Pro-Gay in the name of tolerance

[fix]

Why do I keep getting accused of relativism for subscribing to a different absolute moral code and not demanding everyone agree with me? It’s getting to be ridiculous.

Because you claim your authority is you.

Natural? What do philosophical and moral proofs have to do with nature? Animal homosexuality is an observed occurrence; therefore, it is found in nature; therefore, it is natural – ‘of nature’. Philosophy and morals are entirely irrelevant to that. They only come into play when you debate its rightness, not whether or not it is ‘natural’.

I was not talking about biology. I was referring to the nature of man. That is what he is rightly ordered to.

I’m not arguing the morality of homosexuality with you anyway, and this thread is about ‘tolerance’. My principal argument here really needs no lower animals as I’m not trying to prove anything about its morality or ethicality; I merely submit that all humans deserve respect and the freedom to live their lives as they choose so long as they harm no one without consent.

And you contradict yourself right here. You absolutely base your argument on morality. What is freedom, and harm, and consent, and respect? They all are concerned with morality. Again, as you define those terms, and use them, it appears you believe things like freedom are really simply license. Respect would mean imposing your bad behavior on society. On and on.

The morality or immorality of others’ actions has no effect on society as a whole unless and until they actively harm someone else. You keep claiming it’s bad for society, but you can’t bring anything in to back it up. Until you can, your argument is utterly worthless.

And you define harm how? You think the only immoral action is physical violence to another? There are plenty of examples that would show the authentic harm to embracing your position. The continue breakdown of families, the loosening of public morals which impact all of us especially young children. When civil laws contradict the natural moral law we have bad example. Bad example helps influence how people view conduct and how they form there life.

Heroin? Heroin and other opiates have inspired poets, writers, musicians, artists, and others for ages – and that’s an incontrovertible benefit. A world without Coleridge’s Kubla Khan (written entirely while the poet was in an opium-induced trance) would be a far less beautiful one. It’s a double-edged sword though – as a cleaned-up junkie, I can say from experience that it’s quite definitely bad for people. But the principal detriment to society is not in the drug itself, it’s in the black market that has sprung up due to its illegality.

So, dulling one’s free will and mental status is good. The black market is a problem not because it is illegal. It is a problem because so many want such things. Why do they want them? Mostly because they want to escape. Why do they want to escape? Well, the stuff we read in this thread is a good hint.

 

[hasikelee]

I understand and certainly don’t condone that kind of treatment, but my point is that tolerance should be a two-way street, but it isn’t. Particularly when the battleground is the school system where the gay community wants to teach kids that it is okay to live the gay lifestyle and Catholics object. There is no tolerance of those objections no matter how Christlike one makes the objection.

Bingo. Tolerance is a one way street when we’re talking about abortion, premarital sex, homosexual activity and birth control.

When someone says I have to be more tolerant, I tell them they can go first.

They are the ones trying to shove it down and not the other way around.

 

[Mirdath]

Because you claim your authority is you.

The source of authority doesn’t matter (and it isn’t myself either), I hold to an absolute code. I am not a moral relativist. Stop calling me one.

I was not talking about biology. I was referring to the nature of man. That is what he is rightly ordered to.

‘Rightly ordered’ as you intend it to be taken is meaningless to one who does not share your beliefs. Have a little respect and courtesy for us outsiders – that’s all I ask.

And you contradict yourself right here. You absolutely base your argument on morality. What is freedom, and harm, and consent, and respect? They all are concerned with morality. Again, as you define those terms, and use them, it appears you believe things like freedom are really simply license. Respect would mean imposing your bad behavior on society. On and on.

Freedom: the ability to act in accordance with one’s personal wishes. By extension, freedom for all indicates that is limited to the ability to act as one pleases so long as no harm (see below) is done to the unwilling.
Harm: physical or mental damage done to someone, self or other.
Consent: a contract between two or more fully informed and understanding parties detailing and assigning rights, privileges, and responsibilities each has with respect to the other(s).
Respect: the recognition of others’ freedom (see above) and civility to them over your differences and disagreements.

Nope, I don’t see how any of those are based on morality. They’re social constructs.

And you define harm how? You think the only immoral action is physical violence to another? There are plenty of examples that would show the authentic harm to embracing your position. The continue breakdown of families, the loosening of public morals which impact all of us especially young children. When civil laws contradict the natural moral law we have bad example. Bad example helps influence how people view conduct and how they form there life.

Why don’t you fix the 60% divorce rate among heterosexual married couples before worrying about whether allowing gays in will cheapen the institution of marriage? They aren’t harming society any more than you or anyone else is.

So, dulling one’s free will and mental status is good. The black market is a problem not because it is illegal. It is a problem because so many want such things. Why do they want them? Mostly because they want to escape. Why do they want to escape? Well, the stuff we read in this thread is a good hint.

Did you not see where I said the stuff was bad for people? But its effects on society are hardly wholly bad; there are very, very few things about which one could say that. Don’t presume to know why people use, either – you’re completely wrong about a large group of people.

hasikelee:

Bingo. Tolerance is a one way street when we’re talking about abortion, premarital sex, homosexual activity and birth control.

They are the ones trying to shove it down and not the other way around.

Looking at the posts in this thread and others in this forum, I wouldn’t say that. Particularly on abortion – most people here would rather no other opinion than theirs existed, scream ‘murder’ whenever it’s brought up, and are pushing for legislation to enforce their views to the exclusion of all others! Is that tolerance?

I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. Your turn.

 

[fix]

The source of authority doesn’t matter (and it isn’t myself either), I hold to an absolute code. I am not a moral relativist. Stop calling me one.

What is your source?

‘Rightly ordered’ as you intend it to be taken is meaningless to one who does not share your beliefs. Have a little respect and courtesy for us outsiders – that’s all I ask.

That one fails to grasp the truth does not make the truth meaningless. It may mean one needs to change there beliefs to conform with the truth.

Freedom: the ability to act in accordance with one’s personal wishes. By extension, freedom for all indicates that is limited to the ability to act as one pleases so long as no harm (see below) is done to the unwilling.
Harm: physical or mental damage done to someone, self or other.
Consent: a contract between two or more fully informed and understanding parties detailing and assigning rights, privileges, and responsibilities each has with respect to the other(s).
Respect: the recognition of others’ freedom (see above) and civility to them over your differences and disagreements.

Nope, I don’t see how any of those are based on morality. They’re social constructs.

Really? So, the basis for those constructs is what?

Why don’t you fix the 60% divorce rate among heterosexual married couples before worrying about whether allowing gays in will cheapen the institution of marriage?

I would love to see improvement. Let us start with all the gay propaganda and work backwards.

They aren’t harming society any more than you or anyone else is.

Yes, divorce is helpful and “gay” unions will only help more.

Did you not see where I said the stuff was bad for people? But its effects on society are hardly wholly bad; there are very, very few things about which one could say that. Don’t presume to know why people use, either – you’re completely wrong about a large group of people.

The ends justify the means? So, numbing one’s mind is freedom and diminishing free will is artistic and edifying?

 

[Mirdath]

What is your source?

Social contract theory, the categorical imperative, and basically the second commandment of Jesus: love thy neighbor as thyself.

That one fails to grasp the truth does not make the truth meaningless. It may mean one needs to change there beliefs to conform with the truth.

So change already

See? You can claim to conform to the truth until you’re blue in the face and it won’t do any good at all.

Really? So, the basis for those constructs is what?

‘Social’ constructs, therefore rules established to form the basis of society. You live by them too.

I would love to see improvement. Let us start with all the gay propaganda and work backwards.

How about I work on the gay propaganda, you work on the straight propaganda, and we meet in the middle?

Yes, divorce is helpful and “gay” unions will only help more.

How will allowing people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together to marry be a detriment to the institution of marriage?

The ends justify the means? So, numbing one’s mind is freedom and diminishing free will is artistic and edifying?

One potential use of free will is to sacrifice free will. Allowing oneself to fall into addiction is one way. Suicide is another, much more permanent way. To remove that option is to abrogate free will. Don’t criticize those who make that choice – it’s their right.

For what it’s worth, a huge percentage of opiate addicts are self-medicating for chronic pain. Still more are addicted because of doctor-prescribed medicines and can’t break free from the habit once the problem is gone.

 

[goofyjim]

Homosexual orientation = “gay” in your formulation? This is a different definition that the common socio-political usage understanding.

Why not? No need to be miserable for a lifetime over something so trivial.

 

[dapper]

Why not? No need to be miserable for a lifetime over something so trivial.

I second that! I am completely content with being homosexual. I wasn’t always content with it but eventually you find that you are as God made you. I think that being gay has given me a great deal of perspective that I would otherwise not have felt or experienced had I not been born homosexual.

 

[hasikelee]

Looking at the posts in this thread and others in this forum, I wouldn’t say that. Particularly on abortion – most people here would rather no other opinion than theirs existed, scream ‘murder’ whenever it’s brought up, and are pushing for legislation to enforce their views to the exclusion of all others! Is that tolerance?

I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. Your turn.

Oh, of course you agree that the few people who post on this board are hardly a good representation of the billions of people in the world. That’s hilarious!

But I actually do agree with you-in a way. I have always believed that loonies exist in BOTH the anti-abortion and pro-abortion camps. Of course, seeing as how those who support euthanasia, abortion and other similar things are inherently wrong, they are usually all loony anyways, but you and I both know the loonies are everywhere.

They’re out to get us!



On a serious note, no, really, seriously, I have come across some pretty loony people. And they have decided to tie themselves to a particular cause so as to further justify and/or validate their actions. For example, murderous crazy people who call themselves prolifers for their own little agendas.

You better believe that happens. Thing is, a person like is going to be crazy, loony, murderous or whatever else they are, whether religion, politics or socially sanctioned murder exists or NOT.

A good example is a neighbor of mine who is cruel, abusive and rude. He lies, he threatens. He is probably physically and verbally abusive to his family. Why? Because he wants to “save” his family in the name of God. In the name of God my rounded beehind! If God didn’t exist, that man would still be doing the same disgusting things, probably in the name of Aphrodites or in the name of America.

And I still recall with a sad chuckle my associate’s story of how she was tossed out of the house on her butt because she voted for Bush (her family is obviously democratic, ok). Her mom told her she was as good as dead to her due to that. Do you really think Bush and the Republican party was the cuprit here?

 

[pablo_rafael]

With all the discussion about whether to be “tolerant” of gays in our church and nation, I have to ask what does one mean if they are NOT tolerant?

If by just being against homosexuality, it would go away, I would be opposed to it in every discussion. However, there are gays and lesbians in our church and our society. If we are opposed to them what are we in favor of?

Are we in favor of:

1. A large number of gay teens committing suicide because of their orientation. (seven times the rate of heterosexual teens if I remember correctly.)
2. Married coupled getting divorced and families torn apart because one partner can’t keep up the disguise of being straight. (How often I have heard this sad story.)
3. Forcing people to lie about their orientation or suffer the consequences.
4. Pouring guilt upon people and giving them a lifetime of lonliness and self-loathing over something they did nothing to cause.

With all the suffering, discrimination and ridicule gay and lesbian individuals are forced to go through, is it to much to ask that our children and grandchildren have the right to live as God made them. That they be spared from the suicide attempts and self loathing.

There will always be gays in our church. We can either show them the love of God and welcome them or we can cast them aside. Allowing gays and lesbians to know that they are loved and welcomed is part of our mission. How often did Jesus welcome the outcasts of society? Did he not reach out to the unloved and speak against those who stood in self-rightoues judgement?

Pablo

 

[estesbob]

With all the discussion about whether to be “tolerant” of gays in our church and nation, I have to ask what does one mean if they are NOT tolerant?

If by just being against homosexuality, it would go away, I would be opposed to it in every discussion. However, there are gays and lesbians in our church and our society. If we are opposed to them what are we in favor of?

Are we in favor of:

1. A large number of gay teens committing suicide because of their orientation. (seven times the rate of heterosexual teens if I remember correctly.)
2. Married coupled getting divorced and families torn apart because one partner can’t keep up the disguise of being straight. (How often I have heard this sad story.)
3. Forcing people to lie about their orientation or suffer the consequences.
4. Pouring guilt upon people and giving them a lifetime of lonliness and self-loathing over something they did nothing to cause.

With all the suffering, discrimination and ridicule gay and lesbian individuals are forced to go through, is it to much to ask that our children and grandchildren have the right to live as God made them. That they be spared from the suicide attempts and self loathing.

There will always be gays in our church. We can either show them the love of God and welcome them or we can cast them aside. Allowing gays and lesbians to know that they are loved and welcomed is part of our mission. How often did Jesus welcome the outcasts of society? Did he not reach out to the unloved and speak against those who stood in self-rightoues judgement?

Pablo

We all have the right to live as God made us. What we dont have is the right to commit grevious sin nor tell others that a sin is not a sin.

 

[Mirdath]

We all have the right to live as God made us. What we dont have is the right to commit grevious sin nor tell others that a sin is not a sin.

While a spiritual work of mercy, admonishing the sinner does not mean one gets to treat them as second-class people. And another work of mercy is to give comfort to the afflicted – which is somewhat more relevant in this case. If you’re going to say their orientation is disordered, that’s an affliction, and so is being oppressed and downtrodden as many homosexuals are. Much of what I’ve seen here is cold comfort for that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We can–and do–offer comfort. **Love **(the real kind that doesn’t think we have to lie to people to bring them ‘happiness’). Respect, in that we don’t think that a homosexual person is less ‘capable’ of doing good or living a Christian life, and that he or she has to have the rules of ‘good’ bent because they just can’t handle their ‘urges’ and must be excused. Fellowshipall have to struggle against our own sinful propensities to keep ourselves from sinful actions. Faith in the Christ who died for all, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, homosexual and heterosexual, Christian and nonChristian alike. Hope in that with that sacrifice of Christ we are all redeemed and may all freely accept God’s word. He will turn no one away who seeks Him with a sincere heart; He will give sufficient grace to all–it is up to us to accept it.

What is offered from others? The opportunity to take and take and take whatever one wants just because one wants it, to be steeped in selfishness, to completely lose faith, hope, and love, to be uncharitable, to be divided, to hate the truth and those who speak it.

It’s a poor choice which only takes for oneself, and never, never gives aught to anyone else.

 

[estesbob]

While a spiritual work of mercy, admonishing the sinner does not mean one gets to treat them as second-class people. And another work of mercy is to give comfort to the afflicted – which is somewhat more relevant in this case. If you’re going to say their orientation is disordered, that’s an affliction, and so is being oppressed and downtrodden as many homosexuals are. Much of what I’ve seen here is cold comfort for that.

No one here is suggesting it OK to abuse or opress those who engage in homosexual behavior. This is a common tactic in homosexuality threads-spend a lot of time bemoaing the plight of those who engage in homosexual behavior while tiptoeing around discussing the behavior that puts them at odds with the Church. SSA may well be an affiliction. Acting on it a choice and a greviouys sin.

 

[Mirdath]

We can–and do–offer comfort. **Love **(the real kind that doesn’t think we have to lie to people to bring them ‘happiness’).

The kind of love that does not allow them to express their own love fully? In my opinion that’s a more disordered love than you say that for members of the same sex is.

Respect, in that we don’t think that a homosexual person is less ‘capable’ of doing good or living a Christian life, and that he or she has to have the rules of ‘good’ bent because they just can’t handle their ‘urges’ and must be excused.

The first part is great; the second again denies them something others are allowed merely because of their mental wiring. It may be some kind of respect, but it’s hardly equal standing. If someone decides to live by those rules, fine, but I do not and would rather people didn’t tell me how much they wish they applied to me.

Fellowshipall

have to struggle against our own sinful propensities to keep ourselves from sinful actions.

So why concentrate so much on one tiny subset of ‘sinful’ actions? You as a group have given homosexuals enough grief; why not turn to making something that’s actively harmful a hot-button issue for a while? Can’t you give them a break and campaign, preach, and write articles against the death penalty instead or something?

Faith in the Christ who died for all, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, homosexual and heterosexual, Christian and nonChristian alike.

Great, for those who have faith and can abide by the extra rules.

Hope in that with that sacrifice of Christ we are all redeemed and may all freely accept God’s word. He will turn no one away who seeks Him with a sincere heart; He will give sufficient grace to all–it is up to us to accept it.

What is offered from others? The opportunity to take and take and take whatever one wants just because one wants it, to be steeped in selfishness, to completely lose faith, hope, and love, to be uncharitable, to be divided, to hate the truth and those who speak it.

What is offered from others?

Love – love between two people; no falsehood, no deceiving oneself, no living the lie that one cannot truly love if one is attracted to the same sex.

Respect – for having the dignity and courage to stand up to the disapproval of others and say ‘This is my life, and I will be the one to live it’; for being fully capable of loving another and of being loved; and for being human and equal to everyone else.

Fellowship – with all people who do not take it upon themselves to actively oppose another’s chosen way of life; and with a unique community of people in the same situation.

Faith – if not necessarily in God, at least in other humans. The realization that not everyone is a crusader against one’s orientation, and that there really are people with whom one can be happy, friendly, and open.

Hope – that unjust discrimination against non-heterosexuals will eventually be seen for the ugly, demeaning crime it is; that hatred of others based on their choice of partner will soon have no place in this world; that all will be free to be open about who they are without fear of reprisal from those who have their own issues.

 

[Mirdath]

No one here is suggesting it OK to abuse or opress those who engage in homosexual behavior.

I haven’t claimed that. But it does happen, and frequently – why then do you choose to admonish rather than comfort?

This is a common tactic in homosexuality threads-spend a lot of time bemoaing the plight of those who engage in homosexual behavior while tiptoeing around discussing the behavior that puts them at odds with the Church. SSA may well be an affiliction. Acting on it a choice and a greviouys sin.

What is there to say about being at odds with the Church? Gay sex is a sin in the Church’s eyes, and it’s not about to change. There isn’t much of a discussion there. What can be discussed is the respect for and kindness to people who have it or have a tendency toward it – which are things I find direly lacking in the attitude of many of the Church’s adherents.

 

[setter]

With all the discussion about whether to be “tolerant” of gays in our church and nation, I have to ask what does one mean if they are NOT tolerant?

If by just being against homosexuality, it would go away, I would be opposed to it in every discussion. However, there are gays and lesbians in our church and our society. If we are opposed to them what are we in favor of?

Are we in favor of:

1. A large number of gay teens committing suicide because of their orientation. (seven times the rate of heterosexual teens if I remember correctly.)
2. Married coupled getting divorced and families torn apart because one partner can’t keep up the disguise of being straight. (How often I have heard this sad story.)
3. Forcing people to lie about their orientation or suffer the consequences.
4. Pouring guilt upon people and giving them a lifetime of lonliness and self-loathing over something they did nothing to cause.

The Church has only offered compassion to those folks afflicted with SSA. Have you considered that you are incorrectly blaming the Church for individuals associated with or who in the name of the Church are confusing the worthiness of the person from the disordered attraction or sinful behavior. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water …

On a more thoughtful level, you need to consider how PC folks and pro-gay activists are the one’s who are primarily to blame for all your above cited covertness by failing in every way to offer true compassion based on the truth of SSA and associated lifestyle. For example, can you cite one insurance company who will offer mental health coverage for someone suffering from the complications (such as yours cited above) of SSA and correctly identifying SSA as a mental disorder with social consequences? Let’s put the horse before the cart before assigning blame.

I also note your blatant omission for folks afflicted with or affected by another’s SSA affliction taking personal responsibility for their issues as if they are helpless victims. How about empowering these folks in these difficult situations with a sense of dignity based on natural moral law, self-responsibility and accountability?

With all the suffering, discrimination and ridicule gay and lesbian individuals are forced to go through, is it to much to ask that our children and grandchildren have the right to live as God made them. That they be spared from the suicide attempts and self loathing.

Original sin has resulted in a multitude of illness and disorder that deviates from God’s original design and function. God (through the Church and true Christian compassion) does accept [SSA] afflicted people where they are at, but He loves these individuals too much to leave them settling for less than the truth of His love.

There will always be gays in our church. We can either show them the love of God and welcome them or we can cast them aside. Allowing gays and lesbians to know that they are loved and welcomed is part of our mission. How often did Jesus welcome the outcasts of society? Did he not reach out to the unloved and speak against those who stood in self-rightoues judgement?

Pablo

How exactly do you define “gays and lesbians”? How about a less politically charged and degrading label that more accurately separates the SSA affliction from person and their dignity in Christ, such as “those brothers and sisters struggling with homosexual attraction”?

Gay activist Paul Gibson first promoted the idea that gays account for 30% of all youth suicide. Although this figure has since been discredited as seriously inflated, it is still used as justification for introducing gay-affirming school programs.
“Just the Facts” correctly points out that there are particular problems facing the adolescent experiencing same-sex attractions. Scapegoating and teasing can be cruel and destructive. Indeed, family disruption and suicidal ideation are more common among sexually confused teenagers. But we believe that early self-labeling as “gay” will not solve the problems facing such a teenager.

One major concern is the public-health risk inherent in early self-labeling. The premature sexual behavior which accompanies gay self-labeling is potentially life-threatening for gay males, and educational programs have not resolved the unsafe-sex problem.

The gay subculture into which such teenagers are directed has a high rate of depression, substance abuse, alcoholism, anonymous sex, and unsafe sex practices. Few teens possess the judgment and self-control to make wise decisions in such an environment.

narth.com/docs/gayteens.html

 

[setter]

I haven’t claimed that. But it does happen, and frequently – why then do you choose to admonish rather than comfort?

Comfort? …I find this a highly strange criteria for leading one to mental, emotional and lifestyle wholeness and well-being. Can you see what a mess that the “comfort” of the PC society has created by abandoning natural moral law as a reference point for what is deviant [from the norm of design and function] and moral?

What is there to say about being at odds with the Church? Gay sex is a sin in the Church’s eyes, and it’s not about to change. There isn’t much of a discussion there. What can be discussed is the respect for and kindness to people who have it or have a tendency toward it – which are things I find direly lacking in the attitude of many of the Church’s adherents.

Sort of like give us your compassion but please spare us the truth? How can one have true compassion apart from truth? BTW – How does one arrive at and know the truth?

 

[fix]

Social contract theory, the categorical imperative, and basically the second commandment of Jesus: love thy neighbor as thyself.

As I have repeated you are the final arbiter in all of it. You decide how to interpret these things. You are the authority. That is relativism.

So change already

See? You can claim to conform to the truth until you’re blue in the face and it won’t do any good at all.

If you can show a Catholic how their understanding of the truth is not in accord with Church teaching, they will change. The opposite is what we have with your argument. There is no reason for you to change your incorrect understanding because your foundation is your opinion. Two of the three items you listed are not truth. They may have elements of truth, but they are not truth. The third item is true, but how that is understood requires an authentic arbiter.

‘Social’ constructs, therefore rules established to form the basis of society. You live by them too.

Those rules are based on some morality. There is always a reason why a group says something is good or something is bad. Society is not a god.

How about I work on the gay propaganda, you work on the straight propaganda, and we meet in the middle?

Cross purposes. But, nice try.

How will allowing people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together to marry be a detriment to the institution of marriage?

Love is more than an emotion. Once other forms of marriage are introduced one then must conclude there is no correct form to marriage and no authentic reason traditional marriage is unique. It would make marriage simply a series of choices. One as good as another.

There are other reasons I can offer as well, but that should be a new thread.

One potential use of free will is to sacrifice free will. Allowing oneself to fall into addiction is one way. Suicide is another, much more permanent way. To remove that option is to abrogate free will. Don’t criticize those who make that choice – it’s their right.

Yes, we have the power to choose evil. That power to choose is not freedom if used for evil. That wrong choice is license, not freedom.

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could notdesire…newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

For what it’s worth, a huge percentage of opiate addicts are self-medicating for chronic pain. Still more are addicted because of doctor-prescribed medicines and can’t break free from the habit once the problem is gone.

I do not want to debate addiction here.

 

[Mirdath]

Comfort? …I find this a highly strange criteria for leading one to mental, emotional and lifestyle wholeness and well-being. Can you see what a mess that the “comfort” of the PC society has created by abandoning natural moral law as a reference point for what is deviant [from the norm of design and function] and moral?

No; it’s a mess now, but we’re trying to get out of it.

Sort of like give us your compassion but please spare us the truth? How can one have true compassion apart from truth? BTW – How does one arrive at and know the truth?

Go ahead and tell me what you think truth is, but do I really have to hear it every day? Do I have to put up with you telling me I’m going to hell all the time? The endless preaching on this subject is rude, uncharitable, demeaning, and annoying. Put all that effort into something that’ll actually pay off and let me live my own life, please.

As to your last question – I don’t know. I don’t believe we can know what you all are calling ‘ultimate truth’ until we’re dead, assuming I’m wrong and it’s something more than an eternal dirt nap.

fix:

As I have repeated you are the final arbiter in all of it. You decide how to interpret these things. You are the authority. That is relativism.

Oh please Relativism concerns how you deal with others’ moral codes, not how you arrive at your own. I am a moral absolutist; I believe certain things are inherently, universally wrong. I do not have the same list of wrongs you do; that does not make my own list any less absolute. Your attempts to paint me a relativist are childish slurs. I’m less than impressed.

If you can show a Catholic how their understanding of the truth is not in accord with Church teaching, they will change.

In my experience here, if I can show how someone’s understanding of the truth isn’t in accord with Church teaching, I either get flamed or ignored. No changes.

The opposite is what we have with your argument. There is no reason for you to change your incorrect understanding because your foundation is your opinion.

If you can prove to me that homosexuality is unethical without drawing from the teachings of a religion I don’t practice, I’ll forswear all such tendencies that instant. I’m waiting.

Two of the three items you listed are not truth. They may have elements of truth, but they are not truth. The third item is true, but how that is understood requires an authentic arbiter.

Wait, what items?

Those rules are based on some morality. There is always a reason why a group says something is good or something is bad. Society is not a god.

Actually they’re based on the survival of society. Theft is bad for society because it leads to breakdowns in relationships between people. I shouldn’t have to point out how murder is detrimental. It’s quite simple, really – and there is no need for a god to say ‘murder is bad, mmkay?’ for society to realize it’s not a Good Thing.

Cross purposes. But, nice try.

How? I’m being perfectly serious here – I’ll try to get the gays to tone it down, you try to get the ragingly straight to stop yelling at us from streetcorners and beating us non-hets up for a good time. How does that put us at cross-purposes? Do you want it to just stop halfway so you and yours can keep preaching at us and beating us up?

Love is more than an emotion. Once other forms of marriage are introduced one then must conclude there is no correct form to marriage and no authentic reason traditional marriage is unique. It would make marriage simply a series of choices. One as good as another.

Well, guess what – we have many, many forms of marriage already.

Yes, we have the power to choose evil. That power to choose is not freedom if used for evil. That wrong choice is license, not freedom.

I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the power to submit, to deny one’s own choices in preference to existing rules or even the choices of another. To make such a choice is not necessarily evil – you do it every weekend when you go to Mass.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Political Correctness is a secular religion which worships a triune god: Tolerance,

But not tolerance of any ideas that differ from the current Politically Correct line.

Diversity,

But not diversity in opinions.

and Multiculturalism.

But no cultures that do not unquestionningly embrace liberalism are tolerated.