LGBT equality same as black equality

[Elizabeth502]

We live in an “information age”. Kids will know whatever interests them. Sex becomes very interesting at some point. A parent’s job, in my opinion, is to instill values, and to help a kid understand the information that is available.

It is also to set boundaries.
It is also to supervise.
It is also to require compliance with family rules. (not just “instilling them,” but verifying them)
It is also to see to it that their children have a set of values, not just “information.”
It is also not to be passive and clueless about the location of your children and their activity there.

Sex becomes very interesting at some point.

To many boys, of various ages, violence becomes very interesting at some point. The idea of destruction can be exciting – especially the aspect of how much force it takes to destroy, etc. The observant and effective parent monitors any attraction to violence and redirects it. “Information” is not enough. “Information” also implies moral neutrality, which opposes human virtue, not to mention Christian virtue.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I am likewise struck by the distance between our worldviews, especially given the salient facts. I repeat - teen pregnancy rates in the United States are highest in states that teach abstinence-only sex education. This is according to the CDC. So what are to we make of this fact? And using this fact as a point of departure, how do you reason yourself back around into claiming that abstinence-only sex education is the best method for curbing teen pregnancy and STDs?

I also felt you mis-characterized epan’s comments - suggesting his idea of education was centered around what someone does after they’ve already gotten in trouble. By my lights, providing “risk data for disease transmission for various sexual practices, pregnancy information, and prevention methods, which would include HPV vaccination, safer sex practices, and abstinence” are all pro-active measures. What’s more, they do promote positive values - desire for education, self-empowerment, self-respect, parsimony, etc.

Now you mis-characterize what I wrote. Did I advocate abstinence only sex ed?

If I were to follow your reasoning, a society with a high teen pregnancy rate is worse than a culture that allows and has no qualms in funding abortions, and pushes contraception on young females, who are likely not prepared for the psychological and emotional impact of a sexual relationship.

Can you guess which scenario is more acceptable me, a believer in the value and dignity of human life including that of the unborn, or a child with Down’s Syndrome, or an elderly and frail woman who has been living in a nursing home, wheel chair and bed bound for too many years to some progressive minded citizens?

It seems that we would also differ in what constitutes as a positive value. As you can gather in my post to epan, positive value would be in my definition not just for the enjoyment of individual freedom. There needs to be a balance of individual freedoms and what is ultimately towards true common and societal good.

Right and wrong. Good and evil. Sometimes evil masquerades in freedom’s clothes.
,

 

[epan]

It is also to set boundaries.
It is also to supervise.
It is also to require compliance with family rules. (not just “instilling them,” but verifying them)
It is also to see to it that their children have a set of values, not just “information.”
It is also not to be passive and clueless about the location of your children and their activity there.

To many boys, of various ages, violence becomes very interesting at some point. The idea of destruction can be exciting – especially the aspect of how much force it takes to destroy, etc. The observant and effective parent monitors any attraction to violence and redirects it. “Information” is not enough. “Information” also implies moral neutrality, which opposes human virtue, not to mention Christian virtue.

Yes, of course.

Your theory that information opposed human and Christian virtue needs some work

 

[epan]

Now you mis-characterize what I wrote. Did I advocate abstinence only sex ed?

If I were to follow your reasoning, a society with a high teen pregnancy rate is worse than a culture that allows and has no qualms in funding abortions, and pushes contraception on young females, who are likely not prepared for the psychological and emotional impact of a sexual relationship.

Can you guess which scenario is more acceptable me, a believer in the value and dignity of life including that of the unborn, or a child with Down’s Syndrome, or an elderly and frail woman who has been living in a nursing home, wheel chair and bed bound for too many years to some progressive minded citizens?

It seems that we would also differ in what constitutes as a positive value. As you can gather in my post to epan, positive value would be in my definition not just for the enjoyment of individual freedom. There needs to be a balance of individual freedoms and what is ultimately towards true common and societal good.

Right and wrong. Good and evil. Sometimes evil masquerades in freedom’s clothes.
,

It seems counter intuitive, but it is under the more anti reproductive medicine administrations, such as President Bush’s, that abortions go up. There needs to be more study. But it appears that the more freely available abortion services are, then the less they are taken advantage of. I suspect, but don’t know, that this may be because just more in the way of supportive services are offered, with abortion being one of them. Under those circumstances, an unwanted pregnancy is less likely to be aborted. But I am just speculating.

We saw abortion rates drop under President Clinton, then rise under President Bush, then drop again under President Obama. I wonder if more supportive women’s health policies might be the causal factor. Or, perhaps it is just making resources available for new mothers to take care of their babies, which makes the prospects less daunting, and abortion less of a perceived necessity. I think that most women who get abortions only see it as a last resort, and would prefer another option.

I would be curious to hear from someone who has some real expertise dealing with this patient population (and not the opinion of an ideologue who confuses ideas with actual practice), as to why this might be, in their experience.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Your theory that information opposed human and Christian virtue needs some work

It’s not “my theory;” it’s your use of the English language. I am employing the word “information” in the way you yourself have contextualized it: as providing morally neutral facts. Please own your words. Thank you.

 

[SamH]

There is a new community paper in our town that is being launched with the specific agenda to “advance the public agenda on behalf of the LGBT community”. I want to respond with a natutal law, non-religious argument why the LGBT and black equality issue are not comparable.
.

Ever seen a water fountain marked “Straights only”? Ever seen a gay person arrested for sitting at a lunch counter?

When that happens there might be a case. Until then its people trying legitimize a ludicrous an argument.

 

[epan]

It’s not “my theory;” it’s your use of the English language. I am employing the word “information” in the way you yourself have contextualized it: as providing morally neutral facts. Please own your words. Thank you.

The word “oppositional” comes to mind.

Here are your words:

'Information" also implies moral neutrality, which opposes human virtue, not to mention Christian virtue.

Try following your own advice.

 

[Giants]

Ever seen a water fountain marked “Straights only”? Ever seen a gay person arrested for sitting at a lunch counter?

When that happens there might be a case. Until then its people trying legitimize a ludicrous an argument.

I’ve heard of anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[Seeker1961]

Then you have “read” and “heard” far too little. The secular arguments are abundant, many of them having been posted on CAF for quite some time, but requiring someone newer to the forum to be curious enough to seek those out. The fact that those arguments were posted on a Catholic discussion forum does not make them Catholic or religious arguments. It makes them available.

Honestly, you really think I just started thinking about this recently? I’ve spend a LOT of time on it, during university, law school and beyond. Lots of reading of lots of cases, position papers, journal articles…and lots of discussion with some pretty advanced minds. (and a lot of them were Catholic! GASP)

As for CAF, you only have to read here a week or so to find someone dragging out lengthy defenses as to why their opposition to same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion. I’m simply not persuaded that despite their best efforts their religious bias is still part of the equation. The definition of what is “natural” or “moral” has it’s roots in that bias. I don’t mean that as a negative, just as an observation of how difficult it is to remove deeply held values from analysis.

And for the old chestnut of “do you think people should be allowed to murder and steal?”-from my experience the prohibitions against murder, theft and violent crime are not debated among religious or non-religious people. Those actually are universally accepted positions across societal boundaries.

Again, this is an OPINION, based on my experiences. You might read the same things and still come up with a different opinion-that’s what makes the world go round and internet discussion boards interesting.

 

[epan]

Ever seen a water fountain marked “Straights only”? Ever seen a gay person arrested for sitting at a lunch counter?

When that happens there might be a case. Until then its people trying legitimize a ludicrous an argument.

We have seen gays forced into ghettos, burned alive, gassed, beaten up, fired from jobs, put into prison, ridiculed…

Does any of that seem like discrimination to you?

 

[livingwordunity]

We have seen gays forced into ghettos, burned alive, gassed, beaten up, fired from jobs, put into prison, ridiculed…

Does any of that seem like discrimination to you?

Then why do liberals still call Islam a religion of peace?

 

[epan]

Then why do liberals still call Islam a religion of peace?

huh?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

We have seen gays forced into ghettos, burned alive, gassed, beaten up, fired from jobs, put into prison, ridiculed…

Does any of that seem like discrimination to you?

You forgot chemical or physical castration.

Then why do liberals still call Islam a religion of peace?

Muslims didn’t castrate Alan Turing.

 

[epan]

You forgot chemical or physical castration.

Muslims didn’t castrate Alan Turing.

Imagine if the Catholic Church had put 50% of the effort into opposing the holocaust as it puts into the fight against gay marriage. No, there is no discrimination or persecution.

 

[MidnightSun12]

As for CAF, you only have to read here a week or so to find someone dragging out lengthy defenses as to why their opposition to same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion. I’m simply not persuaded that despite their best efforts their religious bias is still part of the equation. The definition of what is “natural” or “moral” has it’s roots in that bias. I don’t mean that as a negative, just as an observation of how difficult it is to remove deeply held values from analysis.

I would never try to prove to somebody that same-sex marriage is wrong without having a “religious bias”. What point would there be in debating somebody by presuming that a falsehood is correct? The fact is that liberalism and modernism are both heresies… It would be like trying to prove to a skeptic that the moon orbits the earth after agreeing that there’s no such thing as gravity. To try to prove that gay marriage is wrong using today’s distorted and (frankly) incorrect precepts of morality would be a waste of time because I would have forfeited all command over the Truth.

These are the facts: Christ established a Church with the promise that Her moral theology would be infallible when declared in unison with the bishops and the Pope. All same-sex activity is intrinsically evil as declared infallible according to the ordinary magisterium of the Church. A Catholic who fully understands the Church’s stance must accept this teaching completely, otherwise such an individual would not be a faithful Catholic and would not be worthy of recieving the Holy Eucharist.

The issue of gay marriage ultimately comes down to a question of faith. Do you believe that Christ is God and that He established a Church? If your answer is a “yes” then the gay marriage debate has already been settled. Remember the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

**“For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.” **

Faith can only be obtained from God’s graces through prayer, providing evidence can give context to a person’s faith but it cannot create it. If you are having persistent questions on whether gay marriage is right or wrong, then I strongly urge you to pray for an increase in faith (and I can certainly keep you in my rosary intentions if you’d like.)

God bless!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Imagine if the Catholic Church had put 50% of the effort into opposing the holocaust as it puts into the fight against gay marriage. No, there is no discrimination or persecution.

That is most unjust and outrageous! We can discuss the unvarnished role of the Church during the Holocaust, but is or was the Church guilty of direct discrimination and persecution of homosexuals, “forced them into ghettos, burned alive, gassed, beaten up, fired from jobs, put into prison, ridiculed…”? And as amends, the Church should set aside her efforts against same sex ‘marriage’?

Please!

Do gays realize or remember the role of a Catholic organization, the Sisters of Charity at Catholic run St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center in New York City, ground zero in the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 80s? The sisters that cared for scores and scores of dying young men, as well as Catholic priests who ministered to them? When many medical practitioners and health professionals stayed away and feared treating them, these sisters and priests met the physical and spiritual needs of AIDS patients, doing what was before them to do, as St. Vincent de Paul counseled. They served in other Catholic hospitals as well, at Bayley Seton Hospital, the New York Foundling, St. Clare’s Hospital, Incarnation Children’s Center, Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, Lincoln Hospital, Cabrini Medical Center and others. Some of these institutions have closed, but they continue to serve AIDS victims to this day.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

The word “oppositional” comes to mind.

On your part, yes.

Try following your own advice.

I have. I own every one of my words. I have never stated, nor would I ever believe, anything so insufficient as to claim that “information” (regarding HPV or anything else) is what is required of a parent, relative to teen sex. It is completely insufficient, in fact. Parents are there to provide moral guidance. “Support” (your word, not mine) is utterly inappropriate when extended to a “sexually active” high school student, or (God forbid), younger.

I don’t support it, and conscientious parents should never support it, or they are failing not only in their natural duty, but their religious duty (Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc.).

To argue that “information” is the key to preventing teens from going astray morally and medically is extremely short-sighted. The fact is, information has been proven to fail as a gatekeeper when it comes to teen behavior. Rather, supervision, guidance, adherence to a set of values has been proven to be more effective in directing teen behavior. Many teenagers, iif not most, are essentially in danger of being controlled by their emotions, with regard to many, many areas in life – and with all kinds of choices. It’s a period of extreme swings, rapid changes, and heightened impulsivity, combined with a skepticism about “information,” relative to the “sure knowledge” of emotion.

An intellectual approach is pathetic, at best.

 

[CopticChristian]

We have seen gays forced into ghettos, burned alive, gassed, beaten up, fired from jobs, put into prison, ridiculed…

Does any of that seem like discrimination to you?

Epan,

What ghetto?

Masses of homosexuals rounded up and burned alive throughout time on plantations?

Homosexuals gassed? Where?

Beaten up…many people get beaten up…mugged.

Many people get fired from jobs.

Many people go to prison.

Many people are ridiculed.

Where have homosexuals been forced to live on plantations, perform as servants, been forced to sit in the back of a bus, denied entrance into college…where?

 

[Seeker1961]

I would never try to prove to somebody that same-sex marriage is wrong without having a “religious bias”. What point would there be in debating somebody by presuming that a falsehood is correct? The fact is that liberalism and modernism are both heresies… It would be like trying to prove to a skeptic that the moon orbits the earth after agreeing that there’s no such thing as gravity. To try to prove that gay marriage is wrong using today’s distorted and (frankly) incorrect precepts of morality would be a waste of time because I would have forfeited all command over the Truth.

These are the facts: Christ established a Church with the promise that Her moral theology would be infallible when declared in unison with the bishops and the Pope. All same-sex activity is intrinsically evil as declared infallible according to the ordinary magisterium of the Church. A Catholic who fully understands the Church’s stance must accept this teaching completely, otherwise such an individual would not be a faithful Catholic and would not be worthy of recieving the Holy Eucharist.

The issue of gay marriage ultimately comes down to a question of faith. Do you believe that Christ is God and that He established a Church? If your answer is a “yes” then the gay marriage debate has already been settled. Remember the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

**“For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.” **

Faith can only be obtained from God’s graces through prayer, providing evidence can give context to a person’s faith but it cannot create it. If you are having persistent questions on whether gay marriage is right or wrong, then I strongly urge you to pray for an increase in faith (and I can certainly keep you in my rosary intentions if you’d like.)

God bless!

Within the Church, we follow our laws based on faith. In our country, laws are based on common agreement among people of MANY faiths, and those who follow no religious faith at all.

 

[epan]

Epan,

What ghetto?

Masses of homosexuals rounded up and burned alive throughout time on plantations?

Homosexuals gassed? Where?

Beaten up…many people get beaten up…mugged.

Many people get fired from jobs.

Many people go to prison.

Many people are ridiculed.

Where have homosexuals been forced to live on plantations, perform as servants, been forced to sit in the back of a bus, denied entrance into college…where?

Plantations? Not sure what that means. Is that your definition of unjust treatment? Whether someone has worked on a plantation?

You apparently never heard of the treatment of homosexuals by the Catholic Church in history. There were even special torture devices to insure a prolonged and painful death. Have you forgotten the holocaust?

Beaten up and prison. So, is your point that when a gay person is beaten up, sent to prison or killed for being gay, that this is not persecution? If so, then you must also say that when blacks suffered the same treatment, or were lynched, then it was all just fine. After all, people get beaten up all the time. It really doesn’t matter why. It’s all just what randomly happens in the world.

You do understand that these things happened to people for being gay, right? They were singled out simply for their sexual orientation.

I’m disappointed in you Coptic. Surely you don’t believe what you are suggesting.