I work with many gays, how would you respond?

[AndyF]

CHCatholic:

Thinking we hate them is an immature response to fraternal correction which we all are obliged to do. It is a ploy to have society in a state of self analysis to the extent it can only focus on it’s own mis-perceived defects, and we fall for it. “Since we are all wrong perhaps we should correct our lack of love first before we focus on them?”. Even one of these HS would correct someone at a drop of a hat if someone else were committing an immoral act. Our society is very tolerant compared to the times of Jesus and before. Communities back then had the moral obligation to publicly ostrisize a person in a mortal state. There are a couple of incidents, one explicit, in Corinthians where this is shown.

The loss of dignity and honour is an effect of sin and comes from within. Projecting it on someone else is the common reaction in the “me” society. “It could never be myself but must be coming from someone else.” The same goes for looking to be loved. The reaction is the very same projection. The one correcting is put on notice that he is deficient in love in his attitude. It makes the statement to society that they are not loving enough. Again the same immaturity, the common “Mommy doesn’t love me” after a scolding we are all familiar with.

These cases of attitude could very well be drawn up in any anology of child and his family.

On society’s part, what doesn’t assist this case is the accepting by society of the label assigned by these people that signifies they have identified with the sin, as if it were separate and unique when it is simply a temptation, albeit of the most subtle and deceiving kind. This allowance for pidgeonholing is countering society’s attempt to have them change as in their point of view the focus* is* about difference. All references in conversation to this act should emphasize the temporary state of it and it’s sameness in the same sin class. The act should only be refered to has homosexual therefore, “You are not the sin(gay)”, “You are commiting(active word) a sin”. The conversation should be worded in such a way to deliver an underlying message of it’s temporary state, to instill the hope that the temptation will one day pass. It is important the attitude by everyone is put across in every way that it is not a permanent condition but an affliction, and this we are reluctant to do. As it is now we teach that it is simply a temptation and temporary but we don’t project that in our day to day dealing with them in our care.

Most of these unfortunates are so duped that they will not give Mary the benefit of the doubt. The Rosary would prove that this temptation is an affliction just like any other, as it would have an immediate effect in diminishing this lifestyle, an effect that would not occur if that were not the case. But for most the delectability of it is such a draw that the possibility of losing it altogeather or discovering the truth is not worth the risk.

AndyF

 

[blessedtoo]

To be honest, and not to pick on any one particular person here, I think our attitudes towards gay people is one of the reasons very few gays ever look at the Christian side. Such responses as ignore them, or find work with better people.

I think this assertion is somewhat misguided. While there may be certain christians who target homosexuals with vitriol, we as Catholics don’t generally throw in with that bunch. In fact, one could argue that the Church often misrepresents herself as entirely tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle and as such, there are many confused Catholics who don’t know what She teaches. The truth, I believe, is closer to what this man (a homosexual who has left the lifestyle) has to say:

God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay “blissfully ignorant” by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like “racist,” “insensitive,” “evil” and “discriminatory.”

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487
It is not the Christians they are running from, but rather the Christian truth.

Ever heard the expression don’t hate the player, hate the game?
Thats the attitude we ought to have, but don’t convey, I think.
Those whom you wish to change you must first show them you love them, otherwise they’re just going to hate you and ignore you all the much more.

Since the vast majority of responses here have been nothing but compassionate, loving and completely reflective of the “hate the sin, love the sinner” theology, I believe the “attitudes” represent the Church quite well.

However, if I came straight up to them, acting holier than thou, I know they’d all hate me within a second, and I’d never get through to them…what way is that to evangelize?

I think with the gay populace you must stress that we do not hate gays…they think we do, and from an immediate first impression, it honestly seems like we do, we treat them like second class citizens.

Not one suggestion here asserts that anyone, or any sinner, should be treated like second class citizens or that we should project a “holier than thou” disposition. Catholics do not evangelize like Mormons or JW’s. We do not confront people with Bibles and Catechisms in hand. Perhaps you need a second or third impression before assuming that Catholics are out there in the world making homosexuals feel unworthy. That is simply not the case.

Many gays are just looking to be loved, I think, and they’ll find true love in the Church, we just need to do a better job of expressing such love.

Many gays are looking for approval of their lifestyles. THEY shun the Christian walk because they know they will not receive this approval from the true Christian Church. Those who are seeking to live their lives in conformity with Christ will find their way to the love the Church has to give. If you read the article I linked to, you will find a powerful testimony on this very subject.

 

[Other_Eric]

To be honest, and not to pick on any one particular person here, I think our attitudes towards gay people is one of the reasons very few gays ever look at the Christian side. Such responses as ignore them, or find work with better people.
Ever heard the expression don’t hate the player, hate the game?
Thats the attitude we ought to have, but don’t convey, I think.
Those whom you wish to change you must first show them you love them, otherwise they’re just going to hate you and ignore you all the much more.
I work with two very gay guys, and one “prude” gay. One I don’t really talk to, one I do a bit, and he’s hilarious, he really is funny. Sometimes I overhear the two of them talking about gay bars, and yeah, its gross. But its just as gross hearing how my friends “knocked up 5 drunk woman at this bar”
However, if I came straight up to them, acting holier than thou, I know they’d all hate me within a second, and I’d never get through to them…what way is that to evangelize?
I think with the gay populace you must stress that we do not hate gays…they think we do, and from an immediate first impression, it honestly seems like we do, we treat them like second class citizens.
If we give them the dignity and honour we owe every human being, and treat them as though they were created not only by God Himself, but in God’s image, I think we will reach a lot more gays.

Many gays are just looking to be loved, I think, and they’ll find true love in the Church, we just need to do a better job of expressing such love.

Yes, they really ought to keep their private lives more secret, I’m not arguing that, I just feel as a whole what I said above.

Let us address first exactly the sort of individual we are dealing with in one that experiences same-sex attraction. These people are looking for neither love nor acceptance as much as they are looking to sate their disgusting genital cravings. It is this truth which must guide our subsequent evangelistic efforts, not some warm and fuzzy assumption gleaned from reading too many Hallmark greeting cards.

Those with same-sex attraction have, according to Scripture, rejected God and, as a result, have been abandoned by Him to their debased psychology. The love that, as Christians, we are meant to share with this type of individual is admonishment. In such a case, denying a same-sex attracted person things like food, drink, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, society or Christian burial becomes an act of charity. Much like excommunication, it is not vindictive, as one might imagine, but medicinal, intended to make obvious to the individual in question how far he has fallen from the path of Christ and gauged to effect his conversion.

Of course, you might say that this approach will only make such individuals resent Christians more and that we should adopt a more conciliatory style of evangelization. This attitude involves passive acceptance of the puerile and adolescent mentality espoused by those with same-sex attraction and therefore does more to confirm them in their disorders than bring them to Christ. Christ did not means-test His message to see that it was marketable before He preached it and neither should we water down the Good News of the inherent depravity behind that disorder which seeks to lower men created in the image and likeness of the Creator into objects of sexual gratification.

 

[blessedtoo]

Those with same-sex attraction have, according to Scripture, rejected God and, as a result, have been abandoned by Him to their debased psychology.

This may be your personal opinion, but it is not Church teaching nor is it supported by scripture. The Catholic Church (from which you have proclaimed yourself “lapsed”) does not state that those who are SSA have rejected God and are not, simply by having this disordered orientation, in a state of sin. Therefore, they are as welcome in the Kingdom as is any other sinner who repents and lives their life in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

The love that, as Christians, we are meant to share with this type of individual is admonishment. In such a case, **denying a same-sex attracted person things like food, drink, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, society or Christian burial becomes an act of charity. **Much like excommunication, it is not vindictive, as one might imagine, but medicinal, intended to make obvious to the individual in question how far he has fallen from the path of Christ and gauged to effect his conversion.

.
And you have fallen off the beam completely. I can’t think of one Christian denomination that would advocate what you have here. Even Fred Phelps might balk at such an absurd suggestion.

Individual “Christians” may hold extreme opinions but I pray that those who come to these forums seeking the truth of the Catholic Church will recognize that such opinions do not represent Catholic teaching.

 

[Penny_Plain]

The love that, as Christians, we are meant to share with this type of individual is admonishment. In such a case, denying a same-sex attracted person things like food, drink, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, society or Christian burial becomes an act of charity. Much like excommunication, it is not vindictive, as one might imagine, but medicinal, intended to make obvious to the individual in question how far he has fallen from the path of Christ and gauged to effect his conversion.

I think all it makes clear to the individual in question is that the person denying food, drink, shelter, society, or Christian burial is vicious, vindictive, and far from the path of Christ who ate with sinners.

 

[nichjake]

Unless it’s personal as in “sexual tales” ignore it. If the conversation is about going to a movie, a play, a concert, a restaurant…i.e. “my partner and I went to this new restaurant in town…the food was (great, awful, etc)…you should (try it out, avoid it).” There is no harm in that type of conversation.

I would be offended if heterosexual co workers started giving details of their bedroom exploits with their wives. It’s none of my business. If this occurs…I usually say something like, “Hey, guys…TMI. I would like to keep that thought out of my head when I meet your wife at the company picnic or Christmas party.” And they usually grin, and respect my wishes. Also, where I work, that could be a form of “sexual harrasment”…and if that is a policy at your workplace…the door swings both ways.

I agree! Don’t be afraid to say TMI if the conversation turns to stuff that should be left in the bedroom but I don’t see any harm in just simple small talk type stuff…its not like they’re trying to make you uncomfortable, their relationships are as normal and as important to them as heterosexual relationships are to you. I’ve found the best way is to just politely tell them when the conversation goes too far.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I work with many, many gay people. I am uncomfortable when discussing their personal lives. I always wonder if I should just remain silent, or smile, or what. I never have a response. Or when they mention their boyfriend does this, or their partner does that, what in the world should my response be?! I am expected to act as if everything is normal - and if I don’t, I’M the one who will get thrown the “discrimination” card! I certainly want to treat everyone with respect.

They need to respect your feelings in the work place as well. If you are being sexually harassed, document every instance of it, the time and whom committed it and report it to your supervisor. What industry do you work in that makes you work with “so many homosexuals”?

Maybe it’s time for you

 

[Other_Eric]

This may be your personal opinion, but it is not Church teaching nor is it supported by scripture. The Catholic Church (from which you have proclaimed yourself “lapsed”) does not state that those who are SSA have rejected God and are not, simply by having this disordered orientation, in a state of sin. Therefore, they are as welcome in the Kingdom as is any other sinner who repents and lives their life in accordance with the teaching of the Church.
.
And you have fallen off the beam completely. I can’t think of one Christian denomination that would advocate what you have here. Even Fred Phelps might balk at such an absurd suggestion.

Individual “Christians” may hold extreme opinions but I pray that those who come to these forums seeking the truth of the Catholic Church will recognize that such opinions do not represent Catholic teaching.

On the contrary, scripture is very explicit on this point.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. (1)

Moreover the Church specifically ratifies this interpretation when she says:

[T]he acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. (2)

As far as having “fallen off the beam completely,” I would suggest to you that the life a Christian is meant to follow is not always supposed to resemble an episode of Barney and Friends. Our brothers and sisters who have fallen into same-sex attraction are in need of a palpable corrective. Any pain or indignity that they may have to suffer now at the hands of us Christians who are trying to save them will pale in comparison to the eternal horror our Father has in store for them (and us) should we continue to enable their complacency.

(1) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Rom 1:25-27. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm

(2) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §6. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[blessedtoo]

On the contrary, scripture is very explicit on this point.

Moreover the Church specifically ratifies this interpretation when she says:

As far as having “fallen off the beam completely,” I would suggest to you that the life a Christian is meant to follow is not always supposed to resemble an episode of Barney and Friends. Our brothers and sisters who have fallen into same-sex attraction are in need of a palpable corrective. Any pain or indignity that they may have to suffer now at the hands of us Christians who are trying to save them will pale in comparison to the eternal horror our Father has in store for them (and us) should we continue to enable their complacency.

(1) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Rom 1:25-27. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm

(2) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §6. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

I’m not going to derail this thread debating your erroneous interpretations yet again. But in response, and for the benefit of others who are unfamiliar with your distortions, I will post the entire statement from Cardinal Ratzinger so that others can read what he actually wrote.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.
7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally

.

Perhaps your opinions and interpretations would be more suited to a fundamentalist forum of some stripe. Asserting these opinions and attempting to back them up with selective quotes that you have miscontrued from Church documents is terribly dishonest.

 

[Other_Eric]

I’m not going to derail this thread debating your erroneous interpretations yet again. But in response, and for the benefit of others who are unfamiliar with your distortions, I will post the entire statement from Cardinal Ratzinger so that others can read what he actually wrote.
.

Perhaps your opinions and interpretations would be more suited to a fundamentalist forum of some stripe. Asserting these opinions and attempting to back them up with selective quotes that you have miscontrued from Church documents is terribly dishonest.

One must not make the mistake of assuming that the only sinful expression of a homosexual impulse is one that involves genital stimulation. Indeed, the Church teaches that

exuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others (1)

If this is true, then it stands to reason that the homosexual behavior referred to by the good Cardinal Ratzinger will encompass every platonic relationship made while under the influence of a disorder that disrupts the ability to react appropriately to others. One might never engage in same-sex copulation and yet still be damned for all eternity for engaging in homosexual acts.

It is this truth that should inform our behavior towards those who have fallen into this perversion in both our personal and professional lives. We must guard against the temptation to hold our homosexual brothers and sisters to less than the standard of perfection that Christ has demanded of them. (2) Our treatment of those who experience same-sex attraction should, at every turn, seek to rip them from the clutches of this errant impulse which may very well deny them heaven. If this charitable advance is rejected, then shake their dust from your feet in testimony against them. (3)

As far as my supposed fundamentalist mentality, I should think that my opinions, being founded as they are on a solid bedrock of Scripture and Magisterial pronouncements, is far preferable to a holistic theology wherein reason subjects itself to the passions. I prefer to think through my positions rather than grasp endlessly until I find something that feels right.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2332. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

(2) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Matt. 5:48. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

(3) Ibid., Luke 9:5. Available online at: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke9.htm

 

[Ruthie]

Those with same-sex attraction have, according to Scripture, rejected God… -Other Eric

Can you prove that? What Scripture says that? (I’m serious.)

I can find lots of things like:

Mt 6:14-15
“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Mt 57
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

Jn 8:7
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…”

Matt 9:12-13

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. ****Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Heb 4:15
For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

As for your idea of “denying a same-sex attracted person things like food, drink, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, society or Christian burial,” try to understand these words of our Lord:

“Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment…”
Matt 25:41-46 (RSV)

 

[Other_Eric]

Those with same-sex attraction have, according to Scripture, rejected God… -Other Eric

Can you prove that? What Scripture says that? (I’m serious.)

I can find lots of things like:

Mt 6:14-15
“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Mt 57
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

Jn 8:7
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…”

Matt 9:12-13

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Heb 4:15
For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

As for your idea of “denying a same-sex attracted person things like food, drink, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, society or Christian burial,” try to understand these words of our Lord:

“Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment…”
Matt 25:41-46 (RSV)

I’ve cited my sources and provided links back to the material on the web. You should read them (I’m serious).

 

[Potato1]

Blessedtoo. I have to agree with other eric here. Certainal=tly you are not arguing that for the purposes of this thread that the homosexuals at this place of employment are not living an active gay lifestyle. People gloss over the realism of the homosexual lifestyle. Yes being homosexual is not an impediment to heaven but acting on it is. Which these people ARE doing I don’t care how much charity you have. So the men at her workplace that live together are having anal and oral intercourse with eachother and the woment are orally and manualy stimulating eachother. (sorry if that is too graphic for some but “homosexual lifestyle” just doesnt seem to resonate with the reaity of the sin.

 

[blessedtoo]

Blessedtoo. I have to agree with other eric here. Certainal=tly you are not arguing that for the purposes of this thread that the homosexuals at this place of employment are not living an active gay lifestyle. People gloss over the realism of the homosexual lifestyle. Yes being homosexual is not an impediment to heaven but acting on it is. Which these people ARE doing I don’t care how much charity you have. So the men at her workplace that live together are having anal and oral intercourse with eachother and the woment are orally and manualy stimulating eachother. (sorry if that is too graphic for some but “homosexual lifestyle” just doesnt seem to resonate with the reaity of the sin.

You and I have no disagreement. Nor does the Church. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are committing mortal sin and not living in accordance with Church teaching. Most likely the folks with whom the OP works are living an active homosexual lifestyle and as such, should not be encouraged or supported. I think you will see by all my posts that I agree completely with this Christian approach.

However, when one asserts their opinion that even those with same sex attractions, who are struggling to live a chaste life, are doomed to eternal damnation simply because they HAVE this disposition then one is not speaking with the Church.

When one asserts that folks with SSA should be deprived of basic human rights like

food, drink, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, society or Christian burial

then one is not speaking with the Church.

I have never soft pedaled or watered down Catholic teaching on the issue of homosexual behavior. We must always remember to make a distinction between those who actively pursue a sinful lifestyle and those who repent and struggle to overcome their temptations. There are many examples on CAF of courageous men and women who are doing just that and they should not be misled into thinking that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t by personal opinion masquerading as doctrine.

 

[Potato1]

You and I have no disagreement. Nor does the Church. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are committing mortal sin and not living in accordance with Church teaching. Most likely the folks with whom the OP works are living an active homosexual lifestyle and as such, should not be encouraged or supported. I think you will see by all my posts that I agree completely with this Christian approach.

However, when one asserts their opinion that even those with same sex attractions, who are struggling to live a chaste life, are doomed to eternal damnation simply because they HAVE this disposition then one is not speaking with the Church.

When one asserts that folks with SSA should be deprived of basic human rights like

then one is not speaking with the Church.

I have never soft pedaled or watered down Catholic teaching on the issue of homosexual behavior. We must always remember to make a distinction between those who actively pursue a sinful lifestyle and those who repent and struggle to overcome their temptations. There are many examples on CAF of courageous men and women who are doing just that and they should not be misled into thinking that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t by personal opinion masquerading as doctrine.

You know what, I think I misunderstood your position so thanks for clarifying. you are so correct with respect to homosexuals that are chaste and in fact Christian and holy. I probably would support erics statement with regaurd to active homosexuals and for the sake of charity I am assuming that he meant active SSA’s.
Now the government’s responsibility is to provide basic human needs toall. But I don’t think the Church’s resources should be used on people who are enemies of the Church. But perhaps that IS what Jesus would do afterall he is a Bigger man than I.

 

[blessedtoo]

Now the government’s responsibility is to provide basic human needs toall. But I don’t think the Church’s resources should be used on people who are enemies of the Church. But perhaps that IS what Jesus would do afterall he is a Bigger man than I.

Nuns from Mother Theresa’s order ministered to patients dying of Aids in San Francisco. Some of the patients themselves were not at all gracious or thankful that Catholic nuns, who may have represented the “enemy” of their lifestyle, were providing this service. However, the sisters, in true Christian charity, persevered.

 

[laariii]

i just treat them as i treat anyone else. After all a lot of the people i work with are living with a partner or are into the casual sex lifestyle.

thankfully none of them go into anything graphic or too personal.

 

[Sheeniac]

I’ve cited my sources and provided links back to the material on the web. You should read them (I’m serious).

Denying food? Yikes - good thing you wenre’t around when Oscar Wilde was around and repented on his deathbed.

Christ called for mercy! He came for the sinners. Quote all you want, but I think you missed the main point. As the Church teaches, Scripture must be interpreted as a whole, not line by line, and in conjunction with the Church’s teaching.

Maybe the Ethiopian was speaking to you as well.

 

[Mirdath]

Nice to see Other Eric’s out of retirement. I’ll get back to the back of the bus posthaste.

So Eric, I must ask – have you met an actual homosexual yet? As of some months ago, you said you haven’t.

 

[Bennie_P]

They need to respect your feelings in the work place as well. If you are being sexually harassed, document every instance of it, the time and whom committed it and report it to your supervisor. What industry do you work in that makes you work with “so many homosexuals”?

Maybe it’s time for you

Probably retail or food service. when I was a store manager for a national retail chain My supervisor was ‘gay’ and my Assistant Manager was 'gay" along with three of my male employees, I was the only non-gay male in the Store that I managed. The sexual haressment policies should be enough to stop any rude and lude conversations, my supervisor always backed me up when I had to descipline anyone, gay or straight that didn’t adhere to those policies ( I had to deal with rudeness and ludeness from both “camps”). They seemed to be taken serious, the ploicies, at most places I have been employed. To be a good witness you need not run away, nor to be kind you don’t have accept rude nor lude behaviour. Respect goes both ways and giving respect doesn’t compromise your witness, nor show approval of immoral conduct.:twocents: