All Things LGBTQ+ (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[Paul]

It *is* about reasoning.

The number of gay men who became priests is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of gay men/women who were harmed by the Catholic Church directly or indirectly. Why can't you acknowledge this? Sure, the Catholic Church didn't harm those gay men who became priests. But they harmed many orders of magnitude more who didn't.

Ok, from an argument point of view that makes sense. This is the deal: A gay man up until the mid to late 20th century lived in the closet. Those that were out suffered consequences. Catholic gay men joined the priesthood because it provided a cover in front of society.

Some Jews joined the Nazi Party and rose high in the ranks and were not harmed. This is fact. But to claim the Nazi Party protected Jews because of this fact would be ridiculous.

If you want an acknowledgement, sure. The Catholic Church protected some gay people who joined the clergy. Again, that number pales in comparison to those they harmed.

OK, that was a much better argument.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Having you been living under a rock? It is just not a few. Over the centuries there have been many (only God knows how many). Did you bother to read all the sources? IN any event, it does not matter, this is so well known that giving a source is superfluous.

Before I deal with any of this, I'm going to say one thing: the Catholic church has a well-documented anti-homosexual history for almost 2000 years that is much more well documented than the claim you have failed to prove, so cut out the damn gaslighting and prove your point.

 

[brandon]

Catholic gay men joined the priesthood because it provided a cover in front of society.

And if they were discovered?

 

[JRad]

A

The church unintentionally provided a sanctuary for gay men even if the official dogma was against homosexuality.

Here is your key word. The church wasn’t bringing in gay men to protect them. You also have to keep in mind the church believes in stuff like pray the gay away. If a gay man goes to the church to “redeem” himself, that’s also not protecting gays. “Rehabbing” gays isn’t protecting them in the altruistic way you’re making it out to be.

Again, I was raised in a catholic family - I still remember the uproar when Disney had gay day or whatever (there was boycotting). I went to catholic school. Nothing you are saying is “common knowledge”. Homosexuality was not accepted. Full stop.

 

[Paul]

Before I deal with any of this, I'm going to say one thing: the Catholic church has a well-documented anti-homosexual history for almost 2000 years that is much more well documented than the claim you have failed to prove, so cut out the damn gaslighting and prove your point.

Go back and read the several citations I posted. Gay priests have always existed within the church that condemns homosexuality. No one denies the official anti-homosexual stance of Christianity or Catholicism. All I said is that the Church unknowingly provided a sanctuary for gay men, more so in the past. Gay priests is nothing new.

By the way there is a parish in Hollywood, Saint Victor Catholic Church that has a huge number of gay parishioners. Many of the gay men are altar servers. No one cares or makes a fuss about this. Where is the nuance guys?

 

[Paul]

A

Here is your key word. The church wasn’t bringing in gay men to protect them. You also have to keep in mind the church believes in stuff like pray the gay away. If a gay man goes to the church to “redeem” himself, that’s also not protecting gays. “Rehabbing” gays isn’t protecting them in the altruistic way you’re making it out to be.

You miss the point, You fail to see the dichotomy. I had no idea this would be seen as shocking. The Church has had gay clergy for a very long time.

Again, I was raised in a catholic family - I still remember the uproar when Disney had gay day or whatever (there was boycotting). I went to catholic school. Nothing you are saying is “common knowledge”. Homosexuality was not accepted. Full stop.

You are looking at the official position of the church and fail to see what actually happens. Just google gay priests in the Catholic Church and learn something new.

 

[Paul]

And if they were discovered?

I suspect most were not discovered. Or it was one of those secrets that everyone knows, but everybody ignores.
It seems this info has shocked many here.

 

[JRad]

You miss the point, You fail to see the dichotomy. I had no idea this would be seen as shocking. The Church has had gay clergy for a very long time.

You are looking at the official position of the church and fail to see what actually happens. Just google gay priests in the Catholic Church and learn something new.

I believe the original comment you made is where the back and forth/pushback is coming from:

Many fail to realize that the first institution in the West to protect gay men was the Catholic Church. Things are not what they appear to be. Most Catholics are not fundamentalists.

This reads like you’re saying the church purposefully protected gay men.
Your last few comments have been qualifying it as an incidental thing.
There’s a vast difference between the two comments, and I think that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t think anyone is surprised by you saying there are gay priests, gay sex in the church, or really anything else you’ve said.

 

[Paul]

I believe the original comment you made is where the back and forth/pushback is coming from:


This reads like you’re saying the church purposefully protected gay men.
Your last few comments have been qualifying it as an incidental thing.
There’s a vast difference between the two comments, and I think that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t think anyone is surprised by you saying there are gay priests, gay sex in the church, or really anything else you’ve said.

Ok, fair point. That reads is such a way that it seems to be the formal position of the church.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Go back and read the several citations I posted. Gay priests have always existed within the church that condemns homosexuality. No one denies the official anti-homosexual stance of Christianity or Catholicism. All I said is that the Church unknowingly provided a sanctuary for gay men, more so in the past. Gay priests is nothing new.

By the way there is a parish in Hollywood, Saint Victor Catholic Church that has a huge number of gay parishioners. Many of the gay men are altar servers. No one cares or makes a fuss about this. Where is the nuance guys?

I will. In fact, I will quote them for you.

The West is trying very hard to make the standard of living better for all. That is why poor people in the world want to come to the West. But, seriously, the Catholic Church started protecting gay men as far back as medieval times.

I thought this was common knowledge in the gay community. What do you think gay men did in medieval times or even the 19th century and the early 20th century. Gay men were not accepted by society. Parents expected their sons to marry and have children. Gay men would joint the priesthood as this provided a perfect excuse for being single. Everyone knows gay priests were quite common in the old days.

How the Catholic Priesthood Became an Unlikely Haven for Many Gay Men

Adapted from The Sex Effect: Baring Our Complicated Relationship With Sex, out now from Sourcebooks.

slate.com

I laugh when I hear people condemn the Church for being homophobic. The Church has saved gay men centuries.

The official version is not what really happens behind doors.

You aren't being truthful. You said repeatedly that the church started protecting gay men and that the church being homophobic is laughable. You said that the official version of the church's stance on homosexuality isn't what really happens behind closed doors. That is a far cry from claiming that all you said is "that the Church unknowingly provided a sanctuary for gay men, more so in the past. Gay priests is nothing new."

You are now claiming that none of us here knew about gay priests because we don't believe your now abandoned claim that the church began to protect gay men (which very much implies an active role on the part of the church).

Your claims shift with each post that refutes you, and you use those shifting claims to impugn the knowledge of others. You are gaslighting everyone here and it's grossly offensive.

 

[coldseat]

This is not about reasoning.
l wonder why you do not want to accept this. Do you have hatred for the Catholic church?
If this makes you uncomfortable no big deal.

It's not the fact that there have been gay priest in the clergy that's the problem with what you're saying. Everybody knows that and is not denying it. It's the way you're framing this fact. As if the Catholic Church was in fact a sanctuary for gay men. It makes complete sense that gay men would gravitate to one of the few places in society where they could be single and not garner the ire of a society that ostracized and murdered gay men. But that is very different than the Catholic Church being a sanctuary.

Those gay priest had to "appear" straight and affirm the church's teaching against their own nature in spite of what was happening behind closed doors. They had to deny they own natural inclination and hide for fear of being exposed. They had to preach and teach of the evils of homosexuality to their congregations and condemn themselves and other gay men in the process. It created not just a bunch of self-loathing gay priest (for lack of being able to live a celebrate straight life), but also created a bunch of self-loathing gay parishioners. I know, I was one for along time. That's not a sanctuary, that's a mental prison.

 

[Paul]

It's not the fact that there have been gay priest in the clergy that's the problem with what you're saying. Everybody knows that and is not denying it. It's the way you're framing this fact. As if the Catholic Church was in fact a sanctuary for gay men. It makes complete sense that gay men would gravitate to one of the few places in society where they could be single and not garner the ire of a society that ostracized and murdered gay men. But that is very different than the Catholic Church being a sanctuary.

Those gay priest had to "appear" straight and affirm the church's teaching against their own nature in spite of what was happening behind closed doors. They had to deny they own natural inclination and hide for fear of being exposed. They had to preach and teach of the evils of homosexuality to their congregations and condemn themselves and other gay men in the process. It created not just a bunch of self-loathing gay priest (for lack of being able to live a celebrate straight life), but also created a bunch of self-loathing gay parishioners. I know, I was one for along time. That's not a sanctuary, that's a mental prison.

I agree with you 100%, however, the "don't ask don't tell policy" which continues to this day allowed many gay men to survive. In the old days all men were expected to marry and father children. There was no escape from that other than the priesthood or actually getting married and faking it.

I am not saying this was right or wrong. I am just making an observation.

I will agree that looking the other way would not have been likely among Evangelicals or among pious sanctimonious Catholics.

 

[CoolBrees]

It's not just funny to gay people. I personally find mockery of the religious right funny too.

I don’t have anything to add. I just thought this should be said in here again and again

 

[SFIDC3]

I don’t have anything to add. I just thought this should be said in here again and again

Me too, I think organized religion is one of the most dangerous weapons in history....and the Catholic church has (once finally exposed for what they are as an organization) a "rich" history of not only looking the other way with pedophile priests but actually enabling them by protecting them...it's disgusting

 

[Paul]

Me too, I think organized religion is one of the most dangerous weapons in history....and the Catholic church has (once finally exposed for what they are as an organization) a "rich" history of not only looking the other way with pedophile priests but actually enabling them by protecting them...it's disgusting

Sadly, the Catholic Church was probably the most influential institution in Western Civilization. It would have been nice if a secular system existed in medieval times and beyond but it seems most primitive cultures needed religion to explain the world. Secularism only came about after science developed. In the absence of science they needed deities to explain the world.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Paul -

you said that the Catholic Church protected gay men and was a sanctuary.

so you would agree that this same church was a sanctuary and protector of pedophiles as well?

Let’s be honest, you are conflating their willingness to let their decries be ignored inside their ranks with actual empathy. The second a priest is outed, they are ostracized. They are “the bad apples” or the “ones that slipped through the cracks.” But certainly not the church harboring known pedophiles in order to protect its already dubious reputation... Right?

The only question really is what in the world inspired you to post such a ridiculous notion in the first place.

 

[Farb]

If Western Civ = white European, not really. There were civilizations in the American continent that were more progressive in their treatment of women and LBGT. But then those progressive white Europeans came and oppressed them and enslaved them. Who could say what would've happened had those civilizations flourished?

Western Civ doesn't = White European solely although it is much neater to put it in the white European box.

Those said civilizations, did they even posses the wheel?

 

[Farb]

https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-gay-men-apos-104104354.html

Sam Dorman
Fri, July 9, 2021, 5:41 AM·3 min read


"The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus is facing a wave of backlash after offering up what it described as ironic humor about fears surrounding children and the "gay agenda."
The backlash came after the chorus posted a video in which members sang about indoctrinating children into being more concerned about "fairness" and "justice."
"You think that we’ll corrupt your kids, if our agenda goes unchecked," one of the members sings. "Funny, just this once, you’re correct."

You don't say? It is crazy that people don't like being told that they are incapable of raising their own children to be good human beings. Crazy I tell you. Sarcasm/

Actually, good. I am for more backlash, it is well deserved and well directed.