Gay companies

[edwest2]

I think it’s more accurate to say these people or companies are pro-CHOICE, rather than pro-gay or pro abortion.
They acknowledge that God has given everyone free will–free choice–in this world and that God has asked us to love and embrace our sisters and brothers even if they don’t make the exact same choices as we do.

Choice. Today, it’s a terrible word. As long as two people “consent,” then one can abuse the other or perform other acts that are plainly despicable. Oh, God did say say to love everyone, but what does society do when some people break laws agreed to by all? Nothing? You could be the greatest, kindest person on earth, but if you’re caught driving drunk once, it’s off to jail.

From Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

"Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

"It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

"The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

"It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

"The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

"Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

"Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

“Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.”

We are free to choose and neither God nor the Church forces us to choose what God or the Church teaches. But if right and wrong exists, we make distinctions

Allow me to remind everyone, whatever is private is private, but God sees all things, even those done in secret. When secret sins are promoted as good or right or neutral, a decision should be made about right and wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LeafByNiggle]

.
And this is the point. If you present an argument, which requires faith, you will simply waste your time. No matter how strong your faith might be, it carries no weight whatsoever. Simply present real facts, which can be checked out…)

You are proposing a false dichotomy between faith and facts. They are not mutually exclusive. Faith is not just some baseless belief. Faith is based on facts. The testimony of the apostles is a historical fact. The acts of martyrdom are facts. A rational person when considering these facts may very well be led to the conclusion that what the Church teaches is true, and many do come to faith in precisely that way. Of course some people look at the same evidence and do not come to that conclusion. But it is not because this is “a matter of faith”. The same thing happens in science all the time. When Einstein came out with his theory of relativity not everyone immediately accepted his conclusions, even though they had looked at the same evidence as Einstein.

Therefore I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue about homosexuality using arguments from our faith. To avoid such arguments and to stick strictly to “secular” arguments is to cut yourself off from a large body of relevant facts.

 

[aquohn]

OK Cap. You asked for it.

bonald.wordpress.com/the-audacity-of-natural-law/
bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-patriarchy/

The fundemental error, I think, in the mind of the modern secular, is in the adoption of Cartesian dualism in the place of the Aristo-Thomist view of ‘ensouled bodies and embodied souls’. Our intentions are inherently intermixed with our actions, and the objective significances thereof. One cannot say ‘I want the sexual act to mean this’, and expect it to be like that. The act has consequences and meanings that cannot be arbitraily assigned or changed, meanings which are perverted by the homosexual sacrilege which has tarnished the name of God’s beautiful gift of sex.

Love is a combination of dependency and duty, a dependency that arises from a complementarity of the male and the female, the masculine and the feminine. Men must be masculine, and females must be feminine. It would otherwise be immoral and disordered, for masculine and feminine psyches are inextricably intertwined with male and female bodies respectively, a consequence of the Thomistic view of the body. To warp the word ‘love’ and use it as a sentimental cover for disordered lust is perverse and evil, to say the least. They say that gays can feel the same kind of love a man and a woman can feel for each other. I say poppycock. This love can arise only from complementarity, body and soul, of the sexes, which is optimised for the creation of life.

 

[capoly]

aquohn:

It would otherwise be immoral and disordered, for masculine and feminine psyches are inextricably intertwined with male and female bodies respectively, a consequence of the Thomistic view of the body.

Why should anyone care about such ancient and empty speculations?

Sexual cooperation is more or less needed for procreation, though it does not have to be “face-to-face” (it could be in vitro fertilization). There is no need for any kind of “love” for procreation either. Two people who hate each other are perfectly capable to create offsprings. On the other hand, eros type of love does not have to do anything with procreation. Two people way past the procreative age or those who are infertile for some reason are perfectly capable of performing “erotical love”. As usual, there is no rational argument against non-procreative sex. And the irrational “non-arguments” are just a waste of bandwith.

 

[AdamP88]

The Church teaching is clear that the ends (even if good) do not justify the means (if bad).
Stealing is a sin of grave matter, and that aside doing what you suggest will make absolutely no difference to the company’s policies.

The church does teach this. However, if you live in a country and your tax dollar goes to funding Abortion - should you still pay taxes? I would say no.

Why fund a company that supports such a grave evil.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It’s funny because I’ve seen right-wing people like you complain that left-wing groups are taking away freedom of speech and oppressing Christians/people with right-wing opinons regarding homosexuality by boycotting companies they disagree with, even on this forum. And then I read this. Not only are you supporting boycotting the companies, but also stealing from them. Very entertaining. :clapping:

 

[AdamP88]

My mistake…I had thought I had added that there are alternative free software packages available.

As well as this there are alternative to using Mac OS and Widows OS.

Ubuntu is a free operating system that will work on any computer and all software for this system is free.

I do, however, maintain that if your taxes are going directly to funding something morally evil they must not be payed. The laws of God are above the laws of man.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I do, however, maintain that if your taxes are going directly to funding something morally evil they must not be payed. The laws of God are above the laws of man.

But the laws of man are the only ones currently being enforced, and if you want to live as a citizen of a nation, they have every right to punish you.

 

[AdamP88]

If I live in a nation which puts tax money toward abortion…It is legitimate for me to do all within the law (and sometimes break the law) to prevent money funding abortion.

I would accept punishment for whatever law I broke. By the civil/criminal authorities of the country.

I would rather not co-operate with abortion.

 

[Sonic]

But the laws of man are the only ones currently being enforced, and if you want to live as a citizen of a nation, they have every right to punish you.

Yep, that’s the same justification that sends people to gas chambers and death camps. Sometimes, an immoral or unjust law or practice must be resisted… first within the confines of the system of law and then outside when all other options have been exhausted.

 

[Sonic]

I do, however, maintain that if your taxes are going directly to funding something morally evil they must not be payed. The laws of God are above the laws of man.

I know AdamPeter is in Dublin Ireland (waves hello), but in the U.S. one option is to vote for tax reform, lesser taxes, and legislation that defunds certain programs. It does not necessarily equate to withholding tax money directly. Sometimes it’s effective and sometimes it’s not, but we keep trying in hopes that it will somehow prevail. Money that is misused by congress could effectively be considered stolen money.

 

[AdamP88]

I know AdamPeter is in Dublin Ireland (waves hello), but in the U.S. one option is to vote for tax reform, lesser taxes, and legislation that defunds certain programs. It does not necessarily equate to withholding tax money directly. Sometimes it’s effective and sometimes it’s not, but we keep trying in hopes that it will somehow prevail. Money that is misused by congress could effectively be considered stolen money.

Hello to you Sonic.

At the moment there are two things going on in Ireland which are relevant to this debate. Our government is paying billions of euros in debt to the European bank in unsecured bonds which the Irish people never had any say in. As well as this the government is considering the legalisation of abortion.

I think either of these could be legitimately be used as an example of where a citizen could attempt to reduce the money being payed to the govt.

 

[aquohn]

Hmm. On the topic of law, to quote Wikipedia:

In the Twelfth Century, Gratian equated the natural law with divine law. A century later, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 90-106, restored Natural Law to its independent state, asserting natural law as the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law. Yet, since human reason could not fully comprehend the Eternal law, it needed to be supplemented by revealed Divine law. (See also Biblical law in Christianity.) Meanwhile, Aquinas taught that all human or positive laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law is not a law, in the full sense of the word. It retains merely the ‘appearance’ of law insofar as it is duly constituted and enforced in the same way a just law is, but is itself a ‘perversion of law.’ At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. This principle laid the seed for possible societal tension with reference to tyrants.

 

[pnewton]

Why should anyone care about such ancient and empty speculations?

Perhaps for the same reason you came to a Catholic forum?

For the OP, using companies that promote gay rights is not material cooperation with evil. In fact, it is unavoidable. While I have no problem with those who boycott the more extreme companies, and even avoid certain companies myself (e.g. J C Penneys) I would commit no sin by shopping there. It is simply not possible to avoid commerce with all people who sin and support committing sin in some fashion.

BTW - I am eating at Wendy’s tomorrow.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Yep, that’s the same justification that sends people to gas chambers and death camps. Sometimes, an immoral or unjust law or practice must be resisted… first within the confines of the system of law and then outside when all other options have been exhausted.

First of all, your use of Reductio ad Hitlerum has been noticed. Anyway, so you’d like to be able to avoid paying taxes that are required by every citizen of your country, and yet also accuse homosexuals of wanting special rights? That’s not hypocritical at all.

 

[AdamP88]

First of all, your use of Reductio ad Hitlerum has been noticed. Anyway, so you’d like to be able to avoid paying taxes that are required by every citizen of your country, and yet also accuse homosexuals of wanting special rights? That’s not hypocritical at all.

Firstly, can you not concede that there some laws that actually are immoral and should be resisted?

Nobody is advocating a refusal to pay tax for just any reason. Simply various methods of resisting an unjust law. In Pakistan, for example, one of the government ministers was recently shot by an extreme Islamic group for speaking up for the rights of christians.

What is your opinion on this and on resistance to unjust laws?

In relation to Gay rights…I would agree with gay civil partnership, however gay marriage is a different thing as that requires the redefinition of marriage. Marriage is mainly about children and I don’t see how change of that fundamental structure would benefit children at all.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Nobody is advocating a refusal to pay tax for just any reason. Simply various methods of resisting an unjust law. In Pakistan, for example, one of the government ministers was recently shot by an extreme Islamic group for speaking up for the rights of christians.

What is your opinion on this and on resistance to unjust laws?

You should be welcome to say what you want about certain laws. If you’re unhappy about them, make your voice known. However, I don’t believe freedom of speech means you should be able to evade taxes.

In relation to Gay rights…I would agree with gay civil partnership, however gay marriage is a different thing as that requires the redefinition of marriage. Marriage is mainly about children and I don’t see how change of that fundamental structure would benefit children at all.

I don’t see why this is a big deal. Voter would have once been defined as a white male. It changed for the better. On top of this, marriage has been constantly changing. Divorce was made legal, adultery was made legal, the age at which someone could get married has been lower in the past, and so on. This idea that marriage has always remained the same is false.

 

[Sonic]

First of all, your use of Reductio ad Hitlerum has been noticed. Anyway, so you’d like to be able to avoid paying taxes that are required by every citizen of your country, and yet also accuse homosexuals of wanting special rights? That’s not hypocritical at all.

The content of your reply has been noticed. You can interpret my reply that way if you want to. Perhaps, you are simply projecting that motive into the discussion in an attempt to shift the focus away from your initial statement.

As aquohn pointed out, the reference is relevant to the statement. The law and service to the state is often used to justify atrocities (I wonder if I had referenced Cromwell, would there have been a Reductio ad Cromwellum article from wikipedia?):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9589512&postcount=54

So, no need to continue discussions with you any further.

Therefore, I am using my ignore filter so that I will not see your posts ever again. What that entails is that I go to your profile, go to the menu user lists, and click ignore posts. Be a good a gentleman, and do the same thing for me also.

 

[edwest2]

Yep, that’s the same justification that sends people to gas chambers and death camps. Sometimes, an immoral or unjust law or practice must be resisted… first within the confines of the system of law and then outside when all other options have been exhausted.

What? I did not understand the gas chambers and death camps reference at all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The content of your reply has been noticed. You can interpret my reply that way if you want to. Perhaps, you are simply projecting that motive into the discussion in an attempt to shift the focus away from your initial statement.

As aquohn pointed out, the reference is relevant to the statement. The law and service to the state is often used to justify atrocities (I wonder if I had referenced Cromwell, would there have been a Reductio ad Cromwellum article from wikipedia?):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9589512&postcount=54

So, no need to continue discussions with you any further.

Therefore, I am using my ignore filter so that I will not see your posts ever again. What that entails is that I go to your profile, go to the menu user lists, and click ignore posts. Be a good a gentleman, and do the same thing for me also.

Did I offend you? Sorry. I was just saying that if you have a problem with a law you probably shouldn’t break it. There are legal ways to announce your displeasure. I also don’t believe abortion is on quite the same scale as sending people to gas chambers (I don’t approve of abortion, by the way).