The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[BornAgainBrat]

Everyone should be tolerant of gay people no matter what religion. Who are we to judge? They mean no harm as i see it. Let’s be careful who we step on going up the ladder. We’re likely to meet the same ones on the way back down. Maybe they’ll be holding it for us. Try a little kindness and overlook the blindness.

 

[Christopher68]

Where was the smear and villification? There was absolutely nothing dishonest about my line of argumentation. I was simply following the implications of a new definition of marriage. If you don’t want to explore the “possible” ramifications of changing a several thousand year-old norm, then don’t jump into this particular line of argument.

Can you produce one single high ranking politician who supports gay marriage - and who also supports polygamy and incest? If you can, then I will listen to your argument. Until then, your argument is complete bunk, as well as reflecting very poorly on you.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Everyone should be tolerant of gay people no matter what religion. Who are we to judge? They mean no harm as i see it. Let’s be careful who we step on going up the ladder. We’re likely to meet the same ones on the way back down. Maybe they’ll be holding it for us. Try a little kindness and overlook the blindness.

Kindness and tolerance I will gladly offer. But if you ask me to accept same sex marriage then I might well have reason not to be so kind and tolerant since that would be enabling a communal ACT of sexual deviance. Next maybe I should be asked to be kind to NAMBLA to which the gay community seems to be very tolerant.

 

[Nec5]

Can you produce one single high ranking politician who supports gay marriage - and who also supports polygamy and incest? If you can, then I will listen to your argument. Until then, your argument is complete bunk, as well as reflecting very poorly on you.

Hardly. It’s called consistency and applying equal protection principles. I notice you continually evade the redefinition of marriage and its application, which was my original point. That’s not a reflection on me.

 

[Christopher68]

Hardly. It’s called consistency and applying equal protection principles. I notice you continually evade the redefinition of marriage and its application, which was my original point. That’s not a reflection on me.

Actually, it is, since you’re the one making the argument.

And per my earlier question, are you able to provide the names of any known politicians who support gay marriage who also support polygamy and incest?

 

[Nec5]

Actually, it is, since you’re the one making the argument.

And per my earlier question, are you able to provide the names of any known politicians who support gay marriage who also support polygamy and incest?

It seems you are unwilling or unable to discuss the redefinition of marriage and its application. I will refrain from engaging with you further. Good luck.

 

[Christopher68]

It seems you are unwilling or unable to discuss the redefinition of marriage and its application. I will refrain from engaging with you further. Good luck.

I knew you couldn’t provide one single example of a politician who supported the line of reasoning you descibed.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I’ll say one thing. The gay community wants a lot of freedoms & rights & equality, but how much responsibility are they willing to take for their freedom? Freedom curtails responsibility. I have responsibilities as a gun owner, I have responsibilities as a driver of a personal vehicle, so what responsibilities is the gay community going to take? I have nothing against them, but I have spoken to a few about this topic. I have a problem with a group called N.A.M.B.L.A. It stands for NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY-LOVE ASSOCIATION. THIS group wants reform & wants to be able to allow for relations between boys and adults so long as they’re consentual. THIS is the boy hunting facet of the gay community. OBSERVE:

We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. Today, many thousands of men and boys are unjustly ground into the disfunctional criminal justice system. Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people.

I would like to see the gay community start to condemn this group. I’d like the ACLU to no longer defend this group. As long as the gay community says nothing and does nothing about its own… I will maintain that the gay community isnt responsible enough to handle the freedoms it desires. It sounds cold, but it’s very true. It has a lot of house cleaning to do before I can sit back and say, yeah, it’s different, but nobody is at risk & nobody is getting hurt. The elimination of NAMBLA will be the greatest good the gay community can do for itself. If I was gay, I’d make that my first priority.

Yes, it’s pretty awful what some groups will do - even those that call themselves “mainstream”.

Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for “groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community,” such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process. Today, almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events.
…
More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.

Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

While NAMBLA has been condemned by all gay groups identifying as such, other organisations have not distanced themselves at all.

Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins’ Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.

“We did what we thought was appropriate,” said Dr. McHugh, then director of Hopkins’ Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, which oversaw the sex clinic. He agreed with his subordinate, clinic head Fred Berlin, who broke the then-new child sexual abuse law on the grounds that it might keep child molesters from seeking treatment.

Dr. Berlin admitted he had covered for the sex criminals, angering legislators, child-advocacy groups and state officials. But his actions were not surprising, because “at least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under [Dr. Berlins] treatment there,” according to the March 23, 1988, issue of the Capital. Despite a 1990 Government Accounting Office study that found no therapy program that stopped sex offenders, Dr. Berlin said in 1994 that psychiatry can “effectively control” sex criminals.

Dr. Berlin also considers Sexual Disorders Clinic founder John Money, who openly defends pedophilia, to be one of his most important mentors. Dr. Money once gave an interview to PAIDIKA the Journal of Paedophilia, an “academic” publication that advocates adult sex with children alongside ads for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and other pro-pedophilia groups. He told PAIDIKA that a “relationship” that is “totally mutual” between a boy of 10 or 11 and an adult male "would not (be) pathological in any way."
…
Dr. Berlin co-founded the Hopkins sex clinic with Dr. Money, the Kinsey follower.

Yet there’s one international organisation, one that has paid immense amounts of cash in “hush money” to minors who were victimised by its officers, who have embraced these people. While admitting that between 1 in 60 and 1 in 20 of their organisational officers had molested minors, they stated openly in public that sex with an 11 year old boy wasn’t really pedophilia. Still, they are equal-opportunity, 20% of the molestations were of little girls, this organisation isn’t just for gay child molesters, straight ones can join too, and be guaranteed protection from outside investigation as such matters are best dealt with internally. And while admitting they had a problem in this area, who should they choose as a member of the internal (naturally) investigatory panel?

The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board.
…
Yet, it was Dr. Berlin whom the Catholic bishops of the United States chose to be their chief adviser on child sexual abuse. They even had him speak at their annual meeting in Dallas in June and showcased him for the media.

Source : washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/21/20020821-041050-7378r/

I think… there’s something about remarking on relative amounts of wood in ocular systems that might just apply here.

I’ll just paraphrase:
As long as the Catholic community says nothing and does nothing about its own… I will maintain that the Catholic community isn’t responsible enough to handle the denial of freedoms it desires. It sounds cold, but it’s very true. It has a lot of house cleaning to do before I can sit back and say, yeah, it’s different, but nobody is at risk & nobody is getting hurt.

Please show me where I’m wrong.

 

[Nec5]

I knew you couldn’t provide one single example of a politician who supported the line of reasoning you descibed.

Oh, well. I’ll bite. I cannot name a politician off the top of my head. I briefly searched on google and found some iffy references to some Canadian politician, but I’m ruling that out. What of it?

I would like to hear your newly devised definition of marriage, and then we can explore it’s strengths and weaknesses regarding equal protection and consistency. Where am I going wrong with this logic?

 

[Diane_Lynn]

I would suggest that one take a look at the ongoing battle in Massachusetts where the homosexual lobby has included the pedophiles such as NAMBLA in an effort to advance their agenda not in an open manner but subliminally through acceptance of doctrines that would advance homosexual discussion even in the grammar schools. Why would any child be exposed to that behavior I might ask if not to advance the open acceptance of children to the ACT of homosexuality.
I am what some would call a cradle Catholic: baptised as a Catholic, received Holy Communion while in Catholic grammar school; confirmation in another school and an active member in my church. It was my upbringing to be Catholic and follow its tenants which I have tried to do all of my life.
I was deeply distressed when the homosexual/pedophile scandal broke out in the church and damaged the reputation of approximately 98% of the priests not involved. I condemn those hypocritical b*****rds and their protectors who defamed their vows but went further in damaging the trusted innocence of the children under their care.
My church is now hopefully getting past that but many of us are on guard that such a disgusting episode does not happen again.
I look with gratitude to those many mothers and fathers who now share the pews with me and others in company with their children. There seems to be more and more each Sunday at mass. I think, and hope, all understand that we will never allow what happened in our church to ever happen again.
But, we cannot build a protective barrier for our children if we allow the acceptance of homosexual communion to exist within our covenants. We can only protect our children by our constant vigilance and adherence to biblical standards which clearly define the homosexual ACT as an abomination. We do not condemn the homosexual but we do find at fault those who advance their actions as if justified and somewhat the same as heterosexual marriage. Not so and never will be.
I am not talking about what others address as intersex nor transex. I am talking about acts that are sexual and seen as just that…not what many accept as a biological manifestation either in the genital or neurological sense absent the psychological urges or desires that drive others who might want their sinful actions to be accepted.
We can be open but not if it means to conflict ourselves with biblical teachings and Catholic doctrines that deny right while accepting wrong in an effort to be accepting and sharing.
Diane

 

[Abira]

See “The Screwtape Letters” for what I find to be a convincing apologia on this issue.

I lack Faith: but despite all religions’ imperfections, I see no reason to be put off belief in the Almighty just because most of His worshippers occasionally stumble. And others are the rankest hypocrites.

I bought that book and never read it. I’ve read his Problem of Pain essays etc… I might give that book a go

 

[Christopher68]

Oh, well. I’ll bite. I cannot name a politician off the top of my head. I briefly searched on google and found some iffy references to some Canadian politician, but I’m ruling that out. What of it?

I would like to hear your newly devised definition of marriage, and then we can explore it’s strengths and weaknesses regarding equal protection and consistency. Where am I going wrong with this logic?

Actually, I have no new definition of marriage - I’m quite content with the existing definition.

In reference to your earlier comments, the poeple I know who support gay marriage would be adamantly opposed to polygamy, incest, etc. I understand where you were trying to take the line of reasoning, but there’s no Pandora’s Box here. The point I was making with asking you to find any notable politician who supported gay marraige who also supported polygamy and incest, was to prove that there was no one in any position of power who was advocating this in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Nec5]

In reference to your earlier comments, the poeple I know who support gay marriage would be adamantly opposed to polygamy, incest, etc. I understand where you were trying to take the line of reasoning, but there’s no Pandora’s Box here. The point I was making with asking you to find any notable politician who supported gay marraige who also supported polygamy and incest, was to prove that there was no one in any position of power who was advocating this in any way, shape, or form.

Equal protection under the constitution and plain logical consistency require sound reasoning about changing the definition of marriages. Notable politicians are not a reliable source for discerning the unintended consequences of changing a norm. Neither polygamy nor incest are popular with the public at this time. Just 30-40 years ago, gay marriage had the same standing.

This debate concerns a powerful idea and its role in society. When polygamist groups inevitably argue for their right to marry, what will all those people you know that support gay marriage use as a rationale for denying them marital equality?

I have yet to hear a counter-argument against a new definition leading to polygamy and such. Why is there no Pandora’s Box here?

 

[Christopher68]

Equal protection under the constitution and plain logical consistency require sound reasoning about changing the definition of marriages. Notable politicians are not a reliable source for discerning the unintended consequences of changing a norm. Neither polygamy nor incest are popular with the public at this time. Just 30-40 years ago, gay marriage had the same standing.

This debate concerns a powerful idea and its role in society. When polygamist groups inevitably argue for their right to marry, what will all those people you know that support gay marriage use as a rationale for denying them marital equality?

I have yet to hear a counter-argument against a new definition leading to polygamy and such. Why is there no Pandora’s Box here?

There’s no Pandora’s Box because societal norms will never accept polygamy, incest, etc. They were disapproved of 30 years ago, they are disapproved of now, and they will still be disapproved of 30 years from now. Any polygamy group trying to use gay marriage as a springboard will likely be opposed by 99.99% of the polulation.

 

[FilAmLapsed]

Here’s my perspective about Catholics and gay intolerance,

I grew up in the Catholic faith but don’t practice it. Don’t get me wrong! I believe God exists and I pray to Him when necessary.

I don’t think all Catholics are intolerant of non-heterosexuals (ie the LGBT community). I believe the church’s viewpoint is disagreeable. I don’t call people who don’t approve of homosexuality/bisexuality a bigot. If they act upon it (deny work or accomidations, assault, prevent LGBT individuals to be treated with dignity, respect, and the same rights as heterosexuals) I’m bisexual but appealed to men than women. I still am attracted to girls nonetheless. I personally think chastity is really the same as repenting (aka the typical Protestant church’s demand for homosexual/bisexual people) to an extent. If being gay/lesbian/bisexual is a “choice” then why would one do so? Imagine all the discrimination and harassment he/she experiences. LGBT individuals are 4 times likely to kill themselves than heteroseuxals.

I dislike it when people say gay/lesbian couples shouldn’t marry because of religion or procreation. I am aware there are couples who CHOOSE not to have kids or can’t. Should every couple who chooses or cannot have kids be denied the right to marry if they are committed and have mutual love? IIRC, the Church frowns on monogamous relationships unless you’re married and it’s procreative. Straight couples marry and divorce, annull, or “legally separate.” more than a handful of times. Yet people aren’t concerned about that as much as “protecting marriage.”

 

[severus68]

Just politely tell them that we don’t hate them for being gay, we just think they’re wrong for being gay.

I do not believe the Church teaches that it is a sin to be gay. The sin is in the lifestyle just as the Church teaches that it is sin to have sex outside of marriage.

 

[ajk2191991]

It is not OUR job to judge, it is GOD’S job. This is how I view homosexuality,
On the other hand, I do not believe gay marriage should be allowed, call it something else but it is not an actual marriage in God’s eyes.

 

[Nec5]

There’s no Pandora’s Box because societal norms will never accept polygamy, incest, etc. They were disapproved of 30 years ago, they are disapproved of now, and they will still be disapproved of 30 years from now. Any polygamy group trying to use gay marriage as a springboard will likely be opposed by 99.99% of the polulation.

The same logic was true of gay marriage from the founding of this country stretching back all the way to Rome with few exceptions. Today, that 99.9% against gay marriage has become less than half.

Majority rule is not not an answer to a polygamist seeking marital equality once gay marriage becomes the law of the land. What is the reason for not allowing them to marry when gay couples are afforded that right?

 

[Christopher68]

The same logic was true of gay marriage from the founding of this country stretching back all the way to Rome with few exceptions. Today, that 99.9% against gay marriage has become less than half.

Majority rule is not not an answer to a polygamist seeking marital equality once gay marriage becomes the law of the land. What is the reason for not allowing them to marry when gay couples are afforded that right?

Societal norms would be the reason. If polygamists tried this, I would venture a guess that we would see a new Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.

 

[severus68]

I have come in late to this thread and apologise if I repeat what has been said.

I do not agree that we should consider gay relationships to be “normal”. I do not believe that they should be allowed Christian marriages. That would make a mockery of the Church. However, I am not a gay basher. I do not condemn or judge them. I cannot imagine what it must be to be gay and what I would do if my child was gay. I think they are entitled to civil rights like anyone else and are thus entitled to civil marriage. I cannot however understand bisexuals. I dont mean to offend but it appears to be a"wanting it all" lifestyle, self-indulgent attitude.

Further, we have no right to decide at any mass as to who should or should not receive Holy Communium. It is not our decision. It is for God to decide on who He should extend His grace.

Tolerance of gays does not mean acceptance of gay relationships. You do not have to like or approve of how a person’s lifestyle to show Christian charity to him.