Forcing Morality on Others

[cathoichelp]

The argument often used to justify homosexuality among humans is that it is found in other animals, and is therefore natural and justified. But other animals also eat their young. Does that mean humans might also eat their young and be justified because cannibalism of offspring is found in other animals? Shall we have a bill introduced to Congress recommending the civil right of parents to roast and consume an aborted fetus?

How civilized and progressive our thinking has become!

are their humans right now eating their own young?
I mean is there like a movement I missed? Because otherwise what on earth does this have to do w anything …
clearly - not every animal trait is found in humans … or in every animal…
Does every animal eat their young… heck do many animals eat their young?
Because homosexuality and eating your young are not the same thing …

Clearly humans do not need to eat their young to increase survival … right?
I am not aware of every reason an animal eats their young though that’s the only one I can remember-

Do you think if homosexuals get married people will eat their young? I am totally baffled by this post.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Believing homosexuality is a sin is fine. Believing various other hateful untrue things is not so great…

I think we can all agree that limiting sexual partners - having good self esteem and a support system helps curb these problems.
Whether you believe homosexuals should remain celibate or not.
That in and of itself is not really that much of an issue.
Trying to prove that just being gay turns you into a sex maniac … or deems you without any morels … is a totally different story.
We are all human beings and humans respond to stress and rejection in similar ways.

You seem to read more than what anybody has said or implied in posts in this thread. Being gay turns one into a sex maniac? Who said or implied that?

You make a number of reactions and claims on behalf of gay causes in this forum and your objective in promoting the normality of homosexual unions in a Catholic site across threads is curious. You sound as though homosexuals are being actively persecuted or you or a loved one is being personally maligned.

Promiscuity is no virtue for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I don’t know how productive it is get into a competition which group is more promiscuous, male homosexuals or single heterosexual men. [Yes, let’s leave lesbians in the comparison as their patterns of behavior are different from that in gay males.] Or to insist that heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

If there is truth to less gay promiscuity now because of fear of HIV / AIDS, that would be good news. Who would knock that scenario down? We need to look at the data, the source and independence / reliability of the data. Let’s face it, the internet and the blog world are rife with spin and interests, not necessarily on the side of truth or completely detached from politics. Research and results are driven by certain agendas.

It is of interest that Dr. Edward Green, the Harvard scientist you brought up in your post upthread, said that gay activism has this ideological belief that sexual freedom need not be curtailed, that activists who influence policy have built a wall around sexual behavior, protecting it from attempts to change, and that AIDS prevention is simply a matter of adopting technology (condoms, drugs). More reasonable voices are drowned out by these loud activists who dominate the media and affect AIDS policy.

He did express that the attitude is slowly changing as the danger of having multiple sex partners is becoming more recognized, because the evidence cannot be ignored. For the sake of public health, Dr. Green pointed to the importance of advocating fidelity, and not heavy anal sex in the homosexual population.

Whether you agree with the Church teaching that homosexual acts are sinful / immoral or not, it can be said that the teaching of no sex outside marriage, between opposite sexes or same sex, is good for individuals and public health. That is what I take away from the above views of the Harvard scientist you cited.
,

 

[John21652]

You are sending me links from Traditional Values Coalition … really?
hahaha
Because that is clearly not biased accurate research …
No agenda there!

AND YES it will take more than condoms to stop it that IS my point!

It is going to take a lot more than condoms to stop the spread of HIV -
Thanks for pointing that out again

This one post highlights just how disengenuous you are and it even makes me wonder if you are not somewhat obtuse. Otherwise my conclusion would be that you are somewhat duplicitous.

You lambast my post because I linked to [Traditional Values (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf) piublication. Your reaction tells me you are averse to traditional values. You have now exposed your hidden agenda. The second point to make is that you failed to mention that the Traditional Values publication did not publish its own research findings, but the research findings of others. Let me cite some of the sources of those research findings as published by Traditional Values.
Sociology Professor Edward O. Laumann from the University of Chicago.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The Midwest AIDS Prevention Project. Michigan Department of Community Health.
Family Practice News.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
The Journal of Men’s Studies.
Dr. John R. Diggs author of “The Health Risks Of Gay Sex.”
Baptist Press News.
The Centers for Disease Control.
Health officials in King County, Washington.
Journal of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndromes.
The British Journal of Psychiatry.
International Journal of Epidemiology.
Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service.

Now perhaps you’d like to come back here and explain how it is that these irganisations and individuals suddenly become the authors of biased reports and false statistics because they are compiled into a report drawn up by an organisation called Traditional Values. I await your response on this point.

What makes your selective responses even more duplicitous is the fact that you have ignored the words and statements from active homosexuals themselves so you can concoct your own innacuracies.

The fact remains, homosexuals themselves and expert researchers all come to the same conclusion, which is that homosexuality is innately extremely disordered, unhealthy and grossly immoral. Only the most strident of moral relativists could possibly support it. Only those who wish to force immorality onto a society could possibly support the gay agenda.

 

[Lena13]

There are some good points made throughout this thread so I’ll keep mine brief

When I see/hear/read something that the Church teaches, that I don’t agree with I try to do the following;

• Research why the Church believes it,
• Understanding its reason for believing it,
• Discover, through prayer, why my opinions don’t match the Church’s beliefs,
• Re-assess my beliefs.

Generally, it is because of sin that I don’t agree with something the Church teaches, or because I lack the courage to see that it is the truth.

Prayer and Confession lead to God.

God Bless,
Lena

 

[francisca]

I like what Jharek brought up here.

There is some repeating pattern where people trusting new technology and secular values begin to think that we do not need any religous teaching.

Nowadays what we see as our sexuality is the bad fruit of the media promoting all kinds of false sex information and seeing it as acceptable human behavior. Thus we see movies such as “Solitaire Man” where woman is seen as sex maniac which in itself is a violent movie toward women and also toward human sexuality.

In paradox, the freedom of sex has bound human sexuality to failure.

I have a hypothesis that anal sex is caused by failure in normal sex.

I’d like to mention about how different woman sexuality as potrayed by the media, compared to reality.
In reality, woman sexuality is so passive that many women has never seen their own vagina until adulthood. In places where there is no mirror available, all women there can never see their own vagina. This is in total contrast with men who have played with their genitals since their baby time. Female sexuality is not at all vulgar as shown in the media. And because of learning wrong information about female behavior, many people (both male and female) fail in their sexual life. Failure in sexual life within marriage motivate people to fornicate, and even misbehave sexually.

Many normal sex fails because men and women learn and adopt sexual behavior from the media. Media shows women as aggressive and purposeful in sex is a misleading information about female sexuality.

Many normal sex fails because women is positioned as sex tools. Women can’t reach orgasm if the partner treat her harshly. In a paradox, movies shows violent sexual scene as “hot and successful sex”. Woman sexuality requires good relationship with a loving man who treat her gently and respectably, yet this is not what the media promotes nowadays.

Many young women-- being oblivious with their own sexuality-- adopt sexual behavior from the media, then behave as if they are “as aggressive and as purposeful as men” in sex, thinking that such is expected of them in order to be sexy and attractive and respectable. For example, in movies woman behave as an independent person who demand sex from man, regardless love, as if woman do not need love. But no matter how hard women try to be aggressive and purposeful in sex, womens sexuality has never been aggressive and purposeful because women are not men. Woman need love for sex. Sex is a companionship bonus for woman. Woman need to depend on man in order to be pleased with sex. Thus such “independent, aggressive, purposeful setting” end up in women faking her happiness which lead to misery of themselves and ultimately of the people around them (their spouses and children).

Being aggresive and purposeful in sex is male sexual behavior. This behavior is not feminine. If women adopt such behavior, men will feel like they have to be more aggressive and more purposeful. Instead of loving each other, man and woman compete to prove themselves worthy of “respect” from the partner instead of loving each other.

This kind of climate will make it even more and more difficult for a woman to feel pleased with sex. Moreover, if a man fail to please his woman, then he will not feel “the real” satisfying sex as well. Because the feeling of womans orgasm in men is different compared to “mechanical” sex (mechanical sex: the woman do not feel it, thus the whole sex is only mechanical for both man and woman). Such mechanical sex is the one being promoted in the media, in porn, and sex industry. In these, woman do not (cannot) feel her sex. The sex in media, in porn, and sex industry are fake. No media can record real sex, because real sex can’t be video taped because of the shy nature of female sexuality. Only people who are in love and blessed with good relationship can discover it in those “special and prescious” moments.

So comeback to anal sex as the product of failure in normal sex. If a couple fail, the woman will ultimately feel pain in her vagina, or at least some discomfort. When this happens, she will be reluctant when it’s regarding sex. Anal sex then become alternative. Men then learn that anal sex is more pleasurable. And here comes the beginning of homosexuality. Men think that women are too difficult and always in miserable mood, while male friends are more fun and easy to please.

Homosexuality and fornication become “acceptable” in society is actually social sickness in itself.

 

[cathoichelp]

You seem to read more than what anybody has said or implied in posts in this thread. Being gay turns one into a sex maniac? Who said or implied that?

You make a number of reactions and claims on behalf of gay causes in this forum and your objective in promoting the normality of homosexual unions in a Catholic site across threads is curious. You sound as though homosexuals are being actively persecuted or you or a loved one is being personally maligned.

Promiscuity is no virtue for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I don’t know how productive it is get into a competition which group is more promiscuous, male homosexuals or single heterosexual men. [Yes, let’s leave lesbians in the comparison as their patterns of behavior are different from that in gay males.] Or to insist that heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

If there is truth to less gay promiscuity now because of fear of HIV / AIDS, that would be good news. Who would knock that scenario down? We need to look at the data, the source and independence / reliability of the data. Let’s face it, the internet and the blog world are rife with spin and interests, not necessarily on the side of truth or completely detached from politics. Research and results are driven by certain agendas.

It is of interest that Dr. Edward Green, the Harvard scientist you brought up in your post upthread, said that gay activism has this ideological belief that sexual freedom need not be curtailed, that activists who influence policy have built a wall around sexual behavior, protecting it from attempts to change, and that AIDS prevention is simply a matter of adopting technology (condoms, drugs). More reasonable voices are drowned out by these loud activists who dominate the media and affect AIDS policy.

He did express that the attitude is slowly changing as the danger of having multiple sex partners is becoming more recognized, because the evidence cannot be ignored. For the sake of public health, Dr. Green pointed to the importance of advocating fidelity, and not heavy anal sex in the homosexual population.

Whether you agree with the Church teaching that homosexual acts are sinful / immoral or not, it can be said that the teaching of no sex outside marriage, between opposite sexes or same sex, is good for individuals and public health. That is what I take away from the above views of the Harvard scientist you cited.
,

Have you rad Dr Green’s books?

 

[cathoichelp]

This one post highlights just how disengenuous you are and it even makes me wonder if you are not somewhat obtuse. Otherwise my conclusion would be that you are somewhat duplicitous.

You lambast my post because I linked to [Traditional Values (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/statistics_on_homosexual_lifestyle.pdf) piublication. Your reaction tells me you are averse to traditional values. You have now exposed your hidden agenda. The second point to make is that you failed to mention that the Traditional Values publication did not publish its own research findings, but the research findings of others. Let me cite some of the sources of those research findings as published by Traditional Values.
Sociology Professor Edward O. Laumann from the University of Chicago.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The Midwest AIDS Prevention Project. Michigan Department of Community Health.
Family Practice News.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
The Journal of Men’s Studies.
Dr. John R. Diggs author of “The Health Risks Of Gay Sex.”
Baptist Press News.
The Centers for Disease Control.
Health officials in King County, Washington.
Journal of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndromes.
The British Journal of Psychiatry.
International Journal of Epidemiology.
Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service.

Now perhaps you’d like to come back here and explain how it is that these irganisations and individuals suddenly become the authors of biased reports and false statistics because they are compiled into a report drawn up by an organisation called Traditional Values. I await your response on this point.

What makes your selective responses even more duplicitous is the fact that you have ignored the words and statements from active homosexuals themselves so you can concoct your own innacuracies.

The fact remains, homosexuals themselves and expert researchers all come to the same conclusion, which is that homosexuality is innately extremely disordered, unhealthy and grossly immoral. Only the most strident of moral relativists could possibly support it. Only those who wish to force immorality onto a society could possibly support the gay agenda.

lol …
this is a pointless argument but at least its comical!

I have ignore homosexuals?? … in my just under 10 years working in the gay community … working directly with HIV/AIDS - at many points traveling - I have ignored the people lol …?

Or i am ignoring the view of a website who’s agenda is to slam the gay community?

You can cite all the accurate references you want and twist it and only quote a small part of it to make it sound as you want …
so in order for me to get anywhere w that i would have to go through and look up every report cited and see if it’s taken out of context.
Which is why it’s better to site actually sources … rather than opinion pieces on religious sites that are telling you want to believe.

 

[cathoichelp]

You seem to read more than what anybody has said or implied in posts in this thread. Being gay turns one into a sex maniac? Who said or implied that?

You make a number of reactions and claims on behalf of gay causes in this forum and your objective in promoting the normality of homosexual unions in a Catholic site across threads is curious. You sound as though homosexuals are being actively persecuted or you or a loved one is being personally maligned.

Promiscuity is no virtue for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I don’t know how productive it is get into a competition which group is more promiscuous, male homosexuals or single heterosexual men. [Yes, let’s leave lesbians in the comparison as their patterns of behavior are different from that in gay males.] Or to insist that heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

If there is truth to less gay promiscuity now because of fear of HIV / AIDS, that would be good news. Who would knock that scenario down? We need to look at the data, the source and independence / reliability of the data. Let’s face it, the internet and the blog world are rife with spin and interests, not necessarily on the side of truth or completely detached from politics. Research and results are driven by certain agendas.

It is of interest that Dr. Edward Green, the Harvard scientist you brought up in your post upthread, said that gay activism has this ideological belief that sexual freedom need not be curtailed, that activists who influence policy have built a wall around sexual behavior, protecting it from attempts to change, and that AIDS prevention is simply a matter of adopting technology (condoms, drugs). More reasonable voices are drowned out by these loud activists who dominate the media and affect AIDS policy.

He did express that the attitude is slowly changing as the danger of having multiple sex partners is becoming more recognized, because the evidence cannot be ignored. For the sake of public health, Dr. Green pointed to the importance of advocating fidelity, and not heavy anal sex in the homosexual population.

Whether you agree with the Church teaching that homosexual acts are sinful / immoral or not, it can be said that the teaching of no sex outside marriage, between opposite sexes or same sex, is good for individuals and public health. That is what I take away from the above views of the Harvard scientist you cited.
,

I don’t think the fear of AIDS has made homosexuals have less sex partners …
I think we just have healthier people these days and their actions reflect that but we have a ways to go!

We do agree on some things- you me and Dr Green can all agree that having healthy sexual relationships is really the key to solving a lot of these issues.
(I think we all three have a slightly different definition of healthy relationships)- but at least our hearts are in the same place
peace

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t think the fear of AIDS has made homosexuals have less sex partners …
I think we just have healthier people these days and their actions reflect that but we have a ways to go!

We do agree on some things- you me and Dr Green can all agree that having healthy sexual relationships is really the key to solving a lot of these issues.
(I think we all three have a slightly different definition of healthy relationships)- but at least our hearts are in the same place
peace

Dr. Edward Green, the Harvard scientist you brought up in your post upthread, said that gay activism has this ideological belief that sexual freedom need not be curtailed, that activists who influence policy have built a wall around sexual behavior, protecting it from attempts to change, and that AIDS prevention is simply a matter of adopting technology (condoms, drugs). More reasonable voices are drowned out by these loud activists who dominate the media and affect AIDS policy.

He did express that the attitude is slowly changing as the danger of having multiple sex partners is becoming more recognized, because the evidence cannot be ignored. For the sake of public health, Dr. Green pointed to the importance of advocating fidelity, and not heavy anal sex in the homosexual population.

It is important when establishing credibility in a debate:

(1) Not to discredit authorities which one has cited to support other points.
(2) Not to dismiss appeals to evidence and authorities because one “doesn’t think” that could be true, should be true, or that it creates discomfort with personal, subjective views.

 

[cathoichelp]

It is important when establishing credibility in a debate:

(1) Not to discredit authorities which one has cited to support other points.
(2) Not to dismiss appeals to evidence and authorities because one “doesn’t think” that could be true, should be true, or that it creates discomfort with personal, subjective views.

I didn’t cite Dr Green someone else did I merely explained his position - there are many points which Dr Green and I disagree on I have read all three of his books, met him at Harvard, and been to 2 of his lectures.

And I have not really discredited anything other than saying the traditional values coalition is not what i consider a credible source as its goal is to promote it’s own agenda not present accurate portrayal of data.
It discredits itself.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I didn’t cite Dr Green someone else did

here is an interview w Green that accurately states what he actually was saying - and believes -
ilsussidiario.net/News/English-Spoken-Here/Culture-Religion-Science/2009/9/15/AIDS-Green-Harvard-A-cultural-problem/37518/

i.e., in addition to refuting him in that post --without contradictory evidence supporting that refutation merely–

I both agree with Green and don’t its a complicated issue

…you also, clearly, cited him.

Comments such as these from you:

there are many points which Dr Green and I disagree on …I have read all three of his books, met him at Harvard, and been to 2 of his lectures.

do not establish you as an equivalent expert in the field, or give anyone a basis by which to argue seriously.

 

[cathoichelp]

i.e., in addition to refuting him in that post --without contradictory evidence supporting that refutation merely–

…you also, clearly, cited him.

Comments such as these from you:

do not establish you as an equivalent expert in the field, or give anyone a basis by which to argue seriously.

Ok well he’s the expert … so here is what he says -
and yes I agree -
HIV is about changing behaviors attitudes and respect…
There are many people I work with that see him as counterproductive to the cause because he wants money going to education based on teaching mutual respect… I disagree w/ those that oppose him on this he is 100 percent correct in my eyes.
Which is why I respect him … our disagreements lay more in how to do that - but lets not even get into that as i am probably the only one who has even studied the man…

but i am glad you agree with the experts

Yeah it did, very much. It hurt. I have friends who won’t talk to me anymore. People think I’m a traitor. I come from family planning so that the Catholic Church is supposed to be the enemy and we’re so polarized in America on this issue. And people think if you believe the ABC program (Abstinence, Be faithful, Condom) you must be a Bush supporter. I say I’m not, I never supported the guy. I’ve written two books recently, one is called AIDS and Ideology and one is called AIDS and Behavior. They’re not quite finished. In AIDS and Ideology in particular I’m saying that the reason that the paradigm hasn’t changed is partly because there’s a multi-billion dollar a year industry and the industry wants to keep going and part of it is the strong ideological belief that sexual freedom is more important than human life. Some of these gay activists say: I’ll defend sexual freedom until the last African dies. But I want to say I have gay supporters, I have gay organizations that advocate fidelity and monogamy but you don’t hear about them.

And with sexual freedom you can’t touch them. If you eat too much and get too fat, you risk to lose medical assistance, but sexual freedom can’t be touched. Why is this?

The activists who influence AIDS policy have built a wall around sexual behavior, protecting it from attempts to change it. They have made AIDS prevention simply a matter of adopting technology (condoms, drugs), but not changing behavior. I am happy to say this situation is slowly changing as the danger of having multiple sex partners is finally becoming recognized, because the evidence cannot be ignored forever.

In the end we could say that the point is a responsible use of sex and of sexual relations. And this is a general human attitude, not necessarily a religious or Catholic. What is your opinion on this?

I agree, I agree with that statement: the essential point is responsible sex and based on trust and mutual respect. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or Protestant or heterosexual or gay. There are some gay organizations that advocate fidelity and not heavy anal sex. But you never hear about them because they’re drowned out by the loud activist groups that dominate the media and dominate AIDS.

 

[FightingFat]

In the end we could say that the point is a responsible use of sex and of sexual relations. And this is a general human attitude, not necessarily a religious or Catholic. What is your opinion on this?

I agree with you. I think the Pope does too!

the essential point is responsible sex and based on trust and mutual respect. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic or Protestant or heterosexual or gay

A proper understanding of sexual relationships is essential.

 

[Big_Dummy]

You have every right to discuss your religion with others. Just as he has the right to try to force his view that others should not force their views on him. It is called dialogue.

You simply need to change the parameters, by saying that I am not trying to force anything on you, just having a freindly discussion of ____________ with you.

I usually say, I am not trying to force anything on you, we are just having a discussion to see how we think and how we know what is true.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I still don’t see why it’s so hard to recognize that the laws of the land all constitute a forcing of the morality of some on the morality of others.

For example, there are laws against pedophilia. But there are people who would like to make it legal (NAMBLA = North American Man/Boy Love Association). No doubt they think the Christian majority are forcing their morals on them.

So what!

Should the law be changed to accommodate the civil rights of pedophiles?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Exactly. And how dare the law force its own morality on murderers. Why aren’t we up in arms about that?

 

[John21652]

lol …
this is a pointless argument but at least its comical!

It is evident from your continued responses that when you are unable to refute anyone’s argument you resort to banalities and generalisations. I listed numerous groups and organisations that have conducted research into the issues of promiscuity amongst the homosexual community, including direct evidence from practicing homosexuals and all you can say is the argument is pointless and comical?! You intially laughed off suggestions that promiscuity was even an issue and because the evidence that refutes your opinion was put forward you attempt to laugh it off. That’s intellectual juvenilism.

I have ignore homosexuals?? … in my just under 10 years working in the gay community … working directly with HIV/AIDS - at many points traveling - I have ignored the people lol …?

Again your disengenuousness and duplicity is obvious. The question was why you had ignored the cited references which showed that homosexualn promiscuity was a massive problem. No-one that I recall accused you of ignoring “people”. You have deliberately tried to sidestep yet another issue.

Or i am ignoring the view of a website who’s agenda is to slam the gay community?

That website had collated the findings of various studies into homosexual behaviour. I listed the groups and organisations whose studies were cited and conclusions drawn on. You, however, attempt to make those conclusions invalid because they are collated on a web site that you think slams the gay community. I take it that by ‘slams the gay community’ you mean they are bigoted, biased and totally condemnatory? Well, let me quote to you the final conclusion on that web site -

Conclusion
Given the grim realities of the homosexual lifestyle, it is unwise to promote this behavior in our schools; allow homosexual couples to adopt children or become foster parents; or legalize homosexual marriage. It is a behavior that should be discouraged
at all levels of our society—in government, in academia, in churches, in education, in the media, and in our homes. Homosexuals are clearly deeply dysfunctional and self-destructive. They deserve our compassion and help, but not our approval for
the dangerous behaviors they engage in.

You will notice that the conclusion differentiates between the behaviour of homosexuals and them as people. No reasonable person would view this conclusion as slamming of the gay community as you mean it.
Obviously you did not even read the document, let alone all the cited groups, organisations and individuals, yet you laugh the document off by stating the debate is comical. Your credibility right about now is very thin.

You can cite all the accurate references you want and twist it and only quote a small part of it to make it sound as you want .

. Well at least here your admitting the references are accurate. Obviously even when accuracy is identified by you, you sidestep it when it doesn’t support your subjective world view.

so in order for me to get anywhere w that i would have to go through and look up every report cited and see if it’s taken out of context.

That’s correct. For example in ."Check out the Journal of Sexual Diversity Studies"You cite sources and we all do you the courtesy of reading them properly. If you refuse to read the references of others, or simply laugh them off, then you are displaying a double standard. For someone who professes to have a Masters Degree, your refusal to consider the references of others strikes me as odd.

Which is why it’s better to site actually sources … rather than opinion pieces on religious sites that are telling you want to believe.

The web site, as I have explained already, cited statistics from other groups, organisations and individuals. I listed each one. Only the last paragraph was an opinion. If you’d read the document, you’d have noted that. It seems that your refusal to accept the statistics and conclusions of those organisations is because they were collated on a ‘religious site’. Your bias towards religion is the problem here. Also, if you had done your homework instead of being intellectually lazy, you’d have looked up who or what that particular website actually represents. The website is called Traditional Values Coalition and on its About page it clearly states that it is “… the largest non-denominational, grassroots church lobby in America.” Considering how you refused to take any notice of cited references because they were collated on a ‘religious’ site, it is clear you would refuse the right of religious organisations to voice an opinion when that opinion conflicts with your own preconciieved ideas.

It would seem that I draw the same conclusions as Elizabeth502, who wrote in post #120 that you can’t be taken seriously.

 

[cathoichelp]

I still don’t see why it’s so hard to recognize that the laws of the land all constitute a forcing of the morality of some on the morality of others.

For example, there are laws against pedophilia. But there are people who would like to make it legal (NAMBLA = North American Man/Boy Love Association). No doubt they think the Christian majority are forcing their morals on them.

So what!

Should the law be changed to accommodate the civil rights of pedophiles?

that’s not so much morality as it is protecting children …
Its rather clear that having sexual relationships w children hurts them -
Its also rather clear that people killing each other is not positive
laws are meant to protect and create order … not force morality - i mean i guess in a way that is morality but its rather basic morality …

Homosexuals have homosexual relationships regardless of what others think about them and they are not hurting other people …
You might think they are hurting or damning themselves … but they are not hurting society - and it wont stop them from being or acting on being homosexual
all civil unions do is give them equal protection as a couple under the law…
Nothing really changes except health ins and property rights and visiting and burial rights ect …

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Homosexuals have homosexual relationships regardless of what others think about them and they are not hurting other people …

They hurt themselves and each other with AIDS. Guess you haven’t heard about that?

You might think they are hurting or damning themselves … but they are not hurting society - and it wont stop them from being or acting on being homosexual

Laws against pedophilia will not stop pedophiles. That doesn’t mean their actions should be protected by law.

**all civil unions do is give them equal protection as a couple under the law… **

Equal protection for what? The public is supposed to protect sodomy? Who said so?

**laws are meant to protect and create order … not force morality - i mean i guess in a way that is morality but its rather basic morality … **

Don’t be silly. Of course laws are meant to enforce morality. How do you think that a society gets ordered except by enforcing morality? Enforcing good morality enforces good order. Enforcing bad morality enforces bad order (Nazism, etc.).

 

[Elizabeth502]

that’s not so much morality as it is protecting children …
Its rather clear that having sexual relationships w children hurts them -
Its also rather clear that people killing each other is not positive
laws are meant to protect and create order … not force morality - i mean i guess in a way that is morality but its rather basic morality …

Homosexuals have homosexual relationships regardless of what others think about them and they are not hurting other people …
You might think they are hurting or damning themselves … but they are not hurting society - and it wont stop them from being or acting on being homosexual
all civil unions do is give them equal protection as a couple under the law…
Nothing really changes except health ins and property rights and visiting and burial rights ect …

False. This is one of the outstanding points, expressed particularly well, in the so-called (non)controversial lectures by the Indiana priest/high school teacher/ the subject of which are featured on another CAF thread. One does not have to be religious affiliated to understand this. We are indeed affected by each others’ behavior, and certainly the structures of society affect us all. We are influenced, we are edified, we are scandalized, we are morally enlarged and morally diminished, by the behaviors of others. That does not mean that legislation can or may in all cases be harnessed to address those behaviors, as constitutional rights to privacy, and freedom of association guarantee freedom from persecution for degrading lifestyles (for example, promiscuity, informal polygamy, pornography use and the general visibility of pornography, the eroticization of everyday life, the premature sexualization of children, inappropriate/inadequate/abusive parenting, drug use, alcohol abuse, domestic abuse that does not quite qualify for prosecution). But make no mistake that these behaviors are toxic to society, despite in many/most cases being beyond the reach of U.S./State laws.

As to civil unions, the priest/teacher additionally spoke very well to that as well, as something which, like simulated gay “marriages,” does affect those who do not partake of such unions. Those lectures are accessible through links on CAF and more particularly that priest’s blog page.