Homosexual Permission...from who and what?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CopticChristian

Guest
It was brought to my attention that there is a mindset concerning permission that I was not aware of. I personally hold that all actions are based on choice and free will is either my will or Veritatis Splendor…Below is a summary of some permissions and comments. I ask only for education and dialogue. I do not believe that these are true however have been informed that they are argued. Inform me.

Homosexuals are not in control of their own sex drives. It is stated that the attraction is “inborn,” and biologically “determined” (separate from the individual function of their wills) to engage sexually. it’s “instinct.” “elevates” it as well; it’s a faux reproductive instinct. sexuality is all about “equality.” Equality in status, equality in access to societal privileges for married couples, equality in “morality.” I don’t believe or accept this.

Heterosexuals control their sex drive what gives? Heterosexuals do not separate the individual function of their wills to engage sexually and thus accept morality. All should accept morality.

Homosexuals must be allowed to marry so that their sexual behavior (which is “determined” and not of their free will) will be socially legitimized “marriage” will save them from "fornicating."

Heterosexuals marry for different reasons. If salvation from fornication is the reason how can that apply to homosexuals?

Homosexuals are victims of Society and thus entitles them to sexual indulgence.

If choice in action is the reason for victimization then how can someone claim to be a victim?
 
CopticChristian said:
It was brought to my attention that there is a mindset concerning permission that I was not aware of. I personally hold that all actions are based on choice and free will is either my will or Veritatis Splendor…Below is a summary of some permissions and comments. I ask only for education and dialogue. I do not believe that these are true however have been informed that they are argued. Inform me.

Homosexuals are not in control of their own sex drives. It is stated that the attraction is “inborn,” and biologically “determined” (separate from the individual function of their wills) to engage sexually. it’s “instinct.” “elevates” it as well; it’s a faux reproductive instinct. sexuality is all about “equality.” Equality in status, equality in access to societal privileges for married couples, equality in “morality.” I don’t believe or accept this.

Heterosexuals control their sex drive what gives? Heterosexuals do not separate the individual function of their wills to engage sexually and thus accept morality. All should accept morality.

Homosexuals must be allowed to marry so that their sexual behavior (which is “determined” and not of their free will) will be socially legitimized “marriage” will save them from "fornicating."

Heterosexuals marry for different reasons. If salvation from fornication is the reason how can that apply to homosexuals?

Homosexuals are victims of Society and thus entitles them to sexual indulgence.

If choice in action is the reason for victimization then how can someone claim to be a victim?
Click to expand...
Did the person who informed you that there propositions are argued tell you by whom they are argued? They seem like most unlikely views for anyone to hold. (Except the ‘inborn instinct’ argument itself, of course)
 
I would hope that someone would define homosexuality. This is so broadly interpreted that virtually no homosexual rights activist group has denounced NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. How about replacing “homosexual” with “polygamist” or “polyandrist”?

Marriage is a sacrament of public witnessing the union of male and female who “become as one” in a literal genetic sense in having babies and also a spiritual sense. This is the sacrament of integration, the uniting of disparate genders. Homosexual marriage has no element of integration. It’s like civil rights for rich, white males to insist on homosexual marriage. In fact, homosexuals make up one of the richest demographics in America…It is affirmative action for rich white males to have homosexual marriage.

Activists are not satisfied with domestic partnerships, which could include non-sexual unions as in two single moms afforded economic protection while raising their kids together. This is cultural predation. Marriage is not and never has been part of homosexual culture unless you include Nero’s marriage to the slave boy who resembled the wife he kicked to death. This “women and children last” sentiment is evidenced in the insistence on homosexual marriage instead of domestic partnerships.

As with AIDS, that has 1/3 less victims than breast cancer but AIDS research receives three times the funding of breast cancer research, this is another rich, white male privilege, “women and children last.” Special protection under the law instead of equal protection under the law is afforded homosexuals, yet gay-on-gay violence rates are astronomical. It is homosexuals perpetrating violence on other homosexuals that is the travesty. Pregnant women were specifically excluded from that “special protection under the law” of hate crimes. Women and children last.

Lord, reverse the perverse and ground us on the Rock of our salvation. Women and children first.
 
nordskoven said:
I would hope that someone would define homosexuality. This is so broadly interpreted that virtually no homosexual rights activist group has denounced NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. .
Click to expand...
Are you sure of this? What is your source for this ‘fact’? Why would you in any case expect a homosexual rights organisation to condemn NAMBLA more than, say, an aquarium society? What is child sex to do with homosexuals?
 
NAMBLA was side by side with the gay liberation movement in the 70 s. Aquarium societies were not.
 
Hokomai said:
Did the person who informed you that there propositions are argued tell you by whom they are argued? They seem like most unlikely views for anyone to hold. (Except the ‘inborn instinct’ argument itself, of course)
Click to expand...
Hokomai,

No. It was presented to me. It appeared to me as a summary that was implied, as if I was to know, however I did not.
 
nordskoven said:
I would hope that someone would define homosexuality. This is so broadly interpreted that virtually no homosexual rights activist group has denounced NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. How about replacing “homosexual” with “polygamist” or “polyandrist”?

Marriage is a sacrament of public witnessing the union of male and female who “become as one” in a literal genetic sense in having babies and also a spiritual sense. This is the sacrament of integration, the uniting of disparate genders. Homosexual marriage has no element of integration. It’s like civil rights for rich, white males to insist on homosexual marriage. In fact, homosexuals make up one of the richest demographics in America…It is affirmative action for rich white males to have homosexual marriage.

Activists are not satisfied with domestic partnerships, which could include non-sexual unions as in two single moms afforded economic protection while raising their kids together. This is cultural predation. Marriage is not and never has been part of homosexual culture unless you include Nero’s marriage to the slave boy who resembled the wife he kicked to death. This “women and children last” sentiment is evidenced in the insistence on homosexual marriage instead of domestic partnerships.

As with AIDS, that has 1/3 less victims than breast cancer but AIDS research receives three times the funding of breast cancer research, this is another rich, white male privilege, “women and children last.” Special protection under the law instead of equal protection under the law is afforded homosexuals, yet gay-on-gay violence rates are astronomical. It is homosexuals perpetrating violence on other homosexuals that is the travesty. Pregnant women were specifically excluded from that “special protection under the law” of hate crimes. Women and children last.

Lord, reverse the perverse and ground us on the Rock of our salvation. Women and children first.
Click to expand...
Nordskoven,

I agree about NAMBLA. Hard to believe that this is out there.

I like the descritpion of marriage you have and agree with the activist issue.

The research I was not aware of. I was running on the treadmill and heard that there is now a drug to reduce the risk of AIDS for the homosexual population. I find this disturbing.

Keep the Faith.🙂
 
Hokomai said:
Are you sure of this? What is your source for this ‘fact’? Why would you in any case expect a homosexual rights organisation to condemn NAMBLA more than, say, an aquarium society? What is child sex to do with homosexuals?
Click to expand...
Hokomai,

I believe, not sure, that there is thought that much of what adults do with children is heavily weighted towards same sex issues. I believe that may be the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top