S
Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Is having an agenda intrinsically bad?:
Quite right!!! Do gay people do anything without an agenda!!!
R
Rau
Guest
You ask “where is the condemnation”, but the example you give, which is horrendous, is 35 years ago, and this is rarely seen today. Murder of the innocent & especially hate crimes - when it happens - is universally condemned, and has been for a considerable time. Similarly for explicit forms of unjust discrimination. Condemnation is swift and clear, and the reason we don’t hear about it so much is that (thankfully) there is hardly anybody about arguing the opposing position - there has not been a “pro violence / pro unjust discrimination toward gays” movement of any substance for a very long time.
All of which is good.
L
lileli
Guest
Separation of Church and State. It is none of your business what happens in the court room.
L
lileli
Guest
Most gay people how no agenda other than to live their lives.
S
Sarah_B_Good
Guest
First of all, hate crimes against LGBT peoples still happen, even in the Western World, not to mention Africa and Middle East, especially. Many Americans know the name Matthew Shepard, but most do not know that the murder of LGBT peoples since that horrendous event, even in the West, number in the hundreds.
I think you’re missing the point completely. Many on this forum decry the state of our society for accepting gay relationships to the point of even tolerating gay marriage. We should not allow gay marriage, as a legal matter, they say. We should not approve of homosexuality, as a societal matter, they say.
What they do not say is that we have seen and know well the world they envision, because it is the one in which we were all raised. We know what it looks like. And it is a world in which, not only are gay people discriminated against, but even when they’re lives are taken in violence, there is no outcry of injustice when the sentence is obviously unjust.
And what explains this change if it is not acceptance? Did Christians, without provocation suddenly come to the realization that discrimination and violence against gay people is unjust? Or is this changing view in the West, prompted by the LGBT community, primarily responsible for this change?
Where would we be now had we never been challenged? And what makes you think there would have been any change if our society had not been persuaded and instead held strong to its view that homosexuality is sinful, evil, and worthy of condemnation?
R
Rau
Guest
That’s an outrageous statement with no basis. No one discusses “homosexuality as a societal matter”, unless that is a euphemism for extending marriage to encompass SSM. The wrongs of the past (principally) are not what the vast bulk of people who oppose SSM, and view homosexual acts as morally wrong, envision for the future.
A large chunk of society holds the view that homosexual acts are wrong, but has little interest in the private interpersonal relationships of others. So yes, there is a greater acceptance among those who have in times past acted, or might otherwise have acted wrongly, towards gay people. But you unjustly paint the debate as a war between just 2 sides: an oppressed minority and supporters on one side, with everyone else on the other side and made up of bigots, purveyors of hate, homophobes, murderers and others who egg them on. That’s an extraordinary mis-representation.
R
Rau
Guest
I’m not dismissing such acts, I simply noted that the situation in regard to anti gay violence is improved from what it once was.
E
estesbob
Guest
I don’t know of any time and the Church taught women were inferior. You are viewing things through the 21st-century lens where recognizing the different role men and women are called upon to serve is somehow viewed as discriminatory against women. In addition you’re comparing apples to oranges. One’s view womens role was never considered a matter of faith and morals The church never taught that not believieng women were inferior was a grievous sin.
If peole of faith who have embraced homosexuality whob have given support to the atheists with their changing definition of morality and discarding thousands of years of teachings and traditions in order to conform themselves with the demands of the current culture. They create a new version of god whenever the old version becomes uncomfortable to live with If god was really as inept as they would lead us to believe I would be an atheist also
E
estesbob
Guest
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
35 years is not really “a very long time” (it’s well within my adult lifetime and I’m in my 50s). And if there had been no gay rights movement and LGBT people had remained in the closet like most people here in CAF advocate, the violence and discrimination would probably still be where it was 35 years ago. It has also not completely disappeared in many places, especially in rural areas or in conservative parts of the US.
R
Rau
Guest
I have no argument with the fact of a rights movement that demands justice and respect for persons. Yes, people opposed violence and unjust discrimination. That is a good thing. But placing all the protagonists into just 2 camps, whereby all those who consider same sex acts as wrong, and SSM as wrong, are deemed evil homophobes and murderers and bigots, as the other poster did, is a gross fabrication and rewriting of history. See my post # 948.
L
lileli
Guest
I actually do see a difference myself. I was debating with a friend who told me there is no difference between arguing that homosexual acts are wrong vs. being homosexual is wrong. My main point to him was that at least with just arguing about the acts leaves the dignity of the person intact vs. arguing that they as a person is flawed is more discriminatory in my opinion. However, some people who argue against the acts do become overzealous where it is almost impossible to distinguish them.
R
Rau
Guest
If by “being homosexual” you mean “experiencing SSA”, then your friend argues nonsense. The Church is also clear on the distinction between SSA and acts.
Some people read the word “homosexual” to mean the person embraces the acts, as though to have the desire naturally means it is indulged.
I believe what your friend argues is not commonly believed, though the ambiguity of use of the word “homosexual” creates scope for confusion.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I can’t speak the rationale of the bishop doing something like that (assuming it’s even as described), but in any case, a lot of social activists don’t seem to mind blindly taking guidance and orders from more secular entities (like Hollywood, the mainstream media and politicians) who live in such places. In fact, about 40% of Americans are waiting in the on-deck circle to vote for people like that, and they spend millions of dollars seeing movies made by such people.
If anyone is looking for Pope Francis to cave into Western social liberalism just because he talks about the environment and helping the poor, they are going to be very disappointed.
E
estesbob
Guest
The left will turn on him with a vengeance when they finally realize the pope really is catholic
S
Sarah_B_Good
Guest
Surely you gest. Same sex marriage is not an issue that was dropped like a bomb on society. It is the result of a long fought effort for greater social acceptance and legal recognition of gay relationships. It only requires a short survey of the comments here on CAF to see the outrage expressed over the growing social acceptance of homosexuality which has lead to this moment in which we can even consider legal recognition of gay relationships with any seriousness.
My husband is still eligible to vote in Ireland and like many others, we flew home so that my husband could vote in the referendum. And we listened to much of the heated debate in the days prior to the vote. And what truly amazed me were all of the ssm opponents who were suddenly completely supportive of civil partnerships…people who were previously on the record as completely opposed to civil partnership when that was the issue under consideration. Only when marriage was on the table did they suddenly sing the praises of civil partnerships as if that had always been their position. It wasn’t. When it was non-discrimination laws…opposed. When it was a gay character on a popular TV show…outrage. When the issue was decriminalization…sacrilege. To suggest that no one discusses homosexuality as a societal matter is rather myopic.
And you are quite wrong. I have never attempted to frame the debate in the black and white terms you’ve suggested. Of course ssm opponents don’t envision discrimination, prejudice and violence against gay people as the ideal for the future. SSM opponents are not monsters. I know many people who oppose gay marriage who are good and decent people who would never wish harm upon any gay person, my gran being one of them, who has not an unkind bone in her body. But like many here, she decries the “decline of morals” that she views as leading to greater social acceptance of homosexuality. She misses the days when society disapproved of such things, and it “just wasn’t a problem back then.” I am not suggesting that my gran, nor anyone else who opposes gay marriage envisions or desires discrimination, prejudice and violence toward gay people. That is an extraordinary mis-representation of my argument. I am simply pointing out that this societal disapproval supports an environment in which discrimination, prejudice and violence are inevitable. People who are marginalized are always mistreated in the end.
S
Sarah_B_Good
Guest
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not discrimination and violence against LGBT people in sinful.
- Status