Why are people so tolerant of gays now?

[jmcrae]

My theory is that the internet has been a huge catalyst for the gay rights movement. In the 90’s when the internet became big it quickly became the preferred method of connecting with like-minded strangers, finding support, and starting grassroots political campaigns. Closeted gay people were able to reach out and connect with other gay people and their supporters, and find the courage to come out in large numbers. In the last 20 years almost everyone has had a friend, sibling, child, or parent come out of the closet. People who were previously disgusted and hostile towards homosexuality suddenly realized that someone they loved and cared about was gay. That challenged a lot of their previously held views. And after a couple of decades of realizing that the sky wasn’t falling and wanting their loved one to be happy the hysteria died down and people got on board.

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

That’s pretty much it…until you feel they’ve sinned against you. Even then, it is sad how many people feel guilt-ridden because they can’t accept the position of a co-dependent to a serious offense or a habitual pattern of sin, as if imposing any negative consequences on those who commit real offenses amounts to judgmental behavior unbefitting a Christian, rather than part of the admonishment that we owe to each other as part of the work of encouraging each other through the narrow way.

 

[BostonStrong]

We are living in a amoral society. Started with the “if it feels good do it” mind set. Even religious , God loving people have succumbed to misplaced compassion.

I know the local UU church , a far left liberal church has a very large gay membership, the preacher a ‘trans gendered’ person. The gay pride flag flies on their church- I have to wonder what is the morality they teach their members? If I say anything at all about them, Id be called a bigot. I know Jesus is someone they never mention

Its a strange world, the institution of the family is now treated as the aberration

 

[Jahosacat]

Just being attracted to a member of the same sex is not a sin - it’s acting on that feeling that is the sin. While I cannot support same sex marriage, I will not condemn a person simply on who they’re physically attracted to. After my first husband died one of the first people in my neighborhood to come to my home and offer support was a gay neighbor. And he is still one of the few people in the neighborhood that I’d call in the middle of the night if I had a problem.

 

[123Strontium]

Ready for the long history…
Started in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference where the Church of England gave the OK for the use on contraception on a limited basis… Prior to that most Christian denominations stood on the grounds that artificial contraception was a sin. >> This opened the door to contraception on an unlimited basis for the majority of Christian denominations >> In the 1960s the “Pill” became the norm for contraception, meaning that woman no longer had to be concerned about becoming pregnant and could engage in intercourse as often and with whomever she desired. … Leading to the downfall of a morality. >> Now to the liberal minded, Godless person, what is fair for one set of individuals is fair for all… Since Men and Women can engage in sexual activity without consequences or concern for conception, so same sex couples feel they have the right to do the same…

Now comes the indoctrination of the next generation. It’s hard to convince one generation that a Sin is not a Sin; So lets teach the young that a Sin is not a Sin… Draw a parallel to how we used to feel about inter-racial marriage and how bigoted we were to say that black and white couldn’t marry… So, what’s the difference now when same sex couples what to marry? … The wise know the difference. The foolish may know the difference, but sin is fun (not wise) so if I allow one sin, then maybe someone will tolerate my sin… Example: Jim & Jane are brother & sister and desire to marry (after all they love each other)… Jane can not conceive, so there are no genetic problems, what’s the problem?

See, when we open one door to condone sin we open many doors without knowing.

Do you know that Inter-racial marriage isn’t a sin ( lol.)

Why do people clump homosexuality with race, they are not the same thing. You can’t hide ethnicity and ethnicity has nothing to do with one’s moral status or constitution. Whereas deciding to act out your gayness is a moral decision. The gays have played a crafty hand at equating ethnicity with homosexuality, there is a clear distinction.

I feel like non-catholics are also supporting gays more as a backlash against the vatican scandals. The vatican are known for their description of gays as intrinsically disordered, this and muslim fanaticism and Richard Dawkins. And this may have had some influence on the increasingly anti-religious mood, especially anti-catholic attitudes that nearly everyone non-catholic has.

 

[Cat]

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.

In the U.S., losing a job is a pretty big gun that I wouldn’t want to come face to face with.

Also, I think we should be tolerant of people who are not heterosexual. I would not want to be intolerant of “gays,” or any group of people.

What I think we should be intolerant of is the sin that people commit.

The problem is, homosexuals have named themselves after their sin, and thus we can’t hate the sin without hating the sinner too, and that’s something that we can’t do as Christians.

 

[EasterJoy]

Just being attracted to a member of the same sex is not a sin - it’s acting on that feeling that is the sin. While I cannot support same sex marriage, I will not condemn a person simply on who they’re physically attracted to. After my first husband died one of the first people in my neighborhood to come to my home and offer support was a gay neighbor. And he is still one of the few people in the neighborhood that I’d call in the middle of the night if I had a problem.

Yes, and this is where things have changed for the better…that is, people aren’t being demonized based on their inclinations (or in the case of heterosexual men who are more effeminate, demonized based on suspicion) or made out to be all bad because they have faults in one area. People are also a lot more willing to mind their own business, and not jump to conclusions, and that is an improvement. Some of the things people used to do to homosexuals (or suspected homosexuals) as a matter of course were truly and gravely wrong. The change has not been all for the worse, then. The ideal is not to turn back the clock, but to correct an overcorrection.

 

[JimG]

I suppose it’s pretty much for the same reasons that we’re tolerant of people shacking up instead of marrying, tolerant of a 40% out of wedlock birthrate that sends families into poverty, tolerant of pornography because it’s free speech, tolerant of contraception because it means free sex. We tolerate most things that at one time brought on social disapproval.

And as Cat said above, if we don’t tolerate all these evils, we might lose our jobs for being intolerant.

 

[Book_Worm]

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?

 

[Megan7]

I suppose it’s pretty much for the same reasons that we’re tolerant of people shacking up instead of marrying, tolerant of a 40% out of wedlock birthrate that sends families into poverty, tolerant of pornography because it’s free speech, tolerant of contraception because it means free sex. We tolerate most things that at one time brought on social disapproval.

And as Cat said above, if we don’t tolerate all these evils, we might lose our jobs for being intolerant.

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…

 

[BobDanners]

It’s a thing called Lukewarmness

 

[EasterJoy]

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?

Ah, but that cuts both ways, does it not?

It is an improvement to be mindful that the sinner knows they are loved, but it does not do any of us sinners good for the rest of Christendom to pretend that we are righteous when we are in fact hardened in our sin. Just as it is good to admonish those who judge rashly or believe themselves better than others, so it is good to admonish those who sin in other ways. The Lord, after all, did not simply say to the woman caught in the act of adultery “then neither do I condemn you…go, then”. He said, “then neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.” Love requires both.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

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?

You mean, Christians don’t have the right to impose their beliefs and morals onto others?

Well, surely this applies to the other side as well. Why do secularists have the right to bully those who hold different beliefs into submission? They are imposing their values on everybody and call it progress, and call religious people all sorts of derogatory names. Where is the freedom, tolerance and love that they preach? I don’t see it.

 

[Iheartcoffee]

I think it really comes down to cultural influences. TV shows, music, movies, etc. have been introducing “gay” characters for quite a while now. The more people see something, the more they become comfortable with it. The movement has its share of slick marketing and mainstream media support. Marketing makes a big difference.

 

[billbenst1973]

In the past we should have had gay’s and other unwanted types publicly branded. Luckily the government has plans in the near future to implant RDIF chips in every person. So this will mean with any smartphone-type device we can look at any person in a crowd and see their sexual orientation, racial makeup, health and disease history and other details. These will be most helpful in separating the wanted from the unwanted in society.

---

tradyouth.org/

 

[Book_Worm]

You mean, Christians don’t have the right to impose their beliefs and morals onto others?

Well, surely this applies to the other side as well. Why do secularists have the right to bully those who hold different beliefs into submission? They are imposing their values on everybody and call it progress, and call religious people all sorts of derogatory names. Where is the freedom, tolerance and love that they preach? I don’t see it.

How is the gay community forcing you to live a gay lifestyle?

Are you saying that Christians don’t have to act with tolerance and love but those who do not hold our values do?

If the secularists mock us and call us derogatory names, it is, at least in part, because we have given them such an easy target to aim at. Pedophile priests and the bishops who continue to shield them, the financial scandals at the Vatican and at the local level, our own hatred and intolerance toward the gay community - and we say that we’re the ones who live according to God’s commandments.

Why are we so invested in what goes on in another’s bedroom? The greed of Wall Street and the bankers have plunged thousands of people into poverty, shattering families and destroying lives, bringing our country to its knees. War-mongerers plunged our country into an unjust war, which the Pope condemned. A country was destroyed, many thousand people lost their lives, Christians were and are persecuted. Drug companies sell products they know can kill people just to make a few more dollars. Insurance companies routinely let people die so that they can increase their bottom line.

Where is the post asking why we tolerate these sins? Why do we focus so much time and attention on one deadly sin and turn a blind eye to the other six? Is it because it’s easier to condemn the sin we don’t commit rather than the others that we do?

 

[Kamaduck]

Just my two cents, but I believe its a result of the gay lobby’s success in turning the issue into a civil rights case rather than a moral case. While most people will quickly stand up against a moral evil, most are afraid to be labeled a bigot.

It also partly happened as a reaction to what was an objectively wrong attitude towards homosexuals from the past. People were ostracized over homosexual tendencies all out of proportion to the social disapproval of other sins, including other sexual sins. It is kind of like that bad treatment that people got after a divorce. Let us hope that there will be a swing back, but this time to a moderate and appropriate attitude towards the situation of those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

These two responses seem right to me. We recognize that we handled things incorrectly in the past. We know that many of our ancestors were racist and sexist (moreso than us today). We know that they over-reacted to some sins, too. So today, people are making an effort not to be “heterosexist”, because they really, really don’t want to make the same mistakes as their unenlightened ancestors.

As a side note, I think we often react badly to this new norm of tolerance. As in, we go out of our way to use words like “disgusting” that we wouldn’t apply to other sins, and we say that we must exclude people with homosexual tendencies from certain activities. Some people still use slurs to describe gay persons and generally make their lives awful- I’m pretty sure that youth with homosexual tendencies commit suicide at a rate much higher than their peers. All of this reactionary hatred and judgement only makes the situation worse.

As usual, Jesus shows us how it’s done. We acknowledge that people are sinning, and we realize that people are going to hate us for that. We show love and compassion to sinners, and we realize that people are going to hate us for that, too. Christianity is kind of supposed to involve being hated.

 

[signit]

My theory is that the internet has been a huge catalyst for the gay rights movement. In the 90’s when the internet became big it quickly became the preferred method of connecting with like-minded strangers, finding support, and starting grassroots political campaigns. Closeted gay people were able to reach out and connect with other gay people and their supporters, and find the courage to come out in large numbers. In the last 20 years almost everyone has had a friend, sibling, child, or parent come out of the closet. People who were previously disgusted and hostile towards homosexuality suddenly realized that someone they loved and cared about was gay. That challenged a lot of their previously held views. And after a couple of decades of realizing that the sky wasn’t falling and wanting their loved one to be happy the hysteria died down and people got on board.

I believe something like this, too.

Today you have the same-sex couple in your hometown that you see in the supermarket, buying their groceries just like you. And you see that they’re not out there molesting little boys.

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.

In the U.S., losing a job is a pretty big gun that I wouldn’t want to come face to face with.

Also, I think we should be tolerant of people who are not heterosexual. I would not want to be intolerant of “gays,” or any group of people.

What I think we should be intolerant of is the sin that people commit.

The problem is, homosexuals have named themselves after their sin, and thus we can’t hate the sin without hating the sinner too, and that’s something that we can’t do as Christians.

And I don’t see being “tolerant” of gays as being a bad thing.

Maybe if somebody is “intolerant” in the workplace they deserve to be fired.

I know I’d be fired pretty quickly if I went to the possibly gay employee across the hall and started mouthing off at him. I’m trying to see it from the employer’s perspective, trying to keep things peaceful and maintain good order.

 

[MarcoPolo]

With regard to being tolerant to shacking up and whatnot, I think it’s worth pointint out that the Magisterium has been consistent in warning against all anti-marriage movements for centuries. When divorce and polygamy or “concubines” gained momentum, the Church warned against accepting these disorders. When contraception gained momentum, the Church warned against accepting these disorders. Cohabitation. The Church warns against it. And the popularization of sinful behaviors tends to have temporal consequences as well. We see a disastrous state of marriage, particulary in western “modern” culture, fraught with divorces, broken homes, fatherless children, violence against women, etc… The Church has warned against the poisons of various sinful disorders. And the Church has been proven right time and again. Yet here is modern society, once again, scoffing the Church with rabid, vitriol as it severs the branch on which it sits, decrying the Church’s warnings that it is doing so.

 

[Abundant]

I think it has been rather ‘sudden’ too. I am 31 and was born in the 80’s. I went to public school, hung out with almost all non-Catholics and moderate Christians at best and did not even know what homosexuality was until I was halfway through junior high. Now, it is everywhere! I remember when Ellen came out on national TV, and now we have top rated TV shows that are all about gay families. Even as young as I am, I never heard of gay pride parades or anything of the sort.

Obviously, as a Christian, I believe that we should love all people. However, I believe that being gay is a sin. In the past, when voicing that opinion, I have been attacked and made to feel that I am the equivalent of a racist or person who supports slavery. I read the other day that the people who oppose gay marriage today, are going to be like the people who did not want to free slaves in the past and we will look back on them (ME!) like the biggots they are.

It’s disheartening that Catholics are expected to ‘tolerate’ that, but our views are neither tolerated nor even heard. Sad indeed…