Comments on: Homosexuals Just Want to be Left Alone

By: admin

admin — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:30:52 +0000

The Church does not preach love, care and acceptance only for the chosen few. The Church teaches love and caring for all and acceptance of good. Whether you are living in homosexual sin, adultery, fornication or are a thief, your actions are not accepted.

There is a difference between love and acceptance. If I love an alcoholic, the last thing I would do to show that love is ignore or even facilitate his addiction. In the same way it is possible to love active homosexuals as creatures of God while at the same time condemning and not accepting their actions - just as it is with every other sin.

Religious views only seem outdated and perverse in a society that has lost its moral compass and believes that there aren’t any moral absolutes.

By: Wolfy

Wolfy — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:39:06 +0000

In response to the religious viewpoint on being forced to agree (with terms of property letting, education) it might be worth looking at the possibility that your religious views are skewed towards unconditional prejudice, which as an intellectual you feel you must justify in some way.

I think it has long been a contradiction of the catholic church to preach love, care and acceptance only for the chosen few. Gay men and women have a right to be treated as equals and should not be lumped into a category of ‘liberal’ nonsense and indoctrination. Much like the intergration of interracial couples in early America, it’s simply a matter of time before these religious counterpoints seem outdated and perverse.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:58:29 +0000

God does not exisist, simple as that.

How obsurb is God? Something that you cannot see but can see us, who is always right, who created us all. What a load of rubish.

If there was no religion this world would be a much better place.

By: Homosexuals Just Want to be Left Alone (Part 3) « Musings from a Catholic Bookstore

Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:05:32 +0000

[...] More examples of wanting to just be left alone here and here. [...]

By: Homosexuals Just Want to be Left Alone (Part II) « Musings from a Catholic Bookstore

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:52:07 +0000

[...] Just Want to be Left Alone (Part II) A while back I pointed out that in Britain it was now illegal for private Catholic schools to teach that [...]

By: Joseph M.

Joseph M. — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:45:03 +0000

I failed to address the original blog, it seems… In the arena of religious schooling, I don’t see the pertinence of teaching homosexual equality. If it’s that important to you, it’s your right to teach intolerance. (See Romans 2:24) As far as any rights in the ‘public’ arena are concerned, I feel my opinion is expressed. As far as the ‘homosexual agenda’: if I’d caught that my first go around I never would’ve bothered. I’m glad I missed it though.

By: Joseph M.

Joseph M. — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:18:00 +0000

I found this site while studying the relationship between David and Jonathan - hoping not to find Biblical support for homosexuality, but rather tolerance within the religious community in general. Being 24 in a rural Southern Baptist dominated community is difficult, to say the least. Sadly, it appears I should’ve found my ‘back’ button sooner and not read this thread in its entirety. I’m upset, to say the least - with myself as much as my country and my fellow Christians. First, I’ll respond directly to comments that demand attention. I am trying to remain neutral, but do accept my apologies if I offend or sound demeaning. You all are entitled to your opinions, just as I am mine, and I do very much respect you for it. That respect is why I respond, in fact.
Ian: Francis S. Collins - while he is a man of admirable faith and amazing intelligence - is ultimately biased. You failed to mention he has published another work directly tied to his strong religious beliefs. You should specify your sources as biased if you plan to use them, although I hate to say you most likely knew of such and chose not to disclose that fact. The site you linked, NARTH, uses Collins’ research to attack ‘born-gay’ theories, claiming these born-gay advocates are merely seeking publicity with their gay gene theories. I respect Collins immensely, but any author seeks publicity - I am one myself, and the child of one as well. We make a living this way, you see. I also find it hard to believe NARTH - a group dedicated to the ‘Re-Orientation Therapy’ of homosexuals - would be differently inclined. It’s unfortunate, in my opinion, that Collins’ other, wonderful spiritual work should be tainted by a bias as strong as theirs.
Having read your article, now please read mine. Although, you may find it as distasteful and biased as I found NARTH. Instead of ranting and complaining about hetero/Christian persecution - smacks of Rome, I must say, don’t you think? - it deals with why young homosexuals are perceived as or are in fact promiscuous and, more importantly, what needs to be done to keep them safe. (hopefully that link worked…) While it’s a beautiful idea, redirecting our little lost sheep, one cannot deny that a disenfranchised youth is at risk - regardless of why they are so. It also deals with role models, as does NARTH. At least we’ll find some common ground there, I suppose. Again I mean no disrespect in this, but you are completely missing a very pertinent issue, and I can only hope it is not intentional. Need I remind you of a good Samaritan?
Ethan: Yes, sadly, you are right about Satanism. It is disgusting and, quite frankly, just a random bundle and flux of pagan symbols amid various selections from Judeo-Christian demonology. There is still debate, as you probably know, as to just what exactly this ‘Satan’ character truly is. Some more modern, progressive Christians refer to ‘him’ as a mere personification of ill will among mankind. Some hardliners maintain the insistence that ‘he’ is a tactile presence, a tempter of man, a leader of demonic forces, etc. There’s even vast disagreement as to just which fallen angel ‘he’ really is, if in fact ‘he’ was an angel, if in fact ‘he’ is possessed (no pun intended) of a physical body. I’ve studied it in detail for my next work, and all I’ll say is that Lucifer most likely isn’t anything more than a mistrans and the whole idea of ha-Shaitan may in fact be God’s inquisitor on Earth. You know this, I’m certain. You seem to be well versed in passing judgment based on Biblical text. Your comparison between Satanism and Catholicism, however, is apples and oranges. Beware that forbidden fruit, if I may pun again. As a religion, yes: Satanism is protected by law given it does no harm to anyone, yaddah yaddah ad nauseum, but it is kept just as strictly (if not more-so depending upon the location) separate from public function as is any other religion, if that is what you were inferring with your statement of ‘in certain areas.’ In my public school experience though - well over a decade - any reference to Satanism was grounds for suspension/expulsion, even while the Fellowship of Christian Athletes maintained a massive membership (including myself). And as far as your being put down, or discriminated against, for your higher standard of morals: wrong again.
I make a mean garlic and red-pepper chicken, and you’re welcome at my table anytime - that is, if your higher standard of morals permits you to dine with disorder.
Concerning that ‘disorder’ however, Ian and Ethan, I must set aside my tact for a moment. Forgive me, but any who maintain the belief that homosexuality is a choice have moved passed simple human ignorance into what I can only see as willful cruelty. You contradict yourself here, on at least two levels. I’ll state them, then address them in order. First: why would any man or woman, loving God and Christ, *choose* to partake in such a ‘depraved’ act? Second: if you consider it heresy to say that God would create such a ‘disorder’ so be it, but am I wrong in the belief that mankind may never understand the ‘order’ itself of God’s creation? Is mankind’s unquestioning acceptance of this sheer lack of understanding not one of the cornerstones of Christian faith? Perhaps there is room for argument, or even contradiction in my statements, but:
Concerning ‘choice’ I must point a finger. You do not know, as you obviously are not. Lay down your stones, gentlemen. I have never criticized the idea of heterosexuality - in fact, have longed for it at times. I am what I am, however, and will not change nor seek to change. Lament if you must, but read on.
Related to this is the second question of faith. I accept Jesus in all the various roles and functions as any Christian. With that said, understand that I do not accept the words of any man above God or the Son or the Spirit - Apostle, Saint, Priest, or otherwise. I say this with confidence, because I see God’s works around me every day. I see them in every thing - it’s the magic, and the miracle of life. I do not seek proof of an Almighty being, nor do I rely on a translated (often mistranslated) text to establish my belief. It is simply there, as it always has been, long before sex or marriage was a desire in my life. Call me a heretic, Deist, Protestant, whatever. You will not shake my faith, nor will I change any aspect of the miracle of my creation. Perhaps Christ did in fact condemn homosexuality - that was a new one on me. I’ll rely on my faith for now, unless He tells me otherwise. As it stands, considering I’m here to begin with… I doubt He did, or does. But in trivializing homosexuality, you trivialize me. I apologize if I find that offensive, here with the miracle of life within me.
Concerning love, Ethan: you are correct again, yet you tinge your truth with prejudice. Any love that is not directing first to Him is in fact imperfect, but how could you understand my love for Him? Or worse, proclaim that there is none? Sacred text aside - opinions of mankind included: you would deny me a love of God because men have said you can? You would deny us all that, these ‘disorder’ inflicted homosexuals, until we repent our way of life that you, a man, do not understand… Again, I’ll rely on my faith for now. You speak bold words for a mortal, I’ll give you that much. I admire your faith, although I fear it borders judgment, again.
On that line, Ian, God and His works will forever be infallible. The sheer number of religious denominations however… that might suggest a bit of failing within the Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, and forgive me for the expression, but we’re not in Eden anymore. Have not all these congregations undergone a reconstruction at some point? Is this not expected of mankind? I can only hope it would be, as it is our very nature to be flawed, blind, selfish, and sinful. I regret to inform you, but our Holy Men are still Men, regardless of piety and faith. We are not divine - need I rephrase this again? I don’t think I do. Onward.
Ben: Your statement concerning renting only to homosexuals is nothing more than a jab, and a false jab at that. Len would indeed be deemed discriminatory, or a bigot, if she were to do so. Technically, you just did - your jab was more of a hook, it seems. Any heterosexual denied housing due to that fact could pursue legal action. The question is, on the topic of bigots: would you rent from a homosexual, upon learning they are so? I believe that’s an aspect of multiple arguments. You have the choice not to rent from a homosexual, whereas a homosexual - upon advertising that property - waives their right to choose their tenant. And vice versa. Of course, if you meet all financial requirements (ie: credit, income, etc.) then you have the right to pay money to live wherever you want. That’s called equal protection under the law.
Ian: As to your concerns with equal housing law - keep it. If you’re that interested in my sex-life, it would be a bit weird for both of us, I think…
Of course, concerning the gay marriage debate, we’ll most likely disagree again but I feel it should be said regardless. There is a concept among political scholars - you may know of it - often referred to as ‘The Paradox of Democracy.’ It deals with discrimination and majority rule, stating: while each citizen is given their 1-vote, with the majority being the ultimate decider in policy whether through elected officials, ballots, etc etc, the MAJORITY rule cannot apply to any instance where the minority is ‘discriminated’ against. Let me be clear in that ‘discrimination’ means, in this instance, the withholding of any right from a certain population if that right is enjoyed by others. This is pertinent, as you see, for several reasons.
Whether it’s not wanting queers in your rental or marriage rights for homosexuals, if you choose to claim American citizenship (ie: paying taxes in return for equal protection) then you must be held to the doctrine of equal rights. Many hardliners call it ’special’ rights or treatment, and compare it to reparations for slavery. This is absurd, of course, because if you choose to enjoy the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all citizens, you must also observe the separation of Church (all denominations) and State, regardless of whether you disagree with it. Forgive my rudeness, but I’ll repeat to you a popular quip I’ve heard many times, in person. If you disagree with it, feel free to move. I hear there are lots of Catholics in Italy, although you may dislike their tax system. Come to think of it… their redistribution of wealth is rather Christian at heart. You may enjoy it, actually.
I have more to say, but I fear I’ve lost all objectivity. I respect and appreciate you all, though. You are entitled to your faith and your opinions, and I consider them to be part of His ‘disorder’ in our creation. I am not meant to understand human nature, but I feel closer to Him in the exploration of it. I can only hope this sentiment is shared.
See that your hearts and minds are open, gentlemen, lest you see that “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24) - That I’ll put my faith in.
God bless.

By: Lactantius

Lactantius — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:12:20 +0000

I have read the latest postings but don’t find in them any further light and insight. I know that for my part I really have nothing new to say. Evidently neither side in this discussion has convinced the other. I have no desire to say again what I have already said once as clearly as I am able. I suggest we pray for one another, asking God to confirm us in the truth where we are right, and lead us out of error where we are wrong. At the same time let us remember the words of St. Paul to the Christians at Corinth: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). Faith, it seems to me, has three essential elements: 1) openness to the truth wherever it may be found. 2) acceptance of the truth that has been found, not running away from it, and 3) commitment, shaping one’s life according to the truth that has been found and accepted. I try to do this without claiming complete success. I’m sure it is your endeavor also. God bless you always.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:11:35 +0000

This was just released by the USCCB as a response to pamphlets that were sent to the Bishops by a dissenter.

“Moreover, Professor Maguire states that “homosexuality is not a sin.”[21] If, by this, Professor Maguire means that the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself, then this is true. However, if this is interpreted to mean that homosexual acts are not sinful, then this is erroneous. Because such acts do not result in the loving union of a man and a woman nor are they ordered to the procreation of children they are intrinsically disordered.[22] It is this intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts that prevents a “same-sex” union from expressing an authentic Christian understanding of marriage.[23]”

The Church’s position is that ALL homosexual behavior is sinful. Inclinations are meant to be battled in favor of something more in line with God’s plan.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:20:32 +0000

An interesting study from a member of the Human Genome Project.