I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I thought my post explained the reason I linked yours on a related thread. It was not to ‘expose’ you in mean spirit, as you may be alluding here. You, like all CAF members upon joining the forum do not provide personal information beyond an anonymous username, faith identification (which is optional, and not always accurate), and views and beliefs which you on your own volition post in participation in any open thread.Were you offended by my post and my request for open debates and discussion to involve compassion? Not sure why the need to post a link to another thread. I have nothing to hide about who I am and what I believe to be right. Were you trying to “expose” me to others so they might then respond for my request for compassion? Not quite sure where you’re coming from. …
As I stated, the divide in views and the several side issues (like the usage of certain words) do not get bridged by simply invoking the Golden Rule, frequent citing of the verse by pro-gays on “Judge not lest ye be judged …,” and the call to charity at the expense of truth. I don’t object to a call to civility in discourse, which is not the same.
No offense is taken with your call for open discussion to involve compassion. If you are talking about compassion for those with unwanted same sex attraction or those who regret living the gay lifestyle, I have no disagreement.
Participating members gravitate to threads of certain subjects. The subject of interest for you is apparent. My interest in same comes from a concern for the direction the country is being taken with this radical social experiment of SS"M." The stance stems from alignment with Catholic teaching based on Scripture, Tradition, natural law principles, and common sense! Those who do not agree with it make undeserved accusations of bigotry or ‘homophobia.‘ Having a homosexual brother in my family does not blind me to regard gay theology or philosophy or politics as reason to turn my back on a deeply held belief that promotes the family and individual good, in the life for the here and now and for eternity.
I read all pages of postings. Did you read mine (this is #8 from a total of 397 posts so far?) that included the objective reasons I do not subscribe to the OP’s train of thought?I do have a question for you regarding your statement “Nobody has called for discrimination and maltreatment of homosexuals in this thread”. Have you read through all 26 pages of postings? I have. I read some great postings in regards to the OP. I learned a lot and I am blown away and impressed with some members on both sides of the discussion.
However, where I have a problem is when people abuse this type of forum and feel like they can spew all kinds of awful words just because they are hiding behind a computer screen. Just a couple for example:
"the word GAY has come to mean “Got Aids Yet”." …“Our Church is undergoing a very dark time. We have been infiltrated by homosexuals using the robes of piety as a guise for their depraved thoughts and ways. It is time for we Catholics to clean our Church as Our Lord cleaned the temple of depraved activities. There may be a place for homosexuals to practice their depraved activities, but our church is most certainly not that place” These were terrible terrible things that happened because Pedophiles and they were protected from within for too long! Pedophiles are heterosexuals and homosexuals who pray on children.
Also, calling gay men sodomites is in fact offensive. There are better choices of words that are more acceptable. Have we not learned that words can be very damaging and offensive. For example, do you still your the “N” word in referring to black people? I’m assuming not however in the past this term was widely acceptable. I’m also assuming that this forum is full of educated individuals who know how to communicate more effectively.
You are the one who brought up that gay has come to mean “Got AIDS Yet”. I would say that would be an antagonistic and unkind reference to homosexuals. However, when an objective discussion of how AIDS became an epidemic in the 80’s gets going, the fact that it started as a disease commonly diagnosed in promiscuous men who have sex with men is a matter of record with the CDC, before its spread to the heterosexual population.
As for your comment on the homosexual and pedophile problem of the Church, I agree with you. Homosexuals with deep seated tendency and pedophiles should have been weeded out upon application or during priest formation well before ordination. As you may know, the Church, in putting to practice her teaching of redemption and forgiveness sent the priests acting in sinful and harmful behavior towards the young to mental health professionals to be helped. It took a cascading crisis for the institution to realize its big failure.
The word ‘sodomite’ usage has been debated and you are simply repeating what was already said by those who side with the OP. However, the opposing point of view has good arguments in my opinion that you choose to dismiss.
[/con’t]