Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

[Glennford]

I can’t come out to my homophobic parents, for fear that they might reject me
I can’t come out to my brother, in case he decides I’d be better off not seeing my nephew

This is called lying, BTW. In particular, the lying to the brother is an assault on his parental rights. From this, I suppose you don’t think parents have the right to determine the associations their young children should have, but that others (you, in this case) are more qualified to make those decisions than the parents.

Gays continue to wonder why people don’t trust them.

 

[Glennford]

I’d call it consistent, moreso than other arguments I’ve seen, which say that infertile heterosexual couples are okay but same-sex couples are not, because…something about how all the parts fit.

Seriously, if this is the level of understanding you have about the objections, why are you offering your wisdom in this thread? I’d be beter off asking questions to a tree or decorative shrub.

Gays continue to wonder why people don’t trust them.

 

[stewstew03]

Yep…the Pastor felt the “concerns of the parishioner were important”. The parishioners and her friends also were some of the wealthiest people in the parish, but that couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it, right?

Well, if you have an active homosexual lifestyle, and are still professing to represent Christ in the world, then I can understand the concern. In the same way, if I had knowledge of a parishioner engaging in an extra-marital affair, but he continued to participate in communion, church activities, volunteer, etc. I would raise an objection.

Otherwise, if you have turned away from the homosexual lifestyle, then I would object to the actions taken against you. You would have just as much right to be there as Sarah Sokolowski!

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, if you have an active homosexual lifestyle, and are still professing to represent Christ in the world, then I can understand the concern.

I think I read in previous posts by Seeker1969 that he’s not in a relationship and not engaging in an active sex life, but I might be confusing him with Markeverett49. I’m sure both people will speak up and correct me if I’m wrong, and apologies if I am.

Did the priest give scandal to Seeker1961 by banning him from the volunteering he did at the church, for no other reason other than he’s gay?

Apart from the injustice of it all.

Sarah x

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Lokabrena, out of curiosity, is it just coincidental that you happen to be responding to posts besides mine, or is it because you’re still angry about my posts concerning adoption?

 

[stewstew03]

Did the priest give scandal to Seeker1961 by banning him from the volunteering he did at the church, for no other reason other than he’s gay?

Maybe. It’s difficult to know without all the facts. It might be worth it if Seeker addressed the issue with the local diocese.

 

[Lokabrenna]

BTW, in case you’re wondering why I’m not responding to your posts, Marc Anthony and Glennford, it’s because you’re now on my ignore list. I consider myself to have a very high tolerance threshold for the kinds of things people say to me on the Internet, and I rarely if ever use my ignore list but even I have my lines that shouldn’t be crossed. End of discussion.

Have a pleasant evening.

 

[thewanderer]

I’d call it consistent, moreso than other arguments I’ve seen, which say that infertile heterosexual couples are okay but same-sex couples are not, because…something about how all the parts fit.

See, I still think homosexual behaviour is ultimately immoral, but I don’t believe it is the governments job to dictate every last rule of morality to the people. However, it surely is the job of the government to help ensure that there are stable, commited, and fruitful unions which will produce its future citizens. The absolute best, and to be honest least expensive for the government, way of achieving this is through encouraging stable unions between men and women who will procreate and raise their own biological children in a stable environment. So it make sense for a government to have a special legal position encouraging this. It is simply a matter of a government looking out for its own continued survival. Beyond this interest I really don’t see why it should matter to the government that I have commited mself to someone and promised to live with him and for him for the rest of my life. That is my personal and private life and not something that the government should be poking into. I guess I am rather rambling on now, but the point is that I find it very frustrating when people assume that just because you are against legalized gay marriage you must be some bigoted homophobic lump of trash, which is certainly the way some people behave whenever they hear that you are against legalizing gay marriage. There are many generealizations and assumptions on both sides that lead to much misunderstanding. But the issue of legalizing gay marriage is not as black and white as some people seem to think that it is.

 

[thewanderer]

BTW, in case you’re wondering why I’m not responding to your posts, Marc Anthony and Glennford, it’s because you’re now on my ignore list. I consider myself to have a very high tolerance threshold for the kinds of things people say to me on the Internet, and I rarely if ever use my ignore list but even I have my lines that shouldn’t be crossed. End of discussion.

Have a pleasant evening.

I hope you don’t mind me butting into this, but I do think you might have misunderstood Marc Anthony’s post. With Glennford I understand, but I did not think that Marc Anthony was implying that it would have been better for you to have been left an orphan. Although I guess it is possible that I have also misunderstood him. At any rate, I hope you do not think me too forward in suggesting this, it is a part of my personality to be a peace keeper, I like to try and resolve conflicts and misunderstandings and sometimes it gets the better of me even when I am not sure if it is entirely my place to say anything. If you think this is out of line then I am sorry for bringing it up.

 

[Glennford]

With Glennford I understand

HA HA. I may frame this.

 

[thewanderer]

HA HA. I may frame this.

I do not know about your other posts, but I must say that on this thread you have come across in a very antagonistic manner.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Amazing…what a lack of reading comprehension.

Lokabrenna, if you ever get to see this (perhaps somebody else could quote it, but that’s their choice, not mine), I request an apology for telling me that I would prefer killing babies to adoption. Not only did I not say that, that is the exact reverse of my actual position. I don’t know what you thought I said in my post, but whatever it was, you were wrong, and I issued a follow-up post clarifying what I said.

Your response to me was highly insulting.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I hope you don’t mind me butting into this, but I do think you might have misunderstood Marc Anthony’s post. With Glennford I understand, but I did not think that Marc Anthony was implying that it would have been better for you to have been left an orphan.

I was implying nothing of the sort (thank you for pointing that out), and a clear reading of my posts makes that obvious.

What I said is that being adopted by a loving family is the next best circumstance for a child to be in after being raised by their biological parents in a loving, stable home.

Glennford is right about one thing-your idea of the arguments about the natural ends of things is highly garbled at best and a strawman at worst.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

See, I still think homosexual behaviour is ultimately immoral, but I don’t believe it is the governments job to dictate every last rule of morality to the people. However, it surely is the job of the government to help ensure that there are stable, commited, and fruitful unions which will produce its future citizens. The absolute best, and to be honest least expensive for the government, way of achieving this is through encouraging stable unions between men and women who will procreate and raise their own biological children in a stable environment. So it make sense for a government to have a special legal position encouraging this. It is simply a matter of a government looking out for its own continued survival. Beyond this interest I really don’t see why it should matter to the government that I have commited mself to someone and promised to live with him and for him for the rest of my life. That is my personal and private life and not something that the government should be poking into. I guess I am rather rambling on now, but the point is that I find it very frustrating when people assume that just because you are against legalized gay marriage you must be some bigoted homophobic lump of trash, which is certainly the way some people behave whenever they hear that you are against legalizing gay marriage. There are many generealizations and assumptions on both sides that lead to much misunderstanding. But the issue of legalizing gay marriage is not as black and white as some people seem to think that it is.

You actually have stated my views much more perfectly than I ever could have.

 

[Glennford]

Glennford is right about one thing

Well, that’s a start.

 

[atheistgirl]

Amazing…what a lack of reading comprehension.

Lokabrenna, if you ever get to see this (perhaps somebody else could quote it, but that’s their choice, not mine), I request an apology for telling me that I would prefer killing babies to adoption. Not only did I not say that, that is the exact reverse of my actual position. I don’t know what you thought I said in my post, but whatever it was, you were wrong, and I issued a follow-up post clarifying what I said.

Your response to me was highly insulting.

Your point, as I understood it, was that the ideal for a child is with it’s natural mother and father. Adoption is good, but it’s not ideal. Adoption by gay parents if even less ideal, because they’re not the natural parents, and they’re not a mother and father unit.

I think what you were saying could be picked up as harsh, especially when you use relative terms like ideal, by someone who was adopted, loved, cherished, and given a great chance in life, by adoptive parents.

So I think your wording could have been a lot better. That’s my personal opinion.

However, in no way, in my reading of what you said, did you even remotely hint at, or suggest, that a child would be better off dead, than be adopted, or be adopted by a gay couple.

Sarah x

 

[Lokabrenna]

I hope you don’t mind me butting into this, but I do think you might have misunderstood Marc Anthony’s post. With Glennford I understand, but I did not think that Marc Anthony was implying that it would have been better for you to have been left an orphan. Although I guess it is possible that I have also misunderstood him. At any rate, I hope you do not think me too forward in suggesting this, it is a part of my personality to be a peace keeper, I like to try and resolve conflicts and misunderstandings and sometimes it gets the better of me even when I am not sure if it is entirely my place to say anything. If you think this is out of line then I am sorry for bringing it up.

It’s not a problem. I do consider myself a peacekeeper as well, but even I have limits, and even though that might not have been what he (I’m assuming he) meant, I still found it hurtful.

As for certain other parties who shall remain nameless, what an excellent witness for Christ you have been, calling people “hysterical”, a “wacko”, oh, and let’s not forget taking a shot at my reading comprehension. Yep, that will win you friends. I’m seriously considering converting to Catholicism because you have been such a marvelous witness!

Actually, no, no I’m not, quite the opposite, actually–not that I really was considering it in the first place, but seriously, talk about bad PR for Christ.

 

[Glennford]

I just post what everyone is thinking. Maybe you confused me with Jesus? I’m not Him. I’m just a man absolutely sick to my eyeteeth of living in a society compelled to spend so much of our time obsessing about your sexual dysfunction. Give it a rest already and I MIGHT eventually find some real charity for you.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Your point, as I understood it, was that the ideal for a child is with it’s natural mother and father. Adoption is good, but it’s not ideal. Adoption by gay parents if even less ideal, because they’re not the natural parents, and they’re not a mother and father unit.

Correct.

I think what you were saying could be picked up as harsh, especially when you use relative terms like ideal, by someone who was adopted, loved, cherished, and given a great chance in life, by adoptive parents.

Possibly, but I stand by it. I know of a Christian apologist named Lydia McGrew (no idea if you’ve heard of her) who was adopted. She actually said the exact same thing I did.

So I think your wording could have been a lot better. That’s my personal opinion.

Perhaps, but I certainly used no insults of any kind, and I’m not really sure where she got the idea I wanted adopted children dead.

However, in no way, in my reading of what you said, did you even remotely hint at, or suggest, that a child would be better off dead, than be adopted, or be adopted by a gay couple.

Exactly.

Sarah x

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yep…the Pastor felt the “concerns of the parishioner were important”. The parishioners and her friends also were some of the wealthiest people in the parish, but that couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it, right?

Wow, I’m a little surprized at that.

Love the sinner but not if it upsets Mrs. Sokolowski, our largest donor

Interesting perspective on the universal claim.

Sarah x

I’d call it consistent, moreso than other arguments I’ve seen, which say that infertile heterosexual couples are okay but same-sex couples are not, because…something about how all the parts fit.

I think I read in previous posts by Seeker1969 that he’s not in a relationship and not engaging in an active sex life, but I might be confusing him with Markeverett49. I’m sure both people will speak up and correct me if I’m wrong, and apologies if I am.

Did the priest give scandal to Seeker1961 by banning him from the volunteering he did at the church, for no other reason other than he’s gay?

Apart from the injustice of it all.

Sarah x

Amazing…what a lack of reading comprehension.

Lokabrenna, if you ever get to see this (perhaps somebody else could quote it, but that’s their choice, not mine), I request an apology for telling me that I would prefer killing babies to adoption. Not only did I not say that, that is the exact reverse of my actual position. I don’t know what you thought I said in my post, but whatever it was, you were wrong, and I issued a follow-up post clarifying what I said.

Your response to me was highly insulting.

Sometimes when people read somethings it sets of certain triggers which inhibit fully understanding something because it puts them in a reactionary mode. I think the problem was due to her background she mistook what you wrote, we are only human.