Gay, Catholic and Doing Fine

[Divinity]

It doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the theology. If they can turn a blind eye to their priests raping children, then they don't get the goddamn right to tell people homosexual activity is wrong. They give up that fucking right when they turn a blind eye to child rape. They lose the moral high ground. They're somewhere between "scum of the earth" and "lower than maggots" The theology is abso-fucking-lutely worthless when people raised in it and who moved up in the ranks of it allow child rapists to escape justice so they can protect their goddamned church.

They're fucking hypocrite bigots, and nothing more.

[Catholic_Lady]

What a terrible fucking god to worship that wants to control who people have sex with.  I don't think most religious people understand that the god they worship says a lot about them.  I wouldn't be caught dead worshiping such a god.  Especially since I have a daughter who is a lesbian.  Fuck them.  My daughter's fucking perfect.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. No one here is forcing you to believe anything different about sex, especially not me. And I'm sure your daughter is lovely.

I understand that having my views regarding gay sex is pretty much the worst sin around these forums. But I'm not going to lie about my beliefs.

[Brian37]

What a terrible fucking god to worship that wants to control who people have sex with.  I don't think most religious people understand that the god they worship says a lot about them.  I wouldn't be caught dead worshiping such a god.  Especially since I have a daughter who is a lesbian.  Fuck them.  My daughter's fucking perfect.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. No one here is forcing you to believe anything different about sex, especially not me. And I'm sure your daughter is lovely.

I understand that having my views regarding gay sex is pretty much the worst sin around these forums. But I'm not going to lie about my beliefs.

There you go with the dodge "opinion" again when nobody is making that the argument.

You can also claim the Yankees won the Superbowl last night and not the Denver Broncos. That is perfectly legal. But your "opinion" is still not true, and we have given you plenty of evidence why basing your "opinion" about religion and gays is wrong. And we have done so after you admitted you had no evidence for your position.

Again, stop confusing rights with ability to demonstrate the credibility of what you claim.

You can also walk around claiming you are Napoleon and truly believe it. None of us doubt you truly believe what you claim. We do doubt your perceptions of what you think reality is.

Stop being so defensive and consider you got it wrong. Being wrong does not make you bad. Accepting you got something wrong is how you learn and grow. It can be an uncomfortable ride yes, but when you have an understanding of reality, without the filter of personal bias, you grow.

[Esquilax]

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. No one here is forcing you to believe anything different about sex, especially not me. And I'm sure your daughter is lovely.

No, your side isn't forcing us to change our beliefs, but that's mostly because they don't care what we believe. What they are doing is trying to force submission to their beliefs, your beliefs, because that control has always been the true aim here.

You can't actually use the "nobody's forcing you to be homophobic" line when your side is actually attempting to force gay people into celibacy, to force their beliefs into law, and to force the law to bend to accommodate their bigotry at the expense of gay and straight couples alike. To say that nobody here is trying to force their beliefs onto us both severely misunderstands the criticism being leveled (which was at god and the religion promulgating those beliefs, not at you personally) and is also little more than a distraction from that criticism. You want to point to the fact that your religion hasn't yet found a way of preventing thoughtcrime through brainwashing (gee, what a huge act of charity on their part) while sweeping under the rug the many, many ways that they're trying to accomplish the thing we're actually objecting to through force of law.

Sorry, I'm not going to play that pretend game with you, no matter how genteel you are in phrasing it. You're a nice person, I don't like having to do this, but the way you skirt around issues like this really bugs me. It must be real nice to be able to make such flowery sentiments and genuinely mean them, but unfortunately guys like me, guys that your church has as its official doctrine are disordered and sinful, don't get that luxury. I have to live in the real world, where I and those like me are harangued, discriminated against, and assaulted, but I don't have to play along with you when you turn a blind eye to all that with these simpering "oh, it's all just opinion, I don't expect you to agree with me..." nothings.

It's cool that you're not forcing me to believe as you do. But don't try to tell me, for a moment, that those beliefs you hold aren't backed up by a multitude of people both powerful and otherwise who are willing to use every means at their disposal to force me to submit to those beliefs anyway.

I understand that having my views regarding gay sex is pretty much the worst sin around these forums. But I'm not going to lie about my beliefs.

I'm not going to ask you to lie, but I am going to ask you why you hold those beliefs, and why you feel compelled to ignore the very real suffering inflicted on behalf of those beliefs.

[Divinity]

I'm going to try to avoid cursing for a post. That's unusual for me, because every other word that comes out my mouth is something you can't say on television. But I'm going to, in order to try to be polite. I don't extend this courtesy often.

I don't think Christians (and I call out Christians, but this can be said of people of all religions, and even some Atheists who view Homosexuality as unnatural or immoral, but I mainly call out Christians here because the majority of the push back against lesbians, gays, and transgender in the United States are in fact Christian) realize the harm they do with the theology they have that states that Homosexuality isn't normal, and that Lesbians and Gays should remain celibate.

The Catholic Church pushes back against Gay Marriage and against Gay Adoption. They call it "Defending the Family". I find this incredibly offensive. To suggest that a man who marries a man, or a woman who marries a woman is not REAL marriage should be an insult not just to Gays and Lesbians who are married, but to everyone else who is married and not part of the Christian Faith. Christians neither invented marriage, nor do they have a monopoly on it. Their claim that their God created marriage is unfounded for marriage has been around as a concept in many different cultures. "Defending the family" is equally offensive because it suggests that what gays and lesbians have when they are married are not a REAL family, just as they suggest their marriage isn't a REAL marriage.

Consider the implications of saying that their family is not a REAL family. If my daughter and her wife chose to adopt, then by the teachings of many faiths, they would not be considered a family. Is this not a bigoted thing to say? To claim that someone isn't a family because of their gender preference? Do you not see the harm done, telling a child that their adopted mothers aren't really their family? That they'd be better off in an orphanage than to be with someone they love? That's not just an attack on gay people, but an attack on children as well. The same children that the Catholic Church and other Churches claim to be looking out for when they try to ban abortion (including in cases of rape) The implications aren't meaningless. They have real effects. On children, teenagers, and even adults. Even if they don't believe in the same god, it has an effect on them. A very real effect. I would know because I've worked with a lot of gay teens who felt like they didn't belong because of their parents religion. These people live in a world where a lot of people are already bigoted against them. This makes them vulnerable. It's insulting what they do.

I will forever fight against the attitudes that homosexual activity is somehow 'immoral'. Because it's not immoral, and teaching children and teenagers and adults that it is, is harmful. Every time I hear someone tell me that their parents don't accept them, or that their parents think that there's something wrong with them because of their attraction to the same gender, my heart breaks. It breaks because I know how hard it is for teens out there. I know all too well what being ostracized feels like, having been a teen mother. It's not acceptable to me that someone can claim that they are okay with gay people, so long as they remain celibate. It's not acceptable to me that someone can claim someone is immoral just because they have sex with the gender they are attracted to.

I have a big problem with the churches views on homosexuality. They try to handwave the bigotry. Some of them try to claim bigotry toward them because of a lack of tolerance for their intolerance. But they don't get to handwave it. Softer bigotry is still bigotry. All people yearn for acceptance. Those who find it hard to find yearn for it most of all. Furthermore, the churches softer bigotry is used to justify the harsher bigotry we have out there. The parents who don't accept their children at all because they are gay. The church justifies that, intentional or not. That's the effect of the soft bigotry that isn't outright hate, but subtle disdain.

I will always speak out against those people (I always speak my mind whether people like it or not) I will always speak out against those who would call them immoral for choosing to have sex with a consenting adult of their preferred gender. I've seen the effects. Some people are blind to them, others choose to ignore them. But they're there. They are the elephant in the room, they cannot just be ignored. My daughter is a wonderful person who is always helping others. Not so that she looks better to her friends, or because she thinks she'll be rewarded for it in the next life. but because she has compassion. That they would call her immoral because she has sex with her wife is what I'd consider immoral. And yes, I think the Catholic Church is immoral. I think most Christian churches are immoral. It's why I'm not a Christian anymore. I recognize the intolerance, and the bigotry. I wouldn't think that's what your Jesus would want. And if he would, then I would say a few choice words to him that would not be the politely extended courtesy that I've given here.

[Brian37]

Now CL, I really don't care what you think of me, but go back and keep reading Exuilax's response until you understand it simply is not good enough to say "I am not like the others". Those who would have gays arrested and murdered and even those who don't, but are on the Kim Davis side of the right, are still using the same book you use.

Exuilax still suffers from even the left's good intent. Bad ideas lead to bad acts and do have a real harm on others.

[Brian37]

And to Divinity, it makes no sense to claim Jesus made it clear, only to have the same coddling of religious insecurities still showing up today. If it was supposed to fix everything back then, then none of us should be arguing his words today. I think the real answer is nobody knew any better back then, no matter who started that religion, or who compiled that book.

Yep, watered down bigotry is still bigotry.

[Aractus]

Hi Aractus. Since Catholicism isn't in the business of fundamentalism, where we take everything in the bible completely literally, you'd have to look at the Catechism to see how we interpret certain things. 

---

This is everything the Catechism says about homosexuality:

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is not freely chosen, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. 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.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

---

I'll get to your "Catechism" quote in a moment. But first let's start with the fundamentals. You instinctively reject the fundamentalist view, but at the same time you sweep away the understanding of the New Testament characters including both Paul and Jesus himself. I'll start with Jesus. He doesn't specifically mention homosexuality, at least not in the gospels, however he does talk about other things he views as impurities or just "wrong" and that includes divorce, remarriage, and adultery. Furthermore he even quotes the tenth commandment which lists women as a man's property. So let's start there.

This is what is given in the Ten Commandments, I'm just quoting two commandments:

Ex 20:14 (Seventh commandment) You shall not commit adultery.
Ex 20:17 (Tenth commandment) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

Now what we see here is purely reflective of the limited world-view of the proto-Israelites who began writing the Pentateuch. I can show you several instances where women are valued less than men in the Bible, and where most misogynistic of verses are. But for the purposes of brevity I'll concern myself with just these two:

Deuteronomy 24:1: If a man marries a woman and she does not please him because he has found something offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to her, and evict her from his house.
Leviticus 18:20: You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her.

If I was to ask you Catholic_Lady what your definition of adultery is, you're quite unlikely to quote Leviticus 18:20 to me. But let's be clear about this, the ten commandments is given twice, and the prohibition against adultery is given in each list. And in fact, we don't learn what adultery is before Exodus 20, nor do we learn what it is in Exodus 20. Leviticus 18 gives us the only direct definition of it, but it can be further refined by the fact that married men are allowed to sleep with: their wives, their "concubines" (sex slaves), prostitutes, and unmarried women. The only women they're not to sleep with are virgins - however if they do that they are to marry them - and another man's wife because that's considered adultery. And even then, it has to be the wife of a Hebrew - if you have sex with the wife of anyone else that isn't a Hebrew it's not adultery, and not a sin.

Our modern western understanding of adultery is when a man or woman sleeps with anyone other than their spouse. As you see - this isn't the case in the Bible. It's not even a sin women can directly commit - it's a man's sin, and is refined to the point that's it's all but meaningless in today's context.

Nevertheless let me point out to you that Jesus delivers two teachings on adultery. So, let's concern ourselves with this one:

Matthew 5:27-28: You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.



So here we have Jesus talking about adultery. He has every opportunity to say "But I say to you that women must not sleep with married men either", but he decides against it. He has the opportunity to say "you know what, it doesn't matter if she's Hebrew or Greek it's still adultery". But he doesn't. Therefore we can see clearly that Jesus concerned himself purely with what the primitive and misogynistic Old Testament understanding of "adultery" is.

Then he has an even greater failure:

Matthew 19:9: Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

Ah, again, he has every opportunity here to redefine divorce. In ancient Egypt both men and women could divorce their spouses, but according to the Bible divorce is only for men, and is something unavailable to women. He has every opportunity to fix that but he doesn't. But that's not the worst thing here. The worst thing is that he says there is only one acceptable reason for divorce - something the RCC followed to the letter for more than a millennia, and even though they may have mellowed their tone in recent times I want to point out to you that Jesus made a huge error of judgement here. He didn't include domestic violence. And if he really was the Son of God then he would have known the damage to be done of the centuries by families believing that what goes on behind closed doors is not the business of the civil authorities, and nor is abuse justification to leave one's spouse.

Now, you might try to claim I've gone off on a tangent here. Not true. What I've done is established what Jesus himself taught, and what he could have potentially taught in this area. And that while he did deliver some great messages and sermons, this was a terrible error of judgement, and it was probably unavoidable because he was a product of his environment.

You might say to me you don't take everything in the OT literally - but I've never met a Christian before who claims not to take what Jesus says as Gospel. He's the highest authority there is for Christians of all denominations.

Basically, we think it is immoral to have any sex that is outside of husband and wife, and that includes sex between 2 men/2 women. And we don't believe gay marriage or polygamy are real marriages in the eyes of God, even if they are legal, it is not something we can approve in the Church (marriage in our beliefs is a spiritual thing, not just a legal thing). However, we recognize that people don't freely choose to be gay, and so being gay is not immoral. Only the acts of having sex, are what we believe to be so. And we are also instructed not to treat them badly or to see them as any less human... since some of the bible verses about it come off as very dehumanizing.

Well here's the problem. The New Testament, in the section written by Paul and Associates says to treat them badly. It's not a matter for interpretation, I quoted it to you. It's just like that section on excommunication that the Church would rather bury and ignore.

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is not freely chosen, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. 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.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

What I want to highlight here is the fact that nearly all of this doctrine completely ignores the Bible, and gives incorrect information (claiming the psychology is unexplained). It's also self-contradictory. The Bible says, in the New Testament no less, that it is caused by disobedience in God. Make of that what you will.

[robvalue]

Does someone become a catholic because they already feel this way about gays, or are they required to feel this way because they have become Catholic?

Same goes for all the other doctrines.

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?

[Pat Mustard]

It doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the theology.  If they can turn a blind eye to their priests raping children, then they don't get the goddamn right to tell people homosexual activity is wrong.  They give up that fucking right when they turn a blind eye to child rape.  They lose the moral high ground.  They're somewhere between "scum of the earth" and "lower than maggots"  The theology is abso-fucking-lutely worthless when people raised in it and who moved up in the ranks of it allow child rapists to escape justice so they can protect their goddamned church.  

They're fucking hypocrite bigots, and nothing more.

They didn't turn a blind eye to it though, they actively impeded investigations by civil authorities (under explicit orders from Ratzinger's [future Nazi pope] inquisition's specific orders not to cooperate with criminal investigations), silencing of the victims (our cardinal Sean Brady has admitted that he used canon law to intimidate a young boy into silence), and removal of priests to other countries to evade arrest (Fr Brendan Smyth comes to mind, though there was a case two years ago where a paedophile priest was being spirited out of Central Amerca incognito by the rcc, with full condonation from on high, only for the cops to get wind of it at the last minute). That's not turning a blind eye, that's perverting the course of justice and aiding a criminal in their breaking of the law. The rcc should be banned in all civilised countries and its assets seized to pay compensation to the vitctims of its crimes.