Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[USMC_Convert]

1 Corinthians 6:9 “Or do you not know that wrong doers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men…”

St Paul goes on to say that it is not up to us to judge non believers God will judge them, but correct and judge our brothers and sisters in The Church.

Either way you have to love them!!!

 

[jjr9]

If the “homosexual person” is a myth, then are we to understand that no one really experiences attractions to the same sex, often with an absence of attraction to the opposite sex? Are these persons - many of them Catholics striving to live a chaste life, praying daily for their affliction to be lifted - lying about their experience?

Or are we to understand that nothing afflicts such persons other than a little confusion that could be resolved by…what? A good talking to? A refresher course on the birds and the bees? A review of Catholic teachings on morality?

The Church accepts that for many, their experience while of unknown cause is real, and rather than itself constituting a temptation (as you like to argue) exposes such persons to temptations of a particular kind - that fortunately most of us never have to deal with. [The rest of us are of course also prone to sexually based temptations.] The Church holds no position whatsoever about the potential for that experience to be changed by (an as yet unidentified) medical/psychological treatment.

The Magisterium is in error by claiming a group of people experience an exclusive SSA aka the “homosexual person” a myth.
Satan is a convincing lair.

SSA is real a temptation, SS behavior is real a sin and exclusive SSA is a myth.Believe whatever you like.

God bless

 

[Mike_Dye]

I’m not talking about those who say that Homosexual sex is bad, I’m talking about Westboro Baptist, Conversion Therapy/Reparative Therapy, Protestant Fundamentalism, etc.

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.

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.

Hey, Why not say sin is OK. It seems that that is the prevailing sentiment, and not only from the secular world. Just read the news, it seems that from the top down everyone is on the “do what you want bandwagon”, after all living a life following our Lords teaching might be difficult at times so everyone is absolved if they decide not to. I agree if you want to live a sinful existence you should have everyone’s blessing, ( I am not just talking about homosexual unions but rather sin in general). After all we don’t want to be thought ill of…do we?

 

[Rau]

The Magisterium is in error by claiming a group of people experience an exclusive SSA…

The magisterium does not “claim” this - it accepts the observation and conclusion of medical science on a matter of medical science! No doubt the magisterium also accepts that some people are asexual, but perhaps you feel that is a myth too? If one day, medical science determines that persons formerly claiming to lack attraction to the opposite sex and to experience it to the same sex were lying, or “mistaken”, the magisterium will accept that too.

SSA is real a temptation

Is opposite sex attraction a temptation too - or do particular temptations arise as a consequence of it? A person who experiences SSA will no doubt be tempted - in a particular way. I (having never experienced an attraction to a man of the kind I experience toward women) have also been sexually tempted - in a particular way. Our predispositions, our frailties, our weaknesses - are not themselves temptations.

Believe whatever you like.

A right we both enjoy!

 

[on_the_hill]

We aren’t going to get into that endless loop about how gay people don’t exist and the Church is wrong to say they do, are we?

 

[the_universal]

In my humble opinion, same sex relations (whether it’s a union or homosexual acts) is a non-issue and needs to be toned down as far as it being constantly brought up to the point of obsession.

Same sex couples (in the country where I live) represent less than 1% of the total population. this has probably always been the case and probably always will be. Same sex couples are not taking over (contrary to what you see on the internet from various sources) and (sorry), but there’s no gay agenda. As a heterosexual married man, there’s no threat to me by allowing same sex unions or marriage. For me, there’s more important things to be concerned about.

 

[djames99]

A marriage ceremony within Christ’s only sanctioned Church is what the world needs to strive for, and was one purpose of his mission. The priest’s mandate is also to do what he can to bring people back to the true Church, which includes the lay community participating in the only sanctioned matrimonial ceremony.

Your priest needs to do an examination of conscience. Christ does not condone lukewarm ministers, nor is it the priest’s position to establish De Fide policy. Please tell him privately, and if there is a negative answer, find 3 more people to come with you and re-state your position. If still obstinate, write the Bishop.

People marrying outside of the Church or in civil marriages is the defect to be corrected, not the norm.

There is two phenomena occuring with the HS issue as regards to marriage, and they follow in a specific order, the first a prerequisite for the latter. The first problem to address is the HS problem, and secondly, the proper marriage location for the *now changed *person and his opposite spouse.

 

[Rau]

In my humble opinion, same sex relations (whether it’s a union or homosexual acts) is a non-issue and needs to be toned down as far as it being constantly brought up to the point of obsession.

I note the topic is pretty popular in TV programs and the media generally. It’s presented as more than a “non-issue” - it is conveyed as a good. As a Catholic, is that how you see it?

 

[estesbob]

In my humble opinion, same sex relations (whether it’s a union or homosexual acts) is a non-issue and needs to be toned down as far as it being constantly brought up to the point of obsession.

Same sex couples (in the country where I live) represent less than 1% of the total population. this has probably always been the case and probably always will be. Same sex couples are not taking over (contrary to what you see on the internet from various sources) and (sorry), but there’s no gay agenda. As a heterosexual married man, there’s no threat to me by allowing same sex unions or marriage. For me, there’s more important things to be concerned about.

So as Catholics we should not be concerned about anything that does not affect us personally?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

If the “homosexual person” is a myth, then are we to understand that no one really experiences attractions to the same sex, often with an absence of attraction to the opposite sex? Are these persons - many of them Catholics striving to live a chaste life, praying daily for their affliction to be lifted - lying about their experience?

Or are we to understand that nothing afflicts such persons other than a little confusion that could be resolved by…what? A good talking to? A refresher course on the birds and the bees? A review of Catholic teachings on morality?

The Church accepts that for many, their experience while of unknown cause is real, and rather than itself constituting a temptation (as you like to argue) exposes such persons to temptations of a particular kind - that fortunately most of us never have to deal with. [The rest of us are of course also prone to sexually based temptations.] The Church holds no position whatsoever about the potential for that experience to be changed by (an as yet unidentified) medical/psychological treatment.

John’s position is simply that it wasn’t necessary for the Church to specifically use the phrase that equates a homosexual action with a person as person, which it copied from Freud and Kinsey (conforming to a worldly category), while Jesus and the Apostles saw persons as persons however varyingly “wedded” or not “wedded” to their acts. Jesus for example said things like “sin no more” and St Paul calls on people who have already come into the church - not a fashionable move - to manifest fruits of new life. They don’t tell anyone to be what they are not!

This in no way negates your position indeed.

Also I like your last sentence because the contrast which ZR2 picked out is that there is no specific value for church purposes in the “being” aspects of the “orientation” that so many people make such a useless fuss about these days (“doing” would include planning and the like). It is only certain self-appointed splinters away from Catholic and Protestant churches that do so.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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.

This very relevant and is a horrendous injustice.

As sex in marriage is private, benefits in relationships that aren’t marriage, considered equivalent to benefits in marriage, must be open to everybody or nobody.

 

[jjr9]

John’s position is simply that it wasn’t necessary for the Church to specifically use the phrase that equates a homosexual action with a person as person

Actually my point is that the Magisterium is presenting what is false to be True. That a group of
people experience exclusive SSA, aka the mythical “homosexual person”.

God bless

 

[Rau]

John’s position is simply that it wasn’t necessary for the Church to specifically use the phrase that equates a homosexual action with a person.

His “position” is rather more than simply a dislike for the adoption of a label. He denies that there is anything operative in homosexuality other than a bit of confusion and temptation to wrong acts. He denies that some persons experience SSA to the exclusion of opposite sex attraction, and falsely asserts that it is the Church “claiming” this to be the case, rather than medical science, accepted by the Church. He criticises the Church for exhorting us to act justly and with respect toward people experiencing SSA (apparently society’s historical treatment of these people offered no basis to single them out in this way ).

I’d have no issue with his posts were they limited to the point you highlighted.

 

[edwest2]

In my humble opinion, same sex relations (whether it’s a union or homosexual acts) is a non-issue and needs to be toned down as far as it being constantly brought up to the point of obsession.

Same sex couples (in the country where I live) represent less than 1% of the total population. this has probably always been the case and probably always will be. Same sex couples are not taking over (contrary to what you see on the internet from various sources) and (sorry), but there’s no gay agenda. As a heterosexual married man, there’s no threat to me by allowing same sex unions or marriage. For me, there’s more important things to be concerned about.

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

 

[the_universal]

I note the topic is pretty popular in TV programs and the media generally. It’s presented as more than a “non-issue” - it is conveyed as a good. As a Catholic, is that how you see it?

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.

 

[the_universal]

So as Catholics we should not be concerned about anything that does not affect us personally?

I’m only speaking for myself about this particular issue. I think I noted that for me, it is a non-issue and that in my opinion there are bigger fish to fry. I understand people do not agree with my position and that church does not agree with me either. I’m OK with that.

 

[Ignatius]

Men don’t belong in girls bathrooms.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Actually my point is that the Magisterium is presenting what is false to be True. That a group of
people experience exclusive SSA, aka the mythical “homosexual person”.

God bless

Rau and I don’t know where you got “exclusive” from other than that the Vatican document concerned spoke of both “exclusive” and “non-exclusive” and used the phrase we all three are critiquing to refer to both, thereby proving the point I described you as making.

(It is indeed irrelevant whether these attractions per se are “exclusive” or “non-exclusive”.)

The Vatican apparently agrees with us on non-discrimination but seriously weakens the point with its categories as I argued and I think you do too. Hence the Vatican has contributed somehow to creating a bad impression.

Hoping this helps us contribute to ZR2’s thread!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

To recap:

Some of the affected people may call themselves “homosexual persons” (or a paraphrase) but as a category it is not operative grounds for the stance of the Vatican on non-discrimination in its context. Operative grounds are “people experiencing SSA whether acted out or not”, which is the grouping the people concerned understand. (Acting out supposed to be in private, and genuinely as opposed to merely nominally consensual.)

Hence Jesus’ and the Apostles’ language would have highlighted the operative issues in non-discrimination much more helpfully to absolutely everybody (not actually needing to comment, itself, at all, one way or another, on any various usages of the phrase “homosexual persons”).

 

[the_universal]

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/QUOTE

Can you tell me what this gay agenda’s purpose is and what it is doing to society? Do you think it is to try and make more people gay?