Homosexuality is not a civil right

[Bennie_P]

Bennie, either way, I salute you for your sense of fairness. You are a model for Christian employers.

What about celibate homosexuals, though?

If they are celibate then they are not homosexuals, maybe they have problem with SSA or SSA fantasys, but you are only homosexual if you practice the acts of homosexuality. IMHO.

 

[estesbob]

Bob, if you will read carefully, I said that I do not say that they are Nazis.

I even bolded it to be clear.

Would you be so kind as to re-read my post?

Well yhen why did you even bring nazis into the discussion?

 

[verdigirl]

If they are celibate then they are not homosexuals, maybe they have problem with SSA or SSA fantasys, but you are only homosexual if you practice the acts of homosexuality. IMHO.

Thanks for pointing this out. It appears that the Catechism makes consistent use of the term “homosexual acts.” It doesn’t seem to suggest that “homosexual” is a state like, say, “female.”

I need to research this a bit more, but thanks for the comment.

 

[verdigirl]

Well yhen why did you even bring nazis into the discussion?

Because I said that the precedent for persecution because of sexual orientation exists.

I also said that if you (or anyone else) could guarantee me that it would never happen here, then I’m on board all the way!

Don’t be so trigger happy, brother.

 

[Bennie_P]

Here’s the thing.

We all agree that homosexuality is disordered, right?

Regardless, there is already a precedent for discrimination against homosexuals. It’s called Nazi Germany.

I **do not say **that those who do are opposed to giving homosexuals protected status are the same as Nazis.

However, what is there to say that there aren’t Catholics among us that would simply be so horrified to find out that a long-time, loyal and productive employee is a CELIBATE CATHOLIC HOMOSEXUAL?

What protection would that employee have if the employer suspects this employee is out on the prowl, when in fact he/she is not? What recourse would this employee have?

If you can give me solid proof that this would never happen, then I’ll stand with you.

Until then, we cannot be satisfied if even one person will be persecuted.

One thing You need to understand The NAZI leadership were homosexuals and thier policies against other homosexuals was to keep them quiet politically-
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS

We have now arrived at one of the most sensitive topics in our discussion of homosexuality in Nazi Germany. As we have noted, revisionists have attempted to define homosexuals as a class of people who were “targeted for extermination” by the Nazis. One homosexual group went so far as to stage a high-profile “pilgrimage” to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem in May of 1994. They were met by a delegation of Jewish Holocaust survivors who were so overcome with outrage that some of them had to be restrained from physically assaulting the contingent of (mostly American) political activists. One man cried, “My grandfather was killed for refusing to have sexual relations with the camp commandant. You are desecrating this place…” (The Jerusalem Post, May 30, 1994).
**Yet, as we have noted, some homosexuals did in fact die in Nazi concentration camps. We do not diminish the tragedy of any life lost under the Nazi reign of terror; however, we must reject the implication that homosexuals as a class should be given moral equivalency to the Jewish people and other victims of genocide. There are five reasons why we must reject this claim of the revisionists. **
**First, we know that regardless of Himmler’s anti-homosexual rhetoric, homosexuals as a class were never targeted for extermination, as their continued role in the Third Reich demonstrates. **
**Second, those homosexuals who died did so primarily as the result of mistreatment and disease in slave-labor camps – not in the gas chambers. As reported in the Washington Blade **
John Fout, professor of history…said his research shows that about 50,000 men were imprisoned for homosexual related “offenses” by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945. Most of them, he said, were imprisoned for relatively short sentences and in regular German prisons, not concentration camps as has been generally believed (Researcher says Nazi persecution not systematic, The Washington Blade, May 22, 1998).

It was homosexuals using the law to attack other homosexuals. This is the same method that the 'gay" rights movement is using to attack those that oppose their agenda and thier immorality.

---

 

[verdigirl]

One thing You need to understand The NAZI leadership were homosexuals and thier policies against other homosexuals was to keep them quiet politically-
It was homosexuals using the law to attack other homosexuals. This is the same method that the 'gay" rights movement is using to attack those that oppose their agenda and thier immorality.

Thanks for this link…I’ll check it out.

I’m loathe to apply a blanket statement here, though. This to me sounds like rape, which is not about sex. Rape is about dominance and violence.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

We all agree that homosexuality is disordered, right?

Personally I cannot agree to that. It is just part of a person’s being and is no more “disordered” than different-gender preference people are “ordered”. Just by using that Church-approved term you are putting those people on a lower pedestal than you. They are then viewed as a second-class or lower person in many peoples’ eyes.

They are who they are and I will not look down on someone over a difference in sexual mate preference, as most people have so many other traits which show off more in their overall being/personality.

 

[estesbob]

Personally I cannot agree to that. It is just part of a person’s being and is no more “disordered” than different-gender preference people are “ordered”. Just by using that Church-approved term you are putting those people on a lower pedestal than you. They are then viewed as a second-class or lower person in many peoples’ eyes.

They are who they are and I will not look down on someone over a difference in sexual mate preference, as most people have so many other traits which show off more in their overall being/personality.

Do you also believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful?

 

[fix]

I appreciate your comments. It’s my opinion that opening up homosexuals to firing simply because of their lifestyle choice, regardless of whether is has true affect on the workplace, is akin to persecution.

Please hold on here. The choice of lifestyle is relevant depending on certain factors. It seems you minmize this as if it were some small issue? No one would know what anyone does unless it is revealed. How it is revelaed, why it is revealed, and the manner it is revealed all matter.

It opens us up to even more evil, by potentially creating an underclass of homeless people who we will ignore because we don’t approve of their lifestyle.

I have no idea how you come to such a conclusion? The evil we are talking about is the evil of recreating societal norms that will harm all of us.

Then we have the “right” to let them starve because they’re gay, when all along they could have just stayed in their jobs and kept their private lives to themselves.

This seems outlandish to me.

 

[verdigirl]

Personally I cannot agree to that. It is just part of a person’s being and is no more “disordered” than different-gender preference people are “ordered”. Just by using that Church-approved term you are putting those people on a lower pedestal than you. They are then viewed as a second-class or lower person in many peoples’ eyes.

They are who they are and I will not look down on someone over a difference in sexual mate preference, as most people have so many other traits which show off more in their overall being/personality.

This is the challenge that the label presents us. How do we refrain from discrimination and unjust behavior because of that label?

The reality is that the Church uses that term. It is unsettling to me, it rankles. I have to accept that.

It doesn’t mean that I support anyone’s discrimination because of sexual orientation. In fact, it means that I will speak out even more.

"For Zion’s sake I will not be silent, for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, Until her vindication shines forth like the dawn and her victory like a burning torch.

Nations shall behold your vindication, and all kings your glory; You shall be called by a new name pronounced by the mouth of the LORD.

You shall be a glorious crown in the hand of the LORD, a royal diadem held by your God.

No more shall men call you “Forsaken,” or your land “Desolate,” But you shall be called “My Delight,” and your land “Espoused.” For the LORD delights in you, and makes your land his spouse. "

Isaiah 62

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Do you also believe that homosexual behavior is not sinful?

As a whole, no I do not. It is just a fact of life and twist of nature. Only in a very small minority of the group does this truly define any individual (as in all subsets of humanity). Just because a person has same-gender preference does not make them more or less sinful than the rest of us (e.g. different-gender preference). Other individual personal traits define that to create the whole person.

 

[verdigirl]

Please hold on here. The choice of lifestyle is relevant depending on certain factors. It seems you minmize this as if it were some small issue? No one would know what anyone does unless it is revealed. How it is revelaed, why it is revealed, and the manner it is revealed all matter.

Believe it or not, we’re saying the same thing here. If the lifestyle is flaunted, and if it affects a company’s profitability, then sure, fire away.

But if the employer suspects and starts to dig up info and also probably violates the employee’s privacy…that’s the witch hunt that should be illegal.

Or do you condone violations of privacy?

 

[estesbob]

As a whole, no I do not. It is just a fact of life and twist of nature. Only in a very small minority of the group does this truly define any individual (as in all subsets of humanity). Just because a person has same-gender preference does not make them more or less sinful than the rest of us (e.g. different-gender preference). Other individual personal traits define that to create the whole person.

I would agree that having SSA is not sinful BUT acting on it is.

 

[estesbob]

Believe it or not, we’re saying the same thing here. If the lifestyle is flaunted, and if it affects a company’s profitability, then sure, fire away.

But if the employer suspects and starts to dig up info and also probably violates the employee’s privacy…that’s the witch hunt that should be illegal.

Or do you condone violations of privacy?

Why would an employer do this?

.

 

[verdigirl]

Why would an employer do this?

.

One would hope that they would not.

This is my point. We can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t.

 

[estesbob]

One would hope that they would not.

This is my point. We can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t.

We cant guarantee anything. That is hardly an excuse to give homosexual beahvior protected status under employment laws.

 

[verdigirl]

We cant guarantee anything. That is hardly an excuse to give homosexual beahvior protected status under employment laws.

I don’t know about that. As a minority, I appreciate having laws that prohibit discrimination because of my ethnicity.

Those laws exist precisely because there is no guarantee that I will not be discriminated against because of this. I appreciate the Jeffersonianism in these laws.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t know about that. As a minority, I appreciate having laws that prohibit discrimination because of my ethnicity.

Those laws exist precisely because there is no guarantee that I will not be discriminated against because of this. I appreciate the Jeffersonianism in these laws.

Why should those who engage in homosexual behavior be given protected status? Is it just homosexual behavior we accod this right to or ALL sexual behavios or for that fact all behaviors sexual and oherwise?

 

[verdigirl]

Why should those who engage in homosexual behavior be given protected status? Is it just homosexual behavior we accod this right to or ALL sexual behavios or for that fact all behaviors sexual and oherwise?

We’re going around in circles, and I think we should just agree to disagree, my brother.

Pax tecum!

 

[mlchance]

I don’t know about that. As a minority, I appreciate having laws that prohibit discrimination because of my ethnicity.

Those laws exist precisely because there is no guarantee that I will not be discriminated against because of this. I appreciate the Jeffersonianism in these laws.

You raise a good point, but one that is ultimately founded on a false equivalence. Being of a racial minority is not an action. It isn’t sensible to discriminate against people because of things they are rather than things they do.

Homosexual activity is, OTOH, an action. An employer who doesn’t wish to hire people who engage in particular sexual practices ought to have the right not to. For example, I teach in a Catholic school. There is zero chance the school would hire a single man known to be living with his girlfriend. Such a living arrangement is contrary to Church teaching and the school’s mission.

– Mark L. Chance.