The issue of gay intolerance

[PEPCIS]

The church certainly is intolerant…

Very true. Nothing wrong with that.

hippyprincess:

…it’s clear that God hates gays, calling them an abomination.

I’m amazed at how little atheists know the Bible, yet feel free to quote the “best” parts for their own emphasis.

hippyprincess:

The gay community is not asking for their union to be acknowledged in the eyes of the church…

That really is the lie from the homosexual community. The ONLY groups of people opposing gay marriage are religious organizations, primarily (in this country) Christian. Because our nation is primarily Christian in population, gays must convince the majority of Christians that they are “intolerant” and to allow gays to marry for civil benefits.

hippyprincess:

…they really just want the state and federal benefits that they’re being denied because they aren’t straight.

Another lie from the homosexual lobby. Gays have available to them every benefit that a married couple have. The only difference is how to access those rights and benefits. In a heterosexual union, those rights are accessed through the marriage certificate. In a homosexual union, those rights must be accessed through other civil avenues, such as power of attorneys, etc.

hippyprincess:

It shouldn’t be up to a religion’s intolerance to decide who recieves federal benefits. Seperation of church and state…

Another lie. Laws are made up of statements of intolerance. Laws are nothing more than the collective expression of a society’s moral stand. This nation, being founded upon Christian moral principles, expresses a Christian morality. That’s a no-brainer.

And it’s “separation of church authority from state authority.” It’s not “separation of church morals from state morals.” There is no such thing.

hippyprincess:

…hopefully someday we’ll have it in entirety.

Don’t worry, you will. Americans have lost their moral footing.

 

[greggy53]

My two cents worth: We Catholics are not intolerant of homosexuals. Islam is intolerant of homosexuals- they whack their heads off! We Christians do not *accept *homosexuality. We allow them to live freely in our society, and *tolerate *their presence. What the so-called “gay community” really wants and demands is acceptance. When we refuse they label us as intolerant, but in reality acceptance of their lifestyle is what they demand. Do not accept the term intolerant when debating the issue with them. It is also not a civil rights issue, it’s a moral choice…No one forces you to sleep with anybody.

 

[PEPCIS]

"edwest:

Then you have entirely missed the point. Gays in the United States want 100% equality with heterosexual marriage, NOTHING less.

And what is the problem with that?

The “problem” is that our laws are Judeo-Christian, and as such, they reflect our beliefs. A repudiation of our laws is a repudiation of our beliefs.

rossum:

In terms of l-marriage it is up to the state to decide.

And who is the state? They are “we, the people.” Or did they not teach you that part in American History?

rossum:

In terms of r-marriage if gays want a church wedding they can go to the MCC. I cannot see a change being forced onto the Catholic definition of r-marriage; there have been no moves to force the Catholic church to recognise civil divorces, despite that directly affecting far more people than gay marriage.

Yes, the gays war on religion is on two fronts:

• legal - change laws to allow it
• social - change minds to accept it

Looks like they are winning on both counts, doesn’t it?

They cite nonsense arguments like separate but equal.

rossum:

Why is that nonsense? Don’t you have something over there which says “all men are created equal”? Why do you disagree with that sentiment?

It’s “nonsense” because they deliberately intend to deceive people like you into believing that the argument is about “all men are created equal”, which is exactly what you believe. The fact is, they ARE equal as humans, but they are UNEQUAL as moral equivalents. They are NOT morally equivalent to Christian ideals.

As this article clearly states - all they want is any type of mix and match sexual relationship for all ‘orientations,’ including bestiality:

rossum:

In the OP LaSalle said “The issue now is the perception that those who do not support gay marriages/unions are intolerant. I am simply unable to refute why we are NOT intolerant.” Why do you think that throwing around stupid accusations of bestiality will help your side be seen as less intolerant?

LOL “stupid accusations of bestiality”? Do you think it is “stupid” because it will never be considered as ‘acceptable’? Well, you couldn’t be further from the truth than you already are. Homosexuality was once viewed by the majority of our society as not only sinful, but as deviant behavior. Now it is viewed as morally equal to the Boy Scouts. No - I take that back. They are considered as morally SUPERIOR to the Boy Scouts, because the Boy Scouts are “intolerant”.

rossum:

You sound as bad as Fred Phelps, which takes some doing.

You sound as bad as, well, your typical liberal. Fact is, if Charles Manson said that homosexuality was a sin, I’D AGREE WITH HIM. Oh my word!!! Would that make me just as bad as Charles Manson??? You’re being a bit of a shill for the homosexual lobby. Does that make you a homosexual?

rossum:

You are not looking good here ed…

Oh, phutttt. Don’t worry what rossum says, edwest. LOL You’re looking spot on from my POV. Stick to what the Word of God says, and you’ll be just fine.

rossum:

…you appear to be part of the problem that LaSalle is trying to solve rather than trying to work towards a solution.

What did you think he was trying to do? Endorse his position?

rossum:

By all means oppose gay marriage, but you would do better not to do so in such a shrill and nasty way.

LOL Gotta love them liberals!!

 

[PEPCIS]

"edwest:

The next generation is with us now. There is still time for all of us to sit them down, tell them the truth and encourage them to live it. I just see way too many who are not willing to control their kids in public. A good example needs to be set. There is time to do that right now.

Yes, control your kids by all means. Let’s not control other people’s kids.

That’s a false argument there, LaSalle. While I am personally responsible for my own kids’ welfare, your argument is like saying when I’m out in the park, and I see a strange man hanging around, I don’t challenge him on what he’s doing. Do you have no moral responsibility to others?

The fact is, “Society” is a term that denotes exactly that. People come together to form a society that lives together as a means of greater protection for all. What I cannot do on my own, my strength coupled with everyone elses in society allows us to perform greater protections for everyone.

That was the whole argument that the Federalists had about the states coming together and forming a larger, Federal, government.

In the Old Testament, a king heeds the warning of one of God’s prophets and orders the people to repent. It was for their own good.

LaSalle:

We’re not in OT times. We don’t have a King.

I don’t believe that edwest was saying anything like that. He was merely pointing out the fact that as Christians, the Bible shows us how the penitent behave. They REPENT. Repentance is the door to a right relationship with God.

 

[davidrasch]

I worked 15 years at the University of Minnesota in Housing as a building supervisor. I have a view on this issue of intolerance. My focus was/is on how a person does the job they are paid to do. However, I was told to remove my bible(Douay-Rheims small volume) from its barely visible corner as it ‘might offend someone’. The only reason anyone would come to my office is for maintenance reasons, and that is very seldom. No parents stop in as they have no reason to talk with me. The administrative assistant whose office is very open to all who come to the hall is openly gay and has posters and emblems supporting and advocating G.L.B.T. life style. When I asked why this was I was told this is none of my business, this man worked for someone else.
Housing also has a policy of ‘celebrating’ diversity-read G.L.B.T. behaviors. There is a lavender house (a floor proctored by a community advisor) for those who wish to explore their culture. Anecdotal comments collected from residents, edited, and shared with management showed me at least two incidents where residents were placed on this floor because they wanted to be closer to classes. They were not aware of where they were to live. Their comments distill to the community meetings which were not focused on campus living but issues related to G.L.B.T. agenda. I remember comment which said they would not have moved if they had known where they were going.
Here is a case of tolerance gone, in my opinion, wild. I might add that there were informal penalties for those who spoke in opposition to these practices. I did. I no longer work there.
For parents and those contemplating living in residence halls, I suggest you carefully check the residence hall philosophy. Ask if there are G.L.B.T. communities in the halls. I say this so you will be better prepared as this type environment puts tremendous informal pressure to ‘accept the gay lifestyle’.

 

[rinnie]

Here is the way I see it. First of all I don’t want to get this into a debate of rather Peter was left the Church or not. So to not derail the thread here is my point. As a RC I was taught the Jesus left the Church to Peter and it is now left to the Pope and Bishop’s Priests to lead us into the fullness of the truth. That is their Job.

Now are they to teach us Gods way or our way? What are we to teach our Children Gods way or the way of the world. To accept this is going against the bible. Going against God. So we must teach our Children NO, its wrong! Period.

Now the Church has to do the same. To not teach this would put our soul in mortal danger. Now whats more important?

So how can someone say its okay when God says it is not? Lets say this gets out of hand and it becomes accepted years from now. Then our Children would never know the teaching’s of Christ. IT would be the teachings of the world. Where would that get them. Look at the world. Is this the way your want them to live. Or according to God? So how can anyone be forced to accept this (which is what they are trying to do) like they are trying to get us to accept abortion, Its plain and simple you accept the teaching’s of the Church, or you accept the teachings of the world and let the world destroy your soul! Because the ways of the world are the devil, plain and simple.

 

[Maso]

The logic fails.

And… when laws are codified on the basis of a falacy… there will be bad laws, and that is detremental.

Consider… If I were to press the law makers for a definition of the term “sexual orientation”… eventually it would come down to homosexuality ( among other things ) is a “sexual orientation”.

Hummm…

But isn’t homosexuality inherantly and by definition in fact a sexual dis-orientation…???

If these lawmakers can explain to me how a sexual orientation can be a sexual dis-orientation… then I will explain to you how one ( 1 ) can equal zero ( 0 ).

                           1 = 0 ...?!
                           Go figure...:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

The logic fails.

And… when laws are codified on the basis of a falacy… there will be bad laws, and that is detremental.

Consider… If I were to press the law makers for a definition of the term “sexual orientation”… eventually it would come down to homosexuality ( among other things ) is a “sexual orientation”.

Hummm…

But isn’t homosexuality inherantly and by definition in fact a sexual dis-orientation…???

If these lawmakers can explain to me how a sexual orientation can be a sexual dis-orientation… then I will explain to you how one ( 1 ) can equal zero ( 0 ).

                           1 = 0 ...?!
                           Go figure...:shrug:

As crazy as that sounds think about it, if we teach now 1=0 where would this world be in the financial aspect. The same as it is right now by teaching another wrong! Wrong is wrong and only brings big trouble.

 

[ladybri77]

There is no such thing as gay marriage regardless of what any country does in its civil law.

That however doesn’t mean that a country becomes better by enshrining into law the insacred bond of two mortal sinners living in mortal sin together and blessing such an abomination.

Sodom and Gommorrah were dealt with by God.

Does anyone even read the bible?

Exactly what part of “abomination” and “will not inherrit” do people not understand?

If Jesus wouldn’t marry two gay people then it shouldn’t be the law of any country.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Many of the same people who can’t understand something as simple as that also can’t understand that it is wrong to murder the unborn.

But I really don’t think any of those two groups are invicibly ignorant and can’t fathom the natural law that is written on every human heart.

People need to pray for our nation–when it gets to the point where you have to explain why such abominations are wrong–then you know that Satan is alive and well in the USA.

Satan supports gay marriage.

Why would anyone want to be on his side?

GREAT POINTS, JERRY-JET!!! Whatever immoral laws we pass civilly or otherwise affect the WHOLE nation!

 

[ladybri77]

There is no such thing as gay marriage regardless of what any country does in its civil law.

That however doesn’t mean that a country becomes better by enshrining into law the insacred bond of two mortal sinners living in mortal sin together and blessing such an abomination.

Sodom and Gommorrah were dealt with by God.

Does anyone even read the bible?

Exactly what part of “abomination” and “will not inherrit” do people not understand?

If Jesus wouldn’t marry two gay people then it shouldn’t be the law of any country.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Many of the same people who can’t understand something as simple as that also can’t understand that it is wrong to murder the unborn.

But I really don’t think any of those two groups are invicibly ignorant and can’t fathom the natural law that is written on every human heart.

People need to pray for our nation–when it gets to the point where you have to explain why such abominations are wrong–then you know that Satan is alive and well in the USA.

Satan supports gay marriage.

Why would anyone want to be on his side?

Yes!

Also, we do NOT tolerate sin, not the sinner, that’s where the intolerance comes in…

 

[PCM]

You are seen as intolerant because you are seen as denying gays something that you have. Allowing gays to marry does not have any direct impact on heterosexual marriage so it is difficult to produce any non-religious reasons for not allowing it. You are in a similar position to those who argued against allowing interracial marriage before Loving v Virginia; you are seeking to deny other people something which you have and which will have minimal impact on you if they are allowed to have it. You are seen as being a dog in the manger.

One way to approach the issue might be to split marriage into two parts, religious marriage and legal marriage. Say r-marriage and l-marriage for convenience.

R-marriage is defined by the different religions. Christians can only have one r-marriage spouse at a time, while Muslim men can have up to four r-marriage wives at a time. I am not sure if the fundamentalist Mormons have an upper limit at all. These r-marriages are specific to the given religion, or denomination within a religion.

L-marriage is defined by the government for the purposes of taxation, insurance, hospital access rights etc.

On the principle of “render unto Caesar” it would seem sensible for the elected government to define l-marriage. Currently the US does not recognise all forms of r-marriage such as Muslim or Mormon second and subsequent wives or gay r-marriages performed by the MCC. If the elected government, at State or Federal level, wishes to adjust the definition of l-marriage then that is their perogative and voters may take action for or against any proposed change.

The definition of r-marriage is left to the individual religions or denominations. If gays wish to have an r-marriage then they can go the the MCC, or any other gay friendly denomination, and have one there. There is no need for the government to interfere with r-marriage at all. It does not do so now and should not do so in future.

I suspect that some of the heat in this debate is due to people thinking that a change to l-marriage will automatically require a change to r-marriage. This is not the case as is shown by the fact that the government allows Moslem, fundamentalist Mormon and MCC r-marriages to continue when they do not conform to the common definition of l-marriage. The government is under no obligation to recognise all r-marriages, just as different religious denominations are not under any obligation to recognise either l-marriages or r-marriages by other denominations.

The laws of l-marriage are already different from those of Catholic r-marriage; l-marriage allows divorce, while Catholic r-marriage does not. I cannot see any reason why any change to l-marriage should result in a change to Catholic r-marriage.

That seems to me to be a good approach. You do not have to spend a great deal of energy on l-marriage, it already fails to meet the Catholic standards for r-marriage. Perhaps better to divert your energies into something more important to you.

For myself I cannot see any major problems with this change; we have gay Civil Partnerships in the UK and there has been almost no impact from that except for the actual people involved. Divorce is probably a greater threat to marriage than introducing gay marriage yet there seems to be much less energy spent on countering divorce than on countering gay marriage. Perhaps reconsidering priorities might be useful.

rossum

 

[PCM]

rossum - the nature of truth is that it is not relative.

The first sin was man trying to make himself like God and deciding what the rules were (the truth is what I say it is this week) instead of following God’s instruction. People have done this throughout history and still do.

By the way, there is a huge difference between interracial marriage and an attempt at gay marriage. Race is different than sexual behavior. Don’t insult the different races of people that way.

 

[ladybri77]

rossum - the nature of truth is that it is not relative.

The first sin was man trying to make himself like God and deciding what the rules were (the truth is what I say it is this week) instead of following God’s instruction. People have done this throughout history and still do.

By the way, there is a huge difference between interracial marriage and an attempt at gay marriage. Race is different than sexual behavior. Don’t insult the different races of people that way.

Race also has nothing to do with same sex attraction.

 

[Maso]

As crazy as that sounds think about it, if we teach now 1=0 where would this world be in the financial aspect. The same as it is right now by teaching another wrong! Wrong is wrong and only brings big trouble.

Good…good…

I am trying to point out the fundamental and underlying falacy in the so called “Logic” of homosexual advocacy in a succinct way. I think that I have done that here and yet, they will still argue with it as if they actually have a leg to stand on. Mathmatics and sound logic is no accident, but a creation of God himself… believe that…!

 

[ladybri77]

It is also not a civil rights issue, it’s a moral choice…No one forces you to sleep with anybody.

Yes, so true!!! RIGHT ON, Greggy!!

 

[roselavinia]

This is one of the reasons I am refusing confirmation in the RC Church…I left the Anglican Church for several issues,this being one of them…

.Have you all forgotten the words of St Paul in Romans chapter 1.AND have you also forgotten more importantly the words of Jesus Christ who you are supposed to be followers of when he said >

IT IS WRONG TO EVEN THINK ABOUT IT LET ALONE DO IT.May God forgive you all for twisting the words in the HOLY BIBLE…

 

[marleighmartine]

Just because we don’t accept gay marriage doesn’t mean we hate gay people or are threatened by them, it just means we don’t accept gay marriage.

 

[greggy53]

Just because we don’t accept gay marriage doesn’t mean we hate gay people or are threatened by them, it just means we don’t accept gay marriage.

Very True, but it goes a little deeper than that. There is no such thing as “gay marriage”, because marriage means the union of a man and woman. If we allow homosexuals to legally marry then marriage by it’s definition of thousands of years ceases to exist. I think that then marriage is no longer marriage, but a legal relationship which is whatever 51% of the population decides it is…There have been laws on the books against polygamy for a long time, and the courts have up held them- Why? . If homosexuals can marry will they be limited to one partner like the rest of us?? If not then polygamy laws go out the door, and laws against every other abomination as well. laws against perversion that any self disciplined, rational free people would hope to restrain.

 

[GratefulFred]

The beauty of America is that we have majority rule and also tolerance of minority views. It is always a balancing act. It is usually good to “live and let live.” But there are limits. No limit results in chaos.

This may be too simple of an example. The majority believe that 2 + 2 = 4. A minority may fervently believe that 2 + 2 = 5. If they believe it strongly and loudly enough, does our “live and let live” sense of tolerance and fairness require that a law be passed stating that one answer is equal to the other? Can it be “4” in one state and “5” in another? What happens when the believers in 5 move into a 4 state?

Does the majority simply get tired of the minority’s incessant complaining and allow a law to be passed just to shut them up? Can we really do business with each other using both the 4 and 5 answer as they choose?

My point is that certain BASIC definitions remain true regardless of the political ability to wear down truth.

GOOD civil law is based on time honored MORAL law. See Genesis 2, Matthew 19, and Ephesians 5 for the moral definition of marriage. Marriage IS between a man and a women.

Same sex unions or any other type of union is simply not to be called “Marriage”. Many laws provide tax benefits to alternative unions. California has “Registered Domestic Partners.” That’s the limit. That’s quite a bit of tolerance.

Political power should not be able to change the time honored definition of marriage any more than it can legally require 2 +2 = 5 be accepted as being equal to 2 + 2 = 4.

There IS truth. Adhering to the truth is NOT intolerant.

 

[ladybri77]

The beauty of America is that we have majority rule and also tolerance of minority views. It is always a balancing act. It is usually good to “live and let live.” But there are limits. No limit results in chaos.

This may be too simple of an example. The majority believe that 2 + 2 = 4. A minority may fervently believe that 2 + 2 = 5. If they believe it strongly and loudly enough, does our “live and let live” sense of tolerance and fairness require that a law be passed stating that one answer is equal to the other? Can it be “4” in one state and “5” in another? What happens when the believers in 5 move into a 4 state?

Does the majority simply get tired of the minority’s incessant complaining and allow a law to be passed just to shut them up? Can we really do business with each other using both the 4 and 5 answer as they choose?

My point is that certain BASIC definitions remain true regardless of the political ability to wear down truth.

GOOD civil law is based on time honored MORAL law. See Genesis 2, Matthew 19, and Ephesians 5 for the moral definition of marriage. Marriage IS between a man and a women.

Same sex unions or any other type of union is simply not to be called “Marriage”. Many laws provide tax benefits to alternative unions. California has “Registered Domestic Partners.” That’s the limit. That’s quite a bit of tolerance.

Political power should not be able to change the time honored definition of marriage any more than it can legally require 2 +2 = 5 be accepted as being equal to 2 + 2 = 4.

There IS truth. Adhering to the truth is NOT intolerant.

Amen, brother! Speak it, man, speak it!