AdCouncil's "Love Has No Labels"

[frobert]

I think this response is exactly what the makers of this propoganda want to illicit. If you believe engaging in homosexual relationships are sinful and refuse to acknowledge them as the same as a valid marriage, then it’s the same as racism or bullying disabled children. That simply isn’t true. The morality of who an adult chooses to have sex with is not even remotely close to the same as the color or ability a child is born with.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is civil rights. That a civil right offends someone else’s sense of morality does not make it less of a civil right. The disgust that gays may have for people who personalize it by advocating the denial to others civil rights that they themselves take for granted has nothing to do with sexual relationship or orientation

 

[edwest2]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is civil rights. That a civil right offends someone else’s sense of morality does not make it less of a civil right. The disgust that gays may have for people who personalize it by advocating the denial to others civil rights that they themselves take for granted has nothing to do with sexual relationship or orientation

This is not a civil rights issue.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Ed

 

[Havard]

It **is **“normal” insomuch as the APA has stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. And respecting a person’s sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or disability in this world full of hate, bigotry and bullying **is **cause for celebration.

The APA is beside the point, I’m talking about morality, not psychiatry. To that end, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The Church is clear on this, Scripture is clear on this.

Second, if this were a pair of champions of the community presented for their good deeds, who also happened to be gay, then by all means cheer on their good deeds. That is treating them with respect, because they earned respect. Or if they came on and talked about how they suffer from bias, listening to them and empathizing with them is treating them with compassion. But applauding and cheering when they are presented solely on the basis of their immoral lifestyle, and/or when they engage in an immoral act (e.g., a homosexual kiss and canoodling) is not treating them with respect and compassion. It’s communicating to them that what they do, or just did was praiseworthy, so if anything, they will be encouraged to repeat it. Do you dispute any of this?

Assuming that what you say can be verified

That’s not insulting or anything.

you should really provide a link when you make a statement like this

It’s on their site (lovehasnolabels.com.) You don’t even have to leave the front page. Just scroll down.

—so what? I still see nothing wrong with the message. If the SSM, SLPC and the Advocate think it’s good to value people without considering sexual orientation, that’s fine with me.

The Catholic Church thinks it’s good to value people without considering sexual orientation. What these groups are doing goes much further than that, and in many cases, they directly oppose the Church. The Pope recently said ““The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” The HRC is undoubtedly the most powerful organization within that “some” he was referring to. But don’t take my word for it. Go to their web site, they proudly boast this, as well as their legal victories.

 

[jimcav]

Homosexuality is not a choice. And no one has the right to think ill of people just because of who they are. If you think that’s selfish and repulsive, I don’t think that we here at CAF can help you, unless it’s by prayer. Do you go around dissing people because of the color of their skin or their country of origin? Do you point to special needs children and laugh? If you do, well, then, perhaps your Bible and Catechism are in need of an urgent re-read.

And, btw, some pedophiles **do **demand respect…

Respect should only come through the content of a persons character.

Why in the world would I have to respect a man simply and solely on the fact that he lies down with another man? That is a preposterous thought. Now I have no problem “respecting” a gay man if he is a man of character, but even then I will not condone the behavior, no more than I would condone the behavior of an adulterer or a couple living together. Love the sinner, hate the sin, you know? But the mere thought that a homosexual puts his sex life as the most important character trait he or she has in order to gain respect is sad in and of itself.

While God certainly wants us all to be happy, we cannot believe that happiness will come through sinful behavior. God will not be mocked, and the homosexual community is certainly working full time at it. We, as Catholics have a responsibility to try and help homosexuals turn there lives around, not to condone there sinful lifestyle choice - yes, I said choice.

 

[Mr_Clean]

^^^Amen

 

[NeedsMercy]

Needsmercy, God will not take into consideration our “circumstances”. It is clear to me the ad in question is trying to suggest we should accept homosexual relationships as being “normal”. This is not about love, its about lifestyles. We are not so dense that we need an ad to show us what love is do we? You obviously fell for it.

I didn’t use the word “circumstances” so I don’t know what you are referencing.

Homosexuality (the sexual orientation) **is **normal, as are homosexual relationships; the DSM and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) say so. Homosexuality is not a chosen “lifestyle” and, whether you like it or not, homosexuals do fall in love. This ad campaign is about love and respect, and, yes, some people do need to be shown what love is.

You probably shouldn’t have used the phrasal verb “fell for it” in reference to me, since it usually means “to believe a lie or a story that is false”. You haven’t proven that anything in the ad is untrue. Want to try again?

 

[NeedsMercy]

Those in the American Psychiatric Association who studied homosexual persons for years made a choice not based on scientific research. A vote was made in 1973 that made what was a disorder yesterday not a disorder the following day. It was instigated by closeted gays in the APA and radical gay activists on the outside.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

A similar approach was used to reclassify Transgender persons in 2013.

ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons

NO LGBT person should be bullied, abused or harmed, ever.

Ed

You are correct. The APA did make a “choice not based on scientific research”. It was made in 1952, when the DSM was first published and included homosexuality as a mental illness. This was retained in the DSM and justified by **one **study whose results were later shown to be irreproducible. Using the research of Evelyn Hooker, the study was repudiated in 1973-4 by a revision to the DSM. These are facts that even Dr. Bayer can’t deny.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I think this response is exactly what the makers of this propoganda want to illicit. If you believe engaging in homosexual relationships are sinful and refuse to acknowledge them as the same as a valid marriage, then it’s the same as racism or bullying disabled children. That simply isn’t true. The morality of who an adult chooses to have sex with is not even remotely close to the same as the color or ability a child is born with.

Intolerance is intolerance is intolerance. A corpse flower by any other name…

 

[NeedsMercy]

There are people that are the same sex as me that I love but would never have sex with. Having sex is a personal choice. It doesn’t come from the Church or State. I don’t know when refraining from sex became bad for straights or gays.

Ed

True; but this doesn’t really answer my question now, does it?

 

[NeedsMercy]

NeedsMercy;12801448:

Homosexuality is not a choice…/quote] I would rather say it is no more a choice than sexual attraction to children, of the inordinate attraction to adultery. In all cases where we have sinful desires.

Homosexuality, unlike pedophilia, is not a psychiatric disorder. Neither is adultery. The difference between homosexuality and adultery, however, is that in one (adultery) people are being mentally and emotionally harmed.

 

[NeedsMercy]

The APA is beside the point, I’m talking about morality, not psychiatry. To that end, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The Church is clear on this, Scripture is clear on this.

I mentioned the APA because you specifically used the word “normal”. This word is usually used when referencing a medical or psychiatric condition. I’ve never heard the word used in connection with morality: “He has normal moral values” “She is morally normal”. What would that even mean? The Catholic Church does indeed say that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered”, but where is this phrase used in Scripture? Where is this idea even set forth in Scripture?

Second, if this were a pair of champions of the community presented for their good deeds, who also happened to be gay, then by all means cheer on their good deeds. That is treating them with respect, because they earned respect. ** Or if they came on and talked about how they suffer from bias**, listening to them and empathizing with them is treating them with compassion.

“It’s on their site (lovehasnolabels.com.) You don’t even have to leave the front page. Just scroll down.”

But applauding and cheering when they are presented solely on the basis of their immoral lifestyle, and/or when they engage in an immoral act (e.g., a homosexual kiss and canoodling) is not treating them with respect and compassion. It’s communicating to them that what they do, or just did was praiseworthy, so if anything, they will be encouraged to repeat it. Do you dispute any of this?

Yes.

That’s not insulting or anything.

Good.

It’s on their site (lovehasnolabels.com.) You don’t even have to leave the front page. Just scroll down.

Thank you.

The Catholic Church thinks it’s good to value people without considering sexual orientation. What these groups are doing goes much further than that, and in many cases, they directly oppose the Church. The Pope recently said ““The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” The HRC is undoubtedly the most powerful organization within that “some” he was referring to. But don’t take my word for it. Go to their web site, they proudly boast this, as well as their legal victories.

Included in “these groups” is the ADL. Do you have a problem with Jews also? Oh, myyy!

I’m familiar with the HRC, having signed petitions for them, etc. Are you saying that the HRC boasts on their website that they are the people about whom the Pope is talking? If not, what specifically are you saying? I can’t argue with all the material on an entire website. Any website.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Respect should only come through the content of a persons character.

Why in the world would I have to respect a man simply and solely on the fact that he lies down with another man? That is a preposterous thought. Now I have no problem “respecting” a gay man if he is a man of character, but even then I will not condone the behavior, no more than I would condone the behavior of an adulterer or a couple living together.

I note that you have not answered my questions.

Do you go around dissing people because of the color of their skin or their country of origin? Do you point to special needs children and laugh?

How about obese people? Old people? Do you accept them for who they are or will you not tolerate them until you know their character and behavior patterns?

Gays are just asking to be treated fairly, to be approached without having others have preconceived ideas about them just because of their sexual orientation. If you deny a person respect, solely on the basis of their being gay, you are being biased. We, as Catholics, should not pre-judge.

And I have yet to hear some so-called religious people give adulterers and people living together the same kind of ill treatment that they give gays.

Love the sinner, hate the sin, you know?

I haven’t met the person who really follows this little adage, but whatever.

But the mere thought that a homosexual puts his sex life as the most important character trait he or she has in order to gain respect is sad in and of itself.

How do you know that every gay “puts his sex life as the most important character trait he…has in order to gain respect”? That’s pretty judgmental, one would say even prejudicial, which is what this ad campaign is all about. Is your statement’s corollary–that every heterosexual does **not **set forth his sexual identity as his most important trait–true?

While God certainly wants us all to be happy, we cannot believe that happiness will come through sinful behavior. God will not be mocked, and the homosexual community is certainly working full time at it. We, as Catholics have a responsibility to try and help homosexuals turn there lives around, not to condone there sinful lifestyle choice - yes, I said choice.

You can say “choice” all you want, but that doesn’t make it correct. Homosexuality (the sexual orientation) is not a “lifestyle choice”. People are who they are. I will not try to change someone’s makeup into something that it is not. Assuming that you are straight, would it be acceptable if I tried to turn you gay? (For the sake of this little experiment, assume that the Church does not think that homosexuality is “disordered”.) Why or why not?

 

[Allegra]

Intolerance is intolerance is intolerance. A corpse flower by any other name…

Nonsense. Everyone is intolerant of what they believe to be wrong, untrue, immoral, etc. You wouldn’t be trying to coerce people into accepting the practice of beating homeless people to death by shouting “intolerant!”. It’s obvious that everyone accepts that some things are intolerable. The discussion is which column the demand that homosexual unions be called “marriages” falls into. This ad is designed to group homosexual relationships (which Catholics and many others find to be immoral) with relationships that are universally accepting as not only tolerable, but good and beneficial to society. (ie, lifelong marriages, childhood friendships, siblinghood, etc.)

 

[Mr_Clean]

Needsmercy, do you think the Church should allow gays to marry?

 

[Havard]

I mentioned the APA because you specifically used the word “normal”. This word is usually used when referencing a medical or psychiatric condition. I’ve never heard the word used in connection with morality: “He has normal moral values” “She is morally normal”. What would that even mean? The Catholic Church does indeed say that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered”, but where is this phrase used in Scripture? Where is this idea even set forth in Scripture?

“It’s on their site (lovehasnolabels.com.) You don’t even have to leave the front page. Just scroll down.”

Yes.

Good.

Thank you.

Included in “these groups” is the ADL. Do you have a problem with Jews also? Oh, myyy!

I’m familiar with the HRC, having signed petitions for them, etc. Are you saying that the HRC boasts on their website that they are the people about whom the Pope is talking? If not, what specifically are you saying? I can’t argue with all the material on an entire website. Any website.

I don’t even know where to begin. Suggesting I’m an anti-semite, even if you’re using reductio ad absurdum, is completely off-base. It’s not funny - it’s just rude and gross.

I said plenty in my last post, and you addressed the substance of hardly any of it.

1. Cheering and clapping when people fall is evil. Praise endorses and encourages people to continue what they are doing. You never responded to that. That is the thrust of the objection to the same-sex couple’s vignette.
2. Yes the campaign talks about bias… that doesn’t make the video any less celebratory. I gave a couple of examples of how they could have made the video deal with homosexuality with respect or compassion. Examples that focus on the persons as people and not on their sexuality. That is the Christian way. LGBT people deserve respect and compassion just the same way as anyone else - because they are made in the image and likeness of God. Because of their capacity for good, and because they fall like the rest of us and we all share in helping each other up.
3. HRC and SLPC are relevant here because the objectionable part of the video is the promotion of homosexual lifestyle, and they are the only campaign partners that champion LGBT issues. And they both just so happened to be far-left groups that are fighting for gay marriage.

Just as a warning, I am interested in dialogue and I would like to continue this conversation. But you’ve already questioned my honesty and joked that I am anti-semitic. If you’re that rude again - even couched in humor or hyperbole - I’m done.

 

[jimcav]

I note that you have not answered my questions.

How about obese people? Old people? Do you accept them for who they are or will you not tolerate them until you know their character and behavior patterns?

Gays are just asking to be treated fairly, to be approached without having others have preconceived ideas about them just because of their sexual orientation. If you deny a person respect, solely on the basis of their being gay, you are being biased. We, as Catholics, should not pre-judge.

And I have yet to hear some so-called religious people give adulterers and people living together the same kind of ill treatment that they give gays.

I haven’t met the person who really follows this little adage, but whatever.

How do you know that every gay “puts his sex life as the most important character trait he…has in order to gain respect”? That’s pretty judgmental, one would say even prejudicial, which is what this ad campaign is all about. Is your statement’s corollary–that every heterosexual does **not **set forth his sexual identity as his most important trait–true?

You can say “choice” all you want, but that doesn’t make it correct. Homosexuality (the sexual orientation) is not a “lifestyle choice”. People are who they are. I will not try to change someone’s makeup into something that it is not. Assuming that you are straight, would it be acceptable if I tried to turn you gay? (For the sake of this little experiment, assume that the Church does not think that homosexuality is “disordered”.) Why or why not?

I don’t want to debate this endlessly with you.

I’ll stick with what my Church teaches on homosexuality and the design God planned for our lives through the Book of Genesis. I respectfully suggest you might try and do the same. After all, you are Catholic and you have a duty to understand it’s teachings and a duty to pass on the truth of what she teaches, not falsehoods and personal opinions that can bring scandal to our Church…

I’ll pray for you…

 

[Midwest88]

I don’t even know where to begin. Suggesting I’m an anti-semite, even if you’re using reductio ad absurdum, is completely off-base. It’s not funny - it’s just rude and gross.
.

Don’t worry, I was “mistaken” for a white-separatist the other day, even though most of my past posts were not on race relations.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I don’t want to debate this endlessly with you.

I’ll stick with what my Church teaches on homosexuality and the design God planned for our lives through the Book of Genesis. I respectfully suggest you might try and do the same. After all, you are Catholic and you have a duty to understand it’s teachings and a duty to pass on the truth of what she teaches, not falsehoods and personal opinions that can bring scandal to our Church…

I’ll pray for you…

You haven’t debated this at all, IMHO. You feel comfortable proclaiming to all that I am spreading “falsehoods” yet you refuse to show us the basis for such an allegation. This is an accusation of sin and you sidestep it. At least have the courage to back up your finger-pointing.

My Church teaches love. I respectfully suggest you practice it also. It’s really very cool.

And save your prayers for someone who really wants them.

 

[Midwest88]

This is not a civil rights issue.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Ed

People who equate it to civil rights, equating it to segregation, voting or equal pay for equal work, tend to have simple minds that I have observed.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Nonsense. Everyone is intolerant of what they believe to be wrong, untrue, immoral, etc. You wouldn’t be trying to coerce people into accepting the practice of beating homeless people to death by shouting “intolerant!”. It’s obvious that everyone accepts that some things are intolerable. The discussion is which column the demand that homosexual unions be called “marriages” falls into. This ad is designed to group homosexual relationships (which Catholics and many others find to be immoral) with relationships that are universally accepting as not only tolerable, but good and beneficial to society. (ie, lifelong marriages, childhood friendships, siblinghood, etc.)

That is not what I meant by intolerance and you know it.

This discussion is not about same sex marriage, it is about an ad campaign, but since you brought the subject up, show us your data that same sex marriages are not “beneficial to society”. Please provide the link to any research study.

And, fyi, there are many “lifelong marriages, childhood friendships and [sibling relationships]” that the world would be better off without.