Pick a side on gay issue!

[Digger71]

pnewton:

Do you truly not see that the homosexual lifetstyle has been increadingly portrayed as acceptable on television and in movies?

Of course, the real issue is empirical data. The empirical data contradicts doctrine. Data based arguments are winning Claims such as gays are intrinsically disordered, or ‘recruit’ through seduction, are demonstrably false when viewed through the lense of empirical data.

In many ways this is another Galileo moment, another Darwin moment The ‘social conservatives’ are losing the arguments because the opponents can facts about sexual orientation.

Given the amount of time it has taken for G and D to finally effect doctrine I would expect a long delay before religions once again conceede defeat and go with the data.

The social conservatives, by contrast, use fear (HIV, ‘seduction theory’) and doctrine (the bible condemns it) without realising the fundamental flaws in this approach.

 

[MikeinSD]

pira114:

I have a silly question. Why does a gay man who is not a Christian, come to a Catholic website and question our beliefs about homosexuality? What are your true objectives? Are you trying to bait us into saying something you can attack us with? It’s like asking a muslim what they think of Catholics. Of course you’ll get the answer you expect. And when you try to use it against us, it’ll backfire. Just like when we try to use your values against you, it’ll backfire on us. It’s stupid. Why don’t you go to a homo website?

Actually I’m a man on a mission. The secret gay government - Homosexuals United to Rule America - HURA (pronounced Hoorah) - air drops me into enemy websites to gather intelligence and sow discord among decent Christians – out last and most formidable foe. Every week I sent coded messages to headquarters in West Hollywood detailing your defenses and ways to overcome them.

Also, going here gives me an excuse to cackle (in honor to the great Margaret Hamilton) “I’ll get you my pretty! And your little dog too! Brahahahahahahahah!”

Success is slow but sure in coming. Already more Christian women are wearing natural fibers. Younger Christian men now sip lattes. And of course when you hear a group of Marines yell “HOORAH” you now know what they are referring to.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Of course, love, loyalty and devotion are not the concern of governments, which is why same-sex unions should be recognised. Otherwise the government is directly interfering and mandating relationships.

This seems to be your main error. You equate a non-action on the part of the government (not giving official recognition and rewards to something) with “interfering and mandating relatoinships”, which is nonsense. The govenment is not interfering in your relationship (if not you, let’s pretend it’s you), rather, you are asking the govenment to do something for you, to grant you and your relationship a certain privledged status (one I would say it does not merit) by claiming your relationship is no different from the ones that do recieve this status - and yet it is, with regards to serving a purpose in society which is the very reason such an official recognition by the govenment exists in the first place. The fact that govenments recognise marriage and not homosexual partnerships has nothing to do with the devotion or lack thereof in the relationships in question, and everything to do with their benefit, or lack of benefit (not neccessarily harm, but neutrality) to society. For the govenment to actively step in and give positive recognition and reward to something, that thing should be significantly beneficial to society.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

I was passing comment on a phenomina, not on any specific individual or group of individuals. You seem unduly sensitive.

“The monsters” is a phenomena, not individuals? Yeah right . How exactly do “phenomena” which are not individuals “justify themselves mistaking hate for love and feeling justified in it”?
Not sensitive, just pointing something out - you are accusing people of “hate”, yet calling a group of people “monsters” (whoever it is you’re referring to) is the only hateful thing I see anyone saying on this thread.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Well, clearly same-sex relationships occur in nature so by your own argument civil partnerships should be extended to them to reflect this.

Relationships occur. They do not create new families. Don’t try to use adoption as an example - anyone can adopt, it is not dependant upon having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex - thus, the relationship itself is not responsible for the origin of the family.

It is amusing that your counterargument is to compare something we see all around us with something we never see, and claim the two are equivilent. Yet I suspect you cannot even see the material difference in your examples.

Meaning, I suppose, that “marriage” is an abstraction, while procreation is a physical reality. True, and if you wish to call something, anything, “marriage” and believe it to be so, no one is stopping you. You can mix together orange juice and sprite and call it “marriage”. But if you expect the beverege to be given some special legal status because of it, you are forgetting that it is not the word “marriage” that is benefical to society and worth rewarding, but the thing which that word has traditionally denoted - which is a physical reality, and is significantly different from a homosexual relationship.

 

[St.Sharky]

It’s worse. It’s harmful to our souls.

Drug addiction can kill the physical body but homosexual acts can land you in hell if unrepented.

Oh of course, because loving someonereagrdless of what anyone else says is soooo much worse than drug abuse.

PS this means I dont really care what anyone does, or who they love (as long as they are not closely related )

 

[pira114]

MikeinSD:

Actually I’m a man on a mission. The secret gay government - Homosexuals United to Rule America - HURA (pronounced Hoorah) - air drops me into enemy websites to gather intelligence and sow discord among decent Christians – out last and most formidable foe. Every week I sent coded messages to headquarters in West Hollywood detailing your defenses and ways to overcome them.

Also, going here gives me an excuse to cackle (in honor to the great Margaret Hamilton) “I’ll get you my pretty! And your little dog too! Brahahahahahahahah!”

Success is slow but sure in coming. Already more Christian women are wearing natural fibers. Younger Christian men now sip lattes. And of course when you hear a group of Marines yell “HOORAH” you now know what they are referring to.

That’s hillarious! I’m glad to see you can have a sense of humor about it, especially when you must feel attacked all the time. While I don’t agree with homosexuality, I don’t hate anyone for being gay. I live in the Bay Area in Ca. If I couldn’t be around gay men or women, I’d have to stay home all the time!! I have several friends, co-workers, and a brother who are gay. So if I sounded homophobic, I didn’t mean to. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Personally, I’m losing interest in the debate. I’m starting to quesiton how much of our tax money is being spent on fighting this issue, whether your for or against it.

The reason for this thread was not to debate being gay, nor was it to get people to say what side their on. I only meant to point out that so many people are fence riders. They are totally against something until a scenario presents itself that might be too close to home, then, all of a sudden, it’s not so bad. Same thing with abortion, death penalty, etc…

By the way, I don’t know if you meant to do this or not, but the HURA thing was perfect. I used to be a Marine!

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

Relationships occur.

Thus you concede your original comparison was false, comparing what does happen with something that does not.

BlindSheep:

They do not create new families.

And effortlessly change the terms of reference…forgetting that ‘family’ is more than just a breeding arrangement. Loyalty and intimacy are also defining characteristics, though not useful for your argument.

BlindSheep:

the relationship itself is not responsible for the origin of the family.

It is a powerful act, to define your terms. If you simply reduce family to breeding units, and elevate this to be the only worthy characteristic, then by definition I can only be wrong.

But families are more than breeding units. So by definition, you are wrong.

BlindSheep:

Meaning, I suppose, that “marriage” is an abstraction, while procreation is a physical reality. True, and if you wish to call something, anything, “marriage” and believe it to be so, no one is stopping you.

You recognise the fact that civil-unions and marriages are function of legislation. Good. Likewise, to use your own argument, just because you do not think same-sex unions are marriages does not mean it is true. No one is stopping you.

BlindSheep:

you are forgetting that it is not the word “marriage” that is benefical to society and worth rewarding, but the thing which that word has traditionally denoted - which is a physical reality, and is significantly different from a homosexual relationship.

If ‘marriage’ is so good, then it is best that everyone who becomes a permanent couple benefit from the legal and social advantages. It helps everyone in society if member of that society are stabalised. In desiring to stop same-sex unions you are deliberately denying members of society of benefits, and implicitly you are saying stability is not good, and you are setting up a condition that will lead to social upheavel later.

This is not beneficial to individuals or societies.

The question that arises next is why people want to deny benefit to fellow citizens and undermine their society.

Oh, and a final point. And it usually comes down to this. People marry who they want. Gay marriages will be additional to straight marriages, not a replacement. Gay marriages do not threaten heterosexual marriages. “Should I mary Jim or Caroline?” not a likely scenario.

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Likewise, to use your own argument, just because you do not think same-sex unions are marriages does not mean it is true.

You are right that what we think has nothing to do with truth. Truth is defined by God who alone has the right to say what is true. Those who reject the truth God has revealed for the sake of their own passions are the one who are trying to re-define marriage.

 

[Libero]

MikeinSD:

Actually I’m a man on a mission. The secret gay government - Homosexuals United to Rule America - HURA (pronounced Hoorah) - air drops me into enemy websites to gather intelligence and sow discord among decent Christians – out last and most formidable foe. Every week I sent coded messages to headquarters in West Hollywood detailing your defenses and ways to overcome them.

Also, going here gives me an excuse to cackle (in honor to the great Margaret Hamilton) “I’ll get you my pretty! And your little dog too! Brahahahahahahahah!”

Success is slow but sure in coming. Already more Christian women are wearing natural fibers. Younger Christian men now sip lattes. And of course when you hear a group of Marines yell “HOORAH” you now know what they are referring to.

Hehehe, now let us cackle uncontrollably Muharraaahhhhahhhaahh,

 

[Digger71]

pnewton:

You are right that what we think has nothing to do with truth. Truth is defined by God who alone has the right to say what is true. Those who reject the truth God has revealed for the sake of their own passions are the one who are trying to re-define marriage.

Jesus said give away all your possessions. Have you followed this direct instruction?

 

[MikeinSD]

Thanks Pira!! I honestly don’t like fighting. And I hope you and yr brother get along. I have a str8 brother (and sisters) and I don’t hold it against him And I didn’t know you were a former Marine. I had a Marine correct me once. He said there is no “ex-Marines” just former Marines. And that both Marines and former Marines still kick as* when necessary.

The reason I’m here is that I have several relatives in my (extended) family that are Christians – both Catholic and Baptist. And unfortunately, we don’t get along. We don’t get along to the point we ended up in court. How their religion affects my relatives bewilders me. They now live and breath religion.It seems like a lifestyle now. My homosexuality really bothers them now. So it’s war when we meet. Being here helps me understand where they are coming from.

 

[MikeinSD]

Libero:

Hehehe, now let us cackle uncontrollably Muharraaahhhhahhhaahh,

A cackle a day keeps the doctors away.

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Jesus said give away all your possessions. Have you followed this direct instruction?

When did he give me this instruction and what does it have to do with homosexual marriage? Is this just a red herring? If you can not relate it to the topic, start a new thread and don’t post it here.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Thus you concede your original comparison was false, comparing what does happen with something that does not.

No, it was you who misunderstood me.

And effortlessly change the terms of reference…forgetting that ‘family’ is more than just a breeding arrangement. Loyalty and intimacy are also defining characteristics, though not useful for your argument.

No, I changed nothing. Again, you misunderstood me, so I had to clarify.

It is a powerful act, to define your terms. If you simply reduce family to breeding units, and elevate this to be the only worthy characteristic, then by definition I can only be wrong.

It is indeed a powerful act to define your terms, which is what you do when you reduce marriage to nothing but a commited sexual relationship.
However, if you wish to define marriage in this way, take the next step and explain why commited sexual relationships are so important that the govenment should actively encourage and recognise them.

But families are more than breeding units. So by definition, you are wrong.

Can I ask you to do me a favor and stop using the condescending term “breeding”? It is offensive.
I would also appreciate it if you did not misrepresent what I said. I did not say “families are nothing but breeding units”. It would be more accurate to say YOU do not consider “breeding” part of your definition of family, and that you do not feel “breeding” is of any more benefit or importance to society than a lifetime of sodomy between the same two men.

You recognise the fact that civil-unions and marriages are function of legislation. Good. Likewise, to use your own argument, just because you do not think same-sex unions are marriages does not mean it is true. No one is stopping you.

Yes and no. Homosexual relationships will never be what heterosexual relationships are, that is just a fact of nature. Artifically naming them the same thing will not make it so - however, it will be unfair. It is akin to giving a paycheck to someone who doesn’t come to work, and talking it out of the paycheck of the one who does.

If ‘marriage’ is so good, then it is best that everyone who becomes a permanent couple benefit from the legal and social advantages.

You are the one who reduces marriage to permanant couplehood. If that is all marriage is, than marriage is NOT always deserving of legal and social advantages.

 

[pira114]

I think BlindSheep and Digger need to sit down and have a beer together. I don’t think either one of you is going to convince the other one of anything.

Mike, sorry to hear about your family. I would hate to think how things would have turned out if my family had done that to my brother. Just know that in time they may realize their errors, and that not all Christians are like that.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

Jesus said give away all your possessions. Have you followed this direct instruction?

Just when I thought I was dealing with an intellectual you come up with this crappy cliche’. Jesus spoke to one specific person, the wealthy young man who thought he could earn heaven. His admonision to give away all possessions was clearly not universal.

Mike

 

[Libero]

trustmc:

Just when I thought I was dealing with an intellectual you come up with this crappy cliche’. Jesus spoke to one specific person, the wealthy young man who thought he could earn heaven. His admonision to give away all possessions was clearly not universal.

Mike

Alright lets clam down a little, firstly, I still think Digger is an intellectual, secondly, it is not a “crappy” cliche, digger does have a point, we can find teachings that we consider unreasonable, and thus openly disobey, yet many people will gleefully enforce what many homosexuals feel are unreasonable teachings in regards to them, and the person they are. Lets all remain happy!

 

[Digger71]

MikeinSD:

A cackle a day keeps the doctors away.

I lob exploding, genetically enhanced, chinese throwing apples at doctors to keep them away…it works.

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

Just when I thought I was dealing with an intellectual you come up with this crappy cliche’. Jesus spoke to one specific person, the wealthy young man who thought he could earn heaven. His admonision to give away all possessions was clearly not universal.

Mike

Now apply that same eye to detail to the supposed anti-gay passages in the bible. You will discover there is no blanket ban on homosexuality, but a strong condemnation of paganism. Thus the condemnation of homosexuality is not universal, despite somewhat shrill claims they are.