Sexual Oreintation Discrimination

[MAV0524]

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.

 

[vera_dicere]

My brother worked for our govt. down here, and one of his jobs recently was to make a recommendation to a particular body about whether the govt. should look at investing in and allowing embryonic stem cell research. Obviously, my brother is a devoute Catholic and ESCR is immoral IHHO, but he wasn’t allowed to insert his bias or religious opinion into it officially. He found a way around it by simply refering to how it would offend the Maori people who our govt is in parternship with and must adhere to various Maori moral codes, or at least consider them.

As for your situation, its kinda the same, when we have a job that involves us being in the secular world, or joining a secular body with non-Christian ideals we have to assert our Christianity humbly and with consideration for our professional standards.

Its right to not discriminate against homosexuals. There’s no reason a homosexual can’t be a teacher. The reality is that plenty of heterosexual teachers are just as likely to abuse as homosexuals. Rape and molestation et al, are about power, not sexual orientation, though one’s sexual orientation can play a part in what gender they target.

So, I don’t think its wrong of you to be a memeber of this organisation, as long as the charter of this group does not wish to promote a homosexual agenda. Its fine to say “just because your’e gay doesn’t mean you should be discriminated” but it crosses a line to say “this gay person is gay, therefore they should have more rights and get more benefits than this straight person”.

As an example, I was a member of a professional body, and it was “equal opportunity” and “non-discrimination”, and that’s fine, that’s about human rights and upholding everybody’s dignity. But they the head of the professional body made a submission to the government saying that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and adopt children. It was at that time I left teh group because they had stepped the line of simple apathetic non-discrimination to active promotion of a lifestyle I didn’t morally agree with.

Interestingly, a large portion of the member body was outraged that the head had made this submission without consultation, and a lot of the members were making comments about how they have no right to do a submission on such a personal and contraversal subject. Because of the outrage, the head of the group retracted teh submission and the ones most responsible were voted off next election.

Once that had happened, I rejoined the professional body as they now no longer were going to promote that particular lifestyle and those who had pushed the submission were gone.

 

[MAV0524]

I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger that wrote that it was legitimate to discrimate when it came to teachers and military service. I don’t think it is so much about abuse as it is setting a good example. I’d hope a Catholic school would not hire a practicing homosexual as a teacher.

The organization did publish a textbook where the author seemed at least semi-supportive of homosexuality, although it was seen as opinion of the author I think. They also have on their sign-up sheets a spot to put your “spouse/partner’s” name. This didn’t bother me so much because I didn’t have to “abide” by that or support that.

It also certifies people in the profession, so its a pretty big organizition with lots of benefits to join.

It was part of the EEO policy though.

 

[MAV0524]

I should also note that I live in a state that outlaws the discriminaton. I do not support those blanket laws at all.

 

[BobObob]

CCC 2358, in part, says:

“[Homosexual persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

Notice that it didn’t just say that every discrimination should be avoided, but even every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided.

Regarding molestation, vere dicere is correct regarding it being an issue about power. Statiscally, homosexual persons are more likely to become molesters, however, this may be because most molesters have been molested themselves, and a very high % of homosexual persons have also been molested.

BTW, I’m not aware of Cardinal Ratzinger endorsing any form of discrimination against persons with eroticised same-sex attraction (homosexual orientation). He may have endorsed discrimination against persons practicing homosexual behavior, but that’s much different.

Also, being in contact with someone who has eroticised same-sex attraction does not cause others to develop eroticised same-sex attraction. It’s not contangeous. Being educated by someone who practices sodomy may influence how one views the morality of same-sex sexual unions, but that’s a different story.

 

[Stylites]

CCC 2358, in part, says:

“[Homosexual persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

Notice that it didn’t just say that every discrimination should be avoided, but even every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided.

. . .

BTW, I’m not aware of Cardinal Ratzinger endorsing any form of discrimination against persons with eroticised same-sex attraction (homosexual orientation). He may have endorsed discrimination against persons practicing homosexual behavior, but that’s much different.

I believe there are new screening protocols in place by the Church for men with SSA, which is an example of just discrimination. Merely being celibate while in seminary is no longer the threshold for ordination.

As the revelations of abuse have become public it has become increasingly clear that almost all the victims are adolescent males, not prepubescent boys. The problem of priests with same-sex attractions (SSA) molesting adolescents or children must be addressed if future scandals are to be avoided.

In treating priests who have engaged in pedophilia and ephebophilia we have observed that these men almost without exception suffered from a denial of sin in their lives. They were unwilling to admit and address the profound emotional pain they experienced in childhood of loneliness, often in the father relationship, peer rejection, lack of male confidence, poor body image, sadness, and anger. This anger, which originated most often from disappointments and hurts with their peers and/or fathers, was often directed toward the Church, the Holy Father, and the religious authorities. Rejecting the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, these men for the most part adopted the utilitarian sexual ethic which the Holy Father so brilliantly critiqued in his book, Love and Responsibility. They came to see their own pleasure as the highest end and used others – including adolescents and children – as sexual objects. They consistently refused to examine their consciences, to accept the Church’s teachings on moral issues as a guide for their personal actions, or regularly avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation.

These priests either refused to seek spiritual direction or chose a spiritual director or confessor who openly rebelled against Church teachings on sexuality. Tragically, these mistakes allowed these men to justify their behaviors.

The Bishops, individually and collectively, should develop screening protocols which will identify men who may pose a risk to others and who cannot live the chaste celibacy required of a priest. This is essential to protect the Church and her children from further pain, sorrow and future scandals. While no screening system is absolutely foolproof, sufficient research is available to develop efficient tools for this task.

narth.com/docs/catholic.html

 

[MAV0524]

CCC 2358, in part, says:

“[Homosexual persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

BTW, I’m not aware of Cardinal Ratzinger endorsing any form of discrimination against persons with eroticised same-sex attraction (homosexual orientation). He may have endorsed discrimination against persons practicing homosexual behavior, but that’s much different.

Also, being in contact with someone who has eroticised same-sex attraction does not cause others to develop eroticised same-sex attraction. It’s not contangeous. Being educated by someone who practices sodomy may influence how one views the morality of same-sex sexual unions, but that’s a different story.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm

Take a look at number 11 in the link. I thinkit was Cardinal Ratzinger that wrote that.

It may or may not be contangeous but that is irrelevant. It could normalize children to homosexuality. Emfeminate men and mascline men could also confuse children.

 

[pnewton]

I think this is an excellent question. I would have no problem treating homosexuals in the governmental work place the same as anyone else and signing such a statement. Obviously religious organizations must be allowed free exercise of religion, including abiding by moral teaching that homosexuality is disordered. I understand the issue with teachers, but in a public system, I do not see how discrimination could be allowed without also allowing for other bias, like anticatholicism. Now if a teacher was ever speaking about their personal life as a homosexual (or heterosexual) to students, that could be forbidden and grounds for termination. For sure, Catholics school should be free to require a moral code of conduct to all employees. I work at a place that has such a code, yet because we are publically funded, I accept that homosexuals do not automatically violate that code. One here is a friend and I have no problems with any who have worked here. Some of the heterosexuals however have caused me headaches and been terminated for it.

 

[MAV0524]

I think this is an excellent question. I would have no problem treating homosexuals in the governmental work place the same as anyone else and signing such a statement. Obviously religious organizations must be allowed free exercise of religion, including abiding by moral teaching that homosexuality is disordered. I understand the issue with teachers, but in a public system, I do not see how discrimination could be allowed without also allowing for other bias, like anticatholicism. Now if a teacher was ever speaking about their personal life as a homosexual (or heterosexual) to students, that could be forbidden and grounds for termination. For sure, Catholics school should be free to require a moral code of conduct to all employees. I work at a place that has such a code, yet because we are publically funded, I accept that homosexuals do not automatically violate that code. One here is a friend and I have no problems with any who have worked here. Some of the heterosexuals however have caused me headaches and been terminated for it.

I don’t think it would be politically viable to discriminate with teachers nowadays in most places. I wonder what happens in states with gay marriage. Do teachers tell their students they are married like my straight teachers did?

I guess this is just another reason to avoid public schools for children.

 

[Stylites]

I wonder what happens in states with gay marriage. Do teachers tell their students they are married like my straight teachers did?

Even asking such a question concerning whether or not teachers splash their personal problems in front of students might be against the law in some places.

.

 

[MAV0524]

Even asking such a question concerning whether or not teachers splash their personal problems in front of students might be against the law in some places.

.

What?

 

[BobObob]

I’m replying late because I haven’t been able to access the internet due to traveling.

I believe there are new screening protocols in place by the Church for men with SSA, which is an example of just discrimination. Merely being celibate while in seminary is no longer the threshold for ordination.

The letter to the Catholic bishops that you cited through NARTH, as the following portion seems to indicate, that it was referring to individuals who reject the Church’s teaching and whose BEHAVIOR is contrary to it:

Rejecting the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, these men for the most part adopted the utilitarian sexual ethic which the Holy Father so brilliantly critiqued in his book, Love and Responsibility. They came to see their own pleasure as the highest end and used others – including adolescents and children – as sexual objects. They consistently refused to examine their consciences, to accept the Church’s teachings on moral issues as a guide for their personal actions, or regularly avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation.

narth.com/docs/catholic.html

Also, this article says:

Finally, seminarians, including those in religious orders, with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained until they understand the emotional causes of their attractions, work to resolve them, and are emotionally healthy.

Also note that it isn’t written by the Catholic Church itself, and even if it was, it would be a disciplinary action of the Church, not an infallible teaching of the CC.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm

Take a look at number 11 in the link. I thinkit was Cardinal Ratzinger that wrote that.

All 11 says is that there may be situations in which discrimination against those with SSA may be just. In its entirety it says:

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

Also, ewtn could simply be wrong. It is often a good source regarding Catholic teaching, but it isn’t the be-all end-all authority.

It may or may not be contangeous but that is irrelevant. It could normalize children to homosexuality. Emfeminate men and mascline men could also confuse children.

What do you mean it could “normalize children to homosexuality?” I guess you could say that people cohabiting out of wedlock could “normalize children to fornication.”

Celibate Catholics who believe and abide by the Catholic Church’s teachings who have same-sex attraction typically don’t cause problems for children and don’t confuse them. Also, not all men with SSA are effeminate and not all effeminate men are homosexual.​

 

[MAV0524]

All 11 says is that there may be situations in which discrimination against those with SSA may be just. In its entirety it says: .

I know this. I was pointing out that discriminatin can be just.

Also, ewtn could simply be wrong. It is often a good source regarding Catholic teaching, but it isn’t the be-all end-all authority.
.

ETWN did not write that. It came from the Vatican in 1986 I believe. It was just posted on EWTN.

What do you mean it could “normalize children to homosexuality?” I guess you could say that people cohabiting out of wedlock could “normalize children to fornication.”

Celibate Catholics who believe and abide by the Catholic Church’s teachings who have same-sex attraction typically don’t cause problems for children and don’t confuse them. Also, not all men with SSA are effeminate and not all effeminate men are homosexual.

Cohabitating people do normalize children to fornication.

Celibate ones may not but almost everyone has weaknesses.

That’s true about effeminate men but many homosexuals are effeminate whether try to be or not. It’s called disorder for a reason.

A witch hunt for celibate homosexuals is not what I was talking about. I was more so talking about obvious/balant homosexuals.

 

[buffalo]

This shows just how cleverly this has been done:

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

 

[JimG]

What do you mean it could “normalize children to homosexuality?” I guess you could say that people cohabiting out of wedlock could “normalize children to fornication.”

I just wanted to note that, to a large extent, that’s already happened. Cohabitation and fornication have been normalized for much of society.

 

[JimG]

Laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are generally intended to protect homosexuals from unjust discrimination. But the laws don’t say that, they say “sexual orientation.”

It’s only a matter of time before some 40 year old teacher, male or female, who is having sex with a teenager, invokes the law as protection for his or her own sexual orientation.

It will be argued that pedophilia and ephebophilia are fetishes, perhaps, not orientations, and further, that there are other laws against having sex with children. At that point it will be argued that age of consent laws for anyone over the age of puberty or the age of reason are age-discriminatory and should be eliminated.

Sounds far fetched now. But the laws protect sexual orientation, not homosexuality.

 

[Zatzat]

Let’s try this;

Treat others as you would have them treat you.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s try this;

Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Beautifully said. Christian charity demands fraternal correction. That is how we show love and concern for out neighbor.

 

[BobObob]

Cohabitating people do normalize children to fornication.

Celibate ones may not but almost everyone has weaknesses.

That’s true about effeminate men but many homosexuals are effeminate whether try to be or not. It’s called disorder for a reason.

A witch hunt for celibate homosexuals is not what I was talking about. I was more so talking about obvious/balant homosexuals.

You never really answered my question, “What do you mean it could ‘normalize children to homosexuality?’” I asked this in part because many people throw around the word “normal” and not make it clear exactly what they mean. I’m assuming that by saying that “it could normalize children to homosexuality” you roughly mean that observing individuals who appear to be homosexual could influence them to be more accepting of homosexual behavior. I don’t think that the observation of individuals who appear to be homosexual would influence children to eventually become more accepting of homosexual behavior unless they are trying to display that they are sexually active with members of the same-sex. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are generally intended to protect homosexuals from unjust discrimination. But the laws don’t say that, they say “sexual orientation.”
…

I don’t get your post.

Not discriminating against a person based off of his or her sexual orientation (attractions) does not mean that you don’t discriminate against his or her sexual practices. It seems that many laws (or at least the ways those laws are interpreted by judges) tend to not distinguish between discriminating based off of orientation vs behavior. Is this what you were trying to address?

Let’s try this;

Treat others as you would have them treat you.

This is always a good principle (unless you’re a psychotic individual who wants people to abuse you).

When it is applied to individuals with a homosexual orientation, it should mean that they should be given equal opportunity when seeking jobs within the Catholic Church (which I believe individuals with SSA are not allowed to do).

When applied to people who practice homosexual acts, it means talking to them with just as much respect as you would anyone else who may be committing serious sin. Many people tend to treat homosexuality as a special sin. Many Christians go in droves to political rallies against gay activists and will send the message to people who commit the sin of homosexuality that they are all going to Hell, while the more charitable approach (and more effective approach) that of reaching out to people who are homosexual or consider themselves part of the gay and lesbian community is rarely taken by Christians. The people who take the former approach (that of saying “God hates fag” at the extreme) alienate homosexual individuals. Regarding this, this is an excellent video:

youtube.com/watch?v=HFKWH4d4jsw&feature=PlayList&p=AE5EB49B3BADE049&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=58

This shows just how cleverly this has been done:

Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

I would like to throw out this warning: the politics surrounding homosexuality makes it difficult for many individuals to not look down at homosexual persons and to reach out to them. The person in the video above (who worked for the right wing organization, the Iowa Family Policy Center) made the point that we shouldn’t oppose homosexuals politically until we learn to love them first.

 

[Kaninchen]

Let’s try this;

Treat others as you would have them treat you.

The (older) Jewish version put ‘nots’ in that - do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you.

It has advantages, the Christian version allows for far, far too much: ‘This is going to hurt but it’s for your own good!’