LGBT equality same as black equality

[Publisher]

He is presenting the argument as it is objectively. Now, those that reject the moral law will certainly fail to see what is true. That happens with many issues.

You’ll have to convince people that your understanding of “moral law” is sound…and that your arguements are “objective” while theirs are not.

 

[Daizies]

Personally I think the homosexual advocates make a point worthy of address when they note how marriage has been destroyed by ‘straight people’. We got to the point we are at when sex became just for pleasure, not for producing children, and when divorce became no big deal. I have sympathy for the homosexuals because they are really just living out in fullness the morality most ‘straight people’ preach and practice.

I think this is a very good point. Marriage has been eroded to such a level as to be considered a farce by many people. When there are shows chronicling the life of a woman who has been married to a different man for each state in the US, where even “religious” people have been divorced 6 or 7 times, what reason has been given to respect marriage? Heck, in many countries you don’t even have to be married to get the legal and financial benefits of marriage - all you have to do is live together for 12 months and voila you are now a common law couple.
We can argue the religious meaning until we’re blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, common practice has rendered marriage virtually meaningless. Until that changes, I don’t see how defending the sanctity of marriage will ever be seen by advocates for homosexual marriage as a valid argument. Straight people don’t uphold the sanctity of marriage, so their perspective is, what is there that they are destroying that has not already been obliterated?

 

[edwest2]

No they need a “selfless” lesbian friend. Unfortunately the gay propaganda is too swift and sweeping (and irrational) to be countered by mere words. If you’re not 100% in favour of all their demands, you get to be qualified “intolerant”, and nowadays intolerance seems to be the quintessential sin, the sin against the Spirit to use a metaphor. Frankly, there is no reversing this tide until God steps in. And besides, who says two cruising homosexual men can’t be awesome dads?Morally, this is where we’re at. I say it’s a futile attempt to try and stop this tide, all that one can ever achieve is to slow it down, at best.

Futile? With God, all things are possible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephen168]

It seems more relevant to equate homosexuality with being left handed. Homosexuality is not a ethnicity or race, so I think that distorts the issue. Being a person of color has never (to my knowledge) been declared as an abomination against the Will of God.

I agree, they are both actions; using a left hand and homosexual acts.

400 years ago, being left handed was reason enough to get you burned as a witch since it was obviously a distortion of the natural law and God’s Will. People that didn’t want to be burned simply need to resist the evil temptation to use their left hand predominantly. 40 years ago when I was in Catholic school I remember the boy next to me being beaten with a ruler for writing left handed. In fact this year I had to remove my left handed daughter from Catholic school when the school decided that all assignments for every class had to be written in cursive, which most left handed individuals struggle with for various reasons. I wanted to tell my daughter that being left handed was a choice (and against the Will of God) but my liberal leaning left handed wife stopped me. (Dang Lefties)

People were burned for being a witch and left-handedness may have been used as proof. They were not burned for being left handed alone. Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael, or Isaac Newton were not burned for being left handed. Ehud was praised for doing God’s Will. I grew up in very small towns and was NEVER given a hard time for being left-handed, and I prefer to use cursive over printing. Any purpose of the right hand can be done with the left hand; the same cannot be said for homosexual sex.

I have heard it argued that the Church can never change any stance it takes, which I have to assume means my daughter (and wife) are hell bound witches that will someday be burned alive, …….

Can you reference this ancient teaching (all left-handed people must be burned as witches) of the Catholic Church?

So while gays today suffer many of the indignities that people of color suffered in the 1950’s, (denied rights others have) at least they are not in danger of being burned at the stake (unless they are also left handed).

Blacks had the right to reproduce in the 1950’s, which is what marriage is. Some states denied them the right to produce children with whoever they wanted, which homosexuals are free to do. But Homosexual sex can never produce children, therefore is not marriage.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

1. The human race would have died out a long time ago if “gay marriage” was the norm.
2. I believe the following article will help even if you exclude the religious aspect.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

The article will also show the LGBT community that this is not a Christian only issue.

Finally, it has been said by those in the LGBT community that the government should “get out of the marriage business.” So ask them: “Why do you want to involve the government - at all - in getting you government benefits to live how you want?”

Take any LGBT couple. They get up, go to work, have sex, or not, and go to sleep. They don’t need anything from anybody. No one has to “approve” how they live.

And ask them: “Why was same-sex marriage put on the ballot?” What was the reason?

Finally, make it clear that their orientation is changeable.

pfox.org/about_us.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Brendan]

However you wish to couch the arguement…you’ll have to convince the person you are speaking with to your postion…probably won’t be too convincing unless they hold your beliefs concerning sexuality and orientation to begin with.

The distinctions between personal actions and genetics should be obvious to any thinking individual. And that would be the necessary starting premise.

What you just described would be the proposed conclusions, not the premises.

 

[Publisher]

1. The human race would have died out a long time ago if “gay marriage” was the norm.
2. I believe the following article will help even if you exclude the religious aspect.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

The article will also show the LGBT community that this is not a Christian only issue.

Finally, it has been said by those in the LGBT community that the government should “get out of the marriage business.” So ask them: “Why do you want to involve the government - at all - in getting you government benefits to live how you want?”

Take any LGBT couple. They get up, go to work, have sex, or not, and go to sleep. They don’t need anything from anybody. No one has to “approve” how they live.

And ask them: “Why was same-sex marriage put on the ballot?” What was the reason?

Finally, make it clear that their orientation is changeable.

pfox.org/about_us.html

Peace,
Ed

To your first point…I hardly think that allowing gay marriage to be the norm to a group of people who in conservative estimates comprise no more than 3-5 percent of the population would cause human extinction. It’s arguements like this that make most people roll their eyes when conservative religious people state it as if it’s a legitimate arguement against same sex marriage. 97-95 percent of the rest of us will be having plenty of children to keep the population going…and ALL gay and lesbian men and women come from this segment of the population.

To your last point…very few outside the conservative religious commumity actually believe sexual orientation is changeable.

Gay and lesbian people want to be married for the same reasons straight people want to be married. Trying to make it sound as though their motives have a “sinister” underlying reason, does little, if any, to sway most of the public to your stance.

 

[Publisher]

The distinctions between personal actions and genetics should be obvious to any thinking individual.

If genetics, still a young field, effects one’s sexual orientation, it’s obviosly related to genetics. It has been neither proven beyond a doubt…nor denied beyond a doubt…genetics appears to have a definte impact on sexual orientation in some way…human sexuality is so complex, at this time…we simply do not know, and ANY thinking individual would be able to understand that as well.

 

[Cristiano]

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.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I think that you are wrong, it looks like being an LGBT must be a more defensible “diversity” than being a black deaf woman.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Gays are not a culture, its an “orientation”. African Americans are a culture.

 

[fniper]

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.

Any suggestions for how I articulate the argument that equality for the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual community” is not the same as “the equality that was fought for the black community” as they state.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Racial equality is established by God who creates us all, regardless of race, as an equal act of His Love. As uncomfortable as it is to speak about this issue, the fact that homosexual acts require the use of non sexual organs is an argument against such acts as a perversion of human sexuality. From a Catholic perspective it is important that homosexual acts are always sterile by their nature, and thus are inspired by the spirit which desires sterility in God’s Creation. Tough topic but as homosexuality is become mainstreamed it must be met with the Truth. Homosexual acts are a perversion of human sexuality. Good Luck, I hope we will all pray for your efforts. If I could add one other thing, remember that it is a sin, but those who are trapped within its lies are precious to the God who created them. Work without tiring, as the souls of the homosexuals are in the balance.

 

[Brendan]

If genetics, still a young field, effects one’s sexual orientation, it’s obviosly related to genetics.)

My point is that the only thing the law is regulating is person actions, which are, by definition, choices.

In much the same way that a person might be genetically predisposed towards alcoholism. But the law does not regulate is it is illegal to be an alcoholic, but rather the consumption of alcohol.

 

[Publisher]

My point is that the only thing the law is regulating is person actions, which are, by definition, choices.

In much the same way that a person might be genetically predisposed towards alcoholism. But the law does not regulate is it is illegal to be an alcoholic, but rather the consumption of alcohol.

Yes I understand your point, but what will be difficult in the discussion is that you are equating a "genetic predisposition’ toward something “wrong” or “disordered” within the person such as alcoholism or addictive personalities with sexual orientation…you would have to convince the person you are debating with that same sex orientation IS “disordered” like a genetic predisposition to alcoholism instead of a genetic variation of human sexuality which is both a normal and natural variation…that is going to be a difficult thing to convince someone of who doesn’t hold your religious convictions to begin with.

 

[setter]

…you would have to convince the person you are debating with that same sex orientation IS “disordered” like a genetic predisposition to alcoholism instead of a genetic variation of human sexuality which is both a normal and natural variation…that is going to be a difficult thing to convince someone of who doesn’t hold your religious convictions to begin with.

How do religious convictions have anything to do with a non-complementary sexual exchange as anatomically apparent to any thoughtful persons? SSA not as a “natural variation” but an “unnatural deviation” from natural law design.

 

[105lynne]

Civil rights is about classes of people, not individuals. The right to marry is because of being a member of the class of men or the class of women. All members of the class of men have the right to marry a member of the class of women and vice versa. As classes, that combination is **the only one **that can result in procreation and a family. If an individual has a condition that makes procreation impossible, it doesn’t change his/her rights as a member of the class.

You can make the analogy to the race argument (which is a flawed comparison, by nonetheless). As a black person (member of a minority class) an individual is given certain legal protections against discrimination in employment, housing, education, etc. What about a black person who is disabled and cannot work? Do they lose thier legal protections for housing or education? No. Those protections are as a result of membership in the class regardless of individual abilities.

I like your answer! Thanks

 

[edwest2]

To your first point…I hardly think that allowing gay marriage to be the norm to a group of people who in conservative estimates comprise no more than 3-5 percent of the population would cause human extinction. It’s arguements like this that make most people roll their eyes when conservative religious people state it as if it’s a legitimate arguement against same sex marriage. 97-95 percent of the rest of us will be having plenty of children to keep the population going…and ALL gay and lesbian men and women come from this segment of the population.

To your last point…very few outside the conservative religious commumity actually believe sexual orientation is changeable.

Gay and lesbian people want to be married for the same reasons straight people want to be married. Trying to make it sound as though their motives have a “sinister” underlying reason, does little, if any, to sway most of the public to your stance.

Sinister? That’s a stretch.

pblosser.blogspot.com/2012/07/lesbian-quits-gay-community-after-30.html

witnessfortheworld.org/tadm.html

pfox.org/about_us.html

There is no one to one relationship between gay and straight marriage.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Some gays don’t believe in the institution:

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And then, no matter how long the struggle - divorce, even though lesbian couples allegedly tend to be more committed:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164783/One-gay-couples-married-New-York-set-to-divorced.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Publisher]

How do religious convictions have anything to do with a non-complementary sexual exchange as anatomically apparent to any thoughtful persons? SSA not as a “natural variation” but an “unnatural deviation” from natural law design.

Usually, not always, but usually those who hold your position do so primarily out of religious conviction that same sex attraction IS NOT a natural expression and variation of human sexuality.

“Natural law” is a construct of a more “religous” point of view. Who defines “natural law”?

 

[_Abyssinia]

There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is an innately genetic like skin colour

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

I’ve heard this argument before, only to be responded with "what about a heterosexual couple who can’t have children. Do they not have a right to marry either if they cannot produce children? Should THEY remain celibate simply because one or both of them are infertile."
I don’t know how to respond to that…Thoughts?

How about countering with “how do they know they cannot produce children prior to marriange?” By that I mean that every couple should go into marriage under the presumption that they can procreate, if they come to find out that they cannot after the fact than they cannot be faulted.

If, for whatever reason, any person wants to marry knowing that they cannot procreate their motives need to be vetted IMHO. Nonetheless the question posed to you is a false equivalency to anyone following Catholic teaching.

 

[Publisher]

There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is an innately genetic like skin colour

No, but there is a growing consenses that genetic influence is one factor and a larger consenses that sexual orientation is an innate unchageable characteristic of our psychological makeup with some studies suggesting characteristics in brain chemistry and physiology are observable in gay men and lesbian women. Not conclusive…but then again, it is a very very new field of study.