Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[Rau]

I’m not sure I can answer because I honestly don’t notice it being presented the way you describe it (ie, as a good). Regardless, I’m not sure I see it one way or the other…as I noted, for me personally it is a non-issue.

For “each of us, personally” - most of what happens in the world could be said to be a non-issue. Terrorism - not in my country. Abortion - not in my family. Starvation - not around here…

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;13874309:

Gay, LGBT, persons are being brought up to the point of obsession in the US by gay activists. I mean judges and “Bathroom Bills” is the height of lunacy, but LGBT activists are making sure laws get passed or overturned so they can engineer and “accelerate acceptance.” That’s the current goal. Just go an LGBT news site. You’ll see words like “attack,” “harmful” and “hateful.”

Nobody needs my permissions to live how they want but passing laws about who can use which bathroom?

There’s something to be concerned about here. Please don’t dodge the subject. Your kids are being lied to in public schools, and odds are, you don’t know.

Wake up everyone, here is what some people don’t want you to think about:

cnn.com/2013/06/24/us/colorado-transgender-girl-school/

Later, it will be discovered that encouraging this wrong thinking has harmed a child’s normal development. I say, stop the nonsense now. Don’t let others raise your kids

No gay agenda? I could provide a list of the current groups of engineers who are now targeting children in their war against reality.

Ed

ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-ideologys-completely-mad-attack-on-the-family-and-society

ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-separation-of-biological-and-social-gender-is-basic-error-of-gender/

Ed

 

[the_universal]

For “each of us, personally” - most of what happens in the world could be said to be a non-issue. Terrorism - not in my country. Abortion - not in my family. Starvation - not around here…

Could be depending on your individual situations/circumstances. But that’s not really what I mean. Same sex relations is both a personal non-issue and I do not see it as an issue in society at large.

 

[Thorolfr]

Do you support the unjust discrimination inherent in those unions? Are you aware that they are unavailable to same sex siblings? Why?

They are unavailable to siblings because civil unions are publicly characterised as a sexual relationship. What possible purpose could the government have in recognising and supporting two men in a relationship because it is understood to be sexual. How bizarre.

So you need to explain why you stand up for sexual relationships other than marriage.

If same-sex siblings did the same kinds of things that many same-sex couples do such as own a house and car together, have joint bank accounts, be liable for each other’s debts, have medical and legal powers-of-attorney for each other, share their lives with each other, be responsible for financially supporting each other in cases of sickness or being out of work, etc., I wouldn’t have a problem with letting them have civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities that such unions entail.

 

[the_universal]

the_universal;13874439:

ncregister.com/daily-news/gender-ideologys-completely-mad-attack-on-the-family-and-society

ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-separation-of-biological-and-social-gender-is-basic-error-of-gender/

Ed

I give the general population more credit I guess. the majority of problems and issues I see with threats to families are heterosexual marriage breakups due to infidelity, physical, and substance abuse and I believe these are orders of magnitude more important in addressing current societal problems than sex.

 

[Bradski]

edwest2;13874555:

I give the general population more credit I guess. the majority of problems and issues I see with threats to families are heterosexual marriage breakups due to infidelity, physical, and substance abuse and I believe these are orders of magnitude more important in addressing current societal problems than sex.

Nailed it.

 

[Rau]

If same-sex siblings did the same kinds of things that many same-sex couples do such as own a house and car together, have joint bank accounts, be liable for each other’s debts, have medical and legal powers-of-attorney for each other, share their lives with each other, be responsible for financially supporting each other in cases of sickness or being out of work, etc., I wouldn’t have a problem with letting them have civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities that such unions entail.

Siblings are denied such a union! Explicitly denied in law!

 

[Thorolfr]

Siblings are denied such a union! Explicitly denied in law!

Then maybe conservative Christians should start a campaign to get states to allow civil unions for siblings or non-related people in non-sexual relationships who agree to accept all the many financial and other responsibilities for each other that civil unions entail. I would vote to allow such unions.

 

[Rau]

Then maybe conservative Christians should start a campaign to get states to allow civil unions for siblings or non-related people in non-sexual relationships who agree to accept all the many financial and other responsibilities for each other that civil unions entail. I would vote to allow such unions.

Christians would suggest that a smaller, not larger, subset of sexual relationships ought to be of interest to governments.

 

[estesbob]

edwest2;13874555:

I give the general population more credit I guess. the majority of problems and issues I see with threats to families are heterosexual marriage breakups due to infidelity, physical, and substance abuse and I believe these are orders of magnitude more important in addressing current societal problems than sex.

Can’t we address both?

 

[estesbob]

Could be depending on your individual situations/circumstances. But that’s not really what I mean. Same sex relations is both a personal non-issue and I do not see it as an issue in society at large.

So you believe our Church is wrong about this? Is there a list of what teachings of the Church we can ignore since they don’t “affect” us

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m sorry, but no. It’s disordered and to approve it in any form would be to set a horrible example to younger generations. While I sympathize wholeheartedly with those people burdened with same sex attraction, I can not in good conscious as a loyal Catholic endorse it.

You misunderstood the OP.

You do not have to endorse what they do but they do have a right to be treated decently.

Would you walk up to them and verbally and/or physically abuse them because they are gay? Abusing gay people is not endorsed by the Church.

 

[Sarcelle]

Marriage is so messed up by heterosexuals I don’t think that’d actually make it worse what with many married people claiming the benefits of marriage and refusing to have kids.

Heterosexuals have also messed up marriage. No one is denying that. But when you find yourself in a hole it’s time to stop digging. The normalization of homosexuality digs us even deeper into the hole.

 

[the_universal]

So you believe our Church is wrong about this? Is there a list of what teachings of the Church we can ignore since they don’t “affect” us

I don’t think it’s about who is right or who is wrong. My opinion is that I do not view same sex as an issue or a threat to society or the family as the Church and some social conservatives view it. There are times when it makes sense to prioritize and pick battles. Also, what I see happening is an inordinate amount of anti-gay narrative that has surfaced along with the whole debate around marriage, trans issues/bathrooms etc.

I’m not sure I understand your question about ignoring teachings…I certainly don’t ignore teachings on marriage between a man and a woman (I support that). But I can’t think of any situations where my right to marry a woman has ever been “affected” by the acknowledgement or support of same sex relations, gender theory etc.

Marriages and families are breaking up all around us, children are being born without ever knowing a father. It’s an epidemic, and it has nothing to do with a so-called gay agenda. The real war that should be fought in our current society is a war on unfaithful, disrespectful, selfish spouses, whether they are heterosexual or gay. And we need to acknowledge the ones who are in loving, faithful, respectful, giving relationships regardless of sex. That’s my conscience, which I follow, and I like to believe that the Church would support me on that.

 

[the_universal]

the_universal;13874610:

Can’t we address both?

Of course. However, it is my opinion that the reward vs. effort and the ancillary benefits are infinitely greater by placing the emphasis on fixing what is wrong between men and women, their fickleness and distorted expectations of marriage, rather than on fighting/denying two loving, mutually giving people that may be of the same sex.

 

[clem456]

If same-sex siblings did the same kinds of things that many same-sex couples do such as own a house and car together, have joint bank accounts, be liable for each other’s debts, have medical and legal powers-of-attorney for each other, share their lives with each other, be responsible for financially supporting each other in cases of sickness or being out of work, etc., I wouldn’t have a problem with letting them have civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities that such unions entail.

That would be a no-brainer for tons of people, who are already living with family and would love to have these advantages. They are already carrying the responsibilities and if the government is going to affirm and support relationships generally, this would be a no brainer.

In any case, neither a sibling relationship nor a same sex sexual/romantic relationship is the same as the union of a man and woman, because without the union of a man and woman, you wouldn’t be here to talk about this.
The other unions have many good elements of relationships, but are not uniquely ordered to the good of human existence.
Right? Correct me if I am wrong
(this seems to be an ongoing problem on CAF and society in general, where this simple question is too difficult to address honestly)

 

[estesbob]

I don’t think it’s about who is right or who is wrong. My opinion is that I do not view same sex as an issue or a threat to society or the family as the Church and some social conservatives view it. There are times when it makes sense to prioritize and pick battles. Also, what I see happening is an inordinate amount of anti-gay narrative that has surfaced along with the whole debate around marriage, trans issues/bathrooms etc.

I’m not sure I understand your question about ignoring teachings…I certainly don’t ignore teachings on marriage between a man and a woman (I support that). But I can’t think of any situations where my right to marry a woman has ever been “affected” by the acknowledgement or support of same sex relations, gender theory etc.

Marriages and families are breaking up all around us, children are being born without ever knowing a father. It’s an epidemic, and it has nothing to do with a so-called gay agenda. The real war that should be fought in our current society is a war on unfaithful, disrespectful, selfish spouses, whether they are heterosexual or gay. And we need to acknowledge the ones who are in loving, faithful, respectful, giving relationships regardless of sex. That’s my conscience, which I follow, and I like to believe that the Church would support me on that.

You aware that the Church has told emphatically to oppose ,Civil Unins and so called same sex "marriage " ? From your post you seem to reject this teaching

 

[the_universal]

You aware that the Church has told emphatically to oppose ,Civil Unins and so called same sex "marriage " ? From your post you seem to reject this teaching

I understand the Church position and where it comes from. I do not feel obligated to oppose the union of two people who love each other and commit to a mutually giving partnership. I have made a choice to focus my attention on more pressing matters.

 

[estesbob]

I understand the Church position and where it comes from. I do not feel obligated to oppose the union of two people who love each other and commit to a mutually giving partnership. I have made a choice to focus my attention on more pressing matters.

why does it have to be in either or proposition.? But having said that I guess we are in agreement that you reject the church teaching on this issue?

 

[the_universal]

why does it have to be in either or proposition.? But having said that I guess we are in agreement that you reject the church teaching on this issue?

What do you make of it that many (actually one can make the argument that it is a majority in the west) Catholics have this view (i.e., the one that I am tabling)?