R
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
J
j1akey
Guest
I do check out history, quite a bit of it actually when the oportunity presents itself. Despite that you grew up with this, most of the things in there are rediculous and have nothing to do with communism, least of all gay people. It’s nothing but propoganda and fear mongering.
B
buffalo
Guest
Your claim is that his was not part of the Communist strategy during the cold war?
E
edwest2
Guest
I suggest you visit marxism.com
V.I. Lenin: Destroy the family and you destroy society.
For years throughout the 1960s, this is what I heard from my government: We are in a battle with Godless Communism. The threat was not just from ICBMs, but from propaganda.
Right after the hippies started making noise in 1968, a “head shop” opened in my neighborhood. You could get underground newspapers like the Ann Arbor Sun, the Fifth Estate and others. You were introduced to anarchy, hating the rich, and how to commit crimes against the corporations. “Power to the people. Power to the people. Power to the people, right on!” You were told to rot your mind with marijuana, off the pigs (kill the police) and drop acid (take LSD, a powerful hallucinogen). That was followed, not much later, with people going through my neighborhood trying to give out copies of the Socialist Worker.
It didn’t take long for me to realize that even the underground comics were influencing young people with really bad examples. The Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society, and other groups had to be monitored by the FBI.
In 1973, gay activists, not sound scientific research, made homosexuality disappear as a disorder.
The campaign called the “Sexual Revolution” disrupted the proper relationship between men and women, gradually moving the entire country toward anarchy. The National Organization for Women worked as a powerful propaganda organization to convince all women that all men were the enemy, so that when no-fault divorce became available – guess what?
The establishment of the Adult Bookstore created an addiction marketplace primarily for men, and as time passed, things became more degenerate, pervereted and “acceptable.” Britney just appeared on Letterman in her underwear — they called it a bikini.
Is everyone getting the connection?
There is already a plan for ‘beyond gay marriage’ with multiple conjugal partners. Got that? Guess what they showed at this year’s Cannes Film Festival? A movie called Zoo about bestiality.
It took 40 years but by gradually turning up the dial, all forms of perverted sex are being marketed. And the reason is simple, as told to me on another message board: “We don’t want to feel guilty, or sinful or ashamed ever again.”
You turn your back on God who loves you and gave you a way to live, and this is what you end up with. Here is the fruit of it.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
How many of the 45 have already been achieved? Who can doubt America’s march to socialism?
C
Charlotte408
Guest
**ohmahgawd!!! beastiality IS legal in FLORIDA!!! **
G
gearhead
Guest
Wow… well, if you’ve decided you don’t want to be taken seriously, I’m not going to second-guess that.
I always find it bizarre when Christians rail against Communism. It’s like they’ve never read Acts 4-5.
"And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. "
B
Benadam
Guest
That would be true communism. Wonder why the Church as a government doesn’t attempt such an ideology? It does in it’s religious orders. It eliminates the family because the state it’self makes it’self the primary and primordial society.
Point, that kind of communism is not possible for a nation among nations. It is difficult to maintain in religious communities.
Also, Marx taught the people how to overthrow the oppressive state and what communism could achieve. But once the state is overthrown he didn’t have a clue what to do next.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
The word ‘tolerance’ has become a buzz-word from Satan’s teleprompter. It means nothing more and nothing less than tolerating evil.
Tolerate the laws of God? Never. Tolerate abortion, homosexual ‘marriage,’ euthanasia, drugs, child pornography? Of course. It’s our rights!
They even re-write the Bible to their own specs, claiming that it promotes the evils of communism when clearly and specifically the Catechism warns against this.
In the name of tolerance, we have become corpses, marinating in our own sin. God help us.
Tolerate the laws of God? Never. Tolerate abortion, homosexual ‘marriage,’ euthanasia, drugs, child pornography? Of course. It’s our rights!
They even re-write the Bible to their own specs, claiming that it promotes the evils of communism when clearly and specifically the Catechism warns against this.
In the name of tolerance, we have become corpses, marinating in our own sin. God help us.
G
gearhead
Guest
What do you mean by “tolerate the laws of God”? How do people not tolerate you following the laws of God as you see them?
First off: who exactly is asking you to tolerate child pornography? That issue aside (which I think is just hyperbole on your part, and not founded in reality), the only one where I can even somewhat appreciate your frustration is abortion: given the Catholic viewpoint, I can definitely see why people would take major issue with it. However, that viewpoint is not shared by everyone.
And let’s examine the other issues you brought up:
same-sex marriage: we’ve hashed it to death in this thread, so I won’t re-do that here. Basically, nobody’s forcing you to marry someone of your own gender or your church to perform same-sex weddings. Only when someone starts doing that would you have a valid complaint.
euthanasia: it’s a matter of personal decision by an individual concerning themselves. Unless you’re concerned that people are being euthanized against their will, I think this is a matter where we should leave each other to follow what we each feel is right.
drugs: generally, there are two main drug legalization movements, and I don’t see how you can label either one as fundamentally immoral or evil:
- the marijuana legalization movement, which is mostly based on the idea that pot is less harmful than other legal drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco) and therefore should be legalized on the same basis that these other drugs are legal.
- the legalization movement for “harder” drugs, which definitely does not claim that drugs are good, but instead takes the position:
- that the current approach to drugs is overly costly and ineffective at actually acheiving its goals, and
- that treatment is more effective than criminal punishment at actually reducing the number of drug users and the harm associated with drugs, but current drug laws are an obstacle to getting drug users into the treatment they need.
Are you talking about my reference to the Book of Acts? The quote I gave wasn’t re-written by anyone… though I’m starting to regret mentioning it, since it’s pulling the thread off-topic.
Nobody’s forcing you to “marinate” in anything. And frankly, I think you need to recognize that there are strong moral arguments for many of the things you oppose.
So people do things that you don’t like - so what? Do you think you’re the only person who feels that way?
A few years back, someone close to me asked me why I didn’t want to get baptized. I told them that I’d think over the matter seriously, which I did. I started writing out my reasons and ended up with six pages of objections to the Catholic Church, Christianity in general and theism as a whole. Now… I don’t think I have any right to impose these views on anyone else; I believe as my conscience dictates and I support your right to do the same. But why should I continue to do that if you aren’t willing to do the same for others? Is the “let’s impose our moral and theological views on each other” door really one you want to open?
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
What do you mean by “tolerate the laws of God”? How do people not tolerate you following the laws of God as you see them?
First off: who exactly is asking you to tolerate child pornography? That issue aside (which I think is just hyperbole on your part, and not founded in reality), the only one where I can even somewhat appreciate your frustration is abortion: given the Catholic viewpoint, I can definitely see why people would take major issue with it. However, that viewpoint is not shared by everyone.
And let’s examine the other issues you brought up:
same-sex marriage: we’ve hashed it to death in this thread, so I won’t re-do that here. Basically, nobody’s forcing you to marry someone of your own gender or your church to perform same-sex weddings. Only when someone starts doing that would you have a valid complaint.
euthanasia: it’s a matter of personal decision by an individual concerning themselves. Unless you’re concerned that people are being euthanized against their will, I think this is a matter where we should leave each other to follow what we each feel is right.
drugs: generally, there are two main drug legalization movements, and I don’t see how you can label either one as fundamentally immoral or evil:
Are you talking about my reference to the Book of Acts? The quote I gave wasn’t re-written by anyone… though I’m starting to regret mentioning it, since it’s pulling the thread off-topic.
- the marijuana legalization movement, which is mostly based on the idea that pot is less harmful than other legal drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco) and therefore should be legalized on the same basis that these other drugs are legal.
- the legalization movement for “harder” drugs, which definitely does not claim that drugs are good, but instead takes the position:
- that the current approach to drugs is overly costly and ineffective at actually acheiving its goals, and
- that treatment is more effective than criminal punishment at actually reducing the number of drug users and the harm associated with drugs, but current drug laws are an obstacle to getting drug users into the treatment they need.
Nobody’s forcing you to “marinate” in anything. And frankly, I think you need to recognize that there are strong moral arguments for many of the things you oppose.
So people do things that you don’t like - so what? Do you think you’re the only person who feels that way?
A few years back, someone close to me asked me why I didn’t want to get baptized. I told them that I’d think over the matter seriously, which I did. I started writing out my reasons and ended up with six pages of objections to the Catholic Church, Christianity in general and theism as a whole. Now… I don’t think I have any right to impose these views on anyone else; I believe as my conscience dictates and I support your right to do the same. But why should I continue to do that if you aren’t willing to do the same for others? Is the “let’s impose our moral and theological views on each other” door really one you want to open?/QUOTE]
After watching the progress of this discussion for several days I think the answer is quite clearly YES.
The lengths that people have gone to in order to demonize gay people simply makes me go
It’s discussions like these that make me wonder why I remain connected to the Catholic church at all-but then I remember the way I was treated by Fr Jude, Fr Ray, Sister Mary Ann, Sr Ellen, Sr Margaret and Sr Kathleen. I’m sure that those good people, who have given their lives in the service of the Catholic church, would be too “tolerant” for many here. Heaven forbid a gay person not be lumped in with communists, pedophiles, degenerates, prostitutes and all the most evil people on the planet. It’s like the famous line from Family Guy at the conversion camp for gay people: ““You’re all here because you’ve chosen to leave your evil sinful ways and redeem yourself in the eyes of your lord and savior Jesus Christ, who hates many people but none more than you.””
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
Yeah, but those evil gay people will NEVER be able to get married here, no way. They’re not even getting civil unions…but Farmer Brown can still have all the fun he wants.**ohmahgawd!!! beastiality IS legal in FLORIDA!!! **
B
buffalo
Guest
That is where stewardship and charity come into play.
B
Benadam
Guest
**
same-sex marriage: we’ve hashed it to death in this thread, so I won’t re-do that here. Basically, nobody’s forcing you to marry someone of your own gender or your church to perform same-sex weddings. Only when someone starts doing that would you have a valid complaint.
euthanasia: it’s a matter of personal decision by an individual concerning themselves. Unless you’re concerned that people are being euthanized against their will, I think this is a matter where we should leave each other to follow what we each feel is right.
The defense of these ‘rights’, seems to invariably appeal to the experience of being an individual at the exclusion of the community. Those who oppose them appeal to the condition of the community at large and include the experience of being an individual.
IMO that in it’self say’s alot.
Those for SSa And euthanasia can’t argue a reason to protect these ‘rights’ so the demand is for proof of harm. Which is exactly what they get from those who oppose SSA and E.
So, the debate degenerates into statements like: “it’s a matter of personal decision”
“this is a matter where we should leave each other to follow what we each feel is right.” ’
“Only when someone starts ( forcing churches to marry gays ) doing that would you have a valid complaint.”
These statements are in total disregard of the fact that man is a profoundly social creature. That no individual action is isolated from the whole. Each statement above requires the false assumption that we all have a personal bubble to express our individuality.
same-sex marriage: we’ve hashed it to death in this thread, so I won’t re-do that here. Basically, nobody’s forcing you to marry someone of your own gender or your church to perform same-sex weddings. Only when someone starts doing that would you have a valid complaint.
euthanasia: it’s a matter of personal decision by an individual concerning themselves. Unless you’re concerned that people are being euthanized against their will, I think this is a matter where we should leave each other to follow what we each feel is right.
The defense of these ‘rights’, seems to invariably appeal to the experience of being an individual at the exclusion of the community. Those who oppose them appeal to the condition of the community at large and include the experience of being an individual.
IMO that in it’self say’s alot.
Those for SSa And euthanasia can’t argue a reason to protect these ‘rights’ so the demand is for proof of harm. Which is exactly what they get from those who oppose SSA and E.
So, the debate degenerates into statements like: “it’s a matter of personal decision”
“this is a matter where we should leave each other to follow what we each feel is right.” ’
“Only when someone starts ( forcing churches to marry gays ) doing that would you have a valid complaint.”
These statements are in total disregard of the fact that man is a profoundly social creature. That no individual action is isolated from the whole. Each statement above requires the false assumption that we all have a personal bubble to express our individuality.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Yep. Marriage has both private and social impact.
G
gearhead
Guest
Exactly how is the community being “excluded” in either of these cases?
And I assume that “SSA” means same-sex marriage, but I’m not clear on the “A” in the acronym.
Personal freedom is important, but it’s not the only issue. As I’ve pointed out now many times, prohibiting same-sex marriage has a real and significant negative effect on real couples, real families and real children. If you want to do that, you’ll have to come up with a very, very good reason why.
No, they’re based on the valid assumption that you don’t get to impose harm on other people unless you can satisfactorily justify it. Prohibition of same-sex marriage causes harm, therefore you must justify it if you want it banned. It’s really that simple.
Judging by the responses in this thread, apparently so does your religion. I suppose that means I get a say in the affairs of your church, right?
I asked a question a few posts back, and apparently your answer is “yes”: you do want the “let’s impose our moral and theological views on each other” door open. What you apparently fail to realize, though, is that it swings both ways. If you demand a say in the private affairs of others, then you consent to let others have a say in your private affairs as well.
But if that’s what you want, I guess it’s what you want.
G
gearhead
Guest
What a load of garbage. IOW, we’re “free” to do what you think we ought to do. That’s not freedom at all.
So… in this thread so far we’ve had denial of freedom called freedom, hate called love and harm called good. Here’s a tip: if you’re trying to sway me to your way of thinking, dishonest tactics will not make your argument more convincing.
I’m still trying very hard to keep giving the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re arguing in good faith from a position that you really do think is right, and that you really don’t realize the folly in the arguments you’re presenting, but stuff like this makes it very, very difficult for me to keep that up.
If your position is really based in good and truth, then you can present it honestly. If any of the people here had said something like, “we realize that banning same-sex marriage causes temporal harm, but we think that this is outweighed by spiritual benefit” and were able to support this in a rational way, so be it. We’d probably end up agreeing to disagree, but that’s where it would end. But don’t tell me that black is white and expect me to accept it.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
- Status