a marriage celebrated in a Catholic Church and one that is not.

I want SSM to enjoy the same benefits given to heterosexual marriage* by the state and/or federal government.*

But how do you get from that step to the rather more momentous step of broadening the meaning of marriage? Is there no other way (clearly there is…); are there no downsides to changing the definition of marriage, and thus to the means of family formation, to give you pause?

I do share the concern that my daughter will be inundated with messages promoting that way of life. I am uncomfortable with it but not enough to campaign against their ability to be supported by society in the choices they have made.

Then you must be arguing that it’s a good choice, deserving of society’s support. So far, the only reason you give is to access benefits.

I suppose there is a line that could get crossed by that community that would cause me to change my position but I personally don’t think we will get there.

The SSM advocates have:

• demanded the equivalence of marriage and SSM be recognised by all;
• sought the inclusion in school curricula of materials presenting same sex couples and parenting as natural [and given the State’s accommodation so far, I cannot imagine how this further step can be denied…]
• required Catholic adoption agencies to view same sex couples as potential adoptive parents (leading to closure of those agencies);
• sued businesses not wishing to participate in or contribute to SSM events;
• initiated an anti-discrimination case against Bishops (in Australia) for circulating in Catholic Schools a brochure “Don’t mess with marriage” setting out the Catholic view of family and marriage; acl.org.au/2015/09/persecution-and-the-courage-of-julian-porteous/

Does any of this cross the line that would concern you?

Based on this you do understand my position.

Not at all. I recognise you have compassion for others, but cannot reconcile your public “societal” stance with the position you’ve said you feel personally or viz a viz your daughter. They are in serious conflict. And how you get from “access to benefits” to “change the meaning of marriage” escapes me. Benefits is a red-herring.

I wish them Gods presence in their lives and Gods will in their lives. How that unfolds, when, in what order is just way above my understanding. I want to be an example of the light of Christ to them–*** if possible, if even that is Gods agenda.***

This is kind of motherhood, combined with a laissez-faire view about what others do, combined with support for them to be able to do it.

 

[franklinstower]

Rau

]It is the assertion of the pro-SSM advocates, and now of the State (in the US) that SSM is every bit the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. We are not speaking of the difference between a marriage celebrated in a Catholic Church and one that is not.

I am sorry I don’t understand the last sentence in this paragraph. I know what Christian marriage is- I don’t care what it is called, I don’t care about the word or who uses the word. My marriage is sacred because it is sacred. If it is better than other forms of marriage people will see that in time.

But how do you get from that step to the rather more momentous step of broadening the meaning of marriage? Is there no other way (clearly there is…); are there no downsides to changing the definition of marriage, and thus to the means of family formation, to give you pause?

Christian marriage is what it is-- I do not care what it is called.

Then you must be arguing that it’s a good choice, deserving of society’s support. So far, the only reason you give is to access benefits.

The SSM advocates have:

• demanded the equivalence of marriage and SSM be recognised by all;
• sought the inclusion in school curricula of materials presenting same sex couples and parenting as natural [and given the State’s accommodation so far, I cannot imagine how this further step can be denied…]
• required Catholic adoption agencies to view same sex couples as potential adoptive parents (leading to closure of those agencies);
• sued businesses not wishing to participate in or contribute to SSM events;
• initiated an anti-discrimination case against Bishops (in Australia) for circulating in Catholic Schools a brochure “Don’t mess with marriage” setting out the Catholic view of family and marriage; acl.org.au/2015/09/persecution-and-the-courage-of-julian-porteous/

Does any of this cross the line that would concern you?

Much of this does bother me but as of now I think most of this is retaliation for years of persecution, violence and judgment. What comes around goes around. I strongly suspect that if gay men and women had been shown compassion all along the history of our society most of this would not be happening. All the more reason for reconciliation with that whole group. A real heartfelt repentance and apology for years of abuse slander and mistreatment by all Christians would most certainly fix all of this. We own them a long term living amends. If it were up to me I would make friends with them quickly before they deliver us up to the courts.

I did not say it was a good choice-- I just do not believe in making people who are not Christian live according to my beliefs. I don’t want a Christian run country-- I think that would end up an intolerant disaster.

Not at all. I recognise you have compassion for others, but cannot reconcile your public “societal” stance with the position you’ve said you feel personally or viz a viz your daughter. They are in serious conflict. And how you get from “access to benefits” to “change the meaning of marriage” escapes me. Benefits is a red-herring.

It is not a red herring, it matters that people have struggled so deeply on so many levels in our society due to mistreatment from Christians-- If only there had been real compassion and love all along towards the LGBT community…

No one can change the meaning of my marriage, no one can defile the sacred nature of it. Its not about words, its about the content. We do not live in a Christian county. People need to work all of these ideas out for themselves. My daughter will be fine through all of this.

This is kind of motherhood, combined with a laissez-faire view about what others do, combined with support for them to be able to do it.

We are not actually talking about motherhood here. I am not the mother of my neighbors-- the analogy breaks down very quickly.

In any case I normally don’t like to argue my points-- I don’t really care if you adopt my position. I started this thread so I could better understand yours and the Catholic Churches position and I have gained a lot of understanding from this thread. I really can see how you have come to your conclusions better, it has helped me not to demonize your positions.

 

[franklinstower]

Once you do bring these people into a relationship with Christ, how do all of them react to the Church’s teaching about certain gay rights, including SSM?

Ed

Who says they become Catholic? Honestly though I do not ask. It is a full time job just getting closer to God myself-- and helping others to do so. I avoid these topics completely because I would not want disagreement on them to make me less useful to others. If I can show someone how to practice rigorous self examination, pray often enough to begin entering the contemplative state, and help them to enter into a relationship with Christ that heals them in deep ways and makes them useful to others I have done my part. It is for the religion of their choice to do the rest.

 

[Rau]

Reading your posts franklinstower, I sense (perhaps wrongly) something disingenuous in what you right. I apologise if I’m mistaken.

I know what Christian marriage is- I don’t care what it is called, I don’t care about the word or who uses the word. My marriage is sacred because it is sacred. If it is better than other forms of marriage people will see that in time.Christian marriage is what it is-- I do not care what it is called.

We are talking about “marriage”, not “Christian marriage”, and certainly not “your marriage”, That you don’t care that SSM and marriage are declared by the force of law to be the same thing, with all the implications that has for family formation, education of children, raising of children, and so forth - that you don’t care what message that sends - defies credibility for a person who professes the Christian faith, and knows it is the wrong course, and would teach her own child that it is wrong.

I also asked, but you didn’t reply:
But how do you get from that step [the right to access “benefits”] to the rather more momentous step of broadening the meaning of marriage? Is there no other way (clearly there is…); are there no downsides to changing the definition of marriage, and thus to the means of family formation, to give you pause?

Much of this does bother me but as of now I think most of this is retaliation for years of persecution, violence and judgment. What comes around goes around. I strongly suspect that if gay men and women had been shown compassion all along the history of our society most of this would not be happening. All the more reason for reconciliation with that whole group. A real heartfelt repentance and apology for years of abuse slander and mistreatment by all Christians would most certainly fix all of this. We own them a long term living amends. If it were up to me I would make friends with them quickly before they deliver us up to the courts.

The ill-treatment is reprehensible, no argument. But - seriously - how would the present demands have been averted had society behaved much better? Would the demand to redefine marriage have not arisen? Would all that flows from that (as per the list I gave you) evaporate? *Actions should be justified because they are right - not because they are a “deserved retaliation for past injustices”… *

I did not say it was a good choice-- I just do not believe in making people who are not Christian live according to my beliefs. I don’t want a Christian run country-- I think that would end up an intolerant disaster.

So it’s not a good choice, but it is good for the society to declare and acclaim SSM and marriage to be the same, with all that that implies for the meaning of family… By the way, what makes you think SSM advocates are not Christian? Many certainly are - by baptism at least, and many participate in Christian denominations.

It is not a red herring, it matters that people have struggled so deeply on so many levels in our society due to mistreatment from Christians-- If only there had been real compassion and love all along towards the LGBT community…

The mistreatment was from society at large, is reprehensible, but has nothing to do with the access to benefits. My point, to which you respond here, was that securing “benefits” ceased to be a major goal of SSM advocates long ago, since in many jurisdictions, benefits equivalent to those attaching to marriage have been available to all de-facto couples (including same sex) for many years. Clearly, that fact did not change the drive for SSM one iota.

No one can change the meaning of my marriage.

Curiously, you support the State declaring yours to be the just the same as SSM.

We are not actually talking about motherhood here.

No, we’re not. I said your statement was “motherhood”.

In any case I normally don’t like to argue my points-- I don’t really care if you adopt my position. I started this thread so I could better understand yours and the Catholic Churches position and I have gained a lot of understanding from this thread. I really can see how you have come to your conclusions better, it has helped me not to demonize your positions.

If you prefer not to debate, you might prefer a blog format. Discussion and debate is inherent to a discussion board such as CAF.

I am surprised your inclination was ever to “demonise” the position that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you’ve given up that inclination, I am pleased. For your info, here is the booklet that has caused SSM advocates in Australia to pursue an anti-discrimination action against the Australian Bishops:
sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf

Do you find anything in here - communicated from the Catholic Church to the families of children attending Catholic schools - justifying such action?

 

[Rau]

Who says they become Catholic? Honestly though I do not ask. It is a full time job just getting closer to God myself-- and helping others to do so. I avoid these topics completely because I would not want disagreement on them to make me less useful to others. If I can show someone how to practice rigorous self examination, pray often enough to begin entering the contemplative state, and help them to enter into a relationship with Christ that heals them in deep ways and makes them useful to others I have done my part. It is for the religion of their choice to do the rest.

Who mentioned Catholicism? Perhaps Ed was referring to your (Orthodox) Church? I find it odd that one can introduce a person to Christ (God), but carefully avoid what He taught about marriage. How then is “rigorous self-examination” to be undertaken? What standard are we to examine ourselves against? I believe your Church and the Catholic Church have a similar moral assessment of homosexual acts.

 

[franklinstower]

Who mentioned Catholicism? Perhaps Ed was referring to your (Orthodox) Church? I find it odd that one can introduce a person to Christ (God), but carefully avoid what He taught about marriage. How then is “rigorous self-examination” to be undertaken? What standard are we to examine ourselves against? I believe your Church and the Catholic Church have a similar moral assessment of homosexual acts.

Lets let Ed reply to his post and find out.

If you are interested in learning about the form or self examination I was taught I would be happy to have a discussion with you by PM. It is a very involved process taken from scripture but requires a conversion of heart for entering into it and it takes a while for the understanding of it to sink in. I really would be happy to explain it better- it has helped me so much in so many areas of life.

 

[edwest2]

It is the assertion of the pro-SSM advocates, and now of the State (in the US) that SSM is every bit the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. We are not speaking of the difference between a marriage celebrated in a Catholic Church and one that is not.

But how do you get from that step to the rather more momentous step of broadening the meaning of marriage? Is there no other way (clearly there is…); are there no downsides to changing the definition of marriage, and thus to the means of family formation, to give you pause?

Then you must be arguing that it’s a good choice, deserving of society’s support. So far, the only reason you give is to access benefits.

The SSM advocates have:

• demanded the equivalence of marriage and SSM be recognised by all;
• sought the inclusion in school curricula of materials presenting same sex couples and parenting as natural [and given the State’s accommodation so far, I cannot imagine how this further step can be denied…]
• required Catholic adoption agencies to view same sex couples as potential adoptive parents (leading to closure of those agencies);
• sued businesses not wishing to participate in or contribute to SSM events;
• initiated an anti-discrimination case against Bishops (in Australia) for circulating in Catholic Schools a brochure “Don’t mess with marriage” setting out the Catholic view of family and marriage; acl.org.au/2015/09/persecution-and-the-courage-of-julian-porteous/

Does any of this cross the line that would concern you?

Not at all. I recognise you have compassion for others, but cannot reconcile your public “societal” stance with the position you’ve said you feel personally or viz a viz your daughter. They are in serious conflict. And how you get from “access to benefits” to “change the meaning of marriage” escapes me. Benefits is a red-herring.

This is kind of motherhood, combined with a laissez-faire view about what others do, combined with support for them to be able to do it.

Well done. Thank you. The disturbing trend of allowing children as young as 5 to be exposed to story books that show homosexual behavior as normative is clearly connected to redefining marriage and sexual behavior which is beyond the emotional and intellectual capacity of kids to grasp. This is called Indoctrination and the State does support it by allowing it. Then we have “Diversity Days” in public schools.

siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=2234

amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities/dp/074252034X

Ed

 

[franklinstower]

Rau ]Reading your posts franklinstower, I sense (perhaps wrongly) something disingenuous in what you right. I apologise if I’m mistaken.

I think you don’t understand where I am coming from so you are misunderstanding my motives on this issue. I am not being disingenuous. Please don’t take offense, this is meant and said with kindness. I have found that it is very difficult to really understand someone while also trying to form arguments against them. If you could put your strongly held positions on the shelf (just for a while) and really listen you could understand my take better. That is what I am doing here with others on this thread .

We are talking about “marriage”, not “Christian marriage”, and certainly not “your marriage”, That you don’t care that SSM and marriage are declared by the force of law to be the same …

I think my other posts, if you read them carefully, address most of this.

I also asked, but you didn’t reply:
But how do you get from that step [the right to access “benefits”] to the rather more momentous step of broadening the meaning of marriage? Is there no other way (clearly there is…); are there no downsides to changing the definition of marriage, and thus to the means of family formation, to give you pause?
The ill-treatment is reprehensible, no argument. But - seriously - how would the present demands have been averted had society behaved much better? Would the demand to redefine marriage have not arisen? Would all that flows from that (as per the list I gave you) evaporate? *Actions should be justified because they are right - not because they are a “deserved retaliation for past injustices”… *

There are downsides but there were some pretty serious downsides to the lack of empathy towards gay men and women, life threatening downsides, and deeply emotionally damaging downsides. I can see why they have fought so hard to gain equality in the eyes of the country. It is horrible to feel threatened by the entirety of society you live in, to know that your life could be put in danger, is called into question regularly, to feel you have no one who cares for you.

I think if there had never been ill treatment of the LGBT community. If there had been genuine compassion and love offered them all along we would still be having the discussion to legalize gay marriage in a secular country. I think what would not be present is the retaliation against christian businesses and an overstepping of equality into persecution and a forcing of LGBT views. I suspect there would be no need for that if there had been love and good will all along-- instead there would be dialogue had in the aura of love and goodwill. I don’t think its to late. I wonder who has access to a love that could accomplish this.

So it’s not a good choice, but it is good for the society to declare and acclaim SSM and marriage to be the same, with all that that implies for the meaning of family… By the way, what makes you think SSM advocates are not Christian? Many certainly are - by baptism at least, and many participate in Christian denominations.

My other posts state all of my thinking on this.

The mistreatment was from society at large, is reprehensible, but has nothing to do with the access to benefits. My point, to which you respond here, was that securing “benefits” ceased to be a major goal of SSM advocates long ago, since in many jurisdictions, benefits equivalent to those attaching to marriage have been available to all de-facto couples (including same sex) for many years. Clearly, that fact did not change the drive for SSM one iota.

Curiously, you support the State declaring yours to be the just the same as SSM.

I don’t care how the state defines my marriage, again I appreciate living in a secular county, No one can take away what my marriage IS, what your marriage IS.

No, we’re not. I said your statement was “motherhood”.

I am a man-- we had a misunderstanding.

If you prefer not to debate, you might prefer a blog format. Discussion and debate is inherent to a discussion board such as CAF.

I use these forums to dialogue with other Christians. Be generous and charitable and respect my desire not to enter debate on all of this further. I am grateful to you for helping me understand your position and where you are coming from with it.

I am surprised your inclination was ever to “demonise” the position that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you’ve given up that inclination, I am pleased. For your info, here is the booklet that has caused SSM advocates in Australia to pursue an anti-discrimination action against the Australian Bishops:
sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf

Lets put my use of the word demonize into perspective. My position coming into this discussion was softer and more generous towards your side of the issue than yours is towards mine now. I have learned a lot. I am not saying that means anything as to the validity of my position, I am just explaining my use of the word.

Do you find anything in here - communicated from the Catholic Church to the families of children attending Catholic schools - justifying such action?

No, but again as I learned from the self examination method I was taught-- when people harm us we can almost without exception find that our own past actions that were based on “self” have placed us in a position to be harmed. If there had been genuine love and compassion towards this community ***all along ***I do not think we would be here at all.

God bless you Rau.

 

[kozlosap]

Should your own child desire a same sex relationship, I mean a sexual relationship, how will you advise them? Will you, as a follower of Christ, advise them towards chastity, or will compassion lead you to endorse the relationship they desire?

And if your neighbour, a non-Christian, announced their forthcoming SSM, and your child asks you about it, will you explain to them the proper nature of marriage and how this departs, or will you earnestly join the celebrations?

And in light of those answers, if the State asks you “what do you understand the term marriage” to mean, what will you answer? Will the answer match what you’ve explained to your children?

And lastly, are you aware that in many jurisdictions, the civil “benefits” attached to marriage have been extended to defacto couples including same sex? Access to benefits has not been a significant driver of the call for SSM for quite some time.

Speaking as a mother, if my daughter came to me and told me she was a lesbian, I would assure her of my love and then pray that she finds a loving and awesome woman to love.
As for the second scenario, I would explain to my child that some men love women and others love men and that some women love men, and others love women. I would also explain that this is a civil marriage and not a sacramental marriage, but we should celebrate with the community because even a civil marriage means the couple wishes to be together forever which is a very good thing.

We can be as anti-gay on all issues and feed it to our kids, but as our children grow up and make friends and interact in society, they will make their own minds up about whether gay individuals are disordered or not. As a baby boomer raised by a strict Polish Catholic Dad, I was taught that “queers” we’re evil. By the time I was thirty in the 80’s, I had worked with and made close friends with several gay people and realized that sometimes my dad was dead wrong! Working in the Industry in LA, my dear Daughter has many LGBTQ friends and acquaintances and told me that several were literally disowned and thrown out of their families. I thank God that my family is not homophobic and that when my nephew told the family he was gay (during his first year in Med school), everyone laughed and asked why it took him so long to tell us. I can’t imagine what some young people must endure.

 

[Thorolfr]

Speaking as a mother, if my daughter came to me and told me she was a lesbian, I would assure her of my love and then pray that she finds a loving and awesome woman to love.
As for the second scenario, I would explain to my child that some men love women and others love men and that some women love men, and others love women. I would also explain that this is a civil marriage and not a sacramental marriage, but we should celebrate with the community because even a civil marriage means the couple wishes to be together forever which is a very good thing.

We can be as anti-gay on all issues and feed it to our kids, but as our children grow up and make friends and interact in society, they will make their own minds up about whether gay individuals are disordered or not. As a baby boomer raised by a strict Polish Catholic Dad, I was taught that “queers” we’re evil. By the time I was thirty in the 80’s, I had worked with and made close friends with several gay people and realized that sometimes my dad was dead wrong! Working in the Industry in LA, my dear Daughter has many LGBTQ friends and acquaintances and told me that several were literally disowned and thrown out of their families. I thank God that my family is not homophobic and that when my nephew told the family he was gay (during his first year in Med school), everyone laughed and asked why it took him so long to tell us. I can’t imagine what some young people must endure.

 

[edwest2]

Speaking as a mother, if my daughter came to me and told me she was a lesbian, I would assure her of my love and then pray that she finds a loving and awesome woman to love.
As for the second scenario, I would explain to my child that some men love women and others love men and that some women love men, and others love women. I would also explain that this is a civil marriage and not a sacramental marriage, but we should celebrate with the community because even a civil marriage means the couple wishes to be together forever which is a very good thing.

We can be as anti-gay on all issues and feed it to our kids, but as our children grow up and make friends and interact in society, they will make their own minds up about whether gay individuals are disordered or not. As a baby boomer raised by a strict Polish Catholic Dad, I was taught that “queers” we’re evil. By the time I was thirty in the 80’s, I had worked with and made close friends with several gay people and realized that sometimes my dad was dead wrong! Working in the Industry in LA, my dear Daughter has many LGBTQ friends and acquaintances and told me that several were literally disowned and thrown out of their families. I thank God that my family is not homophobic and that when my nephew told the family he was gay (during his first year in Med school), everyone laughed and asked why it took him so long to tell us. I can’t imagine what some young people must endure.

The Church tells us the real meaning of marriage and family. We can love our LGBT children and neighbors but we cannot approve of their behaviors, including LGBT marriage.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…I think if there had never been ill treatment of the LGBT community. If there had been genuine compassion and love offered them all along we would still be having the discussion to legalize gay marriage in a secular country. I think what would not be present is the retaliation against christian businesses and an overstepping of equality into persecution and a forcing of LGBT views. I suspect there would be no need for that if there had been love and good will all along-- instead there would be dialogue had in the aura of love and goodwill. I don’t think its to late. I wonder who has access to a love that could accomplish this.

I suspect your idea of love and compassion could only be delivered by concurring with the SSM advocates. But once SSM is established in law, all the other consequences I identified flow unavoidably. Your suggestion in reality is that the wedding photographer won’t be sued if he agrees (exercising love and compassion) to make a beautiful video to celebrate the event. The catholic bishops won’t be accused of hate speech or charged with discriminatory behaviour if (out of love and compassion) they agree to keep their views to themselves.

Ill-treatment of the past is not the cause of what you describe as “retaliation against businesses and overstepping of equality into persecution and forcing of LGBT views”. These things flow in the present from the demand that everyone must agree that SSM and marriage are the same.

 

[Rau]

Speaking as a mother, if my daughter came to me and told me she was a lesbian, I would assure her of my love and then pray that she finds a loving and awesome woman to love.

Franklinstower, who is not quite Catholic, stated he would encourage chastity instead. I applaud him for that.

As for the second scenario, I would explain to my child that some men love women and others love men and that some women love men, and others love women. I would also explain that this is a civil marriage and not a sacramental marriage, but we should celebrate with the community because even a civil marriage means the couple wishes to be together forever which is a very good thing.

As a Catholic raising a Catholic, would you also explain that marriages are sexual relationships? Would you explain why a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex is good? Would you explain why your Church is in error and you are right on this matter?

…as our children grow up and make friends and interact in society, they will make their own minds up about whether gay individuals are disordered or not.

No one describes persons experiencing SSA as disordered. You like to throw that out there regularly, and you have been corrected regularly.

 

[Thorolfr]

No one describes persons experiencing SSA as disordered. You like to throw that out there regularly, and you have been corrected regularly.

Stating that it is the inclinations of people with SSA which are disordered but not the people themselves seems like an attempt to soften Church doctrine and make it seem kinder than what it really is. But if most gay people view their sexuality as integral parts of who they are (which I believe they do), then the distinction is rather meaningless for them in any practical way.

 

[Rau]

Stating that it is the inclinations of people with SSA which are disordered but not the people themselves seems like an attempt to soften Church doctrine and make it seem kinder than what it really is. But if most gay people view their sexuality as integral parts of who they are (which I believe they do), then the distinction is rather meaningless for them in any practical way.

While I understand, I disagree. We all suffer disordered desires and commit disordered acts. None of them should define us. We are capable of knowing right from wrong, and of repenting. Perhaps it is those who choose not to repent who are the ones who seek to define themselves by their inclinations and acts?

The church teaching is neither “kind” nor “unkind”, though it may be difficult and inconvenient.