Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.

[epan]

And the same argument could be made for Polygamy.

But the Founding Fathers were against Polygamy in general, Jefferson drafted legislation to punish Polygamists so marriage in America as being between one man and one woman certainly has existed for over 200 years with exceptions

Many of the Founding Fathers were also for slavery, and didn’t think that a person without land, or a female should be given the vote. I am not sure how relevant their views on morality are today, with some issues.

 

[BroomWagon]

Many of the Founding Fathers were also for slavery, and didn’t think that a person without land, or a female should be given the vote. I am not sure how relevant their views on morality are today, with some issues.

Sorry, but apparently saying “many of our Founding Fathers were also for slavery” does not seem to be a matter of historic fact.

In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.

christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery**, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil**—and their support went beyond words.

 

[Allegra]

I never said this. I said that homosexuality isn’t against societal norms UNLESS you live in a hick area. Go to just about any major city that isn’t populated by hicks and ask people if homosexuality defies societal norms…I would imagine the overwhelming majority would say no.

I live in a major city and I don’t think most people would say that homosexuality is a societal norm. I think even in the most “progressive” cities, homosexuality is the societal exception. In what city would someone feel comfortable asking a person they just met if their signifigant other was a man or woman? Of course they wouldn’t, because they knew there was a good chance that such a question would make the person uncomfortable.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Okay, I will get right to the point, I have read and seen a number of discussions about gays ( and I actually mean the whole GLBT community I suppose) on the net. Now, let’s take an example of someone we all probably know of, Dan Savage, Gay and an Atheist.

See, this is the thing, so often we may encounter a person and so often it comes to “I’m gay and I’m an Atheist”. This sort of bothers me. To me, it seems a number of homosexuals may reject the Bible or the Church because it seems they see the Bible and the Church in general rejecting their lifestyle or what a “Gay” person thinks is a rejection of their natural makeup. And if I were in their shoes, I might think the same way.

That’s it basically, I know there are a number of Churches that raise the rainbow flag. Still, maybe I have only read “activists” opinions on this issue but I would hope they would see that Christ came for all of us. I don’t think I have seen a group with so many atheists in their numbers. It bothers me some because most “Gays” one encounters are generally amiable and very kind persons.

It’s a classic sticking point.

Discussion is welcome.

Being attracted to the same sex might not be a choice. Denying Jesus or God Almighty is.

Homosexuality does not devastate one economically - sometimes not even socially - as drug use and alcoholism. And we are a society that connects morality to paying taxes, labor productivity, and earning money.

You might have heard some liberals says about abortion, “It’s okay to abort unborn children because they don’t pay taxes.”

Nothing more sacred than being a tax payer - especially in the United States.

But homosexuals are not the only ones that have a high rate of atheism. Heterosexuals involved in BDSM tend to be atheist too. I know from having a very brief interaction in that subculture.

In fact many homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals in the BDSM community feel they are morally superior to Christians including priests, monks, and nuns. For one reason, a lot of them tend to be very well educated, with not a few of them holding graduate degrees. Some are in the sciences or otherwise white collar professionals that earn good salaries.

Of course, there are people of a lesser educational and socio-economic status involved in BDSM.

If the Catholic Church said it was okay for a married man to keep your daughter - not his wife - in a cage for consensual sexual slavery they would be more inclined to embrace Christianity and Catholicism.

The only reasons drug addicts ever think they’re doing something immoral is when they fall down so far that their lives become totally unmanageable.

NAMBLA seems to think they’re perfectly morally good in their sexual preferences too. I’ll hazard to guess because they are productive in terms of labor, pay taxes, and earn money.

And no… I’m not suggesting homosexuals are the equivalents of NAMBLA (although NAMBLA is made up of homosexuals). I can tolerate and be friends with gay people but I’d have some problems with a card carry member of NAMBLA.

 

[Faithdancer]

Perhaps another reason gay and lesbian people walk away from church is as they seek to share their pain and rejection, they are told over and over…while being overtly rejected and disdained…“We don’t reject you…we love you.” I sure as hell could do without “love” like that…don’t know why they would accept it any better. And I dare say if any on this board experienced that type of “love”…a different “tune” would be sung.

“Share their pain and rejection???” Get over it! Stop performing unnatural sex acts and then there won’t be any problem. If homosexuals can’t accept chastity as a way of life, that is not the fault of the vast majority of Catholics who are heterosexual and who are also required to be chaste! If homosexuals want to be Catholic, they need to either stop being sexually active, or find a way to be heterosexual and get married to someone of the opposite gender. If they can’t do that, there are other churches they can attend- I’ll even hold the door for them and wave bye-bye!

 

[saveusfromhell]

Do you understand what societal norms means? It sure doesn’t seem like it.

ah the other atheist argument, if you don’t agree with me its because your stupid. please go and read the posts again. cities where homesexuality isn’t the societal norm must be inhabitated by hicks, (stupid country people). you are intolerant of people who don’t agree with you, yet who call others full of hate.

 

[epan]

Sorry, but apparently saying “many of our Founding Fathers were also for slavery” does not seem to be a matter of historic fact.

christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

Jefferson had more than 200 slaves himself. Check your facts more carefully.

The “apologist’s” view, which would paint Jefferson into the revisionist historian ideal would say that they weren’t really his idea, because they came to him by marriage. Yet, once married, his wife would be essentially powerless and without property. The male took control of all assets. He didn’t really want all those slaves. But he did happen to like building and living in Monticello which was only possible with the fruits of their labors. Gee, I wonder how that works. I hate slavery. Now get to work boys to build me my palace. Work those fields so I can have a life pursuing interests in politics and philosophy. Oh… I HATE SLAVERY. I wish someone would emancipate my slaves for me. I hate living like this on the backs of my 200 slaves. Give me a break. He was a slave owner whose lifestyle was only possible because he chose to own slaves. He could have emancipated them. He chose not to, while writing on the evils of slavery. Jefferson was a hypocrite.

While you are defending Jefferson, can you tell me what his opinion was on giving black women the vote?

Please, try to understand history more accurately, instead of posting links to biased religious organizations who want to bend it to suit their ideological stance.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Quote: “Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.”

They have a demon. These will keep you away from holy things. The life the Church calls us to is the opposite of a life of soul-destruction. So it is opposed by those who love evil.

People given over to serious sin will find very many clever aways of talking over their conscience.

I read a good satire about a fictional ‘gay’ Lutheran minister being reconciled with his parish. The author substituted the word ‘homosexual’ with the word ‘vampire’. The idea was to wake people out of their acceptance of this proclivity, which is forbidden.

e.g. "I have prayed and prayed to God over my vampiric tendencies and I’ve learned to love myself. God wouldn’t have given me this desire to drink blood if he hadn’t wanted me to do it. Vampires are people, too. Love the sinner, hate the sin " Pastor Damien was welcomed back with open arms by a supportive congreation. “My son is a vamipire”, said one lady. “I always knew he was, growing up. We’ve come to terms with it. What can’t people just be nice?”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Really at that MCC the point was more about praying over the couples, while the actual communion seemed unimportant and almost secondary.

I wouldn’t be too sure, andrew. I think when Paul tells us that we must discern the Body in the Eucharist or suffer the consequences, he’s not only telling us that we need to believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. but I’m convinced that he is also exhorting us to discern the Body in each other, that it is the lack of such a discernment which leads to disharmony and ultimately to the sickness and death against which he warns us. To believe that the Eucharist is God but to fail to discern that your fellow communicant is part of the Body of God, too, is as great a sin as denying the divinity of the Eucharist outright–both are failures to discern the Body.

There is a sense, therefore, that the praying, the embracing, the affection you saw are all extensions of the Eucharistic feast and demonstrations or enactments of the same Eucharistic event. They’re not in competition with each other, but inform each other in a deeply meaningful way.

Truth be told, I’ve attended an MCC church less than a handful of times. I’m not one for contemporary worship, so the MCC was not the place for me. I also did not have as many issues with religion as many other same sex attracted folks have had. But I can imagine that experiencing such a demonstrative Eucharistic affection as you witnessed (and as I’ve seen at MCC services, too) could be a particularly powerful experience for someone who believed that God hated them or could only love them if they were lonely.

Part of what’s at work here is this: much of who we are is received from or taken from others. The social worlds in which we move have a way of modelling identities and desires for us which we take on and begin to think of as uniquely us or ours. If the social worlds in which we live see us as despicable, however subtly, chances are we will find ourselves identifying as despicable, however subtly. Sometimes, though, we are given a glimpse of what it might be like to be constructed by something entirely different; something that owes no allegiance to- and is not even remotely in competition with the social worlds in which we move; something, really someone, who desires to give us a share of his own Divine Life and identity, which is Love–at those times, we may begin to understand what being a part of the Body of God might actually mean. At those times, we may begin to understand who we truly are, who we are called to be. The Eucharist, I would argue, is that time par excellence, a time when we can be Eucharistically constructed as we are given the grace to actually be the Eucharist and all that that means. As St. Augustine says: “Behold what you are; become what you receive.” For someone who sees themselves as despicable to be recognized and embraced as the Body of God by the Body of God…what an incredible thing!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[BroomWagon]

Everyone thinks this gay thing is new but as said before, the Greeks and then Romans apparently practiced it a good deal.

 

[spencelo]

See, this is the thing, so often we may encounter a person and so often it comes to “I’m gay and I’m an Atheist”. This sort of bothers me. To me, it seems a number of homosexuals may reject the Bible or the Church because it seems they see the Bible and the Church in general rejecting their lifestyle or what a “Gay” person thinks is a rejection of their natural makeup. And if I were in their shoes, I might think the same way.

As a nontheist considering this from the “outside,” I would say you’re right: when I think Christianity or Catholicism, I tend to think “anti-gay.” Of course there are some denominations that are very open to gay people, but they’re in the minority. Gays often feel demonized and dehumanized by anti-gay rhetoric coming from Christians, and rightly so IMO. I think this is an obvious reality that many Catholics need to recognize if they want to move the dialogue further.

 

[spencelo]

Gays can be assured that the Catholic Church will never bend its teachings to accommodate homosexual activity. It is up to homosexuals to change, to adopt total chastity if they want to be part of the Catholic Church. If they are obstinately unwilling to do so, then they separate themselves from God, not the converse.:byzsoc::harp:

This kind of mentality is why many gays will never become Catholics (good for them, IMO).

 

[CopticChristian]

As a nontheist considering this from the “outside,” I would say you’re right: when I think Christianity or Catholicism, I tend to think “anti-gay.” Of course there are some denominations that are very open to gay people, but they’re in the minority. Gays often feel demonized and dehumanized by anti-gay rhetoric coming from Christians, and rightly so IMO. I think this is an obvious reality that many Catholics need to recognize if they want to move the dialogue further.

Spence,

Catholics are anti-immorality and the notion and practice of “gay” falls under that large umbrella. You just point out one aspect of this issue. You are myopic.

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

Catholics are anti-immorality and the notion and practice of “gay” falls under that large umbrella. You just point out one aspect of this issue. You are myopic.

I merely pointed out an aspect of the issue that was specifically discussed in the op. Myopic? Hardly.

 

[spencelo]

It is thinly veiled hate…as in no one says they hate gays, they just imply it strongly with their speech.

I concur with this observation: there is a tremendous amount of anti-gay rhetoric that imply, both in tone and substance, animosity towards gays. To me, this is an obvious fact of reality, but I understand it may be difficult for those who advance anti-gay rhetoric to view their speech in that way.

 

[Crescentinus]

Spence,

Catholics are anti-immorality and the notion and practice of “gay” falls under that large umbrella. You just point out one aspect of this issue. You are myopic.

^This it seems, had demolished spencelo’s argument in this thread.

 

[spencelo]

^This it seems, had demolished spencelo’s argument in this thread.

What argument? I merely made an observation – I wasn’t arguing with anyone. So jumpy! Since you’re so eager to find an argument of mine to “demolish,” take me up in the other threads.

 

[Crescentinus]

What argument? I merely made an observation – I wasn’t arguing with anyone. So jumpy! Since you’re so eager to find an argument of mine to “demolish,” take me up in the other threads.

Oh really? I wasn’t even jumpy.
Maybe I had just mistook your observation for an argument. That is why I had put the words “it seems” in it. Quit being paranoid.

 

[spencelo]

Oh really? I wasn’t even jumpy.
Maybe I had just mistook your observation for an argument. That is why I had put the words “it seems” in it. Quit being paranoid.

I suggest researching the term “paranoid,” because my “So jumpy!” comment does not imply any such mental state. In the future, if you read my comments more carefully, it’ll lessen the likelihood of confusing the difference between an observation and an argument.

 

[Crescentinus]

I suggest researching the term “paranoid,” because my “So jumpy!” comment does not imply any such mental state. In the future, if you read my comments more carefully, it’ll lessen the likelihood of confusing the difference between an observation and an argument.

Oh, it does imply paranoia since you automatically thought that I was gunning after you when I clearly did not.
And I will read your comments more carefully. Nonetheless, mea culpa.