Gay rights statement divides UN

[Janet_S]

It’s just rather unfortunate that some Catholics - as well as other Christians are quite happy to call for their execution, or to kill them anyway. It is no invention of homosexuals that they are quite likely to be killed.​

.

You must run with a different crowd. I’ve never heard of any Christians–Catholics or otherwise–who called for their execution or who killed them. I’ve never personally known of a single homosexual who was killed by a devout Christian or a daily communicant.

And if homosexual activity is sinful, doesn’t the Church have a responsibility to tell them so? Isn’t that the merciful thing to do?

I agree with dzheremi. If the problem is execution or persecution, deal with that. Don’t overshoot the mark by forcing the acceptance of gay marriage on everyone.

 

[Other_Eric]

I trust God to punish those who sin unrepentantly. I don’t think that the work of the Lord requires killing people, and last I checked, “God told me to” won’t hold up in court, either.

Frankly, I do not see how carrying out the “messy responses” you write about is really taking Christ all that seriously, but that is for you to reconcile and defend. He gave His elected the power to forgive sins, and this is all that I personally need to be sure of.

If the statute of limitations had not run on the crimes against Catholic children and the perpetrators were convicted, would you support the beheading of as many as 4300 (4%) of the priests in the US?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#

Would you personally execute someone who was convicted of deviant behavior assuming you were authorized by the State?

Yet, we’re not talking of taking it upon ourselves to meet out the punishment of God. We’re merely talking of doing what must be done in order for society to operate smoothly. Moreover, that I forgive someone for an offense does not necessarily mean that I absolve him of all consequences directed to that offense.

Capital punishment therefore serves as a force for the healthy development of society, not a crude means of exacting vengeance. In that sense, all forms of deviancy ought to meet with it, especially those priests who abused their post in so disgusting a fashion.

 

[eichenb2]

Your comments?

I do agree that to for someone to have a inclination to intimacy to the same sex should not be punished. In fact, it cannot be punished as there has been no crime. On the other hand, if a state choices to punish homosexual activity, I have no problem. If one does not wants to be prosecuted, do what you choice in your own home. The Papa was right, the resolution went too far. Back in the closet they go

 

[cathopologist]

I am in favor of public executions. They serve as a deterrent to others. Though, I would quibble with you over the best method, preferring the guillotine for its swift efficiency.

Dude, you may want to change your citizenship and live where public executions are a norm.

 

[cathopologist]

I do agree that to for someone to have a inclination to intimacy to the same sex should not be punished. In fact, it cannot be punished as there has been no crime. On the other hand, if a state choices to punish homosexual activity, I have no problem. If one does not wants to be prosecuted, do what you choice in your own home. The Papa was right, the resolution went too far. Back in the closet they go

I agree with you for the most part, but do you think a state has the right to punish homosexual activity? If so, i’d like to see governments ban “Gay Pride” as a form of ‘punishment’. It’s distasteful, vulgar and embarrassing.

 

[eichenb2]

I agree with you for the most part, but do you think a state has the right to punish homosexual activity? If so, i’d like to see governments ban “Gay Pride” as a form of ‘punishment’. It’s distasteful, vulgar and embarrassing.

Therein lies the rub, so to speak. By expressing “gay pride”, they are not actually braking any law. Perhaps one could say they were intending to fornicate. But, I would hate to live in a country where perceived intention could be punished. There, probably, could be prosecution for gay pornagraphy…but…while we are at ALL PORNOGRAPHY . That stuff is amazingly, efficiently destructive. Maybe if elimidate the hard-core stuff, the soft-core with is on the major networks will go away…

 

[cathopologist]

This is why we don’t have ANY form of pornography here. No “Gay Pride” parades, no “Mardi Gras” and all that jazz. There are homosexuals here (they are free to do whatsoever in the comfort of their own homes) but they are not given the freedom to ‘dog it’.

 

[Other_Eric]

Dude, you may want to change your citizenship and live where public executions are a norm.

It seems to me that a public execution is a far better human right than any of these supposed “gay rights” mentioned in the UN statement.

 

[SecularHero]

“Human rights apply to all people, in all places and at all times. So they apply to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people too,” Verhagen said. “As long as there is a divide between the principle of universality and the practice of everyday life, statements like this are vital.”

So what about those who eat whales, dogs, cats, mice, etc? Don’t they have rights to practice their preferences too?

What about the rights of cannibals, necrosexuals and pedophiles? Don’t they have rights too?

What about those who…

Aren’t we discriminating against them? Who will speak for them in the UN?

If we only fight for the rights of gays, aren’t we missing a whole bunch of others? Or is this just a good start?

This is simply a slippery slope non-sequitur. Necrophiliacs and pedophiles are truely abominable. Disrespecting the dead and taking advantage and harming children is abominable. Homosexuality however is between two concious, consenting adults and is nothing abominable about it except in the deluded minds of homophobes.

 

[SecularHero]

It seems to me that a public execution is a far better human right than any of these supposed “gay rights” mentioned in the UN statement.

If you want to live in a backwater theocracy your free to leave America anytime. We established this nation as a free society where anyone is free to practice their ways as they see fit as long as they don’t hurt anybody. I don’t want the pope trying to influence political decisions in MY country. Women say to keep your law’s off their body, which I agree with. Now I say that the pope has no business prying around in secular issues. The pope never denounced the abomination of slavery in the 1800’s and before, it was secular humanist who acknowledged the inherit immorality of slavery. If two consenting homosexual adults want to have the same rights as straights in marriage that’s their right. Or a gay couple and lesbian couple can become legal partners of eachother but live with their actual partner so they get the same benefits of man/woman relationship but live with their same sex partner.

 

[Chancellare]

This is simply a slippery slope non-sequitur. Necrophiliacs and pedophiles are truely abominable. Disrespecting the dead and taking advantage and harming children is abominable. Homosexuality however is between two concious, consenting adults and is nothing abominable about it except in the deluded minds of homophobes.

Are you assuming all homosexual acts are between two consenting adults?
That’s even more slippery.

 

[Janet_S]

We established this nation as a free society where anyone is free to practice their ways as they see fit as long as they don’t hurt anybody. .

So glad to hear you say this. Then we can count on you to take a stand against abortion.

 

[Janet_S]

The pope never denounced the abomination of slavery in the 1800’s and before, it was secular humanist who acknowledged the inherit immorality of slavery.

Off topic and also not true.

newadvent.org/library/docs_gr16is.htm

In Supremo Apostolatus
Apostolic Letter of Pope Gregory XVI on the Slave Trade. Promulgated on December 3, 1839

 

[Other_Eric]

If you want to live in a backwater theocracy your free to leave America anytime. We established this nation as a free society where anyone is free to practice their ways as they see fit as long as they don’t hurt anybody. I don’t want the pope trying to influence political decisions in MY country. Women say to keep your law’s off their body, which I agree with. Now I say that the pope has no business prying around in secular issues. The pope never denounced the abomination of slavery in the 1800’s and before, it was secular humanist who acknowledged the inherit immorality of slavery. If two consenting homosexual adults want to have the same rights as straights in marriage that’s their right. Or a gay couple and lesbian couple can become legal partners of eachother but live with their actual partner so they get the same benefits of man/woman relationship but live with their same sex partner.

There’s no need to resort to theology to be able to see that the sexual faculty, with its dual power to both spread disease and produce new citizens, is justly regulated by the state. There is no such economy where the state has limitless financial resources to be able to adequately care for the children from families that have disintegrated through premarital sex or other forms of fornication, nor should the public health sector be overburdened as it is with the never-ending flow of venereal disease.

Sex exists for the benefit of society and the state, not for the individual. This is not a religious conclusion. It is a grim reality based on the truth of what sex is. The misuse of the sexual faculty is so grave, in purely secular terms, that the most adequate response is a capital one.

 

[notself]

Sex exists for the benefit of society and the state, not for the individual. This is not a religious conclusion. It is a grim reality based on the truth of what sex is. The misuse of the sexual faculty is so grave, in purely secular terms, that the most adequate response is a capital one.

I have two questions.

What is the English translation of your signature?

Are you suggesting that spouses who are unfaithful should face the execution?

 

[cathopologist]

It seems to me that a public execution is a far better human right than any of these supposed “gay rights” mentioned in the UN statement.

Do you think public executions would please Jesus? Or was His sacrifice not enough? Why let man decide who should die and who shouldn’t? Why do you believe in the existence of Purgatory if you can condemn sinners now?

 

[eichenb2]

This is simply a slippery slope non-sequitur. Necrophiliacs and pedophiles are truely abominable. Disrespecting the dead and taking advantage and harming children is abominable. Homosexuality however is between two concious, consenting adults and is nothing abominable about it except in the deluded minds of homophobes.

Please read Catechism of the Church. Homosexuality is a Mortal Sin (Grave Matter) and one can go to Hell for it. Abominable is a good word to describe it.

 

[cathopologist]

Women say to keep your law’s off their body, which I agree with.

Then the law should never interfere in the business of uncontrolled pheromonal primal instincts either.

Now I say that the pope has no business prying around in secular issues.

The Pope has a moral obligation to uphold which the secular society often tends to forget. Even secular politicians are known to pry in the business of moral issues within the general society.

The pope never denounced the abomination of slavery in the 1800’s and before, it was secular humanist who acknowledged the inherit immorality of slavery.

False assertion.

If two consenting homosexual adults want to have the same rights as straights in marriage that’s their right.

If homosexuals can pro-create like the straights can, then i wouldn’t have a problem.

 

[Other_Eric]

Do you think public executions would please Jesus? Or was His sacrifice not enough? Why let man decide who should die and who shouldn’t? Why do you believe in the existence of Purgatory if you can condemn sinners now?

You persist in mistaking capital punishment for a form of spiritual condemnation rather than what it is, a purely secular method of making society run smoothly. When last I checked, the prisoners on death row had unrestricted access to ministers, priests and the Sacraments. The question of their eternal salvation, what divine mercy they may be disposed to, or any hypothetical assumption we might make about their stay in Purgatory, is simply not reached by the pragmatic assessment I am making here, that they be put to death for the benefit of society.

 

[cathopologist]

You persist in mistaking capital punishment for a form of spiritual condemnation rather than what it is, a purely secular method of making society run smoothly. When last I checked, the prisoners on death row had unrestricted access to ministers, priests and the Sacraments. The question of their eternal salvation, what divine mercy they may be disposed to, or any hypothetical assumption we might make about their stay in Purgatory, is simply not reached by the pragmatic assessment I am making here, that they be put to death for the benefit of society.

The only countries in existence today who use public executions as a ‘method’ of making society run smoothly are Islamic ones. There is no secularism involved.

I live in a secular country where drug-trafficking carries the death penalty. Despite the horrific fate, it doesn’t hinder smugglers from getting into the country to carry out their illicit business. Capital punishments does no benefit to any society or nation - it is a myth to say it does. The only reason capital punishment exists is so people have a legal excuse to take revenge.

Rehabilitation is a better form of punishment for those who violate the law. Homosexuals are commiting moral crimes - that is crimes against God’s law, and for that, Purgatory (rehabilitation) would be better suited. But if God decides to annihilate the homosexual on Judgement Day, then who am i to argue with Him? However, i would argue with a mortal should he decide to play god.