"Gay Day" Ruined Our Day at Cedar Point

[sharmin]

All sins are bad. However, sins are different in quality and gravity. In MOST instances, in our culture, taking the name of the Lord in vain is a matter of gross negligence. Flaunting one’s lifestyle of confirmed multiple same sex acts is much more grave.

I disagree with you. And therein lies the problem. We should not be judging WHICH sins are worse and therefore who is or isn’t allowed in a public place based on their sins. That just sounds unbelievable to me.

 

[sharmin]

You have a good analogy. Yes, when I have children with me, I have admonished people for their language when it is blashpemous. I have also done this when I have not been with children.

But do you try to get them removed from the park? If so, then I have no problem with what you’re saying. I do not agree, but at least you are consistent.

 

[Miserys_Fence]

Not legally. Their moral situation is similar, though. I am saying that most of the excuses one makes for homosexual rights can also be made for the rights of other deviants. It is why NAMBLA actually has the same validity (or invalidity) that the homosexual agenda has.

The mistake is yours, Miz, a mistake of grammar and syntax. The conjunction “and” separates two different groups in the sentence I used. I will not insult you by calling you ignorant, like you did me though, and assume your mistake was honest.

I never said “You are ignorant to assume that gays are child molesters” but rather “How incredibly ignorant to assume that gays are child molesters.” Syntax and grammar, my dear, syntax and grammar.

Regardless of how you cower behind the skirts of “syntax and grammar,” the INTENT of your post is crystal clear, and confirmed by the bolded statement made in a later post. Exactly what are you afraid of?

Miz

 

[pnewton]

Likewise, missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. Do you consider this similarily immoral as molesting a child?

Yes, but the similarity is much less. That is why I used the word “similar” and would not say they are the same as each other.

 

[pnewton]

Regardless of how you cower behind the skirts of “syntax and grammar,” the INTENT of your post is crystal clear, and confirmed by the bolded statement made in a later post. Exactly what are you afraid of?

I do not know the relevance of your question, but here are a few things, in no particular order:

1. Hell
2. Spiders
3. Slasher films
4. Losing a loved one

FYI - I am not cowering.

 

[pnewton]

But do you try to get them removed from the park?

I have never had that happen. But no, I am not past having someone who is cursing in front of children and refuse to stop the disorderly behavior being removed from a public setting or being arrested. No problem with it at all.

 

[pnewton]

I never said “You are ignorant to assume that gays are child molesters” but rather “How incredibly ignorant to assume that gays are child molesters.” Syntax and grammar, my dear, syntax and grammar.

Yes, that is what you said. If you were not referring to me, your quote of my post seems rather a nonsensical nonsequitor.

 

[ContegoFides]

I disagree with you. And therein lies the problem. We should not be judging WHICH sins are worse and therefore who is or isn’t allowed in a public place based on their sins. That just sounds unbelievable to me.

Why should we not judge objective actions? Would you refuse to judge that genocide is evil, and that Adolf Hitler should have been tolerated? I doubt it. Would you refuse to allow pedophiles to meet in public and flaunt their behvaior with children in a public place where other children can watch it? I expect you would advocate preventing such a thing.

Please don’t say that I’m comparing pedophiles or Hitler to people with same sex attraction, because I’m not. I’m only pointing out by analogy that we all can and do judge people’s actions, in the objective order, and that we can and do refuse to let people do certain things in public - and rightly so. What is improper is judging people’s souls.

Given that homosexual acts are clearly, unambiguously, and directly condemned in the New Testament and the Catechism as being worthy of eternal death (yes, I mean explicitly stated in so many words: Romans 1:27; Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10), why should we NOT want to prevent our children from witnessing such behavior so that they think it might be OK?

This isn’t about political opinions or disagreements, it’s about reality. While we should love all people, and call all people to repentance, and we should proclaim the infinite mercy and love of God - we must not forget that there is a hard side to Jesus as well. God does not change, so we must.

 

[ContegoFides]

But do you try to get them removed from the park? If so, then I have no problem with what you’re saying. I do not agree, but at least you are consistent.

As for me, it depends. Did they negligently use the name of the Lord in vain, or are they deliberately getting in people’s faces and causing undue trouble. The former, I wouldn’t ask them to leave, the latter I would.

Prudence means that we can and should evaluate the gravity of offenses and respond appropriately. I won’t break up a fist fight by shooting one of the combatants - but I might shoot someone who is pointing a gun at an innocent baby and I see him in the act of beginning to pull the trigger with hate on his face.

Clearly, the gravity of the acts we witness has a huge effect on the level of our moral response.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

But does that mean you go up to complete strangers and admonish them? Do you admonish all sins or just certain ones you choose. Do you admonish strangers who are cohabitating? Do you admonish those who use birth control? Do you admonish strangers who say “Oh God!” and take His name in vain? To what extent do you take it to?

What would you do about that last one?

 

[sharmin]

Yes, but the similarity is much less. That is why I used the word “similar” and would not say they are the same as each other.

Well, I guess in the same way that an ant and a grizzly bear are similar in that they are both alive that would be true, but there are many important and distinct differences at play that can’t be ignored.

 

[sharmin]

Why should we not judge objective actions?

I believe I specified that we shouldn’t use our judgement of sins to decide who should and should not be allowed ina public place. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize.

Would you refuse to judge that genocide is evil, and that Adolf Hitler should have been tolerated? I doubt it.

Big difference on genocide and who people choose to love. I feel sad that you can’t see that.

Would you refuse to allow pedophiles to meet in public and flaunt their behvaior with children in a public place where other children can watch it? I expect you would advocate preventing such a thing.

How dare you suggust I would advocate the hurting of a child in public or private for that matter! What is wrong with you to say something like that?

Please don’t say that I’m comparing pedophiles or Hitler to people with same sex attraction, because I’m not.

Um, yes you are. Reread what you wrote.

I’m only pointing out by analogy that we all can and do judge people’s actions, in the objective order, and that we can and do refuse to let people do certain things in public - and rightly so. What is improper is judging people’s souls.

Well then, I would like to refuse people like you in public places for your obvious sins. Is that my right?

Given that homosexual acts are clearly, unambiguously, and directly condemned in the New Testament and the Catechism as being worthy of eternal death (yes, I mean explicitly stated in so many words: Romans 1:27; Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10), why should we NOT want to prevent our children from witnessing such behavior so that they think it might be OK?

Then please show equal effort in preventing your children from frequenting places where people use God’s name in vain, talk about birth control, or any other sin and I’ll be happy. I guess it’ll keep the judgemental people at home, and that’s something I’d like to keep my own kids away from.

 

[sharmin]

What would you do about that last one?

Pray for them. What would you do?

 

[desertPavel]

I’m sorry your day was ruined but Gay people have, or should have, equal rights to
all the things that you have a right to.

And I don’t believe that anyone has a right to admonish a person for being the way that God made them.

I understand that you may be disgusted at PDAs, so am I, but I dislike seeing anyone
make love in public, not just the Gays. For example I wouldn’t want you to be holding hands and kissing on your spouse in front of me, I consider that hostile action to the captive audience, so on that point, we agree.

Can you cite a scientific study that states that gays were born that way?

 

[JadeStarr]

No, I can’t do any research of the issue for you, but you can probably find studies on the internet. It’s still a question of nature versus nuture.

I would imagine that the sin of pride is more annoying to others than any other sin mentioned here, however.

 

[desertPavel]

You are twisting the argument. The argument is not that people with same sex attraction commit acts as gravely disordered as pedophiles and rapists. Casting the issue that way is unjust because it does not address the underlying issue, but rather attempts to misdirect it.

Instead, the argument goes to clearly refuting the assertion that “because God made me this way” that the person should be accepted solely on that basis. Simply because a person has a deep seated attraction to something does not mean that the acts that flow from that attraction should be considered good. Instead, you must look to the acts themselves to determine whether or not they are gravely disordered.

Sexual activity between members of the same sex is gravely disordered because it breaks both of the obvious purposes of sex: reproduction and union between spouses (no, people of the same sex cannot marry each other in God’s eyes, no matter what the State says - scripture and Tradition both are plain that homosexual actions are a cause for spiritual death, so people of the same sex cannot possibly be married).

Thus, even if God gave a cross to someone in the form of same sex attraction, acting out on those impulses is still gravely disordered - objectively speaking. Just as if God gave a cross to someone in the form of compulsive stealing, acting out on that impulse is still gravely disordered. The assertion is not that stealing and homosexual acts are morally equivalent, but rather that it is the actions that are judged on the objective level, not whether God made a person a particular way (or, rather, allowed a concupiscence towards a particular sin to develop in a person).

AMEN

a repentent homosexual

 

[larkin31]

I think that folks are drifting away here, the original poster had a complaint that is being ignored. She believes that her day was ruined because some other people were also at Cedar Point. My belief is that the Gays had as much of right to be there as she did BUT that she should not be subjected to PDAs of any kind.

A low level of PDA is acceptable and always has been. A couple that never publicly touches each other is actually more noticeable. If one wants to argue that a modest level of PDA from a hetero couple is acceptable but from a gay couple is not, then I would like to hear the argument as to why.

 

[ContegoFides]

I believe I specified that we shouldn’t use our judgement of sins to decide who should and should not be allowed ina public place. If I didn’t make that clear, I apologize.

Sure we should. We should not allow children to see gravely disordered acts in public places.

Big difference on genocide and who people choose to love. I feel sad that you can’t see that.

Yes, there is a big difference. However, as I explained above - and demonstrate again below - my arguments are being twisted unjustly in order to make it appear as if I am equating the two. Both genocide and homosexual activity are gravely disordered and hence evil, though genocide is clearly much, much more gravely evil.

Additionally, the “choice to love” is more than just a romantic feeling - it is to wish the highest and best good for the beloved. Because homosexual acts are clearly and unambiguously contrary to God’s will, in both scripture and Tradition, and can lead to Hell - then if you REALLY chose to love someone with same sex attraction (especially if you felt SSA too) you would encourage that someone to refrain from homosexual acts so that the person would be more likely to avoid Hell and be accepted into Heaven. In the end, nothing else really matters.

How dare you suggust I would advocate the hurting of a child in public or private for that matter! What is wrong with you to say something like that?

I did not suggest such a thing, again you are twisting my words. Through the use of a rhetorical question I was demonstrating that you would almost certainly reject the concept of hurting a child in public (or private). I appear to be correct, which is good. Once you say “yes,” then you are logically compelled to accept the premise that under some circumstances people should be excluded from public places based on their sinful conduct. Given that homosexual acts are gravely disordered, it is then logical to conclude that people committing homosexual acts in a public place in front of children should be excluded from public places.

In contrast, people who struggle with same sex attraction and have a deep seated attachment to committing such acts - but do not demonstrate the same in public - should not be excluded from public places.

Um, yes you are. Reread what you wrote.

No, I’m not comparing pedophiles or Hitler to people with same sex attraction. You are twisting my words. Re-read them carefully, for I chose them carefully.

The argument is not that people with same sex attraction commit acts as gravely disordered as pedophiles and rapists (or Hitler). Casting the issue that way is unjust because it does not address the underlying issue, but rather attempts to misdirect it.

Instead, the argument goes to clearly refuting the assertion that “because God made me this way” that the person should be accepted solely on that basis. Simply because a person has a deep seated attraction to something does not mean that the acts that flow from that attraction should be considered good. Instead, you must look to the acts themselves to determine whether or not they are gravely disordered.

Sexual activity between members of the same sex is gravely disordered because it breaks both of the obvious purposes of sex: reproduction and union between spouses (no, people of the same sex cannot marry each other in God’s eyes, no matter what the State says - scripture and Tradition both are plain that homosexual actions are a cause for spiritual death, so people of the same sex cannot possibly be married).

Thus, even if God gave a cross to someone in the form of same sex attraction, acting out on those impulses is still gravely disordered - objectively speaking. Just as if God gave a cross to someone in the form of compulsive stealing, acting out on that impulse is still gravely disordered. The assertion is not that stealing and homosexual acts are morally equivalent, but rather that it is the actions that are judged on the objective level, not whether God made a person a particular way (or, rather, allowed a concupiscence towards a particular sin to develop in a person).

Well then, I would like to refuse people like you in public places for your obvious sins. Is that my right?

If I insist on committing gravely disordered acts in public in front of children, or vociferously demonstrating my support for such acts in public in front of children, then yes - very much it is your right. Not only your right, but your duty.

However, your argument doesn’t hold any water because you have asserted my “obvious” sins without calling them out and without specifying why they are obvious. To my knowledge, I have not obviously sinned in public in front of children. If I did, then I would expect right-minded people to rebuke me.

 

[ContegoFides]

Then please show equal effort in preventing your children from frequenting places where people use God’s name in vain, talk about birth control, or any other sin and I’ll be happy. I guess it’ll keep the judgemental people at home, and that’s something I’d like to keep my own kids away from.

This argument is an unjust attempt to shut down people who disagree with you, especially in the public sector. The onus is not on me from stopping my children from frequenting public places where people might sin. The onus is on the public, and each individual personally, to keep sinful things away from the eyes of children. If we accepted your view of who has to control whom, in the extreme I could never go out in public anywhere just to accomodate the disordered desires of a few.

I’ll demonstrate by way of example.

Hardcore violent porn (between consenting adults) is being played on the giant screens in Times Sqaure, New York.

Under your logic, the onus is on me to keep my kids of out Times Square so that they don’t see this odious material. However, Times Square is a public place having cultural significance, and my family would be effectively excluded from that public place unjustly.

I say that’s wrong. What is right is to make a public rule that says that you can’t display hardcore violent porn between consenting adults on the giant screens in Times Square - or anywhere else for that matter.

That way, everyone can enjoy Times Square - my family, and the people who participate and enjoy hardcare violent porn between consenting adults.

In contrast, under your idea, you have effectively and unjustly excluded my family from a public place simply to satisfy the disordered desires of a few.

Ironically, the objectively better rule of keeping sinful things out of the eyes of children in public places is much more inclusive than your suggested rule of forcing parents to keep kids out of public places so that they might avoid things that can lead to eternal death.

Therefore, even under the incomplete arguments of “choice” and “tolerance,” people who commit the gravely disordered same sex acts in public, or vociferously support the same in public, should be excluded from the public sector by the public.

 

[larkin31]

…Additionally, the “choice to love” is more than just a romantic feeling - it is to wish the highest and best good for the beloved. Because homosexual acts are clearly and unambiguously contrary to God’s will, in both scripture and Tradition, and can lead to Hell - then if you REALLY chose to love someone with same sex attraction (especially if you felt SSA too) you would encourage that someone to refrain from homosexual acts so that the person would be more likely to avoid Hell and be accepted into Heaven. In the end, nothing else really matters.

I know this wasn’t written to me, but I want to say only that JUSTICE matters more than the writings of a believer’s interpretation of the message from their god. Much much more. Justice should trump religion (when they are in conflict) every time, every time. At least in THIS country (USA).