Sexual Oreintation Discrimination

[Aquinas62]

Did you ever think of looking at it the otherway around? When was the last time you heard of people protesting at a funeral saying that God killed their son because the USA is tolorant of Catholics?

you should use a better example then the Westboro Baptist Churcn, they are already a national joke albeit a sick one. They have no credibility with anybody of substance. The H.A.M (Homosexual Agenda Movement) probably secretly loves these guys, because they can go back to their seminars, the media and their echo chamber, and convince each other that is what Christians are really like under that fake smile.

 

[Jermosh]

you should use a better example then the Westboro Baptist Churcn, they are already a national joke albeit a sick one. They have no credibility with anybody of substance. The H.A.M (Homosexual Agenda Movement) probably secretly loves these guys, because they can go back to their seminars, the media and their echo chamber, and convince each other that is what Christians are really like under that fake smile.

You are makeing my point. This why its importent that we must keep an open diologue and understand if they have ill will on their side. I think its a fine example.

 

[Jermosh]

Ones proclivity for any specific behavior is not a discriminatory issue.

Its not about the person, its about the organization they joined that states they cannot be discriminatory against LGBTs.

 

[buffalo]

Its not about the person, its about the organization they joined that states they cannot be discriminatory against LGBTs.

I wonder what would happen in these organizations if two men were caught in a closet vs a man and a woman?

 

[Aquinas62]

You are makeing my point. This why its importent that we must keep an open diologue and understand if they have ill will on their side. I think its a fine example.

My point is, that the H.A.M s do not want dialog, they want capitulation, they wish to destroy any and all institutions that do not celebrate, or affirm, or approve of their “Lifestyle Choices”

 

[Jermosh]

My point is, that the H.A.M s do not want dialog, they want capitulation, they wish to destroy any and all institutions that do not celebrate, or affirm, or approve of their “Lifestyle Choices”

HAM does not speak for all of the LGBT community, just like “rev” Phelps does not speak for the Christian Community. The olive leaf must be given by someone to open diologue.

Also LGBT discrimination is a far more then just acceptence or approval. Even to this day they are still subject to blantent violence and gross discrimination. As I said, try to look at the subject through their eyes, maybe try to walk in there shoes.

 

[Jermosh]

I wonder what would happen in these organizations if two men were caught in a closet vs a man and a woman?

This is not very relevant, or at all to the question of the OP. Sexual misconduct is sexual misconduct.

 

[Aquinas62]

HAM does not speak for all of the LGBT community, just like “rev” Phelps does not speak for the Christian Community. The olive leaf must be given by someone to open diologue.

Also LGBT discrimination is a far more then just acceptence or approval. Even to this day they are still subject to blantent violence and gross discrimination. As I said, try to look at the subject through their eyes, maybe try to walk in there shoes.

If there is any specific violence directed at a gay person these days, it is national news, you would have to describe “gross discrimination” to me, because I have read that gays and lesbians in america as a group has one of the highest levels of income have a greater percentage of professional jobs. They are also far overrepresented in media and education and government, and have special laws protecting them… give me some of that discrimination.

 

[BobObob]

If there is any specific violence directed at a gay person these days, it is national news, you would have to describe “gross discrimination” to me, because I have read that gays and lesbians in america as a group has one of the highest levels of income have a greater percentage of professional jobs. They are also far overrepresented in media and education and government, and have special laws protecting them… give me some of that discrimination.

For discrimination towards homosexual persons by average practicing Catholics, see post 35 and beyond in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457358&page=3

For discrimination from others in general:

uwlax.edu/faculty/giddings/ECO336/Week_6/Berg_Lien.pdf

“Homosexual men earn 16% to 28% less than non-homosexual men with similar demographic characteristics.”

ideas.repec.org/a/ilr/articl/v48y1995i4p726-739.html

“[T]he author finds that gay and bisexual male workers earned from 11% to 27% less than heterosexual male workers with the same experience, education, occupation, marital status, and region of residence…”

citeulike.org/user/tfuist/article/4004094

“[G]ay and lesbian communities have brought attention to the scope and consequences of anti-gay and lesbian violence in the United States, which ‘has taken its place among such societal concerns as violence against women, children and ethnic and racial groups’ (Comstock 1991:1)”

books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZWT4I2cTCFIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=gays+violence&ots=GNPqYbL6Rm&sig=LswRIWRs5sJdUR0pGgL2Fqisdug#v=onepage&q=gays%20violence&f=false (page 19)

“Since the birth of the gay liberation movement in the 1960s, a large body of data on anti-gay violence and other victimization has developed. Thousands of episodes—including defimation, harassment, intimidation, assault, murder, vandalism, and othe abuse—have been reported to police departments and local and national organizations (Berrill, 1986; NGLTF, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990; NGLTF Policy Institute, 1991). Many thousands more incidents have gone unreported (see Chapter 18 of this volume by Berrill & Herek). Numerous empirical studies, many of them unpublished, also have shown the problem of anti-gay violence to be widespread.”

These are things that I found by simply doing a few minutes of online research. I’m sure I could find much more if I wanted to…

 

[bosonhiggs]

For work and for my graduate program, I am a member of a public employee professional organization. It focuses on professional development activities, networking and such.

To be a member, you have to abide by a code of ethics. Part of the code states that you should not discriminate based upon sexual orientation (under the civil merit system).

I was under a lot of pressure from school and work to join and its a good organization for the most part, so I joined but with some hesitation about the sexual orientation thing.

I believe that in the most cases non-heterosexuals should not be disciminated against, but I believe in some cases there are just reasons to discriminate (such as with school teachers).

Is it wrong for me to part of an organization that has this in the code of ethics? I don’t want to sin, but I don’t also want to be scupulous and am generally fearful of confrontation.

Discrimination of any kind is not acceptable, and there is no justifiable reason to discriminate against anyone.

 

[Aquinas62]

Discrimination of any kind is not acceptable, and there is no justifiable reason to discriminate against anyone.

I am sorry, but I dont want somebody with boobs and a beard and mustache, wearing a miniskirt (this seems to be a fad lately as I have seen this a few times this year) working at my business, greeting customers, or teaching school. That is not acceptable to me.

 

[bosonhiggs]

I am sorry, but I dont want somebody with boobs and a beard and mustache, wearing a miniskirt (this seems to be a fad lately as I have seen this a few times this year) working at my business, greeting customers, or teaching school. That is not acceptable to me.

Are you perhaps referring to Trans individuals? Regardless, that is a highly bigoted way of thinking. Like I said, discrimination of ANY KIND is simply not acceptable.

 

[Aquinas62]

in your opinion, I dont care if it is bigoted… it isnt natural. dress for the norms in your culture, if he-she-it wants to be a woman, than go all the way. don’t half step it.

 

[bosonhiggs]

in your opinion, I dont care if it is bigoted… it isnt natural. dress for the norms in your culture, if he-she-it wants to be a woman, than go all the way. don’t half step it.

Calling an individual “it” is extremely demeaning. You obviously do not understand the time, money, and effort it takes to change ones gender. It isn’t as simple as “going all the way”. It takes years before someone is even considered for gender reassignment surgery, then years before they can actually have said surgery done.

I doubt you care, but here is a snippet of the process : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitioning_(transgender

In my opinion? No. It’s the law - discriminating against, bullying, or harassing someone due to their gender identity and expression is illegal.

These individuals are humans, people with feelings - they are no different from you or me. They do not deserve the hatred and disgust close-minded individuals seem so happy to hand out. However, you seem incapable of understanding that, of empathizing - in my opinion your attitude is appalling and disgusting.

 

[Aquinas62]

at least if you are going to dress like a woman, wearing a mini skirt. pumps and the whole getup, you should first ditch the moustache, and beard and wear a wig.

as an aside, I don’t give a rats hind quarters what you think of me. I refuse to call that normal.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on topic and cease from the uncharitible comments.

 

[Booklover]

That wasn’t super clear. Saying “Homosexuals are always talking about “tolerance”, but they are the most intolerant when it comes to those who don’t approve of their lifestyle,” (post 21) makes it sound like all homosexuals (people with SSA) are militant and committing sexual sin. At least it could easily be interpreted this way.

The intolerance exists though the government controlled media does not report it. Here’s what happened to a group of young people who were campaigning peacefully for traditional marriage.

Regardless of the agenda of gay activist groups, it will damage our ability to reach out to homosexual persons (wording used by CCC 2359 to refer to individuals with SSA) to view all homosexual persons from a political perspective. Doing so would likely influence one to put them in a box and make any discussion with them more of an argument than a constructive dialogue. Politics only tends to create friction between parties.

Regardless, the agenda is there and the radicals behind it will brook no opposition to their goals.

Vickie

 

[BobObob]

The intolerance exists though the government controlled media does not report it. Here’s what happened to a group of young people who were campaigning peacefully for traditional marriage.

Yes, I know that many radical gay activists are extremely intolerant. However, assuming that all persons who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” are extremely intolerant individuals is about as logical as homosexual persons assuming that all Catholics are like Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist “Church” (the so-called “church” that pickets funerals of dead homosexual persons with signs like “God hates fags” and “thank God for AIDS”).

Regardless, the agenda is there and the radicals behind it will brook no opposition to their goals.

One aught to ask himself, what is the proper response to the agendas of radical GLBT activists and what’s the ultimate goal of this response? Responding to gay activists with the ultimate goal of beating them politically will do no good IMHO. However, if one’s ultimate goal is to bring as many homosexual persons to Christ, much good may be done.

Discriminating against persons who experience SSA, or who also identify themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” won’t do any good (and this seems to be affirmed by CCC 2358). That’s not to say that civil laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation aren’t problematic. It is to say that individuals should choose to show God’s love to them, even if they might be committing sinful actions.

 

[Booklover]

Yes, I know that many radical gay activists are extremely intolerant. However, assuming that all persons who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” are extremely intolerant individuals is about as logical as homosexual persons assuming that all Catholics are like Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist “Church” (the so-called “church” that pickets funerals of dead homosexual persons with signs like “God hates fags” and “thank God for AIDS”).

One aught to ask himself, what is the proper response to the agendas of radical GLBT activists and what’s the ultimate goal of this response? Responding to gay activists with the ultimate goal of beating them politically will do no good IMHO. However, if one’s ultimate goal is to bring as many homosexual persons to Christ, much good may be done.

So what are you advocating? Allowing them to push their agenda on the rest of us? The radicals committed to the “gay” lifestyle have no interest in anything but achieving their goals. Their actions towards those who oppose that lifestyle show that.

Discriminating against persons who experience SSA, or who also identify themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” won’t do any good (and this seems to be affirmed by CCC 2358). That’s not to say that civil laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation aren’t problematic. It is to say that individuals should choose to show God’s love to them, even if they might be committing sinful actions.

I think the word “discrimination” is used too freely nowadays. It’s not “discrimination” to oppose “same-sex marriage” or the legalization of the homosexual lifestyle.

See here. Good article! Here’s an excerpt.

1. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

Vickie

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6782978:

Yes, I know that many radical gay activists are extremely intolerant. However, assuming that all persons who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” are extremely intolerant individuals is about as logical as homosexual persons assuming that all Catholics are like Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist “Church” (the so-called “church” that pickets funerals of dead homosexual persons with signs like “God hates fags” and “thank God for AIDS”).

One aught to ask himself, what is the proper response to the agendas of radical GLBT activists and what’s the ultimate goal of this response? Responding to gay activists with the ultimate goal of beating them politically will do no good IMHO. However, if one’s ultimate goal is to bring as many homosexual persons to Christ, much good may be done.

So what are you advocating? Allowing them to push their agenda on the rest of us? The radicals committed to the “gay” lifestyle have no interest in anything but achieving their goals. Their actions towards those who oppose that lifestyle show that.

I’m certainly not advocating the spread of “their” agenda. I’m advocating several things, including not putting all of “them” in a box. I’m also advocating extending Christlike love to “them”. Many times these political and radical gay activist groups gain power by being the only ones who address real issues that homosexual persons face, such as rejection

I do think that there is a time and place for to oppose the agendas of certain gay activists, but this should be play a secondary role to love and should be done by teaching morality and risks, not by attacking persons themselves or taking an “us vs “them” approach. The battle we should ultimately be fighting is against principalities and powers (Eph 6:12), not persons who may or may not honestly believe there is nothing wrong with their sexual behavior.

Remember, there are PERSONS involved in this. These persons face real issues. The more political it is, the more likely one is to loose track of that fact and fight the wrong battle against the wrong enemy.

I think the word “discrimination” is used too freely nowadays. It’s not “discrimination” to oppose “same-sex marriage” or the legalization of the homosexual lifestyle.

“Discrimination” simply means to make a decision based on some factor. I may discriminate between what foods I want to eat for dinner based off of various factors (taste, nutrition, etc.). Recently, the word “discrimination” has come to strongly imply an unjust discrimination.

To oppose “same-sex marriage” or homosexual acts would be to discriminate against sexual ACTS, not sexual ORIENTATION. The laws may not recognize it that way, but those are often highly problematic and faulty laws.

Catholics should avoid discrimination based on sexual orientation. We should also not discriminate against persons who practice sexual sin, except in matters which not discriminating would be allowing the sexual sin to occur (such as letting your son share a room with his girlfriend in your house overnight).

Regarding the document from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith that you liked to through EWTN, I’ve read it in its entirety in the past and did so again, and there’s nothing in there contrary to what I’ve said. It’s a non-magisterial letter that points out problems with certain legislation that could cause increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior. This document also says:

“7 It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
…
12 Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc…”

It should also be noted that this document assumes that a person’s homosexual orientation won’t be known and thus won’t need anti-discrimination laws unless he/she has advertised his/her sexual orientation (see post 14). This, among with other things in this document, indicates that it is primarily concerned with how laws will affect how people view and treat homosexual behavior, not discrimination against homosexual persons.