Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality

[manualman]

there was a whole lot of cheating going on then too, as evidenced by the prominence of prostitution in many European cities, by mentions in literature, etc. .

My thoughts on this issue is that there has always been and until the second coming an underbelly to human society. But a reality check on historic magnitude is in order. Until the advent of penicillin after WWII, syphilis and gonorrhea were incurable diseases, right? But those two are about the only two you ever heard about in history books.

If promiscuity and infidelity have remained at similar rates through history, how come it was only AFTER cures were discovered for the old days STDs that actual infection rates skyrocketed? Not to mention that a dozen or so NEW STDs exploded onto the scene. The only logical explanation I can think of is that people had a LOT fewer partners in those old days. If you can think of another reason, let me know!

 

[Rin]

My thoughts on this issue is that there has always been and until the second coming an underbelly to human society. But a reality check on historic magnitude is in order. Until the advent of penicillin after WWII, syphilis and gonorrhea were incurable diseases, right? But those two are about the only two you ever heard about in history books.

If promiscuity and infidelity have remained at similar rates through history, how come it was only AFTER cures were discovered for the old days STDs that actual infection rates skyrocketed? Not to mention that a dozen or so NEW STDs exploded onto the scene. The only logical explanation I can think of is that people had a LOT fewer partners in those old days. If you can think of another reason, let me know!

You have good points - I don’t have all the answers here, and as I said, I am aware the infidelity rates have increased. I just don’t know how much.

But were I to argue for a similar (or just slightly lower) rate, I would want to know more about which parts of the population had STDs until it skyrocketed; was it mainly found in prostitutes and those who slept with them? If so, sleeping with another man’s wife (socially risky), a subordinate (employee, girls working on your farm, etc; socially less risky) or any other non-prostitute would be a lot less risky. But obviously the amount of infected people would increase over time. Then, when STDs at a point had infected enough of the population, it would grow exponentially.

The above is grossly ad hoc, though, and my knowledge of how illnesses spread on a macro level is limited. What really has led me to believe people were less faithful back in the day than we (and I, until recently) like to believe, is the study I mentioned earlier, which shows that around 30% of the population was brought up by someone other than their biological father (while still having their social father listed as biological father in records, if I’ve understood correctly). Now if 30% of all children were a result of infidelity, that means there must have been a lot of it.

So that’s pretty much it. I don’t want to make any strong conclusions here - I just don’t think I have reason to assert that people cheated a lot less before. I’m sure infidelity has increased, though, it is the degree I’m uncertain about.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This is from HuffPost Gay Voices, a very gay-friendly source, far from the kind of articles found in religious or conservative sites that the left loves to mock and put down

Is it possible for two gay men to be in a long-term relationship and remain monogamous?

The short answer? Of course it is. But for the frustrated but hopeful “monogay,” it often seems nearly impossible to find a homo couple who have surpassed the five-year mark without opening up their relationship in one way or another. Naturally, each couple is different, complete with a brow-furrowing set of rules that they have constructed over the years. Whether its “playing” as a couple only or allowing for out-of-town flings or no-kissing-allowed or sexual-position-specific extracurricular hookups, one thing is for certain: Monogamy it is not.

Assuming that most of these gay couples started out with at least the attempt of keeping it in their pants outside the relationship, why does monogamy appear to be so difficult for gay couples to maintain?

There is no societal or religious pressure, no relationship archetype or historical expectation for a gay man to be monogamously coupled. Unlike heterosexual relationships, gay relationships form simply because two people want to be together. A heterosexual union may be rooted in religious and cultural bylaws that reinforce monogamy long after the excitement has left the bedroom. …

A homosexual relationship is possibly the antithesis of what a monogamous union should be by most traditional standards …

Gay men didn’t seek out relationships because they were expected to but because it felt good – it felt natural. Arguably, this is the one and only construct that defines gay relationships. And it may very well be the root of why so many gay couples opt for an open relationship once the pleasure of monogamy subsides.

Pleasure isn’t necessarily in direct relationship to sex, but the attainment of pleasure is closely related. In regard to romance, pleasure comes in many forms. Whether it’s the thrill of the flirt, the pride in the new boyfriend or the excitement of sharing a life together, it is all based on the value of a relationship being measured by pleasure.

As these waves of contentment begin to wane, some gay men may regard the lag in pleasure as a flaw in the relationship, a flaw that needs to be fixed in order to maintain the couple’s happiness and stay together. Free from the historical bylaws that provide additional incentive for straight couples to see what’s on the other side of their sexual drought, long-term gay couples often opted for a quicker solution to satisfying their need for pleasure while staying together.

And for many, this model seems to work. There are many gay couples who have made their own rules in their relationship and do not need to subscribe to the historical constructs of monogamy.
…

The above certainly does not square with assertion made in this thread by some in defense of gay relationships would have us believe, like this one below:

As has been repeated ad nauseam (and ignored), yes, gay men do have more partners when single … However, when they enter a long-term relationship, they tend to become monogamous.

,

 

[Dawnia]

The above is grossly ad hoc, though, and my knowledge of how illnesses spread on a macro level is limited. What really has led me to believe people were less faithful back in the day than we (and I, until recently) like to believe, is the study I mentioned earlier, which shows that around 30% of the population was brought up by someone other than their biological father (while still having their social father listed as biological father in records, if I’ve understood correctly). Now if 30% of all children were a result of infidelity, that means there must have been a lot of it.
.

I think you’re talking about the study done back in the 70’s. It was done on a very localized population (2 of them actually in the UK) That study was unfinished and unpublished by the way. So whether it was accurate or not is anyones guess.

More recent genetics bases studies show 1-3% problems with paternity. It varies based on age, location and wealth. But, even researchers state that they don’t know how accurate the studies are because there haven’t been any large random studies. They have all been either taken from studies of other things (which is what the 70s study was) or based on people who question paternity to begin with (those hit the 30% range)

Infidelity isn’t the only possibility for some of the paternity issues. Switching partners before the pregnancy is discovered happens occassionally. If the Maury show is any indicator, though, infidelity is likely the biggest culpret.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

LOL. Go right ahead. Whatever agenda you are pushing seems to be affecting your reading and math.

If I mixed numbers up that’d probably be my dyslexia.

1 in 7 or 14 % of the incarcerated of 2,300,000 in the U.S. is 322,000. But let’s say we take your erroneous figure of 163,500, which you based on the number of people in the U.S. with HIV, and not in correctional facilities, less inmates figure in the MSM with HIV. What have you proven? That makes the number of questionably gay people, males who do not identify as gay but engage in gay sex, among MSM even less, and that gay males comprise more of MSM with HIV.

Let us look at an earlier statement by you:

According to the CDC 2010 data on HIV in Correctional settings, about 2.3 million are incarcerated. Each year, an estimated 1 in 7 persons living with HIV pass through a correctional facility. [This translates to 322,000 inmates with HIV.]. Most of them acquired HIV in the community, not while they were incarcerated.

Therefore, out of an estimated 1,145,000 men with HIV, gay, bisexual and other MSM, about 823,000 or 72% gay, bisexual and other MSM with HIV are not in prison.

The italicization is mine, the rest of the formatting is your formatting.

You better read the CDC reports directly. I’ll take the reliability of the CDC before yours or anybody’s.

cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

cdc.gov/hiv/risk/other/correctional.html

Why didn’t you link it earlier?

To be clear, I am not saying that MSM is almost exclusively made up of gay men. Rather, and I repeat, MSM and gay / bisexual men have a big overlap, that in the MSM larger group in the CDC report, many are gay and bisexual. For what seems to be your affinity with or in sympathy for LGBs you wish to understate the significance of the role of gay and bisexual men in why the HIV infection rate is still high in this country.

Don’t worry, over the next thirty years, provided we don’t find a cure, the HIV rate in the general population will explode

The raw data is cold and does not care about feelings, it is not bigoted or homophobic. In the early 80’s, gay men who were not promiscuous or not even sexually active were horrified that that their actively sexual gay brothers, many evidently having indiscriminate gay sex with multiple partners, were dropping like flies. To be technical, in correction of others, you could say the disease killed the young gay men and they were stricken because they had gay sex with an infected partner.

Sex, especially unprotected sex and anal sex with an HIV+ partner can get you HIV. As far as I know anal sex is no more likely to spread HIV to a receptive male than a receptive female. Promiscuity is morally wrong and has health consequences even if you don’t get an STD.

Gay and bisexual men (not those in prison, sex workers, and those who identify as heterosexuals but engage in gay sex) have established their place in mainstream society, the respectability they incorrectly believe they will obtain, within reach with SS"M." But they need to face the truth and the lessons of the AIDS crisis and the continuing epidemiological picture of AIDS/HIV. Homosexual men are mostly affected, with the heterosexual group not in the front runner, even as homosexuals accordingly are only 4% of the population.
,

Uh, okay.

 

[Hopey]

Almost certainly less than 4 per month.

I see we will always have a disagreement with the stats. Either, correct me if I am wrong, you will discredit them if they do not include the other group OR the sampling is not to your liking - poll done in places that surely can not, in your opinion, satisfy for the whole population. Be sure that the researchers have run into this problem and gathering a “sample” is very hard at best for any group, let alone for a group that is very small and not well established (eg effects of homosexual household on children). This is primarily why some went out of the country to get a look as good of a sampling that is possible.

I do wonder if the problem isn’t with stats but not wanting to see if there is something measurable that is harmful and what impact it is having due to personal feelings. I have the same problem with some things and excuse myself because of strong feelings.

As I wait to see what stats Sr used (listening to her talks), I wish you peace.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I see we will always have a disagreement with the stats. Either, correct me if I am wrong, you will discredit them if they do not include the other group OR the sampling is not to your liking - poll done in places that surely can not, in your opinion, satisfy for the whole population. Be sure that the researchers have run into this problem and gathering a “sample” is very hard at best for any group, let alone for a group that is very small and not well established (eg effects of homosexual household on children). This is primarily why some went out of the country to get a look as good of a sampling that is possible.

I do wonder if the problem isn’t with stats but not wanting to see if there is something measurable that is harmful and what impact it is having due to personal feelings. I have the same problem with some things and excuse myself because of strong feelings.

As I wait to see what stats Sr used (listening to her talks), I wish you peace.

The data cannot be generalized to the general LGB population just like you can’t make conclusions about number of partners for heterosexuals when your sample comes from Planned Parenthood and regular bars because that sample of convenience would also substantially skew towards promiscuity.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

If I mixed numbers up that’d probably be my dyslexia.
…
Why didn’t you link it earlier?

I thought I did but saw I did not on review of the previous post. Anyway, I provided the titles of cited CDC reports, HIV in the U.S. and HIV in Correctional Settings, and the year 2010. As Rin stated in a reply to my request to provide a link to a study she mentioned, the reports are “googlable.” It is not my habit to shoot from the hip, although I can be mistaken of course in reading or reaching a conclusion.

Don’t worry, over the next thirty years, provided we don’t find a cure, the HIV rate in the general population will explode

I would not be so flippant. It is error, however, when LGBTs and their supporters claim or suggest that AID/HIV is not associated with the homosexual population, or with gay sex.

Sex, especially unprotected sex and anal sex with an HIV+ partner can get you HIV. As far as I know anal sex is no more likely to spread HIV to a receptive male than a receptive female. Promiscuity is morally wrong and has health consequences even if you don’t get an STD.

You missed the point of what I was trying to say and you did not state anything new or I did not already know. It can be noted, however, based on the same CDC reports, that HIV infection is seen MORE in active homosexual men than in the heterosexual population, women specifically, who likely contracted the disease from bisexual men and were not into injected drug use.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

As for the study, no, I can not provide a link, since I’m horrible at bookmarking them. But they have been all over media lately, I’m sure it is easily googlable. Unless Joie has it bookmarked?

Not to worry. I found this from Disinformation site, (disinfo.com) where your mention of 30% non-paternity is mentioned.

One Out of Ten People Weren’t Fathered By The Man They Believe is Dad

The 30% is not supported on wider scale research although that could have been true for the British town of West Isleworth in the 70’s. Ho hum.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I thought I did but saw I did not on review of the previous post. Anyway, I provided the titles of cited CDC reports, HIV in the U.S. and HIV in Correctional Settings, and the year 2010. As Rin stated in a reply to my request to provide a link to a study she mentioned, the reports are “googlable.” It is not my habit to shoot from the hip, although I can be mistaken of course in reading or reaching a conclusion.

The lack of usage of quote boxes or indentation made that post rather difficult to parse.

Do you retract “Whatever agenda you are pushing seems to be affecting your reading and math.”?

I would not be so flippant. It is error, however, when LGBTs and their supporters claim or suggest that AID/HIV is not associated with the homosexual population, or with gay sex.

I have every intent on dying a virgin and my family (on both sides) lives a very long time which sometimes leads me to be flippant about the sexually active population’s welfare. I admit, it’s a personal failing as is my exceptionally caustic attitude.

You missed the point of what I was trying to say and you did not state anything new or I did not already know. It can be noted, however, based on the same CDC reports, that HIV infection is seen MORE in active homosexual men than in the heterosexual population, women specifically, who likely contracted the disease from bisexual men and were not into injected drug use.
,

Naturally the infection rate is higher amongst gay men because potential sexual partners are far more likely to be HIV+.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The lack of usage of quote boxes or indentation made that post rather difficult to parse.

Do you retract “Whatever agenda you are pushing seems to be affecting your reading and math.”?

Joie, if I hurt your feelings, I sincerely apologize. You are right; I should have presented the CDC data in clearer fashion.

Speaking about agenda, everybody who posts here has an agenda. I know I do and don’t make apologies for it. I respect your views as well as Rin’s and Prodigal’s, even as we differ in how we package the message of truth and charity to the LGBT community.

This appears to explain the divergent positions on we as Catholics and followers of Christ react to the incident at Charlotte Catholic High School involving Sister Jane Dominic’s talk. Without any transcript or audio video recording of the talk in question, you, Rin, SMG and maybe Prodigal too are quick to take the side in opposition to Sister and her message, whereas I and others give her the benefit of the doubt.

Your postings reflect intelligence but they do not come across as conveying emotional maturity. From your disclosure, you are a female who was forced into the shoes of LGBs (your words). You thereby vociferously defend LGBTs interests, no matter which side of an issue is more reasonable.

I have every intent on dying a virgin and my family (on both sides) lives a very long time which sometimes leads me to be flippant about the sexually active population’s welfare. I admit, it’s a personal failing as is my exceptionally caustic attitude.

Virginity, taking an unbroken hymen as definition, is not the same as purity.

You don’t have to answer in open forum but here are questions for you: Are you offering your virginity up to God willingly or with resentment? Why do you resent the sins of sexually active heterosexual population and failings of traditional families, more so than the sins of the sexually active homosexual population and immorality of same sex pairings?

Naturally the infection rate is higher amongst gay men because potential sexual partners are far more likely to be HIV+.

Naturally!
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Joie, if I hurt your feelings, I sincerely apologize. You are right; I should have presented the CDC data in clearer fashion.

You haven’t actually acknowledged which of us was correct on that 1 in 7 number and how it’s applied.

I’m sure, given this forum’s propensity towards discussing homosexuality, that there will be another opportunity for you to make data clearer. Personally I wrap the quote in quote tags, cite the source in the header (e.g. CDC) then put the source link underneath the quote box.

Speaking about agenda, everybody who posts here has an agenda. I know I do and don’t make apologies for it.

Define “agenda”. See here’s the thing, in discussions that involve homosexuality the word “agenda” automatically brings up “Gay agenda” and all of the baggage that comes with it. The word “agenda” has been so contaminated by the phrase “Gay agenda” and the massive amount of connotations that come with it that the word is about as capable as the F-word in contributing in a positive way to a discussion related to LGBT people.

I respect your views as well as Rin’s and Prodigal’s, even as we differ in how we package the message of truth and charity to the LGBT community.

I’m tired of watching people fail so hard at trying to convert gay people that it makes it harder sometimes impossible for those of us who genuinely care on a personal level about them to convert them.

This appears to explain the divergent positions on we as Catholics and followers of Christ react to the incident at Charlotte Catholic High School involving Sister Jane Dominic’s talk.

Without any transcript or audio video recording of the talk in question, you, Rin, SMG and maybe Prodigal too are quick to take the side in opposition to Sister and her message, whereas I and others give her the benefit of the doubt.

I wasn’t so much opposing her specifically as I was the people who immediately bashed the students as heretical despite as far as I can tell their petition didn’t actually object to Catholic teaching anywhere in it. It also didn’t seem like they were suggesting that she was preaching heresy, but rather that some of the “facts” mentioned were so bad that all it did was offend.

She is doing the right thing! We need speakers like her, and the fact that a student body at Catholic school would petition against her is indicative of the possibility of bad formation in Catholic teaching being received by the students.

Shame on all the Catholics who oppose her talks.

It is obvious that many “Catholics” schools are infested with heresy. It would probably be better if a lot of them were simply closed.

(first two quotes cropped in length if it wasn’t apparent)

Your postings reflect intelligence but they do not come across as conveying emotional maturity.

I’ll have to address this via PM.

From your disclosure, you are a female who was forced into the shoes of LGBs (your words). You thereby vociferously defend LGBTs interests, no matter which side of an issue is more reasonable.

Please, count the number of times on this forum that I have said gay sex is not bad. I haven’t, instead I have said on a number of occasions that it is sinful.

Virginity, taking an unbroken hymen as definition, is not the same as purity.

Also to be addressed via PM

You don’t have to answer in open forum but here are questions for you: Are you offering your virginity up to God willingly or with resentment? Why do you resent the sins of sexually active heterosexual population and failings of traditional families, more so than the sins of the sexually active homosexual population and immorality of same sex pairings?

Why would I resent offering it up? Sex and marriage are both over rated.

Because hypocrisy.

 

[SMGS127]

I wasn’t so much opposing her specifically as I was the people who immediately bashed the students as heretical despite as far as I can tell their petition didn’t actually object to Catholic teaching anywhere in it. It also didn’t seem like they were suggesting that she was preaching heresy, but rather that some of the “facts” mentioned were so bad that all it did was offend.

YES thank you.

I am tired of people automatically accusing others of heresy when they get angered at someone using false statistics or pejorative slurs about a group of people, whether intentional or not. The Chaplain even admitted she spent 15 minutes (a full 25% of her talk) discussing sociological issues that she was not trained in nor that she had ever used before, and he apologized for the speech. And yet people are STILL accusing the protesters of heresy. The "counter"petition didn’t even address a single complaint in the original petition, because the cognitive dissonance of the "counter"petitioners forced them to completely ignore the original petition since it was obviously just a fake petition put forward by heretics in the Church.

THIS attitude is what sickens me in the Church. Catholics should be able to have free disagreement over tactics in evangelization, and they certainly should be allowed to feel and express anger over tactics that involve questionable conduct, without having their religious beliefs questioned.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

YES thank you.

I am tired of people automatically accusing others of heresy when they get angered at someone using false statistics or pejorative slurs about a group of people, whether intentional or not. The Chaplain even admitted she spent 15 minutes (a full 25% of her talk) discussing sociological issues that she was not trained in nor that she had ever used before, and he apologized for the speech. And yet people are STILL accusing the protesters of heresy. The "counter"petition didn’t even address a single complaint in the original petition, because the cognitive dissonance of the "counter"petitioners forced them to completely ignore the original petition since it was obviously just a fake petition put forward by heretics in the Church.

THIS attitude is what sickens me in the Church. Catholics should be able to have free disagreement over tactics in evangelization, and they certainly should be allowed to feel and express anger over tactics that involve questionable conduct, without having their religious beliefs questioned.

I was going to mention that also, but I forgot.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You haven’t actually acknowledged which of us was correct on that 1 in 7 number and how it’s applied.

I’m sure, given this forum’s propensity towards discussing homosexuality, that there will be another opportunity for you to make data clearer. Personally I wrap the quote in quote tags, cite the source in the header (e.g. CDC) then put the source link underneath the quote box.

Answered in # 632, which I will not repeat, plus you have the links to the CDC reports handy.

Define “agenda”. See here’s the thing, in discussions that involve homosexuality the word “agenda” automatically brings up “Gay agenda” and all of the baggage that comes with it. The word “agenda” has been so contaminated by the phrase “Gay agenda” and the massive amount of connotations that come with it that the word is about as capable as the F-word in contributing in a positive way to a discussion related to LGBT people.

And here’s something you need to understand: agenda does not always follow gay. If there’s any group that carries baggage, it is the LGBTs, buoyed by support of others, and they sure make a lot of noise in carrying it around.

I’m tired of watching people fail so hard at trying to convert gay people that it makes it harder sometimes impossible for those of us who genuinely care on a personal level about them to convert them.

That does not include me. I don’t even try convert my own homosexual brother, and even if he may not appreciate it (I have reason to believe he does), I genuinely care on a personal level about him and people like him.

I wasn’t so much opposing her specifically as I was the people who immediately bashed the students as heretical despite as far as I can tell their petition didn’t actually object to Catholic teaching anywhere in it. It also didn’t seem like they were suggesting that she was preaching heresy, but rather that some of the “facts” mentioned were so bad that all it did was offend.

(first two quotes cropped in length if it wasn’t apparent)

Stick with what is known, then, not what is conjectured. Bottom line, you did not give Sister the benefit of the doubt as you did with the on line petitioner who afterwards removed her 10 pt disagreements with the Sister’s talk.

I’ll have to address this via PM.

I would welcome it.

Please, count the number of times on this forum that I have said gay sex is not bad. I haven’t, instead I have said on a number of occasions that it is sinful.

When I said LGBT interests, I was not referring to gay sex.

Why would I resent offering it up? Sex and marriage are both over rated.

You tell me (if you resent offering it up). I agree sex is overrated. I regard sexuality, which I know you know is not the same as sex, as a gift, however. A person called to the vocation of marriage and another who answers the call to a life of celibacy both have an offering that pleases God.

Notwithstanding the fact that many married people did not live up to the ideals of marriage, marriage has a great social purpose. I don’t have disdain or contempt for it.

Because hypocrisy.

Are homosexual sinners free from hypocrisy or deception?
,

 

[esieffe]

YES thank you.

THIS attitude is what sickens me in the Church. Catholics should be able to have free disagreement over tactics in evangelization, and they certainly should be allowed to feel and express anger over tactics that involve questionable conduct, without having their religious beliefs questioned.

Amen brother!

 

[Hopey]

YES thank you.

I am tired of people automatically accusing others of heresy when they get angered at someone using false statistics or pejorative slurs about a group of people, whether intentional or not. The Chaplain even admitted she spent 15 minutes (a full 25% of her talk) discussing sociological issues that she was not trained in nor that she had ever used before, and he apologized for the speech. And yet people are STILL accusing the protesters of heresy. The "counter"petition didn’t even address a single complaint in the original petition, because the cognitive dissonance of the "counter"petitioners forced them to completely ignore the original petition since it was obviously just a fake petition put forward by heretics in the Church.

THIS attitude is what sickens me in the Church. Catholics should be able to have free disagreement over tactics in evangelization, and they certainly should be allowed to feel and express anger over tactics that involve questionable conduct, without having their religious beliefs questioned.

Do you know what her training is in? And what makes her unqualified to quote stats?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Answered in # 632, which I will not repeat, plus you have the links to the CDC reports handy.

And here’s something you need to understand: agenda does not always follow gay. If there’s any group that carries baggage, it is the LGBTs, buoyed by support of others, and they sure make a lot of noise in carrying it around.

In how many cases other than homosexuality or an agenda of a meeting does “agenda” get used? I know it doesn’t, but words still have connotations and associations. The word sodomite for example while technically only referring to “people who engage in sodomy” is pretty much always used to refer to gay men engaging in anal sex and that they are some kind of immoral monster despite the fact that sodomy refers to more than anal sex and that the vast majority of sodomites are in fact heterosexual. The N-word was once merely used to refer to black people, but is now taboo because it’s so strongly associated with racism and white supremacy that it can’t really be used without bringing up those connotations

That does not include me. I don’t even try convert my own homosexual brother, and even if he may not appreciate it (I have reason to believe he does), I genuinely care on a personal level about him and people like him.

Sometimes the best means of conversion is to love the person unconditionally and be a good person. Many times these people have directly or indirectly been victims of “traditional Christians” and thus partially associate the Catholic Church with it. To show them unconditional love soften hearts.

Stick with what is known, then, not what is conjectured. Bottom line, you did not give Sister the benefit of the doubt as you did with the on line petitioner who afterwards removed her 10 pt disagreements with the Sister’s talk.

The petitioner removed the petition because what she wanted done happened.

Benefit of the doubt regarding what?

I would welcome it.

Well, I sent.

When I said LGBT interests, I was not referring to gay sex.

Then what are you referring to? While I have said gay marriage is a logical extension of marriage as used in society that no more means I support gay marriage than I support “afterbirth abortions”. I don’t support gay marriage, I argued in favor of Proposition 8 (I live in California).

You tell me (if you resent offering it up). I agree sex is overrated. I regard sexuality, which I know you know is not the same as sex, as a gift, however. A person called to the vocation of marriage and another who answers the call to a life of celibacy both have an offering that pleases God.

It depends how you define “resent”.

Whether sexuality is a gift depends on how it is defined.

I’m not so sure there is an actual calling, akin to that of the clergy, to the institution of marriage. Notice the exceptionally weak praise it gets by Church Fathers, also notice how Paul treats it.

Notwithstanding the fact that many married people did not live up to the ideals of marriage, marriage has a great social purpose. I don’t have disdain or contempt for it.

I don’t have contempt for the institution of marriage as it is properly understood. I however view it as inferior to celibacy which is correct as Catholic theology places it as a lesser good than celibacy.

Are homosexual sinners free from hypocrisy or deception?
,

I can’t think of a case of hypocrisy as large in magnitude as heterosexuals bashing gay people for being “sodomites” then going home and engaging in sodomy on a regular basis.

Amen brother!

She’s a she

 

[Prodigal_Son]

She’s a she

Austin Powers: That’s not a woman! That’s a MAN, man!

 

[Hopey]

What if she used the latest study by Mark Regnerus which showed that intact, biological families (married) are superior with single parenting trailing behind and homosexual families under that?
Would she be unqualified to use that study?
And if not, why?
We and the upcoming youth are being demanded to consider gay marriage the same good as man/woman marriage.