Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[MindOverMatter2]

John, there would be no need for this site, if your beliefs were true. That is the bottom line.

That’s not a reasonable conclusion. It would be more reasonable to argue that there would be no need for this site if Gods existence was “self evident”. Also, this site serves other functions that, while may not be valuable to your subjective wants, are valuable to the Catholics who visit this site.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter

My huge Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines “sodomite” as a person who practices sodomy.

I don’t care about your dictionary definitions. Context is a keyword that you seem to enjoy ignoring. Just because that is the old way of referring to gay people doesn’t mean its okay to call people sodomites in today’s context; and the fact is, you didn’t say it to reveal a truth of God, you said it out of a desire to insult and injure. I have already explained why its not good, and I am not going to get in to it again. Its between you and God now.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

John, there would be no need for this site, if your beliefs were true. That is the bottom line.

MISSION STATEMENT
Catholic Answers is one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Its mission statement explains its purpose:

Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.

!

 

[Neildown]

I don’t care about your dictionary definitions. Context is a keyword that you seem to enjoy ignoring. Just because that is the old way of referring to gay people doesn’t mean its okay to call people sodomites; and the fact is, you didn’t say it to reveal a truth of God, you said it out of hatred to insult and injure. I have already explained why its not good, and I am not going to get in to it again. Its between you and God now.

I’m not going to go calling gay people sodomites for the sake of offending them, but if the boot fits I don’t see a problem with that classification.

Such practices are not only disgusting but also unhealthy and unproductive. There is honestly, and openly, no redemptive or honorable value to the homosexual practice whatsoever. It is what it is, which is a perversion of human’s nature. I don’t see the terminology so much as an insult as it is a fact.

I truly don’t want to offend people by my statement, but I’m not going change what I know as truth if it can’t be disproven - even if it is highly unpopular and labelled as bigotry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

Just because that is the old way of referring to gay people doesn’t mean its okay to call people sodomites in today’s context; and the fact is, you didn’t say it to reveal a truth of God, you said it out of a desire to insult and injure. I have already explained why its not good, and I am not going to get in to it again.

Thank God, as you seem to be obsessed with calling something gay that is very sad.

Orwell, where are you now that we really need your wisdom on Doublespeak!?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I truly don’t want to offend people by my statement, but I’m not going change what I know as truth if it can’t be disproven - even if it is highly unpopular and labelled as bigotry.

That’s between you and God.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I don’t care about your dictionary definitions. Context is a keyword that you seem to enjoy ignoring. Just because that is the old way of referring to gay people doesn’t mean its okay to call people sodomites; and the fact is, you didn’t say it to reveal a truth of God, you said it out of hatred to insult and injure. I have already explained why its not good, and I am not going to get in to it again. Its between you and God now.

I disagree that Charlemagne’s point is to insult or injure. Homosexualists have had the upper hand in changing terminology and associations with words, since the business and marketing plan laid out by Kirk and Madsen in After the Ball back in 1989 which packaged homosexuality, the handbook successfully implemented by gay activists. Just consider what has transpired in the last 30 years and where all of this is headed. Look at the big picture!

The Church already made a distinction what is sinful, and it is the act (sodomy) of active homosexuals who wish to justify it along with the rest that goes with the lifestyle. The words ‘gay’ (which is a word marketed by activists to sanitize homosexuality), ‘homosexual’ and ‘homosexuality’ don’t quite point to what is the bottom line issue in this debate and others. The word ‘sodomite’ is not being thrown at every same sex attracted individual.

And please don’t connect this difference from your view as basis for a claim of prejudice and discrimination as you have upthread.

Yes, it’s between each one of us and God!

Truth and charity go hand in hand. What you think is charitable is playing into the enemy’s (Satan’s) hand.

Love is not tolerance
BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN
Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

If you think calling somebody a sodomite is charitable behaviour, that is your business. You don’t have to justify your self to me. I choose to refrain from disguised bullying. The Church does not say that we should call people sodomites.

It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it.

I don’t have to call somebody a sodomite in order to show them why homosexuality is wrong. It was intended as an insult. Mature people speaking in love don’t have to resort to those references.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

**I don’t have to call somebody a sodomite in order to show them why homosexuality is wrong. It was intended as an insult. Mature people speaking in love don’t have to resort to those references. **

You have reneged on your intention to quit.

Mature people don’t have to call something “gay” that is really sad.

Would you refuse to refer to a prostitute as a prostitute; to a pedophile as a pedophile; to a thief as a thief; to an abortionists as an abortionist; to a liar as a liar? You certainly don’t mind referring to me as a hypocrite. When you call me a hypocrite is it your intention to hurt me, or is it your intention to call me what you think I am?

What is it with your need to hide behind “gay” when “sad” is staring you in the face?

 

[BOSS10L]

Interesting, isn’t it, that as an atheist you don’t identify that fact among your quotes?

I won’t respond to your other stuff because your lack of paragraphs makes baby Jesus cry.

I didn’t purposely not identify myself as an Atheist. I assumed that by my tone most would get it or see it in th upper-right corner of my post.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter

**I don’t have to call somebody a sodomite in order to show them why homosexuality is wrong. It was intended as an insult. Mature people speaking in love don’t have to resort to those references. **

You have reneged on your intention to quit.

Mature people don’t have to call something “gay” that is really sad.

Would you refuse to refer to a prostitute as a prostitute; to a pedophile as a pedophile; to a thief as a thief; to an abortionists as an abortionist; to a liar as a liar? You certainly don’t mind referring to me as a hypocrite. When you call me a hypocrite is it your intention to hurt me, or is it your intention to call me what you think I am?

What is it with your need to hide behind “gay” when “sad” is staring you in the face?

Context.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I agree that calling homosexuals “sodomites” is evil.

How sad to see Catholics descend to such lows. No good comes from this, and certainly no change of heart, rather, unnecessary hardening of heart. Only pure evil can come from it. No wonder why our world is so full of lack of peace, when it is torn apart by extremists and fundamentalists – which includes some Catholics, apparently.

You guys should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

 

[mo3]

Bigots do tend to get offended when called on it. This is a well established tradition.

Yes it reminds me of the “anti-religious bigots.” They are the poster child for intolerance. They espouse their “religious secularism” as if it is true progress all the while trying to deny Christians their constitutional right to free speech and to vote their conscience.

God bless.

 

[mo3]

I don’t have to call somebody a sodomite in order to show them why homosexuality is wrong. It was intended as an insult. Mature people speaking in love don’t have to resort to those references.

I agree with you.

God bless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al
**
You guys should be deeply ashamed of yourselves. **

So Al, by your logic, Saint Paul should also be ashamed of himself?

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” Romans

And Lot should have been ashamed of himself?

“The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground, he said, ‘Please, my lords, come aside into your servant’s house for the night, and bathe your feet; you can get up early to continue your journey.’ But they replied, ‘No, we will pass the night in the town square.’ He urged them so strongly, however, that they turned aside to his place and entered his house. He prepared a banquet for them, baking unleavened bread, and they dined. Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.’ Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing!’”

And I suppose you would say the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself when it refers to homosexual acts as acts of “grave depravity” ( see below, or would you say the catechism should read “grave gaity”)"

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity’

 

[MindOverMatter2]

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity’

Notice that when the context changes (and not quoting directly from the bible), the catechism begins referring to “Homosexuals”. I mean, if it was always morally appropriate to refer to homosexuals as sodomites, why waste time with modern distinctions. They would just say “Sodomite refers to…”

It seems that you going to have to say that the Church is doing the devils work by pandering to modern distinctions of “depraved acts”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree that calling homosexuals “sodomites” is evil.

How sad to see Catholics descend to such lows. No good comes from this, and certainly no change of heart, rather, unnecessary hardening of heart. Only pure evil can come from it. No wonder why our world is so full of lack of peace, when it is torn apart by extremists and fundamentalists – which includes some Catholics, apparently.

You guys should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Thanks Al:thumbsup:, and for the other things you have said…

 

[sedonaman]

What did George Washington think?

From The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799; John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:

Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. [Emphasis in the original]
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgwfield(DOCID+@lit(gw110081

---

“It is interesting to note, however, that when homosexual activists ask for tolerance, they are implicitly admitting that there is something wrong with their behavior. After all, you don’t need to ask people to ‘tolerate’ good behavior. Mother Teresa never had to ask for tolerance.” – F. Turek, Correct, Not Politically Correct

“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of these people have ever been held accountable.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree with you.

God bless.

Godbless.

 

[Neildown]

That’s between you and God.

I’m not following you.