Radical Homosexuals Outline Strategy for Advancing their Agenda at UN

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pro_Life_News

Guest
By Samantha Singson NEW YORK, July 18, 2007 (C-FAM.org) - Claiming that “the tide has turned” in favor of homosexual rights at international institutions, University of British Columbia professor Douglas Sanders’ recent paper on “Sexual Orientation in International Law”…

Full article…
 
I really would like to respect LifeSite. They do a good job at bringing attention to news stories relating to the right of life.
But every now and then, they post a headline which blatantly editorializes far beyond the scope of the actual story. The article linked above is one of those examples.
 
Dale_M said:
But every now and then, they post a headline which blatantly editorializes far beyond the scope of the actual story. The article linked above is one of those examples.
Click to expand...
The sky is falling! And the sky is gay!
 
Ah… Religious prejudice at it’s best.

Or, worse, I suppose.

This sentence just sums it up for me:
Pro-family groups note that “sexual orientation” is not part of any binding UN document and warn that homosexual activists would use a non-discrimination clause in a UN document to argue for recognition of same-sex “marriage” and for hate crimes legislation.
Click to expand...
First, take the phrase “Pro-family”. Obviously, homosexuals are the opposite: “anti-family”. Of *course! *Why didn’t I see it before? Homosexuals just want to destroy families. No wonder we should be wary of hate crime legislation that would help protect them. That would be anti-family too.

It’s not like they’re somebody’s child or a part of a family themselves. :rolleyes:
 
rpp said:
Ah… Amorality at is best.
Click to expand...
Amorality?

You guys are the one opposing hate crime legislation and equal marriage rights and you’re calling *us *amoral?

Ugh. You don’t see me trying to get the state to not recongize Catholic marraiges or stopping anti-catholic violence/discrimination.
 
Exalt said:
Amorality?

You guys are the one opposing hate crime legislation and equal marriage rights and you’re calling *us *amoral?

Ugh. You don’t see me trying to get the state to not recongize Catholic marraiges or stopping anti-catholic violence/discrimination.
Click to expand...
If you favor the Hate Crimes Bills, then you are opposed to stopping anti-Catholic discrimination. And Anti-Christian discrimination.

The Hate Crimes bill will make calling homosexual activity “immoral” a “hate speech”. We have seen this in Canada, Sweden and other countries where Christian ministers are investigated, arrested and sent to prison for reading from Holy Scripture. Even the Bishop of Vancouver (BC) was investigated because he spoke out against homosexual activity.

But your desire to mock Catholic (And Protestant and Muslim) moral teachings and divert discussion to very bigoted Hate Crimes bill is quite off topic.

Please remain on the topic.
 
Exalt said:
You guys are the one opposing hate crime legislation and equal marriage rights and you’re calling *us *amoral?
Click to expand...
Hold on a moment… the Church opposes homosexual marriage, yes. But I don’t think it or the U.S. bishops conference has a position on hate crimes legislation.
40.png
rpp:
If you favor the Hate Crimes Bills, then you are opposed to stopping anti-Catholic discrimination. And Anti-Christian discrimination.

The Hate Crimes bill will make calling homosexual activity “immoral” a “hate speech”
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on these two points? I don’t understand your reasoning. Just because we have federal health care programs (Medicare, for example) doesn’t mean we are going to have a single payer health care system such as in Canada or Sweden.
40.png
rpp:
Please remain on the topic.
Click to expand...
Should we start a new thread, then?
 
rpp said:
If you favor the Hate Crimes Bills, then you are opposed to stopping anti-Catholic discrimination. And Anti-Christian discrimination.

The Hate Crimes bill will make calling homosexual activity “immoral” a “hate speech”. We have seen this in Canada, Sweden and other countries where Christian ministers are investigated, arrested and sent to prison for reading from Holy Scripture. Even the Bishop of Vancouver (BC) was investigated because he spoke out against homosexual activity.

But your desire to mock Catholic (And Protestant and Muslim) moral teachings and divert discussion to very bigoted Hate Crimes bill is quite off topic.

Please remain on the topic.
Click to expand...
Er… I don’t believe it is; that’s specifically mentioned in the article.
 
The fear is that if this federal hate crime bill is passed, then I, a catechist, may be subject to ARREST and prosecution when I teach that homosexual behaviors are immoral. As may be our pastors and any citizen who speaks out.

This bill in itself is immoral.

proecclesia.blogspot.com/2007/04/hate-crimes-bill-moving-to-full-house.html

cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9069&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

onenewsnow.com/2007/07/black_conservative_leader_lobb.php

washblade.com/2007/6-29/news/national/index.cfm
 
rpp said:
The Hate Crimes bill will make calling homosexual activity “immoral” a “hate speech”.
Click to expand...
the US hate crimes bill does not make morals-based discussions of homosexuality against the law. all speech, even what some might call “hate speech”, is protected in this country. just because that’s what’s happening in canada and elsewhere doesn’t mean it’s going to happen here. americans get pretty ferocious when their right to free speech is threatened…

“hate crime” is limited to violent crime – assault, rape murder, etc. inciting violence is also a hate crime, but unless your priest is ending each sermon with “and don’t forget to beat up a gay man today!” he’ll have nothing to worry about. merely saying that homosexual sex is a sin does not incite violence.
 
emily47017 said:
the US hate crimes bill does not make morals-based discussions of homosexuality against the law. all speech, even what some might call “hate speech”, is protected in this country. just because that’s what’s happening in canada and elsewhere doesn’t mean it’s going to happen here. americans get pretty ferocious when their right to free speech is threatened…

“hate crime” is limited to violent crime – assault, rape murder, etc. inciting violence is also a hate crime, but unless your priest is ending each sermon with “and don’t forget to beat up a gay man today!” he’ll have nothing to worry about. merely saying that homosexual sex is a sin does not incite violence.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And, yet, the anti-gay crowd wants to keep spreading the rumor to the opposite effect.

Heh. I’m surprised they’d go this far.
 
rpp said:
If you favor the Hate Crimes Bills, then you are opposed to stopping anti-Catholic discrimination. And Anti-Christian discrimination.
.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you are a christian who is pro hate crime. I wish I could say this was not a widespread sentiment, and I wish I could say God has never supported such things in the bible.

God condemning queers pales in comparison to the other things he did.

He orders his men to be happy to dash the little children against the rocks, for example.

Seriously, enough is enough. This single passage is so utterly brutal and disgusting, that in order to be considered even remotely moral in the 21st century, you have to denounce it.

There’s no way around this one folks. If you say that God was merely living up to the standards of his time, then you agree with me. God lives up to the standards of the time, and fills in the exact knowledge and scientific gaps of the time, and it does this precisely because it was made up by barbarians living in that time.

But even if you still believe in the bible, you have to admit that not every verse can be literal, or taken seriously today. So we say that your claim of homosexuality being denounced in the bible, has the same authority as the bible’s claim that it is okay to slaughter your enemies’ children and beat your slaves.

It is outdated and ignorant.

Homosexuality is incredibly obviously not a choice.

Just look at yourself; can you change your sexuality?

Right now, can you make yourself sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and then change back?

You must’ve tried it before.

Surely no rational adult would believe something to be a choice without at least checking that, in fact, they themselves could make the choice.

So maybe I’m the crazy one. Everyone else can mentally flip a switch at will and turn gay or straight.

But I don’t think so.

Look, no one is making catholicism illegal, or banning catholic weddings, or taking away tax exempt status, or infringing upon your beliefs in any way.

We are stopping you from infringing upon others rights, from imposing your beliefs on others under rule of law, with no secular basis.

If you believe that defense of freedom is actually discrimination against catholics, then you are arrogant and ethnocentric beyond words, and it would not surprise me in the least that you are a bigot.
 
IanBoyd57 said:
Ok, so you are a christian who is pro hate crime. I wish I could say this was not a widespread sentiment, and I wish I could say God has never supported such things in the bible.

God condemning queers pales in comparison to the other things he did.

He orders his men to be happy to dash the little children against the rocks, for example.

Seriously, enough is enough. This single passage is so utterly brutal and disgusting, that in order to be considered even remotely moral in the 21st century, you have to denounce it.

There’s no way around this one folks. If you say that God was merely living up to the standards of his time, then you agree with me. God lives up to the standards of the time, and fills in the exact knowledge and scientific gaps of the time, and it does this precisely because it was made up by barbarians living in that time.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a lot wrong with how you understand God’s revelation. God didn’t dictate or move a pen on the parchment, he inspired men to write. God doesn’t change his mind or adapt to our times – why would he? he created us, not the other way around – we struggle to understand God’s revelations to us in the context of our times. God’s truth doesn’t change, but we do change.

Also, I believe the head-dashing-on-rocks passage you’re referring to is in the OT and in a war-time setting. Brutal, yes, but taken totally out of context it’s going to sound even worse.
But even if you still believe in the bible, you have to admit that not every verse can be literal, or taken seriously today. So we say that your claim of homosexuality being denounced in the bible, has the same authority as the bible’s claim that it is okay to slaughter your enemies’ children and beat your slaves.
Click to expand...
It is outdated and ignorant.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is incredibly obviously not a choice.
Click to expand...
Just look at yourself; can you change your sexuality?
Click to expand...
Right now, can you make yourself sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and then change back?
Click to expand...
You must’ve tried it before.
Click to expand...
Nope, haven’t tried it myself, but this makes me think of certain men who get married, have kids and then come out as homosexual many years later. If your sexuality is so intrinsically part of your identity and it can’t be changed, then how did these men “fake it” with their wives? There are some odd mechanics involved, I would think.

Then, take into consideration those people who experiment sexually and then settle down into heterosexual lifestyle. Can you change your sexuality? Probably not by willing it, but I think we human beings are too complex to just always be one or the other all the time.
Surely no rational adult would believe something to be a choice without at least checking that, in fact, they themselves could make the choice.
Click to expand...
So maybe I’m the crazy one. Everyone else can mentally flip a switch at will and turn gay or straight.
Click to expand...
But I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
Look, no one is making catholicism illegal, or banning catholic weddings, or taking away tax exempt status, or infringing upon your beliefs in any way.
Click to expand...
We are stopping you from infringing upon others rights, from imposing your beliefs on others under rule of law, with no secular basis.
Click to expand...
If you believe that defense of freedom is actually discrimination against catholics, then you are arrogant and ethnocentric beyond words, and it would not surprise me in the least that you are a bigot.
Click to expand...
Are we infringing on gay rights or are we resisting the creation of a newly invented “right”? When did the infringement on this supposedly obvious and intrinsic right begin? Was there a pre-discrimination Eden when gay rights were recognized and gay marriage an acceptable lifestyle? Please cite. On the other hand, heterosexual marriage is an established precedent for many thousands of years.

To be clear, I am not opposed to certain marriage-type priveleges for committed monogamous gay couples. Not because I believe the homosexual lifestyle to be an equally acceptable lifestyle to the heterosexual one, but because I think the practical benefits of encouraging monogamy far outweigh the problems of gay marriage.

There’s got to be a compromise.
 
PKoucheravy said:
Also, I believe the head-dashing-on-rocks passage you’re referring to is in the OT and in a war-time setting. Brutal, yes, but taken totally out of context it’s going to sound even worse.
Click to expand...
This is no excuse. Do we do the same in times of war?
Nope, haven’t tried it myself, but this makes me think of certain men who get married, have kids and then come out as homosexual many years later. If your sexuality is so intrinsically part of your identity and it can’t be changed, then how did these men “fake it” with their wives? There are some odd mechanics involved, I would think.
Click to expand...
If anything, this supports Ian’s point. They tried to ‘flip a switch’ and eventually found out it wasn’t one. Look at how many people in the ‘ex-gay’ movement turn out to be gay after all. Even one of the founders of Exodus International is currently in a relationship with a man who worked at the place.
Then, take into consideration those people who experiment sexually and then settle down into heterosexual lifestyle. Can you change your sexuality? Probably not by willing it, but I think we human beings are too complex to just always be one or the other all the time.
Click to expand...
He may be somewhat outdated, but I think Kinsey had it right that very few people are absolutely exclusively hetero- or homosexual.
Was there a pre-discrimination Eden when gay rights were recognized and gay marriage an acceptable lifestyle? Please cite. On the other hand, heterosexual marriage is an established precedent for many thousands of years.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I can’t provide much in the way of a bibliography, but I recall that gay unions had some form of recognition in ancient Greece and Rome.
To be clear, I am not opposed to certain marriage-type priveleges for committed monogamous gay couples. Not because I believe the homosexual lifestyle to be an equally acceptable lifestyle to the heterosexual one, but because I think the practical benefits of encouraging monogamy far outweigh the problems of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
There’s got to be a compromise.
Click to expand...
Sure! 🙂 How about the government changes its language from ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’ for both same- and opposite-sex unions, making sacramental marriage a little more distinct? The confusion between sacramental and civil marriage seems to be the sticking point for a lot of religious people.
 
Kinsey? Surely you’re joking? What’s next, Herod’s ideas on how best to run the Nazereth créche?

As to Ian Boyd’s critique of God, I’m afraid I simply don’t see a reason for educated and pious Catholics or any other type of Christian to take Ian’s view of God seriously. This is a view which defines God as “made up by barbarians living in that time”. Hardly a stunning retort to centuries of theology and reason.
 
The Roman Catholic Church does teach everyone is a creation of God and is due the same love and respect just as god loves us. Therefore the RCC teaches that no one may discriminate or hate homosexuals. But at the same time the RCC teaches that an active homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that there is no way for homosexuals to validly “marry” someone of the same sex. Thus they being are called to a celibate life just the same as an unmarried heterosexual person is called to be celibate.

As believers we are called to share the Good News of Jesus Christ in it fullness and completeness. Not just the parts that are easier or more fun or politically correct. To tell someone that living in a homosexual relationship is OK it to help them go to hell. The same is true of an unmarried heterosexual couple. (Where do you think the phrase “living in sin” came from?) To say anything but the truth to these people, who may be at a very vulnerable point in their lives, may condemn them and ourselves to eternal damnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top