"Consenting adults"

[InSearchofGrace]

Calling their actions to be an “abomination” (and worse) is an attempt to dominate them.

You mean homosexual acts being called an “abomination” by some? So as not to add to hurt feelings of LGB’s, I actually do not cite the Levitical clobber verse, nor do I use the word.

Note however that Judaism, not the Catholic Church, gave us “sheqets” in their Tanakh, the word for abomination, and the CC compiled the book as such in the Old Testament in the Bible. It is a word in biblical Hebrew for an act or something that is “taboo” which did not always convey the same sense of moral exceptionalism as in the current English word usage, meaning an act that is exceptionally loathsome.

The problem I see is that LGBs and their sympathizers wish for everyone to drop use of other words as well in reference to homosexual sex, such as “deviant” (meaning deviating from the norm, in regular non-religious usage. Where do you want this word policing to go, should the Catholic Church be made to remove the part in the Catechism that teaches that homosexual desire is “intrinsically disordered” and that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered”? I have already read this expressed by gay forces inside and outside the Church. Especially now in such heady times, with the Obergefell v Hodges SCOTUS ruling. These backward thinking Christians have to be dominated, victory has to be complete, eh?

The old bumper sticker is still applicable. “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”. The new version: “Against homosexual relationships? Then don’t engage in them!”

Yep. Lucky you, able to speak with such indifference to the unborn, because your mother did not abort you.

I am not looking to have those in homosexual relationships hounded, relationships which are just as wrong as pre / extramarital relationships. Now as for same sex “marriage” and the state forcing all to accept placement of children with same sex parents? You betcha. My brothers and sisters in Christ are very concerned!

Why? Is there ANY evidence that same sex couples are more abusive than heterosexuals? Indeed such children will not grow up prejudiced against these relationships, and you consider this to be a problem. Others consider it a great advancement.

Abuse is abuse, both disgusting and unacceptable if committed by biological parents or same sex adoptive parents. As I posted in #300, my reply to Thorolfr, all things equal but for sex differentiation / sameness of parents in homes where children are being raised, the unnatural configuration of same sex parents necessarily denies the child of a mother or father, both of whom provide balance in the emotional and psychosexual development of the child. Same sex parents, even those who love and care for their children, and do not physically abuse or neglect them, are not able to provide the modeling of a natural family.

Only because you don’t have the power to impose.

Then why continually say we are imposing or dictating our beliefs as if we have the force of the state? Can you tolerate a sincere and differing view from yours?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You mean homosexual acts being called an “abomination” by some? So as not to add to hurt feelings of LGB’s, I actually do not cite the Levitical clobber verse, nor do I use the word.

And you are respected for it.

The problem I see is that LGBs and their sympathizers wish for everyone to drop use of other words as well in reference to homosexual sex, such as “deviant” (meaning deviating from the norm, in regular non-religious usage.

I understand your concern, but the word “deviant” has a very negative connotation to it. There is no “norm” and if there would be, it would be to have sex for the purpose of having fun, not for procreation. When people perform acts which explicitly HARM others, then to expose these acts to be harmful is a commendable activity. The problem is that such acts do not HARM anyone else. It would be nice if such negative assessment would be preserved for the cases when they are merited.

Where do you want this word policing to go, should the Catholic Church be made to remove the part in the Catechism that teaches that homosexual desire is “intrinsically disordered” and that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered”?

Personally I could not care less. The church can teach whatever it wants to teach. The only outcome will be a further marginalization of these teachings. It should be your concern.

I am not looking to have those in homosexual relationships hounded, relationships which are just as wrong as pre / extramarital relationships. Now as for same sex “marriage” and the state forcing all to accept placement of children with same sex parents? You betcha. My brothers and sisters in Christ are very concerned!

No one is forcing you to participate.

Abuse is abuse, both disgusting and unacceptable if committed by biological parents or same sex adoptive parents. As I posted in #300, my reply to Thorolfr, all things equal but for sex differentiation / sameness of parents in homes where children are being raised, the unnatural configuration of same sex parents necessarily denies the child of a mother or father, both of whom provide balance in the emotional and psychosexual development of the child. Same sex parents, even those who love and care for their children, and do not physically abuse or neglect them, are not able to provide the modeling of a natural family.

So what is better? To have a single parent household or have a homosexual one? Do you have any evidence that a homosexual household is actually HARMFUL to children?

Then why continually say we are imposing or dictating our beliefs as if we have the force of the state? Can you tolerate a sincere and differing view from yours?

I can tolerate even the KKK and its views - as long as they cannot ACT on those views.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pay for it? Surely you jest. If you don’t want your kids to be educated, you have at least two options: “home-school them”, or move it to another country where such lifestyle is not just not recognized, but is criminalized.

Home-schooled kids perform better than ones in public schools.

The progressive agenda is failing…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Will everyone PLEASE stop talking about gay sex. I mean, seriously, that’s all a majority of you seem to want to post about. All anyone has to do is use the term ‘consenting adults’ and the word ‘private’ in any given sentence and half the forum starts bashing away at keyboard about anal sex. ‘Not on MY watch’ is the cry. ‘This is not just a privacy matter’ they furiously type. ‘Won’t someone please think of the children!’ Is the rallying call.

Ye gods and little fishes. We are talking about what happens in private. The term ‘consenting adults’ is there just to confirm that what we are considering is happening by consent. That is, I am not forcing anyone to do anything. This could and does entail anything at all. And I mean absolutely anything.

But I t seems that if a friend of Luigi says that he and his wife had a quiet night in…‘just two consenting adults having a romantic evening’ it seems that the first thing that pops into his mind is: ‘Oh my God - he was having ANAL SEX!’

Quite pathetic.

Now, Luigi. Your turn to answer the question: Is what you do in private with your partner any of my business?

It would seem that you have only three options.

1. No it is not. In which case neither is what I do your business.
2. Yes it is. In which case we will all look forward to a run down on last nights activities. And the night before etc.
3. This question doesn’t apply to me. In which case you are shown to be a hypocrite.

Actually there is a fourth. You can start railing about anal sex again and ignore the question.

Does this post really think that “lifestyle” refers just to anal sex among homosexuals? :doh: :doh2:

And the question was answered.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Personally I could not care less. The church can teach whatever it wants to teach. The only outcome will be a further marginalization of these teachings. It should be your concern.

I think you better take a closer look at demographics.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Home-schooled kids perform better than ones in public schools.

The progressive agenda is failing…

How wonderful. So you have your solution. Get into home-schooling and all your problems are solved. No one will try to “indoctrinate” your children that homosexual marriage is NOT an “abomination”, that love between consenting adults is “disgusting” if they happen between same sex people or between non-married people. Your children will be pure of the influence of the “gay agenda”… what else can you hope for? … when they will enter into the REALITY, they will be subject to a culture shock? Too bad, so sad. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Pallas Athene;13224294]How wonderful. So you have your solution. Get into home-schooling and all your problems are solved. No one will try to “indoctrinate” your children that homosexual marriage is NOT an “abomination”, that love between consenting adults is “disgusting” if they happen between same sex people or between non-married people. Your children will be pure of the influence of the “gay agenda”… what else can you hope for? … when they will enter into the REALITY, they will be subject to a culture shock? Too bad, so sad.

Instead of disgusting and abomination, I’d just say immoral and explain natural law. Really, using the language you propose is detrimental because it hurts GBLTQ persons unnecessarily and damages my argument.

Home-schooling will solve many (perhaps not all) problems that exist in America’s decaying education system.

Gay agenda—yes, I’d have that in quotes, too, because it’s mostly straights leading the charge on that-----except of course when it comes to Islam.

Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Sure you can!

Just because kids are home-schooled, doesn’t mean they are sheltered from reality. Besides, hiding the truth on things like gay “marriage” to climate change is the way of the progressive who blindly trusts government institutions.

Any kids I teach will be prepared against evil.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Love is supposed to be the central theme of Christianity.

It is, but it goes beyond sexual pleasure. I wish secular progressives could see that.

Yet you label this LOVE to be intrinsically evil when it is non-procreative.

It depends on the situation.

Oh, and it’s God, not us, who decides what sin is. Regardless of how that makes people feel.

Don’t you realize that such a phrase takes away your credibility?

“Intrinsically evil LOVE”?

It’s God’s definition of Love that is Supreme, not the secular one based on sexual pleasure of the flesh or the relationship style of the current era.

What kind of oxymoron is that?

In Christian theology, there is no oxymoron. The problem is that secularists think they have the authority to define love based on how people they know feel and want.

That’s not love, that’s more along the lines of selfishness.

Homosexual acts and playing house are acts of selfishness, not love.

And to truly love someone is to preach the Truth and correct them as necessary.

 

[Rohzek]

The greatest irony of Christians relying upon natural law theory to defend against not only non-procreative sex, but also homosexual relations is the fact that homosexuals are naturally attracted to one another through simple biology. One could easily argue that natural law theory vindicates homosexuality just as compellingly as they could against it.

Luigi, Pallas’ notion of “secular” love isn’t limited to fleshly expression. Pallas is just simply stating that homosexuals are capable of sex with one another as well as a means for the expression of their love.

The only productive thing that I think this thread has demonstrated is that natural law theory, which is the spear-point in which religious people try to advance their legal and/or moral charge against homosexuality or gay marriage just really isn’t a sufficient or reasonable empirical argument to put forward because those advancing it always have to fall back on untestable premises which relate to a deity or the internal thought-material of the couple’s heads.

The only coherent argument that anyone has advanced in this thread against homosexual sex acts is the inherently circular argument of “because God/Bible said so.” At which point, it becomes a theological argument concerning morality, which has no place in a government that is forbidden to establish or endorse any particular religion.

 

[Bradski]

Does this post really think that “lifestyle” refers just to anal sex among homosexuals? :doh: :doh2:

And the question was answered.

No it most definately was not. You seem to have made your own question up and then answered that. In that you want to make it your business what I do. But I want to see where the hypocrisy is.

I want to know if it MY business what YOU do.

Waaaay back at the start of the thread someone was foolish enough to agree that he had nothing to hide and he had no problem in me discussing his sex life with his wife. I asked for an email address but he now seems to have left the thread.

How about you? Would you mind me making it MY business what you and your significant other do in the bedroom?

 

[clem456]

The question still stands. Is what you do in private with your partner any of my business?

And you still do not have an answer.
YOU do not have an answer. Most everyone else does. YOU do not have it.

Rather, you would pigeonhole others into a little tiny “privacy” box, making it convenient for you to advance your simplistic argument about invasion of privacy, and erroneously casting everyone else as privacy invading busybodies.

Can you do better?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It is hard to understand those who defend the ethics of

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

Don’t like gay “marriage”? Don’t enter one.

“Those who do not hate their own selfishness and regard themselves as more important than the rest of the world are blind because the truth lies elsewhere.”

The posts of Pallas Athene (also as Hee_Zen before that) come across as too unyielding, self-centered, even coming from a place of much anger.

…
Personally I could not care less.
…

 

[Midwest88]

Notice how it’s now “consenting adults”.

It used to be “**two **consenting adults”.

Before that it was people who were married.

Still want to tell me there’s no slippery slope, and all is well and under control?

As another poster said, “In all these lies, I am required to redefine human nature and come up with my own “magic rules”, as you say, to buy into these lies. I am required to abdicate my reason and common sense, to deny what is commonly revealed. It truly is a willing descent into ignorance.”

Modernism is just making ethics, morals and stuff up as you go along.

 

[Midwest88]

It is hard to understand those who defend the ethics of

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

Don’t like gay “marriage”? Don’t enter one.

“Those who do not hate their own selfishness and regard themselves as more important than the rest of the world are blind because the truth lies elsewhere.”

The posts of Pallas Athene (also as Hee_Zen before that) come across as too unyielding, self-centered, even coming from a place of much anger.

 

[tonyrey]

It is hard to understand those who defend the ethics of
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

Don’t like gay “marriage”? Don’t enter one.“Those who do not hate their own selfishness and regard themselves as more important than the rest of the world are blind because the truth lies elsewhere.”

The posts of Pallas Athene (also as Hee_Zen before that) come across as too unyielding, self-centered, even coming from a place of much anger.

Congratulations on your discovery! At least he enjoys visiting this forum. That’s a point in his favour. We can never tell what the outcome will be…