Why are people so tolerant of gays now?

[EasterJoy]

Well…just a reminder that the “he who casts the first stone” story in the Christian canon was added in several hundred years later–it was not in any or the original manuscripts or in any from the first few centuries. So scholars are not certain of the veracity of it.

.

There is no evidence whatsoever from any era of the Church that the Lord, the Twelve, or any successors since then thought it pastorally appropriate to leave sinners in their sin without admonishment to repent and return to the ways of the Lord. There is also no evidence that homosexual acts were ever taught to be morally permissible by the early Church. There is no question that homosexual acts have always been forbidden.

This is from the Didache (AD 70):
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

 

[adrift]

Well…just a reminder that the “he who casts the first stone” story in the Christian canon was added in several hundred years later–it was not in any or the original manuscripts or in any from the first few centuries. So scholars are not certain of the veracity of it.

.

You write this as if it is established fact which is is not. Eusebius’ mention that the writings of Papias contained a story “about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins” This way before your several hindered years. Jerome said that it was to be found in its usual place in “many Greek and Latin manuscripts” in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to this scripture being found in “several copies”; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscript
scripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards.

Even though it is not present in the early Greek there is some evidence that it was suppose to be there.

It should also be remembered that The Council of Trent declared it to be authentic and authoritative.

 

[Skadi]

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.

It’s none of my business what they do with thier free time, that’s why I tolerate them. I don’t like homosexuality, makes my skin crawl, but its none of my bussines. I don’t believe in telling others how to live thier lives, so long as they don’t harm others.

 

[Demetra2]

Which also means that the support of it isn’t as strong as people might think. The majority of the population in a new pagan society might be complacent and approve of it, but not with strong conviction. The hardcore advocates are a minority and then a much larger group is being led along with them.

It’s also about making oneself feel justified. A person that holds little or no standards in their own heterosexual lifestyle is going to have a hard time looking down on same sex lifestyles without feeling awkward about it. They either need to reassess their own lifestyle and determine that they’re in the wrong, or they just give up and open the doors completely.

Next up on the plate: incestual sex. Justification? If you use contraceptives to ensure you don’t produce offspring, then it’s ethically okay. Countdown: 20-30 years.

This

 

[farmersboy]

*A different kind of coming out

After Steve Chalke and Rob Bell affirmed same-sex relationships earlier this year, Justin Brierley meets three evangelical church leaders who have decided to respond by going public about their sexuality.

In a basement under a church in London I’m meeting with three men who are in a support group. An unusual support group. ‘We were tempted to say that we meet in a nuclear bunker in an undisclosed location,’ says one of them with a wry smile.

They have been talking in private for a while, but believe now is the time for their voices and unique experience to be heard more widely. All three are evangelical church leaders who experience same-sex attraction, but all three describe themselves as either celibate or ‘post-gay’…*

christianitymagazine.co.uk/Browse%20By%20Category/features/A%20different%20kind%20of%20coming%20out.aspx

 

[Kamaduck]

So…very curious…WHY isn’t being attracted to the same sex not a sin?
If lustful thoughts in general are a deadly sin…then surely, lustful thoughts of the opposite sex would be, too?

It’s a disordered feeling, is it not?

Perhaps it is not considered a sin because…so, so, so many people are born with these feelings/thoughts?

I’m confused by this post. Being attracted to the same sex isn’t a sin. It’s disordered, but it’s not sinful. A person with homosexual tendencies would still be sinning if he or she lusted after members of either sex, but the attraction itself would not be sinful. The reason it’s not sinful is that we cannot control who we are attracted to- unlike our actions, which we can control, we cannot always control our thoughts and feelings. It’s impossible to sin without having some kind of choice in the matter (although it wouldn’t be mortal if the person lacked full knowledge or full consent).

 

[agapewolf]

So…very curious…WHY isn’t being attracted to the same sex not a sin?
If lustful thoughts in general are a deadly sin…then surely, lustful thoughts of the opposite sex would be, too?

It’s a disordered feeling, is it not?

Perhaps it is not considered a sin because…so, so, so many people are born with these feelings/thoughts?

.

.

Attraction is not the same as lust

 

[signit]

How do you define “intolerant”?
Of course, if someone is insulting or cruel to another human being in the workplace, they put their job in jeopardy–no matter what the person’s sexual orientation.
But one is not going to lose their job for their thoughts on an issue, as long as you are respectful of others.
.

This is important, how you define “intolerant.”

The OP seems to suggest that we shouldn’t be “tolerant” of them, which means that we should be “intolerant.”

Is anyone really suggesting that I should go up to my co-worker and call him bad names? Maybe I should just tell him that he’s “disordered” because that’s what my Church teaches? It wouldn’t get him to “change” and it would get me in trouble.

I’ve been the victim of intolerance, on more than one occasion, and it would go against my nature to do it to someone else.

 

[KrazyKat]

Don’t ask, don’t tell. Keeping ones opinion to themselves is best. Nothing is as bad as the people who think I really care what they think. I do not open a can of worms by asking people if they approve of my lifestyle. Open that door and you are asking to be insulted. When someone feels obliged to tell me what they think they must be prepared for my opinion of them.

 

[EasterJoy]

It’s none of my business what they do with thier free time, that’s why I tolerate them. I don’t like homosexuality, makes my skin crawl, but its none of my bussines. I don’t believe in telling others how to live thier lives, so long as they don’t harm others.

IMHO, the problem isn’t whether someone can put their housemate on their insurance or what they and their housemate do in the privacy of their own home. I don’t have anything against arrangements of mutual adult care and I’m fine with civil government not regulating sexual behavior (save, for instance, high officials having sexual relations with lower-level government employees). My problem is with the pretense that when a gay couple arranges to get “help” from outside their relationship to “have children” that this is somehow the equivalent of married parents. It is not, and I think it is harmful to encourage people to arrange for children to be conceived that they planned from the start to have raised away from one or more parents. I think that is society’s business, because the children certainly don’t have a say in it. If it cannot be safely assumed that most children do not naturally think that one of their biological parents is a presence in their lives that they don’t care about one way or another as long as they have “somebody”, I don’t know what can be.

Of course, a lot of heterosexuals don’t want to hear that, either, because they want to be able to do the same thing if* they *prove to be infertile. That is also not the same as adopting an orphan. That is creating an orphan to adopt, and forcing the loss of a biological parent onto a child from the very start by choice. There is a big difference.

 

[marymary1975]

You are forgetting…for many people, homosexuality is not a moral issue at all.
To say “the gays” have played “a crafty hand” is quite an insult to a large group of your fellow brothers and sisters.
As a non-Catholic, who knows thousands of non-Catholics…I can tell you that I don’t know anyone who supports gay rights 'as a backlash against the Vatican".
These people are not “anti-Catholic” as you say…these people just truly, sincerely, do not agree with Catholic doctrine and the church’s views and perceptions of many, many issues and voice their opinions.

.

.

That happens because in societies like the US and Europe for the past fifty years people have been subject to a constant brains washing through media, newspapers, movies, adds etc.that has lead them to believe homosexuality is not a moral issue. Pretty much society has though all those people that it is not a moral issue. If you go to any close society, that has very little influence from America or Europe (and not catholic society) or people in areas that have no TV, or contact with media like Africa and remote areas of Asia and Latin America, most people do think there is a moral issue with homosexuality. So it is not that the people you are talking just “don’t agree” is that they have taught that way.

 

[EasterJoy]

That happens because in societies like the US and Europe for the past fifty years people have been subject to a constant brains washing through media, newspapers, movies, adds etc.that has lead them to believe homosexuality is not a moral issue. Pretty much society has though all those people that it is not a moral issue. If you go to any close society, that has very little influence from America or Europe (and not catholic society) or people in areas that have no TV, or contact with media like Africa and remote areas of Asia and Latin America, most people do think there is a moral issue with homosexuality. So it is not that the people you are talking just “don’t agree” is that they have taught that way.

Yes, this is not an attitude change that happened spontaneously. It happened via purposeful teaching.

 

[Skadi]

IMHO, the problem isn’t whether someone can put their housemate on their insurance or what they and their housemate do in the privacy of their own home. I don’t have anything against arrangements of mutual adult care and I’m fine with civil government not regulating sexual behavior (save, for instance, high officials having sexual relations with lower-level government employees). My problem is with the pretense that when a gay couple arranges to get “help” from outside their relationship to “have children” that this is somehow the equivalent of married parents. It is not, and I think it is harmful to encourage people to arrange for children to be conceived that they planned from the start to have raised away from one or more parents. I think that is society’s business, because the children certainly don’t have a say in it. If it cannot be safely assumed that most children do not naturally think that one of their biological parents is a presence in their lives that they don’t care about one way or another as long as they have “somebody”, I don’t know what can be.

Of course, a lot of heterosexuals don’t want to hear that, either, because they want to be able to do the same thing if* they *prove to be infertile. That is also not the same as adopting an orphan. That is creating an orphan to adopt, and forcing the loss of a biological parent onto a child from the very start by choice. There is a big difference.

I would agree with that, although I would be more offended by the child’s mother who is Essentialy selling her child like a pet. I don’t have a problem with them adopting but what you bring up is true, the child has no choice in that particular situation.

 

[Kamaduck]

You know, now that I think about it, the thread title is kind of making me sick. It seems to me like it is saying we should not tolerate gay people’s existence. It’s all fine and good if people want to say “we shouldn’t tolerate sin” in the sense that they’re going to point out sin and try to keep sin out of their homes or whatever. But the idea that we can’t even coexist with people who sin just doesn’t make sense. Tons of people (catholics included) are already regularly committing mortal sins by remarrying after a divorce or by using birth control, but we don’t feel the need to say that we shouldn’t tolerate those people. We just say that we think it’s a sin and that we won’t affirm their sin.

I mean… What is the OP suggesting that we do? Kick all the gay people out of our social circles, refuse to talk to them or be in the same room as them? Just constantly tell them that they’re sinning? It seems silly to say that we shouldn’t “tolerate” gay people.

I really agree with your posts so far, EasterJoy. I think that there is a big difference between tolerating gay people/making sure they have the same rights as others, and accepting the falsehood that there is no difference between a gay couple and a married couple.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would agree with that, although I would be more offended by the child’s mother who is Essentialy selling her child like a pet. I don’t have a problem with them adopting but what you bring up is true, the child has no choice in that particular situation.

It is not uncommon for them to find women in poor countries where paid surrogacy is legal. They find women who will give away their younger children in order to care for the older ones.

I have a big problem with adoption agencies not being allowed to decide not to choose homosexual couples as adoptive parents. It is one thing to allow homosexuals to adopt, but it is another to say that recognizing a difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is unjust discrimination. Yet if homosexual unions are held to be the same thing as heterosexual ones, then that recognition of real difference cannot be made. We are in a time where real differences can be defined out of existence. As C.S. Lewis put the words in the mouth of Screwtape: “…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…”

It has become a political heresy to say that a heterosexual couple is substantially different from a homosexual couple in any meaningful way, even though the difference is so obvious that it is absurd to deny it. Yet somehow people who make this assertion–that there is a real and obvious difference between the two–are held to be the ones who are shoving “beliefs” down the throats of others! That is what is so “1984” about this situation–that is, the blatant manipulation of allowed speech and official policy in order to cover up inconvenient truths. Big Brother is here, thought crimes are punishable, history is open to revision…it’s all coming true.

 

[marymary1975]

It is not uncommon for them to find women in poor countries where paid surrogacy is legal. They find women who will give away their younger children in order to care for the older ones.

It has become a political heresy to say that a heterosexual couple is substantially different from a homosexual couple in any meaningful way, even though the difference is so obvious that it is absurd to deny it. Yet somehow people who make this assertion are held to be the ones who are shoving “beliefs” down the throats of others! That is what is so “1984” about this situation–that is, the blatant manipulation of allowed speech and official policy in order to cover up inconvenient truths. Big Brother is here, thought crimes are punishable, history is open to revision…it’s all coming true.

 

[RACJ]

Norman Lear said that people are easy to persuade while they are being entertained. Lovable, sympathetic homosexual character have appeared on virtually every show since the 1990’s. That’s when I stopped watching TV, b/c I could see right through their propaganda.
I have always tolerated “gays”. What I will never accept is their attempts to make their actions inviolabe, and their demands that they be considered equal to heterosexual families. I think that a homosexual couple should be ineligible for adoption consideration if there is a desirable hetero couple waiting for a baby. Children need moms and dads, period. Rob

 

[marymary1975]

 

[EasterJoy]

You know, now that I think about it, the thread title is kind of making me sick. It seems to me like it is saying we should not tolerate gay people’s existence. It’s all fine and good if people want to say “we shouldn’t tolerate sin” in the sense that they’re going to point out sin and try to keep sin out of their homes or whatever. But the idea that we can’t even coexist with people who sin just doesn’t make sense. Tons of people (catholics included) are already regularly committing mortal sins by remarrying after a divorce or by using birth control, but we don’t feel the need to say that we shouldn’t tolerate those people. We just say that we think it’s a sin and that we won’t affirm their sin.

I mean… What is the OP suggesting that we do? Kick all the gay people out of our social circles, refuse to talk to them or be in the same room as them? Just constantly tell them that they’re sinning? It seems silly to say that we shouldn’t “tolerate” gay people.

I really agree with your posts so far, EasterJoy. I think that there is a big difference between tolerating gay people/making sure they have the same rights as others, and accepting the falsehood that there is no difference between a gay couple and a married couple.

One of my fears, actually, is that backlash against the defense of false pretenses is going to become backlash against the defense of justice and appropriate tolerance. History has had instances of that: when a liberal society collapses under the weight of all the pretenses or is overthrown by people who won’t take it any more, the society that takes its place very often returns to errors on the opposite extreme.

I have no desire to return to a situation where homosexuals and even the effeminate are subject to unjust discrimination and even brutality, or even where prostitutes are subhuman and not worth caring about or defending as a person. Our situation is bad, but the other is far worse…a child of God ought to be treated as a child of God, regardless of what immoral choices he or she makes. So we do have to be careful to keep our criticism aimed at the pretenses, and not at the persons who wrongly defend them. In that sense, absolutely homosexuals must be “tolerated”. The measure we measure with, after all, will be used to measure back to us. Our sins do not make us less human; we still have the rights and needs and dignity of a child of God, regardless.

There is a backlash very much like this with regards to women’s rights, too. The two extremes are so virulent in their hatred of each other, it is scary. There is nothing that belongs in Christianity in those two extremes.

 

[KrazyKat]

Why do we refer to them as “gay”. Why not homosexuals, lesbians; or queers which cover both sexes?