Actually, I think that is exactly what the US goverment has listed it as. Not all hate is violent, I’m sure we’d all recoil in horror if someone defiled a consecrated host the same way most of society does when they come out with some of their more…err…“controversial” publications.I appreciate the rest of your post, but no, the Family Research Council is not a ‘hate group.’ Not unless they’re out in peaked robes burning crosses on people’s lawns or something that is actually based on ‘hate.’
Bollucks. One can make the argument that many in the company already didn’t like that guy, but one cannot argue that the LGBT community didn’t demand and get his corporate head over his previous support for Prop 8.With the exception of Mozilla’s scandal, most of these large-scale boycotts have stronger underlying issues behind them besides same-sex marriage (although Mozilla’s CEO was forced out by the tech industry, not by the LGBT community).
The Southern Poverty Law Center is not empowered to speak for the US government, thank goodness. Their standards are such that anyone who believes what the catholic church does and encourages others to have similar beliefs is a member of a “hate group.”Actually, I think that is exactly what the US goverment has listed it as. Not all hate is violent, I’m sure we’d all recoil in horror if someone defiled a consecrated host the same way most of society does when they come out with some of their more…err…“controversial” publications.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is not empowered to speak for the US government, thank goodness. Their standards are such that anyone who believes what the catholic church does and encourages others to have similar beliefs is a member of a “hate group.”
In short, they’ve become a self-discrediting organization.
Thanks so much for posting the link to this video! I also found it to be very compelling and an important glimpse into the emotions of those experiencing same sex attraction. Thank God for the safe harbor for all that is our Catholic Church. We need to pray that people troubled by their same sex attraction will make their way to the Catholic Church.There was a thread that posted this video earlier today. I don’t have the thread up here, but I do have the page open in another tab. You can give it a watch and see if it might help you relate to your brother, and help him relate to your faith. I personally found it very compelling and it opened my eyes to a lot of the internal struggle that some people experience.
vimeo.com/93079367
Thanks for the clarification. I’m not defending FRC specifically here. Frankly, their approach and worldview is a bit too militaristically Calvinist for my tastes myself and though I’ve hardly studied the issue in detail, I’d not be surprised if that fact affects their public statements and policies. I’ve not dog in that particular hunt.
- The family research council does not believe what the Catholic church does.
Thank you for this viewpoint!!Catholics, of course, should see through that nonsense. Homosexual inclinations may be disordered, but so is extra-marital lust and what married man hasn’t had to fight off THAT inclination? We’re sinners. We ALL have disordered inclinations. Gay people aren’t in a specially heinous class.
That’s the message I’d focus on with the OP’s brother. Make sure he knows you love HIM and the he is so much more than that one aspect of his personality. You two don’t agree on that one, but it doesn’t reduce your brotherhood. You don’t disagree with him because he disgusts you, you disagree with him because you’re convinced that acting out on that inclination will be harmful to him in the long run. Teach him with your life to reject the new scapegoat and to see people, not strawmen.
I definitely think we should be able to support pro-marriage causes (and pro-life causes) without retribution; I agree with you. But you have to be careful when donating; make sure that the organization you’re donating to isn’t one that is going to do something contrary to Catholic teaching. For example, would you donate to the Westboro Baptist Church just because they oppose same-sex marriage? Pro-life causes tend to be significantly less likely to support things opposed to Church teaching, though you should still be careful that the pro-life charity you’re supporting doesn’t support contraception.Thanks for reminding me what the whole CFA thing was about. I had forgotten. I do believe we should be able to financially support causes that protect traditional marriage, unborn babies, etc without recourse. We should be able to have free speech and thought, but it doesn’t seem like we do. Bakeries and photographers are ostrasized for their decisions and personal beliefs and billionaires have to be careful all the way down the line.
Why does society treat those who believe in traditional marriage and the protection of unborn babies the same way as those who are racist? I love my brother and I hate that he’s hurting. He and many other believe the RCC is out to get them and I’m no apologetic. I haven’t been put on the spot yet but surely I will one day. I will be praying about this and waiting for God’s answer. I suspect He will want to practice the act of mercy more often. There are plenty of people who need it. Maybe one day I will get a degree in theology.
I’ll be watching that video too. Thanks everyone.
It is hard for me, even in the most charitable of mindsets, to assume that an organization that spends day-in, day-out warning people that gay people are trying to rape their children and/or “convert them” to homosexuality is anything but a hate group. Can you not see how violence against gay people could get incited by quotes like the following?I appreciate the rest of your post, but no, the Family Research Council is not a ‘hate group.’ Not unless they’re out in peaked robes burning crosses on people’s lawns or something that is actually based on ‘hate.’
“Family Research Council” said:“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”
“Family Research Council” said:“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
“Family Research Council” said:“The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
The U.S. government internally classifies any organization it finds politically threatening as “terrorists” or “extremist”. And yet, it is the government that does most of the killing. My point being that I wouldn’t put too much stock in such government labeling.Actually, I think that is exactly what the US goverment has listed it as. Not all hate is violent, I’m sure we’d all recoil in horror if someone defiled a consecrated host the same way most of society does when they come out with some of their more…err…“controversial” publications.
This, and the entire rest of the associated post, is absolutely perfect.Unfortunately, a lot of good people have been duped into thinking that their tendencies and sexual activities are natural and healthy and should be respected and endorsed. They have been taught that they are the victims of bigotry if anyone disagrees with that assertion.
That has to do with the fact that the legality of gay marriage affects LGB (and to some extent T) people on a personal level whereas for other people it doesn’t.I think that the below says it nicely:
You don’t have to start conversations about this topic, but it sounds like he will. Whatever he says always be kind but always say the truth. You must accept that he will be hurt and offended by your beliefs because they are different from his. Which brings us to this:
I immediately thought the same thing. Is he worried that his beliefs on SSM are offensive and hurtful to you, and that believing differently AND pushing for these beliefs he is causing you some pain? My guess is that not. The way things are now, SSM supporters seem to believe that tolerance and respect only go one way. Please don’t be sucked into their rhetoric of victimhood and dance to this tune. It is perfectly fine to point out to people that tolerance and respect must go both ways and that you expect that from family members, no matter what the point of disagreement is. That is how mature people behave.
You should still pay attention to who you donate to.Thanks for reminding me what the whole CFA thing was about. I had forgotten. I do believe we should be able to financially support causes that protect traditional marriage, unborn babies, etc without recourse. We should be able to have free speech and thought, but it doesn’t seem like we do. Bakeries and photographers are ostrasized for their decisions and personal beliefs and billionaires have to be careful all the way down the line.
Why does society treat those who believe in traditional marriage and the protection of unborn babies the same way as those who are racist? I love my brother and I hate that he’s hurting. He and many other believe the RCC is out to get them and I’m no apologetic. I haven’t been put on the spot yet but surely I will one day. I will be praying about this and waiting for God’s answer. I suspect He will want to practice the act of mercy more often. There are plenty of people who need it. Maybe one day I will get a degree in theology.
I’ll be watching that video too. Thanks everyone.
In England the bishops pushed for decriminalization of gay sex in the 1950s.Well…what did you really expect? Him to jump for joy and do cartwheels? I’m glad that you’ve found God, but this part isn’t going to be an easy ride. You’ve signed up to an organization where the Bishops routinely proclaim homosexuals to be disordered, moved by the father of lies or child abusers if they ever get one of their own and openly consort with Ugandan officials who’d rather see Homosexuals dead than converted. As loving and hateful of the sin rather than the sinner Catholics might see this, I’m afraid the vast majority of the secular world will see it as a mixture of condescension and hypocrisy.
Honestly, I can only advise what I myself did with gay friends while I myself was a good ultra-orthodox catholic; avoid the topic like the plague and just try and set an example. Those who seek guidance will ask and be moved by a display of christian virtue I’m sure. It was somewhat effective, I don’t believe any of them ever came to agree with me (I no longer hold this view) but it certainly didn’t invoke any hate towards the Catholic church.
Actually, I think that is exactly what the US goverment has listed it as. Not all hate is violent, I’m sure we’d all recoil in horror if someone defiled a consecrated host the same way most of society does when they come out with some of their more…err…“controversial” publications.
I don’t see how war illegitimizes the US.The U.S. government internally classifies any organization it finds politically threatening as “terrorists” or “extremist”. And yet, it is the government that does most of the killing. My point being that I wouldn’t put too much stock in such government labeling.
They absolutely did, and I’m sure they were grateful for that. This in itself however is a point the tends to baffle both secular society and the rest of the Christian world..
In England the bishops pushed for decriminalization of gay sex in the 1950s.
.
So…An organization that makes it their mission in life to brand 5-10% of the population as the child molesting demonic agents of the devil who need to be wiped off the face of the earth aren’t extremists or a hate group?The U.S. government internally classifies any organization it finds politically threatening as “terrorists” or “extremist”. And yet, it is the government that does most of the killing. My point being that I wouldn’t put too much stock in such government labeling.
How is this a strange stance to take? Are people not born with all sorts of predispositions that are “free to do”, but would not be considered “good things to actually do”?To allow for the existence of something, only to condemn the said object or persons for preforming upon that which they are now free to do seems a very strange stance to take. It’s like putting a cake in front of somone, but threatening to punch them if they eat it.
Clergy in the US and Australia also supported decriminalization, as does an Indian Cardinal on the Pope’s Council of Advisors.They absolutely did, and I’m sure they were grateful for that. This in itself however is a point the tends to baffle both secular society and the rest of the Christian world.
One can not be be blamed for unbidden desires, only actions.I quite understand the divide and difference between possessing a desire (Homosexual desires) and acting upon it (finding a partner) but almost everyone else I’ve ever asked or explained this to finds this to be “Hypocritical” or “Two faced” (there’s never been any other words used to describe it).
No, it’s saying that while it is wrong that does not mean it is something that requires the law to punish, see the lack of Church support for laws punishing masturbation and also the tolerance of prostitution in the Middle Ages.To allow for the existence of something, only to condemn the said object or persons for preforming upon that which they are now free to do seems a very strange stance to take. It’s like putting a cake in front of somone, but threatening to punch them if they eat it.
It’s actually 3-5% including bisexuals, but the FRC is certainly a hate group given how prominent defaming LGBT is on their agenda.So…An organization that makes it their mission in life to brand 5-10% of the population as the child molesting demonic agents of the devil who need to be wiped off the face of the earth aren’t extremists or a hate group?
Odd, I could use the same mission statement to quite accurately describe some of the activities of Al-Quaeda, the Klu Klux Klan or the Taliban.
I don’t see how war illegitimizes the US.
I was making a general statement about the U.S. government’s credibility when it comes to making these assessments. They are not impartial nor do they have any moral authority to make such statements.So…An organization that makes it their mission in life to brand 5-10% of the population as the child molesting demonic agents of the devil who need to be wiped off the face of the earth aren’t extremists or a hate group?
Odd, I could use the same mission statement to quite accurately describe some of the activities of Al-Quaeda, the Klu Klux Klan or the Taliban.
I’m afraid this is a terribly weak argument to link per-dispositions to drug use (if they even do exist, I’m personally doubtful) to homosexuality.How is this a strange stance to take? Are people not born with all sorts of predispositions that are “free to do”, but would not be considered “good things to actually do”?
People are born with predispositions to addictions, mental illnesses, medical problems, etc. Yet we would not condone liberal heroin use or excessive gambling, we see depression as a problem (while some people with it are, for example, intensely creative) and look down on those who have it, or those who don’t get treatment for it. We expect people with celiac’s disease to NOT eat gluten-rich products. Etc.
Thus, it is NOT a “strange stance”, it is perfectly legitimate. What it ultimately comes down to is that one group believes acting on homosexual impulses is immoral, and another believes it’s fine. They are actually both legitimate positions, if they are based on consideration of conscience and not just on a visceral response to thinking about something. I feel for homosexuals, but I do not agree that they “have no choice”.
See the line at the top of the page that I quoted. It says it well.
Your position is that it does not make sense for a group to “allow for the existence” of some predisposition, and yet forbid a person from acting on this predisposition.Homosexuals on the other hand can pop up anytime, anywhere. And unlike alcoholics, often develop their urges without any outside provocation. Indeed, thanks to how society reacts to them they quite often go out of their way to suppress them (at first).