Pick a side on gay issue!

[Thekla]

BlindSheep:

Thekla -
I want to pick the most loving and compassionate side too. An honest look at the gay community reveals people trapped in self-destructive, addictive, psychologically damaging behavior patterns, and I can’t see enabling or ignoring it as truly compassionate.

BlindSheep,
The question is where is the line between enabling and tolerance. It’s not clear and there is nothing in Scripture to guide us on how we are supposed to treat homosexuals. I may believe that practicing homosexuality is sinful conduct, but what am I supposed to do with that information about an individual I meet or know? Why should they be treated differently by me than the way I treat people whose sin I don’t know? Do we only reward people with our tolerance when they are able to keep their conduct hidden from us?
Thekla

 

[Liberalsaved]

BlindSheep:

Oh yeah, that’s right - you dismiss all evidence you don’t like as biased.

Not at all. Point me to a CNN report on the subject.

 

[pira114]

soulspeak23:

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But what would you do if one of your own children somehow grew up to be gay, even though they were taught it was wrong, even though they may never have been exposed to it and only grew up in a two parent, mother-father home? How would you explain it? That’s exactly what happened to me.

I honestly don’t know how I would explain it. At the present time I happen to believe that it’s a biological defect brought on by severe overpopulation. I believe nature was designed by God to keep itself in balance. Nature’s always done a great job at that.

As for my son, I would of course still love him. Being gay does not change the fact that he is my son and is still one of God’s children. It would not, however, change my stance on whether he should be given any additional rights. And, when asked, I would have to point out that I don’t believe it is acceptable, it’s a disorder or defect, and can be treated.

For the record, my brother is gay. I love him very much. I lived with him prior to me getting married. We are great friends and do a lot together. I let him watch my children and they love him too. None of them know he’s gay yet, they’re too young in my opinion. But my brother knows my stance on things. He only knows because he asked. I don’t go around carrying a sign saying down with gays. I’m not a mean person. I only give my opinion (outside this forum) when asked directly. And I always let the person know the full deal, that I still can be great friends and love someone who has a big problem to deal with. No I don’t think that a homosexual should be allowed to get married. I honestly think it sets it up as an option for confused children. I think the more society accepts it, the more people will choose it, instead of actually having same sex attractions. I think that happens a lot now. That’s why there are seemingly two types of homosexuals. The kind that flaunt it and act out for all to see, and the kind who just be themselves, live mostly normal lives, etc. I’m not talking about hiding it. I think we all know what I’m getting at.

 

[pnewton]

goofyjim:

So someone who only experiences same sex attraction must forever keep that hidden fearing loss of a job?

Of course not. I did not say anything at all about jobs in my post. I do not think they need “special” protection. A gay person can keep his job like anyone else, by impressing the boss. Crying to the government is a poor substitute for hard work.

FYI - There are three homosexuals I can think of that I have known at work. The one I know the best is great at his job and only a fool would not recognize his talent and reward him accordingly. I just don’t go to the bars with him.

 

[Lischou]

For those who say that acting upon SSA is not deadly, here are some statistics taken from Hope and Homosexuality, Statement of the Catholic Medical Association:

Even before the AIDS epidemic, a study of men who have sex with men found that 63% had contracted a sexually transmitted disease through homosexual activity. (Bell 1978) In spite of all the AIDS education, epidemiologists predict that for the foreseeable future 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive. (Hoover 1991; Morris 1994; Rotello 1997) They are also at risk for syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis A, B, C, HPV, and a number of other illnesses.

Sounds like ‘death’ to me.

BlindSheep:

Thekla -
I want to pick the most loving and compassionate side too. An honest look at the gay community reveals people trapped in self-destructive, addictive, psychologically damaging behavior patterns, and I can’t see enabling or ignoring it as truly compassionate.

Agreed, most wholeheartedly!

And, not being gay yourself, you cannot judge what is right for them.

Not true. A sinner in any other state of sin could (and probably does) make the same arguement. The truth is that we do have a standard…that which is laid out by the Church. It is what is best for all whether we are able to see it/understand it or not. And you are correct, LiberalSaved, you are granted the freedom of choice (granted by God and not the state, BTW) to choose whether to do wrong or right. In the political arena, in the US, we all have the ‘right’ to say what we want our gov’t is to permit or not permit. You have heard of One man, one vote?

Lisa

 

[BlindSheep]

Thekla:

BlindSheep,
The question is where is the line between enabling and tolerance. It’s not clear and there is nothing in Scripture to guide us on how we are supposed to treat homosexuals. I may believe that practicing homosexuality is sinful conduct, but what am I supposed to do with that information about an individual I meet or know? Why should they be treated differently by me than the way I treat people whose sin I don’t know? Do we only reward people with our tolerance when they are able to keep their conduct hidden from us?
Thekla

It doesn’t seem that unclear to me. It’s no different than how to treat a friend who has a drinking problem, needs counselling but won’t get it, my mom who lives with her boyfriend, my best friend who uses birth control etc. etc. etc…you don’t have to choose between telling someone their behavior is just fine,and beating them over the head with it every time you see them. As long as they know where you stand, and you faithfully present the Church’s teaching if the subject comes up…I’m not saying cut a person out of your life, or even to nag and pester them.

 

[BigPaulie]

goofyjim:

I don’t believe same sex attraction is the arsenal of the devil and part of the culture of death. If one is not acting on it they should not be ostracized. Those who experience this are trying their best and despite their condition should be considered part of the culture of life. Sounds like some people think we’re trying to play both sides and that we will burn in hell for being neutral.

Homosexuals don’t have a “condition” . But people have been “conditioned” to think that way. You and many others are being deceived! (By guess who?)


Big Paulie

 

[setter]

BigPaulie:

Homosexuals don’t have a “condition” . But people have been “conditioned” to think that way. You and many others are being deceived! (By guess who?)


Big Paulie

Your’s is a misinformed statement. SSA is a “condition” of disordered desire which is symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. In the theological understanding, SSA is a moral disorder. This understanding is important to be able to seperate the person redeemed and sanctified in Christ from the effects of sin (original or actual sin repented of) and offer the charitable position of the Church for those persons so afflicted and struggling with the condition of SSA:

1. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975.

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

vatican.va/roman_curia/c…persons_en.html

Homosexuals have a human nature with an intrinsic moral disorder. …Even if a homosexual refrains from sexual activity, the moral disorder is still present. This moral disorder is fundamental to human nature because sexuality is a fundamental part of human nature.

catholicplanet.com/articles/article122.htm

As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people. They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1105-vatican

 

[TarAshly]

Ok gotcha! now I really feel silly…open mouth insert foot!..

MikeinSD:

Actually, I’m a gay man, with a partner, and I don’t have any kids. I don’t know how to use those silly smile things to show I’m being sarcastic. But I also was making a point. It is easy to stand tall and proud against a “sin” that you have no personal experience with. Hence all these anti-gay threads in this forum. But if you check around, you are not going to find any threads about the problems of dealing with money in a way consistant with Jesus’ teachings. See wallet issues hit a little too close to home. And therefore not discussed. I do have to laugh. Devotion stops at the wallet.

As for groin issues, lots of posters are proud to take a stand that African women should not use condoms to protect themselves against the HIV virus. I’m just suggesting use that folks use that self righteous belief with their nearest and dearest. If an African lady cannot protect herself with a rubber, maybe yr married son shouldn’t either. And if he will not conform to yr beliefs, you should not have him, his wife, or his kids in yr house. It’s called taking a stand. Believing in yr faith. Willing to endure some pain for what you believe. I don’t think you see many Christians take up this challenge.

 

[Thekla]

BlindSheep:

It doesn’t seem that unclear to me. It’s no different than how to treat a friend who has a drinking problem, needs counselling but won’t get it, my mom who lives with her boyfriend, my best friend who uses birth control etc. etc. etc…you don’t have to choose between telling someone their behavior is just fine,and beating them over the head with it every time you see them. As long as they know where you stand, and you faithfully present the Church’s teaching if the subject comes up…I’m not saying cut a person out of your life, or even to nag and pester them.

BlindSheep,

But you haven’t clarified on the legal rights issue which, when gays advocate for tolerance, that’s what they are talking about. We all try to help those who we know who are doing things with which we do not agree. But the question is what is the difference between enabling gays and tolerating them. And I’m not talking about the ones that you know, I’m talking about the ones that you don’t know. Most everyone is kind an supportive of people related to us, but what is our attitude toward non-family members, etc.

I just cannot see rewarding people, whose sin I cannot see, with my tolerance, while punishing those whose sin I can see by withholding it.

Thekla

 

[BlindSheep]

Thekla:

BlindSheep,

But you haven’t clarified on the legal rights issue which, when gays advocate for tolerance, that’s what they are talking about. We all try to help those who we know who are doing things with which we do not agree. But the question is what is the difference between enabling gays and tolerating them. And I’m not talking about the ones that you know, I’m talking about the ones that you don’t know. Most everyone is kind an supportive of people related to us, but what is our attitude toward non-family members, etc.

I just cannot see rewarding people, whose sin I cannot see, with my tolerance, while punishing those whose sin I can see by withholding it.

Thekla

What rights are you referring to, specifically? Not being discriminated against by employers/landlords etc? “Gay marriage”? Harsher punishments for people who commit crimes against them? Or what?
I think when it comes to what could be called discrimination (in hiring, insurance, etc.), the real implications of what is really a disorder (in spite of what politically correct psychologists say) have to be taken into account - just as there are some jobs a person with certain mental disorders would not be suited for, and there are illnesses overweight people are more prone to than others; I don’t think it’s wrong to take the reality of the dangers of the gay lifestyle into account. I also don’t think homosexual relationships should be called, or treated as, marriages. Marriage is recognised by the government because it benefits society, not just to make people feel good. And after all, if a homosexual person wishes to make their partner their “next of kin” and “healthcare proxy”, etc., there are forms they can fill out. If they wish to change their name, or have a ceremony of some kind, there is no law against it. I also don’t think it’s right to have harsher punishments for, say, someone who beats up a gay person than for someone who beats up a straight person. Assult is already against the law, and the flipside is that such laws seem to say that beating up a straight person is relatively acceptable.

 

[trustmc]

Liberalsaved:

Homosexuality as harmful as drug addiction. I’ll remember that when I need a good joke.

Yes, both lead to the destruction of the soul whether in this life or the next. If you’ve beentruly “saved” as your name suggests long enough, you’d know this by now.

Mike

 

[trustmc]

Liberalsaved:

You have no idea how strongly I consider having myself excommunicated over people who think they get to define the right way to live for everyone.

What are you waiting for?

 

[trustmc]

Thekla:

BlindSheep,
The question is where is the line between enabling and tolerance. It’s not clear and there is nothing in Scripture to guide us on how we are supposed to treat homosexuals. I may believe that practicing homosexuality is sinful conduct, but what am I supposed to do with that information about an individual I meet or know? Why should they be treated differently by me than the way I treat people whose sin I don’t know? Do we only reward people with our tolerance when they are able to keep their conduct hidden from us?
Thekla

There is guidance in scripture on how to treat a practicing homosexual. We take our cues from the practicing adulterer caught in the act and how Jesus treated her: You draw them close, cup their faces in your hands, tell them “you are forgiven, now go and sin no more.”

Mike

 

[Liberalsaved]

trustmc:

What are you waiting for?

Smarmy comments with no value. Like this one.

 

[trustmc]

Liberalsaved:

Smarmy comments with no value. Like this one.

How about the one about the pot calling the kettle black. You’re the queen of smarmy comments.

Mike

 

[Liberalsaved]

trustmc:

How about the one about the pot calling the kettle black. You’re the queen of smarmy comments.

Mike

Always elaborated on and without barking at someone to get out because I don’t agree.

 

[BigPaulie]

trustmc:

What are you waiting for?

It is a good question. :yup:

 

[MikeinSD]

trustmc:

There is guidance in scripture on how to treat a practicing homosexual. We take our cues from the practicing adulterer caught in the act and how Jesus treated her: You draw them close, cup their faces in your hands, tell them “you are forgiven, now go and sin no more.”

Mike

If you try that in the US, you’ll get a gun pulled in yr face. Feel free to follow whatever scripture you wish. However, you have to obey the laws of the US. Basically, religious of whatever persuasion and non-religious have to treat US citizens in accordance with American laws. Step outside the laws and harrass, threaten, or attempt to hurt gay men and lesbian women, their families, or their kids, you take your chances with arrests, civil suits, fines, and prison. Or getting shot. Just like if you did with any other US citizen

Want to change the laws? Fine. Lobby, petition, protest, do whatever as long as it’s legal. Picket schools that hire openly gay men or lesbian women. Write your congressman or congresswomen demanding laws to enable landlords to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Hold a protest against hate crime laws. Start a petition drive to tell the American Psychiatric Assoc and the American Psychological Assoc to overturn 50 yrs of research and declare homosexuality a mental illness. It’s a free country.

Of course other citizens will be on the opposite side of all this issues. Something you have to live with in a democracy.

 

[Liberalsaved]

BigPaulie:

It is a good question. :yup:

A better question would be if a true Christian would consider doubts and personal opinions a reason to break away. But I guess I have my answer to that: no.