N
niceatheist
Guest
The choice to act on homosexual tendencies may be a choice, but who are you to dictate how anyone makes that choice?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
The issue here is how to balance it so that no one is disadvantaged that much.
But yet it will cause be pain. Isn’t the liberal approach - as long as it does harm another it is
OK?
The state incentivized marriage for the sake of children as it keeps the state perpetuating.
But yet it will cause be pain. Isn’t the liberal approach - as long as it does harm another it is
OK?
The state incentivized marriage for the sake of children as it keeps the state perpetuating.
B
buffalo
Guest
We, the people, regulate choice through our laws every single day.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Sure, and those laws often change through time. Laws are passed with the consent of the governed, not because the Catholic Church says “that’s bad.” And the laws have now changed.We, the people, regulate choice through our laws every single day.
C
CatholicGearSolid
Guest
Ever heard of the gay lobby?
They’re the reason why you think the way you do.
An artificial social-construct promoted by deceptions and fabricated “researches”.
Sounds like a silly conspiracy theory, am I right? Not quite…
To fully grasp the reality behind this, one must keep a detail in mind: Homosexuality is a disorder
Said like this, it sounds “horrible”, or “hateful”, isn’t it? False, especially if it end up being truthful.
The new question is, how would such a thing be truthful?
Well, the modern concept of homosexuality “not” being a disorder debuted principally in the United States.
Let’s observe the events which took place at the APA (American Psychological Association), in 1974.
Before that time, homosexuality was considered an illness, which was treatable (many cases confirmed it).
Sadly, at some point, the APA received so much pressure that they hand-voted Homosexuality as “normal”.
This decision was completely anti-science, and anti-medical, yet it was only the first of many more.
As one of the previous APA director expressively denounce here, gay-linked researches and breakthroughs began to be cherry-picked to favour a “pro-gay” point of view. Everything scientific rapidly became political.
It only became worst with the years, as the medias (including talk-shows, celebrities, movies, etc) jumped in the boat, and followed this political view. Others do it as they feel like they found a “just cause” to fight for, only they never checked further than the medias to discern the legitimacy of their cause.
See, everything revolves around one detail: Disorder or natural?
Disorders aren’t to be “promoted”, they are to be TREATED. This is for the true sake of the concerned individual. Just because a patient feels “good” about his disorder doesn’t mean he should start a community of similar individuals, and propagate the idea that his disorder is “good” for society, especially when it isn’t. (see what behaviour propagates HIVs faster, for example)
In the end, we’re talking about Marriage.
The Catholic Marriage, firstly, is a religious sacrament, just like Baptism, Confession, Communion, etc…
To partake them means one should agree with what it represents, as it isn’t just an occasion to take pictures.
To agree with what it represents mean one should also realize that God has everything to do with it.
Therefore, why would homosexuals even bother asking to be married?.. they do not respect the sacrament.
If they (and those who cheers for them) can’t respect the beliefs of Catholics and their Church, and try to force their way to get what they want, I see only one thing: an extremely obvious double standard over “freedom”.
Bottom line, there is always “Civil unions/marriages”, which they can have access to.
Without any concerns from the Church.
…but do you really want to promote what could very well be a disorder though?
After all, homosexuality and depravation always marked the end of ancient grand Empires.
Just a thought
They’re the reason why you think the way you do.
An artificial social-construct promoted by deceptions and fabricated “researches”.
Sounds like a silly conspiracy theory, am I right? Not quite…
To fully grasp the reality behind this, one must keep a detail in mind: Homosexuality is a disorder
Said like this, it sounds “horrible”, or “hateful”, isn’t it? False, especially if it end up being truthful.
The new question is, how would such a thing be truthful?
Well, the modern concept of homosexuality “not” being a disorder debuted principally in the United States.
Let’s observe the events which took place at the APA (American Psychological Association), in 1974.
Before that time, homosexuality was considered an illness, which was treatable (many cases confirmed it).
Sadly, at some point, the APA received so much pressure that they hand-voted Homosexuality as “normal”.
This decision was completely anti-science, and anti-medical, yet it was only the first of many more.
As one of the previous APA director expressively denounce here, gay-linked researches and breakthroughs began to be cherry-picked to favour a “pro-gay” point of view. Everything scientific rapidly became political.
It only became worst with the years, as the medias (including talk-shows, celebrities, movies, etc) jumped in the boat, and followed this political view. Others do it as they feel like they found a “just cause” to fight for, only they never checked further than the medias to discern the legitimacy of their cause.
See, everything revolves around one detail: Disorder or natural?
Disorders aren’t to be “promoted”, they are to be TREATED. This is for the true sake of the concerned individual. Just because a patient feels “good” about his disorder doesn’t mean he should start a community of similar individuals, and propagate the idea that his disorder is “good” for society, especially when it isn’t. (see what behaviour propagates HIVs faster, for example)
In the end, we’re talking about Marriage.
The Catholic Marriage, firstly, is a religious sacrament, just like Baptism, Confession, Communion, etc…
To partake them means one should agree with what it represents, as it isn’t just an occasion to take pictures.
To agree with what it represents mean one should also realize that God has everything to do with it.
Therefore, why would homosexuals even bother asking to be married?.. they do not respect the sacrament.
If they (and those who cheers for them) can’t respect the beliefs of Catholics and their Church, and try to force their way to get what they want, I see only one thing: an extremely obvious double standard over “freedom”.
Bottom line, there is always “Civil unions/marriages”, which they can have access to.
Without any concerns from the Church.
…but do you really want to promote what could very well be a disorder though?
After all, homosexuality and depravation always marked the end of ancient grand Empires.
Just a thought
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Someone eating six Big Macs a day causes pain. That’s not an argument for banning Big Macs.The issue here is how to balance it so that no one is disadvantaged that much.
But yet it will cause be pain. Isn’t the liberal approach - as long as it does harm another it is
OK?
And really, what you’re really advocating for is the government telling people how to act for their own good. Catholics have been, on occasion, the recipients of that kindly intervention by the state.
And nothing stops people from having children. Your objection should be to the use of contraceptives. Gay couples are not affecting the birth rate.The state incentivized marriage for the sake of children as it keeps the state perpetuating.
B
buffalo
Guest
Hmmmmm. - Do you have a limit in what you will pay? It is no longer abhorrent since we integrated these so tightly in our tax and medical policies.
So if I want to drive drunk it is OK?
Are you willing to absorb the costs of the guy who jumps put of a helicopter and injures himself and the EMT’s spend money and risk their lives to save him? Any limits?
So if I want to drive drunk it is OK?
Are you willing to absorb the costs of the guy who jumps put of a helicopter and injures himself and the EMT’s spend money and risk their lives to save him? Any limits?
E
edwest211
Guest
The point is every type of deviant sexual behavior will be promoted and acceptance will be forced through a carefully planned propaganda campaign. After transgender, bisexual rights and polygamy. It’s not love the one your with, it’s clearly about have sex with anyone at any time. Sure, that nameless one-night stand might leave you dead in an alley or give you a number of STDs but who cares? Sex is just like two dogs meeting in an alley. The huge Elephant in the room is self-control. Without self-control, you’ve got slavery. And like drug addiction, is not without risks.
I saw how uncomfortable some people were about the way Catholics lived in the 1960s. “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?” and “Catholics think sex is dirty.” Translation: Catholics get married and have sex and enjoy it, and most have kids and enjoy raising kids. And no, we stay away from morally loose women, illegal drugs and doing our own thing when it violates Church teaching. Most of us. We’re not perfect but hey, we don’t own you. If you don’t like how we live then who’s stopping you from doing what you want? You’re obviously doing it so why bother us?
I saw how uncomfortable some people were about the way Catholics lived in the 1960s. “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?” and “Catholics think sex is dirty.” Translation: Catholics get married and have sex and enjoy it, and most have kids and enjoy raising kids. And no, we stay away from morally loose women, illegal drugs and doing our own thing when it violates Church teaching. Most of us. We’re not perfect but hey, we don’t own you. If you don’t like how we live then who’s stopping you from doing what you want? You’re obviously doing it so why bother us?
B
buffalo
Guest
The Catholic Church proposed and we accepted it.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I could say the same about your views.Ever heard of the gay lobby?
They’re the reason why you think the way you do.
R
Rau
Guest
Yes, in the US, but put that aside for the moment. In Australia, all States voted in favor. We have only a handful of States and a total population of say 24 mill. Only at quite small groupings, electoral seats - I think there are about 130 in the country - did we register a NO vote. Cultural factors - the origins of people in those areas and their religious connections - are the likely explanation.A few years ago. CA maybe? Regulating marriage is still a state issue.
I cannot imagine that the US position would vary much from the Australian one, so long as people are voting on SSM rather than on the tangential issue of federal vs State jurisdiction.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
And we’re right back to the reductio ad absurdum.The point is every type of deviant sexual behavior will be promoted and acceptance will be forced through a carefully planned propaganda campaign. After transgender, bisexual rights and polygamy. It’s not love the one your with, it’s clearly about have sex with anyone at any time. Sure, that nameless one-night stand might leave you dead in an alley or give you a number of STDs but who cares? Sex is just like two dogs meeting in an alley. The huge Elephant in the room is self-control. Without self-control, you’ve got slavery. And like drug addiction, is not without risks.
I saw how uncomfortable some people were about the way Catholics lived in the 1960s. “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?” and “Catholics think sex is dirty.” Translation: Catholics get married and have sex and enjoy it, and most have kids and enjoy raising kids. And no, we stay away from morally loose women, illegal drugs and doing our own thing when it violates Church teaching. Most of us. We’re not perfect but hey, we don’t own you. If you don’t like how we live then who’s stopping you from doing what you want? You’re obviously doing it so why bother us?
B
buffalo
Guest
If I have to pay for his hospital costs I object. If he wants to pay cash - go for it.
E
edwest211
Guest
We have a Catholic Lobby in Washington?
B
buffalo
Guest
Then the state should drop those incentives.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Fine. I want a full report on your high risk activities. Do you spend time on ladders? Do you eat greasy foods? Why, you’re costing me money, so I want to stop paying for your health care.If I have to pay for his hospital costs I object. If he wants to pay cash - go for it.
B
buffalo
Guest
But they have basis. The gay lobby has emotion only.
B
buffalo
Guest
If you buy life insurance and smoke, the premium increases because of your choice.
I think you are starting to see my point.
I think you are starting to see my point.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
State endorsement of SSM as being the same as marriage of man+woman was a very “big call” and far beyond any decision about who can participate in a sexual act with whom.The choice to act on homosexual tendencies may be a choice, but who are you to dictate how anyone makes that choice?
C
CatholicGearSolid
Guest
You could, but where would it leads you: History is still History.Ever heard of the gay lobby?
They’re the reason why you think the way you do.
I could say the same about your views.
What happened with the APA did happen, and what it suggests should make you think, impartially.
My Catholic beliefs were not included in my reasoning. (except when I started to mention marriage)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.