Gay companies

[edwest2]

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.

There is evidence that there is not a one to one comparison to be made.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

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

**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./**QUOTE]

Cap,

This is the gay sterility argument for marriage…

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

 

[Sonic]

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

If you’re not gay, you murder babies

I wish these two articles were properly source, but the webpage from 2008 has broken links and blog post gives no source at all. I don’t doubt that many corporations give donations to subversive movements. I would like to know more information beyond just a list. Kraft has publicly supported homosexuality, but I haven’t seen Coke do it yet. When it comes to private donations, there is very little anyone can do about it. The companies are not owned by a single person. These are corporations with stock holders.

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 original Robin Hood legend was not about a thief (at least in the Sherwood legends). He was helping to defend his king and country from the unlawful usurpation of Prince John while King Richard was away. The illegal tax money which he took back from John’s administrators and cronies were given back to the people from which it was stolen. In essence, he did not steal from the rich to give to the poor (as the modern phrase goes).

Robin Hood was the most Catholic of English folk heroes. He had a particular devotion to the Virgin Mary and continuously prays to Our Lady for her intercession.

While the legend of Robin Hood is most likely just a folk story, Robin’s devotion to Our Lady gives us insight into devotional practices in Medieval England. The Scottish hero William Wallace, was also said to have a devotion to Our Lady, and Blind Harry’s Wallace also mentions this devotion… even going so far as to attribute Wallace being visited by Our Lady in a dream.

 

[capoly]

The term family unit is not up for definition. It is a unit that can produce a family.

Circular definition.

A family means a man and woman that endevor to produce and raise the next generation of citizens in the best manner possible.

The unit of “one man, one woman” is very recent concotion. During the ages there were “extended families”, sometimes even a whole village was considered a family. Obviously it would be much better for the next generation to have a “village-full” of mommies and daddies, who ALL care about the well-being of the children. So the current “one-man one-woman” is a step down from the more efficient organizarion of the past.

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.

Tell you something. If you look for a good, prosperous neighborhood, with low crime rate and stability, look for those areas where homosexual couples live. They are usually more affluent, they keep the neighborhood on a higher level of prosperity. So if you look at the “bigger picture”, it is a legitimite interest of the govermnent to endorse such arrangements.

 

[fix]

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.

There is no wording about children because it is self evident.

 

[capoly]

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.

No, that is a mistaken point of view. The pimary purpose was always political and economical. Marriages were arranged to gain political power in the upper echelons of society and for economical gains everywhere else (the concept of love and personal compatibility was irrelevant, even considered undesirable…). Procreation happened both inside and outside the marriages, and no one payed special attention.

In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

Hehe. The “O tempora, o mores!” is an exclamation of the older generation since time immemorial. The old people have always been complaining about the decreasing morals, they all predicted the impending “doom” of the civilization. Every new generation is condemned for their loose morals. It would be hilarious, if it were not so pathetic.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five?

Why not indeeed? There are few people who would want polygamy and polyandry… but they do not hurt anyone. Do you know the joke: “What is the opposite of polygamy? It is monotony!”.

When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

There is no indication of this.

 

[fix]

No, that is a mistaken point of view. The pimary purpose was always political and economical. Marriages were arranged to gain political power in the upper echelons of society and for economical gains everywhere else (the concept of love and personal compatibility was irrelevant, even considered undesirable…). Procreation happened both inside and outside the marriages, and no one payed special attention.

Oh yea, I guess that is why we have so many examples of two men being “married” throughout history. To solidify power, right?

 

[Newbie2]

Capoly seems to be confusing this with a secular forum. Coming here and arguing that secularism trumps the teachings of the RCC is an exercise in futility.

 

[capoly]

Capoly seems to be confusing this with a secular forum. Coming here and arguing that secularism trumps the teachings of the RCC is an exercise in futility.

No, I am well aware of the nature of the forum. I am simply curious if there are secular arguments for your positions. If you would argue: “God said it, I believe it, that is the end of it” then your position would be crystal clear: “blind, unquestioning faith”, and as far as I am concerned, I would leave you alone.

When you argue with another catholic, you can use all sorts of arguments, the bible, references to the magisterium, to the writs of the popes. You can also use simple, logical, fully secular arguments, too. When you argue with a protestant, your “arsenal” shrinks. You can try to refer to the magisterium, but that will fall on deaf ears. You need to argue sola scriptura, if you wish to be convincing. When talking to atheists, you can only use secular reason and logic. Of course, this is only pertinent IF you wish to convince the other party that your position is right, and his is wrong. Since you are required to spread the “word”, to help other people to “see the light”, you really should choose your “weapons” wisely.

I am simply here to help you to hone your weapons and become efficient in their use. Too bad that most posters waste their time (and mine, too) when they mindlessly regurgitate the “theological” arguments.

 

[Seeker1961]

No, I am well aware of the nature of the forum. I am simply curious if there are secular arguments for your positions. If you would argue: “God said it, I believe it, that is the end of it” then your position would be crystal clear: “blind, unquestioning faith”, and as far as I am concerned, I would leave you alone.

When you argue with another catholic, you can use all sorts of arguments, the bible, references to the magisterium, to the writs of the popes. You can also use simple, logical, fully secular arguments, too. When you argue with a protestant, your “arsenal” shrinks. You can try to refer to the magisterium, but that will fall on deaf ears. You need to argue sola scriptura, if you wish to be convincing. When talking to atheists, you can only use secular reason and logic. Of course, this is only pertinent IF you wish to convince the other party that your position is right, and his is wrong. Since you are required to spread the “word”, to help other people to “see the light”, you really should choose your “weapons” wisely.

I am simply here to help you to hone your weapons and become efficient in their use. Too bad that most posters waste their time (and mine, too) when they mindlessly regurgitate the “theological” arguments.

And to add to this-when you are arguing for civil laws- “God says it and I believe it” isn’t going to cut it. We don’t live in a theocracy and that argument fails every time. Anyone outside the church tunes you out and the discussion is over.

 

[CopticChristian]

Circular definition.

**The unit of “one man, one woman” is very recent concotion. During the ages there were “extended families”, sometimes even a whole village was considered a family. Obviously it would be much better for the next generation to have a “village-full” of mommies and daddies, who ALL care about the well-being of the children. So the current “one-man one-woman” is a step down from the more efficient organizarion of the past. **
Tell you something. If you look for a good, prosperous neighborhood, with low crime rate and stability, look for those areas where homosexual couples live. They are usually more affluent, they keep the neighborhood on a higher level of prosperity. So if you look at the “bigger picture”, it is a legitimite interest of the govermnent to endorse such arrangements.

Cap,

Teach me. Give me the history of the Village of mom/dad from which the notion of one man/one woman family emerged and when.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, that is a mistaken point of view. The pimary purpose was **always **political and economical. Marriages were arranged to gain political power in the upper echelons of society and for economical gains everywhere else (the concept of love and personal compatibility was irrelevant, even considered undesirable…). Procreation happened both inside and outside the marriages, and no one payed special attention.

Hehe. The “O tempora, o mores!” is an exclamation of the older generation since time immemorial. The old people have** always** been complaining about the decreasing morals, they all predicted the impending “doom” of the civilization. **Every **new generation is condemned for their loose morals. It would be hilarious, if it were not so pathetic.

Why not indeeed? There are few people who would want polygamy and polyandry… but they do not hurt anyone. Do you know the joke: “What is the opposite of polygamy? It is monotony!”.

There is no indication of this.

Cap,

Therefore there were no marriages to join in a union and procreate. It was Always for political reasons. Prove this.

Show me the evidence that the older population always complained. Prove this.

Every new generation is condemned. Prove this historically.

Show me the evidence that few people want polygamy and that it does not hurt people. Prove this.

 

[fix]

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.

Pro choice is a politcal term used to cover up what is really being done.

 

[capoly]

Teach me. Give me the history of the Village of mom/dad from which the notion of one man/one woman family emerged and when.

I am sorry. I don’t have months and years to educate you. You will have to learn history and sociology. You can even look at people living in simple tribes (unpolluted by “civilization”), who have no concept of “marriage”. There were polyamorous arrangements, sometimes in a patriarchial other times in martriarchial arrangements, there were morgantic marriages… you need to do some homework. I suggest you read C. Northcote Parkinson’s “Mrs. Parkinson’s Law”. It is a hilariously funny and still very deep digging book about family, marriage, child rearing… etc.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am sorry. I don’t have months and years to educate you. You will have to learn history and sociology. You can even look at people living in simple tribes (unpolluted by “civilization”), who have no concept of “marriage”. There were polyamorous arrangements, sometimes in a patriarchial other times in martriarchial arrangements, there were morgantic marriages… you need to do some homework. I suggest you read C. Northcote Parkinson’s “Mrs. Parkinson’s Law”. It is a hilariously funny and still very deep digging book about family, marriage, child rearing… etc.

Capoly,

Your generalizations will be the cause of your lack of credibility. What I need to read is not anythying you suggest. I didn’t suggest this you did. Thanks for what I assumed to be true.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

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

Oohh!! Let’s talk about producing offspring! Good point there.

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

Only in this day and age. The true definition has not changed.

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.

I remember vowing to God to accept lovingly the children that are the natural fruit of marriage, and to raise them, too.

 

[Newbie2]

No, I am well aware of the nature of the forum. I am simply curious if there are secular arguments for your positions. If you would argue: “God said it, I believe it, that is the end of it” then your position would be crystal clear: “blind, unquestioning faith”, and as far as I am concerned, I would leave you alone.

When you argue with another catholic, you can use all sorts of arguments, the bible, references to the magisterium, to the writs of the popes. You can also use simple, logical, fully secular arguments, too. When you argue with a protestant, your “arsenal” shrinks. You can try to refer to the magisterium, but that will fall on deaf ears. You need to argue sola scriptura, if you wish to be convincing. When talking to atheists, you can only use secular reason and logic. Of course, this is only pertinent IF you wish to convince the other party that your position is right, and his is wrong. Since you are required to spread the “word”, to help other people to “see the light”, you really should choose your “weapons” wisely.

I am simply here to help you to hone your weapons and become efficient in their use. Too bad that most posters waste their time (and mine, too) when they mindlessly regurgitate the “theological” arguments.

I appreciate the gesture of help in honing (our) apologetics.

That being said, I beg to differ. We do not compartmentalize our belief system based on who we are having a discussion with…taylor, yes, but not to the point of adopting their POV in arguing “our” point.

If Catholocism is anything, it is well thought out and well articulated in writings on our faith. Whether one accepts the logic inherent in our theology is up to them. Take a look at the scarce writings by protestants on their own theologies. There is nothing to compare with papal encyclicals and the like on the various aspects of our Christian faith.

Bible scholarship…definitely an exception. Many Protestant denominations have excelled in producing scholarly works through individuals whos expertise lies in biblical exegesis.

 

[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.

Capoly,

Define Love.

 

[capoly]

Newbie2:

We do not compartmentalize our belief system based on who we are having a discussion with…taylor, yes, but not to the point of adopting their POV in arguing “our” point.

This looks like a misunderstanding. By no means should you change or compromize your point of view. It is simply the method to argue for it what should be “taylored” to the discussion partner. When you argue for your faith, and your partner is an atheist, you merely waste your time to refer to the magisterium or the Bible, or the catechism or papal utterances. None of those mean anything to your discussion partner.

Let me give you a really “stupid” example, to show what I mean. Suppose you wish to argue against masturbation. To say that it is an “abomination in God’s eyes” will lead you nowhere. If you could bring up real, secular arguments against it, then you are on the right track. For example you could “argue” that it will cause blindness, or it will cause hair to grow on your palms (don’t laugh, these used to be actual arguments!) then you presented something that does not require faith to accept or reject. All we have to do is to check out the alleged “facts”.

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. If your facts are true (not just some anecdotal will-o-wisp) then you will gain credibility.

CopticChristian:

Define Love.

I am sure you can do it on your own. Look at the relationship between couple who live an admirable life, who respect one another, who care about the other, and you will witness love. Whether the two people are of the same sex or not does not matter one wit. Heterosexual couples have no “dibs” on love. (By the way, “love” is not supposed to be spelled in a capitalized format.)

 

[CopticChristian]

This looks like a misunderstanding. By no means should you change or compromize your point of view.** It is simply the method to argue for it what should be “taylored” to the discussion partner. **When you argue for your faith, and your partner is an atheist, you merely waste your time to refer to the magisterium or the Bible, or the catechism or papal utterances. **None of those mean anything to your discussion partner. **Let me give you a really “stupid” example, to show what I mean. Suppose you wish to argue against masturbation. To say that it is an “abomination in God’s eyes” will lead you nowhere. If you could bring up real, secular arguments against it, then you are on the right track. For example you could “argue” that it will cause blindness, or it **will cause hair to grow on your palms (don’t laugh, these used to be actual arguments!) **then you presented something that does not require faith to accept or reject. All we have to do is to check out the alleged “facts”.

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. If your facts are true (not just some anecdotal will-o-wisp) then you will gain credibility.

I am sure you can do it on your own. Look at the relationship between couple who live an admirable life, who respect one another, who care about the other, and you will witness love. Whether the two people are of the same sex or not does not matter one wit. Heterosexual couples have no “dibs” on love. (By the way, “love” is not supposed to be spelled in a capitalized format.)

Capoly,

You have sincere problems and the least of those is the delayed consequeces of dermatohirsuitism.

You want to argue and then you want to define how that is done. You be the Captain of the debate team?

We are speaking different languages and you come to Portugal and demand that the Portuguese speak to you in English.

This is the Catholic Answer forum where you chose to come to debate and want the CAF to bend to your rules. There are Forum guidelines and so you are under the rules of the Forum for starters. Next understand that you can choose to demand that views are not expressed and if that is truly a waste of time why did you come here?

Any Yo Yo knows that beliefs are beliefs wherever they come from religous or not. If I believe that Alcoholism is a disease and it is not and that belief is based on brainwashing from false data and you want to argue this point with me then you ask me to dismiss my belief to argue with you. In other words accept my belief as we argue. Are you sure you are not going blind and incurring some disordered thinking as well as hirsuit hands?

The key to understanding the absurdity of your thinking is not only the dismissal of asking you to define “Love”…but to then tell me how I have to spell it.

You be one specimen of a debating hair follicle. I suggest you consider that beliefs are beliefs and everyone has them. Where they come from and how they are formed are understood in the Meta Model of the mind. They come from and are formed at what is called the “Submodality” of the mind that is actually Meta to the experience. Everyone across the board does this.

You are asking everyone to dismiss the way we see the world as we form our beliefs in favor of what you argue. This is like asking someone to tie their hands behind their backs, bind their feet and then ask them to engage in a Karate match with you.

I believe that you may lack understanding, you have little insight, do not realize that you are on a Forum where unlike the world in which you live…those that surround you have well founded beliefs and do not accept your challenge as you posit it. It may welll be that dermatohirsuitism may be part and parcel of the population you are surrounded by other than on this forum.

While you contemplate how hirsuitism is treated recognize the following…

Catholic Answers

not

Capoly Answers

Ask a question and satisfy the Forum.

You may want to start a forum of your own with your own rules that allows you to dismiss everyone elses beliefs as a point of entry for discussion…then you can attend to the dermatohirsuitism with less distraction.