Post Reply
Page 27 of 29  •  Prev 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What's so bad about being gay?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 3:53PM #261
darcamani
Posts: 2,152

Here is what is absolutely thrilling about being gay today.


Right now I have the right to buy a house with my mate and move into a neighborhood, no questions asked about my "roommate" or "intention", or "relationship".  Just came down to money just like the rest of ya.


30 years ago, kicked out, 20 years ago, beaten, often and  harrased and threatened constantly; now, neighborhood chosen, school district accepting, church affirming, teachers, ou new neighbors cool yet friendly as we get to know each other.  Homeowners.


Still do not have all rights, still have to jump through hoops to get these basics, yet we have them.


Not so bad when truth is told.


Our bigest issue? Schools and diversity of neighborhood as my family is multi racial. all human, simply colorful.


 The gay thing in the 'hood' has become a non issue. Yea!


Now we only have to deal with sexism, racism, , classism, agism and ableism...


times are a changin'.


So what is so bad about being straight?


:)


Dar


 


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 4:30PM #262
Derekj
Posts: 62

Feb 18, 2011 -- 2:24PM, REteach wrote:


Feb 18, 2011 -- 1:25PM, Derekj wrote:

I'm happy for you Dar, but I will remind you again that the content of my posts have been theological in nature and really not intended for anyone not of the Catholic faith or interested in homosexuality and the Church.dj


 



The appropriate place to post if you are only interested in discussing Catholic theology and homosexuality is Homosexuality and Catholicism.




I know you have mentioned that before but I was drawn to the site by the inflammatory OP, condemning (as it did) all mainline Churches as being anti-gay. I really don't think any main line Church is anti-gay and I know the millions (?) of gays who are Church-going and the many celibate Catholic gays would be deeply resentful of their Churches being characterized in that manner.


So I put up my first post and then hubbub hasn't settled. My comments were naturally directed towards defending my Church and so they were nuanced and not for the general audience. If you are gay and happy about it, I have no beef with you and neither should you with me.


What the hell do you care what Catholics think? We have a right to express our views in the public square and so it conflicts with attempts to legislate gay marriage. I would like to think that while you might regard me as profoundly wrong you will distinguish between me and the [those who have done evil]. Most of the time I have been explaining Catholic Teachings here. Hopefully a little education will bring some calm.


 


dj

Moderated by REteach on Feb 18, 2011 - 06:46PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 5:36PM #263
TPaine
Posts: 9,044

Feb 18, 2011 -- 1:25PM, Derekj wrote:


I'm happy for you Dar, but I will remind you again that the content of my posts have been theological in nature and really not intended for anyone not of the Catholic faith or interested in homosexuality and the Church.



If you're posting is intended only for those of the Catholic faith, then post it in the proper forum which would be Catholicism & Homosexuality. This is a multi-faith forum in which people of all or no faith are free to express their views.


Feb 18, 2011 -- 1:25PM, Derekj wrote:

I'm very sorry if you encountered anything but loving concern from anyone from my Church. Just because your personal beliefs do not coincide with those of the RCC should not be cause for you to oppose them. I hope you can leave them be in peace.



I oppose the RCC for the simple reason that they oppose granting equal rights to the LGBT community. The United States is a secular country in which it is unconstitutional for religious sects to impose their beliefs on those of other belief systems.


Feb 18, 2011 -- 1:25PM, Derekj wrote:

The Church does not condemn GLBT and works to "accept with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" all homosexuals. "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."



Then why were various Catholic organizations (Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Knights of Columbus, Catholic Charities, Diocese of Evansville, and Archdiocese of Santa Fe) all among the top five contributors to the Yes on Question One campaign to overturn same sex marriage in Maine? Why was Marc Mutty the public affairs director of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland the leader of the campaign to deny those rights? Why did the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops state in 2003 and affirm in 2006 that

Isn't the Church discriminating against homosexual persons by opposing same sex unions?


To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have  their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of  homosexual persons.  Christians must give witness to the whole truth  and, therefore, oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust  discrimination against homosexual persons.


It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because  marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities.  In  fact, justice requires society to do so.


The legal recognition of marriage, including benefits associated with  it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social  commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society.  It  would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits  to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage.  It should be noted  that some benefits currently sought by persons in homosexual unions can  already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example,  individuals can agree to own property jointly, and they can generally  designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to  make health care decisions in case they become incompetent. Link


 

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 6:59PM #264
REteach
Posts: 13,547

Feb 18, 2011 -- 5:36PM, TPaine wrote:

I oppose the RCC for the simple reason that they oppose granting equal rights to the LGBT community. The United States is a secular country in which it is unconstitutional for religious sects to impose their beliefs on those of other belief systems....


Then why were various Catholic organizations (Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Knights of Columbus, Catholic Charities, Diocese of Evansville, and Archdiocese of Santa Fe) all among the top five contributors to the Yes on Question One campaign to overturn same sex marriage in Maine? Why was Marc Mutty the public affairs director of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland the leader of the campaign to deny those rights? Why did the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops state in 2003 and affirm in 2006 that

Isn't the Church discriminating against homosexual persons by opposing same sex unions?


To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have  their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of  homosexual persons.  Christians must give witness to the whole truth  and, therefore, oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust  discrimination against homosexual persons.


It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because  marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities.  In  fact, justice requires society to do so.


The legal recognition of marriage, including benefits associated with  it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social  commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society.  It  would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits  to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage.  It should be noted  that some benefits currently sought by persons in homosexual unions can  already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example,  individuals can agree to own property jointly, and they can generally  designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to  make health care decisions in case they become incompetent. Link


  




As I said, the RCC violates its own teaching.  From VCII Dignitatis Humanae " Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society...This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.


The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.


It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."


 


Those of faiths other than the RCC have examined their consciences (and actually many of those within the RCC have done the same thing) and found that calling others "intrinsically disordered" and trying to pass laws to violate their civil rights by passing discriminatory civil laws is against the dignity of persons, against the truth to which we are bound to adhere, is is against the teaching of the RCC itself as shown above.  


And if anyone should try to claim that "just public order" is impaired by gay marriage--there is NO evidence of this in legitimate medical and social literature--as evidence by the stances of the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 7:02PM #265
REteach
Posts: 13,547

Feb 10, 2010 -- 12:09PM, Janeiro wrote:


What is it specifically about being gay or lesbian that disqualifies them from being a good person?  Apart from just saying, for example, "because God said so."  If asked about the sins of lying, cheating, stealing... no problem, of course, even for nonChristians to articulate why these things are wrong.  It's a bit harder to justify the immorality of homosexuality without falling into the usual trap of irrantionality, homophobia or worse... hatred similar to racism or anti-Semitism.


How do we deal with today's gay/lesbian ideal: monogamous, faithful, loving and devoted relationships?  And when you really think about it, what's so bad about being gay anyway?




THIS is inflammatory????????????????????????????

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 7:12PM #266
darcamani
Posts: 2,152

Sigh;


What is rough right  now about being gay is explaining to my chinese buddhist mate why people hate love in the name of their god called jesus.


This is a western christian thing.  she  is a scientist ,a biologist and had no idea some had a problem with being natural. When she came out, she said, "finally true to self." She followed rules yet could not figure out why she was miserable.


Discovered inner truth,last to know. Happy now. Me too. :)
Dar

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2011 - 7:23PM #267
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Feb 18, 2011 -- 4:30PM, Derekj wrote:


Feb 18, 2011 -- 2:24PM, REteach wrote:


Feb 18, 2011 -- 1:25PM, Derekj wrote:

I'm happy for you Dar, but I will remind you again that the content of my posts have been theological in nature and really not intended for anyone not of the Catholic faith or interested in homosexuality and the Church.dj


 



The appropriate place to post if you are only interested in discussing Catholic theology and homosexuality is Homosexuality and Catholicism.




I know you have mentioned that before but I was drawn to the site by the inflammatory OP, condemning (as it did) all mainline Churches as being anti-gay. I really don't think any main line Church is anti-gay and I know the millions (?) of gays who are Church-going and the many celibate Catholic gays would be deeply resentful of their Churches being characterized in that manner.


So I put up my first post and then hubbub hasn't settled. My comments were naturally directed towards defending my Church and so they were nuanced and not for the general audience. If you are gay and happy about it, I have no beef with you and neither should you with me.


What the hell do you care what Catholics think? We have a right to express our views in the public square and so it conflicts with attempts to legislate gay marriage. I would like to think that while you might regard me as profoundly wrong you will distinguish between me and the [those who have done evil]. Most of the time I have been explaining Catholic Teachings here. Hopefully a little education will bring some calm.


 


dj





The OP is certainly not inflammatory. Considering that the Roman Catholic Church's leadership is anti-gay and the words you've consistently repeated here are anti-gay, then I'm not sure how you think you're pro-gay.


Do you think that by de-humanizing people and promoting them as celibate sinners who must conform to your religious ideals and that all other gays are sinning in some "illusion" is gay friendly? You're not dealing with reality.


I distinguish your anti-gay words as [wrong]. I highly doubt that you are [bad] yourself, but you surely do [harm] with your destructive words. Like Catholics, we have the right to express our views in the public square as well (though keeping in mind, Bnet is the private sector and our being here is a privilege).


You are not educating any of us. Some here have been Catholic decades longer than you. The rest of us are well educated, intelligent people. You are reacting badly because we do not embrace your parroting and we think independently, while you have [responded by] recyling another Catholic reference.


If you would like to discuss Catholic theology, there are appropriate forums. If you choose to ignore the people here, their words and beliefs, then you are serving no purpose.

Moderated by REteach on Feb 18, 2011 - 08:27PM
The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 19, 2011 - 9:28AM #268
Derekj
Posts: 62

Feb 18, 2011 -- 7:02PM, REteach wrote:


Feb 10, 2010 -- 12:09PM, Janeiro wrote:


What is it specifically about being gay or lesbian that disqualifies them from being a good person?  Apart from just saying, for example, "because God said so."  If asked about the sins of lying, cheating, stealing... no problem, of course, even for nonChristians to articulate why these things are wrong.  It's a bit harder to justify the immorality of homosexuality without falling into the usual trap of irrantionality, homophobia or worse... hatred similar to racism or anti-Semitism.


How do we deal with today's gay/lesbian ideal: monogamous, faithful, loving and devoted relationships?  And when you really think about it, what's so bad about being gay anyway?




THIS is inflammatory????????????????????????????




It states explicitly that Christians say that Gays are bad "because God said so" and that they  justify that position by "irrantionality [sic], homophobia or worse... hatred similar to racism or anti-Semitism." It then goes on to assert an unproved thesis, namely that today's gay/lesbian ideal has been realized in "monogamous, faithful, loving and devoted relationships." I haven't dealt as much with the latter as the gratuitous portrayal of Christians in the former.?


dj

Moderated by REteach on Feb 19, 2011 - 09:38AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 19, 2011 - 9:41AM #269
REteach
Posts: 13,547
Gays are Christians too.  Being called intrinsically disordered by fellow Christians is not loving.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 19, 2011 - 11:32AM #270
darcamani
Posts: 2,152

 What came first,  humans, or the idea of god?


If there is a god and IS GOD, then there are no mistakes.  NONE


God did not write anything or create religion nor dogma, humans did, because we have a need to explain everything.  Does a God?


There is everything wonderful about being fully human, as there is everything wonderful born as a bug or a flower.


Everything wonderful being. 


If one thinks to hard it  becomes a problem for everyone.  Also perfect and dserves respect. Even if pink and sparrkly.


IMO


Dar

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 27 of 29  •  Prev 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook