"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[LisaA]

Yeah, right. This from here: mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/contraception-natural-family-planning

Some of the disadvantages of natural family planning are that:
it requires extensive instruction and many steps to predict ovulation (fertile period);
couples must be highly motivated;
it may result in periods of sexual frustration during periods of abstinence;
since the length of menstrual cycles and the day of ovulation may vary each month, the timing of intercourse must be adjusted accordingly; and
in practice, it is not as reliable as other methods of birth control.

So how would this work? All teenage girls keep a regular check on their fertility cycle? And only have sex when they are least fertile? Are you trying to actually increase the number of abortions?

And what did your kids say about you classing people as perverted sickos and deviants? Did you get a chance to ask them?

Practiced correctly NFP is very very effective both for couples wishing to conceive and those who want to time their babies. Have you ever heard a qualified NFP instructor Bradski? They have AMAZING information and while I thought I was quite well educated on the subject of female reproduction and how bodies are supposed to function, I learned a LOT (this was in connection with RCIA).

Your responses regarding NFP are flawed in that they assume the teen IS engaging in sex. Were more of the educated on the negative aspects of non-marital sex, I think it would do a lot more to prevent early and risky sexual activity. Quite honestly when I was a teen, it was all about not getting pregnant. Birth control pills were handed out like aspirins without a mention of the side effects, long term and short term impact, or the other physical and emotional risks.

Believe it or not, good abstinence programs are effective. That they are prohibited in some schools just demonstrates its all about agendas and not health.

Lisa

 

[Bradski]

So you want to require that sexual education be taught in schools according to your moral or ethical code (which is proclaimed to somehow have some kind of superiority over our Catholic sexual ethics, despite the required absence of moral absolutes in atheistic worldview), and yet have a problem with a parent teaching THEIR child about sex and sexual ethics through a Catholic lens? Not sure if serious…?

If a parent is suggesting to their teenage daughter that NFP is a great way to prevent becoming pregnant, then it certainly would be better to have someone else deal with her sex education. By all means instil in the girl whatever morality you feel is appropriate, but for heavens sake, make sure she has the facts available.

NFP is an option for people with either religious objections to other methods of contraception or perhaps for those with medical issues. It will not, in any way, shape or form, work to prevent a young teenager getting pregnant.

In any case, we’re off topic.

 

[LisaA]

If a parent is suggesting to their teenage daughter that NFP is a great way to prevent becoming pregnant, then it certainly would be better to have someone else deal with her sex education. By all means instil in the girl whatever morality you feel is appropriate, but for heavens sake, make sure she has the facts available.

NFP is an option for people with either religious objections to other methods of contraception or perhaps for those with medical issues. It will not, in any way, shape or form, work to prevent a young teenager getting pregnant.

In any case, we’re off topic.

Wow didn’t know you were an expert in NFP. At any rate you are correct, the topic was SSM. The issue of teens is with respect to the agenda to normalize homosexual behavior and to encourage teens to “explore” their feelings, try different things and see what works. Just another way that attempts to redefine marriage have consequences far beyond what is claimed.

Lisa

 

[Farien]

What you call tolerance is merely a one way compromise.

It goes both ways. If you would stop calling people “sickos”, “miscreants” or “deviants” they would have no problem with you.

You are right why should we fight for religious liberty against such odds and against progress.

Your religious liberty is untouched. No one forces you to participate in acts you don’t like. Remember the bumper sticker? “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”.

We should just surrender and abandon all religious belief because resistance is futile and interferes with personal comforts…

Your religious beliefs are yours to hold. No one tries to force you to change them, or stop to live by them. It is you who wishes to interfere with other people’s values.

Unfortunately, some of us are not made that way.

Yes, it is most unfortunate that your rudeness is propagated to your children. Poor kids to have such a parent, who is filled with hate. The sad thing is that so far none of your brethren stood up against your hate-filled words.

 

[maximus]

It goes both ways. If you would stop calling people “sickos”, “miscreants” or “deviants” they would have no problem with you. .

Yes, it is most unfortunate that your rudeness is propagated to your children. Poor kids to have such a parent, who is filled with hate. The sad thing is that so far none of your brethren stood up against your hate-filled words.

Again the context was against people teaching ELEMENTARY school children explicit sexual material. If I am rude against people who would taint children so be it. It was a response against someone saying get over it any let small children be exposed to explicit material. Ghee, like I have not heard things twenty times worst hurled at us on a regular basis, but they are not hateful.

Your religious liberty is untouched. No one forces you to participate in acts you don’t like. Remember the bumper sticker? “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”. .

Your religious beliefs are yours to hold. No one tries to force you to change them, or stop to live by them. It is you who wishes to interfere with other people’s values

The whole point of this discussion is how SSM would be harmful to society. Mainly in part because it would be a further interfering into our Christian lives and institutions. With things like the HHS mandate ready to come on line, how Planted Parenthood operates in schools (this is not problem for us as long as they don’t outlaw homeschooling like they did in Germany ). In Canada, to preach on homosexuality is a hate crime. SSM would likely bring these things to our country. So please do not telling me that our values are not being interfered with.

 

[maximus]

Do you think Maximus is expert enough in regards contraception? He thinks that NFP is more efficient than chemical or barrier methods. It just goes to show the need for greater education.

I am not a Doctor nor an expert and have taught over 200 engaged couples NFP so that I know it has an effectiveness on par with the pill minus side effects.

I have attended many work shops on the dangers of the pill and other contraceptives. I have read quite a bit on the topic of abortion as well as attending workshops. Of course what I have learned is not from Planned Parenthood who take sonograms purposely wrong so women can’t tell that their fetus is alive; just to illustrate the mischievous ways they operate.

Happy New Year, I got a lot of coding to do so I am going off this thread.

 

[Farien]

Again the context was against people teaching ELEMENTARY school children explicit sexual material.

Do they now? Does the material contain how-to type of instructions, or simply states that if Heather has two mommies it is not “sicko”, “deviant” and “pervert”?

The whole point of this discussion is how SSM would be harmful to society. Mainly in part because it would be a further interfering into our Christian lives and institutions.

It does not affect your life. It does not affect your value system. It does not interfere with the internal workings of your institutions. It does interfere with the part which interacts with the outside world (insurance, etc), that is for sure. If you don’t like it, resist, and when it will cause you to lose your tax-exempt status, you can only blame yourself.

With things like the HHS mandate ready to come on line, how Planted Parenthood operates in schools (this is not problem for us as long as they don’t outlaw homeschooling like they did in Germany ). In Canada, to preach on homosexuality is a hate crime. SSM would likely bring these things to our country. So please do not telling me that our values are not being interfered with.

The US is quite different. I do not agree with the concept of “hate crime”, no matter who is singled out. Nevertheless, simply look back to the times when the first homosexuals came out from the closet. There was no word about marriage at that time. Yet the rhetoric was the same. Full of hate. Yes, they learned from YOU. Not fun to be the receiving end, is it?

 

[edwest2]

It goes both ways. If you would stop calling people “sickos”, “miscreants” or “deviants” they would have no problem with you.

Your religious liberty is untouched. No one forces you to participate in acts you don’t like. Remember the bumper sticker? “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”.

Your religious beliefs are yours to hold. No one tries to force you to change them, or stop to live by them. It is you who wishes to interfere with other people’s values.

Yes, it is most unfortunate that your rudeness is propagated to your children. Poor kids to have such a parent, who is filled with hate. The sad thing is that so far none of your brethren stood up against your hate-filled words.

Hate, the be all and end all of every irrational conversation. Keep it up and you will get nowhere.

What standards do non-theists hold? Every man for himself?

Sorry. You are posting in the wrong place if you think the magic word hate justifies your position.

We don’t need to hear your blanket accusation or about your non-standards.

What we have on our side is natural human biology and the fact that rational human beings can, and do control their sexual urges, including some gay people who have posted on this site. Anybody, gay or straight, who is deviating from a natural bodily function designed for having babies and using chemicals or devices or other methods of circumventing that natural function so people can have lots and lots and lots of orgasms - That, is a dictionary definition of deviant, and it applies to gays and straights equally.

Why do you need our permission to do what you want? WHY? That’s irrational. But at the same time, we are 100% uninterested in what YOU do until it gets shoved in our face, until our kids get exposed to gay sex is OK in schools paid for by tax dollars, until I see it at the ballot box. BECAUSE UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN THAT - LEAVE US ALONE.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/01/cardinal-urges-illinois-catholics-to-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

nydailynews.com/news/world/catholic-archbishops-england-battle-gay-marriage-article-1.1230476

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251728/Pope-Benedict-XVI-denounces-gay-marriage-Christmas-message.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

Do they now? Does the material contain how-to type of instructions, or simply states that if Heather has two mommies it is not “sicko”, “deviant” and “pervert”?

It does not affect your life. It does not affect your value system. It does not interfere with the internal workings of your institutions. It does interfere with the part which interacts with the outside world (insurance, etc), that is for sure. If you don’t like it, resist, and when it will cause you to lose your tax-exempt status, you can only blame yourself.

The US is quite different. I do not agree with the concept of “hate crime”, no matter who is singled out. Nevertheless, simply look back to the times when the first homosexuals came out from the closet. There was no word about marriage at that time. Yet the rhetoric was the same. Full of hate. Yes, they learned from YOU. Not fun to be the receiving end, is it?

You live in the past and hope that no one will notice that homoexuality would be pretty much ignored if the activists didn’t insist on pushing agenda on those who do not share it. Believe it or not, very very very few Americans give a rat’s patooty what you do in your bedroom. But very very very few Americans want to hear about it, have it taught in schools, or legislated into every corner of our lives.

If homosexuals were satisfied to simply “live and let live” you would find a lot less hostility. Americans particularly are willing to judge people as individuals, not as members of any sort of group whether by race, sex, faith, or occupation. Supposedly “enlightened” Europe still has a sort of caste mentality. In fact one of Dinesh D’Souza’s comments about why Europe pretends to disdain America is that we DON"T put labels on people, that one can succeed here without being born to the right parents in the right city or go to the right schools. I think we were termed “a nation of shopkeepers.” We don’t have royalty (although we do enjoy watching yours) and most Americans are pretty much happy to let people be what they want to be.

However homosexual activists are NOT content with simply being able to live in peace. They seem obsessed with demanding that we accept their behavior, that we pretend it’s the same as normal heterosexual marriage, and that we start indoctrinating the next generation a year or so after they graduate from diapers. That’s what I object to, not that you love Bill instead of Suzy or that Joe is the one designated to visit you in the hospital or is the beneficiary of your life insurance.

Remember Ann Landers comment, “stick to your own knitting.” IOW Farien, mind your own business and let us live OUR lives as we wish.

Lisa

 

[edwest2]

To Farien -

I hope you will forgive my harsh tone in post # 266, but labeling entire groups as responsible for the actions of a few is not a good idea. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying all black people are lazy or no good, or Hispanics, or assigning other negative labels to other groups because of the actions of a few.

A few years ago, in a very, very sad example, a white man chained a black man to his pickup truck and dragged him to his death. The police didn’t round up all white men in that town, just the one responsible. Assigning blame to everyone in a group ignores the fact that those responsible for hateful words and actions bear the blame, not the entire group.

As I grew up during the late 1950s and 1960s, I learned there were men and women who were attracted to the same sex. I didn’t think any hateful thoughts. And my friends never, ever even considered the idea of taunting or bullying a gay person. In the 1970s, a gay bar opened in my neighborhood, but I didn’t make it a point to see who went in or feel negatively about it. I could care less about what went on inside.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Slavonic]

Your first sentence is entirely lacking in logic or meaning. “Natural” is used to promote homosexuality in that it occurs in nature. That it occurs is neither good or bad, it just IS. So no you can’t conclude that attraction to the opposite sex is “bad” because it’s natural. However, basic biology would indicate that since the only way for a species to survive is to procreate, therefore even a dispassionate scientist would consider opposite sex attraction positive with respect to its impact on the species.

I didn’t use the word “bad” I said “not good,” which does not necessarily mean bad. Also, note the phrase starting with the word “by” that qualifies the statement.

As to your theory about repressed Catholics talking about sex, if you are on a thread that refers to homosexuals, since that is their stated identification (sexual practices) of course it’s going to be about sexual matters. I am sure if you find this talk disturbing you can find a LOT of non-sexual threads and subjects.

Sexual practices are not the same as sexual orientation. LGBT identity does not rest on sexual practices. Straight identity does not rest on sexual practices. Both are much bigger than the acts that are carried out by people of those orientations. So, one cannot say that the stated identity of ‘homosexuals’ is sexual practices.

 

[edwest2]

I didn’t use the word “bad” I said “not good,” which does not necessarily mean bad. Also, note the phrase starting with the word “by” that qualifies the statement.

Sexual practices are not the same as sexual orientation. LGBT identity does not rest on sexual practices. Straight identity does not rest on sexual practices. Both are much bigger than the acts that are carried out by people of those orientations. So, one cannot say that the stated identity of ‘homosexuals’ is sexual practices.

The topic is not orientation but practices.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

I didn’t use the word “bad” I said “not good,” which does not necessarily mean bad. Also, note the phrase starting with the word “by” that qualifies the statement.

Sexual practices are not the same as sexual orientation. LGBT identity does not rest on sexual practices. Straight identity does not rest on sexual practices. Both are much bigger than the acts that are carried out by people of those orientations. So, one cannot say that the stated identity of ‘homosexuals’ is sexual practices.

Yes I can state this as the reality. There is NOTHING other than sexual orientation that identifies a homosexual. Perhaps it was overstated to say practices as some with SSA do not act out on those urges. OTOH other than what you do or want to do in your bedroom, how do you self identify? Everything surrounding the homosexual agenda is based on well…sex. The special laws, the special rights, the special protections, the special days set aside in schools, the curricula regarding this groups is all based on their sexual desires, acts or wants.

It’s so very very small and such an unimportant characteristic when considering the whole person. Why homosexual activists base their entire lives around such a small and insignificant part of their life is a mystery to me.

Lisa

 

[Farien]

Anybody, gay or straight, who is deviating from a natural bodily function designed for having babies and using chemicals or devices or other methods of circumventing that natural function so people can have lots and lots and lots of orgasms

The natural function makes it possible to have children, but there is no reason to restrict it to having children. (Your mouth is “designed” for eating, but you can use it for kissing and singing, and talking… are they “perversions”?) It is biology 101 that in all the greater apes the function of procreation and the pleasure-giving act can happen independently. In all the other animals they are restricted to the time of the estrus. You see, if you wish to argue biology, it is useful to know what you are talking about.

BECAUSE UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN THAT - LEAVE US ALONE.

Interesting. This is precisely what those “sickos” want.

 

[Farien]

To Farien -

I hope you will forgive my harsh tone in post # 266, but labeling entire groups as responsible for the actions of a few is not a good idea. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying all black people are lazy or no good, or Hispanics, or assigning other negative labels to other groups because of the actions of a few.

I was very careful, and explictly made sure that I only talk about those people who “declare” themselves to be part of this specific “group”. Not all believers, not all christians, not all catholics… only the “die-hard”, “ultra-conservative” ones, who actually use those words. If you do not belong to them, my words were not directed to you.

But, don’t worry about my sensibilities. Thank you for your explanation, but my skin can endure a little heat in “kitchen”.

 

[_Abyssinia]

How Same-Sex Marriage Suffocates Freedom (Part I)

crisismagazine.com/2013/how-same-sex-marriage-sufficates-freedom-part-i

How Same-Sex Marriage Suffocates Freedom (Part II)

crisismagazine.com/2013/how-same-sex-marriage-suffocates-freedom-part-ii

 

[LisaA]

The natural function makes it possible to have children, but there is no reason to restrict it to having children. (Your mouth is “designed” for eating, but you can use it for kissing and singing, and talking… are they “perversions”?) It is biology 101 that in all the greater apes the function of procreation and the pleasure-giving act can happen independently. In all the other animals they are restricted to the time of the estrus. You see, if you wish to argue biology, it is useful to know what you are talking about.

Interesting. This is precisely what those “sickos” want.

Don’t be obtuse. You know perfectly well that EdWest wasn’t referring to kissing or singing as a perversion. But hey nice try.

As to great apes or other animals engaging in sexual activity, so what? They also throw poop, scratch their scrotums and pick each others’ fur in public. Not sure that’s the best analogy to draw. We ARE different from other mammals. That they engage in a particular behavior simply IS, not anything to support your theories that homosexuality is normal.

I believe the “sicko” comments are reference to the insistence on engaging elementary school children in the homosexual agenda. I agree,that IS sick. Little children wouldn’t have the context to ask the question about why Heather has two mommies or why Billy’s daddy lives with a man instead of Billy’s mother…UNLESS someone made it an issue. Hopefully children can maintain innocence until they truly have a need to know.

Lisa

 

[Farien]

Don’t be obtuse. You know perfectly well that EdWest wasn’t referring to kissing or singing as a perversion.

That is the problem. He should have. He attemped to bring up a secular argument about the “designed” or “intended” usage of certain organs. If that argument would be valid, it would be also applicable to the “mouth”, which is “intended” to be used for eating… And just as the usage of the mouth and the tongue is “valid” in a non-eating context, the sexual organs can be used validly in a non-procreating context.

No one denies that one of the valid uses of those organs is procreation. Biologically, however, the procreation is not logically necessary when using those organs. It is perfectly valid (biologically speaking) to use those organs and bypass the procreative aspect. If you wish to argue against it based on a theological ground, be my guest.

As to great apes or other animals engaging in sexual activity, so what?

You miss the significance (obviously). Those beings are not “moral” agents, they act according to their biological nature. Therefore it is not a “biological imperative” to use those organs ONLY in a procreative context. Savvy? You are most welcome to argue based upon some theology, but you should argue based upon “biology”, if you know biology. Ed obviously did not.

 

[fix]

Don’t be obtuse. You know perfectly well that EdWest wasn’t referring to kissing or singing as a perversion. But hey nice try.

Dealing with materialists limits the debate. Morality and logic cannot apply. Basically anything goes simply because it can be done.