Forcing Morality on Others

[cathoichelp]

The forum is really slow right now -
But Elizabeth shouldn’t the children of homosexuals have the same protect as children of heterosexuals?
The relationship exists the children exist there is no difference in a loving gay family vs a loving straight family other than what happens in their bedroom

A lot of these couples are not two men raising children they are two women raising children…

For some reason on this forum lesbians are ignored and its just a huge focus on gay men …
weird -

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is not true-
The state does not give marriage rights in order for couples to have children.
I can get married and not have children …

That has nothing to do with the essential reason for the structure: it provides for the traditional format in which the possibility (and probability) of children being raised is judged to be the best possible format for that. The State gives marriage rights with the assumption that, should the couple decide to reproduce or adopt, the best possible, most balanced (both genders) environment, with society’s support and approval, will be in place precisely for that. The State does not wish to support and approve of homosexual unions which exclude the opposite primary gender in the household.

AND farther more - homosexual couples do have children …
So shouldn’t their children be protected just as your children are?

Children are being exposed, compromised, and denied more than they are being “protected.” It’s a lopsided arrangement. The relationship itself is incomplete; the parenting is further incomplete in that the other gender is excluded.

Homosexual relationships are objectively, radically different from heterosexual relationships, no matter how often homosexual couples declare subjectively that it’s “the same,” and no matter how often their friends in the media spin it as indistinguishable from heterosexual coupling.

 

[cathoichelp]

Wrong. It changes the fabric of society in a radical way. You need to do far more reading on the history (not just the modernity) of how the ideals of a well-functioning society with the notion of a common good (not a common practicality, but a common understanding of what constitutes the kind of behaviors in a society which work toward a better society), relate to what the State has an interest in promoting or denying.

The entire concept of a society – where that society is headed by institutionalizing same-gender unions in a formal way, making them equivalent to man-woman relationships – is deeply and profoundly affected by Adam & Steve’s union being officially authenticated. It has nothing to do with the morality --or lack thereof (based on individual or Church definitions) of their sex acts with each other, and everything to do with the opposition to social structures which the State has determined affects Adam & Eve as well as Adam & Steve.

And the State awards certain financial benefits to heterosexually married couples so as to continue to encourage that arrangement above all others (cohabitation, homosexuality). There is a reason why they are not offered to homosexual couples, just as they are not offered to single people living together in some Platonic arrangement. Man-woman formalized commitment is considered the most desirable environment in which to reproduce and raise children to contribute to a balanced and stable society. There are no “civil rights” to an arrangement that has been manufactured. Homosexuals are not being prevented from engaging in romantic associations, including serial relationships or multiple relationships. No one’s looking in their bedrooms.

Marriage is not an issue of private behavior; therefore, marriage is not an issue of private morality. It’s about social impact. It’s a social institution, oriented to society, not to individuals or couples as autonomous units. Otherwise there would not be any need for governmental involvement whatsoever: no need for licenses issued by the gov’t. But the State does consider itself invested in the future of families as the most healthy arrangement. The issue of a couple deciding subjectively that their gender-unbalanced relationship is “just as healthy” or “just as valid” or “just like” heterosexual relationships is not the measurement by which governments, through centuries of experience, have observed what is an optimal household to continue the species within the requirements of a well-functioning society. And people who have dabbled, long or short, in the gay lifestyle, have similarly observed that the two kinds of relationships are radically different from each other.

Marriage historically was not just about children and securing the species …
Marriages were (arragned) basically a passing ownership of a daughter - by her father - to her husband -
Marriage was also used to form alliances -
Women’s roles have slightly changed by this was not only a way of procreating but also a way of protecting your daughters - you married them off so they had someone to take care of them-
women could not take care of themselves (clearly)

Love unions between a man and a women is not the “origin” of marriage -
Having children was certainly a huge part of partnership but it was not the sole purpose.

And having a lot of children in a time when infant mortality was high and we didn’t live very long made the most sense. It was rather important to make sure that people had 6-10 children …
Where as now days this is not the case and if we continued to reproduce like the baby boomers we would be in quite a situation …

One of the biggest concerns in health care right now … what on earth are we going to do as the baby boomers get closer and closer to old age.
We have no idea how we are going to support the medical needs of that generation.
So as medicine advances and people are living longer - having less children (or having unions were the couples adopt rather than have their own children) benefits society.

A lot of the gay couples I know who have adopted have done so from the foster care system and given wonderful homes to children most in need.

 

[cathoichelp]

That has nothing to do with the essential reason for the structure: it provides for the traditional format in which the possibility (and probability) of children being raised is judged to be the best possible format for that. The State gives marriage rights with the assumption that, should the couple decide to reproduce or adopt, the best possible, most balanced (both genders) environment, with society’s support and approval, will be in place precisely for that. The State does not wish to support and approve of homosexual unions which exclude the opposite primary gender in the household.

Children are being exposed, compromised, and denied more than they are being “protected.” It’s a lopsided arrangement. The relationship itself is incomplete; the parenting is further incomplete in that the other gender is excluded.

Homosexual relationships are objectively, radically different from heterosexual relationships, no matter how often homosexual couples declare subjectively that it’s “the same,” and no matter how often their friends in the media spin it as indistinguishable from heterosexual coupling.

If there were the position of the STATE -
homosexuals would not be able to adopt but farther more a SINGLE person would not be able to adopt -
And they can. A single unmarried American can adopt a child.

The laws surrounding marriage are mainly about being about to account for your spouces health -
being able to keep things jointly owned -
being able to collect each other’s SSI or pensions … Because it is assumed that you have built your life together and the law protects not only your rights to each other and your children but your rights to your assets earnings retirements pensions
Taxes… so two professional homosexuals - upper middle class who live together share their home cars ect … are lovers - and have a child should have to file separate federal taxes - basically they should have to pay more in taxes than I would if i were married and only one of them could claim their child
So essentially you have a higher tax burden and on top of that no protection from having to pay taxes on the property of your partner should they pass away -

Single mothers such as myself are basically just as bad as a homosexual home then yes?
Because its not possible for my children to be exposed to other role models of the opposite sex unless I am married to one?

Not that my my life wouldn’t be easier if i were married it would …
having two parents is more ideal-
The gender of those two parents … yea i just don’t agree there!

 

[cathoichelp]

If your issue is the family unit marriage has little to do w this.

Society is already accepting of alternative families.
Single and gay people can adopt children.

But farther more there is nothing to stop a gay couple from have a surrogate or 2 women from using a sperm bank to have children.
not legalizing civil unions does not but hinder the protection of these children.
Homosexuals couples do not need civil unions in order to have children. The legal protection of the children is at stake though by not allowing them the rights of any other family.

 

[John21652]

And I have posted links and references to current research that proves the opposite of what your links showed…
soooo -
shouldn’t be just suddenly believe me since i have showed you the studies that show that data is false???

The manner in which you have prevaricated and displayed duplicity in your posts makes me rather hesitant to beleive anything you post. However, as I’ve already stated, i at least do you the courtesy of reading the links you provide. It’s a pity you don’t afford others the same courtesy. You have once again neatly sidestepped the fact that any statistics collated on supposedly religious web sites, even when done by secular organisations, are avoided by you and even denigrated. In other words, your bias against religion of any type is obvious. That by itself severely dents your credibility.

There is an extant myth, propagated by the Christian Right, that homosexuals engage in highly promiscuous behavior. Granted, there are some homosexuals that do engage in such behavior. But there are heterosexuals that do the same thing. What is important to recognize is the substantial heterosexist bias that causes people to ignore heterosexual flaws while highlighting homosexual flaws.

If that’s the case, then many leading homosexual spokesman are also propogating myth, by your definition. I challenge you once again to revist the article I linked to, “When rubber hits the road…” and refute the bare facts, observations and opinion of a leading gay spokesman. His ‘inside knowledge’, for want of a better phrase, reflects the very statistics that you attempt to refute. There are dozens of similar opinions from within the gay scene which support the statistics regarding homosexual promiscuity, violence and disease spread.

a) One study which appears to support the idea that homosexuals are highly promiscuous was published by Bell and Weinberg, …

Because of their methodology, their data is valuable only as a case study for the sample they studied, but it is not by any means representative of the general gay population. See Appendix A for my specific critique of this study, and why their statistics on gay promiscuity are so bizarrely high.In that case, I once again refer you to the data collated by what you referred to as a religious group. It is data from around the world and collected almost entirely by secular organisations. The very first researcher mentioned in that article represents a group whose research covered the Netherlands where tolerance towards homosexuals has a long history. That tolerance has bought nothing but misery. Follow the links to see why…
As for a critique done by you, well sorry, but based on what you have dished up here on this thread, I wont this time extend you the courtesy of even bothering.

b) In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, …

A further analysis of the GSS data (on which Laumann based his results) indicates that the median (50th percentile) number of sexual partners for heterosexuals is five and for homosexuals is six (jeramyt.org/gss/partners.html). The discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males.

Why is it that you continually compare heterosexual rates of promiscuity with homosexual rates of promiscuity? No one here on this web site, other than the most strident moral relativists, condone heterosexual promiscuity. i’ll even let you in a little “men’s secret”. Let’s step outside the moral boundaries of even my religion for a moment and talk about some real world stuff. Amongst most men, promiscuous men are described as not being able to put their brains into gear unless their pants are off. That is a heterosexual man’s way of saying that even amongst men, promiscuity is not considered to be overly cool. Of course, the fact that sex is now so ‘in your face’ in today’s society that promiscuity has probably increased, but neither that, nor the fact that it exists at all makes it right. As for comparing heterosexual promiscuity with homosexual promiscuity, well, simple logic tells you one does not effect the other, that there is no relationship, statistically and that one follows nature and the other does not. The comparison is merely done to assuage the confronting statistics that the homosexual lobby has to deal with.

Earlier in this thread you stated you didn’t want to really change minds on this topic, yet it now seems you are. Well, rest assured, the minds of Catholics who adhere to a moral code will never be persuaded by your moral relativity. That moral relativity is becoming more and more shrill as you post and it really represents nothing more than moral vacuity. Your post #152 demonstrates this as you attempt to trivialise the institution of marriage with vague assertions about something which has a long and intricate history in building stable human societies. Your relativistic thinking is an attempt at overturning the natural foundations of human society which stretch back further than recorded history. At no time in recorded or prehistory has the ‘family unit’ ever been as you describe it. The forced modifications of societies structure as you outline has nothing to do whatsoever with community ‘acceptance’ which is a false claim because the changes you describe are enforced and enshrined by legislation, as demanded by minority groups and supported by vacuous moral relativity. Natural huuman desires have nothing to do with this so called ‘acceptance’ and therefore the moral authority is void.

 

[benidict]

Originally Posted by John21652
From that link you gave us we can read this -

Or maybe pull your head out of the sand and read this long article written by a well educated gay man - When rubber hits the road. HIV infection on the rise. This time it will take more than condoms to stop it. The writer tells us in his own words

To finish up, I’d like you to read this page, by an ex-gay . Says it all really
ME- An EX-GAY? How can you stop being attracted to who you are? I for instance am attracted to darker skinned brunettes. I am white. Now, I may not act on my attraction. But I still am a lover of dark skinned,dark haired beauties. The homosexual, may not be acting out their desire, at that particular time, but they are still GAY. I dont think they can be anything but, reguardless weather its genetic, or a lifestyle choice, or both. Its what they like. There is no such thing as EX-GAY
P.S. The dark skinned beauties are female. I like women.

 

[cathoichelp]

Yes John is still upset because I did not believe the Traditional Values Coalition - or an “ex gay” …
I can image why I would ignore those two …

but I did read them … Just because I don’t think they are credible doesn’t mean I don’t read your links -

 

[benidict]

cathoichelp

It’s not about murder or harming society its about 2 people who more than likely are not even catholic who are already in a relationship that you find disordered who just want the same civil marriage rights as you -

I’m not the only one who finds sodomy disordered. Heterosexual relationships by nature are not disordered. If everyone who lives in a disordered relationship has to have civil rights the same as those granted to heterosexuals, then why aren’t you fighting for the rights of adult mothers to marry their sons, and fathers to marry their daughters? Certainly you could not argue that incestuous marriage is a disordered relationship. At least the sexual parts fit each other, which is more than can be said for gay marriage.

Do you not see from this how truly absurd your argument is?

Next you will be arguing for the civil right to be murdered so long as the murderer and the person to be murdered consent to the murder. But then, of course, you would be arguing that such a relationship is not disordered because both parties are mutually agreeable. So society would be obliged to enact a law protecting such murders from prosecution?

Honestly my friend. Heterosexual relationships may not be disordered, but I can point out a ton that are way more dysfunctional, than your average Gay/Lesbian relationship…

 

[benidict]

Yes John is still upset because I did not believe the Traditional Values Coalition - or an “ex gay” …
I can image why I would ignore those two …

but I did read them … Just because I don’t think they are credible doesn’t mean I don’t read your links -

Hey. This wouldnt be that “ex” Gay, who got married to that “ex” lebsbian? Didnt he get caught cruising the Gay bars a few months after they had written their book, then lied about why he was in that particular establishment.

 

[cathoichelp]

Hey. This wouldnt be that “ex” Gay, who got married to that “ex” lebsbian? Didnt he get caught cruising the Gay bars a few months after they had written their book, then lied about why he was in that particular establishment.

yes and the ex gay and ex lesbian is a relationship I find gravely disordered lol -

John -
I doubt I can change anyone’s mind … its just a conversation.
I enjoy the debate I tend to learn a lot and gain perspective.
Elizabeth for example is very intelligent and presents a good argument. I don’t expect either of us will change our minds but its still a very interesting challenging conversation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

benidict

Honestly my friend. Heterosexual relationships may not be disordered, but I can point out a ton that are way more dysfunctional, than your average Gay/Lesbian relationship…

And I can find a ton of homosexual relationships that are way more dysfunctional than your average heterosexual relationship.

Sodomy should not be enabled, protected, and defended by law. Only a corrupt society allows that. And only a more corrupt society would seek to advance the cause of sodomy by calling it an “alternative life style.”

If morals are to be enshrined in the law, immorality certainly should not be. And the worst kind of immorality to enshrine in the law is unnatural immorality. That is why society still abhors the idea of adult parents marrying their adult children. It is unnatural. But given the acceptance of homosexual marriage, can the enshrinement in law of incestuous marriage be far off?

Exactly how libertarian are you?

 

[John21652]

Yes John is still upset because I did not believe the Traditional Values Coalition - or an “ex gay” …
I can image why I would ignore those two …

but I did read them … Just because I don’t think they are credible doesn’t mean I don’t read your links -

Once again you are being duplicitious.

The Traditional Values Coalition published data and research by these organiosations -

• 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.

However, because the findings were publsihed by what you call a ‘religious site’, you have dismissed them and have refused to acknowledge the research because it conflicts with and contradicts your self created world view. You state “…I don’t think they are credible…”, so therefore, based on what you write, even the British Journal of Psychiatry is not credible and neither are the Health officials in King County, Washington. In an earlier post you stated you never had time to read them. Now you state they are not credible. So which is the lie, your earlier statement, or this latest one?

You dismiss the opinion of an ex-gay?! So therefore your own self inflated importance trumps even the opinion of one of those you purportedly support. That’s about as intellectually arrogant as one can attempt to be. In fact, your intent is authoritarian but your method is obtuse.

You also failed to comment on the opinion of the actively practicing homosexual in “When the rubber hits the Road…” who gace a very frightening insight into the homosexual lifestyle. Let me quote you what he says -

While researching this subject, I spent over 20 hours interviewing men (both HIV positive and negative) who admitted to regular barebacking. Because they were afraid of the stigma and legal consequences their behaviors engender, many refused to meet in person or even talk on the phone. As a result, I interviewed them all in real time via private Internet chat rooms. Almost none had ever thought about the moral ramifications of his acts. In almost all cases, these men (ranging in age from 19 to 53) seemed to feel no sense of responsibility for their actions toward others.

The homosexual ‘lifestyle’ is the height of immoral and irresponsible selfishness and a hedonism that threatens the very fabric of society. That is being found to be the case in the United Kingdom, where court cases have given immorality precedence over morality.

In 1960 one of Britain’s most outstanding jurists, [Lord Chief Justice Patrick Devlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Devlin,_Baron_Devlin) demonstrated how societies are white anted from within more than they are defeated from without. The construction of a minority rights agenda is what has white anted societies throughout history. The erosion of entire societies has been recognised by such authors as Jim Nelson Black, author of [When nations die (http://www.amazon.com/When-Nations-Die-Nelson-Black/dp/0842380078). One of the major causes of social decline is immorality and liscentiousness which pulls apart what Lord Devlin described as the ‘glue’ which holds societies together. The quote above from “When rubber hits the road…” demonstrates this admirably.

Cathiochelp’s refusal to acknowledge research that contradicts her personal ideology is just another blind attack on the social foundations of society. As another British author, Sir John Glubb, pointed out in [The Fate of Empires (The Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb), social decadence is a “…moral and spiritual disease…”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The lessons of history are never studied by those who want to repeat the mistakes of history.

As Will Durant said in “The Lessons of History,” a sequal to his monumental multi-volume history of the human race:

“History offers some consolation by reminding us that sin has flourished in every age. Even our generation has not yet rivaled the popularity of homosexualism in ancient Greece or Rome or Renaissance Italy.”

Durant said that in 1968.

He couldn’t say it today, 43 years later. What he would have to say is that today homosexualism has outdone the homosexualism of Ancient Greece and Rome. In Greece and Rome men certainly committed sodomy with other men, but they never dared to demand that it be enshrined in the law.

 

[John21652]

The lessons of history are never studied by those who want to repeat the mistakes of history.

As Will Durant said in “The Lessons of History,” a sequal to his monumental multi-volume history of the human race:

“History offers some consolation by reminding us that sin has flourished in every age. Even our generation has not yet rivaled the popularity of homosexualism in ancient Greece or Rome or Renaissance Italy.”

Durant said that in 1968.

He couldn’t say it today, 43 years later. What he would have to say is that today homosexualism has outdone the homosexualism of Ancient Greece and Rome. In Greece and Rome men certainly committed sodomy with other men, but they never dared to demand that it be enshrined in the law.

That’s because the Greeks were ‘tolerant’ and to such an extent that many citizens of that society openly flouted existing moral conventions. Plato, for example, was so disgusted he wanted the practice criminalised. In his Laws (book VIII) he rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence. Lord Devlin, writing thousands of years later, expressed a similar sentiment when he wrote that “… No society can do without intolerance, indignation,…” . Black, in When nations die, proves what Durant wrote of and proves Lord Devlin correct, for it was he who wrote “…history shows that the loosening of moral bonds is often the first stage of disintegration”. Ancient Greece and Rome went down that tragic path of moral decline.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

All if not most of your 350+ posts in various threads were devoted to selling gay ‘marriage’ and gay adoption to the membership of CAF. You engaged a number of Catholic posters, arguing that Catholic views are wrong on the purpose of marriage, the morality of homosexual relations, interchangeability of a mother and a father with same sex parents, and its effects on children. Religious defense of traditional marriage and family does not persuade you, but non-religious reasons which were brought up also matter not to you.

Since your great state of Massachusetts was first in line with legalization of gay ’marriage,’ your focus is now on the defeat of DOMA, is it not? You made several repetitions of the list of federal benefits that same sex couples would not be getting unless DOMA is successfully challenged. In other threads on homosexuality, including a recent one that the moderators removed, you enumerated the same list of federal ‘entitlements’ as you did upthread. A poster called it a ‘grabby’ list. It is.

Your more recent posts vigorously argue a specific line of thinking, that heterosexual promiscuity is the same as homosexual promiscuity. Previously, you strongly protested that homosexuals are not monsters, not pedophiles, when a mention of pedophilia is associated with certain (not all) homosexuals. Just like how homosexual activists react when the mention of AIDS is brought up in a discussion – they get livid with the connection of AIDS with homosexuality as through homosexuality and AIDS are completely unrelated.

You say you are just having a conversation about issues in this forum, but you are clearly not here for an exchange of ideas. You wish to change minds, because it bugs the heck out of you that Catholics can be as unchanging (about beliefs and values) as you are about your moral relativity. This is evident from your arguments and information you have revealed about your own situation and background.

Your post 153 was likely talking about your sweet gay brother and his Irish non-American citizen partner. If so, the bottom line of your immediate objections notwithstanding that you and your brother live in the most liberal state in the U.S., are: the federal benefit that bestows citizenship is tied to marital status and that federal income tax benefit conferred on heterosexual married couples do not apply to same sex married couples. The other fed benies affecting estate, retirement, bereavement when a same sex partner dies, matter too but they would not be imminent in your brother’s case.

DOMA should be upheld in every state. Even if your brother’s partner may be an upstanding citizen of his country and resident in the U.S., immigration should not be made as another legal entry point where undesirables can get in for national security purposes, or be another classification for abuse of law by crooks.

In your post #154 which you directed to Elizabeth:

*If your issue is the family unit marriage has little to do w this.

Society is already accepting of alternative families.
Single and gay people can adopt children.

But farther more there is nothing to stop a gay couple from have a surrogate or 2 women from using a sperm bank to have children.
not legalizing civil unions does not but hinder the protection of these children.
Homosexuals couples do not need civil unions in order to have children. The legal protection of the children is at stake though by not allowing them the rights of any other family.*

you sound certain where society is headed. You seem to believe that Catholic opinion is in the minority, so what are you hoping to accomplish at CAF? To seek and lead the ungrounded Catholics away? To force your moral relativity on Catholics?

John correctly assessed in his post:

*Earlier in this thread you stated you didn’t want to really change minds on this topic, yet it now seems you are. Well, rest assured, the minds of Catholics who adhere to a moral code will never be persuaded by your moral relativity. That moral relativity is becoming more and more shrill as you post and it really represents nothing more than moral vacuity. *

 

[Charlemagne_II]

:thumbsup:

In the name of opposing the enforcement of Catholic morality on the public, cathoi want to force homosexual morality on Catholics and everyone else who opposes homosexual marriage.

It is impossible to persuade cathoi that the State has no obligation to enshrine sodomy as a legal right, any more than it has an obligation to enshrine incest as a legal right.

But if all sexual moralities are equal before the law, it makes the laws themselves promiscuous. Or as Dickens put it, the law becomes an “a-s.”

 

[cathoichelp]

Once again you are being duplicitious.

The Traditional Values Coalition published data and research by these organiosations -

• 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.

However, because the findings were publsihed by what you call a ‘religious site’, you have dismissed them and have refused to acknowledge the research because it conflicts with and contradicts your self created world view. You state “…I don’t think they are credible…”, so therefore, based on what you write, even the British Journal of Psychiatry is not credible and neither are the Health officials in King County, Washington. In an earlier post you stated you never had time to read them. Now you state they are not credible. So which is the lie, your earlier statement, or this latest one?

You dismiss the opinion of an ex-gay?! So therefore your own self inflated importance trumps even the opinion of one of those you purportedly support. That’s about as intellectually arrogant as one can attempt to be. In fact, your intent is authoritarian but your method is obtuse.

You also failed to comment on the opinion of the actively practicing homosexual in “When the rubber hits the Road…” who gace a very frightening insight into the homosexual lifestyle. Let me quote you what he says -

The homosexual ‘lifestyle’ is the height of immoral and irresponsible selfishness and a hedonism that threatens the very fabric of society. That is being found to be the case in the United Kingdom, where court cases have given immorality precedence over morality.

In 1960 one of Britain’s most outstanding jurists, [Lord Chief Justice Patrick Devlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Devlin,_Baron_Devlin) demonstrated how societies are white anted from within more than they are defeated from without. The construction of a minority rights agenda is what has white anted societies throughout history. The erosion of entire societies has been recognised by such authors as Jim Nelson Black, author of [When nations die (http://www.amazon.com/When-Nations-Die-Nelson-Black/dp/0842380078). One of the major causes of social decline is immorality and liscentiousness which pulls apart what Lord Devlin described as the ‘glue’ which holds societies together. The quote above from “When rubber hits the road…” demonstrates this admirably.

Cathiochelp’s refusal to acknowledge research that contradicts her personal ideology is just another blind attack on the social foundations of society. As another British author, Sir John Glubb, pointed out in [The Fate of Empires (The Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb), social decadence is a “…moral and spiritual disease…”.

And I have should you numerous studies now that refute the data of those studies and show how it used only a certain group of homosexuals to draw that conclusion -
they are not broad studies
sure if you use the 13-20 percent of homosexuals who have high numbers of partners and risky sexual behavior that is the data you will get
?
If i am just suppose to believe your site why aren’t you believing mine?.. i mean jeez I showed you twice now …
W/ more than one site … multiple studies currently are proving all those older studies WRONG
Shouldn’t you have changed your mind since that is what you expect of me?

 

[cathoichelp]

:thumbsup:

In the name of opposing the enforcement of Catholic morality on the public, cathoi want to force homosexual morality on Catholics and everyone else who opposes homosexual marriage.

It is impossible to persuade cathoi that the State has no obligation to enshrine sodomy as a legal right, any more than it has an obligation to enshrine incest as a legal right.

But if all sexual moralities are equal before the law, it makes the laws themselves promiscuous. Or as Dickens put it, the law becomes an “a-s.”

No I don’t want to change Catholic morality … I would oppose anything that tried to force the Catholic church to marry homosexuals -
Or forced other religious doctrine on the church itself.

Incest is not the same thing as homosexuality … No where in the world that gay marriage has been legalized has marrying your son then become legal …
that is absurd.

However if you want to get right down to it -
In most of the US it is perfectly legal to marry your first cousin - which is a genetic risk to your children…
But illegal for two people of the same sex to get married…

So perhaps you should stop worrying about gay marriage and go work on incest …

boingboing.net/2010/04/27/map-of-us-states-whe.html

 

[Charlemagne_II]

** … multiple studies currently are proving all those older studies WRONG
Shouldn’t you have changed your mind since that is what you expect of me?**

So when future studies prove your newest studies also wrong, what tune will you be singing?

It is never possible to know who is funding which studies, so I make it a policy of not believing any of them

Common sense and health statistics prove it all. 300,000 dead homosexual men due to AIDS.

Not a survey. A fact.

Another fact: the male penis was not designed for the male anus.

But of course, we can not only forget about facts; we can also throw caution and common sense out the window.