Ford Motor Company Supports Homosexual Marriage Movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaPatri4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
soulspeak23:
Cna you please give me some examples of homosexuals trying to “destroy society.” How in the world does who we choose to spend our lives with affect anyone else but ourselves and our partner? I’m not trying to move into your house and live off of your money. I live my own life each day. With my same-sex partner of five years. We go to work, pay our bills, donate our time to charities, take care of our pets and host dinners for friends. What about any of that is destructive to society and how on earth does it affect you?
Click to expand...
How about this? The '“gay” agenda is far from innocent. Check this out - Graphic Homosexual Handbooks Given to School Children in Massachusetts on Tax Payer Money April 30 The Pandora’s Box of “Gay” Marriage Opened -

Maybe you believe you are only concerned with your personal agenda but the real consequence to society will be devastating.
 
40.png
soulspeak23:
I’ve never encountered such closed-minded people in my life.
Click to expand...
I guess we are guilty. We nor the Church have the authority to change Christ’s teachings to suit the whims of today’s society. If following natural and moral law makes us guilty of close-mindedness so be it. No apologies here.

Now I am willing to discuss with you the Catholic teaching on this, because by your statements I don’t think you understand it.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

I’m not sure what state you live in, but in mine there is no special provision for homosexual conduct that would require a landlord to provide shelter for a homosexual. Nor is a landlord required anywhere that I am aware of to provide shelter to just anyone who happens to ask. Outside of some socialist regime, a landlord generally has the freedom to interview potential tenants, run a credit and criminal background check and assess the suitability an individual applying for residency in one of his property. I see no reason why a person’s likely sexual conduct while in the apartment should be any different from any of the other criteria that the landlord is expressly free to take into account when deciding whether to rent out his property. To do so in the case of a homosexual is nothing more than “to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority.”(Romer v Evans, Scalia dissenting)

You may stammer that no one is required to keep a company in business, but then no one is required to provide for the security of a stranger. To do so in the latter case is an act of charity that one retains the absolute freedom to refuse.

To befriend these people with an aim to evangelization can also be argued to be woefully misguided. “Actually, the evangelization will go in the opposite direction. The same-sex couple; most of whom are skilled evangelizers for their “lifestyle,” will - amid the socializing and as the friendship develops - tell the Catholic family about the ill treatment they have encountered and the Catholic family will of course feel compassion, will feel their pain. The Catholic family will find that the same-sex couple are civilized people and will wonder why the Church is so hard on these nice people and why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.” (New Oxford Review, “Notes” section, September 2004)
Click to expand...
Please don’t give me an NOR quote. Whereas I read the publication for entertainment and good investigative articles, much of the publication (including the notes) is written in a condescending and belittling tone that does not believe in people’s abilities. The “Cathlic family” example is such a case. Give me a break. If the Catholic is strong in their faith, no homosexual is going to sway them with stories of opression. That is akin to saying no Catholic can evangelize because everyone has a sob story about the hard teachings of the Church.

Also, I don’t stammer. I present clear arguments grounded in the faith. If you don’t like those arguments, don’t resort to questioning my ability to be eloquent or not.

Yes, no one is required to provide for security of strangers but that is what most landlords are in the business of doing. I disagree that not renting to someone does anything at all to preserve “traditional sexual mores against a politically powerful minority.” Was Scalia talking about landlord-tenant law if this statement? We need to change the laws, not be the laws.
 
40.png
buffalo:
I guess we are guilty. We nor the Church have the authority to change Christ’s teachings to suit the whims of today’s society. If following natural and moral law makes us guilty of close-mindedness so be it. No apologies here.

Now I am willing to discuss with you the Catholic teaching on this, because by your statements I don’t think you understand it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your concern, but I understand the catholic teachings just fine. Agreeing with them, however, is something that I will never do. I guess I’m bound for hell. But at least I’ll live my life happily,and as god made me. Homosexuality, regardless of all the studies in the world you’re going to post to refute me, is not a choice. If you were a homosexual, as I am, you would know that. Having had these feelings since childhood, of being somehow different, and having come from a happy, two-parent, mother-father household, there was nothing to lead me toward being this way, its just how I am. I was not the victim of some form of abuse, nor was I ever exposed to homosexuality as a child. I didn’t even know what it was until I was 15 or so, but I knew before that that I did not want to share my life with a man. I have come to terms with that and myself and I’m living the life I want to live. Whether the authors of a 2000+ year old book agree with me or not, I find irrelevant.
I came to this forum because I was raised a catholic and fell away from the church. I wanted to see if there were some open-minded people here so that we could share some ideas. But most of what I’ve found is abject hatred of those who do not live exactly by the book, those of different religions, and those who are not in complete agreement with the catechism. For a religion that preaches love and acceptance, it seems as though you are only loved and accepted if you’re practically a saint. Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone.
 
40.png
soulspeak23:
Thank you for your concern, but I understand the catholic teachings just fine. Agreeing with them, however, is something that I will never do. I guess I’m bound for hell. But at least I’ll live my life happily,and as god made me. Homosexuality, regardless of all the studies in the world you’re going to post to refute me, is not a choice. If you were a homosexual, as I am, you would know that. Having had these feelings since childhood, of being somehow different, and having come from a happy, two-parent, mother-father household, there was nothing to lead me toward being this way, its just how I am. I was not the victim of some form of abuse, nor was I ever exposed to homosexuality as a child. I didn’t even know what it was until I was 15 or so, but I knew before that that I did not want to share my life with a man. I have come to terms with that and myself and I’m living the life I want to live. Whether the authors of a 2000+ year old book agree with me or not, I find irrelevant.
I came to this forum because I was raised a catholic and fell away from the church. I wanted to see if there were some open-minded people here so that we could share some ideas. But most of what I’ve found is abject hatred of those who do not live exactly by the book, those of different religions, and those who are not in complete agreement with the catechism. For a religion that preaches love and acceptance, it seems as though you are only loved and accepted if you’re practically a saint. Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone.
Click to expand...
The Church is a hospital for sinners. No one here is free from sin.

What you are feeling as hatred is really true Christian charity. A concern for the well being of your soul as well as an instruction from Christ that we are to point out error with love.

Taking a position that you and you alone are able to make a decision absent from God’s purpose is a dangerous one, as you seem to already know.

No one hates you. The lifestyle is hated as it is chosen. God loves you so much He gives you the total freedom to make a choice consistent with Him or against Him. You value your freedom on earth much more than how you will spend eternity. A Catholic cannot be open minded about this. It is a violation of natural law as well as moral law. This natural law can be found without referencing the 2,000 year old book.

If you believe God made you that way (btw there is no scientific evidence of that - there may be compounds in the environment that contribute) does not give you a free pass. He is asking you to live a life of Christian perfection. For you this would be a trial, but worth the rewards God promises.

Sin is hated and despised as it should be.
 
40.png
Richardols:
I don’t know about you, but I simply don’t have the time or inclination to investigate the corporate giving activities of every company that I buy a product from or their suppliers’ corporate giving activities.

But, please, have at it, if you like.
Click to expand...
No one is saying you should. But when one is brought to your attention, do you not then have a responsibility to act?
 
40.png
Brad:
Please don’t give me an NOR quote. Whereas I read the publication for entertainment and good investigative articles, much of the publication (including the notes) is written in a condescending and belittling tone that does not believe in people’s abilities. The “Cathlic family” example is such a case. Give me a break. If the Catholic is strong in their faith, no homosexual is going to sway them with stories of opression. That is akin to saying no Catholic can evangelize because everyone has a sob story about the hard teachings of the Church.

Also, I don’t stammer. I present clear arguments grounded in the faith. If you don’t like those arguments, don’t resort to questioning my ability to be eloquent or not.

Yes, no one is required to provide for security of strangers but that is what most landlords are in the business of doing. I disagree that not renting to someone does anything at all to preserve “traditional sexual mores against a politically powerful minority.” Was Scalia talking about landlord-tenant law if this statement? We need to change the laws, not be the laws.
Click to expand...
Hi Brad!

In the first case, I did not believe myself to be attacking your ability to make an effective argument. I realize, however that my comment may be taken that way, and so I apologize.

Scalia’s dissent in Romer v Evans involved a case where the state of Colorado enacted an amendment to their state constitution that expressly forbade any law that would confer upon homosexuals as a class any special protections, including the protection of not being evicted from housing for their behavior. During the debate over the amendment, this landlord/tenant issue was specifically addressed. The answer from Focus on the Family was that to require a landlord to provide residence for a tenant who wantonly disregarded the landlord’s expressed moral code was tantamount to discrimination against the landlord and his values.

If systematically observed, denying food, water, shelter and access to other social services provides a palpable incentive for the homosexual to change his behavior. As I said before, there is no right to any of these things. They are features of society’s benevolence that can require adherence to whatever moral standard society sees fit to erect.

As for the competence of the average Catholic family to engage the active homosexual who has moved in next door, I think the quote from NOR may be more true than you know. How many of these “average Catholics” are now swelling the ranks of organizations such as Voice of the Faithful? How many of these “average Catholics” have expressed sympathy for organizations such as the Rainbow Sash Movement? If the Church is composed of such individuals so immune to the appeals of a clever homosexual apologist, then why are we even bothering with debates such as the one in this forum?
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

In the first case, I did not believe myself to be attacking your ability to make an effective argument. I realize, however that my comment may be taken that way, and so I apologize.

Scalia’s dissent in Romer v Evans involved a case where the state of Colorado enacted an amendment to their state constitution that expressly forbade any law that would confer upon homosexuals as a class any special protections, including the protection of not being evicted from housing for their behavior. During the debate over the amendment, this landlord/tenant issue was specifically addressed. The answer from Focus on the Family was that to require a landlord to provide residence for a tenant who wantonly disregarded the landlord’s expressed moral code was tantamount to discrimination against the landlord and his values.

If systematically observed, denying food, water, shelter and access to other social services provides a palpable incentive for the homosexual to change his behavior. As I said before, there is no right to any of these things. They are features of society’s benevolence that can require adherence to whatever moral standard society sees fit to erect.

As for the competence of the average Catholic family to engage the active homosexual who has moved in next door, I think the quote from NOR may be more true than you know. How many of these “average Catholics” are now swelling the ranks of organizations such as Voice of the Faithful? How many of these “average Catholics” have expressed sympathy for organizations such as the Rainbow Sash Movement? If the Church is composed of such individuals so immune to the appeals of a clever homosexual apologist, then why are we even bothering with debates such as the one in this forum?
Click to expand...
No need to apologize. I probably took it the wrong way.

I understand your and FOTF position. I disagree with it but I understand it. I stand corrected regarding what Scalia was addressing. I respect FOTF a great deal and rarely ever disagree with them, but in this case I do. I belief they are stretching the envelope and trying to gain victories in the wrong areas. If sodomy is made legal, it’s legal and arguing the landlord law is too late. Society needs to decide what is right or wrong by law. States should be able to do this. The fact that the federal courts have been renegade and out of control for years is THE issue that needs to be addressed - all motivation and energy should be on that single issue so that states can institute proper laws.

Again, I disagree than denying shelter, food, water, clothing etc. to anyone is appropriate and I believe that the Church and Christ agree with me.

NOR often has some fine articles. But they do take a tone and an attitude that makes them paint in over-generalizing tones. The quote you gave assumed Catholics would screw up the evangelizing. My guess is the “average” Catholic isn’t the one thinking about or doing the evangelizing. Meanwhile, the unaverage Catholic may just do that and do it quite well.
 
40.png
Brad:
No need to apologize. I probably took it the wrong way.

I understand your and FOTF position. I disagree with it but I understand it. I stand corrected regarding what Scalia was addressing. I respect FOTF a great deal and rarely ever disagree with them, but in this case I do. I belief they are stretching the envelope and trying to gain victories in the wrong areas. If sodomy is made legal, it’s legal and arguing the landlord law is too late. Society needs to decide what is right or wrong by law. States should be able to do this. The fact that the federal courts have been renegade and out of control for years is THE issue that needs to be addressed - all motivation and energy should be on that single issue so that states can institute proper laws.

Again, I disagree than denying shelter, food, water, clothing etc. to anyone is appropriate and I believe that the Church and Christ agree with me.

NOR often has some fine articles. But they do take a tone and an attitude that makes them paint in over-generalizing tones. The quote you gave assumed Catholics would screw up the evangelizing. My guess is the “average” Catholic isn’t the one thinking about or doing the evangelizing. Meanwhile, the unaverage Catholic may just do that and do it quite well.
Click to expand...
Hi Brad!

I think we’ve taken this conversation as far as we can. I think, however, that this conversation serves to illustrate what I was trying to get at from the beginning. It’s all too easy to become overly scrupulous even to the point of denying a man the Corporal Works of Mercy and such a position can be rigorously defended. As I said, this conversation is over, so I’ll leave the last word to you.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Brad!

I think we’ve taken this conversation as far as we can. I think, however, that this conversation serves to illustrate what I was trying to get at from the beginning. It’s all too easy to become overly scrupulous even to the point of denying a man the Corporal Works of Mercy and such a position can be rigorously defended. As I said, this conversation is over, so I’ll leave the last word to you.
Click to expand...
Life is not always simple. Often you have to use prudential judgement and draw appropriate lines. I think I did just that. The fact that you were unrelenting in trying to make the point doesn’t mean your defense was solid. You didn’t sway me nor hurt my argument. I defended the right to basic rights throughout while holding firm on no special benefits for homosexual couples.
 
40.png
Brad:
Life is not always simple. Often you have to use prudential judgement and draw appropriate lines. I think I did just that. The fact that you were unrelenting in trying to make the point doesn’t mean your defense was solid. You didn’t sway me nor hurt my argument. I defended the right to basic rights throughout while holding firm on no special benefits for homosexual couples.
Click to expand...
Brad,

I think that, in the case of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and the “Ford Family of Cars, Trucks and SUV’s”, we have another problem with them that is more important than this one.The FORD FOUNDATION and other Ford Charities and affiliated advocacy groups support, and have supported, ABORTION ON DEMAND throughout the entire Pregnancy. They’ve also opposed even the most basic restrictions supported by almost all Americans on Partial Birth and other Late Term Abortions, In spite of the fact that most of the civilized world agrees that these are essentially legalized infanticide.

That, by itself, would merit a Boycott of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and the Ford Family of Cars Trucks and Suv’s.

There are plenty of other cars, trucks and SUV’s out there that such a Boycott shoulcd not represent an undue hardship on those trying to find and buy or lease other products.

Part of a Prudential Decision means understanding that there are times when even instruments such as the Boycott must be used.

I believe this may be one of those time.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Brad,

I think that, in the case of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and the “Ford Family of Cars, Trucks and SUV’s”, we have another problem with them that is more important than this one.The FORD FOUNDATION and other Ford Charities and affiliated advocacy groups support, and have supported, ABORTION ON DEMAND throughout the entire Pregnancy. They’ve also opposed even the most basic restrictions supported by almost all Americans on Partial Birth and other Late Term Abortions, In spite of the fact that most of the civilized world agrees that these are essentially legalized infanticide.

That, by itself, would merit a Boycott of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and the Ford Family of Cars Trucks and Suv’s.

There are plenty of other cars, trucks and SUV’s out there that such a Boycott shoulcd not represent an undue hardship on those trying to find and buy or lease other products.

Part of a Prudential Decision means understanding that there are times when even instruments such as the Boycott must be used.

I believe this may be one of those time.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael
Click to expand...
I am not, nor was I ever, defending Ford or opposing the boycott. I was opposing the argument that homosexuals should be denied food, clothing, or shelter because they are homosexual. I think 99.9% of all Catholics agree that this would not be right.
 
Brad,

No person, no matter how sinful they are, should be deprived on the basics of life (as I know you agree). 🙂
 
The way Ford is loosing market shares their agenda should be making better vehicles not making sexual agenda statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top