Who are the truly intolerant and bigoted people? Gay activists or those with opposing views?

[qui_est_ce]

Here is what is wanted: Sexual Perversity (Diversity) is to be accepted by all. Read the last few lines of the following in particular.

“More diversity is one of several characteristics of the family patterns in many countries
during the last decades. Although small in numbers and far from being accepted in most
countries, legalization of same-sex marriages fits neatly into this development. The
increasing diversity is often regarded as a part of a larger cultural change, implying an
increase in freedom as well as an obligation for individuals to decide how to organize
their lives in an individualized society (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 1995; Beck 1997).**
Another factor that might have paved the way for same-sex marriages is the
increasing separation between reproduction and sexuality, in favor of a more plastic**
sexuality in the terminology of Giddens (1992). Sexuality has naturally always been
separated from reproduction in homosexual relations, and this separation is becoming**
increasingly dominant also in heterosexual relationships. Thus, the disparity between
homo- and heterosexual relationships is being diminished. **The increasing acceptance and legal legitimacy of homosexual practice may be the most important change
regarding sexuality in the last decades, or as Giddens (1992:33) expressed it “… sexual
diversity, although still regarded by many hostile groups as perversion, has moved out of
Freud’s case-history notebooks into the everyday social world”.”

Orgasms are job one regardless of any mix or match combination of persons you can think of, and monogomy is not the goal of many successful gay marriages:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Peace,
Ed

Straight out of Humanae Vitae.

 

[Holly3278]

Oh, my. Now this is a biased poll if I ever saw one.

I shouldn’t even bother humouring this. I don’t see how opposing those who disapprove of gay marriage is necessarily intolerant. Right-wing folk act as if by doing so I would be taking away their religious freedom, but that’s complete and utter nonsense.

Besides, must people who oppose same-sex marriage are intolerant or bigoted. Not because they oppose same-sex marriage, but just with what they say, and their opinions on the subject. I could name some users on this very forum that are intolerant of homosexuals, and not because they oppose same-sex marriage.

No offense but if you don’t like my poll or the way it is worded then why did you even bother posting in my thread?

That said, I don’t see how you can say that most people who oppose same-sex “marriage” are intolerant or bigoted. Just because someone’s religious beliefs or other beliefs prevent them from condoning the redefinition of marriage does not make them intolerant or bigoted. Many people who oppose gay “marriage”, myself included, fully support homosexual Christians and respect homosexuals who are not Christian. However, that does not mean that we can approve of and/or condone their every wish and desire.

Also, the gay rights activists often are intolerant and bigoted. I just seen a video the other day where there was a Catholic priest praying near a Chick-Fil-A on the gay protest day which I think was called a “kiss in” and they started harassing him and everything simply because he was a Catholic priest who was praying near a Chick-Fil-A on the gay protest day. One woman in particular kept calling him a hateful bigot over and over again. Now, to me, the people who are truly hateful and bigoted are the ones who refuse to allow people like this priest to have his own viewpoints without being called a hateful bigot.

 

[Simon_James]

As a celibate homosexual Catholic, I am MORE afraid to reveal my sexual identity to gays than to non gays. Straight people may not like my orientation, but they seldom attack me or my beliefs. Gays try to change me or try to discredit the teachings of my faith.
To be celibate is to be Benedict Arnold; isn’t that sad? To top it off, this only increases the alienation I am already living. I have written poignantly about these subjects and published my work, which both depicts the struggle to live a life of Faith in a culture of license and which also presents celibacy as a rich alternative. Come visit my personal apostolate: simonjamesonline.com

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Given the context of these forums and what was written in the OP, the question might as well have been:
Who is more bigoted? Us or the bigoted people we think are bigoted against us?
This is just more of the US VERSUS THEM culture war rhetoric which has everything to do with constructing an identity over against someone or something else and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

You hit the nail on the head. No war, no movement, no issue that has those that believe and those that do not believe are any less bigoted than the other. We translate our bigotry into what we believe and think is right. Who is right anyway?

We use Reason, Tradition, Scripture, History, Teachings, The Bible…and somehow somewhere we all come up with some belief that we are right. Who decides?

In the end it is the individual that then unites in some way with others and then the question is that unity true unity or disunity. It is often that the true unity accomplishes more in the long run than the disunity that is often seen in the parallel of Protestant thought. No one group, no one person speaks for all Protestant thought and then we have as you have pointed out “a clanging symbol” without love…

and my brother are we not called to love one another as you have pointed out…

 

[FaithBuild18]

I will not say both. I have no care to sound profound, friendly, or enlightened. I do not care to be politically correct in front of my fellow man or woman, nor do I wish to appease certain groups of people by making concessions and stating falsehoods for the sake of happiness or even benevolence or charity. I only care to speak truthfully and positively in the eyes of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I wish to practice true benevolence, true charity, not when founded upon a lie but when founded upon the truth.

Gay activists are the truly intolerant and bigoted people involved in this issue.

Certain mislead liberals and liberal Christians equate faith, boldness, steadfastness, fortitude, and a sense of truth and justice with intolerance and bigotry, then they conclude that real Christians are intolerant and bigoted.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Grace & Peace!

Given the context of these forums and what was written in the OP, the question might as well have been:
Who is more bigoted? Us or the bigoted people we think are bigoted against us?
This is just more of the US VERSUS THEM culture war rhetoric which has everything to do with constructing an identity over against someone or something else and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

To reduce such a debate as merely “us versus them” paves the way for a commonly held relativism in which virtues and beliefs are regarded as merely different views rather than right and wrong. There is no “us versus them.” There is only good versus evil, and truth versus lies.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To reduce such a debate as merely “us versus them” paves the way for a commonly held relativism in which virtues and beliefs are regarded as merely different views rather than right and wrong.

Not quite, FaithBuild. As is the case in so many of these hot-button / politicized moral issues, the concern really has become identity and how we understand ourselves. Am I the bigot? No. I can’t be the bigot. Because I’m right. They’re the bigots. Because they’re wrong.

But there is a difference between a concern for what is right and a concern for who is right. When the conversation becomes about who is right, it’s always going to be *us–we *will always be right and they will always be wrong. The terms of the discussion will always be oppositional…to the point that our rightness will come to depend on their *wrongness. *Such thinking inevitably leads to violence of one sort or another.

But when the discussion is about *what *is right, we can all find our way into the conversation because we are *all *striving, in one way or another, to better comprehend, live, and embody what is right. That isn’t relativism–that’s an understanding of our apprehension of what is objectively right as progressive, not static. The model is sanctification–growth and progress in grace, not merely, “you have it or you don’t.” Righteousness conceived not as intellectual possession of a series of truths, but as a living into truth.

There is only good versus evil, and truth versus lies.

Do you really think that the good opposes itself to evil? That what is opposes itself to what* is not*? That presence opposes itself to absence? What is the use of such opposition? The good is and will always be the good regardless of whether or not there is evil. It does not need to oppose evil in order to be good. The good simply *is. *To believe that good and evil are opposed is to imagine that they’re on opposite ends of a spectrum, which is to suggest, in one way or another, that they have something in common, if only the spectrum on which they’re placed. But good and evil have nothing in common. They aren’t opposites, hence they cannot be opposed. Simone Weil explains it beautifully when she writes:That which is the direct opposite of an evil never belongs to the order of higher good. It is often scarcely any higher than evil! Examples: theft and the bourgeois respect for property, adultery and the ‘respectable woman’; the savings bank and waste; lying and ‘sincerity’

Good is essentially other than evil. Evil is multifarious and fragmentary, good is one, evil is apparent, good is mysterious; evil consists in action, good in non-action, in activity which does not act, etc.–Good considered on the level of evil and measured against it as one opposite against another is good of the penal code order. …] Good which is defined in the way in which one defines evil should be rejected. Evil does reject it. But the way it rejects it is evil.
Oppositional sorts of thinking inevitably lead to the equivalent of defining the good in the same way one defines evil. Such thinking is less concerned with what is actually good and more concerned with the good being on our side and against someone else.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Not quite, FaithBuild. As is the case in so many of these hot-button / politicized moral issues, the concern really has become identity and how we understand ourselves. Am I the bigot? No. I can’t be the bigot. Because I’m right. They’re the bigots. Because they’re wrong.

But there is a difference between a concern for what is right and a concern for who is right. When the conversation becomes about who is right, it’s always going to be *us–we *will always be right and they will always be wrong. The terms of the discussion will always be oppositional…to the point that our rightness will come to depend on their *wrongness. *Such thinking inevitably leads to violence of one sort or another.

But when the discussion is about *what *is right, we can all find our way into the conversation because we are *all *striving, in one way or another, to better comprehend, live, and embody what is right.

Do you really think that the good opposes itself to evil? That what is opposes itself to what* is not*? That presence opposes itself to absence? What is the use of such opposition? The good is and will always be the good regardless of whether or not there is evil. It does not need to oppose evil in order to be good. The good simply *is. *To believe that good and evil are opposed is to imagine that they’re on opposite ends of a spectrum, which is to suggest, in one way or another, that they have something in common, if only the spectrum on which they’re placed. But good and evil have nothing in common. They aren’t opposites, hence they cannot be opposed. As Simone Weil explains it beautifully when she writes:That which is the direct opposite of an evil never belongs to the order of higher good. It is often scarcely any higher than evil! Examples: theft and the bourgeois respect for property, adultery and the ‘respectable woman’; the savings bank and waste; lying and ‘sincerity’

Good is essentially other than evil. Evil is multifarious and fragmentary, good is one, evil is apparent, good is mysterious; evil consists in action, good in non-action, in activity which does not act, etc.–Good considered on the level of evil and measured against it as one opposite against another is good of the penal code order. …] Good which is defined in the way in which one defines evil should be rejected. Evil does reject it. But the way it rejects it is evil.
Oppositional sorts of thinking inevitably lead to the equivalent of defining the good in the same way one defines evil. Such thinking is less concerned with what is actually good and more concerned with the good being on our side and against someone else.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I agree with you. It is not opposition.

The absence of good is evil. The presence of evil is the absence of good. God alone is good and where God is not there is evil.

Good point.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark,

I agree with you. It is not opposition.

The absence of good is evil. The presence of evil is the absence of good. God alone is good and where God is not there is evil.

Good point.

I’m glad there is something we can agree on! And I’m glad (and find it beautiful!) that it’s the nature of the Good that can bring us together!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Dale_M]

Also, the gay rights activists often are intolerant and bigoted.

I think the very nature of activism inclines its members to have strong feelings and beliefs, and these can result in bigotry and intolerance. Generally speaking, anti-gay activists are as bad as the pro-gay activists.

 

[Dale_M]

This is just more of the US VERSUS THEM culture war rhetoric which has everything to do with constructing an identity over against someone or something else and has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel.

Us vs Them threads are a time honored custom here at CAF

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I’m glad there is something we can agree on! And I’m glad (and find it beautiful!) that it’s the nature of the Good that can bring us together!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I saw this on another thread. It is about an hour long. It allows for an understanding of Us vs Them. I suggest everyone take the time to review and reflect on this debate.

brownvsavage.com/

It is also important to note what is happening in Canada when them have succeeded and what them are doing in pursuing more than what is is them say they want. Us are not doing well in Canada. I don’t want history to repeat itself as is seen in Canada, as it regards Us.

 

[Dale_M]

I saw this on another thread. It is about an hour long. It allows for an understanding of Us vs Them.

I think you are missing Mark’s point. He wasn’t talking specifically about Christians, or conservatives or gay rights activists. He was referring to the practice of sweeping individuals into a broad category and then assigning characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, beliefs etc which supposedly distinguish all or most members of that group.

This is a practice which dismisses individual differences and essentially any factual discussion. Instead, we are left which vague allegations and straw man arguments. Moreover, this practice reduces discussions to little more than pep rallies: “Hooray for our side! Boo oat those other guys!”

In the case of this thread, all gay activists as grouped together as if they all behave similarly or have similar attitudes. This is just as in accurate as saying that all pro-life activists behave similarly or have similar attitudes. The bad actions of an individual, or even a few individuals, shouldn’t be taken as representative of the whole group.

Unfortunately, that approach is all too common in online discussions. And CAF is no exception.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think you are missing Mark’s point. He wasn’t talking specifically about Christians, or conservatives or gay rights activists. He was referring to the practice of sweeping individuals into a broad category and then assigning characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, beliefs etc which supposedly distinguish all or most members of that group.

This is a practice which dismisses individual differences and essentially any factual discussion. Instead, we are left which vague allegations and straw man arguments. Moreover, this practice reduces discussions to little more than pep rallies: “Hooray for our side! Boo oat those other guys!”

In the case of this thread, all gay activists as grouped together as if they all behave similarly or have similar attitudes. This is just as in accurate as saying that all pro-life activists behave similarly or have similar attitudes. The bad actions of an individual, or even a few individuals, shouldn’t be taken as representative of the whole group.

Unfortunately, that approach is all too common in online discussions. And CAF is no exception.

Dale,

Thank you for inferring that I missed a point.

I pray that you understand that the video makes the point of discussion of Us vs Them.

If you believe I miss a point, or others miss a point, I suggest you ask a question of confirmation, such as…

what is the point you think Mark is making?

and to that I would add…

His point is relevant however my point is the video is an example of Us vs Them

I have no idea what point you are making.

 

[Dale_M]

If you believe I miss a point, or others miss a point, I suggest you ask a question of confirmation, such as…

what is the point you think Mark is making?

I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and will try to take more care in the future

His point is relevant however my point is the video is an example of Us vs Them

Would you be willing to summarize what you consider important in the video? I admit, I am not interested in watching if it is an hour long. If the video is simply an example of an Us vs Them argument between a couple activists I guess I don’t understand its significance.

 

[JimG]

As a celibate homosexual Catholic, I am MORE afraid to reveal my sexual identity to gays than to non gays. Straight people may not like my orientation, but they seldom attack me or my beliefs. Gays try to change me or try to discredit the teachings of my faith.
To be celibate is to be Benedict Arnold; isn’t that sad? To top it off, this only increases the alienation I am already living. I have written poignantly about these subjects and published my work, which both depicts the struggle to live a life of Faith in a culture of license and which also presents celibacy as a rich alternative. Come visit my personal apostolate: simonjamesonline.com

“To be celibate is to be Benedict Arnold; isn’t that sad?”

That part of what you said struck me, since it seems that for many people, admitting to deliberate celibacy is almost as feared as admitting to a homosexual inclination. The culture expects everyone to have sex, as soon as possible, at nearly every opportunity, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Refusal to agree to sexual licentiousness is counter-cultural and can even make people angry. To deliberately decide on chastity, on Christian morality, whatever one’s sexual orientation, can elicit a hostile response.

 

[CopticChristian]

I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and will try to take more care in the future

Would you be willing to summarize what you consider important in the video? I admit, I am not interested in watching if it is an hour long. If the video is simply an example of an Us vs Them argument between a couple activists I guess I don’t understand its significance.

Dale,

It is an important video becuasue it is a polite discussion of what Us vs Them represents, including sallient points about Us vs Them. I understand that time is important and last night I watched it and if others watch it they will come away understanding the salient points. OK…

 

[CopticChristian]

I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and will try to take more care in the future

Would you be willing to summarize what you consider important in the video? I admit, I am not interested in watching if it is an hour long. If the video is simply an example of an Us vs Them argument between a couple activists I guess I don’t understand its significance.

Dale,

I had to think about this and it struck me…during the debate you will hear Savage, quietly say…“but were such a small minority”…and then I realized…Minority? Because of your behavior? This is the salient point that is almost missed during the entire hour…

downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L43.pdf

However, most laws against “discrimination” target only discrimination that is irrational or intolerable because it is based on characteristics that are inborn, immutable, involuntary, innocuous, or in the Constitution. Race and sex are the classic examples; voluntary behavior patterns that are demonstrably harmful, such as homosexual acts, do not qualify for special protection.

Much of what Homosexuals want is special rights, because as one of my Christian brothers says…

If you’re gay, it’s not a particularly easy life all the time. But that’s not God’s fault. Nor is it your own. And you don’t need to make things harder on yourself by insisting that you must destroy what you are in order to be accepted by God or his church.

The notion of I am what I am implies a seperate state of being that includes the understanding of the notion of a minority that in fact is behavior and not as an inborn characteristic as there is no proof of this.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Mark,
…:
brownvsavage.com/

It is also important to note what is happening in Canada when them have succeeded and what them are doing in pursuing more than what is is them say they want. Us are not doing well in Canada. I don’t want history to repeat itself as is seen in Canada, as it regards Us.

It Can Happen Here

Eric Metaxas

Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask.

Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, “there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Of course he means legal proceedings.

For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. *The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.

Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was “charged with a human-rights violation” and “threatened with litigation.”

Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex “wedding” ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations: But that wasn’t good enough. The women prosecuted, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway. As Michael Coren puts it, “it’s becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents”—precedents intended to silence and punish anyone who dares to disagree with so-called gay “marriage.”

If you think this couldn’t happen here, think again. This year we’ve seen ObamaCare attack the autonomy of Catholic churches by attempting to force them, in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for church employees. And just last week, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital in New York sued the hospital for denying her partner spousal health benefits.

This is what we need to tell our neighbors when they ask us, “How does gay ‘marriage’ hurt us?” It means that those hostile to our beliefs will attempt to bend us to their will to force us to not only accept gay “marriage,” but to condone it as well.

This is why I urge you to join the half-million Christians who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. Please sign it yourself by going to manhattandeclaration.org.

You and I must demonstrate love to our gay neighbors, of course, remembering that we are ultimately engaged in spiritual warfare. But we should boldly stand up when our rights as citizens and the demands of our conscience are threatened.

 

[CopticChristian]

It Can Happen Here

Eric Metaxas

Eric,

The post you provided only provides part of the story… The National review on page 2 of this article points this out…

nationalreview.com/articles/301641/canadian-crackdown-michael-coren

nationalreview.com/articles/301641/canadian-crackdown-michael-coren?pg=2

As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.” What has become painfully evident is that many of those who brought same-sex marriage to Canada have no respect for freedom of conscience and no intention of tolerating contrary opinion, whether that opinion is shaped by religious or by secular belief.

Homosexuals have taken over the APA and the DSM is not under revision for LBGT as it has been with more acceptable language for this group. Thank God for people like William Glasser, MD and Stanton Peele, PhD.

The DSM should be viewed as garbage and unbelievable as this is now becoming the Bible for the gay population to point and say “see we are not disordered”…well then my response is “you were in one edition so why is there a difference now”…and then when you realize that alcoholism and addiction is not a disease and the DSM promotes this kind of thinking you realize that it is “think speak” as predicted with the minister of information at hand.

This notion of “we are a minority”…Balderdash…minority of behavior?

The notion is “all we want is what you have”…Balderdash…thank God Canada is proving that this is nothing but a Trojan Horse waiting for the lilliputians to attempt to erode the social fabric of society and as long as the Catechism says that Homosexuality is disordered…they will try to get that removed…

Good luck with that one…