Why are people so tolerant of gays now?

[Skadi]

NOBODY is inherently gay by nature. They have a void in their life, and the devil grabs a hold of that and turns them into peverts.

That is incorrect, there is scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is caused by genetic defects affecting the chemicals balance of the brain. While somè people become homosexual due to social factors some are born with a naturally disordered sexual disposition.

 

[Book_Worm]

Actually, its church teaching. God doesn’t put disorders in our nature.

The teaching of which church? The one that put Galileo under house arrest until the end of his life for holding that the earth rotated around the sun?

 

[LovedMyAlydar]

Because the church leaders for the most part have been lax on teaching their flocks. They give their happy clappy sermons, God is love, everybody gets to heaven, sins don’t really matter, Jesus would hang out with the sodomites as He was a rebel and loved everybody, etc. ad nauseum, the “green” stations of the cross. Then there is the tolerance of priests who are guilty of this sin and instead of weeding them out and defrocking them they are allowed to continue on as if nothing is wrong.

So the folks see this and get the idea that being “gay” is fine, abortions are “okay”, etc, etc, etc.

Plus this garbage is taught in the schools, be tolerant of others, etc. Blah.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, the truth is the truth.

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually, its church teaching. God doesn’t put disorders in our nature.

Meaning that not every innate or inborn quality is to be taken as something automatically intended for our good. Disease and disorder are things God permits, even remain among all of those things God can use to our profit, rather than things that God causes. That does not mean that every evil that comes on us must be something we suffer because we have done something to ask for it…absolutely not!

“About this person I will boast, but about myself I will not boast, except about my weaknesses. Although if I should wish to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be telling the truth. But I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me because of the abundance of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not become too elated, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Cor. 12:5-10

If someone were to say that any difficulty they have, whether physical or spiritual, was something God permitted to remain in them in order to perfect them, this is entirely possible. If someone were to say that some strength they have left them more prone to some weakness–for instance, that a man with more testosterone might have both an easier time with courage and yet a more difficult time controlling his temper–then that can easily be true, as well. So yes, it is very possible that some set of gifts a person might have might also make them more prone to have a desire to someone they may not marry or that they have temptations that they have done nothing to ask for nor that they can ride themselves of by any act of their own will. It may be typical that some particular thing in human nature that causes some sort of difficulty also comes with some set of gifts, as well. Absolutely, that is entirely possible. Still, just as we do not say “boys will be boys” when men indulge in the temptations that more often come with a man’s nature than with a woman’s, so we do not say “it ought to be allowed, it is in their nature” when it comes to the sins that same-sex attraction makes one prone to. There is no hypocrisy in loving the gifts that come with a certain psychological make-up while insisting that it does not make indulging the temptations that come with that make-up permissible. Surely, everyone has something like that, even though some have more difficult cards to play than others. To those who are faithful, the ones who played a poor hand well will be destined for all the greater glory in the age to come.

On that account, to have some psychological make-up that leaves one prone to want things that one cannot morally have is in no sense evidence of immorality in the person. The Church does not question that a person may be homosexual by reason of aspects of their nature that they have had since birth, not at all. The Church does insist, however, that accidents of birth, even when they both give difficult temptations and give unique gifts, are not excuses to abandon the boundaries of virtue, including the virtue of chastity. Rather, the Church teaches that the Lord knows what our trials have been, and will judge us according to our true fidelity to our call, and that we will not be subject to the blind judgments of our fellow men. The Church guides us by the right way, teaches us what is and is not moral behavior, and offers us the sacraments and the life of the Church as means to grace and friendship with God, but the Church does not go so far as to pronounce what the final judgment shall be for any sinner. That is reserved to God alone. Suffice it to say that the wise know that there will be surprises!

 

[EasterJoy]

The teaching of which church? The one that put Galileo under house arrest until the end of his life for holding that the earth rotated around the sun?

Do you argue that the Constitution isn’t binding because the US government allowed treaty violations against native Americans and wrongly put Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps? If you think that the Church has no authority to teach morality because over 400 hundred years ago it made political decisions you can’t reconcile with, then I don’t know what we can do for you. To be very frank, I don’t know what anyone can do for you. If you can never let go of the fact that some religious group doesn’t have a spotless leadership record, I think you’re going to find you’ll only be happy in a denomination of one, and even that one may be too crowded for you.

 

[agapewolf]

That is incorrect, there is scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is caused by genetic defects affecting the chemicals balance of the brain. While somè people become homosexual due to social factors some are born with a naturally disordered sexual disposition.

Cite the “scientific evidence”.

And even if this IS true… the language is still incorrect. Disorder is not “by human nature”. Concupiscience, disorder, and twisting of the desires for God is the result of original sin, NOT being created in the image and likeness of God.

Disorder is not “identity”.

 

[Skadi]

Cite the “scientific evidence”.

And even if this IS true… the language is still incorrect. Disorder is not “by human nature”. Concupiscience, disorder, and twisting of the desires for God is the result of original sin, NOT being created in the image and likeness of God.

Disorder is not “identity”.

“In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality. ‘MZ’ indicates identical twins with the same sets of genes and ‘DZ’ indicates fraternal twins where genes are mixed to a similar extent as non-twin siblings. In 2000, Bailey, Dunne and Martin found similar results from a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins.”

This is one of only many studies focusing on various methods of measuring and proving the connection of homosexuality to genetic makeup. These studies tend to show that both genetic and socio-environmental factors influence homosexuality, but that genetic does more so, especialy in men. In addition studies sugest that while some socio environmental factors may lead to homosexuality they do not do so uniformly. If to brothers are molested as children on may become homosexual and the other not because of a higher genetic disposition combined with the environmental influence of being molested.

Regardless of your religious beliefs you can not rationally deny that human sexual desire and attraction are controlled by chemical processes in certain regions of the brain. This is a scientifically verified fact. If the structure or chemicle balance of this region is off it will lead to abnormal behavior. This does not mean it has no spiritual connection but you can not deny the influence of these chemicle processes on human sexual atraction.

To sum it up, yes, Homosexuality can and most often is the result of genetics. And seeing as people have no control over there genetics you can’t blaim them for it. You can say gay sex is wrong all you want, I don’t care sense I never intend to partake in it, but many if not most gay people did not chose to be gay. Hating a person just because they feal a natural atraction to the same sex is no different than hating someone because of their race or gender.

And lastly if your trying to use original sin your barking up the wrong tree, as I don’t subscribe to that explenation for our faults.

 

[EasterJoy]

… if your trying to use original sin your barking up the wrong tree, as I don’t subscribe to that explenation for our faults.

I don’t want to be inhospitable, because you’re welcome to be here, but if you don’t believe in original sin what on earth are you doing arguing on a Catholic web site? We do have certain axiomatic truths, and that is one of them.

For that matter, though, how do you explain the idea that there is such a thing as a fault? I mean, if the individual or group engaging in a certain behavior find it tolerable, how can that behavior be a fault?

 

[agapewolf]

"

Hating a person just because they feal a natural atraction to the same sex is no different than hating someone because of their race or gender.

And lastly if your trying to use original sin your barking up the wrong tree, as I don’t subscribe to that explenation for our faults.

WHere in the world does “hate” come in? No one said anything about hate…

ahhh…the cliches…

 

[Skadi]

I don’t want to be inhospitable, because you’re welcome to be here, but if you don’t believe in original sin what on earth are you doing arguing on a Catholic web site? We do have certain axiomatic truths, and that is one of them.

For that matter, though, how do you explain the idea that there is such a thing as a fault? I mean, if the individual or group engaging in a certain behavior find it tolerable, how can that behavior be a fault?

I’m here for the debate to be honest, not to troll or **** people off but because it increases my reasoning and problem solving abilities. I went through catholic school all the way through 12th grade and know alot about Catholicism. I have even argued for it versus Protestant denominations. Not because I actually believed my arguments as they were founded on precepts I don’t believe, but because I enjoy debate and find Catholicism the most scripturally and historically accurate Christian denomination.

As for your second question, if one looks at all human cultures there are some universal social mores. Namely, no incest, no sex with children (though what constitutes age of consent may change from place to place), no unwarranted killing, no theft, ect. These are universal truths which essentially no one until modern humanists would argue against. A society cannot function without these laws.

I believe Emperor Julian put it well when he wrote of the Ten Commandments,

“Now except for the command “Thou shalt not worship other gods,” and “Remember the sabbath day,” what nation is there, I ask in the name of the gods, which does not think that it ought to keep the other commandments? So much so that penalties have been ordained against those who transgress them, sometimes more severe, and sometimes similar to those enacted by Moses, though they are sometimes more humane.”

 

[Skadi]

WHere in the world does “hate” come in? No one said anything about hate…

ahhh…the cliches…

Your correct, that may have been a bit overdramatic and cliche. I apologize.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m here for the debate to be honest, not to troll or **** people off but because it increases my reasoning and problem solving abilities. I went through catholic school all the way through 12th grade and know alot about Catholicism. I have even argued for it versus Protestant denominations. Not because I actually believed my arguments as they were founded on precepts I don’t believe, but because I enjoy debate and find Catholicism the most scripturally and historically accurate Christian denomination.

As for your second question, if one looks at all human cultures there are some universal social mores. Namely, no incest, no sex with children (though what constitutes age of consent may change from place to place), no unwarranted killing, no theft, ect. These are universal truths which essentially no one until modern humanists would argue against. A society cannot function without these laws.

I believe Emperor Julian put it well when he wrote of the Ten Commandments,

“Now except for the command “Thou shalt not worship other gods,” and “Remember the sabbath day,” what nation is there, I ask in the name of the gods, which does not think that it ought to keep the other commandments? So much so that penalties have been ordained against those who transgress them, sometimes more severe, and sometimes similar to those enacted by Moses, though they are sometimes more humane.”

Well, I think there were some people in high places who became scandalously flippant about the universality of moral truth about the time Rome started going down the tubes, too, but you didn’t really answer the question. Enough arguing what you don’t believe. Discuss and examine what you do believe, and why. What is the foundation in truth of the idea that people can objectively have faults? How can it be objectively decided what features in a human being are a fault, what is a harmless idiosyncrasy, and what is something else? What, for that matter, are the broad classes of “something else” (since we do not want to paint ourselves into a dualistic box, do we?)

(…we do have to make this come back around to the thread; that is, to the current climate in thought concerning what opinions about homosexuals are or are not permissible for a decent person to hold, and why…)

 

[Skadi]

Well, I think there were some people in high places who became scandalously flippant about the universality of moral truth about the time Rome started going down the tubes, too, but you didn’t really answer the question. Enough arguing what you don’t believe. Discuss and examine what you do believe, and why. What is the foundation in truth of the idea that people can objectively have faults? How can it be objectively decided what features in a human being are a fault, what is a harmless idiosyncrasy, and what is something else? What, for that matter, are the broad classes of “something else” (since we do not want to paint ourselves into a dualistic box, do we?)

(…we do have to make this come back around to the thread; that is, to the current climate in thought concerning what opinions about homosexuals are or are not permissible for a decent person to hold, and why…)

As I was attempting to illustrate earlier what is an is not a desirable personality trait or action is determined by universal social mores. No traditional culture believes greed is good (pure greed, not simple desire for monetary gain). From there I would also hold a person to their own cultural/religious standards. I think it’s fair to expect a Christian to live up to the bible. As such I don’t think a person can be Christian and actively gay.

 

[EasterJoy]

As I was attempting to illustrate earlier what is an is not a desirable personality trait or action is determined by universal social mores. No traditional culture believes greed is good (pure greed, not simple desire for monetary gain). From there I would also hold a person to their own cultural/religious standards. I think it’s fair to expect a Christian to live up to the bible. As such I don’t think a person can be Christian and actively gay.

I think you mean a person cannot both hold a conscience formed by the Bible and also defend being actively gay. Being a Christian is a matter of having been baptized, not a matter of successfully avoiding sin.

So what does a person do when they live in a society that increasing rejects the idea of universal social mores?

 

[Skadi]

I think you mean a person cannot both hold a conscience formed by the Bible and also defend being actively gay. Being a Christian is a matter of having been baptized, not a matter of successfully avoiding sin.

So what does a person do when they live in a society that increasing rejects the idea of universal social mores?

You live within the universal social mores. They are evident by their universal developement in human society. Even if a society was to diverge from them (ex. They come to accept incest) that dosnt change the fact it’s wrong.

All societal mores beyond these universal ones are cultural. They are relevant to the culture the person is part of because they are not universal. I have no probl with a person breaking cultural as opposed to universal mores as they arnt necisarily bad, but if a person is breaking their own (ie. a Muslim eating pork) I have to question why they are what they claim to be in the first place.

 

[EasterJoy]

You live within the universal social mores. They are evident by their universal developement in human society. Even if a society was to diverge from them (ex. They come to accept incest) that dosnt change the fact it’s wrong.

All societal mores beyond these universal ones are cultural. They are relevant to the culture the person is part of because they are not universal. I have no probl with a person breaking cultural as opposed to universal mores as they arnt necisarily bad, but if a person is breaking their own (ie. a Muslim eating pork) I have to question why they are what they claim to be in the first place.

Hmmm. Do you only mean hypocrisy–that is, a Muslim who eats pork while pretending to keep halal–or do you mean someone who presumes to have the right to try to re-define the mores of an established religion? Who gets to decide what is “established religion” and what is merely “cultural trappings” of religion?

 

[Skadi]

Hmmm. Do you only mean hypocrisy–that is, a Muslim who eats pork while pretending to keep halal–or do you mean someone who presumes to have the right to try to re-define the mores of an established religion? Who gets to decide what is “established religion” and what is merely “cultural trappings” of religion?

The hypocrisy. Although I’m not fond of people misappropriating names of belief systems when they seriously change their structure. All culture and religion changes over time, its natural, but if say I’m usualy not a fan of rapid change. Unless its something like slavery that is an obvious human rights violation,

 

[EasterJoy]

The hypocrisy. Although I’m not fond of people misappropriating names of belief systems when they seriously change their structure. All culture and religion changes over time, its natural, but if say I’m usualy not a fan of rapid change. Unless its something like slavery that is an obvious human rights violation,

I can agree with that: there is a limit to how much we can keep people even within the “universal” boundaries–not all bad behavior can realistically be eliminated by making it a crime. Still, when you’re going to change something and you’re not either the majority or the hierarchy or if you’re not actually trying to return the group to some formerly established state, start your own group. Give yourself a name that reflects that you’ve departed. Don’t pretend that everyone else is supposed to have changed to accommodate you.

 

[Skadi]

I can agree with that: there is a limit to how much we can keep people even within the “universal” boundaries–not all bad behavior can realistically be eliminated by making it a crime. Still, when you’re going to change something and you’re not either the majority or the hierarchy or if you’re not actually trying to return the group to some formerly established state, start your own group. Give yourself a name that reflects that you’ve departed. Don’t pretend that everyone else is supposed to have changed to accommodate you.

I totaly agree.

 

[lolsadface]

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.

If I’m going to hell for loving a woman, I’ll be making a fabulous entrance t(-.-)t