R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m so glad rossum posts on CAF. It will help prevent many, many Catholics from being lured into Buddhism.
- Status
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I wouldn’t be so sure of that.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I see, so only family members can remain at a patience bedside, so by law they are considered to be close friends, if the law wanted to recognise ‘civil partners’ or ‘civil unions’ or something, to stop this kind of thing from happening than I would be okay with that, I just don’t like the word marriage being used to include something that by their sexual nature is just so vastly different.
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
You may not like the word marriage to be used here but the reality is that civil unions and POAs do not carry the same weight as a marriage license when it comes to these things.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I think to argue for compete equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage is illogical because by their sexual nature they are vastly different.
However in regards to other things such as your example EmperorNapoleon, I don’t see a problem with equality, but with regards to other things such as education, I don’t think the sexual nature of homosexuality should be taught the same as heterosexuality is, as one is how the bodies sexual organs are supposed to be used and the other is not, I don’t want kids being taught a miss use as a ‘second option’ so to speak.
Also in regards to adoption there isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ solution but it should not be discrimination or unlawful to take into account the lack of a father figure or mother figure when adopting children out.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are fundamentally different so they should not be equated, however certain aspects of a homosexual union and a heterosexual union could be equated I think.
If we recognise homosexual unions as marriage’s, than they will have to have equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality and like I said, given their sexual nature that wouldn’t be right.
Thank you for reading
Josh
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Then the laws can be changed to redistribute the weight. Changing in an entire institution rather than changing rules for hospital visits and medical decisions is compeltely out of order. It’s merely an excuse to have homosexuality recognized as morally equal to heterosexuality, and its equivalent. That’s always what this has been about, despite the elaborate excuses.
R
rlg94086
Guest
L
LisaA
Guest
Indeed, that’s the real issue. The homosexual activists have done a great job in making SSM sound so innocuous…all about love and fuzzy bunnies and hospital visits…when in reality the redefinition of marriage creates a huge cultural and societal shift. Further it is clear that one of the objectives is to marginalize religion and family in an effort for additional state power. If the state can define marriage or family or decide what healthcare benefits you should receive then it becomes the false god worshipped by the unwitting masses who then fall completely under its control.
The real agenda must remain hidden, wrapped in the cotton wool of fairness and equality because if people truly understood the ramifications they would recoil in horror.
The spirit of Caligula is alive and well.
Lisa
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Perceptive post, your 752, Lisa – not in its agreement with mine, but in its separate observation about the State and Power.
A “rights” movement (especially, obviously, when legitimate) is essentially different from a “grudge” movement, and the latter is sometimes conflated into the former. What I’m referring to is the syndrome which often results, according to sociologists, from the condition of being minority status. You see, it’s not just about mainstreaming, although that is clearly there. In minority groups which have objectively been persecuted (various races, women, homosexuals, whomever), there is often the drive, both subconscious and overt, to be “on top.” It’s not just about “payback,” although for some that would be part of it. It’s more about being in the position to set the standard (for morality and/or for culture).
This has been shown, for example, in the Black community in the U.S. I’m speaking here about the educated among them, not the underclass in themselves, who have survival hurdles. There was a revealing (to me) panel discussion several years ago (maybe 5 or 7 years ago?) in New York, I think, which was televised on PBS or C-Span. The “given” was that there was a solid proportion of U.S. Blacks who had either had the good fortune to have parents who had extricated themselves out of poverty/negative environments, or who had themselves done so, quite successfully, becoming educationally, politically, and economically empowered in their own rights, in a position to achieve goals impossible to that same percentage 50 years previously, or even 30 years previously in many cases.
All good, but not good enough for some of the panelists. One particularly bitter panelist – which so disappointed me, as he was so articulate and learned, so capable of harnessing that into positive ends – was surprisingly unconvinced and unmoved by these social changes. His disappointment had nothing to do with the fact that there were still pockets (indeed, large segments) of practical, functional “inequality” among Blacks – those still metaphoircally chained to lives dominated by ugly and burdensome realities. No. This panelist’s angst – and it was expressed passionately and with obvious frustration — was that Blacks were still responding to White Anglo culture’s standards. He wanted to be in a position to set the standards. He wanted the Black community to be able either to have a separate “nation” within the U.S., or to be the standard-bearers for culture in the U.S. He wanted to reverse symbolic or real minority status.
Sociologists have written about the fantasy of reversing status for those who have been minorities, and how that often drives their movements. This can also be seen in some of the extreme versions of modern “feminism.”
A “rights” movement (especially, obviously, when legitimate) is essentially different from a “grudge” movement, and the latter is sometimes conflated into the former. What I’m referring to is the syndrome which often results, according to sociologists, from the condition of being minority status. You see, it’s not just about mainstreaming, although that is clearly there. In minority groups which have objectively been persecuted (various races, women, homosexuals, whomever), there is often the drive, both subconscious and overt, to be “on top.” It’s not just about “payback,” although for some that would be part of it. It’s more about being in the position to set the standard (for morality and/or for culture).
This has been shown, for example, in the Black community in the U.S. I’m speaking here about the educated among them, not the underclass in themselves, who have survival hurdles. There was a revealing (to me) panel discussion several years ago (maybe 5 or 7 years ago?) in New York, I think, which was televised on PBS or C-Span. The “given” was that there was a solid proportion of U.S. Blacks who had either had the good fortune to have parents who had extricated themselves out of poverty/negative environments, or who had themselves done so, quite successfully, becoming educationally, politically, and economically empowered in their own rights, in a position to achieve goals impossible to that same percentage 50 years previously, or even 30 years previously in many cases.
All good, but not good enough for some of the panelists. One particularly bitter panelist – which so disappointed me, as he was so articulate and learned, so capable of harnessing that into positive ends – was surprisingly unconvinced and unmoved by these social changes. His disappointment had nothing to do with the fact that there were still pockets (indeed, large segments) of practical, functional “inequality” among Blacks – those still metaphoircally chained to lives dominated by ugly and burdensome realities. No. This panelist’s angst – and it was expressed passionately and with obvious frustration — was that Blacks were still responding to White Anglo culture’s standards. He wanted to be in a position to set the standards. He wanted the Black community to be able either to have a separate “nation” within the U.S., or to be the standard-bearers for culture in the U.S. He wanted to reverse symbolic or real minority status.
Sociologists have written about the fantasy of reversing status for those who have been minorities, and how that often drives their movements. This can also be seen in some of the extreme versions of modern “feminism.”
M
Maxirad
Guest
Check out this blog commentary.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
L
LisaA
Guest
Really appreciate the differentiation between a “rights” and “grudge” movement. For example certain basic rights that blacks were not given…as one of the Justices noted, those daily activities that are off limits to some…should be protected. For example being able to live in certain neighborhoods or access to public areas should be the same whether one is black, brown, pink or cream colored. Skin color is not sufficiently significant to differentiate treatment of one person vis a vis another. However there are certain significant differences that should be considered…age or sex for example. Further the Justices in the current case differentiated between daily activities and occasional activities or events. We drive on public roads every day so such should not be restricted by anything insignificant such as skin color. However driving IS restricted as to age and physical ability…significant differences.
While the homosexual movement tries to equate their struggle with that of blacks, it’s a canard both biologically and historically. What some homosexuals suffered is a wee bit short of being captured, put in chains, sold and made a slave dontcha think? Further while I absolutely believe that homosexuals should not be prevented from the vast majority of careers, schools, neighborhoods…the daily activities necessary for a basic life, I don’t think homosexuals should be assigned to take little boys camping and I don’t think two men can be “married” no matter how cute they look in matching tuxes.
What I see in the homosexual movement is not so much the desire for basic rights that frankly are not being denied to them but as you said a “grudge movement” based on self serving and self absorbed desires and from envy…“We want what they have!”
Sadly I think they are skilled at convincing the public with sound bites symbols and bumper stickers,
Lisa
J
josh987654321
Guest
I agree with alot of what you say LisaA, just a few small things I want to mention.
I understand and agree with the movement to change peoples mind sets for equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because we are all created equal in the likeness of God and all suffer from disordered or immoral desires that we must try and control.
Homosexuals have been terribly mistreated in previous generations, probably not to the extent blacks were, but similarly they had been looked down upon, which isn’t right.
However gay-activists are going about it completely the wrong way, they are pushing for equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality through things like same sex marriage, which is a false equality, it’s an injustice to equate things that are not equal.
In basically the same way, homosexuals carry the exact same cross that I must as an unmaried heterosexual, which is celibacy, we are all plagued by Immoral desires.
I don’t think homosexuals should be discriminated againt in any way, because with your example, I completely agree with keeping out open homosexuality or homosexuals who are open about their desires when it comes to careers involving children.
However when it comes to homosexuals, just because they are homosexual doesn’t mean that they are pedophile’s aswell, when it comes to children you must be cautious regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual, so even around children you shouldn’t discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals, id be just as worried about a heterosexual being open about their desires infront of children, because a heterosexual could just as easily have pedohphile desires as a homosexual could I think.
I most certainly oppose same sex marriage though, they are trying to take something such as the acts of homosexuality which are disordered and immoral and are trying to equate it to something that is moral and ordered such as a heterosexual marriage.
Marriage is the giving of one self fully to the other partner which includes sexually, by the sexual nature of homosexuality compared to heterosexuality, they are just so very different and therefore it’s just so very wrong to try and equate them both as marriage, so it’s foolish for the law or anyone else not to take into account the sexual nature of the two unions when making a decision in regards to marriage, whether religious or non-religious.
I think not enough people are separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, gay activists think that arguing for homosexuality is the only way to achieve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals and a few on the opposing side seem to think that opposing homosexuals is the only way to oppose homosexuality.
When we speak against the acts of homosexuality and same sex marriage, too oftern are people taking this as speach against homosexuals.
I think they are skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality are accused of speaking against homosexuals.
Thank you for reading
Josh
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
R
ReConverted
Guest
Galileo. ** And by the way, the Church used scripture as the basis for persecuting him.Oh, and parenthetically, the Vatican also does not agree with you:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Have a nice Sunday.
4thefirsttime.blogspot.com/2007/09/1992-catholic-church-apologizes-to.html
M
Midwest88
Guest
This. I have a relative who is gay. When he told me he was gay I was like “Cool.” I still am “Cool” about it, but the difference between now and then was that I supported gay “marriage.” Now I don’t - long story short I experienced relativism in a way that was downright damaging and nihilistic.
The senator is probably experiencing the exact things you wrote, and it’s understandable that he would change his view to support his son, but that stage - that stage of “OMG”, is a dangerous stage to make any public stances. He has much power and influence, and a person who is in a current emotional state of extreme vulnerability is not fit to influence when it comes to circumstances like these.
It’s like when Spock, in J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek, surrendered his captaincy when he physically attacked James Kirk. Spock knew what he did was wrong and antithetical to his responsibilities and what type of character it entails, so he demoted himself saying “Doctor, I am emotionally compromised and no longer fit for command, please note the time and date in the ship’s log.”
- Status