Confusing tolerance with beliefs

[Delphinus85]

That sounds funny, coming from someone whose religion demands conversion.

Catholicism is evangelical in that it wants everyone to become Christian. Throughout it’s two thousand year history, one of it’s primary missions has been conversion. And yet you disapprove of people trying to convince you that there’s nothing harmful about being gay?

Heh. Sounds rather hypocritical to me, to be quite honest.

Yes, we do want people to convert, but we don’t call people bigots and “hateful” if they don’t. We don’t sue people for not converting.

 

[Delphinus85]

“Convert or you burn in hell forever.”

There’s no greater demand than that, Bennie.

That’s what our belief states. Someone who chooses to die outside the friendship of Christ doesn’t go to heaven. There is no demand to convert, it’s all a choice, and what threat is hell to a person who doesn’t even believe it? How is that forcing them? It’s like someone telling me “Accept the flag as your saviour or you will be forced to live in the land of pixies and marshmallows forever” then leaves it there?" what is the threat? How is THAT forcing?

Besides, the idea of salvation is our own choice. Either we chose to be close to God in heaven, or we choose to not believe in him and be far from him in hell. No one makes anyone go anywhere if they don’t want to. Many just choose to go somewhere where they probably don’t want to go.

 

[TMC]

Yes, we do want people to convert, but we don’t call people bigots and “hateful” if they don’t. We don’t sue people for not converting.

I’m afraid that many many Christians call gay people much worse things than “bigot” or “hateful”.

I don’t understand this parallel at all. Gay people are not asking anyone to convert to gayness. They are asking that they be allowed to live and work and participate in society. No one is getting sued for not being gay.

Many Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful. Many, certainly most, Christians believe that practicing Wiccan is sinful. Wiccans are allowed to live and work and fully participate in society. We accept that their beliefs differ from ours. We may argue with them, they argue back. No one is saying they don’t have the same rights as Christians.

Why is homosexuality different? Why is this particular sin of a type that requires Christians to engage the machinery of the secular state, and not other sins?

 

[Delphinus85]

I’m afraid that many many Christians call gay people much worse things than “bigot” or “hateful”.

I don’t understand this parallel at all. Gay people are not asking anyone to convert to gayness. They are asking that they be allowed to live and work and participate in society. No one is getting sued for not being gay.

Many Christians believe that homosexuality is sinful. Many, certainly most, Christians believe that practicing Wiccan is sinful. Wiccans are allowed to live and work and fully participate in society. We accept that their beliefs differ from ours. We may argue with them, they argue back. No one is saying they don’t have the same rights as Christians.

Why is homosexuality different? Why is this particular sin of a type that requires Christians to engage the machinery of the secular state, and not other sins?

This parallel was brought up by another member earlier.

There is no law that discriminates against homosexuals. They can freely participate in any realm of society that they want to. There is NO law at all that forbids them from living their lives however they wish. I however will assume that you are talking about homosexual “marriage”. This has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with what marriage is. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Not woman and woman, man and man, man and cat, or woman and lamp post. ONE man and ONE woman.

However, again, they have been given legal rights through a civil union that sees them almost legally the same as a married couple. There are no laws saying they can’t have a wedding ceremony if they want, but they will never be “married” legally because there is no such thing as a marriage between same sex couples.

Homosexuals can vote, work, rent housing, borrow money, loan money, get credit cards, have email accounts, go to church, anything they want to.

 

[blessedtoo]

#1. I’m sorry, but are you a psychologist? Do you have any studies that show that homosexual behavior *CAUSES *all those things? You don’t. Because they’re aren’t any. You have a correlational study that shows that gay people are slightly more likely to be depressed (or to have unsafe sex or whatever) than straight people. That’s it. The cause? It’s hard to say.

What’s the point in asking for studies which you will immediately discount? You’ve been around long enough and have seen enough studies, papers, polls, and proofs to make the case that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful in a myriad of ways. You poo-poo them all. You are willfully blind to the facts. That’s okay if that’s your choice but please don’t invite an argument you don’t wish to consider fairly.

It isn’t easy to be gay when there are people like you in the world.

It isn’t easy living as an active homosexual because it goes against natural, moral, and divine law. Take your argument up with the appropriate authority.

(Especially when they happen to be your parents, by the way, which is frequently overlooked in these forums. Depression *possibly *being linked to a lack of acceptance from your parents because they think you’re going to hell or acting against God or some other ridiculous, faith-based notion? Um. Yeah. That’s not hard to fathom. Even someone like you ought to see how that could possibly cause depression.)

“Someone like me” sees it this way: Parents who love their children and put first the priority of their eternal soul should inform their kids that they are following the wrong path. Everyone who sins knows they have put their soul in danger. If this message is hurtful or damaging, it should be. We should all be fearful of continuing to live in unrepentent sin. If depression results, it is because one has surrendered to the sin and now feels compelled to convince everyone else that the sin itself does not exist.

#2. Gay pride parades are not representative. You’d get mad at me if I picked, oh, say, that one dude who posted a few months back saying that gay people ought to be put in concentration camps as being representative of Catholics on this issue

Ridiculous. Of course they are representative. They occur in every city of every state in this country. In my circle of friends, even the most “conservative” homosexuals will participate in these public displays. While you might run into a renegade Catholic who suggests concentration camps are in order for active homosexuals, you certainly know that is not Catholic teaching. What is the homosexual dogma? What is the purpose of their evangelization efforts? To make something that is wrong appear right. This is clearly not comparable to Christian evangelization.

 

[Alterum]

I just wrote a column on this for my school newspaper (and will post it once it’s published if anyone is interested).

This really bothers me too. Many gays demand respect for their lifestyle while simultaneously demanding that we refrain from judging it. Moreover, we’re calumniated as bigots if we refuse to respect their lifestyle. Of course, however much one tries, it is impossible to force the respect of another.

As I say in my column, the gay movement needs to be judged by its demands. The call for state-recognized homosexual union is ridiculous, because the only reason marriage has existed from a social point of view was to regulate the obligations and desires attendant upon procreation (to borrow from Keyes). To allow gay marriage is to make the legal institution of marriage irrelevant.

 

[Bennie_P]

“Convert or you burn in hell forever.”

There’s no greater demand than that, Bennie.

Well, if you don’t believe in the Church teachings on sexual morality then why do you worry about Hell? If the Church is wrong on morality, then surely she must be wrong about Hell?

Personally, I didn’t convert to miss the pain’s of hell, but that is a pretty cool fringe benefit. I converted because I realized that God does represents love for God is Love and that knowledge and assurance of His Love will help me ride out any storm. It is pretty arrogant for one to get upset with God because He has the power to give and take life, who are we to judge God? and if you don’t believe in God, why are you so upset? Because so many of us do?
If you reject God and the His teachings concerning sexuality and Morality, then where is the demand? You have a free will, you either except it, or reject it? All of it, or none of it. So if your so sure on the morality part, what are you worried about? PAX

 

[TMC]

This parallel was brought up by another member earlier.

There is no law that discriminates against homosexuals. They can freely participate in any realm of society that they want to. There is NO law at all that forbids them from living their lives however they wish. I however will assume that you are talking about homosexual “marriage”. This has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with what marriage is. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Not woman and woman, man and man, man and cat, or woman and lamp post. ONE man and ONE woman.

However, again, they have been given legal rights through a civil union that sees them almost legally the same as a married couple. There are no laws saying they can’t have a wedding ceremony if they want, but they will never be “married” legally because there is no such thing as a marriage between same sex couples.

Homosexuals can vote, work, rent housing, borrow money, loan money, get credit cards, have email accounts, go to church, anything they want to.

No this is simply not true. You are misinformed. A number of states have enacted laws to prevent homosexuals from entering into certain kinds of contracts. Civil unions are only available in a few places.

Also, the fact that it is legal in many places to discriminate against homosexuals certainly places them in a different legal position that others, don’t you think.

But you didn’t address my question. I think it was ill-framed and the Wiccan example was a poor one. Please let me try again.

Catholics make only a few things voting issues and only demand state action on a few moral issues. Homosexual rights is one of these, in fact I would say it ranks second. Why is this?

The Church’s teachings on divorce are just as strong (and IMO better founded) than the teachings on homosexuality. The Church’s position is that there is no such thing as divorce; if you divorce and remarry without annulment you are a polygamist. The damage done to marriage and family in this country by no-fault divorce is hard to deny. There are a million divorces a year in the U.S. Why don’t Catholics insist that the state do something about this? Why isn’t it even discussed?

The same goes for the Church’s teachings on fornication and birth control. U.S. law used to align much more closely with Church teachings on all of these issues, but no more. I hear Catholics discuss these as personal moral topics, but not as political or legal topics.

Again, why among all of these moral teaching do Catholics insist that the state adopt something near its position on homosexuality, but do not consider these other equally strongly held Catholic teachings appropriate for political discourse?

 

[TMC]

Ridiculous. Of course they [gay pride parades] are representative. They occur in every city of every state in this country. In my circle of friends, even the most “conservative” homosexuals will participate in these public displays. While you might run into a renegade Catholic who suggests concentration camps are in order for active homosexuals, you certainly know that is not Catholic teaching. What is the homosexual dogma? What is the purpose of their evangelization efforts? To make something that is wrong appear right. This is clearly not comparable to Christian evangelization.

Really. Gay pride parades are representative of gay people? Do you think the average gay person dresses up in biker leathers, or has crazy spiked hair, or walks around half-dressed? If so you have been watching too many movies. Do even conservative gay people march and conduct other activities in support of their rights, yes they do? Are they responsible for everything that activists do and say? No more than all African-Americans are responsible for things that Louis Farrakhan does and says.

If I told you that “Girls Gone Wild” was typical behavior for 20-something girls, and “proved” it by saying I saw on TV that these things go on all over the country, would you find that compelling? If I said that Hugh Hefner’s lifestely must be typical of heterosexual men because I hear so much about it, would that make that true?

Basing your opinions on homosexuality on the moral teachings and traditions of the Church is certainly a defensible position. Trying to justify that choice by appealing to stereotypes is not.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

That sounds funny, coming from someone whose religion demands conversion.

Catholicism is evangelical in that it wants everyone to become Christian. Throughout it’s two thousand year history, one of it’s primary missions has been conversion. And yet you disapprove of people trying to convince you that there’s nothing harmful about being gay?

Heh. Sounds rather hypocritical to me, to be quite honest.

You mean to say the sodomites are trying to convert us all to be sodomites?

CDL

 

[Bennie_P]

No this is simply not true. You are misinformed. A number of states have enacted laws to prevent homosexuals from entering into certain kinds of contracts. Civil unions are only available in a few places.

Also, the fact that it is legal in many places to discriminate against homosexuals certainly places them in a different legal position that others, don’t you think.

But you didn’t address my question. I think it was ill-framed and the Wiccan example was a poor one. Please let me try again.

Catholics make only a few things voting issues and only demand state action on a few moral issues. Homosexual rights is one of these, in fact I would say it ranks second. Why is this?

The Church’s teachings on divorce are just as strong (and IMO better founded) than the teachings on homosexuality. The Church’s position is that there is no such thing as divorce; if you divorce and remarry without annulment you are a polygamist. The damage done to marriage and family in this country by no-fault divorce is hard to deny. There are a million divorces a year in the U.S. Why don’t Catholics insist that the state do something about this? Why isn’t it even discussed?

The same goes for the Church’s teachings on fornication and birth control. U.S. law used to align much more closely with Church teachings on all of these issues, but no more. I hear Catholics discuss these as personal moral topics, but not as political or legal topics.

Again, why among all of these moral teaching do Catholics insist that the state adopt something near its position on homosexuality, but do not consider these other equally strongly held Catholic teachings appropriate for political discourse?

Catholics do debate these issues and push for change of laws or resist change in law in these areas - but when you are on a thread about homosexual issues then that is the topic you are to stick with.
Here check out this web site for some of the debates going on concerning divorce and other moral topics related to marriage, including SSM. Same Sex marriage just drops our line of defense below those issue you raise. If you go to the point of approving SSM then all the arguments you raise become nonsequential. Otherwise SSM is behind our battle lines of defense.

marriagedebate.com/dlr.php

 

[manualman]

There are so many things that bother me about your post, but for the sake of my own sanity, I’ll just talk about two.

#1. I’m sorry, but are you a psychologist? Do you have any studies that show that homosexual behavior *CAUSES *all those things? You don’t. Because they’re aren’t any. You have a correlational study that shows that gay people are slightly more likely to be depressed (or to have unsafe sex or whatever) than straight people. That’s it. The cause? It’s hard to say. I can tell you one thing though:

It isn’t easy to be gay when there are people like you in the world.

(Especially when they happen to be your parents, by the way, which is frequently overlooked in these forums. Depression *possibly *being linked to a lack of acceptance from your parents because they think you’re going to hell or acting against God or some other ridiculous, faith-based notion? Um. Yeah. That’s not hard to fathom. Even someone like you ought to see how that could possibly cause depression.)

#2. Gay pride parades are not representative. You’d get mad at me if I picked, oh, say, that one dude who posted a few months back saying that gay people ought to be put in concentration camps as being representative of Catholics on this issue.

1. No I’m not. But the folks at NARTH.com are. And their observations gel amazingly well with the (admittedly small) sample of 7-8 gay men I’ve known in my life. I sympathize with your pain. But I hope you will consider their point in the quiet times of your life. Will you REALLY be free of those naggging questions if your parents and the rest of society change and decide to endorse your lifestyle? Natural Law says you won’t. Sorry. Just like the societal mores against premarital sex that have pretty thoroughly crumbled away haven’t eliminated the damage that fornication does to hetero people. Notice the hetero divorce rates lately?

And “SLIGHT” increase over heteros? Please. You know better. EVERY ONE of the gay men I have known suffered at least one of the traits I described (sadly including two suicides). NARTH suggests that the incidence is rather more than slight.

If I’m wrong about the motivation behind gay activism, please explain the real reason. What does getting states to redefine marriage gain gays that some quality time with an attorney (and prep of a durable power of attorney document) wouldn’t? Not much - except that elusive societal acceptance.

1. Fair rebuke. I have no knowledge of the breadth of support in the gay community for the displays shown in a gay pride parade. I defer to your experience that they are not representative.

 

[TMC]

Catholics do debate these issues and push for change of laws or resist change in law in these areas - but when you are on a thread about homosexual issues then that is the topic you are to stick with.
Here check out this web site for some of the debates going on concerning divorce and other moral topics related to marriage, including SSM. Same Sex marriage just drops our line of defense below those issue you raise. If you go to the point of approving SSM then all the arguments you raise become nonsequential. Otherwise SSM is behind our battle lines of defense.

marriagedebate.com/dlr.php

I don’t understand your point. You seem to agree that SSM is a more important political issue to Catholics. I would expand that and say that gay rights in general are, including such things as adding orientation to Title VII. But why is that?

Is homosexuality a more important moral issue than birth control, for example? My understanding is that both are condemned for the same reason, both deny the procreative purpose. I have read that over 70% of Americans use birth control. Perhaps 4% are homosexual. Why doesn’t that make birth control the larger issue? The same goes for the one million divorces each year. Don’t they tear apart the fabric of family more than any gay issue?

I realize the Church maintains an stance on these issues, but I have never heard a Catholic say they were voting issues for them. But gay rights is a voting issue for Catholics. And the source of a lot of venom on this forum. Why isn’t the same energy and emotion applied to the other sexual and family issues?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Homosexual-sex-act justifiers actively try to FORCE others to actually believe that is a positive thing that people be allowed to perform homosexual-sex-acts.

If they DON’T believe that, and publically affirm that belief, then they are to be persecuted for “hate crimes”.*

Wait, wait, wait.

You’re saying that we think that you ought to be persecuted for hate crimes for saying that being gay is wrong?

No.

I’m saying that if we BEHAVE as if practicing homosexual-acts is NOT “normal”, then we are to be persecuted for that behavior.

In other words, if I say to anyone, “It is wrong and sinful and hurtful to God and man to do those acts…”, then that is an actionable ATTACK on “those who do those things”, and my ATTACK is to be punished by the temporal authorities (legal system).

Being “gay” is simply being an SSA sufferer. You may hold a different opinion of that than I do.

Being “gay” is a cross to bear in chastity as defined by the Church, and I need to show MORE charity to those who have (potentially) more heavy crosses to bear than I do.

But to deny me the ability to publicly state my belief is not to “free society for the diversity of religion (freedom of religion)” but “free society FROM religion”, which is explicitly anti-religious, which is a religion in itself, which makes the “state religion” anti-religion.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[TMC]

I’m saying that if we BEHAVE as if practicing homosexual-acts is NOT “normal”, then we are to be persecuted for that behavior.

In other words, if I say to anyone, “It is wrong and sinful and hurtful to God and man to do those acts…”, then that is an actionable ATTACK on “those who do those things”, and my ATTACK is to be punished by the temporal authorities (legal system).

Who is advocating for such a law? I see claims that this is a goal, but no such legislation has ever been proposed.

If you are referring to the so-called ‘hate-crimes’ laws, they do not work this way. You can say you hate women, or people of color, or foreigners, or Jews all you want. You can call them abnormal, or evil or whatever you like. People do it all the time. All of these people are covered by they ‘hate-crimes’ laws currently on the books. Neither the hate-crimes laws or anti-discrimination laws have prevented fundamentalists from teaching that women are inferior and should be subjected to men. Or forced any other change to any religion. Why do you suppose that adding homosexuals to these laws would work any differently?

 

[Bennie_P]

I don’t understand your point. You seem to agree that SSM is a more important political issue to Catholics. I would expand that and say that gay rights in general are, including such things as adding orientation to Title VII. But why is that?

Is homosexuality a more important moral issue than birth control, for example? My understanding is that both are condemned for the same reason, both deny the procreative purpose. I have read that over 70% of Americans use birth control. Perhaps 4% are homosexual. Why doesn’t that make birth control the larger issue? The same goes for the one million divorces each year. Don’t they tear apart the fabric of family more than any gay issue?

I realize the Church maintains an stance on these issues, but I have never heard a Catholic say they were voting issues for them. But gay rights is a voting issue for Catholics. And the source of a lot of venom on this forum. Why isn’t the same energy and emotion applied to the other sexual and family issues?

First those issues are not something that have found their way to the voting booth. Two Catholics do not have the clout to take any moral issue on alone, politcally, and for many non-Catholic Christians acceptance of divorce and birth control is already a given. All those issues are of equal importance, but if we put all our efforts on birth control vs natural family planning, which within the Church is talked about more then gay rights and SSM, yet not enough, what argument do you have left if SSM becomes law? How do you teach against the wrong attitudes of sexual promiscuity when homosexuality represents that attitude to the extreme? And how do you teach the holiness of sex when it becomes generally accepted as normal in a unholy anti-sacramental way?

“Gay marriage” should not be treated as a beneficial social structure. In addition to being non-procreative, homosexual relationships, unlike marriage relationships, are characterized by instability/promiscuity rather than stability/fidelity.
Promoters of “gay marriage” claim that same-sex relationships are just like marriages and therefore deserve all the benefits of marriage, but research shows – and activists admit – that it is unrealistic to expect male couples to be faithful.(11)Fact sheet for decision makers

As to Title VII to make sexual orientation a protected class is just the normalization of immorality.

Besides I don’t see how or why you think Catholics think gay issues are the most important moral issues? My number one moral issue on my heart is abortion. As you see in the abortion issue it is harder to reverse something that has been legalized. In my eyes abortion and “Gay” rights are both part of the culture of death. Personally I would love to see the world embrace life.

Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 1Cor 3:16-18

 

[TMC]

First those issues are not something that have found their way to the voting booth. Two Cahtolics do not have the clout to take any moral issue on alone and for many non-Catholic Christians acceptance of divorce and birth control is already a given. All those issues are of equal importance, but if we put all our efforts on birth control vs natural family planning, which within the Church is talked about more then gay rights and SSM, yet not enough, what argument do you have left if SSM becomes law. How do you teach against the wrong attitudes of sexual promiscuity when homosexuality represents that attitude to the extreme? And how do teach the holiness of sex when it becomes generally accepted as normal in a unholy anti-sacramental way?

Besides I don’t see how or why you think Catholics think gay issues are the most important moral issues? My number one moral issue on my heart is abortion. As you see in the abortion issue it is harder to reverse something that has been legalized. In my eyes abortion and “Gay” rights are both part of the culture of death. Personally I would love to see the world embrace life.

I just can’t accept your proposition. There are 69 Million Catholics in the US, not two. Divorce and birth control are accepted in US society, sure they are now, where was all this heat and anger when the divorce and birth control laws were changed? And since when do Catholics weigh the likelihood of success when deciding whether to engage an issue?

Also, I didn’t say that gay issues were the most important issues to Catholics, I said they were second, of course abortion is first.

None of this explains the emotion I see applied to this issue here and elsewhere. I could understand going against SSM as an easy win. The level of histrionics on the issue tells me there is more to it than that. I just can’t figure out what it is. Is it as simple as hatred for the other? Is it that Catholics can see themselves and their friends slipping on birth control or divorce, but feel safe demonizing the sin they know they will never commit? Because when I look at the Church’s teachings and I look at society I don’t see how gay rights even makes the first page of any issues list.

 

[Bennie_P]

I just can’t accept your proposition. There are 69 Million Catholics in the US, not two. Divorce and birth control are accepted in US society, sure they are now, where was all this heat and anger when the divorce and birth control laws were changed? And since when do Catholics weigh the likelihood of success when deciding whether to engage an issue?

Also, I didn’t say that gay issues were the most important issues to Catholics, I said they were second, of course abortion is first.

None of this explains the emotion I see applied to this issue here and elsewhere. I could understand going against SSM as an easy win. The level of histrionics on the issue tells me there is more to it than that. I just can’t figure out what it is. Is it as simple as hatred for the other? Is it that Catholics can see themselves and their friends slipping on birth control or divorce, but feel safe demonizing the sin they know they will never commit? Because when I look at the Church’s teachings and I look at society I don’t see how gay rights even makes the first page of any issues list.

Well that is becuase you seem not to be well informed of the history of the issues.
The Chruch stood alone …
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
HUMANAE VITAE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ONTHE REGULATION OF BIRTH
JULY 25, 1968

and She still stands firm on the issues, but the battle is uphill.

With me there is no hate involved as I said, I would love to see everyone embrace life not death. To embrace a Homosexul lifestyle brings death and destruction. something I have witnessed first hand. In fact last night at adoration I spent some of my time putting names of deceased friends and family on paper crosses for all souls day. some of those names include “gay” friends and acquaitances. Of the “gay” friends one died from suicide and the others from aids.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I’m saying that if we BEHAVE as if practicing homosexual-acts is NOT “normal”, then we are to be persecuted for that behavior.

In other words, if I say to anyone, “It is wrong and sinful and hurtful to God and man to do those acts…”, then that is an actionable ATTACK on “those who do those things”, and my ATTACK is to be punished by the temporal authorities (legal system).*

Who is advocating for such a law? I see claims that this is a goal, but no such legislation has ever been proposed.

You have a good point here.

It’s an interesting thing. The “secular” society is presently being heavily influenced to regard my saying, “Homosexual-sex-acts are wrong” as being “rude” and “unloving”.

When someone does something “rude” and “unloving” he is subsequently “persecuted” by ostracism and eventual violence.

Now, it’s nearly as likely that my “rudeness” will be met with “high-fives” as well,… but that is another discussion.

What the “practicing homosexual” wants is for the “rude” to be punished (lightly preferably but more forcefully if necessary) so that rudeness is less likely to happen.

That is indeed the goal of the “practicing homosexual”, as you would probably agree.

Eventually this “attitude” will be codified into law, and the “imminence” of laws to that effect is not the issue.

If you are referring to the so-called ‘hate-crimes’ laws, they do not work this way. You can say you hate women, or people of color, or foreigners, or Jews all you want. You can call them abnormal, or evil or whatever you like. People do it all the time. All of these people are covered by they ‘hate-crimes’ laws currently on the books. Neither the hate-crimes laws or anti-discrimination laws have prevented fundamentalists from teaching that women are inferior and should be subjected to men. Or forced any other change to any religion. Why do you suppose that adding homosexuals to these laws would work any differently?

Hate-crime laws are utterly unnecessary, as they are simply “political condescensions” given to “special groups” in exchange for votes.

Since I don’t regard hate-crime laws as sensible, I don’t care which “special groups” are included in them.

I really complain not so much about “practicing homosexuals” being aggressive in getting what they want, which is definitely their right, but about the cowardice of those who are “cowed” by the terroristic tactics of the “practicing homosexuals” in their quest for their desires.

The amazing fact that such a perverse trivial minority can affect such a massive change in society is absolutely amazing, and is GREAT motivation for normal people to do the Christian thing, in the Christian way, that would put the perverse back in it’s place.

The previous sentence would probably be regarded by the “practicing homosexual” as an actual “fightin’ words” attack on them worthy of actual legal punishment.

If that is true, then the inevitability of “thought crime laws” is a fact, and rule by the perverse minority is precisely what vote whores will give the noisy “special folks”.

But,…perhaps not, if the “noisy normal folks” actually appear.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

The Church’s position is that there is no such thing as divorce; if you divorce and remarry without annulment you are a polygamist. The damage done to marriage and family in this country by no-fault divorce is hard to deny. There are a million divorces a year in the U.S. Why don’t Catholics insist that the state do something about this? Why isn’t it even discussed?

I just wanted to mention that divorce and remarriage never makes someone a polygamist. The Church teaches that a man can only be married to one woman at a time (the reverse is also true). So, if a man and woman get a civil divorce, they are still married to each other unless it can be determined that their marriage was always invalid from the time of their wedding. If someone in a valid marriage were to remarry, their second marriage would be invalid. They would not be married twice because that is not possible. God does not join anyone in matrimony to more than one person, nor to someone of the same sex.