Gay Bullying Is "peer Pressure"

[kujo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1309468134' post='2261163']
As stated, violence implies unjust behavior. There is such a thing as emotional violence, and it can take those forms, but that emo violence doesn't take place every time these words are uttered. A priest with the right intentions can certainly say those things if it's best for that person's soul.

Charity doesn't always mean being nice. Sometimes it means saying what doesn't want to be heard, because the truth is difficult to hear.

With that in mind, I'm going to start praying for you. I fear that you might be close enough to the edge that you might make yourself a heretic and be thereby automatically excommunicated. I'm not sure I've yet seen anything contrary to Catholic Moral Teaching (just Catholic Moral Law), but you're getting close. I'm praying for you, my friend.
[/quote]

First, charity means that you should always approach your brothers and sisters with love, sensitivity and compassion. No matter what you're saying, it should be done in a conciliatory manner.

Second, thank you for your prayers.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309459329' post='2260974']
It is hard to say without context. We can say with certainty:

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.
[/quote]



I agree with you but please don't call it a condition. That makes it sound
as if we are ill.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1309463944' post='2261075']
Side note::

Bullying is clearly wrong.... I would put it in the category of harassment; clearly unfriendly behavior

Peer pressure on the other hand might be positive... for example... a group of friends may strongly suggest that their peer should quit smoking in order to protect their health... I would call this peer pressure but I would not call it wrong... it CAN be more like constructive criticism... or it can be a bad thing... ex. encouraging friends to participate in immoral actions... but overall I would not say that "peer pressure is wrong (in and of itself)"
[/quote]

I apologize for being so touchy but this hits me where I live and it's very
hard. I unite myself always to the Passion and Death of our Lord,
to His Precious Blood, His Sacred Heart and His Holy Wounds.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309459031' post='2260972']
According to Tea Party Nation leader Rich Swier:



Source: [url="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nations-anti-gay-campaign-continues-group-likens-gays-drug-addicts"]RightWingWatch.com[/url]

I tried to access the [url="http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A1022447&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post"]original statement[/url], but I'd have to sign up for the website, and I'm not willing to do that.

So, what say you, Phamily?
[/quote]
First, as the source is a left-wing activist site, and doesn't have the quote in context as to exactly what he's talking about, I'd take the whole thing with a huge grain of salt.

I'm against bullying (as in beating up people unprovoked) against anybody, and don't think it should be encouraged, but I certainly don't think homosexuals deserve any special type of protection not given to anyone else, and I don't think immoral behavior such as homosexuality has a right to public approval.


[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309460774' post='2261009']
Bullying is kind of an umbrella term. Gay bullying is just one of the spokes. And there is ABSOLUTELY "fat bullying" and "acne bullying." Go to any middle or high school in America, and you'll absolutely find that there's a fat kid getting picked on, or someone with severe acne getting called names. I can tell you this because a) I was the fat kid (until I started playing football, in which case I became a "jock," which made it "cool" and acceptable to be overweight) and b) my sister was the acne kid (not anymore...she grew out of the stage and now looks like one of the models in those facial wash commercials!).

The point is that kids are mean, and will be mean about anything they can get their hands on. The insidious part of gay bullying is that, as opposed to weight or acne, these things cannot be changed. They can't hit the gym, join a club or take medicine and be un-gay; rather, they are being attack for something instrinsic to their identity. It's no different than racism, where someone's nationality or ethnicity is used as a reason to hate them.
[/quote]
Unlike the other things mentioned, homosexuality is a behavior, rather than a race or physical characteristic. If people want to make disordered sexual behavior "intrinsic to their identity," it's their own fault. It need not be that way, and until very recent times, almost nobody made homosexual behavior or inclinations intrinsic to their identity.

Bullying is bad, but, sorry, "gay" kids shouldn't be specially protected from bullying any more than fat kids, skinny kids, pimply kids, nerdy kids, dorky kids, wimpy kids, or devout Christian kids.

Back when my dad was growing up, in the 1950s, he said he didn't even know what homosexuality meant. There were no "gay kids." (And this was Los Angeles public schools, not exactly a sheltered environment). Kids didn't publicly flaunt their sexual deviations and make it part of their identity, nor were they bullied for it, for the most part. Homosexuality simply wasn't even on most normal people's minds.

I think making immoral and unnatural sexual activity part of people's identity is at the root of the problem.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309461355' post='2261026']
I don't know whether change is possible or not. What I do know is this--neither you, nor I or anybody else, can truly know the mind or the heart of another individual. All we see are facades, approximations of whatever that person decides to share. Whether that person was ever truly gay, or is currently gay or straight, can never be known.
[/quote]
And it doesn't matter. Morally, one's behavior is the only thing that matters. How do you determine if any person is "truly gay," or "truly straight" anyway?

[TeresaBenedicta]

There is necessarily a difference in how one speaks about homosexuality when it comes to objective and subjective scenarios. When we speak about homosexuality in an objective scenario, it is completely detached from specific individuals and is concerned with the universal. This requires strong, specific, and clear language because it is making an objective judgment on an objective act. The Church, and those who teach the Church's teachings, cannot soften this language otherwise there becomes confusion about what, officially, the Church teaches. The goal here is clear and concise teaching.

When it comes to subjective scenarios, meaning individuals and their lives, there is necessarily a different sort of language evoked. The essence remains the same, but charity demands pastoral care that is individualized to each specific scenario. The application of the teaching is different for each individual. Here the main goal is conversion of the heart.

If I am teaching an RCIA class, I am obligated to teach the Church's teachings. It is objective. It will be in strong, specific, and clear language. If I am talking with my best friend (or any other individual) who is gay (and he is), my language will be different. My approach will be different. In most cases, it would be inappropriate to speak to my best friend in exactly the same way that I would teach the RCIA class.

The objective judgment sounds harsh precisely because it is objective. It is looking at the issue in its essence, without the muddiness of human behavior. Application of the objective judgment brings us to individuals.

We cannot forsake the objective judgment. It is our guide and provides clarity. We could not move to the individual without having a full understanding of the objective.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309463979' post='2261078']
You can put your perpetual victim hat on if you'd like, but I think there is a difference between merely disapproving of homosexuality (a silly but benign opinion) and calling someone "disordered" and an "abomination."
[/quote]
So are Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's constant moral teachings on human sexuality "silly but benign" or hateful?

Thank you for informing us ignorant primates that the Church founded by Christ had got it all wrong through all those 2000-odd years, and that you've finally arrived at the Truth which has eluded every Apostle, Pope, Father and Doctor of the Church. Is there a Church of Kujology or something we can join?

And where has anyone on here called a [i]person[/i] disordered or an abomination? (Actions and inclinations can be, but not persons.) Maybe you should inform dUSt so they can be properly dealt with.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309464858' post='2261100']
Correct. You are talking about pastoral ministry whereas some (they'll probably sign on later from Virginia and post their filth on this thread) believe in "calling it like it is" and "speaking the truth" and what not. They are hateful people who don't know or show God's love. THEY are the bullies. What you speak of is NOT.
[/quote]
Who's these hateful filthy persons from Virginia of whom you speak? Please let us know, so that we might share in your outrage and righteous judgment and condemnation.

And if they're posting filth on these threads, you should let dUSt know. That's against phorum rules.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Socrates

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309459556' post='2260980']
The bolded part needs to be remembered by all Catholics and Christians.

The italicized part is an unfortunate wording, since it is surely the justification for many bigoted remarks and behaviors, who "justify" their hateful words and actions because they "stand for the Truth."
[/quote]

I doubt anyone is going to go and read the Catechism and say "oh I can go and bash gays". If one reads the Catechism with a studious mind he will read the parts about human dignity and justice as well and come to a proper conclusion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1309473802' post='2261251']
I doubt anyone is going to go and read the Catechism and say "oh I can go and bash gays". If one reads the Catechism with a studious mind he will read the parts about human dignity and justice as well and come to a proper conclusion.
[/quote]
Yeah, we know how most high school jocks usually go and read the Catechism before beating up the gay kid.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309462391' post='2261040']
What about emotional violence? Such as telling someone they are "disordered" or that they're going to "burn in hell?"
[/quote]

"they are going to burn in hell" is something we can't say with any certainty as the requirements for mortal sin include grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. Therefore it is never up to us to say that one WILL burn in hell though we may say that is the danger that is possible for them. With regard to calling it disorded, it is, so saying that in charity and concern for the person in certain circumstances as opposed to just satisfy our urge to put them down may be appropriate. Emotional violence? Not always. If done with malice it is. But sometimes people need to hear the truth. Is it emotional violence to tell your kid if he sticks a fork in a wall socket he is going to burn in the living room? I think not. I also find it funny that the supporters of gay rights that promote homosexual acts are quite willing to call those who oppose them many things. Not that this justifies and response in kind but these are the types that come up with this "emotional violence" term for saying homosexuality is disordered.

[Ice_nine]

I'm already too exhausted to write a reply. This will have to do:

1) Bullying anyone is unacceptable
2) Disorder is not a dirty word. Take the stigma off of mental illness and you solve part of the problem. Good luck with that.
3) I've told my gay friends what I think about homosexual sexness. They often seem [i]much[/i] less offended than when I tell my straight friends. This is probably because of the mutual respect and genuine concern I have for these people.
4) What's with the surge of all these gay threads lately? I know it's a hot-button issue but there's like 4 or 5 active threads with people basically saying the same thing.
5) I look unbelievably attractive in blue
6) I want to take the rainbow back from teh gayz.

[southern california guy]

Whether you call the homosexuals "disordered" or not, if you were to get all of the 'true' homosexuals (Have NO heterosexual relationships) together and have them form their own country -- they wouldn't last very long.... They would all die out.

When you think about it the homosexuals are DEPENDENT on the heterosexuals. They exist because their parents were heterosexuals. The goods the services, the world that they live in exists -- and progressed to where it is -- because of heterosexual relationships. And heterosexual marriage is the backbone of our society. The breakdown of the marriage, the breakdown of the sexual norms results in the breakdown of a stable society.

Are they "disordered"? Yes, in societal terms they are "disordered". In religious terms they are "disordered" Right now we don't have any problem with under-population but plagues, famines, and climate change (Not the make believe stuff supposedly caused by man but the real changes in our climate that have resulted in extinctions of entire species) could change that situation.

Monogamous heterosexual relationships create stability -- they create a society.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1309475730' post='2261272']
I'm already too exhausted to write a reply. This will have to do:

1) Bullying anyone is unacceptable
2) Disorder is not a dirty word. Take the stigma off of mental illness and you solve part of the problem. Good luck with that.
3) I've told my gay friends what I think about homosexual sexness. They often seem [i]much[/i] less offended than when I tell my straight friends. This is probably because of the mutual respect and genuine concern I have for these people.
4) What's with the surge of all these gay threads lately? I know it's a hot-button issue but there's like 4 or 5 active threads with people basically saying the same thing.
5) I look unbelievably attractive in blue
6) I want to take the rainbow back from teh gayz.
[/quote]

Yup, and I would like to add I would love to take the word " Gay " back from the homosexuals. Its a word my grandmother, God rest her soul, would use to describe positive and cheerful things. She would call me her " gay boy " as I always had a smile on my face and a laugh in my mouth as a child. A good family get together, one where no one argued or the food was good was a " gay time ", bright sunny days with blue skies were always a " gay day " for her. Cleaning the church with a few of her friends, all in their eighties, was another time when they had a " gay time " It is truly amazing that a group of people who participate in the homosexual lifestyle, with all its negative impacts could so efficiently high-jack a term that as an adjective is defined as
–adjective 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music"]music[/url]. 2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. 3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.

and in effect turned this cheery word into a term describing an abnormal sexual attraction.

ed

[add]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1309623039' post='2262128']
Yup, and I would like to add I would love to take the word " Gay " back from the homosexuals. Its a word my grandmother, God rest her soul, would use to describe positive and cheerful things. She would call me her " gay boy " as I always had a smile on my face and a laugh in my mouth as a child. A good family get together, one where no one argued or the food was good was a " gay time ", bright sunny days with blue skies were always a " gay day " for her. Cleaning the church with a few of her friends, all in their eighties, was another time when they had a " gay time " It is truly amazing that a group of people who participate in the homosexual lifestyle, with all its negative impacts could so efficiently high-jack a term that as an adjective is defined as
–adjective 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music"]music[/url]. 2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. 3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.

and in effect turned this cheery word into a term describing an abnormal sexual attraction.

ed

[/quote]

We'll have a yabba dabba doo time
A dabba doo time
We'll have a gay old time!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s13X66BFd8[/media]

[Lumiere]

I posted this on another thread, but it is approriate here, too.

The position of the Roman Catholic Church that homosexuality is "disordered" is something that we could debate for quite some time. The greater danger is that people use that position to hate and discriminate against homosexuals outside of the Church. I would like all you "Church Militants" and "Church Scholars" take note, this is from [url="http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2011/06/17/"]Cardinal O'Malley's Blog[/url]:

"[b]As Catholics, we must oppose the hatred and rejection of homosexual persons that exists in our society. We do not want them to be the object of discrimination or violence.[/b] We believe, however, that God’s law is written in our hearts and that to lead a fully human life we need to embrace His commandments. This is not always easy, we all struggle and sometimes we fail; but a loving and forgiving God is always there to lift us up and help us start over again." (emphasis mine)

He continues:

"The Church’s position is not based on an animus against people with a homosexual orientation. Each and every member of the Church is called to holiness regardless of their sexual orientation. [b]The Church has often warned against defining people by their sexual orientation in a way that diminishes their humanity.[/b] Each person is a mystery, an irreplaceable treasure, precious in God’s eye. We are God’s creatures and in baptism we are His sons and daughters, brothers and sisters to one another.

The extreme individualism of our age is undermining the common good and fractionalizing the community. The Church wishes to call people to unity based on mutual respect and a commitment to the common good. We do not want Catholics who have a homosexual orientation to feel unwelcomed in the Catholic Church. We remind them that they are bound to us by their baptism and are called to live a life of holiness. Many homosexual persons in our Church lead holy lives and make an outstanding contribution to the life of the Church by their service, generosity and the sharing of their spiritual gifts.

[b]We must strive to eradicate prejudices against people with a homosexual orientation.[/b] At the same time the Church must minister to all people by challenging them to obey God’s commands, the roadmap for a meaningful human life that allows us to draw near to God and to one another.

In the Gospel when the self-righteous Pharisees bring the adulteress to be stoned, Jesus says let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Then to make sure they got the point Jesus wrote their sins on the ground. The stones fell from their hands and they fled. Jesus said: 'Neither do I condemn you', but He added, 'Go and sin no more.'" (emphasis mine)