Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand a bit more about why Catholics lump them together, but it is still irrational.

what does the phrase ‘sexual intercourse is ordered for’ mean - do you really believe that if a diety created our unimaginably large and complex universe and everything in it, that somehow he cares if a life form on a small planet out of billions is masturbating or not - really!
Ah, in that case you obviously would have no moral objections to incest - would you?
 
Ah, in that case you obviously would have no moral objections to incest - would you?
There you go again - what is this obsession with incest? I am not pro-incest and really do hope you are not either CC.
 
There you go again - what is this obsession with incest? I am not pro-incest and really do hope you are not either CC.
More obfuscation eh april?

I’m actually obsessed with your evasiveness and intellectually dishonest attempts and refusal to advance any moral standards of your own.

So why are you morally against incest?

Oh and, just to prove I’m not obsessed with incest:

How about pederasty?

How about bestiality?

How about co-ed bathrooms and showers in public schools?

Do you have any moral objections to those?

Or would you like to respond with another feigned attempt at humorous disdain?
 
More obfuscation eh april?

I’m actually obsessed with your evasiveness and intellectually dishonest attempts and refusal to advance any moral standards of your own.

So why are you morally against incest?

Oh and, just to prove I’m not obsessed with incest:

How about pederasty?

How about bestiality?

How about co-ed bathrooms and showers in public schools?

Do you have any moral objections to those?

Or would you like to respond with another feigned attempt at humorous disdain?
Cc I think we live in very different worlds, what you are selling, I’m not buying.
I am not following your point and continual references.
I am sure you can find websites to discuss your proclivities, but they are not to my taste
 
Cc I think we live in very different worlds, what you are selling, I’m not buying.
I am not following your point and continual references.
I am sure you can find websites to discuss your proclivities, but they are not to my taste
So you choose to respond with another feigned attempt at humorous disdain. As expected.

It’s easy for you to come in here and throw stones and nitpick at established moral norms to satisfy your bigotry towards Catholicism isn’t it.:rolleyes:

But when you are challenged to advance and explain your own personal objective moral standards, well then, you’re not quite so brave, are you.:nope:

Well no. No you’re not.

So one can only conclude that your real objective in here is to simply troll- isn’t it.:whistle:
 
This is worth posting in here:
dshix said:
To all persons who wish to respond to aprilfloyd:

A warning I wish to give you:

Prepare to spend several hours explaining argument after argument for the existence of God, and be asked the same questions, which have already been answered, over and over again.

Prepare to have the conversation cut off or ended by a strawman, red herring, or non-sequitur as soon as you make a valid point.

Prepare for your opponent to log off as soon as she has nothing left to say.

Prepare to repeat this sequence endless times, on endless threads, without any kind of satisfaction for your effort, on various topics, not just the existence of God.
 
I understand a bit more about why Catholics lump them together, but it is still irrational.

what does the phrase ‘sexual intercourse is ordered for’ mean - do you really believe that if a diety created our unimaginably large and complex universe and everything in it, that somehow he cares if a life form on a small planet out of billions is masturbating or not - really!
“Gay” acts are irrational.
 
what does the phrase ‘sexual intercourse is ordered for’ mean - do you really believe that if a diety created our unimaginably large and complex universe and everything in it, that somehow he cares if a life form on a small planet out of billions is masturbating or not - really!
:doh2:
 
This is worth posting in here:
Aprilfloyd I don’t understand, It says you were ‘raised catholic’ in your discription, do you know that the city of sidon when lot lived was destroyed because of peoples sexually immoral behaviours?

We do not know all of the reasoning behind what God does or doesn’t do, so for us to try and explain how or why he says ‘No’ to something is going to be a struggle, we just trust in God and know that when he says ‘No’ to something that he has our best interests at heart, Just like when a child wants to do the wrong thing, you tell him ‘No’ but he doesn’t understand why it’s the wrong thing to do, so he does it anyway, then he gets a smack, now when the other siblings see what has happened to that child, they know not to do it, they don’t know why their father is against it, but they know that they might recieve a smack also if they try it.

In the same way the city of Sidon was destroyed because they were giving into all kinds of sexual desires like homosexuality, so we should use it as an important lesson or else he may have to destroy another city if we refuse to learn from what had happened to those children.

Ever heard of “the straw that broke the camels back?”

It’s also a lot easier for children to do what they want to by claiming that because of their fathers inaction that he doesn’t exist or hes ‘okay’ with it and that’s a dangerous game to play my friend, because I guess you’ll find out the hard way when he says “That’s Enough”
 
This is worth posting in here:
dshix said:
To all persons who wish to respond to aprilfloyd:

A warning I wish to give you:

Prepare to spend several hours explaining argument after argument for the existence of God, and be asked the same questions, which have already been answered, over and over again.

Prepare to have the conversation cut off or ended by a strawman, red herring, or non-sequitur as soon as you make a valid point.

Prepare for your opponent to log off as soon as she has nothing left to say.

Prepare to repeat this sequence endless times, on endless threads, without any kind of satisfaction for your effort, on various topics, not just the existence of God.
A valid observation.

But as I stated earlier, I believe that april is young and has not yet thought out all of his arguments.

Logic is not yet mature in his reasoning, but he’s going to get there with our help! :yup:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetrusRomanus
The reason why contraception, masturbation, sodomy,fornication, aadultery, bestiality, incest, pederasty, polygamy, etc all get lumped together is because they all have one thing in common: It changes the way we view sex and goes against what sexual intercourse is ordered for.
I understand a bit more about why Catholics lump them together, but it is still irrational.

what does the phrase ‘sexual intercourse is ordered for’ mean - do you really believe that if a diety created our unimaginably large and complex universe and everything in it, that somehow he cares if a life form on a small planet out of billions is masturbating or not - really!
I understand what you are saying Aprilfloyd, the thing is that Jesus told Catalina Rivas when Mike Willisee asked her “What sins are most offensive to Jesus”

She replied “All sins offend Jesus, there is no such thing as a big lie, or a small lie, it is a lie, and there is no such thing as a big theft, or a small theft, it is theft”

This is what would be applied here.
 
As a personal matter of one’s own soul - yes.

However, you conflated personal sin with the deteriorating subjective moral standards of a societal slippery-slope.

I may have sinned. But if society suddenly changes the objective standard an encourages others to commit the same sin without moral reservation, we now have a growing world of people who are damned. No?
I am sorry. I don’t quite understand your point. Mine was that what started as expanding womens’ rights in society and marriage lead inexorably to the end of legal differences based on gender in civil marriage under the law. This is what I meant by a slippery slope. Once that progression was complete, then it became a foregone conclusion that one may not under the US Constitution discriminate based on gender to grant a marriage license. It is indeed a slippery slope, and it took about a century to slide down it this far.

Society has not suddenly changed anything. The definition of marriage has been changing gradually and predictably for nearly 200 years, and most remarkably in the past 100 years. There is nothing sudden about the idea of gay marriage, it is just one more step in the march that started one step at a time 100 years ago.

This is the surprising thing about the sudden alarm. The change has not been sudden. It seems sudden only because as long as the changes were occurring within the realm of the heterosexual world, they seemed OK. But once the tipping point came, and those changes to heterosexual marriage logically changed the status of homosexuals… then all the alarm bells start ringing. Sorry, this fire has been burning for a century. This reaction is actually prejudice and bigotry, and not a calm and collected reaction to the events that have lead up to the present state. Homosexuals did not demand property rights and voting rights for women. Homosexuals did not fight for no fault divorce, and equal custody rights. Homosexuals did not fight to eliminate gender distinctions in society. Too bad you just noticed it yesterday, and now you are very excited because you ignored it and now you can’t stop it at the point that you would like to control it. There is nothing sudden about this. This next step is really no more radical of a redefinition than all of the many steps that have led up to it, which were largely ignored or accommodated. It is too late to complain about it. It is just one small inch forward of a century old and giant juggernaut which has been progressing one millimeter at a time for 100 years, or more.

You and I will not stop it. Neither will the Church. It is one more adaptation to make like many others. And it is not a large change. It is the next step in the logical progression of social change.

Heterosexuals have collectively changed the rules of marriage until there are no longer and legal gender distinctions under the law in civil marriage. Now there is a big tragedy that there are no longer gender distinction in marriage. Go figure. It is the heterosexual changes to marriage which have created the legal right to gay marriage. So get used to it. This is not the work of a radical gay fascist group. This is the concerted effort of heterosexuals to eliminate legal gender distinction. That is why it will not be stopped by making a lot of noise at this point in time. To stop this would mean redefining heterosexual marriage to include gender as part of its legal definition of rights and duties. That will not happen.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying. What exactly are you saying. Can you clarify it for someone as dense as I am?
 
Actually, the “fittest” refers to biological fitness in regards to evolutionary theory. If you haven’t noticed, homosexual sex doesn’t result in reproduction, hence, it doesn’t contribute to biological fitness (the ability to pass on genes).

Just because a trait survives, doesn’t mean it benefits biological fitness.

This is assuming that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait, which science has not concluded.
If I can throw something in here…the homosexuals who do manage to “reproduce” through assistance from an opposite sex “helper” tend to produce heterosexual offspring. Is there was a strong evolutionary component to SSA, don’t you think more of their children would also be SSA?
 
In Australia the debate for Homosexual Marriage was quite sudden, however the Mardi Gras parade they put on in Sydney every year is a disgrace, yet seems to be acceptable enough for alot to put it on, so I guess it was only logical that they would try and take it a step further.

There are alot of cradle catholics out there, and it’s getting to the stage with the debates on Euthanasia, Abortion and Same Sex Marriage that catholics will soon have to make a choice, that’s why im glad they are pushing this Evangalization, because this will encourage catholics to believe what they believe so to speak.

This is a link to a site that has provided me with much knowledge -

youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=17

The books on there are free to read and download online, They are all very valuable, but I believe the most important are “In Adoration” and “The Holy Mass”, there is also the documentary “Signs From God” by Mike Willisee to watch online for free, which is a very good short documentary where sience tests the faith.
 
If I can throw something in here…the homosexuals who do manage to “reproduce” through assistance from an opposite sex “helper” tend to produce heterosexual offspring. Is there was a strong evolutionary component to SSA, don’t you think more of their children would also be SSA?
Well yes, of course. If about 95% + of the population is heterosexual, then everyone who has kids will “tend to produce heterosexual offspring.”

No matter how hard heterosexual parent try to raise straight kids, about 4-5% will turn out gay. No matter how hard gay parents try to raise gay kids, about 95-96% will turn out straight. That is one of the great mysteries of figuring out human sexual orientation. It is hard to figure out exact numbers, but it appears that the percentage of gay people is relatively fixed in society over time and geography and social structure and culture and religious beliefs. Nobody really knows why that is.
 
No matter how hard heterosexual parent try to raise straight kids, about 4-5% will turn out gay.
I am curious about this proposition, epan. How is it that studies have been done determining which heterosexual parents are attempting to raise straight kids vs heterosexual parents who make no such attempt?
 
There is some appalling lack of knowledge of historical Catholic theology in here.
 
I am curious about this proposition, epan. How is it that studies have been done determining which heterosexual parents are attempting to raise straight kids vs heterosexual parents who make no such attempt?
I was not suggesting that this has been formally studied. Maybe it has. But let’s try realism for a moment. Until quite recently, that is until the 1970’s and later, there were very strong social forces encouraging heterosexuality and marriage. Those forces still exist today, to a lesser degree. For the most part, it is much easier in our society to live happily and be accepted, if one is straight and married, though this is indeed changing.

In spite of this overwhelming social pressure, the estimates by social scientists of the number of homosexuals has not varied much. There has been a fairly wide range of estimates, because of the nature of self reporting such a phenomenon, but the numbers have always been under 10%. It appears that when statistical methods are applied to survey methods, that estimates tend to zero in the the 4-5% range.

But, when I read your question, I realized that my perception may also be mistaken. We don’t know if homosexuality, as an orientation, will actually increase, or is actually increasing or is decreasing, or remaining unchanged, with the social changes which are occurring right now. I do stand corrected by you, that I was talking off the top of my head. It very well could be that the phenomenon will increase. Personally, I doubt it. It may become more open and accepted socially, but I don’t believe that it will actually increase in numbers. Maybe I am wrong. That is only a guess on my part.

But we do know, that in spite of strong opposing social and moral pressure, homosexuality has persisted over the past recent centuries. We also do know that the behavior have been around since the Old Testament, at least. Parents have not tried to raise gay children. Yet, it has happened anyway. Only God actually knows why. I have this faint perception that the sexual orientation of children raised by gay parents has been studied. If you google it, you might find something. I am not quite sure about that, but it seems to ring a faint bell of recollection sometime in past readings.
 
This is my second day on here and this is my first post. I have read this thread through from the beginning and I cannot believe some of the comments; people referring to gay and lesbian people as a parasite on society, a cancer, an evil, a threat, people they don’t want their children exposed to… basically I feel I am reading a breading ground for hate and it is very disturbing! I am shocked!

I am by no means any kind of expert, I would consider myself a lay person. I go to Church and I always take away the message of love and peace. I try not to judge people as I do not have the right. I sit here and think, ‘what would Jesus think of these comments?’ I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus preaches hate? Where he condemns homosexuality? His was a message of love and I have seen very little of that message through this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top