Gay marriage : who cares?

[LittleSoldier]

I never said you or anyone else here was slacking on the abortion issue. I never mentioned it at all in any context. All I ever said was that no one appeared willing to even state in principal that they would be willing to take any serious steps toward a legislative restriction of easy divorce or other hetero violations of natural law comparable to those you propose to force on gays. For nearly all of this long exhange, no has even been willing to say that we should hold hetero people to natural laws in the SAME way we want to do so for gays.

You and others have said they are personally opposed to the bad things hetero folks do. People have said they pray the rosary, do their bit to speak about it in a private capacity, but no one was willing to step a millimeter toward what I suggested. No one even said "yes, we ought to press for similar laws for straight folks, EVEN if they have little chance of success and are unpopular politically. Instead, people ridiculed the very idea of doing so, for reasons I still don’t understand. I had figured a bunch of conservative Catholics would have welcomed the chance to show that they’re willing to do the right thing on principle, even if it teed off society at large. But no one did. Instead, they gave me a lot of noise for even suggesting the concept.

I’m not sure where Henry VIII figures into it either. I’m not his defender or attorney or golfing buddy. I don’t approve of what he did. It does illustrate that Catholics, in the past had the backbone to give their lives for their belief in natural law. But their sacrifice doesn’t cover you for all time on the matter. I have as much right to question the consistency of your words and actions as anyone else. As Catholics, you propose to hold the whole world to a rather exacting moral standard. I think it’s entirely fair game to shine a light on whether you also hold yourselves to that standard in word AND deed. And when you do, I give credit where it is due. And on this particular issue, I’ve set the bar pretty low. You don’t have to risk execution in Henry’s dungeons. If you do pretty much anything of substance to lift a finger against hetero natural law violators in the legal and policy arena, you’re being consistent when you move to do the same with gays.

The reason you got “a lot of noise” is that you insulted the Catholic Church; you insulted our Faith. When that happens Catholics defend their Church. As they should. If you had shown respect you might have gotten respect in return.

You have come on this forum as though you are someone so important that you can call us hypocrites because we don’t give an answer to your questions that pleases you. I don’t care where you set the bar. I don’t care if you give credit where you think it is due. You aren’t a teacher and this isn’t school where someone gets a gold star for being good. To be blunt, you are extremely egotistical and you should be happy that some people have actually taken the time to respond to your posts. You made it clear to me when I read your statement above: “I think it’s entirely fair game…” - a little Freudian slip there? I do believe this is a game to you. But it’s not a game to us. Our souls and your soul and the souls of every single human being are on the line.

We don’t have to meet your criteria. We don’t have to please you. We are trying to tell you what the Church teaches and what the Church is doing about social problems. Right now the number one issue is abortion for reasons I have already stated: divorce and adultery mean nothing to a dead baby.

It’s not up to you to decide what is appropriate action. The Church doesn’t need your approval.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It’s certainly not meant to be insulting. It’s a counterpoint to the ludicrous assertion raised by somebody a while ago which said that young men “turn gay” because it’s the only way to get sex on demand. That idea is absurdly misinformed about the state of relations among men and women these days. I’m simply saying that IF promiscuity is one’s motivation, there’s no earthly reason you would have to seek out same sex encounters if you aren’t already inclined in that direction. For better or worse, women, on average, are not all that reserved these days.

Nor do I imply that I’m some Don Juan. Quite the opposite. If a schmo like me can do as well as I do, that’s living proof that nobody “turns gay” just to have more sex. My only “game” is listening to women and treating them all as if they are a true gift to my life. Some of them are platonic friends of mine, many are lovers. I don’t manipulate them to get anything they don’t already want. Are there still plent of women who take a very traditional approach to sex and marriage? Of course, and bully for them. As to the masturbation point, I’m neither proud nor ashamed. I merely note that it didn’t turn me gay, as the one poster suggested it would.

I apologize for misreading your post. I also responded to the post you referenced - see post 711 if you’re interested.

I’m having a lot of problems understanding you. At this point I really don’t know if you’re an egomaniac or an honest person seeking answers. It’s hard to read people on the Internet. I can’t seem to figure out where you are coming from. I’m not trying to be uncharitable. But I don’t understand…I just don’t understand. In a way I want to delete my previous post but I’m going to let it stand. I’m just not sure if it’s accurate anymore. It’s late and I can’t think straight right now. Maybe things will be more clear in the morning. Heck, it’s already morning!!

If I’ve read you wrong I apologize. I’m a revert and I love God so much that I want to fight when I feel someone is not showing respect to Him. I can guarantee that I would gladly give my life for God. Sometimes I wish I had the chance. I don’t think you can understand that, like I can’t understand you being a pagan. I just want you to see my side so much and I don’t think you will or can or something. I just don’t know. I don’t want you to go to hell. I don’t want anyone to go to hell. I am frightened for you, although I don’t think you seriously mean you would choose hell over heaven. I hope you wouldn’t.

 

[Santi2]

And guess what, this battle over gay “marriage” is one that we just might win. Why?? Because this brand of sexual activity is repugnant to other faiths. We won’t be fighting this one alone.

We will win this one. For the reason that you have stated. Also, reforming the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is political suicide for those in Parliament who attempt to dismantle traditional marriage only for the benefit of the gay community and none other. Being that the Civil Partnership Act discriminate, I will not be surprised if cohabiting heterosexual couples throw in their support against reform as well.

 

[CradleCath]

It’s certainly not meant to be insulting. It’s a counterpoint to the ludicrous assertion raised by somebody a while ago which said that young men “turn gay” because it’s the only way to get sex on demand. That idea is absurdly misinformed about the state of relations among men and women these days. I’m simply saying that IF promiscuity is one’s motivation, there’s no earthly reason you would have to seek out same sex encounters if you aren’t already inclined in that direction. For better or worse, women, on average, are not all that reserved these days.

Nor do I imply that I’m some Don Juan. Quite the opposite. If a schmo like me can do as well as I do, that’s living proof that nobody “turns gay” just to have more sex. My only “game” is listening to women and treating them all as if they are a true gift to my life. Some of them are platonic friends of mine,** many are lovers**. I don’t manipulate them to get anything they don’t already want. Are there still plent of women who take a very traditional approach to sex and marriage? Of course, and bully for them. As to the masturbation point, I’m neither proud nor ashamed. I merely note that it didn’t turn me gay, as the one poster suggested it would.

While I agree with you that masturbation will not “turn someone gay”, I believe that it can be addictive, thus doing much harm to a marriage. I can also see something that you seem unable to see. Masturbation is not the purpose of the sexual organs that were given to us. It is not done to bring closeness with a wife, nor to bring about a child. It is narcissistic…bringing pleasure to ONE person.

From the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

Doing so is committing a sin against the Holy Ghost…resisting Truth & Good. “Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”

 

[kenofken]

I apologize for misreading your post. I also responded to the post you referenced - see post 711 if you’re interested.

I’m having a lot of problems understanding you. At this point I really don’t know if you’re an egomaniac or an honest person seeking answers. It’s hard to read people on the Internet. I can’t seem to figure out where you are coming from. I’m not trying to be uncharitable. But I don’t understand…I just don’t understand. In a way I want to delete my previous post but I’m going to let it stand. I’m just not sure if it’s accurate anymore. It’s late and I can’t think straight right now. Maybe things will be more clear in the morning. Heck, it’s already morning!!

If I’ve read you wrong I apologize. I’m a revert and I love God so much that I want to fight when I feel someone is not showing respect to Him. I can guarantee that I would gladly give my life for God. Sometimes I wish I had the chance. I don’t think you can understand that, like I can’t understand you being a pagan. I just want you to see my side so much and I don’t think you will or can or something. I just don’t know. I don’t want you to go to hell. I don’t want anyone to go to hell. I am frightened for you, although I don’t think you seriously mean you would choose hell over heaven. I hope you wouldn’t.

I like to think I’m not an egomaniac. If I was, I’d have risen up the corporate ladder by now. I would say I’m someone with a very different perspective than most of the posters here. I come here to understand different viewpoints, and, at times to debate them. I have no delusions of converting anyone to my side, nor do I want any converts. I have no desire to change the Church’s positions to my will, but I am also not sworn to believe them on faith in its authority alone. Nor must I respect shabby logic or gaping inconsistencies in moral reasoning when they are used to advance an argument.

I come here partly to understand my own faith in the light of a different one. It makes me a better apologist, you might say, although we pagans don’t do apologetics for the same reason as you. Certainly no one is bound to pay my postings any notice. On the other hand, the challenges I raise to your positions are pretty standard fare of the world. If no one can come up with reaonable answers to the stuff I bring up, you’re not going to be able to convince anyone else in the world with tough questions about your faith - like your own kids, for starters.

There’s no simple way to explain to you why I’m pagan, except to say that it brings me the same sense of joy and profound sense of being “at home” as your faith does for you.
I may have more perspective on your side of things than you realize. I was raised Catholic, grade school, high school, the whole bit. Earned the Boy Scouts Ad Altare Dei, was even considered by some to be a potential candidate for the seminary at one time. (They were partly right, I DID, after all, become a priest)!

Do I want to go to hell? Not especially. My whole cosmology doesn’t involve heaven or hell in the Judeo-Christian sense. I raised that whole point as a response to some very ugly and un-Christ-like sentiments expressed by another poster. You may not realize it, but people who represent their faith like that have done more to drive people from Christianity than any militant atheist could ever dream of doing. And I still would rather spend eternity in hell than with people like that. At least those in hell don’t dress their hate up as love.

 

[Abu]

kenofken
the Church’s positions….I am also not sworn to believe them on faith in its authority alone.

The authority of Christ’s Church comes from the Christ who claimed to be God and proved His claim by His Resurrection, so declared defectors with inability to reason from the natural moral law and committed to oppose Her teaching are unsuited to offer truth based on reason from cause to effect.

The usual platitude is raised again – “un-Christ-like sentiments expressed”. The originator of this wishy-washy perennial complaint continues to evade the intensity of Christ’s determination to condemn the attitude of selfism and arrogance:
To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51). Apologist Frank Sheed remarks of Christ: “He seems not to have spread Himself to win affection.” (Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42).

“With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it. On the multitude, however, ‘He had compassion, for they were helpless and harassed like sheep without a shepherd.’ Yet one wonders how He showed it: for they too had to have the truth. His settled habit was terseness of speech.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

There is ample evidence of the fact of the natural moral law, and the fact that pagans, Ancient Egyptians, Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.), Roman jurists, Sodom and Gomorrah, attest to it, and to the fact that it must be followed or the consequences must be paid, plus the simple steps that show the immorality of sodomy, the disorder of the homosexual, and the success of reparative therapy programs that enable many so afflicted to lead a normal life.

But subject to no higher power, we are all just animals, and the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure – no permanent moral principles which transcend the practical and technical order – the pagans of today can be no friends of the pagans of Cicero’s day.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I like to think I’m not an egomaniac. If I was, I’d have risen up the corporate ladder by now. I would say I’m someone with a very different perspective than most of the posters here. I come here to understand different viewpoints, and, at times to debate them. I have no delusions of converting anyone to my side, nor do I want any converts. I have no desire to change the Church’s positions to my will, but I am also not sworn to believe them on faith in its authority alone. Nor must I respect shabby logic or gaping inconsistencies in moral reasoning when they are used to advance an argument.

Well of course you have a different perspective! You’re on a Catholic forum!!
I come here partly to understand my own faith in the light of a different one. It makes me a better apologist, you might say, although we pagans don’t do apologetics for the same reason as you. Certainly no one is bound to pay my postings any notice. On the other hand, the challenges I raise to your positions are pretty standard fare of the world. If no one can come up with reaonable answers to the stuff I bring up, you’re not going to be able to convince anyone else in the world with tough questions about your faith - like your own kids, for starters.

There’s no simple way to explain to you why I’m pagan, except to say that it brings me the same sense of joy and profound sense of being “at home” as your faith does for you.
I may have more perspective on your side of things than you realize. I was raised Catholic, grade school, high school, the whole bit. Earned the Boy Scouts Ad Altare Dei, was even considered by some to be a potential candidate for the seminary at one time. (They were partly right, I DID, after all, become a priest)!

Do I want to go to hell? Not especially. My whole cosmology doesn’t involve heaven or hell in the Judeo-Christian sense. I raised that whole point as a response to some very ugly and un-Christ-like sentiments expressed by another poster. You may not realize it, but people who represent their faith like that have done more to drive people from Christianity than any militant atheist could ever dream of doing. And I still would rather spend eternity in hell than with people like that. At least those in hell don’t dress their hate up as love.

 

[colmcille1]

Do I want to go to hell? Not especially. My whole cosmology doesn’t involve heaven or hell in the Judeo-Christian sense. I raised that whole point as a response to some very ugly and un-Christ-like sentiments expressed by another poster. You may not realize it, but people who represent their faith like that have done more to drive people from Christianity than any militant atheist could ever dream of doing. And I still would rather spend eternity in hell than with people like that. At least those in hell don’t dress their hate up as love.

Hi kenofken,
May I suggest that you read the above very carefully, very slowly, and ponder upon it.
Your “whole cosmology doesen’t involve heaven*(sic)* or hell” and yet you then go on to contemplate spending “eternity in hell”??? And not only that, but you know the mindset of “those in hell” because they “don’t dress their hate up as love”???

This is self-serving muddled thought.
Obviously I can’t include my usual sign-off because you do not believe in Him.

 

[ManOnFire]

It turns out guys are gay because they like to masturbate, then they learn that other guys are happy to give them a hand job, which leads to a dislike of women with all their complexities in order to get sex from women?

I stated “some” men. Maybe you’ve heard of straight men who have been locked up in jail for long periods of time who are tired and bored with masturbation, but seek brain pleasurism, who finally give in to homosexual sex for something different.

A friend tells the story of a homosexual man in a jail in Washington State who will give a bag of potato chips (a luxury) to men who will allow this man to perform oral sex on them. The receiver of the oral sex also receives the bag of chips. This is not a give-and-take exchange. It’s a bribe for an act where the audience is captive and it’s easier to take advantage of the brain’s innate desire to be pleasured.

Boys who are sexually abused as children are more likely to get caught up in this lifestyle. A certain politician has made some strong insinuations about his younger years. Decide for yourself.

The Human Gene Project was completed and no gene for sexuality, whether hetero or homo, was found. “Homosexuality is not hardwired,” concludes head of the Human Genome Project…tldm.org/News10/HomosexualityNotHardwired.htm
“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations [emphasis added].” “The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism!”

This research studied identical twin males, one of which is homosexual. Keep in mind that identical twins have all of the EXACT same genes. If homosexuality is purely genetic, then 100% of the second of the male twins should also be homosexual. But the research found only 20% of the second male twins were homosexual. So, 80% of the second twins were not homosexual, which is a strong argument against a genetic component. This is what the research is saying.

Personality profiling has shown that 25% of the population is Peaceful, meaning they are more likely to say things like “Aw, it’s not bothering anybody else. Just let it be.” Peacefuls would rather be passive and avoid any and all conflict. This means that once public opinion can be influenced by the unelected media’s microphones, then only an additional 26% need to be swayed to reach a majority. Just sayin. We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media.

Homosexuality can be voluntary or involuntary. So, is it seen as a problem by homosexuals, or not? We The People can’t see it both ways. Which is it? Who determines this? We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media. The more important philosophical question might be “Is it possible for heterosexuals and homosexuals to achieve a nirvana?” I have my doubts.

 

[tjm190]

Not I

 

[PassingThru]

I stated “some” men.

OK, fine. You made a completely ignorant and ludicrous statement about some gay men, instead of most or all. How could I have been so blind.

Maybe you’ve heard of straight men who have been locked up in jail for long periods of time who are tired and bored with masturbation, but seek brain pleasurism, who finally give in to homosexual sex for something different.

Being locked up for decades makes men do all sorts of things, this is true. How is this related to anything we are discussing, or anything you said earlier?

A friend tells the story of a homosexual man in a jail in Washington State who will give a bag of potato chips (a luxury) to men who will allow this man to perform oral sex on them. The receiver of the oral sex also receives the bag of chips. This is not a give-and-take exchange. It’s a bribe for an act where the audience is captive and it’s easier to take advantage of the brain’s innate desire to be pleasured.

“A friend tells of a story…” Wow, can’t argue with that kind of iron-clad source!!! You literally have me chuckling at my screen now! As to your point, whatever it may be. Men in prison exchange sex acts for good and services? Wow, you really uncovered a huge secret with that one. I would write a research paper on that, I bet you are the first to learn of such things.

Boys who are sexually abused as children are more likely to get caught up in this lifestyle. A certain politician has made some strong insinuations about his younger years. Decide for yourself.

I think everyone is aware that being sexually assaulted at a young age causes both boys and girls to cope by doing all sorts of self destructive behavior. I could care less about a politician.

The Human Gene Project was completed and no gene for sexuality, whether hetero or homo, was found. “Homosexuality is not hardwired,” concludes head of the Human Genome Project…tldm.org/News10/HomosexualityNotHardwired.htm
“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations [emphasis added].” “The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism!”

This research studied identical twin males, one of which is homosexual. Keep in mind that identical twins have all of the EXACT same genes. If homosexuality is purely genetic, then 100% of the second of the male twins should also be homosexual. But the research found only 20% of the second male twins were homosexual. So, 80% of the second twins were not homosexual, which is a strong argument against a genetic component. This is what the research is saying.

Who are you talking to at this point? No one even brought up genetics? Are you just yelling all your talking points hoping something is relevant to the conversation? Fine, no gene.

You said boys become gay because they like to get hand jobs in bathrooms from other men, then decide that getting sex from women is too hard (women are complicated, after all) so they then become/stay gay. Your assertion, not mine.

Personality profiling has shown that 25% of the population is Peaceful, meaning they are more likely to say things like “Aw, it’s not bothering anybody else. Just let it be.” Peacefuls would rather be passive and avoid any and all conflict. This means that once public opinion can be influenced by the unelected media’s microphones, then only an additional 26% need to be swayed to reach a majority. Just sayin. We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media.

OK, let me go fashion you a tin hat.

Homosexuality can be voluntary or involuntary. So, is it seen as a problem by homosexuals, or not? We The People can’t see it both ways. Which is it? Who determines this? We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media.

So, you want gays to see that it is voluntary that they are gay, so that you can hold them responsible? And, your opinion is that “We the People” get to determine for them that it is indeed voluntary? But right now the media is determining this? Wow.

The more important philosophical question might be “Is it possible for heterosexuals and homosexuals to achieve a nirvana?” I have my doubts.

And, at the end of the day, you think it is irrelevant, because you do not think it is possible for you to accept and live comfortably with gays as equals if they choose to live and accept there sexuality?

Really, your chains of thoughts on this are excellent. I would implore you to continue adding to your thoughts you have posted so far. The more you explain, the better it becomes. Seriously, please continue with further, detailed explanations.

Or, maybe I can provide some other topics you could expound on, like womens rights or race relations. I am sure they are just as good!

 

[kenofken]

I stated “some” men. Maybe you’ve heard of straight men who have been locked up in jail for long periods of time who are tired and bored with masturbation, but seek brain pleasurism, who finally give in to homosexual sex for something different.

A friend tells the story of a homosexual man in a jail in Washington State who will give a bag of potato chips (a luxury) to men who will allow this man to perform oral sex on them. The receiver of the oral sex also receives the bag of chips. This is not a give-and-take exchange. It’s a bribe for an act where the audience is captive and it’s easier to take advantage of the brain’s innate desire to be pleasured.

Boys who are sexually abused as children are more likely to get caught up in this lifestyle. A certain politician has made some strong insinuations about his younger years. Decide for yourself.

The Human Gene Project was completed and no gene for sexuality, whether hetero or homo, was found. “Homosexuality is not hardwired,” concludes head of the Human Genome Project…tldm.org/News10/HomosexualityNotHardwired.htm
“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations [emphasis added].” “The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism!”

This research studied identical twin males, one of which is homosexual. Keep in mind that identical twins have all of the EXACT same genes. If homosexuality is purely genetic, then 100% of the second of the male twins should also be homosexual. But the research found only 20% of the second male twins were homosexual. So, 80% of the second twins were not homosexual, which is a strong argument against a genetic component. This is what the research is saying.

Personality profiling has shown that 25% of the population is Peaceful, meaning they are more likely to say things like “Aw, it’s not bothering anybody else. Just let it be.” Peacefuls would rather be passive and avoid any and all conflict. This means that once public opinion can be influenced by the unelected media’s microphones, then only an additional 26% need to be swayed to reach a majority. Just sayin. We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media.

Homosexuality can be voluntary or involuntary. So, is it seen as a problem by homosexuals, or not? We The People can’t see it both ways. Which is it? Who determines this? We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media. The more important philosophical question might be “Is it possible for heterosexuals and homosexuals to achieve a nirvana?” I have my doubts.

There is no serious body of scientific work which shows that people who identify as gay got that way because of masturbation, the complexities of dealing with women or indidental same-sex behaivior. Nobody “turns gay” in prison unless they had that inclination to begin with. People will do all sorts of things for external motivations- ie intimidation or money that they wouldn’t do normally on their own. A very high percentage of male strippers and even male porn actors are straight, or primarily so, in their private lives.

We have not found a “gay gene” because very few traits in human beings are determined by a single gene. Outside of a very small handful of genetic conditions such as sickle cell disease, most of what happens with us is “multi-factorial” influenced by a number of genes and environmental factors. There is no reason we would ever expect to find something as complex as sexuality determined by a single gene. The fact that we haven’t found one in no way can be reasonably interpreted to mean that sexual identity is all just an elective “lifestyle.”

The identical twin studies certainly do suggest a stronger genetic link than you indicate. Yes, identical twins have identical genotypes, but we would NEVER expect them to be 100% identical phenotypically - ie the traits which are the expression of those genes. Twins are phenotypically more similar than pairs of other people, but they are never identical. They don’t have the same fingerprints, for example. There are very significant differences in how their genes are expressed, and that difference grows as they age, especially during the developmental years in which sexuality is determined. So the upshot is that sexuality is certainly determined in strong part by genetics, but also by environment.

We will probably never know for sure which influence is predominant in any one person, and very few people are 100% straight or 100% gay by inclination. How they act on it, is of course a matter of personal choice. The gayest man alive can choose to be celibate or can marry a woman, and the straight men can have lots of same-sex contact for reasons which have nothing to do with their natural inclination. Unless somebody can produce compelling reasons why it’s the state’s businesss, it doesn’t matter either way.

 

[ManOnFire]

OK, fine. You made a completely ignorant and ludicrous statement about some gay men, instead of most or all. How could I have been so blind.

You say my comment is ignorant and ludicrous, then you admit that you missed the operative word, then you agree that what I said is true of “some” men. Do you see what you just did?

Being locked up for decades makes men do all sorts of things, this is true. How is this related to anything we are discussing, or anything you said earlier?
“A friend tells of a story…” Wow, can’t argue with that kind of iron-clad source!!! You literally have me chuckling at my screen now! As to your point, whatever it may be. Men in prison exchange sex acts for good and services? Wow, you really uncovered a huge secret with that one. I would write a research paper on that, I bet you are the first to learn of such things.
Methinks you missed the point. Man #1 offered to GIVE the bag of chips to man #2, who is straight, ONLY if man #2 ALLOWED man #1 to perform oral sex on man #2. There was no exchange. Man #1 gave the chips to Man #2 as a condition of Man #2 allowing Man #1 to give oral sex to man #2.

I think everyone is aware that being sexually assaulted at a young age causes both boys and girls to cope by doing all sorts of self destructive behavior. I could care less about a politician.
The point is that once a gasm is had, the allure might be there.

Who are you talking to at this point? No one even brought up genetics? Are you just yelling all your talking points hoping something is relevant to the conversation? Fine, no gene.

You said boys become gay because they like to get hand jobs in bathrooms from other men, then decide that getting sex from women is too hard (women are complicated, after all) so they then become/stay gay. Your assertion, not mine.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that “some” young men get bored, look for something kinky, and happen upon an encounter, then become hooked to pursuit ot the gasm.

OK, let me go fashion you a tin hat.

So, you want gays to see that it is voluntary that they are gay, so that you can hold them responsible? And, your opinion is that “We the People” get to determine for them that it is indeed voluntary? But right now the media is determining this? QUOTE]

Some militant lesbianism is certainly voluntary. In “some” individuals, fear and intolerance of the opposite sex is voluntary. As far as those who have felt this way for a long time and don’t know why, there’s a REASON out there somewhere. We just don’t know enough about it yet. “Some” have had early sexual contact, then remain in this lifestyle. Justice is not served if the unelected media attempts to use their propaganda to sway public opinion against the will of the People when the facts are not known. The unelected liberal media is pushing an agenda. They might believe it is equal for political reasons.

Consider this: What if a non-genetic, early developmental cause is discovered some day after the marriage laws are changed? Let’s just say, hypothetically, that we discover that Sesame Street has actually been teaching xenophobia all these years with it’s “Which of these things is NOT like the other” skit. 2-4% of kids watching the show learn to judge the opposite sex as being “different” or icky. Or, “Maybe” the feminist movement of the 60s, 70s, and 80s caused some mothers to be rigidly militant in their views, did not realize the smothering control they were placing on their boys, in which case it’s only natural that a boy might not want to grow up and marry a woman if he had a negative experience if he assumed that women are this way. Then we give ourselves one big Duh open-handed slap on the forehead and change the influence. Now what? After years of having the marriage laws changed, now do we judge it to be a mistake and change the marriage laws back to the original because we inadvertently created a lifestyle where people can’t know the joys of falling in love and producing their own kids? My apologies if this is a difficult conversation. Or do we now, after learning the cause, leave marriage laws as is, too proud to change it back?

 

[PassingThru]

You say my comment is ignorant and ludicrous, then you admit that you missed the operative word, then you agree that what I said is true of “some” men. Do you see what you just did?

Your comment is indeed ignorant and ludicrous. I did miss that you said “some”. I did not, in any way, shape or form agree with your asinine statement. Please review my post. I was merely agreeing that you did indeed say “some” gay men, vs most or all gay men. But the statement was still every bit as dumb with or without the “some”.

Being locked up for decades makes men do all sorts of things, this is true. How is this related to anything we are discussing, or anything you said earlier?
“A friend tells of a story…” Wow, can’t argue with that kind of iron-clad source!!! You literally have me chuckling at my screen now! As to your point, whatever it may be. Men in prison exchange sex acts for good and services? Wow, you really uncovered a huge secret with that one. I would write a research paper on that, I bet you are the first to learn of such things.
Methinks you missed the point. Man #1 offered to GIVE the bag of chips to man #2, who is straight, ONLY if man #2 ALLOWED man #1 to perform oral sex on man #2. There was no exchange. Man #1 gave the chips to Man #2 as a condition of Man #2 allowing Man #1 to give oral sex to man #2.

I think everyone is aware that being sexually assaulted at a young age causes both boys and girls to cope by doing all sorts of self destructive behavior. I could care less about a politician.
The point is that once a gasm is had, the allure might be there.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that “some” young men get bored, look for something kinky, and happen upon an encounter, then become hooked to pursuit ot the gasm.

You have some very strange compulsion about orgasms and how men seek them out. Are you talking about “society” or yourself? Its very odd… And why can’t you even type the word “orgasm”? Really, its all very concerning.

Some militant lesbianism is certainly voluntary. In “some” individuals, fear and intolerance of the opposite sex is voluntary. As far as those who have felt this way for a long time and don’t know why, there’s a REASON out there somewhere. We just don’t know enough about it yet. “Some” have had early sexual contact, then remain in this lifestyle. Justice is not served if the unelected media attempts to use their propaganda to sway public opinion against the will of the People when the facts are not known. The unelected liberal media is pushing an agenda. They might believe it is equal for political reasons.

Consider this: What if a non-genetic, early developmental cause is discovered some day after the marriage laws are changed? Let’s just say, hypothetically, that we discover that Sesame Street has actually been teaching xenophobia all these years with it’s “Which of these things is NOT like the other” skit. 2-4% of kids watching the show learn to judge the opposite sex as being “different” or icky. Or, “Maybe” the feminist movement of the 60s, 70s, and 80s caused some mothers to be rigidly militant in their views, did not realize the smothering control they were placing on their boys, in which case it’s only natural that a boy might not want to grow up and marry a woman if he had a negative experience if he assumed that women are this way. Then we give ourselves one big Duh open-handed slap on the forehead and change the influence. Now what? After years of having the marriage laws changed, now do we judge it to be a mistake and change the marriage laws back to the original because we inadvertently created a lifestyle where people can’t know the joys of falling in love and producing their own kids? My apologies if this is a difficult conversation. Or do we now, after learning the cause, leave marriage laws as is, too proud to change it back?

Thank you again for answering my call to continue expounding on your thoughts. Your theory here is very sound. I am indeed interested in hearing more about this matter. Please, do continue…

 

[Abu]

Self-deception is rife. Why should any pairing unrelated to the procreation and fostering of children and the common good of mankind be supported or promoted as “marriage”?
See Why the world needs a renewed culture of marriage, Alan C. Carlson
catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0137.htm

The myth that homosexual relationships in general are qualitatively the same as heterosexual relationships — a myth that is crucial to the current push for legalization of same-sex “marriage” — is simply not borne out by the evidence.

 

[ManOnFire]

You have some very strange compulsion about orgasms and how men seek them out. Are you talking about “society” or yourself? Its very odd… And why can’t you even type the word “orgasm”? Really, its all very concerning.

Thank you again for answering my call to continue expounding on your thoughts. Your theory here is very sound. I am indeed interested in hearing more about this matter. Please, do continue…

It’s no secret that the brain craves pleasure. That explains addictions of all types. An attraction to the taboo or kinky can only make it worse. I typed gasm to tone it down just in case there are a few younger people on the board.

Maybe you are making fun of me. That’s ok. Some can appreciate outside the box thought for mere consideration. Others don’t.

BoboBob listed a site on another thread that explains the multifactorial nature of homosexuality. It was very thought-provoking. It seems interesting that “some” homosexual men had home situations where the father was either absent or passive, and mothers who were domineering and smothering for various reasons. It seems that “some” of the mothers of the feminist movement of the 60s, 70s, and 80s became rigidly militant in their views, did not realize the smothering control, lack of freedom, and possible disrespect for men that they were projecting on their boys, in which case it’s only natural that a boy might not want to grow up and marry a woman if he attached his mother’s persona to all women. It seems “some” parents, in their desire to direct the formation of their kids, squeeze too tightly, while allowing little to no freedom of individual expression, or unknowingly form the child against the child’s natural personality type. The result can be awkwardness or rebellion. It seems “some” mothers feel the full love and beauty of the life of Christ in the Church to the point that they want so badly for their kids to feel the same. They unknowingly squeeze too tightly in their efforts to instill the same in the child. This might drive some kids away from traditional family formation due to the attachment of feelings of overbearing control. Unfortunately, this is a lose-lose situation. The mom feels so much love and beauty, so it’s only natural to want to instill it in her kids. She has the best intentions. But the child can grow up feeling the crushing heavy weight of the mother’s high expectations. The boy attaches the heavy weight feeling to women, and naturally, would not want to marry one. Many of these boys grow up passionate about excellence due to the mom’s high expectations, but again, might not want to marry a woman due to the attachment that women might be defined as having an insatiable crushing weight of expectations “what do you want from me” style. Of course, all women are like this, so the challenge becomes trying to separate 20-40 years of his classical conditioning experience to realize that a different reality can exist, despite how unnatural it might feel at this time. Its’ unfortunate that the best of intentions can have such unintended results. Imagine how much healing can occur if we separate intentions from results and humble ourselves to heal and forgive our humanness. But humbling oneself feels like submission, which feels like the heavy weight of the parent’s expectations all over again, which causes a knee-jerk reaction to flee, so healing can’t occur due to this cycle of attached feelings. But it seems that humbling ourselves to heal and forgive our humanness is the way to understanding for some situations.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I like to think I’m not an egomaniac. If I was, I’d have risen up the corporate ladder by now. I would say I’m someone with a very different perspective than most of the posters here. I come here to understand different viewpoints, and, at times to debate them. I have no delusions of converting anyone to my side, nor do I want any converts. I have no desire to change the Church’s positions to my will, but I am also not sworn to believe them on faith in its authority alone. Nor must I respect shabby logic or gaping inconsistencies in moral reasoning when they are used to advance an argument.

Well, of course you have a different perspective!! This is a Catholic forum!! If you’re so happy with your religious position then why aren’t you trying to convert people to “your side”? I definitely want to convert you to my side because I care about your eternal happiness. It makes me somewhat sad that you don’t care enough about others here to try to teach them what has brought you so much happiness.

I come here partly to understand my own faith in the light of a different one. It makes me a better apologist, you might say, although we pagans don’t do apologetics for the same reason as you. Certainly no one is bound to pay my postings any notice. On the other hand, the challenges I raise to your positions are pretty standard fare of the world. If no one can come up with reaonable answers to the stuff I bring up, you’re not going to be able to convince anyone else in the world with tough questions about your faith - like your own kids, for starters.

Uh, I’m going to ask that you not bring up my children, for personal reasons. It would cause me much pain.

There’s no simple way to explain to you why I’m pagan, except to say that it brings me the same sense of joy and profound sense of being “at home” as your faith does for you.
I may have more perspective on your side of things than you realize. I was raised Catholic, grade school, high school, the whole bit. Earned the Boy Scouts Ad Altare Dei, was even considered by some to be a potential candidate for the seminary at one time. (They were partly right, I DID, after all, become a priest)!

You might be surprised to know that a lot of people here understand your side of things more than you think. Many of us were raised Catholic and left the Church to become agnostic, atheistic, Wiccan, pagan, etc. I did. At one time I was a socialist atheist. Or is that atheist socialist? It took the words of a monk who cared about me to bring me back home. My faith is weak at times but when I see my Church attacked there is nothing that will stop me from fighting for her - hence, my user name.

I find no humor in your being a pagan priest. I find it sad.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

Do I want to go to hell? Not especially. My whole cosmology doesn’t involve heaven or hell in the Judeo-Christian sense. I raised that whole point as a response to some very ugly and un-Christ-like sentiments expressed by another poster. You may not realize it, but people who represent their faith like that have done more to drive people from Christianity than any militant atheist could ever dream of doing. And I still would rather spend eternity in hell than with people like that. At least those in hell don’t dress their hate up as love.

OK, I’m glad we’re straight on that. You don’t really want to go to hell. So you lied in response to another poster. Why do that? Why not tell the truth? And how did that poster "dress up [his] hate as love? All he did was provide a theory of homosexuality, which is certainly his right to do. Also, your remarks about hell are rather strange - you make it sound akin to being asked if you want to go to a movie. You don’t want to go (“not especially”) but you do want to go if people like that poster are in heaven (and it is my fervant desire that he be in heaven, along with me and every other person). He had no ugly, un-Christ-like words of hate for homosexuals! It was a theory of how homosexuals become that way, not his position on whether we should love them. And as a Catholic I am sure he does love them as Catholics love everyone, even you.

I have to say that your “cosmology” means nothing when compared to Truth. Heaven and hell are not what we want them to be - they are what they are. You are either with God or you are not. That poster’s position was certainly way too simplistic. But as I recall, he was explaining his theory of how people become homosexual - not defending the Church. And what you are saying is that, based on one post by a person you probably don’t even know, you are willing to extrapolate a simplistic theory of homosexuality to the truth of Catholicism and to give up eternal joy and happiness to live eternity in horror and pain. That does not make sense. Aren’t you worth more than that? Can’t you see beyond these little posts to the soul of the person? Isn’t that poster worth more than that? You accuse another of being un-Christ-like with un-Christ-like words. Isn’t there something in the bible about a plank in one’s eye?

Of course I realize that people who misrepresent their faith do more to take people out of that faith than militant atheists. But that poster did not misrepresent the Church!! Most non-Catholics and ex-Catholics do not understand Catholicism or the Church. Fulton J. Sheen said it best (IMHO):

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church…As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.”

People who truly understand their Catholic faith do not leave. You left. Ergo, you did not truly understand your faith. That poster is in the true Church. You’re not. I would much rather be in his shoes than in yours.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I stated “some” men. Maybe you’ve heard of straight men who have been locked up in jail for long periods of time who are tired and bored with masturbation, but seek brain pleasurism, who finally give in to homosexual sex for something different.

A friend tells the story of a homosexual man in a jail in Washington State who will give a bag of potato chips (a luxury) to men who will allow this man to perform oral sex on them. The receiver of the oral sex also receives the bag of chips. This is not a give-and-take exchange. It’s a bribe for an act where the audience is captive and it’s easier to take advantage of the brain’s innate desire to be pleasured.

Boys who are sexually abused as children are more likely to get caught up in this lifestyle. A certain politician has made some strong insinuations about his younger years. Decide for yourself.

The Human Gene Project was completed and no gene for sexuality, whether hetero or homo, was found. “Homosexuality is not hardwired,” concludes head of the Human Genome Project…tldm.org/News10/HomosexualityNotHardwired.htm
“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations [emphasis added].” “The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism!”

This research studied identical twin males, one of which is homosexual. Keep in mind that identical twins have all of the EXACT same genes. If homosexuality is purely genetic, then 100% of the second of the male twins should also be homosexual. But the research found only 20% of the second male twins were homosexual. So, 80% of the second twins were not homosexual, which is a strong argument against a genetic component. This is what the research is saying.

Personality profiling has shown that 25% of the population is Peaceful, meaning they are more likely to say things like “Aw, it’s not bothering anybody else. Just let it be.” Peacefuls would rather be passive and avoid any and all conflict. This means that once public opinion can be influenced by the unelected media’s microphones, then only an additional 26% need to be swayed to reach a majority. Just sayin. We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media.

Homosexuality can be voluntary or involuntary. So, is it seen as a problem by homosexuals, or not? We The People can’t see it both ways. Which is it? Who determines this? We The People should determine this. Not the unelected media. The more important philosophical question might be “Is it possible for heterosexuals and homosexuals to achieve a nirvana?” I have my doubts.

Thank you for providing the cite. I apologize for my response to your post - I was uncharitable and I shouldn’t have said what I said.

 

[kenofken]

I don’t try to convert others because unlike most of the Abrahamic traditions, the validity of my faith is not contingent on every other human on the planet accepting it. I’m sure you would maintain that Christianity is not contingent on anything, but missionary faiths certainly behave as if that were the case. I do, from time to time, help others whose path takes them toward my own religion. I don’t try to sell it to strangers because to me, it would be an act of supreme arrogance to presume that my way is the ONLY valid way up the mountain. It was the right path for me, at the time I took it. It may or may not be the way up for you or anyone else. If it seems like it is, I’m happy to show you what I know.

You see faith for us is a very personal journey. It takes us into direct contact with our gods and goddesses and ourselves - our highest selves and the darkest aspect of ourselves. It is not mediated or filtered by theologions or bishops or prophets. Even in my role as priest, I merely perform a ceremonial role, helping to define a sacred space where intimate contact with deity is possible. There is no laity in our religion. We could argue all year long about whether that’s valid or not, but we both would be wasting our breath. But I present it so you understand where I’m coming from. You should also understand that for me, paganism is not a “phase” or something done in youthful rebellion. I had that in secular atheism for a number of years. Like you I then had a journey toward faith. I just ended up in a very different place. I was well into my 30s before I took the first concrete steps to where I am today.

I don’t buy the Abrahamic premise that the only alternatives are your truth or no truth at all. We don’t prescribe all people the same blood pressure pills because many benefit from it. We don’t mandate that all people become strict vegetarians and do yoga because some subset of the population does very well on that regimen. At the same time, we don’t consider that an abandoment to relativism. We don’t suppose that there is no objective guidelines to health simply because not everyone takes the same meds or eats the same things. Or take the issue of medical marijuana. The absolutist position of the state is that it is not appropriate medicine for anyone under any circumstances. Compassion and sense say that it is appropriate for some people and some conditions, yet also recognizes that it is not universally beneficial or the only valid medicine for the conditions it can treat.

I also don’t buy the old Bishop Sheen bit either. I don’t doubt that many people misunderstand Catholicism. On the other hand, I can’t conceive of anything more arrogant than what is implied by his statement and the liberal quotation of it on this forum. It seems to say that Catholicism is so self-evident that anyone not Catholic is by definition ignorant or insane. That is a form of reasoning which ultimately can lead nowhere else but genocide. As to my characterization of another poster’s comments, I stand by that. Perhaps we are talking about different people. It’s true you can’t know someone’s heart by an Internet post. It’s quite possible someone spoke out of the frustration of a bad day or misspoke. On the other hand, when I see consistently vicious and disparaging remarks from the same people day after day, I take that as a pretty accurate reflection of who and how they are.

I never fault people for disagreeing with me. I fully expect it here. However, I also see huge amounts of disparaging comments, statements that those who advocate differently from them are morally or mentally defective or just outright evil. That to me is not “tough love” or truth telling. It is gratuitous viciousness, and it is not at all reflective of anything credible I have ever read about the example of Jesus’ life. People on various threads here actually advocate that people like me should be declared enemies of the state and be put to death for our beliefs and practices. Not only does that go unchallenged, it is tacitly or openly supported to various degrees by many others. Can you imagine anyone getting away with suggesting a “final solution” for Catholics, or protestants or Jews? That’s the kind of mentality I deal with on this forum every day, to greater or lesser degrees by a solid majority (not all) of posters.

Where I come from, people and institutions are judged by what they reveal about themselves in day to day life, not the idealized words of their mission statements. How people speak and act toward me defines for me who they are. The real nature of institutions is revealed to me through the actions of the people who represent it. The actions of many of the people I encounter on these forums, I am sad to say, does not leave me with a good feeling about Catholicism or Christianity in general. If anything, it confirms my own spiritual decisions many times over. That has nothing to do with my not liking what people say, but how they say it and how they treat other people. This may well earn me an infraction or worse here, but I’m just being completely honest.