Homosexuality 777 (Adv. class)

[chiroworks]

WOW! Would you allow me to do a paper on you and your thoughts. Please.
Wait until you meet Jesus. This situation we are faced with, can only be dealt with by prayer and fasting. I will start now. Be at peace my friend. Yes I really would like to do the paper.
Your stats could not be anymore wrong. There is more mortal sin on the internet alone than there has been in the entire world since the start of time. That is just the internet!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Thank you, I was not talking about posters. I was talking about one post. It made an accurate assesment of what many posts on here look like to a reader not steeped in a certain brand of peity.

I don not, myself, see into or wish to see into anyone;s thinking process as a story line they tell themselves. But I do know that that is waht we do until we wake up: tell ourselves a stoyr about who we are and what we believe. And that is what belief means: living as if. **And if you or anyoone take the trouble to look at that magnificient toool God gave you to think with, and discover whose driving, instead of letting it run on habits you mistakenly call thinking, you might discover something rather celestial about yourself. **That is a huge compliment, not an insult or a criticism, so don’t makre it into something it isn’t.

Nothing I’ve based anything I myself have said is based on anything privileged or private o occult (???) in the sense that anyone else doesn’t have acces to it. Anyone has access to thier inner workings if they look. But most people look at their thought train as “reality,”:hop on, and go for the ride that takes them on. Most folks act as if they think that their thoughts and perceptions have a 1/1 correspondence to reality, and even accdept a desctiption of “reality” they themselves didn’t discover, but were given, and never question it. And if they do, they question it in the terms of the model they have accepted, not from outside it. So naturally ther is conflict, both within and with others.

And if your character that you animate did fall over and you got to look at it, **you might think diferently about it thatn you do while you are wearing it as a costume. **Some parts, of course, are very good. Others, you may not see so clearly because of proximity. That is why we have mirrors, even if we choose not to use them.

So I’m happy that you are fired up. It means you have energy you can use. How you do that is up to you. And like me, having had, actually a very wonderful day yesterday (! ) I hope you have one too. I don’t understand why you think I think the worst of everyone, as I do not. Each one is made in the image and likeness of God. What we cover that with, however, is a different story, a story we tell ourselves. That is what we might take a closer lookd at in the light of what is underneath. But first you have to look at what is doing the looking.

Thanks for taking your time to comment!

Gee, don’t others just love it when you condescend to come down from your high place and tell them your insights…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Nothing I’ve based anything I myself have said is based on anything privileged or private o occult (???)

The poster you praised so much as being “100% accurate” has submitted post after post claiming she has special insight (“occult” just means “hidden”) into the motivations of complete strangers — motivations which are not apparent in other people’s posts, and are often in fact proven to be opposite from what she regularly assumes. So if you think that the post you praised was “100% accurate” then you also believe that both you and she have superior, super-human knowledge not given to the rest of us mere struggling Christians, Catholics, and other believers and non-believers. If you’re going to form absolute alliances with people who make absolutist statements, get ready to take the heat for all of her hyperbole.

I don’t understand why you think I think the worst of everyone, as I do not.

Again, you allied yourself 100% with her statements, and those statements of hers (which echo many other negative statements about fellow human beings) reflect very poorly on her opinions of others regarding their private viewpoints. God alone judges what is in the heart of an individual; and to God alone is the power to predict how an individual will and will not behave. That (occult) power has not been granted to human beings. For her, or anyone, to state that she “JUST KNOWS” how a group of parents at a school will or will not behave, and how CAF posters do and do not think (based on which threads they merely contribute to!) is both offensive and lacks credibility, no matter how many capital letters are used. And for another poster to “agree 100%” puts that poster in the same mindframe of judgment and condemnation

You don’t know me. Both of you need to quit pretending that you know how posters “think” and “feel,” because that violates forum rules, as has been said several times now. You know only what a poster states that he or she thinks or feels, directly. You may also conclude what a poster possibly logically thinks or feels based on specific statements he or she has made, and only based on those logical steps. But the only way to determine if you have concluded correctly is to ask the poster directly for clarification.

And no one has any right to “conclude” that posting frequency on CAF topics is in itself a window into how that poster “thinks,” “feels,” behaves outside of CAF (with regard to that topic and other topics), or supposedly ‘can be predicted to behave’ outside of CAF. It’s all ridiculous and offensive. Got it?

 

[LaSainte]

The poster you praised so much as being “100% accurate” has submitted post after post claiming she has special insight (“occult” just means “hidden”) into the motivations of complete strangers — motivations which are not apparent in other people’s posts, and are often in fact proven to be opposite from what she regularly assumes. So if you think that the post you praised was “100% accurate” then you also believe that both you and she have superior, super-human knowledge not given to the rest of us mere struggling Christians, Catholics, and other believers and non-believers. If you’re going to form absolute alliances with people who make absolutist statements, get ready to take the heat for all of her hyperbole.

Again, you allied yourself 100% with her statements, and those statements of hers (which echo many other negative statements about fellow human beings) reflect very poorly on her opinions of others regarding their private viewpoints. God alone judges what is in the heart of an individual; and to God alone is the power to predict how an individual will and will not behave. That (occult) power has not been granted to human beings. For her, or anyone, to state that she “JUST KNOWS” how a group of parents at a school will or will not behave, and how CAF posters do and do not think (based on which threads they merely contribute to!) is both offensive and lacks credibility, no matter how many capital letters are used. And for another poster to “agree 100%” puts that poster in the same mindframe of judgment and condemnation

You don’t know me. Both of you need to quit pretending that you know how posters “think” and “feel,” because that violates forum rules, as has been said several times now. You know only what a poster states that he or she thinks or feels, directly. You may also conclude what a poster possibly logically thinks or feels based on specific statements he or she has made, and only based on those logical steps. But the only way to determine if you have concluded correctly is to ask the poster directly for clarification.

And no one has any right to “conclude” that posting frequency on CAF topics is in itself a window into how that poster “thinks,” “feels,” behaves outside of CAF (with regard to that topic and other topics), or supposedly ‘can be predicted to behave’ outside of CAF. It’s all ridiculous and offensive. Got it?

Since you are so opposed to people making conjectures on why you post on pretty much every thread related to homosexuality, why don’t you just come out and tell us why you are so interested in the subject?

This goes for everyone who frequently posts on the topic of homosexuality-please share why you are so invested in the issue.

I tend to post about things that affect me personally and directly, so beig a woman who struggles with the Church’s stance on contraception, I post on those topics frequently. I am less interested in topics such as masturbation because it is not a subject that really affects my life, although I will occasionally post on certain subjects if The thread is particularly interesting, but I generally stick to things that affect me immediately.

So if anyone would care to share why they are particularly interested in this topic, I would love to know.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Since you are so opposed to people making conjectures on why you post on pretty much every thread related to homosexuality, why don’t you just come out and tell us why you are so interested in the subject?

This goes for everyone who frequently posts on the topic of homosexuality-please share why you are so invested in the issue.

I tend to post about things that affect me personally and directly, so beig a woman who struggles with the Church’s stance on contraception, I post on those topics frequently. I am less interested in topics such as masturbation because it is not a subject that really affects my life, although I will occasionally post on certain subjects if The thread is particularly interesting, but I generally stick to things that affect me immediately.

So if anyone would care to share why they are particularly interested in this topic, I would love to know.

You go first.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Since you are so opposed to people making conjectures on why you post on pretty much every thread related to homosexuality, why don’t you just come out and tell us why you are so interested in the subject?

~1- First of all, you have again violated forum rules by challenging the right of posters to post on open threads, as if they need your permission and approval, or as if they need to disclose what in fact their interest is. Are you a moderator? If so, you need to share with us this new position, heretofore kept a secret. On what authority do you singularly seize the privilege of demanding why people are interested in posting on any particular thread?

~2- My overall answer lies without secrecy in the Bishops’ documents, which either you are not well acquainted with, do not understand (how they apply to your own Catholic responsibility, and mine) or whose content and implications you reject. I have stated several times that you need to examine these documents (linked in the Social Justice forum), along with their Faithful Citizenship document (lilnked in the News forum), to understand why Catholics who are not homosexual themselves have a legitimate interest and responsibility regarding the issues. Not the behavior, but the legislation. (Huge difference.) And I refuse to do other people’s reading and quoting for them, when they are too lazy to do that for themselves.

~3- While you are so busy tabulating “how many” threads on the topic I contribute to, you have apparently not bothered to examine the content of my posts, none of which do any of the actions you abundantly accuse others of, and assume “must be their motivation” in posting. There is no suggestion in my long posting history since 2008 (which, again, long preceded your membership) that I am terribly interested (let alone “obsessed”) with what people of either gender do in their bedrooms in a free society. In fact, had you bothered to exercise patience in reading those posts, you would see how often I affirm the right of private behavior and free association, which is guaranteed under our Constitution. That includes the right to engage in group sex, orgies, “open marriages,” and various varieties of sin.

One thing you have serious trouble distinguishing, is debate about societal institutions and the implications of those, versus the subject of sin. You draw the inappropriate conclusion on thread after thread, that people who disagree with you must be overly concerned with other people’s “sins.” You have no justification for such a conclusion or presumption, regardless of the frequency with which you allege it.

I tend to post about things that affect me personally and directly.

I agree with our Bishops – even if you don’t – that the redefinition of the basic institution of society (marriage) affects us all, personally and directly. If you don’t understand that, or are unwilling to engage with their documents, I can’t help you, nor frankly should I have to.

 

[LaSainte]

~1- First of all, you have again violated forum rules by challenging the right of posters to post on open threads, as if they need your permission and approval, or as if they need to disclose what in fact their interest is. Are you a moderator? If so, you need to share with us this new position, heretofore kept a secret. On what authority do you singularly seize the privilege of demanding why people are interested in posting on any particular thread?

~2- My overall answer lies without secrecy in the Bishops’ documents, which either you are not well acquainted with, do not understand (how they apply to your own Catholic responsibility, and mine) or whose content and implications you reject. I have stated several times that you need to examine these documents (linked in the Social Justice forum), along with their Faithful Citizenship document (lilnked in the News forum), to understand why Catholics who are not homosexual themselves have a legitimate interest and responsibility regarding the issues. Not the behavior, but the legislation. (Huge difference.) And I refuse to do other people’s reading and quoting for them, when they are too lazy to do that for themselves.

~3- While you are so busy tabulating “how many” threads on the topic I contribute to, you have apparently not bothered to examine the content of my posts, none of which do any of the actions you abundantly accuse others of, and assume “must be their motivation” in posting. There is no suggestion in my long posting history since 2008 (which, again, long preceded your membership) that I am terribly interested (let alone “obsessed”) with what people of either gender do in their bedrooms in a free society. In fact, had you bothered to exercise patience in reading those posts, you would see how often I affirm the right of private behavior and free association, which is guaranteed under our Constitution. That includes the right to engage in group sex, orgies, “open marriages,” and various varieties of sin.

One thing you have serious trouble distinguishing, is debate about societal institutions and the implications of those, versus the subject of sin. You draw the inappropriate conclusion on thread after thread, that people who disagree with you must be overly concerned with other people’s “sins.” You have no justification for such a conclusion or presumption, regardless of the frequency with which you allege it.

I agree with our Bishops – even if you don’t – that the redefinition of the basic institution of society (marriage) affects us all, personally and directly. If you don’t understand that, or are unwilling to engage with their documents, I can’t help you, nor frankly should I have to.

Firstly, I never “demanded” to know your motivations for posting as often as you do on forums about homosexuality; I merely stated that I would like to know why this particular topic interests you and other frequent posters on the topic to such an extent.

Secondly, I am sure that what the Bishops have to say on the subject of creeping homosexuality is incredibly fascinating, however, your recourse to them does not answer my question at all. No doubt they have expounded upon numerous social and moral issues, from poverty to mental illness to affordable healthcare (ALL of which affect far more people on a daily basis) yet I have not noticed that you (or others here) attack these topics with quite the fervor and frequency with which you do the subject of homosexuality. I suppose it is possible that you simply wrote all of these issues down on a piece of paper, threw them into a hat and pulled one or two out on which to focus your efforts, but I doubt it (sorry, am I overstepping here by making that assumption?).

All of this will naturally lead one to wonder from whence your interest in the topic came. Of course, nobody here is obligated in any way to divulge their motivations here, but then they cannot be surprised if someone senses a latent prejudice or at the very least a morbid fascination concerning homosexuality.

 

[LaSainte]

You go first.

I did. My interest stems from what I saw as a personal prejudice against someone I know. I then noticed how many of the posters on my thread are actually frequent posters on the subject of homosexuality, and I wondered why.

 

[Gaber]

I did. My interest stems from what I saw as a personal prejudice against someone I know. I then noticed how many of the posters on my thread are actually frequent posters on the subject of homosexuality, and I wondered why.

Wat’s funny is that many folks who are so vilolently against it turn out that they were fighting a loosing battle with their actual sexual orientation. As Dorothy Parkers said, “Heterosexuality is not normal; it’s just common.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I did. My interest stems from what I saw as a personal prejudice against someone I know. I then noticed how many of the posters on my thread are actually frequent posters on the subject of homosexuality, and I wondered why.

Why? It’s because Catholic Answers attracts a lot of posters who come here with an agenda. The numerous “Why is homosexuality wrong” types of posts need to be addressed over and over and over, ad infinitum. So we do, in a charitable way. We stress what our Church teaches, which is that homosexual acts are gravely sinful, but that we must treat homosexuals with kindness. Not in tolerance of their sin, but in recognition of their cross of same sex attraction.

The frequency of posts corresponds to the repetitive posting of pro-homosexual threads. The moderators have been approached about some sort of response to this continued disruption, but so far, no solution has been reached. Many of us are tired of having to go through the subject endlessly.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did. My interest stems from what I saw as a personal prejudice against someone I know. I then noticed how many of the posters on my thread are actually frequent posters on the subject of homosexuality, and I wondered why.

Except that you drew entirely inaccurate and unsubstantiated conclusions from your “research.” You lacked the discipline to investigate that (for example) my own responses on your “sad gay teacher” thread were in fact contrary to the content and tone of many of the posters on your thread, regardless of how many other threads about the topic I have and have not participated in. You stereotyped, and your stereotypes were false, with regard to me at the very least.

Ditto (as I’ve already illustrated) for the nature of my postings on other threads on the subject, broadly. You mistakenly assumed that people who post on such threads with some frequency are concerned about (a) other people’s sins, and/or (b) controlling the behavior of others – neither of which is true about me (demonstrably, reading my posts either individually or comprehesively), and which is similarly untrue about most of the people who post on threads regarding homosexual issues in society.

(Don’t quit your day job.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Firstly, I never “demanded” to know your motivations for posting as often as you do on forums about homosexuality; I merely stated that I would like to know why this particular topic interests you and other frequent posters on the topic to such an extent.

Questions asked repeatedly, with hyperbolic emphases, with capital letters, and with relentless frequency, can be interpreted by a normal person to be demands for responses.

Secondly, I am sure that what the Bishops have to say on the subject of creeping homosexuality is incredibly fascinating, however, your recourse to them does not answer my question at all.

Proving transparently that you refuse to read their documents. (You say “you’re sure,” so clearly you have no interest in reading your own Church’s documents.) Secondly, if you had read them, you would understand my thinking precisely. I don’t have to repost this Catholic thnking for you on this thread so that you are relieved of doing your due diligence when you ask provocative questions with answers which are availalbe with very little work. Every Catholic has a responsibility by virtue of their Confirmation to continue their adult education, not just with regard to settled, tradiitonal dogma, but also with regard to Church positions on contemporary issues. Stop asking other people, over & over, to do your work for you.

Read the documents, as well as Professor Robert George’s outstanding treatise, What Is Marriage? and all your questions will be answered. I can’t stand laziness in educated people; really I can’t.

No doubt they have expounded upon numerous social and moral issues, from poverty to mental illness to affordable healthcare (ALL of which affect far more people on a daily basis) yet I have not noticed that you (or others here) attack these topics with quite the fervor and frequency with which you do the subject of homosexuality.

It is one of my fervent issues, given that mariage (do you actually even get that yet? – marriage, not “homosexuality”) is a radical building block of society. And further proof that you refuse to actually “do research,” as you amusingly call it, is that you have done no investigation into what other subjects I post on, passionately, which include another building block of society (education). There are several other topics which engage me, but why should I continue to do your footwork for you?

All of this will naturally lead one to wonder from whence your interest in the topic came. Of course, nobody here is obligated in any way to divulge their motivations here, but then they cannot be surprised if someone senses a latent prejudice or at the very least a morbid fascination concerning homosexuality.

What anybody reading your posts could conclude is that it seems that you, not others, have the “morbid fascination” (about the interior dispositions of others). You cannot accuse me of that with any credibility whatsoever, even though you uncharitably continue to do so.

And I ask you again, who appointed you moderator, and/or spiritual director of CAF posters, with special insight into their souls, or with the right to evaluate whether their motivations pass your requirement for positng privileges on particular topics?

 

[LaSainte]

Questions asked repeatedly, with hyperbolic emphases, with capital letters, and with relentless frequency, can be interpreted by a normal person to be demands for responses.

Proving transparently that you refuse to read their documents. (You say “you’re sure,” so clearly you have no interest in reading your own Church’s documents.) Secondly, if you had read them, you would understand my thinking precisely. I don’t have to repost this Catholic thnking for you on this thread so that you are relieved of doing your due diligence when you ask provocative questions with answers which are availalbe with very little work. Every Catholic has a responsibility by virtue of their Confirmation to continue their adult education, not just with regard to settled, tradiitonal dogma, but also with regard to Church positions on contemporary issues. Stop asking other people, over & over, to do your work for you.

Read the documents, as well as Professor Robert George’s outstanding treatise, What Is Marriage? and all your questions will be answered. I can’t stand laziness in educated people; really I can’t.

It is one of my fervent issues, given that mariage (do you actually even get that yet? – marriage, not “homosexuality”) is a radical building block of society. And further proof that you refuse to actually “do research,” as you amusingly call it, is that you have done no investigation into what other subjects I post on, passionately, which include another building block of society (education). There are several other topics which engage me, but why should I continue to do your footwork for you?

What anybody reading your posts could conclude is that it seems that you, not others, have the “morbid fascination” (about the interior dispositions of others). You cannot accuse me of that with any credibility whatsoever, even though you uncharitably continue to do so.

And I ask you again, who appointed you moderator, and/or spiritual director of CAF posters, with special insight into their souls, or with the right to evaluate whether their motivations pass your requirement for positng privileges on particular topics?

No, I have not read, nor do I intend to read the Bishops’ thoughts on homosexual marriage and activity and what I, your humble layperson, can do to stop it. They and you can choose to believe that there is some massive collective harm done to society every time a gay person comes out of the closet or “marries” his or her life partner.

I have far more pressing concerns than the choice of a minute percentage of the population to marry or have sex with each other. It is truly one of the things I am least concerned about. Talk about not being a threat-gays cannot reproduce and their condition is not contagious. It is an anomaly that occurs in a tiny portion of the population and it dies with them. Straight people have done far more to devalue and ridicule marriage than gays ever could.

I do find your insistence that all gays keep their homosexuality private to be unrealistic, especially considering the fact that in their eyes, they are doing nothing wrong. Do you have any idea how many conversations I have with complete strangers that have sentences that begin, “My husband…” or “My kids…”. Insisting that a person cut out all references to their personal lives in everyday conversation is just bizarre, and would be nearly impossible for most people.

At any rate, me being as concerned as you are about gays would be like me spending hours on end posting about the need to stop the Madagascar hissing cockroach from getting out of control. No, they are not my favorite thing, and when I see them on television I do get a little creeped out, but I’m much more worried about the poisonous spiders in my own backyard. It would be silly and pointless for me to do otherwise.

 

[Gaber]

Gee, don’t others just love it when you condescend to come down from your high place and tell them your insights…

Either they are happy or they react. They are not my insights in the sense that I peronally invented them, though what I said are conclusions I’ve reached from observation. You can do that too. It is just how the mind works. If you look at your own long enough with a sufficient degree of sincerity, you will find from your own expereince that you would come to agree with me. Strangely, about the last thing we do as humans is critically examin how it is that we know what we think we know.

It is called “epistemology.” I’m sure that you have heard of it. Perhaps you haven’t taken full advantage of its possibilities. Or, also, perhaps you have not found the “off” switch for your discursive mind, and therefore don’t have the marked advantage of reasoning from a premise and perspective that the vast majority of folks don’t include through lack of such experience. I guarantee that you are not whom you think you are. Or, you might say that “all there is to ‘you’ is the thoughts that make ‘you’ up.” You just haven’t discovered that yet.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Either they are happy or they react. They are not my insights in the sense that I peronally invented them, though what I said are conclusions I’ve reached from observation. You can do that too. It is just how the mind works. If you look at your own long enough with a sufficient degree of sincerity, you will find from your own expereince that you would come to agree with me. Strangely, about the last thing we do as humans is critically examin how it is that we know what we think we know.

It is called “epistemology.” I’m sure that you have heard of it. Perhaps you haven’t taken full advantage of its possibilities. Or, also, perhaps you have not found the “off” switch for your discursive mind, and therefore don’t have the marked advantage of reasoning from a premise and perspective that the vast majority of folks don’t include through lack of such experience. I guarantee that you are not whom you think you are. Or, you might say that “all there is to ‘you’ is the thoughts that make ‘you’ up.” You just haven’t discovered that yet.

:yawn:

Meh.

Have fun with that.

 

[Gaber]

:yawn:

Meh.

Have fun with that.

Hey, thanks! As I said.

When you meet the Real Juliane, let me know.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You write with certitude with this

Yes, but many of these people are not, nor we’re they ever Catholic. They don’t necessarily come from a background where homosexuality is considered a sin. **Their consciences are 100% clear.

… A great number of people simply aren’t convinced that God disapproves of their actions. **…

from this basis, a sampling of one?

… My interest stems from what I saw as a personal prejudice against someone I know. …

Unless, you can explain or articulate better, the reader is led to understand another example of your use of gross over-generalization or exaggeration, and proneness to emotionalism.

A question, if you really can cite a credible source that “a great number of people” who engage in homosexual acts don’t believe they are sinning, with “100% clear consciences”:
Does it occur to you that is convenient justification on behalf of active homosexuals of going against natural law, of denial of “the law that is written in the hearts of men”?
If you disbelieve on an internal voice, a conscience that is being numbed but not completely erased by a way of life, consider a fact, along with a cited study. It is a fact that the Netherlands has the most if not one of the most open liberal societies, the first in the world to legalize gay ‘marriage’ in 2001, nearly eleven years ago. Yet, the homosexual population there five years following legalization still showed to be at risk for major depression and suicide. Source: Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between Men and Women in a General Population-Based Sample From The Netherlands 2006. Ron de Graaf, Theo G. M. Sandfort and Margreet ten Have.
,

 

[buffalo]

[REDEEMING THE RAINBOW

A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6fGBPFm16A2VUtOdEh1Q3U0Qlk/edit)

A comprehensive but easy-to-understand textbook for Christians and other defenders of
God’s design for family and society which explains in detail 1) the nature, causes and
characteristics of homosexual dysfunction and militancy, 2) the history, philosophy, goals, methods and strategies of the global “gay” movement, 3) the urgent, escalating and imminent danger this movement represents to all aspects of Christian civilization throughout the world, and 4) specific, practical principles for responding to each of the many areas of “gay” aggression – all firmly grounded in and supported by both Scripture and non-religious logical analysis, documentation and terminology.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Either they are happy or they react. They are not my insights in the sense that I peronally invented them, though what I said are conclusions I’ve reached from observation. You can do that too. It is just how the mind works. If you look at your own long enough with a sufficient degree of sincerity, you will find from your own expereince that you would come to agree with me. Strangely, about the last thing we do as humans is critically examin how it is that we know what we think we know.

It is called “epistemology.” I’m sure that you have heard of it. Perhaps you haven’t taken full advantage of its possibilities. Or, also, perhaps you have not found the “off” switch for your discursive mind, and therefore don’t have the marked advantage of reasoning from a premise and perspective that the vast majority of folks don’t include through lack of such experience. I guarantee that you are not whom you think you are. Or, you might say that “all there is to ‘you’ is the thoughts that make ‘you’ up.” You just haven’t discovered that yet.

Somewhere above in one of your posts challenging one of our very best and knowledgeable posters of other defenses she can “throw up.” Very unseemly, indeed.

You give a sprinkling of like posts in this forum including this. Good grief, Gaber. Are you one masterless samurai who could can use some mooring to obtain a cohesive philosophy? Methinks you are ronin, ronin down the river, to be lost at sea.

You must feel lucky to find a Catholic forum where you feel at home utilizing condescension of its Catholic posting membership.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Wat’s funny is that many folks who are so vilolently against it turn out that they were fighting a loosing battle with their actual sexual orientation. As Dorothy Parkers said, “Heterosexuality is not normal; it’s just common.”

I hope you are not bringing up and mixing the Christian tele-evangelicals like Ted Haggard with Catholic leaders or those who speak from the pulpit. Even the priests who committed sexual (homosexual and pedophiliac) sins did not conduct themselves in such a manner you describe. There is no Catholic preacher known to be violently against (homosexuality) but turned out to be battling their actual condition, while asking for donations in a public medium.

As far as your interjecting the wise crack of writer, poet and satirist Dorothy Parker, I would think she spoke from bitter personal experience. Check her bio. She married Alan Campbell, an actor with aspirations of being a screenwriter. Like Parker, he was half-Jewish and half-Scottish. He was reputed to be bisexual—indeed, Parker claimed in public that he was “queer as a billy goat”.

Her comment would be an over-generalization, which is a poor method we see used sparingly in these threads.