Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[jjr9]

Is it your understanding that the sacred deposit of faith incorporates an enumeration of all the conditions that may afflict we humans. I don’t believe it does.

What I believe is that if what the Magisterium whats to claim is not objectively true, it must be
based on Faith and as such must be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith the mythical
“homosexual person” is not objectively true and not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
You can use evasion and avoid the issue.

I thought you said the persons experiencing SSA were just confused. You seem to be suggesting something else now…

As I have said anyone who believes they are incapable of OSA is confused. If you specify what
“something else now” is, I could comment.

And by the way, here’s a News Flash: Good and faithful Catholics experience SSA. Yet, they acknowledge God and pray to him daily. Pray to stay strong and live well. There are some such persons who post here on CAF. Good people. How can this be jjr9?

I understand that people struggle with the temptation of SSA and my prayers are with them this
does not mean that they experience exclusive SSA. I believe that anyone who self-identifies as a
“homosexual person” is putting their will before God’s Will and the Magisterium is cruel to encourage
this.

What do you think of Bishop Sheen’s view on false compassion?

God bless

 

[kozlosap]

As a straight 63 years old, I can testify that I have never had any romantic or sexual feelings directed at another woman, so why on earth would I believe that gay humans must have feelings towards the opposite sex? Trying to make LGBTQ people fit into your own teeny tiny matrix just doesn’t cut it.

 

[Rau]

What I believe is that if what the Magisterium whats to claim is not objectively true, it must be
based on Faith and as such must be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith the mythical
“homosexual person” is not objectively true and not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
You can use evasion and avoid the issue.

As I have said anyone who believes they are incapable of OSA is confused. If you specify what
“something else now” is, I could comment.

I understand that people struggle with the temptation of SSA and my prayers are with them this
does not mean that they experience exclusive SSA. I believe that anyone who self-identifies as a
“homosexual person” is putting their will before God’s Will and the Magisterium is cruel to encourage
this.

What do you think of Bishop Sheen’s view on false compassion?

God bless

I think you are terribly confused jjr9.

 

[jjr9]

As a straight 63 years old, I can testify that I have never had any romantic or sexual feelings directed at another woman, so why on earth would I believe that gay humans must have feelings towards the opposite sex? Trying to make LGBTQ people fit into your own teeny tiny matrix just doesn’t cut it.

Can you define what you mean by “gay humans” and what is it that informs your belief?

I pray that those who believe themselves “LGBTQ people” overcome the delusion, I believe if they do
their path to Eternal Life will be easier.

God bless

 

[Rau]

What I believe is that if what the Magisterium whats to claim is not objectively true, it must be based on Faith and as such must be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith the mythical “homosexual person” is not objectively true and not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith. You can use evasion and avoid the issue.

The observations of what homosexual persons experience are not from faith; only a small fraction of the litany of conditions we fallen humans experience are referenced in the Scriptures or Tradition of the Church. By “homosexual person,” I understand that you mean a person experiencing a predominant or exclusive attraction to persons of the same sex. This seems to be an observation of reality, not an element of faith, nor mythical. You contrary view is merely your opinion - no one cares about that.

As I have said anyone who believes they are incapable of OSA is confused. If you specify what “something else now” is, I could comment.

This is just another opinion. I’m sure there are some who have experienced exclusive SSA and later found it was not a permanent condition. Some experience exclusive SSA and have found it to persist. I don’t believe the CCC speaks about what a person experiencing (exclusive) SSA are capable of. Who could answer that?

I understand that people struggle with the temptation of SSA and my prayers are with them this does not mean that they experience exclusive SSA.

Would it be best to ask such good people? They are the best placed to know what they are experiencing. We could as a man who has experienced SSA for many years, but remained chaste - “sir, in all this time, have you experienced any romantic interest in a woman?”

 

[jjr9]

The observations of what homosexual persons experience are not from faith; only a small fraction of the litany of conditions we fallen humans experience are referenced in the Scriptures or Tradition of the Church. By “homosexual person,” I understand that you mean a person experiencing a predominant or exclusive attraction to persons of the same sex. This seems to be an observation of reality, not an element of faith, nor mythical. You contrary view is merely your opinion - no one cares about that.

This is just another opinion. I’m sure there are some who have experienced exclusive SSA and later found it was not a permanent condition. Some experience exclusive SSA and have found it to persist. I don’t believe the CCC speaks about what a person experiencing (exclusive) SSA are capable of. Who could answer that?

Would it be best to ask such good people? They are the best placed to know what they are experiencing. We could as a man who has experienced SSA for many years, but remained chaste - “sir, in all this time, have you experienced any romantic interest in a woman?”

Satan is happy to give you as many rationalizations as you need to avoid confronting an issue.
Your rationalizations are not my concern.

If what the Magisterium wants to claim is not objectively true, it must be based on Faith and as
such must be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith the mythical “homosexual person” is
not objectively true and not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Do you have anything beyond rationalization to bolster the Magisterium’s claim?

We can agree to disagree.

God bless

 

[Rau]

…Your rationalizations are not my concern.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. If you can explain further, maybe I can respond.

If what the Magisterium wants to claim is not objectively true…

How did you discover that it is not true that some people “experience a predominant or exclusive sexual attraction to persons of the same sex”. Where do you turn for objective truths on matters such as this? [At least we agree this is not a matter of faith!]

We can agree to disagree.

Oh, I think we’ve disagreed from the time of your very first post on 24 June 2015. And so have an extensive list of posters disagreed with you, as they have set out the error in the conclusions you have tried to draw from the CCC.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I think we’ve disagreed from the time of your very first post on 24 June 2015. And so have an extensive list of posters disagreed with you, as they have set out the error in the conclusions you have tried to draw from the CCC.

Yes.

When folks say, after much discussion, that we should “agree to disagree” all that really means, IMHO, is that one’s views cannot hold up to scrutiny, but one wishes to persist in these views…despite being unable to defend them.

Then the appeal to “agree to disagree” is presented.

The raison d’etre of this forum is to offer one’s opinions, refute those who disagree, and also consider the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Sometimes, when one is a servant of truth, one’s views will change based on the arguments being presented.

We can pray this occurs.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I haven’t been a part of this thread up to this point, but I’d like to point out a couple of things.

In all of the Middle East, North Africa, and a pretty good chunk of Asia, there is one country that stands out as America’s best and closest ally in the region. That would be Israel, of course. As it so happens, Tel Aviv is the first city in all of Asia that ever hosted a gay pride parade, it’s been happening since the late 90’s and it’s helped to put Tel Aviv on the map as one of the most gay-friendly and gay-tolerant cities in the world, and it’s certainly become a giant magnet for anyone in an otherwise-oppressed region. Here’s a Wiki. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_Pride

In the event that anything really comes of democracy and secularism in neighboring countries, some other countries will inevitably wind up having a similar situation, and a similar subculture will be able to survive and maybe thrive elsewhere. For now though, we don’t have too many examples in the region, but the main point is this: Our closest allies, basically everyone that we trust and think of as Good Guys, allow for Pride Parades and the like to happen. Countries that we don’t trust, countries that we think of as Bad Guys, places that are authoritarian and extremely restrictive- this is exactly the type of thing that is incredibly restricted, and it gets people killed. Usually for religious reasons, too.

Now, we aren’t hoping for democracy and liberalism and secularism just so Pride events can happen. That’s not the main goal. But it is a by-product that predictably comes to pass once people’s rights and freedoms are generally secured and a region is ruled in a less authoritarian manner.

That doesn’t mean all Christians should feel obligated to support anything or everything LGBT, or attend Pride or anything like that. But we should keep in mind that permitting these types of things- even if we disagree with it, while not hurting or killing people- actually is a part of what’s woven into the fabric of what we believe to be right and good.

The other thing I want to point out is that just recently, a somewhat-ISIS-inspired angry Muslim shot up a gay nightclub in Orlando pretty badly, to the point where this is the most deadly mass shooting in American history. Christians should not hesitate to focus on our common humanity, our shared values, and to some extent our sense of nationalism that connects us. Do we support an LGBT lifestyle, or same sex marriage, or homosexual relations? No we do not, but right now in this situation it doesn’t matter, at least not in the sense that it should stop us for one second from grieving this tragedy as we would any other.

 

[lemongrass80]

Yes.

When folks say, after much discussion, that we should “agree to disagree” all that really means, IMHO, is that one’s views cannot hold up to scrutiny, but one wishes to persist in these views…despite being unable to defend them.

Then the appeal to “agree to disagree” is presented.

The raison d’etre of this forum is to offer one’s opinions, refute those who disagree, and also consider the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Sometimes, when one is a servant of truth, one’s views will change based on the arguments being presented.

We can pray this occurs.

Or it could be that someone is tired of discussing the topic, has other things to do, or the discussion has become very circular and/or deadlocked.

 

[PRmerger]

Or it could be that someone is tired of discussing the topic, has other things to do,

Then that’s what they should say.

Like this: “I am sorry, but my Great Aunt Minerva is coming in to town and I will be out of discussion mode for the next month”.

NOT: “Let’s agree to disagree”.

or the discussion has become very circular and/or deadlocked.

There’s always something new to say in a forum where new responses are welcome.

 

[jjr9]

Yes.

When folks say, after much discussion, that we should “agree to disagree” all that really means, IMHO, is that one’s views cannot hold up to scrutiny, but one wishes to persist in these views…despite being unable to defend them.

Then the appeal to “agree to disagree” is presented.

The raison d’etre of this forum is to offer one’s opinions, refute those who disagree, and also consider the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Sometimes, when one is a servant of truth, one’s views will change based on the arguments being presented.

We can pray this occurs.

You have not and cannot show substantive reason or harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith to
show the “homosexual person” is real.

God bless

 

[Rau]

You have not and cannot show substantive reason or harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith to
show the “homosexual person” is real.

God bless

Nor that the kleptomaniac exists. What can this mean?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I’ll even say that the Church is somewhat complicit at times. Now, I don’t mean that because we support traditional marriage, I’m talking about outright discrimination.

Why do we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment?

For your reasons and also, simply, because it leads to hatred, persecution, and murder. Because of events like in Orlando this week.

 

[kozlosap]

Even if the murderer turns out to be gay himself, this is still a hate crime, one of intense self loathing and hatred. When I watched Anderson Cooper read out the list of those poor victims, it was even worse than when I first watched footage of the event early Sunday morning. Most victims were between 20 and 25 and one was a Mom who went to dance at Pulse with her son. He survived, she did not.

 

[lemongrass80]

Then that’s what they should say.

Like this: “I am sorry, but my Great Aunt Minerva is coming in to town and I will be out of discussion mode for the next month”.

NOT: “Let’s agree to disagree”.

There’s always something new to say in a forum where new responses are welcome.

It’s a common thing to say when you no longer wish to continue a discussion. It does not mean that your arguement has no merit. If this is not how YOU wish to bow out of debates, you are free to use a different phrase.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a common thing to say when you no longer wish to continue a discussion.

I get that.

But it’s a really lame phrase.

And contrary to the raison d’etre of a forum.

And, again, it speaks this loudly and clearly: I cannot refute your arguments, yet I still wish to cling to my beliefs.

(This is, of course, a general statement about the phrase, “Let’s agree to disagree” and I am not making any specific comments about any posters here.)

 

[jjr9]

It’s a common thing to say when you no longer wish to continue a discussion. It does not mean that your arguement has no merit. If this is not how YOU wish to bow out of debates, you are free to use a different phrase.

What is your view do you have something with substantive reason or harmony with the Sacred
Deposit of Faith to show the mythical “homosexual person” is real?

God bless

 

[StudentMI]

What is your view do you have something with substantive reason or harmony with the Sacred
Deposit of Faith to show the mythical “homosexual person” is real?

God bless

Nor that the kleptomaniac exists. What can this mean?

jjr9, you haven’t addressed this. Or the fact that the Church hasn’t addressed nicotine addiction. Yet, when I have tried to quit smoking it’s not a simple thing: the urge doesn’t just go away. I know people who haven’t smoked for decades and they still are tempted to. But the Church, Scripture, the Councils etc. don’t address tobacco and nicotine. Does that mean I’m lying when I say quitting smoking is difficult and that my body feels different and craves nicotine?

What about alcoholism? St. Thomas Aquinas in one part of the Summa (I believe) says some harsh things about drunkards, things that modern day psychology would dismiss as inaccurate, and which my own confessor has said is not morally true. What about that? The Bible, Scripture, etc. don’t address alcoholism until the present day. Does that mean alcoholism is a myth?

Please note: I am in no way saying a homosexual is like an alcoholic, and I intend no offense. I’m just using these two examples for argument’s sake.

 

[jjr9]

jjr9, you haven’t addressed this. Or the fact that the Church hasn’t addressed nicotine addiction. Yet, when I have tried to quit smoking it’s not a simple thing: the urge doesn’t just go away. I know people who haven’t smoked for decades and they still are tempted to. But the Church, Scripture, the Councils etc. don’t address tobacco and nicotine. Does that mean I’m lying when I say quitting smoking is difficult and that my body feels different and craves nicotine?

What about alcoholism? St. Thomas Aquinas in one part of the Summa (I believe) says some harsh things about drunkards, things that modern day psychology would dismiss as inaccurate, and which my own confessor has said is not morally true. What about that? The Bible, Scripture, etc. don’t address alcoholism until the present day. Does that mean alcoholism is a myth?

Please note: I am in no way saying a homosexual is like an alcoholic, and I intend no offense. I’m just using these two examples for argument’s sake.

I find talking about alcoholism ect. a distraction because the Church does not address these temptations
individually and the Magisterium does not claim these temptations exclusive. The important point here is
that what the Magisterium whats to claim is not objectively true, that a group of people experience an
exclusive SSA, to be sure SSA is a struggle for many.

Is SSA attraction some sort of super temptation that prevents OSA and the Grace of Our Lord is
not sufficient for those who prefer OSA to overcome? I do not believe this. SSA has been addressed
by St. Paul and some in the Magisterium want to change St. Paul’s teaching;

1 Corinthians 6:9

NAB 1970 edition

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites”

NAB 1986 edition

"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals”

NAB 2011 edition(current edition)

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;
neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites”

            This translation was changed and then changed back. The USCCB site has the NAB

2011 edition(current edition). The Vatican site has the NAB 2002 edition which has the same
language as the NAB 1986 edition. The implication being that St. Paul recognized that there
are non practicing “homosexuals” aka the mythical “homosexual person”. I find it sad that the
Vatican still presents this distortion of St. Paul’s view.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZB.HTM

Do you have something with substantive reason or harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith to
show the mythical “homosexual person” is real?

God bless