Scared of speaking out Against Gay marriage?

[InSearchofGrace]

I must say though, that I too get the impression that there are those who come onto this board and are absolutely not liking that those same kids (Including myself) that are taught homosexuality (the acts) are wrong and homosexual marriage can never be blessed, well…we are growing up and believing the opposite actually. That homosexuality (yes including the acts) are not wrong in our opinion and that homosexual marriage can indeed be blessed. (again in my opinion along with many others) just my two cents.

Many of these kids are also probably leaving the churches they grew up in because, at least in part, they don’t like their teachings on homosexuality.

Fine by me, your opinions above. So long as you guys don’t teach Catholic kids in CCD or Catholic Religious Education.

Say, you are not here on this site to convince the faithful away from Catholicism to Buddhism (btw, Buddhist scripture accordingly frowns on homosexual acts too), or ELCA, on gay “marriage”, are you? That would be against forum rules, you see. This site’s mission statement, fyi:

Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.

,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Proof that the propaganda machine works.

Make even the most horrific monster into a “victim,” and then don’t discuss what it is that he actually does to other people, but just focus on how bad he feels that he isn’t socially acceptable, and then you can get away with absolutely anything.

And that must gnaw at such people, knowing active homosexuality is not socially acceptable, not deep down inside, to many, even to themselves … because it is naturally written in man’s heart.
,

 

[clem456]

Well, I can tell you as a Catechist of teens, it’s a touchy subject. We recently had a lesson on what the Church really teaches about people with SSA and the kids wigged out.
I mean, shouting at the catechists, making crazy accusations of hatred, asking things like
" How do YOU know what God wants anyway?"
“Gays are great because they adopt kids no one wants”
“Gays should be allowed to marry, I have gay friends and they are so cute!”
“What if there are gay people in the room? Don’t you think you’re offending them?”

Wow. Was a rough night.
People today have been led to believe that all Christians hate gays.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is why so few people even want to work with teenagers anymore.
But no, I’m not scared.
It’s not so much about being “against” gay marriage as teaching them that there is no such thing as marriage between the same sex. Marriage for many people has been redefined to suit. The church is pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Young people have a hard time accepting this. In many cases, this is what tears them from the Church. It’s pretty sad.
But, one has to advance truth, no?

If I could make an observation:
Kids don’t always respond to authoritative teaching. It is good that you are presenting it, but teenagers especially will not latch on to it if their feelings tell them you are wrong somehow. (“the Church’s teaching discriminates!!! cause the Church doesn’t love people, cause the Church doesn’t let them do…whatever…cause the Church just wants to tell everyone what to do…”)

It’s always good to have a non-refutable argument from nature.
No one can dispute that man/woman is the unique relationship that creates a child. This reality takes the issue out of the realm of feelings and opinions.
If the class is open to this reality which is simply and directly revealed in nature, you can then go on to flesh out why the Church teaches what it does, using the language that it does. If a person denies this reality, you are speaking two different languages and not much is going to be accomplished.

Young adults love to find inconsistencies and point them out, and this is a glaring inconsistency in their own thinking.
The beautiful thing is, you don’t have to mention the word “evil” or “sin” to make the point about how unique marriage is.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12628067:

pianistclare;12627817:

Since then, there have also been a few of the teens who came forward after class and said that they were mortified at the lack of respect shown for the teachers, and in the end, the only kid who showed up in rainbow colors was the one came up with the idea.
She has since changed her tune, dramatically

.

Somewhat ironic, on a thread lamenting people feeling ‘scared’ to speak out against the crowd.

I guess it is OK as long as you are the biggest bully in the playground.

I don’t understand your post:

(emphasis in red added)

It is not a slippery concept. This thread is about Catholics being afraid to speak out about your views in a predominantly secular environment.

Then you come along, arguably gloating about how you, an adult in a position of authority over children, used that authority to browbeat a young girl who dared express a secular opinion in a catholic environment.:nope:

Who was doing the bullying?

Being “the biggest bully in the playground” is of course a figure of speech that I would expect any adult english speaker, let alone a teacher, to be familiar with. The point was not that you were ‘bullying’ her, but that you are celebrating a triumph of authoritarianism and peer pressure over freedom to express individual opinions, when you happen to be the authority, on a thread allegedly about how we (or maybe just you) should be free to express individual opinions.

That being said, while ‘bully’ is a more perjorative term than I would have chosen outside of the established figure of speech, I don’t see that it is inaccurate, stripped down to its literal meaning. You did not, from you said, persuade this girl by reason and evidence that she was wrong, you got the pastor to call her parents and those of the other dissenters and are now proud that this girl was browbeaten into not expressing her moral objection. The very topic of this thread.

As a teacher, I would have expected to deal with a child who disagreed with me by either explaining my point of view with evidence and arguments in order to persuade her, or accepting that she has a different point of view from mine, and that I could not come up with a good argument against it. I would never resort to calling the Principle and getting him to call her parents just over a difference of opinion. That would be both a professional and a moral failure.

For that matter, even if she opposed me on gay marriage and chose to turn up in class with a (decent) fashion statement of that opposition, I would if anything have to commend her for both standing up for her principles and doing so in a polite non disruptive manner. Even if I still disagreed with her and hoped to eventually persuade her otherwise.

Of course this may be a difference between a teacher, whose main duty is the good and education of the student, and a catechist, who you may feel only has a duty to get the children to agree with the catechism by whatever means. :ehh:

 

[DrTaffy]

And that must gnaw at such people, knowing active homosexuality is not socially acceptable, not deep down inside, to many, even to themselves … because it is naturally written in man’s heart.
,

And yet it is not homosexuality that modern society finds loathsome, but homophobia.

Does that ‘gnaw’ at you, or would you find that question insulting and uncharitable?

 

[clem456]

As you point out, teens are much better informed and opinionated based on that information, than ever before. They are particularly sensitive to social justice issues. I think that these topics dovetail well with a child’s natural sense of justice and fairness.

The thing that strikes me most about these discussions is that, in the course of the evolutionary timeline of all the social justice issues, slavery, women’s rights, gay rights, and all the other issues involving increased equality for previously subjugated groups, that there have always been religious arguments in favor, and religious arguments against the expansion of rights.

It is also obvious that those who argued against these rights and been viewed to have been on the wrong side of history. Indeed, some have advanced the argument that this is why the courts are moving so quickly now. No judge or justice wants to be seen as being on the wrong side of a social justice issue.

Catholic doctrine…observes revelation to proclaim the truth about human beings being made in the image of God. Part of revelation is naturally revealed truth.
For instance “You and I exist with real bodies either male or female” is a naturally revealed truth. Right? We are not just spirits. We came “to be” physically as well as spiritually. We have a physical presence. We get hungry, we need shelter, etc… I do not need to cite Catholic doctrine to point out naturally revealed truth. Anyone with reason can observe it.

Particular religious expressions of belief may or may not be in line with reason-able and revealed truth. The belief that interracial marriage is disordered was never in line with revealed truth. It is erroneous to believe that the marriage of a black person and a white person is inferior, or disordered, and that God says so. God does not say so, and revealed nature does not back it up either. I have to invent a construct to argue the point. Individuals or even whole churches can be wildly wrong in their interpretation and application of religious ideas. People can make bad observations about what is revealed. A wrong belief does not disprove the concept of belief. The question is, is a belief right, or is it wrong, in a given situation?

Can we assume you agree that it is just to protect the marriage rights of interracial couples? I am going to assume you think that is just.

Do you need to cite a religious belief to justify that right, or can you assert it from revealed nature? Isn’t it just plain “obvious” that a black man and an oriental woman can form a union that does all the things marriage has always done? That union is what marriage is. I don’t have to construct a new religious paradigm to make that assertion.

If you are going to use revealed nature (correctly) to assert this right of marriage between races, you run into all kinds of problems trying to advocate the same rights for the union of a gay couple as a married couple. These cannot be the same thing, as revealed to any thinking human. No recourse to morality is required, no recourse to doctrines on sin are required. You simply run into a logical non sequitur in your assertion that gay “marriage” is a “right” just like marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

Fine by me, your opinions above. So long as you guys don’t teach Catholic kids in CCD or Catholic Religious Education.

Say, you are not here on this site to convince the faithful away from Catholicism to Buddhism (btw, Buddhist scripture accordingly frowns on homosexual acts too), or ELCA, on gay “marriage”, are you? That would be against forum rules, you see. This site’s mission statement, fyi:

,

I was just repeating what I had read elsewhere about young people in some churches, including the Catholic church, leaving over the LGBT issues. Father Peter Daly wrote about what was happening in his own parish:

There seem to be two great divides in my parish over issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. One divide is generational. The other divide is personal.

The generational divide is the most obvious and clear-cut, but not absolute. Older people are less accepting of LGBT relationships. Younger people see no problem. In fact, younger people often think the church should move beyond mere acceptance to affirmation. The dividing line seems to be about age 50.

This generational divide is radical and serious. For some young people, it determines whether or not they will remain Catholics. One young man left our church over the issue. As the older Catholics die off, the church will find very little acceptance of its current negative position on gay relationships. We will find ourselves culturally marginalized in countries like the United States.

ncronline.org/blogs/parish-diary/what-our-parish-does-about-gay-relationships

 

[petra22]

As others on the forum always say: pray for the children.

Praying hard for our children…

 

[Rau]

I was just repeating what I had read elsewhere about young people in some churches, including the Catholic church, leaving over the LGBT issues. Father Peter Daly wrote about what was happening in his own parish:

ncronline.org/blogs/parish-diary/what-our-parish-does-about-gay-relationships

The author confuses the good of a loving relationship with the misuse of sexuality - the latter acts (if present) diminish what is otherwise Good.

 

[pianistclare]

If I could make an observation:
Kids don’t always respond to authoritative teaching. It is good that you are presenting it, but teenagers especially will not latch on to it if their feelings tell them you are wrong somehow. (“the Church’s teaching discriminates!!! cause the Church doesn’t love people, cause the Church doesn’t let them do…whatever…cause the Church just wants to tell everyone what to do…”)

It’s always good to have a non-refutable argument from nature.
No one can dispute that man/woman is the unique relationship that creates a child. This reality takes the issue out of the realm of feelings and opinions.
If the class is open to this reality which is simply and directly revealed in nature, you can then go on to flesh out why the Church teaches what it does, using the language that it does. If a person denies this reality, you are speaking two different languages and not much is going to be accomplished.

Young adults love to find inconsistencies and point them out, and this is a glaring inconsistency in their own thinking.
The beautiful thing is, you don’t have to mention the word “evil” or “sin” to make the point about how unique marriage is.

Very true. We did point to nature, and that seemed to deflate some of the drama. Thank you!

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s always good to have a non-refutable argument from nature.
No one can dispute that man/woman is the unique relationship that creates a child. This reality takes the issue out of the realm of feelings and opinions.

No one would deny that there is something unique about a male/female relationship. But there is also a non-refutable argument from nature that sexuality can also be used for other things besides just procreation. As shown in Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance:

Homosexuality in its myriad forms has been scientifically documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. Biological Exuberance is the first comprehensive account of the subject, bringing together accurate, accessible, and nonsensationalized information. Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting–even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420403727&sr=1-1&keywords=biological+exuberance

Humans, of course, are a species of mammal.

 

[clem456]

No one would deny that there is something unique about a male/female relationship. But there is also a non-refutable argument from nature that sexuality can also be used for other things besides just procreation. As shown in Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance:

amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420403727&sr=1-1&keywords=biological+exuberance

Humans, of course, are a species of mammal.

I am glad that we have that common ground.

We would call those other aspects the unitive aspects, as I am sure you are well aware.

We could have a long discussion about the word “use”. And I think that topic is an important one. Catholic theology does not speak of properly ordered sexuality as being used in any way. Rather sexuality is integral to the person etc etc…
I don’t have time to elaborate now, perhaps others can elaborate on the properly ordered nature of sexuality in opposition to utilitarian references.

 

[centerbe]

I was just repeating what I had read elsewhere about young people in some churches, including the Catholic church, leaving over the LGBT issues. Father Peter Daly wrote about what was happening in his own parish:

ncronline.org/blogs/parish-diary/what-our-parish-does-about-gay-relationships

The earlier posted comments and link to Father Peter Daly’s blog post are to me an accurate reflection of the current situation. My children (teenagers and in their 20’s) do not agree with the RCC’s views on people with SSA as also noted by Fr. Daly. I believe that the majority of people with SSA are not this way by choice but have been this way their entire lives just as us heterosexuals are. Treating them as “intrinsically disordered” is pretty harsh and shows little compassion.

Gay marriage has been a fact in my country for over a decade and is becoming legal in many countries (yes even the USA) as time moves forward. While I was dead against gay marriage, I have come to accept that it takes nothing away from my marriage or any other sacramental marriage. This was also stated by Fr. Daly in his blog post.

The RCC will never have to perform a gay marriage so let’s move on. I have no problem defending this. The state can licence gay marriage and let people live their lives as they see fit.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And yet it is not homosexuality that modern society finds loathsome, but homophobia.

Does that ‘gnaw’ at you, or would you find that question insulting and uncharitable?

Not at all. Besides homophobia is a made up word. It is not even an actual phobia. In fact, Associated Press has banned using the word, the same with Islamophobia.
,

 

[pianistclare]

And yet it is not homosexuality that modern society finds loathsome, but homophobia.

Does that ‘gnaw’ at you, or would you find that question insulting and uncharitable?

So, you believe Catholics are homophobic?

 

[pianistclare]

(emphasis in red added)

It is not a slippery concept. This thread is about Catholics being afraid to speak out about your views in a predominantly secular environment.

Then you come along, arguably gloating about how you, an adult in a position of authority over children, used that authority to browbeat a young girl who dared express a secular opinion in a catholic environment.:nope:

Being “the biggest bully in the playground” is of course a figure of speech that I would expect any adult english speaker, let alone a teacher, to be familiar with. The point was not that you were ‘bullying’ her, but that you are celebrating a triumph of authoritarianism and peer pressure over freedom to express individual opinions, when you happen to be the authority, on a thread allegedly about how we (or maybe just you) should be free to express individual opinions.

That being said, while ‘bully’ is a more perjorative term than I would have chosen outside of the established figure of speech, I don’t see that it is inaccurate, stripped down to its literal meaning. You did not, from you said, persuade this girl by reason and evidence that she was wrong, you got the pastor to call her parents and those of the other dissenters and are now proud that this girl was browbeaten into not expressing her moral objection. The very topic of this thread.

As a teacher, I would have expected to deal with a child who disagreed with me by either explaining my point of view with evidence and arguments in order to persuade her, or accepting that she has a different point of view from mine, and that I could not come up with a good argument against it. I would never resort to calling the Principle and getting him to call her parents just over a difference of opinion. That would be both a professional and a moral failure.

For that matter, even if she opposed me on gay marriage and chose to turn up in class with a (decent) fashion statement of that opposition, I would if anything have to commend her for both standing up for her principles and doing so in a polite non disruptive manner. Even if I still disagreed with her and hoped to eventually persuade her otherwise.

Of course this may be a difference between a teacher, whose main duty is the good and education of the student, and a catechist, who you may feel only has a duty to get the children to agree with the catechism by whatever means. :ehh:

OK, aside from the personal attacks, let me emphatically state that no one was brow-beaten.
Kids shout out stuff, we gently address or correct.
You have really no idea how teen classes operate.
We have an obligation to present the church’s position, which in this case was “respect everyone as a child of God”. If a kid advances that others are awful, hateful, and mean bullies, then we have a duty to tell them that God does not promote or condone such.
You seem to have a problem with this. In a Catholic Church, in a Catholic religious ed program, you’re going to get Catholic teaching. If you don’t like it or disagree…don’t enroll. Simple as that. But if your parents want this to be taught to you…well. I guess you have to be open to learning. Without shouting down the teachers or the priest with regard to something that was never even part of the lesson.

“By whatever means”, Um. Yeah, The catechism is what we go by.
I love the children, This girl is not traumatized and has since apologized for being rude. If she had a real problem, I can guarantee that she and her entire family would have pulled up stakes and found another place to worship.
You are making a lot of assumptions for a person who was not there not there.
I’m not gloating. I’m stating that our teens have already made up their mind about spiritual matters based on secular perceptions. That’s a fact.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

No one would deny that there is something unique about a male/female relationship. But there is also a non-refutable argument from nature that sexuality can also be used for other things besides just procreation. As shown in Bruce Bagemihl’s book Biological Exuberance:

amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420403727&sr=1-1&keywords=biological+exuberance

Humans, of course, are a species of mammal.

1. Bruce Bagemihl admitted to being gay himself, but of course denies that it was his motivation to research on the subject and write the book.
2. Man is the highest of God’s creation capable of self examination, reflection, analysis and will, not manifest with non-human animals. Should humans look up to animals as model of behavior? They are known to eat their young.
3. I have yet to come across that any specie of mammal, bonobos included, where two males, for example, mate to completion (release of sperm).
   ,

 

[Rau]

…My children (teenagers and in their 20’s) do not agree with the RCC’s views on people with SSA…

What exactly do they, and you, understand that view to be?

I believe that the majority of people with SSA are not this way by choice but have been this way their entire lives just as us heterosexuals are.

This might be correct; the RCC does not disagree with this - it admits to not knowing the cause or origins like the rest of us.

 

[alchemist3]

The Catholic Church should be free to express whatever opinion it wants to regarding marriage and can marry whoever they want. If they want to only marry heterosexual couples that is absolutely the perogative of the Catholic Church. The government should get out of the marriage business entirely, both for gays and heterosexuals and just issue civil union licenses to any two adults who wish to form a joint partnership. It avoids the entire issue of redifining marriage altogether. Marriage gets defined by your church, civil unions are defined by the State. End of argument.

 

[Rau]

…homophobia is a made up word. It is not even an actual phobia. In fact, Associated Press has banned using the word, the same with Islamophobia.
,

It is self-serving isn’t it. Coin a word that even “sounds” damning, and then apply it to the class of people with whom you have a disagreement.

It is kind of the mirror-image of terms like “marriage-equality”. Coin a term that sounds inherently good, never mind that the thing to which it is applied fails fundamentally to make sense.