Catholic, Orthodox leaders speak out against gay pride parade

[ffg]

Interesting back and forth’s.

Asking for a parade to be cancelled is not infringing on human rights or free will.

It’s a parade, an event, not a person.

The persons who may have been interested to watch it or walk it just had some hours opened for their Saturday.

 

[adrift]

I don’t think anyone here sees unless they reject the distinction between secular and religious law. Christ didn’t go to the cross by force, but by choice. Likewise, we are called to do the same. If you want to force homosexuals to not practice their homosexuality through the use of force, whether it be through law or ultimately gun point, then you are acting against God Himself.

The bishops, both Catholic and Orthodox, who called for the authorities to prevent this demonstration should be deposed from their offices for their actions against God. They have infringed upon the basic human dignity of the individual to choose their own path, whether it be the path of God or not.

Their actions was not against God. It is the duty of every Christian to admonish sinners; It is one of the spiritual acts of mercy.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… If you want to force homosexuals to not practice their homosexuality through the use of force, …

Where did I say that? You are trying to derail the thread.

 

[Rohzek]

Interesting back and forth’s.

Asking for a parade to be cancelled is not infringing on human rights or free will.

It’s a parade, an event, not a person.

The persons who may have been interested to watch it or walk it just had some hours opened for their Saturday.

It was a public demonstration that they wished to have held. They were subsequently silenced. Parades include people, who were prevented from voicing their own ideas on public grounds.

Demonstrations and parades are often coordinated with authorities so as to provide public order to them. But when public authorities constantly reject these mass demonstrations and prevent them, people usually file lawsuits and win due to their infringement of their basic human rights (the 1st amendment). This of course didn’t occur in the USA, but since rights are naturally endowed by the Creator and are not socially constructed, I find the bishops’ actions still abhorrent.

Their actions was not against God. It is the duty of every Christian to admonish sinners; It is one of the spiritual acts of mercy.

Oh yes it was. And you severely misunderstand what they did. They did not only admonish the people. If they only admonished them or performed a counter-demonstration, then that would have been an entirely different matter. But instead, they also publically pressured the secular authorities to stop the parade from even taking place. That’s a transgression against the basic human dignity of those people, whom God had created and endowed rights with. Such an action on the part of the bishops was unequivocally an act against God.

 

[Rohzek]

Where did I say that? You are trying to derail the thread.

I’m not derailing anything. I’m just calling you to account for what you said.

That’s the only logical alternative to what you condemn in post 13, post 38, and post 40. You clearly dislike the fact that homosexuality has been decriminalized. Your signature further adds to my case.

You might think it to be immoral and harmful to the soul, but it has no direct harmful impact upon other people who are not in the relationship. As such, it was correctly decriminalized. Having consensual sex with another person, whether they be the opposite gender or not, is a human right.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
Asking for a parade to be cancelled is not infringing on human rights or free will.

It’s a parade, an event, not a person.
…

More great info. Read it and weep:

John J. Hurley and South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Etc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to assemble and for groups to determine what message is actually conveyed to the public. Generally, the Court ruled that private organizations, even if they were planning on, and had permits for, a public demonstration, were permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey. More specific to the case, however, the Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their demonstration, even if such a law had been written with the intent of preventing discrimination.

The Decision

Justice Souter delivered the unanimous opinion of the court on June 19, 1995. The Court reasoned that, even though the [Allied War Veterans] Council did not have a narrow, set message that it was intending to convey, the parade nevertheless constituted a message that the Council had a right to protect. Noting that, while the Council had been fairly lenient in its guidelines for who[m] they chose to allow in their parade, the Court said this did not necessarily mean that the Council waived its right to present its message in a way it saw fit. Of primary concern to the Court was the fact that anyone observing the parade (which regularly gained a large number of spectators) could rationally believe that those involved in the parade were all part of an overriding message the Council was seeking to provide. In this vein, the unanimous Court said that the Council could not statutorily be prohibited from excluding the messages of groups it did not agree with. Effectively, the Council could not be forced to endorse a message against its will.

wikipedia. org/wiki/Hurley_v._Irish-American_Gay,_Lesbian,and_Bisexual Group_of_Boston

 

[unstoppable_II]

I’m not derailing anything. I’m just calling you to account for what you said.

That’s the only logical alternative to what you condemn in post 13, post 38, and post 40. You clearly dislike the fact that homosexuality has been decriminalized. Your signature further adds to my case.

You might think it to be immoral and harmful to the soul, but it has no direct harmful impact upon other people who are not in the relationship. As such, it was correctly decriminalized. Having consensual sex with another person, whether they be the opposite gender or not, is a human right.

I am not responsible for what you think I said.

 

[Rohzek]

More great info. Read it and weep:

This is a terrible argument and only adds to my point. The court case you cite is about a group who wanted to exclude certain people from promoting a message they disagreed with in their own parade. This court case is not applicable to the Ukraine. The Ukraine case explicitly concerns a gay pride parade. They weren’t trying to assert their pro-gay message into someone else’s demonstration. They were trying to hold their own demonstration. It’s a completely different matter from the court case you cite.

 

[adrift]

Oh yes it was. And you severely misunderstand what they did. They did not only admonish the people. If they only admonished them or performed a counter-demonstration, then that would have been an entirely different matter. But instead, they also publically pressured the secular authorities to stop the parade from even taking place. That’s a transgression against the basic human dignity of those people, whom God had created and endowed rights with. Such an action on the part of the bishops was unequivocally an act against God.

No it wasn’t. Such an argument advocates for the abolition of law. All law stops by force a person choosing how did you phrase it? “their own path”. It would be against God not to council them that it is wrong. It would be a neglect of their duties to allow evil without opposing it.

The date chosen made it more egregious as it is the celebration of the Assumption.

“We understand that the views of the LGBT community are their personal choice,” they added. “However, promoting and imposing antibiblical and antitraditional views is unacceptable and leads to the destruction of our society … We pray for the salvation of these people so that the light of Divine Truth enlightens their minds.”

It seems you support their free will to march and promote a sin and condemn the Bishops right to oppose their sinfulness. . There were no basic rights denied. It is not a basic right to have a parade.

 

[Rohzek]

No it wasn’t. Such an argument advocates for the abolition of law. All law stops by force a person choosing how did you phrase it? “their own path”. It would be against God not to council them that it is wrong. It would be a neglect of their duties to allow evil without opposing it.

The date chosen made it more egregious as it is the celebration of the Assumption.

It seems you support their free will to march and promote a sin and condemn the Bishops right to oppose their sinfulness. . There were no basic rights denied. It is not a basic right to have a parade.

You don’t understand the Enlightenment too well, nor human rights in general.

My position does not support the abrogation of law. Rather my position acknowledges that it is the fundamental human nature to be creative (something both René Descartes and Rousseau noticed and later expanded upon by Locke, etc.). This creative nature can lead to sin or to God’s path. Anything that impedes this creativity of an individual must be justified. I can justify preventing a child from drawing with chalk in the middle of the interstate because such an action puts the child’s life at immediate risk. I can stop a sadistic serial killer because he/she is taking another human’s life in the name of their creativity.

However, does prevention ever apply to sex? Only in the cases of rape it does. And since homosexual sex acts are not rape, then we cannot justify stopping them. We can only hope to stop them through moral persuasion. The same equally applies to people voicing messages we don’t like.

I honestly wouldn’t care if they did it on Christmas. Grow a thicker skin. People try to make others angry all the time. Besides, nearly every day on the calendar is some sort of Christian holiday.

And actually, I do support the bishops’ right to oppose homosexual acts. However, I condemn their efforts to infringe upon homosexuals’ freedom of association and freedom of speech. That’s a serious transgression against God on their part. Holding a parade is part of the freedom of association and speech.

 

[unstoppable_II]

This is a terrible argument and only adds to my point. The court case you cite is about a group who wanted to exclude certain people from promoting a message they disagreed with in their own parade. This court case is not applicable to the Ukraine. The Ukraine case explicitly concerns a gay pride parade. They weren’t trying to assert their pro-gay message into someone else’s demonstration. They were trying to hold their own demonstration. It’s a completely different matter from the court case you cite.

But it is pertinent to the statements “ffg” made. You just disagree with the decision. Like I said, read it and weep.

---

“The indispensable condition of any conservative or traditionalist movement, as well as of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say** NO** to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.” – Lawrence Auster

 

[ffg]

It was a public demonstration that they wished to have held. They were subsequently silenced. Parades include people, who were prevented from voicing their own ideas on public grounds.

Demonstrations and parades are often coordinated with authorities so as to provide public order to them. But when public authorities constantly reject these mass demonstrations and prevent them, people usually file lawsuits and win due to their infringement of their basic human rights (the 1st amendment). This of course didn’t occur in the USA, but since rights are naturally endowed by the Creator and are not socially constructed, I find the bishops’ actions still abhorrent.

Yeah, not in the U.S. is a key, but it would be a mistake to think suppression doesn’t happen in the U.S…

Even when it does, it doesn’t take away free will or dignity because those things are not provided by the governments.

Governments listening to special interests is not unprecedented.

It would be a mistake to think that there are no folks who felt obligated to go because they were gay. Who are now a bit relieved their Saturday can be used for something else.

Take care,

Mike

 

[unstoppable_II]

…Holding a parade is part of the freedom of association and speech.

Maybe it isn’t in the Ukraine.

 

[eddie_too]

governments have no obligation to honor behaviors that are socially damaging, seriously disordered and/or gravely immoral.

the right to do wrong is an absurd contradiction and no government, secular or otherwise, should endorse such a concept.

and, remember this, in a democracy, right and wrong have meaning only in light of the vote of the majority. right and wrong in a democracy has little, if anything, to do with logic or reason or history or philosophy or any other intellectual endeavor.

 

[unstoppable_II]

governments have no obligation to honor behaviors that are socially damaging, seriously disordered and/or gravely immoral.

the right to do wrong is an absurd contradiction and no government, secular or otherwise, should endorse such a concept.
…

Mega

 

[adrift]

You don’t understand the Enlightenment too well, nor human rights in general.

:bowdown2: In case you are unaware this is an ad hominem.

My position does not support the abrogation of law. Rather my position acknowledges that it is the fundamental human nature to be creative (something both René Descartes and Rousseau noticed and later expanded upon by Locke, etc.). This creative nature can lead to sin or to God’s path. Anything that impedes this creativity of an individual must be justified. I can justify preventing a child from drawing with chalk in the middle of the interstate because such an action puts the child’s life at immediate risk. I can stop a sadistic serial killer because he/she is taking another human’s life in the name of their creativity.

Please support with a Church document.

However, does prevention ever apply to sex? Only in the cases of rape it does. And since homosexual sex acts are not rape, then we cannot justify stopping them. We can only hope to stop them through moral persuasion. The same equally applies to people voicing messages we don’t like.

Church Document?

I honestly wouldn’t care if they did it on Christmas. Grow a thicker skin. People try to make others angry all the time. Besides, nearly every day on the calendar is some sort of Christian holiday.

Real sensitive aren’t you. I guess only to those whose sin you support.

And actually, I do support the bishops’ right to oppose homosexual acts. However, I condemn their efforts to infringe upon homosexuals’ freedom of association and freedom of speech. That’s a serious transgression against God on their part. Holding a parade is part of the freedom of association and speech.

Church Document? You have expressed only a secular opinion not one based on God’s law.

 

[Rohzek]

:bowdown2: In case you are unaware this is an ad hominem.

Please support with a Church document.

Church Document?

Real sensitive aren’t you. I guess only to those whose sin you support.

Church Document? You have expressed only a secular opinion not one based on God’s law.

Why would a need a church document for something that is purely logical? And no, its not purely secular either. I invoked the example of Christ from the very beginning. And its a position that John Chrysostom and Augustine both held. Forcing sinners to do good is not in accordance with God’s law. One must make a sinner good by persuasion.

As for ad hominem, I reject such a charge. And if it really is, then so is your accusation that I don’t believe in any sort of public order or law whatsoever. You basically labelled me an anarchist. I didn’t take it as ad hominem, but rather as an intellectual contention with my own arguments. I answered you, and laid out what I think your own position logically concludes to.

Maybe it isn’t in the Ukraine.

So you reject the notion of natural rights? If so, then I think we won’t find common ground whatsoever.

Yeah, not in the U.S. is a key, but it would be a mistake to think suppression doesn’t happen in the U.S…

Even when it does, it doesn’t take away free will or dignity because those things are not provided by the governments.

Governments listening to special interests is not unprecedented.

It would be a mistake to think that there are no folks who felt obligated to go because they were gay. Who are now a bit relieved their Saturday can be used for something else.

Take care,

Mike

I first want to say this: Thank you for having the patience and the nuance to understand my points.

I think you missed something still though. Those rights are universal to all human beings by virtue of being human beings. So whether it be in the Ukraine or US should not matter. I just pointed out the example of the US, because the US has a much better human rights record than Eastern Europe.

 

[ffg]

I first want to say this: Thank you for having the patience and the nuance to understand my points.

I think you missed something still though. Those rights are universal to all human beings by virtue of being human beings. So whether it be in the Ukraine or US should not matter. I just pointed out the example of the US, because the US has a much better human rights record than Eastern Europe.

Just to be clear, let me confirm what you mean by ‘those rights’.

Would one of those rights be to gather for a unifying cause?

After confirmation, I’ll form a response.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
So you reject the notion of natural rights? If so, then I think we won’t find common ground whatsoever.
…

Having a right and being able to exercise it are two different things.

 

[Rohzek]

Just to be clear, let me confirm what you mean by ‘those rights’.

Would one of those rights be to gather for a unifying cause?

After confirmation, I’ll form a response.

Thanks,

Mike

Yes, it is part of the freedom of association/assembly/speech.

Having a right and being able to exercise it are two different things.

No, they are not. You are essentially denying another human being rights, which you refuse to acknowledge. In short, you don’t believe in natural rights.