Why are people so tolerant of gays now?

[Kamaduck]

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

I don’t know. We could use queer, but some people think that’s derogatory. Last I checked, “queer” was currently being used to describe anyone who wasn’t heteronormative- gay and lesbian individuals, trans individuals, bisexuals and asexuals, genderfluid people, possibly intersex people, and probably a lot of other situations that I haven’t heard of. It’s gotten to be a very general term.

The words used by the movement are different than the words used in the catechism, and both of those are different than the words used on this forum. It’s hard to know which words to use to refer to the groups we want to talk about.

 

[agapewolf]

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

None of these are accurate terms.
homo= same
hetero= difference
sexual =difference

homosexual= same difference. Doesn’t make sense

It isn’t an orientation or an identity. It is a disorder…so it people with same sex attraction.

 

[marymary1975]

None of these are accurate terms.
homo= same
hetero= difference
sexual =difference

homosexual= same difference. Doesn’t make sense

It isn’t an orientation or an identity. It is a disorder…so it people with same sex attraction.

I don’t know why it says sexual equals difference. Sexual comes from the Latin root sexus which means the male or female biologyical sex. Hetero and homo are Greek roots that mean same and different respectively.

 

[agapewolf]

I don’t know why it says sexual equals difference. Sexual comes from the Latin root sexus which means the male or female biologyical sex. Hetero and homo are Greek roots that mean same and different respectively.

YES>… the difference between the sexes. male or female…that is what makes the 2 people different.

 

[EasterJoy]

None of these are accurate terms.
homo= same
hetero= difference
sexual =difference

homosexual= same difference. Doesn’t make sense

It isn’t an orientation or an identity. It is a disorder…so it people with same sex attraction.

What do you mean, they’re not accurate? They’re words that were coined in order to name what they name! It doesn’t matter whether or not one of us likes the roots that were chosen…the words mean what the mean, they are words of long-standing standard use and not slang, and our not liking them doesn’t change that.

(If you don’t believe me, look up the roots of “hysterical” or “lunatic” some time…and don’t tell me the former makes perfect sense to you if you know what is good for you! )

 

[agapewolf]

What do you mean, they’re not accurate? They’re words that were coined in order to name what they name! It doesn’t matter whether or not one of us likes the roots that were chosen…the words mean what the mean, they are words of long-standing standard use and not slang, and our not liking them doesn’t change that.

(If you don’t believe me, look up the roots of “hysterical” or “lunatic” some time…and don’t tell me the former makes perfect sense to you if you know what is good for you! )

What I mean is that all of those terms are used to instill identity. “being gay” “being homosexual” “being queer”. This is NOT accurate for what Catholics believe in the human person, their dignity, or what “sexuality” is.

Own the language, you own the issue. It is very important that we use correct and accurate terms. A person is not “homosexual”. The term itself does not make sense. A person has same sex attraction.

 

[EasterJoy]

What I mean is that all of those terms are used to instill identity. “being gay” “being homosexual” “being queer”. This is NOT accurate for what Catholics believe in the human person, their dignity, or what “sexuality” is.

Own the language, you own the issue. It is very important that we use correct and accurate terms. A person is not “homosexual”. The term itself does not make sense. A person has same sex attraction.

Well, I don’t think the Magesterium has chosen the tack you suggest. The Church chooses to use the word that way in the catechism: “CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” It is the word that is commonly used to describe someone who is sexually attracted to members of their own gender, everyone understands it to mean that, and so it seems odd to say that the word does not make sense. It has its own meaning and usage quite apart from its roots, just as the word “lunatic” does.

Besides, you can’t argue that someone or something does or doesn’t exist by refusing to have a word for it. Do you think there won’t be any people self-identifying with their same-sex attraction just because Catholics refuse to breathe the word “homosexual”? That isn’t realistic, sorry. That horse is long out of the barn, friend. I don’t think the word “homosexual” is what let it out, either!

On top of that, the Church has to be clear that homosexual acts are not just wrong as choices for people who are also attracted to the opposite sex–such as the Greeks commonly did. The Church has to be clear that those who are not at all attracted to the opposite sex are still forbidden from sexual acts with others like them…that the prohibition is not just about heterosexuals refraining from homosexual “adventures”, but applies to everyone. It is not going to matter if science can or cannot show that the desire to act in some disordered way is hard-wired or learned or simply chosen. It doesn’t matter. The act itself is disordered, regardless of where the temptation comes from, be that from without or from within.

 

[jmcrae]

You speak of “gays” as if they are a separate group from you. They are not–these are your brothers and sisters in your family that you are speaking of, whom you love.
It didn’t happen out of the blue.
People who are homosexual have been trying to be recognized for centuries and centuries and there has been an ebb and flow throughout the ages as to people’s perception or this specific orientation.

.

This is a myth that homosexual propagandists would like us all to believe.

Even today, in primitive cultures, homosexuality does not exist - why not? Because it offers nothing useful to the survival of the community.

Homosexuality is a disease that comes out of excessive wealth and boredom, combined with a deficit of spiritual or moral virtue.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is a myth that homosexual propagandists would like us all to believe.

Even today, in primitive cultures, homosexuality does not exist - why not? Because it offers nothing useful to the survival of the community.

Homosexuality is a disease that comes out of excessive wealth and boredom, combined with a deficit of spiritual or moral virtue.

Wellll…there are individuals in animals that prefer to exhibit sexual behavior with their own gender, and it does seem to have something to do with the levels of sex hormones in the animals. It is hard to say there is no organic or involuntary component to same-sex attraction. It’s not like it is something someone would have chosen, up until very recently.

Plus, there is hardly such a thing as a “primitive culture”. There are cultures without electricity, but that doesn’t imply the people don’t have fully human morals based on systems of thought that are as advanced as anyone else’s. So there isn’t some experiment being run out there with a control group of humans who are normal. All societies have both their fully human people and their fallen-human issues, regardless of what technology they have. It could easily be argued that our society, with its breakdown of reliable or predictable social support structures or social mores, is about as “primitive” as human society gets! If deprived isn’t primitive, after all, what is?

What is new, too, is the ability of a relatively low number of individuals in our society to communicate and form an identity together over and above the prevailing culture. That didn’t used to happen very much…although I’m sure it happened, just not as something that those involved could afford to advertise. People in our culture can also exhibit behaviors without the larger group knowing about it–also hard to do in a more close-knit and less individualistic group.

The Church doesn’t get into how or why a person has the temptation to engage in these behaviors. The Church just says this: you’re not less of a person because you have this or that temptation to some greater or lesser degree than someone else, but there aren’t a different set of rules applying to you because of the kind or level of temptation you face, either. To do your best, you must attempt to do what is right and avoid what is wrong, regardless of how much you are naturally inclined to do either.

 

[agapewolf]

Well, I don’t think the Magesterium has chosen the tack you suggest. The Church chooses to use the word that way in the catechism: “CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” It is the word that is commonly used to describe someone who is sexually attracted to members of their own gender, everyone understands it to mean that, and so it seems odd to say that the word does not make sense. It has its own meaning and usage quite apart from its roots, just as the word “lunatic” does.

Besides, you can’t argue that someone or something does or doesn’t exist by refusing to have a word for it. Do you think there won’t be any people self-identifying with their same-sex attraction just because Catholics refuse to breathe the word “homosexual”? That isn’t realistic, sorry. That horse is long out of the barn, friend. I don’t think the word “homosexual” is what let it out, either!

On top of that, the Church has to be clear that homosexual acts are not just wrong as choices for people who are also attracted to the opposite sex–such as the Greeks commonly did. The Church has to be clear that those who are not at all attracted to the opposite sex are still forbidden from sexual acts with others like them…that the prohibition is not just about heterosexuals refraining from homosexual “adventures”, but applies to everyone. It is not going to matter if science can or cannot show that the desire to act in some disordered way is hard-wired or learned or simply chosen. It doesn’t matter. The act itself is disordered, regardless of where the temptation comes from, be that from without or from within.

There is no need to be snarky, “my friend”

The catechism has already gone through one revision of that paragraph, I bet its possible it will be revised again to use better language.

The term was invented in the last century to normalize the behavior. If Catholics, who believe in church teaching refuse to use it the term, and term the disordered condition properly, again, “own the language, own the issue”. It’s like calling people “pro-choice”.

I’m not arguing that people don’t exist. I’m arguing that it isn’t their identity. By the way, redeeming the language that I’m bringing to the table here is from the Theology of the Body institute.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is no need to be snarky, “my friend”

The catechism has already gone through one revision of that paragraph, I bet its possible it will be revised again to use better language.

The term was invented in the last century to normalize the behavior. If Catholics, who believe in church teaching refuse to use it the term, and term the disordered condition properly, again, “own the language, own the issue”. It’s like calling people “pro-choice”.

I’m not arguing that people don’t exist. I’m arguing that it isn’t their identity. By the way, redeeming the language that I’m bringing to the table here is from the Theology of the Body institute.

I’m not at all certain what you are arguing, then.

 

[Cat]

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.
.

Actually, yes you can lose your job for voicing your thoughts on an issue.

If by voicing your opinion, you create a “hostile work environment” for someone else, that’s grounds for dismissal in many companies, including mine.

A person only has to accuse another person of “creating a hostile work environment.” No proof is required, because you can’t cite “evidence” to “prove” your feelings. If you feel threatened, then you feel threatened. And if someone voices an opinion that makes you feel threatened, then you have grounds for speaking up and filing a grievance against the speaker who, by voicing their opinion, made you feel threatened and therefore, created a hostile work environment.

You don’t even have to speak. Something you wear–e.g., a cross or crucifix–could make someone feel threatened and create a hostile work environment.

Or a gesture. I’ve told this example before on CAF, but it’s worth repeating. White women in our workplace were told that we should not “play with our hair”. (I hope you know what I mean–many women twirl their hair about their fingers, twist it around, rumple it up and smooth it out, etc.–it’s just a little habit that some women have). The reason white women should not play with their hair is that black women feel threatened by this gesture. They feel that it is a sign that the white woman feels superior to them.

Now I personally think this is rather silly. When I play with my hair, I’m not trying to express any negative attitudes towards anyone. It’s just a nervous gesture.

But black women apparently don’t think it’s silly. And so our company cautioned us to NOT play with our hair.

So, long story short–I would never express my opinion about homosexuality, neither would I share what my Church teaches about homosexuality, at work.

If someone wanted to know, I would tell them that I would be happy to take them out to dinner after hours, and discuss the issue with them. But I wouldn’t talk about it at work. It’s not worth it being fired over it. Nothing in society would change if I spoke up and quoted the paragraphs in the Catechism and then got myself fired. Actually something would change. Within a few months, I would have to apply for welfare and food stamps.

 

[JimG]

Actually, yes you can lose your job for voicing your thoughts on an issue.

If by voicing your opinion, you create a “hostile work environment” for someone else, that’s grounds for dismissal in many companies, including mine.

A person only has to accuse another person of “creating a hostile work environment.” No proof is required, because you can’t cite “evidence” to “prove” your feelings. If you feel threatened, then you feel threatened. And if someone voices an opinion that makes you feel threatened, then you have grounds for speaking up and filing a grievance against the speaker who, by voicing their opinion, made you feel threatened and therefore, created a hostile work environment.

You don’t even have to speak. Something you wear–e.g., a cross or crucifix–could make someone feel threatened and create a hostile work environment.

Or a gesture. I’ve told this example before on CAF, but it’s worth repeating. White women in our workplace were told that we should not “play with our hair”. (I hope you know what I mean–many women twirl their hair about their fingers, twist it around, rumple it up and smooth it out, etc.–it’s just a little habit that some women have). The reason white women should not play with their hair is that black women feel threatened by this gesture. They feel that it is a sign that the white woman feels superior to them.

Now I personally think this is rather silly. When I play with my hair, I’m not trying to express any negative attitudes towards anyone. It’s just a nervous gesture.

But black women apparently don’t think it’s silly. And so our company cautioned us to NOT play with our hair.

So, long story short–I would never express my opinion about homosexuality, neither would I share what my Church teaches about homosexuality, at work.

If someone wanted to know, I would tell them that I would be happy to take them out to dinner after hours, and discuss the issue with them. But I wouldn’t talk about it at work. It’s not worth it being fired over it. Nothing in society would change if I spoke up and quoted the paragraphs in the Catechism and then got myself fired. Actually something would change. Within a few months, I would have to apply for welfare and food stamps.

What you say is on the mark. The work environment is no longer a place where opinions can be freely expressed. In fact, it’s a pretty dangerous environment, with figurative land mines all around.

 

[Skadi]

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.

I would totaly agree, it is easier to shun the messages than believe his message, and in todays world of maximum convenience, instant gratification, and blending hearts that is what’s happening. Just because we are all equil does not mean we are all the same. It’s rather ironic the people who are all about diversity hate to hear about the actual differences of said people.

I will say though, the Screwtape letters, REALY XD that thing gets quoted like scripture, you’d think Lewis was Luke or John.

 

[InternalWarrioR]

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.

so you think someday , everyone will be gay and civilization will end? I have to say that borders on ignorance. If anything, we need to lower the population any way, and there are countless children to adopt. We all have our own perception of truth. The actually truth just IS. Words or beliefs cannot change what IS. All I feel is that there is way to much judgements from people that are not supposed to judge, or throw the first stone. You do not have to judge to get your own perception of truth to be agreed with. It does not have to be agreed with. I do not agree with you, but I do not judge you, because your perceptions of truth come from your own set of experiences in your lifetime. Fine , tell us what you believe, and I will respect and appreciate that , just as I appreciate everyone is different. But you will never be successful in making people believe or perceive what you do, nor should you try. And if it is so hard to live thru, don’t live. Or you can find peace by having your own beliefs give you peace. If you need everyone to agree with you, for you to “live thru it” your on the wrong Planet.Jesus was at peace, because of what he believed and felt. I do not believe Jesus would have condemned anybody, as some parts of the bible say. But that is my belief, and I do not need anybody to agree with me to make my life more bearable, on the contrary, I have strength and happiness, not needing anyones approval to what I perceive as the truth. But I understand, my words are a perception also. We need to accept and appreciate our differences. I believe if I live a loving and positive life, I am already in heaven, even tho I have to walk thru hell everyday. where there is judgements, jealously, anger and hate to name a few. when you accept those negative attributes, you suffer, and that is what is promised i hell, which is easy to find right here in the real world. Love, acceptance and Peace

 

[Kamaduck]

so you think someday , everyone will be gay and civilization will end? I have to say that borders on ignorance.

No, no, no. The only way that we can allow gay marriage is by re-defining what marriage is for- it’s now just for any two consenting adults who love each other and want to make a commitment (though not an unbreakable one, of course). It has nothing to do with families anymore. That is what will cause civilization to have serious problems. All of the families will be much less stable, and all the focus will be on what any independent individual wants at a given time. What children and other dependent people need or want won’t matter.

 

[Sarabande]

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.

This has probably already been said, but people are so tolerant of the gay lifestyle (I want to emphasize lifestyle) because we have slowly been molded by outside forces to accept it. It’s like a drop a water hitting a rock at the same spot for hundreds of years. Initially, it won’t make any kind of a difference to a very hard, solid rock which seems to be able to withstand everything. But after hundreds of years of this soft “pounding” by these simple drops of water, it will eventually wear that part of the rock away until it changes its entire dimension and shape. That is what has happened to our society, not just with the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, but with fornication, abortion, etc. It has continuously hit at the same spot in our hearts and souls, as well as our intellect.

 

[JimG]

so you think someday , everyone will be gay and civilization will end? I have to say that borders on ignorance. If anything, we need to lower the population any way, and there are countless children to adopt. We all have our own perception of truth. The actually truth just IS. Words or beliefs cannot change what IS. All I feel is that there is way to much judgements from people that are not supposed to judge, or throw the first stone. You do not have to judge to get your own perception of truth to be agreed with. It does not have to be agreed with. I do not agree with you, but I do not judge you, because your perceptions of truth come from your own set of experiences in your lifetime. Fine , tell us what you believe, and I will respect and appreciate that , just as I appreciate everyone is different. But you will never be successful in making people believe or perceive what you do, nor should you try. And if it is so hard to live thru, don’t live. Or you can find peace by having your own beliefs give you peace. If you need everyone to agree with you, for you to “live thru it” your on the wrong Planet.Jesus was at peace, because of what he believed and felt. I do not believe Jesus would have condemned anybody, as some parts of the bible say. But that is my belief, and I do not need anybody to agree with me to make my life more bearable, on the contrary, I have strength and happiness, not needing anyones approval to what I perceive as the truth. But I understand, my words are a perception also. We need to accept and appreciate our differences. I believe if I live a loving and positive life, I am already in heaven, even tho I have to walk thru hell everyday. where there is judgements, jealously, anger and hate to name a few. when you accept those negative attributes, you suffer, and that is what is promised i hell, which is easy to find right here in the real world. Love, acceptance and Peace

No, apparently I did not make myself clear. Everyone will not become gay, and civilization will not end. My point is rather that any civilization is founded on the building block of families, and families are built on the foundation of marriage. To the extent that marriage becomes a weakened institution, so does the civilization comprising those families.

Civilizations do tend to go through lifecycles. Sometimes they are healthier, sometimes they are weaker. Sometimes they go into serious decline. A decaying civilization is not a particularly happy one; that’s just a truism.

And gay marriage is not the primary cause of family destabilization. It is just another weakening of the structure. The stability of marriage has already been substantially weakened by contraception, divorce, extramarital sex, and cohabitation. Gay marriage simply furthers that trend by robbing marriage of its essential element of sexual complementarity.

As an aside, we don’t have to “lower the population anyway.” Our most pressing problem in the near future will be strong global trends toward depopulation, leading to economic and social decline.

 

[jmcrae]

No, no, no. The only way that we can allow gay marriage is by re-defining what marriage is for- it’s now just for any two consenting adults who love each other and want to make a commitment (though not an unbreakable one, of course). It has nothing to do with families anymore. That is what will cause civilization to have serious problems. All of the families will be much less stable, and all the focus will be on what any independent individual wants at a given time. What children and other dependent people need or want won’t matter.

Exactly. It will no longer be “the norm” for fathers to make sacrifices for their families, or to put up with their wives’ and children’s imperfections for the sake of love.

Wives will no longer consider it “normal” to stick with their husbands and children through difficult times.

We have already seen in some countries where marriage isn’t regarded very highly, the huge numbers of abandoned children working the streets to try to eke out a living for themselves, and banding together in gangs to gain the things they need to survive, by force. Needless to say, they don’t go to school, and have little chance of ever becoming productive members of society.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would totaly agree, it is easier to shun the messages than believe his message, and in todays world of maximum convenience, instant gratification, and blending hearts that is what’s happening. Just because we are all equil does not mean we are all the same. It’s rather ironic the people who are all about diversity hate to hear about the actual differences of said people.

I will say though, the Screwtape letters, REALY XD that thing gets quoted like scripture, you’d think Lewis was Luke or John.

It is as clever a treatise on the contemporary tricks of the Evil One as one could ask for, and a good antidote to the lie that the Scriptures aren’t “relevant” or “progressive” enough and all of that rot. Lewis didn’t try to be a Doctor of the Church. He was more like the kid who says that the emperor has no clothes, and there is quite a thirst in Christendom for that these days, isn’t there? Without that, there is no end to the twisting of the red letters that would be going on. Besides, it does not hurt for the world to be reminded that demons actually do exist, that our “enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8) Not all who read the Scriptures can be made to believe that any more.

If you haven’t read it, I’d highly recommend it. It has a lot of insight for such a brief book!