You can call this number anytime and there are professional counselors at the other end of the line. It is free. It is just a phone call away, 602-347-1100. It is called The Warm Line. It operates between 5-10 pm I believe. When you call you will get the times you can call. Save your $90.00.
I saw that and my reply was that love is a quality common to all people. The love is the same, the object is different, Its the same awl being applied to a different object. That doesn’t make a difference in the awl, its the choice of the user to what the awl is applied.
Isn’t that zoophobic/necrophobic hate speech? You aren’t a zoophobe are you? Are you sure there isn’t a “skeleton” in your closet? If you know what I mean?
As long as they are adults can’t they make their own decisions?
As long as adults agree to them why should they be illegal?
This notion would be contrary to modern Cognitive Behavioral therapy and consistent with Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. If we label ourselves by behavior then we must label ourselves by the good and the bad. We are not our behavior. That is wrong.
Your analysis is filled with errors making it difficult to make any sense of it. Addiction is not a disease. It is a choice. The public has been brainwashed to believe that Alcoholism is a disease and it is not. Look on YouTube, Stanton Peele, and he will explain.
My understanding based on what I recall of Aquinas is this: Love is willing God to another. In your thoughts, in your actions, in your willing what you do and think is to do things that bring the other to the Will of God. This is the test. If you can fit your paradigm into this framework then that is love.
Yes, love is like an awl, you choose what to apply it to, if you use a stitching awl on leather it can be marvelous whereas if you try to apply it to wood it might work, but mostly you are a danger to yourself and the piece of wood.
I find it odd that specifics are so necessary. In my opinion in discussing these things I would refer to them as aberrant behavior. There are names for other things that do not require graphic description such as paraphelias. It is understood that this too is aberrant behavior of a certain type. I am not sure I understand the need to describe aberrant behavior as anything but aberrant behavior.
I voted yes, but the answer must mean, sometimes. Except that I reject the idea that
I already tried to explain that.
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/18/129056831951498596.jpg
Your wrong, I have a son with SSA and have been to the Courage Conference, a ministry of the Catholic church and we know why many of them have become homosexuals. It’ a process of many things, but the bottom line is the personality type that has many rejections in life and has not been affirmed by their gender, either by the father or peers, and some have been rejected by the way they look, with women and people in general and some have learning disabilities.
I don’t think you understand, I am not asking for more reasons to justify your intolerance, everyone justifies their intolerance. I want to know why you feel that you doing so not hypocritical?
What you have run into is that types of people with SSA stay Catholic. Now the people with SSA who become Catholic is a very different thing.
I explained why in the last sentence
You have tried to justify your intolerance as everyone else does. I don’t really care about justifications, they are all easily exposed for what they are. I want to know why you think it is not hypocritical for you to be intolerant of other orientations, but you want us to be tolerant of yours? I don’t need a list of justifications, I want an admission that the position is hypocritical. Remember you told me…Your wording is extremely imprudent, gives people the impression that Catholics hate homosexuals… Yet here I have exposed you doing the very same thing concerning other orientations. When you made this statement, you probably didn’t expect me to fight back, but now that the shoe is on the other foot you seem gladly willing to ignore the obvious hypocrisy of the situation. Why is that?
Remember that Homosexual inclinations are not sinful, it is homosexual acts. At courage, we don’t use that word anyway, it demeans the person by saying who they are as their sexual preference. Same Sex Attraction is how we view the problem. PPH We also call this people practicing or promoting Homosexuality.
You have tried to justify your intolerance as everyone else does. I don’t really care about justifications, they are all easily exposed for what they are. I want to know why you think it is not hypocritical for you to be intolerant of other orientations, but you want us to be tolerant of yours? I don’t need a list of justifications, I want an admission that the position is hypocritical. Remember you told me…Your wording is extremely imprudent, gives people the impression that Catholics hate homosexuals… Yet here I have exposed you doing the very same thing concerning other orientations. When you made this statement, you probably didn’t expect me to fight back, but now that the shoe is on the other foot you seem gladly willing to ignore the obvious hypocrisy of the situation. Why is that?
It says nothing of the sort about necrophiliacs, zoophiles, incestuous relationships, polygamy. So while Catholics are obligated to treat people with same sex attraction with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” we are not obligated to do anything of the sort about the groups you mentioned.
Very true, the actions are what are sinful. Same Sex Attraction is a better term because it doesn’t have a lot of “garbage” weighing it down.
You are still excusing your intolerance. I see that you cannot admit it is hypocritical.
We are required to treat all people that way, right?