The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[Diane_Lynn]

is

some sort of moral standard. For example:
So… you know better than everyone else, so you feel you (or perhaps the Church) needs to correct their behaviour the way a parent would correct a child?
I think this view is totally contrary to the principle of freedom.

The church does not dictate your behavior but is a guiding light in helping all who will accept the biblical teachings and help them to adhere to them and aid them in the move away from negative behaviors.

Here’s an example of what I mean:

… as well as undoubtedly huge numbers of small donations from individual Catholics.

AND I AM ONE OF THEM.

Every dollar spent on preventing same-sex couples from marrying represents a dollar that is not spent to feed a hungry person, to give a person medical care, or to do any other charitable work. Every hour spent on the same-sex marriage issue is an hour spent not in pursuit of some other cause. Every demonstration against same-sex marriage represents an opportunity for a demonstration against poverty that isn’t going to happen.

In a large part, the “faithful” have had to turn their back on the needy in order to pursue their position on the same-sex marriage issue.IQUOTE]

Most Catholics I know give generously in aiding the poor and disenfranchised. But you would want us to ignore the abomination of same sex acts in favor of buying an extra can of soup perhaps. How much must we give so that our voice in opposition to same sex marriage is accepted as our rightful purpose in keeping with our faith. There are priorities and we are well aware of them. I for one never turned my back on anyone in need but will turn my back on someone who would impose his immoral behavior upon me as if it is a right that I must accept under secular law.

You would want us then to give the homosexual advocates not only the speakers platform in the auditorium but to give them the whole building. Sorry, but we will not walk away from this sin you try to impose upon us as if it is a moral given right that we under law must accept.

You use an attack concept of pick and chose to validate your points. That is the common standard of those who cannot make a moral argument for their own sinful behaviors.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

But that’s how your argument sounds to me (and probably a lot of other people). Your argument for not letting gay people marry is based on your moral standard. You believe that by letting gay people marry it will contaminate your idea of marriage.

My scenario is also based on moral principle: that eating people on a regular basis is wrong.

If people stopped letting you eat at restaurants because they thought that your communion habits would contaminate their dining experience you’d probably complain too. Because that is just silly!

What might I ask is moral about a same sex act. I see it as an abomination which is exactly how it is addressed in the bible.

Taking communion is following the directions of our Lord at the last supper or have you not read that part of the bible to which you so venomously attack.

 

[gearhead]

That’s a defeatist mentality IMO. It’s just that marriage is a convenient shortcut and lessens the work required to go after what they want.

I wouldn’t call that a “defeatist mentality”; I’d call it efficient and pragmatic. I don’t blame them; the LGBT community get blocked by the other side on virtually every issue, and there’s considerable opposition even to the notion of same-sex civil unions or other means to get the rights without calling the relationship “marriage”. It’s going to be a long, hard fight no matter what option they choose, so why shouldn’t they fight for the option they really want instead of a “second choice” that will be just as difficult for them to acheive?

But we DO mind if they get married. How is the suggestion and support that they go after other avenues of obtaining certain rights a concession that we “don’t mind if same-sex couples get married”? Or did I misunderstand your point here? That’s certainly possible.

Maybe a better phrasing of it would have been “we don’t mind if you have the rights of marriage…”

Wanted to comment on this as well…

Alot of this depends on how you define “unreasonable”. Are you equating it with unacceptable? If so, the answer is no…I don’t believe it is unreasonable that someone would not believe in God, nor take the Catholic position on this issue.

But if you are saying that it means “not acting in accord with sound reason and judgment”, then that is a purely subjective issue, and you will get varied responses from individual Catholics.

I think I was aiming for a bit of both. Maybe something like “so outlandish or irrational that society need not accommodate it”.

…]I do, however, find it somewhat illogical to hold the view that there is no ultimate Creator…that there is no entity which has always existed, which brought everything else INTO existence. I find that belief illogical and yes, unreasonable…but that is my subjective opinion.

OTOH, the fact that the right to be atheist is actually enshrined in the highest laws of the land say to me that society, through its lawmakers, have deemed non-belief in God to be a reasonable position.

Now, you are asking us to prove that the other position is unreasonable. Why? Why do we have to do that? I mean, not that we don’t want to try to help people understand our view and see the fallacy of their position in light of what we believe is objective truth…but why MUST we prove they’re unreasonable in order to be able to believe they are unreasonable?

It’s not a question of justifying your own beliefs, it’s a question of justifying action against others.

If same-sex marriage were legalized, you would still be free to believe that it’s wrong. You’d have the legal right to put anti-same-sex marriage bumper stickers on your car or even picket outside places where same-sex marriages are practiced. You don’t need any special justification to do any of these things.

What I’m saying that you do need to justify, though, is the restriction of freedom for others who don’t share your views. That’s why I referred to the notion of a free society: one of the principles of a free society is that restrictions on freedom are only put in place when they’re justified. You want to restrict people’s freedom, therefore it’s up to you to justify it. If we’re left in the situation where we both have our own opinion but neither of us can demonstrate why it’s true, then we fall back to the default position: freedom.

I would have the same burden if I were to suggest a church should be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if it is opposed to them. In that case, I’d be arguing for the limitation on your freedom, so it would be up to me to justify why this should be.

Just for the record, though, I’m not arguing that position. I don’t want to force churches to perform same-sex marriages.

You also said we should perhaps admit that “our goal is not a free society”. Not sure I understand you…we have plenty of other laws in place right now (including most states banning same-sex marriages, and a federal ban on their official recognition)…and we still have a “free society”. Or maybe we don’t, to you? How do you define a “free society”? Are you saying that unless we allow same-sex people to get married, we don’t live in a “free society”?

Yes, though it’s a matter of degree.

As I said above (and I think earlier in a thread), in a free society, the only restrictions on liberty are ones that are justified. There are certainly much worse examples of tyranny than an otherwise-free society that prohibits same-sex marriage, but it is a step across the line, IMO.

A society that limits the freedoms of the individual without justification is not fully free.

 

[redrosetea]

How has your freedoms been limited? You can live together, you can leave your money to one another…You just want the rest of us to rubber stamp it despite the fact it is forbidden to us

 

[gearhead]

How has your freedoms been limited? You can live together, you can leave your money to one another…You just want the rest of us to rubber stamp it despite the fact it is forbidden to us

There’s a heck of a lot more to marriage that just living together and leaving money to one another, but in many cases, same-sex couples don’t even get that much. For instance, there have been many cases of homophobic landlords evicting same-sex couples on the basis of “no roommates” lease clauses in jursdictions where the law explicitly protects married couples from having this done to them.

BTW - why do you assume that I want to enter into a same-sex marriage myself?

 

[redrosetea]

There’s a heck of a lot more to marriage that just living together and leaving money to one another, but in many cases, same-sex couples don’t even get that much. For instance, there have been many cases of homophobic landlords evicting same-sex couples on the basis of “no roommates” lease clauses in jursdictions where the law explicitly protects married couples from having this done to them.

BTW - why do you assume that I want to enter into a same-sex marriage myself?

I have no idea what you want to do…I am only reacting to what you have posted…There are laws against what you have just posted and you don’t need same sex marriage to enforce them

 

[DOShea]

There is a different standard.

Yes, but whose standard?

There is only ONE truth. That truth was given to us 2000 years ago, and has been held to ever since EXCEPT by those who have something to benefit by rejecting it. Usually that means it condemns their behaviors or acts or choices, and they are forced by their own going off the rails to either 1)reject it and try to turn it around into a matter of discrimination, or 2)accept it and admit they are off the rails from truth.

What, in your experience, do humans usually do in these circumstances?

I believe they take the first option. They use consensus as a yardstick for truth, without any regard for the time-proven examples of misery and guilt loving company. So a campaign someone calls equality becomes law, and the person uses that (i.e. consensus) as justification for what they want represents truth. “It must be okay, everyone is doing it.” That is the battle cry of those who want to mold everyone else to their twisted version of truth.

What happens when others see the truth differently? Is it ever a case of, gee, maybe they’re right? Nope. It’s always turned into some form of “them discriminating against me” argument. That is both dishonest and self-serving. Neither are indicators of someone who walks in truth.

This is all about people wanting to put blindfolds on anyone who sees their actions as wrong and make all the criticism go away. They might accomplish that, but what they never will accomplish is to make the untrue into truth. No one who loves a person on a path like that can stand by and just let them go anymore than a parent would let a child run after a ball headed for traffic on a street.

 

[gearhead]

I have no idea what you want to do…I am only reacting to what you have posted…There are laws against what you have just posted and you don’t need same sex marriage to enforce them

Depends where you are. In some places, it’s perfectly legal.

In a few places, Ohio, for instance, it would actually be illegal to give same-sex couples protection against this. Thanks to the anti-same-sex-marriage movement, the state constitution there now prohibits granting “marriage-like benefits” to any unmarried couple.

This has had interesting side effects. For instance, it’s resulted in the dismissal of (IIRC) a few hundred cases of domestic abuse. The courts ruled that protection of unmarried but cohabitating couples under the statute for the crime of “spousal abuse” was a “marriage-like benefit”. As a result, a large number of men who were caught beating up their girlfriends got off scot-free… but it’s a small price to pay for stopping those awful gays from marrying, isn’t it?

Yes, but whose standard?

There is only ONE truth. That truth was given to us 2000 years ago, and has been held to ever since EXCEPT by those who have something to benefit by rejecting it.

Wow… what a warped view of history.

This is all about people wanting to put blindfolds on anyone who sees their actions as wrong and make all the criticism go away.

I see YOUR actions as wrong. What should I do about it?

 

[almostatheist]

What might I ask is moral about a same sex act. I see it as an abomination which is exactly how it is addressed in the bible.

Taking communion is following the directions of our Lord at the last supper or have you not read that part of the bible to which you so venomously attack.

Yes, YOUR lord. This is a religious matter to you. You are imposing your religious views on people. There is nothing moral about keeping two people who love each other from being together just because your God says so. Without reasonable evidence to the contrary, you’re just another bigot.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Yes, YOUR lord. This is a religious matter to you. You are imposing your religious views on people. There is nothing moral about keeping two people who love each other from being together just because your God says so. Without reasonable evidence to the contrary, you’re just another bigot.

I express my religious beliefs and I am the bigot??? Sorry sir, but your atheistic views as stated on this forum shows me that it is you who would come to a Catholic Forum and IMPOSE your insidious values which you believe upon us and then assert we are the bigots for adhering to our own religious beliefs.

An atheist must attack religious people as being bigoted so that they might ignore their guilt as a non-believer in any God but the god of lust, indifference, selfishness, singleness of want, and separation from a life to be had in later life. They take their pleasures here on earth whereas we hold true God’s word that our palaces are to be in heaven. But then, I guess that means I am a bigot against atheists. No, I want you to share in the love of the same God you ignore. That is not bigotry or even prejudice but a welcome to join those who actually have religious values.

 

[almostatheist]

I express my religious beliefs and I am the bigot??? Sorry sir, but your atheistic views as stated on this forum shows me that it is you who would come to a Catholic Forum and IMPOSE your insidious values which you believe upon us and then assert we are the bigots for adhering to our own religious beliefs.

An atheist must attack religious people as being bigoted so that they might ignore their guilt as a non-believer in any God but the god of lust, indifference, selfishness, singleness of want, and separation from a life to be had in later life. They take their pleasures here on earth whereas we hold true God’s word that our palaces are to be in heaven. But then, I guess that means I am a bigot against atheists. No, I want you to share in the love of the same God you ignore. That is not bigotry or even prejudice but a welcome to join those who actually have religious values.

You assume many things. First: I am a sir. Second: I am an atheist. As my username indicates I am an almost atheist. That means I am an agnostic. Third: that I came to this forum to impose my “insidious values” upon you. I came to this forum because my mother suggested that it might help me better understand the Catholic faith. I think that it might, but I hope that it doesn’t. Fourth: atheists must attack people. Most atheists are like everyone else. They believe what they believe (or not) and let others be. Like any other system of thought you only hear about the obnoxious ones. Maybe that’s me in this case. Five: atheists feel guilty. Maybe some do. Most don’t. And I (even as an agnostic) do not feel guilty about not believing in God. I feel guilty that I once voted against legalization of gay marriage under a Catholic banner. I am trying to make a mends for my own bigotry. I am assuming that you are a bigot because your beliefs and reasons for your beliefs are the same as other bigots I’ve known. Also, your reasons hold no merit beyond religious beliefs, which shouldn’t dictate our laws. Six: atheists are no more lustful, indifferent, and what-not than anyone else.

Bigotry is assuming things about people based on an external factor (like a username). So instead of assuming things about atheists and agnostic maybe you should actually ask them what they believe (or don’t) and why.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

You assume many things. First: I am a sir. Second: I am an atheist. As my username indicates I am an almost atheist. That means I am an agnostic. Third: that I came to this forum to impose my “insidious values” upon you. I came to this forum because my mother suggested that it might help me better understand the Catholic faith. I think that it might, but I hope that it doesn’t. Fourth: atheists must attack people. Most atheists are like everyone else. They believe what they believe (or not) and let others be. Like any other system of thought you only hear about the obnoxious ones. Maybe that’s me in this case. Five: atheists feel guilty. Maybe some do. Most don’t. And I (even as an agnostic) do not feel guilty about not believing in God. I feel guilty that I once voted against legalization of gay marriage under a Catholic banner. I am trying to make a mends for my own bigotry. I am assuming that you are a bigot because your beliefs and reasons for your beliefs are the same as other bigots I’ve known. Also, your reasons hold no merit beyond religious beliefs, which shouldn’t dictate our laws. Six: atheists are no more lustful, indifferent, and what-not than anyone else.

Bigotry is assuming things about people based on an external factor (like a username). So instead of assuming things about atheists and agnostic maybe you should actually ask them what they believe (or don’t) and why.

Ask an atheist what they believe? And ask an almost atheist why he is almost anything like perhaps almost being a homsexual or almost being a Catholic hater?

Ok, I’ll ask two questions:

1. Why do you not believe in God?
2. Why do you deny Him yet welcome legalizing the ACT of homosexuality as if that is natural and deserves marriage status?

Religious beliefs must have been in the minds of the ‘bigots’ who framed our Constitution since they often raised His name in their conversations and papers. You sir are living in a land founded by religious men; I suppose you would call them bigots too?

 

[Dale_M]

I came to this forum because my mother suggested that it might help me better understand the Catholic faith. I think that it might, but I hope that it doesn’t.

I apologize for interrupting your conversation with Diane Lynn, but I wanted to respond to the above comment.

In my experience, Catholic Answers Forums will give you a good idea of the structure of the Catholic Church and its orthodox beliefs. However, it will not give you a good idea of what most Catholics believe or how they live their faith.

Most people here are sincere and devout. But the membership is overwhelmingly conservative and has a large number of persons with an apologetics mindset. The version of Catholicism you pick up here is perfectly valid, but its not necessarily the Catholicism you will find in the real world.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Keep the discussion charitiable or the thread will be closed. The topic is Catholics and gay intolerance, not who is and who is not a bigot.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Keep the discussion charitiable or the thread will be closed. The topic is Catholics and gay intolerance, not who is and who is not a bigot.

I apologise for the use of the term ‘bigot’ in reply to another but also understand that my use of it was simply in reply. I would not use that term in my regular course of discussion since I have no idea of what might have been meant by the use of ‘bigot’ when the person might possibly actually be meaning ‘prejudice’, a term I feel more comfortable using myself.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

I apologize for interrupting your conversation with Diane Lynn, but I wanted to respond to the above comment.

In my experience, Catholic Answers Forums will give you a good idea of the structure of the Catholic Church and its orthodox beliefs. However, it will not give you a good idea of what most Catholics believe or how they live their faith.

Most people here are sincere and devout. But the membership is overwhelmingly conservative and has a large number of persons with an apologetics mindset. The version of Catholicism you pick up here is perfectly valid, but its not necessarily the Catholicism you will find in the real world.

Dale, no need to apologise to me. I appreciate others comments as long as not nasty or offensive to Catholics.

Yes, I am a traditional Catholic: attend mass weekly, on Holy Days of Obligation and tithe on a regular basis. I always receive communion and involve myself in the activities of the Women’s Guild of my church and also belong to a senior help group. But then I go back in time to the days when I was taught by nuns (the Sisters of Mercy) who wore habits and although strict were also loving.

I think many of us are rather conservative if you mean in regard to values such as abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, in vitro stem cell research, etc. I would NEVER vote for any candidate who supported those issues. I also think that any Catholic that would support them might examine their own Catholicism.

We value life and that I think is a traditional value of The Church at least as it was taught to me back in those grammar school days. We were invited to be reflective of our faith in giving to the poor, aiding the ill, comforting the distressed and overall to face down the evils that tempt us. I think many of us still adhere to those same standards we were taught years ago and have not forgotten them. I hope not anyway.

 

[gearhead]

I think many of us are rather conservative if you mean in regard to values such as abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, in vitro stem cell research, etc. I would NEVER vote for any candidate who supported those issues. I also think that any Catholic that would support them might examine their own Catholicism

Going back to the subject of the OP, I think that this attitude is intolerant. You may feel that it’s justified, but even if you’re right to think so, that doesn’t make the view tolerant, just justifiedly intolerant.

 

[redrosetea]

Yes God told us not to be tolerant of sin or to cooperate with it

 

[Nec5]

Going back to the subject of the OP, I think that this attitude is intolerant. You may feel that it’s justified, but even if you’re right to think so, that doesn’t make the view tolerant, just justifiedly intolerant.

Well, you’re being intolerant of intolerance. Stop judging.

 

[gearhead]

Well, you’re being intolerant of intolerance. Stop judging.

How am I being intolerant of intolerance?

I think that intolerance is quite appropriate in all sorts of situations. I’m intolerant of murder, for instance. Or government corruption.

If you think your intolerance is justified, embrace it. Just be prepared to run into disagreements with people who don’t feel your views are justified.

It seems that some people don’t want attention called to their intolerance of homosexuality. Well, if a person finds the public airing of their views to be a point of shame, then maybe this is a sign that those views need re-evaluating.