Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bellasbane said:
When Catholics first arrived in the United States, their children were subjected to a lot of Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda in the public schools. They didn’t accept it as normal. Nor did they resort to demonizing Protestants. They created the Catholic School system and got their kids out of that environment.

My point is that there is more than one way to respond to elements of society who oppose what you believe. I don’t think same sex couples are trying to push their agenda on the rest of us, but I understand why you might feel that way. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Church prohibits responding to anybody in a manner that undermines their dignity as human beings. I’m not saying you have done this personally, but it seems to be the agenda of others, and something the Bishops warn us to be aware of when they speak of “disguised forms of hatred”.
Click to expand...
Protestantism is in no way analogous to the “gay” agenda. Pope JPII called homosexual marriage a new ideology of evil.
 
PetrusRomanus said:
Murder, theft, lying, adultery, etc have all survived too, but these are all actions, not genetic. Same with sodomy.
Click to expand...
I understand why you say this type of thing - I agree that we should not have murder, etc,. That’s why most countries have well developed legal systems.

Are there aspects of sodomy that you find distasteful? What are they and is it just homosexual acts and not heterosexual acts of sodomy. This does beg the question, is it a specific sexual act that the Church is not in favour of?
 
aprilfloyd said:
You do seem to be wilfully (or humorously) dancing around the point. Do you have a problem with homosexuality depending on heterosexuality?, if that is the case.

I don’t see how evolution can involve ‘spite’. Natural selection is a description of what happens in the natural world. You can’t change that, no matter how much you and by inference your church would like too. Why the church got involved in this matter escapes me. Natural selection does not confer ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ it merely describes.
Click to expand...
I have a specific problem with homosexuality’s self-evident deviance from heterosexuality and our intended heterosexual biological design.

And I said “in spite of” not “spite”.

human life survives and evolves in spite of cancer. Is cancer a good thing? Is it not a deviation from our healthy design?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Are there aspects of sodomy that you find distasteful? What are they and is it just homosexual acts and not heterosexual acts of sodomy. This does beg the question, is it a specific sexual act that the Church is not in favour of?
Click to expand...
What part of sodomy is conducive to our natural biological design?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
I have a specific problem with homosexuality’s self-evident deviance from heterosexuality and our intended heterosexual biological design.

And I said “in spite of” not “spite”.

human life survives and evolves in spite of cancer. Is cancer a good thing? Is it not a deviation from our healthy design?
Click to expand...
Cor Cordis you seem to be getting mixed up. You may have a specific problem with evolution and what it has brought about, but no matter how much you protest, you can’t change or hide the facts, nor can I.

Whether you view cancer as a ‘good thing’ or not, Cancer cells are just behaving in accordance with their DNA, that is how they have evolved. You seem to be trying to put human morality on top of evolutionary processes. Also I am not sure ‘intention’ plays a part in Evolution as you suggest in relation to heterosexuality, in the sense of deviation.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Cor Cordis you seem to be getting mixed up. You may have a specific problem with evolution and what it has brought about, but no matter how much you protest, you can’t change or hide the facts, nor can I.

Whether you view cancer as a ‘good thing’ or not, Cancer cells are just behaving in accordance with their DNA, that is how they have evolved. You seem to be trying to put human morality on top of evolutionary processes. Also I am not sure ‘intention’ plays a part in Evolution as you suggest in relation to heterosexuality, in the sense of deviation.
Click to expand...
Is cancer consistent with good health?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Cor Cordis you seem to be getting mixed up. You may have a specific problem with evolution and what it has brought about, but no matter how much you protest, you can’t change or hide the facts, nor can I.

Whether you view cancer as a ‘good thing’ or not, Cancer cells are just behaving in accordance with their DNA, that is how they have evolved. You seem to be trying to put human morality on top of evolutionary processes. Also I am not sure ‘intention’ plays a part in Evolution as you suggest in relation to heterosexuality, in the sense of deviation.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep saying that I have a problem with evolution when in fact, I have clearly been stating that I have a problem with human behavior that is detrimental to our human evolutionary design?

Do you not comprehend that, or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Are you saying that evolution brought about homosexuality?

Did science finally identify a gay gene(s)?

Do tell.

And cancer cells are “behaving” out of a dysfunction of healthy cell reproduction. Are they not?

And often cancer is caused by influences external from our natural state. Is it not?

I’m citing human behavior in the evolutionary process.

Our morality on this issue is largely fostered from the conducive healthy behavior of our intended design.

So tell me, how does homosexuality reproduce?
 
fix said:
Protestantism is in no way analogous to the “gay” agenda. Pope JPII called homosexual marriage a new ideology of evil.
Click to expand...
It certainly is not today, but at the Council of Trent, the Church came down pretty hard in its condemnation of Protestant heresies. Protestants for their part referred to the Pope as the anti-Christ and as late as the mid-19th century, Protestant preachers warned their followers against the “papists”.

I was trying to put the issue the “gay agenda” invading public schools into an historical perspective in order to demonstrate that Catholics do not have to accept the new “normal” and used the example of the history of the Catholic school system illustrate this point:

The middle of the 19th Century saw increasing Catholic interest in education in tandem with increasing Catholic immigration. To serve their growing communities, American Catholics first tried to reform American public schools to rid them of blatantly fundamentalist Protestant overtones. Failing, they began opening their own schools, ably aided by such religious orders as the Sisters of Mercy, who arrived from Ireland, under Sister Frances Warde, in 1843, and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, organized in 1845 by Sister Theresa (Almaide) Duchemin, originally an Oblate Sister of Providence, to teach in Michigan.

ncea.org/about/historicaloverviewofcatholicschoolsinamerica.asp

I don’t understand why you seem to have a problem with that. :confused:
 
bellasbane said:
It certainly is not today, but at the Council of Trent, the Church came down pretty hard in its condemnation of Protestant heresies. Protestants for their part referred to the Pope as the anti-Christ and as late as the mid-19th century, Protestant preachers warned their followers against the “papists”.

I was trying to put the issue the “gay agenda” invading public schools into an historical perspective in order to demonstrate that Catholics do not have to accept the new “normal” and used the example of the history of the Catholic school system illustrate this point:

The middle of the 19th Century saw increasing Catholic interest in education in tandem with increasing Catholic immigration. To serve their growing communities, American Catholics first tried to reform American public schools to rid them of blatantly fundamentalist Protestant overtones. Failing, they began opening their own schools, ably aided by such religious orders as the Sisters of Mercy, who arrived from Ireland, under Sister Frances Warde, in 1843, and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, organized in 1845 by Sister Theresa (Almaide) Duchemin, originally an Oblate Sister of Providence, to teach in Michigan.

ncea.org/about/historicaloverviewofcatholicschoolsinamerica.asp

I don’t understand why you seem to have a problem with that. :confused:
Click to expand...
Why are you comparing Protestant theology with intrinsically evil acts?
 
fix said:
Why are you comparing Protestant theology with intrinsically evil acts?
Click to expand...
Isn’t it amazing:

The advocates of homosexuality in here will go to great lengths to redirect topics, rephrase questions to their liking, and simply ignore any stated facts or questions that are detrimental to their point of view.

And they do it with such ease and lack of self-awareness of their own contradictions that it almost seems to be a subconscious reflex.

Unbelievable.:hypno:
 
Lochias said:
  1. There is what you would call a “natural inclination” for some people to murder other people, as well. Just because this desire, which is clearly aberrant in nature, appears on its own, do you think they should be allowed to go out and murder?
  2. If your answer to #1 is “No”, then your argument that homosexual acts and marriage are ok because some people are naturally inclined to them does not hold up, because homosexual acts are a sin, as defined by the Church, like murder (how worse one of them is than the other is another discussion; sin is sin is sin).
Can you provide any evidence or proof that homosexual acts are not a sin? Are you familiar with why the Church considers them a sin, and can you refute the Church’s arguments?

Please respond with more than one sentence. You have, so far, had a bad habit of glibly shrugging off anything that you apparently don’t understand or don’t wish to understand, and I would like to have an actual conversation with you. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Hi Lochias,

I can see your argument, but what you have proposed would be no different, if you replaced ‘homosexual’ with ‘heterosexual’. You seem to view homosexuality and heterosexuality very differently. Why? It is simply sexual orientation.

I understand that Catholicism has the concept of ‘sin’ and has taught that certain acts are ‘sinful’. But that is an issue for Catholics and not the wider world. We have laws for that. Just because the Catholic Church says something is wrong does not make it so. It is just an opinion. They don’t have any legal authority.

It is interesting on these forums how many Catholics use references to ‘murder’ or ‘paedophilia’ or other horrific acts when discussing homosexuality, but not when discussing heterosexuality. Is that latent homophobia? - it is a disturbing trend on these forums.

There is no proof that homosexual acts are not a sin. That sentence does not make sense. The church decides what is a sin. It is their ball. That does not mean an act is wrong. In the light of the Scottish Cardinal having to step down, it makes me wonder how many of the conclave are gay and how many have had sex with other men. Statistically, it must be a few.

I don’t see how that affects their decision-making skills and feel their sex lives are nobody’s business.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I understand why you say this type of thing - I agree that we should not have murder, etc,. That’s why most countries have well developed legal systems.

Are there aspects of sodomy that you find distasteful? What are they and is it just homosexual acts and not heterosexual acts of sodomy. This does beg the question, is it a specific sexual act that the Church is not in favour of?
Click to expand...
Legal system or not, Im not discussing morality here. Im explaining that lying and adultery for example, are not genetic traits, they are actions. Sodomy, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not.a genetic trait, it is an action.

The Church is against sexual actions for any single persons. And since it is impossible for homosexuals to get married in gay “marriage”, that means them too.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I understand that Catholicism has the concept of ‘sin’ and has taught that certain acts are ‘sinful’. But that is an issue for Catholics and not the wider world. We have laws for that. Just because the Catholic Church says something is wrong does not make it so. It is just an opinion. They don’t have any legal authority.
Click to expand...
So if society decides that incest is no longer an immoral or sinful thing, then you’re okay with that. Right?

How about pederasty?

How about bestiality?

How about co-ed bathrooms and showers in public schools?
 
PetrusRomanus said:
Sodomy, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not.a genetic trait, it is an action.
Click to expand...
And it is an action that is physically detrimental to our biological design. It is rife with unhealthy consequences. It is a blatant misuse of our bodily design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top