Gays May Be Prosecuted at 2014 Olympics

[SMGS127]

For all of those here who support the criminalization of homosexuality, you are in direct opposition to the Vatican:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-calls-homosexuality-be-decriminalized

Secondly, can you imagine if the bill substituted all forms of the word “non-traditional” with “traditional?” Everyone here would be furious because the smallest instance of anything would lead to crmiinal penalties. Likewise, people are going to be beaten up, raped, and then jailed just for holding hands with someone, because it’s going to be interpreted as “popularizing” the behavior. This is sickening that people can actually support intolerant stuff like this. Ugh it’s people who support this type of stuff who keep gays & lesbians from becoming celibate and joining the religion.

 

[Dawnia]

Uh-oh.
This is not gonna be pretty.
There could be a lot of boycotting of the events–by both athletes and fans. And advertisers.

.

Advertisers make a killing off of the Olympics. Green will beat out gay (or any group for that matter) any day of the week when it comes to advertisers. The few who might will easily be replaced.

Athletes who boycott the Olympics will only be hurting themselves.

There would have to be a HUGE number of fans world wide boycotting the Olympics to make a dent in the billions who follow the events.

 

[Tarpeian]

Good for Russia. Sodomy is one of the Sins that cries to Heaven for Vengeance. A Nation would be crazy not to sanction such an abomination.

Correct:thumbsup:

Every nation that has accepted The Culture Of Death has written its own obituary.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Trigonometric]

For all of those here who support the criminalization of homosexuality, you are in direct opposition to the Vatican:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/va…decriminalized

National Catholic reporter is a left-wing, dissenting newspaper.
If you actually read what the Vatican statement was, it mentions nothing about “consensual actions.” You can read the actual statement they referenced here: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2008/documents/rc_seg-st_20081218_statement-sexual-orientation_en.html

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also written on the matter. It appears that while excessive discrimination against people for merely having a homosexual orientation is wrong, certain restrictions on homosexual actions are acceptable, and I’d guess that the propaganda meets this standard.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground , and irrational and violent reactions increase.

(bolding mine)

 

[Tarpeian]

A picture can be worth a thousand words.

Homosexual activist taunts Christians gathered near US Supreme Court building during “gay marriage” arguments.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13a/SCOTUS_marriage_args_0326/index/taunting_330.jpg

http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/chile_gay_protest.jpg

A heterosexual union normally produces babies. That’s why the left is fighting so hard for contraception and abortion which are extreme attempts to counteract what is the normal result of the sexual union of a man and a woman. Most people agree that children, which are always the biological product of one man and one woman, are a beautiful thing. And even every homosexual is the product of such a union. A baby is normally the fruit of traditional marriage. So here’s a question. Besides AIDS and other STDs, what fruit comes as a direct result of the homosexual act?

Nothing God will not be mocked! And if you violate the Natural Law that is written on everyone’s heart there will be consequence’s as you have already noted.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[SMGS127]

National Catholic reporter is a left-wing, dissenting newspaper.
If you actually read what the Vatican statement was, it mentions nothing about “consensual actions.” You can read the actual statement they referenced here: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2008/documents/rc_seg-st_20081218_statement-sexual-orientation_en.html

Whoops. I read that as the National Catholic REGISTER. My apologies. Better pay more attention to what I’m linking in the future .

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also written on the matter. It appears that while excessive discrimination against people for merely having a homosexual orientation is wrong, certain restrictions on homosexual actions are acceptable, and I’d guess that the propaganda meets this standard.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

Right, but I don’t think that the Vatican would support any limitation on free speech. We aren’t discussing pornography (as a previous poster linked it to), but rather the ability for someone to express their religious opinions in public or online. This isn’t a ban on gay porn, a ban on public lewdity, or even a ban on gay solicitation. This is a ban on the ability of someone to walk down the street holding the hand of someone of the same sex. This is a ban on the ability of someone to promote a religious belief regarding homosexuality. If you can criminalize the promotion, you can certainly criminalize the opposition. It sounds all fine and dandy until your speech gets banned too.

 

[aemcpa]

If you can criminalize the promotion, you can certainly criminalize the opposition.

Not if the State is enacting laws in accordance with the natural law, as is its duty.

 

[SMGS127]

Not if the State is enacting laws in accordance with the natural law, as is its duty.

And if a state decides that “natural law” means something horribly perverse, that should be fine because the state determines natural law? No. There is a reason that we separate the Church from the state, and it isn’t to protect the state.

Not to mention, as a previous poster alluded to, you all will have to judge your moral assent to this plan when it eventually turns into pseudo-legal mass murdering of gays. Criminalization of the behavior should never, NEVER happen. It is inciting, harmful, and worst of all, contrary to the apostolic mission of the Church.

 

[aemcpa]

And if a state decides that “natural law” means something horribly perverse, that should be fine because the state determines natural law? No. There is a reason that we separate the Church from the state, and it isn’t to protect the state.

Not to mention, as a previous poster alluded to, you all will have to judge your moral assent to this plan when it eventually turns into pseudo-legal mass murdering of gays. Criminalization of the behavior should never, NEVER happen. It is inciting, harmful, and worst of all, contrary to the apostolic mission of the Church.

Again with the strawman. Who said the State decides what the natural law is?

 

[Tarpeian]

If a random guy in a pink mesh shirt and a tutu is your biggest beef then clearly things aren’t that bad for your side. I don’t see gay gangs publicly torturing heterosexuals in public and broad daylight.

The word was taunt not torture. I could supply you with some youtube video but I don’t if its appropriate on the forum. You are free to search that site. I know many people who didn’t “see” the Pro Death aka “Pro Choice” crowd obstruct justice in Texas until I directed them to the video. I know some didn’t “see” the Pro Death crowd chanting, “hail Satan” until I directed them to the video. But these events do happen.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[SMGS127]

The word was taunt not torture. I could supply you with some youtube video but I don’t if its appropriate on the forum. You are free to search that site. I know many people who didn’t “see” the Pro Death aka “Pro Choice” crowd obstruct justice in Texas until I directed them to the video. I know some didn’t “see” the Pro Death crowd chanting, “hail Satan” until I directed them to the video. But these events do happen.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Right…but they aren’t representative of the gay community. Unless you have spent time in the LGBT community, don’t say you know how gays treat religious. Most are quite cordial, and will only get angry if you directly insult them or call them f****t or d**e, etc. If you’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to you, even if you support traditional marriage. How can people defend Tea Party events for being mischaracterized by the media, then turn around and be all “hey look at this one gay person; he must represent all gays!” It makes so little sense.

Again with the strawman. Who said the State decides what the natural law is?

Thank you, that is EXACTLY my point. The state has no right deciding what natural law is. That’s God’s job, and we are supposed to follow it. The state has no role in that, except to protect the rights of the religious to spread God’s law. Criminalization of homosexual behavior is so counterintuitive to our apostolic roles as Christians that I don’t understand how a single person supports the state getting involved, especially when the state could just as easily decide homosexuality IS natural law and that the Church should shut up or be prosecuted, ala Canada.

 

[aemcpa]

The state has no role in that, except to protect the rights of the religious to spread God’s law.

Nonsense. Your mind is polluted by Americanism and pluralism.

 

[SMGS127]

Nonsense. Your mind is polluted by Americanism and pluralism.

Or I know the difference between a Pharisee and an apostle.

8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]

We are supposed to imitate Christ in teaching correct moral behavior but not condemning those who have engaged in it. Criminalization is counterintuitive to our apostolic mission, as I have said, and anyone who supports it will have blood on their hands when these “corrective” gang rapes eventually turn to mass murders.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

We are supposed to imitate Christ in teaching correct moral behavior but not condemning those who have engaged in it. Criminalization is counterintuitive to our apostolic mission, as I have said, and anyone who supports it will have blood on their hands when these “corrective” gang rapes eventually turn to mass murders.

OK, but what do you think about the manipulation of children and the youth into sexual immorality? Because when the homosexual movement gets strong they immediately go after the young to educate them about the beauty of their perverted lifestyle so it can eventually be completely normalised. Do you think that is allowed and morally neutral or that people have an obligation to protect the youth from immorality? If I had to choose between the criminalisation of homosexuality and their freedom to indoctrinate my children - what we now see in the western world via sexual education in schools and the media, then without much thought I choose the criminalisation.

Also, you are now theorising the causal relationship between public displays of homosexuality and violence against them. Not necessary if the law will punish those who engage in any kind of violence.

 

[SMGS127]

OK, but what do you think about the manipulation of children and the youth into sexual immorality? Because when the homosexual movement gets strong they immediately go after the young to educate them about the beauty of their perverted lifestyle so it can eventually be completely normalised. Do you think that is allowed and morally neutral or that people have an obligation to protect the youth from immorality?

Also, you are now theorising the causal relationship between public displays of homosexuality and violence against them. Not necessary if the law will punish those who engage in any kind of violence.

The law supposedly punishes those who engage in violence, but conveniently doesn’t prosecute violence against gays.

And there’s a difference. The law criminalizes websites, support groups, and all public signs of relationships in places minors could theoretically visit. This isn’t getting gay propaganda out of schools, or providing parents with opt-outs at the very least. This is telling a kid who’s gay: “if you make a support group for other kids with SSAs, we will prosecute you mercilessly and send you to jail.” This is telling two people in a same-sex relationship that they don’t have equal dignity as people because they sin.

Would you support a law criminalizing heretical speech? Then don’t support this bill . Work in the gay communities to help bring people back; don’t tell them that you’ve completely given up on them.

 

[lcburgundy]

The number of posters here willing to cozy up to Putin because he puts the veneer of religiosity and morality on his increasingly Soviet brand of totalitarianism is scary. Criminalizing the holding hands with someone of the same sex is madness. It’s bad enough that such a law exists in a freedom-hating and openly xenophobic nation like Russia, but the number of people who want it exported westward is truly disturbing.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The number of posters here willing to cozy up to Putin because he puts the veneer of religiosity and morality on his increasingly Soviet brand of totalitarianism is scary. Criminalizing the holding hands with someone of the same sex is madness. It’s bad enough that such a law exists in a freedom-hating and openly xenophobic nation like Russia, but the number of people who want it exported westward is truly disturbing.

+1, agreed.

This news is sick and insane.

 

[Tarpeian]

Right…but they aren’t representative of the gay community. Unless you have spent time in the LGBT community, don’t say you know how gays treat religious. Most are quite cordial, and will only get angry if you directly insult them or call them f****t or d**e, etc. If you’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to you, even if you support traditional marriage. How can people defend Tea Party events for being mischaracterized by the media, then turn around and be all “hey look at this one gay person; he must represent all gays!” It makes so little sense.

Thank you, that is EXACTLY my point. The state has no right deciding what natural law is. That’s God’s job, and we are supposed to follow it. The state has no role in that, except to protect the rights of the religious to spread God’s law. Criminalization of homosexual behavior is so counterintuitive to our apostolic roles as Christians that I don’t understand how a single person supports the state getting involved, especially when the state could just as easily decide homosexuality IS natural law and that the Church should shut up or be prosecuted, ala Canada.

Hello SMGS127

I don’t defend any political party. I don’t let the media form, shape, or influence any part of my life. I have met many in the militant society to which you refer. I have never nor will I ever insult anyone with that disorder.

What exactly do you mean when you say " If you’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to you…"?

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[SMGS127]

Hello SMGS127

I don’t defend any political party. I don’t let the media form, shape, or influence any part of my life. I have met many in the militant society to which you refer. I have never nor will I ever insult anyone with that disorder.

What exactly do you mean when you say " If you’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to you…"?

Pax,
Tarpeian

If you call the broader LGBT community a “militant society,” then you clearly haven’t experienced the LGBT community. My apologies if that’s not what you were referring to.

As for my quote that you bring up, I’ve found that a lot of posters characterize gays as angry, anti-Catholic, religion-haters who want to impose their views on everyone else and make everyone else suffer. On the contrary, most gays (while supporting legalized civil marriage) also support the rights of the religious, and oftentimes there are big fights in LGBT communities trying to keep the “militant” ones, as you call them, from infringing on those rights, including the right to teach against homosexuality, the right to have your children shielded from books espousing homosexuality, and the right to never be forced to accept a gay ‘marriage’ as a real marriage. [To give you an example, almost every gay person I knew thought the bakery lawsuit was ridiculous. Only 1 or 2 of my friends, most of whom have deeply negative pasts regarding religion, were in favor.]

In fact, I had many deeply religious friends that I was close to while I was actively lesbian. As long as they weren’t insulting me to my face, I was totally fine with them, even though I knew many of them supported traditional marriage. Now, the situation is reversed, where I have a very large LGBT friendbase, many of whom know I support traditional marriage, and our friendships go on all the same. They would never ask me to accept their views on homosexuality; usually, they just want to live their life quietly away from the spotlight.

So as I said, if you consider “militant gays” to be representative of the broader LGBT community, you clearly haven’t met the broader LGBT community.

 

[One_point]

I find the laws supporting the promotion of an illness among the young in the Western countries much more backward, sickening and downright insane than I find a law protecting children from the same in Russia.