Gay companies

[aquohn]

My head is hurting like hell now. What started out as a random comment by a liberal friend of mine has unveiled to me an enormous problem with our modern world that I feel obligated to share.

are pro-gay (see slideshow at bottom)Disney

More pro-gay corporations (and that’s just the fully pro-gay ones).

If you’re not gay, you murder babies

I think you know what I’m trying to say. Evil is more pervasive and deep in society than we realise. I think I may just have ruined your day; I know I certainly ruined mine. I’m writing this on a HP Notebook which my uncle bought from his employer (which is said company). I’m using Microsoft Windows. My email is Yahoo. My default search is Google. I just uploaded a music video to Youtube (owned by bloomin’ Google) about 8 hours ago.

Evil is everywhere. The companies which provide you most of what you have also dole out loads of cash to evil causes like abortion and sodomy. It is practically impossible to be a conscientious consumer (I drank a can of Coke and now I feel terrible. I think I should go for confession).

Now that that melancholy piece of news is over with, there are two problems I’d like to pose:

1. There’s plenty of great stuff on Youtube, beautiful chants, enlightening sermons, clips of sacred Tridentine Latin Masses, and of course all the fun stuff, the pop songs, the music videos, the movie trailers, and all that. This very forum uses Google for its searches. Facebook has icons for gay marriage, but there is a Vatican Facebook (and Youtube) page for JPII. These companies may be evil, but what they have produced can be used for good, and is additionally integral to our modern lifestyle (try NOT using Google at all for a week. It’s harder than it sounds!). Is it sinful to use them? Can we be forgiven for using them even with this knowledge (invincible ignorance would have protected you from that before this; sorry about that)?
2. Let’s say I’m a student, studying how to make Flash games/animations (Adobe supports Planned Parenthood). Is it permissible for me to, say, torrent Flash Pro and use it to further my education? I deprive Adobe of its baby-murdering funds, and have benefited my education, which may be used to help me in my career and ultimately earn money that can be used for good. This is sort of like stealing from the rich, evil tyrants to give to the poor (in the rather distant future after I graduate). I suppose this is kind of reducible to a Robin-Hood sort of situation. So is Robin Hood moral? And, if you do not think it is reducible, is this moral?

 

[thistle]

My head is hurting like hell now. What started out as a random comment by a liberal friend of mine has unveiled to me an enormous problem with our modern world that I feel obligated to share.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Disney are pro-gay (see slideshow at bottom)

More pro-gay corporations (and that’s just the fully pro-gay ones).

If you’re not gay, you murder babies

I think you know what I’m trying to say. Evil is more pervasive and deep in society than we realise. I think I may just have ruined your day; I know I certainly ruined mine. I’m writing this on a HP Notebook which my uncle bought from his employer (which is said company). I’m using Microsoft Windows. My email is Yahoo. My default search is Google. I just uploaded a music video to Youtube (owned by bloomin’ Google) about 8 hours ago.

Evil is everywhere. The companies which provide you most of what you have also dole out loads of cash to evil causes like abortion and sodomy. It is practically impossible to be a conscientious consumer (I drank a can of Coke and now I feel terrible. I think I should go for confession).

Now that that melancholy piece of news is over with, there are two problems I’d like to pose:

1. There’s plenty of great stuff on Youtube, beautiful chants, enlightening sermons, clips of sacred Tridentine Latin Masses, and of course all the fun stuff, the pop songs, the music videos, the movie trailers, and all that. This very forum uses Google for its searches. Facebook has icons for gay marriage, but there is a Vatican Facebook (and Youtube) page for JPII. These companies may be evil, but what they have produced can be used for good, and is additionally integral to our modern lifestyle (try NOT using Google at all for a week. It’s harder than it sounds!). Is it sinful to use them? Can we be forgiven for using them even with this knowledge (invincible ignorance would have protected you from that before this; sorry about that)?
2. Let’s say I’m a student, studying how to make Flash games/animations (Adobe supports Planned Parenthood). Is it permissible for me to, say, torrent Flash Pro and use it to further my education? I deprive Adobe of its baby-murdering funds, and have benefited my education, which may be used to help me in my career and ultimately earn money that can be used for good. This is sort of like stealing from the rich, evil tyrants to give to the poor (in the rather distant future after I graduate). I suppose this is kind of reducible to a Robin-Hood sort of situation. So is Robin Hood moral? And, if you do not think it is reducible, is this moral?

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.

 

[jwakja]

Gay is the Hollywood way, the liberal democratic way of saying anything goes and if you’re not willing to go along with it something is wrong with you. Christ plays no role in Hollywood media.

 

[Neofight]

Gay is the Hollywood way, the liberal democratic way of saying anything goes and if you’re not willing to go along with it something is wrong with you. Christ plays no role in Hollywood media.

I am really glad you used a lower case d in liberal democratic, because when I first read it I thought it was referring to the entire Democratic political party, and of course that would have need ignorant at best, if not completely stupid.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am really glad you used a lower case d in liberal democratic, because when I first read it I thought it was referring to the entire Democratic political party, and of course that would have need ignorant at best, if not completely stupid.

No, he’s right in that the Democrat Party platform includes all of the non-negotiable issues for Catholics. Homosexual marriage is one of those non-negotiables.

 

[capoly]

Gay is the Hollywood way, the liberal democratic way of saying anything goes and if you’re not willing to go along with it something is wrong with you.

Why are you surprised that people consider you “strange”? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important “thing” of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.

Christ plays no role in Hollywood media.

That could be fixed in a heartbeat. If Christ would show up in person, he would be invited to become a major star.

 

[mytruepower2]

My head is hurting like hell now. What started out as a random comment by a liberal friend of mine has unveiled to me an enormous problem with our modern world that I feel obligated to share.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Disney are pro-gay (see slideshow at bottom)

More pro-gay corporations (and that’s just the fully pro-gay ones).

If you’re not gay, you murder babies

I think you know what I’m trying to say. Evil is more pervasive and deep in society than we realise. I think I may just have ruined your day; I know I certainly ruined mine. I’m writing this on a HP Notebook which my uncle bought from his employer (which is said company). I’m using Microsoft Windows. My email is Yahoo. My default search is Google. I just uploaded a music video to Youtube (owned by bloomin’ Google) about 8 hours ago.

Evil is everywhere. The companies which provide you most of what you have also dole out loads of cash to evil causes like abortion and sodomy. It is practically impossible to be a conscientious consumer (I drank a can of Coke and now I feel terrible. I think I should go for confession).

Now that that melancholy piece of news is over with, there are two problems I’d like to pose:

1. There’s plenty of great stuff on Youtube, beautiful chants, enlightening sermons, clips of sacred Tridentine Latin Masses, and of course all the fun stuff, the pop songs, the music videos, the movie trailers, and all that. This very forum uses Google for its searches. Facebook has icons for gay marriage, but there is a Vatican Facebook (and Youtube) page for JPII. These companies may be evil, but what they have produced can be used for good, and is additionally integral to our modern lifestyle (try NOT using Google at all for a week. It’s harder than it sounds!). Is it sinful to use them? Can we be forgiven for using them even with this knowledge (invincible ignorance would have protected you from that before this; sorry about that)?
2. Let’s say I’m a student, studying how to make Flash games/animations (Adobe supports Planned Parenthood). Is it permissible for me to, say, torrent Flash Pro and use it to further my education? I deprive Adobe of its baby-murdering funds, and have benefited my education, which may be used to help me in my career and ultimately earn money that can be used for good. This is sort of like stealing from the rich, evil tyrants to give to the poor (in the rather distant future after I graduate). I suppose this is kind of reducible to a Robin-Hood sort of situation. So is Robin Hood moral? And, if you do not think it is reducible, is this moral?

Robin Hood was not moral, because he did evil, so that good might come of it.

Now, if you decide to use freeware software instead of official microsoft/google/etc wares, you’re justified in doing that for any number of reasons (I myself use Openoffice instead of MSWord,) but breaking the law doesn’t solve the problem of these companies being evil, nor is it an evil act to buy or use their goods.

Give under Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give unto God what is God’s.

Don’t be too concerned with shaping human society. Leave that up to God. For now, we just have to worry about the state of our souls; a state which won’t be improved by breaking the law.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why are you surprised that people consider you “strange”? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important “thing” of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.

That could be fixed in a heartbeat. If Christ would show up in person, he would be invited to become a major star.

Capy,

Define Love or there can be no agreement or discussion.

 

[Allegra]

I think we need to draw a line between companies that perform evil acts (Planned Parenthood, porn distributers, etc) and companies that are owned by individuals who are complacent or supportive about those acts. I can’t go asking every customer I ever have whether or not they agree with my moral beliefs in order to determine whether or not to do business with them. If someone wants to go to that trouble (And as you stated, it WILL be alot of trouble) then that is a very noble thing to do, however, I don’t think we are under any obligation to grill every service, company, or manufacturer we happen to come in contact with on their owners’ moral positions.

 

[Allegra]

Why are you surprised that people consider you “strange”? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important “thing” of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.

That could be fixed in a heartbeat. If Christ would show up in person, he would be invited to become a major star.

You are attempting to hijack the thread. This is a Catholic forum. It is already understood amongst the users that homosexual acts are immoral and disordered. If you wish to argue your case, you should start a new thread.

 

[Neofight]

No, he’s right in that the Democrat Party platform includes all of the non-negotiable issues for Catholics. Homosexual marriage is one of those non-negotiables.

If you are implying that one can’t vote Democratic and be a real Catholic, you have learned nothing from the Gospels and should be reflecting on your own righteousness and not that of others.

 

[HelligUsvart]

Why are you surprised that people consider you “strange”? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important “thing” of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.

The problem is that homosexuals wish for everyone, including Catholics, to view their relationships as being valid. The Church has guidelines for what a valid marriage is (this also applies to heterosexuals), you can’t change their own rules on that matter. By government law, homosexuals have rights obviously, and no one is trying to take them away or discriminate agianst them as human beings. But the second you start asking Catholics for their opinion (in many cases its in the form of a vote) you’re going to receive an answer you do not like or agree with.

That could be fixed in a heartbeat. If Christ would show up in person, he would be invited to become a major star.

This kind of already happened - 2,000 years ago. Instead, he chose to spend his time with those who needed it most; the outcasts of society, lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. So I highly doubt he’d accept that invitation to become a star, as it means absolutely nothing.

However, that Christ already came. If Christ were to show up in person today, it would be in form of Christ the King and the Judge.

 

[edwest2]

My head is hurting like hell now. What started out as a random comment by a liberal friend of mine has unveiled to me an enormous problem with our modern world that I feel obligated to share.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Disney are pro-gay (see slideshow at bottom)

More pro-gay corporations (and that’s just the fully pro-gay ones).

If you’re not gay, you murder babies

I think you know what I’m trying to say. Evil is more pervasive and deep in society than we realise. I think I may just have ruined your day; I know I certainly ruined mine. I’m writing this on a HP Notebook which my uncle bought from his employer (which is said company). I’m using Microsoft Windows. My email is Yahoo. My default search is Google. I just uploaded a music video to Youtube (owned by bloomin’ Google) about 8 hours ago.

Evil is everywhere. The companies which provide you most of what you have also dole out loads of cash to evil causes like abortion and sodomy. It is practically impossible to be a conscientious consumer (I drank a can of Coke and now I feel terrible. I think I should go for confession).

Now that that melancholy piece of news is over with, there are two problems I’d like to pose:

1. There’s plenty of great stuff on Youtube, beautiful chants, enlightening sermons, clips of sacred Tridentine Latin Masses, and of course all the fun stuff, the pop songs, the music videos, the movie trailers, and all that. This very forum uses Google for its searches. Facebook has icons for gay marriage, but there is a Vatican Facebook (and Youtube) page for JPII. These companies may be evil, but what they have produced can be used for good, and is additionally integral to our modern lifestyle (try NOT using Google at all for a week. It’s harder than it sounds!). Is it sinful to use them? Can we be forgiven for using them even with this knowledge (invincible ignorance would have protected you from that before this; sorry about that)?
2. Let’s say I’m a student, studying how to make Flash games/animations (Adobe supports Planned Parenthood). Is it permissible for me to, say, torrent Flash Pro and use it to further my education? I deprive Adobe of its baby-murdering funds, and have benefited my education, which may be used to help me in my career and ultimately earn money that can be used for good. This is sort of like stealing from the rich, evil tyrants to give to the poor (in the rather distant future after I graduate). I suppose this is kind of reducible to a Robin-Hood sort of situation. So is Robin Hood moral? And, if you do not think it is reducible, is this moral?

First, take a deep breath. Our current President is pro gay. What are the weapons of a Catholic? Prayer, temperance, charity, loving our neighbor and having our voices heard in the public square. We should not steal to avoid giving money to these companies.

Second, the modern version of the current evil we’re living through began in 1968 with the Sex - without love - Revolution, which mutated into “casual sex” and which is now “just sex,” like going to the bathroom. The destruction of the normal Catholic family, and all Christian families, which I grew up with in the 1950s and the 1960s was the goal.

Third, thank you for providing this list. As far as what it meant to be gay, that changed through the work of gay activists in 1973. Without any science to back it up, a vote was taken by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to have homosexuality removed as a disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. See this book:

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Diagnosis-Paperbacks/dp/0691028370

Once the first phase of the 5 year plan was complete in 1973 (1968-1973), which included legalizing abortion, the next phase was the rise of the vicious anti-family organization, the National Organization for Women which did its best to create fear, distrust and a separation between the sexes throughout the 1970s.

www.now.org/

This was the perfect advertizing and promotional campaign for No-Fault Divorce which became available everywhere in the 1980s. The institution of marriage apparently meant nothing to the lawyers that ran ads that I saw in the newspaper classifieds like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” Recently, in Detroit, I saw a billboard with a photo of a woman and contact information so that you could make a “do it yourself divorce.”

It appears to me that gay people and the sons and daughters of the original founders of these companies, or their new owners, were convinced, or coerced, to go along with the gay agenda.

To my fellow Catholics: Do what you can to avoid doing business with all of the listed companies. And politely protest and complain. The devil’s primary weapons are lies and deceptions, followed by hiding the truth. We must bring out the truth - in the public square - constantly, just like the current fight against abortion.

Lastly - please talk with your priest and seek guidance from an actual human being. Internet forums, in general, are filled with people who hate the truth.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed

 

[capoly]

Capy,

Define Love or there can be no agreement or discussion.

I am sure you are smart enough to figure it out for yourself. But just in case … Think about an exemplary heterosexual couple whom you know and observe their behavior. They respect each other, they are each other’s best friends, when one of them is ill, the other one comforts him/her. They share the ups and downs of life. If one needs comfort, the other one is there. They feel mutual attraction and affection toward each other. They care about the other… little things like that. I hope I don’t have to explain what “respect” is, what “caring” is, what mutual “attraction” and “affection” is all about.

There is nothing extraordinary about these traits, which would be the exclusive domain of a heterosexual couple. Two people of the same gender can and do exhibit the same behavior. Love is the same.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My head is hurting like hell now. What started out as a random comment by a liberal friend of mine has unveiled to me an enormous problem with our modern world that I feel obligated to share.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Disney are pro-gay (see slideshow at bottom)

More pro-gay corporations (and that’s just the fully pro-gay ones).

If you’re not gay, you murder babies

I think you know what I’m trying to say. Evil is more pervasive and deep in society than we realise. I think I may just have ruined your day; I know I certainly ruined mine. I’m writing this on a HP Notebook which my uncle bought from his employer (which is said company). I’m using Microsoft Windows. My email is Yahoo. My default search is Google. I just uploaded a music video to Youtube (owned by bloomin’ Google) about 8 hours ago.

Evil is everywhere. The companies which provide you most of what you have also dole out loads of cash to evil causes like abortion and sodomy. It is practically impossible to be a conscientious consumer (I drank a can of Coke and now I feel terrible. I think I should go for confession).

Now that that melancholy piece of news is over with, there are two problems I’d like to pose:

1. There’s plenty of great stuff on Youtube, beautiful chants, enlightening sermons, clips of sacred Tridentine Latin Masses, and of course all the fun stuff, the pop songs, the music videos, the movie trailers, and all that. This very forum uses Google for its searches. Facebook has icons for gay marriage, but there is a Vatican Facebook (and Youtube) page for JPII. These companies may be evil, but what they have produced can be used for good, and is additionally integral to our modern lifestyle (try NOT using Google at all for a week. It’s harder than it sounds!). Is it sinful to use them? Can we be forgiven for using them even with this knowledge (invincible ignorance would have protected you from that before this; sorry about that)?
2. Let’s say I’m a student, studying how to make Flash games/animations (Adobe supports Planned Parenthood). Is it permissible for me to, say, torrent Flash Pro and use it to further my education? I deprive Adobe of its baby-murdering funds, and have benefited my education, which may be used to help me in my career and ultimately earn money that can be used for good. This is sort of like stealing from the rich, evil tyrants to give to the poor (in the rather distant future after I graduate). I suppose this is kind of reducible to a Robin-Hood sort of situation. So is Robin Hood moral? And, if you do not think it is reducible, is this moral?

So Canada, through its public healthcare, pays for abortions. Do you mean that no good Catholic can be a citizen (or resident) of Canada?

 

[capoly]

The problem is that homosexuals wish for everyone, including Catholics, to view their relationships as being valid. The Church has guidelines for what a valid marriage is (this also applies to heterosexuals), you can’t change their own rules on that matter.

I have not seen anyone who wanted to force the church to validate homosexual marriage (though I am sure some people might want that to happen). Secular marriage has nothing to do with church-endorsed marriage.

By government law, homosexuals have rights obviously, and no one is trying to take them away or discriminate agianst them as human beings.

That is the point. They do not, and the church uses its not-miniscule influence to make sure that they will not have the same rights: “namely to have a legally respected relationship with someone they love”. Of course it will happen, eventually.

This kind of already happened - 2,000 years ago.

Oh, but that is just a story. Today with the mass media, the instant access to information Christ’s appearance would not be an insignificant event in some obscure corner of the world around some illiterate goat-herders… it would really be Earth-shattering.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have not seen anyone who wanted to force the church to validate homosexual marriage (though I am sure some people might want that to happen). Secular marriage has nothing to do with church-endorsed marriage.

That is the point. They do not, and the church uses its not-miniscule influence to make sure that they will not have the same rights: “namely to have a legally respected relationship with someone they love”. **Of course it will happen, eventually. **
Oh, but that is just a story. Today with the mass media, the instant access to information Christ’s appearance would not be an insignificant event in some obscure corner of the world around some illiterate goat-herders… it would really be Earth-shattering.

Capoly,

I am so glad to see you come out of the closet…you are showing your thoughts and feelings and making it easier to know your mind.

This was your first posting…

According to my understanding (which could be erroneous), christians in general and catholics particular are called to spread the “good news”, to evangelize the non-christians, to explain them why they should consider to convert. Obviously, this process can be either very effective or maybe not so effective, depending on the person who performs the task and the one who listens to the apologetics.

I am asking your opinion: on the boards here - how effective is this process? What are the different methods employed? And how effective are they? Which method seems to be effective when talking to people of different dispositions, protestants, jews, muslims, or atheists? Also how would you evaluate the process in general (world wide)?

Remember, I am simply asking your opinion. If you have some links to provide, it would be also nice. Thank you for your consideration.

This sounds like a neutral mindset…

You followed this thought in another thread in support of your beliefs…

Why are you surprised that people consider you “strange”? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important “thing” of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.

and conclude what you believe to be the inevitable…thank you for coming out…

You might consider coming on inside and not staying outside so that you could understand…

 

[Allegra]

I am sure you are smart enough to figure it out for yourself. But just in case … Think about an exemplary heterosexual couple whom you know and observe their behavior. They respect each other, they are each other’s best friends, when one of them is ill, the other one comforts him/her. They share the ups and downs of life. If one needs comfort, the other one is there. They feel mutual attraction and affection toward each other. They care about the other… little things like that. I hope I don’t have to explain what “respect” is, what “caring” is, what mutual “attraction” and “affection” is all about.

There is nothing extraordinary about these traits, which would be the exclusive domain of a heterosexual couple. Two people of the same gender can and do exhibit the same behavior. Love is the same.

This is where the problem lies. That is a general definition of love. That is not the definition of marital love. Given your definition, I could marry my sister, my father, my grandma, or my pug dog, a good friend…or five good friends. A marriage is a special kind of love. It is the giving of oneself to the purpose of creating a family unit. This is why the marital relationship is afforded legal privileges. It is foolish to attempt to claim those privileges for a relationship that is clearly not a marriage. And no, friendship+sex does not equal marriage.

 

[capoly]

This is where the problem lies. That is a general definition of love. That is not the definition of marital love. Given your definition, I could marry my sister, my father, my grandma, or my pug dog, a good friend…or five good friends.

Apart from the fact that close relatives would likely produce genetically deficient offspring, and your dog cannot sign the legal document - you are right.

A marriage is a special kind of love. It is the giving of oneself to the purpose of creating a family unit.

What is a “family unit” is up for definition.

This is why the marital relationship is afforded legal privileges. It is foolish to attempt to claim those privileges for a relationship that is clearly not a marriage. And no, friendship+sex does not equal marriage.

Why not? Mutual commitment to spend their live together, to love and cherish till death do them part… that is what the wedding wows is all about. There is no word about attempting to beget children, or to raise children. People past the child bearing age cannot do that and yet there is no objection if they wish to get married.

 

[Allegra]

Apart from the fact that close relatives would likely produce genetically deficient offspring, and your dog cannot sign the legal document - you are right.

What is a “family unit” is up for definition.

Why not? Mutual commitment to spend their live together, to love and cherish till death do them part… that is what the wedding wows is all about. There is no word about attempting to beget children, or to raise children. People past the child bearing age cannot do that and yet there is no objection if they wish to get married.

The term family unit is not up for definition. It is a unit that can produce a family. A family means a man and woman that endevor to produce and raise the next generation of citizens in the best manner possible. Others may object to that definition, but any other definition does not merit the privileges the government grants to those who are married. There may be some men and women who seek these privileges without any intention of ever meeting that plan, but that is the expectation and that is the reason why married couples get tax breaks and insurance breaks. There is no benefit to bestowing such benefits of homosexual unions because such a union is incapable of producing a family.