LGBT equality same as black equality

  • Thread starter Thread starter setter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rorydaman said:
So you really think that people will say “well we let two same sex adults marry, I guess having sex with children is OK too?” **You really think that if gay marriage is legalized and accepted that pedophilia will be too? ** Pedophilia will never be accepted in our society because there is a clear victim…that is why it is called statutory rape, because one of the parties is not in the right mind to consent.

Has acceptance of pedophilia developed in nations where gay sex has been legalized? I lived in Canada not too long ago and I don’t remember a lot of pedofile support. Maybe I just wasn’t looking hard enough though.

Please just answer the question bolded above though.
Click to expand...
Honestly, what I think doesn’t matter. I’m just reporting an event that did occur according to the source. So I think the possibility is not out of the question.

Peace,
Ed
 
rorydaman said:
So you really think that people will say “well we let two same sex adults marry, I guess having sex with children is OK too?” **You really think that if gay marriage is legalized and accepted that pedophilia will be too? ** Pedophilia will never be accepted in our society because there is a clear victim…that is why it is called statutory rape, because one of the parties is not in the right mind to consent.

Has acceptance of pedophilia developed in nations where gay sex has been legalized? I lived in Canada not too long ago and I don’t remember a lot of pedofile support. Maybe I just wasn’t looking hard enough though.

Please just answer the question bolded above though.
Click to expand...
Actually, Holland (one of the most “progressive” countries in the world with regards to supporting homosexual activities) is just now starting to test the waters with legalizing “virtual” child pornography:

huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/20/virtual-child-pornography-paedophiles_n_2163908.html

I also believe that leading up to the fall of ancient Greece both homosexuality and phedophilia had become legal towards the end of their civilization.

My thoughts are that this is how phedophilia will eventually be legalized here in North America:

First off, they won’t be called pedophiles anymore they will be called “minor-attracted” adults. Also, there will be a ton of “research” released showing that carrying out sexual acts with children doesn’t actually cause them “any harm” and can actually be “liberating for their young minds”. There will be heavy doses of pedophilia in the media and on sitcoms in order to change people’s perceptions about the harmfulness of sexual acts to children. Eventually, phedophiles will be seen as an “oppressed” class of people who have been treated viciously and expected to “repress” their natural urges. I suspect that pedophilia will likely be legalized in cases where children supposedly “consent” to the repugnant sexual acts and parent’s rights over their children will be further marginalized…

That’s, of course, assuming that God doesn’t let this rotting society burn to the ground first…

God help us all. 😦
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Such legalistic points. Are you agreeing, however, that SS"M" is a civil right that everyone in society has to accept, even if it runs against natural law?

Then you bring up arguments as though you are for SS"M", as though they have not been addressed in many a post in many a thread in this forum. The kind that the liberal Buddhist rossum repeatedly brings up, disregarding any and all counter arguments already made by the faithful. Where are you on this issue, really, Dakota?

The point edwest is clear to me, he is referring to blacks whose skin pigmentation obviously classify them as blacks. It is 100% that basing on visual check alone, no test, no inquiry, no self disclosure before “discrimination” by others can take place in the exercise of or a claim to a right. Under their clothes, there is nothing in the physical attributes of homosexuals that give their preference for sexual partners away, because the classification is based on behavior. This is why the title of the OP or this thread is erroneous. LGBT equality is NOT the same as black equality.
,
Click to expand...
I am relatively sure it is acceptable to be legalistic about law. The government could create a law granting a positive right to bacon.

Those people sometimes do bring up reasonable questions and to often when they actually bring up a reasonable question they get dismissed as a knee-jerk reaction which simply hardens them against us.

In America there was the one drop rule which basically says that if you ever had any ancestors who were black then you are black. If you were 1/32 black then you were black and were treated as such.
rorydaman said:
Marriage has already been redefined:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...
Yes, banning interracial marriage was a redefinition of marriage that shouldn’t have happened
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
I am relatively sure it is acceptable to be legalistic about law. The government could create a law granting a positive right to bacon.

Those people sometimes do bring up reasonable questions and to often when they actually bring up a reasonable question they get dismissed as a knee-jerk reaction which simply hardens them against us.

In America there was the one drop rule which basically says that if you ever had any ancestors who were black then you are black. If you were 1/32 black then you were black and were treated as such.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Dakota. Noticed you did not answer the questions I directed at you and only repeated what you already stated in your previous post. The letter of the law and not the spirit is what you are arguing, unless you are purposely talking past what I raised.

I disagree that “those people” are getting dismissed with knee jerk reactions in this forum. The same posters are being repetitive, provocative and unrelenting, should their record of posts be closely reviewed by the moderator. They are close to if not outright proselytizing if you ask many members in the forum defending the truth. And some Catholics here give cover.
Yes, banning interracial marriage was a redefinition of marriage that shouldn’t have happened
Click to expand...
??? !!!
 
Slavonic said:
Marriage equality between gay and straight couples has nothing to do with polygamy, polyandry, incest, or child marriage. I don’t have to say why any of those things are wrong. Gay marriage would still involve couples, adults, and non-relatives. That is sufficient. It’s very similar to marriage as our society knows it now. The slope is not as slippery as it seems.
Click to expand...
Requiring them be adults is just as arbitrary as saying they can be of the same sex. Both unions are sterile by there design, both union are not marriage.
Slavonic said:
I will also note your criteria of two people of the opposite sex coming together to create and rear children does not eliminate incest. Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, and brothers and sisters meet the criteria of being opposite sex and being able to produce children. There are reasons why it’s wrong, but it does show a problem with that definition.
Click to expand...
Correct, but the quality of offspring is degraded, which we why incest of some definition is illegal in most societies. If marriage had nothing to do with creating and rearing children, incest would be OK.

It also has nothing to do with polygamy, but polygamy is not sterile by design. Judeo-Christian societies don’t like the idea, and neither do most ‘same-sex as marriage’ fans. At least a Christian could say that it only takes two to make a child, so it only takes two to make a marriage. ‘Same sex unions as marriage’ fans don’t even have that.

Children are sterile, so a union which included a child would be just as sterile as a same sex union. Mores and laws can change just like ‘same sex unions as marriage’ fans are doing now. There is no logical reason to exclude children if you include same sex couples, they are both sterile. I’m not claiming there is a slippery slope, I’m just saying that logically you can’t exclude children if you include same sex unions.

My point is that people who oppose the idea that same-sex unions can be marriage have a more rational reason for their belief than do ‘same-sex unions as marriage’ fans. Therefore, we are not irrational ‘haters’ as ‘same-sex unions as marriage’ fans would like to believe.
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Yeah, Dakota. Noticed you did not answer the questions I directed at you and only repeated what you already stated in your previous post. The letter of the law and not the spirit is what you are arguing, unless you are purposely talking past what I raised.

I disagree that “those people” are getting dismissed with knee jerk reactions in this forum. The same posters are being repetitive, provocative and unrelenting, should their record of posts be closely reviewed by the moderator. They are close to if not outright proselytizing if you ask many members in the forum defending the truth. And some Catholics here give cover.

??? !!!
Click to expand...
Same sex marriage and civil unions trying to be marriages are obviously wrong, I’ve said this at least a dozen times, probably three or four dozen times. The spirit of US law is to assist in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Who said I was referring to just people on this forum? These are legitimate questions
Dakota_Roberts said:
What if one of them is an American citizen and they want to settle back in the US? What about the two spousal privileges neither of which have anything at all to do with children/procreation/sex?
Click to expand...
I was point out that banning mixed marriages was a redefinition, undoing anti-miscegenation las was restoring the definition not changing it therefore claiming Lovings v. Virginia changed the definition was an invalid argument.
 
Stephen168 said:
Requiring them be adults is just as arbitrary as saying they can be of the same sex. Both unions are sterile by there design, both union are not marriage.

Correct, but the quality of offspring is degraded, which we why incest of some definition is illegal in most societies. If marriage had nothing to do with creating and rearing children, incest would be OK.

It also has nothing to do with polygamy, but polygamy is not sterile by design. Judeo-Christian societies don’t like the idea, and neither do most ‘same-sex as marriage’ fans. At least a Christian could say that it only takes two to make a child, so it only takes two to make a marriage. ‘Same sex unions as marriage’ fans don’t even have that.

Children are sterile, so a union which included a child would be just as sterile as a same sex union. Mores and laws can change just like ‘same sex unions as marriage’ fans are doing now. There is no logical reason to exclude children if you include same sex couples, they are both sterile. I’m not claiming there is a slippery slope, I’m just saying that logically you can’t exclude children if you include same sex unions.

My point is that people who oppose the idea that same-sex unions can be marriage have a more rational reason for their belief than do ‘same-sex unions as marriage’ fans. Therefore, we are not irrational ‘haters’ as ‘same-sex unions as marriage’ fans would like to believe.
Click to expand...
This “sterile by design” thing is a pretty horrible argument. Many girls are able to get pregnant when they are 10 or even younger. Not many people are going to be arguing that 10 year old girls should get married because they have the ability to have kids.

Just because both gay marriage and (some) pedophile relationships are sterile by design does not mean that one would lead to another.

A man and a woman are both people, so are people of the same sex. So obviously straight marriage would lead to gay marriage, because they are both between people.

Pedophilia is not illegal because of if its sterility. It is illegal because the child is a victim. In gay marriage there is no victim. So it isn’t the sterility of the union that is focused on, it is if there is someone that is a victim.
 
rorydaman said:
This “sterile by design” thing is a pretty horrible argument. Many girls are able to get pregnant when they are 10 or even younger. Not many people are going to be arguing that 10 year old girls should get married because they have the ability to have kids.

Just because both gay marriage and (some) pedophile relationships are sterile by design does not mean that one would lead to another.

A man and a woman are both people, so are people of the same sex. So obviously straight marriage would lead to gay marriage, because they are both between people.

Pedophilia is not illegal because of if its sterility. It is illegal because the child is a victim. In gay marriage there is no victim. So it isn’t the sterility of the union that is focused on, it is if there is someone that is a victim.
Click to expand...
Pedophilia is being attracted to someone younger than puberty, so by definition all pedophile relationships are sterile.

I’m not saying one would lead to the other. I’m saying that if same-sex unions are marriage, so are pedophile unions. I’m saying what is and what is not. Same sex unions are not marriage for the same reason pedophile unions are not marriage.

Marriage is where children are created and raised, so it requires two people of the opposite sex.
 
Stephen168 said:
Pedophilia is being attracted to someone younger than puberty, so by definition all pedophile relationships are sterile.

I’m not saying one would lead to the other. I’m saying that if same-sex unions are marriage, so are pedophile unions. I’m saying what is and what is not. Same sex unions are not marriage for the same reason pedophile unions are not marriage.

Marriage is where children are created and raised, so it requires two people of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
The secular world doesn’t care about procreation in marriage, just look at the birth rates in Europe.
 
Stephen168 said:
Pedophilia is being attracted to someone younger than puberty, so by definition all pedophile relationships are sterile.

I’m not saying one would lead to the other. I’m saying that if same-sex unions are marriage, so are pedophile unions. I’m saying what is and what is not. Same sex unions are not marriage for the same reason pedophile unions are not marriage.

Marriage is where children are created and raised, so it requires two people of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
So if a man or woman is unable to have children, their marriage is not real? Or is that OK because it is not “sterile by design.”

You are taking one aspect of marriage and making that the one thing that defines it. I could take another aspect of marriage (that it is between 2 adults) and say that homosexual marriages are just as valid as straight marriages. That is using your broken logic.

Marriage to a woman after menopause should be illegal because it is sterile by design I guess.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
The secular world doesn’t care about procreation in marriage, just look at the birth rates in Europe.
Click to expand...
Some people get married and plan on starting a family. Some people get married without any plans to have children. Why should your religious values guide the values of those that do not follow your religion?
 
rorydaman said:
Some people get married and plan on starting a family. Some people get married without any plans to have children. Why should your religious values guide the values of those that do not follow your religion?
Click to expand...
Because we want non-Catholics to go to heaven every bit as much as we want Catholics to. 🙂
 
MidnightSun12 said:
Because we want non-Catholics to go to heaven every bit as much as we want Catholics to. 🙂
Click to expand...
Wanting doesn’t mean forcing by rule of civil law. You can want and work for others to see the joy you find in your faith without enlisting government assistance.

God gave us free will to choose to love and serve Him, we should allow our brothers and sisters the same choice.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Wanting doesn’t mean forcing by rule of civil law. You can want and work for others to see the joy you find in your faith without enlisting government assistance.

God gave us free will to choose to love and serve Him, we should allow our brothers and sisters the same choice.
Click to expand...
If you saw a blind person about to walk off the side of a cliff, would you not reach out to try and grab that person even if it meant using force? What about a depressed teen contemplating suicide… would you say to that young person that it’s their “choice” to kill themselves? Remember, faith without works is dead. It’s not enough for us to simply want those around us to go to heaven, if we sit around and allow others to commit grave sin when we have the ability to act, then we rightfully share in that guilt and will be judged accordingly.

If a person truly understands and accepts the Church’s teachings that sodomy is gravely dangerous to a person’s soul in every possible circumstance, then how could that person possibly go on to support any law that would enable sodomy without being of the same mindset as Satan himself? For a faithful Catholic, hell is never a “choice” and that applies to our neighbour just as much as it applies to ourselves!

Also, remember that God gives us “free will”, he doesn’t necessarly give us “freedom of action”… our society should think along these same lines with regards to issues of intrinsic evil. 🙂
 
rorydaman said:
Some people get married without any plans to have children. Why should your religious values guide the values of those that do not follow your religion?
Click to expand...
I don’t think they are religious values. How and why did people get married a 1000 years ago with no plans to have children?
 
rorydaman said:
So if a man or woman is unable to have children, their marriage is not real? Or is that OK because it is not “sterile by design.”

You are taking one aspect of marriage and making that the one thing that defines it. I could take another aspect of marriage (that it is between 2 adults) and say that homosexual marriages are just as valid as straight marriages. That is using your broken logic.
Click to expand...
Exactly.A broken chair is still a chair. Marriage is two people of the opposite sex, because it is about creating and raising children. If it was about any other ‘aspect,’ society could care less and we would not have marriage at all.
 
exnihilo said:
I tend to share your pessimism based on what I observe but I think we should have hope as with God all things are possible. 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.
Click to expand...
 
MidnightSun12 said:
If you saw a blind person about to walk off the side of a cliff, would you not reach out to try and grab that person even if it meant using force? What about a depressed teen contemplating suicide… would you say to that young person that it’s their “choice” to kill themselves? Remember, faith without works is dead. It’s not enough for us to simply want those around us to go to heaven, if we sit around and allow others to commit grave sin when we have the ability to act, then we rightfully share in that guilt and will be judged accordingly.

If a person truly understands and accepts the Church’s teachings that sodomy is gravely dangerous to a person’s soul in every possible circumstance, then how could that person possibly go on to support any law that would enable sodomy without being of the same mindset as Satan himself? For a faithful Catholic, hell is never a “choice” and that applies to our neighbour just as much as it applies to ourselves!

Also, remember that God gives us “free will”, he doesn’t necessarly give us “freedom of action”… our society should think along these same lines with regards to issues of intrinsic evil. 🙂
Click to expand...
So would you also advocate for us to pass laws stating that all citizens must Confess their sins to a Priest at least once a year, attend Mass during the Easter season and believe in all the truths the Holy Catholic Church teaches? After all, not doing those things puts a person’s soul in a state of mortal sin and are also a serious threat to their salvation-correct?
Should those persons be forced to obey or be arrested? Or should we just make them pay taxes and fight our wars but not give them the same benefits as those who are not in a state of mortal sin? What about those who divorce? Should they also lose some sort of benefit since they have broken church law?

If you’re going to say that the state must enforce the Church’s rules on salvation in order to protect people from losing their souls to mortal sin, the state is going to be VERY busy with a lot of things other than homosexual acts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top