Homosexuality 777 (Adv. class)

  • Thread starter Thread starter chiroworks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know how much you don’t believe in God? That’s about as much as I don’t believe you or most of the leftist non-Catholics would be appalled if the Church was forced to do anything. All I ever hear from leftists is how much the Church should do this, and the Church should do that, without understanding why the Church cannot and wont.
Well feel free to think I’m a liar. I’m not, but its your choice to believe that I suppose, if it makes you feel better about what we’re talking about to demonize me unnecessarily. Thanks for extending me that courtesy…
 
jm

**Are you insinuating that I am actually just lying about respecting religious freedom? **

I am telling you that historically atheism has no respect for religion and the history of organized atheism is that it would destroy religion everywhere it could find it.

Pious denial notwithstanding.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

On the other hand, I haven’t heard of the Catholic Church executing an atheist lately, have you?

youtube.com/watch?v=gbgDlMmAGaw
 
The notion that any act between two parties consenting to the act should be respected is a nitwit notion. Are we to respect the masochist and the sadist when they go at each other because they consent to the inflicting of pain? Are we to regard dueling as a respectable act just because the duelers have consented to the prospect of killing each other with a bullet or a sword? Are we to respect a man having sex with his mother just because they consent to incest? Are we to respect a man giving anal sex to another man because they are pleasuring each other? Are we to respect the desire of two grown consenting men living in matrimonial bliss adopting a boy … for what purpose?

I think people who defend these kinds of insanity on the grounds of mutual consent are themselves hateful people … people who hate normalcy and will exert every twisted thought to attack it and make it out to be evil.

Sick! :mad:
 
The notion that any act between two parties consenting to the act should be respected is a nitwit notion.
Well thank you for making a well backed up statement calling me a nitwit. Glad to see your argument stands on more than ad hominem…
Are we to respect the masochist and the sadist when they go at each other because they consent to the inflicting of pain? Are we to regard dueling as a respectable act just because the duelers have consented to the prospect of killing each other with a bullet or a sword? Are we to respect a man giving anal sex to another man because they are pleasuring each other?
Why shouldn’t we? What does it hurt you if they are doing this and it makes them happy? Why should you be the judge of what people can do to be happy?
Are we to respect a man having sex with his mother just because they consent to incest? Are we to respect the desire of two grown consenting men living in matrimonial bliss adopting a boy … for what purpose?
These are different. Incest can lead to horrible birth defects. And parenting affects a child. Since you apparently do not even know what I mean by consensual acts that affect no one other than the involved parties, I wonder how your non thought-out stance on the subject even matters.
I think people who defend these kinds of insanity on the grounds of mutual consent are themselves hateful people … people who hate normalcy and will exert every twisted thought to attack it and make it out to be evil.

Sick! :mad:
I don’t hate normalcy. I just don’t hate that which is “abnormal” (apparently whatever you disagree with) if it does no harm to anyone but those involved. I am actually hating less than you are. So how exactly am I the hateful one?
 
I am telling you that historically atheism has no respect for religion and the history of organized atheism is that it would destroy religion everywhere it could find it.

Pious denial notwithstanding.
So its back to I’m a liar, or at least in denial. You have the right to think that all you want, but it isn’t true.
On the other hand, I haven’t heard of the Catholic Church executing an atheist lately, have you?
Nope, but they sure used to. But vast harm has been done by people on both sides. What does that have to do with what any individual might think about it, based solely on what they believe? I’m a firm believer in freedom of religion. If you aren’t, fine. But don’t think I’m a liar because I’m an atheist that is fine with you being a Catholic all you want to now and indefinitely into the future, and you can’t extend that same respect to people like me or anybody else doing something you disapprove of.
 
jm
**
These are different. Incest can lead to horrible birth defects.**

More denial. Sodomy kills.

Interesting that you defend one and attack the other.

I’m a firm believer in freedom of religion. If you aren’t, fine.

Why do you say a silly thing like that? :confused:
 
Atheism is a belief system. it is a desperate faith that works very hard to ignore evidence of the divine life in the human person.
 
Actually, many “fat acceptance”-type groups exist (I hate to use that word and categorize anyone like that, but I do so because I’m following the word you use) in order to promote “fat” people in the media and shine a more positive light on being so-called “fat” so that they will not be discriminated against.
There is a difference between “fat” and gluttony.
 
So what, you would like to make sodomy illegal then? A consensual sex act that does not affect you? Give me the secular argument for that.

actually, Sodomy was illegal in every state of this Nation without exception for most of American history. As was abortion.
Both of which were “legalized” by the Supreme Court.

Also, though “gluttony” has never been strictly illegal in America,
adultery, fornication, and other sins that you think Christians should equally condemn,
were in fact illegal, and in fact in most places still ARE on the lawbooks as illegal,
they are just no longer prosecuted because liberals and gutless conservatives don’t
enforce the so-called “vice” laws.

I’m sorry, but those who say that same-sex sexual activity “doesn’t affect” others, are wrong. This activity is filthy. It is dangerous to the receptive male partner in each and every case whatsoever, as that organ of solid waste-expulsion (and that is WHAT it is for), was never intended to receive violent thrusting. It is easily torn and, whether the active partner “wears protection” or not, the receptor partner is still in grave danger because the colon is easily torn, and once torn, the many bacteria in it, which are harmless in their proper place, now can go through the lining and into the partner’s bloodstream and make him deathly ill. Gay men suffer from more diseases (non-AIDS related) than any other single group in the world, and this has been borne out by numerous studies which are readily available on the internet. Intestinal bacteria do not belong in the bloodstream, and even “protected” gay sex results in tearing and exposure of the bloodstream to that bacteria. That makes for very sick people, higher insurance costs, etc, so gay sex,
like gluttony (as some of you correctly pointed out) DOES affect the rest of society, even just that aspect of it alone.
We do not know enough about illnesses associated with female gay sex to make such declarations with regard to that.
But this is not a secular country and was never intended to be.
The founding fathers, though often not “orthodox” Christians ((many though religious were FREEMASONS)), did not intend a morals-free nation devoid of biblical influence.
Those who say they did, are LYING, many of them KNOWINGLY and intentionally.

They did intend a nation free of a STATE-funded, mandatory-membership CHURCH.
This is because many of them couldn’t STAND Anglicanism, support of which was FORCED upon the English and the Colonists by British Law. The First Amendment was their answer to that: there would be NO “State-Church” in the USA.
That is ALL the First Amendment was for. There would be no state-sponsored Church which everyone had to belong to. Moreover, congress was forbidden to consider or pass any law whatsoever, which would in any way whatsoever, interfere AT ALL with the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs — in the home or outside the home. There was to be NO interference in religion by the government, none, zero, zilch, NADA.
They violated this, of course, when the Mormons claimed a right to Polygamy, which was against Federal Law (and which no other Christian body ever advocated).
But the American founding fathers WERE (except notably for Thomas Paine) very religious, and their CONTEMPORANEOUS writings prove, beyond all HONEST dispute, that these men NEVER intended the First Amendment to be used, as it is today, to PREVENT religious moral influence in the framing of Laws. It was solely, and only, intended to prevent the establishment of an official State Church. That is ALL. That is IT. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you through his or her teeth.
 
Yes, marriage should be defined by religion in a country that supposedly respects all religions… Give me a universally acceptable reason why your definition, which is based on your religion, should be forced as the definition for everybody in this country, of every religion.

First of all, the religions of this country (the mainline churches and liberal jewish and other groups) who now accept homosexual sex (and other behaviors condemned in their own holy writings) have thereby committed APOSTASY by accepting these behaviors so strongly denounced by their founders. And don’t anyone hand me any garbage equating the eating of fat with the laws against sexual morality. Sexual behavior is sacred in it’s proper context, and outside of that context is always, always, always, a desecration of one’s own body which is a temple of the spirit of the divine one.
Eating fat was a proscribed ceremonial law, as was touching the Ark of the Covenant.
The ark was a mere box, of wood overlaid with gold. It was what it STOOD FOR that made it holy, and the Lord HaShem of Israel struck dead ANYONE, other than the Priests, who dared touch it, even pious men like Uzziah who merely wanted to stop it from tipping over when he reached out his hand to steady it, and dropped dead.
Sexual activity outside of male/female marriage is always and everywhere a gross misuse of the body and the purpose for which it was made.

God never instilled gay desires in one single person, not ever.
Those desires, like all other disordered passions of whatever stripe, come from the disconnect within us that is deep rooted due to the “fall of mankind” way back in the mists of pre-History.

The gay sexual lifestyle has been universally condemned, and remains so for the most part, by all human societies, Christian, Jewish, pagan, no particular religion, since the dawn of recorded history. Those nations that did finally embrace and celebrate it,
always in every case did so shortly before their nations collapsed and fell, always during a period of openly embracing nearly every form of immorality.
In ancient Greece and Rome, it was wildly popular just before these nations fell.
(( Hanukkah, by the way, has much more significance than just oil burning for 8 days.
Antiochus, who was oppressing Israel, was trying to force Hellenization including
it’s acceptance of homosexual behavior, onto the Jewish people. This enforced
paganizing of Judaism led to the creation of the (then very good) Pharisees, but
this is all another matter )).
Condemnation of gay sexual activity did not begin with the Catholic Church, nor even with Moses. No societies ever accepted this behavior, unless and until the particular society was on it’s way out. Sodom and Gomorrah were, partly due to this, blown off the face of the earth.

Also, just because pedophilia is not (not yet) accepted in America and other pro-gay-rights nations, is no indication that it won’t be. Acceptance of gross sin is always granted by DEGREES, gradually. The Greeks didn’t always accept pedophilia either. But in their final decades, this behavior was not only accepted, it was, shockingly, thought very NOBLE for an older man to initiate young boys into the mysteries of sexuality by having sex with them. It was actually thought to be noble and good. The descent into depravity proceeds by degrees, it does not happen all at once. Yesterday, adultery began to be referred to euphemistically as “having an affair”, thus stripping it of it’s stigma as a vile act of treason. FORNICATION was gently redefined as extramarital sex, then in the 60s, this evil was re-named “free love,” making it sound actually noble. Today, it is the gay lifestyle that is accepted. Now gay MARRIAGE is being advocated.
Mark my word (and I am no genius): Pedophilia IS going to be promoted and accepted in the United States and the rest of the Western World. It IS. And it will be Media Liberals,
liberal movie stars, liberal politicians, and the Apostate mainline Churches, who, once it starts being promoted, will be leading the charge. You can count on it.
 
There is a difference between “fat” and gluttony.
Aye. I had subscribed to a fat acceptance group for a while. I’ve been fat since I was 6 years old. It is a constant battle for me. I’ve been yo-yo dieting since then. At 30 years of age now, my metabolism is a wreck. It’s contributing to a fibroid in my uterus now that makes me bleed for 20 days if I don’t take medicine.

I see people, thin and fat, who eat at least twice as much as I do. Gluttony can contribute to obesity but it’s not the only way to get there.

My being overweight makes it so that I am occasionally afraid to leave the house. It makes it so that I’m afraid no one will hire me because they see my weight and think I’m lazy or just hate fat people. And I just know the difference between when I’m thinner and when I’m the size I am now, how people treat me. It affects self esteem a lot.

And at one point, there was a state that wanted to ban fat people from dining at restaurants.

A fat acceptance group would want fat people to just be treated fairly. They are not asking for a buffet line at religious institutions. And I have often seen fat acceptance groups support also the rights of gays to not face discrimination in the workplace.

I’m sure all of us can agree that we don’t want gays to be treated with hatred. We just have this huge disagreement in regards to what marriage and parenthood is supposed to be.

The only way I see this could be made better for everyone, is if the government were removed from marriage completely.

ETA: Also, I don’t think it should be a question “what for,” in regards to gays wanting to adopt children. Just because someone is gay, doesn’t make them a pedophile, okay? Pedophiles molest the same and opposite sex. Gays obviously want to start their own families, and I can think of a few gay people that I would trust to babysit my kids…as long as they don’t try to brainwash my kids.
 
Atheism is a belief system. it is a desperate faith that works very hard to ignore evidence of the divine life in the human person.
Atheists share only one common belief, and that is that they do not have a belief in the existence of a deity. That is the only thing that is shared among atheists. You could still be anti science, a buddhist, a social conservative, etc.

So please, tell me about this vast set of beliefs that atheists share…
 
Sexual activity outside of male/female marriage is always and everywhere a gross misuse of the body and the purpose for which it was made.
According to your opinion, not the opinions of everybody from every religion and culture.
God never instilled gay desires in one single person, not ever.
Ask a gay person about that some time. Of course, I doubt you’d trust their answer.
Those nations that did finally embrace and celebrate it,
always in every case did so shortly before their nations collapsed and fell, always during a period of openly embracing nearly every form of immorality.
So you have established correlation, which is not causation. Prove why doing this would necessarily destroy a nation? I mean, we are a long way already towards being fine with homosexuality in this country. I don’t see any raining frogs or rivers of blood.
Pedophilia IS going to be promoted and accepted in the United States and the rest of the Western World. It IS. And it will be Media Liberals,
liberal movie stars, liberal politicians, and the Apostate mainline Churches, who, once it starts being promoted, will be leading the charge. You can count on it.
Here’s where you prove how much you don’t know what you are talking about. Pedophilia is NOT CONSENSUAL. The “evil liberals” don’t have a problem with homosexuality because it is consensual, but pedophilia is rape. Allowing gay people to be gay is not the start of a slippery slope where we just approve of everything. Its just part of a convergence on a libertarian social policy. Live and let live. I know its a hard concept for you to let somebody lead a life that you don’t approve of, but that’s what the rest of us are going to fight for.
 
Here’s where you prove how much you don’t know what you are talking about. Pedophilia is NOT CONSENSUAL. The “evil liberals” don’t have a problem with homosexuality because it is consensual, but pedophilia is rape. Allowing gay people to be gay is not the start of a slippery slope where we just approve of everything. Its just part of a convergence on a libertarian social policy. Live and let live. I know its a hard concept for you to let somebody lead a life that you don’t approve of, but that’s what the rest of us are going to fight for.
JM makes excellent points. Why should, in your opinion, a democracy such as ours concede to Catholicism or any religiosity as its constitutional base? Shall we go back, then, to the wonders of Catholic theocracy in Europe, before the Reformation?

In our system, the most sage stance I’ve seen verbalized (emphasis mine) on this topic is this:
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism. ~Barry Goldwater
 
JM makes excellent points. Why should, in your opinion, a democracy such as ours concede to Catholicism or any religiosity as its constitutional base? Shall we go back, then, to the wonders of Catholic theocracy in Europe, before the Reformation?
I get the impression that he thinks I am only saying that I want freedom for all religious activity so long as it does not harm any outsiders, and that I would secretly love to have atheism end all of the religion in this country. So thank you for assuming I’m actually telling the truth when I say I want freedom for all religions, not just my (lack of) one.
In our system, the most sage stance I’ve seen verbalized (emphasis mine) on this topic is this:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism. ~Barry Goldwater
I had never heard of this guy. But after reading about him a bit, I sure wish he was in Romney’s spot.
 
jm
**
Atheists share only one common belief, and that is that they do not have a belief in the existence of a deity. That is the only thing that is shared among atheists. You could still be anti science, a buddhist, a social conservative, etc.

So please, tell me about this vast set of beliefs that atheists share…**

They share more than one common belief. Wake up!

They share no belief in the immortality of the soul.

They share no belief in a moral law that is universal and obligatory (moral relativism).

They share (most of them) the belief that theists are intellectually inferior to atheists.

They share (most of them) a hatred of organized religion and they hope that organized religion will die out and the world will then be a better place.

They share the desire to persecute religious institutions whenever they have the upper hand to do so.

They share the foolish illusion that they are morally superior to theists.

They share the illusion that they are kinder toward homosexuals than Christians are.

On and on the list goes. :D;)
 
Well thank you for making a well backed up statement calling me a nitwit. Glad to see your argument stands on more than ad hominem…

You were not specifically addressed in post #26. But apparently you thought it applied to you? 😉

I went on the make points showing why this is a nitwit mentality, points that you refused to answer, apparently because you were stumped? Truly, the notion that any two people who agree to needlessly harm each other is a nitwit mentality. Do you agree or not? :confused:
 
tell me about this vast set of beliefs that atheists share…
I didn’t say anything about “vast.” I said, and repeat, that your belief is as absolute as the belief or beliefs or any organized religion or any private religious adherent.

Atheism is based on faith every bit as much as deism, Christianity, etc. is. It’s just that atheists refuse to admit that.
😉
 
They share more than one common belief. Wake up!
I’ll wake up when you prove your point. So let’s see how you do.
They share no belief in the immortality of the soul.
Not true. Some eastern religious structures are atheistic but believe in reincarnation.
They share no belief in a moral law that is universal and obligatory (moral relativism).
Not true. One can believe there are some absolute things that are right and wrong without an appeal to a higher power.
They share (most of them) the belief that theists are intellectually inferior to atheists.
Not true. I do not believe that I am intellectually superior to theists, and I have met many extremely intelligent theists. I simply think the arguments are stronger for my side.
They share (most of them) a hatred of organized religion and they hope that organized religion will die out and the world will then be a better place.
Not true either. I don’t see any harm in religion as long as it doesn’t try to oppress those who do not belong to it.
They share the desire to persecute religious institutions whenever they have the upper hand to do so.
Not true. Do I need to say it again? I HONESTLY, SINCERELY, respect religious freedom, FOR ANY RELIGION, wherever that freedom does not harm other people.
They share the foolish illusion that they are morally superior to theists.
Not true. I have my opinions and other people have theirs. I can respect them as long as they don’t infringe on other people’s freedoms. They are different, not worse.
They share the illusion that they are kinder toward homosexuals than Christians are.
Not true. Some atheists are opposed to gay marriage. And some don’t respect homosexuality.

None of these apply to me and I am an atheist. You couldn’t be more wrong on every count. Sure what you say applies to some atheists, but would you like it if I said a bunch of negative generalizations about theists that do not apply to all of them? You are talking about generalizations. Stop applying them to all atheists, as well as me, since they don’t apply to me at all.

Once again, ATHEISM MEANS NOT HAVING A BELIEF IN A GOD. NOTHING MORE.

But you say you have more to the list. Perhaps they will actually be true, so do tell.
 
I didn’t say anything about “vast.” I said, and repeat, that your belief is as absolute as the belief or beliefs or any organized religion or any private religious adherent.

Atheism is based on faith every bit as much as deism, Christianity, etc. is. It’s just that atheists refuse to admit that.
😉
What faith do I have? I don’t believe there isn’t a god and I don’t believe there is one. My stance is I don’t know, and can’t know until there is a reason to, that there is or isn’t a god. What faith is involved in that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top