Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

[Bradski]

Are you equating Catholics with homophobes? Why would a Catholic upbringing stop you from loving your fellow man, homosexual or otherwise? Do you know many Catholic people who are homophobic? Would you mind describing what “homophobic” means to you?

Whoa, don’t get hold of the wrong end of the stick. My apologies if you think I was inferring that Catholics are homophobic. My point, which I don’t think I put over very well, was that if you are a Catholic, there are aspects of your religion which define you as Catholic. You could hardly be a Catholic is you didn’t believe in the Trinity for example.

Part of being a Catholic is listening to the teachings of your church and accepting them as revealed truths. That would include contraception and homosexual acts being considered sins. Now I know that some Catholics slide a little when it comes to some aspects of the faith. The two that I mentioned come to mind. But I’m going to assume that you follow all the teachings as laid out and, please correct me if I’m wrong here, you don’t feel that you are in a position to be able to question those teachings. To do so would be to question your faith.

For better or worse, I don’t have a faith – perhaps because I have a very sceptical nature, and that allows to me question everything. A result of that is that I question myself a lot. And sometimes I find I hold beliefs that don’t stand up to the light of day. Homosexuality was one of them.

I was homophobic, which as I define it, was a fear, distrust and revulsion towards anyone who was homosexual.

And, what’s wrong with following the rules? Is there any rule you can name off the top of your head that prevents a Catholic from loving his or her fellow person? .

None.

Could it be your own interpretations of or lack of interest in following the rules that is coloring your experiences, rather than the rules themselves? .

The rules I follow are a mixture that I’ve taken on board from many sources over many years. Many from Christianity as I was brought up as an Anglican. We’d probably agree on most of them. But there would be the odd exception as we both know…

 

[CopticChristian]

Whoa, don’t get hold of the wrong end of the stick. My apologies if you think I was inferring that Catholics are homophobic. My point, which I don’t think I put over very well, was that if you are a Catholic, there are aspects of your religion which define you as Catholic. You could hardly be a Catholic is you didn’t believe in the Trinity for example.

Part of being a Catholic is listening to the teachings of your church and accepting them as revealed truths. That would include contraception and homosexual acts being considered sins. Now I know that some Catholics slide a little when it comes to some aspects of the faith. The two that I mentioned come to mind. But I’m going to assume that you follow all the teachings as laid out and, please correct me if I’m wrong here, you don’t feel that you are in a position to be able to question those teachings. To do so would be to question your faith.

For better or worse, I don’t have a faith – perhaps because I have a very sceptical nature, and that allows to me question everything. A result of that is that I question myself a lot. And sometimes I find I hold beliefs that don’t stand up to the light of day. Homosexuality was one of them.

I was homophobic, which as I define it, was a fear, distrust and revulsion towards anyone who was homosexual.

None.

The rules I follow are a mixture that I’ve taken on board from many sources over many years. Many from Christianity as I was brought up as an Anglican. We’d probably agree on most of them. But there would be the odd exception as we both know…

Brad,

I lived in San Francisco for 6 years. I have been to restaraunts where I was informed by friends that the whistling I heard was men whistling at men and perhaps even me. I had epsisodes of minding my own business on the corner of Haight and Divisadero getting off a bus…I lived on Haight Street…going home when I was asked by a man what time it was…I told him…that same man then came and walked next to me and asked me where I lived, and then asked me if I was gay…I said NO…and heard him say…“why do I miss all the good ones”? I dated an Australian Nurse whose landlords were gay and it was annoying to see them at gatherings playing grab crotch with each other while every one else was just talking socializing. Where I lived on Haight street there lived a gay band. I actually went with my Australian Nurse friend to watch them play and just could not wrap by head around the song “He’s just right for me”…I was around gays all the time. I am not homophobic. I would just rather live my life without having to have gays in my life. I don’t fear them, I don’t distrust them…I just don’t like being around them…I don’t like what they do…I don’t like what they stand for…this is a choice…you choose to believe as you do and it so happens that my Church has beliefs that support my seeing the behavior of gays as morally wrong…so that makes it consistent with my beliefs.

I don’t like liberal gay activists because they attack my beliefs, my Faith and my Church with some notion that I will change my mind…never will, won’t happen, it just reinforces my beliefs that I have that homosexual behavior is aberrant and disordered.

 

[Bradski]

I’ve seen the seedier side of things in Sydney (where I live). But the majority of my experiences with gay people over the last few years have been nothing but positive. Some friends, some friends of my daughter, my niece. They’re all great people and I’m certain that you’d like them if you met them socially.

I think of them whenever there’s discussions of what should be/shouldn’t be allowed in regard to, for example, gay marriage. It hurts when people use terms like disgusting and abnormal and use bestiality or incest as part of a slippery slope argument. I think of my niece then and wonder how she manages to keep so upbeat when there’s so much negativity being thrown around.

 

[GraceSofia]

To the contrary, the crux of the gay “marriage” debate isn’t about what homosexuals are free to do, it’s how the society around them must treat their relationship. Homosexuals are already free to profess whatever they want to each other; they are free to live together; they are free to engage in whatever physical acts to which they both consent. What we’re talking about now is how those uninvolved in the relationship must treat them. What benefits must private and public organizations extend? What housing arrangements must property owners be willing to accept, etc. etc.

And this doesn’t touch at all with the general cultural effect of redefining what “family” means. We are in the process of redefining western civilization away from the Judeo-Christian ethic on which it was founded. What remains will be interesting to see, but it will be much different from what we have seen through history.

Well put.

Other results will be (already are maybe) that indoctrination of schoolchildren must be permitted, and moral teaching and religious belief must be derided as hate speech. The full power of the state will be brought down on anyone who publicly disagrees with lauding homosexual acts as we have already seen in many court cases where homosexual rights and religious/conscience rights have bumped into each other.

We are also seeing a sort of soft, vague system of censorship designed to punish people who say anything against homosexual marriage, for example, the sportscaster who lost his job for merely tweeting that he supported “the traditional and true meaning of marriage.” We are losing any semblance of tolerance for true diversity, as the aim is to deprive of their livelihoods those who refuse to support homosexual marriage.

torontosun.com/2011/06/23/ex-sportsnet-announcer-to-file-complaint

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve seen the seedier side of things in Sydney (where I live). But the majority of my experiences with gay people over the last few years have been nothing but positive. Some friends, some friends of my daughter, my niece. They’re all great people and I’m certain that you’d like them if you met them socially.

I think of them whenever there’s discussions of what should be/shouldn’t be allowed in regard to, for example, gay marriage. It hurts when people use terms like disgusting and abnormal and use bestiality or incest as part of a slippery slope argument. I think of my niece then and wonder how she manages to keep so upbeat when there’s so much negativity being thrown around.

Brad,

You must be joking. Kings Court. I’ve been there. The seedier side of Sydney? This would be an upscale shopping area in the States. Come on now…the seedier side of Sydney?

 

[RobbyS]

I’d say this. I honestly don’t care if the Catholic church wants to dictate to it’s own flock who can and cannot get married according to its doctrine. I’m not Catholic and I have no interest in being Catholic. My tradition (although small) is not opposed to same-sex marriage, and neither is the closest kindred to my house, and I’m sure many other Pagans would say the same (it varies by religion and individual grove/coven/kindred/whatever group). It’s when Catholics (or other religious groups) try to ban same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption for everyone (not just Catholics) that I and other LGBT+ individuals go on the offensive.

Catholics were not trying to “ban” homosexual marriage. No such thing has ever existed in our civilization. It did not exist even in ancient Greece, where pederasty was commonly practiced, and where the “gymnasiums” were much like S.F. bathhouses where older men “mentored” boys and young men. Again, it is a novelty, something new that is now being rammed down out throats because --it sees-- that according to the new morality, where sex is concerned, all is permitted. What we are trying to do is the prevent the change in a definition of marriage that goes back to Roman times. Indeed, our marriage laws are derivative of the old Roman laws.

 

[GraceSofia]

Part of being a Catholic is listening to the teachings of your church and accepting them as revealed truths. That would include contraception and homosexual acts being considered sins. Now I know that some Catholics slide a little when it comes to some aspects of the faith. The two that I mentioned come to mind. But I’m going to assume that you follow all the teachings as laid out and, please correct me if I’m wrong here, you don’t feel that you are in a position to be able to question those teachings. To do so would be to question your faith.

For better or worse, I don’t have a faith – perhaps because I have a very sceptical nature, and that allows to me question everything. . . .

(my bolding)

Bradski, you were responding to someone else here, but I feel like responding to this, if you don’t mind, because it seems to be a not unusual idea that Catholics do not question their faith.

I believe, and maybe I’m wrong, that EVERYBODY questions their faith, studies their faith, and grows in their faith-- or they lose it. I think you do Catholics on this forum a disservice if you can read all the reasoned and informed responses to various topics, and think that they have not thought through what they are talking about. If there is something that I don’t understand, I try to learn in order to understand why the Church teaches what She teaches. Because the Church has been teaching the Truth for 2,000 years.

 

[tm30]

So you think that making a lifetime commitment to someone you love is like masturbation. I think that says more about you than I’d like to know.

Without the intent of begetting children? Yep. In pre-pubescence, it’s called “playing house”.

And I’ll pass on the fact that you made such a crude comment as a direct response to my mention of my daughter’s wedding. I’ll just assume it was thoughtless and crass rather than done with any malice.

What’s thoughtless and crass is entering into a “commitment” based on two people merely using each other for sexual gratification. Google “Divorce Rate”.

 

[Biblepoe]

All the protests from the left show that they have a bad case of the forbidden fruit syndrome. Contraception, abortion, and acceptance of the “gay lifestyle” is available everywhere with the only exception being in Catholic institutions. But gay activists want to force everyone to agree with them and tell them that what they are doing is a right.

I don’t think that gay activists would mind the Catholic Church as much if Catholics didn’t legislate their religious views about homosexuality, thus depriving gays of the ability to have the benefits of civil marriage apply to their relationship with the person they love.

After all, gay people in California were forced to undergo a civil divorce when proposition 8, which was mostly supported by religious institutions such as the Church of Latter Day Saints, passed.

I you thought that you had a certain right that a certain institution was trying to take and keep away from you, wouldn’t you dislike and fight that institution?

 

[Bradski]

I believe, and maybe I’m wrong, that EVERYBODY questions their faith, studies their faith, and grows in their faith-- or they lose it…

Are you saying that you can be a Catholic and support gay marriage?

 

[Bradski]

Brad,

You must be joking. Kings Court. I’ve been there. The seedier side of Sydney? This would be an upscale shopping area in the States. Come on now…the seedier side of Sydney?

Sorry, are you saying that there is or is not a seedier side to Sydney? Maybe you mean Kings Cross?

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t think that gay activists would mind the Catholic Church as much if Catholics didn’t legislate their religious views about homosexuality, thus depriving gays of the ability to have the benefits of civil marriage apply to their relationship with the person they love.

After all, gay people in California were forced to undergo a civil divorce when proposition 8, which was mostly supported by religious institutions such as the Church of Latter Day Saints, passed.

I you thought that you had a certain right that a certain institution was trying to take and keep away from you, wouldn’t you dislike and fight that institution?

Poe,

Define “Catholics legislate religous views about homosexuality”…what does this mean?

Is it your understanding that Mormons speak for other than Mormons?

Just because you think you have a right does not mean you have that right.

Your understanding of an institution as it concerns the Church trying to take something away is not clear. Explain exactly how you see the Catholic Church trying to take something away.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

It all comes down to this question.
What standards of morality tells the homosexualists to shove their views down people’s throats?

I think its the other way around. Most gay people don’t have rights, so they are the victims.

I think once they are given equal and fair treatments (rights) then they will all be quiet and just live their life.

Until they get those equal rights you will continue to hear from them or see them in parades, ect.

 

[Cormacnl]

They want to convert EVERYONE into homosexism by any and all means necessary. Hence, we must resist them!

 

[Crescentinus]

I think its the other way around. Most gay people don’t have rights, so they are the victims.

I think once they are given equal and fair treatments (rights) then they will all be quiet and just live their life.

Until they get those equal rights you will continue to hear from them or see them in parades, ect.

Problem is, most of them aren’t victims. In a lot cases, they VICTIMIZE.
Also, what do you mean by equal rights? It seems to me that you’re proposing sameness rather than equality or justice. :tsktsk:
And, you haven’t really answered my question.

 

[GraceSofia]

Are you saying that you can be a Catholic and support gay marriage?

Brad,

Assuming that a person has resolved for themselves the big issues of faith (Is there a God? Does He love me? Is Christianity the true revelation of God? Is the Catholic Church the Church that Jesus founded?) and has assented to the fact that he is not God and he is not his own Pope, then it is necessary for the Catholic to form his conscience properly.

So if I found myself not understanding or agreeing with something the Church teaches, I would pray for enlightenment and then read the Bible, the Catechism, and Magisterium writings to honestly seek to understand.

Start with marriageuniqueforareason.org/
On the page, all below are clickable links:

• Church Teaching About Marriage
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
• Catechism of the Catholic Church
• Second Vatican Council
• Pope Benedict XVI
• Pope John Paul II
• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
• Pontifical Council for the Family
• Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace

Then read Humane vitae.

Finally, read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

Anyone who reads these with an open mind will gain understanding.

 

[mytruepower2]

Catholics believe that homosexual sex is a sin, but we also believe that we all struggle with sin. When I decided to convert to the Catholic faith there were some points of view and sinful habits that weren’t compatible with being a Catholic. I gave up those points of view that weren’t Catholic. I still struggle with some of my old sinful habits, but I don’t blame the Church for my sins.

If liberals don’t agree with what the Catholic Church teaches there are other religions that do agree with them. The door to the Catholic Church is open for those who want to enter and for those who want to leave.

All the protests from the left show that they have a bad case of the forbidden fruit syndrome. Contraception, abortion, and acceptance of the “gay lifestyle” is available everywhere with the only exception being in Catholic institutions. But gay activists want to force everyone to agree with them and tell them that what they are doing is a right.

I think this is a sign of the weakness of their faith in their position. They can’t even tolerate being told the truth about it, because they don’t truly believe in their position strongly enough to defend it through conversation, like any fair and decent person would.

Because their position is not defensible, they instead choose the method adopted by so many tyrants and book-burners; silence their enemies instead of engaging with them.

In many cases, I would say this is a form of intellectual laziness; a refusal to learn their own position sufficiently. However, in many more cases, I think there is at least -some- fear that a prolonged discussion of the issue might sway them to the opposite view, and then they’d have to go through the long and taxing process of changing their lives and living responsibly, which, even if right, would be a pain in the neck for them.

Then, too, there are some who feel that they represent a whole group of people, and that they need to defend that group out of loyalty, regardless of who’s right or wrong. It’s an “our boys” mentality, which in my opinion, has done tremendous damage to millions of people in the 20th and 21st centuries; liberals, conservatives, Catholics, protestants, orthodox, muslims, etc… In fact, I would say that this method of deciding issues based on whose team you’re on, rather than based on the truth, has the potential to do more damage to a person’s soul than any individual sin, because when you align yourself with a specific team, you run the risk that that team will turn against God, and if it does, so do you.

 

[mytruepower2]

I think its the other way around. Most gay people don’t have rights, so they are the victims.

I think once they are given equal and fair treatments (rights) then they will all be quiet and just live their life.

Until they get those equal rights you will continue to hear from them or see them in parades, ect.

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Those rights are given to them by God, and therefore, cannot be changed, granted or overturned by any human institution.

A list of those rights follows.

Right number 1 is this; we have the right to live, and for us, this means that every human being has an obligation not to infringe on this right. No person can justify premeditated murder, no matter what their circumstances, because life is the most basic right. No other rights, gifts or benefits make any difference if you’re not alive to enjoy them, and anyone who commits murder commits an act of extreme ethical hypocrisy. However, it’s more than just murder.

The second right is; we have the right to bodily integrity/health. This is a sub-right of the first, in some ways, and this is the reason why feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and caring for the sick are such important things to do. It’s right for those people to have what they need to live, and when we provide that, we’re doing something which is objectively right.

People have a right to a certain amount of social and cultural liberty. Specifically, they have a right to personal respect, which means that we shouldn’t slander people, a right to freedom in seeking the truth; so we should never censor truth-seekers, a right to free speech, provided that speech isn’t used immorally, and a right to choose what we do for a living; again, within reasonable ethical guidelines. We also have a right to truthful information about what’s going on around us; so we shouldn’t lie to one another.

We have a right to benefit from our society, educationally, and if we’re particularly gifted, we have a right to use those gifts to pursue more advanced studies, in the hopes of earning places of great responsibility in society.

We have a right to worship God as our rightly-formed conscience tells us to, and to talk about our religion, both privately and publicly. People have a right to choose whether they’ll found a family or remain celebate, and parents have the right to support and educate their children; a right which no other authority figure should interfere with.

We have a right to do work, to do it on our own initiative, and to do the kinds of work that are suited to our particular abilities, skills and responsibility. We’re entitled to a just wage in exchange for our work. We have a right to own private property, and an obligation to use that property for the good of others. We have a right to meet with each other and form groups together; to set goals for those groups, and criteria under which people are permitted to join. We have a right to live in our own country, or if we have a good reason to, to move to another.

Lastly, we have a right to participate in supporting the wellbeing of our society.

These are -all- the basic human rights, and you’ll notice that having a right to truthful information means that you do not have a right to live a cultural lie about what’s “marriage” and what isn’t.

 

[Biblepoe]

Poe,

Define “Catholics legislate religous views about homosexuality”…what does this mean?

Is it your understanding that Mormons speak for other than Mormons?

Just because you think you have a right does not mean you have that right.

Your understanding of an institution as it concerns the Church trying to take something away is not clear. Explain exactly how you see the Catholic Church trying to take something away.

 

[CopticChristian]

Biblepoe:

Originally Posted by CopticChristian
Poe,

Define “Catholics legislate religous views about homosexuality”…what does this mean?

Is it your understanding that Mormons speak for other than Mormons?

Just because you think you have a right does not mean you have that right.

Your understanding of an institution as it concerns the Church trying to take something away is not clear. Explain exactly how you see the Catholic Church trying to take something away.

Thank you for pointing out that this post remains unanswered…good going…

Warning: I like to think.
I like to secretly play as a means to this end.