Pro-Gay in the name of tolerance

[Mirdath]

But not tolerance of any ideas that differ from the current Politically Correct line.

But not diversity in opinions.

But no cultures that do not unquestionningly embrace liberalism are tolerated.

What are you trying to say? This thread’s come a long way since that post and I’ve thoroughly addressed those falsehoods in my posts.

 

[fix]

Oh please Relativism concerns how you deal with others’ moral codes, not how you arrive at your own.

No, relativism is claiming no absolute truth. It also involves understanding we can know that truth.

I am a moral absolutist; I believe certain things are inherently, universally wrong. I do not have the same list of wrongs you do; that does not make my own list any less absolute. Your attempts to paint me a relativist are childish slurs. I’m less than impressed.

An absolutist? You may think you are, but thinking you are and being one are different things in this case. An absolutist does not believe only certain things are wrong. That is relativism. A hit or miss attitude. An absolutist grasps there is one truth. That truth is a person, not an ideology.

In my experience here, if I can show how someone’s understanding of the truth isn’t in accord with Church teaching, I either get flamed or ignored. No changes.

Huh? Please cite an example?

If you can prove to me that homosexuality is unethical without drawing from the teachings of a religion I don’t practice, I’ll forswear all such tendencies that instant. I’m waiting.

You start from a false premise. Truth is not simply some arbitrary religion. Again, it is a Person. That you do not accept it does not offer proof.

If your touchstone is limited, corrupt, human reason alone then you cannot find absolute truth.

Wait, what items?

Social theories, Kant and the golden rule.

Actually they’re based on the survival of society. Theft is bad for society because it leads to breakdowns in relationships between people. I shouldn’t have to point out how murder is detrimental. It’s quite simple, really – and there is no need for a god to say ‘murder is bad, mmkay?’ for society to realize it’s not a Good Thing.

Even that minimalist approach is based on a type of morality. Primitive, but still requires accepting right and wrong.

How? I’m being perfectly serious here – I’ll try to get the gays to tone it down, you try to get the ragingly straight to stop yelling at us from streetcorners and beating us non-hets up for a good time. How does that put us at cross-purposes? Do you want it to just stop halfway so you and yours can keep preaching at us and beating us up?

The dramtics will not work on me. I reject all violence in these matters. I reject all force. I try to use prayer, language, and charitable actions. I fail at times, but I reject all violence.

Well, guess what – we have many, many forms of marriage already.

We have one man and one woman, unrelated and of age. What else do we have?

I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the power to submit, to deny one’s own choices in preference to existing rules or even the choices of another. To make such a choice is not necessarily evil – you do it every weekend when you go to Mass.

The choice to limit free will is evil. Going to mass does not limit free will. Going to work does limit free will. Getting stoned, drunk, ect does limit free will.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are you trying to say? This thread’s come a long way since that post and I’ve thoroughly addressed those falsehoods in my posts.

That Politically Correct people are the most intolerant, regimented and culturally snobbish people I know.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

we have many, many forms of marriage already.

Really? We are talking about right now (have, not ‘had’), right?

So right now we have exactly one form of marriage–one man and one woman.

We have very, very recently had by judicial fiat–and without any representation or any democratic or other due process–had certain entities (state, country) declare that there exists some such ‘marriage’ as ‘gay marriage’, but the proof is as it were in the pudding, and we are already seeing that these putative unions are crumbling just as quickly as those ‘straight’ marriages which are entered into under false premises. . .the most obvious of which is society’s ‘tolerance’ now geared to a near mandate that, if the person you ‘love’ when you marry them you at any time ‘cease to love’ you may then divorce and go on to marry again, again, and again.

Just because ‘straight’ marriage has had individuals ‘screw it up’ by failing to thoroughly understand marriage, doesn’t mean we can now allow every Tom, Dick, and Harriet of the ‘gay persuasion’ to do exactly the same thing.

I’m sure you have read all the chilling statistics of what happens to children raised without stability. I find it highly ironic that we in this country are giving our own children, the majority of whom do, or should, live in unprecedented security (no war on our soil), plenty (material goods are rampant), and ease, the kinds of family experience that are seen in a society which is under war (families torn apart), or imploding just as Rome did with its ‘bread and circuses’.

In the name of ‘freedom to be with the one I want to have sex with–for now’, both the heterosexuals who fail to live up to their marriage vows by their free choice (for I do acknowledge the many innocents who are left blindsided by their spouses’ wrongs in destroying the marriage)–and the homosexuals who are likewise failing to live up to the law not just of God but of nature, and are again destroying the innocents who have been and will be even more blindsided by ‘marriages’ gone wrong, are attempting the total destruction of any kind of natural and God-given morality.

The good news–It won’t last. Really, it won’t. Either God Himself will intervene by bringing the Last Judgment, or our contemporary societies will fail, just as such blindly sinful societies always do, and humanity will once again after a period of dark climb out into the light of faith and reason. But how I pity those poor deluded souls who are working in darkness and thinking themselves angels of light–who have cheerfully thrown away the “repressive idea of God” they think they no longer need in their overwhelming pride and fierce lusts.

 

[JWilson]

God loves the sinner but hates the sin.In the same way He loves the homosexual but hates the sin they commit.Remember the story in the Bible of the men who were going to throw stones at the adulteress?Jesus said to the men,“whichever one of you is without sin cast the first stone”.We should not be casting stones at anyone because all of us have sinned.People so quickly condemn gays when they themselves have sin in their hearts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nobody is condemning the homosexual person individually. There are chaste homosexuals who are shining examples to the many unchaste heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

The actions of a person are choices, and wrong actions can be condemned in that they are evil.

Also, even those of us who sin (which means all of us) are still capable of acknowledging (which is different from judging) sin. . .in ourselves and in others.

To acknowledge that a given homosexual person is commiting a wrong action is not judging the person, it is acknowledging the wrong action. Ditto for acknowleding a given heterosexual person committing a wrong action.

To love the person, and hate the sin, doesn’t mean ignoring the sin, or changing the rules so sin isn’t sin.

To some (and this is not directed at anybody here personally) merely disagreeing with a person’s idea (let alone his action) has them fulminating about the “meanness” and the “persecution” and the “unkindness” of people ‘judging him’. It is only disagreement–it isn’t a personal attack or judgment or a condemnation to hell.

 

[Mirdath]

No, relativism is claiming no absolute truth. It also involves understanding we can know that truth.

Right.

An absolutist? You may think you are, but thinking you are and being one are different things in this case. An absolutist does not believe only certain things are wrong. That is relativism. A hit or miss attitude. An absolutist grasps there is one truth. That truth is a person, not an ideology.

I believe there is one truth, and that you do not possess it. I’m still an absolutist.

Huh? Please cite an example?

Thread title: Will we survive religion? posted by Valke2 in Non-Catholic Religions.

You start from a false premise. Truth is not simply some arbitrary religion. Again, it is a Person. That you do not accept it does not offer proof.

Truth is a concept, not a person or a religion. That you do not accept mine does not prove anything.

If your touchstone is limited, corrupt, human reason alone then you cannot find absolute truth.

You are also human. There is little outside evidence that your religion is anything other than human in origin – but that’s getting outside the scope of this thread.

Even that minimalist approach is based on a type of morality. Primitive, but still requires accepting right and wrong.

No – accepting ‘harmful’ and ‘harmless’. Ethics, not morals.

The dramtics will not work on me. I reject all violence in these matters. I reject all force. I try to use prayer, language, and charitable actions. I fail at times, but I reject all violence.

Good, maybe you can work on the people who don’t reject it.

We have one man and one woman, unrelated and of age. What else do we have?

Many different religious rites that do not necessarily accept each other as valid; many forms of civil ceremony. Child marriage isn’t unheard of either.

The choice to limit free will is evil. Going to mass does not limit free will. Going to work does limit free will. Getting stoned, drunk, ect does limit free will.

So is working a 9-5 immoral and wrong to you? Good luck in this world.
vern humphrey:

That Politically Correct people are the most intolerant, regimented and culturally snobbish people I know.

Funny, I find the opposite
Tantum ergo:

Nobody is condemning the homosexual person individually. There are chaste homosexuals who are shining examples to the many unchaste heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

So as I asked earlier, why do you people concentrate so much on such a small subject?

Also, even those of us who sin (which means all of us) are still capable of acknowledging (which is different from judging) sin. . .in ourselves and in others.

So, as the saying goes, look to the plank in your own eye before picking at the speck in another’s.

To love the person, and hate the sin, doesn’t mean ignoring the sin, or changing the rules so sin isn’t sin.

It does mean being kind and courteous to them; telling them repeatedly that they’re going to hell is neither.

 

[setter]

Go ahead and tell me what you think truth is, but do I really have to hear it every day? Do I have to put up with you telling me I’m going to hell all the time? The endless preaching on this subject is rude, uncharitable, demeaning, and annoying. Put all that effort into something that’ll actually pay off and let me live my own life, please.

 

[estesbob]

I haven’t claimed that. But it does happen, and frequently – why then do you choose to admonish rather than comfort?

What is there to say about being at odds with the Church? Gay sex is a sin in the Church’s eyes, and it’s not about to change. There isn’t much of a discussion there. What can be discussed is the respect for and kindness to people who have it or have a tendency toward it – which are things I find direly lacking in the attitude of many of the Church’s adherents.

I dont find that attitude at all. I find an attitude of concern for those who sin-whether it be homosexual beahvior or any other kind of sinful sexual beahvior. I suspect I am around a lot more catholics than you are. You might find that when you start your discussion with your belief that anyone who doesnt support the homosexual lifestyle is probably guity of opressing or hating those who engage in such behavior a conversation stopper.

 

[goofyjim]

I dont find that attitude at all. I find an attitude of concern for those who sin-whether it be homosexual beahvior or any other kind of sinful sexual beahvior. I suspect I am around a lot more catholics than you are. You might find that when you start your discussion with your belief that anyone who doesnt support the homosexual lifestyle is probably guity of opressing or hating those who engage in such behavior a conversation stopper.

Actually there is a preponderance of those who think it is the number one offense. And I do not desire to call the orientation a disorder. I agree the acts are a sin but no worse than adultery, which the Church approves of everytime it annuls a marriage, fornication, which our young heterosexual friends are committting alot these days, and not to mention the fact that the Church did it’s best to cover up the priest abuse of children while always criticising homosexual laity.

 

[estesbob]

Actually there is a preponderance of those who think it is the number one offense. And I do not desire to call the orientation a disorder. I agree the acts are a sin but no worse than adultery, which the Church approves of everytime it annuls a marriage, fornication, which our young heterosexual friends are committting alot these days, and not to mention the fact that the Church did it’s best to cover up the priest abuse of children while always criticising homosexual laity.

The fact adultery is a sin and the church covered up the homosexual Priest scandal has nothng whatsover to do with the topic at hand. More misdirection to try and discuss ANYTHING but the sinfullness of homosexual beahvior

 

[goofyjim]

The fact adultery is a sin and the church covered up the homosexual Priest scandal has nothng whatsover to do with the topic at hand. More misdirection to try and discuss ANYTHING but the sinfullness of homosexual beahvior

Homosexual behavior is no more sinful than adultery and fornication. That’s what I was trying to state before. Yet everyone gets into a tizzy when homosexual behavior is mentioned. They can’t even stand the talk of a homosexual orientation without calling it a disorder. I for one do not call it that. Remember I still believe that homosexual acts are a sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s recap:

Let me see, in response to this post,

An absolutist? You may think you are, but thinking you are and being one are different things in this case. An absolutist does not believe only certain things are wrong. That is relativism. A hit or miss attitude. An absolutist grasps there is one truth. That truth is a person, not an ideology.

A poster said:

I believe there is one truth, and that you do not possess it. I’m still an absolutist.

And in response to this post:

The dramtics will not work on me. I reject all violence in these matters. I reject all force. I try to use prayer, language, and charitable actions. I fail at times, but I reject all violence.

The same poster said.

Good, maybe you can work on the people who don’t reject it.

And then in response to this post:

That Politically Correct people are the most intolerant, regimented and culturally snobbish people I know.

That poster said:

Funny, I find the opposite

I love the irony.

 

[estesbob]

Homosexual behavior is no more sinful than adultery and fornication. That’s what I was trying to state before. Yet everyone gets into a tizzy when homosexual behavior is mentioned. They can’t even stand the talk of a homosexual orientation without calling it a disorder. I for one do not call it that. Remember I still believe that homosexual acts are a sin.

if you check out the threads in these forums you will see a multitude of sins discussed. Adultery, mastrubation, pornography, abortion, lying, stealing, murder, sloth etc. Yet only in the Homosexual threads do we hear the whining that we are singling out homosexual behavior or that our discussion of it means we hate those who engage in such behavior or tolerate opressing them. Like I said it is an attempt to derail the discussion. If you want to discuss adultery, homosexual priests or any other number of sins start yor own thread. We are discussing homosexual behavior here.

 

[goofyjim]

My position is that homosexual acts are sinful. But the orientation can be embraced and happily at that. That is my definition of gay so in that regard one can be gay and Catholic.

What we have to stop doing is convincing our kids that even the slightest fantasy is so horrible because this does not help them. When these do not go away they feel so guilty and often resort to suicide. I think that would be the worst sin of all.

So here I am stuck in the middle. No wonder I feel so lonely.

 

[estesbob]

My position is that homosexual acts are sinful. But the orientation can be embraced and happily at that. That is my definition of gay so in that regard one can be gay and Catholic.

What we have to stop doing is convincing our kids that even the slightest fantasy is so horrible because this does not help them. When these do not go away they feel so guilty and often resort to suicide. I think that would be the worst sin of all.

So here I am stuck in the middle. No wonder I feel so lonely.

So we cant discuss homosexual behavior because it will drive some kid to suicide? The first one to tell us that sexual fantasies were a grevious sin was Christ. Was he trying to drive children to suicide?

 

[Riley259]

Is anybody besides me just amazed at the way the media is throwing around the term “tolerance” these days? It seems that tolearance is the new way of coveraing all manner of sins these days from homosexuality to abortion.

I just read a column
in which the author indicates that the Church should just admit that she is wrong about the poor homosexuals that CLEARLY have no control over their homosexual urges. To fail to do so…is intolerant…of course.

I submit to you all that a failure to respond to this kind fo propaganda is a failure on our part as members of the church. We must set the record on this subject straight. Homosexuality is a choice that people make, and it has been viewed as sinful in the eyes of the church for thousands of years. The fact that more people wish to engage in sin does not mean that sin is now ok. It is far from that. It is wrong and will always be wrong.

It is time for us, as a church, to stand up to these people spreading lies and attempting to undermine our teaching.

Oh my,do these secular progressives have anything new to say besides these tired and worn retreaded arguments that don’t make a lick of sense when examined under close scrutiny? Did you also notice that he took a shot at religion while he was at it - talk about revealing your true agenda!! Just keep praying for them.

 

[goofyjim]

So we cant discuss homosexual behavior because it will drive some kid to suicide? The first one to tell us that sexual fantasies were a grevious sin was Christ. Was he trying to drive children to suicide?

Too much edginess here. I’ll go elsewhere but I’m never leaving the Church because I love the sacraments.

 

[Mirdath]

The ‘ultimate truth’ is knowable through faith. The desire to know and receive the truth leaves one predisposed to receive knowledge of the truth through God’s grace. The source of all truth is the person of Jesus Christ who is the Truth.

Faith does not know. Faith believes. It may hold all other beliefs wrong, but that does not equate to knowledge. And if that belief is not enough for you, it is your faith that is lacking.

estesbob:

I dont find that attitude at all. I find an attitude of concern for those who sin-whether it be homosexual beahvior or any other kind of sinful sexual beahvior. I suspect I am around a lot more catholics than you are. You might find that when you start your discussion with your belief that anyone who doesnt support the homosexual lifestyle is probably guity of opressing or hating those who engage in such behavior a conversation stopper.

I’ve ended up trying to avoid them mostly due to that attitude, so I guess you’re right that you hang around more

I do not believe that anyone needs to ‘support’ the homosexual lifestyle. I have never said that anyone should. I’ve asked that people who disagree with it not condemn those who follow it and be civil and courteous. What’s so hard about that?

More misdirection to try and discuss ANYTHING but the sinfullness of homosexual beahvior

Because we’re not discussing the ‘sinfulness’ of homosexual behavior? We’re discussing tolerance of it.
vern humphrey:

I love the irony

What, I contradict my arguments in this thread because I find certain people impolite while you find other people impolite and I happen to be good with words? No dice, bwana.

estesbob:

Yet only in the Homosexual threads do we hear the whining that we are singling out homosexual behavior or that our discussion of it means we hate those who engage in such behavior or tolerate opressing them.

Only in threads about homosexuality do we hear people condemning others for leading their own lives without harming anyone else.

Like I said it is an attempt to derail the discussion. If you want to discuss adultery, homosexual priests or any other number of sins start yor own thread. We are discussing homosexual behavior here.

Once again, we’re discussing tolerance, not homosexual behavior.

goofyjim:

So here I am stuck in the middle. No wonder I feel so lonely.

I just want to take the time in the middle of this rather long-winded argumentative post to say you’re awesome.

estesbob:

So we cant discuss homosexual behavior because it will drive some kid to suicide? The first one to tell us that sexual fantasies were a grevious sin was Christ. Was he trying to drive children to suicide?

I don’t recall Jesus saying anything on the subject. There’s some stuff in the Old Testament but the big anti-sex guy in the NT was Paul.

Riley259:

Oh my,do these secular progressives have anything new to say besides these tired and worn retreaded arguments that don’t make a lick of sense when examined under close scrutiny?

Oh my, do these religious reactionaries have anything new to say besides these tired and worn condemnations of others that defy all logic and charity when examined up close, far away, from either side?

 

[setter]

Faith does not know. Faith believes. It may hold all other beliefs wrong, but that does not equate to knowledge. And if that belief is not enough for you, it is your faith that is lacking.

Faith is not devoid of knowledge, just as man made as an rational being devoid of his intellectual faculties is no longer fully man in his functioning. Christian faith is all about knowing. One can only love the God that he believes in to the extent that he knows the God of his faith. Otherwise it becomes an impersonal faith such as pantheism. At the core of the Christian faith is the person of Jesus Christ, and he is the Truth, the source and fount of all truth. Christian faith is to know the person of Jesus Christ, which is why it is a personal faith relationship in its essence. There is the mystery of our faith (such as the Trinitarian God), but this does not mean an unknowing faith that bypasses the intellectual capacity. Belief is the acceptance of the gift of faith. Pilate did not recognize and refused to accept his invitation to faith when he asked the Truth standing incarnate (personally) before him in the person of Jesus Christ “What is truth”.