I find that so often because I disagree with homosexual acts, I am said to “hate” active homosexuals. Have to say all the time, disagreement doesn’t equal hate.

The terms Jimmy’s reader mentions are, unfortunately, familiar to any of us who have spoken out in defense of marriage and the family. Those words are quick, easy ways for the other person to shut down the discussion. Once those terms are thrown about, you can be guaranteed that any fruitful conversation is over.

Thank you Jimmy for clearly describing the paradox of “intolerant tolerance”.  Why is it that so many people just don’t understand this (or rather choose not to understand this)?

I’ve been thinking about this exact subject (Although not just concerning homosexuality) for a while- I see references to ‘haters’ all the time, and well, they seem awfully hateful in general. (Blanket statement, I know)

Jimmy, that you oppose gay marriage and do so without hate in your heart, means that you are standing up for truth and actually acting out of love for them, even though they can’t see this.  Homosexual behavior mortally damages a persons soul, separating them from God.  A soul seperated from God is a soul in need of His love and you are standing up for God’s love; you are attempting to show them that by your position. Those that support behavior that is mortally damaging to someones soul oppose God’s truth-God’s love.  Opposing God’s love to the point of death, means an eternity without Him.  So, who is actually the intolerant, bigoted, hater?  Unfortunately, they are, and they just can’t see it. Now we better understand why Jesus said in Luke 22:34 “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”

Ah! This is a very common question that I’ve been asked when I say, “Gay marriage is wrong!” Well I myself am in a bit of a confusion as to where do you draw the line? When you say you don’t approve gay marriage, then comes the question do you approve anyone being gay? These two are interconnected questions and is a bit of a tug of war if you go to separate them and discuss it.

So in conclusion, it’s not what you feel towards them (hatred, bigotry, etc;), it’s more like, “For me, I believe this is wrong, so I don’t “approve” it.” And if someone else thinks the opposite of it, they are free to have their opinion on it. Personally, I think it comes down to the choice you make, right or wrong and this can be based on your Faith, morals, etc;

It’s the left exercising their freedom of speech while taking yours away. I believe that even most gay people don’t support this type of economic intimidation—it’s the crazies who love to try to intimidate people—power in their minds yet they hurt their cause.  So what if they call names—those that calmly speak the truth have always been attacked. The same thing happened to Jesus. As Our Lord said: “They hated the Master first, will they also not hate the servant?”. Those that call you hateful for expressing the truth are filled with hate themselves. Tell them the truth once and plant the seed of truth in their souls and turn and walk away - God will not hold you accoutable for trying. I respect the owner of Chick-Fil-A—he told the truth—and in doing so committed to picking up Our Lord’s Cross and carrying it for a ways—and the silent majority is behind him and grows weary of this silly crap. Show up at your local Chick-Fil-A on August 1 and keep coming to have a regular lunch that means something.

Agreed, most of the clambering of intolerance today is nothing more than sophistry, and not so clever sophistry at that.  More often than not, it’s a cheap intellectual club that people use to stop discussion and try and strong-arm the discussion in their favour, simply by its emotional content alone

Let’s play a game of word substitution.

“I find that so often because I disagree with Catholic acts, I am said to “hate” active Catholics. Have to say all the time, disagreement doesn’t equal hate.”

“Jimmy, that you oppose <Catholic> marriage and do so without hate in your heart, means that you are standing up for truth and actually acting out of love for them, even though they can’t see this.  <Catholic> behavior mortally damages a persons soul, separating them from God.  A soul seperated from God is a soul in need of His love and you are standing up for God’s love; you are attempting to show them that by your position. Those that support behavior that is mortally damaging to someones soul oppose God’s truth-God’s love.  Opposing God’s love to the point of death, means an eternity without Him.  So, who is actually the intolerant, bigoted, hater?”

“Ah! This is a very common question that I’ve been asked when I say, “Catholic marriage is wrong!” Well I myself am in a bit of a confusion as to where do you draw the line? When you say you don’t approve Catholic marriage, then comes the question do you approve anyone being Catholic? These two are interconnected questions and is a bit of a tug of war if you go to separate them and discuss it.”

Now imagine a world where Catholics aren’t allowed to get married and people actually pass laws where it’s okay to discriminate against them and those people sitting in judgement are not catholic deciding on the morality of your life. When you protest, they claim their rights to deny you yours because they are the silent majority.

Still no empathy?

I fear that part of the fault is our own.

We do not adequately explain why it is immoral for two consenting adults to masturbate one another to orgasm in pursuit of the attendant pleasures, if their brain wiring happens to permit them to enjoy doing so.

The notion of telos, of the ends towards which an act (or a pleasure, or an instinct) is directed, is almost lost in our culture; and when it is discussed, it is not immediately obvious that it has any implications for morality.

Sexual instincts and pleasures are directed towards not only the production of babies but the formation of permanent, stable couple bonds and the attendant familial bonds which will allow each baby not only to be mothered and fathered, but “family-ed”: Sibling-ed and Grandparented and Aunt and Uncle-d and Cousin-ed, all of which are the child’s intrinsic and unalienable human right.

The moral principle of teleology is that a thing ought to be used in pursuit of, not in defiance or rejection of, its proper end. The pleasure of sexual acts must be received only in pursuit of the proper ends of sexual acts; otherwise it is disordered.

Disordered acts may be involuntary (in which case the person doing them is sick) or voluntary (in which case the person is a sinner) or somewhere in between (as is the case with most addicts).

Anyway one can see the disordered nature of, say, bulimia, or pica, or morbid overeating for emotional comfort. Compare these to the natural end of eating (the repair of bodily tissues for one’s health) and one realizes that disgust is an appropriate reaction to these things (although obviously not to the persons plagued by them). One immediately sees that bulimia or pica perverts the telos of eating. One immediately sees that it would be wrong—it would be irrational enthusiasm about something disordered and unhealthy—for persons to define themselves as enthusiastically bulimic, or to promote acceptance of pica as a perfectly normal kind of world cuisine even if it’s not for everybody. (It would also, by-the-by, be radically immoral to persecute a person because he had pica, or to wave signs at military funerals which read “God Hates Bulimics.”)

When we have successfully reintroduced the notion of telos into the foundations of popular ethics in our culture, we will finally be able to have a conversation with others about homosexuality. For homosexual acts are to human sexuality roughly what pica is to eating.

But until that notion is understood, we have a problem: The Average Joe thinks that it’s okay to get pleasure how ever you can get it, so long as you don’t get hurt. He doesn’t, in principle, see anything much wrong with wiring electrodes into the pleasure centers of your brain so that you can shock yourself into bliss all day, every day. He doesn’t see that pleasure itself has a goal, an end, a telos, and that each species of pleasure has a specific goal, and that taking pleasure in a fashion which defeats the end towards which the pleasure was meant to drive us is immoral. He thinks, rather, that it’s a “clever hack” to separate pleasure from effort and consequences and just consume it straight.

Consequently, when we discuss homosexuality with him, he can’t think of a reason why it could possibly be wrong to get the pleasure of orgasm from whomever, however. He cannot fathom what reason we could have to think so. And we do a bad job explaining those reasons convincingly.

As a result, he begins to suspect that there really is no reason. So he looks for alternative explanations, and the low-hanging fruit is “they hate gays, they’re homophobic.”

This is incorrect. But we are at fault in two ways:

First, we have not explained reasons sufficiently well. (Here we have the excuse that cultural ignorance of telos makes this profoundly difficult: One has to teach a hearer a whole philosophical and ethical vocabulary, and perhaps discuss the historical failures of other attempts at unified ethics, before proceeding.)

Second, we are at fault because we have been shy about teaching, and often sinful in not practicing, the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control. For of course the condom and the hormonal contraceptive pill are, themselves, perversions of the sex act away from its telos intended to separate the pleasure from its natural end. Persons with same-sex attraction are fed up with being called “perverts” and so they should be…but not because they are not; rather, because almost no-one isn’t, for nearly all have contracepted and fallen short of the glory of sex. And those that haven’t, have often masturbated: Another instance of diverting sexuality from its telos.

So: Physician, heal thyself! (Or, more appropriately, “Remove first the beam from your own eye….”) When the percentage of sexually-active fertile married Catholic women who contracept drops under 5%, then our proportion of perverts will be low enough to hassle someone else about their own, far less voluntary, sexual hang-ups.

Oh, one other thing:

One needs to distinguish between “rights” and “rights”:

There are political rights (or “civil rights”) and then there are natural rights.

Natural rights refer to things in natural law, which is in accord with morality. There is none of this legalistic straining-at-gnats while swallowing camels; that which is moral is in accord with Natural Law (at least). Under Natural law if a thing is moral then it is right and you have a right to do it. If a thing is immoral then it is wrong and you have no right to do it.

Now human law is (ideally) grounded in Natural Law but (rightfully, necessarily) goes beyond it. Most importantly, human law, for its enforcement, requires that some humans go armed and use violence or the threat thereof against other humans. Human law is enforced by the use of force; that is why we call it enforcement.

But using force against another human being is a very serious matter. Not all wrongdoing is of a character or a severity to justify it. Just as there is such a thing as a “Just War” (but the threshold for justifying war is quite high), so too there is such a thing as “Just Criminalization” (and the threshold for justifying the use of the police powers of the state is quite high).

The fact that a particular act is against Natural Law (that is, that it is morally wrong) is not enough to make it outlawed under human law. It must have a character and severity which warrants the use of force against it. Typically this means the act itself must also involve force (or fraud, which is “intellectual forcing”): Forcible wrongs have the character which warrants forcible response. Also, the forcible wrong must be the clear proximate cause of significant harms, and the force used against the perpetrator must be proportionate to the degree of the harms, the degree of certainty of causation, and so on.

Now with respect to consensual homosexual acts: They are contrary to Natural Law and thus immoral; but it does not necessarily follow that it is moral to make them illegal. Again, normally one sends armed policemen to point guns at armed robbers and the like: The forcible character and the detectable harms of a single homosexual act are insufficient to warrant force. Anti-sodomy laws, while they reflect a community’s correct understanding of what is right and wrong in Natural Law, are themselves immoral for the same reason that an Unjust War is immoral: They inflict force upon another human being without justification. Again: Severity of the wrong by itself is insufficient to justify criminalization; the character of the wrong must correspond as well, and consensual homosexual acts are not forcible.

This means that consensual homosexual acts are in fact civil rights even though they are not natural rights. That is to say: One has no moral right to do them, but your neighbor has no moral right to lock you up for doing them, either. There is some gray area around the edges. They are a thing which God has sufficient authority to punish, but which the state lacks sufficient authority to punish.

Oh, one other thing: Children have an unalienable natural human right to be raised by a permanently family-bonded biological mother and father, in the company of siblings and likewise-family-bonded grandparents. If through misadventure or death a particular child should lack these benefits, his rights are not thereby violated. But if an adult should conspire to remove that child from the custody and care of his biological father or mother, or make the identity of his biological father or mother difficult to discern, then that adult has violated the human rights of the child and ought by rights to be punished as a matter of criminal law.

This has serious implications for divorce, for anonymous sperm and egg donors, for homosexuals adopting children, and for experiments to artificially produce a human genetic code from bits and pieces of various persons so that a child lacks a biological mother and father. But the rights of children ought to be protected.

Jesus would be the biggest intolerant judgemental hater today.

Your first question should be generic and non threatening, “Is there anything I can say to you to change your mind?”, if “No” is the answer than just shut up and offer no comment.  What would be the point in carrying the conversation any further, and having an argument that only leads to this thread, so Jimmy, why should I care?

Great job, Jimmy and as I am not long winded as some of the commenters, I will just say that those that hated the Truth, hung the Truth on the Cross, so why shouldn’t we expect anything different when we try to tell the truth about homosexual (not gay) “marriage” or talk about the evils of birth-control and abortion?  +JMJ+

Ok, E, I’ll try to respond to your rather inane word substitution game. By substituting Catholic Marriage for Gay marriage, what do you mean by Catholic marriage? One man and one woman? Something that has been considered the norm for all of human history? Do you mean getting married in a Catholic church? You are comparing apples to oranges, and trying to replace something that has never been considered as a good (until recently), with something that has always been considered a good (marriage between one man and one women), in your word game is just plain silly.

I believe that RC’s comments above are also very helpful in explaining the difference.

I think the biblical sense of this puts it perfectly…hate the SIN not the sinner!  We all sin…so we are still to love each other, but not always like what we do!!!

excellent comments ..bishopite and thomas d….didnt St. John the Baptist call out the the people and call them VIPERS and show repentance…..didnt Jesus tell the Jews at one point about something and the jews got offended and told Jesus that he was offending them by his words to them , AND JESUS DIDNT APOLOGIZE TO THEM….its awful hard to correct and ponit out but these 2 examples always come back into my mind….i personally think the Catholic Church has its mountain of serious problems BECAUSE OF ITS SILENCE AND NOT CORRECTING THOSE IN ERROR

Thank you for your calm examination of this problem.  I guess what you are saying that you cannot have a sensible dialogue with someone once they call you these names.  I personally think that when they do not have an answer to a question you make regarding your diagreement, they result to these insults, in order to close down the discussion.

I so agree with most of the above comments. The homosexual brigade want to impose a re-definition of the word “marriage” upon a world which has clearly understood the meaning of that word to be the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting a family.
Homosexuals, by their actions, are completely UNABLE to perform this action, but yet they demand that centuries of tradition be overturned simply to include their attemts at sexual linkage and they insist that it is WE who are hateful of them because we insist on the the true meaning of the word “marriage”. They are the intolerant ones. We want the true meaning upheld. Are we similarly to change the meaning of the word “urination” to mean, instead, “defacation”?

For the first time in the last 100 years it is going to take great courage to be a traditional Catholic.

I posted something one time that got on the face book page (which I didn’t know that it would be on facebook)that I agreed with a gov. in a certain state, that I am against gay marriages and was called a bigot, which I am not.  Beinging gay is not a sin but the act in itself is a grave mortal sin, for it is not what you are but when you do an immmoral act is.  I don’t hate anyone, I do pray for them, as well as I do for anyone.

E,

Let’s play another word substitution game.  First statement, “Nazi death camps are evil, anyone who operates one is justly condemned as committing a crime against humanity.”  Now for the switch.  “Christian youth camps are evil, anyone who operates one is justly condemned as committing a crime against humanity.” Now the sympathy I feel for the poor Christian camp counselor in our second statement has no effect on the disgust I feel for the Nazi running Auschwitz.  Your game fails to make your point because you haven’t established the moral equality between the terms you are switching.  Just as there is a moral difference between running a concentration camp and a Christian youth camp, so to there is a moral difference between a Catholic marriage and a same sex “marriage.”  If you respond by saying “no there isn’t,” you’re begging the question (assuming what you are trying to prove) with your word game, which invalidates your argument (you still haven’t proved same sex marriage should be tolerated.) In the end, trying to elicit an emotional reaction is not the best way to argue rationally.

“Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth.”—Fulton Sheen.

in a conversation about being gay, if pro-gays run out of argument to attack the messege, they attack the messenger.  people try to fill the God-Shaped gaps in their lives with anything but God.  see them thru the eyes of Jesus:  they are in pain and are in need a touch from the Devine Healer.  They are trying to eliminate that pain (without God) the best way they know how.  go right ahead,  call me a ‘hater’. I hate to see anyone in pain. change the bandage on a 3 year old’s skinned knee and they will fight and scratch and cry.  Do you take offense at their reaction?? No just love them thru it.

Hey Jimmy, there is no way to resolve the conflict. It seems that atheists and Pro-gay folks are the most vitriolic of any groups out there. You MUST AGREE with their POV or you are nothing but a “hateful bigot”. There is never any room for discussion or difference of opinion. It’s a “my way or the highway” mentality and it is catered to by the “in crowd”.

Before I review anyone else’s comments I want to say HATE is a very strong word!  Our world uses this term to keep division amongst God’s people alive!  This is a tool the devil has used against mankind.  Our culture has fed these attitudes; be it racism, sex, religion, nationality, etc.  Sin is still sin!  God loves the sinner but not the sin!!  Hate divides and it is not of God or from God in any way shape or form!  Once we realize we are to be united by Gods’ ways and His will; we are to pray diligently for the Holy Spirit to send the one person, thing or experience to affect a change in anothers life, and place it in Gods’ hands, we will see change!  To attack is not Love.  To retaliate is not Love..  Many times we will not convince anyone by words.  Actions, our actions, in love of God and neighbor, being as Jesus to one another; kindness and compassion will speak louder!  God will judge the sin.  In the meantime, we must rely on the Love and Mercy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary to unite our hearts as One with theirs.  God is a God of miracles!  We must trust and believe and ‘get out of the way’!  Let God move through the people He has created!  Jesus, I trust in YOU!  You are our only Hope!!!

Nathan,

Is being gay equivalent to being a Nazi? Really?

My point with the word substitution game is, did you feel that you were being unfairly judged, attacked, and persecuted when you read Catholic marriage? Did you feel weird wondering why a catholic marriage should be questioned at all, and then you question the motives of the person making the statement?

Is it really that hard to put yourself in their shoes and see when you make overt statements of the inherent sin of homosexuality that people might take it personally and get defensive and make personal attacks right back at you?

It wasn’t that long ago when Catholics weren’t welcome in America. Less than a hundred years. When a Catholic president was as unheard of as a black president. Or perhaps a gay one. When Catholicism wasn’t seen as a Christian religion in America.

I think when you start a conversation with, “I don’t think your kind of people should have the same rights as my kind of people because what you are doing is inherently immoral.” You are going to get verbal backlash and name-calling.

Again, I’m suggesting empathy and tact.

Great post, and I completely agree with your analysis.
.
Part of the problem also may be that younger people (teenagers to maybe mid-20s) seem to use the word “hate” to mean the same thing as “disagree” or “disagreement.”  For example, I have heard a teenager say (somewhat jokingly) that I was “hating on” her, because I disagreed with her on a completely insignificant issue.  On the other hand, I interpret the word “hate” to mean what Webster’s dictionary says it means:
.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate
.
So I think that part of the problem is a generational gap in how we use the word “hate.”

E,

“Again, I’m suggesting empathy and tact.”

Although I don’t agree with your word substitution since being Catholic is not equivalent with being homosexual (i.e., surely you can see that the whole person includes more than their sexuality), I sympathize with the predicament you’ve stated and I agree with your statement above; however, it’s important to note that this empathy must not crossover to endorsement since then we would be amiss about our beliefs as Catholics.  This is where we’ve arrived in today’s moment in our Church where if you go to www.ncronline.org you’ll see Catholics embracing perspectives that contradict our Catholic faith and yet consider themselves Catholics anyways.  We need to act with compassion as the Catechism states so eloquently but we must nevertheless be willing to clearly and compassionately state our position when the situation arises as in this article.

I agree that a number of those who are pro-gay marriage often call those who are anti-gay marriage “bigots” and “haters.” If someone who is anti-gay marriage, based on his/her Catholic faith, is simply anti-gay marriage at the personal faith level, I wouldn’t say that that person is a hater or a bigot or intolerant. And it would be unfair to call him/her so. The problem is that those who are anti-gay marriage oftentimes do go beyond teaching others about their faith and praying for those who do not believe in God or Christ or follow Catholic teachings, and attempt to take away legal rights or attempt to implement laws that would prevent equal rights for all citizens. Maybe it’s unfair to assume that all Catholics make the jump from “believing in something” (which is not necessarily bigoted or hateful or intolerant) to “and thus we will take away other people’s rights,” (which IS bigoted and unjustly intolerant - though not necessarily hateful since that’s an emotional state) but there are enough religious folks who, when they say, “I am against gay-marriage,” mean, “I am against gay-marriage and will actively vote against equal rights for American citizens because it does not conform to my beliefs.” And perhaps unfairly though understandably, people get worked up about the first statement assuming that the second statement is implied.Given that a huge population of American citizens who pay taxes are not Christian or Catholic and are not obligated to be, it is bigoted for a Christian/Catholic to take away a legal right from others. Again, this is in recognition of the fact that some people who are anti-gay marriage at the personal level are unjustly called bigots, haters, and intolerant. And of course, just because Person A calls Person B a “bigot,” and Person A is a bigot himself, does not make Person B NOT a bigot.

I agree with Larry Peterson’s comment.  I read the comments on other websites from the “so called tolerant”. They are always so hateful toward Christians.  They mock us for believing in a “myth” (bible and Jesus).  You can’t reason with the radical gay activists.  They just don’t want you to accept homosexuality, they want you to “embrace” it.  Mr. Cathy from Chick FilA has been persecuted by the liberal media.  I read his interview and he did not say anything about gays just that he is for traditional marriage.  I think I feel like some Chick FilA for dinner and certainly plan to on August 1st.

I am with you, Jimmy. I am “anti-gay marriage” but I am not “anti-gay.” I know of some gay people and they are just as nice and as loving as any heterosexual.
Unfortunately, as you say, a lot of people do not understand the issues they stand for, and thus use “hateful bigot” as a means of shutting up the other person. Yet, I cannot accuse someone of being a hateful bigot without me being a hateful bigot myself - that’s how ignorant some of us are even in terms of terminology.
There cannot be a true dialogue without honest expressions of beliefs and ideas. We can disagree without being disagreeable, but this can only be done by mature people who are secure and knowledgeable about their positions.
Thank you for the post and for helping and encouraging us to stand firm in our belief.

“Does being against Gay Marriage automatically make me a hateful person or oppressive person?”

No.  End of discussion.  Now, let’s talk about why there are such people who want to call others names like “hateful” or “oppressive.”  Na, never mind; they’re not worth the time. 

I think we have lost sight of the truth that was taught in my (pre-Vatican II) Catholic grade school:“Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
We have forgotten that we are SUPPOSED to judge behaviors for the benefit of the person’s soul.  Tolerate the person, be intolerant of the action. Heck, that’s what parenting is all about - and the Ten Commandments, and laws and statutes.
We can stand strong against the attacks if we keep these distinctions clear in our own minds - and act accordingly.

@ M. Antoinette Jerom said: “Ah! This is a very common question that I’ve been asked when I say, “Gay marriage is wrong!” Well I myself am in a bit of a confusion as to where do you draw the line?”

It depends on what you mean by “gay?” If you mean to merely have same sex attraction, well no I’m not and neither is God opposed to it; it’s a result of the fall of man into sin, but not a sin itself.  However, if you mean gay as in a person involved in homosexual behavior, then God thinks is wrong, it violates the natural moral law and I personally think its wrong also. I draw the line with the person who is involved in homosexual activity without changing, truly repenting of their activity; that’s where one crosses the line.  Just as a heterosexual would have the temptation to commit adultery but would cross the line if they chose adultery without stopping their behavior.  There is no difference in either sin, both are mortal to ones soul.

M. Antoinette Jerom said: “you say you don’t approve gay marriage, then comes the question do you approve anyone being gay? These two are interconnected questions and is a bit of a tug of war if you go to separate them and discuss it.” 

Well, doesn’t gay marriage presuppose involvement in an active homsexual
relationship?  Yes it does.  Again, what do YOU mean by “being gay?” If one is “married” to another person of the same sex (which impossible anyway) then that person obviously doesn’t want to change their behavior nor view, both are wrong.

M Antoinette Jerom said :“So in conclusion, it’s not what you feel towards them (hatred, bigotry, etc;), it’s more like, “For me, I believe this is wrong, so I don’t “approve” it.” And if someone else thinks the opposite of it, they are free to have their opinion on it. Personally, I think it comes down to the choice you make, right or wrong and this can be based on your Faith, morals, etc”

No, that’s NOT what I said at all.  It’s NOT up to my feelings; they may reflect truth of not.  It’s about objective truth which I as a rational human can reason through and say that so called gay marriage is wrong as it presupposes the active homosexual lifestyle. It violates the our nature as humans and God says it is wrong, ergo, I obey God and say it’s wrong.  I’m not anti-gay, just pro God and objective truth. :)

Anyone who picks on a minority is a BIGOT!  The Church teaches to respect and love Gays-and also preaches messages of hate against them!  According to the Church, Gays should not teach, should not want to be in a monogamous relationship, and should accept the fact that they chose to be Gay!  What if they were BORN GAY!!!  If the Church cannot prove Gays were not born Gay-then it should keep it’s comments to itself!

Should the !@#$% be used as a sex organ?  Google First Scandal.  When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on “Can you explain…”  Please note:  this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.

Another moral relativist issue for Catholics. How come Catholic priests who molest boys are protected by the Vatican, even though they show no indication of “repentence” for their crime?
.
Ric—
Like Cobert says—these anti-gay people wake up every day and choose not to be gay, but who knows what they dream about when they sleep?

I’m getting more and more intolerant of Catholics. I don’t think they should marry and I think children should not be adopted by Catholics because they are immoral. Communion with Jesus by eating his body and drinking his blood will only lead to cannabalism of other people. The practice is sick and should be made illegal.

Ah, the hateful people have come to the thread. I can respond, but I’m assuming you guys are just trolls. If you really want answers, I’ll be happy to engage, but I won’t just feed intolerance. (ironic, isn’t it?)

@Rick Dykstra

“Anyone who picks on a minority is a BIGOT!  The Church teaches to respect and love Gays-and also preaches messages of hate against them!”

The Church teaches it’s a sin against the 5th Commandment to have “religious and racial prejudice” because it “injures that person.  To manifest prejudice in action hurts the feelings of our neighbor, and is therefore a sin against charity.  To deny him his rights is a sin against justice as well as charity.  This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization which promotes segregation or any other denial of human rights.” (Life in Christ - Instructions in the Catholic Faith, 1958)

Where is the “hate against them?”  What “picking on” does the Church do against homosexuals? 

Jimmy Akin ~“Does being against Gay Marriage automatically make me a hateful person or oppressive person?”

I’d say oppressive, which may explain why you didn’t address it in the article.

I would wonder why anyone would have a “right” to marry in the first place…

@Psy

“I’d say oppressive, which may explain why you didn’t address it in the article.”

How are you “oppressed?”

Thank you for your article. I wrote in some depth on the issue of Tolerance which I think is approriate here.

In short, any discussion of Tolerance can only begin when there is good at the heart of the argument. But beyond this it can’t just be a “personal” or purely subjective good but something ground in nature, reason, and/or revelation.

E.g., We don’t tolerate murder because it is intrinsically evil.

We can tolerate topics such as gay marriage because the love that homosexuals search for is not “evil” but their concept of marriage is wrong. But toleration has many grades as well. Some things we can tolerate because there is some good to them. Other ideas, when tested rigorously, are sometimes found weak or lacking and should be tolerated for the person’s sake until they can be persuaded to let go of that idea.

What I mean is this: a person should (almost) always be tolerated but an idea need not be tolerated readily—open-mindedness is not allowing everything to just pass through. If we care about what is good and true and love truth when we find it we should be a bit strict about things that appear off. We should always love the person and tolerate them on issues like this but we should not be blasted for disagreeing with the idea. Though not an exact parallel, I quote Augustine’s “Hate the sin, not the sinner” (but with some nuance).

But maybe I’m just confusing the situation. I write with better nuance here: http://inandoutoftheditch.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-tolerance.html

@Kaneda

“I would wonder why anyone would have a “right” to marry in the first place.”

It is a legal contract between a man and a woman which evolved from a religious contract between man and God.  It’s purpose within in government is to stabilized society and promote the future stability and growth of the culture.  God created man, but God himself said He was not sufficient for man; so he created woman for a helpmate to him. 

I think the white people in the South who refused to serve African-Americans in their restaurants or accept them in their schools deeply felt they were correct. They simply followed the prejudice of previous generations. Many people suffered and only time raised the curtain on their ignorance.

Gay people likewise have suffered as a result of generations raised to demean them. Some very good people even think they are being good by rejecting them and their committed monogamous relationships. Yet Jesus Christ Himself told us not to judge others and to love our neighbors as ourselves. God created all of us to love each other free from hatred, bigotry and intolerance.

Kaneda has a point—what is the “right?” Marriage is not only a declaration of love for one’s partner—It is also a ceremony that confirms that society “approves” of that love.
.
So, is loving some one a right, or a privilege?
.
Another moral relativism for Catholics—you can’t declare that you want to be a partner of the “wrong” sex.
.
What is the difference between anal sex with a female and anal sex with a male? Neither union produces a child. How do you know that all mixed-sex marriages don’t involve poking something in the “wrong” hole? There is a whole, very profitable, industry catering to heterosexual partners, yet Catholics focus on homosexual partners.
.
I laugh every time a Catholic declares that his/her morals are not “relative.”

-
The Catholic Church’s moral values have been part of it since the beginning and are objectively based on a reality that transcends any human person’s subjective outlook, hence why they’re as old as the Church is.  Stating that Catholics may and in fact commit immoral acts do not dispel the objective moral reality that the Church propounds.  I would suggest for those having difficulty understanding the Church’s positions read more about the Church before you continue to expound moral falsehoods about the Catholic faith. 
-
Jesus Christ came to save us from our hatred, bigotry and intolerance.  But most importantly, He came to save us from ALL SIN, not just the ones that are most conveniently cited in order to vacuously support their positions without questioning whether it is objectively moral.

@Gloria

“also a ceremony that confirms that society “approves” of that love.”

The “ceremony” does not “confirm” that “society ‘approves’ of that love,” it “confirms” that those attending “approve” of that “love.”  God does not approve of that “love” and that is why it is not a sacrament homosexuals are allowed to have in the Catholic Church.

@Gloria - I graciously ask you to stop comparing what you see or imagine that imperfect people practice, versus what the Church teaches…  We are all sinners, and the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.  Please try taking a look at what the Church actually teaches.

CCC 2335 http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml#2335 states:

Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” All human generations proceed from this union.

CCC 2351 http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml#2351 states:

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

.... 2352-2359 teach on the offenses against chastity, and on homosexuality, finishing with CCC 2359 http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml#2359 which states:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

——-
What the church teaches is that all sexual acts outside of the marital act itself are sinful regardless of whether you are attracted to beasts, the same sex or the opposite sex.  Chastity is a virtue for everyone to practice, even faithfully married couples.

Please don’t confuse the weakness and failings of myself and others who strive to be in communion with the church with false or inconsistent teaching.  We are all called to be saints, we all yearn to know God, and I for one, pray for all those I know who suffer with same-sex attraction, that they will come to know God and find peace.  All sin makes it difficult for us to know God, it is through the practice of chastity and other virtues that we learn to live a life that is pleasing to God.

Gloria, may God bless you and may the Holy Spirit touch your heart.

The modern society does not want to accept the existence of “sin”.  They do not believe in right and wrong, but in relativism.The sexual morality taught by the Catholic Church is not something drafted by Pope or Bishops, but by God. For example Jesus said looking at a woman with lust tantamounts to adultery in the heart.  When we believe that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, how can we reject it ? Yes we are weak and we may fall. God is so gracious that he is waiting for us sinners to repent so that he can save you. But the modern society frames its own rules, builds its own churches or religion.We hope that they have the wisdom to learn more about Jesus, His Church so that their misunderstanding can be cleared

I agree with you 100% Jimmy Akin. Very wonderfully said and explained.

Christians will forever be persecuted with situations like this. Just as how we are persecuted for not being into fornication or sodomy because they are against God. I have had homosexual feelings growing up and was healed by God from them. I have friends who have been too. God seriously can heal you from them but you have to want it. It can be curable and I am living proof of this. It is a shame that so many people have been tricked into the saying “They were born that way.” They will never experience God’s healing because they think nothing is wrong with them and they dont need healing. All I can say is if you believe in God and truly have faith in him he can heal you. The saying “If you have faith as big as a mustard seed you can move a mountain” is so true. He’s worked miracles and Ive seen it.

Anyway all I can say is God Bless and may all the people who have had similar situations like me who search for God with all their heart be healed as I have. He does miracles and is the most powerful being Ive ever known.

So many people in this world would be healed and helped by him with all kinds of situations only if they erase the doubt they have in his power. Sadly doubt in his power is a human fault that takes time to over come. But once you do overcome it, even if it is for a instant, watch him take care of you like he promised in the Bible. If there is anyone you can count on who is not a liar or deciever its God. When he makes a promise he keeps it.

May everyone grow closer in their faith and love with God and see his miracles unfold. God Bless.

I agree with Christopher Allen, Thursday, Jul 26. I do not avoid sharing my views with someone of differing views, and I will listen to that person.  However, most of the time, dare I say everytime, I am attacked as a hater and a bigot.  I don’t feel there is any purpose of trying to engage with anyone when they are they are doing to me the very thing of which they are accusing me.  I become frustrated and sad at how they can do this and not see they are doing it.

Patti M. Zordich, Ph.D.

“However, most of the time, dare I say everytime, I am attacked as a hater and a bigot.  I don’t feel there is any purpose of trying to engage with anyone when they are doing to me the very thing of which they are accusing me.”

What you are witnessing in their reaction to you is “projection.” “Projection” is a defined psychological behavior that “ascribes one’s OWN (my emphasis) ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) 

That is why there is really no way to talk or reason with such people.  The Democrats are “experts” at projection, i.e., externalization of blame, guilt or responsibility onto their opponents as a defense mechanism against their own anxiety about what their actions cause.  This psychological disorder is not visible to those afflicted with it, but it is to those of us not afflicted with it.  This disorder has grown and become particularly obvious in Democrats ever since their defense of abortion on demand. I put quotes around the word “expert” above because you really can’t become expert at projection because you are not conscious that you are doing it; it’s an affliction.

Let me try to be more exact on what I said about Democrats in my comment above.

The Democrats are “experts” at projection, i.e., externalization of blame, guilt or responsibility onto their opponents as a defense mechanism against their anxiety about their own beliefs and/or what their actions cause.

R.C. - well written and correct

I saw a quote the other day that was good—“Just because I disagree with you does not make me a hater…but it does show that you are not the tolerant person you say you are…” 

The people who label others as “haters” (because they are not “tolerant” in the labeler’s mind) are usually much less tolerant than the “haters” they hate.

Dear E.
I see that you are trying to show that forbidding certain conduct is inherently wrong. This can’t be so. All kinds of laws forbid or demand conduct. Traffic laws are a small example.
What the others who have played your word substitution game are trying to show you is that not all things are equal. You are correct about the bigotry leveled against Catholics in America’s past. The fear of homosexuality kept homosexuals :“In the closet” for a long time. This was a protective measure by the homosexuals themselves, to prevent discrimination against themselves. Coming out of the closet has released a Pandora’s box of problems.
I do not believe that most Americans hate homosexuals. Most Americans just want bedroom matters to remain private (despite the Hollywood publicity of marital comings and goings). As a general rule, I think we don’t want to think about or imagine what happens in the bedrooms of homosexual couples.
That is entirely different from trying to redefine what marriage is. It is like trying to parse what “is” is, as President Clinton tried to do.
The Bible forbids homosexual activity. It also forbids heterosexual activity without marriage. Of course, many still do these things anyway. But relationships between these two sets of people do not constitute marriage. It is much more than a piece of paper, which both sets realize. The homosexuals because they want that legitimacy in their relationships, and the heterosexuals because they don’t think they need it.
Marriage is an institution created by God in the beginning of human time. He created marriage for a man and a woman to have children. Without a great deal of scientific interference, homosexual couples simply aren’t equipped for this.
There are many reasons for believing that homosexuals are incapable of having a marriage as God defined it. Hatred is not necessarily one of them. Neither is bigotry. Personally, I have loved family members who are homosexual and in active relationships. They aren’t shunned but loved and prayed for.
I hope you read this with tolerance of my argument. I hope you put your own bigotry on hold to reflect on one person’s reasons for opposing homosexual marriage. I hope you will see me as just another American who is endowed by the Constitution with free speech.
I wish you well.

Agreed, and I too have ran into this. To the extent that I was harassed and so charged by someone on no basis other than who I followed on twitter (really, not even a hello). Wonderful thing, this new kind of tolerance.

Great article Jimmy. Anyone who tolerates everything actually believes in nothing.  It should be easy to understand that.  So long as good and evil exist in the world, there can be no common ground between them – You must choose one or the others, you can’t accept both.  That is why prejudice and tolerance are double edge swords so to speak to allow or reject God. 
God’s intended goal for salvation was for us to accept and obey Him.

Stillbelieve:
YOU speak for God? WOW! You can answer so many questions! Why is evil so indifferent—awful things happen to babies, people of all religions, races, sexual orientations and so on. Can you ask God why that happens? I want to know what HE thinks.
.
You are obviously another Catholic who can’t think for himself.

Michael—I’m guessing the gist of your long speech is that the Church demands we do as it says, not as it does.
.
That attitude doesn’t work for raising kids or getting “followers” to do whatever they want. They don’t see the clergy get punished for sinful acts, so they don’t take what clergy says so seriously.
.
Sex between a man and a woman, is indeed the only way to produce a baby-at least the union between an ovum an sperm. But—and this may shock you—not all people fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. If God created humanity, He should have been more careful on the distribution of hormones.

@Gloria

“Can you ask God why that happens? I want to know what HE thinks.”

Read the Bible, it’s all in there, even the creation of man and woman and what they are suppose to do together.  God created a female because He was not sufficient enough for man.  That should give you some insight into the natural order of life.

@Gloria

“But—and this may shock you—not all people fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. If God created humanity, He should have been more careful on the distribution of hormones.”

So hormones are what causes people to fall in “love?”

Thanks, Jimmy, for more well-reason, calm, cool, clear, thinking. God bless you. You are 100% correct on your assessment on this one. Thanks. Keep fighting the good fight.—Mark Kamoski

I remember being at a bar once (many years ago) and seemed like all the prettiest girls were already dancing or talking with other guys. I mention to my buddy “don’t you wish most males were gay”? He looks at me and asks why??? I say, “just think, all these girls would be interested in only us”... See I was being tolerant and accepting of gays!

@Mac:

Thanks for your supportive response. I realize what I wrote was longer than what most folk are accustomed to reading in the combox, so I wasn’t sure anyone would bother.

But on topics which such a large percentage of the population seems determined to fundamentally misunderstand, I thought it important to lay out the case in a pretty structured and thorough way.

If more of us understand the topic in a really deep and precise way, I think we’ll be able to educate the public-at-large a bit better, even despite our society’s five-second attention span. But that attention span is always a real challenge.

Anyhow, thanks for your reply. I’m glad that someone had the patience to read it!

@Gloria:

One thing to ask, Gloria, is whether the infatuation experience of “falling in love” is a particularly critical thing.

We are, after all, speaking of a transient emotional experience which waxes and wanes according to how well it is provided with the kind of circumstances which promote it. It occurs one-sidedly more often than mutually; when it occurs mutually it is often not long-lasting and can be a preface to bitter hatred. They say that half of marriages end in divorce; how many of those marriages began with being “in love?” Probably all of them…but if they lacked any of the other important markers of spousal compatibility, then they were unwise picks from the start.

“Love is all you need” sang the Beatles, and if by that they were including such important qualifications as “Love Is A Verb” and “God Is Love” and the knowledge of the various senses of love categorized by the Greeks, then they were right (in a roundabout way). But if by “love” they meant “being in love,” then not only were they deeply, deeply wrong, but in two ways: First in thinking that being in love was ALL you need (when there are dozens of things more important), and second, in thinking that being in love was something you NEED, to start with, rather than something you PRODUCE, given all the other requirements and sufficient hard work, on a regular basis.

Lightning strikes when it strikes and rarely can be harnessed to do anything other than risk damage. But a good marriage is a piece of careful engineering; an architected thing, powerful generator which yields steady pulses of alternating current.

Are Catholics anti-Gay?

Why all the backflips? In a certain sense, of course we are. We *are* anti-Gay sex, period. But we try to separate the act from the actors. When people refuse to allow a distinction between practice and practitioner, however, the discussion does become impossible.

As long as we have to apologize for being anti-Gay sex, we will never make much progress. That, and not gay marriage, is the real issue.

Words are important.  What does “gay” mean?  Among other things, “gay” means “Licentious.”  What does licentious mean?  Licentious means: 1 : lacking legal or moral restraints; esp : disregarding sexual restraints.  2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.

Does that help put this issue in better perspective?

I don’t believe that those who speak out against gay marriage hate gay people.  I believe they are emotionally retarded people who need to justify their existences by convincing themselves they are superior humans because of the sexual preference they were born with.  They speak as if the reason they are against gay marriage is because God is against it—as if there were something that God is against that they might be in favor of!  They go on and on about “God’s Law” conveniently ignoring all the acts that God admonishes against in the Bible that no one any longer pays any attention to (I’m assuming you’re familiar with Leviticus).  They fixate on homosexuality because, let’s face it, sex is interesting.  The “agree” with God on this particular issue and choose to speak out against it because…I don’t know…gays makes them feel icky?  It gets them a bit excited?  They like to think about the things they aren’t allowed to do?  And they say it is in “defense of marriage.”  Really?  How many of them are married to the same person they started out with?  If you want to defend marriage how about penalizing divorces?  Divorce demonstrably ruins lives, leaves children with deep emotional scars, has horrible effects on society.  Why are you so flipped out about homosexuals committing to love each other eternally and you don’t say anything about people regularly abandoning their families when it just gets too tough?  Heterosexuals are just so grrrrrreat at marriage that they need to keep it all to themselves?  How pathetic!  And you hide behind your religiosity and your piousness and your charitable giving and tell yourself you don’t hate anyone and you are just helping humanity, when all you are really doing is pumping up your own ego at the expense of whatever emotional pain it might bring to others because somehow believing your life is better than the life of a homosexual gives you a bit of comfort. Oh yeah, and because sex is fascinating.  Party on with all your anti-gay marriage intellectualizing! Sleep tight, knowing God will pat you on your head and say, “yes, your tiny little world view is just right. I have blessed you with all the answers, so feel free to mistreat anyone you choose if they do something that makes you feel icky.  You are undoubtedly in the right.”

stilbelieve I found your perspective sanctimonious.

Ah! Totally! I’m a jerk! Truly, even engaging in an argument like this is jerk-like.  It’s completely self-serving.  But at least I’m not speaking out against people expressing their love for one another.  I’ll cut myself that much slack.

Psy:

Which perspective?

Jesus told us that people will “Hate” us for serving him.  I wish the Bishops and priests would stand up for the Holy sacrament of Marriage.

stillbelieve:
This might also shock you—there have been other books written before and after the Bible that are far more interesting and relevant to humanity.
.
There are also other gods and goddesses(!) besides your overblown storm-god Yahweh that are more deserving than that jealous, paranoid Judeo-Christian deity.
.

stillbelieve—
.
Another thing that might shock you—science! Yes, hormones have much influence in causing a person to fall in love. So do neurotransmitters. You have access to the internet—maybe you want to look at Wikipedia some time.
.
Oh, wait—you might learn something that is not “approved” by Catholics. It’s against your religion to think—the Church does that for you.
.
By the way—neurotransmitters have a lot to do with your “faith.”

John, I tend to agree with you—the so-called “offense against marriage” Catholics and other extremists scream about is just means to distract from the suppressed sexuality of Catholic “faith.” They can’t practice it, so they come up with fantasies—or nightmares—of what it must be like for people who can choose for themselves.
.
This kind of behavior comes from not thinking for yourself. When you need to ask a religious “authority” to for permission to do what you want to do, it takes the joy out of spontaneity.

R.C.
You also make a good point—what does being in love have to do with anything? The Greeks used to “marry” to produce children, but their “romance” was usually for a male lover, especially because women were considered only important for breeding.
.
Hormones and neurotransmitters make sex pleasurable. “Love” is what we call that pleasure.

Hatred, bigotry, intolerance…hmmmmmmm…Our Lord was falsely accused…and so will His followers…

@R.C.  - your welcome

@Gloria

“This might also shock you—there have been other books written before and after the Bible that are far more interesting and relevant to humanity.”

So then, you’ve read the bible.  Both old and new testaments?

“There are also other gods and goddesses(!) besides your overblown storm-god Yahweh that are more deserving than that jealous, paranoid Judeo-Christian deity.”

And what would they be? What are the three most important beliefs you got from them?

@Gloria

“Hormones and neurotransmitters make sex pleasurable. ‘Love’ is what we call that pleasure.”

So, then, love to you is sex?

The love that matters, the love that lasts, is the love you do, not the love you feel.  Christians who seek to limit love seem to have missed the entire New Testament.

John, and Gloria, too.  Answer me this.  If science discovers there is a gene for homosexuality; how many mothers and fathers do you think would continue the pregnancy - what percentage? 

And if Catholics “hate” homosexuals, as you seem to believe, does it present any problem in your bigoted thinking towards the Church that it would be Catholics who would be standing outside abortion clinics praying and begging those parents or those women to not go through with an abortion; offering them help to get through their dilemma?  Does it cause you to pause in your bigotry to know it would be Catholics in the forefront to get Roe v Wade overturned and work to get a Right To Life Constitutional Amendment passed even for babies carrying the homosexual gene?

stilbelieve
Seriously: I don’t think Catholics hate homosexuals.  First of all, I know a boatload of Catholics who ARE homosexuals.  The Catholics who seek to limit marriage to heterosexuals are pandering to the timeless fear of the “other.”  Maybe for power, maybe out of genuine fear of the other.  Maybe out of a desire to suppress their own desires.  I wouldn’t know, obviously, and can only speculate.  But as I thought I made fairly clear, I take people at their word when they say they “hate the sin, love the sinner.”  But it’s possible to mistreat those we love, as some parents do with their children every day and some husbands do with their wives, and vice versa.  Why do they do it?  That’s a larger question than I can answer.

@John

“The love that matters, the love that lasts, is the love you do, not the love you feel.  Christians who seek to limit love seem to have missed the entire New Testament.”

So, you and Gloria have a disagreement on what love is?  She indicates it a biological/chemical experience when having sex.  I had the impression that was what you were saying as well.  But if you are talking about love as taught in the New Testament, that’s a different matter all together.  It is a decision concerning behavior, not a biological reaction in an orgasm.

With that understanding, then how do you justify going against the natural law of the male and female bodies?

What “natural law”?  Who the heck wrote that?  Homosexuality exists in nature (as does infanticide—so what?).  Are you sure that by “goes against natural law” that you don’t really mean “it makes me feel icky to think about it”?

No, Love is not just sex. Lots of things stimulate the production of dopamine, serotonin, melatonin, oxytocin, endorphins and enkephalins in various proportions. Granted, my pleasure from eating Italian food is different from my pleasure from being with my lover, and both are different from my pleasure from being with my mother, and those are different from my pleasure from being with my my pet—and so on.
.
Look up the science, if it doesn’t scare you. Otherwise keep your “faith” by taking the Church at face value without question. I know thinking for yourself is a lot to ask.

stillbelieve:
I’m sure you decide every minute you think of it, to not be a homosexual. Maybe this video will be informative for you.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI1_jzPEcwU&feature=related
.
Of course, if you fear it might make you think, don’t watch it. However, I might take you seriously if you can give a reasonable comment about it.

Gloria,
-
I watched the video and it basically discussed some of the possible causes of homosexuality through some studies it cited, incorrectly stated some figures like 70% when the study stated 52%, but otherwise was not by any standard conclusive.  Homosexuality’s etiology is not fully understood and that’s where were at this point in the science. 
-
I understand clearly from your comments that you don’t agree with the Church’s position and you are perfectly free to take this position; however, to accuse others of not thinking for themselves is highly misguided on your part since it’s clear from your comments that you don’t understand the Catholic position nor do you make an effort to reasonably understand it.  I respect the fact that you have your reasons for believing what you do although you haven’t argued convincingly for your position with clear facts.  You state science supports your position when it’s clear science hasn’t found conclusive evidence for your position as you’ve stated.  I would hope that you would respect the right of others to disagree with you without having to put people down just because they don’t see things the way you do.

abimopectore ~”...it’s clear from your comments that you don’t understand the Catholic position nor do you make an effort to reasonably understand it.”

I think most everyone understands authoritarian ideologies well enough.

Psy,

“I think most everyone understands authoritarian ideologies well enough.”

From your previous comments, it appears you’re not interested in investigating Catholicism, and that’s o.k.  Catholicism would not fit any definition of authoritarian ideology since it possesses no political power as an institution that governs a people.  You are free to believe in it or choose not to believe in it.

abimopectore, I’ve read the entire Bible, Catechism, Quran ,The Book of Mormon and a few other Text. I understand the Inquisition, the Crusades the fight against interracial marriages and why the Church tried to kill off my family bloodline centuries ago. All you have left is the gays to belittle to prop yourselves up on a unselfconscious pedestal.

A few years back the local churches were heavy into the anti-gay rhetoric and the good Christians were kicking their gay children into the street. My daughter and I were taking them in and raising them as our own along with molested children who ran from their religious homes. Tell me again how I don’t understand.

I am homosexual, yet celebrate for nearly 4 years. I’ve left the gay lifestyle in that I now accept the Magisterium of the Church’s teachings lock, stock & barrel.
Gay marriage is going over the top. Way over. Maybe domestic partnerships for long-term couples, but adoption, sperm donors, etc. is “La-La Land.”
So is disregarding the rule of conscience within organized religion. An INFORMED conscience is key. I killed much of my conscience regarding sexual morality in the past, and with today’s social ‘norms’ there’s little hope unless wise & wonderful folk speak their minds regarding these issues NOW!

John Siple as long as it is your choice that’s great. But those who want to deny others the choice of marriage is a different issue entirely..

To John Siple congrats
To Psy you are so full of you know what.
The good thing about having morons like Psy putting their two cents in on a blog where they obviously don’t have any views in common with, is that it shows just how stereotypical and weak their arguments are and unfortunately just how sorry and meaningless their lives are. The bad thing is that it is tiresome.  Now take your BS back to the GLBT sites where you will fit right in.

Mac please feel free to let out all your hate and bigotry and anger.
Its all you really have, isn’t it?

Gloria, you stated:
“Hormones and neurotransmitters make sex pleasurable. “Love” is what we call that pleasure.”
and “Granted, my pleasure from eating Italian food is different from my pleasure from being with my lover, and both are different from my pleasure from being with my mother, and those are different from my pleasure from being with my my pet—and so on.”

Gloria, you obviously have a very shallow view of Love. To you, love is all about what sort of pleasure you feel when with a person or whatever. You realize that love is not just about sex, but you admit that it is about pleasure. In another combox someone (Gloria perhaps?) claimed that they” want love not sacrifice.” Do you know that there are 3 kinds of love? Eros, Filial and Agape, from the Greek? Eros is romantic and sexual. Filial is the love we have for parents, siblings, children, friends, etc.
Agape, is the highest form of love, and that is sacrificial. It means giving completely of yourself for the other. It is “self-sacrificial”. It means giving up your wants and desires, if needed, for the betterment of the other. For Christians it means that this Agape love is the love we should have for God and all other persons, whether they are close to us or not, or complete strangers (not very easy sometimes).
In a marriage, that means each spouse is to give totally of themselves to each other, in sex it means not withholding our fertility by contracepting, and in all other matters too. It means not being selfish,which I believe is a major cause for the failure of marriages.
Gloria, if you are not married yet, I hope it is not too late for you to realize what REAL love is all about. It is so much more than pleasure, which is selfish, but about sacrifice.

Psy. Now your projecting again silly.  We recognize it from guys like you.  Hate and bigotry is what GLBTers are all about and their anger comes from self-loathing.  As described by Augustine (he’s a theologian btw) GLBTers are caved in on themselves in a self-centered, self-gratifying existence.  They’re lives are centered on their genitalia.
They certainly are showing their tolerance with Chick-fil-a aren’t they.  Are you joining the same-sex kiss-in this weekend? Now there is an intellectual response.

Mac:
how is asking to be recognized as an equal a demonstration of hatred and bigotry?  Would you call an African American slave who wanted to be officially married rather than jumping-the-broom a bigot and a hater of white people?  Even if you believed that African-American was a lesser person who was going to pollute your purity, wouldn’t you at least recognize his request for dignity and equality as natural, even noble?

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 12:00 AM (EST):

“John, and Gloria, too.  Answer me this.”

Would you care to offer an answer to the two questions I posed in my comment posted above at the stroke of midnight? 

Ah Psy
Tactic #2 after calling everyone who doesn’t approve of your sexual disorientation as a hater or bigot you drag out the race card. Your premise assumes there is something wrong with people of dark skin. But there isn’t.  LGBTs are perverts, that’s the difference. It’s that simple.  You insult all African Americans when you try to lump yourself in with them.

abimopectore: How do you “know” the stats in the video are incorrect? Please site your sources.
.
Joanp62: Once again, you only look to Catholic sources for your information. There are at least five kinds of love, according to Greek thought:
.
Epithumia: strong desire;
.
Eros: romantic love—may include sexual relations, crushes and obsession about the loved one.
.
Storge: comfortable love associated with mutual respect, shelter and security, the feeling of belonging and acceptance between partners;
.
Phileo: love associated with intimacy, communication, friendship, and the special closeness of the relationship;
.
Agape: complete, unconditional love for another without expectation of anything in return.
.
My source:
.
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/3991-five-kinds-love.html
.
Those of you who are “married” to your faith are obviously in love with the Church and are blind to any reality that it may not be infallible as it has told you it was. You have no capacity for critical thought, and even twist evidence of criminal activity to keep up the illusion.
.
Lin—it seems to me that your relationship with your faith is erotic, as you feel “attacked” by me and are obsessed about “freedom of religion” when there is nothing threatening you. Weird.

Joanp62: By your logic, a woman should stay with her abusive husband, a man must tolerate being nagged and henpecked, by his wife. That’s putting “marriage” above love, as those are circumstances where love cannot thrive. For you, “Agape” means at least one person must be suffering for the relationship, while the other can be indifferent or abusive. I’m beginning to understand what your faith means to you. Sick.

You are asking me to speculate about how many pregnant couples would abort a child if they knew it to be homosexual?  I wouldn’t have any idea, but I’m guessing a lot more people who believe as you do would abort that child than the people who believe homosexuals are deserving of all the respect and dignity (including the right to marry someone they love) that is granted heterosexuals.  Beliefs make a difference, as you know.  Most people of my faith don’t see homosexuality as a tragedy.  That you would even consider it a possible rationale for abortion speaks volumes.

Regarding Catholic “hatred” of gays, although I empathize with the frustration, I don’t believe we get anywhere by calling people “haters.”  I get that the opposition to gay marriage is well-intentioned (for the most part—though it’s not helped by the hateful language on Facebook and Youtube and being against Oreos).  But in the same way that you would say you “hate the sin, love the sinner,” so do I believe you are a good person who is stuck with a belief system that produces hateful results.  The good news is that this argument is actually over.  Young Christians are much more concerned with the gospel of love than they are with protecting their fragile egos by discriminating against gay people.  As with most questions of civil rights, it’s just going to take a while until the old guard dies off.

Now a question for you (and it’s a serious one): do you believe that homosexuals cause hurricanes by being gay? I’m trying to figure out where there might be common ground.

Gloria:
I’ve got to say you’re playing right into popular prejudices when you write “By your logic, a woman should stay with her abusive husband, a man must tolerate being nagged and henpecked, by his wife. That’s putting “marriage” above love, as those are circumstances where love cannot thrive.”

If marriage is not put above love (the feeling, that is) then marriage will never last.  The whole point of getting married is to help the relationship survive when the feeling goes away (hopefully temporarily).  Your concept of “love” seems intensely, if not exclusively, selfish, which would seem to miss the whole point.  There are, of course, intolerable behaviors in a marriage and they might justify divorce, but criminy! haven’t we outgrown the ‘70’s?  Are you saying if it doesn’t feel good any more people should just bolt?  If I thought gay people believed that I would NEVER be in favor of gay marriage!

I can’t resist posting this link here:
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/philadelphia-church-official-to-be-sentenced-in-abuse-case.html?_r=2
.
Has anyone heard of these clergy being excommunicated? Does the Pope have an official statement?
.
Apparently Catholics are tolerant of homosexual behavior—as least among their clergy. Do you still want to argue about moral relativism?

Gloria,

“abimopectore: How do you “know” the stats in the video are incorrect? Please site your sources.”

The study that is mentioned but not cited in the video is the 1991 study by Bailey and Pillard where it found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.  This is taken from page 27 of Wilson, G.D., & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born Gay: The Biology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen Publishers.  Here’s a web page that states the same:
-
http://abouthomosexuality.com/policy-org-twins.pdf
-
What the video is stating disingenuously is what Dr. Bailey claimed when he “estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality and how well the sample represents twins in the general population.”  This again was a claim and has never been scientifically proven in studies of any sort.
-
Secondly, I didn’t want to mention this but since you ask, you’ve conveniently left out other studies that challenge Dr. Bailey’s study.  For example, a study by “Bearman and Bruckman in 2002 criticized early studies of concentrating on small, select samples and non-representative selection of their subjects.  They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3 for females, a pattern which they say “does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context.”  This work was published in the American Journal of Sociology (Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002).

The best we can say as of this moment is that homosexuality’s etiology is not fully understood by the scientific community.  Making claims that it is runs counter to the current science.

Mac:
I’m not saying you’re a racist and I’m not saying gay people are not “perverts.”  Good on you for showing your true colors, though! (and I’m not “Psy”).

I’ll try again.  A gay person just wants all the respect and dignity that anyone else has.  That gay person might be a pervert, but it doesn’t make him a “hater.”  Does that makes sense to you? 

And btw, do YOU believe gay people cause hurricanes by being gay?  Did God kill all those people in the twin towers because of gay people?  I’m trying to figure out what we’re dealing with here.

John, you write “selfish” like it’s a bad thing. If you don’t love yourself, how can you love others?
.
Those particular prejudices are popular because they are the most common. Better to be alone and happy than to be stuck in a loveless marriage.

abimopectore: you have sited ONE study. There are others, and the video does mention that there have been more than one. That’s how science works—it compares independent studies, and there have to be even more before, but funding is hard to find. But even the one study you sited suggests that there is a physical influence on being homosexual—flawed as it might be.
.
You, however, must be one of those Catholics who “choose” not to be gay. Your “marriage” to Christ is enough male relationship for you.

But check out statistics and you will see that people in marriages are overwhelmingly happier and healthier than people who aren’t (which is one reason why the so-called “Christian” opposition to gay marriage is so perverse).  I’m not saying anyone should get married if they don’t want to, but if you do get married without understanding that “commitment” means “even when you don’t feel like it” you are denigrating marriage indeed.

And yes, “selfish” is a bad thing.  In fact, it is the worst thing.  Selfishness is the malady that we all suffer from, the disease from which we will never be cured.  Yes, you have to believe you are worthy and you have to believe that God loves you (whatever form that belief takes in your mind) but if you operate out of a mindset of looking out for numero uno you are headed for a world of misery.  Another word for selfishness might be “ignorance.”  People who act out of short-term self interest (have that affair because it would feel so awesome, eat that ice cream because it would taste soooo good) are ignorant, in the moment, anyway, of the long term consequences.

Too many people get married who can’t handle commitment.  Too many people have children who don’t believe in self sacrifice.  That doesn’t make it right for them to abandon their families, and it doesn’t mean that they won’t wise up as they get older.

Gloria,

I’ve cited the science as I’ve researched it; hardly something the video has done.  The video doesn’t cite anything nor do you.  It just makes claims.  So if you’re going to use science as your argument, back it up by citing it; otherwise, everything you say is just not supportable.

Please refrain from insulting people as I’ve not done this to you.

Gloria stated “Joanp62: By your logic, a woman should stay with her abusive husband, a man must tolerate being nagged and henpecked, by his wife. That’s putting “marriage” above love, as those are circumstances where love cannot thrive. For you, “Agape” means at least one person must be suffering for the relationship, while the other can be indifferent or abusive. I’m beginning to understand what your faith means to you. Sick.”

Why can’t libs engage in some critical thinking instead of jumping to all sorts of far out conclusions?

No, Gloria, Agape love, self-sacrificial does not apply to what you claim above. Also, in a marriage, both couples should be giving 100% to the other. When it is one-sided, when one gives and the other only takes, it won’t work. And yes, Gloria, most sane and logical people do consider selfishness as a negative, and being generous as positive.

You must be very young, as only someone IMO who has no children and has yet to experience much of life would have your silly notions.

John
LGBTs don’t want respect and dignity. They want approval!  It is time to stop tolerating them any more than we would tolerate Sandusky or pedophile priests. 
I guess Psy did go to the kiss-in at Ckick-fil-a to demonstrate his toleration and respect for its owner.

Mac, I want to thank you for discrediting Jimmy Akin’s argument.

Joanp62—Do you honestly believe I’ll change my mind when I have children? Were you a “liberal” before you had children?
,
You seem to be suggesting that because I’m not Catholic I am not capable of what you call “agape” love. That is a particularly arrogant insult that is, however, a common assumption by Catholics. Another example of Catholic “holier than thou” humility they’re so proud of, along with the assumption that I have not had enough experience of life, or I would be as “wise” as you think you are.
.
I just don’t think your Pope and your Church are worthy of agape love from me. Like Lin, your “faith” is really an form of erotic love that refuses to see any flaw in Church teachings and practice. You’d rather believe I’m wrong, immature, or even evil to keep your illusions.

Gloria, I base my comments about you from your own words in which you claimed, twice, that love was about pleasure. Agape love is not simply unconditional love, btw. I’m sure you wish it was- Love me no matter what I do! But it is self-less not selfish, generous and sacrificial, not self-centered and pleasure centered.

abimopectore: You telling me to site sources is a joke.
.
http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Research Papers/2860.htm
.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm
.
Do the rest of the research yourself.
.
The question of this article is whether homosexuality should be tolerated, not if it is a choice or not. The church’s policy against homosexuality is part of it’s unrealistic demands that it imposes of the lives of people as a price to be part of their group. Disapproval and shunning and scapegoating is the Catholic reaction to criticism, as is reflected in the comments of the “defenders of the faith” in this blog.
.
A lot of people are finding that life is joyful without the Church.

OK, Joanp62. I can see the Church convinced you to sacrifice yourself in the name of its definition of agape love. You spend a lot of your time and I’ll bet a good amount of money that could be used for pleasure with your friends and family, or even for yourself. I’m always fascinated by the martyrdom of Catholics—the masochistic, erotic pleasure they get believing that they are suffering for others. It’s also interesting that any “love” they express is because they are Catholic, suggesting that they could not or would not love anyone or anything if the Church didn’t tell them how. No sense of self or sense of their own judgement.
.
I noticed no one commented on my earlier post:
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/philadelphia-church-official-to-be-sentenced-in-abuse-case.html?_r=2
.
The Church protects its own and certainly tolerates homosexuality (and heterosexuality—though those incidents are not as publicized) among its clergy. Yet this is the institution to which you give your minds and your faith, and are willing to suffer for. You think you’re better than everyone else because of your Catholic faith.
.
I don’t know why we ever let you guys vote.

Gloria,
-
You put two links up and the first one is a term paper that makes claims and is not scientific research that goes into the etiology of homosexuality.  I’ll agree with the gist of the term paper that states that homosexuality has always existed however their are spurious historical claims that are not sufficiently substantiated in the paper at all.  But I understand that it’s a term paper and we should look and examine it for what it is, a term paper.  It’s hardly a scientific study.  The second one is a list of studies that have NOT found anything conclusive, which was my point regarding the etiology of homosexuality.  The scientific community does NOT have consensus towards what its cause is.  I’ll point you to a website where they’re conducting research to see if there is truly a genetic cause for homosexuality:
-
http://gaystudies.genetics.ucla.edu/UCLA Twin Sexual Orientation Study/Welcome.html
-
Again, the above study is trying to find genetic causes and we’ll see what happens.
-
“The question of this article is whether homosexuality should be tolerated, not if it is a choice or not.”
-
This is NOT what this article is about.  It’s about whether we can have discussion from opposing viewpoints without having to call each other bigots, haters, or intolerant.  There are differences of opinion but what you have failed to realize is that the manner by which you’ve carried your part has demonstrated exactly what this article is attempting to facilitate, a dialogue by where people can express their view points without having to call each other names.  You were the first one to insist upon the scientific perspective but your discussion has hardly been scientific as I’ve shown you with links that the science of the causes of homosexuality is an ongoing search that has NOT yet made a definitive conclusion.
-
“A lot of people are finding that life is joyful without the Church.”
-
This is your choice to make.  There are those that would disagree with you.

I still think is weird to spend your Sunday mornings worshiping a tortured dying deity and then eat his body and drink his blood.
.
OK, Einstein, show some scientific proof that homosexuality is a choice and not a natural orientation.

Gloria,

Please read what I’ve said previously.  Scientifically, it’s inconclusive at this point.  With more research and time, we’ll get a better idea on what the science has to say about it.

Then answer the question—should homosexuality be tolerated because it may not be a choice, or should a large number of people be rejected because they have a different chemistry than you?

By the way—you stance that it’s “inconclusive” is typical of some one who will deny and evade evidence at all. Do you deny climate change as well?

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

First of all, it’s time some of the rest of you weighed in on Mac’s comment that all LGBT’s are the moral equivalent of pedophiles.  What side are you on?

Secondly, Gloria, just because religion doesn’t speak to you doesn’t mean you should blast your ignorance all over the internet.  Catholics are no more full of **** than anyone else, and they do a lot of good when they’re not busy spewing a lot of BS.

Thirdly, Mac: Wow! You are not only apparently an expert on what LGBT’s want, but you’ve got some pretty serious issues, dude!  You really should talk to someone about these feelings.  Seriously.  People like you end up in the newspapers.

You are right, John. There are some good Catholic people in spite of their religion. I like to write on this site because of the BS many of the Catholics to spew on this site, but I let is get out of hand.
.
Mac probably knows what the pedophile priests wanted because he is such an authority on the subject. He doth protest too much, don’t you agree?

I’m sure I dealt with Joanp62 before—when she was using a different name. That condescending tone is very familiar.

I don’t understand why the question of whether gays choose to be gay or born that way is an issue. Though it would imply that those who believe its a choice are bi-sexual and do have a choice.

From Gloria: “I don’t know why we ever let you guys vote.”

You have got to be KIDDING me!!??!! Are you for real??!! You are the epitome of an intolerant bigot.

With regard to your NYTimes article: we are all well aware of the priest sex abuse scandal. This particular priest is going to jail because he did not report, and covered up, the abuses by another priest. I wonder how many school officials have covered up and transferred teachers and coaches around when they have abused minors. It does not make it okay, ever, however it seems as though the media pays more attention to abuse and alleged abuse by priests, more than any other group.

The Church does not tolerate homosexuality within the priesthood. The problem is that it has become so entrenched in many parts, due to unknown gay men being ordained, then allowing more and more into the priesthood by homosexual bishops, etc. They began to “take over” many seminaries back in the 60,s and 70’s. In time, much of that will be corrected, but it takes time.

Lastly, I don’t know who here is claiming that same sex attraction is a choice. While we don’t know if it is genetic, no one chooses to have those attractions. But just like a heterosexual is called to chastity outside of marriage and within, so are those with SSA.

Excuse me, Gloria, I have never posted under a different name and this login is something I use on many sites. Condescending?? Look in the mirror dear.

You, OTOH, sound like a recording of the many atheists who post here, repeating the same, tired arguments.

gotta go!  you guys talk among yourselves. John

This born gay vs choice thing is a false choice. I believe that being gay is a result of some event in your life. It’s basically an inability to express love to someone of the same sex without sex. A lot of the time it’s related to the relationship with the father. It’s not born or a choice.

Gloria, you didn’t used to post under the name Christine have you? You seem to be about as mature and polite (not really) as she was.

It was suggested that this article was written to decide if we should tolerate gays. Uh, no. The article points out that a lot of the people that use the terms hater and intolerant behave in hateful and intolerant ways. Such as saying things like ‘I don’t know why we ever let you guys vote.’

Joanp62—
Throwing my words back at me huh? FYI, I think you mean “Sally” who was posting on Akin’s article on the Final Solution. Check it out—she expressed a lot of interested in penises.
.
Maybe it’s one of your “friends” that you remind me of—got a few names?

Christopher Allen—you read too many novels. I lot of kids has traumatic experiences AFTER they realize they are gay. Usually bullying and social isolation, but many get worse.
.
Did you become Catholic because of “some experience?”
.
Also, make up your mind—is sex only for pleasure or for breeding?

Joanp62—I knew some Catholic would appreciate the Penn State scandal as a “defense” for the Roman Catholic Church scandal. I don’t hold clergy to a higher standard, you do.
.
Which is worse, the sexual abuse or the fact that it was homosexual abuse?

I’m going back and forth on recent comments and answering as they catch my eye, so I have another point for you, Joanp62.
.
There has not been and probably will not be any one gene or combination of genes identified that “makes” a person gay. It is not an “either, or” situation. The famous Kinsey Report measured on a scale of 0-6, were zero was completely heterosexual and six was exclusively homosexual. The results of the survey put most of the responders somewhere in between. A lot depends on “whatever turns you on.”
.
You may want to read, or watch the video (though it’s usually shown on public television) “The Botany of Desire.” The same evolutionary principles apply to human sexual desire, in that there is a chemistry for sexual reproduction and attraction is not a complete intellectual choice that can be dictated by the Pope.
.
The Catholic Church certainly developed a great racket with it’s definition of Agape. The Pet Rock couldn’t hold a candle to it.
.
Also, the line about “letting you guys vote” was kidding. It is an expression of intolerance, which this article is using to whitewash hatred for homosexuality.

Christopher Allen ~ “It was suggested that this article was written to decide if we should tolerate gays. Uh, no. The article points out that a lot of the people that use the terms hater and intolerant behave in hateful and intolerant ways. Such as saying things like ‘I don’t know why we ever let you guys vote.’”

Sort of like the Church proclaiming and supporting legislation against gay marriage. Excellent point.

Gloria, what part of ‘this is the only name I use’ do you not get? I do not use any other name on the internet and I do not know any Sally in person or on these comboxes. You ask “Is sex only for pleasure or for breeding?” Why is everything either/or for liberals? Sex is for bonding and procreation. It is not a recreational sport.

When I brought up school teachers and coaches I was not even thinking about the Penn State scandal. That is just one of many, many instances over the years of teachers, coaches, and non-Catholic clergy being involved in child sex abuse. What? You thought it was primarily a Catholic priest problem?

All the definitions I find for Agape love speaks of self-less, self-giving love and they all mention it along with the Bible and Christianity.

The Kinsey studies are seriously suspect. He used sexual perverts as test subjects along with infants and small children! He also thought there was nothing wrong with pedophilia and was an advocate for adult-child sex. Sick.

One last point, Gloria. “The same evolutionary principles apply to human sexual desire, in that there is a chemistry for sexual reproduction and attraction is not a complete intellectual choice that can be dictated by the Pope.”

The Pope nor the Church can tell anyone what to do. They can only speak about the Truth and speak out against all the B.S. that’s being spouted by the world. They propose what is good and right and true. They cannot and do not impose it. The world can listen or not. It’s our choice.

We know that brain chemistry plays an important part in sex. However, we are not like the rest of the animals, we can reason and make choices, we can choose to discipline ourselves and not just act on instinct. Unlike other animals, we can practice self-control.

Just kidding about the letting us vote remark? Nice try. But I don’t buy it for a minute.

Good thing there is plenty of room in hell.

Joan—Where do you get your information about Kinsey—Some Catholic site? How do you know who his subjects were?
.
Just because “school teachers, etc. also” abuse children does not excuse Catholic priests from doing it or covering up for others—unless you’re a moral relativist.
.
The homophobia on this site is appalling—even worse than the anti-abortion/contraception ideology. You can’t stand any variety in the world—no wonder you are upset when people enjoy themselves in different ways. Apparently, nothing but the way people conduct their sexuality is the only worldly issue important to you. The economy, whether people can afford healthcare, or to feed their families, or lose their homes, or get AIDS or other preventable diseases, climate change, drought, or any other causes of human suffering do not concern you. Sexual behavior is your “magic bullet” that will cure all the world’s ills. Once everyone loves the people they’re supposed to and in the way the Church approves, all secular problems will take care of themselves.
.
No wonder all the debates on these blogs get irrational and hysterical.

@Gloria, or maybe John -

“The church’s policy against homosexuality is part of it’s unrealistic demands that it imposes of the lives of people as a price to be part of their group.”

Oh,yeah, that’s why former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, VP Joe Biden, deceased Senator Ted Kennedy and others, all in support of the legal murdering of unborn children still receive Holy Communion and get Red Cap funerals in Catholic Cathedrals. 

Gloria, John has answered my question; why haven’t you?  I know you have seen it because of how quick and thorough you are to rebut anything anyone says to you.  And you recently said you went back and reread the comments so that you can respond to any you missed.  I’m interested in what your answer will be

A much more important question is “Are you showing respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward gays like the Catechism demands?”

...and are you teaching others about this aspect of the Church’s teachings?

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 12:00 AM (EST):

John, and Gloria, too.  Answer me this.  If science discovers there is a gene for homosexuality; how many mothers and fathers do you think would continue the pregnancy - what percentage?

And if Catholics “hate” homosexuals, as you seem to believe, does it present any problem in your bigoted thinking towards the Church that it would be Catholics who would be standing outside abortion clinics praying and begging those parents or those women to not go through with an abortion; offering them help to get through their dilemma?  Does it cause you to pause in your bigotry to know it would be Catholics in the forefront to get Roe v Wade overturned and work to get a Right To Life Constitutional Amendment passed even for babies carrying the homosexual gene?
.
Is this the questions you are referring to, stillbelieve?
.
First of all, why are you bringing abortion into the conversation? Are you suggesting that atheists/liberals, etc. would abort their babies if genetic testing “proved” they would be homosexual? Not sure why you made up this dilemma when atheist/liberals, etc., for the most part, do not consider homosexuality a problem. Can you explain why you bring this up?
.
It’s Catholics who are having the problem with homosexuals, and are obsessed with preventing homosexual activity between consenting adults. It’s only a dilemma for Catholics, because they consider contraception/abortion a sin and a crime under any circumstances. A homosexual child is only a problem for a Catholic parent who cannot accept the child’s sexual orientation. I don’t understand what Roe vs. Wade has to do with sexual orientation.
.
Can you explain how abortion became relevant when the subject is sexual behavior that does not involve impregnation?

Hey Stilbelieve:
Why haven’t you answered my questions? 
1) Do gays cause hurricanes?
2) Do you agree with Mac that gays are the moral equivalent of pedophiles?

For that matter, WHY HAS NO ONE IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD responded to Mac’s post?  Here it is again: “It is time to stop tolerating them any more than we would tolerate Sandusky or pedophile priests.” 

If can’t stand up to a statement that vile you are either the bigot you claim you aren’t or a coward.  When Mac brings his AK and his glock to the mall to work out his issues you will all say “gee, and he seemed like such a nice quiet church goer.”

Too much?  He’s saying that 20-30 million of our fellow Americans are no better than pedophiles.  That’s who’s nodding his head in agreement with you.

Thoughts?

Are you actually using the kimzey report? It was done in a PRISON. The level of sex offenders is a leeeetle higher there, as well as homosexual activity.
Novels? Try studies.this usually isn’t something they are aware of. Sheesh what have you got against science?
BTW, Pleasure is a side effect of sex. It is used for humans to bond, as a stable family is better at raising kids, but the main purpose is breeding. I once heard a scientist say it was natures way of tricking us into perpetuating the species. In the Catholic idea it’s also a sacrament- The family is how man was made in the image of God.

Man, the blindness is amazing. have a nice life Gloria. Please change your name, though.

Oh, and the reason we haven’t responded to the hurricane thing is because it’s a stupid question. Of course they don’t to say otherwise would be unbiblical.

Sorry I didn’t answer this sooner, I have responsibilities outside this thread.  The pro-gay marriage advocates are now using tactic #3. Let’s review. If you believe in traditional biblical marriage 1st you must be a hateful bigot. If that isn’t working move on to equating homosexuals with blacks and that makes you a racists. Stage 3 - get all indignant and call them gun toting hateful racist bigot homophobes. That pretty well covers all of the usual lefty straw men.  However, I will not underestimate my opponents to come up with more tiresome cliches.  The only one I plead guilty to is being a homophobe.
Now about the pedophilia charge - after witnessing a gay-pride parade I recall a float for NAMBLA. I could be wrong but I think that stands for the North American Man Boy Love Assoc.  Help me out here John am I wrong?  I didn’t see any protests against them. Maybe I missed it.

Good point Mac, why isn’t the Church out campaigning against pedophiles instead of wasting their time and money on gays?

Mac:I never called you a racist I compared you to a racist.  Since you are apparently a proud homophobe you obviously agree with me.  At least we have found some common ground!

I’m not indignant, I just wanted to clarify that you believe homosexuals to be the moral equivalents of pedophiles.  If I believed that to be true I would certainly hate gay people, so if that is indeed what you believe then you would be a douche bag if you weren’t a “hater.” In fact, most racists only believe blacks are inferior, not evil, so given your stated beliefs, your hatred of homosexuals must, or at least should, run far deeper than a garden-variety racist hates blacks.

The tactic that you didn’t mention was when I implied that you are a closeted homosexual and your vituperation and homophobia is an expression of self-loathing.  That characterization, admittedly, is a cliche, but now that we know you hang out at gay pride parades it seems maybe not so far off the mark?  I don’t know if you are gun-toting or not, but for the safety of your community I certainly hope not.

Whether or not there were protests against NAMBLA at the parade you went to, you were right to be appalled at their inclusion.  There are a lot of gay idiots and amoral gay people and gay people who are afraid to stand up for what is right—as is the case with every group.  But that doesn’t make them pedophiles.  Just as I wouldn’t lump all Catholics in with the pedophiles the hierarchy protected, or the bigotry that is on display here, I would expect a fair-minded person would not stigmatize an entire group of people by association.  Would you consider yourself a fair minded person, Mac?

And Christopher Allen, if the best you can do is “to say otherwise would be unbiblical” then it’s not a silly question at all! I would think that to ask if you believed men walked along side of dinosaurs would be a silly question, too.  But maybe you think it’s silly because the obvious answer is “Of course they did! To say otherwise would be unbiblical.”  Is that what you believe?

And how about the rest of you?  Are you all proud homophobes like Mac?  Do you support his views?  Do you think the Earth is 5000 years old?  This has really been enlightening!

Anyone interested in the Church’s teachings about respect, compassion, and sensitivity? Anyone?

John I never called gays pedophiles I just compared them to them seeing how all of the pedophiles are generally homosexuals and they associate themselves with NAMBLA. I am gratified to hear you have come out of the closet and oppose pedophilia. You deserve credit for it. You see we are making some progress here. We do agree on something. Let’s see if we can agree on something else. John, do you think anal intercourse is healthy or natural? 
You can call me and every other Catholic names all you want but we could quickly resolve this discussion by stating our positions on homosexual behavior.  I believe it is very bad.
I appologise to my Catholic brothers and sisters for using such a frank approach, but we never seem to get anywhere with GLBTers with intellectual discussions of natural law, teleology, philosophy or theology.  So lets try anatomy and physiology.  The only way to show what the are really about is to flush out the details.  Gay love has nothing in common with the marital love we are speaking of.  It is really all about homosexual behavior.  As a physician who trained in San Francisco, I unfortunately heard more details than I ever wanted to know.
So let’s see if you have the guts to state your views. I have been honest about mine.  John, do you think anal intercourse is healthy or natural?

Patrick, Psy,John etal.: respect and compassion for others does not mean that you do not say something about any negative or sinful behavior. Sensitivity? Tolerance? The left acts like these are primary virtues while at the same time showing a significant amount of intolerance and insensitivity toward those who don’t agree with them (Gloria?)! Oh, but it’s okay to be bigoted, intolerant, rude and insensitive to those you deem are inferior to you(like racism?)because they do not view the world as you do.
Sodomy is not healthy for people to engage in. Also, as Catholics, we feel certain that it is very sinful and harmful to a person’s soul and psyche. True love, respect and compassion would be to let the person know these things, then they are free to decide if they have more information. Just like people speak out against smoking, which, btw, from a spiritual standpoint is not as serious to one’s soul.
What really gets me, is people accusing the Church for being obsessed with sex, when it does not speak out about these things until it becomes an issue in the general public. Gays are the ones advocating for marriage, not only civil unions, so the Church speaks up to defend marriage as between one man and one woman, which btw, has pretty much been the norm for the history of human civilization. The President wants to make Catholic business owners and organizations to provide coverage for contraception, against our beliefs and conscience, so the Church is going to fight against it publicly. Other than that, the Church keeps those teachings toward her own members. But when these beliefs and teachings are challenged in the public square, we have to speak out.

Please don’t equate us with the Westboro Baptist group or other Protestants who claim that God sends hurricanes to us because of homosexual behavior. Or assume that some are gun-toting radicals ready to explode. Talk about irrational and hysterical! No one here has made those sorts of comments, yet, in knee-jerk fashion as always, the left takes one matter and draws all sorts of inane conclusions from it. Gee, you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, you must be a hater, a bigot, who wants to go out and shoot everyone dead! Oh, please! That is anything but irrational. Oh, and what was the latest asinine assertion? We must think the world is 5000 years old (actually the fundies claim it is 6000)although the Bible, to the best of my knowledge does not claim to give an age to the earth. Get a grip. Or accusing another poster as being a closet homosexual- insulting. Talk about drawing illogical conclusions.

Homophobes? Whatever. We believe that it is seriously harmful to engage in sodomy and other activities that tend to go along with the whole gay culture. So whether you are a longtime couple (gay or straight) who engages in it, or are heavily into the gay subculture or any culture that involves heavy drinking, drugs, promiscuity,excessive glorification of the body,using other persons as objects, etc. yes, I fear what this does to the persons involved and their families. It is physically and spiritually damaging to a human being, and to be silent about it would be inexcusable. Just like society is not silent about obesity and smoking, it would be irresponsible to stay silent on these matters as well.

But expecting a reasonable, well thought out conversation with most of you on the left is looking more and more like an impossibility.

Meant to type: This is anything but rational.

Well said Joanp62. Amen

Here is an excellent article by David Morrison, a Catholic man who has SSA and was formerly a gay activist, who is now living a chaste, celibate life. He writes contrasting the attitude of some Christians, mainly fundamentalist Protestant, and their attitude toward those living with same sex attraction, with the Catholic attitude and teaching. It is rather long, but I do hope some of you on here will read it. I do believe that us Catholics on here do not agree with the stance taken by some non-Catholic Christians, and it is wrong to attribute some of their wrong-headed tactics to those of us who simply believe that sodomy is one of many serious sexual sins, and that marriage is for one man and one woman.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-07-011-v

Oh, where to begin?

Riding a motorcycle is INSANELY unnatural and unhealthy!  So are millions of other behaviors that you don’t concern yourself with, but are happy to let others do if they choose. Why are you so interested in what other people do with their genitalia?  I grew up in San Francisco.  I certainly hope you weren’t examining me! 

I don’t have any experience with anal intercourse and I’m not a doctor or a scientist.  I’ve known many very healthy gay people.  I don’t ask about their sex lives so I don’t know what they are doing to stay so healthy (besides working out!).  I’ll leave it up to people like you who are fixated on anal intercourse to decide how dangerous it is.  I can’t imagine it is as dangerous as driving a car, though.

It is not an insult to suggest that because you are homophobic you might be a closet homosexual and potentially volatile.  That’s exactly why gays get beaten up. That’s why Mathew Shepatin was hung by a barbed wire fence to die.  It’s actually charitable, because it gives your hatred a rationale.

So no, Joan, it is not an “inane conclusion” to connect you to some gun-toting radicals.  If you do not have the courage and decency to state that there is a difference between pedophiles and homosexuals, if you say “homophobes? whatever” your views are actually dangerous.  Do I mean to imply that you personally tote guns, or may go out and get drunk and beat up a gay guy for fun? No, I really don’t.  And if it seemed that that is what I believe then I apologize.  But I believe you share a lot more in common with the people who do that type of thing than you care to admit.  You fuel their fire with your prejudice.  They beat the crap out of a gay kid on Saturday night and get their justification in church on Sunday.  Now there’s some unnatural, unhealthy behavior!  Spoken out against that lately?

And btw, most pedophiles are definitely NOT gay. What planet are you from? (oh, and that’s an expression meaning I don’t feel you are very aware of the world you live in or that your statements are very well thought out.  I don’t actually believe you’ve emigrated from another universe.)

AND THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.  THERE IS POLYGAMY THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT. GOD SEEMS TO HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT!!!!!! So I guess as far as God is concerned the one man, one woman formula is optional, eh?  So much for it being the norm ever since the beginning of civilization.

I understand why you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry and as misguided as I think those views are, you have every right to have them. It’s just that in your imposition of those views upon everyone else in the form of laws that you do real harm to some really good people.  And when you justify your prejudice with statements comparing homosexuals to criminals you affirm all they stereotypes about someone with your views: that you are small-minded, full of hatred, not guided by love or compassion but simply determined to convince yourself that your bigotry makes you morally superior.

So how exactly am I being bigoted or intolerant?  I don’t consider you inferior.  I consider your views inferior.  I don’t think all Catholics are like you.  I think you are probably really decent people in other areas of your lives.  I’m not saying you shouldn’t have your say.  The Chick-Fil-A people should be allowed to air their views, too, just as people are free to boycott them.  Calling you out on the offensiveness of your statements is not intolerance.  It’s America. 

Do you understand the difference between disagreeing with someone’s views and condemning their behavior?  I’m not trying to stop you from doing anything.  You, on the other hand, are trying to stop homosexuals from being who they feel God meant them to be.

John, riding a motorcycle is INSANE? Unnatural and unhealthy? I guess driving a car, riding a bike, using a computer is also unnatural, because these things were made by humans and not nature? Very strange reasoning.
You can choose to view my world view as being prejudiced, hateful and whatever- but that doesn’t make it so.

The President of Chik-Fil-A is being demonized simply for stating his beliefs to a Christian publication that marriage is between a man and a woman, and he is accused of being a hater of those with same sex attraction. Marriage for most of human history has been between one man and one woman, and in the cases of polygamy, it was still between male and female. Yet, today, no one mentions that up until recently no one considered ‘gay marriage’ and how in a relatively brief period of time we have done a complete 180. And I/we are not obsessed with genitalia, but the homosexual crowd seems to be. As I stated in a recent post here, we would not even be discussing the subject of ‘gay marriage’ if they weren’t trying to shove it down our throat and IMPOSE their views on the rest of society.

Did you read the Touchstone article? I agree with everything this man wrote. Is he a homophobic, bigot, hater also?

I have to get to Mass, so I can’t add any more right now. Good day.

John, you don’t seem to get that most of the Catholics and/or homophobes here cannot stand ambiguity. They have no sense of humor,irony, sarcasm, carrying their so-called “logic” to the absurd, doesn’t get through to them. The only imagination they have is used for straw man, slippery-slope scenarios (e.g. “homosexuals are pedophiles”). They think they “know the TRUTH!” It’s a sin to contradict Catholic teachings, and they consider themselves virtuous even whey they tell down-right lies to defend their faith.
.
I suppose going to mass is one of the sacrifices Joan makes for her faith.

I said “insanely unhealthy” (as in “wildly unhealthy”). It’s an expression.

I like David Morrison’s article a lot, and thank you for posting it.  What’s particularly true in his piece is that he points out it is all about money.  Both sides turn the other into devil to get your contributions.

I also LOVED that he pointed out that far more harm to traditional marriage is being done by heterosexuals than same sex marriage can ever do.  He stopped short, however, of asking why all the fuss over gay marriage while actually supporting traditional marriage by supporting traditional marriage gets only lip service, if that. What is the church actively doing to help couples stay together?  Where’s all the fundraising for that cause?

Gay marriage has become a sacred cow among liberals, and if you attack it you will be attacked back.  Sorry about that.  Here’s why, and here’s what is at the heart of this debate: I don’t understand how you or anyone else is harmed by gay marriage.  I also fail to see how it is being shoved down your throat.  On the other hand, most of the negative consequences of homosexuality (or any sexuality, for that matter) are directly related to the lack of commitment.  So I see only good and no bad in gay marriage.  On the other hand, I see a lot of bad and very little good in divorce—and yet I’m certainly not suggesting it be outlawed nor do I think it’s being shoved down my throat.

You and I and everyone else may engage in behavior someone else may find wrong, unhealthy and immoral but that does not pose a grave enough danger to society at large to be banned.  You are not asking me or anyone else to agree that homosexual behavior is bad—you are just saying I can’t be a member of your church if I disagree.  I respect that.  What I don’t respect is you or anyone else opposing the declaration love and commitment between homosexuals that marriage represents.

And I was fairly convinced that you were not a “hater” until Mac equated all homosexuals to pedophiles and you didn’t (and still don’t) repudiate him.  If you don’t “hate” pedophiles then there is something wrong with you (and “hate” is in quotes because it’s more complicated, but I think you get the distinction).  Ipso facto, if you agree with Mac you should “hate” homosexuals.  That’s not the language David Morrison is using and I assume you wouldn’t either.  But it significantly diminishes you as a person if you don’t have the courage to speak out against such hatefulness.

I would like to see real statistics of how many gay bullies or murderers actually show up to church frequently.  Since that is *not* the type of behavior you learn about at church.  If anything, you learn the opposite, to treat others kindly.  You learn that homosexuality according to God is a sin, but you aren’t taught to hate.

Go to an atheists’ page on Facebook and you will see that they have some Likers who complain about homosexuality being an overly-frequent topic there.  Which suggests to me that aversion or dislike of homosexuality cannot always be attributed to religion, since most of their Likers I assume are atheists.

“Where’s all the fundraising for that cause?” It’s not a political issue, unforetuneately. I donate time to a group called retrouvaille, which helps turn the tide on divorce. There’s also marriage Encounter and engaged encounter. These aren’t hot button issues with the media, so they don’t get a lot of coverage. These are bad things, but they still don’t detract from main issue of whether same sex marriage is valid. You have rightly said that there are problems with marriage. I think they can be attributed to the no fault divorce and birth control- But it’s another issue entirely. It’s an example of a false cause fallacy. You’ve accused us of doing and committed the straw man quite a few times.
Concerning the pedophile issue, it’s kind of a red herring, as none of these catholic priests are actually pedophiles. they are Ebophiles, basically meaning they molested teenage bays- that is, young men. They were attracted to young men.

The reason we have a problem with it is summed up in a joke.

I you call a dog’s leg a tail, how many legs does it have? The answer is 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it true.

My opinion on how homosexuality hurts society is that back when most people were heterosexual (pre-sexual revolution, I assume) most people came out (after growing up, I mean) heterosexual.  So for anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin, the increased presence of such alternative lifestyles in the media, on TV, in politics, in public schools—if that leads any of our own kids to eventually become gay as well (or to view it as an okay life choice), then that is the main way I can think of that it could hurt even when most proponents of gay marriage say, “Why shouldn’t it be allowed—it doesn’t hurt anyone else!”  Because it would be just one more societal stamp of approval on something that according to the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism isn’t a right way to live.  Um, I’ll get back to you on what the Zoroastrians think…  ; )

Hey Bryan, I’m averse to homosexuality too!  It makes me queasy to think about.  That’s not religion’s fault.  I think that aversion is totally natural and understandable.  It’s also natural and understandable to fear people who look different than we do.  It doesn’t make it ok.  It’s a prejudice that most grown-ups need to work to overcome.

And yes, I think most churches most of the time preach love and compassion.  Believe it or not, I’m fairly religious myself.  I would really hope that bullies and gay bashers, at least grown up ones, don’t go to church.  But I do believe when the prevalent wisdom being taught is that gays are harmful to society it gives people license to do horrible things.

Joanp62~ “Or accusing another poster as being a closet homosexual- insulting.”

Insulting? That seems rather bigoted to me. I wasn’t insulted or offended when Mac called me gay earlier nor did I feel it was necessary to deny it. For the record I’m not, but I find the fact that you see ‘gay’ as an offense instead of real equal people is quite telling.

Hey everybody. I think we can all agree that I’m a bit too obsessed with this email thread and there are better things that can be done with our time—or at least mine.  I’m going to have to tear myself away and focus on, oh I don’t know, my family?  Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful and honest responses.  God’s blessings on you all. Good Sunday! John

John you still refuse to answer the question - do you think anal intercourse is healthy or natural?  Are you aware that sodomy (oral and anal) is responsible for 80-90% of all AIDS cases?  It is far more dangerous than putting a cigarette in your mouth, even a thousand cigarettes.  In addition it causes peri-rectal tears, fistulas, abscesses, hemorrhoidal bleeding, anal incontinence, etc. in addition to all of the other STDs such as gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and HPV, all of which have the highest incidence in the gay community.  If you knew this and loved your gay friends, wouldn’t you try to persuade them not to participate in such risky behavior?  Do we not discourage smoking, over eating, even drinking more than 16 oz of Coca-Cola at a time?  We even discourage motorcycle riding without a helmet.
You said you have no experience with it, I will take your word for it. Now you have some data. 
So lets try one more time, do you think anal intercourse is healthy or natural?  Try to be honest.

BryanD:
“Go to an atheists’ page on Facebook and you will see that they have some Likers who complain about homosexuality being an overly-frequent topic there.  Which suggests to me that aversion or dislike of homosexuality cannot always be attributed to religion, since most of their Likers I assume are atheists.”
.
Not sure what you mean by “Likers,” but I agree that atheists tend to like homosexuals and support their rights. We don’t condemn behavior that doesn’t hurt others.
.
A few suggestions as to why homosexuality of an overly-frequent topic on this site:
.
The Catholic attitude is aimed at making homosexuals ashamed of themselves, their feelings and love for someone of the “wrong” sex.
.
The Catholic Church scandal emphasizes the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia has been covertly practiced and protected by Church hierarchy, while they preached against homosexuality.
.
Catholics tend to downplay the Catholic scandal by referring to secular institutions with similar scandals, as though that makes the Catholic Church less responsible.
.
The Catholic Church is waging a battle against all forms of contraception while trying to distract the public focus on the sexual and racketeering scandals that are being “leaked.”
.
People are starting to question why religion should be considered moral authority when religious people are being exposed as hypocrites.

Mac, are you advocating denying people their rights to do unhealthy or dangerous things in their constitutional right to pursue happiness? What are you going to actually do short of putting them in concentration camps? Denying them marriage rights isn’t going to stop their activity.

I’ve dealt with oppressive people in the past trying to get me to give up flying planes, skydiving, rock climbing, and telling me how to live in general for my own good. Good luck with that.

Christopher Allen~ “It’s not a political issue,”

Yes, the church should forfeit its religious tax exemption for its involvement in political issues.

” Are you aware that sodomy (oral and anal) is responsible for 80-90% of all AIDS cases?  It is far more dangerous than putting a cigarette in your mouth, even a thousand cigarettes.
.
Mac, are you aware that the Pope and the Catholic Church’s policy against condoms is very much responsible for the increase of AIDs? The Church down-right lied about the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the spread of sexual disease.
.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-07-26/unprotected-sex-fuels-hiv-rise-in-catholic-philippines/987072
.
http://thomasmizzoni.blogspot.com/2012/04/condoms-and-catholic-church-continuing.html
.
You like to think that homosexuals are the only victims of HIV, but many cases are spread to woman and children. Remember Ryan White? Christians labeled HIV and AIDS as “the gay disease” because it made them feel good about themselves in the “it can’t happen to me” sense. The highest rates of HIV and AIDS are in Catholic populations who are obviously getting the message that condoms are “wrong,” but obviously disregarding Catholic preaching against homosexuality.
.
You might want to look at this POV:
.
http://www.infowars.com/hiv-aids-was-created-to-target-gay-men-for-eugenics-experiment-suggests-us-doctor/

Your headline, “Are You a Hater or a Bigot? Or Are You Just Intolerant?” reminds me of the logical fallacy typified by the statement, “Are you still beating your wife?”  There is no answer you can give that denies you beat her.

Thank God Catholicism does not use such false statements to teach Her people.

Here is a great article regarding this debate:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-09-018-v

Psy, when someone accuses another of being a ‘closet homosexual’ they mean it purposely to BE insulting, plus they are accusing them of being dishonest about themselves. That is insulting.

I had a response to John, but I guess he has bowed out of the conversation.

I just wanted to add that it seems so strange that the media and many on this combox,are acting as though it has always been legal for gays to marry and as if the Church and others are just now trying to pass a law to stop it. We and the Church are just stating what we believe to be a serious and major truth, that the State did not institute marriage, that it was instituted by God, and therefore no one has the right to redefine marriage. Marriage has always been between opposite sex partners, and we believe it should stay that way. Sodomy is disordered and we have the right to say so. HOWEVER,  we are NOT imposing our views on anyone. We have a right to give our side and opinion on the matter. Please read the article I linked to above in my last comment. It is an older article, but I believe it correctly expresses what the Church teaches and what I believe as a Catholic as well.

Joanp62 “Psy, when someone accuses another of being a ‘closet homosexual’ they mean it purposely to BE insulting, plus they are accusing them of being dishonest about themselves.”

Why are you so offended by any association with gays? It was a reasonable point of discussion as you know some of the most vehement anti-gay activists are gay. Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Glenn Murphy Jr. and the list goes on and on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians

In case someone comments that not all those Christian evangelicals were Catholic,
.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-vatican-legion-idUSBRE84L0Y920120522
.
Catholic clergy don’t have wives who would complain if they were unfaithful, and they have luxurious churches and confessionals to hide their abuse—not to mention a code of silence and power to shame their victims.

I’m offended when someone goes out of their way to insult another.

I believe Evangelical Christians are a poor example of Christianity, and are a far cry from Catholicism. Evangelicalism is a purely American mutation of True Christianity, in my opinion.

Another Catholic perspective:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-04-029-f

Joanp62~ “I’m offended when someone goes out of their way to insult another.”

Yet here you are disparaging gays as unnatural, immoral and sinners and posting links to anti-gay article after article associating gays to disease and immorality over and over again. Give me a break.

Gloria, thanks for the points.  I meant that on a Facebook page devoted to atheism and its promotion, that homosexuality seems to be a frequent topic over there on a page like that.  And that some people who read that page on atheism complain about it.  A ‘Liker’ is someone who clicks a ‘Like’ button on Facebook to show that they support or like to read that Facebook page.  So the Likers have declared themselves to at least ‘like’ atheism.

The other guy, you have a good point as well… John, I guess.  Not harmful to society, necessarily, but that the more kids see and hear about it, the more likely some of them will choose that as a life course.  So it is harmful to any Christians who are hoping that their kids will turn out straight, I guess.  An example: when I was in high school (late 80s) there was no such thing as a gay extracurricular club (at least not here in Utah.)  Now, there are clubs like that.  So the phenomenon of people being gay or turning out gay seems to be propagating itself, maybe?  And the increased presence of that lifestyle in the media or in politics could be contributing to that.  I do agree it is important to regulate our dialogue so’s peeps don’t get beat up or persecuted.  Everyone has a right to live and be left alone.  So I just contradicted myself, I guess…

I have seen some decent points from both sides in the comments above.  Just FYI I am not a Catholic (I am LDS, aka Mormon.)  I do listen to Catholic Answers quite often on the radio, which is how I ended up here.

Psy “Yet here you are disparaging gays as unnatural, immoral and sinners and posting links to anti-gay article after article associating gays to disease and immorality over and over again. Give me a break.”

Stop with the misrepresentation of what is being said here. Neither I nor anyone else is disparaging gays- we are speaking of the ACTS of sodomy, the behavior is sinful, immoral and unnatural. And those acts are just as wrong for heterosexuals as well, as is adultery, theft, murder, gossip, cheating, etc. Liberals and atheists have a hard time differentiating between hating the sin and loving the sinner. That is why you are the ones who get personal with your attacks and insults.

Psy, those articles I posted were anything but hateful. You choose to view them as such because you don’t want to consider what they are saying. To you, anyone who does not think sodomy is wonderful is a hater.

Just 2 comments:
1) August 1st is “Chick-Fil-A Day”-go buy a chicken bisquit or sandwich.
2) Don’t feed the trolls.
:)

Joanp62, In that case I apologize, I assumed you were posting those articales as excuses to deny gays marriage equality.

OH, WAIT .......

@Psy [Yes, the church should forfeit its religious tax exemption for its involvement in political issues.”]  ..........  Of course, you are referring to pro gay marriage church leaders like the Rev(?) Jesse Jackson and the Rev(?) Al Sharpton who shill for money in liberal black churches all across America knowing Eric Holder wouldn’t dare touch their 503c IRS status.  It’s only Evangelicals, Baptists and Catholics who should worry.  You do know the majority who crafted the Constitution in 1787 were actually Protestant ministers and sons of ministers.  You do know your bastion of pro gay marriage academia (now radical leftist Havard) was founded as Divinity school to train Pastors in teaching the gospel.  I don’t think your guy Obama signed up for any of those classes since the Bible has now become hate speech.

New Observer, I think you will find there is a growing consensus that all churches should lose the special privilege of tax exemption except for what they actually contribute to charitable causes.

@Gloria

“I don’t understand what Roe vs. Wade has to do with sexual orientation.”

It has to do with your calling Catholics “homophobic” and “haters” of homosexual people.  If that were true, then how would explain the Catholics and the Church being in the forefront of protecting and fighting for the right to life of unborn babies who were found to have the gene for homosexuality, if such a gene were ever found by scientist?

@John

“You are asking me to speculate about how many pregnant couples would abort a child if they knew it to be homosexual?  I wouldn’t have any idea….”

Seriously?  Out of a 100 couples pregnant with a baby carrying the homosexual “gene” (if they ever found one), what number do you think would terminate the baby’s life?  There are a lot of hopes and dreams that go into carrying, having and raising a baby that are not going to be realized by those parents with that child.  It’s going to be a different life for them, a different culture that they will have to adapt to.  They are going to realize that as soon as they are told during the pregnancy.  Be realistic; out of a hundred average people, what percent do you think would want to bring into their lives a child who would grow up to be homosexual?

“Now a question for you (and it’s a serious one): do you believe that homosexuals cause hurricanes by being gay? I’m trying to figure out where there might be common ground.”

@John

““Now a question for you (and it’s a serious one): do you believe that homosexuals cause hurricanes by being gay?

No, I don’t.  I don’t think homosexuals cause hurricanes or himicanes.

stillbelieve:
“It has to do with your calling Catholics “homophobic” and “haters” of homosexual people.  If that were true, then how would explain the Catholics and the Church being in the forefront of protecting and fighting for the right to life of unborn babies who were found to have the gene for homosexuality, if such a gene were ever found by scientist?”
.
WTF? Like I said, what kind of people would abort a homosexual child, except someone who is so repulsed and hateful of homosexuals—such as Catholics? Would you consider a “homosexual gene” as bad or worse as a gene that indicates, for example, Marfan syndrome?
.
If all you are saying is that you would protect the life of an unborn child regardless as to whether s/he is homosexual or not, you are making an irrelevant statement. It is more important to me whether you would invite that homosexual person and his/her partner to Christmas dinner?

“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” -The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Respect, compassion, and sensitivity go beyond just telling someone their lifestyle is sinful.
If you respect someone, you will listen to what they have to say, even if you disagree, and try to peacefully discuss the matter without portraying them as an enemy. You’ll try to understand what has made them so angry, what life experiences have led them to believe that you hate them.
If you are compassionate, you will do your best to avoid showing animus or anger toward someone, and you certainly would not insult them or speak down to them. You’ll even offer them kindness and respect when they have not yet shown it to you.
If you are showing someone sensitivity, you do your best to consider how a message would be received by that person and actively try to avoid causing even unintentional hurt with your words or actions. You make an effort to understand the emotions they are feeling and act accordingly.

Avoiding every sign of unjust discrimination means not only not being unjust toward them, but even making an effort to demonstrate that you are actively trying to ensure they are treated in a just fashion.

That’s the very least that is required of Catholics when dealing with gay people. Sadly, many people, Catholic or otherwise, who represent Christianity in the eyes of others fail on these points, and as a result many, many gay people feel they are unwelcome, outcasts. They conclude they are hated and discriminated against and they often lash out to protect themselves against it. They fall away from the Church, and in some cases, they feel so thoroughly unwelcome that they will likely never return.

Please always keep that in mind and teach others about this aspect of the Church’s message as well.

Patrick, going around uninvited telling people they are sinful is offensive no matter how you do it.

@Gloria

“Like I said, what kind of people would abort a homosexual child, except someone who is so repulsed and hateful of homosexuals—such as Catholics?”

There are all kinds of reasons people abort their babies.  Abortion is running about 1,200,000 per year in the U.S. without homosexuality being a reason.  People abort babies with all kinds of disorders, down syndrome being one of them.  They don’t “hate” the child, or the disability. They just don’t want to have to deal with raising such a child; it’s not something they dreamed of when they got married and wanted to have a family.  And a disorder doesn’t even need to be present; they wanted a boy and are going to have a girl.  Their solution is to abort her and try again.  They don’t “hate” that baby.  They just wanted something else.  I’m saying Catholics and the Church would be in the forefront, fighting to save the lives of those babies that had the homosexual gene, in case there ever was a gene that could be detected. They’d be in the forefront to find a home for that child, too, if the life was saved to be adopted. 

You are charging Catholics with being “haters;” and I’m saying the facts and reality prove you wrong in your unjustified attacks.  If you prefer to cloak yourself in hatred, that is your decision.  But you are not winning anyone over when your allegations are so easyly disprove. 

As far as a Christmas dinner, that would depend on their life style and the respect that they have for me and my family.  Their homosexuality would not be the issue.  There behavior would.

@Psy:  It all depends upon what you believe.  Christianity accepts the Bible as the final authority over how believers are to conduct their lives before a Holy and Righteous God who sent His Son (without sin) to pay the penalty of our sins—which is ultimate death and eternal separation.  If the homosexual desires acceptance in church, the same argument is made for the married adulterer / adulteress and the fornicating single man or woman.  The message of Christianity is forgiveness, not condemnation.  Check Romans 8:1.  We come to Him on His terms—not ours.  One cannot live in disobedience and expect blessings or acceptance.  It’s not a matter of some church accepting you, it’s that Christ accepts the penitent sinner who confesses his/her sin (which means you agree with God you are sinning) and then you repent (by changing your behavior).  Be you homosexual, adulterer or fornicator, if you more interested in having your sin explained rather than repenting, the gospel (and Paul’s letters) are clear.  The Lord does not respond to prayers of those who do evil in His sight without having any remorse.  It’s not just homosexual sin—it’s sin period.  Now, if you’ve never heard the gospel before, you have just heard it now.  And so, (as Paul writes in Romans 1) —“you are now without excuse.”  If you still wish to argue, your problem is not with Catholics or Christians, your problem is with the word of God.  Take it up with Him.

Even if you are certain someone is sinning and that you must talk to them about it, you must be very careful how you do so, especially with gay people, as it could very easily fail the “sensitivity” aspect of how Catholics must treat them, particularly since gay people often face a great deal of ostracism and hostility from others already.

Directly confronting them over the subject can very easily cause them to just stop listening because often the people who do harbor genuine animosity against gays will use words like “hate the sin, but love the sinner” or things like that to rationalize their anger and hostility. If you end up sounding like those people, your message will be lost among their noise.

It is interesting to notice that the writer was offended at being called a bigot or intolerant but he tries to brand the person who disagreed with him the same.  If you want to know if you are being intolerant, just look inside your heart and ask yourself “why am I against two people who love each other and want to be joined?”  The answer should be obvious.

@Patrick:  Your attitude is part of the problem today.  Gay people have got you boxed in to thinking you MUST speak sensitively and carefully to them.  They have succeeded in turning society in thinking Gays are some sort of protected “special” class.  I am not suggesting we approach them with hostility and condemnation for I also am a sinner.  But to tip toe around the sin topic is useless.  The more militant gay people I have been around have zero interest in repentance and have a total disregard for the gospel.  They hate the Bible because it convicts them of their sin.  Unless a gay person is willing to turn away from sodomy and oral sex, you are wasting your time.  A person (any person, gay or straight) needs to first be convicted of their sin and know they are in a lost condition eternally separated from God.  Only then will they realize they are in need of a Savior—who is only Jesus, -the Christ.  Jesus said “Ye shall know the truth (Himself) the truth will set you free.”  The question for the homosexual, the adulterer or the fornicator is whether he/she wants to be set free or remain in sinful bondage.

Gerry said: If you want to know if you are being intolerant, just look inside your heart and ask yourself “why am I against two people who love each other and want to be joined?”

I reply: by that standard one could say, If you want to know if you are being intolerant, just look inside your heart and ask yourelf, “why am I against two drug dealers who love money and just want a little extra?” or again, “why am I against a man and his dog who love each other and just want to be joined?”

“Love” is not a magic word that changes objectively evil acts. 

Wow, I don’t know how to put this delicately so I’ll just get to it. Your arguments come across to me more as pleading insanity.

Everything could be considered intolerance against intolerance. We could have said the same thing about slavery, racism, women’s rights, etc. The point is that intolerance has a root cause. When a person says, “I do not think gay people should be allowed to get married.” The person saying that is affecting someone else with their intolerance. They are wanting another adult human being to have less rights than they do simply based on who that person wishes to spend their life with. When your intolerance affects the rights of others for no reason other than you just simply “don’t agree” with it, that intolerance is quite simply intolerable. Your intolerance triggered my intolerance. Your intolerance was the root cause of my intolerance and your intolerance has real consequences for other people simply because you disagree with them. There is a difference, a huge difference. One form promotes more personal liberty and freedom and the other tries to take it away.

Liberal leaning folks often try to avoid rational argument and debate by name calling and pointing the finger at the supposed “fears” of the opponent while claiming the moral high ground of tolerance and compassion. ‘The church is a bigoted hate-monger against women, medicine, progressives, homosexuals, etc.’  It’s an old ad hominem tactic, and the “compassion” displayed by such persons is tolerance exercised without authentic prudence or understanding of church teaching on chastity.  Disagreeing on moral grounds isn’t the same as fearing something. Certainly there have been hypocrites who mask their wrath for the sinner with fake righteous indignation for sin.  But faithful Christians can show compassion to the sinner while disagreeing about the behavior of the sinner and also show concern as to how certain social phenomena affect the common good.  All of the saints and martyrs were not bigots, but faithful to the Church and compassionate towards the sinner.

Owen,

Follow your logic and you’ll see it’s nothing more than let’s tolerate everything since otherwise you’ll be found intolerant.  If this is the case, there’s nothing to discuss and let’s all be on our merry way.  It’s makes no sense and takes nothing into consideration than a fear of being labeled intolerant since that would take someone’s personal liberty and freedom away.  What is that personal liberty and freedom?  In your case as you describe it, it’s a personal choice, the freedom to choose/select, which everyone has a right to make.  It doesn’t consider whether a choice is morally right or correct.  There are consequences to everything beyond a personal choice as you’ve defined it and nothing occurs as a coincidence for those who are Christian believers.  This is why your definition of intolerance will never work for those who believe they are living their lives for something beyond this life since it doesn’t hold the individual to any moral obligation that has been defined by the very belief system which they practice.  For those of us who are Catholics, we believe we were made for something beyond this world which requires our adherence to a set of moral values and correct living that contradict the tendencies that the secular world is everyday impinging upon us.  You don’t have to agree to this way of living but you can hardly argue convincingly with how you’ve defined personal liberty and freedom as a choice that your view is any more intolerant than our view.

Psy:  Yawn.  Your comments are not unexpected from the pro-homosexual crowd for you are only doing what comes natuarally (in the flesh) rather than walking spiritually with Christ.  Do you think you are original in your thought?  The Scribes, Pharisees and Caiaphas the High Priest all thought Jesus was insane (and a lunatic) as well.  No matter, Paul describes you well in his first letter to the church at Corinth in 1:18 “For the word of God is foolishness to a perishing man, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God unto salvation.”  The problem with the church is that too many liberal Catholic Priests, laity and liberal Protestants have emboldened you in your sin and have become enablers.  The sinner who never repents is unacceptable to a Holy God and you have totally dismissed His Son’s payment for you on the cross.  Sure, God is love—but He is also a God of justice.  You are now thus accountable unto the Lord for you can never say you never heard the gospel—the truth of Jesus Christ.  He is your only hope.

Posted by Psy on Monday, Jul 30, 2012 8:05 PM (EST):

Patrick, going around uninvited telling people they are sinful is offensive no matter how you do it.

And:

Posted by Psy on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 10:22 AM (EST):

Wow, I don’t know how to put this delicately so I’ll just get to it. Your arguments come across to me more as pleading insanity.
________

Gee, talk about a double-standard.

@Joanp62:  Excellent,—your remark to Psy.  People so immersed in the comforting pleasures of their own sin have fallen deeply under Satanic deception.  Of course they will deny that, but isn’t that the point of deception?  He is the father of all lies.

I think some of you forget that this is the USA and we are a republic with laws draw from our constitution. It is not a theocracy and our laws do not come from any particular religion. When anyone makes their argument for what laws should be in this country based on their religion, they are wrong. Our constitution says that all men are create equal by their creator, whatever that creator may be. It’s pretty cut and dry really. Taking excerpts from the Bible or any other holy book is completely irrelevant. People that are against homosexual activity of any kind are against it for religious reasons, misguided religious reasons in my opinion, but religious reasons nonetheless. That form of intolerance limits freedom and liberty for no reason beyond religion, and that is wrong in the context of what our nation was founded on.

With terminology like sin, savior, obedience, evil, ect. you come across as some kind of fascist regime threatening people with some kind of celestial concentration camp in the after life and you expect people to take you seriously?

Owen,

“I think some of you forget that this is the USA and we are a republic with laws draw from our constitution.”

Marriage laws were written before this push for gay marriage.  So I don’t know where you’re coming from thinking that we’re trying to change something that wasn’t there.  It’s those that want to change the definition of marriage that are wanting to change our understanding of marriage that has always been.

“That form of intolerance limits freedom and liberty for no reason beyond religion, and that is wrong in the context of what our nation was founded on.”

Again your definition of freedom and liberty are based on a choice to do something that wasn’t originally written into our Constitution and this is what the court fights are all about and we, meaning Americans, are all going to find out what our courts have to say about this as these cases make it through the courts.  Your definition of freedom (i.e., meaning the freedom of choice as you’ve defined it) doesn’t question the morality of actions than other whether I have the choice (i.e., freedom) to do it.  This is fine and may be even legal eventually but it doesn’t make it morally right.

Psy, exactly. When you take a step back and read what gets said, what is believed, it is truly terrifying that it is taken at face value. In 2012, with all we know about mythology and religion, how even sects within various religions differ, how religious doctrine is constantly changing based on modern revelations, how religions that predate modern day religions have identical archetypes, how religious texts have been edited and translated and politicized through the centuries, it’s baffling that people keep believing in it without question. I supposed if I were to believe in eternal damnation if I were to believe otherwise I’d toe that line too. Smart people in every other possible measurement of brilliance cling onto these ancient words without a hint of critical thinking. I find that blind willingness to follow something that on it’s face is absurd much scarier than two men deciding to spend their life together.

Abimopectore, slavery was originally written in our constitution as well; it’s also written into the Bible but that’s a topic for an entire other discussion. I’m not sure there are too many among us that would say slavery should exist because that is the way the constitution was originally written. The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal. It also says that we have unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can we say homosexuals cannot marry and at the same time say that we are all equal with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Their pursuit of happiness and liberty in no way infringes on yours so it should not be an issue. As freedom loving Americans we should all push for more liberty and more happiness, not less. I personally think hindering the pursuit of liberty and happiness by others, when it in not way hinders your own, is wholly un-American and as unpatriotic as one can possibly hope to be.

Owen,
-
As I’ve stated your definition of more liberty and freedom is based on the freedom of choice.  It doesn’t question the objective morality of the choice.  You don’t question it and that’s fine if that’s how you view things.  It’s just something that we as Catholics can’t do and will never do.

Owen:
I personally think hindering the pursuit of liberty and happiness by others, when it in not way hinders your own, is wholly un-American and as unpatriotic as one can possibly hope to be.”
*********************************************

If you applied this to all situations including polygamists, I’d disagree on moral grounds but would give you credit for intellectual honesty & constistancy.
I lean to the Libertarian side up to a point.

@Psy, what you do in your bedroom with your gay lover is, in fact, your own business.  I will not argue your right to live a depraved life since your conscience is already seared.  On the other hand, your right to sodomize your lover and perform oral sex on him does not also afford you the right to parade naked down the street on Pride day and intimidate city governments to restrain their police from arresting you for indecent exposure.  You also do not have the right to force school districts into teaching my children what is morally objectionable.  You don’t want tolerance, you want acceptance by force.

New Observer, why do you presume to jump to the conclusion that I’m gay? Then you call me depraved, and what is this other nonsense you are rambling about?

Why don’t you rephrase it into a coherent argument instead of misrepresenting mi with things I never said or did? Are wild accusations and claims all you have?

This is the blog post which just won’t end. Why? Because we are having a discussion with a few GLBT interlopers who have nothing better to do but to spend their lives bloviating on a religious site, with whom they clearly have no affection, that we are gun toting hateful racist bigot homophobes.  Yet, the sodomite defenders refuse to answer my simple question - Do you think anal intercourse is healthy or natural?
Catholic beliefs are 100% voluntary.  We don’t care if you don’t like our Catholic faith.  Tough!!  Get over it.  We don’t go on your GLBT sites giving you a hard time. 
Anybody who thinks gays are not total loons just needs to attend a Gay Pride Parade, especially in San Francisco.  You’ll never witness such an unbelievable display of pathology anywhere else on earth.
I agree with the post of ‘New Observer’ who stated – “Gay people have got you boxed in to thinking you MUST speak sensitively and carefully to them.  They have succeeded in turning society in thinking Gays are some sort of protected “special” class. “ Exactly right!
The truth is, they are the hateful, bigoted homophiles that believe anal and oral sodomy is somehow a healthy natural alternative lifestyle against all scientific evidence.  It is responsible for 80-90% of all AIDS cases in the U.S.  It causes peri-rectal tears, fistulas, abscesses, hemorrhoidal bleeding, anal incontinence, etc. in addition to all of the other STDs such as gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and HPV, all of which have the highest incidence in the gay community.  To deny these facts is just another sign of their delusion.  The fact that Catholics oppose it for religious reasons is the least of their troubles. 
 
I suggest to all my Catholic brothers and sisters:
1. Stop trying to argue with GLBTers from a religious standpoint.  They don’t care and don’t understand it.  In fact most are atheists and hate religion.
2. There is enough scientific evidence to shut the door on their moronic fabricated arguments.
3. Finally, it is probably time to cease to participate in this thread.  Let the sodomites talk to themselves until they implode of their own stupidity.
4. Stand up to the GLBT/NAMBLA crowd everywhere you can.  The Lord does not want us to be a bunch of pansies that refuse to defend our faith and morals.  Follow the example of St. Michael.
 
The only positive note on this discussion is that it hopefully gave us practice in arguing with their kind and knowledge that being civil with them is pointless.  Don’t forget to go to Chick-fil-a tomorrow.  God Bless.

stillbelieve:
So, all you’re saying is that you don’t hate homosexuals enough to let them be aborted if a genetic marker for homosexuality of discovered? Why are you setting up this straw man? I agree it would be criminal to abort a child for such a reason, but that is not the point of the article.
.
What kind of behavior would you find intolerable from the homosexual couple that you would tolerate from a heterosexual couple?

Mac:
The POPE and YOU hate GLBTs, you don’t speak for “the Lord.” Everything in your suggestions point to the fact that you are a hateful bigot.
.
As is anyone who agrees with you.

“Paul Gebhard, Kinsey’s successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, cleaned the Kinsey data of purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938–1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard’s surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey’s original estimates were significantly affected by this bias: that is, the prison population and male prostitutes had the same statistical tendency as those who willingly participated in discussion of previously taboo sexual topics. The results were summarized by historian, playwright, and gay-rights activist Martin Duberman, “Instead of Kinsey’s 37% (men who had at least one homosexual experience), Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4%; the 10% figure (men who were “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55”), with prison inmates excluded, came to 9.9% for white, college-educated males and 12.7% for those with less education.[6]”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

Gloria “As is anyone who agrees with you.”

I disagree, some are simply being faithful and blindly obedient with giving it another thought. The bigots are the aggressive angry ones and the ones supplying us with all the excuses they have to hate gays then some adding the disclaimer “love the sinner hate the sin”

Mac, I’d like to hear more of your hate speech about “their kind”

Gloria, being compared with the Holy Father is an honor I do not deserve but thank you anyway.  Bless you.

Mac—I’m aware that your worship the POPE, not Jesus Christ.
.
No one will guess about the lobotomy if you wear a wig to hide the scars and control the slobbering.

Well if it isn’t my friend Gloria from the Final Solution blog!  Still getting paid for your Catholic bashing activities on this site?  You certainly put a lot of effort in to this one.

To all my Catholic friends on this blog….........All we can do is pray for those who are unable to recognize the TRUTH!  Re-elect this president and we will get much more of the same!  Wake up, America!  God bless!

Jimmy Akin, do you know why the interest in your article by the same-sex marriage advocates?  Do you know why they are soooo aggressive in their attack of those who support historical and traditional marriage?  The reason is to influence the U.S. Supreme Court.  CA Prop 8 is be taken to the Supreme Court by its backers.  This awakening by those who support same-sex “marriage” is to influence the justices just like Obama’s attack of the court and Harry Reid s after the hearings of the Affordable Care Act.  Those attacks worked; Roberts, surprisingly buckle under the pressure of the implied attack Democrats would make against the Roberts’ court if the conservatives struck down Obamacare.

Well, they are using the same psychological attack on the justices to get wavering conservative justices to agree with the liberals not to hear the Prop 8 case and not to refer it back to the lower federal courts, resulting in same-sex marriage being enacted by the Supreme Court’s refusal to get involved.

@New Observer
No, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Catholics MUST treat gay people with sensitivity. In black and white.

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

That’s a direct quote. Must. No exceptions, no conditions, no qualifiers. No ifs, no buts. Completely unambiguous and direct.

If you are Catholic, treating gay people with sensitivity is MANDATORY.

The CCC mentions unjust discrimination. The Vatican has clarified these matters. Just discrimination is not immoral.
Catholics are called to oppose objectively disordered behavior.

This includes opposing faux marriage, and excluding people from certain positions if they engage in these disordered actions or promote them.

BTW, terms like Gay, LGBT, and homophobia are contrived political terms.

Patrick, so is treating everyone ELSE the same way!

@Patrick:  You then have a problem whereby the Catechism is at odds with the gospel when it comes to those rejecting Truth—that of the person of Christ.  To wit:  Matthew 23:27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.”  To wit:  Matthew 23:33 ““You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” —-that doesn’t sound very “sensitive” on the part of Jesus now, does it?  Once having heard the truth, (the gospel of Jesus Christ) and you find people vehemently against it, the gospel doesn’t say anything about Jesus conducting seminars in “sensitivity training.”  Moreover, Christ admonished His apostles in Matthew 7:6 ““Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not cast your pearls before swine, (pigs) lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”  Patrick—-this is what the militant homosexual is doing—rejecting the gospel and attacking.  We are under no obligation to waste time lighting candles or praying the rosary for such people but rather to “shake the dust from your feet and move on”—Matthew 10:14.  Your time will be more productive (and informative) reading the gospel rather than trying to shoehorn the Catechism into areas where it does not fit.

Good Point, New Observer. I used those same scripture passages myself, not sure if it was this thread or, I think on the article about the LCWR sisters.

How do you correlate those verses with the teachings about loving your enemy, not judging, focusing on the speck in your brother’s eye but ignoring the plank in your own, etc? I personally think the Bible is a fictitious mythological work and should be all but ignored, but for those that live by its word it seems you can’t just pick and choose which verses you want to live by and ignore the others.

Lin can’t answer my questions and she is too frightened to question her faith, so she goes for ad hominem fallacies. Another candidate for the stupidity category. No moral convictions of her own. Like Mac she worships the Pope, but thinks she is worshiping JC. Thinking for herself is too much effort.
.
People have the right to hate—I am hating certain Catholics on this site right now and despise their willful ignorance and denial of secular concerns. 
.
Politics will solve the question of gay marriage, and the support for gay marriage has the majority of secular support. If Catholics have a problem with that—too bad.

stillbelieve—
Are you ignoring my question about setting up a straw man?
.
Now you’re blaming the SCOTUS and Obama? You keep changing the goal post and committing other fallacies in your so-called “arguments.” Look of Logical Fallacies on the internet—oh wait, you might learn something.

@Owen:  Why do you keep insisting upon going down with a sinking ship?  Either Jesus Christ is who He said He was, or He is the greatest fraud to ever walk the planet.

Owen stated: “but for those that live by its word it seems you can’t just pick and choose which verses you want to live by and ignore the others.”

No, we can’t pick and choose and we certainly try not to. Especially the New Testament. With regard to the various laws in the Old Testament, there is a differentiation between ritual laws, civil and moral laws. Ritual laws like dietary laws are not binding. Civil laws were appropriate to the time and place and may or may not be carried into modern time, ie: we do not stone people anymore, at least Jews and Christians do not. Moral laws are the same then as today and can not be changed. Also to note, many old Testament laws were for the Jews only, and after Christ, the question came up whether or not Gentile converts had to follow all of the Jewish laws, like circumscision and dietary laws. They determined that the answer was no.

Wow, Gloria. You admit that people have the right to hate and that you hate some people, yet, you accuse us of hating homosexuals, which we don’t, and for that you will not tolerate us. Do you even know what you are saying?

You know, you atheists all sound alike. You make the same insults and arguments as posters named Angela and Christine. Or are you the same person?

You should know that there are many highly intelligent, well-educated people who are Catholic, many of them converts. But if it makes you feel about your own beliefs to accuse us all of being stupid and unable to think for ourselves, that’s your problem. But we could say the same thing about Atheists.

@Joanp62 Thanks for that explanation.

You know, Gloria, I don’t think most people care what other consenting adults do behind closed doors.  That’s between them and God (or whatever they believe or don’t believe).  I personally never spent a second even thinking about same sex relationships - until all of this started.  People are concerned about the downstream consequences of same sex marriage - Catholic adoption agencies being shut down, and education for school kids regarding same sex relationships.  What will be next?  Suing churches that refuse to marry same sex couples?  Some people see this as crossing the line between being asked to be tolerant and being asked to embrace.  People that never cared about any of this are getting upset with the brazen forcefulness of activists - especialy when it comes to changing how their children are being educated.  Are you aware of controversy regarding education in Provincetown a few years a go?  This is not about “hating” anyone, it’s about respecting eachothers’ boundaries and those boudaries are being pushed to the point where people are reacting.

@New Observer
Are you suggesting Catholics reject the Magisterium of the Church?
Just in case you aren’t Catholic and thus don’t recognize the authority of the Catechism, I’ll use a bit of scripture.
Matthew 25:40, “And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”

@Owen:  Your argument the Bible is fictious and mythological is both absurb, ignorant and intellectually dishonest.  Acclaimed world scholarship of historicity, documented manuscripts, archeology, scientific evidence and recorded eyewitness accounts disagree with you.  Your position is thus rendered baseless.  Most recently, international archeolgists confirm the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scolls are authentic and match the Scriptures word for word.  Furthermore, mythological and legendary characters are typically portrayed as heroic individuals.  To the contrary, the Bible is replete with accounts of failed and weak individuals for all the world to see and read about.

@Patrick, I am suggesting we are not to become a doormat for the militant homosexual.  Singing “Kumbaya” is meaningless for such individuals.  The Catechism is not a “one size fits all” toward every conceivable application.  When a militant homosexual enters and vandalizes St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY, does Cardinal Dolan forgive him and not also call the NYPD?  Does he also not file an insurance claim thus making parishioners pay for artisan repairs?  Spiritual discernment is required in how the gospel is to be applied in every matter.

Joanp62:
I’m saying that you are hypocrites for saying you don’t hate homosexuals, when everything you write about them indicated that you all hate them with a passion.
.
You’re just terrified to say you hate anybody because you don’t want to seem like a bad person. Atkins article is just asking if you hate homosexuals, are prejudiced against homosexuals, or just can’t tolerate them. What’s the difference?
.
And you worship the Pope and the Church—not Jesus Christ. You only think you believe in Jesus Christ because the Pope tells you to—you have no understanding of who the Savior is. You’re just think you do because Catholic “teaching” told you what to think about Him.
.
Your argument that “many intelligent people are Catholic” says nothing about the value of Catholicism. Many intelligent people are Atheists as well. Read “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer—Oh, wait you might learn something.

New Yorker:
” People are concerned about the downstream consequences of same sex marriage - Catholic adoption agencies being shut down, and education for school kids regarding same sex relationships.  What will be next?  Suing churches that refuse to marry same sex couples?  Some people see this as crossing the line between being asked to be tolerant and being asked to embrace.  People that never cared about any of this are getting upset with the brazen forcefulness of activists - especialy when it comes to changing how their children are being educated.  Are you aware of controversy regarding education in Provincetown a few years a go?  This is not about “hating” anyone, it’s about respecting eachothers’ boundaries and those boudaries are being pushed to the point where people are reacting.”
.
So the controversy is about refusing the Catholic Church charity status and making religious institutions pay taxes? It’s all about the money? Now that makes sense—the Church has been running a racket since its beginning.
.
You Catholics can do anything you want—you just have to pay to be intolerant. It’s the American Way!

@Gloria,—to Joanp62: [”—you have no understanding of who the Savior is.”]  Please explain your defintion of who—the Savior is.

New Observer:
“Most recently, international archeolgists confirm the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scolls are authentic and match the Scriptures word for word.  Furthermore, mythological and legendary characters are typically portrayed as heroic individuals.  To the contrary, the Bible is replete with accounts of failed and weak individuals for all the world to see and read about.”
.
Aren’t you bothered by that empty feeling in your skull? Finding the Dead Sea Scrolls prove nothing about the validity of the Scriptures—only that the text of the Bible was copied from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Epic of Gilgamesh,” Greek and Roman mythology, Egyptian mythology, Native American mythology, and so on, also have “failed and weak” characters for all the world to see and read about—and they are much less depressing and hateful toward human nature. Why would the Christian mythology be any more believable? 
.
Jesus Christ is the deity used by the Catholic Church to pull the biggest Fraud in history.

We just got back from trying to go to Chick-fil-A to support Chick-fil-A Day, Aug 1.  It’s in a newly redeveloped business section on a major street sharing a huge parking lot with a new Fresh and Easy super market which we shop at and several other store fronts yet to be occupied.  I was their last week about the same time (noon hour) to get a sandwich and had no problem finding a parking space in the lot which was less than 50% filled.

Today, cars were backed up 10 deep on the busy, main street waiting to get into the parking lot that had no parking spaces available!  I have never see that location so packed before, and we drive in that area 2-3 per week We decided to come back later in the afternoon.

Sorry, Gloria, I’m not seeing the link betwen what I wrote and your resposne to it.  How did taxes get into this conversation?

@Gloria

“Now you’re blaming the SCOTUS and Obama?”

Huh?

@New Observer I’ve seen plenty of real scientific evidence that says otherwise. There are multiple contradictions in the Bible itself, missing gospels that were left out by early Christian men that didn’t meet their version of what they wanted their religion to be, no written history outside of the Bible that suggest Jesus or many of the other stories and people ever existed, plenty of evidence that shows people will ascribe supernatural powers to things they do not understand, historical changes in religious beliefs to keep up with modern times, numerous parallels between the Christian religion and other historic religions that came before, plenty of evidence that the people that wrote the Bible were doing so on heresy and not as actual witnesses, a ton of things in the Bible that sound just plain insane when you really take a step back and think about them (put them in a context outside of religion and it’s absolutely insane), a miraculous disappearance of anything resembling a god in modern times, etc. Saying that not believing in the Bible is intellectually dishonest is quite a stretch when there is nothing in the Bible that lends itself to being remotely believable without taking a completely blind leap of faith.

Owen: [“There are multiple contradictions in the Bible.”]  Please list five including which book, chapter and verse(s).

Owen, not that this will change your mind, but archaeologists did find a stone that read, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judah”.  Read about it here:http://www.english.imjnet.org.il/htmls/popup.aspx?c0=13142&bsp=13027

On another note, there’s nothing more depressing than atheism.  If there’s no God and no hope of a better world, then what are we doing here?  What’s the point?  MOST people need to have hopes and dreams to get through this life, which is difficult even under the best of circumstances.  Taking this away is frankly depressing and too much for the human mind to bare.

@Gloria

“So, all you’re saying is that you don’t hate homosexuals enough to let them be aborted if a genetic marker for homosexuality of discovered? Why are you setting up this straw man?”

No, I am saying you’re calling Catholics “haters” of homosexuals is a baseless charge.  You present no evidence for calling us “haters.”  And when I present evidence to prove Catholics are not “haters” of homosexuals, you call that a “straw man.”  Webster’s says a “straw man” is “a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.”  I’m saying that Catholics would be in the forefront of opposing the murder of babies found to contain the gene for homosexuality.  If we “hated” homosexuals, why would we ever be fighting for their right to be born? 

@Gloria:  Why do you spend so much time refuting something you say does not exist?  Seems all your time invested on this blog is rather counter productive to your atheism unless you really are unsure and are seeking answers.  Is there something you would like to know?  Christ has open arms for all who are willing to accept Him.  How can we help you?

One other thing, Owen, the Bible is not an easy book to just pick up and read.  Guidance is needed.  There are reasons why only four Gospels made it into the Bible.  Those other ones you mentioned contained extreme exaggerations and factual errors when compared to other evidence of the times.  There were also many other epistles that didn’t make it in either.  What books made it into the Bible was decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD.  Someone had to make a decision as to what was authentic and what was not.  I’m sure you can understand that even in today’s world, stories get distorted as they travel from person to person.  By the way, surviving handwritten Bibles from the middle ages (and earlier) agree with the Dead Sea Scrolls and today’s Bibles as well.  So, for whatever it’s worth, the Bible has not been manipulated and changed over the centuries.

Gloria you are so full of it you astound me! I will not respond to your false claims about who/what I worship and my understanding of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My comments on this thread have not displayed any ‘hatred’ toward homosexual persons- you choose to believe it is hatred because I will not toe the secular line that believes sodomy is normal and good (hmmm, who’s thinking for themselves?). My son is living with his girlfriend. I love them both dearly and they know I do, but I do not like that they are living together, and I worry for their souls because they are living in sin. In your mind then I must hate them, but you are obviously bordering on insanity due to your intense anger and hatred of those who do not agree with you, so I will give you some slack.

@Gloria:  You’ve been listening to the wrong people—perhaps even poorly educated or ill informed Catholics.  We do not worship the pope.  We do not worship the church.  We worship the Son of God—and Him alone.

New Yorker ~“On another note, there’s nothing more depressing than atheism.  If there’s no God and no hope of a better world, then what are we doing here?  What’s the point?  MOST people need to have hopes and dreams to get through this life, which is difficult even under the best of circumstances.  Taking this away is frankly depressing and too much for the human mind to bare.”

Are you really claiming most religious followers are mentally ill? 

@New Observer
Not so much a contradiction but something I find interesting nonetheless is that only two gospels mention the virgin birth. Something of such importance would surely have been written by others as well.

There are plenty of websites that list each and every contradiction. Here is one:
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Some are a bit specious but some are obvious and blatant contradictions that cannot be denied.

As for the other note on atheism being depressing, for me it is very uplifting. I agree that some people do better having something greater than them to believe in but I do not require any such thing. Hindus need their gods, Buddhists need their beliefs, native Americans needed theirs, etc. I think the point of life is that there is no point. Most of us want to live well and do good because it is human nature to do so and to do otherwise is usually not to your advantage as you will be ostracized by your fellow man. This is regardless of religious affiliation. I wish I could believe in a god and that there was enough reason and evidence for me to do so. At one time I did. But it would be intellectually dishonest to myself for me to do so now.

Owen, if you looked into early Christian history you might learn that the books of the Bible were finally decided upon around the 4th century. The reason they chose only the 4 gospels that they did was because they were written by the actual disciples who knew Christ, Matthew and John were Apostles, and (John)Mark and Luke were among the many disciples that followed them and are in the Acts of the Apostles. Those other gospels did not make it into the Bible because they were written too late, some 100 to over 250 years after Jesus. The Bible as we have it today, is actually a very accurate translation of the original writings, and we have some of those original copies of those writings going as far back as the 2nd cent. Yet are oldest copies of the writings of Plato and/or Aristotle(not sure which) date from 900 A.D. Yet, no one questions their authenticity.

Psy—to New Yorker: [Are you really claiming most religious followers are mentally ill?]  Out of the mouths of Ted Turner and Jesse “The Body” Ventura.  Both poster children religious hate speech. 

Psy, how did you get that out of what I said? 

Owen, yes there are seemingly many contradictions and things that are cryptic, but have you invested any time looking for explanations on Catholic web sites?  Explanations do exist, but you need to look for them.

Inorder to understand the Bible, a person needs to be familiar with the languages, customs, and historical back drop behind each verse.  This is too much for the average Joe, so this task is left to the Catholic Church, which compiled and preserved the Bible.  When you understand the back drop to a verse that seems odd or out of place, things will begin to make sense.

In the past, I used all the same arguments that you have used, so I know from experience.  I suggest you visit Catholic Answers on the web.  They have some great resources.

Psy, how did you get that out of what I said?

Why don’t you re-read what you wrote and tell me how I wouldn’t get that out of what you wrote. I tend to think most people follow religion out of tradition or their heritage while I acknowledge some who do find life unbearable find comfort in faith.

Were you somehow offend by the term “mentally ill”?
My daughter suffers from depression and also diagnosed as bi-polar and has no qualms about calling it a mental illness, and she copes with it rather well.

Heading out to Chick-fil-A to support freedom of speech and freedom of religion!  Our local Chick-fil-A was so busy today, you could not get near it!

Mac…...Your post on July 31st hit the nail on the head!  It is pointless to argue with them. They are an angry bunch and need much prayer. Now off to Chick-fil-A!

Lin ~“It is pointless to argue with them. They are an angry bunch and need much prayer. Now off to Chick-fil-A!”

Sacrifice a chicken for me.

Observer:
I don’t believe in the Savior—he’s a fictional character as far as I’m concerned, so I don’t have to explain it to you. You don’t know the Savior except for what the Pope told you. The Pope tells you what to think, who you should vote for, what you should “tolerate.” You don’t even know what you need “saving” from.
.
Joanp62—how do you who does sodomy? Heterosexuals do it too. It’s not so much being homosexual as being into anal sex. For all you know you may be acquainted with many people who do sodomy.
.
Your contention that you don’t hate homosexuals, just what homosexuals do, is the epitome of denial. Nice to know your son is more secular than you. Does he take communion? I understand Catholics excommunicate themselves when they “sin.”
.
How would you feel about your son if he were living with another man?

New Yorker
“Inorder to understand the Bible, a person needs to be familiar with the languages, customs, and historical back drop behind each verse.  This is too much for the average Joe, so this task is left to the Catholic Church, which compiled and preserved the Bible.  When you understand the back drop to a verse that seems odd or out of place, things will begin to make sense.”
.
You really are a sucker. Did Catholic teaching tell you that?

I’ll only address one of your stupid comments, Gloria. Once again you do not know what you are talking about- Catholics do not excommunicate themselves for a sin. There are a few grave sins, like abortion, that could bring an automatic excommunication, but it only applies if you are aware of the excommunication and go out and do it anyway.

I’m well aware of what sodomy is. You really are a dingbat.

Where do you get your asinine information from anyway?

I’m sorry, I’m beginning to sound like Gloria, and I don’t want to do that.

What do you believe in Gloria, since you seem so sure of yourself?  What do you stand for?

Psy, I’m sorry to hear about your daughter, that’s a very difficult path to go down.  Just because a person wants to believe in something greater than themselves does not automatically mean they’re mentally ill.  From A, B, and C you skipped the rest of the alphabet to conclude X, Y, and Z.

New Yorker, being stuck at home from a crippling car accident didn’t help, she can walk again though its discomforting she chose to follow her hopes and dreams in this hopeless world you describe. She went to collage and has now moved out of state to follow a carrier. If you want to quit life because there might not be a god that is your personal choice.

Joan—so your son DOESN’T KNOW that he is living in sin? What are you teaching him. Maybe you don’t hate him, but you don’t have as much respect for him as you would if he had your blind obedience to the Church.
.
I bet they use contraception, as you haven’t mentioned any grandchildren produced from their out-of-wedlock relationship—or maybe they didn’t tell you about the abortion(s)?
.
I stand against lying, cheating, sexual abuse, and mind control—all of which the Pope and the Catholic Church are guilty. I also stand against willful ignorance, of which all “faithful Catholics” are guilty.

Gloria…....Why do you hate Catholics so much?  The name of this article had to be a magnet for you!  Are You a Hater or a Bigot? Or Are You Just Intolerant?

You are so caught up in your anger and hatred that you cannot even see that people on this thread have tried to reach out to you!  It reminds me of a teenager that lashes out at her mother just to get a reaction or for attention.  Your rants rarely follow any logic.  You are trying to hurt people but faithful Catholics cannot be hurt by words.  We have a peace and joy that the secular world cannot give nor take away! 

May you come to know the Truth before it is too late. Peace!

@Gloria:  I see you have avoided my question.  It’s not Catholics, the pope nor even the church you really dislike.  It’s the incarnate Christ.  Even most atheists agree the man (Jesus) lived —and at the very least was a “good man.”  What is your opinion of Jesus, the Nazarene?  And why do you spend your time trying so hard to disprove something you don’t believe in?

Lin—you read my post. I know you find it difficult to think, but you might want to try it for a moment before you make your replies. You only make your stupidity more obvious.
.
Boa constrictors also reach out. I’m trying to make you feel SOMETHING, even if it’s painful. Being on LSD also blocks pain, but it’s not healthy. Would you like to know if you’ve been conned, or would you prefer to remain ignorant and let the con artist take more from you?
.
If you want to “help” me, support Planned Parenthood, vote for President Obama to be re-elected and for the Democratic Party in general, and help gay marriage to be accepted.
.
If you were comfortable in your “faith” you would not need to deceive yourselves into thinking you don’t hate homosexuals. You hate contraception and those who practice/use it, you hate women who get abortions, for whatever reason—even to save their own lives when the embryo would not survive in any case, and you hate atheists/liberals, in general. Yet Catholic teachings tell you not to hate people—“love the sinner, not the sin” BS. What difference does it make?
.
Real evil is not recognized by the Catholic Church—it makes its own definitions, and you follow it like stupid sheep to the slaughter and are even proud to be called sheep. Do you really think the “Good Shepperd” was just in it for the wool?
.
And something that is really aggravating: you claim to have “free will.” That has been forfeited when you “gave” yourself to the Church. You take the Church/Pope’s word that they represent Jesus Christ, and excuse every criminal act they commit because it represents your “Savior”.”
.
What suckers all of you are. Terrified to think on your own, you are less than human. My dog has more sense than to obey my commands so blindly.

New “Observer”:
We must have been typing at the same time, as the time-stamps seem to indicate.
.
You have to agree that it takes a little time to sort through all the replies from so many hostile Catholics that are pretending not to be bigots and hateful of particular groups of people.
.
I wrote “I stand against lying, cheating, sexual abuse, and mind control,” but filtering it, what I really hate is deception, and the desire to be deceived. The Church tells “pretty lies” and they are sweet lies. Too much sugar is not good for you.

Exposed.  Gloria is the insulting atheist from earlier this year aka “athenian_oracle” making the same tired arguments now on this blog.  Find her in the Pat Archbold blog under The Death of Pretty making the usual anti-God, anti-Catholic, anti-church, anti-pope rhetoric all in support of liberal and radical feminism.  She and her husband are pseudo intellectuals, avowed atheists, pro abortion and support gay marriage.  She is addicted to this kind of topic rather than seeking the professional help she really needs.

And no, Patrick.  I will not pray for her regardless of what the Catechism says.

@New Observer
Has it really not occurred to you that the more militant pro-gay advocates became so because they viewed themselves or their friends as being under attack by people who decided not to heed the Church’s teachings about respect, compassion, and sensitivity? They genuinely feel they are under attack and must defend themselves, which you’d know if you loved them enough (“34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” - John 13:34-35) to listen to their concerns and find out why they are so angry.
Did Jesus treat Zacchaeus the way you’re recommending gay people be treated? Did he angrily demand repentance first and then offer kindness?

Furthermore, I haven’t even been reading what Gloria has to say, nor anyone’s replies to him or her. I’ve just been replying to the things people have said in reply to me, so please don’t assume I necessarily agree with what someone else says just because we both happen to disagree with you. I’ll speak for myself.

@Patrick:  As usual, your understanding of the gospel is subjectively Pollyannish.  You have forgotten one thing.  Unlike Gloria (and the militant homosexual), Zacchaeus was truly interested in what Jesus had to say.  There is a major difference.

New Observer, I listened and was most impressed that The Catechism endorses hate and bigotry and calls it just.

Oh please!  At least clean up the forced gay sex that goes on in your church all the time BEFORE you even weigh in on this.

wow.  I go away for couple of days and you guys go just cuRAZY!  Couple of points: 1) I honestly would not have called people who oppose gay marriage “haters” before reading the responses to these emails.  You have really opened my eyes!  2)  I LOVE how fixated New Observer and Mac are on man-on-man love.  For guys who hate the sin of anal sex, you sure do spend a lot of time thinking about it!  3)  Gloria, you are amazing!  You’re a one woman Catholic-hating machine.  4)  I also love how it’s all God’s fault.  “Hey!  It’s not me that condemns homosexuals, it’s that darned Bible!  If it wasn’t for that pesky God I’d be all over that sodomy stuff!”  It’s got nothing to do with prejudice, right?  Just following orders?  I just love it.

Gloria, my son knows how I feel and that it is a sinful relationship. I’m sure they are using contraception. He is an adult. I obviously cannot force him to do the right thing. He does not think what he is doing is wrong, like many young people who were brought up Catholic, they end up going on their own way for a time, and then come back. I hope and pray that he will come back to the Church in the future. He does not go to church, however his girlfriend does. I went to mass with her once (we do not live in the same state) and she did not receive the Eucharist, which was the right thing.

You know, you make so many assumptions that you really do look like a fool. You draw ridiculous conclusions based on a small amount of information. John calls you a one-woman Catholic hating machine as if it’s a compliment. But he is correct, you are full of hate.

So John, it’s okay for Gloria to HATE Catholics. But you accuse us of hating homosexuals which we do not, and that is NOT okay? You claim that you would not call people who oppose gay marriage haters, yet Psy and Gloria claim that the mere fact of opposing gay marriage makes us haters.

Patrick, New Observer is correct. Zaccheus and others in scripture that received Jesus’ mercy, the mercy that is available to all, were open to that mercy because they were open to Jesus. Gloria et.al. want nothing whatsoever to do with Him, and don’t even know he was a real, historical figure at least. Seriously, read in scripture how Jesus was toward the Pharisees! They were closed-minded and hardened their hearts against him, so Jesus turned to those who WANTED Him and His merciful love.
And, maybe you should read Gloria’s responses before you criticize the posts of New Observer.

The “most militant pro-gay advocates” become militant based on the mere fact that there are those who do not agree with the homosexual demands of embracing their actions as wonderful and will not accept gay marriage as a possibility. I have come across these pro-gay advocates who have read the Catechism’s section on homosexuality, including where the Church states that they must be treated with dignity and respect, and they still say the Church’s teaching is hateful.

Patrick, I would appreciate your explanation for why that is.

Gloria, I have a question for you. I am asking because I do not want to ASSUME or draw any unfair conclusions based on your comments so far.
My question is this: How would you react if our government decided to round up all those who oppose ‘gay marriage’ and put them in prison or detention camps? I’m not saying that would happen, so don’t respond that it wouldn’t. Imagine the scenario, and then tell me what your reaction to that might be.

While Joanp62 works in hypotheticals, the rest of the world gives us real and terrifying examples of hatred of gays.  I’ll break this down for you:

Uganda made it a criminal offense to be gay, punishable by DEATH.  This isn’t in 1409 but 2009.  The civilized world condemns it.

The U.S. Congress prepares a resolution to condemn Uganda, as well.

The Family Research Counsel lobbies Congress to not pass the resolution.  The GOP kill the resolution. 

Chick-fil-a’s “charity arm” supports the Family Research Council.

The White House, the Cabinet, select members of the House and Senate condemn Uganda, but our governing body as a whole stays quiet on Uganda’s barbaric law.

Joanp62, your scenario of rounding up anti-gay supporters is, indeed, hypothetical.  For homosexuals it is not.

Joanp62 ,
Dear Joan-I’ve been reading through the posts here & just wanted to comment that when we respond to “trolls” the conversation eventually becomes troll-driven.
I can’t tell other Catholics whether they should respond or what they should post here, but it’s difficult to find Catholic-friendly threads that don’t end up being a battleground commandeered by those with an opposing agenda.
Behind each “troll” is a human being(likely with too much time on their hands) deserving of our respect & prayers.Through our responses to them they may learn something of our Faith.So perhaps we should respond when appropriate.I just think it’s a shame when the conversation becomes manipulated over & over again.

Gloria, so you’re against deception?  Interesting.  I feel the general public is being deceived - by homosexual activists.  I live in a major city and, I’m sorry, I have to call into question the rosy picture of same sex relations painted by activists.  If we listen to them, all people with same sex attrctions want is to find a life long mate, have children via surrogates, and live happily ever after.  But that’s not what I’ve observed.  I’ve seen high rates of substance abuse, mental and physical diseases rarely seen in heterosexuals and, yes, rampant promiscuity.  It seems that even men get tired of being sex objects and this results in a high suicide rate as well.  Studies have been done showing all of these things, especially reduced life expectancies for male homosexuals.  Of course, all of these studies are severely flawed for one reason or another per the activists.  We are asked to only believe studies that they approve.  And, all of these negative things happen even when homosexuals live in communities that openly support their life styles.  In fact, they tend to be more severe in these places.  Why might that be, Gloria?

My heart goes out to anyone who has a same sex attraction.  But patting them on the back and telling them to knock themselves out with same sex relations is not a good thing to do because it will likely put them in an early grave. 

Same sex relations, abortion, artificial contraception, etc all look ok from a superficial view at 40,000 feet - and this is the only view most people, like Gloria, will ever make.  But once you zoom in and examine them up close, and ask the difficult, not politically correct questions, reasonable human beings become disgusted for what they really are and for those who promulgate the deception.

The Utopia like image of same sex realtions generally portrayed by the media does not stack up against reality.  You must be a sucker for believing what they’re telling you.

Larry, and just 30 - 50 years ago, Communist Romania was rounding up people of faith, especially Christians and Catholic priests, and subjecting them to the most vile of tortures. What they are trying to do in Uganda with this law, is vile as well. The Vatican, which is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is in no way involved with this, and if there are any Catholic’s in Uganda who are involved, they are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ.

I would still like to get an answer on my hypothetical scenario, which may not be hypothetical for long. Look what is happening over the owner of Chik-fil-A who only stated what he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, he did not make a statement regarding homosexuals and has not said that they would refuse to hire or serve anyone based on their sexual orientation,in fact they were clear that the opposite was the case, yet, based on the reaction of the pro-gay groups, you would think he said just that.

Kathleen, “trolls” or not, and I really do hate that word since it dehumanizes those who do not agree with us no matter how hateful they may be toward us, I cannot be silent about this. As a faithful Catholic, I believe I must speak out, explain and defend the teachings of the Church. Sometimes silence is the worst thing.

Larry- “This isn’t in 1409 but 2009.  The civilized world condemns it.”

Agreed, then atheists need to stop bringing up atrocities attributed to the Catholic Church, sometimes correctly other times erroneously attributed to the Church, that happened hundreds of years ago, while at the same time dismissing atrocities done by Communism, Fascism and Socialism all within less than a century ago.

Larry stated: “The U.S. Congress prepares a resolution to condemn Uganda, as well.

The Family Research Counsel lobbies Congress to not pass the resolution. “

Once again, not stating all the facts. The FRC :“did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it - rather to change the language it contained and “to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.”

“FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution,” the group said. “FRC’s efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill. FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct,” the group adds. “”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006856-503544.html

Glad to see my friend John is back from vacation.  I too have been following the thread from a distance.  John you are the one promoting acceptance of anal sex as an alternative lifestyle and a basis for marriage.  Then you accuse us of having a problem.  LOL I know you want to avoid the facts about the pathology it causes and fall back on the argument that it is just two men who love one another and we are denying them their right to happiness.  We are soooo mean not to see this.  Unfortunately, as a physician I have to deal with patients who do this and its sequelae.  Homosexuality was listed as a psychiatric illness until the militant gays bullied the APA into submission and removed it in the 70’s.
Do you still refuse to go on the record and answer a simple question - Do you believe anal intercourse is healthy or natural?  Hint - You don’t need an MD to answer this.

Joanp62 ,
I hear you.“Troll” is not the best name.Perhaps we could think of a better one.

Dr. Mac, thank-you for bringing that up.  Yes, there is quite a bit of unpleasantries swept under the carpet - like anal cancer - a disease almost unheard of in heterosxuals.  A friend of mine worked with a fellow who had trouble controlling his bowels and needed surgery to put things back in order - yes, it’s true.  And, what about homosexual men showing up in the ER with foreign objects in places they should not be? This really happens.  We’re supposed to just shut up and accept all of this and never question it because we’ll be branded “hateful”. 

What’s more hateful, encouraging a behavior that could put a person in an early grave or discouraging that same behavior using truth and reason?

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 10:14 AM (EST):

Joanp62 ,
I hear you.“Troll” is not the best name.Perhaps we could think of a better one.

____
How about persons.People. Human beings. Sometimes I will use atheists if it is pertinent and I don’t consider that an insult, just a fact. God Bless.

@Joanp62:  Stop the dialog with Gloria.  Paul has identified her in Romans 1 as having already been turned over to a seared conscience.  Therein lies the danger.  We think there is always a way back.  For some, however, they will move past a point of no return and God will simply give you over to yourself.  Gloria has been on other NCR blogs with the same nonsense using a different name.  I re-read one of Pat Archbold’s older blogs and found her (Gloria’s) exact same pseudo intellectual comments.  She later revealed the source of her hissy fit.  While Gloria (aka athenian_oracle) *with hubby in tow* are atheists, her outrage is that her sister is Catholic.  Furthermore, she is outraged at the Catholic church because her sister’s parish priest refuses to marry her sister in the Roman Catholic Church because the sister and boyfriend are living together.  The priest apparently is happy to perform the marriage with the usual 6 months prep time, but they are unwilling to live separately during this time.  Gloria’s outrage is that they have mortgage to pay and it would be too costly to separate for 6 months. Actually, it would be too costly to not separate for 6 months.  One poster suggested to Gloria that her sister move in with her during this time to mitigate any extra cost.  Gloria was having none of this since she disagrees with the priest, the parish and the entirety of the male dominated RCC anyway.  This also goes to her point of being atheist, she has no obligation to follow any laws of any god—(small “g.”)  The irony, of course, is that her sister has a God-given right to have sex in disobedience of God’s law concerning marriage.  It’s all reminiscient of an earlier post which recalled when Moses went to Pharaoh and told him to “Hear and obey.”  Pharaoh’s response was:  “Who is the Lord—that I must obey him?”  Notice again—the small “h” for Him.

New Yorker - you are all too correct and it is worse than that but I was trying to avoid the unpleasant details.

Joanp62 ,
If not “troll”,perhaps “person with an agenda posing as one sincerely desiring dialogue?”
:)
I know you have good intentions & commend you for upholding Church teaching with charity & compassion for troubled souls.

OK, everybody—Do you hate me yet?
.
Joan—I don’t worship our government—who ever is president or controls congress—and I don’t obey it in blind faith. You worship the Pope and don’t question obeying the edicts of the Church.
.
Sounds like your son is a ‘none’—someone who considers that they have no religious affiliation. The Catholic Church has lost him.
.
Also, you’re pretending again that the Catholic Church isn’t responsible for its crimes because things are worse in Uganda—which happens to be a Judeo-Christian-Islamic influenced government—not a secular government as we still have in the United States.
.
New Yorker—obvious your only experience with sex is visiting the “Red Light District(s)” of the city, where all kinds of promiscuous sex, drug trades and other vices can be indulged by people who then return home to their families on time to attend Sunday mass. I have nothing against people who prefer vanilla sex, but you are making too many “either, or” assumptions about sexuality—there is a whole spectrum of sexuality and most people fall between the two extremes.
.
Troll, Satan, possessed, whatever you want. I’ve struck a nerve when you start writing about that.
.
Joan—you are referring to another Gloria. I don’t have a sister who is Catholic, nor have I posted on Archbold’s blog. I suggest you concern yourself with your own son’s sinful relationship and not bother with other people’s concerns.

Joan: I never said Gloria is “good” for hating Catholics.  I’m amazed at her energy.  I don’t really believe that most Catholics hate homosexuals, but it’s obvious that Mac has some serious issues and I believe he represents a lot of people whose thoughts are not very complex on the issue and fall back to a pretty straight-forward attitude about the “other” which could easily go by the name of “hate.”  My problem with you is you don’t have the moral courage to make a qualitative distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles—I’m not sure why not.

Mac: Whether or not anal sex is “natural” or “healthy” is waaaaay beside the point, but let’s stipulate that no one makes babies from having anal sex (and a whole lot of other sexual behavior that is also beside the point) and according to you, whom I’ll accept as an expert on anal sex, it’s very dangerous.  So your point is…??  This is your argument against gay marriage or you are just saying it should be mine? Because you should be totally in favor of lesbians getting married, right?

New Yorker:

What are the key statistics about anal cancer?

Anal cancer is fairly rare—much less common than cancer of the colon or !@#$%. The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for anal cancer in the United States are for 2012:

  About 6,230 new cases (3,980 in women and 2,250 in men)
  About 780 deaths (480 in women and 300 in men)

The number of new anal cancer cases has been on the rise for many years. Anal cancer is found mainly in adults, with the average age being in the early 60s. The disease affects women somewhat more often than men.

Treatment for anal cancer is often very effective, and most patients with this cancer can be cured. But anal cancer can be a serious condition.
.
Source:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/AnalCancer/DetailedGuide/anal-cancer-what-is-key-statistics
.
If the disease affects women somewhat more often than men, are all the women diagnosed with anal cancer practicing anal sex?

Yes, Pharaoh disobeyed the Lord and the Lord responded with genocide. This is the Lord you worship because the Catholic Church tells you to. Yet you can’t admit that you hate homosexuals—only that you can’t tolerate them.
.
You’re also suggesting medical reasons against anal sex, much like the earlier “Final Solution” post by Akins that justified circumcision for medical/hygienic reasons. All beside the point of your religious repulsion for the sin and the sinners.
.
Joan—your son’s partner obviously is not missing anything when she doesn’t take communion—maybe the symbolic cannibalism isn’t her thing.
,
Oh, and sorry—it was New Observer that was referring to another Gloria. it is not an uncommon name.

No Gloria, you don’t have to visit red light districts to see the ugly side of same sex relations.  You really do need to get out more.  These days, all you have to do is be observant and spend some time reading and listening to all sides of the issue.  And anyway, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  The point is that same sex relations is not the panacea it is made out to be and there’s reason to believe it can actually lead to a shortened life span.  But I suppose that doesn’t matter to people like yourself.  Your main goal is to assault the church because you have an axe to grind and it really makes no difference to you who gets hurt in the process.

Promiscuity and male homosexually appear to dramtically and disproportionately spread HIV, at least in the United States.  A reading of CDC numbers (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsh eets/us.htm)indicate whereas males having sex with males are only 2% of the population, they are 61% of the new HIV infections, a 30x level of disportion.  The numbers alone tell you those who favor gay marriage are promoting moral insanity.  Additionally, the promotion of safe sex outside the bonds of marriage suggest you can sin against the law of God . . . and get away with it.  History tells us you can never “get away with it.”

Gloria, check out this web site.  Apparently HPV and promiscuous behavior is a factor that can cause anal cancer in women, which explains why women are getting this.

http://www.medicinenet.com/anal_cancer/article.htm

Perhaps Dr. Mac can comment further since he treats patients with this disease.

Just a thought, perhaps because oral contraceptives lower the immune reaction, women might more easily contract HPV infections which in turn can lead to head,neck,cervical & other cancers.In the UK, throat & oral cancers have hugely increased in recent years.

You must get your information about sexual promiscuity from the Porn magazines and websites. You’ve done a lot of research.
You’re right—I don’t know as much about sexual behavior as your do. I’m don’t visit porn sites or fantasize about deviant sex. I’ll defer to your more informed arguments on what homosexuals do.
.
I hope you are passing your information on to Joanp62, so she can pass it along to her son and his live-in companion. Joan said her son doesn’t realize that he’s living in a state of sin and will be damned for all time if he doesn’t confess and repent before he dies. I’m not sure about people who attend mass but do not take communion—do they go to hell if they don’t make themselves “pure” before they die?
.
The Bible and the Church has been against homosexuality (at least in their preaching if not their actions) long before microscopic diseases have been discovered. How do you explain that?

Gloria (aka “athenian_oracle” on several other NCR blogs dealing with your rants on marriage, sex and the male dominated church):  That which the Bible is against——-is for your protection in body, mind and soul.
Of course, you are not the first to think your way is better.

Additionally, the promotion of safe sex outside the bonds of marriage suggest you can sin against the law of God . . . and get away with it.  History tells us you can never “get away with it.
.
No history tell us only about those who got “punished.” You don’t read about the ones who “get away with it” precisely because they get away with it. I’m sure the priests/clergy who weren’t caught aren’t giving input for statistics.
.
However, this article might interest you:
.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=20565

Gloria, I’ll answer your question about why the Bible would not approve of same sex relations at a time when there was no concept of microbiology.  I don’t think it takes too much imagination to realize that uncircimcised men having relations among themselves could cause life threatening infections.  Imagine this in a world where there was NOT easy access to bathing facilities.  Imagine if one of those guys had relations with his unknowing wife.  In the days before antibiotics, that could be a death sentence for her.  People living at this time were not fools.  They made observations based on physical evidence and came to the conclusion that this sort of behavior was harmful to people.  That bit of wisdom made its way into the Bible - so that others would be warned of the dangers.  Unfortunately, the Bible is not a medical journal and does not spell this out and that’s because it was probably obvious to them. 

By the way, you also mentioned pornography.  Question: Do you think the women would be doing those things if artificial contraception did not exist?  Do you think they would take up that career if there was a natural chance of getting pregnant?  Do you think the men would do those things if they had to be responsible for the children they produced?

If you’re going to continue to call me “athenian_oracle” despite my denials, you’re welcome to your false beliefs. After all you insist on keeping your other false beliefs.
.
Like Pepe Le Pew, you expect to be loved by others and don’t realize how much you stink.

Yes, women have been doing those things AND contraception before the pill existed. Condoms go back to ancient history, and stones were used as IUDs to prevent pregnancy. Also, human trafficking continues to this day. Misogyny is part of Judeo-Christian culture.
.
Your porn sites are designed to make its viewers think women like what they are doing. Money is the reason why any industry exists—including the sex industry.
.
Any more idiot questions?

And yes, it would be nice if men felt responsible for getting women pregnant—but they often don’t, and blame the woman. Another bit of misogyny promoted by Judeo-Christian culture.

Yes, don’t I get any credit for answering the Bible question you posed?  you zipped right over that.  How convenient.

God made people as sexual beings and then commands they don’t have sex, except under certain conditions? According to the Pope/Church, your god is a sadist—why do you put up with that abuse?

Good points, Gloria.  But do you really think those things were as rampant then as they are now?  You can’t see how artificial birth control has exascerbated the situation?  How foolish.

Any more assanine comments?

Another ridiculous half thought out comment.  Marriage was intended to regulate sexuality between men and women for the overall benefit of society as a whole.  Men sleeping around with random women and producing children which are not properly cared for is a disaster for all of society.  Duh.

They made observations based on physical evidence and came to the conclusion that this sort of behavior was harmful to people.  That bit of wisdom made its way into the Bible - so that others would be warned of the dangers.  Unfortunately, the Bible is not a medical journal and does not spell this out and that’s because it was probably obvious to them.
.
It was “probably obvious to them,” so they don’t mention it? They had no concept of disease except that it was God’s punishment for some sin they committed and did not repent—that’s all that was obvious to them.
.
So instead of medical advice to people ignorant of the Catholic faith, they blamed the victims—as you do today? As I don’t bother with mass, can you tell me if the priest preach about the health consequences of sexual deviance, or do they just say it’s a sin against Jesus and the Church? Do they say condoms don’t work against the spread of HIV and anal cancer?
.
The Bible is just a collection of some historical events and much folklore and mythology that the Catholic Church uses to control its sheep-like followers into obedience. The only expression of “welfare” for others is to obey the Church of God will kill you and damn you to eternal punishment.
.
You think homosexual deserve AIDS because of what they do. If that isn’t hatred, can you tell me what is?

“God forgives always, Man sometimes, Nature never.” Or words to that effect.

Gloria, you attributed some other poster’s comment to me. “Joan—you are referring to another Gloria. I don’t have a sister who is Catholic, nor have I posted on Archbold’s blog. I suggest you concern yourself with your own son’s sinful relationship and not bother with other people’s concerns.”

I do not know you from another thread and do not nor have I made any claims as to your personal life. Pay attention please.

I never said homosexuals deserve AIDS or any other horrible disease for that matter and who’s blaming the victims?  You are ASSUMING that - and you know what happens when you assume.  I might just add that you are a true champion at making assumptions!

The Bible doesn’t have to be on a 3rd grade reading level to make sense, unless of course that’s your level.  It does take some effort and thought to understand and help is available if you look for it.

John, nor did I say that you did.This is what I said about your comment re:Gloria, “John calls you a one-woman Catholic hating machine as if it’s a compliment. But he is correct, you are full of hate.”

I do stand by my comment that she is full of hate.

“Good points, Gloria.  But do you really think those things were as rampant then as they are now?  You can’t see how artificial birth control has exascerbated the situation?  How foolish.
.
Any more assanine comments?”
.
You do so much research in pornagraphy and know all about sex in general, and yet you deny evidence of excessive sexual behaviors in history? Isn’t that why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
.
Well, do a little work and Google “History of Contraception”—oh, wait you might learn something.
.
The only brain that exists in your head belongs to the fly that buzzing around in it.

You are full of hate, too, Joan. You just have a conflict because the Church would have you reject your son until he “returns to Christ.”.
.
You certainly hate me, don’t you? Common, the Pope would too.
.
Also, I apologized for my error—it’s New Yorker who thinks I’m someone else.

You don’t have to “say” that you believe homosexuals deserve AIDS—you have already said they have it comming to them because of what they do. Your even using statistics, as though your religion needs statistics to justify itself.
.
Kathleen—wasn’t nature made by God. Isn’t it your beliefe that God created everything?
.
“Marriage was intended to regulate sexuality between men and women for the overall benefit of society as a whole.  Men sleeping around with random women and producing children which are not properly cared for is a disaster for all of society.  Duh.”
.
Marriage was finnally made a sacrament because the early Catholics eventulally figured out Jesus wasn’t going to return in their lifetime after all, and Catholics would die out if they didn’t allow some form of sexual activity. It certainly didn’t stop men from sleeping around—or women either. Many Popes had mistress and children. Again, it might take too much work to look up some history. Syphilis and other sexual diseases were rampant in Catholism too. Many thought the Black Death was “the wrath of God.”
.
You’re giveing the Catholic version of human history, which whitewashes the history of the Church and makes secular civilization evil-Yet you claim Catholics don’t hate.
.
There’s nothing wrong with having nothing to say - unless you insist on others believing it.

Gloria, Gloria,Gloria. You really are mind boggling. You admit you are full of hate. Well, that’s a start. But, I don’t hate you and I am not full of hate and my posts reflect that. The Church does not teach that I must reject my son. Once again you are making assertions and assumptions that are totally wrong,unfounded and untrue.

I would still be interested to hear your response to my post from this morning- I asked what you would think if our government were to round up those who are against gay marriage and put them in prison or detention camps. Yes, it’s hypothetical. But I’ve had plenty of atheists on here give me hypothetical situations as well.

@Gloria

“Marriage was finnally made a sacrament because the early Catholics eventulally figured out Jesus wasn’t going to return in their lifetime after all, and Catholics would die out if they didn’t allow some form of sexual activity.”

LOLOLOL

OK, Gloria, you got us. Catholics hate homosexuals.

So what?

@New Observer:
How do you know that no gay people would be willing to remain part of the church (or even join) if they were just shown the love Jesus commanded his followers to show? It’s not like you’ve ever made any attempt to understand why they feel the way they do. You’ve said as much yourself. You refuse to consider why they feel like outcasts and feel they have to defend themselves because you recognize that it might reveal sins of your own.
You even reject the Magisterium and border on heresy just to rationalize your own anger, even in the face of the words of your own savior commanding you to love others as he loved you. You know, unconditionally.
You accuse me of using a subjective interpretation of the bible when you are doing the very thing you accuse me of, I guess in hopes of distracting from your own mistakes.
@Everybody commenting here:
I know plenty of gay people that would have remained in the church if they hadn’t been attacked (sometimes physically, even) by Catholics who think that Matthew 25:40 somehow doesn’t count if it’s a gay (but celibate) Catholic they are beating and harassing.
Gay people are literally attacked by Christians, and even Catholics on a regular enough basis that it’s happened twice within walking distance of my parish in the last two years, and to at least one student at a local Catholic school.
They fight, because as far as they can see, they are under attack and must defend themselves.
If Catholics made it clear by their actions that they are loving neighbors and not enemies of gay people, the Church would not be under attack by people just trying to protect themselves from people who declare them an enemy.

During Paul’s time, some Christians argued that Jesus advocated celibacy. Why else, they asked, would Jesus have praised women whose wombs never bore or praised men who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Paul and his colleagues opposed self-castration. But, believing that Jesus was coming soon, Paul did advocate celibacy for some Christians. To his brothers in Corinth he wrote, “The time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives live as they had none.” (1 Corinthians 7:29). He also promoted sex in marriage—in order to avoid the sexual frustration that he thought might lead to Satan’s temptations. He warned married Christians to stop depriving each other: “The wife,” he wrote, “does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:4) (Kinky)
.
The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. When the Empire became Christian under Constantine, Christian emperors continued the imperial control of marriage, as the Code of Justinian makes clear. When the Empire faltered in the West, church courts took up the role of legal adjudicator of valid marriages. But there was still no special religious meaning to the institution. As the best scholar of sacramental history, Joseph Martos, puts it: “Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony in the Latin church, and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriage between Christians.”
.

Only in the twelfth century was a claim made for some supernatural favor (grace) bestowed on marriage as a sacrament. By the next century marriage had been added to the biblically sacred number of seven sacraments. Since Thomas Aquinas argued that the spouses’ consent is the efficient cause of marriage and the seal of intercourse was the final cause, it is hard to see what a priest’s blessing could add to the reality of the bond. And bad effects followed. This sacralizing of the natural reality led to a demoting of Yahwist marriage, the only kind Jesus recognized, as inferior to “true marriage” in a church.
.
Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas.
.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/may/09/marriage-myth/
.
stillbelieve—I’ll admit I’m wrong about stating an opinion for which I lost backup reference long ago. LOL if you want. But marriage was not instituted by the Church, it was taken over and another means of “control” over its stupid flock.
.
Joan, I think you do hate me, but you can’t deal with it. Every response you have made to me indicates how you despise me and other atheists—and homosexuals, and even to some degree your son, because we do not follow Catholic ways. Your son has left Christ and you won’t “approve” of him until he returns to Christ—either by marrying or dumping his live in partner AND confessing his regret for living with her out of marriage in the first place. That is a lot to demand from him and he obviously doesn’t think it’s worth the effort. Don’t you hate that?

@Gloria

“But marriage was not instituted by the Church, it was taken over and another means of ‘control’ over its stupid flock.”

We’re “stupid” and “haters.”  So what?

@Patrick:  Let me be the first to welcome any homosexual to church (or back to church) in friendship, fellowship and Christ-like love.  But again you’re missing my point.  The militant homosexual who wishes relationship with the church body wants acceptance on his terms —not that of a repentant sinner.  How hypocritical is it that the church body should welcome with “open arms” a practicing homosexual, adulterer, fornicator, pedophile, thief or any other sinner who has no desire to come to Christ and lay his/her sin at the foot of the cross and change behavior.  It is unbiblical to accept and grant forgiveness to a sinner who has no desire to change behavior once having heard the truth of the gospel.  In fact, in Paul’s discourse on church discipline, it is proper for the church body to remove such known individuals for the good of the body at large.  This is not to say not to the church does not contain sinners.  Paul is speaking of openly known sinners.  If there were a perfect church, as soon as you or I joined it wouldn’t be perfect any longer.  This is why several mainline Protestant churches are in decline.  Some now embrace gay or lesbian pastors, conduct gay weddings —all in the name of “acceptance” and that Jesus—is all about love.  This is deception.  Such individuals desire acceptance “as they are”—in the comfort of their sin.  They are not required to repent and have no intention of doing so.  This is false worship, deception and demonic —but it does make the sinner feel good.  On the other hand, Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists and Pentecostal numbers are rising as a result to taking a biblical stand for righteousness.  We do the known homosexual, adulterer, fornicator, pedophile or thief any favor by granting acceptance and validating a continuance of his/her sinful practice.

Oh Gloria, you are like the oracle of ancient Greece.  Your brilliance shines brighter then the sun.  I really have enjoyed this exchange and I’m not joking about that.  I do like that you can take a good ribbing.  But to set the record straight, I was not the one who confused with another idiot.

Do you have to work hard at not letting reason, historical facts, and logic get in the way of forming opinions or does it come naturally?  Birth control pills were introduced in the early 1960’s.  Within 10 years the divorce approached 50% and abortion was legalized across the USA.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that artificial contraception enables promiscuity, which leads to all these other things including men treating women like used kleenex.  Do you really think there’s no difference in moral standards between say 1620 and 2012?  What planet are you on?

I’m waiting with baited breath to read your response.

New Observer, after reading your rant about being afraid gays will take over your clubhouse, does it make your boil when you see a happy gay couple in public or are you indifferent?

@New Observer
So are you saying Catholics shouldn’t show love and kindness to people until *after* they’ve joined the Church and are in good standing with it?
Again, the way people become so fervently opposed to the Church is because of the way they are treated by representatives of it. Like you.
Believe it or not, it’s possible to not support sinful practice but STILL be sensitive to the emotions and past experiences of the sinner.
It really actually is.
If you weren’t so angry at them all the time that you refuse to listen to them when they are willing to tell you why they feel the way they do, you’d know this already.
When a celibate, devout, faithful gay Catholic gets physically assaulted for being gay by other Christians, what do you think that will do to his faith? Do you think it will strengthen it? Do you think it will reinforce his belief that the church is Universal? When other Catholics look away and pretend it’s not happening or assume he must have been doing something to provoke it, what is going to happen to his opinion of his fellow Catholics?
And on another point, how many militant pro-gay activist became that way because they or a friend were attacked by Christians who thought that it’s okay to beat up or slander or threaten gays? How many of those people who want no part of the Church took that position in response to callousness and animosity from the Church?
When a young man discovers he has same-sex attraction and doesn’t want it and goes to his parish priest for help, what do you think is going to happen when that priest treats him like a monster and tells him he’s going to hell without even trying to understand the situation or whether or not that young man is doing everything he can to follow the Church’s teachings? Do you think he’s going to become a happy, well-adjusted member of the church, or do you think he’s going to feel betrayed and leave for good?
That actually happened to an acquaintance of mine, by the way, so don’t act like I’m making up implausible situations. If that priest had been obeying the Church’s teachings about how gay people, and I’ll quote it again, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” he might still be a Catholic now. But because that priest felt being angry was more important than understanding the young man’s struggle and trying to show love and compassion, and now that young man is the sort of fervent pro-gay activist you seem to think just spring fully-formed from the earth, rather than being created by the suffering they are forced to endure.
You get it yet? Hollering and preaching doom at gay people only makes them feel more threatened. No one in their right mind is going to willingly associate with people who deride and insult and harass them, even if those people feel justified in doing so. That is why it is mandatory to treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

@Psy:  Why should I be afraid of gay people?  Since when does “I disagree based upon biblical standards”  constitute hate speech?  Clearly, the cultural shift to tagging those who disagree as “haters” will now become the next standard in the war on Christianity.  You’ve already done that to Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A who expressed his viewpoint on this matter.  Christians are not by nature confrontational.  You will find, however, your steamroller approach is now meeting with Christian resistance.  That, too, is biblical since Jesus himself was no lap dog.

@Patrick, you have me unsure if you are actually Catholic or have left the church and enjoy baiting.  Perhaps you are gay yourself.  Nevertheless, let’s try one more time.  Followers of Christ do not “beat up, threaten and call people monsters.”  If they do, they are not true Christians.  Very likely that priest you know who called a young gay man a monster should either be defrocked or resign and find some other line of work.  He is no priest of Christ.  There are good (and bad) RC priests just like the rest of us.  Some in the church have done great damage to the body of Christ.  At the same time, every follower of Christ should be—that is “should be” concerned with the condition of those lost who do not know Christ.  Identifying sin, how to repent and understand the meaning of Calvary should always be your/our first approach.  When the militant homosexual responds with hostility, name calling and their own brand of “hate” speech, how do you propose that gap is bridged?  You seem to make no distinction between the humble gay person seeking understanding and the militant homosexual who sees no need for forgiveness and has rejected the gospel.

Either a boycott is an attack or it’s not.
If it is, the boycott of Chick-Fil-A came after Christians boycotting Starbucks, General Mills, JC Penney, Home Depot, 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl’s Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, PepsiCo, Google, Archie Comics, Apple, and EA Games, to give an incomplete list. If boycotts are attacks, that seems quite confrontational of Christians, going around condemning those businesses for expressing their viewpoints on the matter. Thankfully, a boycott is not in any way an attack.
Businesses are not entitled to any particular customer’s money. Customers have the right to refuse to do business with a given company, right? That’s how capitalism works, isn’t it? If someone doesn’t want to fund Dan Cathy’s donations to particular political organizations, they have a right to buy chicken elsewhere and it certainly isn’t an attack on him or his company to buy from their competitors.

@Patrick, [“That is why it is mandatory to treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”]  The humble, yes.  Absolutely.  The rationale, yes.  No doubt the moneychangers in the Temple must have been wondering if Jesus had ever received (and read) the latest edition of the Catechism from the Magisterium.

New Observer, I never heard of Chick-fil-A until a few days ago, it will go on my list of places to avoid. At the same time I’m not going to run down to Starbucks for a $4 cup of coffee because the happen to have similar views. 

As for “haters” labels like sinner, demonic, perverse, and the many other colorful descriptions in this thread do fit the bill. I don’t really care if your church preforms gay marriages or not, what I don’t get is why people have a problem with the legal aspect of gay marriage in this supposed land of equality.

Whether Jesus was a lapdog or not is of no concern to me.

@Psy:  There are plenty of all manner of churches which perform gay marriages.  They are free to do so and   homosexuals are free to marry there.  Labels such as sinner, demonic and perverse are taken from the Bible.  If someone does not accept the authority of God’s word then you are your own authority —and have made yourself a god.  It’s what Atheism is all about.

@New Observer
Generally speaking, the difference between the humble gay person seeking understanding and the militant homosexual who sees no need for forgiveness and has rejected the gospel is the degree of disrespectful, un-compassionate, and insensitive treatment they have had to endure at the hands of those not-true Christians who wave the bible at them, misleadingly cite scripture at them, who sit in the same pews as them, who sat in classrooms next to them, who were parish priests in their neighborhoods, who they see on TV, etc. They aren’t born hostile toward the Church, they become hostile toward the church when people of the Church (whether true Christians or not) treat them with hostility.

Here’s how to bridge that gap: The Church’s priests and bishops and lay leaders make a greater effort to educate Catholics of the importance of showing respect, compassionate, and sensitivity, and the rank and file of the church behave in a sufficiently Christian manner that gay people see their love, respect, caring, etc. rather than anger, hostility, adversarial posturing, etc.

Even if they are rude, don’t be rude back. Even if they are inconsiderate, don’t be inconsiderate back. If they’re hostile, don’t be hostile back. Understand that their anger is a result of others (who called themselves Christian and who were considered by others to be Christian) mistreating them or those they care about. If they aren’t attacked, they won’t feel the same need to defend themselves that they do now. That’s why Christians need to stand up and call for them to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. That way they will view Christians as people who respect and care about the well being of gay people, even if they disagree with them, rather than as group who has declared war on them.
It’s tough, but it’s the Christian way to do things.

@New Observer
“2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

Nowhere in there does it say, “Unless they are proud.” Some of them are beyond saving at this point, yes, but often it is BECAUSE they were not treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

Catholics are called to love PROACTIVELY. To show respect, compassion, and sensitivity first, not wait to see if they support you already or not. If the people of the Church were better at this, there would be a lot less anger toward it by people who were insulted and despised before they’d even done anything wrong.
People aren’t perfect, but we can all strive to do better.

New Observer ~”—and have made yourself a god.”

An interesting point of view. I see the whole ‘god’ concept as people projecting their man made authoritarian political construct on the universe. I have no issue with being an insignificant and temporary life form on an insignificant little planet in a random galaxy in a vast universe.

@Psy:  As you wish.  May you find your way as pleasant.

New Observer ~“May you find your way as pleasant.”

Thank you and I hope someday you can put people before institutions.

@Patrick

“If it is, the boycott of Chick-Fil-A came after Christians boycotting…Carl’s Jr.”

I don’t know about the other companies you listed that Christians are “boycotting” (by the way, nobody told me about the boycott) but I’m quite sure Carl’s Jr. is not one of them.  Carl Karcher was a very devote Catholic as is his entire family, and one of his children is a pastor of a local Catholic Church.  He was a very generous and kind man who had a great love for God.  I’m not aware of him ever speaking an unkind word about anyone. 

@stilbelieve
Thanks for letting me know about that!
Apparently there were some smaller Christian groups that were boycotting Carl’s Jr. because they found one of their ad campaigns to be in poor taste. I apologize for including it in that list, as it seems it was a much smaller-scale boycott than I had thought. I mistakenly assumed it was one that took place prior to my being terribly aware of political actions and such, but it seems it was just recently and had so little impact and so few participants that I hadn’t heard about it at the time either.
Sorry about the confusion, I’ll spend more time cross-referencing before posting things like that in the future.
My mistake.

I should know better than to use Wikipedia without double-checking sources by now… I guess that’ll remind me not to post things in a hurry in the future.

Gloria “Joan, I think you do hate me, but you can’t deal with it. Every response you have made to me indicates how you despise me and other atheists—and homosexuals, and even to some degree your son, because we do not follow Catholic ways. Your son has left Christ and you won’t “approve” of him until he returns to Christ—either by marrying or dumping his live in partner AND confessing his regret for living with her out of marriage in the first place. That is a lot to demand from him and he obviously doesn’t think it’s worth the effort. Don’t you hate that?”

You just can’t stop with the assumptions can you? Where on earth do you come up with the above statement from what I have written? My son and I have a very good relationship, even though we live in different states. I do not harp on him about his lifestyle or God or religion. Even though my son was brought up in the faith, he stopped going to Church at 16. I knew that forcing him would not be right, he had to go because he wanted to, so I did not force the issue. All we as parents can do (I doubt you have children or you might know these things) is give their children love and patience, let them know the Truth, and then put them in God’s hands. Many children do come back to faith as they get older. I know I did. How you twist not approving of a lifestyle(and like I said, I do not harp on him about it) to not approving of him, is beyond me. Wait, of course I get it. Because you twist disapproval of homosexual activity as disapproving of the person.

Gloria, are you afraid because you know in your heart that if you disapproved of these actions, that you yourself would treat the person horribly, so you tell yourself that these things are ok. You are projecting your own feelings and attitude onto others. Since you believe love is all about the amount of pleasure you get from some thing or someone, you are unable to separate disapproval of a behavior from disapproval of a person. You can’t get your brain around it. It is such an alien concept to you this concept of hate the sin love the sinner. You think it isn’t possible because you know that you would be incapable of doing it, so for you, you must love the sin in order to love the person.

That is sad.

We say that marriage was instituted by God, not the Church. Whatever forms the marriage “ceremony” took on over the centuries is inconsequential, and does not provide a good argument for homosexual marriage.

Psy, you’re another one who likes to twist things. Where does New Observer state that he’s “afraid gays will take over your clubhouse.”? Of course you’re just ‘paraphrasing’ what you want to believe is the point of NO’s post. You think it’s “mean” to ask people to change their heart, their lifestyle and turn to Christ if they want to enter the Catholic Church. My question would be, why would anyone want to become Catholic unless they already had a change of heart and had turned to Christ and were willing to “take up their cross” which for most of us meant a change of lifestyle? I do not understand people who claim to want to be Catholic, but only on their terms. Would you join an organization like say, the NRA, if you were totally against guns?

Wow, Patrick. I don’t know where you live, but I have never seen what you describe coming from Catholic priests, parishes or her members.And I have lived in several states and cities.  I do know that there are some very fundamental Protestant groups and churches (each church is it’s own authority in Protestantism, apparently) but not from Catholics. There will be some, for sure, but it is not typical from Catholics, not in the least. No, from what I’ve read from militant-style gay activists is they are angry simply with the Church’s entire teaching on homosexuality. The mere fact that the Church says IT, not the person, is A disorder, the person has a disorder-don’t we all?, they are militantly against the Catholic Church. They ignore or don’t care that the Church also strongly states that we must treat homosexuals, and all persons, with respect and dignity and that they ARE love by God.
I have seen many on various forums list the CCC paragraphs regarding homosexuality and say that is why they HATE the Church. No mention of being bullied or told they are ‘monsters’ by priests and other Catholics.

For the record, no matter how militant they may be, I would treat them with respect and kindness. Would I get impatient with them? Sure. St. Paul went around doing alot of arguing in synagogues during his ministry.
I wonder how much respect and kindness I would receive from some of them?
It certainly isn’t evident here.

GOD gave us the Ten Commandments and the Church because he loves us, not to punish us. If we follow his law we will find peace and joy in this life. If we do not, we will be miserable.  Murder, hate, envy, lust, sickness, abortion, euthanasia, and a lot more are the result of not following his law.  Sins against God’s law often result in Aids, breast cancer, defensiveness, anger, drug addiction, mental illness, etc.  But we bring it on ourselves!  We have free choice. God is the good father trying to guide us to a better life in this world and eternal joy in the next; just like we do for our children!  It is never too late to choose God.

Sin brings anger, resentment, hatred, and guilt which brings on more anger, resentment, hatred, and guilt. It is a vicious circle!  The addict needs more drugs of his choice. No one is ever content who rejects God’s law. That is why our world is so full of hate and anger. We are rejecting God and that is our choice!  

And oh by the way, I graduated summa cum, for both bachelor’s and master’s degrees from well known universities.  So much for your sheep theory!   God gives all of us the ability to seek and find Him, regardless of intellectual capacity. A high IQ often hinders the ability to find God.

Our country voted for “hope and change” because we have lost our way. And if we do it again, the civil unrest will only increase. Misery loves company!  If you are angry, you want everyone to be angry.  Anger is a choice. Why live in pain and anguish?  

To all non-believers….......“I see the whole ‘god’ concept as people
projecting their man made authoritarian political construct on the universe.
I have no issue with being an insignificant and temporary life form on an
insignificant little planet in a random galaxy in a vast universe.”

Please see Pascal’s wager.

Posted by Joanp62 on Friday, Aug 3, 2012 7:00 AM (EST):We say that marriage was instituted by God, not the Church.”
**********************
Thanks. I was going to post the same thing. In addition, the couple actually “confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony”, not the priest or deacon.

Reading Patrick’s post above would lead one to believe we are facing an epidemic of Christians harming gay people, which of course would be contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  I live in major city and watch the news every day.  I’ve worked with gay guys, gone to school with them, and I’ve seen some idiots make occassional stupid comments towards them, but I’ve never seen anyone physically assault them.  I can’t even remember hearing about such a thing in the news it’s so infrequent.

As for the priest who behaved badly, there’s over 400,000 priests and 4,000 bishops in this world and they’re not all shining examples of sainthood.  The church does not belong to the local pastor, the bishop, or even the pope.  It belongs to Christ.  We are followers of Christ.  And if we’re ever confronted with clergy who cannot deliver the Christ’s message, we can always turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for proper instruction.  This is precisely why John Paul II gave us the Catechism.

Kathleen, thanks for adding that. Yes, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, if I have that right. Which actually would correspond then to how earlier marriages were done, I guess.

Lin, well said. But wait for it. You will be accused of claiming that God punishes us with diseases or that if we get cancer it is all our own fault, because we are sinful.
Sometimes the innocent suffer due to the sins of others. But, yes, we are all guilty to some degree or another.

Joan62….....Good catch!  Yes, sometimes the innocent due suffer due to the sins of others. Jesus is the number one example. Aborted babies, little children, the elderly, and so on. If we offer it up for the salvation of all, the suffering is not in vain. As to family members who leave the faith, prayer, love and a good example brings them back. Youth is wasted on the young!  Keep up the fight. It is worth it if we get through to just one soul. Peace and love to you!

Peace and love to you too, Lin. Thanks.

“Right from the start, Jesus faced a steady stream of insults and abuse born of cowardly egoism, because He proclaimed the Word without human respect. This ill-treatment increased steadily with time, until it broke out into calumny and open persecution, culminating in the death sentence. Christ’s fortitude was recognized even by his enemies, who said, Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men.

Christ asks his disciples to imitate him in this practice. Christians should foster and defend their well-earned professional, moral and social prestige, since it belongs to the essence of human dignity. This prestige is also an important component of our personal apostolate. Yet we should not forget that our conduct will meet with opposition from those who openly oppose Christian morality and those who practice a watered-down version of the Faith. It is possible that the Lord will ask of us the sacrifice of our good name, and even of life itself. With the help of his grace we will struggle to do his Will. Everything we have belongs to the Lord. 
     Each Christian has to put aside any fears of ‘rocking the boat’ should his upright conduct provoke criticism or rejection. Whoever out of human respect would hide his Christian identity in the midst of a pagan environment would merit this denunciation of Jesus: Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.’ Our Lord teaches us that confessing our faith is a requirement for being his disciple, no matter what the consequences may be.”

““from In Conversation with God by Francis Fernandez Volume 4 pp.267-269”“

Lin, Joan62,
Plus, it’s a fallen world.Folks die from polluted drinking water, parasites, the flu,TB, etc, perhaps from living in impoverished conditions or just from living, period.And eventually we all die of something.
Someone way back asked how the Bible condemned homosexuality before we had modern medical knowledge.That’s a whole different issue & it wasn’t so much about disease, but the Old Testament did have prohibitions against certain foods & methods of quarantine which were soundly based.I read a book years ago which explained scientifically how Biblical dietary & quarantine laws worked & if they’d been applied in later times, might have prevented or at least diminished the effects of the Plague & other epidemics.Can’t remember the author’s name.

Kathleen, I remember the same thing. Many of those Biblical dietary laws and other restrictions like keeping lepers away from the non-leperous (quarantine, right) were for very good health issues. Today we still keep those with seriously contagious diseases apart from others, it is certainly not arbitrary nor is it to be mean.
I know, I’m getting way off topic here.

Kathleen, good post.  People living in Old testament times didn’t have access to all of our sophisticated diagnostic equipment, but they certainly could observe cause and effect and come up with a set of guidelines help prevent others from making harmful mistakes.  I think over many, many years these guidelines became part of scripture, although the specifics behind each is not given.

@Psy:  [“Thank you and I hope someday you can put people before institutions.”]  No, Psy.  I put Christ and His word *before* institutions.

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Aug 3, 2012 10:32 AM (EST):@Psy:  [“Thank you and I hope someday you can put people before institutions.”]  No, Psy.  I put Christ and His word *before* institutions.
****************
And Christ, in turn, instituted the Church.
:)

Patrick and Psy:  This drumbeat you both seem to be focused upon concerning hate and attacking homosexuals by Christians is both tiring and frankly way off base.  Other than the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS you would be hard pressed to cite examples of Christians (or Catholics) displaying such behavior.  Demonstrating and carrying inflamatory anti-gay signs at funerals, the internment or memorials of fallen military is not Christian and many churches have disavowed their unChristian behavior as a false gospel.  In the later times, we are told false teachers will arise, so this is not unexpected.  Pastor Fred Phelps is a blip on the radar.  His total church membership is about 50 of which 35 to 40 are related family and cousins.  In Christianity Today (Magazine) most Evangelicals have disavowed Phelphs and his people.  I am not aware of any comments made by the Catholic church but surely they would not even bother to dignify Phelps with any comment at all.  It is the leftist media which continually promotes the Westboro demonstrations as newsworthy in order to advance the idea of Christians “hating and attacking gays.”  Phelps and his people are not Christian people regardless of what shingle name they hang on their street sign post.

@Kathleen:  If Monsignor Lynn had placed Christ first (ahead of the institutional church organization), he would not currently now be residing in a Pennsylvania jail cell.

New Observer ,
I read an article recently that pointed out that some of the type of cases, such as you mention, resulted from NOT implementing Canon Law properly.

Admonishing Sinners is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
We must never Tolerate sin.
If you love your neighbor as commanded by Jesus, you will want him/her to get to Heaven for eternity, therefore correction is appropriate.
Satan and his followers will call all kinds of names to allow evil to progress. Ignore the name calling by considering the source.

@Bill Kells:  Exactly correct and your comment is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16—“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”  Of course, the obstacle is that Satanic deception leads many to reject what you and Paul are talking about.  May I recommend to you an excellent reading:  “The Pursuit of Holiness” (Jerry Bridges) available in paperback.

Bill Kells ~“Satan and his followers will call all kinds of names to allow evil to progress. Ignore the name calling by considering the source.”

Name calling like “Satan” and “evil” then put your fingers in your ears. I am impress with the wall of affirmations in the last several responses to suppress any rational thoughts that may be a threat to your beliefs.

Psy, did I miss something?  Who’s suppressing your thoughts?

@all of you who equate homosexuality with theft, murder and pedophilia and all other sins: Do you actually not understand how incendiary that is?  As Lin claims advanced degrees and says you are not morons, and yet only a moron would be incapable of understanding that such comparisons could only be made in order to anger someone who is gay or sympathizes with gay people.  And while I’m at it, here’s why I sympathize with gay people.  I could no more choose to be gay than choose to fly to Mars.  Choosing to be gay is inconceivable to me.  I have to assume, therefore, that their attractions are like mine, and if anyone told me I was not allowed to have sex with women, and not only was there a God who was going to ensure that I burned eternally if I had sex with women—but, oh yeah, that God really, really LOVES me and sacrificed his only Son for me, I’d say “keep your damned Son, let me have my girlfriend!”  That is why I feel people like New Observer and Mac must be latent homosexuals.  I don’t say that as an insult—I really don’t. I just don’t see how anyone can think that people choose to be heterosexual unless they themselves have chosen to be heterosexual.  And Joan, the problem isn’t gay people wanting to become Catholics, the problem is gay people are BORN Catholics.  So to sum up my questions are: 1) Do you really believe there is much difference between saying to someone “I hate you” and “I believe that acting on your sexual desires makes you no better than a thief, a murderer or a pedophile,” and 2) Do you choose to be a heterosexual?  Can you imagine yourself happy and fulfilled as a homosexual, especially given how many people would be running around saying you are the moral equivalent of a pedophile?  3) Why on Earth do you imagine that some people would actually choose such a life?  The clothes?  Strike that last part.  It’s a serious question.  It’s only been VERY recently that homosexuals couldn’t be sent to jail for doing what they do.  Do you honestly believe someone with an inclination to be a heterosexual would choose that?  Don’t quote a bunch of studies and statistics.  Just tell me from your experience if that makes any sense.

@John:  No one is “born” Catholic.  You might be raised Catholic, but at some point you decide to stay Catholic or leave for something else or nothing at all.  You have also conveniently twisted the argument to fit an agenda with [@“all of you who equate homosexuality with theft, murder and pedophilia and all other sins: Do you actually not understand how incendiary that is?”]  That you are homosexual or have the orientation (pc word) is not a sin.  Stay on topic.  The acting upon sinful behavior is what sin is.  Should the church grant you “protected” special interest class status over the married adulterer, unmarried fornicator, thief, pedophile or anyone else?  If you say you follow Christ Jesus and desire to obey Him,—just do it.  People are tired of hearing Catholic homosexuals wanting their sin justified or explained.  The same can be said for the unmarried foricator.  John, really, just how difficult is it for you to keep your pants on?

John, I’ll tell you something from my personal experience, since you asked.  A friend of my son went off to college a few years a go.  He was assigned a random room mate, a guy I’ll call Joe.  I met Joe, he was over the house a few times.  Nice kid.  The wife and I really liked him.  We come to find out many months later that he started working as a bar tender to help pay college expenses.  He started working on gay nights.  It turns out he was wrestling with a same sex attraction for quite some time.  With the encouragement of others around him on campus, he decided to indulge in the life style.  About a year or so goes by and the next thing we hear is that he’s in rehab dues to subtsance abuse brought on by depression.  We felt so bad for him as he was a really nice kid.  His Catholic friends were the only ones to visit him, by the way.  It turns out after talking to a social worker (not connected to Joe’s case) we find out depression and substance abuse are quite common in the world of same sex relations as is promiscuity.  It seems that even men get tired of being sex objects after a while and the emptiness gets to them just as it gets to heterosexuals as well.  I ‘m not sure what happened to Joe.  We often ask about his well being and our son’s friend (dorm room mate) has lost touch with him.

This sad experience plus others I’ve seen living in a major city, make me question the assumption that all is well in the world of same sex relations.  Joe may have been wrestling with same sex desires for quite some time, but he didn’t end up in rehab until others gave him the impetus to indulge. 

As far as how people develop same sex attractions, I’ve heard there are patterns that can lead to this.  The classic pattern seems to be when youg boys are rejected by their fathers and they spend too much time with their mothers.  Books have been written about these things.  Check out Dr. Nicalosi if you’re interested in learning more or look for books on Amazon.

@New Observer: It was VERY difficult for me to keep my pants on, that’s why I got married! God gets to decide how he wants to view behavior, but we are responsible for our own responses.  Are you saying that sin is sin, whether we’re talking about cheating at backgammon, telling your wife she doesn’t look fat in that dress or raping a boy in the shower?  It’s all the same?  I don’t give a flying fig about what you think God thinks.  What do YOU believe?

John:  [“God gets to decide how he wants to view behavior.”]  He’s already decided, John, and detailed for us what sin is.  You simply want justification for sin.  You want to feel comfortable in sin.  It’s not happening.

John: a guy named Thomas Aquinas pondered the same things you are pondering, namely, “What constitutes sin?”.  He wrote these things down in a work known as “Summa Theologica”.  If you look you can find some summaries on this.

@Psy

“As for ‘haters’ labels like sinner, demonic, perverse, and the many other colorful descriptions in this thread do fit the bill. I don’t really care if your church preforms gay marriages or not, what I don’t get is why people have a problem with the legal aspect of gay marriage in this supposed land of equality.”

Perhaps this link will give you a little more background on why there is “a problem with the legal aspect of gay marriage in this supposed land of equality.”  It’s a response directed to the Mayor of Chicago and his attack on Chick-fil-A, written by Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago on his Blog. 
 

http://www.archchicago.org/blog/comments.aspx?postID=276

@New Yorker, I feel sorry for homosexuals in that I have to imagine that coming to grips with their impulses would be a horrific psychological burden.  (Btw, all is not necessarily well in opposite-sex relations either, but so what.)  All of that only convinces me that no sane person would choose to be gay, and since the VAST majority of homosexuals are functional in every other aspect of their lives, I have to conclude they are sane.  That doesn’t discount what a drag it must be in a lot of ways.  One note about promiscuity: they’re not promiscuous because they are gay, they are promiscuous because they are men.  Biology is telling them to be promiscuous.  Most of the guys I grew up with would have died a long time ago if they’d been gay.  It’s an inherent problem with gay men, and when combined with, as Mac points out, the effects of anal sex, it’s only natural that HIV spread as quickly as it did throughout the homosexual community.  So that, of course, is why I support gay marriage and why everyone should.  Do you think that AIDS would have killed nearly as many people if homosexuals had been accepted and encouraged to be in committed monogamous relationships? 
Here’s another story.  Years ago I met a guy who had spent most of his career in charge of internal security for an airline (he had retired in the early 80’s).  I asked him what his job consisted of and he said, “mostly busting queers.”  He wasn’t really homophobic.  That’s just the way a guy his age talked.  Prior to gays being generally accepted in the culture it was common (I learned) for them to work for the airlines.  That way they got free travel and could afford to fly to New York, San Francisco or New Orleans for the weekends to party with like-minded individuals.  Eventually that lifestyle caught up with many of them and a good number would start embezzling from the company to support their habits.  That’s when my acquaintance would “bust queers.”  So the question is what’s the appropriate solution to these particular crimes?  Convince people not to act on their sexual impulses or let them be who they are in their hometowns so they don’t have to lie and steal?  I’m guessing you think it should be the former, but which option do you think would actually work?

@New Yorker:  Thanks for sharing that personal experience since it may be quite enlightening for some people.  Christianity is all about forgiveness and we do a disservice to the practicing (underscore “practicing”) homosexual coming to this website by enabling a continuance of such behavior.  An individual who sees no need of changing (God made me this way) has yet to come to terms with the cross and the avenue which Christ has provided for all sinners.  That’s why we call Him—Our Savior, because He saved us.  There is no earthly temptation greater than the power of Jesus *if* we choose to call upon Him.  He always shows up.

@New Observer: you can’t answer a simple question, can you?  Forget what you think I want.  It’s pretty straight forward: is all sin the same in your eyes?

New Yorker ...........Your post proves my point. When we follow God’s law we will find peace. When we do not, we find “death” in various forms. It is so sad but it really is that SIMPLE!

I don’t know, from my perspective it’s like you are all caught up in some weird roll playing game.

@John:  You’ve decided God has a sin meter and that gay sex falls somewhere on the 1 to 10 sin scale.  Your argument has already been made and failed in the parable of the man in the Temple thanking God that he was “not like the rest of men.”  Your problem is that you have not yet learned how to lay your burden down at the cross.

@New Observer: Why do you keep telling me what I’m thinking and trying to solve my problems?  My question is can you, New Observer—not anyone else—can you tell the difference between cheating at backgammon and raping a boy in the shower?

John….....Whether you go against God’s law in your own backyard or thousands of miles away, you cannot find peace. Neither will redefining marriage make them any more content or monogamous.  And not all sin is equal but all sin is the absence of God which makes us miserable!  Peace!

Lin….A) Why wouldn’t marriage help make homosexuals more content and monogamous, B) What experience are you drawing upon in forming that opinion and C) does God treat all sin equally?  Can God tell the difference between cheating at backgammon and raping a boy in the shower?

John, first let me say it’s unequivocally wrong to harm or mistreat people suffering with same sex attaractions.  It has not been my experience to see serious Catholics do such a thing.  I have seen some Fundamentalist Christians go over the top with Bible banging, and yes, being quite inflammatory.  That’s really not helpful to anyone.  Yes, what that airline guy did was wrong.  This bad behavior contributed to getting us where we are today.

The answer to your question, what I believe is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

Paraphrasing what it says: There are many people with same sex attractions, we don’t know exactly what causes it, it is disordered, it presents a personal trial for many of them, and Catholics should not discriminate against them in any way.  It also urges people with these attractions not to act on them.  Yes, I know that’s extraordinarily difficult, but the alternative (indulging oneself) has a good chance of not ending too well (see the story of Joe above).

Also, I don’t know if it’s the best idea to assume long term relationships in the world of same sex relations are truly monogamous.  I’ve heard these relationships are more like restrained promiscuity and AIDS infection rates are actually higher in these relationships because people drop their guards while there really is some promiscuity going on.  There was one famous study done by homosexual researchers looking to prove that LTR’s for homosexuals were possible and the restrained promiscuity theory was hog wash made up by Bible banging nuts.  As hard as they tried, I don’t think they were ever able to prove their point. Feel free to correct me there.

The argument that it’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want because the world of heterosexual relations is so screwed up is not a good one.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Heterosexual promiscuity, which is enabled by highly effective artificial contraception by the way, is also wrong.

Anecdotal information, personal experience, and the results of some controversial studies have made me doubt that the world of same sex realations is not the utopia it is often made out to be in the media.  So, I personally would not endorse, encourage, or sanction it on any level (including marriage).  And, this doesn’t mean I hate guys like Joe.  I feel sorry for him and I wish I could have done more to help him.

I hope this explains things a little better.

Lin, that comes across as such a childish selfish claim of ownership of marriage.

@John:  [“Why do you keep telling me what I’m thinking and trying to solve my problems?”]  Because you do have a problem, John.  You have not humbled yourself in submission to Christ even though you have heard the gospel truth.  Your comments all reflect that.

As for sin, there are differences in sin and judgment.  David was both a murderer and adulterer.  He repented and was forgiven.  What you perceive as a lesser sin does not exonerate you from guilt and judgment in the eyes of God.  It is important enough to know that Christ views all sin in relation to the degree of light which has been revealed.  Once having heard the gospel, a man is more accountable than someone who has not.  Since you (John) already know what the Bible says regarding homosexual relations, you thus remind me of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees at the Pool of Siloam.  They asked Him “Are we also blind?”  And Jesus replied:  “But you say ‘we see’—and so your sin remains.”

@New Yorker: I think you come about your opinions honestly.  I personally would give gay marriage the benefit of the doubt because they say they want it and I don’t care what they do in private with consenting adults and their genitalia.  If I thought they had the choice between getting married and staying gay or becoming heterosexual I’d tell them to be heterosexual. Since you seem to believe they have that choice, then I understand why you would give them that advice.

I don’t know where you are hearing gay marriage is utopia, but if I believed that maybe I WOULD be gay (Now don’t get all worked up. I’m KIDDING!!!)

I agree two wrongs don’t make a right; I am suggesting that we focus our energies on the worst problems.  Heterosexual divorce and heterosexual promiscuity are far more damaging to the family and society than anything the gay community has ever done.

John, I have not written nor do I equate homosexual people with theives or pedophiles. Please show the comment in which I stated that. Nor have I stated that any one CHOOSES to be homosexual any more than I can CHOOSE to be hetero. As a hetero I can choose my behavior,whether or not to be promiscuous,etc however, and I expect homosexuals are quite capable of being able to do the same.
Born Catholic- do you mean born into a Catholic family and baptized? They have the choice to remain Catholic or not as they get older. So I will rephrase my question- why would anyone want to stay Catholic or become Catholic, if they were not willing to change their hearts, lifestyles and turn to Christ? Being born into the Catholic faith does not mean being forced to remain Catholic.

@New Observer: By “not humbled yourself in submission to Christ even though you have heard the gospel truth” you are saying that I don’t agree with YOU, which is to say that I don’t agree with someone without the intellectual integrity to admit there are some sins worse than others.  If God judges, as you say, then it stands to reason that God’s judgement is not arbitrary, but based on morality.  So for you to suggest that God judges all sinners equally would be blasphemy.  If someone were, for instance, a self-righteous, moralistic prig, committing the sin of pride, among others, but was not given to murder or pedophilia, don’t you feel God would judge him less harshly than if he did engage in murder or pedophilia?  Don’t you feel we should therefore judge him differently too?

@John: [“I agree two wrongs don’t make a right; I am suggesting that we focus our energies on the worst problems.  Heterosexual divorce and heterosexual promiscuity are far more damaging to the family and society than anything the gay community has ever done.”]    Ah, the Rodney King approach.  John, Proverbs 14:34 disputes that.  “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”  How can you expect the Lord to bless to bless this nation by allowing gay marriage?  He would thus have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.  John, for someone who knows so much about the Catholic church, you know very little about God’s revealed word nor that of His Son.  You still have time, however.

Joanp62, many of my friends and family have left the Catholic Church for different reasons. Some over the anti-gay rhetoric of the local church, some found the Church leadership too intrusive into their personal lives and some because the pews were filling with so many Hispanic immigrants.

My ex-wife was asked to leave for associating with her own family member that had left the Church.

@John:  Please stop the charade.  Make your best case in favor of gay marriage for all to see and read.

Stillbelieve, thank you for that link for Cardinal George. I was born and raised in Chicago,lived there for 31 years, and still have family there. What he wrote was very insightful, and done in a loving and respectful manner.

It seems to me that this whole Chik-fil-A incident is really backfiring on those involved with the gay agendas.

New Observer ~“You still have time, however.”

Have you considered that you may be the one who needs saved?

Yes, John.  Several years ago, in fact.  I was forgiven and saved unto new life in Christ.  I have the date noted in my Bible.  He can do that for you as well.

Joan62: In this entire thread you are the first on the anti-gay marriage side that has bothered to say there is a moral difference between gay people and pedophiles.  I was just hoping you or someone might admit there’s a qualitative difference.  I wasn’t accusing you of writing that, just not disagreeing with it when your side seemed to believe it so strongly.  And yes, I meant born into a Catholic family (seriously? did you really think I meant they came out of the womb holding a Rosary?).  You are saying that a homosexual can’t be a sexual being and remain united with the church he grew up in or with his family (insofar as he can’t go to church with them).  I’m just not seeing the good in that.  I know New Observer and maybe you too think I’m going to burn in hell eternally because I think families being able to worship together is more important than what people do with their genitals, but at least I won’t have to spend eternity with New Observer!

Joanp62 ~“It seems to me that this whole Chik-fil-A incident is really backfiring on those involved with the gay agendas.”

If you are presuming its about putting Chik-fil-A out of business I can see how those with an anti-gay agenda may interpret it that way. The poll here in Washington State are showing growing support for gay marriage.

I also think Prop. 8 supporters are making a grave mistake in asking the Supreme Court to reexamine the current ruling by the 9th Circuit Court. Bible quotes and Pharisees fables don’t go over that well in court.

@New Observer: what charade?  I’m not pretending to be anything that I’m not.  I don’t hate Catholics (some of my best friends…etc!).  I just don’t usually don’t indulge myself in an argument with someone whose opinion I don’t respect, and clearly I have no respect for anyone who can’t tell the difference between jay walking and drunk driving—or at least has too much pride to admit it.  No one is actually that stupid.  So it is, in fact, a bit of a charade to pretend that I really care what you think.  I’m just very frustrated that people not only abide by your brand of bigotry but actually utilize it to make themselves feel better by convincing themselves there is some holy justification for their self-satisfied superiority. So I’ve been taking out my frustrations here, and for that I apologize.  The case for gay marriage is self-evident: marriage is a great thing in someone’s life if they have the fortitude to stick it out.  A small percentage of heterosexuals do and so I suspect that an even smaller percentage of gay people would, but that doesn’t make me want to keep it from them.  I believe there many Christians with good hearts who are genuinely torn by this issue.  I don’t believe you are among them.

Psy: “My ex-wife was asked to leave for associating with her own family member that had left the Church.” Really? I find that hard to believe. Of course this short sentence explains nothing. There has to be a lot more to the story than you are saying, and as a Catholic for 50 years, I have never,ever, ever heard of someone being asked to leave the Church. Leave a church building perhaps for disruptive conduct, but the Church never asks people to leave. Even if they are excommunicated, (which is formally done rarely) it means that they are unable to receive Communion or be a godparent or volunteer with the parish until they go to confession and if needed, change the situation that called for the excommunication, but they are still able to come to mass.
I have a feeling that your ex-wife might have put a spin on what she told you, or you are being not completely forthcoming.

John, what do you mean by a sexual being? Being sexually active? Because being a sexual being does not mean that we must have sex and have it often. A lot of people define it that way, but it means that we are Male and Female, that we have certain characteristics that are inherent in our Masculinity and Femininity. A person is a sexual being without being sexually active.

But yes, a person who engages in homosexual sex, or adultery, is living with a boy/girlfriend and sexually active outside of marriage—they are not permitted to receive the Eucharist when they go to Mass. They are NOT barred from going to church though. They are able to worship together. Where do you get that they would not be able to? Are you Catholic? If you are, then you do not appear to know much about the Church.

Lastly, please people, stop trying to assume you know what is in my heart! We can judge actions, but we cannot judge the state of a person’s soul, so NO, John, where you may be going after you die has not even entered my mind, and I will not and do not presume to make those judgements.

Joanp62 ~“I have a feeling that your ex-wife might have put a spin on what she told you, or you are being not completely forthcoming.”

I’m wasn’t going to cross-examine her for details, tough she stated she is much happier.

I know this question wasn’t directed to me but yes, there are different levels of sin. Some sins are more serious than others. Some entail grave matter, others do not. Murder is grave. Stealing a pack of gum is not. Armed robbery is grave. Adultery is grave. Fornication is grave, so is sodomy, whether by 2 men or a man and a woman. Just like in civil law there are different levels to different criminal activities, there are what we call Mortal Sins and Venial sins in the Catholic Church. Mortal sins will sever our relationship with God, until we repent and receive the Sacrament of Confession.

@Joanp62

“Stillbelieve, thank you for that link for Cardinal George. I was born and raised in Chicago,lived there for 31 years, and still have family there. What he wrote was very insightful, and done in a loving and respectful manner.”

You’re welcome.  I agree in comments about the content and tone of his thoughts. 

I recommend that everyone interested in posting on Akin’s article here, read Cardinal George’s blog commenting on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s attack on Chick-fil-A, regardless of their opinion and position of same sex marriage. I think intelligent minds such as Gloria’s, Psy, New Observer, John and others would be helped in tightening up their views and arguments on this issue and get a clearer picture of what it’s really all about. See link below.

http://www.archchicago.org/blog/comments.aspx?postID=276

John, there’s one other piece of the puzzle you should ponder about same sex marriage and that would be the down stream ramifications.  Once same sex marriage is legal, the door is open for “improving” education of our children. There have already been reports of curriculum changes whereby the concept of having two moms or two dads is introduced to younger children.  Some of these reports have been on this web site.  One such famous case was the incident in Provincetown, MA two or three years a go.  In California one town had introduced reading books for young grade school aged kids featuring two women bunny rabits living together. NY State just changed its sex ed program.  You can look these up for yourself.  If history is any indication of the future, if SSM is legal, you will see more and more of this introduced and you really won’t be able to do much about it because SSM, after all, would be legal.  You wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. 

Now, if one of my children developed a same sex attraction, the wife and I will love that child even more and we will deal with it.  But I do not think it wise to lay such heavy things as adult sexual orientation on young school children.  Simply teaching Christian tolerance across the board without getting into details ought to be enough.

Now I have a question for you: would you drop off your 5 year old son for a play day at his friend’s house if his friend had two dads?  Often, things look wonderful in a theoretical world, but become less so when they’re personalized.

Joan62: I really like you.  You seem very reasonable and I don’t pretend to know what is in your heart.  No I’m not Catholic and I’m glad you’re not concerned about my after-life.  I do know people are not barred from entering a church.  We are talking about acceptance.  Who wants to be where they are told they are no better than a pedophile?  Or if a church leader says “we should be no more tolerant of the gays than we are of the Jerry Sanduskys.”  What gay person would be welcome at that church?  Sure, they could sit through the Mass. I’m sure they could even slip into line and accept the Eucharist.  None of us work for the Vatican.  We’re talking about what we personally believe and what matters to us.  Not being a Catholic, I don’t really know if you are taught that the Catholic Church is infallible.  Regardless, you have the power to say “I’m with the Church on this one,” or “I think the Church is off-base.”  You seem to be saying that the Church teachings make sense to you—to you personally.  You’ve thought about them and like a lot of other aspects of Church teachings they will lead to a better life.  They don’t seem arbitrary, but based in received wisdom.  They don’t to me.  They seem to be founded upon prejudice, ignorance and fear.  I would put into Evidence everything New Observer writes as Exhibit A.  However, I’m happy to agree to disagree with you because you don’t really seem intent upon denigrating anyone else.  Much less so than I am, I’m sorry to say.

@New Yorker: Re education: I don’t really feel slippery slope arguments are helpful.  There can be a reasonable argument about what is appropriate for schools to teach with regard to sexuality.  You and I can agree that the traditional family unit should not be undermined in any way.  What we disagree about is whether allowing gay marriage would do that.  and for crying out loud you should know me well enough to know I WOULD BE TOTALLY FINE with leaving my 5 year old son in the care of a couple of gay guys if they were my friends.  I’m not saying I’m incapable of prejudice but I would really feel like an ass if I thought the gay guys were fantasizing about my son any more than my straight friends would fantasize about my daughter.  There are creeps aplenty to go around: gay creeps and straight creeps.  You don’t make the odds against running into them better by arbitrarily eliminating the gay ones.  In your example, if two gay pedophiles adopted a little boy, can you imagine how horribly screwed up that little boy would be?  Do you think that neither I nor my son would notice?

New Yorker ~“Now I have a question for you: would you drop off your 5 year old son for a play day at his friend’s house if his friend had two dads?  Often, things look wonderful in a theoretical world, but become less so when they’re personalized.”

It wasn’t an issue for my kids, what have you been teaching your kids? How do you deal with something as simple as explaining mixed race couples to your kids? The fact that you even asked is more telling about you.

@John:  Tossing grenades such as [“I know New Observer and maybe you too think I’m going to burn in hell eternally.”] has never been mentioned.  And Joanp62 is correct that no one said you or any gay person is not welcome at mass.  I would be happy to shake your hand.  But why is it necessary for someone to know a person’s sexual preference at mass unless they are trying to make a point?  You’re annoyed with me because I will not cave to gay marriage.  You’re really more annoyed with the Bible and what the Bible identifies as sin.  Calling into ultimate judgment is up to the Lord.  You simply have decided there is a peace in feeling gay sex is something God will not look down upon too harshly.  Trusting your feelings can be deceiving since emotions are not constant.  Better to trust that which you know—what God has said.  On that you can be sure of.

John, it’s not a matter of whether the two gay guys would harm your son, it’s a matter of influencing a young mind.  I’m not OK with my son seeing two guys being playfully affectionate like a husband and wife.  For me I would not want to introduce that concept to a child.  A young mind is very formative at that stage and many characteristics are not necessarily cast in concrete and one of those charcteristics is sexuality.  Yes, we are born with certain predispositions, but the environment forms us as well.

Psy to New Yorker:  [“It wasn’t an issue for my kids, what have you been teaching your kids? How do you deal with something as simple as explaining mixed race couples to your kids? The fact that you even asked is more telling about you.”]

How do you deal with something as simple as explaining mixed race couples to your kids? The fact that you even bring this question up is even *more* telling about you, Psy.

New Yorker ~“I’m not OK with my son seeing two guys being playfully affectionate like a husband and wife.  For me I would not want to introduce that concept to a child.”

The gay couples I know don’t approve of public displays of affection than I do for either gays or heterosexuals. I don’t know how you conduct yourself around other people’s children but I might think twice about leaving my children in your care.

Psy [“The gay couples I know don’t approve of public displays of affection”].  You haven’t visited San Francisco’s Castro District or West Hollywood recently.

Psy, why would you bring the scenario of mixed race?  I think that might be telling about you.

Also, maybe in your home there was never any PLAYFUL affection betwen your mother and father, and for that I am sorry for you.  Why do you assume palyful affection means something dirty?  I think that says something telling about you.

I don’t think Psy has been down to the Village in NY lately either.

John: “You seem to be saying that the Church teachings make sense to you—to you personally.  You’ve thought about them and like a lot of other aspects of Church teachings they will lead to a better life. ” Well, John you got this one right. That is pretty much my thinking. I had a re-conversion about 14 years ago, and at that point I really started to question my faith, then re-learned it and discovered the history of Christianity and along with the writings of the Saints, and learning what and why the Church taught what she does, had my faith confirmed- I am convinced it is True.

Since you are not Catholic, how would you know what Priests say in their homilies? I’ll tell you, in all the years that I’ve been going to Mass, I have never had a priest say ““we should be no more tolerant of the gays than we are of the Jerry Sanduskys.” or anything remotely like this to any degree. Unfortunately most homilies are rather bland and lack substance, I’m sorry to say. OTOH, I have had some priests actually accuse those of us in the pews of being hard on gays, when there has been no such thing. When Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered in Wyoming, our pastor came down hard in his homily about how “we” treat homosexuals. I resented it greatly because, I did not hurt Matthew, and have never said or done anything terrible to a homosexual, and I have spoken with and spend time with several. Perhaps if, while my pastor was berating us for something we did not do, while condemning his brutal murder, had also stated that homosexual activity was wrong, I might have felt differently. But, I have never heard a priest even discuss homosexuality otherwise in Church. Now, with this Chik-fil-a incident, my current pastor did speak about supporting marriage as between a man and a woman, but he spoke carefully and with no animosity. It was a good homily.

The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, that is what we believe. The Church is Divine and Human. Her human members, even the Pope are NOT infallible. People are so confused on this matter. Only when teaching on faith and morals do we believe that her Bishops can’t err. And it has to be a definitive teaching, not just an expressed opinion-it must be written and documented as a specific teaching. The Pope has infallibility only when he makes a formal teaching Ex-Cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), and the Popes have done this rarely. Declaring the Dogma of the Immaculate Concepcion would be one example. However, we should believe the writings and teachings that come to us from the Magesterium because the Holy Spirit is leading them in matters of faith and morals, and we believe that makes sense-if God did leave a visible Church on earth, it is to be a Light to all the nations, and should not be able to mislead the people of the world. So the Church, we believe, is the bearer of Truth and it is her job to express this Truth, whether we choose to listen to Her or not. God Bless.

New Yorker ~“I don’t think Psy has been down to the Village in NY lately either.”

I’ve never been to New York, and I don’t see your point of judging all gays by your local culture. Most of the gay couples I know are professionals, intelligent.

Joanp62, you have really got this down good.

For myself, I used to argue against all the church’s positions on the social teachings.  I can argue those cases better then the folks here.  But I became so disgusted at all the damage done to children by broken families and ugliness of what abortion really is that I started re-thinking things.  I took each of the church’s social teachings and questioned them one by one.  I researched them thoroughly looking for pro and con arguments and then looked at our society (including the pending population implosion in Europe thanks to abortion and artificial contraception) and came to the conclusion the RC Church (even with all its worts) was right.  Look at the state of our families!  Look at what is accpetable.  Things were never perfect, but we have lowered the bar so far!

Well, Psy, maybe you shouldn’t judge all gays by your local culture.  It cuts both ways.  Also, many of the fellows down in the village are profesionals also.

@Joanp62
Maybe it’s because most of the gay people I know were raised in Catholic households, but I have definitely heard about a great deal of bullying, open disrespect, insults, etc. directed at gays by Catholics.
The friend of mine who was disowned and kicked out of his home by his Catholic mother doesn’t oppose the church because he’s angry at being told he has a disorder. I think you can guess why he isn’t willing to be part of the church, given how professed-Catholic, Confirmed, Mass-attending authority figures in his life betrayed him. That, and how it was largely gay people and not Catholics who helped him afterward.
Another friend, whom I indirectly mentioned before who was beaten by his fellow Catholic classmates in the Catholic school he was attending because they somehow had gotten the impression that it’s acceptable to “beat the gay out of” someone, who’s Catholic school administrators looked the other way until he finally concluded that he had to defend himself because none of the other Catholics he knew were going to stand up to protect him from violence—he isn’t opposed to the Church because of what the Catechism says, he opposes the church because they attacked him, literally. And the ones who should have stopped them, who’s JOB includes ensuring a safe learning environment for all the students at the school, they betrayed him too by ignoring what was happening. It’s largely because they were OPENLY IGNORING the Catechism that he was driven away, not because they were supporting it.
And when a priest a young man is going to for help directly turns him away in a time of great emotional and spiritual turmoil, that young man is going to conclude that the Church isn’t interested in either helping him or even having him present in their community. That’s not because of the Church’s teachings.
These are all experiences of people I know personally. In fact, a majority of the gay people I know have experiences like that. Some particular moment they can point to when they suddenly realized they weren’t welcome, that the Church they trusted had seemingly betrayed or forsaken them, that they had to stand up for themselves because the people of the Church weren’t interested in helping them.
I haven’t ever met a gay person who hates the church because the Church considers gay sex to be a sin. It’s certainly something they’ll cite in arguments, but never once have I met someone for whom that was the factor that caused them to oppose the Church.
Maybe it IS a local phenomenon where I live, I mean, I do live somewhere where churches were actively engaging in political action to prevent a law that would give gay people the same workplace-discrimination protections (in non-religious organizations) that Catholics have had for half a century—protections a lot of people have taken for granted so long they forgot they had them, judging by how many of them are surprised to find out about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I do live in a place where the owner of an apartment complex can just abruptly evict a single, celibate gay person from their home because he found out they are gay, and there is literally no possible legal action the gay person can take, they just have to move out.
I’ve never been much of anywhere except Nebraska, so I couldn’t really say how it is other places. But I do know how it is here.

New Yorker =“Well, Psy, maybe you shouldn’t judge all gays by your local culture.  It cuts both ways.  Also, many of the fellows down in the village are profesionals also.”

I don’t as I don’t judge all white heterosexuals by the drug-addicts I see living in the area we affectionately refer to as felony flats.

@New Yorker
Every one of those examples I gave are personal experiences of people I know. In addition, just in the last couple of years, a man was attacked just for being gay in front of a dozen witnesses within a block of a police station, and injured badly enough that he had to be hospitalized, AND just very recently a woman was dragged out of her bed, tied up, had anti-gay and anti-woman slurs carved into her skin, and had a fire started in her house while she was still tied up inside. Thankfully she escaped and the fire didn’t spread enough to destroy her home, but this happened literally down the street from me, so it’s been a shock to the whole community.
Checking the FBI’s website, there were over 1500 crimes in which the victim was targetted for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual in 2010. By comparison, there were about 100 or so where the victim was targeted for being Catholic or Protestant.
Yes, this is horrifying, but because it effects their community, gay people are far more likely to pass on new of such attacks to each other to try to raise awareness and warn people they care about, and thus they are far more likely to hear about them.
It should be easy to understand why that would influence their opinions and give them the impression they are under attack and have to fight back.
And yes, I agree with your statements about clergy who fail in ways that drive people away, and that is why I am making such a big deal about educating people about this particular part of the Catechism that many Catholics haven’t been sufficiently educated about.

@New Observer
Firstly, I am not trying to beat a drum here, I’m trying to raise awareness.
Secondly, I am sadly not hard pressed at all to cite examples of such behavior. All of the examples I’ve been giving are real events that happened to people I know or in the community where I live. Not a single one of those were related to Westboro Baptist. I didn’t even mention Westboro Baptist and until this post, I haven’t spoken about them in this discussion, so the small size of their organization is not in any way relevant to what I have been saying.
I have been giving actual accounts of events that happened to people I care about (and consequently have been slightly vague in some details to protect their privacy). Implying that their experiences are merely hypothetical is, to be honest, quite insulting.

New Yorker, sounds like you and I basically did the same things and came to the same conclusions. God Bless.

Patrick, I read about the woman being carved up just yesterday.

Patrick, I lived in Nebraska, Omaha actually for only 3 years. Of course that was before my re-conversion. I went to Mass but was not really ‘there’ spiritually. I went to St. John Vianney church in Omaha. Don’t remember the street it was on. Can’t honestly say I remember the priests giving homilies other than the bland, watered-down stuff, but again, I wasn’t too serious about my faith back then. I mean, it was somewhat important to me, but I really had no idea what the Church was about at that time.
I believe you that those things have happened. They sound disgusting and are certainly not Catholic or Christian, and if these perpetrators claimed to be Christian, they have no clue. Yet, I do not know all sides of these stories, there may be more to some of them than we know, because in this day and age, when more and more people are becoming supportive of homosexuals, these sorts of criminal activities against gays sounds like the exception and not the rule.

John….
A) Why wouldn’t marriage help make homosexuals more content and monogamous, 
Sin never leads to happiness.  God is love.  Sin is the absence of love. 

B) What experience are you drawing upon in forming that opinion and 
Read the news. Study the lives of the saints.   And who among us has not sinned.  Short term pleasures, long term regrets.   Those who mistreat their fellow man are miserable in their own sin. 

C) does God treat all sin equally?  Can God tell the difference between cheating at backgammon and raping a boy in the shower?
Joan62 gave an excellent response to these questions. Nothing more need be said. 

And yes, people claim they are happier after they have left the Church because that was the only thing left between them and a totally dead conscience.  To maintain their happiness, they need a lot drugs, sex, alcohol, power, money, porn, and/or perversion of choice. Pick your poison!  

Psy, I’m glad you’re not judging drug addicted heterosexual men.  I’m going to guess you’re a fellow who is harsh on people who “judge”, which basically means they disgree with your opinion. By your standards, the earliest Christians shouldn’t have “judged” the pagans.  They should have accepted gladatorial combat, orgies, and, yes, rampant same sex relationships, which were common in Greco Roman times.  And, yes, it was between men and younger men.  By the way, what happened to the Roman Empire?  I guess those things really weren’t in their long term best interest.  But, that won’t stop us from going down the same path.  We’re much smarter today because we have cell phones and all sorts of neat electronic gadgets - as if any of that stuff changes basic human nature.

Patrick, those are terrible crimes and no Catholic should ever condone such actions.  Personally, growing up and living in the Northeast, the priest rarely touch upon the subject and even then only barely.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this issue and we should not be afraid to call out clergy hwhen they are in error.

By the way, there were slighly more anti-religious hate crimes that same year (2010).  It’s on the same FBI web site.  This too could explain why some religious people react the way they do.  This is all inexcusable.

New Yorker, so you are anti-pagan too? How do you feel about Mormons and Muslims?

Psy- what did you think about Cardinal George’s blog?

Not much, typical misrepresentation of marriage injecting his personal opinion as factual definition, you know common religious propaganda we see everyday on this site.

Psy,

Examples, please, of what he said that you call (1)“typical misrepresentation of marriage” (2)“injecting his personal opinion as factual definition,” (3)“common religious propaganda we see everyday on this site.”

stilbelieve, why don’t we skip all that and go to wikipedia ‘Types of marriages’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_marriages

@Psy:  The Torah (not wiki) has the original definition.

stilbelieve, both sides want to take it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court doesn’t want to deal with it because they will most likely have to rule in favor of gay marriage making it legal across the country as they did with abortion. But hey, those Prop. 8 guys are insisting and I think the court will decline on reviewing Prop 8. for that reason.

I really don’t think the US is ready for it all at once, its better for all of US as a whole to do it one state at a time until 15 or 20 states make it common practice.

New Observer, I’m not Jewish.

@Psy:  In every state gay marriage is legal, you did it through liberal judges and Democrat controlled state houses only.  Each time “we the people” voted, your side has lost.

Psy:  Adam and Eve were also not Jewish.

New Observer, It looks like Washington and Maine are likely break that streak and will see what happens in Oregon and Colorado. With the vote in 4 states its encouraging. Then there will the the usual court battles afterwords which are game changer generally in favor of gay marriage.

New Observer, Seriously, Adam and Eve? The only definition of marriage that matters is the one the supreme court is slowly developing through these court cases. Your preferred definition is irrelevant.

I’m sure you are aware the Democrats are talking about making gay marriage part of their “official platform” this year.

Psy,

Any innocent child understands only male and
female can be parents. Only in our perverse age
would any person think otherwise.

The best Catholic media message in my life time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9vQt6IXXaM
 
We have to stop the debate about whether we make sin legal and/or acceptable. The answer is very simple:  NO!
To do so will bring more civil unrest, hatred, anger, misery, and more. Why vote for misery?  Read history!  It’s all been tried and failed.  Just because we are foolish enough to make sin legal or say it is not sin, will not make the sinner any happier. He will just look for more aberrant behavior to make him happy. Our culture is a cesspool now because we keep accepting the unacceptable!  PLEASE watch the media message above and google PASCAL’s WAGER.  Peace and love to all!

Psy, there are usually two types of people who argue as fervently as you:  people who have same sex attractions and those that have relatives with same sex attractions.  In those cases all stops are pulled out to legitimize people who are activley engaged in same sex relations.  I can understand the need and desire to make these things OK.  But deep down, even those that are the most ardent proponents of SSM know there’s something disordered, even if they never admit it.  You can pass whatever law you want and that will never change.  It will always be there.  There’s no escaping it.  That’s why there’s so many issues with substance abuse and suicide in the gay community in the Village here in NY.  It’s very, very sad.  But what is even sadder is when people encourage others to indulge, because that has a better than average chance of not ending well. 

As far as your pagan question is concerned, by the mere fact that you even asked that question I have to wonder if you think orgies, gladiator events and the like are just fine.  I take it that you’re not “anti-pagan” (whatever that means), and you’re for these things, right?

There’s some truth in all religions, including Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc.  I’ve had friends, business associates, and acquaintances in all of those belief systems.  So what?  This is a free country and they are free to believe as they wish.  They are free to try and convince me that they are right and vice versa.  The Catholic Church does not teach that they will all go to hell for not believing in Christ.

New Yorker ~“Psy, there are usually two types of people who argue as fervently as you:  people who have same sex attractions and those that have relatives with same sex attractions.”

New Yorker, back in 2003 my daughter and I moved back to our hometown and soon found all the spare bedrooms were being filled with sexually abused teenage girls and gay teens who’s religious parents kicked them out of their homes because their loving churches were on some wild anti-gay crusade. Without outside help I raised them as my own, I worked 12 hours a day to feed and cloth them while they worked to graduate high school. Some have gone on to graduate form college on their own, some have reconciled with their parents and some have not.

Please continue with your little tirade of how screwed up gays are.

@Psy

“stilbelieve, why don’t we skip all that and go to wikipedia ‘Types of marriages’. ”

I don’t consider “wikipedia” a reliable source of information compared to Encyclopedia Americana which says this about “Contemporary Marriage Law.  Contemporary marriage law in the Western World is the product of Hebraic, Roman, and Teutonic practices, modified by the introduction of Christianity and later industrialization, mobility and social changes.  The law generally regards marriage as civil transaction, and permits only monogamous unions.” 

In all cases they are talking about male, female marriage throughout the world in some 575 societies.

You said this about Cardinal George’s blog when I asked you what you thought of it: “Not much, typical misrepresentation of marriage injecting his personal opinion as factual definition, you know common religious propaganda we see everyday on this site.”

I would really like to know what you found in it that made you say that because I thought what he said was pretty much in line with what I found in the Encyclopedia Americana concerning marriage.

I like to learn.  So, please give me your insight on the Cardinal’s comments on marriage and current political situtation concerning it.

Pay, that’s a sad story and it’s not right for a church (or family) to treat people like they did.  People with same sex attractions need love, care, and support.  I don’t know what happens in your locality, but I’ve never seen anyone checking ID’s at the door before Mass.  They’re also not interviewing people as they walk in.  I have no idea how many gay people attend Mass at our church and I don’t care.  But that’s Catholic Churches in the Northeast.  What you’re describing sounds more like fundamentalists.  There’s a big difference.

Tirade?  Sorry if it sounded that way, but we’re having a discussion.  People are exchanging views and experiences.  Besides, my hunch was correct.  You have people close to you with same sex attractions and they have had ugly experiences with family and religion.  I get it.  That’s NOT the way it should be.  That is NOT what is taught in the Catholic Church.  But if one of those kids said he wanted to move to NY and live the gay lifestyle, I’d have to advise against it - out of love - based on what I’ve seen.

If Catholics are so bad and you think we’re all a bunch of cold hearted, mean spirited people, then why, might I ask, are you even on this web site and reading the articles?  And, why would you even waste your time responding to people you consider hopelessly ignorant?

stilbelieve

“Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will?”

Sure we can, why not?

“Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”

Unsubstantiated claim, why not?

“Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. “

What does this have to do with state marriage? Nothing.

=The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society.

This is his personal opinion to include raising the “next generation”. Its as contract of shared rights and ownership of assets. Children are optional with or without marriage.

“Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage.”

Is he saying the local car club should not use the term marriage when putting a Chevy engine into a Ford? Most likely its just an appeal to tradition fallacy to exclude gays but not cars.

“Surely we can find a way not to play off newly invented individual rights to “marriage” against constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.”

Surley he can keep his religions definition of marriage without crying about what the state defines it as. So many people are getting tired of religious groups whining that some are working of legislation to require the state to preform marriages since they are the ones how give out marriage license and removing the Churches Special Privilege to legalize it with a ceremony which in most likely unconstitutional as a mix of church and state. You would still be free to preform a second ceremony at the church of your choice or book club or local tavern if you’d like.

New Yorker.

“That is NOT what is taught in the Catholic Church.”

Yes, I keep seeing that dismissal along with “you don’t understand our church”, actions speak louder than words and I’m not impressed with the words, all the fallacious sinner, substance abuse, disorder, dehumanizing tactics either.

“But if one of those kids said he wanted to move to NY and live the gay lifestyle, I’d have to advise against it.”

That sounds like good advice, I get Fathers Day Cards from all over the county, North Dakota, Northern California, Oregon, Phoenix, Massachusetts, ect. My actual son and his girlfriend traveled a lot in their work and loved New York.

“If Catholics are so bad and you think we’re all a bunch of cold hearted, mean spirited people, then why, might I ask, are you even on this web site and reading the articles?  And, why would you even waste your time responding to people you consider hopelessly ignorant?”

Hey, Catholics are people too and apparently like to debate as much as I do. Why would I go so a site where people agree with me? You don’t learn anything debating with people who agree with you, its only purpose would be to reinforce foolish notions you can’t defend.

A few days ago I argued with a white suppressant, I don’t agree with him but have a better idea of his views and fears.

That should be “white supremest”

white supremacist

“But they are not hurting anyone.”  That is a statement made by some people, including my own Son.  What do you say when they use that statement?

Psy stated: “So many people are getting tired of religious groups whining that some are working of legislation to require the state to preform marriages since they are the ones how give out marriage license and removing the Churches Special Privilege to legalize it with a ceremony which in most likely unconstitutional as a mix of church and state. You would still be free to preform a second ceremony at the church of your choice or book club or local tavern if you’d like.”

More like unconstitutional “government prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Forcing people to have a civil marriage ceremony and then do a second one if they want a Church wedding is government getting involved in religious affairs where it does not belong. The way it is now, where a person can choose to get married in a church or in court, on a boat, at the beach or whatever, is the way it should be. I can’t believe you would advocate for something like that! Think about it, Psy. Try to be intellectually honest about it - First a small percentage of society wants to change what marriage is, and now they want to make it mandatory that everyone must have a civil wedding? Does not sound like freedom at all.

And Wiki’s silly list of marriage types. Most of those are not recognized by civil law, at least not here in the U.S., many are still between a man and a woman, and some listed just describe the type of ceremony involved. Many are cultural- different cultural groups of course are going to have different ideas, like arranged marriages, or based on various religious beliefs, like the Chinese ghost marriage. In spite of the fact that some of these ‘marriages’ exist, doesn’t mean that they are equal in importance. Some of these are just plain not even
worthy of being taken seriously such as Ghost Marriage, Mop marriage and human-animal marriage. Would you really hold these up with the same regard for other marriages? yet, the majority of the marriages listed are still between one man and one woman and this long list is certainly no argument for gay marriage.

Joanp62
Think about it, Psy. Try to be intellectually honest

Why don’t you try being intellectually honest?

“Forcing people to have a civil marriage ceremony and then do a second one if they want a Church wedding is government getting involved in religious affairs where it does not belong.”

If you recall the Mormons and Catholics both put millions into Preposition 8 and are still putting money into CIVIL anti-gay marriage campaigns, Now who is sticking their religion into civil affairs where is doesn’t belong?

=First a small percentage of society wants to change what marriage is, and now they want to make it mandatory that everyone must have a civil wedding?

I’m not the one pissing off all these new secular groups that are popping up everywhere. I just read what they are proposing and they think they can get it passed. But go ahead and keep yelling Religious Freedom when you are really demanding Spacial Privileges.

=the fact that some of these ‘marriages’ exist, doesn’t mean that they are equal in importance.”

They are no more or less important to me than religious marriages or your favorite type of marriage. Why why would you assume anyone cares about your definition of marriage outside your preferred church? But go ahead and keep excluding gays you are opening to door to get everyone kicked out.

@Psy:  So what do you want,—a medal?  Even the unsaved do good works.  Jesus likens your good works to that of filthy rags.  Since what you do is for the glory of men (or yourself), not God.  The militant homosexual or the militant liberal supporting gay marriage is already under Satanic deception.  That’s the problem with deception.  You and your people are under it without knowing.  He’s and expert in his field, the father of all lies and often can appear as an angel of light.  Whether you are a believer or not is no longer the issue at this point.  But, . . . you are now accountable and under authority since you have heard the gospel truth from many on the blog.  You can never claim you never heard the truth —the gospel of Jesus Christ.

New Observer, you sound just like the guys at the al qaeda forum.

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”  Romans 1: 26-27.  (The fool hath said in his heart there is no God).

Psy:  What Rachel Maddow, Rosie O’Donnell, Obama, Biden, Pelosi and the Supreme Court say is actually meaningless in eternity.  It is written, God’s word will not pass away.  Christians and Catholics will never accept or even be tolerant of gay marriage.  Not now, not ever.

New Observer, I don’t consider The Bible a reliable source. Do you have anything besides Bible quotes and fables?

Bad example, Psy, since al qaeda is also against gay marriage.

New Observer
“What Rachel Maddow, Rosie O’Donnell, Obama, Biden, Pelosi”

I don’t know what these people have to do with anything, I’m an independent.

“and the Supreme Court say is actually meaningless in eternity.  It is written, God’s word will not pass away.  Christians and Catholics will never accept or even be tolerant of gay marriage.  Not now, not ever.”

Just don’t blame everyone else for your emotional issues.

Psy, you are wrong.It damn well is the government intruding where they don’t belong, and they are doing alot of that lately.  Homosexuals are the ones asking for a special privilege with regard to marriage. Alot of people in society can’t just marry whomever they want. Siblings can’t marry,nor any blood relatives, a person can’t marry several people, no matter how much someone loves their dog, and I’ve heard of people “marrying” their pet, it is still not legal. I’m getting sick and tired of homosexuals equating their ‘plight’ with Afican Americans and the Civil Rights movement.

So secular groups are pissed off. Well so are we. And I said it before, why do you all act as though gays have always been allowed to marry and suddenly it’s the ‘religious right’ who wants to end it? BS! It’s gay groups that have started it by demanding marriage! Prop 8? I had to look it up, it was a California matter, never lived there. Let’s see, Prop 8 was introduced as a response to those wanting to permit Gay marriage. According to the counties map of CA, the majority of the counties were for it. They wanted to amend the state constitution because apparently their constitution said nothing on the matter. Looks like it was passed. Why, shouldn’t the people have been allowed to vote on this? Isn’t this a major feature of our country? Or do you think that judges on courts should always get to decide ‘what’s best for us’, since we’re all too stupid to decide for ourselves. I sure wish we had been allowed to vote with regards to Abortion back in ‘73.

You know, Psy, the more you talk the more you reveal.  Most people who have lived selfless lives taking care of the abused tend not to be so bitter.  They also tend to have at least some semblance of faith and humility.  So you’re really not displaying the type of behavior that usually comes with the background you claim to have.  How does such an angry, bitter person manage to give so much of themselves for the care of all the people you have claimed to care for?  There’s no possible way you can tamp down all that sarcasm and bitterness to be the sweet and loving caretaker those children would need to be successful.  It just doesn’t line up. 

I’d say you’re probably an angry homosexual activist with an axe to grind and you’re probably making entries under multiple names.  I think you were probably rejected/ignored/abandoned by your father.  I think you haven’t really seen any love in your life and this has produced an enormous amount of bitterness towards everyone and everything.  You’re not really here to exchange ideas and contemplate matters.  You’re hear to lambaste every comment made.  You can’t find one point to agree on.

Psy, this conversation is over.  No sense having a conversation with someone who already knows everything.  I do hope you find some peace in this world.

Cynthia Zelinski ~“But they are not hurting anyone.”  That is a statement made by some people, including my own Son.  What do you say when they use that statement?

Smart kid, he obviously has a functioning anterior cingulate cortex providing error detection skills and empathy for others. I can’t think of anything you could say that wouldn’t make you look like a busybody or prejudice. Of course you could instill fear and hate activating his amygdala and probably lowering his potential IQ by 5 points.

Psy, also, we do NOT exclude homosexual persons from our church. When a person wants to register with the parish,  sexual orientation is not on the form we fill out. No, but they are asked to live a chaste lifestyle, as are the rest of us who are unmarried (myself included), and married couples need to refrain from ABC and adultery and such, if they want to be able to receive the Eucharist. I also spent several years working at my parish in RCIA, which is the preparation for those who seek to become Catholic. Again, their sexual orientation is not something we are concerned with. Hopefully through the months of learning, and proper instruction, they should be well aware of the Church’s teaching and will be disposed to either live according to God’s law, or else, refrain from entering the Church. But we do not do a litmus test on candidates. Also, I have stated on this thread and so have others- our Church does not define marriage- it was defined by God, and, judging from your Wiki list, most people around the world consider marriage between a man and a woman. It is not some minority belief.

But go ahead and spin away so you can feel better about your actions and opinions.

Psy “Smart kid, he obviously has a functioning anterior cingulate cortex providing error detection skills and empathy for others. I can’t think of anything you could say that wouldn’t make you look like a busybody or prejudice. Of course you could instill fear and hate activating his amygdala and probably lowering his potential IQ by 5 points.”

Now that’s just arrogant.

Psy, Truth stands alone.  There is no emotionalism in truth.  You seem to keep repeating mistakes from your earlier posts.

Joanp62, people are drifting away from religion as they realize its like a child demanding entitlements and pointing fingers at everyone else, ‘look what the gays are doing’, ‘we are the moral authority of the world, listen to us or burn in hell’. blah blah blah…

New Yorker, I have a Mormon friend who also starts talking about what he thinks of me when he doesn’t have a real argument while most other Mormons are more rational and easygoing.

Thank you for the most enjoyable debate, I hope you come up with a rational argument to support you cause.

Joanp62, I don’t see a problem with a gay person choosing to go to your church and voluntarily accepting the Churches beliefs as truth, Its their life. I take issue when the Church and its followers believe they are on a mission for ‘God’ to demand those outside the church follow through legislation.

@Psy:  [“I take issue when the Church and its followers believe they are on a mission for ‘God’ to demand those outside the church follow through legislation.’]  Psy, why do you persist in making illogical statements.  Along with working to make gay marriage legal, no doubt we should also expect you to work toward ending laws which prohibit murder and theft.  Where did those laws come from?  Oh, yes —the Torah, but then you’re not Jewish.  So why do you abide by such laws written in a book of fables?

New Observer, so much conjecture and jumping to conclusions.
Don’t you think at least some of us could figure out all by ourselves that murder, theft, pedophilia…oh wait. should be outlawed with out some dusty old book?

When I debate with the Mormons on another site, they simply state what they believe and whether they personally agree with it partially, fully or not at all and leave it at that for the most part. Here people feel they must dehumanize the gays, evil, disorder, drug addicts, perverse, sinners. Instead of threats of hell they offered me my own universe, that was thoughtful of them.

Psy, you are sounding desperate. The Church does not claim to be nor try to be the “Moral authority of the world” and I think you know that. Nor does the Catholic Church say anyone will ‘burn in hell’. They have a right to speak out on the Truth. People can choose to agree and follow or not. When the Church steps in on certain matters, it is because it has a right to make every effort to see that logic, reason, and good prevails over illogical and unreasonable laws or demands. It’s more like the secular and homosexual agenda crowd are the ones demanding entitlements and pointing fingers, wanting it all their way and the hell with what anyone else thinks. They demand that a Christian baker make their wedding cake for their reception, and when the business owner refuses on his own personal moral grounds, which he has the right to refuse service to anyone, they throw a hissy fit and act like the very bullies they claim to detest. And this has happened over and over again. Tolerance and being treated like everyone else is not enough. They want their behavior to be praised and approved as normal. They want privileges that are not granted to all Americans with regard to marriage
anyway.

So far, none of your arguments are convincing, and some even sound as though they are exaggerated. Good night.

Joanp62 you do a lot of typing and don’t say much. but I found a point buried in all that typing.

“and when the business owner refuses on his own personal moral grounds, which he has the right to refuse service to anyone, they throw a hissy fit and act like the very bullies they claim to detest. And this has happened over and over again.”

This is the public market where discrimination isn’t allowed based on sex, race, religion, marital status, ect. The bowling ally can’t kick you out for being Catholic and this applies to everybody.

Religion would fall under the category of ‘not for profit’ private clubs where you can discriminate. Car clubs can require you to own a car but most do not, white supremest clubs can accept whites only, singles clubs for singles only, ect.

So, how many of you are under the silly notion that if gay marriage is legalized that your church will somehow be obligated or forced to preform gay marriages? I just ran into a bunch of idiots on another forum who have been fed this misinformation by their church.

No one is against traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is a wonderful thing. Since everyone is for traditional marriage, people who claim to support traditional marriage would speak more plainly if they simply announced themselves as anti-gay marriage.  Now, if someone made a moral judgment that same sex marriage is bad, it would be eminently sensible of them not to marry someone of the same sex. No one would have a problem with that. But when someone attempts to denigrate the committed loving relationships of gay people and impose their morality on others that don’t share those views, people might rightly take exception. When people go further and use the legislative process to attack the foundation of a gay couple’s financial and legal security, good people will resist.

The CEO of Chick-fil-A did more than express a view denigrating gay relationships. The company spends millions to attack the very lives and security of people in same sex relationships. As a result of anti-gay legislation like DOMA, insurance companies do not offer private annuity contracts to joint couples attempting to provide income for their retirement. Social Security benefits do not extend to survivor relationships in same sex marriage.  A gay couple cannot file a joint tax return, and there is no unlimited marital deduction with the death of a spouse. The list goes on.

The white Southerners who refused to serve black people in their restaurants or educate their children in their schools deeply believed they were correct. They had been raised by generations of people teaching them black people were inferior and possibly dangerous. Only the dedicated resistance of good people and time raised the curtain on their ignorance. People who want to denigrate the loving committed relationships of gay people in order to elevate their own relationships, and keep gay families from securing the financial security available to their own families, deeply believe they are correct. They even cite Scripture to justify their bias, while regularly eating abominations like bacon and shrimp in their mixed cloth shirt. It should not surprise anyone that good people will resist. In time, the curtain will be lifted on their ignorance.

Wow, I thought I had gotten across my point about insensitivity and callous treatment of others based on how the conversation had been going.

I leave for a day and it’s right back to the stereotyping and demonizing and acting exactly the way that makes humble, devout gays into disenfranchised, militant gays who feel they have to stand up for themselves and fight back since the Church which should be showing them love, respect, compassion, and sensitivity would rather “win the argument” than win hearts and souls.

You should be ashamed. Rhetoric like you’ve been spouting is what makes teenage Catholics think it’s okay to “beat the gay out of” someone, what makes Catholic mothers think it is right for them to throw their own children out on the street and disown them for being gay.

The *moment* I stop reminding you of horrific things done to gay people in the name of the Church, you pick your animus and rage back up and start shouting again, and not to stop those terrible actions, but to condemn their victims.

Was the cognitive dissonance of realizing that the people you’ve deemed your Enemy are real people with the same emotions, needs, human dignity, hopes, aspirations, pains, and struggles as you just too much for you to handle?

Besides, aren’t you Catholics, too? Aren’t you commanded to love your enemy, too?

If you think it’s reasonable to wait until they come back to show them respect, compassion, and sensitivity, then just yourself what possible reason they could EVER have for wanting to come back to people who refuse to show them respect, compassion, and sensitivity here and now.

I’m really beginning to understand how they get so angry at the Church, when the people “defending” are some of the least Christlike people I’ve ever encountered.

I’m seriously sick to my stomach because of the rage and venom you people show when you claim to be “loving” others.

I’ll wait to post again until I have a chance to calm down.

@Psy [“Don’t you think at least some of us could figure out all by ourselves that murder, theft, pedophilia…oh wait. should be outlawed with out some dusty old book?  When I debate with the Mormons on another site, they simply state what they believe and whether they personally agree with it partially, fully or not at all and leave it at that for the most part.”]

Psy, what would enable you to figure out murder, theft and pedophilia should be outlawed?  How would you come to this conclusion?  As for the LDS, why bring them into the picture?  We are talking Christianity —not Mormonism.  Telling us about Taoism, Scientology or Islam are also irrelevant.  The weakness of your points are deteriorating with each post.  Clearly you seem intent upon going down with sinking ship.

@Patrick [“Besides, aren’t you Catholics, too? Aren’t you commanded to love your enemy, too?”] 

Since you are neither Catholic nor Christian, how would you know what we are commanded to do?  There is a difference between loving our enemy and confronting people who militantly profess Satanic evil.  Jesus did the same.  It’s pathetic when secularists latch on to some banner headline of Scripture and claim it without ever having read the entire gospel.  We are also commanded to put on the “whole armor of God” to engage the enemy in battle against the forces of darkness.  Until you’ve fully read the gospel, ACTS and all the letters of Paul, please refrain from further displays of embarrassing yourself.  Your participation is tiresome.

“We are also commanded to put on the “whole armor of God” to engage the enemy in battle against the forces of darkness.”

You make it sound like a comic book. Militant, evil, enemy, Satan. Grow up.

Correct, Psy.  Satan is quite pleased you view him as a comic book character.  If we are wrong, we have lost nothing.  If you are wrong you have lost everything.

Psy, in the recent case of the baker in Colorado, he refused to make a WEDDING cake for the gay couple. He saw it as giving his personal approval on the marriage if he did. He stated that he would never refuse to make a birthday cake, retirement party cake, etc. for anyone regardless of their orientation. It was the fact that it was a WEDDING cake that made it a problem for him. The bowling alley wouldn’t kick me out for being Catholic, but it might if I demanded that they dedicate a lane for Catholics-only by painting a cross down the lane.

“Joanp62 you do a lot of typing and don’t say much. but I found a point buried in all that typing.” I love this, really, I appreciate that you have a sense of humor. I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t mind some good natured humor at my expense. :)

Mr. Akin,

This was so well done I’d like to post it in my parish bulletin! (With your permission.)

New Observer….......You too are familiar with Pascl’s Wager!  Your posts are right on!  Redefining and accepting sin does not make the sinner any less miserable. Satan is laughing. And as Bishop Fulton Sheen once said you may not believe in HELL now, but you will when you get there!

Posted by Psy on Sunday, Aug 5, 2012 2:24 AM (EST):

“We are also commanded to put on the “whole armor of God” to engage the enemy in battle against the forces of darkness.”

You make it sound like a comic book. Militant, evil, enemy, Satan. Grow up.

_____
Psy, maybe that is where comic book writers got those expressions from. Lord knows the Bible and writings of the saints where you might read these expressions came long before the comic books of the 20th cent.

It’s ok, your world view is just not capable of understanding some of this, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not true.

Psy vrs. Cardinal George

#1

Cardinal George:
“Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define ‘marriage’ (or other institutions we did not invent) at will?”

Psy ans. “Sure we can, why not?”

Encyclopedia Americana.  “History of Marriage Laws.  Because marriage is considered so important an institution, from the beginnings of Western civilization the law of every society, simple or complex, has determined the condition of the marital status.  The advantages and obligations of marriage can be explained by a society’s commitment to marriage as the best method of channeling the sexual and emotional energies of individuals in a socially useful way.  Preservation of the family unit and the safeguarding of traditional cultural values coincide in marriage laws.  These laws tend to reflect past mores rather than current attitudes.  An understanding of the history of marriage laws, therefore, is necessary to a full evaluation of current judicial practices.”

Stilbelieve.  That’s why

#2

Cardinal George: “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”

Psy. “Unsubstantiated claim, why not?”

Encyclopedia Americana.  “Marriage.  When viewed within the entire range of past and present human societies, marriage can be described as a more or less durable union, sanction by society, between one or more men and one or more women.  To obtain the sanction of society it is necessary that the relationship be formed and conducted in accordance within unwritten customs and taboo, as in primitive societies, or in accordance with established laws, as in more sophisticated societies.  The sanction of the society distinguishes marriage from other relationships between men and women and from pair bonding, a reasonably long-term relationship between male and female.  All societies have rules or shared patterns of behavior that regulate sexuality, birth, and child rearing.  Marriage is the institution that encompasses these rules and patterns of behavior.”

    “According to one definition, which emphasizes a relationship between the spouses, marriage is a socially legitimate sexual union. The union is undertaken with some idea of permanence and with a contract that defines the obligations between spouses and of the spouses toward any children they may have.”

    “Another definition emphasizes the importance of marriage as a means of providing social legitimacy for the children of the union.  In this view, the importance of marriage is that it provides a way to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate births.  The assumption is that the child must have a ‘social father’ to ensure proper social development and entrance into the social order.  According to this definition marriage is a ‘licensing’ of parenthood.”

#3

Cardinal George.  “Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and ‘gender-free marriage’ is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. “

Psy.  “What does this have to do with state marriage? Nothing.”

Encyclopedia Americana.  “Other Kinds of Marriage.  Regardless of the forms of marriage (monogamy, polygyny, polyandry) sanctioned by society, the chief function is to provide social legitimacy for the adults and their children.  The human infant, in contrast with the infants of other species, requires long and continual care.  Human culture is acquired, not inherited.  Human infants cannot survive and become functioning socialized adults unless socialized adults care for them.  Social arrangements are therefore necessary to ensure that the infants will survive and learn the culture. 

Stilbelieve.  Babies come from the “marital act” biologically made possible by “human nature” which “comes in two complementary sexes: male and female.”

#4

Cardinal George.  “The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society.”

Psy.  “This is his personal opinion to include raising the ‘next generation’. Its as contract of shared rights and ownership of assets. Children are optional with or without marriage.”

Encyclopedia Americana.  See #1, #2 paragraphs 2 and 3, and # 3.

#5

Cardinal George. “Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage.”

Psy.  “Is he saying the local car club should not use the term marriage when putting a Chevy engine into a Ford? Most likely its just an appeal to tradition fallacy to exclude gays but not cars.”

Stilbelieve.  In the history of the world, marriage within the same sex has never existed or promoted in any 565 societies or cultures.  In other words, same sex unions are abnormal to what the definition of marriage is traditionally and historically. 

Psy, furthermore not once in the 10 pages on the history of marriage did the word “love” appear as a reason for marriage, or “equality.” 

@6

Cardinal George. “Surely we can find a way not to play off newly invented individual rights to ‘marriage’ against constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile ‘civil union’ as citizens.”

Psy.  “Surley he can keep his religions definition of marriage without crying about what the state defines it as. So many people are getting tired of religious groups whining that some are working of legislation to require the state to preform marriages since they are the ones how give out marriage license and removing the Churches Special Privilege to legalize it with a ceremony which in most likely unconstitutional as a mix of church and state. You would still be free to preform a second ceremony at the church of your choice or book club or local tavern if you’d like.

Stilbelieve.  Losing First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech is not something to belittle.  This Democrat Party and Administration is the most anti Constitution this country has ever experienced.  There is no doubt that if same sex marriage was made legal on the grounds of “”equal rights that homosexuals would be suing the Catholic Church to marry them and suing any preacher who talks about homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful leading to their eternal destruction in hell if they don’t repent..  And there is no doubt that there would be judges that would agree with that, especially if Obama gets a second term to stack the judicial benches with his leftist anti-Catholic Church, anti-Christian counterparts.  This Administration has already showed bias against the Church in adoptions, and something else I can’t remember, preventing the Church from being allowed to receive public funds they were previously awarded to run such services.  The reason for their losing such contracts is they would not adopt children to homosexual couples or unmarried couples.

Psy

Webster’s definition: “Encyclopedia: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usu. in articles arranged alphabetically by subject.” 

And again, Psy, nowhere in the 10 pages in their write-up on the history of marriage did the word “love” or “equality” ever come up as a reason for marriage.

The quotes from Encyclopedia Americana are from their International Edition.  Complete in Thirty Volumes. First Published in 1829

Joanp62, it don’t matter why this cake maker is a bigot, its not allowed the in the public market, but he can be a bigot at his church or home.

stilbelieve, that definition you wasted all that time posting is not included in US law which makes it clear that it has no legal bearing. You are simply using it as an “appeal to tradition fallacy” or “we have always done it that way” which is not a viable legal reason to do it that way. They tried your argument with Prop. 8 in court and were laugh at.

Psy, I believe it is legal. How many times I have been in a store and have seen the sign “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

It doesn’t matter to you that this baker would have baked anything else but a wedding cake for the couple or any homosexual, it doesn’t matter that he most likely would employ a homosexuals, this business owner is expected to do whatever a prospective customer wants. That is wrong and illegal. It is his business and he should have the right to draw the line on his own personal, moral grounds. What if someone came in and requested a sexually pornographic cake? He would have the right to refuse. He should have the right to refuse anyone who wants a cake that he will not make. Otherwise, all business owners would be subject to every whim and demand made by customers. They are allowed to say NO.

Joanp62 -“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”.

Within the law, just because they have a sign it doesn’t mean squat.
No shoes, no shirt is fine, because you are black or gay or Nazi is not is a pending lawsuit.

All the the arguments about the adoption clinic and refusing based on religion in the public market or public funding or compliant that you don’t like the legal system because it didn’t go your way isn’t helping your cause. You seem to think you are above the law, are ignorant of it or just plain spouting rhetoric even though you know you are wrong.

It comes across and whining to get you way.  The Prop. 8 people fought to keep the video court records off the internet because they knew how stupid and ignorant it made them look. Yet people are using the same non-scene here and everywhere else and wonder why people take them as a joke. Its like you are intentionally trying to make religion and its followers look stupid, and its working.

Psy: “that you don’t like the legal system because it didn’t go your way”

But isn’t that what Gay Marriage advocates are doing? The law has been marriage licenses for one man one woman, no blood relation. But they don’t like the legal system because it isn’t going their way. Gay advocates are the ones who have been whining.

Your perspective is different than mine, but there are plenty of Americans on both sides of the issues. But I know we are not wrong. Believe what you like. Catholics put God first, then country. When the country makes immoral laws, then we won’t follow it. If that means jail and fines, so be it. But there are hundreds of millions in the world,  who do not agree with you.

Funny how all the liberals are aborting their children or refusing to have any. They fail to produce more liberals, so they go after other people’s children.

@Psy:  We know you really are enjoying this, but you really are a coward.  Yes, a coward.  Ridiculing and attacking Christians for their Bible-based convictions because by nature Christians have not been confrontational in the past.  That time is now over.  Your Chick-fil-A “kiss in” turned out to be biggest flop on record.  Now, why don’t you go down and picket and confront people at your local Islamic temple for their position on gay marriage and homosexual sex?  You won’t.  Someone will end up finding out where you live and likely execute you.  So where is the outrage with Iranians and Afgans who execute gays and lesbians.  You really are a coward living behind your laptop.

@Psy, leaving Christianity out of the conversation, you still have been unable to make your case for gay sex on medical science.  There is no scientific or medical evidence of any gay gene.  “I was born this way” is a fallacy.  You cannot procreate so your desire is *always* to recruit virile young males for perverted sex.

@Psy

“stilbelieve, that definition you wasted all that time posting….”

What definition is that?

Joanp62 -“But isn’t that what Gay Marriage advocates are doing?”

LMAO, I’m talking about the political and religious rhetoric like the crap on this forum. They filed a court case, the Prop. 8 had no constitutional basses and they brought nothing but the same childish arguments we see here.

The Prop. 8 people have just filed for a new case which may or may not have any legal standing. It is there right to file as the oppisition did which is not the same as the sniveling on this forum.

New Observer, so you’re anti-Muslim and anti-free speech.

Its also not a science issue or medical or religious or procreation issue or related to your sexual frustrations or the obit of the moon. Its a legal civil rights issue. Its only a religious issue in your mind and at your church. Calling me names isn’t going to change that.

Joanp62 ~“Catholics put God first, then country. When the country makes immoral laws, then we won’t follow it. If that means jail and fines, so be it. But there are hundreds of millions in the world,  who do not agree with you.”

I put people first and I support you right to your belief and I think you will find if the Gov. tries to make gay church weddings the law the people you are badmouthing here will rush to defend your constitutional right of religious bigotry. I also support your right to a fair trial.

I don’t know why you are talking abortion and liberals, I don’t disagree with your position on abortion, I just don’t have a legal argument to overrule the law.

Sorry, Psy.  Accusatory comments won’t work.  You’re simply afraid to take on take on Islamics for fear of bodily reprisal.  Your comfort rests in attacking those holding Biblical-based positions.  You’ve already said you participate with Christians and with LDS types.  Please identify which Islamic sites may we find your (Psy) comments where you are attacking Muslims for their views on gay sex and also ridiculing their Koran along with Allah?

Psy, I wasn’t arguing a court case with you.  I was taking your dismissive comments about Cardinal George’s blog and searching history to find support for them.  I could not find that support.  On the contrary, I found support for what the Cardinal wrote. I was disappointed that you didn’t have a stronger case to make against his writings based on your original dismissiveness of them.  I find it sad that historical precedents, unlike any ever compiled before, can be dismissed so carelessly.  But that same mindset has enabled 52,000,000 human babies to be murdered legally, and still counting, with no real concern on the part of anybody, so I’m not surprised.

As for the two federal courts that overturned the CA Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8, I’m optimistic that if the U.S. Supreme Court takes the appeal that Prop 8 will be upheld.  Both federal courts were biased.  The first was by a judge who ruled against prop 8 and then announced he was in a longtime homosexual relationship with his partner.  This was not known before his ruling; I wonder why.  I believe he retired a short time later.  And the other federal court, the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeal is notorious for having its rulings overturned.  Having said that, there is an interesting article on this subject at UPI.com; headlined “The Arithmetic of Gay Marriage.”  We are definitely at a crossroads in this country.

New Observer, save the Inquisition crap, I’m not subject to your self-appointed court. But if you feel you must continue with your witch burning trial, go ahead without me. I find the childish methods some people feel justified in tells a lot about their beliefs. Of course you could always fly and airplane into a building.

Psy, “I wasn’t arguing a court case with you.”

My mistake, but it doesn’t have any effect on the law which means its entirely irrelevant unless you have a personal interest in the history of Marriage.

As for the Prop 8. the Supreme Court hasn’t accepted the case yet any you will find the Constitution is biased towards equal rights. But lets see how it plays out.

@Psy

“you will find the Constitution is biased towards equal rights.

Gays can marry any woman they want, and lesbians can marry any man.  No one is stopping them.  They have the same rights as any other man and woman in this country. 

Now, if they think they are like blacks who were denied their human rights because of their color, then that is going to be fun to watch unfold because blacks don’t like their civil rights equated to homosexual sexual rights.  And if enough black Americans take offense, they may boycott the elections this year or not vote for the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion Democrat Party.

@Joanp62:  Just a comment to let you know I appreciate your staunch positions, but don’t forget that Jesus advised us *not* to “Cast your pearls before (pigs) swine.”  Oh, yes, that “loving and kind” Jesus which Psy and his virile young males want to remind you about.  You’ll notice they always omit He is a God of justice as well.  At some point, Jesus did “move on” and shake the dust from his feet for some people will remain in darkness for all eternity.

Joanp62, you’ve already been tested and fulfilled your obligation from 1 Peter 3:15 “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”  You did this and found no taker.

Next you tried: 1 Peter 2:15 “For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”  This also failed.

Simply rest in the assurance of the testimony of those who came before you —notably those who literally walked with Christ.  2 Peter 1:16 “For we were not following fictitious tales nor did we believe cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were *eyewitnesses* of his majesty.”

Your Catechism does not require you to be a doormat for the militant homosexual crowd for even Jesus demonstrated physical anger and strong words to the ungodly for their unholy practices.  Patrick must have been sick that day in grammar school when Sr. Mary spoke about Jesus fumigating the Temple.  Thus, many Catholics (and even the clergy) have a distorted view of the gospel and cling to Christ as only “loving, kind and non judgmental.”  I once had a nun tell the entire class everyone is going to Heaven.  ???  That’s not what the gospel says.  Even nuns can be false teachers.  Just make sure you KNOW what the word says.  There will be other people you encounter who will have ears “to hear” for the Holy Spirit will reside in them.  Most people in life, however, will not—and will thus be lost forever.  Keep in mind the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate.  For broad is the road that leadeth to destruction, and——those who follow by it are many.” 

Don’t be discouraged, Joanp62, as I am not in the least.  You are not responsible for any results and we need not fret over these people.  Our call is only to walk in obedience to the great commission.  May you forever walk in the peace of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus,—the Christ.  And may His word be a light unto your path all the days of your life.

stilbelieve, If Romney is elected he will probably flip flop on it like everything else. He just stated the other day he is against gay marriage but for the Boy Scouts accepting gays, I found that interesting as the Boy Scouts are a private organization he has no control over as a politician.

Psy talk about childish: “Of course you could always fly and airplane into a building.” Do you even see yourself as you really are? I always pray for God to show me who I really am, to see myself as He sees and knows me, so that I stay humble and do not get too big an opinion of myself. It’s very liberating and gives you inner peace. It’s wonderful to know that there is Someone greater than myself and the world, because we tend to really screw things up here. Helps to relieve anxiety too. But of course, to the ‘enlightened and worldly wise’ I am a childish fool. So be it. I choose not to follow the world off the proverbial cliff, and follow Jesus and His Church instead.

New Observer, thanks, but I’m not discouraged and I agree with you. Psy is an unfortunate example of being so much ‘of the world’ and ‘worldly’. He thinks as the world thinks because that’s all there is for him.  I am happy to be called a fool for Christ. So much of what is spoke of in Scripture is being played out right here. I have company coming in tomorrow for the week and will not likely be posting much.
God Bless!

Posted by Psy on Sunday, Aug 5, 2012 6:27 PM (EST):stilbelieve, If Romney is elected he will probably flip flop on it like everything else. He just stated the other day he is against gay marriage but for the Boy Scouts accepting gays, I found that interesting as the Boy Scouts are a private organization he has no control over as a politician.”
******************
Only Mr Romney knows the true depth of his sincerity but I’d give him the benefit of doubt.Time will tell.
Why is it when liberals embrace conservative views they’re seen as pandering or flip-flopping, but when a conservative adopts a liberal view they’re seen as having become enlightened?
:)

@Lin:  Yes, indeed I am.  Glad you are too.

Wow, this thread is still going!  I recently had some conversations with some gay marriage activists about whether signing the MD petition to vote on gay marriage makes you a bigot. Trying to see it from the perspective of those who believe the issue is *no different whatsoever* from racism, I realizxed that we can’t possibly convince anyone who believes that to be “tolerant” of those who disagree with gay marriage. If it is essentially “just racism” then there is no obligation to be “tolerant.”

Maybe we nee dot work harder on changing the narrative because unless we do, there will be no other way for gay marriage proponents to see or respect the opposition.

Kathleen =“Why is it when liberals embrace conservative views they’re seen as pandering or flip-flopping, but when a conservative adopts a liberal view they’re seen as having become enlightened?”

Actually its conservatives who made the term ‘flip flopping’ popular as a derogatory towards John Kerry. Somehow they get offended when its thrown back in their face.

@Kathleen:  The Catholic and Christian are really faced with two god-awful choices in this election.  Politics and policies aside, Obama’s personal views favoring abortion, partial-birth abortion and gay marriage clearly demonstrate he most definitely is a false Christian.  And then we have Romney (it’s all economics and business management).  The man comes from the mysterious darkness and cultic world of Mormonism in which Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers.  The GQ image of Armani suits and family only mask the darkside and unbiblical beliefs taught by the LDS.  Both choices are purely awful.

New Observer ,
I actually like Mr. Romney & had hoped that he would have been the candidate back in 2008.I don’t understand his theology but we are a nation founded in part on religious freedom.

Posted by Psy on Monday, Aug 6, 2012 11:05 AM (EST):Kathleen =“Why is it when liberals embrace conservative views they’re seen as pandering or flip-flopping, but when a conservative adopts a liberal view they’re seen as having become enlightened?”

Actually its conservatives who made the term ‘flip flopping’ popular as a derogatory towards John Kerry. Somehow they get offended when its thrown back in their face.
************************
I guess I’m a conservative that sees it more as puzzling & ironic that a move to the right is suspect but a move to the left is progression.

@Psy:  Sorry.  You keep failing in all your arguments.  We have both Obama (radical Protestant) and Biden (Catholic) just recently flip flopping and now supporting gay marriage.  John Kerry was always a comical joke of irrelevance going back to his Vietnam days.

Corita ~“Maybe we nee dot work harder on changing the narrative because unless we do, there will be no other way for gay marriage proponents to see or respect the opposition.”

No matter how you word it the bottom line is “it because they are gay”.
The term “family values” will forever be tarnished as “anti-gay” long after the matter is settled one way or another. Calling them sinners while “we are all sinners” is hypercritical while labeling them as having a “disorder” is intolerant of people like my daughter who is bi-polar and suffers from depression, autistic people, ect.

@Kathleen:  No question, Mr. Romney is a nice man.  As a Catholic, though, you should have an obligation to know what the LDS teaches.  As Katie Holmes escaped Scientology and the goon squad keeping tabs on her, you will learn why women are so frightened (and threatened) to leave the LDS.

=New Observer and Kathleen, I use the term ‘flip flop’ sarcastically to mock rhetoric. Its a habit I picked up on another forum where they focus one the substance of the argument and not the childish banter, rhetoric and fallacious arguments. Sorry for the confusion.

New Observer,
I’ve had Mormon friends in the past & am unaware of any threatening behavior.I’ve also visited Mormon monthly night-out’s for moms where they offered classes, craft projects,guest speakers, etc with babysitting included. I was very impressed & wished that our local parish offered something similar to women & families.Truthfully, I’d rather have Mormons for neighbors than some of the rowdy Catholics I’ve known.
I don’t pretend to understand their theology but neither do some faiths understand our’s.

Kathleen ~“I’ve had Mormon friends in the past & am unaware of any threatening behavior.”

For the majority you are right, Mormons are a happy culture, generally a high IQ equivalent to Jewish and atheist of 106. Though there are pockets of more extreme views where they disown their family members who leave the faith. I spent last Christmas with 3 former Mormons who’s bothers, sisters and parents have refused to see them for years. But it isn’t the norm. Dogma aside Mormonism is in general a positive evolving culture.

@Kathleen:  So in your world all faiths are equal?  You need to educate yourself beyond the world of Family Home Evening.  This is how they suck you in.  You will eventually be approached for greater inclusion and participation.  They are a cult.  The Book of Mormon is directly opposed by the gospel.  Your view is typical of most all Catholics who know nothing about them other than the window dressing of long skirted women and men in clean white shirts with likewise kids in tow.  Even Catholic priests are clueless to explain what the LDS teach in order to warn parents so their children can be protected.  Kathleen, you think they are harmless?  You need to educate yourself.  The “meaning” of their terms are not the same as yours including “Heavenly father.”  Try testing them on “No man comes to the Father but by me.”  You will run when you learn the truth of Mormonism.

New Observer ,
Did anyone say all faiths are equal?
I haven’t visited a Mormon church for 20 plus years & have never once in the years following been approached by Mormons.Not even so much as randomly knocking on my door.Jehovah’s Witnesses,yes, on several occasions. Mormons, never.
You may certainly have differing experiences, but neither the local Mormon church, nor my Mormon friends ever made any attempt to recruit me or my family.
I’m still planning to vote for Mitt Romney & have never met a Mormon I wouldn’t want to have as a neighbor.Decent, hardworking folk.

New Observer, people follow different faiths for different reasons. They all have different aspects people find appealing or disagree with and sometimes you find a perfect fit for yourself. They all claim to be the truth no matter how silly some of their beliefs are to you. While some rely on different emotions like guilt or fear Mormons promote a child like happiness without childishness. In Islam you are to put yourself in a state of fear when praying, ect. No doubt there are issues with the Mormon Church as there are with any other faith. Of all their proceeds only one percent goes to productive charities not affiliated with the church which will eventually bring religious tax exemptions into legal question for all religious institutions. They have less media scandals than others, ect.

@Kathleen:  I never once stated they are not unkind or decent people.  They are indeed wonderful neighbors, hardworking and good citizens.  It’s just important that you know and understand what they believe is totally not what you believe regardless of having Jesus Christ on their sign post.
If your son or daughter chose to marry a Mormon, you and your husband would NOT be allowed to attend the ceremony.  And seriously, the Mormon would not be allowed to marry except at their temple.  You must agree to their terms.  There will be no compromise.  Dually of officiating is not going to happen.  Temple marriage is a non-negotiable.  This is why you want to protect your sons or daughters from long term dating of Mormons eventually leading to marriage or life will change for your family as you know it.

New Observer, Yes I have a lot of issues with their temple thing, the need to be found worthy as opposed to open to all members and ‘uncompromising’ is common to many faiths.

New Observer ,
To my knowledge none of my children have Mormon aquaintances, much less fiancees, however I appreciate you sharing this information with me.
Truthfully, a bit of the marriage rules you list resemble what our church used to to practise.We didn’t compromise a whole lot either back in the day.I’m not sure that some of that wasn’t a bad thing.

@Psy, your comments are immaterial since they are generic and come from a worldview.  You have already stated you do not believe in God and that the Bible is mythology and fables.  My comments to Kathleen are for believers in Christ.  But thanks for your input.  I sense, however, that Kathleen will take seriously any of my remarks concerning the LDS.  They may be of help to others who are reading.

@Kathleen:  You thus see the importance of being equally-yoked as Paul instructs.  When a believer is not married to a believer, the union of the couple under Christ is fractured.  The two will never be as “one flesh” in the biblical definition.  You can never be as close and in union with Christ as was intended from the beginning.

New Observer “@Psy, your comments are immaterial since they are generic and come from a worldview.  You have already stated you do not believe in God and that the Bible is mythology and fables.”

You are free to dismiss my option as close mindedness and intolerance of those not like your seems to be part of your beliefs system. Just because I am a non-believer it doesn’t mean I look down on you the way you look down on me.

@Psy:  Acutally, this sidebar into Mormonism rather helps further the dialog concerning all the previous comments concerning your support for gay marriage while Christians disapprove.  Yours is a worldview which finds nothing wrong in gay marriage.  I understand that view of “live and let live.”  For many secular enterprises I would support the same position.  Since you do not believe, it is understandable why you hold your posiiton.  I “get” that.  Conversely, though, you are unable to appreciate those holding a biblical worldview when it comes to marriage being only between one man and one woman.  Men and women invested in Christ place their entire life in His hands and trust totally in Him unconditionally.  In an abstract world, there is no problem with gay marrige.  When Christ enters our presence, He directs our lives to become obedient and live by standards He sets forth.  I know this is difficult for the unbeliever to accept.  Still, we (the believer) knows as Christ Himself was subseviant to the will of the Father, He has become our model for us well to deny self and conduct our lives by honoring Him.  We believe Jesus rescued us from the death of our sins to live with Him forever.  I was a sin debt unpayable by man and only by the grace of God alone.  How wicked and ungrateful would the believer be to know Christ and yet dismiss his precepts in favor of what we desire instead?  Psy, you maybe can now see why Christians cannot, simply cannot accept gay marriage as norm.  It violates and perverts the law of God which we believe is Holy.  At one time John Newton (English slave trader) was immune to God’s presence in his own life and did what came “naturally” to him.  I urge you to read the words of his conversion to faith in his writing of Amazing Grace.  I pray you, Psy, may find yourself in that reading and come to know Jesus as your Savior.  I can promise you your life will never be the same again.  Despite all our battles on the blog, I do care what happens to you.  We Christians are not perfect.  Least of all myself.

It is really important to refute the connection between Christian views on marriage and bigotry. This line of thinking is becoming more and more common and is going to affect religious freedom in the future. Here is my attempt to refute the lack of logic behind this trend: http://pursuedbytruth.blogspot.com/2012/08/im-christian-not-bigot-thanks.html

@New Observer
You seem to really enjoy assuming the worst things you can think of about people you disagree with.

Must make it a lot easier to pretend they aren’t real people. It’s self-deception, though.

Or maybe you’re conflating me with Psy. Treating everyone who has an issue with your behavior as part of some giant monolithic enemy group who are all the same as each other is the way conspiracy theorists think, though, so be careful about that.

Why do you assume I’m neither Catholic nor Christian? Why do you assume I haven’t read the entire bible?

And what in the world made you think that disrespecting people is the best way to deal with being called out for un-Christian-ly disrespecting people?

Oh, and obsessing with “battling against the forces of evil” to the exclusion of following the commands of the Church is just as bad as “when secularists latch on to some banner headline of scripture.” You’re disregarding even more of the message than those people tend to, anyway. You’re calling for heretical denial of the teachings of the Church that you’ve already been informed about.

Is it really so incomprehensible to you that showing the respect, compassion, and sensitivity that the Church REQUIRES YOU TO SHOW will win more people over to the Church and keep more from leaving than vitriol and dehumanizing rhetoric?

You talk about how the people who treat gays horribly aren’t really Christian. And then you deride someone for comforting the abused and sheltering the homeless.

You compare Psy’s aid of gay children to filthy rags, but you know what? Filthy rags are still better than the Emperor’s New Clothes. How many gay young people have you taken in after they’ve been thrown out of their homes by those you call false Christians?

You accuse me of not understanding the teachings of the Church because I point out the Corporal Works of Mercy and the Catechism and other parts of its teachings that you seem to forget about in your eagerness to “fight the enemy.” It’s ironic really.

Deriding charity is not how the Church teaches you to behave. And don’t try to use your personal interpretation of scripture to disregard the Church’s teachings if you call yourself Catholic.

@Patrick:  [“You compare Psy’s aid of gay children to filthy rags, but you know what? Filthy rags are still better than the Emperor’s New Clothes.”]  Assuming you know the origin of good works and filthy rags in the context of the gospel, you would otherwise not be mentioning this.  Corporal works of mercy alone will not save you—and if you really are Catholic you should know that.  One doesn’t even need to be Catholic or Christian to perform admirable and great works of charity.  The world may stand and cheer but the deeds alone have no impact on one’s salvation.  And if you (Patrick) are really Catholic, is that what the church teaches?  There are no forces of evil at work?  You would then be in disagreement with Peter, your first pope.  You would be in disagreement with St. Paul.  What brand of Catholicism are you choosing to follow?  With Psy, I understand.  You, however, should know better.

I think you will find the ‘bigot’ image very difficult to shake. I don’t know what you Church taught 10 years ago, the the local churches here were bushing bigotry, as in shunning gays, derogatory hate speech that we also saw on the internet at that time. A local Evangelical would give a long hateful sermon and finish up with the disclaimer “Hate the sin, love the sinner” after he went out of his way to instill hate and bigotry. One day a young women stood up in the middle of the “Praise Jesus” and shouted “You are all a bunch of hateful bigots” and walked out.

You could see the blatant bigotry in the communality, people crossing the street to avoid gay people, hostility towards their gay children and co-workers. Over the years the Churches have gone to soft bigotry and evolved their argument. One of the gay teens I took in father was a Mormon Priest. Most others Christian of some form, though for your credit not were from Catholic homes. I should point out most of the teens my daughter and I took in were not gay but sexually abuse. We took in 3 gay teen boys.

I found it appalling the churches were promoting bigotry as a tool to reinforce their beliefs, though they have slowly over the decade watered it down to a less offensive argument. Its nice to see the change overall though there are a few place that still push the hate like The Westboro Baptist Church.

@New Observer
1) Explain why you were actively deriding corporal works of mercy before we continue on that particular line of discussion, please.
2) If you’ll go back and read what I said instead of what you’d prefer to argue against, I never said there were no evil forces at work. I was saying you seem to think that the ends of fighting evil justify the means of violating the Church’s teachings about respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
So what do you say, do the ends justify the means? Or do you have to find a way to fight evil while simultaneously following the requirements of the Church for how you must treat gay people?
What brand of Catholicism are you choosing to follow? The one where “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” or the one where teens are justified in “beating the gay out of” other Catholics and other Catholics who are tasked with protecting them turn away and let it continue to happen?
Do you follow the brand of Catholicism where you understand that even people who are fighting against you are real humans with human dignity and freedom of conscience that must be respected, and therefore you must win them over with love, or the kind where it’s okay to disown your son for being gay?
Do you follow the brand of Catholicism where you must love your enemy because disagreeing with you does not make them cease to be your neighbor, or the brand of Catholicism where priests refuse to help their own parishioners who are coming them for help in a time of extreme emotional and spiritual need and distress because that parishioner is gay, and you do nothing?
Do you follow the brand of Catholicism where the word “Catholic” has an actual meaning as a word, or the one where it’s just an arbitrary label?
Do you follow the brand of Catholicism where you are expected to treat people, even gay people, with kindness, or do you follow a brand of “Catholicism” that believes in Sola Fide salvation?

Psy—“It’s because they are gay” actually, no. I mean, certainly for some people they can hide behind the religious line because they would rather not think about those scary,icky gay people.  But not for me, and not for most people I know.  It is not the way the Catholic Church theology goes.

But you have been talking and talking with people here for days, it looks like. So if you didn’t hear that already you probably don’t want to.  “Having a disorder” is not what is written about homosexuality.  The unfortunate wording of “disordered inclinations” tends to confuse the issue rather than illuminate it, but again, I think we can do better at having teh conversations.

@New Observer to Psy:

“Yours is a worldview which finds nothing wrong in gay marriage.  I understand that view of ‘live and let live’...Since you do not believe, it is understandable why you hold your posiiton.  I ‘get’ that…In an abstract world, there is no problem with gay marrige.”

I disagree with your “abstract world” conclusion.  Go back and read the debate between Cardinal George and Psy “monitored or judged” by the Encyclopedia Americana which I posted above.  From the beginning of time, no society (there were/are 565) or culture had the arrangement of families based on same sex.  All forms of what is called “marriage” were between one or more women to one or more men, and vice versa.

Various religions and faiths, including Catholic and Protestant,  adapted the natural relationship between man and women to their religion and to societal accepted forms.

Psy’s position is same sex “marriage” is an “equal rights” issue.  But
gays can marry any woman they want, and lesbians can marry any man.  No one is stopping them.  They have the same rights as any other man and woman in this country, unlike what the blacks were subjected. 

Also, Psy- I don’t know what churches you were going to but Catholicism is the *only* major Christian denomination that continues to hold to the traditional natural law for marriage and sexuality **but also refuses to give “diagnoses” of what “makes someone gay, and accepts the scientific evidence relevant to the issue**, even to the point of admitting that there are probably biological factors at play, at least for some. It also has ministries for gay people and their families THAT DO NOT require that people who have same sex attraction think of themselves as fundamentally spiritually damaged, or in need of “fixing” their gay-ness.

@Patrick:  Who said to do nothing?  Who said to never demonstrate compassion?  The argument is antithetical because militant homosexuals have no desire to come to church except, perhaps, in churches who celebrate their sexuality.  In my area, there are plenty including two Catholic parishes.  In the example you cite, yes, the homosexual seeking understanding and compassion and/or emotional healing is different. In fact, he/she may have experienced a change of heart.  As with politics, it seems all Catholicism may also be local in practical application.  Depending upon your diocese and Bishop, the homosexual or lesbian is hopefully accepted with compassion and understanding,—but is the militant homosexual seeking acceptance with no obligation to change?Should he/she be demanding full acceptance on their terms and in the continuance of such sexual behavior?  Should your parish priest just give them a “pass?”  I think what you are describing is the penitent seeking not validation of sexual sin, but acceptance of their personhood.  On that, then you and I are likely not in disagreement.

@stilbelieve:  I was referring to the abstract world as every man doing what is right for himself.  The absence of moral law.

stilbelieve ~“Psy’s position is same sex “marriage” is an “equal rights” issue.  But gays can marry any woman they want, and lesbians can marry any man.  No one is stopping them.  They have the same rights as any other man and woman in this country, unlike what the blacks were subjected.”

That is not an argument against extending or more clearly defining your rights which the Constitution is designed to do. The supreme Court is busy because the Constitution is somewhat vague in areas and evolving case by case. You have not provided a reason for not moving forward or restricting our freedom of choice. The Constitution promotes choice unless you can come up with a good reason which the courts will accept. This is the US not the Middle East.

Corita -“But not for me, and not for most people I know.  It is not the way the Catholic Church theology goes.”

For many they see the “Preserve Traditional Marriage” as an after thought or excuse to deny gays rights as that argument came too late in the game.
Another problem is its an appeal to tradition fallacy which will be dismissed by any competent judge. Another problem is by denying rights to others you set a legal precedent that may be used to take away rights they you hold dear. No one has shown that legalizing gay marriage will in any way harm your personal right to personally practice traditional marriage if you choose too. You have simply have the right to choose not to marry a person of the same sex.

@Psy:  “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

What the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether your view of justice is in coflict with promoting the “general” welfare of the people at large.  Any decision will not be based on religious grounds.  Insuring domestic tranquility will likewise be open for discussion.

@New Observer
“Who said to never demonstrate compassion?”
That’d be you, bucko.
“Your attitude is part of the problem today. Gay people have got you boxed in to thinking you MUST speak sensitively and carefully to them.” - New Observer
“You then have a problem whereby the Catechism is at odds with the gospel””- New Observer
“And no, Patrick.  I will not pray for her regardless of what the Catechism says.” - New Observer
You were saying to not demonstrate compassion EVEN IN VIOLATION of the Church’s teachings.
Oh, and that’s just you arguing against showing compassion, not included are the numerous occasions where you were actively showing a lack of compassion in this very discussion.
Here’s the thing:
I’m telling you why militant homosexuals become the way they are. It’s because they are shown disrespect, callousness, and insensitivity FIRST. They are beaten and thrown out of their homes and refused help by priests. Their cries for help to the church fall on deaf ears. They are betrayed by the very people that are supposed to be helping them, the people called upon to help them by scripture and the Church.
They were seeking understanding and emotional healing first, then they were treated like garbage, THEN they hardened their hearts and turned away.
And if you categorically treat gay people without respect, compassion, and sensitivity, you will only drive away more of the faithful, devout, practicing Catholic gay people. They will hear you talking that way about them before you even know they are part of the group you’re talking about.
It is SCANDAL. You’re familiar with scandal right? “A word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin.”
That is what you are doing not only when you do not show respect, compassion, and sensitivity as the Church REQUIRES, but especially when you actively state that the Catechism should be thrown out in favor of fighting against people.
What you are refusing to see is that you are also denying respect, compassion, and sensitivity to penitent, faithful gay people and thereby turning them into the militant ones who will never seek forgiveness.
When you deride attempts to shelter homeless gay youth, you are denying their human dignity. When you say it is more important to treat people as “forces of darkness” than as hurting people who need at very least your respect, compassion and sensitivity, if not your help, you are denying their human dignity.

Again I ask, do the ends justify the means? Do you ascribe to Sola Fide salvation? Do you think it is more important to be vitriolic at those who are already lost, or to keep those who are still faithful from turning away by calling for an end to violence and mistreatment of them and unilaterally showing them kindness and compassion as Jesus showed to Zacchaeus?

When you leave it to non-Catholics like Psy to clean up the messes Catholics make by throwing their own children out on the street for being gay, is it really any surprise those children eventually become adults who have a grudge against the Church?

New Observer =“What the Supreme Court will have to rule on whether your view of justice is in coflict with promoting the “general” welfare of the people at large.”

No one has shown that the general welfare is in jeopardy from gay marriage. Religions claiming its in jeopardy and quoting scripture won’t work in court. There is also the issue of protecting the rights of the minority from tyranny from the majority. That is why the US is a democratically elected republic with a judicial branch, the Supreme Court for checks and balances to insure individual freedoms. The rights of the individual before the need of the group.

@Patrick, my name is not “bucko.”  That aside, the point is militant homosexuals who are hostile and reject the gospel.  The church is a human organization and is subject to failure in the laity and the clergy.  Were you or I to find a perfect church, as soon as you or I joined it wouldn’t be perfect any longer.  Are you or I no longer Catholic because of all the abuse and pedophile scandals?  Of course not.  Our faith is not in flawed men running the church but in Jesus.  So, too, rather than becoming militant even to the point of vandalizing church property, the homosexual should not direct his/her anger at the institutional church.  Moreover, he/she needs to keep their eyes upon Christ in service and obedience.  We’ve already covered Zacchaeus. He had “ears to hear” while the militant homosexual is too consumed in his own bitternes.  He has not yet learned to bring everything to Calvary.  There is where everyone can find peace or a man will be in conflict all his life.

@Psy:  I am certain the argument you state will be front and center.  The vote will be very interesting.  I will not be surprised to see the matter ruled as a states rights issue rather than Federal law.

I’m sorry, New Observer, I guess all of your arguments that respect, compassion, and sensitivity are OPTIONAL somehow slipped into my head a little bit.
And the point is that you are rationalizing your own imperfect and scandalous behavior by pointing out past failures by other Catholics.
And on the Zacchaeus point, you seem to just see his name and give a stock answer rather than reading what I’m actually telling you.
I am saying that the faithful, NON-militant gays are frequently not being shown respect, compassion, sensitivity, kindness, or love. They have ears to hear, until their cries for help are ignored for too long and they conclude that no one is going to protect them but themselves.
Militant gays do not spring forth as fully-formed adults spontaneously. They become angry and confrontational because of how they are treated. Treatment you rationalize away either by pointing at OTHER people as if gays are a monolithic group instead of individual people who each have human dignity; or alternately you rationalize it away by claiming that the people who did it aren’t Catholic even though they are confirmed and attend mass and sometimes are even priests and their entire community would openly consider them to be Catholic.

That priest I mentioned? No consequences to him, but the community shunned the faithful young man he refused to help in a time of extreme spiritual need.
The students who made a hobby of “beating the gay out of” another student? Not a single consequence until that boy realized he was alone, that the people of the Church weren’t going to help him no matter how many times he reported the violence, and defended himself.
The administrators and teachers at the Catholic school where that Catholic boy was beaten, the ones who pretended it wasn’t happening and allowed him to be attacked again and again even as he was telling them it was happening and who was doing it to him? No consequences.
The Catholic mother who threw her own biological son out on the street for being gay? She got a free vacation by illegally selling off property he had purchased with his own hard-earned money because he couldn’t afford the legal actions necessary to take back his property or take action against her for stealing them from him, since he literally had nothing but the clothes on his back and the ID in his wallet.

When the FAITHFUL, DEVOUT gay people of the Church are treated like that and there is absolutely no outcry from the Church about it, it is really no wonder they tragically become hostile, militant activists who will never listen to the Church again.

They don’t become bitter and outraged for no reason. It happens because their trust is betrayed again and again, because they are disrespected and treated callously, because that maltreatment is rationalized because SOME OTHER PERSON is a militant activist who opposes the church, because no action is taken against the people hurting them—people just pretend that it’s not the actions of a member of the Church when it is awkward.

It is scandal.

New Observer, I think it will be a state issue until a larger number of states pass it. I also think the Prop 8. people taking it to the supreme court will accelerate the process regardless of the outcome of that ruling as it will more clearly define the situation for later cases.

@New Observer

“I was referring to the abstract world as every man doing what is right for himself.  The absence of moral law.”

And that is what I am referring to, also.  Even before “moral law” came into the world, no same sex relationships were granted tribal, cultural, societal, or whatever, approval equal to what was granted male/female relationship, which eventually became referred to as marriage.  In other words, same sex behavior may have existed from the beginning of time, but it was never given the prominence or authority on which to build the foundation of that tribe or society that male/female have had from the beginning of human existence.

The bible and religions contain the reasoning and understanding of that natural formation on which the foundation of society is built. 

@Psy

“That is not an argument against extending or more clearly defining your rights which the Constitution is designed to do.”

Marriage at the time of the writing of the Constitution was not an issue being debated and in need of more freedom.  Nothing has changed since then to merit redefining the historic understanding and definition of the institution known by the name of “marriage.”  Women’s rights have been equalized by changes in the Constitution enabling them to vote, terminate their pregnancies, and work in any profession.  Blacks’ rights, both male and female, have been equalized to those of whites by changes in the Constitution and Congressional laws.  Even wealth rights have been equalized permitting any U.S. citizen over a certain age to vote regardless if they owned land or not.

There is no inequality denying same sex relationships and bonding.  They can do whatever they want to do except be called something they aren’t.  Blacks didn’t want to be called “white.”  Women didn’t want to be called “men.”  Poor didn’t want to be called “rich.”  Those equalities were taking care of because they were just.  There is not justice being denied homosexuals.  They just want their relationships to be equated to heterosexuals for purely emotional reasons, justifying their behavior, when if their behavior is justifiable in their minds, that should be enough.  Obviously, they don’t think their behavior is justifiable unless they get society to say it is.  If their life style is so good, they don’t need it to be called by some other life styles name.   

@Patrick:  My deepest apology to you for my comments which were less than understanding and uncharitable.  I have engaged in some very heated arguments with militants who have been ruthless with me over this topic.  Our experiences serve to form how we react to hardened positions.  Most of my battles have been with advocates who were never churched.  Your situation is different and from your comments I can sense the wounds you feel.  Clearly, I cannot ever say I know what you have experienced, but please accept my apology for the hurt church people have directed toward you including the clergy.  And I include my own comments.  Were you at mass, I would extend my hand of peace following the consecration.

stilbelieve.  =“They just want their relationships to be equated to heterosexuals for purely emotional reasons, justifying their behavior, when if their behavior is justifiable in their minds, that should be enough.  Obviously, they don’t think their behavior is justifiable unless they get society to say it is.  If their life style is so good, they don’t need it to be called by some other life styles name.”

Shier behavior, are you their mommy? Are they breaking some law? They are under no obligation to justify anything to you or me here in America. You come across as some kind of gossipy judgmental control freak. You don’t want them to get married because you don’t like it, oh well.

.

that should be “Their behavior? Are you their mommy?”

Patrick, There is an issue that is a stumbling block for me that I would like you to clarify.  You have used the phrase, “faithful, devout, practicing Catholic gay people”.  To me it is an oxymoron to use the word gay in that phrase because if you were faithful, devout and practicing you would not label yourself by your sin but by your Christianity.  The sin persists because it is held onto.  It is not seen as the enemy it is. They may have BEEN gay, but once they embraced the Lord, have been to confession, and reached the point where they consider themselves “faithful and devout and practicing” they have left gay behind. If they haven’t then they aren’t “faithful, devout or practicing.” Although they may feel occasional temptations they know the sin is no match for God’s grace and they are no longer “that” person. They are a new creation.  Do we agree?

@New Observer
Gay people’s experiences serve to form how they react to hardened situations too. Which is really my core point. Even the ones who weren’t raised in the church were still raised in a society where gay people get treated quite badly on a regular basis, and so tragically they tend to take a hardened position in respone as well.

I’m glad we’re able to get to a tone that won’t cause us to be inflammatory toward one another in this discussion, though. That’s the only way people can come to understand each other.

@Pam
All of the gay people I have ever spoken to consider the term “gay” to refer to people with same-sex attraction, not a description of what sort of sexual activity the person takes part in, if any. I honestly am not entirely sure where the approach of describing only people who are sexually active with same-sex partners as “gay” comes from, but it is definitely not the typical usage being utilized by those who self-identify as gay.
In my mind, “gay” is more-or-less synonymous with the people the CCC is referring to when it says “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.”

@Patrick

The word “gay” started being used by an older, homosexual political activist leader in New York in the ‘80s, as I recall.  A number of heterosexuals didn’t like the use of a word that was widely understood at the time to mean gaiety or “happily excited, merry” and words to that effect.  That was the meaning of the word used in movies back in the 30s and 40s.  To understand why that word started being used by that homosexual political activist, I decided to look up “gay” in the dictionary.  And that was when I found out that that guy really picked the right word to call his homosexual activism.  Among several definitions of the word, one was Licentious.  I didn’t know that word, so I looked it up in the dictionary, too, and bingo.  Licentious means: “1 : lacking legal or moral restraints; esp : disregarding sexual restraints 2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.”
Yep, he called what it was and wasn’t worried about being “politically correct.”

And Psy, realize it or not, that is what you believe should be allowed to be called “marriage” -  and for the sake of “equality.” 

Psy, here’s the definition of the word “marriage”  “: the mutual relation of husband and wife; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.”

And just to complete the whole definition thing, Psy, here’s the definition of heterosexuality ; “the manifestation of sexual desire for one or more members of the opposite sex.”

Big, big, difference between the meaning of heterosexual and “gay.”

stilbelieve, I really don’t care how you personally or your church defines marriage and I find arguing over semantics really really boring and unimportant. Hopefully someone else cares enough to give their opinion on it and carry the conversation forward.

Psy, my friend, words - mean - things.  If they don’t why do gays what their relationships be called “marriage?”

stilbelieve “Psy, my friend, words - mean - things.  If they don’t why do gays what their relationships be called “marriage?””

I find your objections shallow and one dimensional.
The argument they give is because anything else is second class citizenship. Like black votes only counting as 2/3 of a vote or riding in the back of the bus, separate drinking fountains, no gays allowed.

You should direct any further questions to actual gays because I like to argue for Constitutional rights and against bigotry. Now if you will excuse me I am following another debate on racism and multiculturalism that is much more interesting and complex then petty bickering over as stupid word.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m familiar with the origin of the term “gay.” What I’m not familiar with is where usage of it to specifically mean people engaging in homosexual sex comes from rather than referring to people who have same-sex attraction, as it is used by the people who self-identify as gay.

@Psy

“I find your objections shallow and one dimensional.
The argument they give is because anything else is second class citizenship. Like black votes only counting as 2/3 of a vote or riding in the back of the bus, separate drinking fountains, no gays allowed.”

Blacks do not accept or like gays using their perversion of sexual pleasure to equate to what they were subjected to from slave ships to voting rights.  Blacks were discriminated against simply because of their color.  Gays are not discriminated in any way compared to blacks. It is silly for you to make that comparison.  That is why blacks in CA gave prop 8 the winning margin.  Gays have always been able to sit in a bus wherever they wanted, drink from whatever fountain they wanted, eat at whatever counter they wanted and have always had their votes counting equal to heterosexuals.

@Psy

“Now if you will excuse me I am following another debate on racism and multiculturalism that is much more interesting and complex then petty bickering over as stupid word.”

I think you meant “than petty bickering over a stupid word.”  I’m disappointed in you, Psy; I didn’t think you were as liberal as you are.  But abandoning the fight when your sarcasm can not bully the truth is typical of the hollowness of liberal thinking.

@Patrick

“What I’m not familiar with is where usage of it to specifically mean people engaging in homosexual sex comes from….”

It comes from the liberal media picking up on that word and making it universal for homosexuality, just like they took the pro-abortionist name “pro-choice” to represent those supporting abortion, while not calling those opposed to abortion by the name they coined, “pro-life.”  He who controls the message controls the uninformed.

stilbelieve, yet gays aren’t allowed to use the word marriage according to you and a few others. You are trying to dictate how people can use the word marriage and you don’t even own the copyright to the word. I don’t see how you can image you have an argument. As for blacks that say they are offended by the comparison you will mostly likely find they are religious and using it as an excuse to discriminate.

@Psy

“stilbelieve, yet gays aren’t allowed to use the word marriage according to you and a few others….” 

Don’t be silly; of coarse they can use it as long as they marry a person of the opposite sex.  They haven’t got a right to co-opt a word that means just the opposite of what they want it to mean.  Talk about 1984!  It isn’t us who are “dictating,” it’s people like Psy and radical gays and lesbians who are dictating to society what we are allowed to believe or have to believe.  I didn’t author the Encyclopedia Americana or the dictionary; I just use them to understand history and the meaning of words.

I have no problem with homosexuals taking a word like “gay” that truly does identify them, even though the most common understanding of the word used to be something far nicer and different.  It makes perfect sense when one knows that “gay” means “licentious” and licentious means “lacking legal or moral restraints, especially disregarding sexual restraints and also marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.”  The mere fact that gays are trying to co-opt the word “marriage,” today, is a perfect example of the definition of licentiousness/gay being played out.

@Psy. “As for blacks that say they are offended by the comparison you will mostly likely find they are religious and using it as an excuse to discriminate.”

There you go again.  Everybody is showing “discrimination” but you and the homosexual activist.

Patrick,  Whether the person is practicing or not, by labelling themselves homosexual after they have converted they are giving Satan a foothold. You are a child of God! You are a Catholic or a Christian! You are a son of Mary. You are a brother to your brothers and sisters in Christ!  That is WHO you are. “Whatever is good, whatever is holy…” set your sights on these things.  Being tempted by a particular sin is common, but not a reason to label yourself by it.  St. Teresa of the Child Jesus spoke about how God gives us temptations or trials sometimes to see if we love Him enough to fight the temptation.  When He sees our love for Him and our efforts He increases our grace. Sometimes it is over time and sometimes in an instant until the temptation isn’t one anymore. With her, she said she was oversensitive and could be upset so easily.  She fought against it a long time, then one December, in an instant, she received God’s grace and it was never an issue again!  It is the wrong road to hold on to this label. It is the right road to be focused on your true identity and turn away from the temptation as soon as it appears. To glorify this state by using it in the same phrase with “faithful, devout and pious” is to call Jesus a liar (“I have conquered sin”) or to be a liar isn’t it?  Because if you are faithful you remember Jesus teaching to even think about committing illicit acts is to commit the sin itself.  If this is true then a faithful ex-gay is not thinking of these acts either and is therefore an “ex-gay”.  Similarly, if someone is devout they are thinking of holy things or the narrow road and they are not focusing their identity on the flesh.  They push aside any unholy thought as soon as it appears, recognizing it for what it is.  With this label one places oneself in a constant state of temptation saying I am a man who would like to sleep with a man and I am always fighting this feeling oh, and by the way, I am a member of the Catholic Church.  Do you believe this is too big for Him to handle? Or is our faith too small? It goes against everything that holiness would ask of us. Hope you opt for your true identity.

Wow, I have never been in a discussion where people love to talk about sex as much as Catholics. Is your church some sort of support group for people with fetishes or something? That would explain a lot.

To Gloria. It is true that some Catholic priests have abused children, and they should be prosecuted, and victims should receive counseling and financial compensation from the Church. However, according to a 2002 study by Penn State Prof. Phillip Jenkins (ex-Catholic, now Episcopalian) over a 20 year period, his research found that married Christian clergy and NON-CLERGY (my emphais added) are just as likely to be child molesters. So anyone-teacher, parent, priest, plumber, doctor, rabbi, athlete, “gay” or straight person-could be a child molester. The Catholic Church does far more good than evil, through hospitals, aid to the poor, elderly, disabled, immigrants, homes to shelter women and their unborn babies. Even atheists oppose abortion. Journalist Nat Hentoff, former Board member of the NY chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and self-described Jewish atheist, is against legal abortion. So too, was Rev. Martin Luther King (though he did support legal contraception, as I do), as confirmed by his niece Dr, Alveda King, a woman who has had, and regretted, several abortions. Any standard biology text will confirm that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. After all, each one of us was once an embryo. By the way, I happen to be a gay Catholic, and have several gay friends. I treattherm with respect, and haven’t always been chaste, but have found healing through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Everyone-regardless of race, creed, or lack thereof-should have the right to speak out on moral and political matters.

@stilbelieve
That doesn’t answer what I was curious about at all.

I am wondering where the usage of “gay” to mean people who *specifically* engage in homosexual sex AS OPPOSED TO meaning people who experience same-sex attraction, which is what it means when used by gay people self-identifying with it as well as the “liberal” media.

When gay people talk about being gay, they are talking about being a person who experiences same-sex attraction. It’s not about actual sexual acts at all.

@Pam
Labelling themselves as gay or homosexual is no more giving Satan a foothold as calling oneself an alcoholic or paraplegic or saying you might enjoy food too much for your own health.
Having same-sex attraction is not a sin, it is a temptation. Saying you experience temptation is basically equivalent to saying you are human, since all humans experience temptation. Identifying the particular temptations you regularly experience can help you guard against them, particularly when it is a temptation that will most likely stay with you for the rest of your life.
Identifying that you experience same-sex attraction is no more glorifying same-sex sexual activity than saying you sometimes drink too much is glorifying alcoholism.
You can be faithful, devout and pious while still experiencing temptation. Even Jesus was tempted.
Being homosexual is not something that happens when you think about committing illicit acts, it is when you find people of the same sex attractive rather than people of the opposite sex. A person can identify what gender they are attracted to without fantasizing.
This is largely why gay people take issue with the concept of “ex-gay.”
As I’ve stated, being “gay” is a statement about what attractions you feel, not whether or not you succumb to temptation. These attractions do not typically go away, even for “ex-gay” people, but the label implies that they no longer feel the attraction, when they actually still do and simply do their best to avoid sin. It is more honest to acknowledge that the attraction does indeed still exist but is not being indulged in.
Even a person who pushes away unholy thoughts as soon as they appear can still accurately identify the particular variety of unholy thought that troubles them, and if it is same-sex attraction, then they are gay, because they experience same-sex attraction.
For a man, for example, being gay is not about “sleeping with a man,” it is merely about being attracted to men rather than women. To suggest that merely experiencing attraction is the same as committing a sin in the mind is to call all heterosexuals adulterers or fornicators as well.
And just as a point of order, less than one percent of people undergoing “ex-gay” treatment of any kind report that their attraction to the same sex ever ceases. The point is that they no longer act upon it or indulge in fantasies based upon it. They still experience the attraction and therefore they are still gay, but celibate.

Patick, As I read your responses, they seem very secular still.  You do not respond to the reality of grace.  St. Terese of Lisieux’s experience is the Catholic experience.  I have experienced God’s grace as have millions.  I don’t know where your one percent statistic comes from but I would guess it would be from psychological attempts at cures.  Grace is Supernatural and it isn’t logical or methodical and no one is keeping records. It is a miraculous gift that really happens.  We need faith. In the politically charged environment we are in and in your soul, you are indeed giving Satan a foothold.  Alcoholics are not rising up against driving drunk or asking to be ordained knowing they are alcoholic or trying to educate students that alcoholism is as good a lifestyle as sobriety, but gays are rising up against marriage as the union of a man and woman and young men who know they are attracted to men are asking to be in a men’s only seminary to a vocation that must truly love men and women and children, and gays are asking us to allow our children to be indoctrinated to accepting the homosexual lifestyle as equal to a heterosexual lifestyle. There is a concerted effort in society to say there is no sin in these relationships. Knowing the enemy is always seeking opportunities, we are handing him many.  As to the sin aspect, Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said,‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that anyone who SO MUCH AS LOOKS with lust at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  This would extend to all sins of the flesh. So yes, you need to look with lust. (I have mistakenly thought the attraction alone was adulterous and didn’t realize the lust component). But to be content or not striving with God’s grace to continually overcome a temptation to sin of any kind is sinful, don’t you agree?

Posted by Psy on Tuesday, Aug 7, 2012 9:21 PM (EST):Wow, I have never been in a discussion where people love to talk about sex as much as Catholics. Is your church some sort of support group for people with fetishes or something? That would explain a lot.”
***************
You should listen in on a Natural Family Planning class.Talk about graphic detail.
:)
Seriously, the Church teaches about all aspects of the human condition, sex included.It’s an important part of our being, but like other parts of our nature it can become distorted.

PAtrick,
I just wanted to let you know that I am with ya on pretty much everything you have said.  You seem to be standing all alone as a faithful CAtholic who is encouraging people to see in the light of charity. Many people can’t hear that message without thinking that it is the same as an activist’s slogan.

@PAm,in my experience the desire to label oneself homosexual, or Same-sex attracted, is partly spurred on by the need faithful Catholics to challenge the *secular-influenced* notion that to be homosexual automatically means sexually active, gay-lifestyle-embracing.  (Whatever a “gay lifestyle is, btw)  Many people still have troublem themselves thinking about the distinctions between attraction, desires, flirtations and actions…and where sin is in all these things.  The point is that many celibate gay people have a calling to live publically, in some sense, this identity because there are people who embrace a secular ideology of sexual identity AND those who are religious who need to see that and know it is real.  The religious, striving-for-holiness SSA person who believes their identity is how The Creator sees them and nothing more, is actually living up to that by embracing the term SSA, or gay, when the point is to challenge other people’s desires to use those terms as a limitation or pigeonhole for their identity.

I am still not seeing any legitimate case made that a desire for homosexual sex is any greater (or more justifiable) over that of single, unmarried straight person.  The single, unmarried straight person also desires acceptance and validation of who they are.  In Christian thought, the Christian man and woman can find that validtion and acceptance through Christ.  Their value is seen in the price Jesus paid for them at the cross.  It is not always an easy walk and likely one will surely struggle before learning.  In that process, however, it is Christ who matures the Christian in discipline, love and understanding.  Committing oneself to Christ over “self” is a journey in the same way Jesus poured Himself out to the Father in Gethsemane to remain obedient to the Father’s will and plan for the salvation of men.  Painful? —indeed, yes.  But testing by fire does make one stronger because you know that it is He who has redeemed you and walked with you while comforming you into His ultimate desire —that you be made perfect into the image and likeness of His Son.  This, of course, is the Christian perspective.  The whole perspective is relational first with Christ.  We must walk in obedience over that of the civil laws of men.  Peter was confronted with the same problem in ACTS when brought before the Sanhedrin to stop preaching about Jesus.  Peter’s response was “We must obey God rather than men.”

Tim =“So anyone-teacher, parent, priest, plumber, doctor, rabbi, athlete, “gay” or straight person-could be a child molester. The Catholic Church does far more good than evil,...”

I find your apologist, cool aid drinking attempt to elevate heinous criminal sexual assaults on innocent defenseless children to the stature of an acceptable norm is absolutely sickening. Oh, but look at the good we do and ignore the priest abusing the alter-boy, he is teaching him about obedience and suffering. Yeah, lets change the subject to abortion and take the position of a gay uncle Tom. At least you admit the Church is evil while others spout how the church teaches good while they ignore that the are lousy teachers and the evil the perpetuate demanding blind obedience and sexual frustration weakening their resistance to temptation.

@Pam
You still seem to be trying to define “gay” as being about something people DO, when it is actually about something they FEEL. Something that even the Church acknowledges is a struggle they will most likely experience for the rest of their earthly life. They are called to chastity, according to the Church. They would not be so called if changing that inclination were as simple as having faith and it disappearing. The Church teaches to resist temptation, not to be faithful in hopes that temptation will stop happening.

Please try not to treat all gay people as a homogeneous, monolithic group that all agree on all things and support all the same things. They are individual people and part of why so many feel alienated from the church is because people assume that merely by having homosexual inclination that they apparently must also support every action taken by gay activists everywhere.

Stating that one is gay is merely identifying the inclination which the Church insists is not, in itself, sinful. Because gay people have faced a great deal of injustice and mistreatment, it is quite useful for those individuals to identify themselves as such in appropriate circumstances, as it helps others to understand the unusual degree of isolation, alienation, and pain that person faces from society at large.

Tim ,
Thank you for your comments & God bless you.I hope you continue to engage in the conversation.

Tim ,Yes to what Kathleen said, don’t take my harsh retort personally. I whole hardheartedly encourage you to engage in debate to build argumentative skills to better defend your position in future debates here and other forums.

Corita, Not buying it. Christ sees you in His infinite purity as a SOUL not a sex orientation or sex object. Do you remember when the scribes and pharisees tried to trip Him up asking about a woman who married seven brothers one after the other as each one died? They asked Him, “Whose wife will she be in heaven?”  Jesus replied it is not like that. We will be like the angels.  We will not be absorbed in the flesh, but the spiritual. Our life on earth is a journey to increase in that spirituality.  Like Patrick, you are also thinking like man and not like God.  Christ liberates us from sinful desires.  That is Who He is and What He does.  Holding onto a label because you want the label to be less offensive or support someone in sin is missing the point and not helping the person in sin.  It is confusing the masses and muddying the waters. No matter how offensive, hardly at all or alot, it is no match for Christ. And btw our society has been so hyper-sexed that they don’t know what normal is anymore.  It is normal for instance for a heterosexual male going through puberty to have an attraction to a male (and mid-life crisis).  That does not make him gay.  It makes him in puberty (or mid-life crisis). Yet God help the child that voices that attraction in this day and age.  The homosexual community will lay hold of him and claim him and label him and never let him mature past that passing phase.  Same can probably be said of severely emotionally deprived people or victims of abuse who feel an attraction to someone of the same sex giving them kindness and attention in their weakness.  It does not make them gay.  It makes them severely emotionally deprived or victims of abuse.  I could go on.  This is not a calling by anyone.  We are to speak only of the good and not the dark. Many have experienced homosexual predators who will try to make someone believe they are homosexual and the mental games they play to acheive their ends are vile. If you have to convince anyone or emotionally traumatize anyone into it, they aren’t, - you are being predatory and serving not God but your own agenda.  Beware which f(F)ather you follow!
Patrick:  Can’t see where you are getting that I am talking about actions rather than feelings or lumping everyone together.  The example of St. Terese was one of her feelings being out of control!  Btw, the Church has not always taught that the attraction is not a sin. There are many who think that may have come about because the Church is in a bind.  They allowed homosexual men to be ordained and then found out it was a mistake as the abuse crisis flared and Church teaching was being watered down.  John Paul II said it was a mistake to have allowed men suffering with this to be ordained. He said not to continue to ordain homosexual men.  Now some are pushing back and trying to take a half measure saying they can control it or practice heroic virtue.  But, if they could control the sin, it wouldn’t be a sin for them, they would have overcome it. And who wants to place the Sacred, Holy, priesthood in the hands of someone HOPING they practice heroic virtue?  Patrick, the Catholic Church also states the condition is objectively disordered.  Being attracted to the same sex means there are relational issues with both sexes. And the Church realizes some may struggle for life because Christ may allow someone to carry a cross for a lifetime or because some lack the faith to be healed or some have no desire to be healed or some do not even know Christ etc.  Not because the Church doesn’t believe He will and can heal. And what Terese went through was not “simple”.  It was a trial of faith, obedience, and trust.  It is what the spiritual journey is about and this is what you do not want to “get.”  And what I said about the distinctions between alcoholism and homosexuality are valid. They are not lumping anyone. We would find it outrageous if an alcoholic wanted to be allowed to drive drunk because “that’s just how he is.”  Either way you are in dangerous territory and you need Christ.
Psy: There is alot of talk about this because as a nation we are losing our moral compass and it is filtering into the Church.
Tim: You may be on your way to the faith but you aren’t there yet if you are picking and choosing what you believe.

Pam ~“They allowed homosexual men to be ordained and then found out it was a mistake as the abuse crisis flared and Church teaching was being watered down.  John Paul II said it was a mistake to have allowed men suffering with this to be ordained. He said not to continue to ordain homosexual” men.”

Pam, are you trying to blame gays for molesting children when its a known fact that most pedophiles are heterosexual men? Of all the child molesters I’ve had a hand in putting in jail all were heterosexual males.

@Pam
We are not “Holding onto a label because you want the label to be less offensive or support someone in sin”.
Being gay is not a sin.
Being gay is not an action.
Being gay is not a lifestyle.
Being gay is not an organization or community.
Being gay is not approval of this or that.
Being gay is having an inherent inclination.
That’s all.
You seem to be actively trying to change the meaning of that term to mean something else that needs to be atoned for.
I am tall. That is an undeniable fact. I’m 6’8” to be specific. It isn’t who I am, it isn’t my identity, it isn’t my self-image, but it is true and it is relevant in some situations, and therefore I am perfectly willing to say that I am tall.
Being tall has much less effect on my life now that I’m no longer in schools that emphasize athletics like I was when I was young, but that doesn’t make me “ex-tall.”
I don’t define myself primarily as “tall,” but that doesn’t mean I’ve “moved past” being tall.
——-
“It is normal for instance for a heterosexual male going through puberty to have an attraction to a male (and mid-life crisis).”
Source? Aside from people who aren’t able or willing to come to terms with a situation using “Maybe it’s just a phase…,” I’ve never seen any science or even anecdotes to support that statement. And I’ve discussed this subject with hundreds of people.
——-
“Can’t see where you are getting that I am talking about actions rather than feelings or lumping everyone together.”
You are insisting on interpreting the word “gay” as meaning something completely different from what the people using it mean by the term, even when I’ve already explained what they mean by it.
And the thing about lumping people together is because you were assuming that merely by identifying as gay, they are somehow approving of and supporting the actions of others who identify as gay. It would be like saying that by identifying as Catholic, one is accepting of the sins committed by others who call themselves Catholic. That would be equally absurd for the exact same mistake in reasoning.
——-
“Btw, the Church has not always taught that the attraction is not a sin.”
Either because the Church had not made a previous statement about the inclination itself, or because the teaching it previously made was not an official statement by the Magisterium and was merely the teachings of fallible individual members of the Church who were mistaken.
To say that the Magisterium would make official statements about a matter not being sinful purely out of political expediency is to deny the authority of the Church itself and claim that the Catholic faith itself is flawed and fallible.
——-
“But, if they could control the sin, it wouldn’t be a sin for them, they would have overcome it.”
There you go incorrectly defining possessing homosexual inclination as a sin and then basing your reasoning on the flawed premise that it is a sin itself, as well as implying that somehow the inclination only exists in those who indulge in it, which is tantamount to saying that anyone who has a heterosexual inclination is indulging in sins within their mind any time they see someone attractive of the opposite sex.
——-
“Patrick, the Catholic Church also states the condition is objectively disordered.”
I am completely aware of this. It also states that the people who experience the inclination are not what is disordered, but the inclination itself.
Why do you keep implying that someone who does not miraculously (and in most cases, it would legitimately require a miracle) cease having the inclination (which again, is disordered but not sinful in and of itself), are somehow at fault for “lacking faith to be healed”?
Why would the Church clearly state the lifetime calling of these individuals if it did not understand that for most of them would live with it for their entire lifetime? (99+%, according to individuals who have attempted to remove the inclination, regardless of the method—Psychological methods, religious methods, no matter what technique is used, less than 1% of the people undergoing it report that the inclination goes away)
In fact, I would like to strongly discourage that line of argument in future arguments you might have, because another acquaintance of mine specifically mentioned that one of the primary reasons he felt alienated by the Church was that fellow Catholics openly assumed that the reason his orientation had not changed was because he wasn’t faithful enough or didn’t desire healing enough, without even asking how strongly he wanted it to go away and how desperately he was praying and begging for help every single day. In essence, they were not only blaming him, but accusing him of not having faith as well.
The Catholic Church states, “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
It does not say they are called to hope it goes away and then it will.
It says to offer the difficulties they encounter as sacrifice, just as everyone is called to offer the difficulties in their life as sacrifice.
Inappropriately claiming God will consistently remove the inclination from anyone who is faithful will only make anyone who believes you feel deeply betrayed by God if they are not miraculously healed. Faith in God should not depend on miraculous intervention or removal of any and all suffering in this life.
Teaching people that faith will make temptation cease entirely is a lie and will cause them to lose faith when temptation continues (as it is a fundamental part of the human condition).
——-
Again you are implying that everyone who has homosexual inclination (in other words, is gay), all support every statement made by every outspoken gay person anywhere. Gay people do not have a telepathic link with one another and should not be held accountable for something a person they have never even met has said.
If some alcoholics did argue that they were capable of driving safely while intoxicated, would you advocate for other alcoholics to respond by pretending they did not have an addiction they were fighting? To not make the people close to them aware that they have a particular struggle with alcohol and therefore require certain precautions to avoid inadvertently causing that person suffering? To not remain vigilant in their efforts to not fall off the wagon?

Psy: Short answer: NO.  BTW, You are not putting away heterosexuals if they are men abusing boys.
Patrick: 1. Being gay is alot of things. At this moment you would like it to mean only one thing, but it brings along with it some baggage and many peoples ideas of just what it means.
2.RE tall: Height is a physical attribute and not the same at all. Apples and oranges. As you stated, attraction has to do with feelings, background, life history etc. Very different and open to healing by God’s grace. 3.You should be able to find a medical text with that info Patrick.  Hormonal changes is the source. Teenage insecurity is the source. Confused life circumstance at a vulnerable age is the source. Talk to more people, especially Mom’s who have watched their kids grow through it or men who have lead children out of danger. 4. The definition of gay and me lumping etc.  Patrick, you can’t have a straight face when you say all gay people think gay means the same thing.  Like “tolerance” or “love” or a myriad other words, it means many things to many people. You are insisting what I mean when it is not what I have said. 5. Have you heard of the vision of Pope Leo XIII?  It has caused people to wonder about Vatican I and II.  I abide by the Church teaching but will live a life stricter than what Church teaching requires when there is room for serious doubt.6. First: A man seeing that a man is attractive is NOT homosexual.  It is called having eyes and seeing.  Attractive wouldn’t be attractive if people weren’t attracted. God created beauty in nature and in human beings.  Noticing it is praising God’s creation, not being gay!!!!!!Second, from a Catholic perspective, if you are attracted to another man sexually and want to lie with them you are gay.  If you just think they are handsome or spiritually beautiful you are not.  Neither of those is sinful.  Wanting to sleep with someone of the same sex is. (Wanting is the key word.) Knowing that someday you could come across someone of the same sex and want to sleep with them is not.  My statement referred to caving into the temptation, not having the inclination. Third: It ain’t much of an inclination if you have NEVER indulged in it and never think you will. It seems you have mislabelled something. I’d say it isn’t one at all!  But as to your complaint, as I stated, staying in a state of real temptation without resorting to God’s grace to overcome it is a sin. If you are seriously attracted to men and don’t fight that or if you put yourself constantly around someone who appeals to you or constant all-male environments, then my friend, you are sinning. 6. As to the healing: Miraculous occurences are a normal part of Catholic life!  You most CERTAINLY are called to HOPE.  It’s a cardinal virtue. Jesus Christ appears at Mass every day!  People who were hardened in sin are set free in the sacrament of Reconciliation!  Brokeness is healed daily among everyday Catholics.  Yes, Patrick, I want you to believe you can say to that tree, be uprooted and go to the sea and it will obey you because Jesus said you could! Never stop believing in miracles.  True not everyone is physically healed. I clearly stated Christ sometimes makes a person carry a cross for a lifetime and certainly no one wants someone to feel betrayed or accused because they are not healed.  Sadly, human beings do add to each others crosses that way.  But I would never stop proclaiming the GOOD NEWS!  Jesus Christ loves you and He wants to heal you. He will heal you physically or He will heal you spiritually but He will heal you.  He will take away the cross or give you unfailing strength to bear it. You have believed lies.  Nothing is impossible with God. And much more than one percent have been healed. Where do you get such foolish statistics?  Regardless, there are Spiritual Masters who have shown us how to draw closer to Christ and life with Him.  We cannot always do it on our own.  These mystics and holy men and women have alot to teach us. And a HOLY spiritual director with regular communion and confession would help too. The first step might be to resolve that your life is about loving God with your whole heart, soul, mind and body in every decision you make and every action you take and every word you speak or write.  He’s going to want to take up so much room alot of sins will fall away, squeezed right out.  7. Again, YOU are categorizing my statements as all inclusive.  I am responding to you and your scenarios. If some alcoholics were saying they could be drunk and drive unimpaired we know that’s a lie.  We don’t need anyone to jump in and tell us. Not alcoholics, not sober citizens. If someone is alcoholic and needs to tell the people closest to them, then let them speak to them privately. They do not need to tell the whole world. That actually puts them at greater risk, human nature being what it is. And all faithful Catholics need to be vigilant.  It’s part of the journey.

@Patrick

“I am wondering where the usage of “gay” to mean people who *specifically* engage in homosexual sex….”

I don’t remember the guys name but I have it somewhere in my “files.”  He lived in NY City and was the “leader” in using the word “gay” in the way you are describing.  I’ll see if I can find the write-up on him and what he was doing.

@Pam
1. No, you are adding that baggage when you interpret the word differently than the way you know it is being used by the people saying it.
Adding in meanings to what someone says when you have been informed repeatedly that that is not at all what the person meant by the term is disrespectful. Equivocating someone’s statement that they experience a homosexual inclination as meaning they agree with, participate in, and support everything that any gay people anywhere do is an outright lie and a glaring stereotype.
The only people who ever say “gay” means engaging in homosexual sex are people who are either trying to rationalize their opposition to gay people or are trying to actively stir up animus against them.
No gay people use it to mean that. No allies of gay people use it to mean that.
It’s only people who are looking for a way to intentionally misinterpret what gay people are saying that use the word in that manner.
——-
2. Did you miss the part where 99+% of even the ones who actively want to be straight and use religious programs to try to do it still feel same-sex attraction for the rest of their life? Are you going to insult their faith and claim they “aren’t praying hard enough,” or are you going to recognize that it is not something that normally goes away, and thus their calling is to offer up the difficulties they face as a sacrifice and resist temptation?
——-
3. I have discussed this subject with literally hundreds of people and you are the FIRST person I’ve EVER heard claim that “It is normal for instance for a heterosexual male going through puberty to have an attraction to a male (and mid-life crisis).”
I’ve never seen any scientific studies or literature suggest this, I’ve never heard any anecdotes of this experience, I’ve never seen anyone but you make that claim.
I’ve looked up lots of medical texts about this subject already and I’ve never even seen a reference to one saying that.
If you could tell me where you heard it from I would be very grateful.
——-
4. I’m not saying all gay people mean exactly the same thing, but every single one I’ve met or spoken with or corresponded with on the internet all agree that the identifier “gay” is referring to the attraction (or inclination, in the terminology of the Catechism), not to participating in a particular sexual activity. The only people I’ve EVER seen using the latter definition are people who are trying to argue against gay people.
I am not telling you what you mean when you say it. What you mean is made apparent by what you have said.
On the other hand, you seem to be trying to tell me that I mean something different than what I’ve told you I mean and that gay people who identify as such mean something different than what they have said they mean.
——-
5. There is a difference between living by strict standards and claiming that merely experiencing temptation is a sin, regardless of your opinion about Vatican I and II.
——-
6.1 You are trying to obfuscate the issue. There is a difference between being attracted to someone and simply recognizing that they are attractive.
6.2 No, from a Catholic perspective, “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” That is all. There is no requirement to “want to lie with them.” You are artificially adding a sinful component to the definition to rationalize your prior statements that it is a sin, when the Catechism is clear that it alone is not.
(Assuming you are not bisexual, and likely even then) you should be able to discern a distinction between how you are attracted to the gender you are attracted to and how you recognize that individuals of the other gender are attracted without feeling that same attraction toward them.
According to the Catholic Church, wanting to sleep with someone is not a necessary component of homosexuality any more than wanting to commit adultery is a necessary component of heterosexuality.
You are equivocating homosexuality and sinfully acting upon homosexual temptation whenever it suits your argument.
6.3 It is just as much or little of an inclination as heterosexuality is to straight people. It obviously varies from individual to individual, but again, to imply that the inclination alone is sufficient reason to accuse someone of sin logically leads to accusing all married people of adultery and all unmarried people of fornication.
And who said anything about staying in a state of real temptation? Is that suddenly part of the word “gay” now too, even though we’ve already covered that neither I nor the gay people who self-identify as such mean that at all and you’re just inserting new definitions into what they say to aid your argument?
Again, as far as people who call themselves gay, the Catholic Church, and myself (in an attempt to avoid misunderstandings with the aforementioned) are concerned, being gay is the inclination alone. The term does not include willfully exposing oneself to opportunity to sin any more than calling oneself an alcoholic implies that you are actively exposing yourself to alcohol. And don’t talk about that whole drunk-driving thing again because that is completely immaterial to the matter of self-identifying vs. exposing oneself to opportunity to sin, which is clearly my point here.
——-
7. (referring to the second section labeled “6.” in your post, sorry if this is confusing) Miracles happen, but that does not mean one should EXPECT them to happen ON DEMAND. It certainly should not lead to the expectation of the *cessation of temptation*. Even Jesus was tempted. Temptation is an inevitable part of this life, and nothing will change that.
You should not be telling people to expect temptation to cease so long as they are faithful, you should be telling them that if you are faithful, you will be given the strength to OVERCOME temptation. That doesn’t mean that temptation stops, it means that you are able to resist it when it does continue to happen, as it always will in this life because you are HUMAN.
I seriously advise you to stop taking miracles for granted. Divine intervention is not a vending machine.
Just because miracles happen does not mean that you can just go around blaming people who struggle with temptation for not having enough faith to be free of temptation (especially no one, not even Jesus, is free from temptation within their earthly human lifetime).
When you go on and on about how people who are gay (a.k.a. Have a homosexual inclination, per the Catechism) are sinning and if they just had enough faith it would go away, you are IMPLICITLY saying that if that does not happen, it is because they are not faithful enough.
When you tell people to expect the temptation to disappear if they simply have faith, you set them up for devastating spiritual harm when that temptation does not vanish. Since the inclination persists even in 99% (or more) of those who undergo Catholic spiritual counseling on the matter, you are giving a strongly misleading expectation to almost all of the people you would say this to. This is exactly where the impression many gay people have that God has forsaken them comes from. Someone told them that the inclination would “poof” away in a puff of smoke as long as they weren’t too weak to have real faith, and it didn’t go away, so they conclude that their best efforts aren’t good enough for God and fall into a deep despair.
Plus, you’re denigrating the legitimate and painful sacrifices made by those who’s inclination persists for their whole life.
“And much more than one percent have been healed. Where do you get such foolish statistics?”
I got those “foolish” statistics from EVERY SINGLE ANALYSIS of any form of reparative or ex-gay therapy that has been performed. Doesn’t matter if the method was psychologically based or spiritually based, doesn’t matter if the participants were voluntarily participating or forced to as minors by their parent(s) or guardian(s). In every single analysis that I have ever come across, the number of people who state that they no longer have the inclination is always less than one percent. Many report that they are able to resist the temptation and live a single, chaste vocation, but almost none report the inclination fading or disappearing.
If you have seen an analysis that I have not that shows a higher than 1% success rate with regards to the inclination itself, I would love to see it, so please send me a link.
Furthermore, it seems like you’ve suddenly shifted to trying to give me advice based on a curious assumption about my own personal circumstances, and not only that, but you seem to have chosen to do so in the sort of language that one would use to speak to a 5-year-old… I guess that’s not really a point of discussion, but I do find it strange.
——-
7. (the one labeled “7.” in your post, again sorry for not thinking of a clearer way to denote this) I am not categorizing your statements as all-inclusive, you are attributing the statements and beliefs of particular individuals within the demographic of “gay people” to other members of the group merely because they are a part of the same demographic. It’s rude and dehumanizing and disrespectful for you to just conclude that it’s reasonable to assert that a particular gay person believes a particular thing just because you’ve heard some activists somewhere say it.
And since I can’t tell by your comments, the term “alcoholic” applies also to people who have an addiction to alcohol even if they are sober and have been for many years. It does not just mean people who regularly overindulge in alcohol in the present. Most recovering alcoholics would absolutely insist on identifying themselves as alcoholic, even if they haven’t had alcohol in 30 years, specifically because it is a part of their life that they (and those around them) need to keep in mind specifically to avoid unnecessary temptation based on their inclination toward overindulgence in alcohol.
I never said gay Catholics should proclaim their sexual orientation to every single person they meet, I said it is not a sin for them to accurately state an inclination they feel, especially when awareness of that inclination can aid them and others in avoiding needless temptation.

Patrick, there is aa area in Long Beach, CA that has unusual street signage warnings that I have never seen in any other part of the city or in any other city.  It’s in a nice area, one that I lived in when I first arrived in CA.  I married within a couple years of arriving, had a baby and moved out of the country on a job assignment for few years.  But within my first year in that area I became aware that that area was known to be a habitat for homosexual males.  I never really saw any except one three occasions. One, when I stepped inside a bar occupied by what looked like men who all turned to look at me as I stepped inside.  Instinct told me to turn around, so I pivoted and walked out.  Another was when I was walking through a park bi-sected by the street I lived on, on my way to my favorite bar hangout one night.  A car grove slowly along the street and a male driver was looking at me and gave a head move that indicated he wanted to pick me up, if I was willing.  I shook my head, no.  The third and last time was when I had my toddler in that same park and saw two young men in an embrace, kissing.  I picked my kid up and walked home.

That area has signage put up by the city saying “No Cruising” with warnings saying that driving in that same spot once per hour for 3 hours is in violation of the law.  That obviously is due to homosexual pickups.  I’ve never seen that in any other neighborhoods.  That a city would have to pass such a law directed towards homosexuals, primarily males is indicative of the sexual nature of that inclination.

@stilbelieve
1. It seems like all of the individuals you personally encountered were fairly respectful.
2. There were a number of areas near where I live where I remember seeing “No Cruising” signs, but they were on major through streets where teenagers and college students tended to drive very slowly on Friday nights. This was nowhere near the only gay club in town, but mainly the primary street into and out of downtown, where a large number of bars, movie theaters, and restaurants are located.
3. Just because some gay people cruise does not mean that all gay people engage in sexual sin. After all, plenty of straight people cruise too, and I’m sure that traffic congestion due to cruising (the primary reason for the signs) happens with no regard for the orientation of the drivers.
4. I’ve already covered that the inclination itself is not a sin, even according to the Catholic Church. Straight people have a heterosexual inclination, but that does not mean they necessarily engage in sexual sin of a heterosexual nature, either.

stilbelieve The ‘No Cruising law’ was a big controversy to Hot Rod car people and teens with hot cars driving up and down the main drag all Friday or Saturday night. So they outlaws it in congested areas. We use to cruse up to Tacoma or Seattle and join everyone else cruising their hot cars, it has nothing to do with gays unless they are into hot cars. I’ve had Chevelles, Firebirds, Roadrunners, Corvettes, its about hot rod crusin’.

Check out my current hot rod:
http://oi43.tinypic.com/n4fbd3.jpg

Patrick - I’ve met same-sex ‘married couples’ who seem content with aspiring to live in a loving committed life-long relationship in which they (at least appear to be trying to) simulate a traditional matrimony, often to the point of being willing to have and raise a family together.

What are your thoughts on the legal ‘oughtness’ of the allowance of same-sex marriage by the US government (that is, placing it on equal terms with opposite-sex legal marriage)?

Andrew Rezen =“I’ve met same-sex ‘married couples’ who seem content with aspiring to live in a loving committed life-long relationship in which they (at least appear to be trying to) simulate a traditional matrimony, often to the point of being willing to have and raise a family together.”

Its a Government conspiracy to make you think gays are real people.

Patrick,  You aren’t even attempting to have an honest discussion.  I have NEVER said someone gay agrees with, accepts etc. what every other gay person says or does. As to the definition, again dishonesty on your part. Gay has a sexual component to it. Do you deny that? If there isn’t SEXUAL attraction, there is no gay issue.  If you are sexually attracted to someone you are thinking of the sex act, lying with,  otherwise the adverb “sexually” doesn’t belong. So stop the games please.  You are the equivocator, not me. I am not talking about an act but a desire. If you are not sexually attracted to them, thinking of them as someone who would be a potential sexual partner, you are only finding them attractive.  No obfuscating. The equivalent for male/female relationships is heterosexuality NOT adultery.  If a heterosexual is constantly experiencing temptations to sin and is doing nothing about it, they also would be sinning.  If I wasn’t clear enough the first time, I believe your 99% statistic is a lie.  It is not true and I am sorry you believe it because it is a stumbling block to healing. Whatever your sources, which you didn’t list btw, don’t believe them.  And it is impossible to have a faith-based record because they aren’t kept.  At best they would be the record of a group within the Church that deals with SSA but wouldn’t include anyone not in the group and those statistics are off base for the group in the Church I have heard of.  As to young men having sexual confusion, well you have heard it now.  It is true.  I might even say Biblical because if you look at the story of Adam, he searched for a companion among God’s creation for a long time and God saw the problem and then created Eve. Adam wasn’t sure who he was supposed to be with but he knew things weren’t quite right til God gave him Eve.  More dishonesty on point number five. I said REMAINING in a state of temptation and not doing anything to change the constant temptation like seeking God’s grace through the sacraments, through educating yourself in how his grace works or through spiritual direction or other real spiritual action is a sin.  A temptation in general is not a sin.  I agree. But staying in a condition that you know is harmful or is growing more obstinate, I believe is a sin and the road is narrow Patrick so stricter is wiser. We disagree about speaking honestly about the spiritual healings that take place.  You totally disregard my quote about healing or GIVING THE STRENGTH TO BEAR the cross.  You equate miracles with magic and try to skewer the truth by implying I think they are given on demand when my words have pointed out how hard Teresa worked and how we need the help of those who understood our faith and had a close relationship with God. But it is TRUE that miracles happen everyday. They are before your very eyes, always! You have lost this battle Patrick and shown that you aren’t interested in healing by the way you respond.  Your own words said I was lumping everyone together and now you admit that’s not true. You are coming for a place that is looking to find offense.  Nothing good comes from that place. It should have been clear from the scenario that I was talking about an alcoholic who was drinking.  Not someone who has been sober.  Again with the lack of good faith in the discussion. I will pray for you. Seems like we’ve hit the end of fruitful discussion.
Andrew and Psy: Really?  If you were honest you could find alot of good reasons why people do not believe a union of two people of the same sex is a marriage or in the best interests of children or a healthy society.  Sarcastic putdowns may seem like a good sound bite, but there are serious consequences that you don’t even seem to care about for the rest of society and for souls.

Pam =“but there are serious consequences that you don’t even seem to care about for the rest of society and for souls.”

No there aren’t.

Psy

“No there aren’t.”

And your evidence for saying this?

Psy

“The ‘No Cruising law’ was a big controversy to Hot Rod car people and teens with hot cars driving up and down the main drag all Friday or Saturday night.”

Not in Long Beach

Patrick

OK, let’s talk about parades. 

Thanksgiving Macy parade

Huntington Beach 4th of July parade

San Francisco Gay Pride parade.

Two non sexual oriented parades and one sexual oriented parade.

Why if sex is not the main objective?

Stillbelieve,  For starters the consequences we are already seeing are the damage to truth, morality and humility.  Religious freedoms, parental authority, free speech, the definition of marriage are all under attack. Children are being stereotyped and groomed based on appearance or birth order(second sons or daughters are more likely to be gay???!!) and alienated from their parents to be children of the state philosophy.  People who believe that the relationship is sinful are being discriminated against in the work place and financially.  Our media is being dishonest, telling one side only or skewing facts or blocking messages that don’t go along with their agenda.  Our President is refusing to enforce laws, making appointments unlawfully, forcing immorality on taxpayers and being generally dishonest as long as he gets his way. Men and women are being pitted against each other in power struggles for stereotyping male domination and on and on.  Sin begets more sin.

Psy

“Not in Long Beach.”

I should clarify my quote above.  The No Cruising signs are not on the “main drag,” they are on residential streets in the vicinity of a park.

stilbelieve, You could ask your city counsel, local police or city hall why they put the no cruising signs there. Most of the car shows I attend are in parks.

Psy

NO signs anywhere else in or around bigger parks throughout the city saying NO Cruising, especially being defined on the sign as passing three times in three hours the same spot in a residential, mostly apartments, area where homosexuals are known to reside. 

Would you like to take a stab at the question I asked Patrick about parades?

=I asked Patrick about parades?

I don’t go to parades. Maybe you should ask the people who put them on and get actual facts instead of asking us to speculate.

stilbelieve =“NO signs anywhere else in or around bigger parks throughout the city saying NO Cruising, especially being defined on the sign as passing three times in three hours the same spot in a residential, mostly apartments, area where homosexuals are known to reside.”

Well then, feel free to jump to any conclusion or conjecture that re-enforces your personal prejudice.

Psy

“Well then, feel free to jump to any conclusion or conjecture that re-enforces your personal prejudice.”

Why did you use the word “prejudice?”  I have a theory.  Is a theory a “prejudice?”

Psy

“I don’t go to parades.”

I don’t either, I’ve just seen them on TV news.  Have you ever seen news video on the Gay Pride parades? 

If the Macy Thanksgiving Day parade is about Thanksgiving, and 4th of July parades are about honoring America on what happen that day, doesn’t it just make sense that a parade called “Gay Pride” is going to be about gay sexuality?

Psy

Where is your evidence for saying to Pam, “No there aren’t” to the question she asked you?

stilbelieve =“If the Macy Thanksgiving Day parade is about Thanksgiving, and 4th of July parades are about honoring America on what happen that day, doesn’t it just make sense that a parade called “Gay Pride” is going to be about gay sexuality?”

I don’t see where they need to justify to you why they are having a Parade. Though my first guess would be that its a civil response to the bigotry gays encounter.

=“Where is your evidence for saying to Pam, “No there aren’t” to the question she asked you?”

Pam is the one with the tin foil hat on screaming wild claims and fear-mongering about gay marriage being the end of the world.

Psy, what should be the reaction by people trying to live by a standard of morality when some gay people are marching naked—YES, naked in the SF Gay Pride Parade?  Do you know who else is in the parade?  LGBT police and fire with their lovers in uniform.  And the police have direct instructions to not arrest people for indecent exposure from the Mayor and City Council.  Sorry, not EVERYTHING is acceptable nor tolerable in the name of “diversity.”  Sort of hard to fathom that goes on in Peoria, Omaha, Dayton or Tulsa.

Psy, Where do you get fear-mongering from stating what is ACTUALLY happening?  It is happening in Massachusetts right now.  Our country has been on a rampage as well to crush any faith-based nation under President Obama.  That isn’t the reason given, but it’s the outcome.

Pam =“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!”

Psy= “The Lost sheep or the prodigal son before his return home.” We are looking for you, waiting for you to return to your senses.

New Observer,  =“Psy, what should be the reaction by people trying to live by a standard of morality when some gay people are marching naked—YES, naked in the SF Gay Pride Parade?”

Do you want me to answer for each individual in the US personally?

=“Do you know who else is in the parade?  LGBT police and fire with their lovers in uniform.”

I don’t see the problem here?

=“And the police have direct instructions to not arrest people for indecent exposure from the Mayor and City Council.”

I would have given at least given out citations and probably made a few arrest, perhaps you should address your problem the the Mayor and City Council.

=“Sorry, not EVERYTHING is acceptable nor tolerable in the name of “diversity.”  Sort of hard to fathom that goes on in Peoria, Omaha, Dayton or Tulsa.”

As you mentioned in the first part it was “some” yet it seem you want to paint all gays with the same brush.

Psy

“Pam is the one with the tin foil hat on screaming wild claims and fear-mongering about gay marriage being the end of the world.”

Answer me this then.  Why do think homosexual marriage has never been recognized or authorized as an acceptable benefit to a culture or society from the beginning of recorded history?

Psy

New Observer said,  =“Psy, what should be the reaction by people trying to live by a standard of morality when some gay people are marching naked—YES, naked in the SF Gay Pride Parade?”

You answered, “Do you want me to answer for each individual in the US personally?”

No, just agree that the answer for the purpose of the Gay Pride parade is sex.  Why is that so difficult to admit when it is so obvious in its name and conduct?  Name me a gay organization or gay leader that has condemned such exhibitionism in a Gay Pride parade.

stilbelieve =“No, just agree that the answer for the purpose of the Gay Pride parade is sex”

Is sex all you ever think about? You really have to get out more. Why do you deny its about your hatred of gays?

Knock of with the inquisition of silly questions, if you have a point to make, just say it in your own words. It would also be nice if Pam would explain her point instead of making vague unspecified claims.

Psy

“Is sex all you ever think about?”

I don’t get my identity by calling myself a heterosexual.  Isn’t it interesting that heterosexuals never needed to create a word to describe themselves or their sexual inclinations?  Whereas homosexuals did and do?  Why?

You asked, “Why do you deny its about your hatred of gays?”

That’s easy.  I don’t hate.  Why do you keep bringing “hatred” into it; is it because of the psychological disorder called “projection” which is a “defense against anxiety?”  What do you have anxiety about?

stilbelieve, I don’t know any gays that go around calling themselves gay or attach labels to themselves. Why are you grasping at straws instead of presenting a real argument if you don’t hate gays? I’d also suggest you do some research before claiming gay marriage never happened in the past. But hey, you go ahead with your parades and dictionaries.

@Psy:  We can agree if you will admit there are limits in decency in how far some homosexuals want to “celebrate” their gayness.  I don’t want my son and daughter exposed to certain things are their young age, but school boards say i don’t have that parental right.  Why not   It all goes back to militants wishing to demand acceptance when they are in your face with it.  You say being gay is part of life.  So are many other bodily functions.  It doesn’t mean I wish to view such activity.  I can tell you people of Christian faith are not going roll over any longer.  We will no longer be intimidated by militants.

New Observer =“I can tell you people of Christian faith are not going roll over any longer.  We will no longer be intimidated by militants.”

I don’t see much you can do about it, the Church keeps losing in court. So what are you going to do about it short of turning to violence?

@Pam
I am absolutely having an honest discussion. I am just being blunt about it when I see you trying to “win the argument” instead of discussing the subject in return.
-
You keep acting like having a deep-seated homosexual inclination isn’t a real thing, even though the Church directly acknowledges it and acknowledges that many people will have to struggle with it for their entire life.
-
You keep trying to redefine “gay” to include actions so that you can pretend it isn’t something that people will have to continue to struggle with. You basically started with the position of “gay = a sin” and are twisting around the definitions however you can so that you don’t have to correct yourself on that point.
-
I am telling you, people who identify as gay are almost exclusively referring ONLY to the inclination with that label. Not to a subculture, not to an action, not to a lifestyle. To the inclination.
So to tell them they are hanging onto sin merely by acknowledging that an inclination exists within them is DELIBERATELY misinterpreting what they are saying.
-
Why is it that you believe that merely being attracted to someone of the same sex is already a sin, but being attracted to someone of the opposite sex is only a sin under special conditions?
Are you defining “attraction” as “wanting to sleep with”? Because that’s not any kind of normal or typical definition of that word, and it is CERTAINLY not what I mean by it, nor people who talk about same-sex attraction. But just to avoid confusion I’ll try to stick to the word “inclination” when possible to avoid confusion, as we’ve already established that the inclination, while disordered, is not a sin but something that could lead to sin.
-
“If I wasn’t clear enough the first time, I believe your 99% statistic is a lie.”
You can believe water flows uphill if you want, but reality is objective. These studies were done by asking the people who had gone through various forms of treatment, and while they allowed the person to live a comfortable life of chastity, almost none reported that the inclination itself went away. In the other cases, the person learned not to give in to temptation and avoid occasion to sin, but again, the inclination still persisted.
So are you calling most of people who have tried to stop being gay liars?
-
“As to young men having sexual confusion, well you have heard it now. It is true.”
So wait, actual scientific analysis that really exist and can be looked up don’t count when I bring them up because you aren’t willing to look, but when you say something that I can’t find any evidence of anywhere no matter how hard I look, and that nobody else (out of the literally hundreds) I’ve debated this subject with has ever mentioned even if it would help their case, but I’m supposed to accept it because an anonymous person on the internet says “It is true”?
Not even ex-gay groups make that claim, but if it were true it would immeasurably help their argument.
But I’ll tell you what, give me a scientific, peer reviewed study supporting that claim and I’ll give you plenty of sources showing that most of the successes of “ex-gay” therapy still have the inclination but live without indulging it.
-
“I said REMAINING in a state of temptation and not doing anything to change the constant temptation like seeking God’s grace through the sacraments, through educating yourself in how his grace works or through spiritual direction or other real spiritual action is a sin.  A temptation in general is not a sin.  I agree. But staying in a condition that you know is harmful or is growing more obstinate, I believe is a sin and the road is narrow Patrick so stricter is wiser.”
That would be fine if you didn’t also insist on defining having a homosexual inclination as “staying in a condition you know is harmful.” The inclination is not a sin. The inclination, in most cases, does not go away during this life.
The Church says “These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
That clearly indicates that the inclination is not something we should expect to just evaporate. Telling people it will simply go away so long as they aren’t of insufficient faith is stabbing them in the back.
-
Just for the record, I did not disregard your statement about giving the strength to bear the cross. That was, in fact, the exact point I was trying to make to you.
-
“But it is TRUE that miracles happen everyday.”
What part of the words “Miracles happen” that I said made you think I disagree? I am saying that it is extremely irresponsible to say “As long as you have sufficient faith, a miracle will make it so you don’t have temptation anymore.”
-
“Your own words said I was lumping everyone together and now you admit that’s not true.”
I’m beginning to think you didn’t actually read what I said, because not only did I not “admit” that, but I reasserted exactly how you were attributing behaviors and actions to gay people categorically.
-
“It should have been clear from the scenario that I was talking about an alcoholic who was drinking.  Not someone who has been sober.”
The whole point of the comparison I originally made was to compare chaste gay people with sober alcoholics in terms of having an inclination they are making an effort to resist.
What does it say that when given a comparison between chaste gay people and sober alcoholics, you jumped straight to “gay people aren’t chaste, so the comparison must actually be between them and drunk alcoholics”?
That is exactly the sort disrespect that alienates gay people from the Church and wounds them spiritually.
-
“Seems like we’ve hit the end of fruitful discussion.”
If so, it’s only because you are more concerned with winning than reaching understanding.
-
Oh, and one more thing:
“It is not true and I am sorry you believe it because it is a stumbling block to healing.”
“You have lost this battle Patrick and shown that you aren’t interested in healing by the way you respond.”
It seems you’ve made some big assumptions about me and have let those assumptions distort your attempts to discuss this with me.
For the third or fourth time in this discussion I’ll remind everyone that the examples of mistreatment gay people that I’ve listed are from various different people I know, but I am not identifying them out of respect for their privacy. They are not personal experiences on my part, but suffering I have learned about by CARING enough about people who are hurting to listen to them.
And to be honest, that seems to be a trait that almost no one else here seems to share with me, judging by how often people imply that I’m gay and promptly try to shut down the discussion immediately after.
-
One last thing, Pam. About the point I made that your belief that anyone with enough faith having the inclination go away, and how I believe that denigrates the powerful, meaningful sacrifices that gay Catholics make in remaining resolute in the face of temptation even though they already face greater pitfalls and struggles in their lives than most people do.
Any thoughts?
I really would like to discuss, but everyone here seems to prefer dodging any salient points and playing semantic games and telling me I have to just trust them about claims when they refuse to consider actual documented evidence that is presented to them.
I’m not the one shutting down discussion here, I’m trying to educate.

@stilbelieve
I’ve never seen San Francisco’s Pride parade, but the ones here in Nebraska consist of normally-dressed folks just walking in a parade. It’s not about sex at all, especially in a state where the current issue gay people are fighting for here is to stop workplace discrimination (hiring/firing/lower pay/etc.) against gay people. The parades here are about getting the same economic security as everybody else, not sex.
Please don’t paint all gay people, especially the practicing Catholic ones living a life of chastity with the same brush as San Francisco’s equivalent to Mardi Gras.
I certainly wouldn’t want to have all the stereotypical behaviors attributed to men celebrating Mardi Gras applied to me. I certainly wouldn’t want people claiming I’m part of a subculture that is purely about sex just because some other men want to get drunk and have women flash them once a year.
My “main objective” is not sex, even though I am attracted to women and some people who share that attraction engage in crass behavior in public during large festivals.
It’s just as disrespectful to claim that about them as it would to claim it about myself. Golden rule and all that, you know.

@Pam
“People who believe that the relationship is sinful are being discriminated against in the work place and financially.”
Actually, that’s illegal.
Everywhere in the United States.
Has been since 1964.
I’m not saying it doesn’t ever happen, but when it does, that company broke the law and can be taken to court.
Now, on the other hand, there are still 29 states where you can be fired just because the boss thinks you might be gay. With no legal recourse whatsoever.
If you get fired for being Catholic, you can sue the company. Doesn’t matter where you live in the US. That’s good!
If you get fired because the boss thinks you’re gay because you have a lisp or don’t talk about a girlfriend or wife, there is literally nothing you can do if you live in most of the states in the US. And that’s bad!

@New Observer
Funny you should mention Omaha.
Omaha has a Pride Parade every year.
And believe it or not, it’s not overtly sexual at all.
Guess it comes from living in a state where gay people can be evicted from their apartment for being gay, even if they are single and celibate and don’t even have visitors come to their home.
Or living in a city where not too many years ago, a gay kid could be beaten up with no repercussions for the attackers unless the kid defends himself.
Sure, it’s deliberately meant to be an optimistic celebration, but it’s about getting the same legal protections as other Americans here, not about sex.
Even the news media, which actively tries to get the most controversial angle on any story they can only has pictures of well-dressed and polite people.
It’s a shame you seem to want to assume the worst about people.

@stilbelieve
“Isn’t it interesting that heterosexuals never needed to create a word to describe themselves or their sexual inclinations? Whereas homosexuals did and do? Why?”
I’m going to guess it’s because they didn’t appreciate being assigned negative derogatory terms by others. I don’t think I need to repeat the numerous disgustingly hateful slurs people have come up with for gay people over the years.

That said, I actually haven’t asked anyone what their personal reasons were before. Maybe you have? I’m curious to know what the gay people you’ve spoken to about it have said, as the question simply hadn’t occurred to me so I haven’t had any conversations about it yet.

@New Observer
“We will no longer be intimidated by militants.”
Do I really need to remind you again that the only reason there are militant gay activists is because so many of them feel threatened and conclude they have to fight back?
Fighting them more angrily and vociferously is only going to make more militants of the people who see you being vicious instead of kind.
Love first. You’ll be amazed how much opinions of you will improve.
Some especially wounded individuals will continue to hold a grudge indefinitely, but isn’t it better to be patient with them, which will make others recognize your kindness, than to alienate more people and create more enemies (a.k.a. commit scandal by negligently driving others away from salvation)?

Patrick - I really appreciate the diligence and care you took in discussing logically with others who have little concept how debating/philosophy/logic work and appear insecure and full of angst.

Do you mind reading back and answering my post? Thank you!

Patrick, “The only reason there are militant gay activists is because so many of them feel threatened and compelled to fight back.” No matter how many times you say it Patrick it will never be “the only reason”. It may be a reason for some but there are many other reasons and some of them are wicked. “Win the argument” should not be in quotes since I didn’t say it. So much for honest discussion. The battle you lost that I was referring to is spiritual. I am not here to debate and you are not “educating” you are trying to justify. You don’t want the truth.  Knowing one is attracted to the same sex sexually means you are thinking past friendship to SEXUALLY. Yes it does and always will imply the possibility of sexual activity in the future.  Inclined to be heterosexual, inclined to be homosexual both mean inclined to sexual relations with a person of one sex or the other.  People are all born with human weaknesses.  No one should be hated for their weaknesses, but not all weaknesses should be tolerated.  If someone has fed a raging temper it could lead to serious harm to someone.  If someone has fed a spirit of envy it could lead to serious harm to others.  It is a spiritual truth that you do not feed sinful inclinations.  You do not talk about them, think about them, definitely do not dwell on them, do not put yourself in a position to be tempted by them, do not join groups to encourage them.  You work very hard to HATE them for the enemy to your soul that they truly are.  You may get spiritual counseling or join a group to overcome them. You should cry to the Lord. You beg His healing.  You believe He will heal you. And you occupy yourself with every good you can - physically, mentally, spiritually, financially, whatever way possible.  God has told us He sees our efforts. He will answer you.  You will know His will for you.  This is a spiritual reality and I know it from experience and from the spiritual reading I have done.  It is work. But it is not ever drudgery. When you know God it is doable because it is done one day at a time, one hour at a time, one minute at a time, one second at a time.  Today’s Gospel reading was about the demoniac that Jesus’ disciples could not heal.  There was a big fuss until Jesus appeared and with a sentence, healed the man.  The disciples asked “Why couldn’t WE heal him?”  Jesus’ response was because they had SO LITTLE FAITH!  He was so exasperated after having lived in their physical presence for so long, that He asked, “How long must I put up with you? How long must I be among you?  If you had the FAITH OF A MUSTARD SEED you would say to this mountain, “Be moved!” and it would move.”  Patrick, that to me was a confirmation of what I have been saying to you.  I mentioned earlier another quote where He said if we said to a tree be uprooted and go into the sea, it would.  Today He wanted them to realize THEY WERE THEIR OWN STUMBLING BLOCK BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIS TEACHING.  You are your own stumbling block. Fear keeps you from hoping. Fear of disappointment, fear of failure, fear of pain - your own and other people’s. Fear, fear, fear. Fear is not from God. Hope is from God. By your own statistics one percent of people have been completely healed. (In my heart I know it is much higher. You give me your sources for your research and I will go to the trouble to find you the sources you want.) But do not be anxious or upset that people have tried and failed and will be discouraged or feel guilty. Faith is a gift, but it is a gift God wants so very much to give. So everyone should be asking.  And if they have it they should ask for more and more and more.  God will not be annoyed.  The Church may teach that these issues are real and we must show mercy and kindness but it does not negate the truth of Jesus Word that He has given us, through His name, much more power than we have even begun to imagine.
Psy asked me to answer why I think no society has ever recognized or authorized homosexual relations. There are alot of reasons.  The first is probably because the genitals are made for heterosexual relations and it is obvious in tools, in puzzles, in life in general that some parts are male/female and really only come together well when that relationship is recognized. Also people who believed in God or gods could see the fruit of heterosexual relations was a new life but there was no new life in homosexual relations. Those who know God know the relations are sinful and sinful in its best sense means destructive to our own good. Second, it is disordered but also creates disorder.  Two people of the same sex are meant to be friends.  Friendship is an incredible support in life.  When it becomes suspicious or uncomfortable or weird because there are no boundaries and anyone can make a sexual approach to anyone, the good of all is harmed.  My generation never grew up worrying if our children were safe around their friends or suspicious of people’s “orientation” because they do not want to be victimized or spiritually harmed or exposed to a lifestyle they do not agree with.  This generation does.  Further, for some with a strong sex drive, ego, position of power, need to be affirmed, there is a percentage of homosexuals who will be predatory or abuse their position.  They will look for the emotionally vulnerable.  They will look for the physically vulnerable.  They will look for the most innocent and naive (truly heinous to the Lord) and they will seduce, groom, coerce, rape, prey.  Even now a sort of predatory behavior is being accepted as children are being forced to learn in schools that homosexuality is a choice and as acceptable as heterosexual relations and as the media and the courts try to force acceptance of something that has so many issues.  This is happening to children who don’t know anything about sex, weren’t thinking about sex, don’t care about sex because they are just really still babies. It is happening to teenagers and preteens and to adults.  The predatory behavior is also being accepted when TV makes serious matters comedy to suck people into a lie. When two men ogling a neighbor in a pool and drooling over him is not sad or outrageous, but funny. Third, societies may not accept it because it does not support life.  If we were all homosexual the human race would cease to exist or we would use tubes and laboratories and science to create it. Human beings would become more a commodity and less a soul. The earlier generations saw a dead end perhaps. Fourth, Societies may have seen first hand that something of the soul is altered when people go down this road.  People have rebelled against the narrow road or the obvious plan of God for creation and it has changed them. It alienated them from their God.  Fifth, Generally, men and women, have different strengths and weaknesses.  For the good of children, it is best to be raised by a household of a father and a mother.  Children are best served and completed by the gifts each sex brings to the family and that creates a better society. Sixth, most homosexuals are victims of some trauma or emotional upheaval or emotional denigration.  Forty percent have been raped, many have emotional issues from peers or family.  They need love and support, not enabling of a brokeness. Those are some reasons I have come up with Patrick and Psy. I’m sure there are many more.

Pam, very well said. God Bless you for making this effort. I do not understand why Patrick does not see that as patient and loving. If someone is going to fall into a pit, it is loving to prevent them from doing so. If someone has fallen into a pit, we must “hand them a ladder” to get them out, that is love. Jumping into the pit with them and keeping them company, is no good for either one. That is not love.

Patrick, you have this picture in your head of those who say homosexual sex is sinful that we are shouting hateful words at them. You assume that we must be ugly and mean toward them. Are you unable to understand “hate the sin, love the sinner”, and cannot imagine that we treat homosexuals as we would treat (hopefully) anyone else, with kindness and respect? In order to love the sinner do you need to accept the sin as well?

Pam….......You should submit this for publication. This is the very reason why our society should not redefine marriage. Peace and love to you!

With all due respect, the word “gay” refers to relationship. Being male or female is a permanent state of being. We are called to discriminate between Good and thus Loving relationships that respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, and those relationships that do not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, with the understanding that it is God Who defines that which is Good, to begin with.

The fact that I desire that my daughter, who struggles with same- sex sexual attraction, to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love, as I desire all my children to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love, does not make me a bigot. I Love my daughter as I Love all my children.

What the questioner has encountered for the first time is this: the reality that when you stand up for the truth, you will be hated. The conflicting inner feeling comes from wanting to be liked and seen as good by others. We all have that. But when it comes to the truth, we have to sacrifice the desire and the pleasure of being liked for the higher good.

And what did Jesus say:  “Woe to you when all speak well of you…for they treated the false prophets in just that way.” But “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

This is what we can expect, more and more, as the culture gets farther and farther away from Judeo-Christian morals, not only rejecting them, but attacking anyone who keeps them.

Jimmy, you like chocolate better than vanilla?  That is the most hateful thing I’ve heard in my entire life!  I can’t believe you vanilla haters!  I’m sick and tired of trying to defend my love of vanilla to every flavor-challenged person out there!  When will this ever end?  Is nothing sacred?  Get a life, people!

J/K. :)

As the mother of a daughter who is struggling with a same-sex sexual attraction, I know my daughter has a developmental problem. It is because I Love my daughter as I Love all my children, that I desire she learns to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love. Despite the fact that I have continued to voice Love and concern for my daughter, I continue to be heartbroken not just for her, but for my whole Family, which has become divided and broken because they have become so conditioned by society’s definition of Love that they have, in essence, traded The Truth for a lie.

@Pam
1) It’s the only reason I’ve ever encountered someone having for becoming militant about gay rights. And I’m absolutely certain I’ve spoken with at least an order of magnitude more gay people about the subject than you.
2) “Win the argument” was in quotes because it’s an absurd goal, not to imply that you said it.
3) I’m still trying to figure out *what* spiritual battle you’re accusing me of losing.
4) You really shouldn’t be accusing me of not wanting to know the truth when you refuse to listen to actual observed and documented facts and expect me to trust you about something nobody but you claims is true, and for which you have absolutely no evidence except your own assertion of it.
5) Are you seriously arguing that understanding your personal temptations so you can be vigilant against them is sinful?
Isn’t it better for the person with the bad temper to be aware of it so they can check their own behavior?
Isn’t the envious person better off if they understand they tend toward envy, so that they can avoid occasions for sin related to that tendency?
Pretending your weaknesses don’t exist is merely lying to yourself and allowing yourself to wander blindly into temptation you could otherwise avoid.
And isn’t it better to ask for the strength to overcome temptation than to ask to be the sole unique exception in all of the human race who doesn’t experience temptation?
6) You are still intentionally and strongly implying that anyone who continues to have temptation, then they aren’t good enough, they aren’t faithful enough, they aren’t *deserving* of God’s mercy.
I cannot comprehend how you could think that would do anything BUT destroy other people’s faith.
7) “Fear keeps you from hoping. Fear of disappointment, fear of failure, fear of pain - your own and other people’s. Fear, fear, fear.”
You know where people get fear of those things from? From being told they aren’t faithful enough to deserve healing. From being told that if they don’t see a miracle, it’s because they aren’t good enough to deserve God’s love. From being told that God’s mercy is the only way to achieve salvation, but you’re not faithful enough to have earned that, as proven by the fact that you occasionally feel temptation even though you don’t act or even dwell upon it.
In other words, you’re criticizing people for experiencing fear that YOU taught them to feel.
8) “By your own statistics one percent of people have been completely healed. (In my heart I know it is much higher. You give me your sources for your research and I will go to the trouble to find you the sources you want.)”
According to the sources I’ve seen, 1% (or less) of people REPORT being healed. The tricky thing there is that there is still a strong social pressure for them to over-report it. There is certainly the possibility, but counting on that is like saying, “There is a chance (however small) of winning the lottery, therefore if I am faithful and pray hard enough, God will make sure I win the lottery.” It’s putting your will ahead of God’s. It’s treating faith and miracles like quarters and a vending machine.
9) “The Church may teach that these issues are real and we must show mercy and kindness but…”
There should be no “but” in that sentence. There is no “but” in the Church’s teaching on the matter. No “if,” no “unless,” no “so long as.” You must. I must. Everyone ought to, but all Catholics MUST.
10) “My generation never grew up worrying if our children were safe around their friends or suspicious of people’s ‘orientation’ because they do not want to be victimized or spiritually harmed or exposed to a lifestyle they do not agree with.”
Funnily enough, neither did mine. Just because someone has an inclination toward same-sex attraction does not mean they are toxic. It does not mean they are monsters or criminals or predators.
Spreading such careless, hurtful implications drives good, practicing Catholics (who should be called to offer their struggles as sacrifice) away from the community and support structures that would help them should they have a crisis of faith (as we all are prone to from time to time, being flawed, earthly humans). If you made them unwelcome in the community that would help them keep their faith, you are partially culpable for the lack of support they receive when they need it most, and consequently for the possible loss of faith that results from being left to suffer alone without being shown the Love of Christ.
I personally am not willing to take that risk.
You would rather make a show of accusing gay people of being pedophile rapists, regardless of the harm those words cause, apparently.
11) “If we were all homosexual the human race would cease to exist”
If we were all priests or nuns, the human race would cease to exist. If we were all doctors, there wouldn’t be enough food and we would die out, but if we were all farmers, there would be no doctors capable of healing the sick.
Not everyone has the same calling in life. Besides, those with a homosexual inclination are called to a vocation that does not involve having children anyway. The Church has already made itself clear on that point.
Besides, whether they are chaste and do not have offspring or fall away from the Church and do not have offspring wouldn’t sway the growth rate of the human race regardless.
12) “Human beings would become more a commodity and less a soul.”
Does accusing them indiscriminately of raping school children make them more a soul? Does it show the respect and basic human dignity the Church so loudly insists all people must be shown?
13) “It alienated them from their God.”
No. Angry, callous, disrespectful, insensitive, unkind Christians alienated them at a time when they were already struggling spiritually and trying to reach out for help.
It is scandal, and it fills me with despair to see this sin of scandal proclaimed as noble.
14) “Sixth, most homosexuals are victims of some trauma or emotional upheaval or emotional denigration.”
Given that a large majority of gay students report being harassed, bullied, or even physically attacked because of their orientation, I have to say that your statement there is certainly true, but not in the way you were meaning it. Given that they are turned away by adults who should be helping them because of their orientation, it’s no surprise it becomes a powerful emotional issue in their minds afterward.

@Joan62
While I certainly thank Pam for being patient, I would not classify all of what she said as loving.
I do not assume that you are shouting at them when you say homosexual sex is sinful. I do not assume that you must be ugly and mean toward them.
I HEAR the shouting coming from angry, bitter people on street corners. Real people on actual street corners physically shouting. I hear them doing it, and so do the gay people I know.
I do not assume that saying gay people should be arrested and put in internment camps behind electrified wire and kept their for the rest of their life is ugly and mean. It IS ugly and mean. And I see people saying it and supporting people who say it. So do the gay people I know.
I understand “hate the sin, love the sinner,” and I have also observed that while it is certainly true, it is usually used to rationalize insensitive, hasty, uncompassionate actions or words, rather than for its real purpose.
I have not seen you treat gay people disrespectfully, but I absolutely have seen others in this discussion do so. In fact, some (like New Observer) have vocally argued in support of deliberately showing disrespect toward them.
—-
Furthermore, why do you assume I am saying anyone should accept sin? I never said anything of the sort.
I simply know what respect looks like, and I know what disrespect looks like. And too many Catholics are using “hate the sin, love the sinner” to excuse their own disrespect.
I am trying to keep them from falling into *that* pit. I am trying to hand a ladder to those how have fallen into it. I can’t make them climb it, but I will continue to offer it and explain why it is important. The Church’s teachings about gay people include how the rest of us are supposed to treat them, but that portion of the Church’s teachings gets left behind far to often in the heat of the moment.

@Nancy D.
“With all due respect, the word “gay” refers to relationship.”
With all due respect, that is a definition of the word that is artificially applied to a different usage of the word that does not mean that at all.
Not one person who identifies as “gay” means that when they say it, so it would be immensely disrespectful to claim I know what they mean better than they do by equivocating the term they used.

@Patrick,

“...but that portion of the Church’s teachings gets left behind far to often in the heat of the moment.”

What “heat of the moment” are you referring to?

@Patrick

“No. Angry, callous, disrespectful, insensitive, unkind Christians alienated them at a time when they were already struggling spiritually and trying to reach out for help.”

“It is scandal, and it fills me with despair to see this sin of scandal proclaimed as noble.
14) “‘Sixth, most homosexuals are victims of some trauma or emotional upheaval or emotional denigration.’
Given that a large majority of gay students report being harassed, bullied, or even physically attacked because of their orientation, I have to say that your statement there is certainly true, but not in the way you were meaning it. Given that they are turned away by adults who should be helping them because of their orientation, it’s no surprise it becomes a powerful emotional issue in their minds afterward.”

Sexual orientation occurs in the 2nd and 3rd year of life.  No one is berating children at that time about their sexuality.  Your comments are focusing long after the inclination has begun.  Pam’s comment about that is far more accurate than yours.

What authorities in sexual orientation psychology have you researched leading to your position?

@stilbelieve
I was speaking of how the statement is accurate in a different sense than she meant it. The statement is correct that most of them are victims of trauma, emotional upheaval or denigration *if* you are including events that take place in reaction to their orientation. I was not trying to imply that the mistreatment they receive for being gay is what causes them to be gay.

On the other hand, like you said, no one is berating children at that younger age, so obviously that is not what causes their inclination as Pam claimed.

@Patrick

“On the other hand, like you said, no one is berating children at that younger age, so obviously that is not what causes their inclination as Pam claimed.”

Could there not be some other trauma in their lives at that age that causes this abnormal attraction to occur?

Patrick, where do you live that you hear people standing on street corners shouting hateful stuff at others? They sound like they are off their meds or were released from the psych ward too soon. I have lived in 5 different cities,(Chicago, Omaha, Orlando, Tampa and my current city) and have never seen that. I don’t doubt that you may have encountered it once, but you make it sound like this happens on a regular basis. I do remember years ago living in Chicago, and there was a street preacher on State Street who would preach loudly, but it was about loving the Lord, etc.

Jesus spoke very harshly to the Pharisees, but he loved them and wanted their hearts to change. But, our idea of what is “harsh” may also differ.

Since you apparently interact with homosexuals often, tell me, when or if the subject comes up, what do you say to them about the Church’s teaching on homosexual sex and marriage? I would probably not bring the subject up myself unless it was brought up, but then I hope I would be honest and truthful about it. Would that be hateful?

Patrick, You said to Joan you don’t classify what I said as loving but it is.  Perhaps you just can’t bear to admit that you are wrong.  In general your arguments are at an emotional level that inflame passions but don’t serve truth. Your responses to truths are exagerration or misdirection, not facing them head on.  Per your post:1. “Everyone I’ve ever talked to says”.  Are you a parent?  Are you at all politically aware?  Any parent knows to take a statement from a child doing what they should not do with a grain of salt.  Anyone politically aware knows that WHO gets to define terms and WHO frames the issue has an advantage so they step back and rethink independently every definition and issue.  If you believe EVERY militant gay is militant only because of this ONE reason you need to think about this more deeply.  Some are militant because they are amoral and they want their way.  They will say anything to get it.  That’s just one example.  That phenomenon is not limited to gay militants.  It is throughout life.  2. “win the argument”...The quotes implied I was saying that.  Again inflammatory, emotional, not seeking truth. 3. There is only one spiritual battle, the battle to overcome the world and be faithful to God’s truth.  This article was about a man declaring he was guilty as charged of believing marriage is only the union of a man and a woman.  You are fighting against those who state the truth and calling them unloving (me), and trying to water it down or destroy it (childless homosexual relations is a vocation?#11). 4. “Actual, observed, documented facts..” Short answer you haven’t given any sources so again, inflammatory, perhaps dishonest, emotional. 5. “So are you saying…” NO, I am not.  Read my answer.  If I am an alcolholic and work in a liquor store I am sinning.  If I am envious and spend my time with people I know try to make me more insecure and envious, I am sinning. If I am homosexual and spend my time advocating for homosexual sex to be recognized as marriage, I am sinning.  God has given us the truth.  We can choose to follow or ignore. 6.  “understanding personal temptations…”  understanding and dwelling on them are two different things.  It doesn’t take much to understand what is a temptation.  Read what I said.  Don’t feed it. Don’t dwell on it.  Don’t obsess.  Distract yourself with postitive life-giving things. It is part of spiritual growth not to dwell on them. Again your characterization is inflammatory, emotional and deceptive.7. “Fear….”  It is true that alot of homosexuals are afraid of what God is asking, and it may be true that a SMALL portion of people who call themselves Catholics act hateful, but that is true of any large body. And again you exaggerate, dramatize, lie even instead of leading to truth.  A woman who thinks she HAS to have an abortion might be afraid of a Catholic too, but the truth is that woman is ready to kill her own child from fear or hopelessness or ignorance of the emotional and spiritual consequences and a Catholic would support her and give her financial, emotional and physical help to bring the child to life without condemning her initial desire.  At that point the mother has done what mothers naturally do - protect and nurture the life of their child. She has been kept whole as well as the child and she is free to give the child up for adoption or to continue as the child’s mother. But whatever she does, she has chosen LIFE.  Even after many abortions, the Catholic Church would welcome that mother without judging her and help her find spiritual healing.  The same is true with homosexuality.  You, Patrick, want to make us the enemy because we know that God will heal the person or give them unfailing strength to handle the temptation.  We will work to develop our vocation to love in each other and everyone who comes to us.  We will strengthen the individual’s relationship with their Almighty God.  They will have a peace beyond all understanding.  You are the one who is the fearmonger restating lies and making gross exaggerations. You harm yourself and those you think you are speaking for. 8. “reports of healing”.  The tricky thing here is you never divulge any report or source.  Troll. 9. “The Church may teach but…”  The “but” isn’t a qualifier to the Church teaching, it is a qualifier to how you like to distort the Church teaching and the correction to your distortion.  Please reread my comment.  10. “My generation didn’t grow up in fear either…”  Then you aren’t part of the current generation, I guess.  My kids grew up with “stranger danger”, firemen and policemen coming to school to educate elementary students on protecting themselves, (parents and teachers and adults need to be vigilant FOR children.  Children do NOT need to learn these things at such tender ages.)  Actually if you are living now you are seeing the fear.  With our loss of faith has come a loss of civility and kindness.  Bullying is rampant, parents are nervous seeing someone near their kids, intimidation is accepted even in schools where teachers are afraid to stand up to parents because the administration may not back them up. Schools try to break parental influence.  All this is related to sin. 11. “If all homosexuals…” Now you show your real colors.  There is no vocation to sin.  Homosexual relations are sinful.  You break with God right there.  I listed some of the reasons why perhaps no nation has recognized homosexual marriage before.  This reason involved the fact that nature confirms that this is not a life-giving union as God intended.  12. “human beings a commodity…”  Accusing them indiscriminately of raping?  EXAGGERATION,INFLAMMATORY,DECEITFUL, DISTORTED, AMORAL, meant to distract from the truth of the statement. 13. “It alienated them from God”.  Patrick that is what sin does. By choosing the lifestyle they choose against God and for themselves, here and now.  It causes a change because it breaks off a relationship of innocence and dependence.  Your response again is to blame everyone else. No matter how badly people at Church treat us, we aren’t there for them alone.  We are really there for our relationship with Him because we know without Him we cannot do anything good.  No one can tear that relationship away from us.  It is too precious. They are actually giving us reason to rejoice because He was treated badly and told us to rejoice when we face attacks for our righteousness. Pray for them, bless them don’t use them as an excuse to fail.  They are the cross.  Take it up.
14. “Victims of trauma”...  Patrick most of my life God has showed me the many sinful aspects of homosexual relations.  I have seen parents actually decide a beautiful, sweet innocent kid was homosexual because, “he tells me everything.  His brother doesn’t do that.”  Or, “look at him! (gangly, uncoordinated, shy).  I have to resist the urge to grab the child and run.  These kids have been labelled by their own parents. They never stood a chance. Some make a point to dress their kids in a way that will attract homosexual labels or attention. Talking to them it is obvious the children are all boy, but they are little and their parents are ignorant. The child is traumatized and groomed.  I have known a girl who was in love with a boy, joined a sorority where she was given alot to drink and had relations with a girl and it totally messed up her head and caused her to break off her relationship. She was not homosexual, she was raped, traumatized, confused.  I have known a young woman under alot of pressure to succeed who were coerced into homosexuality by people who could influence their success. She was not the only one who fell prey to this.  She was not homosexual, but she became one. And it changed her tremendously. I have seen young kids with difficult family circumstances who doubted their orientation because of bad familial relationships.  One person said, “my mom and sister like all the same things.  They get along, mom and I fight alot. I don’t like them.”  That doesn’t make you homosexual, it makes you an individual struggling in a relationship and a bit envious with a strong ego.  The family tree has lots of heterosexuals just like you. You just need to look.  I have known a preschool that asks three and four year olds if they are boys or girls instead of affirming the sex they are.  One parent of an energetic girl, for whom English was a second language, was questioned about her sexual orientation because she said “boy”. She probably didn’t even understand the question. What kind of people do that to children? I have known young men and women who wanted to date the opposite sex but were shot down alot and decided there must be something wrong with them or they must be gay if no one likes them.  I have seen programs where there is a strong homosexual leadership that grooms heterosexual kids into the lifestyle. I have heard a man say, “She is not pretty enough. No man will love her.” Implying it’s better to convince her she is homosexual. I have seen people attack families because they believe homosexuality is a sin. They are trying to make someone in the family homosexual.  It is wicked. It is mess. So these are the traumas that make people homosexual who were never homosexual to begin with.  And they are real and they happen every day. As to people who are truly born homosexual, (and they are few), they are often labelled and tormented by an element of society.  It is a very heavy cross and we should come to their defense if ever we see it occurring.  We should help them see themselves as they truly are: Children of GOD. Made for eternal life. Pilgrims on a journey. Not sex objects. Not hopeless

I am wondering why my comment was deleted? I hope someone has not infiltrated my e-mail again.

When the psycology does not fit the biology, a type of disorder is said to exist. We have been created male and female, there is no other. There is nothing that is hateful about the desire that boys grow up to be Good sons, brothers, husbands and fathers and the girls grow up to be good daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. There is nothing that is hateful about the desire of a father and mother to protect and nurture their children so that they develop healthy and Holy relationships that are grounded in authentic Love.

The word “gay” refers to relationship, not personhood. There are many different types and degrees of disordered relationships, including disordered sexual relationships, some more difficult to overcome than others. Love exists in relationship. Authentic Love requires that we desire that which is Good for the other. God defines what is Good. To desire that which is Good for those who struggle with a same-sex sexual attraction, is to desire that those persons, male and female, heal their wounds, and learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships that are grounded in authentic Love.

“Let no one deceive you.”  We will not be deceived if we keep our eyes on Christ, The Truth of Love, The Only Son of The Father, The Word of God. There is only One Truth of Love.

This from “The Marriage Debate: Lessons and Prospects” by Bonchamps in The American Catholic:

“The CEO of Chick-fil-A was declared a gay-hating bigot on the basis of remarks that no sane or honest person would regard as hateful (which is why millions of people ended up supporting him). Is the explanation for this really that ‘gays have been bullied’? Of course not. The explanation is that they have absolutely no moral qualms about aggressively lying to achieve their goals, just as the pro-abortion group NARAL had no moral issues with saying that tens of thousands of women died from back-alley abortions every year. They didn’t.”

Patrick, that is my observation as well.

Pam,
“Patrick, You said to Joan you don’t classify what I said as loving but it is. Perhaps you just can’t bear to admit that you are wrong.”
No, I stand by my statement that teaching young people that if they don’t get a miracle, then it shows they don’t have enough faith is not loving.
—-
“In general your arguments are at an emotional level that inflame passions but don’t serve truth. Your responses to truths are exagerration or misdirection, not facing them head on.”
You know, it’s funny, for the last three or four replies I’ve made to you I’ve decided not to criticize you for that very thing because I thought if I tried to remain polite instead of just throwing out accusations I might be able to get you to consider what I had to say.
—-
“Any parent knows to take a statement from a child doing what they should not do with a grain of salt.”
And any parent also knows that assuming that someone is lying and doing something they shouldn’t without even listening first is the perfect way to destroy your own authority and cause the child to forcefully rebel.
Huh. A lot like what I’ve been saying about how disrespectful, insensitive rhetoric drives people away from the Church.
—-
“Anyone politically aware knows that WHO gets to define terms and WHO frames the issue has an advantage so they step back and rethink independently every definition and issue.”
Except this isn’t about having an advantage in an argument, this is about not showing disrespect by intentionally interpreting what someone says as corresponding to a definition that you know full well they weren’t using. It’s dishonest and disrespectful.
I show respect by making a point of understanding what someone means. I show respect by not insisting that the words they are using mean something other than what they say it means. I show respect by correcting others when they equivocate in the aforementioned disrespectful manner.
—-
“If you believe EVERY militant gay is militant only because of this ONE reason you need to think about this more deeply.”
If you think that reason is irrelevant because there might be exceptions to it, you need to think about this more deeply.
It really seems to me like you are trying to rationalize away your culpability in contributing to the problem.
—-
“Some are militant because they are amoral and they want their way. They will say anything to get it. That’s just one example. That phenomenon is not limited to gay militants. It is throughout life.”
The problem is that you are dumping them all in that category by default and then refusing to listen to the real reasons. You’re just assuming that they’re nothing more than petulant children and not people who have endured real suffering and have lasting emotional scars, and that care and kindness, rather than animosity and oppositional posturing is the only way to help them.
—-
“You are fighting against those who state the truth and calling them unloving (me), and trying to water it down or destroy it (childless homosexual relations is a vocation?#11).”
No, I am not even trying to fight at all. I am trying to educate people who are negligently causing harm to others by not treating them with the respect, compassion, and sensitivity that we are called to treat them with.
And I did not anywhere, at any time say homosexual relations is a vocation. I said that those with a homosexual inclination are called to a chaste vocation. I am repeating the Truth of the Church in this regard. To say I claimed homosexual relations is a vocation is an outright lie.
To more clearly explain what I said:
Whether they follow the vocation the Church states they are called to *and thus do not have children* or do not follow that vocation *and still do not have children,* it will not impact human population growth because either way they are not bearing children. That is simple common sense. One is a sin, the other is not, but neither will cause human extinction as you implied. You made a poor argument and I was explaining why it is not a good one to use.
—-
“4. “Actual, observed, documented facts..” Short answer you haven’t given any sources so again, inflammatory, perhaps dishonest, emotional.”
So where’s that source for your claim that I asked you to show me so I could read about it more from several days ago?
Oh right, you refused to give it and said I just had to believe it because you said it.
How’s that different?
I do apologize that I haven’t just posted my sources. I have been fairly busy lately and haven’t had the time to go dig them up again, but I will for my next response, if you’d like.
—-
“5. “So are you saying…” NO, I am not. Read my answer.”
Didn’t you just say a moment ago that using quotation marks means you are saying the person said those exact words? The only time I’ve used the phrase “So are you saying” in this discussion was two weeks ago, speaking to another person entirely.
—-
“If I am homosexual and spend my time advocating for homosexual sex to be recognized as marriage, I am sinning.”
That part of the discussion was NEVER EVEN ABOUT advocating for same-sex marriage. It was about devout, faithful, PRACTICING gay Catholics. Ones who, because they are practicing Cathoics, would not engage in same-sex marriage, whether it is recognized by the state or not.
That is what the comparison to alcoholics who are STRIVING TO REMAIN SOBER has been about since I first MADE the comparison in the first place.
You have been trying to deflect and mislead from that point this entire time.
I have even repeatedly tried to correct you about it.
—-
“6. “understanding personal temptations…” understanding and dwelling on them are two different things. It doesn’t take much to understand what is a temptation. Read what I said. Don’t feed it. Don’t dwell on it. Don’t obsess. Distract yourself with postitive life-giving things. It is part of spiritual growth not to dwell on them.”
Stop dishonestly saying I am disagreeing with that point.
What I was disagreeing with is the absurd idea that merely *having* a homosexual inclination and *honestly recognizing* that it exists somehow constitutes willfully dwelling on, feeding, obsessing over, etc. that attraction.
That’s what you initially insisted on, don’t try to use deceptive, misleading arguments to try to claim I was wrong for agreeing with the correct part of what you said and refuting the part that is directly contradictory to the Truth that the Church has passed down to us.
I am telling you the Truth, and you are relying on misdirection to try to prove me wrong.
—-
“7. “Fear….”  It is true that alot of homosexuals are afraid of what God is asking, and it may be true that a SMALL portion of people who call themselves Catholics act hateful, but that is true of any large body. And again you exaggerate, dramatize, lie even instead of leading to truth.”
I am not talking about fear of what God is asking. I’m talking about fear of the people who could help them through that struggle.
It doesn’t require any more than a small portion to cause trauma. That’s why it’s so important for Catholics to be educated about the respect, compassion, and sensitivity that they MUST show toward gay people.
It only takes one person to scar another person for life emotionally. One is the smallest exception you can have, but it’s still enough.
It only takes one violent incident by a (self-professed) Catholic to drive someone away from the support the Church could provide them in times of need.
It only takes one betrayal by a priest to make someone stop trusting what priests say.
It only takes one instance of being thrown out of your home by your Catholic parents and having to beg others for money just to have clothes and money to travel to a place you can stay to stop believing in “love the sinner, but hate the sin.”
It only takes one act of callous disregard or outright animosity.
It doesn’t take a majority of Catholics doing it to cause a problem. Only a few is enough to cause irreparable harm.
Even if it is only a tiny fraction that do such terrible things, a vast majority of gay young people are subjected to it.
It’s reported by students to be the second most common thing they are bullied over in school, and 90% of gay students report being bullied.
And before you ask, here’s a source: bullyingstatistics.org/content/gay-bullying-statistics.html
If you like I can provide more.
Do you understand how catastrophic it is that so many people are being bullied instead of being shown respect, compassion, and sensitivity? How many people lose their faith when the bullies (ignorantly) use the Bible to rationalize their violence?
I’ve told you about two different cases where someone was physically attacked just because they were gay withing walking distance of my home. In one of those cases, the victim had to be taken to the hospital.
Felony assault over just the victim’s orientation creates a terrible sense of fear in gay people, especially those who live nearby, and it would be lunacy to say that fear is not totally understandable. Just one incident made many people here afraid to go outdoors at night for months. And then another incident even more vile and aggressive happened just recently.
The predominant fear among gay people where I live is not of what God wants of them, it is fear of what other humans might do to them.
—-
“You, Patrick, want to make us the enemy because we know that God will heal the person or give them unfailing strength to handle the temptation.”
I have been saying that God will heal them or give them the strength they need.
I am agreeing with that point. Even the part about miracles.
I am just saying it is very, very ill-advised to overemphasize miracles as something one should *expect* and under-emphasizing being given strength to resist temptation. It is better to have faith without having to put your hands in the wounds.
You’re starting to attribute the arguments you’d prefer to argue against to me instead of actually responding to what I am saying.
Just to be clear, I am saying:
A) Miracles happen.
B) God gives strength to resist temptation.
C) People should not be taught to expect miracles, or given the impression (even inadvertently) that if a miracle doesn’t happen, it is because they are not good enough.
That third point is the ONLY one where we seem to disagree.
Please do not accuse me of arguments that directly contradict the things I have said.
—-
“You are the one who is the fearmonger restating lies and making gross exaggerations.”
Wrong on all counts.
I never said a majority or even a large minority of Catholics are alienating gay people. I honestly have no idea what the proportion is aside from the fact that some amount of them do.
It happens often enough that literally every single gay person I’ve asked about why they left the Church has told me of experiences that are painful just from empathy for the things they’ve had to struggle with, even without having gone through them myself. I can’t even imagine how agonizing it must have been to feel it first-hand.
They are hurting. Maybe only a tiny minority caused that hurt, but the hurt is real. Treating them like The Enemy just because they made a blind attempt to get away from the hurt they were feeling is not any kind of loving treatment I am familiar with.
I’ve also noticed that by listening to their concerns and explanations for their fears and their experiences, by showing them that respect, they stop seeing me as an enemy who needs to be militantly opposed.
That is how you show them the Truth. That is how you show them God’s Love.
Not by repeating insensitive rhetoric and rationalizing callous treatment by saying they started it when their first experience of the so-called culture war is being attacked without provocation.
I may not agree with everything they say, but I honestly listen and strive to understand at least *why* they have come to believe what they do (and not so I can beat them in a debate, but so I can try to correct their misconceptions while showing by example that not everyone is like the people who hurt them). To do any less would be not only disrespectful, but would be without compassion, as well.
—-
“8. “reports of healing”. The tricky thing here is you never divulge any report or source. Troll.”
You have not divulged any report or source either. And actually, by the time you’ve gotten down to this point in my response, I will have already sourced one of my statements, while you still have not.
And name calling? Really?
—-
9. “The Church may teach but…” The “but” isn’t a qualifier to the Church teaching, it is a qualifier to how you like to distort the Church teaching and the correction to your distortion. Please reread my comment.”
No, the arguments you keep thinking I’m making because they are what you expect someone who disagrees with you to make are distorting the Church’s teaching.
If you would like I could go back and count the number of times I have directly quoted unambiguously worded Church teaching as a source for my statements.
—-
“10. “My generation didn’t grow up in fear either…” Then you aren’t part of the current generation, I guess. My kids grew up with “stranger danger”, firemen and policemen coming to school to educate elementary students on protecting themselves”
Um, actually, I think I still have the Stranger Danger board game in my closet somewhere. Believe it or not, we weren’t living in fear of gay-rapist-pedophiles. We weren’t living in fear at all. Well, some others of my generation began living in fear when they saw other kids getting beaten up for being gay or overheard their parents ranting carelessly about what they would do if they found out their son was a fag, but I’m pretty sure that’s not quite what you were talking about.
—-
11. “If all homosexuals…” Now you show your real colors. There is no vocation to sin.”
I absolutely never said there was.
“Homosexual relations are sinful. You break with God right there.”
I never said homosexual relations is not a sin. Never once.
Lying about my position so you can say I’m wrong isn’t going to get you anywhere.
I already explained to you the difference between having a homosexual inclination and acting upon that inclination, even in your mind.
Stop imagining what you expect me to say and read what I’m actually saying.
I’ll spell it out:
Homosexual sex IS a sin.
Fantasizing about homosexual sex IS a sin.
Experiencing temptation IS NOT a sin.
Having a homosexual inclination IS NOT a sin.
Committing sin inspired by temptation caused by that inclination IS a sin (obviously).
Merely experiencing temptation caused by that inclination IS NOT a sin.
This is the official teaching of the Church. This is the Truth. This is what I have been saying for this entire discussion.
What I was specifically saying in point 11 is that you were badly misapplying Kant’s Categorical Imperative by showing you other examples of the same method of misapplying it.
Now, on the other hand, if you were saying that homosexuals are not called to a vocation that involves chastity, then you are directly contradicting the teachings of the Church.
—-
12. “human beings a commodity…” Accusing them indiscriminately of raping? EXAGGERATION,INFLAMMATORY,DECEITFUL, DISTORTED, AMORAL, meant to distract from the truth of the statement.”
You know what is REALLY inflammatory, deceitful, distorted, and amoral?
Categorically implying that gay people are predators when you have already shown that you understand that an entire group should not be blamed for the actions of a small minority of that group (i.e. Catholics being blamed categorically for harm done to gay people by a small fraction of Catholics).
That’s what.
—-
“13. “It alienated them from God”. Patrick that is what sin does.”
Yes, especially the sin of scandal. Which was exactly my point. Humans are not perfect, they can be driven away from the flock just as easily as they can be led away. Both are scandal.
What makes you think I’m not praying for them and blessing them? Can’t I do those AND also listen to their concerns and hurts and show them I care deeply about them by trying to educate about the necessity of respect, compassion, and sensitivity?
I am not excusing their falling away from the Church, I am explaining how it is often a desperate, panicked, mislead attempt to escape from the hurt being inflicted upon them. And I am trying to prevent that hurt from causing others to do the same, by trying to prevent that hurt from happening in the first place.
I see Catholics committing sins against gay people, and I see those sins leading to the spiritual ruin of the victims. That is scandal. Scandal is a mortal sin. How can I not stand up and try to stop that?
—-
“14. “Victims of trauma”... Patrick most of my life God has showed me the many sinful aspects of homosexual relations. I have seen parents actually decide a beautiful, sweet innocent kid was homosexual because, “he tells me everything. His brother doesn’t do that.” Or, “look at him! (gangly, uncoordinated, shy). I have to resist the urge to grab the child and run. These kids have been labelled by their own parents. They never stood a chance.”
You see parents mistreating their children and you blame “homosexual relations” instead of the parents?!?!
I truly cannot comprehend this…abuse of sinners absolutely should not be blamed on the sin of the victim. The abuser is at fault in all cases. The victim is the victim in all cases, even if they are unrepentant sinners.
“Homosexual relations” are not responsible for straight people mistreating people they perceive to be gay. Disrespect, a lack of compassion, insensitivity, and animus toward people who are gay is the cause.
—-
Sorry, I assumed that you meant the parent was condemning the child because they assumed the child was gay.
If they are accepting of it, then they absolutely should keep an eye out for that possibility and take care to be sensitive so that the child knows that even if he or she does have a homosexual inclination, there are people who will respect them, who will treat them with compassion and sensitivity, and who will help them during the struggles they will face because of that inclination.
Pretending there is no possibility of that inclination is a disservice to the child. Insisting they do not have it if it begins to become apparent that they do is just being in denial and depriving the child of the Catholic (and therefore respectful, compassionate, and sensitive) support structure they will need to deal with the struggles that inclination will cause, be it inherent or from mistreatment by others.
—-
Pretty much all of those examples seem like they would be resolved if a) people who are gay or who are perceived to be gay were not shunned by the support structures they need, and b) people were educated properly about what sexual orientation actually consists of.
If people were simply properly educated about homosexual inclination being separate from acts, that it has nothing to do with gender identity, that it is not about conforming or not conforming to stereotypes about men or women…
If people were given that sort of education, not only would people not mistakenly believe they are gay just because of something that happened when they were severely intoxicated, but boys wouldn’t be beaten up for “being gay” just because they have a lisp or aren’t interested in athletics.
If people took the time to understand that a homosexual inclination is not the same as an action or a lifestyle, most of those people wouldn’t have had to deal with the struggles they were put through.
—-
“I have seen people attack families because they believe homosexuality is a sin. They are trying to make someone in the family homosexual.”
No offense, but that is absolutely absurd. It is no better than the conspiracy theories that the Church was trying to develop a “gay gas” to use to discredit political opponents of the Church.
They may quite possibly be acting in a misguided manner based on a concern that if the parents vocally express animus about gay people, one of the children might become isolated and cut himself off instead of going to the parents for help. That’s plausible. I mean, it’s plausible if you aren’t automatically assuming that the people confronting the family have evil intentions without ever bothering to listen to what concerns they might have, at least.
—-
“As to people who are truly born homosexual, (and they are few), they are often labelled and tormented by an element of society. It is a very heavy cross and we should come to their defense if ever we see it occurring.”
I’m pretty sure even the ones that you believe became gay as teens or adults face those same labels and torments as well.
And yes, we absolutely should come to their defense if we ever see it occurring. That is precisely why I became so strenuous and blunt with New Observer in this very discussion.
And furthermore, we should actively try to prevent those torments from happening in the first place. And that is precisely why I am trying to educate other Catholics about the importance of respect, compassion, and sensitivity, and alerting them to ways they may be inadvertently causing emotional or spiritual harm so that we can avoid even accidental harm.
—-
“We should help them see themselves as they truly are: Children of GOD. Made for eternal life. Pilgrims on a journey. Not sex objects. Not hopeless”
They would also appreciate it if we help ensure they are not assumed to be taking part in a particular form of sin just because they have an inclination toward that sin rather than a different one. And we absolutely should not treat them as nothing but militant opposition that can’t be reasoned with or listened to, because then we are denying their very humanity.

@Nancy D.
The psychological field of science does not use the same Church’s definition of “disordered.” We should not treat inclinations that are disordered spiritually as if they are the same sort of phenomena as mental disorders. They must be handled with their own unique form of care.
—-
On your other point, asserting that “gay” refers to a relationship when gay people themselves are using it to refer to people who primarily or exclusively experience homosexual inclination is disrespectful, misleading, and will inevitably cause miscommunication and angry misunderstandings.
There are gay people who are in no form of romantic relationship at all. Some are virgins who fully intend to remain chaste as the Church expects them. They still consider themselves to be gay, because what they mean by “gay” is that they primarily or exclusively experience a homosexual inclination. There is no sexual relationship involved, only the orientation (inclination) they experience.
When you insist that it is referring to an act, you are unintentionally accusing those practicing Catholics of committing that act.

@stilbelieve
Is assuming malice on their part any better than when they assume malice is the motivator of people who disagree with them about same-sex marriage?
Is categorically accusing people of “having absolutely no moral qualms about aggressively lying to achieve their goals” a respectful, compassionate, and sensitive form of discourse?
Does it in any way try to understand why gay people might genuinely believe something that isn’t true, or is it just assuming they are hateful anti-Christian bigots?
Isn’t the “gays are hateful bigots who will stop at nothing to get what they want” narrative just as irrational and disrespectful as the “Christians are hateful bigots…” one?
—
If you assume from the beginning that someone is a sociopathic monster and that you can’t trust anything they say because they’ll just be trying to trick you, you will never be able to successfully proclaim the Truth to them. If you will not listen, they will not listen.
That is my observation.

I think it has been two weeks since I looked in on this never ending blog and you guys are still at it.  Patrick and Psy, please get a life you two.  Do either of you have jobs?  Are you two being paid by some GLBT group to try and turn Catholics?  You might try the National Catholic Reporter site.  They would probably be more sympathetic to your delusions.
By the way did you catch the gay activist who worked at the DC GLBT community center who tried to shoot up that horrible hate group, the FRC.  And here you guys are calling Catholics “haters”.  You are like sophomoric little girls winning that no one understands you inclinations.  What a laugh!  You folks are the ones we need to be worried about.  I hope neither of you two own guns.
Pam, bravo on some excellent posts.  I wish I had the patience you show.  Keep up the good fight.

mac =“Patrick and Psy, please get a life you two.  Do either of you have jobs?  Are you two being paid by some GLBT group to try and turn Catholics?  You might try the National Catholic Reporter site.  They would probably be more sympathetic to your delusions.”

What are you afraid of mac? Anyway thanks for the hate filled response. As for you inquire I’m not even a member of the local car club or affiliated with any group, association or political party.

=By the way did you catch the gay activist who worked at the DC GLBT community center who tried to shoot up that horrible hate group, the FRC.  And here you guys are calling Catholics “haters”.  You are like sophomoric little girls winning that no one understands you inclinations.  What a laugh!  You folks are the ones we need to be worried about.  I hope neither of you two own guns.

I thought you would at least say ‘love the shooter, hate the shooting’ or something silly along those lines. Violence isn’t the answer to this but I notice you ignore all the violence against gays like the woman pulled out of her house and beaten the other day. And thanks again for acknowledging your hate of those who digress with you again in this paragraph.

@mac
“Do either of you have jobs? Are you two being paid by some GLBT group to try and turn Catholics?”
Have you even read what I’ve typed here?
I AM Catholic.
I’m not trying to “turn” anybody, I’m trying to educate other Catholics about the official teachings of our own Church and why they are so important—to educate about why ignoring those teachings causes harm to others.
And yes, I did hear about that shooting, and it is terrible. I am very thankful that no one was killed. Why would my explanations about how important kindness, dialogue, respect, compassion, and sensitivity make you think I would support something as terrible as that? Especially given the number of times I’ve decried violence in this discussion?
—
“And here you guys are calling Catholics “haters”.”
I never said that. It would be absurd for me to say that, given that I AM Catholic. Why would you lie like that when anyone here can read this page and see that I haven’t said that? What’s in it for you?
—
“You are like sophomoric little girls winning that no one understands you inclinations. What a laugh!”
1) Petty insults? Really?
2) What do you mean by “my inclinations”? Do you mean my heterosexual inclination? I’m pretty sure everybody understands that. It may be a surprise to you, but there are straight people who also believe the Catholic Church’s official teaching that gay people should be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. If you’d read anything I’ve said you’d have gotten that message already.
I’m standing up for God’s own Truth, as taught by the Catholic Church.
You’re just insulting people you don’t like.

In order to be Catholic, one must be in communion with Christ and His Church. There is no division in His Church. There is only ONE Body of Christ, ONE Spirit of Love, as affirmed by The Filioque.

There is only male or female, there is no other. Every one who professes Jesus as Lord and Savior, knows that God did not create us heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, polysexual…to live in relationship as objects of sexual desire in direct violation of God’s own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, we were created, from The Beginning, male and female, to live in Loving relationship as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters…

Mac, Thanks, I think. LOL.  You make great points too.  Please say them without the anger! It doesn’t honor our Lord or help draw souls.
Patrick,  In your next to last numbered response #11. you call homosexuality “a calling” and a vocation.  It is neither.  It is a temptation to sin. I was rereading this thread to see how this has all come to this point. There’s alot of anger in the various posts. And I noticed I miswrote about St. Teresa. God did not tempt her.  He allowed her to face her temptations.  St. James says in his epistle God tempts no one.  He says they come from our own passions. Inclinations to sin therefore are not from God. Temptations are not from God.  Your last post you make an inaccurate and inflammatory statement right from the start, saying I am not loving for saying if someone does not get a miracle it shows they don’t have enough faith.  I never said that.  You don’t want to understand what is really said. You recklessly rework truthful statements to make them unpallatable.  So I am trying to step back and see where you are coming from.  When your responses lack good faith it doesn’t help you. The only conclusion I can come to at this point is that in your opinion, charitable and compassionate and sensitive responses can’t be truthful. They can not speak of God’s healing power, or how He has overcome sin. Or of the power of faith or the reality of the miraculous. Or how abiding temptation is assisting temptation. You seem to be saying that is too discouraging to sinners or contrary to your own beliefs or I’m not sure what.  I guess that is a basic point of contention.  From my exposure to the great Saints, to Christ and Christianity we start from recognizing we are sinners.  When we say we have an inclination to a particulare sin we have alerted ourselves and others to beware. We aren’t denying it.  We aren’t protecting our feelings from that.  We can not get past square one until we admit our utter baseness and helplessness to sinful inclinations without Christ.  St. Louis De Montfort would reflect on how by nature we are slimy things and asked people to reflect on that. We are sinners and our sins are not our friends.  They hurt us and our neighbor and God and our relationship to Him. Our pride may not like facing this.  Then from the Saints and Christ we learn how to respond when we are treated badly for our sins.  We turn to God and repent and offer our suffering in reparation for our sins and even for the sins of others. We beg God’s forgiveness and ask for His help. We do not use the bad treatment to distance ourselves from God because we know it is our sin or the sinfulness in men in general that creates this suffering.  Not God.  He is the cure to the suffering, not the cause. He is the Rock we hold onto, the Anchor in the storm. And His response is to tell us to look outward- to help and love others - instead of focusing on ourselves.  His response is to confront the people hurting you with love and not revenge.  We do not allow the pain we feel to separate us from the One who can bring us to eternal salvation after this valley of tears. If we feel tempted to walk away, we need the sacraments and we need to reach out in prayer to God first and then to a fellow Catholic or Christian for support.  If we are at a place where we still walk away from the Church, hopefully the prayers and outreach of faithful Catholics will bring us back. We do not despair of the prodigal.  We keep looking for them and praying for them. Finally, from Christ and the Saints we learn what we do when we are treated as sinners for a sin we did not commit.  Christ is the example, the way, and the truth of how to handle that.  We look upon a crucifix and join our suffering to His in reparation for all the sins we should be punished for that we really did commit and are not being punished for, because even the Saints felt like great sinners, and in reparation for the sins of others.  We thank Him for finding us worthy to be punished for our faith in Him and fidelity to His teaching and we pray for His help and consolation.  When I read your responses, I don’t get the sense that you believe these steps.  It seems that your concept of compassion is a kind of denial.  In the Catechism where you quote the Church expressing the requirement of respect, compassion and sensitivity and any form of unjust discrimination, do you realize there are “just forms of discrimination”? That unlike things are justly treated as unlike things?  That is also important when dealing with discussions of sinful inclinations.

Pam,
“Patrick, In your next to last numbered response #11. you call homosexuality “a calling” and a vocation.”
No.
I did not.
I said, and I quote, “those with a homosexual inclination are called to a vocation that does not involve having children.”
That does not mean having a homosexual inclination is a calling or a vocation, it means the vocation that they are called to must be one that involves chastity.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church clearly states, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”
That’s a direct quote from the catechism, and it’s what I was talking about.
–
“He allowed her to face her temptations.”
And you were implying that temptation would just go away if a gay person were faithful, and implied at least a couple of times that if it didn’t, then they must not be faithful enough.
–
“Your last post you make an inaccurate and inflammatory statement right from the start, saying I am not loving for saying if someone does not get a miracle it shows they don’t have enough faith. I never said that. You don’t want to understand what is really said. You recklessly rework truthful statements to make them unpallatable.”
I apologize.
I would also greatly appreciate it if you also make an effort to not do the same to what I have said.
–
“The only conclusion I can come to at this point is that in your opinion, charitable and compassionate and sensitive responses can’t be truthful. They can not speak of God’s healing power, or how He has overcome sin. Or of the power of faith or the reality of the miraculous.”
No, I’m saying you have to be VERY careful to make sure people understand that if they suffer, it is not their own fault for not having enough faith.
Statements like “And the Church realizes some may struggle for life because Christ may allow someone to carry a cross for a lifetime or because some lack the faith to be healed or some have no desire to be healed or some do not even know Christ etc.” are indirect accusations of lack of faith or lack of desire to be healed.
That is not compassionate, respectful, or sensitive.
I can easily see how someone could take that as meaning that if they do not suddenly become free of temptation, then they must not be deserving of it because they don’t have enough faith or want to be healed enough.
I’ve met people who heard that sort of thing so many times that they genuinely believed they weren’t worthy of healing, because that was the primary reason anyone had ever given them for why they might not have a miracle.
Sensitivity involves making a positive effort to understand what might be a raw nerve, or a hot-button subject, or a sensitive issue, and then taking great care to not accidentally set off that raw nerve, etc.
Taking care to not reopen an old emotional wound is not incompatible with truth. Trying to see how your words might be misunderstood, and then adjusting them to avoid misunderstanding is not only compatible with the truth, but directly supports the truth. Trust me, that particular point is a lot harder than it sounds. I struggle with it regularly, I admit. Even when talking to you I failed on that point a couple of times. Nonetheless, we must try, and we must ESPECIALLY try when we are dealing with people that we know are already dealing with struggles so great it is difficult for us to even fully understand. The way I do this is by going to them, even the ones who have fallen away and may never return, and finding out why, what shaped them—learning their experiences so I can avoid ever accidentally recreating those circumstances with another individual, and so I can inform others of actions that might cause that tragedy to happen again.
Tell the truth, but tell it in a way that is kind, and even MORE than that, tell it in a way that the person you are telling it to will not misunderstand as something hurtful due to past experiences, even if no hurt was intended or inherent in the message.
It is a delicate balancing act. But really, that’s to be expected when emotional trauma and spiritual wounds are involved.
–
“From my exposure to the great Saints, to Christ and Christianity we start from recognizing we are sinners. When we say we have an inclination to a particulare sin we have alerted ourselves and others to beware. We aren’t denying it. We aren’t protecting our feelings from that.”
That is exactly what I was getting at with the alcoholism comparison.
And it is largely because the individual who is alerting those close to him or herself is necessarily making him or herself vulnerable that we must be so careful to be sensitive, because the stakes are so much higher. Any hurt that may happen will be that much deeper, because they are putting down their defenses and trusting us.
–
“Then from the Saints and Christ we learn how to respond when we are treated badly for our sins. We turn to God and repent and offer our suffering in reparation for our sins and even for the sins of others. We beg God’s forgiveness and ask for His help. We do not use the bad treatment to distance ourselves from God because we know it is our sin or the sinfulness in men in general that creates this suffering. Not God.”
True. And ideally, people remember this lesson.
And in less than ideal situations, hopefully the individual still has a structure of support to help gently, kindly remind them of this if they lose sight of it.
But when it is the people that they would go to for support that are the ones creating the suffering, it leaves them adrift when they are already so emotionally compromised, they may just panic and try to run away. Without someone they know will support them in their time of greatest fear and uncertainty, without someone to stand by their side through this dark night of the soul, they may become lost. They are only human, too, and especially when we are afraid or feel betrayed and angry or despair, or experience other extreme emotional states, we humans do not always act rationally or correctly act on facts even if we do remember them in that moment, which isn’t guaranteed.
–
“Finally, from Christ and the Saints we learn what we do when we are treated as sinners for a sin we did not commit. Christ is the example, the way, and the truth of how to handle that. We look upon a crucifix and join our suffering to His in reparation for all the sins we should be punished for that we really did commit and are not being punished for, because even the Saints felt like great sinners, and in reparation