Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeldarocks2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SavannahGal said:
…I would point out, however, that you are attempting to making a distinction in the law that has not before been recognized. Even though the “nature of the event” is your stated objection, the end result is that gay couples are always turned away when straight couples are not. Under the law, that is clearly a discriminatory practice (in jurisdictions where currently prohibited).
Click to expand...
I am not “attempting” to make a distinction, I am clearly pointing out the distinction. It’s not recognized and should be. Objecting to what people do, and declining a commission to help celebrate it, is not the same as objecting to the person; it is not an unjust discrimination. The end result is only that SSM commissions are declined, not all gay people.
In the same vein, you may serve both black and white customers alike, but if you refuse to provide services for the interracial marriage of a black/white couple, you are practicing a recognized and prohibited form of racial discrimination.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you’re not suggesting that a decision to decline a SSM commission rests on the same ignorance as objections to interracial marriages? :eek:
 
Rau said:
I am not “attempting” to make a distinction, I am clearly pointing out the distinction. It’s not recognized and should be. Objecting to what people do, and declining a commission to help celebrate it, is not the same as objecting to the person; it is not an unjust discrimination. The end result is only that SSM commissions are declined, not all gay people.

I’m sure you’re not suggesting that a decision to decline a SSM commission rests on the same ignorance as objections to interracial marriages? :eek:
Click to expand...
So objecting to participate in any way in an interracial marriage is “ignorance” whereas objecting to participate in any way in a SSM is not?

That’s just your particular Catholic opinion, but if you asked some of the people at Bob Jones University (a Protestant university in South Carolina), I’m sure that they could give you scriptural reasons for opposing interracial marriage. Until they were forced by the government to change their policies, they forbade interracial dating among their students.
 
Thorolfr said:
So objecting to participate in any way in an interracial marriage is “ignorance” whereas objecting to participate in any way in a SSM is not?

That’s just your particular Catholic opinion, but if you asked some of the people at Bob Jones University (a Protestant university in South Carolina), I’m sure that they could give you scriptural reasons for opposing interracial marriage. Until they were forced by the government to change their policies, they forbade interracial dating among their students.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about refusing to participate “in any way”. Those are your words - a slight distortion Thor?

And how does Catholicism come into it? :confused: I never mentioned it! Oh wait, you did!

But since you did, the law does in fact recognise an individual’s right not to be compelled to act contrary to religious convictions. But one can’t get together a few friends, register the “Church of Uni-racial marriages” and find protections.

In the case of SSM, happily religious conviction aligns with rational judgement, and that fact may in due course afford protections.
 
Thorolfr said:
So objecting to participate in any way in an interracial marriage is “ignorance” whereas objecting to participate in any way in a SSM is not?

That’s just your particular Catholic opinion, but if you asked some of the people at Bob Jones University (a Protestant university in South Carolina), I’m sure that they could give you scriptural reasons for opposing interracial marriage. Until they were forced by the government to change their policies, they forbade interracial dating among their students.
Click to expand...
Ignorance in regard to interracial marriage is the same as ignorance in regard to the unique nature of male/female marriage.

Same ignorance and blindness to human nature.
 
clem456 said:
Ignorance in regard to interracial marriage is the same as ignorance in regard to the unique nature of male/female marriage.

Same ignorance and blindness to human nature.
Click to expand...
We don’t have to go back very far before most people would read that first part of the statement in a way in which you did not intend.
 
Thorolfr said:
So objecting to participate in any way in an interracial marriage is “ignorance” whereas objecting to participate in any way in a SSM is not?

That’s just your particular Catholic opinion, but if you asked some of the people at Bob Jones University (a Protestant university in South Carolina), I’m sure that they could give you scriptural reasons for opposing interracial marriage. Until they were forced by the government to change their policies, they forbade interracial dating among their students.
Click to expand...
In all sincerity, the argument was made. They have since changed their position.

In the 1980s:

law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/416/725
Students and faculty are screened for adherence to certain religious precepts and may be expelled or dismissed for lack of allegiance to them. One of these beliefs is that God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage. Accordingly, petitioner refuses to admit Negroes as students. On pain of expulsion students are prohibited from interracial dating, and petitioner believes that it would be impossible to enforce this prohibition absent the exclusion of Negroes.
Click to expand...
There are arguments from Scripture, on other sites, based on certain interpretations. Not my belief as a Catholic.

So conceivably, even though it wouldn’t be my belief, a cake baker or florist could try to make the same argument.
 
Bradski said:
We don’t have to go back very far before most people would read that first part of the statement in a way in which you did not intend.
Click to expand...
What is your point?
That people can be tragically wrong when subjecting human nature to opinion?
👍

Or is your point that past wrongs should cause us to stop using our brain in the present?
Would that make any sense?
One batch of stupidity does not justify a second, but that is where we find ourselves. History repeats itself unfortunately.
 
Rau said:
I am not “attempting” to make a distinction, I am clearly pointing out the distinction. It’s not recognized and should be. Objecting to what people do, and declining a commission to help celebrate it, is not the same as objecting to the person; it is not an unjust discrimination. The end result is only that SSM commissions are declined, not all gay people.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to make the argument for recognition of this distinction in a court of law…but you should know that others have certainly tried and the argument has been rejected as a distinction without a difference. And your incredulity will not change its privation of legal merit.

The key point you seem to be missing is that the pertinent characteristic distinguishing a SSM from a heterosexual one is the sexual orientation of the participants. Suggesting that you don’t discriminate against gay people, you just don’t do same sex weddings is like arguing that you don’t discriminate against Catholics, you just don’t do Catholic weddings; or you don’t discriminate against people on the basis of race, you just don’t do inter-racial weddings; or you don’t discriminate against straight people, you just don’t do heterosexual weddings.
I’m sure you’re not suggesting that a decision to decline a SSM commission rests on the same ignorance as objections to interracial marriages? :eek:
Click to expand...
What I am suggesting is that it’s irrelevant. The government is not in the business of regulating peoples’ beliefs. I’m simply asking you to consider the precedent a judicial decision in your favor would set. Indignation is hardly an adequate response.
 
SavannahGal said:
You are welcome to make the argument for recognition of this distinction in a court of law…but you should know that others have certainly tried and the argument has been rejected as a distinction without a difference. And your incredulity will not change its privation of legal merit.

The key point you seem to be missing is that the pertinent characteristic distinguishing a SSM from a heterosexual one is the sexual orientation of the participants. Suggesting that you don’t discriminate against gay people, you just don’t do same sex weddings is like arguing that you don’t discriminate against Catholics, you just don’t do Catholic weddings; or you don’t discriminate against people on the basis of race, you just don’t do inter-racial weddings; or you don’t discriminate against straight people, you just don’t do heterosexual weddings.

What I am suggesting is that it’s irrelevant. The government is not in the business of regulating peoples’ beliefs. I’m simply asking you to consider the precedent a judicial decision in your favor would set. Indignation is hardly an adequate response.
Click to expand...
False response. Two people of the same sex cannot get married. A legal fiction does not change that. Remember, here you will get the Catholic Answer, which is not an opinion.

usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm

Ed
 
SavannahGal said:
…The key point you seem to be missing is that the pertinent characteristic distinguishing a SSM from a heterosexual one is the sexual orientation of the participants.
Click to expand...
Would the videographer object to filming the 100th birthday party of a gay man? The objection that SSM evokes rests on a profound objection and rejection of SSM and same sex sexual relations as worthy of State endorsement and public celebration. The videographer discriminates justly. I believe you have so swallowed the idea that SSM is a “human right”, a natural and just thing (which is just what the law presumes all should accept) that you equate rejecting the act (event) with rejecting the persons. A good chunk of society is in the same boat with you!
The government is not in the business of regulating peoples’ beliefs.
Click to expand...
We may have been entitled once to believe that, but now we have government tell us marriage is possible between two men! And requiring us to go along with it. Then it tells us that 2 men is a natural basis for establishing a family, and that we must go along with that.
I’m simply asking you to consider the precedent a judicial decision in your favor would set.
Click to expand...
All fruits of the poisonous tree called SSM
 
edwest2 said:
I think Australia has a short and to the point message.

murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/3899133/request-to-fly-rainbow-flag-denied-by-council/
Click to expand...
That’s going to cause complaints. It was allowed the year before and the majority of people backed the decision then. murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/3469999/flag-rises-above-contention/

Support for SSM in Australia is running at something like 3 to 1. It is generally accepted that when the country votes on it later this year, it will pass with a very large majority indeed.

‘This week, an Essential poll showed a people’s vote on same-sex marriage rather than a parliamentary vote was supported 66 per cent to 23 per cent’ theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-election-2016-samesex-marriage-plebiscite-pause-for-poll/news-story/0210edad67c41715ca3a03ba8e530ce7
 
the_universal said:
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)?
Click to expand...
A Priest told me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people” I believe that this Priest is
correct; unfortunately he also believes this to be true. The Magisterium at one time agree to the
“earthly fact” that the sun circled the earth in time they corrected this error. I know that in the Lord’s
time He will have this error corrected by the Magisterium. I believe the Magisterium encouraging
confused individuals to believe they are something that doesn’t exist a much more harmful error.

The first thing one must discern is God real; if someone believes there is no God then is anyone’s
morality better that anyone else’s? I would say no.

If one accepts the Truth of God then one must decide if they follow the Lord’s Morality or set up a
morality of their own. I believe following the Lord’s Morality is the better path.

How do we know God’s Morality? Jesus established the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church to be the
keeper of the Sacred Deposit of Faith this Faith is eternal and unchangeable.

Is exclusive same sex attraction(SSA) in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

I believe exclusive same sex attraction is not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Why?

I believe the Church should be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith based on CCC 84:

The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture
and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its
pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and
the prayers. So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a
remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”

Does the Sacred Deposit of Faith reference an exclusive SSA? No

Does the Sacred Deposit of Faith reference SSA and SS behavior? Yes

See Genesis 18; 19. While the SSA and SS behavior are offensive to the Lord, it is the lack of righteousness that
brought the men of Sodom to SSA and SS behavior; which is the reason the Lord destroyed Sodom. No exclusive
SSA.

See Romans 1:18-32. Here St. Paul explains how rejection of the Lord allows people to fall into SSA and SS
behavior and other sinful behavior. No exclusive SSA.

See the book of Jude. Here St. Jude talks directly about preserving the Sacred Deposit of Faith which is already
being attacked at the birth of the Church and references Sodom as to what can happen when we turn from the
Lord and the Sacred Deposit of Faith. No exclusive SSA.

See 2 Peter 2. Like St. Jude St. Peter warns against separation from the Lord and the Sacred Deposit of Faith and
reference to Sodom as a consequence. No exclusive SSA.

I have been told by numerous people that this mythical “homosexual person” is a proven scientific fact. Most
refuse to present this scientific “evidence”. When pushed to supply substance I am told of a study based on
brainwaves of people watching SS pornography and another looking at brain structure that the author admits is
not conclusive. I believe these studies are neither substantive nor conclusive.

This “new” teaching by the Magisterium replaces separation from the Lord with some amorphic “psychological
genesis”(2357)

2358(CCC) originally said:
“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”
The present version says:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”
Clearly the Magisterium recognized the error of the overt statement but left the obvious sentiment that is
in 2357-2359 of the CCC.

I believe The Lord calls us to Faith and Truth not to a blind faith. Hiding behind “Church teaching” if the
Magisterium is blinded by political correctness, or whatever the case here, only serves the evil one not the Lord.
The Magisterium refuses to address my concern. People can rationalize their view however they want to ease
their conscience Satan will give more help than we need even if we don’t ask, Satan is a convincing liar.

Does the Church’s new “exclusive homosexual person” exist?

I don’t think so. I believe the Magisterium should correct this error for the Lord and refrain from encouraging
confused individuals to believe they are a mythical “homosexual person” with an exclusive SSA. I believe the
Magisterium is not serving the Lord or His Church in this instance.

In the Gospel of Lk 18:8 Jesus asks a question:

“But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Before now I would have never thought the Lord was referring to the Magisterium.

In all sincerity I ask; who does this Magisterium serve?

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
A Priest told me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people” I believe that this Priest is
correct; unfortunately he also believes this to be true. The Magisterium at one time agree to the
“earthly fact” that the sun circled the earth in time they corrected this error. I know that in the Lord’s
time He will have this error corrected by the Magisterium. I believe the Magisterium encouraging
confused individuals to believe they are something that doesn’t exist a much more harmful error.

The first thing one must discern is God real; if someone believes there is no God then is anyone’s
morality better that anyone else’s? I would say no.

If one accepts the Truth of God then one must decide if they follow the Lord’s Morality or set up a
morality of their own. I believe following the Lord’s Morality is the better path.

How do we know God’s Morality? Jesus established the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church to be the
keeper of the Sacred Deposit of Faith this Faith is eternal and unchangeable.

Is exclusive same sex attraction(SSA) in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith?

I believe exclusive same sex attraction is not in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Why?

I believe the Church should be in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith based on CCC 84:

The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture
and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its
pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and
the prayers. So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a
remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”

Does the Sacred Deposit of Faith reference an exclusive SSA? No

Does the Sacred Deposit of Faith reference SSA and SS behavior? Yes

See Genesis 18; 19. While the SSA and SS behavior are offensive to the Lord, it is the lack of righteousness that
brought the men of Sodom to SSA and SS behavior; which is the reason the Lord destroyed Sodom. No exclusive
SSA.

See Romans 1:18-32. Here St. Paul explains how rejection of the Lord allows people to fall into SSA and SS
behavior and other sinful behavior. No exclusive SSA.

See the book of Jude. Here St. Jude talks directly about preserving the Sacred Deposit of Faith which is already
being attacked at the birth of the Church and references Sodom as to what can happen when we turn from the
Lord and the Sacred Deposit of Faith. No exclusive SSA.

See 2 Peter 2. Like St. Jude St. Peter warns against separation from the Lord and the Sacred Deposit of Faith and
reference to Sodom as a consequence. No exclusive SSA.

I have been told by numerous people that this mythical “homosexual person” is a proven scientific fact. Most
refuse to present this scientific “evidence”. When pushed to supply substance I am told of a study based on
brainwaves of people watching SS pornography and another looking at brain structure that the author admits is
not conclusive. I believe these studies are neither substantive nor conclusive.

This “new” teaching by the Magisterium replaces separation from the Lord with some amorphic “psychological
genesis”(2357)

2358(CCC) originally said:
“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”
The present version says:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”
Clearly the Magisterium recognized the error of the overt statement but left the obvious sentiment that is
in 2357-2359 of the CCC.

I believe The Lord calls us to Faith and Truth not to a blind faith. Hiding behind “Church teaching” if the
Magisterium is blinded by political correctness, or whatever the case here, only serves the evil one not the Lord.
The Magisterium refuses to address my concern. People can rationalize their view however they want to ease
their conscience Satan will give more help than we need even if we don’t ask, Satan is a convincing liar.

Does the Church’s new “exclusive homosexual person” exist?

I don’t think so. I believe the Magisterium should correct this error for the Lord and refrain from encouraging
confused individuals to believe they are a mythical “homosexual person” with an exclusive SSA. I believe the
Magisterium is not serving the Lord or His Church in this instance.

In the Gospel of Lk 18:8 Jesus asks a question:

“But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Before now I would have never thought the Lord was referring to the Magisterium.

In all sincerity I ask; who does this Magisterium serve?

God bless
Click to expand...
Church teaching is quite clear.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

God bless,
Ed
 
jjr9 said:
…Is exclusive same sex attraction(SSA) in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith?
Click to expand...
Probably not a lot of research into human behaviours and afflictions happening in those days…🤷
Does the Sacred Deposit of Faith reference an exclusive SSA? No
Click to expand...
Does the absence of describing that experience tell us anything? No. Other than…probably not a lot of research into human behaviours and afflictions happening in those days…🤷
This “new” teaching by the Magisterium replaces separation from the Lord with some amorphic “psychological genesis”(2357)
Click to expand...
There was a time when all manner of afflictions were put down to “unclean spirits” and /or evil choices of the afflicted.
2358(CCC) originally said:
“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”
The present version says:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”
Clearly the Magisterium recognized the error of the overt statement.
Click to expand...
Or maybe “they do not choose” was seen to be ambiguous, given many choose to embrace their SSA? After all - I embrace my attraction to women, and in that sense I “choose” it - but I did not ever “choose” to be attracted to girls. It simply arose.
The Magisterium refuses to address my concern.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: This is telling. Perhaps humility is called for?
 
Zeldarocks2 said:
I believe we need to live and let live. Fine, don’t call it marriage, but I’m fully in support of Civil Unions, as is my Parish Priest.
Click to expand...
I hope you see the irony in this, yes?

Your opening statement actually contravenes your “live and let live” mantra.

One cannot have it both ways, Zelda.

Either, we “need” to do something to thwart injustice…

OR, we need to “live and let live”.

The 2 cannot co-exist.

Unless, by “live and let live” you mean “for things which I think are ok and if you don’t, well…”
 
estesbob said:
When he was lawyer Abraham Lincoln asked a witness “If a tail were a leg how many legs would a horse have”? The witness replied “5”. “Wrong” said Abe" “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
Click to expand...
#truth

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top