The Silencing Of Christians On The Matter Of Homosexuality

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341783724' post='2453616']
1. I don't put value on an entity based on its ability to produce (original) art.
2. I don't deem my own life in threat when a mother decides to have an abortion. None of my friends or alliances are in threat either. I don't see society going to war over this, hence I will not get caught up in this war. I don't see abortion as a [b]threat to my survival[/b].
[/quote]

This is the fundamental difference.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341863884' post='2454036']
I'm not seeing the threat to society of having gay people being happily married, thus I presume the fight against it is based on what makes the fighter happy.
[/quote]

Look up what it did to the state of Massachusetts.

[stevil]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1341864869' post='2454046']
Aside from all of that did you even read the OP you were responding too? Your retort was entirely off-topic and did not even address the OP. Come on, now...
[/quote]
The original post was with regards to Christian's viewpoint, as if it is benign to the rest of society. Something entirely different to enforcing law based on Christian viewpoint and thus making non Christians live the life of Christians.

"It has come to the point that by having a different viewpoint christiand are being "bigots"!!!"

So I am keen to explore that. I am keen to learn what the Christian viewpoint is and whether as a society member I ought to be worried or should I just think that everyone is entitled to a viewpoint, no harm done?

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1341865820' post='2454063']
Look up what it did to the state of Massachusetts.
[/quote]
The first google hit I found
[url="http://www.alternet.org/story/142154/after_5_years_of_legal_gay_marriage,_massachusetts_still_has_the_lowest_state_divorce_rate_and_western_civilization_is_intact/"]http://www.alternet.org/story/142154/after_5_years_of_legal_gay_marriage,_massachusetts_still_has_the_lowest_state_divorce_rate_and_western_civilization_is_intact/[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1341673518' post='2453125']
I think the way we approach this issue is often wrong. We end up not being cautious enough, because this issue lies extremely close to the heart of those of the pro-homosexual side. The result is that we have to be more delicate in what we say and what we do.
[/quote]
How exactly is the way "we" approach this issue wrong? I think Catholics should not be afraid to proclaim the stance of the Church on this issue whenever in arises in debate in such. Of course, this should be done in a spirit of charity and prudence, and we shouldn't be jerks about it, but we needn't be overly-cautious or "delicate" about defending moral truth when it is attacked.

I hardly think the problem in the Church today overall is not a lack of "caution" in speaking out on this and other moral issues, but instead too many Christians, including "Catholics," are watering down or even outright denying the truth on this matter in an attempt to be politically correct and avoid offending people. When this kind of confusion is being spread in the Church, I think we are obligated more than ever to clearly and unambiguously inform others of the Church's teaching.

(And this does not only apply to teachings regarding homosexuality, but to other unpopular moral teachings as well, including those on on other sexual sins such as fornication, contraception, masturbation, pornography, etc. In general, there is too much "caution" with regards to moral teaching for fear of upsetting people.)

[quote]Sure, they may not be as 'tolerant' as we are, but as Christians we have to be the more loving side in this. And the fact is that as close as these persons identify themselves with the movement, we cannot forget that they are people and are as deserving of Love as anyone else.[/quote]
The problem is that today too many equate being "loving" with being tolerant and accepting of sinful behavior, and not calling it for what it is. True love and charity includes informing others of moral truth, and guiding them on the correct moral path. Instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner are both spiritual works of [i]mercy[/i] which the Church demands of her members. Neglecting these in order to avoid upsetting others is neither virtuous nor loving.

If you had a friend with a serious drug or alcohol problem, you would be morally obligated to do would you can to help him end his self-destructive behavior. Simply sitting by and acting as if nothing is wrong while he drinks or dopes himself to death would not be loving, regardless of how dear booze or dope may be to his heart, or whether your intervention might initially upset or anger him.

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1341719140' post='2453340']
I'm not asking if St. John would be so delicate, because it's an entirely different issue/time period, so honestly that's a straw man argument you are making.

All I was asking is that we have to be cautious and understanding, given that most that are pro-homosexual rights/marriage/what have you, hold the issue very close to their hearts and become very passionate/engaged quickly. It is the task that we reach to them through Love, after all Jesus probably ate with homosexuals, besides the tax collectors, prostitutes and the rest...I don't see what is so 'unchristian' or whatever. Sometimes, we feel that to defend Catholicism we need to brandish a banner and shout "GO PAPA B", but in reality, we need to just obey the Lord's Will in the moment and just Love people.
[/quote]
What time period one lives in is irrelevant to whether one should plainly teach moral truths. It is obvious from reading the Gospels that neither John the Baptist nor Christ were afraid to teach "difficult" things that upset or angered people. Otherwise, they would not have both been condemned to death for what they taught. All but one of Christ's Apostles were killed for proclaiming the Faith.

As for Christ dining with prostitutes and such, He never failed to call sin for what it was, and tell others to repent. The one woman in the Gospel that tradition tells was a prostitute was repentant of her sins, and Christ told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.

Christ had quite harsh words for those who were unrepentant, and refused to follow Him, but obstinately insisted on their own righteousness.

The central issue being discussed in the OP is not about associating with sinners, but how there are many who want to silence any condemnation of homosexuality as immoral - regardless of how gently and charitably stated - and that too many self-proclaimed "Christians" are bowing to political correctness in this matter, rather than being true to Christ's moral teaching.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341783724' post='2453616']
2. I don't deem my own life in threat when a mother decides to have an abortion. None of my friends or alliances are in threat either. I don't see society going to war over this, hence I will not get caught up in this war. I don't see abortion as a threat to my survival.
[/quote]
Aw, that noble superior atheist "morality"!

If it's [i]other[/i] people who are being murdered, who gives a s[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]hi[/font]t, just so long as you feel your [i]own[/i] life isn't threatened?

I suppose I should be cool with a law allowing atheists to be killed on sight, because it doesn't threaten me and my Christian buddies.

[/response to off-topic hijack which rehashes what has already been covered ad-nauseum in past threads]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1341775424' post='2453562']
Why are we talking about the SS?

Godwin's law, beeshes.
[/quote]
Himmler was gay.

[Annie12]

Stevil,I think we all agree that being homosexual is not bad. However, I propose that homosexual marriage does impact society in a negative nature. For example,by a state in the US making it legal, it then makes it discriminatory for a Minister to not comply for religious reasons with marrying two same sex partner. How about the minister? Why is it [i][b]not[/b][/i] considard by the government to be discrimanatory for him to have religious concerns and to be labeled in such a way?

Another example is that orphanages which are run by religious organizations are untimely shutting down because the government says they have to adopt out to Gay couples.

"Homosexual Marriage" is being forced onto people who do not approve of it; NOT because they hate gays, but because they have deeply held religious convictions. If the government made you have to accept something you didn't approve of, I think you would respond in a similar way.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1341876331' post='2454117']
For example,by a state in the US making it legal, it then makes it discriminatory for a Minister to not comply for religious reasons with marrying two same sex partner. How about the minister? Why is it [i][b]not[/b][/i] considard by the government to be discrimanatory for him to have religious concerns and to be labeled in such a way?

Another example is that orphanages which are run by religious organizations are untimely shutting down because the government says they have to adopt out to Gay couples.
[/quote]
These are interesting examples. it is quite a quandary.
On the one hand you have an organisation (government) creating rules for society, such that people can peacefully cohabitate together. To this degree they have anti discrimination laws.
On the other hand you have organisations (religious based) with beliefs that are discriminatory in the eyes of those not belonging to those organisations.

Does the Catholic church allow Christians to marry non Christians e.g. Muslims or Jews or Hindis? If not, then is this impacted by anti-discrimination law?

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341867669' post='2454077']
The first google hit I found
[url="http://www.alternet.org/story/142154/after_5_years_of_legal_gay_marriage,_massachusetts_still_has_the_lowest_state_divorce_rate_and_western_civilization_is_intact/"]http://www.alternet....tion_is_intact/[/url]
[/quote]

So that is how you define what threats a society, the divorce rate? What is the correlation?

[Annie12]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341878839' post='2454137']
These are interesting examples. it is quite a quandary.
On the one hand you have an organisation (government) creating rules for society, such that people can peacefully cohabitate together. To this degree they have anti discrimination laws.
On the other hand you have organisations (religious based) with beliefs that are discriminatory in the eyes of those not belonging to those organisations.

Does the Catholic church allow Christians to marry non Christians e.g. Muslims or Jews or Hindis? If not, then is this impacted by anti-discrimination law?
[/quote]
The church allows it. yes.

One problem which the church finds with same sex marriage being legalized is that we have had the right to religious freedom in the US since the founding of the country. Then it seems to us like our beliefs are being invaded upon. It's not fair. Why do homosexuals have more rights in the eyes of the government than religious people?

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1341870361' post='2454090']
How exactly is the way "we" approach this issue wrong? I think Catholics should not be afraid to proclaim the stance of the Church on this issue whenever in arises in debate in such. Of course, this should be done in a spirit of charity and prudence, and we shouldn't be jerks about it, but we needn't be overly-cautious or "delicate" about defending moral truth when it is attacked.

I hardly think the problem in the Church today overall is not a lack of "caution" in speaking out on this and other moral issues, but instead too many Christians, including "Catholics," are watering down or even outright denying the truth on this matter in an attempt to be politically correct and avoid offending people. When this kind of confusion is being spread in the Church, I think we are obligated more than ever to clearly and unambiguously inform others of the Church's teaching.

(And this does not only apply to teachings regarding homosexuality, but to other unpopular moral teachings as well, including those on on other sexual sins such as fornication, contraception, masturbation, pornography, etc. In general, there is too much "caution" with regards to moral teaching for fear of upsetting people.)
[/quote]

I think the idea of 'debate' is one that is ambiguous. Debate would entail that both parties are speaking with the same terms and on the same level-headed style. Most discussions I have seen either on here or in person are often passionate and quite argumentative.

Also, considering Moral Truth, which is not as clear cut to 'pagans' and 'non-believers'. Simply stating or pointing them out isn't going to prove anything to them, on the grounds because in essence it doesn't matter to them. To their mindset they are just rules handed down in some book or whatever.

And to the 'watering down', how do you expect for 'we', Catholics to evangelize, offer love and conversion to others, when we tear into our own ranks, because they don't measure up to [i][b]our[/b][/i] idea of holiness or orthodoxy? I am not saying that we embrace the heretics here, but I am saying that we need to get away from pointing fingers at one another and grow up. It's not just about believing or not understanding or not knowing, it's simply not Loving.



[quote]
The problem is that today too many equate being "loving" with being tolerant and accepting of sinful behavior, and not calling it for what it is. True love and charity includes informing others of moral truth, and guiding them on the correct moral path. Instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner are both spiritual works of [i]mercy[/i] which the Church demands of her members. Neglecting these in order to avoid upsetting others is neither virtuous nor loving.

If you had a friend with a serious drug or alcohol problem, you would be morally obligated to do would you can to help him end his self-destructive behavior. Simply sitting by and acting as if nothing is wrong while he drinks or dopes himself to death would not be loving, regardless of how dear booze or dope may be to his heart, or whether your intervention might initially upset or anger him.
[/quote]

To the terms of Instructing, well no one likes being criticized (constructive or otherwise) and meanwhile this doesn't skip over the fact of correcting behavior let's look at the reality. If we do instruct or point out an insufficiency/destructive behavior (cause that's what Sin is.) in another, then we have to in a delicate and courteous manner of which they would be open to such a statement/comment. The problem with trying to generalize a method is that with people any number of situations could a occur and given that each human person is uniquely individual and unique, makes the situation inherently vague and abstract.

To your friend analogy I stand by that, but to a complete stranger should you tell him that his cursing is inexcusable? A friend is someone you know for hopefully a little bit longer than a moment and are oftentimes more open to hear what you have to say. Most people these days don't give a beaver dam.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1341879753' post='2454144']
One problem which the church finds with same sex marriage being legalized is that we have had the right to religious freedom in the US since the founding of the country. Then it seems to us like our beliefs are being invaded upon. It's not fair. Why do homosexuals have more rights in the eyes of the government than religious people?
[/quote]
The Catholic church is able to get away with gender discrimination in so far as that certain jobs/positions e.g. priest, cardinal, pope etc are reserved for men only. So I am not sure if the law would force the Catholic church to marry gay people. Certainly non religious based celebrants and marriage registrar people would be required by law to perform their roles indiscriminately.

[Annie12]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341880529' post='2454152']
The Catholic church is able to get away with gender discrimination in so far as that certain jobs/positions e.g. priest, cardinal, pope etc are reserved for men only. So I am not sure if the law would force the Catholic church to marry gay people. Certainly non religious based celebrants and marriage registrar people would be required by law to perform their roles indiscriminately.
[/quote]

THAT IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY! (so don't even go there.) sorry but I just get annoyed when people say that. The priesthood was instituted by Christ and Christ passed it on to a man so on and so on. In order for something to be discriminatory a person has to be targeting a certain group. what you said has no truth to it. We just hold to tradition. no one is targeting women.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1341881191' post='2454163']
THAT IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY! (so don't even go there.) sorry but I just get annoyed when people say that.
[/quote]
Not meaning to get into an argument of the women priests controversy, simply pointing out that this is similar with regards to the legal stance concerning the legal definition of discrimination. Legally we aren't allowed to favour a person based on race, skin colour, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation etc..

You are stating that you are worried about the legal clash with religious belief if gay marriage is accepted, but it is a similar situation with the women issue, companies aren't allow a policy of only hiring men into the top positions.
So for whatever reason the church has for this, maybe the same can be applied to church officiated marriages.
I don't know the legalities of the issues.