Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[picchick]

[quote name='XIX' post='1585645' date='Jun 28 2008, 02:00 PM']So am I degrading myself if I call myself a distance runner? Or if a drug addict calls himself an addict? Or if a woman calls herself a wife? Or a sister? Or a conservative? Should people stop calling themselves "accountants" because it's a terrible injustice that a certain group of people is labeled with such a narrow minded term?

What if I call myself an American? A caucasian? A libertarian? A Phatmasser?

Why is "homosexual" the only adjective that people expect others not to identify themselves as?[/quote]

This is not a matter of whether or not it is politically incorrect so forth. It is more a meaning of the word as itself. I do recall in another thread this fact being explained better. I just wanted to add that this wasn't because we didn't want name calling but more because of the true meaning of the word.

I should also add, that I use homosexual pretty much all the time...I am just explaining what I think was trying to be said...

Meg

Edited July 3, 2008 by picchick

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1589840' date='Jul 3 2008, 01:35 AM']Going off of what Soc was saying, it is our duty as Catholics to preach the Truth. When it comes to things like rape, incest, beastiality, murder, theft...we can instruct in blunt, honest ways because that majority of people accept that all of these things are wrong. Yet, when it comes to topics like pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion, or masturbation, a certain degree of finess and sensitivity is in order, for many of those things are so deeply engrained in people's minds and hearts that harshness or being overly-aggressive can actually do more harm than good. So often, in our zeal to do what's right, we can lose sight of the fact that people are injured by sin, and our job is to be the medium wherefore the medicine is applied. A doctor does just come in, throw the medicine at the person and say "Take it or leave it." It's the whole "spoon full of sugar" type thing.[/quote]
If we only instruct "in blunt, honest ways" against things that most people already agree are evil, what's the point?
Most people don't need to be preached against things they already agree are wrong.
Would most people really benefit from hearing sermons condemning rape or genocide?
One should always preach or teach in charity, but this does not mean that one should not be blunt and honest when stating the truth.
If one is not honest in telling moral truth, he does no one a favor, and himself sins by his lack of honesty.
In my experience, some of the best preaching is that which makes me feel uncomfortable, that challenges me by pointing out how I'm not living up to God's standards.
While one should preach the truth in charity, this does not mean the truth should be watered-down. Catholics have been watering down moral teachings for decades now out of "sensitivity," with the result that many Catholics now have no clue what the Church's moral teachings are. If 72% of young Catholics think homosexuality is a-ok, there's a serious problem - and I don't think it's too much zealous preaching of the truth.

To use your doctor example, my pastor makes the point that if a doctor finds a patient has a deadly cancer, it is not "charitable" for him to smile and tell the patient every thing's fine. That would be malpractice.

Yes, there are prudent and imprudent ways of preaching the truth (which can vary depending on the situation and audience), but I believe it is certainly important to always be [b]honest[/b] about the truth, and never to water it down for fear of offending others.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1593153' date='Jul 6 2008, 11:13 PM']If we only instruct "in blunt, honest ways" against things that most people already agree are evil, what's the point?
Most people don't need to be preached against things they already agree are wrong.
Would most people really benefit from hearing sermons condemning rape or genocide?
One should always preach or teach in charity, but this does not mean that one should not be blunt and honest when stating the truth.
If one is not honest in telling moral truth, he does no one a favor, and himself sins by his lack of honesty.
In my experience, some of the best preaching is that which makes me feel uncomfortable, that challenges me by pointing out how I'm not living up to God's standards.
While one should preach the truth in charity, this does not mean the truth should be watered-down. Catholics have been watering down moral teachings for decades now out of "sensitivity," with the result that many Catholics now have no clue what the Church's moral teachings are. If 72% of young Catholics think homosexuality is a-ok, there's a serious problem - and I don't think it's too much zealous preaching of the truth.

To use your doctor example, my pastor makes the point that if a doctor finds a patient has a deadly cancer, it is not "charitable" for him to smile and tell the patient every thing's fine. That would be malpractice.

Yes, there are prudent and imprudent ways of preaching the truth (which can vary depending on the situation and audience), but I believe it is certainly important to always be [b]honest[/b] about the truth, and never to water it down for fear of offending others.[/quote]

I don't believe in watering it down, but being sensitive to people's situations and what not is always more effective than jamming things down their throat.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 02:00 PM']I am just glazing over pretty much what many Christians say about homosexuals. I saw a guy call it a “defect” on this forum and that comment implies that God makes defects.[/quote]

inasmuch as bestiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia are defects.

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 02:00 PM']I mean I am seeing some very judgmental people really laying into homosexuals as a whole and accusing them of being sinful people.[/quote]

that would be a defect of Church teaching.

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 02:00 PM']It seems to me the majority of Christians assume that the homosexual is performing homosexual acts. Would I assume that since we are heterosexual that every unmarried person on this forum is performing fornication or some sexual act? Am I to assume every teenage heterosexual boy is masturbating and is therefore a sinner? Should we have a debate on whether that boy should have “rights”?

Don’t get me wrong I believe that marriage is reserved for a man and woman and parades, TV shows etc. that glorifies the sins of homosexuality is as much immoral to me as watching roommates having premarital sex on “The Real World” or all of those stupid dating shows or soap operas.

It seems to me to be ok to hate the sin AND the sinner when it comes to speaking about homosexuals. I can see where people might think that someone who comes “out” is glorifying a sin but is that what really is happening? I’m sure there are some that do but it could be a very personal thing that helps them cope with the fact they are expected to be celibate for the rest of their lives. I thought about this and they are the only group of people who have no choice but to be celibate and not experience the love that heterosexuals can experience in the Sacrament of Marriage. The bachelor/ette vocation is a choice for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

I would think given all that they would get a lot more empathy from us than they do. A lot more encouragement to fight the good fight everyday. A few “atta boys” for trying. But no they mostly get ridicule and scorn. Why is that?[/quote]

sounds like you a have a problem with the people who are sinning by not being charitable and not following Church teaching. why is this? because they are not being taught properly. why do homosexuals take such offense? because they are not being taught properly. lots of ignorance going around on both sides. the truth remains the truth, and is always available, unlike the love that is absent on both sides..

[socalscout]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1589644' date='Jul 2 2008, 07:23 PM']Since you seem to be replying to some points I made in my last post here, thought I'd respond.

The fact is that those committing homosexual acts [i]are[/i] sinning, as both the Bible and the unchanging teaching of the Church make clear. We are not doing anyone a favor by pretending they are not.

When the subject of homosexuality (or any other moral question, for matter) is brought up on a Catholic message board, it is not only not wrong, but the [i]duty[/i] of Catholics to make the truth clear, to fulfill the command of the Church to "instruct the ignorant" and "admonish the sinner" - two of the spiritual works of [i]mercy[/i].

If you are accusing us of saying that homosexuals are sinners, then guilty as charged. So did St. Paul. So did Moses. This does not in itself equal uncharity. [i]Failing[/i] to call sin by its right name is the true uncharity.
In your OP, you also insinuated that people were debating whether homosexuals should have rights, when in fact, as I pointed out, no one was making this argument. The only people making this claim are "pro-gay" individuals who claim that "gay marriage" and such are rights owed homosexuals. If opposing "gay marriage" and other special legal privileges makes us "uncharitable" "homophobes," then so's the Pope.
You bring up some legit points about going out and witnessing to sinners. However, this has little to do with posting on an internet message board. Who are you to judge what kind of witness others are giving or not giving in "real life"?
And let's not forget that Jesus did not simply "hang with sinners," but called them to repent of their sin and follow Him. That's a point many "compassionate" liberals seem to forget.

The much-abused (and apocryphal) quote about "preach the Gospels daily and if necessary use words” does not mean that one should keep silent about Christian and moral truth, but that one's own life should first reflect the Christian message. In other words, practice what you preach. While that is always a good point for all of us to keep in mind, it in no ways means Catholics should keep silent about "controversial" moral truths when such controversy arises on message boards or elsewhere.
If you read the New Testament, you will note that neither Christ nor His Apostles were shy about speaking unpopular truths that people did not want to hear - even "hard teachings" that turned some away.
(One wonders how much of the words of Christ or St. Paul would be sternly rebuked by the "charity police" if spoken by others on here for being "uncharitable" or "un-Christlike"!)

The problem is, there is currently a savage and relentless attack by the world on Christian morality, particularly regarding homosexuality, and much confusion on this issues, even among practicing Catholics.
I was reading a recent (political) article which mentioned that polls now show that 72% of American Catholics under 30 think there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality (a significantly higher figure than the American public at large - about 50% The numbers for Evangelical youth were somewhat lower).
I don't think anyone can honestly say that Christians, especially Catholics, are doing too much to make Church moral teaching clear.
I think every Catholic has a duty to stand up and preach the truth clearly and unambiguously on this matter.
Like it or not, there's a moral battle going on now, and Catholics need to take a clear and strong stand, rather than dilute the truth or remain silent for fear of offending others.[/quote]


Socrates,

Opposing anything that promotes or encourages homosexuality is on my page. I agree that we as Christians must fight the good fight everyday. Pride Parade and the like to me is Sodom and Gomorrah on wheels. I do not have one inch of a problem with opposing our society's promotion of homosexuality. The same goes, however, for premarital sex, greed and avarice, pornography, The Easter Bunny…I can go on forever.

You are twisting my thread to accuse me of attacking the defense of Christian morality. You are implying that I oppose your views which you claim are inline with Moses, Paul and the Pope so therefore opposing them. You imply, from your statements, that anyone who comes to the defense of the sinful is promoting or advocating their sin.

“If you are accusing us of saying that homosexuals are sinners, then guilty as charged”

That statement assumes they are all committing sin based on the fact they are homosexual and nothing else. That is what the whole thread is really about. Thank You! We assume they are sinners because by the very definition of homosexuality so it gives us carte blanche to cast stones from our safe keyboards. It’s an effort to ostracize and not witness and shepherd. Am I the only one who has a problem with that? Am I violating fidelity to the Church because I don’t pretend to know the hearts of men and therefore make bold comments like yours without first looking at my sin? Maybe we should change the subject.

So what are your thoughts on the Easter Bunny?

[havok579257]

love the sinner, hate the sin.

homosexuality is NOT a sin. only performing acts are a sin.

being heterosexual is not a sin. having heterosexual sex before marriage is a sin.


simple enough, what more needs to be said.

[johnnydigit]

it is pretty obvious. i guess deep down, some people just need a hug.

[Socrates]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1594929' date='Jul 8 2008, 09:46 AM']Socrates,

Opposing anything that promotes or encourages homosexuality is on my page. I agree that we as Christians must fight the good fight everyday. Pride Parade and the like to me is Sodom and Gomorrah on wheels. I do not have one inch of a problem with opposing our society's promotion of homosexuality. The same goes, however, for premarital sex, greed and avarice, pornography, The Easter Bunny…I can go on forever.

You are twisting my thread to accuse me of attacking the defense of Christian morality. You are implying that I oppose your views which you claim are inline with Moses, Paul and the Pope so therefore opposing them. You imply, from your statements, that anyone who comes to the defense of the sinful is promoting or advocating their sin.

“If you are accusing us of saying that homosexuals are sinners, then guilty as charged”

That statement assumes they are all committing sin based on the fact they are homosexual and nothing else. That is what the whole thread is really about. Thank You! We assume they are sinners because by the very definition of homosexuality so it gives us carte blanche to cast stones from our safe keyboards. It’s an effort to ostracize and not witness and shepherd. Am I the only one who has a problem with that? Am I violating fidelity to the Church because I don’t pretend to know the hearts of men and therefore make bold comments like yours without first looking at my sin? Maybe we should change the subject.

So what are your thoughts on the Easter Bunny?[/quote]
The Easter Bunny is a upstanding citizen - hippity-hopping down the Bunny Trail, bringing joy to all the little boys and girls - and I resent your slander of him. Putting him in the same category as pornographers is totally uncalled for!

I wasn't "twisting your thread," because it was unclear exactly what you were saying. It seemed to be an attack against those condemning homosexuality as a sin on Phatmass, but you never gave any specific examples of what exactly you were referring to.

Again, it seems this may all come down to the semantics issue clarified earlier in this thread. I use the term "homosexual" to refer to those performing perverted acts with members of the same sex, or those who actively desire to perform such acts. It's the whole "homosexual" vs. "SSA" issue.
Again, like Al, I don't believe in people identifying themselves publicly by disordered inclination or temptation towards a sin. Temptation is something to be overcome, not to be the source of one's identity. And, while you may disagree, I seriously doubt the vast majority of those publicly "coming out" as "gay" are embracing a life of chastity.
And, as pointed out earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying that homosexual inclinations in themselves are disordered or defective, as that is exactly what the Church teaches.

And I don't think that anyone is "casting stones" on here. When we speak out against sins of homosexuality and their promotion, this is not personally condemning anyone, but rather a sinful "lifestyle."

[socalscout]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1595649' date='Jul 8 2008, 07:32 PM']And, while you may disagree, I seriously doubt the vast majority of those publicly "coming out" as "gay" are embracing a life of chastity.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that and will concede to the rest of the points you just made as long you can entertain the notion that the E.Bunny is Evil.

God Bless and good debate.

[Jaime]

You know I don't think its totally unfounded if people feel that phatmass folks have a negative attitude towards homosexuals. I think they're right. And a simple search supports that. I did a quick and simple search for topics about various mortal sins

masturbation 12 threads
pornography 13 threads
premarital sex 5 threads

homosexuality 49 threads

Granted its just a cursory search. If you want to delve into it more deeply, have at it. But statistically speaking, if 2% of phatmass (or 10% whatever) deals directly with the issue of homosexuality, it stands to reason there are more pholks struggling with masturbation, pornography and premarital sex. Yet we've been a bit focused on the homosexuals.

I myself have been accused of having a "pro-gay agenda" from several pholks who do not ever seem to quite live up to their screen names. And of course when I ask them to demonstrate any place on phatmass that I've contradicted Church teachings on the subject, the shut up immediately.

So why are we apparently overly concerned with homosexuals? I will throw out to plausible theories. One, I believe there are some people who think there is a hierarchy of mortal sins and homosexual acts are the worst of them. Here's the real fact,

all mortal sins can lead you to hell, they are all equally bad.


Oh and the second reason? Its easier to point out someone elses flaws than it is to deal with your own struggles. In my years at PM I have yet to see one ranter on one of these threads ever post anywhere "yes I struggle with...."

This is why I generally jump into these debates and get accused by small thinkers that I'm pro-gay, I tire of people inferring that one mortal sin is worse than the others.

So yeah I think we could possibly (if you go by the numbers) use our time to focus on struggles pertaining to more pholks. As demonstrated by Aly's thread on masturbation, it can generate some beneficial discussion (sidenote: I find it interesting that the same people who love to rant on homosexual threads have been critical against Aly's thread)

[friendofJPII]

I think a distinction neeeds to be made here however.

Pre-marital sex while it is immoral, it is a bit more "natural."

Homosexual sex is immoral [b]and [/b][i][/i]is a direction abrogation of natural law.

Now, I'm not stating this fact to pick on those who live a homosexual lifestyle, we have all sinnned against chastity at some point and all mortal sins will indeed send us to hell, but I do think some sins are more grievous than others (ex. fornication worse than masturbation because more people are involved) because the sin is more scandalous, pushes the line of immorality and even further, thus leading our society to an even greater degree of moral degregation. Sin has a snowball effect.

Furthermore, I do think that many individuals are homosexual by choice. My childhood friend is in a lesbian relationship right now, but growing up she was as boy crazy as any other girl. She flat at told me that she still likes men, but she "just happened to have fallen in love with a woman..." Because homosexuality is more accepted nowadays, more people are experimenting.

That being said, there are some people who really struggle with the inclination and suffer greatly. These are the people we need to reach out to.

Edited July 10, 2008 by friendofJPII

[Jaime]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1596903' date='Jul 10 2008, 11:31 AM']I think a distinction neeeds to be made here however.

Pre-marital sex while it is immoral, it is a bit more "natural."

Homosexual sex is immoral [b]and [/b]is a direction abrogation of natural law.

Now, I'm not stating this fact to pick on those who live a homosexual lifestyle, we have all sinnned against chastity at some point and all mortal sins will indeed send us to hell, but I do think some sins are more grevious than others (ex. fornication worse than masterbation because more people (and potential child) are involved) because the sin is more scandalous, pushes the line of immorality and even further, thus leading our society to an even greater degree of moral degregation.[/quote]


Please understand this. All mortal sins go against natural law.

[rachael]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1596895' date='Jul 10 2008, 11:03 AM']You know I don't think its totally unfounded if people feel that phatmass folks have a negative attitude towards homosexuals. I think they're right. And a simple search supports that. I did a quick and simple search for topics about various mortal sins

masturbation 12 threads
pornography 13 threads
premarital sex 5 threads

homosexuality 49 threads

Granted its just a cursory search. If you want to delve into it more deeply, have at it. But statistically speaking, if 2% of phatmass (or 10% whatever) deals directly with the issue of homosexuality, it stands to reason there are more pholks struggling with masturbation, pornography and premarital sex. Yet we've been a bit focused on the homosexuals.

I myself have been accused of having a "pro-gay agenda" from several pholks who do not ever seem to quite live up to their screen names. And of course when I ask them to demonstrate any place on phatmass that I've contradicted Church teachings on the subject, the shut up immediately.

So why are we apparently overly concerned with homosexuals? I will throw out to plausible theories. One, I believe there are some people who think there is a hierarchy of mortal sins and homosexual acts are the worst of them. Here's the real fact,

all mortal sins can lead you to hell, they are all equally bad.
Oh and the second reason? Its easier to point out someone elses flaws than it is to deal with your own struggles. In my years at PM I have yet to see one ranter on one of these threads ever post anywhere "yes I struggle with...."

This is why I generally jump into these debates and get accused by small thinkers that I'm pro-gay, I tire of people inferring that one mortal sin is worse than the others.

So yeah I think we could possibly (if you go by the numbers) use our time to focus on struggles pertaining to more pholks. As demonstrated by Aly's thread on masturbation, it can generate some beneficial discussion (sidenote: I find it interesting that the same people who love to rant on homosexual threads have been critical against Aly's thread)[/quote]
and this is why we are friends

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1596906' date='Jul 10 2008, 10:36 AM']Please understand this. All mortal sins go against natural law.[/quote]


That is true, but some mortal sins are a bit more "natural" than others...if that makes sense.

For example, people might have a natural inclination to gossip, although it's still wrong. But a desire to blow up buildings is not natural.

[Jaime]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1596910' date='Jul 10 2008, 11:42 AM']That is true, but some mortal sins are a bit more "natural" than others...if that makes sense.

For example, people might have a natural inclination to gossip, although it's still wrong. But a desire to blow up buildings is not natural.[/quote]

No

One can identify more with one sin than another because (s)he has struggled with it. The following rationalization is "well since a lot of people including myself have struggled with it, its more natural"

Sin at its root is unnatural.

But even if you were correct (and you're not) are you suggesting then that its justified to be focused so much on a sin that only affects less than 10% of the population?