Are Christians afraid to speaking against homosexual agenda?

[Realist]

I have not put forward a thesis to defend. I have only criticized your own.

So put one forward. Why is homosexual marriage wrong?

Besides, even if I did use reason to justify Church teachings, what’s wrong with that? That’s exactly what people do to defend their positions. So if you are incapable of offering a well-reasoned counter-argument, then there would be a good chance I was right.

I’d be very curious to hear you put forth a reasonable argument based on faith.

This is a strawman. *Not once *did I say “homosexuality is just like bestiality.”

I only asked you to tell me why homosexual marriages are permissible but bestial, polygamous, and incestuous marriages are not. And you still have failed this task. Your most recent position is that they are all morally permissible. But still, you have not told me why you think this. So the burden is still on you.

No, you did not directly say that homosexuality is just like bestiality. But you did make the comparison. That would be where the word “like” comes in.

False. I have never slandered homosexuals. Prove it. I need an actual quote.

That’s true. You didn’t. You just believe they don’t deserve the same rights as the heterosexuals.

I am not obligated to present a case if I am not the one who made the claim. My default position in this thread is suspension of belief until I see good evidence otherwise.

You asked me to present my belief regarding marriage, which I did, and now I’m asking you to present yours. Why is homosexual marriage wrong?

So far, you have claimed homosexual, bestial, and incestual marriages are morally permissible. It’s your burden. Can you tell me why these marriages are morally permissible? Do you have answer at all, Realist? Or do you just like to ramble off your personal opinions to others expecting them to believe what you say is true without offering a good argument of your own? Come on, buddy! Saddle up, and tell me why bestial marriages are morally permissible.

My burden? What about that is burdensome? Do you really want me to repeat myself? I already told you that as long as the arrangement is consensual, anyone can get married. What is your counterpoint? I don’t understand what it is you’re asking. Before you attack me for my arguments, you should consider presenting your own. But that would require you to be vulnerable.

You speak in these huge generalities and expect people to understand the specifics of what you’re saying. You want me to talk about the morality of bestiality? What system of morality are you referring to? Yours?

People have been appealing to the Natural Law argument all over the place in this thread. So you can read them for yourself if you want to know what Catholics think. I have no need to repeat it.

I want to know what you think.

 

[Realist]

No, it’s not. It’s a serious question because you are having trouble putting together plausible and rationally acceptable arguments. So I am seriously curious what kind of education you have.

Fine. Continue with your absurdity. You are trying to attack my intelligence to undermine my points. That sounds exactly like a straw man argument to me.

 

[Alethiaphile]

So put one forward. Why is homosexual marriage wrong?

It isn’t wrong, it’s an oxymoron. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It is a unity in diversity, two complementary opposites coming together. That is the way it has been conceived by diverse civilizations for recorded history. Two men or two women cannot be a union of opposites; any homosexual union is necessarily myopic, a turning in on oneself.

 

[Realist]

It isn’t wrong, it’s an oxymoron. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It is a unity in diversity, two complementary opposites coming together. That is the way it has been conceived by diverse civilizations for recorded history. Two men or two women cannot be a union of opposites; any homosexual union is necessarily myopic, a turning in on oneself.

Interesting perspective.

So definitions cannot change over time?

Diversity in marriage is only the result of both halves having different types of genitalia?

If “diverse civilizations for recorded history” all came to a fairly similar conclusion, then that’s what we should take as truth? Our ideas should not evolve?

 

[Syntax]

So put one forward. Why is homosexual marriage wrong?

Is this a command? I don’t have to do anything you tell me.

I’d be very curious to hear you put forth a reasonable argument based on faith.

There are both faith-based *and *Natural-Law-based arguments.

No, you did not directly say that homosexuality is just like bestiality. But you did make the comparison. That would be where the word “like” comes in.

No I did not make the comparison! Are you dense? Stop putting words into my mouth.

That’s true. You didn’t. You just believe they don’t deserve the same rights as the heterosexuals.

How do YOU know what I believe? Maybe I am dissenting Catholic.

You asked me to present my belief regarding marriage,

Ignore homosexuality for now. Here is what you believe:

You think bestiality, incest, and polygamy are practices that anyone has the right to secure by the bond of Matrimony, and that the government should legally recognize these incestual, polygamous, and bestial unions because, according to YOU, if two consenting parties really love one another, they should be allowed to marry.

My burden? What about that is burdensome? Do you really want me to repeat myself? I already told you that as long as the arrangement is consensual, anyone can get married.

Yes!! It is **your **burden because you think having sex with animals and having sex with your aunt and uncle are ok to do, and that the government would be discriminating against people who want to marry their pets and who want to marry their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Talk about inbreeding and wholescale family dysfunction and social collapse! Do you deny this?

You BET you need to defend this because it is humanly reprehensible and disgusting. You are also a minority believing this among the world population as a whole since most people believe these unions are morally corrupt and blameworthy. Something seriously has to be dysfunctional with you if you think sleeping with animals and your own mother is ok.

So again, why is having sex with Chimpanzees and your own family members ok to do?

Just curious: Do you tell your friends that sleeping with your aunt and uncle is ok? Do you tell them you believe having sex with animals is ok? What would they think of your moral condition if they found out you believed this? Do you start a campaign on behalf of all those people who want to marry their aunts and uncles? Why aren’t you doing this? The government now discriminates against them, does is it not? Shouldn’t you be standing up for their rights too?

What is your counterpoint? I don’t understand what it is you’re asking.

It should be obvious what I am asking! Have you completely lost your mind?

Before you attack me for my arguments, you should consider presenting your own.

No. I want to know why YOU think having sex with Chimpanzees is ok!! It’s sick, and there must be something seriously wrong with you if you think that it is morally permissible.

You speak in these huge generalities and expect people to understand the specifics of what you’re saying.

I am not speaking in generalities at all. I want to know why you think marrying your sister and your dog Fido is ok.

You want me to talk about the morality of bestiality? What system of morality are you referring to? Yours?

No. I want to know what moral system of YOURS makes you think having sex with Chimpanzees is morally permissible. You’ve made some pretty wild claims!

 

[Realist]

Is this a command? I don’t have to do anything you tell me.

There are both faith-based *and *Natural-Law-based arguments.

No I did not make the comparison! Are you dense?

How do YOU know what I believe? Maybe I am dissenting Catholic

Ignore homosexuality for now. Here is what you believe:

You think bestiality, incest, and polygamy are practices that anyone has the right to secure by the bond of Matrimony, and that the government should legally recognize these incestual, polygamous, and bestial unions because, according to YOU, if two consenting parties really love one another, they should be allowed to marry.–Isn’t this correct?

Yes!! It is **your **burden because you think having sex with animals and having sex with your aunt and uncle are ok to do, and that the government would be discriminating against people who want to marry their pets and who want to marry their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Talk about inbreeding and wholescale family dysfunction and social collapse! Do you deny this?

You BET you need to defend this because it is humanly reprehensible and disgusting. You are also a minority believing this among the world population as a whole since most people believe these unions are morally corrupt and blameworthy. Something seriously has to be dysfunctional with you if you think sleeping with animals and your own mother is ok.

So again, why is having sex with Chimpanzees and your own family members ok to do?

Just curious: Do you tell your friends that sleeping with your aunt and uncle is ok? Do you tell them you believe having sex with animals is ok? What would they think of your moral condition if they found out you believed this? Do you start a campaign on behalf of all those people who want to marry their aunts and uncles? Why aren’t you doing this? The government now discriminates against them, does is it not? Shouldn’t you be standing up for their rights too?

It should be obvious what I am asking! Have you completely lost your mind?

No. I want to know why YOU think having sex with Chimpanzees is ok!! It’s sick, and there must be something seriously wrong with you if you think that it is morally permissible.

I am not speaking in generalities at all. I want to know why you think marrying your sister and your dog Fido is ok.

No. I want to know what moral system of YOURS makes you think having sex with Chimpanzees is morally permissible. You’ve made some pretty wild claims, buddy!

I know it sounds difficult, but some people can do two things at the same time. All I’m asking is that while you criticize me, you let me in on your perspective? Why is that not possible? Feel free to deflect this yet again in whatever way you choose.

Also, who’s resorting to emotional appeals now? But, then, you’re completely justified because they’re your emotional appeals and not mine.

I’m not advocating that everyone rush out and marry their pets or sleep with their parents. I’m just saying I don’t really care if they do. And if it were up to me, I wouldn’t deny them a marriage certificate, as long as the union was consensual and not the product of illegal abuse. You act as if people aren’t already sleeping with their relatives or with animals (and, again, I implore you to tell me how one could construe such a relationship as consensual and not just weird and one-sided). It’s happening, my friend. The problem is, most (and I would wager nearly all) of those pairings are deplorable because they involve physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. All I’m saying is that the key is consent. Twist my words as much as you’d like. I don’t know how you could make the argument that my dog Fido could possibly consent to marry me, but if he were somehow able and I was for some reason into it, there wouldn’t be a problem. What, in your mind, would be the problem with that? Of course its disgusting. Of course its weird. But, seriously, how could that possibly lead to the collapse of society, as you suggest?

I am getting tired of your ad hominem attacks, and I am warning you that if you don’t knock them off, I will stop playing this game with you. And I know you like playing, because it feeds a clear superiority complex. Oh, and that’s not an ad hominem attack because you obviously have a superiority complex. (Like that non-logic? Just learned it today.)

 

[Syntax]

Fine. Continue with your absurdity.

What is so absurd? You can’t just say that without telling me what you are talking about:shrug:

You are trying to attack my intelligence to undermine my points. That sounds exactly like a straw man argument to me.

I may tease you, yes. But I am also following through with the consequences of **your own **principle, pal. So you have some serious thinking to do…obviously!

 

[Syntax]

Also, who’s resorting to emotional appeals now? But, then, you’re completely justified because they’re your emotional appeals and not mine.

Oh please. Are you dense? These are the consequences of YOUR OWN principle!!!

I am not making up emotional appeals. I am trying to get you to recognize what YOU just said. So I am following through with YOUR OWN BELIEFS!

Don’t deny them. You just agreed. and I quote:

Syntax;6400230:

Ok, so you have given me the principle of consent:

X is allowed to marry Y if and only if X and Y mutually consent to that arrangement.

You and Koko mutually agree to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and your sister mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and ten wives mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible for you to marry one another.

Yes it is. It is also disgusting because the principle allows people, if they so choose, to marry animals. If you want to say that marrying animals, marrying your sister, or marrying ten wives is wrong, then you need to change your view about what is, and is not, morally permissible. So do you change the principle, or do you stay with this principle?

I stick with my principle. I’m not sure how one would secure, say, a cow’s consent, but if consent could be verified, I wish the couple of a happy life. …Well, I’ve given you my principle, so I hope you’re satisfied.

 

[Syntax]

Also, who’s resorting to emotional appeals now? But, then, you’re completely justified because they’re your emotional appeals and not mine.

Oh please. Are you dense? These are the consequences of YOUR OWN principle!!!

I am not making up emotional appeals. I am not using ad hominems. I am trying to get you to recognize what YOU just said. So I am following through with YOUR OWN BELIEFS!

Don’t deny them. You just agreed. and I quote:

Syntax;6400230:

Ok, so you have given me the principle of consent:

X is allowed to marry Y if and only if X and Y mutually consent to that arrangement.

You and Koko mutually agree to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and your sister mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible to marry one another.

You and ten wives mutually consent to marry one another. Therefore, it is morally permissible for you to marry one another.

Yes it is. It is also disgusting because the principle allows people, if they so choose, to marry animals. If you want to say that marrying animals, marrying your sister, or marrying ten wives is wrong, then you need to change your view about what is, and is not, morally permissible. So do you change the principle, or do you stay with this principle?

I stick with my principle. I’m not sure how one would secure, say, a cow’s consent, but if consent could be verified, I wish the couple of a happy life. …Well, I’ve given you my principle, so I hope you’re satisfied.

 

[Realist]

What is so absurd? You can’t just say that without telling me what you are talking about:shrug:

I’m referring to your hypocrisy. You are allowed to commit all the logical infractions you accuse me of, but I am somehow held to a harsher standard. I thought putting the this sentence–the one about your absurdity–before the next sentence–the one illustrating your hypocrisy–would have made that connection clear. Guess not.

I may tease you, yes. But I am also following through with the consequences of **your own **principle, pal. So you have some serious thinking to do…obviously!

So if what looks like a logical fallacy is really just a person’s natural response to a situation, then the logical fallacy is no longer a fallacy? You need to sort out your own rules.

 

[Realist]

Oh please. Are you dense? These are the consequences of YOUR OWN principle!!!

I am not making up emotional appeals. I am trying to get you to recognize what YOU just said. So I am following through with YOUR OWN BELIEFS!

Don’t deny them. You just agreed. and I quote:

What are you talking about? I can’t believe you, of all people, are insulting my intelligence. You keep using this word “consequence”. What consequences are you referring to? Seriously, list them. I see a lot of leading questions and a lot of talk about this or that being reprehensible and disgusting, but what are the consequences? You referred in a very general sense to the downfall of society, but what that means is far from clear. Do you think you’re actually making sense when you type?

Also, I’m assuming I struck a cord with my last response because you refused to address most of my post.

Oh, and I’ll ask again. What is your position on homosexual marriage? Still afraid to speak up? I know it’s much easier to attack than defend, so I’ll understand when you dodge my question yet again.

 

[Syntax]

I’m not advocating that everyone rush out and marry their pets or sleep with their parents. I’m just saying I don’t really care if they do. And if it were up to me, I wouldn’t deny them a marriage certificate, as long as the union was consensual and not the product of illegal abuse.

That’s disgusting.

You act as if people aren’t already sleeping with their relatives or with animals (and, again, I implore you to tell me how one could construe such a relationship as consensual and not just weird and one-sided). It’s happening, my friend.

It doesn’t matter what people are already doing. According to your principle you have to believe that the government’s current discrimination against polygamy, incestual marriage, and bestial marriage is unjust and just plain bigoted.

I don’t think you actually believe this at all which is precisely why you allegedly “don’t care” about it. You are just “biting the bullet” for the sake of argument because you know you don’t have a plausible defense whatsoever. Talk about being dishonest with yourself.

Do you really think the government is doing something unjust by banning marriage to animals? I doubt it.

The problem is, most (and I would wager nearly all) of those pairings are deplorable because they involve physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.All I’m saying is that the key is consent.

Why is it abuse if there **is **consent? We are talking about consensual relationships, not “abusive” ones, pal.

So don’t try to step out of that one.

Twist my words as much as you’d like.

I am not. I am merely repeating exactly what you believe. I am just making your beliefs grotesquely explicit, because I don’t think you actually believe what you say you believe. Your own conscience is eating you alive about it. Amazing how easy it is to eat your own words, eh?

You just don’t like my ferocity. Lol!

I don’t know how you could make the argument that my dog Fido could possibly consent to marry me, but if he were somehow able and I was for some reason into it, there wouldn’t be a problem. What, in your mind, would be the problem with that? Of course its disgusting. Of course its weird. .

You have a warped mind.

But, seriously, how could that possibly lead to the collapse of society, as you suggest?

Family dysfunction, inbreeding, perversion, addiction, etc.

I am getting tired of your ad hominem attacks, and I am warning you that if you don’t knock them off, I will stop playing this game with you.

It’s not a game. It’s called “eating your own words.”

And I know you like playing, because it feeds a clear superiority complex. Oh, and that’s not an ad hominem attack because you obviously have a superiority complex. (Like that non-logic? Just learned it today.)

I get it.

“I, the Realist, don’t like that my beliefs have been exposed to be totally irrational so I will just accuse Syntax of having superiority complex. But this isn’t an *ad hominem *because Syntax has a superiority complex.”

Nice try, no cigar.

Do you need someone to cry for you on behalf of your silliness?

:crying:

 

[Realist]

That’s disgusting.

It doesn’t matter what people are already doing. According to your principle you have to believe that the government’s current discrimination against polygamy, incestual marriage, and bestial marriage is unjust and just plain bigoted.

I don’t think you actually believe this at all which is precisely why you allegedly “don’t care” about it. You are just “biting the bullet” for the sake of argument because you know you don’t have a plausible defense whatsoever. Talk about being dishonest with yourself.

Do you really think the government is doing something unjust by banning marriage to animals? I doubt it.

Why is it abuse if there **is **consent? Why are talking about consensual relationships, not “abusive” ones, pal.

I am not. I am merely repeating exactly what you believe. I am just making grotesquely explicit, because I don’t think you actually believe what you say you believe. Your own conscience is eating you alive about it. Amazing how easy it is to eat your own words, eh?

You have a warped mind.

Family dysfunction, inbreeding, perversion, addiction, etc.

It’s not a game. It’s called “eating your own words.”

I get it.

“I, the Realist, don’t like that my beliefs have been exposed to be totally irrational so I will just accuse Syntax of having superiority complex. But this isn’t an *ad hominem *because Syntax has a superiority complex.”

Nice try, no cigar.

Do you need someone to cry for you on behalf of your silliness?

:crying:

It’s cute that you think you’re making well reasoned points. But like I said, I’m sick of your attacks, so I’m through with you. You dodge my questions. You avoid owning up to your hypocrisy. You personally insult me. You are a waste of time. Score one for the incorrigible d-bag.

 

[Syntax]

What are you talking about? I can’t believe you, of all people, are insulting my intelligence. You keep using this word “consequence”. What consequences are you referring to? Seriously, list them.

Logical consequences. I already did list them.

The government’s ban on incestual, bestial, and polygamous marriage is discriminating against people’s rights to love and cherish whomever, or whatever they want.

So Koko the Chimpanzee wants to marry you, and you want to marry Koko the Chimpanzee. The principle of “Fairness and informed consent” says you should allow it, and the government should not be discriminating against your love for one another.

You want to marry your sister and your uncle at the same time, so society should be supporting the legalization of that incestual and inbred-infested marriage.

I see a lot of leading questions and a lot of talk about this or that being reprehensible and disgusting, but what are the consequences? You referred in a very general sense to the downfall of society, but what that means is far from clear. Do you think you’re actually making sense when you type?

Perversion, addiction, family dysfunction, inbreeding, etc.

Oh, and I’ll ask again. What is your position on homosexual marriage? Still afraid to speak up? I know it’s much easier to attack than defend, so I’ll understand when you dodge my question yet again.

But here’s your problem that you fail to notice. If I say

“Legalizing homosexual marriage is morally wrong because of X, Y, and Z” you will disagree.

But guess what? You don’t HAVE a clearly defined moral principle to use against me, so you won’t even be able to disagree for any good reason. You need a moral principle first. And you still haven’t told me what it is that makes an action right or wrong. So on what ground can you disagree?

So, no thank you. I am not wasting my time with someone who doesn’t even know what he clearly believes about morality. So we will just go around and around and around and around in circles because of your very own confusion.

So what would be the point of that discussion, Mr. Confused Realist?

 

[jdnation]

Wrong. Justice is blind. You’re God is apparently the one with multiple standards. Human beings are capable of treating people equally under the law, yet a perfect being isn’t?

Bizarre.

The fact that you are even saying this shows that you are completely out of touch with reality and the situation you are in.

You dare to state that God, a PERFECT being and your creator who the very laws of nature and all there-in including the passions of love stem from and are answerable to, is on the same level as you and other human beings?!

Have you no humility?

Humans by their fallen nature are INCAPABLE of being just and despite all their harping about ‘equality’ NEVER treat people equally except where their own self interest is at stake! And humans tend to irrationally equate things that are diametrically opposed to natural law and common sense as being equal despite how awkward and non sensical it is!

The very laws you think people can treat each other equally under stem from the laws that He has given and written into the consciences of men. God is not subject to them. He IS the law!

Get something straight. God is perfect, you and human beings are not. God being perfect has EVERY right to judge humanity, something that He created, because He knows better than you who knows nothing, nor are you even capable of comprehending the lives, emotions and feelings of the whole of humanity like God. Nor are you even the least bit intimate with every living being on Earth the same way as God who is with every one of us since the moment we are conceived. Nor do you LOVE any person on this earth with the same intensity and emotion as God! Do not think for even a second that you understand what that is like! Not not imagine your petty human emotions and feelings are anywhere near the scope of God’s!

To even state what you did, has you commit the same original sin that Adam and Eve did that brought death and all the sufferings you and others experience in this world to fruition by thinking you could know better than what God has clearly instructed you.

To even state what you did, is to subscribe to the same evil philosophy of Satan who wanted to equate himself with God. The same ‘equality’ that the devil himself desired!

That is what human beings are like! Human beings are equal only in that they are all sinners and deserving of death! But God loved us so much that despite the miserable wretched creatures we are, He incarnated Himself as man and SUFFERED and DIED to allow us a way out of death and to reunite ourselves with Him as mankind was originally at the very beginning!

This grace is not offered to us becuase we deserve it! None of us are entitled to it! It is given only because of God’s unconditional love which gains Him nothing but desires our own good so that we all be saved and transformed to perfection!

The reason you are encouraged to treat people ‘equally’, is because He desires salvation for you. So if you show mercy and forgiveness and charity unconditionally to those around you then you by your actions show your desire for God to show you mercy, forgiveness and charity. If we all did this equally to one another, the easier will be our path to salvation. Because we are all sinners equally, we must treat each other through our actions in the way that we desire to be treated by God. And that includes what is called charity which means that if we see someone openly living a lifestyle contrary to the laws of God and thus bringing sorrow down upon himself and others that will inevitably lead them to hell, we are obliged to help them turn away from their sinful lifestyles that will not only prevent them from going to hell when they die, but will also ultimately bring them joy and self-control and wisdom in their earthly life! So too we must desire others to correct us and lead us on the right path if we are doing something wrong in rebellion or ignorance. We must prevent people from going to hell for their actions, because we desire that we too will be prevented from going to hell by others if we are chained to sinful habits and lifestyles that hold us in bondage.

The reason you are asked to treat men equally, is so that you humble yourself to think yourself the equal, not with the best of men, but as the worst of them, so that pride does not lead you to think yourself better off than any other, but work unceasingly to avoid sin and temptation and strive to help even the worst of men to do so alongside you! All following the same Law that is imposed equally on all men without exception by God!

The term that ‘Justice be blind’ is not what you think it means anyway, it is that within the human court system, that our judges and jury pronounce judgment without bias to a person’s social status, religion, culture or gender or their own personal feelings about someone on trial, or anything that has nothing to do with the accusation at hand, but rather to concentrate on the crime and only the crime itself as the law describes, and this law should be based on the laws of someone who is perfect, and that is God. But sadly the human courts no longer wish to acknowledge Him and terefore re-write the laws to suit their own imperfections.

But ultimately, Justice IS NOT BLIND! There is a Judge over all that is EVERYWHERE and SEES EVERYTHING! Human beings must dispense blind justice because they do not have this capability and thus being fallen in nature may in their passions and emotions and misguided philosophies be unable to render justice perfectly. Therefore they must set these things aside and attempt to dispense justice with every intention of non-partiality that God sees all men as only in so much as what they can comprehend and see. And not taking into account that which they do not posess the knowlege to know.

contd >

 

[jdnation]

contd>

The so called ‘multiple standards’ you think I asserted to God are not illogical. A person with more knowledge of the law is obligated upon their consciences to follow that law. The same goes for everyone and all are judged equally by their consciences. If their conscience is not informed about something then they are not guily of mortal sin, but their actions are still sinful because they are in reality contrary to nature and harmful. They are not thrown into hell for it, but must still be clensed of the stains that sin leaves on them and will suffer for it before going to heaven. A Catholic who is supposed to be more informed about the laws, yet ignores them, and who has been given the sacraments and instructed on the virtues of pennance to help himself be cleansed of the stains of sin, has no excuses as to why he did not make recourse to these freely available gifts from God Himself to make his path to heaven easier…

Who is more worthy of ridicule? The person who is starving? Or the person who is given all the food he can eat but yet chooses to starve because the food is not to his liking?

Who is more guilty? A man who breaks the law without being sufficiently instructed about what the law entails? Or the man who with full knowledge of what the law says, decides out of his own self interest to break the law anyway?

Who is more of a fool? A man who is throw into prison because he is unable to pay for his bail? Or a man with the opportunity to turn to someone who will gladly put up the money for the bail, but refuses to make use of this and goes to jail?

Yet people behave like ridiculous guilty fools all the time! It’s unbelievable what human beings are like. The man who honestly examines himself will easily discover all these things that infest him and will wisely realize what human nature is like. He would not dare to think he is capable of anything near true compassion and true equality. He will not have such pride as to imagine that he knows better than God who is truly PERFECT and alone is capable of judging all! God and human beings are NOT EQUALS!!! So you better open your eyes to what you really are and humble yourself in acknowledgment that you do not and cannot know better than God! A perfect being is not subject to the law like you and I because He alone has established it, is outside it, and is in no position to break it anyway. For God to break any of the laws He has given is impossible! For humans like you and I, it is as easy as breathing!

All men are free to follow the religion of Christianity and Catholicism, just as they are free to become policemen or judges. And with the roles they adopt, whatever they be in life will come with benefits, consequences and expectations! If you’re going to label yourself as a Catholic, you better make sure you are living up to the expectations placed on that position! And there are many benefits that Catholic have that every other religion in this world does not, and you would be a fool to not take advantage of those either should you fail to live up to your expectations. But most importantly, you have to be able to recognize the fact that you are failing, and not blindly go about rewriting the Law and morality to suit your imperfections, difficulties, and inability to live up to it.

 

[Syntax]

It’s cute that you think you’re making well reasoned points.

I’ve made plenty, and you’ve made none. You just think it’s ok to assert what you believe on these posts without offering any support, or provide any moral system that is guiding your beliefs. So you are just wasting everyone’s time by arguing against the Christian without any well-structured thoughts of your own.

You are one of those non-believers who always tries to take the default position against the Christian and play the role of skeptic–after all, why are you on a Catholic Forum? So what really chaps your hide is the fact that I have **reversed the roles **on you–you are now playing defense instead of playing that overly comfortable position of offense, which has made your brain soft. And you’re now pissed because you just found out you can’t hang with the big boys when your own beliefs (or lack thereof) are challenged.

But like I said, I’m sick of your attacks, so I’m through with you. You dodge my questions. You avoid owning up to your hypocrisy. You personally insult me. You are a waste of time. Score one for the incorrigible d-bag.

You just don’t like being shown-up, pal. I don’t avoid your questions. I just don’t want to get into a discussion with someone who doesn’t even have a moral princple to discuss. So I would be wasting my time with your own lack of clarity, thought, and poor use of your own critical thinking skills–which you either completely lack or are too lazy to use. I’ve already shown you are irrational time and time again. So why should I waste my time with you? You are lukewarm, and you have nothing informative to say.

Here are some more violins for ya…lol

:crying:

 

[Kaninchen]

I think the world needs saving from the Permanently Peeved Over Something or Other Agenda.

 

[Magnanimity]

FYI–as far as we know, the Greeks never sanctioned actual homosexual marriages. There was, however, a kind of contractual relationship that might have been set up between aristocratic men and young boys for the purpose of tutoring the boy in exchange for sexual relations, but the agreement was dissolved upon the boy reaching a certain age.

It continues to amaze me that this is not a more powerful point to advocates of gay marriage–that even in past societies which were much more accepting than we are today of homosexual relations (eg, Greek society), there was nevertheless no real push to legitimize and morph gay sex into some sort of marital/family union.

 

[Zatzat]

The fact is that, had the gay couple in question just kept their lives private (as most people do) they would not have created the situation that led to their child(ren) being expelled.

Got it, keep your sins secret, quiet and darkness. Condemn those whose sins are exposed to the light of day.