Poll on whether to allow full discussion of homosexuality in TLT, part deux

[Tallguy88]

This is the new poll that was requested, since TLT wasn't very active last time.

This is a word for word copy of the original poll.

"TLT" Member Poll
Opening up Discussion of Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage

In keeping with the recent updates to the Christian Forums rule regarding marriage and homosexuality (announcement), this poll is to determine what the members of the Lord's Table forum would like to do. Voting will be open for two weeks (14 days). At that time, votes will be tallied and the majority decision (2/3 majority, 67%) shall be implemented. This poll is only open to members who self-identify as liberal Catholics. Please be honest and do not misrepresent your faith to vote in a forum that is not your home forum. IP checks will be performed on any member suspected of being a sock account of another member. Any tomfoolery will result in action against that poster and their vote being nullified. Here are the voting guidelines in more detail:

• Only active members of this forum may vote. A specific faith icon is not required, however, you must be a known member of this forum.
• Members are required to have been active at CF for at least three months and have at least 200 substantial posts.
• Votes are public, not confidential. This way the community can help police the results of the poll by contacting staff when they believe that a non-forum member has voted.
• Staff reserves the right to perform IP checks on questionable members.
• No other discussion is allowed in the poll thread.
• Each member may vote in one Christian Communities (denominations) forum and one Faith Groups forum. If a member votes in more than one Christian Communities forum and one Faith Groups forum, their vote will be discounted in all of the forums.

There are two options for the poll:

YES: A yes vote means that there would be open discussion of the topics of homosexuality and same sex marriage, in accordance with a few specific guidelines.
NO: A no vote means that discussion of homosexuality and same sex marriage is allowed, but there is no promotion* of these topics.

*Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.


Guidelines for forums with open discussion:

• All posts must align with the sitewide rules, especially the rule about profanity and vulgarity (no discussions or images that are sexually explicit).
• Members may not make posts which could be considered blatant campaigning for the acceptance of homosexuality or SSM.
• Members may not distribute any blatant propaganda about homosexuality or SSM [propaganda: information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote or publicize a particular point of view].
• Members may not encourage another member to practice homosexuality or enter into a same sex marriage.

 

[Tallguy88]

I know it's going to be tough to peg down exactly who is eligible to vote here. But basically, you have to be a Catholic in Union with Pope Francis (no schismatic groups) and you need to self identify as theologically liberal.

Staff will be leaning toward giving the benefit of the doubt in cases where the liberalism of the member is questionable. Please don't call out voters in this thread. PM me if you think a vote should be discounted.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

People might want to advertise the growth of homosexuality on TLT?

 

[Colin]

I know it's going to be tough to peg down exactly who is eligible to vote here. But basically, you have to be a Catholic in Union with Pope Francis (no schismatic groups) and you need to self identify as theologically liberal.

Staff will be leaning toward giving the benefit of the doubt in cases where the liberalism of the member is questionable. Please don't call out voters in this thread. PM me if you think a vote should be discounted.

I don't identify as "theologically liberal" whatever "theologically liberal" means .

There ought to be a vote as to whether the adjective "Liberal" should be dropped form the noun "Catholic" in the subforum's name .

No one seems to know what "Liberal Catholic" means , so let's get rid of the label .

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I voted yes but only because in the off chance we have a good discussion on LGBT issues, it would be nice to have a free dialog. Sometimes it's hard to know exactly where the line between discussion and promotion is.
That being said, I think there's an awful lot of threads on CF that seem to rehash the same arguments, and I'm just fine with not seeing more here.

 

[tadoflamb]

I know it's going to be tough to peg down exactly who is eligible to vote here. But basically, you have to be a Catholic in Union with Pope Francis (no schismatic groups) and you need to self identify as theologically liberal.

Staff will be leaning toward giving the benefit of the doubt in cases where the liberalism of the member is questionable. Please don't call out voters in this thread. PM me if you think a vote should be discounted.

I'm not sure what that means. I'm going to recuse myself from voting.

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't identify as "theologically liberal" whatever "theologically liberal" means .

There ought to be a vote as to whether the adjective "Liberal" should be dropped form the noun "Catholic" in the subforum's name .

No one seems to know what "Liberal Catholic" means , so let's get rid of the label .

Then what's the point of the forum?

 

[Tallguy88]

I'm not sure what that means. I'm going to recuse myself from voting.

If you can in good conscience call yourself a "liberal Catholic", then you can vote.

Like I said, we had a hard time pegging down what to actually put for the criteria that was both broad enough for most of the regulars, but wasn't a free for all, either.

 

[Colin]

Then what's the point of the forum?

The forum speaks for itself .

There is a positiveness about this forum not to be found on others .

There is discussion with respect .

 

[Tallguy88]

The forum speaks for itself .

There is a positiveness about this forum not to be found on others .

There is discussion with respect .

Sure, but you don't need a congregational forum for that. You can get it in Friendship Court, in Traditional Theology, in Life Stages, etc.

Each forum has to have a justification for existing where it does. In this case, TLT serves the purpose of allowing discussion of issues and perspectives that aren't allowed in OBOB. While it may contain a majority of fellowship threads (which isn't a bad thing), it's primary purpose is still as a safe haven to discuss and debate liberal Catholic theology.

 

[Martinius]

Please explain the difference in the two choices. They seem virtually the same to me. Neither allows for promotion, so what's the difference?

If neither side gets a 2/3 majority, then what?

 

[Tallguy88]

Please explain the difference in the two choices. They seem virtually the same to me. Neither allows for promotion, so what's the difference?

You could argue that homosexual activity is not a sin. That's the big one. You could promote alternate I terpretations of the scriptures that tend to be used against homosexuality. You could argue that civil gay marriage should be allowed (a moot point in the USA now).

What you wouldn't be allowed to do would be to post propaganda in favor of homosexuality. Propaganda isn't just literature, it's biased and often factually questionable.


As a practical matter, those forums which did pass "yes" almost a year ago, I've never seen a report where we had to really make a decision on whether anything went too far in promotion. It's mostly a problem in forums that don't allow full discussion (like OBOB). That's because we mostly allow the forum to self-police on issues like this. If no one reports a post they think goes too far, staff is unlikely to voluntarily get involved.

If neither side gets a 2/3 majority, then what?

That's a typo. It's 2/3 required for "yes" to pass. Otherwise, it stays "no".

 

[Fish and Bread]

I am very much in favor of allowing discussion of homosexuality here and voted "yes" in accordance with that belief. Progress can not be made towards full inclusion in the Church until we recognize all of God's children as being people who are worth talking with and talking about in an understanding way. Whether one favors gay marriage or gay priests as I do, or doesn't favor those positions on those issues but does at least favor respecting homosexuals as children of God and/or takes the Pope Francis position of "Who am I to judge?", I'd like to think that in a Liberal Catholic forum, these are things that we can bring up and dialogue about if we want to, rather than having to hide how we feel.

In a sense, I think this is exactly the sort of thing a liberal forum could be a safe haven for, although I would emphasize that there has really only been one thread on this topic in the history of the forum, so we're not voting on whether to allow 78 threads a day on homosexuality, we're voting basically with "yes" to maintain the defacto status quo where we've generally in practice been allowed to bring it up very occasionally. A "no" vote would actually be what would change the status quo, because it would disallow the discussions we've already occasionally had, going forward. So a "yes" is not a radical change, it's affirming the character of the community as it now exists.

I would also emphasize in such discussions that people at minimum in a liberal area should adhere to the part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says "[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (Excerpted from the CCC 2358). So, any discussion of deeper issues should be done in that way, we don't want to see any hate speech (Saying one doesn't want gay marriages in churches is not hate speech, as long as it's done in such a way as to respect the dignity of the people involved) and with respect for the other side of the issue (i.e. People who aren't necessary gay themselves, but believe in gay marriage or something as a principle), because there will likely be people who go different ways on this (No pun intended), though each side and individual poster should come back to and be able to post in the light of having "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" for gays regardless of the stance of individual posters on "the issues".

This is an important vote and I am glad we are taking it.

 

[Tallguy88]

I am very much in favor of allowing discussion of homosexuality here and voted "yes" in accordance with that belief. Progress can not be made towards full inclusion in the Church until we recognize all of God's children as being people who are worth talking with and talking about in an understanding way. Whether one favors gay marriage or gay priests as I do, or doesn't favor those positions on those issues but does at least favor respecting homosexuals as children of God and/or takes the Pope Francis position of "Who am I to judge?", I'd like to think that in a Liberal Catholic forum, these are things that we can bring up and dialogue about if we want to, rather than having to hide how we feel.

In a sense, I think this is exactly the sort of thing a liberal forum could be a safe haven for, although I would emphasize that there has really only been one thread on this topic in the history of the forum, so we're not voting on whether to allow 78 threads a day on homosexuality, we're voting basically with "yes" to maintain the defacto status quo where we've generally in practice been allowed to bring it up very occasionally. A "no" vote would actually be what would change the status quo, because it would disallow the discussions we've already occasionally had, going forward. So a "yes" is not a radical change, it's affirming the character of the community as it now exists.

I would also emphasize in such discussions that people at minimum in a liberal area should adhere to the part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says "[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (Excerpted from the CCC 2358). So, any discussion of deeper issues should be done in that way, we don't want to see any hate speech (Saying one doesn't want gay marriages in churches is not hate speech, as long as it's done in such a way as to respect the dignity of the people involved) and with respect for the other side of the issue (i.e. People who aren't necessary gay themselves, but believe in gay marriage or something as a principle), because there will likely be people who go different ways on this (No pun intended), though each side and individual poster should come back to and be able to post in the light of having "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" for gays regardless of the stance of individual posters on "the issues".

This is an important vote and I am glad we are taking it.

"No" vote is the status quo.

 

[tadoflamb]

If you can in good conscience call yourself a "liberal Catholic", then you can vote.

Like I said, we had a hard time pegging down what to actually put for the criteria that was both broad enough for most of the regulars, but wasn't a free for all, either.

I still don't know what a liberal Catholic is. I mostly participate in this forum because people treat each other with respect. Since I don't struggle with Catholicism, I still consider myself a guest on this forum and as a guest would like to see it remain the peaceful place that it is. If we were to open up the conversation to include homosexuality and gay marriage, I dare say, I've already heard most the traditional arguments. I'd be more interested in reading the opinions from the people for whom this forum was established. That's a line we have to draw here. At what point does a traditionalist like me become too aggressive in defending the teachings of the Church?

 

[Tallguy88]

I still don't know what a liberal Catholic is. I mostly participate in this forum because people treat each other with respect. Since I don't struggle with Catholicism, I'm still consider myself a guest on this forum and as a guest would like to see it remain the peaceful place that it is. If we were to open up the conversation to include homosexuality and gay marriage, I dare say, I've already heard most the traditional arguments. I'd be more interested in reading the opinions from the people for whom this forum was established. That's a line we have to draw here. At what point does a traditionalist like me become too aggressive in defending the teachings of the Church?

I voted since I'm rather theologically more liberal than the Church would probably like. I tend not to post about those things though so I don't cause others to stumble into my errors.

 

[tadoflamb]

I voted since I'm rather theologically more liberal than the Church would probably like. I tend not to post about those things though so I don't cause others to stumble into my errors.

I would have never had guessed that. I've never seen you waver from orthodoxy.

I tend to agree with Pope Francis and the US Bishops on matters like immigration, gun control, race issues and social justice which makes TLT a more comfortable place for me to post than any where else on the forums, but I don't think that makes me theologically liberal.

If we did open TLT to the discussion of homosexuality, I would look forward to a more nuanced conversation than we have had in the past.

 

[Martinius]

You could argue that homosexual activity is not a sin. That's the big one. You could promote alternate I terpretations of the scriptures that tend to be used against homosexuality. You could argue that civil gay marriage should be allowed (a moot point in the USA now).

What you wouldn't be allowed to do would be to post propaganda in favor of homosexuality. Propaganda isn't just literature, it's biased and often factually questionable.


As a practical matter, those forums which did pass "yes" almost a year ago, I've never seen a report where we had to really make a decision on whether anything went too far in promotion. It's mostly a problem in forums that don't allow full discussion (like OBOB). That's because we mostly allow the forum to self-police on issues like this. If no one reports a post they think goes too far, staff is unlikely to voluntarily get involved.

Thanks, but...I still don't see a difference between the two choices. The first option allows for open discussion with limits, and those limits include no promotion. The second option specifically prohibits promotion. Seems like the end result is the same.

 

[Martinius]

I still don't know what a liberal Catholic is. I mostly participate in this forum because people treat each other with respect. Since I don't struggle with Catholicism, I'm still consider myself a guest on this forum and as a guest would like to see it remain the peaceful place that it is. If we were to open up the conversation to include homosexuality and gay marriage, I dare say, I've already heard most the traditional arguments. I'd be more interested in reading the opinions from the people for whom this forum was established. That's a line we have to draw here. At what point does a traditionalist like me become too aggressive in defending the teachings of the Church?

I also am not sure what a "liberal Catholic" is. I also agree with Colin and do not like the "liberal" label for this forum. But I DO like the people on this forum and the nature and content of the discussions.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Since this sub-forum has been in an experimental stage, couldn't we call ourselves "lab-eral" in the meantime?