Why I believe many Gays turn away from the Church.

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Yes. I am correcting you. You wouldn’t know what my “intent” is or what the “intent” is of anyone on this forum, let alone of complete strangers not on this forum, about whom you presume to guess “intentions.” But if you had bothered to investigate, you would have seen abundantly that my posting history shows no such “intent.”

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.

Don’t include me in that group. One should worry about one’s own motivations, not about the motivations of others. CAF is replete with posters forever eroding the central doctrines of the faith, either by deliberately misleading or by showing ignorance. Some of those claim to be practicing Catholics; others admit no affiliation but seem to think that “the Church can change.”

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?

I have seen no evidence of that on CAF. You’re confusing Catholicism with some extreme forms of fundamentalist Protestantism.

As to “what I think” about the suggestion from you, or anyone, that they can decipher who is “selfish” and who is not, “what I think” is not printable. In any case, I’m not one of the people you are choosing to stereotype with no evidence.

Hvae a nice day.

 

[Bill_7154]

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.

Interesting perspective. Do you think there are other topics besides homosexuality that raise similar issues for Catholics? I certainly have no intention of ‘diverting’ anything. I was simply making an observation and I think there is truth to it.

There are plenty of catholics that have ‘a problem’ with homosexuals, and to deny this is to deny relaity IMO.

Who do you think are the main people who hold up signs that say ‘God hates fags’? And you realize that this is a reasonable one side of an extreme to make a point, don’t you? The other side of the point I was making is approaching someone from a loving place where there is no intent in their heart to satisfy their own personal needs with respect to ‘teaching’ homosexuals, and doing it only via the love of God. Yet you left that part of of your reply. I think that leaves you making comments on my post unfair. If you disagree, why so?

 

[Bill_7154]

Yes. I am correcting you. You wouldn’t know what my “intent” is or what the “intent” is.

Have you lost your marbles? I didn’t claim to know what your intent is or isn’t on any topic. But it is not wrong to point out that IF someone happens to do so for their internal reasons that is different than doing so on behalf of the love of God. And I don’t need to highlight my posts to make my points. I assume you can read. So read that and explain where I am wrong.

of anyone on this forum, let alone of complete strangers not on this forum, about whom you presume to guess “intentions.” But if you had bothered to investigate, you would have seen abundantly that my posting history shows no such “intent.” .

Who said I am guessing people’s intentions? Are you attempting to read minds and practice witchcraft here? Your response is quite bizarre. Again, I said nothing about your intent. Show me where I did smarty pants rolls eyes twice duh

Don’t include me in that group…

The group I am including you in is my ignore group. Have a nice day.

=

 

[demol]

Good post.

There seems to be a deal of hostility and/or resentment that some Gays have towards the Church (meaning Church in general).

startribune.com/local/west/171335631.html

Here is a news stories and I have seen similar ones in the past of someone who went on a bit of a vandalism spree against an assortment of Churches.

It just seems we are at an impasse in society on this issue.

I would post this story in the news section but it seems to minor of a story really.

And to clarify the story, Minnesota votes on maintaining the traditional or to my thinking I would say understood definition of marriage this November, that being that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Note, the accused person did his acts against basically Churches in general, various denominations, not all of these Churches are say for the Marriage Amendment (Marriage defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman).

And I’m sorry for this young man and I hope this situation is properly remedied.

The man that committed these acts is NOT gay, btw.

 

[Bill_7154]

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.

First of all i don’t know what a homosexual 'apologitic is. And I think there are many different perspectives that can be discussed, hopefully in a mature and respectul manner, even when people have a disagreement. I am not sure that we have any disagreement on this issue at all, but thank you for engaging me in a mature, adult like fashion without using intense emotionally charged posting. I find that unplesant and prefer to discuss and/or debate where all parties can either agree and/or disagree but remain plesant and respectful…agreeable in their manners if you will.

I am still pretty new here and have not noticed people claiming that anyone focuses too much on one sin over any other. The sins I happen to be most concerned with are my own sins.

And I’m still not sure what you mean when you say " any defense of the faith or counter argument against the indoctrination of homosexual apologetics is termed *uncharitable *". Do you mean that people tend to look down upon or frown upon people not taking a hard party line if you will against homosexuality?

And when you say " or it is said folks focus too much on *this one sin * your referencing homosexuality?

but what really confuses me, honestly is this “or many other things that are used to divert attention from what is really going on” I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people make excuses for homosexual behavior? I’m just guessing becaue I don’t know what you mean, and in order to continue the discussion I find it helpful for both parties to be clear on what the other means.

I found it too challenging to have a discussion with another poster who was putting words in my mouth. You, clearly, are not doing that. And as I said I do not even know at this point if we disagree at all as to ‘why many Gays turn away from the Church’ which is the topic of the thread… of if you were referencing a sort of side topic that arose, or you were raising, as part of the discussion. I’m not going to presume what you mean, I would perfer to have you explain what you mean, this way I will be clear on what you mean. I don’t like to make assumptions and try to avoid doing so, and if I do I try to state clearly that I am doing so, so as not to offend anyone.

Why do you believe many Gays turn away from the Church? I have my opinion on the matter and have posted in previously, as this is a long thread.

Aside from that, if you could clarify the above maybe we could have a mature and productive discussion on that specifically or any side issue that is connected.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Christinanz]

Let me ask you two questions: What do you think that believing in God would not allow your intellectual integrity remain and why do you subscribe to Catholic Answers if you disbelieve?
Maybe you are searching for answers.
I find this quite interesting.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

The Catholic faith does not follow the Bible only. We are not what people frequently call “Bible-alone” Christians.

The women speaking in Church is a reference towards women priests.

Man lying with man is an Old Testament passage, and there is numerous secular research on the ills of homosexual behavior.

As far as lust goes, that seems to be promoted as normal by the progressive movement you admire.

What you call “evolution” is not such. It’s just people from all walks of life trying to justify turning against God and turning to their own selfish desires.

, and we must let our understanding of sex and gender be influenced by other sources besides the church and the Bible.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Interesting perspective. Do you think there are other topics besides homosexuality that raise similar issues for Catholics? I certainly have no intention of ‘diverting’ anything. I was simply making an observation and I think there is truth to it.

And some of us think that there is very little truth to it in the grand scheme of Catholic belief and practice. I.m.o. the subject of abortion is far more incendiary. IOW, there is a contingent of Catholics (probably the majority) who are compassionate toward women who have had abortions, but among the minority I have read much stronger rhetoric than that concerning homosexuality for almost 4 years now on CAF, regarding

those who have had abortions
those politicians who support (or do not oppose) abortion
those Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicans
agencies (more than PP) which have any association with the business of abortion
doctors who perform abortions

There are plenty of catholics that have ‘a problem’ with homosexuals, and to deny this is to deny relaity IMO.

Again, why are you so interested in what a minority of Catholics – and it is a minority – may or may not have a “problem” with? Unless they are working contrary to the Catholic guidelines (catechism and other documents), whatever psychological hang-up they may or may not have should not concern you. Because even if they do have some obsession, the doctrine of the Church remains fixed, and needs to be restated every time (about every week, on average) CAF becomes invaded one more time by a poster condemning the Church for its doctrine on sexuality, denying what the doctrine is, or suggesting that any particular poster’s level of interest in the subject invalidates the Church’s doctrine.

Who do you think are the main people who hold up signs that say ‘God hates fags’?

I’m not sure why you have a hard time understanding what has already been said: It’s not a matter of who anyone here “thinks” are “the main people.” If you did your research, you wouldn’t have to question others repeatedly. The people holding the signs are certain fundamentalist Protestants. Not Catholics.

The other side of the point I was making is approaching someone from a loving place …

I’m not sure why you think this is a new idea. The Catholic Church herself has issued such spiritual advice in several documents from the Vatican and the bishops. The approach to individuals, as individuals, has nothing to do with restating doctrine when someone comes on yet another thread and once again challenges the legitimacy and the permanence of Catholic moral theology, such as happened on this thread, and such as what provoked a doctrinal response. Theology is not an emotional issue. It’s an objective issue.

 

[Gigmaster]

The ‘Christians’ you speak of are anything but. They adopt the trappings of Christianity in order to destroy it from within. There is no question that the Bible, in several places, strongly condemns homosexual acts, in the most certain terms, as did all of the old civilizations. It could not be any clearer. It is done in dozens of languages, so there is no doubt at all that if you are a true Christian, you must condemn homosexual behavior.

This does not mean that homosexuals should be persecuted. It goes back to the " Love the Sinner, but hate the Sin." thing. We should all pray for them, because their souls are in danger. If you are a Christian, then violence, and persecution is never an acceptable response. God will deal with them in his own good time.

Well they separate themselves from the God that you believe in. There are plenty of Christians that believe that a homosexual lifestyle is completely compatible with God’s teachings.

 

[Gigmaster]

You don’t think that gets done on a regular basis? No matter what faith you are, someone will tell you it’s wrong. But God blessed us (some of us, anyway) with the intelligence to create language, so that we can discuss our differences, not persecute each other over them.

Except no one wants to hear your opinions on what will send them to hell. Because that is all it is, an opinion. How would you feel if someone came up to you and said “you know, I think you are going to hell for going to Catholic Church…I don’t hate you, I just hate the sin of you going to Catholic Church. I am worried for your soul.” How would you view that person?

 

[nishkalank]

What is homosexuality ? Is it based on some genetic state and the desire to have sexual union with the same sex ? Heterosexuality is the acceptance that humans are created male and female and the sexual union is between one man and one woman for life( Of course civil laws grant divorce) Also the marriage is a sacrament and the family is the sacred unit of the society. The Church teaches the sexual morality wherein premarital sex and infidelity in marriage are sinful.
If some are homosexuals ,they are not hated by the Catholic Church, The Church teaches that such persons should be viewed with respect and they should be counseled and they shoube helped like anybody else. A homosexual can lead a religious life if that person loves to keep the faith and follow the teachings of the Church. He too like others subject to sexual morals. The propaganda that Catholic Church is against homosexuals is wroug It hates homosexuality as it is sinful

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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?

There’s another perspective on this subject. I have a friend who used to own a busy gas station. He supported the marriage initiative in Massachusetts which sought to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Two homosexuals started a website called “Know Thy Neighbor” on which they posted, and demonized, every person who supported the initiative. They targeted my friend and asked people to boycott his business. He was forced out of business in less than a month.

If homosexuals were not in every court in every state in the union demanding rights for themselves that do not exist, I might be more tolerant of them. If they were not the most intolerant people in the country, just ahead of the Ku Klux Klan, I might be more tolerant of them. If they were not determined to destroy all sexual morality in our country I might be more tolerant of them. Unfortunately, they do not allow me to be tolerant of them. If the bleeding hearts who have overrun my state, and the courts and legislatures from coast to coast, would do a little thinking for a change, perhaps we could have a serious conversation. As it is not, that’s not possible.

 

[demol]

There’s another perspective on this subject. I have a friend who used to own a busy gas station. He supported the marriage initiative in Massachusetts which sought to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Two homosexuals started a website called “Know Thy Neighbor” on which they posted, and demonized, every person who supported the initiative. They targeted my friend and asked people to boycott his business. He was forced out of business in less than a month.

If homosexuals were not in every court in every state in the union demanding rights for themselves that do not exist, I might be more tolerant of them. If they were not the most intolerant people in the country, just ahead of the Ku Klux Klan, I might be more tolerant of them. If they were not determined to destroy all sexual morality in our country I might be more tolerant of them. Unfortunately, they do not allow me to be tolerant of them. If the bleeding hearts who have overrun my state, and the courts and legislatures from coast to coast, would do a little thinking for a change, perhaps we could have a serious conversation. As it is not, that’s not possible.

“just ahead of the Ku Klux Klan”…Really?
“determined to destroy all sexual morality in our country”…and your evidence? I must have missed their manifesto stating this.
Wow…you’re right. With that vitriol and attitude you are in no place to have a serious conversation.

So they boycotted your friend’s gas station. They are the ones your friend is trying to deny rights to. Homosexuals are not asking for anything that would deny you your rights. Your friend has his opinion and apparently made it public. His mistake.
I’m sure you’re just as mad as those on this forum that ask to boycott McDonald’s or Starbuck’s or other companies that are pro-gay marriage…right?

 

[Bill_7154]

I have a friend who used to own a busy gas station…cut so my post would fit.

Very unfortunate for your friend. Did he publicize his support for the initiative at his gas station or do so in some public manner? I think that such occurrences are quite rare (a business owner being for or against such and such and someone starting a website against him that’s successful in shutting him down). I live in MA myself (I was born and raised here, this would not be the state I choose to live in otherwise, I am far from liberal myself). So I feel very sorry for your friend and can understand why you would take this issue so personally.

If homosexuals were not in every court in every state in the union demanding rights for themselves that do not exist, I might be more tolerant of them. If they were not the most intolerant people in the country, just ahead of the Ku Klux Klan, I might be more tolerant of them. If they were not determined to destroy all sexual morality in our country I might be more tolerant of them. Unfortunately, they do not allow me to be tolerant of them. If the bleeding hearts who have overrun my state, and the courts and legislatures from coast to coast, would do a little thinking for a change, perhaps we could have a serious conversation. As it is not, that’s not possible.

I agree that homosexuals, or at least the active advocates are quite outspoken. But I happen to know and am friends with 3 homosexuals and none of them participate in political activism and none of them speak of anger with the current laws, whatever. They simply talk about the things that other people talk about, at least while they are around me.

And I think there is a chance that your judgement is clouded due to the terrible thing that happened to your friend when you say they are ‘the most intolerant of people in the country’. My 3 homosexual friends are very tolerant. I’ve known a couple of lesbians from work. I had one such run in with one of them, my boss had to intervene in the meeting explaining that I was simply pointing out something and it was a non issue, the woman had an extremely defensive reaction to what I said and then sort of went into attack mode when she was basing all of that on incorrect assumptions. She was abrasive and am glad she no longer works there.

I also find it unfortunate that the homosexual advocates seek to push their agenda into schools, society, etc…making books like joey has 2 mommies, etc. But I must point out that tolerance, or lack thereof, is 100% completely YOUR CHOICE. Tolerance is like an emotion, and other people can not control our emotions (unless we allow it). Other people can do things, and we get to choose how to respond.

I was friends with an elderly black man, he happened to box in the olimpics with Mahammad Ali. He then became a psychologist. Very nice man. I remember him telling me stories about how some white kids would drive by yelling racial slurs at him, or someone would make a racial comment while he was in a bank or something (we are talking back in the 50’s and 60’s). You know how he responded? He would look at the person and say "My goodness, the eloquence with which you say that word N… is facinating. It sounds like music coming out of your mouth, did you take professional speaking or singing lessons to be able to pronounce words with such eloquence?

My point is, even if someone does or says something you find highly offensive (he did not find it enjoyable for people to call him racial slurs) YOU have the power and ability to decide how to respond. Most people in his position would display anger or rage. His philosophy, why get upset? If they want to be ignorant it’s their perogative. I’m not going to let it ruin my day. And when he did this to a person in a public place, the person would up sort of shrinking up to the size of nothingness out of embarrassment because they had no way to respond to him reacting this way.

Other people don’t control my emotions or the way I respond to their behavior, no matter how offensive. If they do, it’s MY FAILURE.

If the bleeding hearts who have overrun my state, and the courts and legislatures from coast to coast, would do a little thinking for a change, perhaps we could have a serious conversation. As it is not, that’s not possible.

What your telling me here is that because you (and I) live in a very liberal state, where things are unlikely to change, YOU are UNABLE to have a CONVERSATION with me about these sorts of issues? I find that interesting.

Another way of framing this is that you allow the bleading heart liberals, the courts and legislatures (who are unthinking) DECIDE FOR YOU TO NOT ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION. Do you follow that?

I think that it’s a shame your stuck in that way. But I can’t unstick you if you don’t want to be unstuck. Neither can my elterly black friend who was extremely successful in retorting racist comments during a time in this country when their was a lot of predjuice. And from what he tells me (and since I have practiced doing the same sort of thing) I know it is quite liberating. But the choice is yours. Yes, you have a choice (at least potentially you do) and choose not to exercize it.

How does it benefit you to allow others to control you like this? Something to think about, if you choose to.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

“just ahead of the Ku Klux Klan”…Really?

Let’s look at the facts. The homosexual activists I mentioned didn’t simply boycott my friend’s gas station, they ran him out of business. They took his livelihood away from him because be exercised his Constitutional right to sign a ballot petition to put a matter of importance to the general public on the ballot so the people could vote on it. Does that conform to your definition of tolerance? When was the last time the KKK did what they did to anyone?

“determined to destroy all sexual morality in our country”…and your evidence? I must have missed their manifesto stating this.

Not the only thing you missed. When I went to Hollywood some years ago to to work as an actor and writer, one of the first policy items I heard given to producers, directors and writers was ‘push the envelope.’ That meant go right up to the line of what was permissible and put a toe over it. If no one complained, you have moved the line. The Hollywood community, led by homosexual activists and the Disney Corporation, has been moving the line for 50 years to the point that today we see men dressing as women and homosexuals necking on prime time television. The vehicle is situation comedy, which makes it all fun and games, while the line is pushed farther and farther into the gutter and our sexual morals and mores become more and more irrelevant.
demol;9882333:

So they boycotted your friend’s gas station. They are the ones your friend is trying to deny rights to. Homosexuals are not asking for anything that would deny you your rights. Your friend has his opinion and apparently made it public. His mistake.

Not quite. The names of the citizens who signed the petition, which included mine, were on the public record which these very tolerant fellow citizens obtained from the State and used to damage the lives of people who disagreed with their agenda, while they demand tolerance for themselves. Your ‘too bad for him’ attitude is an unfortunate byproduct of radical liberalism

As to rights, my friend and I didn’t seek to deny anyone’s rights. if marriage was a civil right, you wouldn’t have to get a license to marry, would you? All we wanted was to put the matter before the voters and not let a rigged legislature and a corrupt court make the decision. Do you find something wrong with that?

Wow…you’re right. With that vitriol and attitude you are in no place to have a serious conversation.

Certainly not with you, who have no trouble misquoting, taking things out of context and coming to pejorative conclusions with no facts before you.

I’m sure you’re just as mad as those on this forum that ask to boycott McDonald’s or Starbuck’s or other companies that are pro-gay marriage…right?

Absolutely!! And, since you seemed to have missed it, next to major corporations, who have far more weight than any individual, my friend and I are individual citizens, citizens that homosexual activists, in their quest for tolerance, would like to see silenced. It’s their American Way.

 

[demol]

Let’s look at the facts. The homosexual activists I mentioned didn’t simply boycott my friend’s gas station, they ran him out of business. They took his livelihood away from him because be exercised his Constitutional right to sign a ballot petition to put a matter of importance to the general public on the ballot so the people could vote on it. Does that conform to your definition of tolerance? When was the last time the KKK did what they did to anyone?

Not the only thing you missed. When I went to Hollywood some years ago to to work as an actor and writer, one of the first policy items I heard given to producers, directors and writers was ‘push the envelope.’ That meant go right up to the line of what was permissible and put a toe over it. If no one complained, you have moved the line. The Hollywood community, led by homosexual activists and the Disney Corporation, has been moving the line for 50 years to the point that today we see men dressing as women and homosexuals necking on prime time television. The vehicle is situation comedy, which makes it all fun and games, while the line is pushed farther and farther into the gutter and our sexual morals and mores become more and more irrelevant.

Not quite. The names of the citizens who signed the petition, which included mine, were on the public record which these very tolerant fellow citizens obtained from the State and used to damage the lives of people who disagreed with their agenda, while they demand tolerance for themselves. Your ‘too bad for him’ attitude is an unfortunate byproduct of radical liberalism

As to rights, my friend and I didn’t seek to deny anyone’s rights. if marriage was a civil right, you wouldn’t have to get a license to marry, would you? All we wanted was to put the matter before the voters and not let a rigged legislature and a corrupt court make the decision. Do you find something wrong with that?

Certainly not with you, who have no trouble misquoting, taking things out of context and coming to pejorative conclusions with no facts before you.

Absolutely!! And, since you seemed to have missed it, next to major corporations, who have far more weight than any individual, my friend and I are individual citizens, citizens that homosexual activists, in their quest for tolerance, would like to see silenced. It’s their American Way.

First, they exercised their right to call for a boycott. Other people who apparently do not agree with your friend’s position chose to go elsewhere for their fuel needs. It’s much the same as your friend. He is promoting the denial of rights for homosexuals. Why should he be allowed to advocate against homosexuals but they not be allowed the same towards him?

Second, Hollywood? Really? That’s what you come up with? I couldn’t care less as that is not the issue. Are you implying that what Hollywood does the rest of the country follows? If you’re so swayed by television, maybe time to turn it off.

Third, if you’re proud of signing the petition, state that. Defend it. So these TWO homosexuals damaged your lives (not sure how they did this unless they are the only two that purchase from your establishments), please inform us exactly how these TWO did this? I’m sure you have evidence to support your claim.

Fourth, please point out where I misquoted you. I copied/pasted your words. And taking things out of context? Right, like stating, and I quote, “just ahead of the Ku Klux Klan”…What’s next? But I’m the one that made a pejorative statement (recall this: “demonized, every person…”)? No, you’re right, I’m the guilty one here.

Fifth, I did miss it. Where have you posted on behalf of the pro-gay marriage businesses that otheres on these forums are asking to boycott? Please show me or quit lying. I missed it…ok buddy.

Oh, and I checked the KnowThyNeighbor site and cannot see where it is exactly they called for a boycott of your friend’s business. Please provide a link.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

First, they exercised their right to call for a boycott., etc., etc., etc.

I’ve said all I need to say to you, sir. My message stands as written. For a clearer understanding of what I wrote, you might want to read it again, for content this time.

 

[fix]

Interesting perspective. Do you think there are other topics besides homosexuality that raise similar issues for Catholics? I certainly have no intention of ‘diverting’ anything. I was simply making an observation and I think there is truth to it.

There are plenty of catholics that have ‘a problem’ with homosexuals, and to deny this is to deny relaity IMO.

Who do you think are the main people who hold up signs that say ‘God hates fags’? And you realize that this is a reasonable one side of an extreme to make a point, don’t you? The other side of the point I was making is approaching someone from a loving place where there is no intent in their heart to satisfy their own personal needs with respect to ‘teaching’ homosexuals, and doing it only via the love of God. Yet you left that part of of your reply. I think that leaves you making comments on my post unfair. If you disagree, why so?

It seems you are trying to impute bad motves to Catholics that defend Church teaching by equating them with Fred Phelps tactics. Why?

 

[fix]

First of all i don’t know what a homosexual 'apologitic is.

It is defending the agenda. That agenda includes an attempt to normalize homosexual acts.

And I think there are many different perspectives that can be discussed, hopefully in a mature and respectul manner, even when people have a disagreement. I am not sure that we have any disagreement on this issue at all, but thank you for engaging me in a mature, adult like fashion without using intense emotionally charged posting. I find that unplesant and prefer to discuss and/or debate where all parties can either agree and/or disagree but remain plesant and respectful…agreeable in their manners if you will.

Just as an aside, I find it troubling that so many today are so concerned about perceived tone than the truth of the message. Are we adults or little children that run around with our fingers in our ears when they refuse to listen to things that make us unhappy?

I am still pretty new here and have not noticed people claiming that anyone focuses too much on one sin over any other. The sins I happen to be most concerned with are my own sins.

If you read a few threads on this topic you will see that several posters will claim that discussion of this topic happens because people are overly concerned about it. Yet, many other topics get as much concern and that accusation is not used.

And I’m still not sure what you mean when you say " any defense of the faith or counter argument against the indoctrination of homosexual apologetics is termed *uncharitable *". Do you mean that people tend to look down upon or frown upon people not taking a hard party line if you will against homosexuality?

I am saying speaking the truth about this topic brings accusation of being uncharitable because the hearer does not like the message.

And when you say " or it is said folks focus too much on *this one sin * your referencing homosexuality?

yes.

but what really confuses me, honestly is this “or many other things that are used to divert attention from what is really going on” I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people make excuses for homosexual behavior? I’m just guessing becaue I don’t know what you mean, and in order to continue the discussion I find it helpful for both parties to be clear on what the other means.

Yes.

I found it too challenging to have a discussion with another poster who was putting words in my mouth. You, clearly, are not doing that. And as I said I do not even know at this point if we disagree at all as to ‘why many Gays turn away from the Church’ which is the topic of the thread… of if you were referencing a sort of side topic that arose, or you were raising, as part of the discussion. I’m not going to presume what you mean, I would perfer to have you explain what you mean, this way I will be clear on what you mean. I don’t like to make assumptions and try to avoid doing so, and if I do I try to state clearly that I am doing so, so as not to offend anyone.

Why do you believe many Gays turn away from the Church? I have my opinion on the matter and have posted in previously, as this is a long thread.

Aside from that, if you could clarify the above maybe we could have a mature and productive discussion on that specifically or any side issue that is connected.

People turn away from the Church for many reasons. I cannot say there is one, or a few, reasons why homosexual persons reject Church teaching but like all sins people tend to reject teaching on sexual matters because they prefer to not stop doing what they want to do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is defending the agenda. That agenda includes an attempt to normalize homosexual acts.

Unfortunately, it is far more than this. It includes an attempt to elevate homosexual activity to a “sanctified” status parallel to that of heterosexual marriage. (Hence, “marriage” “equality,” juxtaposed.) The tactic is to surround the subject of homosexual behavior with heterosexual terminology (“monogamous,” “committed”) as if those (borrowed) terms radically recategorize the acts as fundamentally not what they are.

While the terminology has been lifted from the secular Gay Agenda, the lifting is being done, encouraged, and supported by heterodox Catholics on and off this discussion forum.

But the illegitimate terminology not only has no bearing on fixed Catholic moral theology, it also merely intensifies the sickness of it. The parallel can be applied to heterosexual cohabitation, wherein couples often claim their coupling is “just the same” as married cohabitation, on the grounds that their relationship is “monogamous and committed.” Except that all they have shown is that they are engaging in the same disordered (non-wedded) sexual behavior repeatedly and exclusively. The repetition of the sin and the exclusiveness of the sin does not reduce the gravity of the sin; the repetition multiplies it and the exclusiveness is irrelevant.

If you read a few threads on this topic you will see that several posters will claim that discussion of this topic happens because people are overly concerned about it. Yet, many other topics get as much concern and that accusation is not used.

Precisely. Any objective examination of the forum will reveal that truth.

I am saying speaking the truth about this topic brings accusation of being uncharitable because the hearer does not like the message.