Some people actually do (trust me, you don’t want to know).
Homosexuality no, but homosexual acts are very harmful from a medical point of view. There are 6 cases of a new STD alone in Massachusetts and 22 in Canada. The gay culture encourages multiple partners, and despite a very large population of homosexuals in Massachusetts only 8,000 couples have been married many with open relationships. Never mind that the anus wasn’t design for such acts causing permanent physical damage. Lesbians (I’ve known several of them, my best friend in high school that I knew since the age of nine) really have more of a fear of men, then a love of women. Her same-sex relationships were like a drug, avoiding the real issue she had with the opposite sex.
The lifestyle of pizza delivery drivers is statistically much more dangerous too. Is carryout the only moral way to ‘do it’ then?
So do what you see is right in your own life, but let others live how they choose – as long as they aren’t forcing you into immorality, what harm is it doing you?
Many – like you? Nobody is making you have gay sex. Is it so unbearable to you that other people like to have sex differently that you must butt in on it? If you leave them alone, they won’t come after you – well, except the nuts, but we don’t want em either (and they’re on all sides of the issue anyway).
You call them exhibitionists. There are straight ones too. Tell them to get a room. Both exhibitionism and ruthless proselytization are exceedingly rude.
They make people not want to hear it from you is what they have to do with it. So even if you do have anything positive and useful to say, your entire message is already lost.
Actually I’m quite open to opposing views, so long as they’re polite. I just civilly disagree with them, as is my right. And I debate them defending my own views because we are here to discuss those and the opposing views.
So, we all have made our own choices; where’s the respect for those choices? We don’t have to be right to command respect as human beings; nor do you.
True. But how many alcoholics and obese persons do you see parading for ‘equal rights?’ Every year, my town has a Gay and Lesbian Pride Week (btw, I’d love to see a Chastity Pride week
). I have yet to see a Drunkenness Pride Week or a Metabolically Challenged Pride Week (although there may just be).I think renee1258 answered that one quite well.
You’re talking about the male gay culture specifically here, right? Lesbian culture doesn’t encourage multiple partners or disease. Straight male culture, on the other hand, does encourage reckless promiscuity just as much as its reflection. New STDs pop up all the time, and not just in homosexuals.
The other ones I’ve known have no more fear of men than anyone else – they just aren’t sexually attracted to them. It’s a hard concept to deal with, I know 
They’re going to die eventually anyway; what you do by letting them live their own lives is potentially sentencing them to a happier, more fulfilling life. Is it more moral to want them to deny what they are? That’s a living death and a curse, not a sign of friendship.
Plenty of graduates of such programs go on to relapse quietly (and sometimes very loudly). In my opinion they’re dangerous quacks, only a single very short step up from the ‘professionals’ in the old days who used to try to electroshock the gay out of people.
You’re Catholic and you don’t celebrate St Patrick’s Day?
).I celebrate it, but I don’t get drunk. Most who use St Patrick’s Day as an excuse to get sloshed aren’t even Catholic.You’re Catholic and you don’t celebrate St Patrick’s Day?
posted by Mirdath as a response to a poster saying he didn’t see people celebrating alcoholism and drunkeness pride week.
No, it doesn’t. It proposes that people stay out of each others’ private lives when they are not invited, whether or not what is being done is ‘okay’. Does butting in on someone’s sex life and criticizing it make you judgemental? Yes! Cruel – not necessarily; unwanted and annoying – probably.
Actually I’m all for a little chlorine in the gene pool
I don’t believe that stupidity should be legislated against.All those things except jaywalking are harmful to society and detrimental to others. And seriously, jaywalking shouldn’t be a crime.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’. It’s not total freedom; you’re still responsible to others. But unless those others are interfering with your or still other people’s ‘inalienable rights’, you have no business interfering with theirs.
I’m not understanding that… did you trim the quote off a little past where it should have been ended? It looks like you meant to quote ‘keep others from living as they choose’ and no more, but I can’t be sure.
I was kidding
But St Patrick’s is pretty close to Alcoholic Pride Day, even for non-Catholics. Along with New Years’ Eve, Halloween, July 4 (in America), and pretty much every other major holiday… the reason there aren’t pride parades is that they can’t walk straight! 
Odd, isn’t it, that the “diversity” advocates want everybody to be exactly like they are----and if somebody is not, that somebody is promptly labelled a “bigot”. Thus, the “diversity” is found to be not “diverse” at all. In fact, it’s the most rigid form of lockstep one-mindedness you can imagine. If you deviate from the standard multicultural party line, heaven help you.
Nazism is a culture. So is cannibalism and pederasty. Shall we champion those, too?
I agree to a point. Certainly, it doesn’t do any good to beat somebody over the head with a Bible and tell them they’re going to hell; but by the same token, it also doesn’t mean that we have to accept their behavior or want ourselves exposed to it on a constant basis. More importantly, it doesn’t mean that we have to accept our institutions being changed and re-defined by a small minority of disordered people (i.e., “gay marriage”).
I am a Catholic. According to the “multicultural/diversity” mantra, the view of my Faith is a legitimate as anyone else’s, and so here it is: the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is in instrinsically disordered action, and it can in no way be countenanced. Homosexual orientation is a disorder that is in itself not sinful. Acting upon the orientation and engaging in homnosexual behavior, is.
I freely admit that I am a sinner. And that’s the main difference between me and pro-homosexual advocates: they refuse to see their behavior as sinful. They think it’s normal and good. However, while I am bound to see everyone as an immortal soul loved by God, I am not bound to tolerate anyone’s sin—mine, or anyone else’s.
Bingo. And once again we see that “tolerance” is a one-way street.
Bingo again. And this is precisely why my child is homeschooled.
Depends on what kind of diversity you’re talking about. If by “diversity” you mean complete acceptance of any and all lifestyles and behaviors, that, in my opinion, is what’s wrong with diversity. I believe that many of those lifestyles and behaviors are abnormal, perverted, deviant, harmful, sinful, and ultimately perilous to the immortal soul of the practitioners.
Alfred Kinsey was a latent homosexual who slanted his “research” with fabrications to promote his agenda. His data are completely worthless and have been totally discredited.
"The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
The last time I looked, delivering pizza is not a transgressive action, theologically speaking. Active homosexual behavior is.
Works both ways. I personally am tired of having homosexual behavior contantly shoved in my face by TV, movies, magazines, newspapers, ad infinitum et adsurdum et nauseam. It doesn’t incline me to be more “tolerant”; what it does instead is cause me to want to never be exposed to it again. In some people—and I am not saying this of myself, although I have observed it in others—this aversion to the constantly touted behavior can lead to backlash against it.
"Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.
Nazism, cannibalism, and pederasty harm people who have not consented to any such treatment (barring the case of Armin Meiwes, but that’s another topic entirely). A child could make that moral distinction.
Marriage isn’t your institution, nor are homosexuals perverting your approach to marriage. It is a civil institution with civil rights and responsibilities attached. If a church does not want to marry homosexuals or anyone else, they don’t have to and the government can’t make them.
Good for it. I disagree, but you have the right to say that. I favor Voltaire’s attitude towards such matters: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.
They don’t have to see their behavior as sinful. Do you eat meat, fish, eggs, or cheese? Somewhere there’s a vegan preaching about how you’re a murderer just as you preach the sin inherent in homosexual acts. Does that vegan’s preaching make you a murderer?
Three of those links are dead. Kinsey was bisexual, and it was hardly ‘latent’. Nor has he been discredited by any respected researcher. Some elements of his work have become obsolete, just as happened to Freud (and Galen, for that matter). But mere revulsion and trumped-up moral objection to his work doesn’t make him wrong. Judith Reisman can make all the claims she wants, but backing them up is another matter entirely.
‘Some’ of those diseases are only carried through anal sex – which isn’t practiced only by male homosexuals (nor is anal sex the only or the most common way gay men make love). The rest are rampant throughout the heterosexual population as well.
We weren’t discussing theology. We were discussing physical risk. Pizza delivery is more dangerous than homosexuality. So too, for that matter, is a career in law enforcement. Rail against those first – how do you think you’ll like it without police or pizza?
I’m pretty tired of being told to buy stuff myself
That’s a far more prevalent, far more invasive, and far more pointed message in all such media. So I don’t watch tv, don’t read papers (I get news online), etc, etc.Let’s see… one study, the same people writing articles about it, in one city location? Yeah, real trustworthy methodology there. Given how polarizing an issue it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if studies on both sides cherrypick groups and skew results.
I “pick” a system because it is objectively true, not because it is convenient. Truth is truth even if many refuse to see it.Catholic definitions of right and wrong cover way too much ground for me to accept; I prefer the categorical imperative, if we have to pick a system. But, that’s just me
This is the point right here. It is becoming circular. Labeling just criticism as a rant is pejorative. I accept there is a subjective element in all this, but I also accept there is an objective element. It seems calling a vice a vice is to be termed unjust criticism and intolerant because some subset of the population may have a type of persecution complex. I think it is a tactic used, by many, to stop debate.
Well yeah, and so do you. Different choices but not all that different an attitude. But you have no idea what choices I’ve made in my personal life (and vice-versa). There’s no call to denigrate me for what you don’t know.
Objectively true because it says so? We can’t know for sure what is and isn’t absolute Truth until we’re dead – and that’s if there is an afterlife.
You can criticize everything you want, whether justly or unjustly – but you don’t have to say everything you think, do you? Mere criticism I have not labeled ‘ranting’; in fact, my point all along has been ‘say it if you like, just don’t get on a soapbox about it’.