Is it antichristian to battle antihomosexual discrimination?

Post Reply New Topic

Not as a rule. It could be if involved attacking Christians but just working for rights no not anti Christian in itself. Really Christian and GLBT groups should be able to get along and work together sadly many choose strife anger and division. I disagree with some of the things both sides say. Disagree should not mean anti. It should just mean different opinion.
There is also a big difference between goups with labels and the individuals who belong to the groups. It is sad the individual human is often dehumanized in labeling and grouping people.
I have known people who are gay and consider themselves evangelical Christians. Some even claimed to be republicans. Seemed odd to me but that's how they saw themselves so I accepted them as indviduals with somewhat unusual group labels.

I see myself as a neutral observer since I am not really into dating anyone and even though I am a believer I don't go to church or join in the various causes assoiciated with christians. Certainly don't want to make anyone believe and do what I think. I have enough trouble figuring out my own life.

Oh ok, they can be gay as long as they live a torturous life of self-denial, bereft of human contact.

That's fine then.

If you are choosing a life as a religious that involves a vow of celebacy, you are rather already doing that. That vow of celebacy is quite the equalizer.

For everyone else, note what I said about how the act gets grouped, a few posts up.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 03 Jan 2012, 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

A lot of people don't choose their faith.

Telling people they have to live celibate, live a lie, or live in shame because of who they know themselves to be is pretty awful, IMHO.

You missunderstood me. In the context in which I used it, the term religious refers specifically to priests, nuns and the like, who take a vow of celebacy when choosing that life. This tangent had started with a discussion of how the Vatican might feel about its gay priests and nuns, remember.

Outside of that, people who are gay have pretty much the same rules anyone else who isn't married in the eyes of the church has. They have to decide in their own conscious what that will mean in their lives, in the same way many unmarried Christians go ahead and have sex even though the Bible tells them not to. It's all lumped together in the Bible.

What is the opposite? That Catholicism is intolerant because individual Catholics are intolerant? I do not think that. Most Catholics I notice are outwardly tolerant, moreso than other Christian sects. What do you mean by theologically incorrect?

IMO, the theology cannot be tolerant because it's Christian. The problem is with Christianity itself and Catholicism actually being rather an accurate interpretation of it (I would never have said that when I was Protestant).

My understanding is that Catholicism thinks that homosexual behaviour goes against Natural Law and is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is their line and it comes from the Bible - so they can't help it, or really deviate from it and still call themselves Christians. That is intolerant. Just because you don't condemn people to hell for doing something, doesn't mean that you're tolerant of it. Telling someone that their perfectly natural and harmless inclinations are sinful if acted upon and giving them lifelong celibacy to aspire to instead - is intolerant. Do you know what kind of mental torture your Church inflicts on people by telling them that their body is wrong and that they should suppress its desires? Maybe only a certain type of person feels that guilt and torment since a lot of people seem quite happy in the Church - but as an ex-Catholic myself, I don't know how they manage it.

You are the one true Church right? So yes, you are going to hell if you don't repent for the stuff you guys see as sins (sodomy is a mortal sin, as I understand) . Yes, I understand sodomy isn't just gay sex, but my point stands. Gay or not, the church lays a guilt-trip on anyone who has non-procreative sex. You've abdicated the repsonsibility of condemning people to God, so you look quite tolerant because you're not personally damning anyone, but your God does plenty of damning for you. Imo, you shouldn't need to repent for having sex, just because your type of sex deviates from the holy plan of how sex should happen.

You happen to think that God is Good and makes good rules, and I seriously do not. So we will never agree.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 03 Jan 2012, 11:01 am, edited 20 times in total.

religion is bigotry and intolerance made manifest,

they have simply spruced it up a bit to make it acceptable in the societies of the time.

In fairness, however, I think it is noteworthy that the Roman Catholic Church has not practiced what it has preached so far as gay candidates for the priesthood are concerned.

The Church may claim that gay Catholics are, "called to celibacy," but the Church has, nonetheless, barred celibate gay men from seminaries. A 2005 instruction sets out that, "the Church...may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture." The distinction between those who practice homosexuality and those who show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies makes it clear that celibacy is not enough to make a gay man eligible for ordination. As for those with "deeply-rooted homosexual tendencies," already in Holy Orders, the Vatican is clear that they cannot be appointed as educators in seminaries.



I think it is abundantly clear that whatever the Church is wading chest-deep in hyprocrisy in so far as celibate, gay priests are concerned.

I made imprecise summary, sorry.

The Catholic church, in my experience, is more tolerant than their pronouncements would lead you to assume.

I think people misunderstand the weight and the purpose of the pronouncements. I was taught to see them more as goals, as a list of "best practices," not a measure of falling short and being condemned. You speak of Natural Law, but don't give weight to how it also means no birth control, and millions of Catholics ignore that one with no fear of going to Hell for it, because life is full of making compromises, where value A has to be weighed against value B. The core theology actually understands and allows for all of that.

To answer your question, I would have to understand it...

Personally, as a human and a Christian, self-proclaimed and baptized in an actual church baptismal... Scripture tells us not to judge others. Scripture guides us to be kind and caring towards each other. Jesus told us to love one another. The Beatles said, "All you need is love." I don't think it is wrong to stop others from being wrongly persecuted. I think the persecution of homosexuals I've seen in the past was wrong. I don't see much anymore but I hear it still exists. I don't think it makes God happy when "Christians" attack anyone for being different.

For me, the question is, why do you care? Why are you so focused on the big, bad Christians? What is your goal?

I would emphasize the word, "practice."

Priests are supposed to live celibate lives, basically devoid of sexuality, period, whether their inclination be heterosexual or homosexual. Which means there shouldn't be "gay culture" in a seminary anymore than there should be exotic female dancers and porn movies.

Now, you can debate the whole celibacy issue from its inception, but it treats gay men no differently than it does heterosexual men.

I have had friends who were priests and / or in the seminary and there is background here that I don't feel free to share on a public message board. All I will emphasize is this: gay men are welcome in the priesthood, but they cannot PRACTICE that sexuality or advocate that they should be allowed to do so.

Beyond that, I'm not going to argue that the church does not have a rocky relationship with sexuality, ALL sexuality, but maybe homosexuality in particular, because it does. Just ... it doesn't always mean what the public seems to assume it means.

an image portrayed to punce on others, nothing more.

I did briefly mentioned all forms of non-procreative sex but I perhaps did not give weight to it. If these are only guidelines, can you explain why the Church continues to incorrect information to Africans regarding the effectiveness of condoms? Why is abortion still illegal in many Catholic countries (especially the poorer ones)? I think they only work as goals (in practice) in the developed world, for poor people they're rules. They cause a lot of suffering and not just in really poor countries. A lot of the problems in Ireland and Portugal today are caused by what the Church has done there,

Don't be so hard on them. Surely they are very tolerant of pedophile sexuality.

I am not up to date on all the situations you ask about.

I cannot comment on how human voters and elected officials apply their faith, expert to say I often disagree with their choices.

I can say that I was told, years ago, that there was much theological debate in the church on birth control in the way back, and the position came out as it did because (a) to do otherwise would theoretically allow governments to force birth control on citizens, which the church found abhorrent and (b) natural methods are accessible to all regardless of wealth, easy to teach in impoverished nations, and easy to consistently apply when you have limited means. While they are imperfect, they are pretty cool in the way they teach you to read your body, and they were a great help to me when I wanted to get pregnant.

You also have to take these papers as part of a whole package, vision for the world, where there is less poverty and so forth, reducing the need for some of these choices to exist.

This is clearly incorrect. Were this the case, then gay men who practice celibacy would be equally eligible for the priesthood as would be heterosexual men who practice celibacy. But they are not--they are categorically excluded from the priesthood not by reason of their behaviour but by reason of their sexual orientation, even if they have never acted upon that orientation. Of course, in practice, seminaries routinely ignore the Church's teaching on the admission of homosexual seminarians. But is hypocrisy the best foundation for the instruction of priests?

I have no objection to the Roman Catholic Church excluding homosexual priests any more than I object to the exclusion of women priests--they are free to follow whatever doctrine they choose. But I strenuously object to the Roman Catholic Church and her apologists pretending that there is an equal place in the church for homosexuals who respond to the call to celibacy when it is clear in doctrine that no such equal place exists.



I think you mischaracterize the church's conduct. I will certainly not deny that there are gay men in Holy Orders, and that they continue to join despite the 2005 Instruction. But that is a far cry from being "welcomed" in the priesthood. Gay men are--at best--tolerated, because the Church has no other options.

Until the 2005 Instruction is consigned to the doctinal dustheap the Roman Catholic Church will continue to be living in hypocrisy and her members do her no favours by turning a blind eye to that.