Tired of the gay topics

[rlg94086]

Well, as the OP, I STILL am tired of hearing about homosexuals, etc. And there IS a generally-shared strategy of pressing for special homosexual rights.

But I wonder. . . is the buried story here a question of whether we Catholics are frightened at the enormous work of fighting off all these unleashed sexual desires (heterosexual, etc.)?

I mean, as Mr. Goofy says, there IS a problem with reckless heterosexuality. Think of the single mothers, stunted life prospects, etc.

Are we looking at a huge battle that seems overwhelming?

I don’t think it is a matter of being “frightened at the enormous work.” I think Catholics take a position on current cultural battles. When it comes to AIDS, we preach abstinance, not condoms. When it comes to teen sex/unwed mothers, we preach abstinance, not ABC. When it comes to gay marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research, we preach against it.

Now, that is just the short list, as there are many other problems in our fallen world. However, they are the “hot” topics right now, so they are in the news the most.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The same could be said of heterosexual fornicators. But I don’t see you crusading aginst them.

Sins against chastity are all bad, no question. But as for “crusading:”

I am not inclined to crusade against sinners against chastity. I’m not inclined to offer them approval for their actions, either. But I am quite likely to join a crusade against those who would proclaim that sins against chastity are no longer, indeed never really were, sins.

The homosexual or heterosexual fornicator needs our help and prayers. The activist who says that those sins are not sins needs to be silenced in the Church. They are willful deceivers, and they do much harm.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Riley259]

Let’s not forget the extremists on the right who want to do away with anyone who experiences same sex attraction. Just do a little searching on these forums and you will find them. You don’t think they have some strange agenda of their own?

Those are pretty strong words, Jim. What exactly do you mean by “do away with”? A faithful Catholic should be able to differentiate between those with same-sex attraction who are chaste and those who embrace the life-style. Either way, we should love our brothers and sisters who have same-sex attraction but not endorse those who choose to embrace the lifestyle - this should be done charitably but not passively. In this culture that requires alot of courage.

 

[Exalt]

Those are pretty strong words, Jim. What exactly do you mean by “do away with”? A faithful Catholic should be able to differentiate between those with same-sex attraction who are chaste and those who embrace the life-style. Either way, we should love our brothers and sisters who have same-sex attraction but not endorse those who choose to embrace the lifestyle - this should be done charitably but not passively. In this culture that requires alot of courage.

There was someone on a thread discussing if homosexuality should be illegal who wanted homosexuals to be put in therapy, whether they wanted to go or not, until they were cured. When I asked him what would happen if someone just couldn’t be cured, this person said that they would stay in therapy until it worked.

Basically, he was calling for concentration camps for gay people. I imagine he’s not alone in his opinion. But it is, indeed, a very minority opinion (thankfully).

 

[Mirdath]

But I wonder. . . is the buried story here a question of whether we Catholics are frightened at the enormous work of fighting off all these unleashed sexual desires (heterosexual, etc.)?

I mean, as Mr. Goofy says, there IS a problem with reckless heterosexuality. Think of the single mothers, stunted life prospects, etc.

Are we looking at a huge battle that seems overwhelming?

Or, perhaps, are you – or at least those who are so vocal about it – not afraid of the work, but of the desires themselves? The balance of the Catholic taking-of-offense over various peccadilloes is so inordinately out of whack it makes one wonder just what’s at work in the minds of those who protest it.

Heterosexual fornicators get a disapproving glare; somebody who admits to being on the pill or using a condom gets a wagging finger; adulterers just get annulments; but oh, so much as hint at giving insurance benefits to homosexuals and you have people calling for boycotts and for your head! All those other things are already grave matter: what makes two men or two women bumping uglies an extra-special-super-zowie-five-times-the-damnation-mortal-mortal-mortal sin? And why is it so important to the very people who at least claim they don’t want to engage in it, more important than those other, vastly more common sins?

 

[rlg94086]

Or, perhaps, are you – or at least those who are so vocal about it – not afraid of the work, but of the desires themselves? The balance of the Catholic taking-of-offense over various peccadilloes is so inordinately out of whack it makes one wonder just what’s at work in the minds of those who protest it.

Heterosexual fornicators get a disapproving glare; somebody who admits to being on the pill or using a condom gets a wagging finger; adulterers just get annulments; but oh, so much as hint at giving insurance benefits to homosexuals and you have people calling for boycotts and for your head! All those other things are already grave matter: what makes two men or two women bumping uglies an extra-special-super-zowie-five-times-the-damnation-mortal-mortal-mortal sin? And why is it so important to the very people who at least claim they don’t want to engage in it, more important than those other, vastly more common sins?

You nailed the main difference…and I don’t mean your heterophobic assumption that people who protest have a problem with their own sexuality. That is a tired and overused accusation.

None of the other sins you listed get special approval by the government or businesses in the form of insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. If you agreed that homosexual acts are a motral sin (which you don’t), then you would agree that they should not get formal recognition in this way.

I also haven’t seen too many birth control, adulterer, fornicator street fairs or parades.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You nailed the main difference…and I don’t mean your heterophobic assumption that people who protest have a problem with their own sexuality. That is a tired and overused accusation.

None of the other sins you listed get special approval by the government or businesses in the form of insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. If you agreed that homosexual acts are a motral sin (which you don’t), then you would agree that they should not get formal recognition in this way.

I also haven’t seen too many birth control, adulterer, fornicator street fairs or parades.

Ever hear of Adult Expo? Granted, not out on the street, but a convention dedicated to sex toys and porn? Hello?

 

[rlg94086]

Ever hear of Adult Expo? Granted, not out on the street, but a convention dedicated to sex toys and porn? Hello?

And Catholics are in favor of that? Hello?

Yes, I have heard of Adult Expos, and, no, they aren’t the same as Gay Pride Parades which get mainstream advertising support and positive media coverage.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

And Catholics are in favor of that? Hello?

Yes, I have heard of Adult Expos, and, no, they aren’t the same as Gay Pride Parades which get mainstream advertising support and positive media coverage.

As I drive around the Southland, I usually know about the Adult Expo before I hear about Pride events. Most of those Expo signs are posted on billboards…Pride events are not. I usually find out about Pride events when they’re about to happen and it’s usually because of traffic. Additionally, those events take place in areas I tend to avoid anyway. Actually, unless one lives there, no Christian would want to go to those places at any time anyway! If a Christian were to go to Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, what would they find that a Christian would need? Nothing.

 

[rlg94086]

As I drive around the Southland, I usually know about the Adult Expo before I hear about Pride events. Most of those Expo signs are posted on billboards…Pride events are not. I usually find out about Pride events when they’re about to happen and it’s usually because of traffic. Additionally, those events take place in areas I tend to avoid anyway. Actually, unless one lives there, no Christian would want to go to those places at any time anyway! If a Christian were to go to Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, what would they find that a Christian would need? Nothing.

Exactly…ditto to Gay Pride parades. I guess they are the same. I stand corrected.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Oh, and I WILL give you Gay Days at Disneyland (which is NOT sponsored by Disney, by the way!). Since I’m a Disneyland geek, I know when it’s coming and avoid the parks during that weekend.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, and I WILL give you Gay Days at Disneyland (which is NOT sponsored by Disney, by the way!). Since I’m a Disneyland geek, I know when it’s coming and avoid the parks during that weekend.

Do you also avoid Adulterer/Fornicator/Birth Control days at Disneyland?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Exactly…ditto to Gay Pride parades. I guess they are the same. I stand corrected.

Yup. Santa Monica Blvd. is where “Pride” in West Hollywood takes place. Since I hardly ever go to WeHo, it’s never a problem for me.

 

[KarenNC]

None of the other sins you listed get special approval by the government or businesses in the form of insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. If you agreed that homosexual acts are a motral sin (which you don’t), then you would agree that they should not get formal recognition in this way.

I also haven’t seen too many birth control, adulterer, fornicator street fairs or parades.

Your company’s insurance does not cover the cost of prescription contraceptives?

Children who are conceived out of wedlock do not qualify for the exact same child tax credit as those conceived within a marriage?

Your state does not allow those who are divorced to marry legally and qualify for tax benefits, both state and federal?

As to parades, it is simply a matter of timing. A Time magazine article from 1934

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,787784-1,00.html

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Do you also avoid Adulterer/Fornicator/Birth Control days at Disneyland?

They don’t have specific days for those sins.

Unless you consider that the place is full of every sort of sinner imaginable every day of the year…then again, so everywhere else.

Then again, maybe next year, I’ll have some Courage t-shirts made up and the Courage group I’m part of can all go to Disneyland on Gay days!

 

[rlg94086]

Your company’s insurance does not cover the cost of prescription contraceptives?

Possibly…I don’t know, as we have no need for it. But, that is a fair point to make. I am all for cutting off contraceptive coverage by insurance companies. I am against the government requiring insurance coverage for contraception, or abortion, or non-married individuals.

Children who are conceived out of wedlock do not qualify for the exact same child tax credit as those conceived within a marriage?

Your state does not allow those who are divorced to marry legally and qualify for tax benefits, both state and federal?

As to parades, it is simply a matter of timing. A Time magazine article from 1934

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,787784-1,00.html

I wouldn’t say that coverage of children conceived out of wedlock or tax benefits for remarried, divorced couples is a government support of adultery. Those laws support the raising of children and actually promote marriage…unless you consider a remarried couple’s marriage as less important than someone who hasn’t been through a divorce.

As far as parades go, I looked at my calender it isn’t 1934. If I had been alive and old enough to protest the parade, I would have. Parading your sexual sin through the streets is wrong, regardless of the sin.

 

[KarenNC]

I wouldn’t say that coverage of children conceived out of wedlock or tax benefits for remarried, divorced couples is a government support of adultery. Those laws support the raising of children and actually promote marriage…unless you consider a remarried couple’s marriage as less important than someone who hasn’t been through a divorce.

I don’t, but it is my understanding that the Catholic Church considers that a person who is divorced and remarries to someone else is indeed committing adultery until and unless the initial spouse dies or the Church decides to annul it.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t, but it is my understanding that the Catholic Church considers that a person who is divorced and remarries to someone else is indeed committing adultery until and unless the initial spouse dies or the Church decides to annul it.

Okay…and the government should treat divorce/remarried couples who are not Catholic and/or didn’t get an annulment differently than those who did get an annulment? That makes no sense.

The point is that the government supports and promotes marriage…which is a good thing, because a two-parent, heterosexual, married couple is the best environment for the raising of a child. I don’t see a reason government should support and promote gay marriage or homosexuality, in general.

 

[KarenNC]

Okay…and the government should treat divorce/remarried couples who are not Catholic and/or didn’t get an annulment differently than those who did get an annulment? That makes no sense.

As much sense as denying civil marriage to homosexuals on the basis that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual sexual relations is a sin. If we are not going to treat heterosexual couples differently on that basis when the Church says that heterosexual sexual relations between divorced persons is just as much a sin, why would we treat homosexual couples so?

I can see every reason and right for the Catholic Church to deny sacramental marriage to those who do not follow its teachings. I don’t see a reason for the US government to base its marriage laws on whether or not the Catholic Church believes certain behavior is a sin.

The point is that the government supports and promotes marriage…which is a good thing, because a two-parent, heterosexual, married couple is the best environment for the raising of a child. I don’t see a reason government should support and promote gay marriage or homosexuality, in general.

If legal marriage was only about having children, then I might be closer to agreeing with you, but that isn’t the case. Government also supports married couples who have no children, cannot have children or have no intention of ever having children. It also supports, in some states, marriage between couples that would otherwise be too closely related only if they cannot have children.

Even if it were the case that marriage was being promoted for the purpose of raising children, then on what basis would you deny such to the homosexuals who have children?

Overall, I see no reason to deny civil marriage to homosexuals. It promotes stable, long lasting relationships (at least as much as it does to heterosexuals ) with the attendant legal responsibilities and we have agreed, I believe, that stable relationships are important to the functioning of society.

 

[rlg94086]

As much sense as denying civil marriage to homosexuals on the basis that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual sexual relations is a sin. If we are not going to treat heterosexual couples differently on that basis when the Church says that heterosexual sexual relations between divorced persons is just as much a sin, why would we treat homosexual couples so?

I can see every reason and right for the Catholic Church to deny sacramental marriage to those who do not follow its teachings. I don’t see a reason for the US government to base its marriage laws on whether or not the Catholic Church believes certain behavior is a sin.

If legal marriage was only about having children, then I might be closer to agreeing with you, but that isn’t the case. Government also supports married couples who have no children, cannot have children or have no intention of ever having children. It also supports, in some states, marriage between couples that would otherwise be too closely related only if they cannot have children.

Even if it were the case that marriage was being promoted for the purpose of raising children, then on what basis would you deny such to the homosexuals who have children?

Overall, I see no reason to deny civil marriage to homosexuals. It promotes stable, long lasting relationships (at least as much as it does to heterosexuals ) with the attendant legal responsibilities and we have agreed, I believe, that stable relationships are important to the functioning of society.

The fact that the marriage of those without children is “supported” by the government is a by-product. It would make no sense for the government to require that people have children…especially for those who can’t.

That said, again, it is because the ideal is a heterosexual, two-parent, married household for the raising of children. That doesn’t mean that homosexual couples can’t raise kids, single parents can’t raise kids, or unmarried heterosexual couples can’t raise kids. To the degree that those who don’t fit the ideal get some benefit from the government-supported/promoted ideal is a by-product.

The government should not promote gay households anymore than it should promote single households. You are looking for a reason to “deny” gay marriage…that is not necessary. What you can’t give IMHO is a decent reason for the government to support/promote gay marriage.