Forcing Morality on Others

[Elizabeth502]

Other Facts:

A man is not a woman.
A woman is not a man.
A man can pretend to be a woman on a public stage or a private stage, but it will never transform a man into a mother.
A woman can pretend to be a man on a publilc or private stage, but it will never transform her into a father.

Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. When a household loses a mother or a father, the childhood of any progeny suffers. We can’t prevent those decisions and accidents, we also don’t enshrine (by the State), or bless (by a Church) such unfortunate situations or deliberate choices.

An arrangement that includes a full-time female guardian + full-time male guardian is the arrangement that the State chooses to approve and encourage, by providing certain incentives and rewards for that.

No couple, heterosexual or homosexual, is forbidden from entering into a private relationship not officially encouraged by the State. The unmarried, as well as those not qualified --by reason of single gender-- for marriage, can partake of the level of rights granted to all other unmarried persons. Their rights are limited by the combination of the limitations of gender (homosexual) and/or choice & responsibility (heterosexual).

Rights are defined by the State, not by individuals.

 

[benidict]

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.

So just to clarify my good friend. The souce that John wanted us to look at. from the “ex” Gay, is none other than the guy caught cruising? Correct? WOW! :ehh:

 

[Elizabeth502]

Additional Facts
(Repeated from much earlier postings):

Marriage policy is a social policy, not a moral policy.

Same genders are legally permitted to engage in sodomy, mutual masturbation, and oral sex – the only sex acts that they are capable of engaging in, due to the physical laws of nature. They are not being “forced” not to engage in those.
As stated above, they are not being prevented in any way from associating with each other, declaring public love to each other, and cohabitating.

Therefore, no “morality” is being “forced” on homosexuals in the United States of America in 2011.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

that’s not so much morality as it is protecting children …

And how is protecting children NOT morality?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The strategy of the homosexual lobby is to say that sodomy is natural and acceptable so often that it will come to be accepted at the truth. The din of propaganda is so loud and constant that one might be tempted to give in to it, if it were not that common sense is still our ally against false doctrines.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Adolf Hitler

 

[benidict]

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

My sister married our 3rd cousin…So hes not only my brother in law… He is my cousin.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The strategy of the homosexual lobby is to say that sodomy is natural and acceptable so often that it will come to be accepted at the truth. The din of propaganda is so loud and constant that one might be tempted to give in to it, if it were not that common sense is still our ally against false doctrines.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Adolf Hitler

The marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”

“Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”

“Give homosexual protectors a just cause.”

“Make gays look good.”

“Make the victimizers look bad.”

“Get funds from corporate America.”

The book must not have made it to cathoichelp’s reading list, even if the pronouncements are part of recent history, directly from the mouths of the first homosexual activists in the U.S.

No doubt the lobby has made good headway with the strategy. It’s well past a decade since the strategy was laid out.

Catholics and all non-Catholics who believe in the traditions of the country with respect to marriage and family should work together to uphold DOMA.
,

 

[Charlemagne_II]

InSearchofGRace

"Make the victimizers look bad."

How does one do that without making the whole human race look bad since the dawn of human history?

Jesus, Paul, and Plato must be taking really big hits of vilification by the gay lobby!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child."

Gee, do you suppose Plato and Aristotle were exercising common sense?

 

[cathoichelp]

** … 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.

I don’t quite understand this AIDS things…
HIV is different in different parts of the world depending on the risks and other factors.
you seem to have it in your head that this is a gay disease when in fact it’s a virus that is spread a certain way like any other virus …

We spread disease in various ways through various populations …

We have more cases of HPV in the straight community than we do AIDS in the gay community …

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.

I don’t quite understand this AIDS things…
HIV is different in different parts of the world depending on the risks and other factors.
you seem to have it in your head that this is a gay disease when in fact it’s a virus that is spread a certain way like any other virus …

We spread disease in various ways through various populations …

We have more cases of HPV in the straight community than we do AIDS in the gay community …

If the male penis was not designed for the male anus there would not be people who were born homosexual.

You are right ti is unnatural for a heterosexual to have homosexual sex …
It is not unnatural for a homosexual
that is their natural attraction…

When we tried to prove slavery was correct we had tons and tons of studies on the brains of Africans …
Proving why they should be slaves… Then later proving why they couldn’t vote …
Then studies on women proving why they shouldn’t have certain rights …

This is not uncommon … its our entire history.

Basically what we have proven is people are more alike than different in most cases …

 

[cathoichelp]

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.

That’s not true - all my posts are not about homosexuals …
And I do read a lot of threads … I just don’t have anything to add - so I just read

 

[cathoichelp]

I am really not trying to change your mind -
nor am I foolish enough to think I can-
I just enjoy the debate when it is challenging and intellectual and not totally absurd.

If this is bothersome I can stop

 

[cathoichelp]

Insearchofgrace -
Yes i believe that the reason PEOPLE heterosexual or homosexual exhibit risky sexual behavior is the same - (which is not simple because of sexual orientation)

I would love to see DOMA repealed.

And I will gladly stop debating with you if you want.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That’s not true - all my posts are not about homosexuals …
And I do read a lot of threads … I just don’t have anything to add - so I just read

I am really not trying to change your mind -
nor am I foolish enough to think I can-
I just enjoy the debate when it is challenging and intellectual and not totally absurd.

If this is bothersome I can stop

Insearchofgrace -
Yes i believe that the reason PEOPLE heterosexual or homosexual exhibit risky sexual behavior is the same - (which is not simple because of sexual orientation)

I would love to see DOMA repealed.

And I will gladly stop debating with you if you want.

Gosh, I am charmed by the smileys. These three posts must be the ‘passive’ part of the passive-aggressive method?

Yeah, you just moseyed into the forum without the intent of selling gay ‘marriage’ and the rest of your causes. It’s just an incidental discussion .
,

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cathoichelp

**If the male penis was not designed for the male anus there would not be people who were born homosexual. **

EGAD! :banghead:

 

[John21652]

cathoichelp

**If the male penis was not designed for the male anus there would not be people who were born homosexual. **

EGAD! :banghead:

Well, if what cathiochelp says is true, she’s just admitted to a gignatuan design flaw in women!!

I think the women’s libbers will have her for breakfast and her physiology teacher will be arrested and sent off to a gulag.

 

[Stephen168]

If the male penis was not designed for the male anus there would not be people who were born homosexual.

And that is the telos of the anus.

And there are lesbians because…(I got nothing)

 

[benidict]

And that is the telos of the anus.

And there are lesbians because…(I got nothing)

There are lesbians because it is natural for a woman to gravitate to another woman. At the very least, I think many women are at least bi. curious. They can deny this of course, but studies have been done. Im sure I can find them if ya want. Or you can just think back to your school days and see how women naturally cuddle together, hold hands, etc. even if there is nothing sexual in the relationship, the emotional aspect is certainly there. :coffeeread: I can most definitely claim I have a double standard here.

 

[benidict]

Gosh, I am charmed by the smileys. These three posts must be the ‘passive’ part of the passive-aggressive method?

Yeah, you just moseyed into the forum without the intent of selling gay ‘marriage’ and the rest of your causes. It’s just an incidental discussion .
,

Actually, She really is a wonderful person. And a great mother. And yes, She does love a good debate. It is a forum after all. differing views expressed and all that? We had to have something since those darn romans closed down the colleseum… I totally disagree with Catholichelp about the issue of Gay marriage. She knows this. But I do think she presents her side wonderfully. I will say however, I do support Civil union. A contract between the state and the couple. leaving the religious communities out of it. Peace

 

[benidict]

I dont know folks. Should we become like some other forums, That do not allow Catholics on to defend their position? Should we only allow people who agree with us? Id be bored to tears…:crying: I think CAF is a very unique forum. Try finding another like it, anywhere.