M
Mystic_of_God
Guest
Why should I be forced to support something with which I have a moral problem? I’m not cramming my faith down your neck, you are cramming your values down mine, or so it seems. Care to explain?
- Status
F
Fail
Guest
maybe a catholic values forum isn’t the best place to find pro gay rights people. that said, better articulation of your question would probably return more beneficial replies, in terms of understanding perhaps.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
You have to look beyond their sexual preference. It is only one small part of their overall character. They want to be happy with their chosen partner, of the same gender. They want to care for them as anyone would to someone they care deeply about. The vast majority are just like you and me and you could not pick them out of any crowd. I view them as equals to me.
W
wjb67
Guest
from the catechism:
**2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **
I’m not sure I understand how you are being “forced” to “support” homosexuals…but as far as the state goes gays are every bit as entitled to equal protections under the law. As far as the faith goes, aside from their sin of homosexual sexual contact, they are every bit as entitled to be treated with the same dignity as all of God’s children. We are not “forced to support” other people who are sinning any more than we are homosexuals. There certainly is a difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance”.
**2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **
I’m not sure I understand how you are being “forced” to “support” homosexuals…but as far as the state goes gays are every bit as entitled to equal protections under the law. As far as the faith goes, aside from their sin of homosexual sexual contact, they are every bit as entitled to be treated with the same dignity as all of God’s children. We are not “forced to support” other people who are sinning any more than we are homosexuals. There certainly is a difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance”.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You will have to be more specific. What is being crammed down your throat? What are you being forced to accept?
M
Mystic_of_God
Guest
Nothing yet. What irks me is that gay-rights activists support government benefits, benefits that would take money to implement. MY money, in taxes.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
That was so well stated…nicely said!from the catechism:
**2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **
I’m not sure I understand how you are being “forced” to “support” homosexuals…but as far as the state goes gays are every bit as entitled to equal protections under the law. As far as the faith goes, aside from their sin of homosexual sexual contact, they are every bit as entitled to be treated with the same dignity as all of God’s children. We are not “forced to support” other people who are sinning any more than we are homosexuals. There certainly is a difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance”.
M
Mystic_of_God
Guest
That is not what I mean.from the catechism:
**2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. **
I’m not sure I understand how you are being “forced” to “support” homosexuals…but as far as the state goes gays are every bit as entitled to equal protections under the law. As far as the faith goes, aside from their sin of homosexual sexual contact, they are every bit as entitled to be treated with the same dignity as all of God’s children. We are not “forced to support” other people who are sinning any more than we are homosexuals. There certainly is a difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance”.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
what program would our taxes be used for when it comes to homosexual rights?
B
BamaRider
Guest
I don’t force my Faith on anyone, but I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful in God’s eyes. i’m not for banging on doors and calling gay folks out. If they want to live like that so be it, as long as not forced on me.
I don’t believe in laws making homosexuality illegal, but I’m NOT for granting them special status with laws. If they are mistreated, there are laws already in place to deal with that. The same law that protects me should protect gays.
Where I do draw the line is with gays trying to redefine what constitutes a marriage. A marriage is not man and a man, or woman and a woman. A marriage is man and a woman. End of story.
People trying to convince the state to accept a gay marriage are out of line. If we accept their premise a marriage can be something other then a man and a woman we gotta get ready for some polygamist to tell us we gotta accept HIS idea a marriage can be a man and any 3-4 ladies. And he’d have a legitmate plank to stand on.
“Why not? Y’all already accepted that gay’s idea of a marriage, now why won’t’you accept us? A marriage can only be 2? Who says? Changed the law once but not us?” See where this goes? What gives us the right to impose the idea that polygamy is wrong? You’re just gonna open the door for a whole slew of crazy kooks.
I don’t believe in laws making homosexuality illegal, but I’m NOT for granting them special status with laws. If they are mistreated, there are laws already in place to deal with that. The same law that protects me should protect gays.
Where I do draw the line is with gays trying to redefine what constitutes a marriage. A marriage is not man and a man, or woman and a woman. A marriage is man and a woman. End of story.
People trying to convince the state to accept a gay marriage are out of line. If we accept their premise a marriage can be something other then a man and a woman we gotta get ready for some polygamist to tell us we gotta accept HIS idea a marriage can be a man and any 3-4 ladies. And he’d have a legitmate plank to stand on.
“Why not? Y’all already accepted that gay’s idea of a marriage, now why won’t’you accept us? A marriage can only be 2? Who says? Changed the law once but not us?” See where this goes? What gives us the right to impose the idea that polygamy is wrong? You’re just gonna open the door for a whole slew of crazy kooks.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I am sometimes dense and/or utterly clueless. Could you explain what you mean by “support government benefits”?
F
Filius99993
Guest
Every person is equal… and so are morals. It’s not the people that are the problem, but rather that they are engaging in sexual activity that can in no way be procreative. It’s that simple. You know, hate the sin, love the sinner…
E
Exalt
Guest
There are two “goals,” I think, of most politically/socially active pro-gay people. The first of which is a pursuit of what has come to be known as gay rights. This includes a large number of issues, including anti-discrimination and anti-hate crime legislation as well as guaranteeing that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. The second is more of a personal movement to change social attitudes towards homosexuality.
Regarding the first, I think it’s the responsibility of the United States to protect the disadvantaged and marginalized. Gay people certainly have been marginalized. 50 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and frequently prosecuted. Currently, hate crimes for reasons of sexual orientation are at the same level as religiously motivated hate crimes. There are numerous accounts of gay partners not receiving the same treatment as heterosexual married persons in hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, custody cases, and a bunch of other critical issues. Gay people continue to be ejected from the military, even when they are in critical positions (and even when the military is facing a personnel crisis). And then there’s the Florida adoption issue, where homosexuals are specifically prohibited from adopting children.
Those are the “rights” issues. They are all private things and none of them deal with changing the public perception. To say that the above somehow “force” you to change your opinions is really silly. To say that the above somehow degrades marriage or the family is also really silly. And to say that the above constitutes an assault on your values is outrageous.
The second area, however, is an attempt at “evangelization,” I suppose, or an attempt to try and change public perception of homosexuality. Christians have been doing it for twenty centuries so far, so I don’t see why gay people ought to shut up or explain themselves.
P
Pong
Guest
Slippery slope; doesn’t hold water. Should interracial marriage have remained legal as well because, afterall, now even the gays are demanding the right to marry.
What I don’t get is how, exactly, two people of the same sex entering into a legally binding agreement with each other has anything to do with the rest of us. Heterosexual marriage is not somehow degraded by legalizing homosexual marriage. Furthermore, just because the Church says that something is morally wrong does not mean that the government must agree. We do not live in a theocracy, thankfully, although some are trying their hardest to make it that way.
T
thistle
Guest
Yes it is. Homosexual marriage is absolutely something we should be concerned about. It attempts to take away the true meaning of marriage (between man and woman). It is depraved and should not be allowed and we should speak out against it.
P
Polaris
Guest
How does it? If a gay person marries another gay person. Does your marriage now mean nothing to you? Are you just going to leave your wife or husband and say well the sacrament means nothing now. How does a sacrament now become invalid because of another persons act. Does holy oders mean nothing now because other relgions also have something similiar to holy orders even though they are fake. Does baptism become meaningless when you find out other cultures also having blessing with water. I really do not see the connection. The world is a lot more varied yet we do not say that these invalid acts take away from our religion.
Not to be rude but this always goes through my head. How petty marriage must be to you or most people to think that someone else concept of it will destroy their marriage.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Yes it does hold water. I don’t give a hoot if 2 men wanna live together and call it a marriage, or union or whatever it is they want to. Leave the Church out of this, we know where She stands. I’m refering to the state granting gays a marriage liscense and being recognized as a valid marriage in the law.
Now you tell me, if you want to redefine the defination of a marriage, what are you going to tell the polygamist who has HIS ideas of what marriage is? You gonna tell him just what we are telling YOU, “no that is not the defination of a marriage.” You’d have no right tell tell anyone he can’t marry a monkey, once you start redfining what a marriage is. And you know dang well some kook would try it, and claim “alternative lifestyle” and we should be tolerant.
Interacial marriage is not the same, it does not redfine a marriage as a man and a woman.
Now answer the question, what do you tell the polygamist who wants to redefine what a marriage is, using the same logic as YOU. Your argument is the state has no right to define what makes a marriage.
E
estesbob
Guest
There is absolutely no comparison between the plight of a race that was bought to this country in chains, beaten, raped, tortured and sold at will and then discriminated against to this day AND a group of people who’s only distinguishing characteristic is the with whom and in what manner they engage in sex. To claim there is a similarity between the the two is a slur on the African American community.
E
estesbob
Guest
People of the same sex cant get married. they can call what they do marriage if they want but that does not make it so.
The dirty little secret is that the majority of homosexuals don’t want to get married. In areas where homosexual “marriage” and/or domestic partnerships are legal only a miniscule number of homosexuals take advantage. Homosexuals want the right to “marry” because they believe that gives their sexual behavior the tacit approval of society. Of course it doesn’t and dressing up grave sin as marriage in no way alleviates the seriousness of the sin.
Reminds of a story about Abe Lincoln cross examining a witness. Abe said"If a tail was a leg how many legs would a dog have"? The witness responded “5”. Abe answered"Wrong Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg"
E
Exalt
Guest
To claim that there is NO correlation or similar between racism and anti-gay prejudice suggests that you are willingly blind to the discrimination that lies plainly before you. Not fifty years ago, homosexuals were being thrown in jail. Some were forced to undergo (what they thought was) chemical castration. Today, hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation occur at the roughly same rate as hate crime on the basis of ethnicity or religion (source). And homosexuality has a very particular difference from racism. A racist white family doesn’t suddenly bear a bear a child that, in his or her teens, starts to turn black. A racist child doesn’t suddenly change race in the middle of puberty. Imagine the familial consequences of something like that. Prejudice against homosexuality is certainly much less of a problem than racism. That is an unquestionable truth. However, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a big deal also.
The only reason you discount it is to diminish those who support gay rights. It’s yet another brilliant apologetics move.
- Status