The issue of gay intolerance

[GratefulFred]

It has been said elsewhere that allowing gay “marriage” as compared to gay civil unions that essentially provide the same legal benefits, but not the title “marriage” is long over due progress AND necessary, like the end of slavery and women gaining the vote. The three are not equal.

GOOD civil law is based on MORAL law. America is based on the Judeo-Christian values that have been honored for thousands of years in the Western World. Does any one know of a widely held MORAL law, in the bible or not, that said slavery was in God’s Plan for humans? Or that women should not have the vote? Was ending slavery or giving women the right vote against God’s Plan? Where in the Bible does it say slavery is God’s good intention for us, or that God doesn’t want women to vote? But with marriage, we see that man/woman marriage IS God’s Plan for us. We see no plan for gay marriage.

Freedom is good. But it is the GOOD USE of Freedom that makes us a great nation.

GOOD USE OF FREEDOM generally comes from majority rule, sometimes by court decisions. But, always, GOOD USE is based on Moral Law.

So what Moral Law tells us that a civil law allowing gay marriage is good or not good? Is America ready to ignore God’s Moral Law?

 

[GratefulFred]

I came across this analogy that helps explain why definitions matter.

Champagne is good. So is Chablis. Nothing ‘wrong’ with either. Personal preferences control one’s choice for either or neither.

But it is dishonest, a fraud, to market a Chablis as being just the same as champagne.

Thanks Bishop Tobin of Providence, R.I.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Amen! We are taught Love the sinner HATE THE SIN!

 

[rinnie]

The thing is God destroyed the city when the people were living the devils way. We know the truth and we want everyone to be saved not destroyed by the works of the devil.

Would we not be more terrible if we said live the way you want and ruin your soul we don’t care. Or would we be better people if we said please understand you are sinning against God and please turn away from this sin before its too late! We want eternal happiness for you not eternal damnation!

 

[po18guy]

The church certainly is intolerant; it’s clear that God hates gays, calling them an abomination.

When I offer opinions regarding something I know nothing about, I am considered ignorant. So, please provide your basis for this inflammatory statement. You are opining on a subject (God) which you admittedly do not care about.

The main problem in the equation is the presence of the word “marriage.” Marriage is the uniting of two bodies under the eyes of God. A union unites two people in the eyes of the state, for legal benefits.

Since the founding of the world, marriage has been between two humans of opposite sex. Marriage was instituted by God, whether you happen to believe in God or not. Government has attempted, without much success, to usurp God’s authority in this regard. While marriage came form God, divorce came from man. Thus, as man has no authority over that which God has instituted, the decision was made forever, once “male and female He created them”. We can argue endlessly about this, but it does not alter the foundation of it one bit.

Simply put, homosexuals can get married now. It appears that they just don’t want to. They have the physical attributes to marry the opposite sex. They have a reproductive system appropriate to their gender. So, it is indeed an attempt to change the very basis for God’s marriage that the Church and her members object to. And, once the government declares homosexual unions to be marriage, the church will be forced to comply. Power struggle?

As a practical matter, I would like to see a society in all of human history, which was founded upon, or healthily persisted upon the basis of homosexual “marriage”.

The gay community is not asking for their union to be acknowledged in the eyes of the church, they really just want the state and federal benefits that they’re being denied because they aren’t straight.

Have patience! It will. Power seeks after power. And, such power is even now seeking to forever silence opposition through intimidation and legislation.

It shouldn’t be up to a religion’s intolerance to decide who recieves federal benefits. Seperation of church and state; hopefully someday we’ll have it in entirety.

Examples of total separation of church and state, as you desire, are in existence and in the history books. The USSR and Hitler’s Germany (homosexuals slaughtered and gassed), Mao’s China, Cuba (jailed for AIDS!). Is this what you want? Careful what you ask for…

Again, you appear to assume that government is not by the consent of the governed. What if the majority of the governed do not want to change the DNA of marriage? What if they say so by their vote? Then what? You can no longer blame the Church. Then, you must go after the voters through hate crimes legislation. As you have noticed, this is already happening.

 

[ladybri77]

What? Satan is a concept, not a doctrine.
I’d like to see a quote from “The Book of Satan” explaining his stance.

With love,
hippyprincess

Satan is very real. You can find him in the Bible.

God was referring to the homosexual “act” as being an abomination, not the homosexual himself. We are called as Christians to “love the sinner, hate the sin.” And being concerned about his welfare, we will tell him the truth in a loving manner that he may turn aside from this destructive lifestyle and live.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Long thread - very interesting, too.
From me you get two cents…
First penny- We must speak out against gay marriage. The Church and Christians have never remained silent where sin is concerned.

Second penny - (worth far more than the first and we must put this penny where our mouth is) - We cannot pray for them if we don’t understand them. We can not understand them or the affliction of same-sex attraction unless we gain knowledge of how they came to suffer the disorder. From knowledge will flow, understanding and pity, and finally Christian love. Only then will we be able to pray with sincerity on their behalf, and the fruit of that prayer will be more love, more conversions.

By and large the group of souls who identify themselves as homosexual float somewhere outside the boundary of the prayers of decent folk, are condemned to “accept their identity” by mental health workers, and are abandoned to seek solace and camaraderie in a subculture devoid of morals and rampant with the work of Satan.

Research websites such as NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) COURAGE and EXODUS (Christian based organizations helping individuals free themselves from SSA.) 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. It develops through childhood much like a hidden disease when deep and legitimate emotional needs go unmet. The SSA erupts as the body’s unconscious attempt to meet and fill those natural needs. Homosexuality, therefore, is only a symptom of a confused, distorted, un-affirmed gender identity of a disturbed personality with unresolved emotional turmoil and unmet needs of male-bonding.
The original affliction which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, gets sexualized usually around puberty. The saddest part is that NO same-sex union can fulfill these psychological needs, and the person turns to promiscuity, obsessions, compulsive behaviors, drugs, alcohol and sadly even suicide. (You must understand it is not the opposite of your natural heterosexual attraction that you feel - it is something far more intense and needy- something a psychologically healthy individual would not easily relate to.)

Without a doubt SSAD (Same-Sex Attraction Disorder) is caused by a combination of environment, sensitivity level, and damaged childhood relationships. That’s the good news – because it CAN be helped. These poor souls CAN change, every one of those poor lost souls who feel forced to identify themselves as homosexuals CAN CHANGE with prayer, support, and psychotherapy.
If a mind is a terrible thing to waste then a soul is even more tragic! These men and women NEED US - our understanding, our gentle witness, our love and our prayers. That’s true acceptance, true tolerance.
PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND THEN GO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS!
ALL FOR JESUS, ALL FOR MARY, ALL IN UNION WITH ST. JOSEPH!

Please say the St. Michael prayer for SSAD Souls everyday.

 

[po18guy]

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.

So simple and well said! Sometimes I think that certain homosexuals must love themselves first before they can realize how God loves them.

 

[GratefulFred]

Long thread - very interesting, too.
From me you get two cents…
First penny- We must speak out against gay marriage. The Church and Christians have never remained silent where sin is concerned.

Second penny - (worth far more than the first and we must put this penny where our mouth is) - We cannot pray for them if we don’t understand them. We can not understand them or the affliction of same-sex attraction unless we gain knowledge of how they came to suffer the disorder. From knowledge will flow, understanding and pity, and finally Christian love. Only then will we be able to pray with sincerity on their behalf, and the fruit of that prayer will be more love, more conversions.

. . .

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND THEN GO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS!
ALL FOR JESUS, ALL FOR MARY, ALL IN UNION WITH ST. JOSEPH!

Please say the St. Michael prayer for SSAD Souls everyday.

CarlaOLS’ post is excellent. Empathy is needed in order to speak the Truth in the Spirit of Love. Thanks, Carla.

 

[chagol]

“…it’s clear that God hates gays…” Really? I though God was love and that he loves everybody even the sinners.

 Language like that would lead any reasonable person to believe the speaker is very intolerant. 

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. Later in life I had my eyes opened widely. I have a son who was always harrassed by his classmates because he acted in ways they thought were effiminate. This started long before he was old enough to know what homosexuality is. He has terrible emotional scars from the harrassment. Now that he is grown he has acknowledged that he is indeed gay. I believe that he was born gay. This was obvious from his early childhood. 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.

We have taught him that as it pertains to his sexuality he must live with the same restraints that an unmarried straight person would if he is to avoid sinning. He went to discuss his problems with a priest who also has degrees in psychology. The priest told him that he was hopeful that soon the church would see that this is not a choice, but is instead something with which he was born. He was told that God loves him like everyone else he has created. I believe that too. 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.

My son feels that the church rejects him for something beyond his control. He doesn’t attend mass because he feels alienated from the congregation. I certainly understand why. I believe that the church needs to search further to better understand this issue and find greater love in its’ collective heart for those so afflicted and ways to build their self respect and a feeling of acceptance and inclusiveness.

I also feel that the church should not object to civil privileges for homosexuals. I wouldn’t ask the church to approve of gay marriage, but once that act is a reality, what is the reason to look for ways to further weigh these people down. Love is lifting up of the down trodden.

 

[chagol]

“…it’s clear that God hates gays…” Really? I thought God was love and that he loves everybody even the sinners.

 Language like that would lead any reasonable person to believe the speaker is very intolerant. 

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. Later in life I had my eyes opened widely. I have a son who was always harrassed by his classmates because he acted in ways they thought were effiminate. This started long before he was old enough to know what homosexuality is. He has terrible emotional scars from the harrassment. Now that he is grown he has acknowledged that he is indeed gay. I believe that he was born gay. This was obvious from his early childhood. 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.

We have taught him that as it pertains to his sexuality he must live with the same restraints that an unmarried straight person would if he is to avoid sinning. He went to discuss his problems with a priest who also has degrees in psychology. The priest told him that he was hopeful that soon the church would see that this is not a choice, but is instead something with which he was born. He was told that God loves him like everyone else he has created. I believe that too. 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.

My son feels that the church rejects him for something beyond his control. He doesn’t attend mass because he feels alienated from the congregation. I certainly understand why. I believe that the church needs to search further to better understand this issue and find greater love in its’ collective heart for those so afflicted and ways to build their self respect and a feeling of acceptance and inclusiveness.

I also feel that the church should not object to civil privileges for homosexuals. I wouldn’t ask the church to approve of gay marriage, but once that act is a reality, what is the reason to look for ways to further weigh these people down. Love is lifting up of the down trodden.

 

[chagol]

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.

 

[hippyprincess]

Dear hippyprincess,
mardukm;5189449:

I’m sure that there are Christian communities that hate gays, but the Catholic Church is not one of them. The Church explicitly makes a distinction between a homosexual tendency and a homosexual lifestyle

. It is the latter that the Church rejects as sinful. The former is not sinful in and of itself. Everyone has an inclination to sin, but that in itself is not condemnable. It is giving in to the temptation that cuts one off from God.

It is to my understanding that God does not allow homosexuals to enter heaven.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,** nor homosexuals**, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Cor. 6:9-10

Also, to state that homosexuality is a “tendency” is a statement completely based on no factual evidence. There is FAR more evidence suggesting the homosexuality is an immutable fact.

Yes, someone homosexual can choose not to engage in anal sex. But does that change the fact that they’re homosexual? No.

Don’t gays who have civil unions

obtain the same benefits as married people?

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.

Why must gay people insist on co-opting a term that has always had RELIGIOUS significance?

Exactly, I agree.
Marriage is a church term, union is a state term. If the church doesn’t want the gays to ruin their sacred ritual, so be it. But they have no right to deprive them of federal benefits given by the country.

Separation of church and state please.

 

[po18guy]

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.

Consider: Government also has an interest in preserving such unions as will maintain and benefit the nation. Children are the main benefit to government, via their role in employment and the furnishing of revenue through taxes. “Unions” provide no such children.

Marriage is a church term, union is a state term. If the church doesn’t want the gays to ruin their sacred ritual, so be it.

The Church only represents God. So, your problem is with God. I see that by your profile.

Separation of church and state please.

Again, careful of what you ask for. Look around the world for a Godless nation that will maintain your rights. May you live so long as to find one!

 

[greggy53]

The Douay-Rheims Bible says this in Corinthians. Any other interpretations are suspect.

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Also, Not to change the subject but where exactly do you read about “separation of Church and state” in the Constitution???

 

[po18guy]

The Douay-Rheims Bible says this in Corinthians. Any other interpretations are suspect.

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Also, Not to change the subject but where exactly do you read about “separation of Church and state” in the Constitution???

Well, “adulterers” and “fornicators” pretty much covers it - regardless of the gender question. Also consider the end of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is eminently clear that all types of sinful behavior were punished in those two cities. No special rights for anyone. This was a result of the state separating itself from the faith (church) - of possible interest to those who beg for it in our time.

 

[Newbie2]

You are unable to refute it, because holding the opinion that a particular section of the population should be denied finaicial (and other) benefits is quite clearly a bigoted and intolerant position.

Denying homosexual marriage isn’t necessarily denying homosexuals financial and other benefits that married folks have, and as such isn’t “bigoted and intolerant”.

It is similar to denying women the right to vote.

Um, no, it’s not. That’s quite a different thing.

To those that are mentioning businesses that are considering denying service to homosexuals, or married homosexuals, do you consider it acceptable to deny service to blacks, or women, or jews, or latino’s?

Depends on what they wanted to print, in the case of a printshop. If a Jewish organization wanted to print Anti-Catholic material, I would, were I a printer, refuse to do their printing. If a black person were to want to print anti-Caucasion material, I’d refuse as well. Same as a Woman’s group that wanted to print pro-abortion material or Latinos who wante me to print anti-American material.

What’s your point here?

 

[wasmit]

A couple that does NOT have the capacity to contribute to society in such as a way so as to help maintain the posterity of that society should not be accorded the same benefits as couples who have that ability. Couples who do not have that capacity should be treated exactly like others in the same boat - single people. Like I said, they can become U.S. citizens, so they are not being discriminated against in that way. And such a policy does not prevent them from being a couple. There are other avenues for them to extend their stay here that reflect on their ability to contribute to the society of which they want to be a part - for instance, work visas, or student visas, or green cards.

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 a government benefit?

 

[KathleenMary]

Is it not “tolerant enough” to be aware that someone is actively gay, understand that their behavior is sinful, and never the less treat them with kindness and compassion? Is it not “tolerant enough” to pray for them?

The “knowledge” that a homosexual relationship is sinful has become reason enough to be labeled a “bigot”. How soon before teaching those “bigoted” ideas to our children will be deemed a hate crime?

In the State of Connecticut, years of fighting for and against “gay marriage” has taken place.

First, all that gay marriage proponents wanted were the “rights that married couples have”.
Connecticut granted gay couples “civil unions”.
That wasn’t good enough. They needed to redefine “marriage”.
“This won’t affect YOUR marriage or YOUR families”, we were told.
“We don’t want to force our lifestyle down anyone’s throat”, we were told.

Now that “gay marriage” has been imposed on CT by judicial fiat all the false assurances of limited consequences have been thrown to the curb. A bill (#899) was passed codifying the courts decision into state law. Thousands of CT citizens had to fight for inclusion of amendments providing the most basic religious conscience exemptions, to avoid lawsuits in the event that a religious person might refuse to materially participate in a sacriligious event such as a “gay marriage” ceremony or reception.

As we speak, the progressive state of Connecticut is discussing ways to “teach the acceptability of gay marriage and homosexual behavior in our public schools”. Let’s be clear; they plan to teach immorality to our children. One can hardly claim that, when your child is directly taught something that is contrary to your own religion, it does no harm. Under the constitution, the state is not allowed to teach “religion” but by teaching “against religion” they will in fact be teaching the State’s version of religion.

The envelope continues to be pushed.

 

[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 a government benefit?

The benefit is being permitted to immigrate to this country. ANYONE can immigrate to the U.S. The government does not restrict people from doing that. I don’t believe gays should be given preferential treatment just because their partner is of the same sex. Married heterosexuals can potentially contribute to a society in a way that gay couples cannot. Identically, married people can potentially contribute to a society in a way that a single person cannot. Based on that, gay couples should not be given preferential treatment over single people as far as immigration is concerned. That is fair and equitable.

But “gay marriage rights” is not at all about equitableness and fairness, is it? If a gay couple’s contribution to a society they want to immigrate to is no different from the contribution of a single person, then why should a gay person be permitted to immigrate into that country differently from any other single person? Please explain.