Catholic Church Denies Funeral For Local Gay Man...maybe

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309623980' post='2262136']
From my perspective, one side is asking for the right to do as they wish with their personal lives, and the other side is saying the same. When I was looking for a husband, there were some deal breakers. I didn't want a smoker. I have known of small businesses that do not hire people who smoke. My first job out of law school required that I be an active member of a church. See this is a problem that I see constantly. Those pushing the homosexual agenda forward want the right to push their views on everyone. We have to yield to their "rights," but we aren't allowed the same latitude. We lose our rights to free association (we are forced to hire, to retain, to service, etc), we lose our rights to free speech (it's considered hate speech), we lose our rights to our religious beliefs (they are called discriminatory).

What is the solution? One side will have to lose some of their rights because they are incompatible.
[/quote]


[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309631891' post='2262170']
I never said anyone should lose their rights. My point was that on this issue, there is no way for both sides to completely have the rights they feel they are entitled to. I was someone who performed legal services for gay couples to help them have some of the legal rights that come along automatically to legally married couples. I believe people should be allowed to leave their money to anyone they want to, or have them make their medical decisions for them, etc. Those are rights everyone should, and does, have. Sometimes it just means a bit more paperwork. The point I was trying to make is that if someone owns a bed and breakfast, they have to give up their right to free association in order to allow a gay couple the right to stay. A person who performs marriages here in Canada has to give up their right to religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman in order to keep their job so that a gay couple can have their right to free association.

That was my only point, that someone's rights will have to be infringed on. I'm the last person on Phatmass who discriminates against those with Same Sex Attraction.
[/quote]

Exactly. Thanks Catherine.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309632654' post='2262173']
@Catherine M and @Norseman82 then why don't you challenge other "Church Militants" who advocate that homosexuals lose their rights outside the Church? Why do you let them go on and on in that kind of filth, not just in this thread but in all the other "Gay Issue" threads on this forum?[/quote]

Because the real "filth" is in the "gay agenda" which is seeking more than just "housing" and "job" rights, but acceptance of homosexual activity, and if you believe that such behavior is immoral or disgusting, you are labeled a bigot. So before you challenge us, why don't YOU challenge the militant gays to not flaunt immoral and disgusting behavior to the decent public? You might find that if they weren't so "in your face" about homosexual activity, the Church Militants (and the rest of decent society) might not feel so threatened.

Additionally, I don't have the time to monitor every single thread that references homnosexuality.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Norseman82

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1309639104' post='2262225']
Because the real "filth" is in the "gay agenda" which is seeking more than just "housing" and "job" rights, but acceptance of homosexual activity, and if you believe that such behavior is immoral or disgusting, you are labeled a bigot. So before you challenge us, why don't YOU challenge the militant gays to not flaunt immoral and disgusting behavior to the decent public? You might find that if they weren't so "in your face" about homosexual activity, the Church Militants (and the rest of decent society) might not feel so threatened.

Additionally, I don't have the time to monitor every single thread that references homnosexuality.
[/quote]

Did you read Cardinal O'Malley's Blog?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309639345' post='2262229']
Did you read Cardinal O'Malley's Blog?
[/quote]

Apples and oranges. The Cardinal is referring to Catholics with SSA who are trying to live holy lives. I was referring to those that don't - the ones who use "anti-discrimination" ordinances as the opening salvo of the gay agenda. Look at history. In the 1970s and 1980s, the big battle was over these "anti-discrimination" ordinaces. When those were passed, did it end at "equal housing and job rights"? No, those ordinances were also used to fine public establishments that would not allow two guys to make out with each other in public (true story in Chicago). Then it escalated to acceptance of "domestic partnership" benefits and civil unions in the 1990s. Now, in the 2000s/2010s, it's escalating to gay marriage, since "civil unions" are now not enough.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309602132' post='2262064']
NO! This person feels that because the Church considers homosexuality "disordered behaviour" that he can carry that into the workplace and deny homosexuals a job, that he can deny them a place to live. He and people like him feel free to make statements like that on this forum because no one challenges them on it. Do you support his position? Does the Church back him up? If no "Church Militants" oppose him then what are the rest of us supposed to think, but that you support him.
[/quote]

I suggest you calm the hell down brother. People [i]have [/i]been challenged in the past for saying these things, that doesn't seem to be clicking in your head. People feel free to make statements like that because that's what they believe and they are *gasp* partly right. And trust me, I and others in the past have tried saying "ok I get your aversion to homosex but you can't make blanket statements or view them as more perverted than an adulterer or fornicator so you shouldn't give them a disproportionate amount of flack, yada yada yada" but guess what? That usually doesn't stop people from saying the same "offensive" thing over and over again.

I don't think homosexuals should be denied a job unless there is an obvious conflict. Example: a gay man wants to be a teacher. I would have a problem hiring him if he were intent on educating the children about his "lifestyle." If he could keep that on the dl, there wouldn't be a problem hiring him. With regards to housing, I would have a problem if an unmarried heterosexual couple wanted to move in, or an openly gay couple to move in. But if two women or two men want to move in as far as I know they could simply be friends, and I suppose the same goes for a male and a female, so I guess the issue again is how open they are about "living in sin" and if they're trying to push an agenda. But I would feel uncomfortable renting out a place to an unmarried heterosexual couple, the same as an openly gay couple.

So there you go, you have my thoughts on the matter. Are they unacceptable to you? I somewhat take offense to things Thessalonian says as well as other things people say but it's not my job or anyone else's to call him out every single time because A) People have done it before. If it didn't sink in then it's not gonna sink in now and B) you have to pick your battles.

Stop suckin down the haterade and toke on the peace pipe a bit before you continue you righteous crusade on us.

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309632654' post='2262173']
@Catherine M and @Norseman82 then why don't you challenge other "Church Militants" who advocate that homosexuals lose their rights outside the Church? Why do you let them go on and on in that kind of filth, not just in this thread but in all the other "Gay Issue" threads on this forum?

If I trully believed in the Roman Catholic Church I would be mortally offended that someone would use the Church's religious stand to justify bigotry outside of the Church. I would consider that an offence against the Church.
[/quote]

Again, how the hell do you know they haven't? Did it once cross your mind that, perhaps they have, but their protests have fallen on deaf ears, so they've given up on doing so? Stop making judgements on people that you barely freaking know based on their un-responses. That is absolutely ridikilous.

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1309639104' post='2262225']
Because the real "filth" is in the "gay agenda" which is seeking more than just "housing" and "job" rights, but acceptance of homosexual activity, and if you believe that such behavior is immoral or disgusting, you are labeled a bigot. So before you challenge us, why don't YOU challenge the militant gays to not flaunt immoral and disgusting behavior to the decent public? You might find that if they weren't so "in your face" about homosexual activity, the Church Militants (and the rest of decent society) might not feel so threatened.
[/quote]

That's key. For gays seeking basic human rights, I empathize with them, but the fact is there is a vocal minority that uses "I'm just looking for basic human rights" as a shield to force people to validate and accept their behavior. Most gay people I've met are not so militant with an agenda, some are, some straight people are too.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1309643206' post='2262265']
Apples and oranges. The Cardinal is referring to Catholics with SSA who are trying to live holy lives. I was referring to those that don't - the ones who use "anti-discrimination" ordinances as the opening salvo of the gay agenda. Look at history. In the 1970s and 1980s, the big battle was over these "anti-discrimination" ordinaces. When those were passed, did it end at "equal housing and job rights"? No, those ordinances were also used to fine public establishments that would not allow two guys to make out with each other in public (true story in Chicago). Then it escalated to acceptance of "domestic partnership" benefits and civil unions in the 1990s. Now, in the 2000s/2010s, it's escalating to gay marriage, since "civil unions" are now not enough.
[/quote]

Cardinal O'Malley refered only to homosexuals. He never used the term SSA. He never used the term "Gay Agenda". He only used the term homosexual.

"As Catholics, we must oppose the hatred and rejection of homosexual persons that exists in our society. We do not want them to be the object of discrimination or violence."

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1309644498' post='2262277']
I suggest you calm the hell down brother. People [i]have [/i]been challenged in the past for saying these things, that doesn't seem to be clicking in your head. People feel free to make statements like that because that's what they believe and they are *gasp* partly right. And trust me, I and others in the past have tried saying "ok I get your aversion to homosex but you can't make blanket statements or view them as more perverted than an adulterer or fornicator so you shouldn't give them a disproportionate amount of flack, yada yada yada" but guess what? That usually doesn't stop people from saying the same "offensive" thing over and over again.

I don't think homosexuals should be denied a job unless there is an obvious conflict. Example: a gay man wants to be a teacher. I would have a problem hiring him if he were intent on educating the children about his "lifestyle." If he could keep that on the dl, there wouldn't be a problem hiring him. With regards to housing, I would have a problem if an unmarried heterosexual couple wanted to move in, or an openly gay couple to move in. But if two women or two men want to move in as far as I know they could simply be friends, and I suppose the same goes for a male and a female, so I guess the issue again is how open they are about "living in sin" and if they're trying to push an agenda. But I would feel uncomfortable renting out a place to an unmarried heterosexual couple, the same as an openly gay couple.

So there you go, you have my thoughts on the matter. Are they unacceptable to you? I somewhat take offense to things Thessalonian says as well as other things people say but it's not my job or anyone else's to call him out every single time because A) People have done it before. If it didn't sink in then it's not gonna sink in now and B) you have to pick your battles.

Stop suckin down the haterade and toke on the peace pipe a bit before you continue you righteous crusade on us.



Again, how the hell do you know they haven't? Did it once cross your mind that, perhaps they have, but their protests have fallen on deaf ears, so they've given up on doing so? Stop making judgements on people that you barely freaking know based on their un-responses. That is absolutely ridikilous.



That's key. For gays seeking basic human rights, I empathize with them, but the fact is there is a vocal minority that uses "I'm just looking for basic human rights" as a shield to force people to validate and accept their behavior. Most gay people I've met are not so militant with an agenda, some are, some straight people are too.
[/quote]

I know they haven't because I have read the threads.

Again, Did you read Cardinal O'Malley's blog?

"As Catholics, we must oppose the hatred and rejection of homosexual persons that exists in our society. We do not want them to be the object of discrimination or violence."

[CatherineM]

We tend to chastise through personal messages, not in public.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Lumiere' timestamp='1309646885' post='2262296']
Cardinal O'Malley refered only to homosexuals. He never used the term SSA. He never used the term "Gay Agenda". He only used the term homosexual.

"As Catholics, we must oppose the hatred and rejection of homosexual persons that exists in our society. We do not want them to be the object of discrimination or violence."
[/quote]

So what if he didn't use the term "SSA" or "gay agenda". It doesn't mean that they do not exist.

There's more to official Church teaching and magisterium than one Cardinal's blog.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309647200' post='2262299']
We tend to chastise through personal messages, not in public.
[/quote]

That would be nice, but my PM doesn't work.

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1309647698' post='2262305']
So what if he didn't use the term "SSA" or "gay agenda". It doesn't mean that they do not exist.

There's more to official Church teaching and magisterium than one Cardinal's blog.
[/quote]

This is a "Prince of the Church" and he should know "official Church teaching and (the) magisterium".

He simply said, "As Catholics, we must oppose the hatred and rejection of homosexual persons that exists in our society. We do not want them to be the object of discrimination or violence."

"The Church has often warned against defining people by their sexual orientation in a way that diminishes their humanity."

"We must strive to eradicate prejudices against people with a homosexual orientation."

The "Church Militants" often call on homosexuals to submit to the teachings of the Church, I would suggest the "Church Militants" should also consider submiting to the teachings of the Church.

[Lumiere]

[url="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5kwXHE_zqvKJp92adJjWeXxZmyg"]Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan[/url] is a bit more blunt about some things than Cardinal O'Malley, but he also said that while the Church regarded homosexuality as an "insult to God", this did not justify discrimination against gay and transsexual people.

He is quoted as saying, "Homosexuality is therefore a sin, but this does not justify any form of discrimination. God alone has the right to judge,...We on earth cannot condemn, and as human beings we all have the same rights."

He actually drew a [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/6711601/Gays-and-transsexuals-will-never-go-to-Heaven-cardinal-says.html"]rebuke[/url] from the vatican for his anti-homosexual remarks that I didn't quote above.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lumiere

[Lumiere]

The Document by USCCB "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care" states,

"All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate humandignity that must be acknowledged and respected. In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination 'must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.' We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ."

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lumiere

[Lumiere]

STATEMENT OF THE HOLY SEE DELEGATION
AT THE 63rd SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON THE DECLARATION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
(18 DECEMBER 2008)

"The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them."

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309633780' post='2262177']
Could I ask you to ask your gay friends if they think that the Catholic church's teachings as well as other Christian based churches teachings with regards to homosexuality contributes to some of the discrimination against gays that goes on in society? Also ask them how significant they think the teachings might be with regards to this discrimination.

I know the church isn't asking people to behave badly towards people, but given the way human nature is, people often read things into what they are taught.
[/quote]

For me they said no and laughed.

For others they said that the charitable Christians far outnumber those who discriminate. In the cases of discrimination, they said that the reaction of the charitable others was stronger than they expected.