L
The liberal strategy is if reality doesn’t agree with their agenda then redefine reality. They will probably try to redefine “marital intercourse” to fit with their agenda. It’s like they think this world is just one big illusion or that they are dreaming all of this and can make it all up as they go. I think they have adopted the philosophy that rejects the concept that reality is something external to one’s self.They don’t think it matters.
But in fact, same sex couples are incapable of engaging in marital intercourse.
You don’t want to know. :nope:
MegaThe liberal strategy is if reality doesn’t agree with their agenda then redefine reality. …
Which is never the case.… it must occur, or something is truly wrong with those who think it. …
…Then again, they’ve been doing that since their Glorious Sexual Revolution. And we see how good that’s been for us…
…[forty-three] years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.
“The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement”
By Ronald G. Lee
New Oxford Review
February 2006
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650
DingThe liberal strategy is if reality doesn’t agree with their agenda then redefine reality. They will probably try to redefine “marital intercourse” to fit with their agenda. It’s like they think this world is just one big illusion or that they are dreaming all of this and can make it all up as they go. I think they have adopted the philosophy that rejects the concept that reality is something external to one’s self.
That’s why we get statements like, “What’s true for you is not necessarily true for me.” AKA, relativism.… I think they have adopted the philosophy that rejects the concept that reality is something external to one’s self.
You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be gay… those are the facts. Pure and simple, so can gays marry in other faiths yes. But to be Catholic you cannot. My question is what about two elderly persons, she is past menopause is the marriage ever legal in the Church? Or say she is unable to bare children is the marriage legal?
The argument I have heard for this is that technically sex with a women after menopause is still “open to life.” Even though that is not biologically correct, people will say that sarah proves it is possible. That is the argument I have heard.You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be gay… those are the facts. Pure and simple, so can gays marry in other faiths yes. But to be Catholic you cannot. My question is what about two elderly persons, she is past menopause is the marriage ever legal in the Church? Or say she is unable to bare children is the marriage legal?
Menopause is just as natural as the fact that not every act of marital intercourse between fertile hetero couples results in a pregnancy. God gives children when he wills it and puts a natural limit on it with menopause. When my wife reaches menopause and stops having children, our marriage will still be valid because we still have the unitive aspect of marriage (the penis is made for the vagina), and our bodies are still ordered to procreation even if the eggs have run out. With God all things are possible, except for God to contradict himself.The argument I have heard for this is that technically sex with a women after menopause is still “open to life.” Even though that is not biologically correct, people will say that sarah proves it is possible. That is the argument I have heard.
Leaving men without a role in society. mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/25/gay-marriage-and-civil-unions-are-unconstitutional“Right to marry” will translate into the “right to children.” And not the right to adopt, but the right to have without adoption, just like fertile hetero couples. George Orwell could see where this is headed.
Relativists reject morality until someone does something to offend them. Then all of a sudden they are talking about morality.That’s why we get statements like, “What’s true for you is not necessarily true for me.” AKA, relativism.