Question for Gay Rights Advocates

[Roscoe_Turner]

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.

It has to do with consent. An animal can not consent. For humans we have an “age of consent” where we mark the individual to have the facilities to make an informed judgement about their bodies.

So two consenting adults is different than a forced sex act where consent can not be given. A sex act where consent has not been given is looked on as rape. Rape isn’t just wrong because it is against the law.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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.

First, you misunderstand what the Church is saying. The Church is saying that the government shouldn’t call homosexual unions good simply because they’re not. If individual non-Catholic people want to engage in them - well, they’d be wrong, but there is no law against it, nor are we pushing for one.

Second a person’s beliefs don’t define their rights. The thief believes he is justified in his theft, and that his liberty is being restricted on grounds that he does not believe in. He’s wrong. A gay person may believe that he has a right for government recognition of his sex life. He’s wrong too.

Rights are discovered via reason. And reason alone is enough show that there is no right for gay people to have their relationships recognized by anyone.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

First, you misunderstand what the Church is saying. The Church is saying that the government shouldn’t call homosexual unions good simply because they’re not. If individual non-Catholic people want to engage in them - well, they’d be wrong, but there is no law against it, nor are we pushing for one.

Second a person’s beliefs don’t define their rights. The thief believes he is justified in his theft, and that his liberty is being restricted on grounds that he does not believe in. He’s wrong. A gay person may believe that he has a right for government recognition of his sex life. He’s wrong too.

Rights are discovered via reason. And reason alone is enough show that there is no right for gay people to have their relationships recognized by anyone.

The counter argument goes something like this:

They are two consenting adults, citizens of the state. Other Religions have prohibitions against pork and alcohol. It doesn’t infringe on their rights for the states to have legal pork and alcohol consumption. They have the legal right to abstain. Catholics and others have a right not to practice gay marriage. The state doesn’t have the same restrictions. By allowing a religious doctrine dictate public policy it shows favor towards that religion which is against the Constitution prohibition against laws "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " Catholics aren’t forced to practice gay marriage so their rights are not infringed. A prohibition of gay marriage is laws based on religious doctrine.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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.

Whoah! What a lot of confusion! This is like all wrong.

There is only one Church and religion on earth that actually provides an intellectual basis for human rights beyond mere whimsical human fiat; the Catholic Church. An atheistic or secular intellectual could dismiss human rights prima facie as mere wishful thinking and be perfectly justified in doing so (US Pres. Obama does vis-a-vis abortion, for instance); in fact, that is exactly what the attempt of some to elevate sodomy to a sacrament does to human rights: it denies there exists an objective order from which all rights, morality and law originate and find their justification. “Gay” so-called “marriage” denies the natural moral law even exists, which is a denial of the very basis of all human rights. For a sovereign to wilfully violate or deny the natural moral law is to veto the very basis of his own authority: he becomes an anarch. You would have to be a god to alter or change the natural moral law.

“Gays dont want the sacrament of marriage”

False: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

Do they need to? The actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are widely reported on, and they’re a well-known ‘hate group’. You can’t say the same for extreme actions in favour of homosexuality. Having said that, I’d imagine most homosexual groups would (and probably have) oppose violence towards Christians.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Not too long ago, reasonable people thought homosexuality was wrong, and that same-sex marriage was impossible.

There is a slippery slope. And issues like pedophilia, zoophilia, and even polygamy are relevant to the discussion…

.

 

[Aviatrix]

I’ll buy the slippery slope as it relates to polygamy, and understand this concern, though I do not agree with it.

Pedophilia, zoophilia etc are not equivalent because they are rape. You might as well make the connection that legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legalizing rape. Legalizing rape is not going to happen, whether it is on adults, children or animals.

For the record, I absolutely do not support or advocate for the Church changing her definition of marriage, or being forced to perform homosexual marriage, nor do I believe the majority of people who support gay rights want this to happen.

 

[stewstew03]

It has to do with consent. An animal can not consent. For humans we have an “age of consent” where we mark the individual to have the facilities to make an informed judgement about their bodies.

So two consenting adults is different than a forced sex act where consent can not be given. A sex act where consent has not been given is looked on as rape. Rape isn’t just wrong because it is against the law.

I force my dog to urinate and defecate outside – in the grass, whether it’s cold or hot, wet or dry. She does not consent to this, and, in fact, resisted my efforts to “train” her when she was a puppy. Is that wrong?

Institutions like NAMBLA and ZETA say they are part of the next frontier of “equality”; that what they advocate promotes the well-being of children/animals, and that it is perfectly natural - even beneficial (citing other cultures as evidence). They even cite history to support their cause.

Isn’t your discrimination/intolerance of them a form of “bullying”?

.

 

[Joko2599]

I’m on the fence about gay marriage. But I saw the pictures of protestors burning the Vatican flag and depicting a Catholic hanging someone with SSA.

No one, no TRUE Catholic wants to hang people. That type of protesting is hateful, regardless of your gay marriage position,

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I force my dog to urinate and defecate outside – in the grass, whether it’s cold or hot, wet or dry. She does not consent to this, and, in fact, resisted my efforts to “train” her when she was a puppy. Is that wrong?

Institutions like NAMBLA and ZETA say they are part of the next frontier of “equality”; that what they advocate promotes the well-being of children/animals, and that it is perfectly natural - even beneficial (citing other cultures as evidence). They even cite history to support their cause.

Isn’t your discrimination/intolerance of them a form of “bullying”?

.

I’m not sure that training = consent. Why do you consider them the same. We’re you trained to have sex?

When Animals and Children can vote they can weigh in on the issue. Until then you can’t force them into a relationship. Would you want to be forced into marring a seme sex partner?

 

[stewstew03]

…
Pedophilia, zoophilia etc are not equivalent because they are rape.
…

This is question begging. You are assuming it’s rape without actually providing evidence that it’s rape.

In some cultures, it’s normal for parents to comfort their young children by fondling or kissing the genitals. See more here.

And since when do animals have independent rights? If I have a chicken – am I not free to snap its neck and eat it? Or does it have rights of which I am unaware?

.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m not sure that training = consent. Why do you consider them the same. We’re you trained to have sex?

No, Roscoe - you missed the point entirely. Training is NOT consent. That is the point. My dog does not consent on her own to go outside and relieve herself; therefore, I “trained” her, with threat of force if necessary, so that she would let me know when she needed to go outside.

My dog also did not consent to our relationship. I purchased her. She is my property.

When Animals and Children can vote they can weigh in on the issue. Until then you can’t force them into a relationship. Would you want to be forced into marring a seme sex partner?

So, there you have it. Children/animals have very few rights - why would you deny those who love children/animals a sexual relationship with their children/animals? Are you not imposing your standards/morals on them?

.

 

[Aviatrix]

This is question begging. You are assuming it’s rape without actually providing evidence that it’s rape.

Children and animals are not able to consent to sex. They do not have the capacity. We also don’t let animals vote or drive.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, Roscoe - you missed the point entirely. Training is NOT consent. That is the point. My dog does not consent on her own to go outside and relieve herself; therefore, I “trained” her, with threat of force if necessary, so that she would let me know when she needed to go outside.

My dog also did not consent to our relationship. I purchased her. She is my property.

So, there you have it. Children/animals have very few rights - why would you deny those who love children/animals a sexual relationship with their children/animals? Are you not imposing your standards/morals on them?

.

Unless you had to be trained under the threat of violence to have sex with your wife then no I don’t see your point.

It’s us not the rights of the pediphiles and those that want to practice beastiality that are being infringed its those ones that they want to practice on. It would be the same as you forcing a woman to marry you and have no say in the matter. She has rights as well.

 

[stewstew03]

Children and animals are not able to consent to sex. They do not have the capacity. We also don’t let animals vote or drive.

Any sex without consent is wrong.

So… what about those cultures that practice pederasty? Women who comfort their infants with fellatio, for example. To them, it’s not sex because there is no intercourse, and there is no ejaculation. Is that okay?

And if a farmer has a goat – are you saying it’s okay for the farmer to fatten it up, slaughter it, and then eat it; but it’s not okay for the farmer to have relations with it?

Or are you imposing your moral standards such that it condemns all these practices as immoral?

.

 

[Aviatrix]

So… what about those cultures that practice pederasty? Women who comfort their infants with fellatio, for example. To them, it’s not sex because there is no intercourse, and there is no ejaculation. Is that okay?

I really couldn’t say.

And if a farmer has a goat – are you saying it’s okay for the farmer to fatten it up, slaughter it, and then eat it; but it’s not okay for the farmer to have relations with it?

Yes.

Or are you imposing your moral standards such that it condemns all these practices as immoral?

They aren’t just mine. They are, by far, the moral standards of the majority of the people and of the Church. Are they not?

 

[stewstew03]

…

It’s us not the rights of the pediphiles and those that want to practice beastiality that are being infringed its those ones that they want to practice on. It would be the same as you forcing a woman to marry you and have no say in the matter. She has rights as well.

But there’s no “force” involved at all. Sexual gratification is normal and natural, isn’t it? Did you read this article?

Again - the points that perderasty and zoophilia advocacy groups make is that:

• They promote the well-being of the children/animals;
• What they advocate is legitimate, has been around for centuries and is found across cultures;
• What they do can be beneficial for children/animals;
• People of all stripes should be free to practice their chosen activity;
• The legal system unjustly discriminates against them;
• Their chosen activity is not really ‘sex’ because it’s not procreative intercourse, and so it’s misunderstood in a society that persecutes them and labels them as “evil sinners.”

.

 

[stewstew03]

I really couldn’t say.

You can’t say? So, if you knew of a neighbor who was comforting her colicky infant son with fellatio… you wouldn’t know whether that was right or wrong?

They aren’t just mine. They are, by far, the moral standards of the majority of the people and of the Church. Are they not?

You think the moral standards of the majority, and of the Church should be imposed on others?

.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

But there’s no “force” involved at all. Sexual gratification is normal and natural, isn’t it? Did you read this article?

Again - the points that perderasty and zoophilia advocacy groups make is that:

• They promote the well-being of the children/animals;
• What they advocate is legitimate, has been around for centuries and is found across cultures;
• What they do can be beneficial for children/animals;
• People of all stripes should be free to practice their chosen activity;
• The legal system unjustly discriminates against them;
• Their chosen activity is not really ‘sex’ because it’s not procreative intercourse, and so it’s misunderstood in a society that persecutes them and labels them as “evil sinners.”

.

They are being forced if they don’t have equal rights as the one’s initiating the act. Woman and men enter to marriage as equals. Animals and Children do not.

 

[Aviatrix]

You can’t say? So, if you knew of a neighbor who was comforting her colicky infant son with fellatio… you wouldn’t know whether that was right or wrong?

It would be wrong to us because anyone growing up in our culture would regard having been fellated without consent as having been raped. If someone from another culture does not equate parental fellatio with rape, then it isn’t rape. Now, it could be wrong for a host of other reasons, but isn’t necessarily rape. What constitutes rape has changed over the centuries. For example, it was once not rape for a husband to force his wife.

You think the moral standards of the majority, and of the Church should be imposed on others?

\

I think the standards of the majority of people should be how laws are decided. That is a democracy.