Homosexual Urban Legends - the series

[Courtneyjo]

Libero:

As for natural law, homosexuality does appear in nature (if thats what your talking about) the endocrine research has found that 8% of sheep are homosexual. That’s one to ponder over.

Let’s see, some animals kill their mates after mating and then eat them, other animals kill the young offspring, and so on and so forth. The “if animals do it, it must be natural” defense is pointless. People are not animals. People are created in the image and likeness of God. That 8% of sheep are homosexual (I’ll take your word for it) is irrelevent, because we don’t live our lives based on animal behavior, thank God. “Homosexual animals” don’t promote the gay lifestyle either.

 

[Libero]

Let’s see, some animals kill their mates after mating and then eat them, other animals kill the young offspring, and so on and so forth. The “if animals do it, it must be natural” defense is pointless. People are not animals. People are created in the image and likeness of God. That 8% of sheep are homosexual (I’ll take your word for it) is irrelevent, because we don’t live our lives based on animal behavior, thank God. “Homosexual animals” don’t promote the gay lifestyle either.

That would be interesting, a gay sheep promoting the homosexual agenda…

 

[fix]

Libero:

Whoa felra, religion is not for evryone. Some people accept theism some do not, the world has managed okay without religion in some places. Scientists took the equivalent of a nuclear missile to religion, some people cannot believe in religion due to the fact that science completely undermined it, futher more the media does not help. As for natural law, homosexuality does appear in nature (if thats what your talking about) the endocrine research has found that 8% of sheep are homosexual. That’s one to ponder over.

We are speaking of the natural moral law, not physical and biological laws.

That moral law can be known by every person regardless of religion or rejection of religion.

 

[Libero]

We are speaking of the natural moral law, not physical and biological laws.

That moral law can be known by every person regardless of religion or rejection of religion.

Ture.

 

[LSK]

Libero:

That would be interesting, a gay sheep promoting the homosexual agenda…

At the risk of hijacking the thread,I just thought of that Monty Python episode with the Killer Sheep…

 

[LSK]

siamesecat:

I’m putting this from a legal point of view, as I dont follow a religion. Religion doesnt rule America, and our job is to protect children and other people from dangers with our laws. I dont see homosexuals as dangerous to others. And regardless of whether or not they marry, they will remain homosexuals and committ homosexual acts…i doubt they will stop “sinning”

Well, I believe that those who decide to join the Holy Mother Church and follow Christ’s teachings will stop sinning. There are many on this board who have talked quite openly of their decisions to live chaste and celibate lives because their concern for their mortal souls are more important to them than having sex while alive on this earth. I know it is not a popular or believable stance for those who do not practice a religion, but there are many of us - both heterosexual and homosexual - who have decided to go against popular culture in terms of sexuality because we care more about God’s law than what the ‘world’ tells us we should be doing. And believe me, I get told all the time that I am missing out because I am not sexually active. But I’m not - and I am one good lookin’ woman.

However, I think you are correct in that the majority of homosexuals have bought into the idea that they must practice homosexual sex in order to be ‘complete’ and ‘accepted’ and ‘fullfilled’. This is the sad part of what the secular world has done - we have lied to people and told them that the act of sexual pleasure is so necessary and important that NOT engaging in it is abnormal.

 

[InnocentIII]

LSK:

As I stated before, the problem with theorizing over a specific conspiracy theory or organized agenda is that it is like trying to prove a negative. However, there has been a definite change in social attitudes over the past 60 years that could be looked at with suspicion by those who have had the intestinal fortitude to stand for traditional moral values and have been slammed repeatedly for doing so.

The essence of a conspiracy is a small group to plan it and a much larger group to promote it unawares. The vast majority of people, straight or gay, do not gather in darkened rooms to plot the overthrow of Western Civilisation. They do however promote “right thinking”. Most straight people will rarely come into direct contact with homosexuals given the ratio of numbers. But you would not believe this watching TV where gay characters have become routine. They are presented as being ordinary people just like everyone else. Nothing to worry about here. This is the “conspiracy” - not a plot but a general acceptance by the “right thinking” elite that gay is ok and incorporating it into the view of the world that they present. The other day a poster for gay tolerance appeared on a classroom wall at school that said “Home is where the heart is”. It is easy for those who accept the “right thinking” to say “But there is no conspiracy” and they would be right in terms of an organised plot but wrong in terms of a general intention. The progressives or whatever you want to call them have been operating on this basis for the last 40 years. Normalise the previously unacceptable, then promote it setting a new benchmark then move onto the next unacceptable thing. It is time a halt was called to this even if we find ourselves in the position of Gandalf talking to Saruman and sounding like crows.

 

[InnocentIII]

Libero:

To stop homosexuals attaining positions like the ones you listed is silly, it is just as likely that a heterosexual will abuse in such a situation, what is to say that a heteroseuxual will not be racist, paedophillic, violent, sexist etc. The case of Ian Huntley springs to mind here… he was not homosexual.

I am reminded by this of the AIDS debate in Australia. When AIDS first appeared there was a concerted effort to paint it as an equal opportunities disease and there were actually campaigns to warn the heterosexual population of the dangers. It never happened. True a few heterosexuals got AIDS from needles, contaminated blood transfusions and even bisexual contact - BUT the great heterosexual AIDS epidemic never happened. Today it is still confined to the gay community and some drug users. The point of the campaign though was not to promote heterosexual health but to minimise the gay aspect of the disease. Very effective it was too. That was an angenda and has been admitted as such by people involved in the campaign.

 

[felra]

Libero:

Whoa felra, religion is not for evryone.

When religion is delivering the only saving message that Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and the life and no one can come to God the Father except through Jesus (John 14: 6) , then what credible argument as a Christian can you make that “religion is not for everyone”?

Some people accept theism some do not, the world has managed okay without religion in some places.

I beg to differ. How do you define “managed okay”, and in comparison to what (secular society?). Left to their own devises, those without Christ are vulnerable to pagan idolatry and darkened spiritual influences. I believe that you are being naive in you assessment.

 

[buffalo]

siamesecat:

I’m putting this from a legal point of view, as I dont follow a religion. Religion doesnt rule America, and our job is to protect children and other people from dangers with our laws. I dont see homosexuals as dangerous to others. And regardless of whether or not they marry, they will remain homosexuals and committ homosexual acts…i doubt they will stop “sinning”

The “rule of law” cannot exist without religion.

 

[buffalo]

siamesecat:

Promotes common good? It doesnt. But I also don’t find it to be all that detrimental to the public good. Sure, there are some issues, but I consider it a fairly neutral thing to society because no one is being directly harmed.

All of our activities affect the public. Even our private actions show forth in our public attitudes and actions. Someone is always harmed by evil.

If something doesn’t promote the common good, then logically it promotes the common bad. Neutrality does not promote anything.

 

[buffalo]

Libero:

, some people cannot believe in religion due to the fact that science completely undermined it, futher more the media does not help.

Science has not undermined religion. It cannot do so as truth cannot contradict truth. Faith and reason cannot be contrary.

Science by definition is limited to what it can say about the natural world. Scientists only work in the “natural” leaving out the “supernatural”.

I have said it before, scientists who by nature are curious, cut themselves off from the entire exploration of the universe.

 

[Libero]

Science has not undermined religion. It cannot do so as truth cannot contradict truth. Faith and reason cannot be contrary.

Science by definition is limited to what it can say about the natural world. Scientists only work in the “natural” leaving out the “supernatural”.

I think that science did to an extent completely destroy religion, making it look futile, when the church failed to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe, and then later when they refused any ideas of evolution. How can one not accept this as a significant blow to the church? I believe that it was this factor that caused the decline of the church.

When religion is delivering the only saving message that Jesus Christ is the way and the truth and the life and no one can come to God the Father except through Jesus (John 14: 6) , then what credible argument as a Christian can you make that “religion is not for everyone”?

I beg to differ. How do you define “managed okay”, and in comparison to what (secular society?). Left to their own devises, those without Christ are vulnerable to pagan idolatry and darkened spiritual influences. I believe that you are being naive in you assessment.

I can say that religion is not for everyone, because some people cannot contemplate the true meaning of the world and life, they cant accept the horizons of our world. Chrisitianity is not a dictatorship, we have been given free will, God wants us to come to his church out of our own free will, not to just be in his church, and not to be forced ito it. He does not want us to just accept teachings we cannot understand, if God wanted an army of robots who all accepted his teachings, and all held the same beliefs, then he would have created one. As a chrisitan I do not want to force people to accept my churches teachings, it is arrogant and silly to say religion has to be for everyone.

Further more, I believe there are countries functioning well enough without a strong religious presence, China for example is developing/ evolving well, also Jamaica is a peaceful place. And as to a comparsion to what, well that is dependable, no country is perfect even countires “with christ” have problems just as bad.

 

[buffalo]

Libero:

I think that science did to an extent completely destroy religion, making it look futile, when the church failed to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe, and then later when they refused any ideas of evolution. How can one not accept this as a significant blow to the church? I believe that it was this factor that caused the decline of the church.

Man’s arrogance and lack of humility is the cause for any declines. Moral relativism and liberalism contribute.

Liberalism is a Sin
INTRODUCTION

**Few errors have so firmly entrenched themselves for so long a time as has the Error of Liberalism. Few sins have been so misunderstood as has been the Sin of Liberalism. In reprinting this timely book, first printed in English in 1899, we hope to enlighten Catholics as to the causes and effect of and remedies for Liberalism.
**

“Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils.” [Pg. 22]
"Liberalism "is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all Divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, 'I will not serve.' "

 

[felra]

I think that science did to an extent completely destroy religion, making it look futile, when the church failed to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe, and then later when they refused any ideas of evolution. How can one not accept this as a significant blow to the church? I believe that it was this factor that caused the decline of the church.

What century are you living in? Come join the rest of us in the 21st century. What you are referring to has more to do with the Enlightenment and the fruitation of Kant’s propagation of modern day Relativism.

I can say that religion is not for everyone, because some people cannot contemplate the true meaning of the world and life, they cant accept the horizons of our world. Chrisitianity is not a dictatorship, we have been given free will, God wants us to come to his church out of our own free will, not to just be in his church, and not to be forced ito it. He does not want us to just accept teachings we cannot understand, if God wanted an army of robots who all accepted his teachings, and all held the same beliefs, then he would have created one. As a chrisitan I do not want to force people to accept my churches teachings, it is arrogant and silly to say religion has to be for everyone

.
Why would you consider bringing the light of the Gospel to others as “force people to accept my churchs teaching”? Yours is not a full Gospel to that neglects to bring and preach the the Good News to those living in darkness (apart from the saving knowledge that is Jesus Christ).

Further more, I believe there are countries functioning well enough without a strong religious presence, China for example is developing/ evolving well

, also Jamaica is a peaceful place. And as to a comparsion to what, well that is dependable, no country is perfect even countires “with christ” have problems just as bad.
You cannot be serious. China with its institutionalized wholesale and persecution murder of its citizens born and not yet born, intolerance of any competing worship other that their own theism, …Jamacia, where the people there are still oppressed by “vodoo” doctors and all sorts of occult spiritual worship.

Yes, let’s keep Jesus out of these countries.

Note: I noticed you used lower case in your spelling of Christ – a typo or were you conveying an attitude?

 

[Libero]

Few errors have so firmly entrenched themselves for so long a time as has the Error of Liberalism. Few sins have been so misunderstood as has been the Sin of Liberalism. In reprinting this timely book, first printed in English in 1899, we hope to enlighten Catholics as to the causes and effect of and remedies for Liberalism.

“Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils.” [Pg. 22]

"Liberalism "is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all Divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, ‘I will not serve.’ "

I do remember your thread on this (was it you?) however i find this to be really quite hard to take in because the author does not directly show us liberalism in all cases, liberalism is not confined to religion, futher more, liberalism is not a set belief, it varies between everyone.

 

[buffalo]

Libero:

liberalism is not a set belief, it varies between everyone.

Therein lies the problem. Everyone’s truth is equal, which is an impossibility (relativism). Absolute truth does exist.

The beginnings of this trend started in France with the Enlightenment. The error has steadily progressed. And guess what happens when you need scientific proof of everything? Science trumps God.

 

[LSK]

InnocentIII:

The essence of a conspiracy is a small group to plan it and a much larger group to promote it unawares. The vast majority of people, straight or gay, do not gather in darkened rooms to plot the overthrow of Western Civilisation. They do however promote “right thinking”. Most straight people will rarely come into direct contact with homosexuals given the ratio of numbers. But you would not believe this watching TV where gay characters have become routine. They are presented as being ordinary people just like everyone else. Nothing to worry about here. This is the “conspiracy” - not a plot but a general acceptance by the “right thinking” elite that gay is ok and incorporating it into the view of the world that they present. The other day a poster for gay tolerance appeared on a classroom wall at school that said “Home is where the heart is”. It is easy for those who accept the “right thinking” to say “But there is no conspiracy” and they would be right in terms of an organised plot but wrong in terms of a general intention. The progressives or whatever you want to call them have been operating on this basis for the last 40 years. Normalise the previously unacceptable, then promote it setting a new benchmark then move onto the next unacceptable thing. It is time a halt was called to this even if we find ourselves in the position of Gandalf talking to Saruman and sounding like crows.

Very good point, Innocent. I think people do think of ‘conspiracy’ as being a select group meeting in a darkenned room somewhere…and there can be an argument made that when any group gathers to plan their agenda for a specific political push of any kind they are conspiring - there is power in the use of words, of course, and ‘conspiracy’ has a criminal sound to it, doesn’t it? But I think you have made an interest point, one that bears consideration.

 

[fix]

Libero:

I can say that religion is not for everyone, because some people cannot contemplate the true meaning of the world and life, they cant accept the horizons of our world. Chrisitianity is not a dictatorship, we have been given free will, God wants us to come to his church out of our own free will, not to just be in his church, and not to be forced ito it. He does not want us to just accept teachings we cannot understand, if God wanted an army of robots who all accepted his teachings, and all held the same beliefs, then he would have created one. As a chrisitan I do not want to force people to accept my churches teachings, it is arrogant and silly to say religion has to be for everyone.

The Truth is for everyone. It is not to be forced, but it is for everyone. That some reject it does not mean it is not for them. There may be many reasons they reject it, but it is not because it is wrong for them.

 

[vluvski]

Libero:

I think that science did to an extent completely destroy religion.

I am just wondering how it is possible to completely do anything to an extent?