Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BigBlueCane said:
Why is not conducive to our natural design when homosexuality is prevalent in many other species so why would it be an anomaly that it also exists in the human species?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is a very prudential argument to make, BBC. For do not many species eat their young as well? Are you also willing to proclaim that this, too, is natural?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Do you think they can without engaging in a natural heterosexual act?

Do homosexual acts produce offspring? Is homosexuality conducive to our natural design? Can you say "anomaly?

Heterosexual sex. Where do you think they come from?

When did I say they were?

I think I’m going too fast for you here. I’m sorry.
Click to expand...
I suggest you do some further reading on evolution. This is getting very silly. Are you really asking if homosexual acts produce offspring? You don’t know? Come on, be serious.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Ah, so you learned not to be repulsed by homosexuality.

So this anomaly has certain facets to it that are… learned. eh?
Click to expand...
Are you homosexual? Do you have similar views on blacks or Chinese or curly haired people, what feeds your discrimination, or are you just having a laugh.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I suggest you do some further reading on evolution. This is getting very silly. Are you really asking if homosexual acts produce offspring? You don’t know? Come on, be serious.
Click to expand...
Uhm no. I’m pointing out the observable self-evident fact that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. It is an anomaly. It is not conducive to our observable natural design. It is not conducive to the natural evolutionary paradigm of reproduction.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make that evident.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Are you homosexual? Do you have similar views on blacks or Chinese or curly haired people, what feeds your discrimination, or are you just having a laugh.
Click to expand...
sigh

I covered this 11 pages ago as well:

There is no similarity between race and homosexuality. Race is a passive and insignificant difference of skin pigmentation. Homosexuality is a dysfunctional behavior that is a radical rejection of our natural design.

And you can also plug “curly hair” in for race if you would like. The comparison would still hold true.

And the only thing discriminatory in this conversation, is the dysfunctional anomaly of homosexuality against our natural design.

sigh

I’m officially bored.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
sigh

I covered this 11 pages ago as well:

There is no similarity betweeon race and homosexuality. Race is a passive and insignificant difference of skin pigmentation. Homosexuality is a dysfunctional behavior that is a radical rejection of our natural design.

And you can also plug “curly hair” in for race if you would like. The comparison would still hold true.

And the only thing discriminatory in this conversation, is the dysfunctional anomaly of homosexuality against our natural design.

sigh

I’m officially bored.
Click to expand...
Me too. You have a lot of work to do to change the accepted science, but I wish you well , and if you can prove your position, I will accept it.
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t think this is a very prudential argument to make, BBC. For do not many species eat their young as well? Are you also willing to proclaim that this, too, is natural?
Click to expand...
Infant and sexual cannibalism (see a whole class of animals, called “Insects”) are fare more prevalent that exclusive same sex pairings, so it must be okay!

👍
 
Arguing biology is fine, but somewhat irrelevant as far as the Church goes. In vitro fertilization may not be a dead-end in terms of offspring, but that is irrelevant. It is immoral, and unacceptable. To get bogged down on a Catholic message board beyond the teachings of the Church is exactly what the Church’s detractors want.

I don’t if two men having intercourse produced three children at a time. Until God decides to rewrite His law that was written when creation began, it really doesn’t matter.
 
Frank_Drebin said:
Arguing biology is fine, but somewhat irrelevant as far as the Church goes. In vitro fertilization may not be a dead-end in terms of offspring, but that is irrelevant. It is immoral, and unacceptable. To get bogged down on a Catholic message board beyond the teachings of the Church is exactly what the Church’s detractors want.

I don’t if two men having intercourse produced three children at a time. Until God decides to rewrite His law that was written when creation began, it really doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Hi Frank,

I think discrimination and equal rights does matter.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Uhm no. I’m pointing out the observable self-evident fact that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. It is an anomaly. It is not conducive to our observable natural design. It is not conducive to the natural evolutionary paradigm of reproduction.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make that evident.
Click to expand...
You really should read more on evolution. Homosexuality is self evidently, not an ‘evolutionary dead end’
 
scipio337 said:
I’m having trouble making sense of your post, as well. Curly hair = sexual behavior = national origin?

I’m not sure I see the link.
Click to expand...
I was trying to show cor the irrationality of his discrimination, by comparing to other irrational discriminations. Also if he wants to refute evolution he has a lot of work ahead of him.
 
scipio337 said:
I’m not sure it “crosses the line”, but I agree that same sex attraction isn’t a sin. Perhaps we can convince people who feel differently what the Church teaches.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Click to expand...
You’ve hit the nail on the head again and I understand what you mean by pity. It’s like watching a track wreck, but I try not to give up hope.

The passages you reference are directed at all Catholics, not just people with homosexual tendencies. It speaks of their trial, but it sets up a trial for all Catholics as well. We have to learn to accept people with respect, compassion, and sensitivity even if they have a “disordered inclination”. It’s tough for them, but its tough for us too. Where do we begin?

The USCCB offers these guidelines:

Respecting Human Dignity

The commission of the Church to preach the Good News to all people in every land points to the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God. God has created every human person out of love and wishes to grant him or her eternal life in the communion of the Trinity. All people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected.

In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” We recognize that these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”

Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to such injustice. They should prayerfully examine their own hearts in order to discern any thoughts or feelings that might stand in need of purification. Those who minister are also called to growth in holiness. In fact, the work of spreading the Good News involves an ever-increasing love for those to whom one is ministering by calling them to the truth of Jesus Christ.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/upload/minstry-persons-homosexual-inclination-2006.pdf

I added the emphasis, because that’s what I think I am encountering in some of the other posts on this thread. I think condemning homosexuality as opposed to homosexual behavior crosses the line.

It seems that only once we have purified our own hearts and minds can we move on to the task of convincing people to live a life of chastity. My guess is that at the very least, this means we need to resist the impulse to marginalize or demonize people based solely upon their sexual orientation. That’s really the only message I’m trying to get across.
Click to expand...
 
Is calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic any worse than calling another person “single issue voters”?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Ah, so you learned not to be repulsed by homosexuality.

So this anomaly has certain facets to it that are… learned. eh?
Click to expand...
What exactly is your definition of homosexuality? You seem to have very strong feelings about it and I’d like to be clear on what you mean by it.
 
bellasbane said:
It seems that only once we have purified our own hearts and minds can we move on to the task of convincing people to live a life of chastity. My guess is that at the very least, this means we need to resist the impulse to marginalize or demonize people based solely upon their sexual orientation. That’s really the only message I’m trying to get across.
Click to expand...
The problem comes in when people with same sex attraction want to push their agenda on the rest of us. Those of us who object to their behavior shouldn’t have to accept it and say that it’s the new normal. I especially object to having my children taught in a public school that this is an alternative lifestyle.
 
JMJSHJ said:
The newspaper article is atrocious. How someone can call that an article when its only 2 paragraphs is beyond me.

However, what I am about to say may offend some people but I do have a problem with the Mall’s policy if what I am reading is correct. While as a Catholic I do support our Church’s teaching on homosexuality, the fact that this mall would eject me and my wife who are straight for hand holding and/or kissing is morally outrageous.

Has the taliban moved to San Francisco?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you mean Sacramento? Roseville isn’t near San Francisco, and the two cities have little in common culturally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top