Catholics are ceding too much ground to the homosexual agenda

[fix]

This is not the point. The point is to “normalize” homosexuality. This is achieved through convincing heterosexuals that homosexuality is its equivalent. It is not.

Exactly, like teaching stealing is good, adultery is ok, lying is just as good as telling the truth.

 

[fix]

Could you perhaps send me a copy of this agenda? I keep hearing about it, but it didn’t come with my Birkenstock sandals or collection of Broadway soundtracks. Obviously, you got one since you know what it says.

Those who have eyes can refuse to see.

It cannot be missed.

 

[Seeker1961]

This is not the point. The point is to “normalize” homosexuality. This is achieved through convincing heterosexuals that homosexuality is its equivalent. It is not.

Less than 10% of the population is no threat to heterosexuals and can never be an “equivalent”. Normal will always be the majority.

 

[Seeker1961]

Those who have eyes can refuse to see.

It cannot be missed.

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not all out to get you, right?

Anyone can grab a set of random events and create a conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean there really is one.

I don’t believe we fabricated the moon landing, I don’t believe that 9-11 was an inside job and I don’t believe there is a smoke filled room full of gay people plotting to take over the world.

 

[markeverett49]

Less than 10% of the population is no threat to heterosexuals and can never be an “equivalent”. Normal will always be the majority.

The claim is not that there are as many homosexuals as heterosexuals but that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality and that they are equally commendable forms of sexual expression. This is the mistake.

 

[Seeker1961]

The claim is not that there are as many homosexuals as heterosexuals but that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality and that they are equally commendable forms of sexual expression. This is the mistake.

They’re going to exist whether you approve or not. All the condemnation in the world isn’t just going to make them go away.

 

[edwest2]

QUOTE=Seeker1961;9905325]Could you perhaps send me a copy of this agenda? I keep hearing about it, but it didn’t come with my Birkenstock sandals or collection of Broadway soundtracks. Obviously, you got one since you know what it says.

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html

imdb.com/title/tt0388795/

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13628

huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/kevin-keller-gay-archie-comic-wedding_n_1113035.html

amazon.com/Princess-story-about-young-loves/dp/0615395945

bing.com/music/songs/search?q=born+this+way&songID=D4EAB206-0100-11DB-89CA-0019B92A3933&qpvt=born+this+way&FORM=DTPMUA

amazon.com/Heather-Has-Two-Mommies-Anniversary/dp/1593501366/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350511576&sr=1-1&keywords=heather+has+two+mommies

parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={21351315-D12C-435B-B553-B1267BF782CB}

nbc.com/the-new-normal/

catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-professor-fired-for-giving-catholic-teaching-on-homosexuality/

mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2009/12/20th-anniversary-act-up-invaded-st.html

Thank you BTNYC for your links and exposition of a carefully planned assault on the American heart and mind, which, if not fully informed, degrades truth itself, and leads to believing in falsehoods.

May I add:

cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

They’re going to exist whether you approve or not. All the condemnation in the world isn’t just going to make them go away.

No one is saying that they should go away.

The fact remains that every individual on this planet, unless raped, is able not to have sex at a given time. This is true whether the individual is sexually attracted to men or women or both or cows or turkeys or chocolate or balloons.

It is not a matter of condemning existence. It is a matter of condemning action. Moral truth is not dependent on whether people accept it.

 

[Seeker1961]

No one is saying that they should go away.

The fact remains that every individual on this planet, unless raped, is able not to have sex at a given time. This is true whether the individual is sexually attracted to men or women or both or cows or turkeys or chocolate or balloons.

It is not a matter of condemning existence. It is a matter of condemning action. Moral truth is not dependent on whether people accept it.

So where are we then?

We recognize that our Church has rules that those who choose to commit to Her must obey. We also recognize that we live in a world that contains people who have not made the choice to commit to the Church.

My feeling is that we would also agree that we would like to see those outside the Church chooses to come inside the Church, right?

Perhaps instead of worrying about how effectively we can condemn action or existence , we should be thinking about how effectively we can reach those outside and bring them inside?

 

[markeverett49]

They’re going to exist whether you approve or not. All the condemnation in the world isn’t just going to make them go away.

I’m not trying to make them go away. But I will resist the suggestion that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Big difference.

 

[Baelor]

We recognize that our Church has rules that those who choose to commit to Her must obey.

Indeed.

We also recognize that we live in a world that contains people who have not made the choice to commit to the Church.

Indeed, but this is not relevant to the OP per se.

My feeling is that we would also agree that we would like to see those outside the Church chooses to come inside the Church, right?

Yes; each individual should come inside the Church.

Perhaps instead of worrying about how effectively we can condemn action or existence,

The Church does not condemn the existence of anything other than sin and evil. She does not condemn the existence of any human.

And the condemnation of evil is fundamental to our existence as children of God.

we should be thinking about how effectively we can reach those outside and bring them inside?

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Indeed.

Indeed, but this is not relevant to the OP per se.

Yes; each individual should come inside the Church.

The Church does not condemn the existence of anything other than sin and evil. She does not condemn the existence of any human.

And the condemnation of evil is fundamental to our existence as children of God.

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[markeverett49]

Perhaps instead of worrying about how effectively we can condemn action or existence , we should be thinking about how effectively we can reach those outside and bring them inside?

Unless we hold fast to the faith, what do we have to invite people into–a pancake breakfast? The Church is precious in part because she is right and the world is so wrong about morality. If we give that up for the sake of being more ‘welcoming’ we are just inviting people into a social club. The world is thick with social clubs. It is not thick with truth.

 

[Faithdancer]

sexual sins are something many struggle with-however, I fail to see the plethora of threads on CAF discussing adultery, sex outside of marriage or divorce as evil…wonder why? I don’t see practitioners of such acts described as perverted or evil either…wonder why?

These acts are also evil. However, their “practitioners” are not actively seeking widespread social acceptance of their evil. They are not lobbying and campaigning intensely, across the United States, for legislative action or popular vote to make their evil appear equal to the good which is marriage between one man and one woman, ruled by fidelity and chastity.

When adulterers become as militant as homosexuals and try to establish a legal definition of adultery-within-marriage as “normal marriage,” then there will undoubtedly be many more threads devoted to the evil of adultery on CAF.

 

[Faithdancer]

It is indeed a false dichotomy that presupposes that the Church must change to accommodate and accept anyone and everyone, regardless of their immoral lifestyle. It is those who want to be part of the Church who must change, and not vice versa.

Those who hold out in false hope that the Catholic Church will ever condone same sex “marriage” or abandon the fight against it are doomed to lasting disappointment. It doesn’t matter if 99% of lay Catholics are deluded into thinking that same sex “marriage” is not an evil. Our current pope, long may he reign, consistently appoints new bishops and archbishops who staunchly defend holy matrimony, and he will continue to do so. The next pope, and those after him, will also defend the sanctity of marriage in every way possible. Anyone who can’t see that plainly, and thinks that the Vatican will somehow be swayed by popular opinion on same sex “marriage” doesn’t understand the Magisterium, papal succession or the inexorable force of Church teaching and tradition.

 

[Faithdancer]

Unless we hold fast to the faith, what do we have to invite people into–a pancake breakfast? The Church is precious in part because she is right and the world is so wrong about morality. If we give that up for the sake of being more ‘welcoming’ we are just inviting people into a social club. The world is thick with social clubs. It is not thick with truth.

Very well said, Mark. It has been said that the Catholic Church is at war with the world, and I believe this is very true and nowhere more evident then when the Church refuses to cave in to moral relativism. Those who cannot accept all of the teachings of the Church would truly be better off joining a social club- or the Unitarians.**

 

[BTNYC]

But again, if you want your children’s school to support the faith teaching you’re doing at home then send them to Catholic school, or homeschool.
Then you don’t have to worry about them hearing anything other than the teachings of the Church.

Not teaching children about homosexuality is hardly “supporting faith teaching.” It’s simply not doing something public schools have no right to be doing.

I attended NYC public schools from 1983 - 1993, and I heard not a single reference to homosexuality from any of my teachers. That was as it should be, because public schools have no right to teach anything to children at all about this subject, or any other subject pertaining to sexual morality.

I’m a Catholic, not a Wahhabi Muslim. I want my children to learn the faith as well as secular subjects. But pro-homosexual indoctrination is not a legitimate secular subject. My children - and all children, not just mine - have the right not to have this subject foisted upon them by schools funded by taxpayer money (including mine).

For the record, I would also protest on behalf of Muslim and Jewish children in public schools if the National Pork Council were pressuring schools to teach a needless, aggressive pro-bacon curriculum. Not because I love Islam or Judaism, nor because I hate bacon, but because public schools should not be proselytizing on behalf of pork any more than they should be proselytizing on behalf of homosexuality or Islam, or Judaism, or Catholicism.

I’m just not convinced of this mass conspiracy to do anything other than make money.

So the very sudden, very recent campaign to redefine the institution of marriage is not the work of an agressive agenda? Is it simply the natural result of an organically evolving change in societal perception of the institution?

 

[BTNYC]

It is not a matter of condemning existence. It is a matter of condemning action. Moral truth is not dependent on whether people accept it.

Perfectly put. I couldn’t agree more.

 

[april32010]

For the record, I would also protest on behalf of Muslim and Jewish children in public schools if the National Pork Council were pressuring schools to teach a needless, aggressive pro-bacon curriculum.

did someone mention BACON

 

[Bradski]

These acts are also evil. However, their “practitioners” are not actively seeking widespread social acceptance of their evil.

That would be because not many people think that sex outside marriage of divorce is evil. No-one is called perverted if they get divorced. No-one is called perverted if they have sex before they get married. If Catholics moved to make divorce and extra-marital sex illegal for everyone (as you are trying to do with gay marriage), then I think that you might see some reaction.

Those who cannot accept all of the teachings of the Church would truly be better off joining a social club- or the Unitarians.**

Just off the top of your head, just a rough percentage figure, how many Catholics do you personally think would be left inside the church if that happened?