Gay, Catholic and Doing Fine

[Brian37]

Yeah, I don't get it.

"Oh it's not dehumanizing to tell people they're not allowed to have sex.  Ever.  Because they're attracted to the *wrong* gender.  And they're not allowed to get married either.  Those that get married don't have a REAL marriage.  They shouldn't have the same legal rights that we do to form a commitment with someone they love, even if they don't plan on having sex with them.  They shouldn't be allowed to find someone to spend the rest of their life with!  That's not dehumanizing at all.  Now let's read from this book approved by God that calls them abominations and calls for them to be stoned to death!  God is wonderful!  I love god more than I love my spouse!"

The observations of the real world negate the claims of the alleged "all powerful" and "all loving" character they claim is real.

Just like Hitchens said about God if he asked him to murder his own kid, "NO, and fuck you".

LGBT isn't evil and to call it such is just sick, and worse it is basing it on an old unscientific comic book. And they have to cherry pick that book and skip all the other bans God calls "abominations", like eating shellfish.

[athrock]

Why are you so angry?

If you met me at a dinner party, you'd probably think I was a pretty nice person. You disagree with my views, but I haven't said anything particularly rude or out of line.

So, where is YOUR anger coming from, and why is it directed at me?

You think this is me angry?  this isn't me angry.  

I don't put up with much bullshit.  And that's what you're spewing.  You're acting like a condescending little prick toward everyone here.  Especially Kitan and DrFuzzy.  But others as well.  You lose all rights to expect my politeness when you act that way.  If I met you at a dinner party, and you brought up homosexuality like you have here, I'd probably tell you to fuck off.  In fact I'd probably tell you a lot more than to fuck off.  

Now if I were angry "condescending little prick" would be the nicest thing I call you.

When you act condescending, when you say the things you've said to other people here, you lose all right to expect politeness from me.  I'm not a polite person unless I'm being paid for my time.

How charming. 

But you didn't answer my question...unless it was here: "I'm not a polite person unless I'm being paid for my time."

So, it's just your default position to be impolite and angry?

[athrock]

Thanks for your thoughts.

When did you leave the Catholic Church and why?

Never really made sense to me in the  first place, I went as a child because my mom thought it would be good for me, but to her credit, she wasn't bent on making me go forever. To be honest the biggest reason I went was because I spotted a girl I was attracted to, but spent years pining after her in silence stupidly. 

I did want to believe only because I wanted to fit in. I really started to question Christianity because of one question a co worker at a construction site asked me. I was a day laborer paid to clean up after the construction workers at a housing development. He asked me "What if Jesus was just a man". That stuck with me. None of the hocus pokus stuff made sense but I was afraid to question publicly out of fear.

That was not a sudden de-conversion, it still took me several years to go from deist Christian, to deist, to "probably not" to "atheist". And even then it wasn't until after 9/11 that I sought other atheists out online. The only contact I had was with one atheist on campus in college, then after that, 3 atheists who attended a Unitarian Church. 

Some do have a sudden realization, like comedian Rickey Gervais who said it was because his mom told his older brother to shut up when he questioned the stories in it, basically he thought "If my mom is hiding something, it has to be bogus". I wish I had been that lucky to be that fearless.

I tell every religious person, the same thing, regardless of nationality, or religion or whatever part of the world they live in. You merely like what you believe, I do get that. It was understandable back then when humans didn't know any better, but we have much better tools to get the best data on reality of nature and the universe now.

There was no religion 200,000 years ago,  much less 4 billion years ago, much less 14 billion years ago. Now that I know scientifically how big the universe is and how old it is, I simply cant go back. I find it absurd in a universe of 100s of billions of galaxies, that this one tiny outpost being isolated in a hostile universe, humans matter. Especially knowing our planet has had 5 mass extinctions in evolutionary history.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Perhaps a question or two might stick with you now that you're a bit older and capable of thinking more deeply: 

What if Jesus were more than a man? 

What might that look like, and how would we know?

And what if there's nothing mutually exclusive between religion and science?

[athrock]

Why are you so angry?

If you met me at a dinner party, you'd probably think I was a pretty nice person. You disagree with my views, but I haven't said anything particularly rude or out of line.

So, where is YOUR anger coming from, and why is it directed at me?

Because you sit here and tell us that we are substandard humans because we don't believe in your stupid old book.  It gets really annoying after, like, the millionth time. You have no justifiable, rational reason to believe the damn thing is worth more than toilet paper, let alone structure your entire life around it.  And then find the balls to look down other people -from- of it.  

Have I ever said you are a substandard human? No.

And yes, belief in God is completely rational. COMPLETELY. RATIONAL.

There is also sufficient reason to believe that the account of Jesus in the NT is more probable than not.

So, I'm not sure why you're ASSUMING that I "look down [on] other people" who don't believe.

Is it because you look down on those who do?

[Catholic_Lady]

Feel what way about gays? We are supposed to "feel" about them the same way we feel about everyone else - which is to love. "May he who has never sinned cast the first stone," and all that. Especially since I said being gay is not immoral.  

As for homosexual activity, yes, a practicing/devout Catholic should adhere to official Church doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that includes Church teaching on human sexuality - in which we believe sex is reserved for husband and wife. Of course, any Catholic has the right to not believe in it if they don't want to, but then they would be what you guys call Cafeteria Catholics - not devout/practicing.

Thanks for the answer

I find that phrase "should adhere" scary. Why would you want to be told what your opinion is about something?

I have no problem with people applying their own beliefs to their own life, except I feel a bit sorry for people when they deny themselves things I see as harmless. I'm more concerned with people expecting those who don't share the religious beliefs to adhere to the same rules. I'm glad you aren't one of those people.

So is really accurate to say you believe atheists "should" reserve sex only for hetero marriages? Shouldn't it be that they should if they were Catholics? If you do still believe they should, what does this really mean?

No problem! 

When I say adhere, I don't mean to make it sound like anyone is forced to believe anything ("believe" would have been a better word than adhere). Even someone who is Catholic shouldn't be forced to believe all the dogmas of the Church. But not doing so does make you a cafeteria Catholic. A devout/practicing Catholic refers to a person who believes all the teachings.

I still believe celibacy is the moral thing to do for everyone who is not husband/wife, because I believe that's what sex is for. But I would never expect an atheist to follow Catholic laws on sexuality. At the end of the day, it's a personal choice. I have my own opinions about the issue, but I'm not going to judge a person based on their sexual preferences or on what they do in the bedroom... neither should those things become a person's identity.

[athrock]

When I go to Confession, I sometimes mention the fact that I'm gay, to give the priest some context. (And to spare him some confusion: Did you say 'locker room'? What were you doing in the women's...oh.) I've always gotten one of two responses: either compassion, encouragement, and admiration, because the celibate life is difficult and profoundly counter-cultural; or nothing at all, not even a ripple, as if I had confessed eating too much on Thanksgiving
....
So the Church doesn't oppose gay marriage because it's wrong; she opposes it because it's impossible, just as impossible as living on sand.

Okay that's nice, but just because the RCC has mellowed their tone somewhat doesn't mean the Bible itself has:

• Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
  
• Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
  
• 1 Kings 14:24: and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.
  
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
  
• Romans 1:18-27: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
  
  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
  
  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
  
• 1 Timothy 1:8-11: Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
  

And let's not even get into the excommunication commandments, the explicit instruction not to associate with people of this nature (see Eph. 5:7) or this:

Eph. 5:1-13: Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light.

So to summarise, this is what the Bible says about homosexuals:

• They are an abomination (this is repeated several times),
  
• They should be executed,
  
• They are sexual perverts,
  
• They are equated with rapists (Sodomites),
  
• Their desires are unnatural and shameful,
  
• Homosexuality is caused by disobedience to God,
  
• They are sexual perverts,
  
• Do not associate with them,
  
• And expose them.
  

Now can you see the problem?

I must have missed the place where God calls the INDIVIDUAL an abomination. I see two places where the homosexual ACTS are called an abomination.

Those who committed those acts were to be executed. Okay. So what? We execute people for serious crimes even today. A holy God has high standards...does that surprise?

You gave us the answer for why this conflict in our socienty has arisen when you quoted Paul above:

"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen."

This is the heart of the problem, Aractus.

Modern man has exchanged the truth about God for a lie.

[athrock]

Yes, I realize that the term was coined and, thankfully, discarded. Apparently, it wasn't a very bright idea. 

That's why I enjoy using it to poke fun at atheists.

In other words, you're just being an asshole.

I'm just trying to fit in.

[robvalue]

Sounds fair enough CL, thank you

[Catholic_Lady]

Sounds fair enough CL, thank you

Thanks Rob! 

[athrock]

If you think I flipped out, you have misunderstood. The only objection I have raised here is when someone accused the man wanting people to suffer. I'm not trying to argue about homosexuality.

We are. Nobody is accusing you of being a homophobe. We are simply saying your logic and his logic, even with you claiming to be accepting, still does not work.

As others keep trying to explain to you, that book teaches you to deny self with the word "sin" and since it was written in an antiquated past and has nothing to do with our modern understanding of evolutionary behavior of primates, of which we are, it really is not a good thing to use as gauge.

Denying self and using a crutch is not creating real happiness. It is placating others just to fit in, and it isn't even demonstrating any scientific reason as to why being gay is a "sin". The real scientists of evolutionary biology and human psychology do not see homosexual behavior as a bad thing to be denied.

And as we said before, even heterosexual couples can and do risk take in sexual acts, so a person's sexuality is not the issue. 

Now again, if you can be wrong about male rape victims, what would make you think an old book would explain to him why he is gay in any scientific sense? It really amounts to expecting him to deny himself. Saying "We aren't like Kim Davis" simply means you water down your justifications, but it is still bad logic no matter what.

Regardless of your intent, this also is the same ignorance both left and right ignore. Whatever empathy you'd like to find in your bible, others also use that same book to justify homophobia and denial of rights and physical harm to gays. You can have all the good intent in the world, it still does not change, for both left and right, that that bible DOES NOT in any real sense, explain the evolutionary behavior of primates, of which humans are part of.

I have to comment here.

Your assumption is that "denying one's self" is equivalent to being miserable and unhappy. Well, no, that does not follow.

We deny ourselves LOTS of things in life in order to have other things that also make us happy. Consider these statements that could be made by different people:

"I deny myself a new car and spend the money on health insurance instead. That's self-denial I'm happy with."
"I deny myself a piece of cake in order to lose a pound. That's self-denial I'm happy with."
"I deny myself hot sex with the man next door in order to maintain a happy relationship with the man I'm married to. That's self-denial I'm happy with."
"I deny myself any sex at all in order to serve God as a priest (or monk or nun). That's self-denial I'm happy with."
"I deny myself a vacation house at the beach because I prefer having a larger home year-round. That's self-denial I'm happy with."

The gay author of the article believes that God is real and that His laws are just. He also believes that the Catholic Church has warmly embraced him and enabled him to pursue eternal life with God in a nurturing environment. He's choosing celibacy in response to those beliefs - not placating others.

However, the idea that anyone would forego sex has some here apoplectic in disbelief.

But others are even more upset that the Catholic Church could possibly be treating this person in loving manner. That's not the narrative they want to hear.