Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.

  • Thread starter Thread starter BroomWagon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faithdancer said:
Yes, agree with the posts emphasizing the universality of the requirement of chastity for all Catholics. For heterosexuals, chastity is either within marriage or within the single state of celibacy. For homosexuals, only the latter applies since there is no such thing as same sex “marriage.”
Click to expand...
Indeed!

Marriage does not mean a free-for all of sexual pleasure.
 
Why would anyone choose a hostile environment? It doesn’t make much sense to be part of an institution that condemns you, undermines same-sex love, reduces it to sex acts, claims it is disordered, exists only as a cross to bear, and is not something as beautiful and worthy of celebration as hetero-love and romance. That’s pretty drab. There is so much high literature out there where same-sex love is written about with such purity, loftiness, and in the noblest of terms, yet for some people it exists only as a deviation and perversity and can never be anything more. That’s sad. Unfortunately this kind of prejudice is usually incurable; homosexuality will continue to be perceived as a threat to patriarchy, gender roles, and the family. Similarly women’s liberation presented the same threat. There are more scriptures that could be used against women than homosexuality; against working women, independent unmarried women, women in positions of authority. Fortunately gender roles are not so black and white anymore, and it seems we’re similarly evolving on the topic of homosexuality.
 
It seems to me that the homosexualists and their enabler allies would want us to convert to their ideology.
 
The fact is that many gays and lesbians remain in the church. They are committed Catholics, they attend mass regularly, they give of themselves, they help the sick and the poor and they are deeply religious. You just don’t know they’re gay. It is such a good thing that the Jesuits now have a much more healthy attitude towards gay people. They realized that they are born gay and they being gay is just one aspect of their being. It won’t be long before the Catholic church accepts gays and lesbians fully. These discussions are nothing but absolute nonsense. Let’s discuss things of real importance.
 
bri89 said:
Why would anyone choose a hostile environment? It doesn’t make much sense to be part of an institution that condemns you, undermines same-sex love, reduces it to sex acts, claims it is disordered, exists only as a cross to bear, and is not something as beautiful and worthy of celebration as hetero-love and romance. That’s pretty drab. There is so much high literature out there where same-sex love is written about with such purity, loftiness, and in the noblest of terms, yet for some people it exists only as a deviation and perversity and can never be anything more. That’s sad. Unfortunately this kind of prejudice is usually incurable; homosexuality will continue to be perceived as a threat to patriarchy, gender roles, and the family. Similarly women’s liberation presented the same threat. There are more scriptures that could be used against women than homosexuality; against working women, independent unmarried women, women in positions of authority. Fortunately gender roles are not so black and white anymore, and it seems we’re similarly evolving on the topic of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Being feminine is part of the natural order, and at least 50% of the human species is female. A very small percentage of the human population is actively homosexual, and since homosexuality contributes nothing of significance to the survival of the species, it is not part of the natural order. As far as literature which glorifies homosexual relationships, that is a pretty weak argument as there is plenty of “literature” which glorifies all kinds of abnormalities.
 
jim_lee said:
The fact is that many gays and lesbians remain in the church. They are committed Catholics, they attend mass regularly, they give of themselves, they help the sick and the poor and they are deeply religious. You just don’t know they’re gay. It is such a good thing that the Jesuits now have a much more healthy attitude towards gay people. They realized that they are born gay and they being gay is just one aspect of their being. It won’t be long before the Catholic church accepts gays and lesbians fully. These discussions are nothing but absolute nonsense. Let’s discuss things of real importance.
Click to expand...
The Church is more than happy to accept GLBTQ folks and even at Communion.

It’s homosexual acts that are the sin.
 
bri89 said:
Why would anyone choose a hostile environment? It doesn’t make much sense to be part of an institution that condemns you, undermines same-sex love, reduces it to sex acts, claims it is disordered, exists only as a cross to bear, and is not something as beautiful and worthy of celebration as hetero-love and romance. That’s pretty drab. There is so much high literature out there where same-sex love is written about with such purity, loftiness, and in the noblest of terms, yet for some people it exists only as a deviation and perversity and can never be anything more. That’s sad. Unfortunately this kind of prejudice is usually incurable; homosexuality will continue to be perceived as a threat to patriarchy, gender roles, and the family. Similarly women’s liberation presented the same threat. There are more scriptures that could be used against women than homosexuality; against working women, independent unmarried women, women in positions of authority. Fortunately gender roles are not so black and white anymore, and it seems we’re similarly evolving on the topic of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Devolving not evolving. More relativism.
 
bri89 said:
Fortunately gender roles are not so black and white anymore, and it seems we’re similarly evolving on the topic of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, gender roles have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior, which duplicates the position of Jesus as faithful to the Judaic moral code. Gender, though, has much to do with it.

Unfortunately, too many critics fail to understand this and/or rationalize their support for the mainstreaming of homosexuality as “normal” by resorting to the off-topic issue of the evolution of gender roles.
 
bri89 said:
undermines same-sex love, reduces it to sex acts
Click to expand...
Catholicism exhibits a great amount same-sex love. In fact, the Triune Godhead has more same-sex love within itself than all of mankind does. The Father and the Son love each other to an infinite degree – but there is nothing sexual about it.

People undermine same-sex love when they introduce sexual acts into it.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Fortunately, gender roles have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior, which duplicates the position of Jesus as faithful to the Judaic moral code. Gender, though, has much to do with it.

Unfortunately, too many critics fail to understand this and/or rationalize their support for the mainstreaming of homosexuality as “normal” by resorting to the off-topic issue of the evolution of gender roles.
Click to expand...
I’m just guessing, and I could be wrong, as I often am, but I think that if homosexuals were shown more love by their fellow brothers and sisters under God their lives would be better off than they are now and they would make better choices than they do now.

Just a guess, and I believe that is what we should do. Let God judge them when they die, we can treat them with dignity and respect, warm welcomes, smiles, acceptance, and love. It costs us nothing (unless we have a personal issue loving this segment of our brothers and sisters) and could prove to be very benefitial.

I’m able to do that, but I understand if others are not able to do that as there are some segments of the population I don’t think I would be able to do that with even though Jesus teaches me to do so, or at least that’s my understandng.

Love without expectations of them changing. If they change they change. If they don’t they don’t. I leave that to God and simply treat them with caring and brotherly love as we are both children of God and believe that is what Jesus wants me to do.

God Bless,
Bill
 
ivebeenshown said:
Catholicism exhibits a great amount same-sex love. In fact, the Triune Godhead has more same-sex love within itself than all of mankind does. The Father and the Son love each other to an infinite degree – but there is nothing sexual about it.

People undermine same-sex love when they introduce sexual acts into it.
Click to expand...
You had demolished the idiocy of the sexual devolution! 👍
 
Bill_7154 said:
I’m just guessing, and I could be wrong, as I often am, but I think that if homosexuals were shown more love by their fellow brothers and sisters under God their lives would be better off than they are now and they would make better choices than they do now.

Just a guess, and I believe that is what we should do. Let God judge them when they die, we can treat them with dignity and respect, warm welcomes, smiles, acceptance, and love. It costs us nothing (unless we have a personal issue loving this segment of our brothers and sisters) and could prove to be very benefitial.

I’m able to do that, but I understand if others are not able to do that as there are some segments of the population I don’t think I would be able to do that with even though Jesus teaches me to do so, or at least that’s my understandng.

Love without expectations of them changing. If they change they change. If they don’t they don’t. I leave that to God and simply treat them with caring and brotherly love as we are both children of God and believe that is what Jesus wants me to do.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you this post of yours was a “response” to mine. Nothing on CAF that I have ever posted, including on this thread, contradicts the content of your post.

Many CAF’ers (not only I) have said what you have said, long before you said it. I’m glad that you also understand it. However, doctrinal corrections about doctrinal misunderstandings (or deliberate misstatements) by others do not qualify as lack of love.
 
Faithdancer said:
Being feminine is part of the natural order, and at least 50% of the human species is female. A very small percentage of the human population is actively homosexual, and since homosexuality contributes nothing of significance to the survival of the species, it is not part of the natural order. As far as literature which glorifies homosexual relationships, that is a pretty weak argument as there is plenty of “literature” which glorifies all kinds of abnormalities.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the argument you offered is from a secular standpoint. It is still true that more scriptures could be used against women than homosexuality, and were used. Many Christians, including my own mother, don’t find it objectionable that women are heads of states, can attend university, hold all sorts of public and political offices, are granted custody of their children, wear pants and smoke cigarettes, and live independently of a males if they choose. Where do they get this view that these things are acceptable? They don’t get it from the Bible. They have incorporated modern progressive thought into their religious beliefs without being much bothered by the apparent contradiction. It seems some Christians are slowly incorporating the modern progressive thought about homosexuality into their beliefs as well. The Bible says a woman should wear a head veil, should not adorn themselves, should not speak up in churches, and should be in subjection to their husbands and that is no less vague than the scriptures about man lying with man as an abomination and when Paul remarks about men burning in their lust for one another. We evolved because we have to, because we are no longer living in the tribal societies of the the ancient Israelities, and we must let our understanding of sex and gender be influenced by other sources besides the church and the Bible.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Fortunately, gender roles have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church’s position on homosexual behavior, which duplicates the position of Jesus as faithful to the Judaic moral code. Gender, though, has much to do with it.

Unfortunately, too many critics fail to understand this and/or rationalize their support for the mainstreaming of homosexuality as “normal” by resorting to the off-topic issue of the evolution of gender roles.
Click to expand...
It’s not the least bit off topic. You’ll notice that most people who supported women’s rights also defended homosexuality. Most male and female feminists defended the legitimacy of homosexuality from Jeremy Bentham and Bertrand Russell to Simone de Beauvoir and Virginia Woolf. They posed similar threats to the established order.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I have no idea why you this post of yours was a “response” to mine. Nothing on CAF that I have ever posted, including on this thread, contradicts the content of your post.

Many CAF’ers (not only I) have said what you have said, long before you said it. I’m glad that you also understand it. However, doctrinal corrections about doctrinal misunderstandings (or deliberate misstatements) by others do not qualify as lack of love.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I gave you that imprssion. I think I probably just quoted the last post in the thread, that’s all.

I’m all for doctrinal corrections if they work and if done for the correct reasons. If done to satisfy the emotions of the corrector, please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that is the intent of this intervention.

I think a lot of people find homosexuality to be a charged topic, and engage in doctrinal corrections for their own selfish reasons, whether they realize it or not. And if so, this is not coming from a place of love and therefore can have the exact opposite effect of a ‘correct’ doctrinal correction.

What do you think about that? Think there is any truth to it? There is the obvious where people holding signs saying “God hates fags” and lots and lots of more subtle forms. What do you think?
 
Bill_7154 said:
What do you think about that? Think there is any truth to it? There is the obvious where people holding signs saying “God hates fags” and lots and lots of more subtle forms. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think that Catholics do not hold those signs. I think that politics and moral relativism have more control over lives than our faith in many instances. I think that in threads on topics like contraception the faith is robustly upheld and yet few throw out terms like “hate” or “intolerance” or contraceptionophobe. Yet, in threads on homosexuality any defense of the faith or counter argument against the indoctrination of homosexual apologetics is termed uncharitable or it is said folks focus too much on this one sin or many other things that are used to divert attention from what is really going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top