The issue of gay intolerance

[LaSalle]

I just heard one of Jimmy Akin’s CAL. Don’t know why I didn’t think about it before … that Jimmy!

Tolerance, per se, is not a virtue. It depends on what one is tolerating. Good point, obvious … but a good one.

So … we do not tolerate gay sex, because it is inherently wrong. What does tolerance mean in this instance and are we taking it too far when we refuse to serve gays?

That being said … can we not treat the gays like someone from another religion? How would that not,similarly, apply? We know that they are wrong, yet we tolerate their views and allow them freedom to choose their religion. I haven’t caught up with this thread … so pardon me if someone already addressed my analogy of treating gays like someone from another religion.

 

[PEPCIS]

While every case is different and many factors are involved in the cause of SSA, two things are always true. NO ONE CHOOSES this affliction, and NO ONE IS BORN WITH IT…

I liked the way that you wrote your post, with one exception - this statement above.

It is most definitely true that Satan captures our bodies one sin at a time. He encroaches on our lives step by step, beginning with small sinful indescretions, until we are ultimately knee deep in the filth and stench of sin.

Homosexuality is no different. All sin is a conscious effort against God. As Thomas Jefferson noted all too well, “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time till at length it becomes habitual.” When you first enter into sin, guilt comes quickly. But if you presist in your sin, and you continue to hide it from the truth, eventually it will be promoted as the truth itself.

So, it is somewhat deceptive to state that no one chooses this “affliction,” because this “affliction” is the product and culmination of a life of immoral choices that leads one to homosexuality.

For your argument to be valid, we would have to allow the same deference to those who are “afflicted” as murderers, or rapists, or thieves, or any other manner of sin.

Unfortunately, we have all been born into sin, by virtue of Adam’s sin which we inherit. But God declares that we are all responsible to Him for it, and we must answer Him for it. Homosexuals are no different than adulterers, and must be shown this by the proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[buffalo]

‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishesAmerican Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

 

[fairytail3982]

You are mistaken.

Nope, just in disagreement.

Homosexuals have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we do. They have the same marriage rights as I do if marriage were to hold its “true” meaning, one man and one woman.

Yes, and for many years, closeted homosexuals felt that marrying a person of the other sex was the only option. Did this lead to happiness for either party? In most cases, no. It often led to a very unhappy situation for both parties. Giving homosexuals the right to (legal) marriage with each other means that fewer and fewer will marry members of the other sex for the wrong reasons. I do not believe that homosexuals, ethically, have the “right” to marry a heterosexual member of the other sex in order to blend with mainstream society or to try to “fix” themselves. It doesn’t just create a miserable situation for the homosexual involved, but also for the unwitting spouse. Saying that a homosexual person has the same right to marry a member of the other sex as a heterosexual person does makes no more sense than saying that a Catholic has the same legal right as a Protestant to eat a hamburger on Good Friday.

Really, the same definition of marriage has always applied to the state as well as the church - one man and one woman,

Simply saying “that’s how it has always been” doesn’t necessarily justify a law. Our country was founded on slavery and it was the norm for 200 years. Furthermore, slavery was justified with Bible quotes taken out of context. Slavery was something different in that society and at that time than it was in this society a hundred or two hundred years ago. (Homosexuality, too, was something different in that society and at the time that the Bible was written - and many good arguments can be made for Biblical admonitions about homosexuality being poorly translated and/or taken out of context.) But to truly justify something, you can’t just say it is right because that’s how it has always been. You have to look at the underlying causes for why it has always been that way, and whether or not it was justified to begin with.

so even if you don’t look at it from a religious point of view, this definition has been the foundation of our country for thousands of years, from the begining of time.

Actually, our country (if we are both from the US - I haven’t looked at your profile) has not been around for thousands of years, much less the beginning of time. And the societies that lived on this land before the founding of America varied in their definitions of marriage, as well as the ways they regarded sex and gender.

And, like I said before, as Catholic Christians we have a moral obligation to stop the spread of immorality from running rampant in our society. This has been the case with the legalization of marriage in a few states already with numerous others trying to pass the same legislation. Immorality is already trying to rear its ugly head in Europe where incest is being legalized with more legislation in the works for the U.S. such as a multiple partners bill or something like that that Gloria Steinam is involved in. Not sure exactly what that is, but I read it in another post. What I’m saying is that things are already happening toward that end everywhere. There is a famous quote (not sure the exact words)…A nation given over to immorality will eventually destroy itself.

Gay marriage != incest != polygamy. My original point was that bringing these specious arguments into it is not relevant.

Gay “marriages” are not really true marriages anyway no matter what the rights the state gives the couple since the only true definition of marriage is between one man and one woman.

And again, the states amending the legal requirements for civil marriage would not change the definition of sacramental Catholic marriage. And since we agree that it would not change sacramental Catholic marriage, I am not sure how you feel, then, that it is justified to apply the definition of sacramental Catholic marriage to people seeking a legal but non-(Catholic)-sacramental marriage. As was pointed out earlier in the thread by another poster, Catholics do not oppose the legal marriages of opposite-sex couples who do not meet the Church’s criteria for sacramental marriage.

 

[PEPCIS]

I have in the past felt and acted like many off those addressing this issue above. My feeling was that homosexuality was a sinful choice made by a person.

It is a choice, of that there is no doubt. I think what you mean to claim is that a homosexual orientation is not a choice. But that would be wrong as well, as even the APA has (finally) admitted that there is no scientific evidence to make such a statement.

chagol:

I have a son who . . . . has acknowledged that he is indeed gay. I believe that he was born gay.

You’re not alone in this belief. A lot of people BELIEVE that there is some biological connection to homosexuality, but (as I noted above) even the APA has admitted that there is no connection.

chagol:

Certainly observing all of the pain he experiences because of being gay it is not a life style he, or anyone else, would freely choose.

He must be a robot, being programmed from before birth. But we know such a conclusion would rob your son of his autonomy and his ability to make intelligent choices. Are you saying that your son is incapable of rational thought?

chagol:

This brings into question why would God create people that are gay and condemn them to a lifetime of misery? I certainly have not been able to find the answer to that question but it remains a question begging for response.

That’s like asking God why He made me a sinner. The Bible doesn’t lie. Homosexuality is a sin. You KNOW this to be true, yet you persist in allowing yourself the falsehood of believing a lie. God did not make people sinners. God made people who are fully capable of entering into sin on their own, and are responsible for their own sins. This includes the sin of homosexuality.

chagol:

My son feels that the church rejects him for something beyond his control.

And it sounds to me like you only serve to reinforce his sin. That’s a shame.

chagol:

He doesn’t attend mass because he feels alienated from the congregation.

That’s because HE IS ALIENATED by his own actions, and his failure to repent and enter into confession. Unfortunately, sending a homosexual to a Catholic Priest for counseling on homosexuality seems like a 50-50 chance to me.

 

[mardukm]

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country.

Would you agree that this is not a government benefit?

I already stated that being able to immigrate to this country is a benefit. Single people have that benefit, Married couples have that benefit, and gay people have that benefit. So where is the discrimination? Answer: none.

 

[fairytail3982]

This is true, but personally I think Scandinavia is, among the developed regions, one of the worst to live in. On surface it’s clean, public services are good, etc. But then it’s so depressing… Take the issue of abortion. It has been revealed this week that in Sweden you can abort your perfectly formed half-term baby for any reason whatsoever, including when you want a boy and the baby is a girl. Now, I think this is monstrous. Ideas of genetic selection and other eugenic practices (like sterilizing “unfit” people), now with subtler vocalizations, surface regularly and are discussed by policymakers. Did you know that well into the 70s there were still in place public programs forcing people to submit to sterilization because they were mentally ill?

I think dr. Mengele’s spirit is alive and kicking in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. And where do you think Hitler’s ideas about races and white supremacy came from? From the Nordic origins of the glorious German white race, of course…

I dare to say that God is already punishing them with that ugly, cold, gray climate…

Thank you for raising some of these issues. I believe that those who say they support “reproductive rights” should look at issues beyond abortion to things like forced sterilization - which still goes on in some parts of the world and has happened to physically and mentally disabled people in the US more recently than the 1970s. I also believe that those of us who consider ourselves “pro-life” should not take on that ideological label unless we truly do subscribe to the “seamless garment of life” ideology and support life in all issues from conception through natural death.

 

[PEPCIS]

Some writers above invoke the bible as their source of authority for despising gay marriage. Scripture says thus and so is good, and this or that is bad. I trust that as freely as you use scripture to justify your positions that you aren’t the type to pick and choose which scripture you will believe and which you will ignore. Scripture says love your neighbor. It does not say love your neighbor who believes and acts as you believe and act. Scripture also says that if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better to get to heaven blind than to enter hell with both eyes. If you truly believe everthing said in the bible and observe the sinful movies, TV programs, music videos, magazines, and the every day behavior of many that everyone does sees and apparently accepts, I would certainly expect more of you to be blind by now.

Your statement is akin to saying “If you have EVER lied, then you can never tell someone that it is wrong to lie.” Since ALL PEOPLE SIN, no one would ever attempt to hold others personally responsible for their sins if they listened to your advice.

 

[mardukm]

No, they don’t. Read up before you make a claim, please. They’re not allowed the federal benefits that are given to heterosexuals in a union. This means no joint health care. People have died for this.

Are gay people deprived of health care? No. I think you should rather stop creating mythical discriminations since there are none.

 

[rinnie]

I think a important question is should we tolerate gay marriages. My answer would be no, because God Says so. Now it is not in our power to judge another person, but it is in our power to say no to sin, and say sin is wrong. If it were just our personal opinion that would be one thing. But the word of God says NO. Now who are we to say that Gods word is wrong. If God says its a sin, its a sin.

Isn’t that really the question.

 

[PEPCIS]

But who are we to impose our own religious beliefs on non-Catholics?

American Citizens. Just because we are Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc, etc, does not take away our rights to desire a moral society, and to influence our leaders toward that end.

 

[ladybri77]

I liked the way that you wrote your post, with one exception - this statement above.

It is most definitely true that Satan captures our bodies one sin at a time. He encroaches on our lives step by step, beginning with small sinful indescretions, until we are ultimately knee deep in the filth and stench of sin.

Homosexuality is no different. All sin is a conscious effort against God. As Thomas Jefferson noted all too well, “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time till at length it becomes habitual.” When you first enter into sin, guilt comes quickly. But if you presist in your sin, and you continue to hide it from the truth, eventually it will be promoted as the truth itself.

So, it is somewhat deceptive to state that no one chooses this “affliction,” because this “affliction” is the product and culmination of a life of immoral choices that leads one to homosexuality.

For your argument to be valid, we would have to allow the same deference to those who are “afflicted” as murderers, or rapists, or thieves, or any other manner of sin.

Unfortunately, we have all been born into sin, by virtue of Adam’s sin which we inherit. But God declares that we are all responsible to Him for it, and we must answer Him for it. Homosexuals are no different than adulterers, and must be shown this by the proclamation of the Gospel.

I think she means we didn’t choose the feelings, the attractions. No one would choose it. It’s what you do about it that matters. It’s only if you act on these feelings that it’s sin.
I believe it’s actually a result of the choices we made to avoid or deal with pain in our past, like the vows we made to shut down emotionally our mothers or fathers to protect ourselves if they were abusive in some way, or the mistrust we had of certain abusive individuals that later manifests itself into homosexual feelings. But however, you’re right, it’s the result of sin in the world.

“So, it is somewhat deceptive to state that no one chooses this “affliction,” because this “affliction” is the product and culmination of a life of immoral choices that leads one to homosexuality.”

You are wrong with the above statement. Homosexuals are not sinning in themselves, it’s what they do with those attractions. It’s also not through a series of sins that they committed that makes them homosexual. They have those feelings to begin with. Hopes this clears things up.

 

[rinnie]

It is a choice, of that there is no doubt. I think what you mean to claim is that a homosexual orientation is not a choice. But that would be wrong as well, as even the APA has (finally) admitted that there is no scientific evidence to make such a statement.

You’re not alone in this belief. A lot of people BELIEVE that there is some biological connection to homosexuality, but (as I noted above) even the APA has admitted that there is no connection.

He must be a robot, being programmed from before birth. But we know such a conclusion would rob your son of his autonomy and his ability to make intelligent choices. Are you saying that your son is incapable of rational t

That’s like asking God why He made me a sinner. The Bible doesn’t lie. Homosexuality is a sin. You KNOW this to be true, yet you persist in allowing yourself the falsehood of believing a lie. God did not make people sinners. God made people who are fully capable of entering into sin on their own, and are responsible for their own sins. This includes the sin of homosexuality.

And it sounds to me like you only serve to reinforce his sin. That’s a shame.

That’s because HE IS ALIENATED by his own actions, and his failure to repent and enter into confession. Unfortunately, sending a homosexual to a Catholic Priest for counseling on homosexuality seems like a 50-50 chance to me.

Hey 50-50 is better than nothing!

 

[mardukm]

Do you have* any* basis at all for this claim? Have you seen any statistical data or reliable anecdotal evidence supporting “most” homosexuals and “most” non-homosexuals who “support the homosexual ideology” (which is what, exactly?

What claim are you talking about? That most homosexuals and those who support a homosexual ideology are PERHAPS athiests? If they are not athiests, so what? I never made a definitive statement on the matter. You do have a rather knee-jerk reaction to statements without contemplating them (as another poster has observed).

Homosexuality is not an ideology like Republicanism or capitalism or even Catholicism.) are atheists?

Anyone with an agenda has an “ideology.” What is so hard to understand about that?

I know gay, straight and bisexual people who are atheists, as well as gay, straight and bisexual people who are religious - even Catholic. The tendency toward religious affiliation does not break down along lines of orientation, nor political support of “gay rights” in people of my acquaintance. So I am wondering if you can cite a source, or if you are just making unfounded assumptions as an excuse for name-calling.

I don’t know what claim you think I made, and I don’t recall calling anyone any names. Can you please give an exact quote from me? Otherwise, I would ask for an apology.

 

[fairytail3982]

It is a choice, of that there is no doubt. I think what you mean to claim is that a homosexual orientation is not a choice. But that would be wrong as well, as even the APA has (finally) admitted that there is no scientific evidence to make such a statement.

Actually, that’s not accurate. What they have acknowledged is that much of the research already done to try to prove a biological cause for sexual orientation was flawed, and that they cannot conclude that there is a genetic or other biological cause. They also cannot conclude that sexual orientation is caused by something else. And, as even the biased article linked above stated, the general position is now that sexual orientation (not just homosexuality or bisexuality, but heterosexuality too) is caused by a complex array of factors including both “nature” (biological) and “nurture” (environmental) causes.

 

[PEPCIS]

You can’t win people to Christ through legislation.

Bait and switch. You did that so well, that most of us might not catch it. You start with the argument that “who are we to impose our own religious beliefs on non-Catholics?” - which is a political argument dealing with political actions - and you end with “You can’t win people to Christ through legislation”, which is a religious argument dealing with religious actions.

While the two are certainly related, they both have differing motives. If we are to believe you, we must believe that “forcing others to conform to our beliefs” is not the way that the laws in the United States work. Actually, it is EXACTLY how it works. I believe that murder is wrong, and I force you (together with the majority of the citizens of this country) to conform to my beliefs, or you go to prison.

We would be hypocrites to win people to Christ, and then say that we do not desire laws that reflect our beliefs.

 

[fairytail3982]

I think a important question is should we tolerate gay marriages. My answer would be no, because God Says so. Now it is not in our power to judge another person, but it is in our power to say no to sin, and say sin is wrong. If it were just our personal opinion that would be one thing. But the word of God says NO. Now who are we to say that Gods word is wrong. If God says its a sin, its a sin.

Isn’t that really the question.

Actually, I think the real question addressed by this thread is more along the lines of:

Whether or not you consider something a sin, do you have the right to impose a religious definition of sin onto secular laws that affect people who do not share your religious beliefs?

 

[ladybri77]

Actually, that’s not accurate. What they have acknowledged is that much of the research already done to try to prove a biological cause for sexual orientation was flawed, and that they cannot conclude that there is a genetic or other biological cause. They also cannot conclude that sexual orientation is caused by something else. And, as even the biased article linked above stated, the general position is now that sexual orientation (not just homosexuality or bisexuality, but heterosexuality too) is caused by a complex array of factors including both “nature” (biological) and “nurture” (environmental) causes.

Having done much research myself in this area, I find that there is much evidence in the argument for nurture as one of the main causes. It makes a lot of sense. I heard a well versed man giving a talk once about father/son relationships, and he said fatherly affection and bonding is very important in the emotional development of the son. He said, “If you don’t kiss your son, he’ll be kissing other boys later on.” It’s a basic biological need in the development and emotional growth of a child to have affection and closeness from the same sex as well as the opposite sex parent. If he doesn’t, he MAY look for it later in life from other same sex peers.

 

[mardukm]

The comparison between slavery and homosexuality is a straw man. Someone earlier who supports the comparison stated that the Bible was misinterpreted to support slavery. That is only partially true. The Bible indeed talks of slavery as a reality during the times the Bible was written. What the Church has always combatted, a teaching that has never changed, is the idea of the INequality of men. Slavery was a social institution, and it was justified for many reasons - punishment for treason, punishment for crimes, spoils of war, etc. But the Church has never, EVER supported the idea of slavery based on some inherent INequality of men. The teaching on the inherent equality of all human beings has NEVER changed in the Church, though the social institution of slavery existed at one time, and now no longer exists.

So the comparison is completely invalid. People should not confuse purely social, secular institutions which can change over time, on the one hand, with timeless Truths that the Church preserves, on the other. Slavery was a purely social institution, NOT a divine institution, and it needed to be abolished. Marriage, on the other hand, is a DIVINE insitituion. It’s origins, means, and ends are divine, and they cannot change. That it is between a man and a woman is of DIVINE prescription, based on the Natural Law, and that can never change.

Blessings

 

[fairytail3982]

What claim are you talking about? That most homosexuals and those who support a homosexual ideology are PERHAPS athiests? If they are not athiests, so what? I never made a definitive statement on the matter. You do have a rather knee-jerk reaction to statements without contemplating them (as another poster has observed).

It’s funny how quickly you and the other poster are to label my response as a knee-jerk reaction simply because I disagreed with you and felt that you each brought up inflammatory and stigmatizing labels. Let me assure you that my reactions were neither knee-jerk nor made without contemplation. I simply came to different conclusions than did you or he.

In the case of the other poster, I remarked that I was surprised it had taken until then for NAMBLA to be brought into the conversation and commented that most homosexuals are not in support of NAMBLA nor its mission. The other poster brought up NAMBLA in response to a claim from another poster that love is present in (consenting adult) homosexual relationships. The comparison was made that if we are to accept consenting adult homosexual relationships as loving, then couldn’t someone also claim that pederasty is a loving relationship. I posted in response to that not as a knee-jerk reaction, but to point out that 1) NAMBLA has often been used to stigmatize or discredit homosexual men as a group even though the majority do not support it, and 2) comparing consenting adult relationships to statutory rape is a case of apples and oranges.

In the case of my response to your earlier post, you made the claim (even if weakened by disclaimers such as the words “perhaps” and “probably” which were not emphasized in your original post) that most homosexuals and heterosexual supporters of homosexual rights are (perhaps or probably) atheists. I asked if there was any source you could cite for this claim. If it is simply an unfounded opinion, that’s fine. But I am still curious as to how/why you drew that conclusion, and whether or not that claim (or opinion) would be supported by facts.

Anyone with an agenda has an “ideology.” What is so hard to understand about that?

What I’m saying is that homosexuals are not united by a shared ideology. Contrary to conspiracy theories, there is no Gay Agenda. Individual gay people, and specific gay organizations, may have their own agendas, but there is not one unified manifesto representing all gay people under one unified ideology.

Why I feel that this is an important distinction to make, and not merely nit-picking is this: Manufacturing a cohesive “they” (and I am not claiming that you were attempting to do this - merely that it is a tactic which has been employed by others and applied to other groups as well) is a good way to demonize a population, thereby making them easier to dismiss.

I don’t know what claim you think I made, and I don’t recall calling anyone any names. Can you please give an exact quote from me? Otherwise, I would ask for an apology.

I addressed the matter of the claim (or perhaps unfounded opinion) above. The name-calling to which I referred is the label of atheist. However, if you were truly hurt by my response, I will offer a sincere apology. It is my intention to debate this issue, but not to hurt your feelings in doing so - just as I would hope that your comments about me were not meant to be unkind.