E
epan
Guest
In other words, you don’t know. That was my point.
- Status
L
Lochias
Guest
One can logically assume. I don’t need things waved right in front of my face to deduce if they were likely or not.
P
Publisher
Guest
You are correct…Roseville is about 2.5-3 hours from the Bay Area. It’s closer to Tahoe than the Bay Area. You can make it to Tahoe in less than 2 hours from Roseville in the summer time.By no stretch of the imagination is Roseville “in the Bay Area”.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
I’m thinking of calling Roseville as Yaoiville.
G
gnosisofthomas
Guest
I’ve read about the couple in question from several different sources now… All they did was give each other a kiss, and they were holding hands. They weren’t making out or groping each other, which would definitely be inappropriate. I see straight couples kiss and hold hands in public all the time – but for some reason when it’s a gay couple doing the exact same thing, it’s offensive.
S
scipio337
Guest
Yes it is offensive. Thanks for pointing that out.
I had to explain to my two daughters (5 and 7 at the time) why two women were holding hands and kissing (pretty passionately) at a Subway (no, they weren’t asked to leave).
“You see honey, it’s all relative. If you care about something, it doesn’t matter what it is, you should kiss it, regardless of who (or what), or how many of them there are, or even where you are. Everything is permitted, nothing is real.”
G
gnosisofthomas
Guest
I’d find it equally offensive seeing heterosexuals passionately kissing in public, so I’m sorry your kids had to see that. However, a quick kiss or holding hands doesn’t compare to that. And no story I’ve read about this gay couple at the mall indicates they were carrying things too far.
Also, sorry but the comment you put in quotations marks is ridiculous. We kiss people and things we care about all the time. I kiss pictures of my mother who passed away, I kiss my rosary, I kiss the holy Gospel when I read it at Mass, I kiss my boyfriend, and I kiss my cat. I would assume your daughters have probably seen you kiss you wife from time to time.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Two homosexuals kissing each other is offensive because it is unnatural. I understand that some here will disagree. This is not to say that we hate the sinner…quite the contrary.
Bishop Fulton Sheen has a few words to say about “tolerance”:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html
Bishop Fulton Sheen has a few words to say about “tolerance”:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html
G
gnosisofthomas
Guest
Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it’s natural. Calling something unnatural based on the way you think things should be is more unnatural than homosexuality.
I think it’s more likely that it offends you because you find it disgusting, it has nothing to do with how natural or unnatural it is. Does polyester offend you too?
D
Denise1957
Guest
It is unnatural. And it has nothing to do with polyester.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
Since homosexuality occurs in nature, it is natural in the conventional sense of the word “natural”.
Since you clearly aren’t using the word “natural” in the conventional sense, please tell us what you mean by “natural” when you claim homosexuality isn’t natural.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Scroll down to where it describes Natural Law as it relates to homosexuality:
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
“People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural…”
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
“Homosexual” behavior has supposedly been noted in 1500 species. And many of those observations and conclusions are dubious.
But even given the benefit of the doubt, 1,500 species out of the estimated total of 8.7 million species still leaves a statistical percentage of 0.01724%.
And THAT, my friend, IS the statistical definition of an anomaly.
But more to the point: Outside of asexual reproduction, “homosexuality” is not the natural paradigm of any species. It is still an anomaly even within the species it has been observed. And many of those noted “observations” are dubious at best. The simple fact is, homosexuality is the ultimate evolutionary dead-end. Period.
But more to the point, if homosexual advocates have to point to the animal behavior of amoral lower species to grant moral acceptance to homosexuality, then I would suggest to you that you have already lost any and all credible moral justification to begin with.
After all, why stop there? Why not embrace all our unbridled animal desires and adopt all the whims of lower species?
How about incest, polygamy, murder without moral reservation, cannibalism, and pederasty?
But tell me, what exactly IS natural about homosexuality?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Actually, since homosexuality is an anomaly and a natural evolutionary dead-end, therefore the antithesis to “natural”, your application of the word “homosexuality” would have the conventional analogy to the word “cancer”.
Cancer actually IS more natural in statistical occurrence than homosexuality in most species.
E
epan
Guest
And why, exactly, should this matter to them, or anyone else? I’m not understanding why it matters if you are offended since that is only in your own mind, and not particularly related to anything external. It would be just as easy to pass by and not be offended.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
So heterosexuals need to reprogram their natural inclination towards disgust so that a population of less than 2% of the people with an obvious psychological/genetic dysfunction that is observable in it’s unnaturalness can feel better about themselves?
Really?
Why?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Wish it was closer. I’d shop there.
E
epan
Guest
In order not to be 20 years behind, then 30, then 40, and finally bitter old people? Society is changing. Keep up, or be left behind. Is this not the crisis that the Church cannot get past, no matter what it does? Sexual activity was once never spoken of. Now that it is OK to talk about it, we find out what has been going on all along. That entire matter could have been disposed of by simply being open and honest in dealing with it. Instead, there is secrecy and denial, which creates distrust and suspicion. Your less than 2% number is incorrect. We all know that. But regardless of the actual number, denial that this exists is only to your own detriment. You will not stop it. The cat is out of the bag. So get used to it, or suffer from your own inner mental gymnastics.
That is why. You can’t control what is outside of yourself. You are not going to stop the current social trends. Either adapt in a healthy way, or be angry with nothing that you can do about it. The choice is yours.
No, it emphatically makes absolutely no difference to anyone but you, whether you are offended. If you are, then you can deal with it internally. How directly do you need to be told this to get it. You will not have your way on this one. The fight is over.
If you doubt by prediction, then take look at what is happening in the US military right now. There are new regulations and policies every week or month. Now, take a look at that, and look at the history black civil rights movement. The momentum is on the steep downhill side, at this point. Social change occurred at a much slower rate then. This is going to be finished in relatively short order.
You may conduct your life in any way you like. But if you fail to adapt personally to the change which is happening, only you will suffer from that. Nobody else.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Human nature and human sexuality do not change. Homosexuality (by it’s very unnatural state) is contrary to our natural design: physically, cognitively, and spiritually.
What exactly IS natural about it?
No. 2% is accurate.
And it is still a natural evolutionary dead-end. That is not subject to trends. That is immovable biological fact. So are you implying that it will increase in percentages? If so, then that is further proof that it is a learned dysfunction.
Ah, so you admit it is a social trend. Therefore it is a learned psychological dysfunction.
Thank you for inadvertently admitting that.:tiphat:
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G. K. Chesterton
So when incest, pederasty, and eventually pedophilia and bestiality become the trends, you’ll be fine with that on principle, right?
“A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
- G.K.Chesterton
Oh and, there is no similarity between the Civil Rights movement and this movement. Race is a passive and insignificant difference of skin pigment. Homosexuality is a dysfunctional behavior that is a radical rejection of our natural design.
And again, what exactly is natural about homosexuality?
Oh and, you’re not Catholic are you?
F
fix
Guest
Nothing.
- Status