Question for Gay Rights Advocates

[stewstew03]

About a month ago, Dr. Ben Carson made the following statement:

“My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”

Gay rights advocates were outraged and quickly criticized Carson for his comments. They even said his comments were “anti-gay” and that Carson was a “hatemonger.”

But if you look at what he said - it is clear that, in his opinion, …

• Marriage is an established institution, and
• The definition of marriage cannot be changed.

What is so offensive about this? Why are his comments “anti-gay”? The Catechism states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law…” and goes on to state that homosexual acts can never be approved. CCC 2357

Do you, Mr./Mrs. Gay Rights Advocate, consider the Catechism “hate speech”?

.

 

[livingwordunity]

Do you, Mr./Mrs. Gay Rights Advocate, consider the Catechism “hate speech”?

Yes, they do.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Birdpreacher]

About a month ago, Dr. Ben Carson made the following statement:

Gay rights advocates were outraged and quickly criticized Carson for his comments. They even said his comments were “anti-gay” and that Carson was a “hatemonger.”

But if you look at what he said - it is clear that, in his opinion, …

• Marriage is an established institution, and
• The definition of marriage cannot be changed.

What is so offensive about this? Why are his comments “anti-gay”? The Catechism states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law…” and goes on to state that homosexual acts can never be approved. CCC 2357

Do you, Mr./Mrs. Gay Rights Advocate, consider the Catechism “hate speech”?

.

Nothing is offensive, its just when the church attempts to speak on how non-catholic individuals should be respected is when we have a problem.

You see the church loves defending individual rights as long as it gets to decide what those individual rights will be. When individuals not of the church have their liberty restricted on grounds which they do not believe in- we have a problem. Gays dont want the sacrament of marriage they simply want to be married in the eyes of the State. So i dont see how CCC would offend them, ever. Thats because those practicing homosexuals who are not CAtholic have chosen not to be part of the RCC and live under its definitions of individual rights.

 

[Aviatrix]

About a month ago, Dr. Ben Carson made the following statement:

Gay rights advocates were outraged and quickly criticized Carson for his comments. They even said his comments were “anti-gay” and that Carson was a “hatemonger.”

But if you look at what he said - it is clear that, in his opinion, …

• Marriage is an established institution, and
• The definition of marriage cannot be changed.

What is so offensive about this? Why are his comments “anti-gay”? The Catechism states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law…” and goes on to state that homosexual acts can never be approved. CCC 2357

Do you, Mr./Mrs. Gay Rights Advocate, consider the Catechism “hate speech”?

.

I’m not sure I fit the label of “gay rights advocate”, but I’ll say that not all consider the catechism hate speech. I personally find it has some of the most beautiful conceptualizations of God in it that I have ever read.

I think his words were considered offensive because they appear to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. No one wants to be equated with pedophiles.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

About a month ago, Dr. Ben Carson made the following statement:

Gay rights advocates were outraged and quickly criticized Carson for his comments. They even said his comments were “anti-gay” and that Carson was a “hatemonger.”

But if you look at what he said - it is clear that, in his opinion, …

• Marriage is an established institution, and
• The definition of marriage cannot be changed.

What is so offensive about this? Why are his comments “anti-gay”? The Catechism states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law…” and goes on to state that homosexual acts can never be approved. CCC 2357

Do you, Mr./Mrs. Gay Rights Advocate, consider the Catechism “hate speech”?

.

I completely agree with him on this issue. I think what is getting people up in arms is tying homosexuals to NAMBLA. I don’t really think that was the point he was making, but I can see where some would read it that way. I think it would have been best to leave that part out if you are trying to have a reasonable debate of issues.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nothing is offensive, its just when the church attempts to speak on how non-catholic individuals should be respected is when we have a problem.

When has the Catholic Church not taught about morality for everyone? Anyone who has a problem with what the Catholic Church teaches on issues of faith and/or morals has a problem with Christ whom those teachings originally came from.

 

[Aviatrix]

Yes, they do.

You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of equating a few extremists with an entire collective of people. It is the same mistake that people make when they judge Christianity by the Westboro Baptists, Islam by the terrorists, pagans by the satanists etc ad nauseam.

 

[livingwordunity]

You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of equating a few extremists with an entire collective of people. It is the same mistake that people make when they judge Christianity by the Westboro Baptists, Islam by the terrorists, pagans by the satanists etc ad nauseam.

Westboro Baptists have been publicly denounced by probably every mainstream Christian denomination. They were even publicly denounced by Evangelical Pastor Jerry Falwell. Falwell has called Phelps “a first class nut”. But I’ve never seen any public denouncement of the lewd and naked “gay” activist protests of the Catholic Church by any other “gay” activist group.

 

[Aviatrix]

Westboro Baptists have been publicly denounced by probably every mainstream Christian denomination. But I’ve never seen any public denouncement of the lewd and naked “gay” activist protests of the Catholic Church by any other “gay” activist group.

I’ll say it elsewhere and I’ll say it again. Not all “gay activists” are part of a group. I’m not even aware of the existence of such a group in my area. You are STILL trying to judge an entire collective of people by the extremists. It is false and offensive.

 

[stewstew03]

…
I think his words were considered offensive because they appear to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. No one wants to be equated with pedophiles.

Why not? Why wouldn’t a gay rights advocate also be in favor of reforming child consent laws? Or laws that criminalize bestiality?

?

 

[stewstew03]

Westboro Baptists have been publicly denounced by probably every mainstream Christian denomination. They were even publicly denounced by Evangelical Pastor Jerry Falwell. Falwell has called Phelps “a first class nut”. But I’ve never seen any public denouncement of the lewd and naked “gay” activist protests of the Catholic Church by any other “gay” activist group.

Save that discussion for your thread… Don’t hijack this one.
Thanks!!

 

[stewstew03]

I completely agree with him on this issue. I think what is getting people up in arms is tying homosexuals to NAMBLA. I don’t really think that was the point he was making, but I can see where some would read it that way. I think it would have been best to leave that part out if you are trying to have a reasonable debate of issues.

But it seems perfectly reasonable, from Carson’s perspective, to lump pederasty with “gay rights.”

 

[livingwordunity]

I’ll say it elsewhere and I’ll say it again. Not all “gay activists” are part of a group.

And like I’ve asked. When have you seen any other “gay” activist groups publicly denounce the lewd protests by “gay” activists against the Catholic Church? And like I’ve said, it’s very easy to find public denouncements of WBC by other Christian denominations. So if what you say is true it should be easy for you to provide where another “gay” activist group has publicly denounced one of these lewd and naked protests against the Catholic Church.

 

[Aviatrix]

Why not? Why wouldn’t a gay rights advocate also be in favor of reforming child consent laws? Or laws that criminalize bestiality?

?

Would you want to be equated with pedophiles? I’m assuming no. The same goes for most rational adults.

Sex with children and animals is rape.

Children and animals don’t have the ability to consent, and there is a huge problem in terms of power imbalance. That is why people don’t support pedophilia or bestiality. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Aviatrix]

And like I’ve asked. When have you seen any other “gay” activist groups publicly denounce the lewd protests by “gay” activists against the Catholic Church? And like I’ve said, it’s very easy to find public denouncements of WBC by other Christian denominations. So if what you say is true it should be easy for you to provide where another “gay” activist group has publicly denounced one of these lewd and naked protests against the Catholic Church.

Entirely illogical. How does “not all gay activists belong to a group” lead to “it should be easy to provide public denouncements of naked protests at the Vatican”. There is no connection that I can see between those two statements. I’m not aware of any such groups in my area, and would not come across such statements whether they existed or not.

If you like, my personal group of one will hereby publicly denounce naked protests burning flags at the Vatican.

I, Aviatrix, hereby denounce the activities of people who protest nakedly and burn flags. Such actions are disrespectful and reprehensible.

Also, just because I’m curious, do you have links to news articles about either the flag burning protests or the naked ones? Or know the name of the group involved so that I may read about them? Thanks.

 

[livingwordunity]

Would you want to be equated with pedophiles? I’m assuming no. The same goes for most rational adults.

Sex with children and animals is rape.

Children and animals don’t have the ability to consent, and there is a huge problem in terms of power imbalance. That is why people don’t support pedophilia or bestiality. Hope that clears it up for you.

I think the point the other poster was making was about changing laws and how it tends to change most people’s perception of what is morally right and morally wrong. So if the age of consent law gets changed to a younger age most people will inevitably start to believe that it’s the “new normal”. The same is true for any other time a government law having to do with public morality gets changed such as abortion or how marriage is being redefined by various U.S. states and how that is starting to be called the “new normal”.

 

[stewstew03]

Would you want to be equated with pedophiles? I’m assuming no. The same goes for most rational adults.

Sex with children and animals is rape.

Children and animals don’t have the ability to consent, and there is a huge problem in terms of power imbalance. That is why people don’t support pedophilia or bestiality. Hope that clears it up for you.

But they (those who advocate for that behavior) don’t see it as rape. In fact, they see it as something positive for the child and/or the animal. Isn’t sex a good thing?

And there’s often a “power imbalance” in marriage - particularly when one spouse works, and the other stays home; or one spouse is strong willed and the other is submissive. Is it “rape” for a “powerful spouse” to have sex with the “less powerful” spouse?

 

[Aviatrix]

But they (those who advocate for that behavior) don’t see it as rape. In fact, they see it as something positive for the child and/or the animal. Isn’t sex a good thing?

And there’s often a “power imbalance” in marriage - particularly when one spouse works, and the other stays home; or one spouse is strong willed and the other is submissive. Is it “rape” for a “powerful spouse” to have sex with the “less powerful” spouse?

I think all reasonable adults can agree that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong, and constitute rape for obvious reasons. I do not understand anyone who says otherwise. I think we are getting away from the purpose of this thread.

The thread asked why the comments were considered offensive. In my opinion, and the opinions I have encountered in various places online, they are considered offensive because they appear to be equate homosexuality with pedophilia. They do not want to be associated with pedophilia for some of the same reasons you do not want to.

For what it is worth, I don’t think the speaker was actually trying to equate the two, and mentioned NAMBLA as a reference to a “slippery slope” argument instead.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think all reasonable adults can agree that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong, and constitute rape for obvious reasons.

But are these things wrong because the current law says they are? Because current law on morality, as we are now seeing with marriage, can easily be changed. We Catholics who trust in the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church have a solid moral point of reference that doesn’t change, but the secular world is a completely different story.

 

[Transalosania]

It is rather curious that “Gay” People want to receive the Holy Sacrament of matrimony in the Catholic church, The devil is not making much effort to cover this up and it is all rather blatantly obvious.