Why are people so tolerant of gays now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 123Strontium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. New thread champion: CS Lewis.

No fair though. This is an amateur event and he’s a pro. 😉
LOVE CS LEWIS!!! I look forward to the time I have days on end to sit and read and contemplate and absorb his work!
And the reason this works is that there is a prevailing attitude that people you love can’t commit sin - the fact that you love them renders them materially incapable of ever doing anything bad. Therefore, whatever your loved one does, it’s not a sin - even if it makes no sense from a rational point of view.
Yes! This attitude completely baffles me. Oh, if it’s my son doing it, that’s different! Notice, too, that this attitude only works in one direction. I suspect that none of my getting-progressively-more-liberal family are going to stop and consider that I am very Catholic, and therefore maybe they should quit bashing Catholics. 😉
I think we’re tolerant of homosexuality and other forms of disordered sex in the U.S. because we can lose our jobs if we are intolerant.
This, I would guess, has a lot to do with most of the so-called ‘tolerance.’ It’s not tolerance. It’s fear.
Yeah, when did it become all right to love the sinner? Jesus didn’t tolerate sinners, He didn’t welcome sinners and eat with them, so why should we? Didn’t He tell us to pick up that stone so that we can be the first to cast it?

When we ostracize people and show how much we despise them, we are so much more likely to win their hearts than by offering them love and refusing to judge them, aren’t we?

And on a more secular level, don’t we have the right to insist that everyone in the country live by our moral laws, even if they don’t subscribe to our beliefs?
Presumably this is laden with sarcasm. The problem is, we live in a world so stained by false propaganda that any hint whatsoever of not celebrating homosexuality is interpreted as ‘ostracizing,’ judgment, hate, and so on. Never mind that it’s not true.

Also, Jesus did in fact say: Go and sin no more.

We as Christians are constantly lectured with Jesus eating with sinners and saying he did not condemn the woman caught in adultery. The people who like to lecture about that conveniently forget the Go and sin no more part. Would Jesus be condemned as ‘ostracizing’ or judgmental for saying SIN NO MORE?
 
I ask myself, Why was Jesus so tolerant, loving, forgiving, and accepting of people who were undesirable or even just different than most, compared to his Society? My belief would be: No one ever took lifes lessons so to heart as Jesus. Before he taught the world, he lived and learned, he felt pain , he loved, until he knew it was time for him to enlighten his part of the world, as best he could. To save us from ourselves. For wasn’t he different? Persecuted? Undesirable to most at the time? There was a reason he saved a prostitutes life, at the risk of his own, and I am sure many other people(undesirables), he risked his life for, gave his love to. WE KNOW WHY HE DIED. Or would he not have forgave and accept someone who chose the wrong path in life as to cause pain and misfortune, and try and help that person get onto the the right path, of love of thy self and others, and from there you will overcome. I believe he would have stood up for any person, who was unjustly judged and accused of something they could not help from being born that way. And I am sure there were homosexual people in that time, would he have understood, that a man would not love another man or woman to woman unless that was truly part of their inner being, which cannot be changed, for it just is. I am not gay, which I don’t even like to say, just as I do not fill out what race I am society has labeled me as, even tho it is a favored race. I was raised Catholic, But now I am more of a spiritual being, who loves and accepts all religions, races(1 human race) and creeds. For me religions are all based on love and forgiveness and acceptance, but everyones perception is different, which I understand.Thoughts and words are perceptions of truth, when really, truth just IS. Although, I do not believe Jesus was the only son of God, I believe we are all sons and daughters of God. I do believe however, he was the one of the greatest teachers of how a person should be and live, towards themselves and others, as to promote self awareness, happiness and love…For all
 
Presumably this is laden with sarcasm. The problem is, we live in a world so stained by false propaganda that any hint whatsoever of not celebrating homosexuality is interpreted as ‘ostracizing,’ judgment, hate, and so on. Never mind that it’s not true.

Also, Jesus did in fact say: Go and sin no more.

We as Christians are constantly lectured with Jesus eating with sinners and saying he did not condemn the woman caught in adultery. The people who like to lecture about that conveniently forget the Go and sin no more part. Would Jesus be condemned as ‘ostracizing’ or judgmental for saying SIN NO MORE?

Yes, Jesus, who is God, did say that. We are not God. He also said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Jesus did not ostracize sinners. He welcomed them and ate with them. When a post asks why we TOLERATE homosexuals, it shows a complete lack of understanding of what Jesus taught. We are called to love one another, which is the anthesis of refusing to tolerate them.

Again I ask why is what people do in their private lives so much more repugnant to us than people like those I mentioned - the greedy Wall Street bankers, corporate executives who commit crimes that affect millions, crooked and venal politicians who wage wars that kill millions? Jesus had a lot to say about those who harm the innocent. What did he say about homosexuality?

Again I ask why we think
 
One reason that same sex marriage is a hot button issue is that the arguments that favor “marriage equality” are applicable to all varieties of marriage equality. If one believes that family is the building block of civilization, this is a disturbing trend. If one believes that family disintegration is immaterial to civilization, then no worries. But the dissolution of a civilization is no small matter for those who will have to live through it.

Yes, there really is a steep slippery slope below Mt. Same Sex Marriage.
 
Of course we are to be tolerant of sinners. We are all sinners. We are sinners in our own ways, some obvious, some hidden. When Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery, he did not further advise her to hold an adultery pride day and petition the authorities for legalization of adulterous marriage.

We all have our own sins. We all need mercy. It is best to seek mercy rather than to urge acceptance of our private sins as public policy. Not because that would be showing tolerance, but because it would be bad social policy.
 
Why are people so tolerant of gays now? Everybody becomes really hateful when you don’t support gay rights, it never used to be like this. What has happened to people, they’ve been brain washed.

Why and how did it just happen out of the blue and it feels like it happened from nowhere.

Has this tolerance for sin seeped into catholics too ?
Catholics who are also subject to social conformity are scared to speak out about the issue on moral grounds.

This permissiveness will all lead to moral degradation.
Yes, the brainwashing factories are your local public schools.

Atheism has been brought in under the guise of science.

Follow the money – who has been funding education over the past 100 years ?

Globalist interests pushing eugenics via pseudo-science (e.g. Malthusian view on over-population). The goals are clear – reduce population (war, abortion, homosexuality) – encourage tolerance (to accept any belief for fear of being pegged as a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc), and to dumb down the education and pigeon hole us into infinite specialization so that we’ll be dependent on TPTB.

There is a great book on the subject (free to read on line) :

johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/
 
Of course we are to be tolerant of sinners. We are all sinners. We are sinners in our own ways, some obvious, some hidden. When Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery, he did not further advise her to hold an adultery pride day and petition the authorities for legalization of adulterous marriage.

We all have our own sins. We all need mercy. It is best to seek mercy rather than to urge acceptance of our private sins as public policy. Not because that would be showing tolerance, but because it would be bad social policy.
But most of those in the homosexual community do not believe that living according to the nature that God gave them is a sin. Many of them do not believe in God and reject the idea that homosexual acts are wrong in any way. Why should public policy be based on our religious beliefs? I would not want to be forced to live under Sharia law; do I then have the right to force others to live under laws formulated to conform to my religious beliefs?

I do not disagree with the Church’s stand that homosexual acts are sinful, but I do ask what Jesus had to say about homosexuality?
 
Why are we so invested in what goes on in another’s bedroom?
Because the future of civilization depends on the children who are conceived there.

If the future is important (that is, if we want our work to matter after we have died) then it’s important how we provide for that future - including the people who will inhabit it.
 
I do not want to derail this thread, but after reading some of the posts, including “CAT” &
“JimG” s posts, it would seem to me that it could be the mark of the beast, we go along with it ALL because we could lose our jobs. So, little by little we accept more of the decay & rot in our culture, because we do not want to be perceived as intolerant, and eventually lose our jobs, friends, etc…So, what is more important, Jesus or being accepted? Or keeping that job? HE did say after all that HE would provide for us, right? Something to think about…
First, you might want to read up on the Catholic Church’s teachings on “end times” and the “mark of the beast.”

It’s easy to talk about losing a job. It’s another thing to have it happen. Many of us have family who are dependent on us for their food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities. In the U.S., there aren’t too many private options for the poor. Basically, most of the poor in the U.S. have to depend on the government for help, and that is something that I would prefer not to do.

Do YOU help people who have lost their jobs? Do YOU pay their bills? Do you help them keep their house? Or let them move in with you? Or bring them food?

I’m not saying you should. I’m just saying that it’s hard to be jobless in the U.S., especially if you’re supporting a family.

If I were forced to make a decision at work to celebrate homosexuality or lose my job, I would choose to lose my job. Thankfully, other Christian organizations have worked in the courts and made it possible for companies to merely require employees to tolerate points of view that they disagree with rather than celebrate these points of view.

And that’s a good thing. If I can be intolerant of homosexuals and constantly campaign against them at work, then others can be intolerant of Christianity and constantly campaign against me at work.

It works both ways.

Tolerance of co-workers who are homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, or whatever at work does not mean that I tolerate the sin.

Megan7, what would you have me to do? Should I approach everyone at work who does things that are not in keeping with Christianity, and challenge them? What good would that do? If they don’t know Christ, then why should they listen to me?!

Instead, I should demonstrate the love of Christ to all people, including and especially sinners, and pray that the Holy Spirit would use me to lead these people home to Jesus and the Church.
 
But most of those in the homosexual community do not believe that living according to the nature that God gave them is a sin. Many of them do not believe in God and reject the idea that homosexual acts are wrong in any way. Why should public policy be based on our religious beliefs? I would not want to be forced to live under Sharia law; do I then have the right to force others to live under laws formulated to conform to my religious beliefs?

I do not disagree with the Church’s stand that homosexual acts are sinful, but I do ask what Jesus had to say about homosexuality?
Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi. He did not say much about homosexuality because the moral law was clear on it and he did not reject that part of Jewish moral law any more than he rejected the prohibition on idolatry. Neither did He did not reject the prohibition on adultery.

But civilizations have been based on men and women forming families for much longer than Christianity has been in existence. Marriage has been recognized as between men and women not because it was a religious belief, but because it was necessary for the continuance of any society and the raising of the next generation of citizens. I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization” for an overview of family types throughout recorded history.

One can order a society in any way that works or that people can agree on, of course. But some types of organization or lack thereof are more conducive to societal health, and others lead to chaos. Trouble is, one has to let such things work themselves out in history. If they work out badly, societies have to pick themselves up from the chaos to begin again.

But the disintegration of family structure certainly did not begin with homosexuality. It began with the widespread acceptance of contraception, which delinked sex from procreation and marriage.
 
But most of those in the homosexual community do not believe that living according to the nature that God gave them is a sin. Many of them do not believe in God and reject the idea that homosexual acts are wrong in any way. Why should public policy be based on our religious beliefs? I would not want to be forced to live under Sharia law; do I then have the right to force others to live under laws formulated to conform to my religious beliefs?

I do not disagree with the Church’s stand that homosexual acts are sinful, but I do ask what Jesus had to say about homosexuality?
Jesus is God - everything written in the Bible comes from Him, including its teachings on homosexuality.
 
One reason that same sex marriage is a hot button issue is that the arguments that favor “marriage equality” are applicable to all varieties of marriage equality. If one believes that family is the building block of civilization, this is a disturbing trend. If one believes that family disintegration is immaterial to civilization, then no worries. But the dissolution of a civilization is no small matter for those who will have to live through it.

Yes, there really is a steep slippery slope below Mt. Same Sex Marriage.
Honestly, though, when people divorced and remarried and put their kids through that and said, “they have parents who love them, so it is just the same as if I were still with their mother/father”, that’s where it started. It is not that stepparents can’t make great parents. It isn’t that divorce isn’t sometimes morally permissible. It is the convenient untruth that “it is just the same”. No, it is tragically not just the same as if a child’s parents had been able to stay together, even when a split couldn’t be avoided without danger to the children.

There is a lot of that “it is just the same” and also the tendency to want to say “I am as good as you”, which Screwtape also famously celebrated:
“Let me recall to your minds what the human situation was in the latter half of the nineteenth century — the period at which I ceased to be a practising Tempter and was rewarded with an administrative post. The great movement toward liberty and equality among men had by then borne solid fruits and grown mature. Slavery had been abolished. The American War of Independence had been won. The French Revolution had succeeded. In that movement there had originally been many elements which were in our favour. Much Atheism, much Anticlericalism, much envy and thirst for revenge, even some (rather absurd) attempts to revive Paganism, were mixed in it. It was not easy to determine what our own attitude should be. On the one hand it was a bitter blow to us — it still is — that any sort of men who had been hungry should be fed or any who had long worn chains should have them struck off. But on the other hand, there was in the movement so much rejection of faith, so much materialism, secularism, and hatred, that we felt we were bound to encourage it…”

"…Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.

You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.

The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.

The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don’t mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says* I’m as good as you* believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept…"

Gay marriage is all about “I’m as good as you.”
 
Honestly, though, when people divorced and remarried and put their kids through that and said, “they have parents who love them, so it is just the same as if I were still with their mother/father”, that’s where it started. It is not that stepparents can’t make great parents. It isn’t that divorce isn’t sometimes morally permissible. It is the convenient untruth that “it is just the same”. No, it is tragically not just the same as if a child’s parents had been able to stay together, even when a split couldn’t be avoided without danger to the children.

There is a lot of that “it is just the same” and also the tendency to want to say “I am as good as you”, which Screwtape also famously celebrated . . .
I agree with you. I am just now reading a book by Diane Medved, first published in 1989, called “The Case Against Divorce.” Divorce began the attack on marriage by undermining its permanence. But even before that, contraception undermined marriage by undermining its link to procreation and children. All the corrosive influences on marriage had to precede any push for same sex marriage. The structure of marriage had to be sufficiently undermined in order to make gay marriage even thinkable. And all the deconstructive results of the sexual revolution which work to tear at marriage have grievous effects on children.
 
Why should public policy be based on our religious beliefs? I would not want to be forced to live under Sharia law; do I then have the right to force others to live under laws formulated to conform to my religious beliefs?
Do you see anything wrong about policy based on atheism that is pushed on everybody? Because this is the trend in the west. Have you not noticed?

Why is this ok?
 
But most of those in the homosexual community do not believe that living according to the nature that God gave them is a sin. Many of them do not believe in God and reject the idea that homosexual acts are wrong in any way. Why should public policy be based on our religious beliefs? I would not want to be forced to live under Sharia law; do I then have the right to force others to live under laws formulated to conform to my religious beliefs?

I do not disagree with the Church’s stand that homosexual acts are sinful, but I do ask what Jesus had to say about homosexuality?
There is a world of difference between striking down anti-sodomy laws and forcing everyone to accept the preposterous pretense that there is no difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple with regards to marriage and childbearing…and that is the “religious belief” that is being forced on us even as we speak, friend.

The pretense of homosexual marriage is going to normalize out-of-wedlock births–that is, births where the biological parents are not married to each other–and paid maternal surrogacy. It is already happening. This is all defended on the grounds that to fail to encourage these things in the same way society encourages the marriages of prospective biological parents is to “shove religious beliefs down someone’s throat.” That is horse…feathers.
 
There is a world of difference between striking down anti-sodomy laws and forcing everyone to accept the preposterous pretense that there is no difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple with regards to marriage and childbearing…and that is the “religious belief” that is being forced on us even as we speak, friend.
👍
 
I do not want to derail this thread, but after reading some of the posts, including “CAT” &
“JimG” s posts, it would seem to me that it could be the mark of the beast, we go along with it ALL because we could lose our jobs. So, little by little we accept more of the decay & rot in our culture, because we do not want to be perceived as intolerant, and eventually lose our jobs, friends, etc…So, what is more important, Jesus or being accepted? Or keeping that job? HE did say after all that HE would provide for us, right? Something to think about…
:clapping:
 
Why was Jesus so tolerant, loving, forgiving, and accepting of people who were undesirable or even just different than most
In being tolerant, loving, forgiving of other people, Jesus never confirmed someone in a lie or in a sin, which is the crux of gay “marriage” or homosexual behavior which is to bear false witness with one’s created body. The morality of the matter must be addressed rather than ignored in favor of a “Jesus loves everyone” non sequitur. Religion aside, one could get into the civil problems with overly-promoting families where children are not raised by their mother and father as well.
 
Many people who are not members of this so-called “gay lobby” also see it is as clear cut civil rights issue.

For most people who were not specifically trained/taught to think there is something wrong with a homosexual person expressing their love physically…their natural instinct, thought, and organic feeling is that gay rights are indeed a civil, human right.

.
There are legitimate civil rights issues having to do with homosexuals. A person’s gotta eat; there is no just reason to withhold employment or housing from somebody based on presumptions about their sexual orientation. A fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, no matter whether one’s morals are high, low, or who knows what off the job. Putting all the “serious sinners” out on the street or under-paying them or feeling entitled to treat them in a rude manner is not the way to a just and moral society, and it wouldn’t be open to Christians even if it did. In that sense, of course Christians have to be tolerant!

The problem comes with the contention that homosexual couples have a relationship that by right ought to be treated as the same as a heterosexual marriage. That simply isn’t true, even from a fully secular angle, not if you buy into the proposition that society protects children by encouraging their biological parents to stay together and raise them. No, homosexual “marriage” is a ploy in favor of Screwtape’s “I’m as good as you.” So while it can be argued that it is just to give certain societal support to adults who take care of each other and yet cannot marry, whether or not they’re having sex (because what business is it of society to care about that one way or the other?), that does not imply that every pair of adults in a relationship of mutual care ought to be made out to be the same thing as a married couple.

There are religious reasons for defining marriage as between one man and one woman, but the reasons for thinking that this definition deserves unique support by secular society do not have to be religious. That is a lie that is being sold to the general public, too, and lots of Catholics are buying it because they think marriage is all about making a mutual promise to stick around with the person you have sex with, period, never asking what interest society ever had in encouraging that over supporting single people with no one in particular to look out for them.
 
But one is not going to lose their job for their thoughts on an issue, as long as you are respectful of others.
.
Are you sure about this? An increasing number of people are being bullied because they don’t celebrate the gay lifestyle within the workplace. I read the news and I notice such stories. I’ve also heard it from friends who experienced something like that at work. A friend of mine went to a gay wedding because it was her boss who was getting ‘married’ and my friend was genuinely afraid how not attending would affect her job. So much for tolerance and respect of those who respectfully disagree. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top