I have no concern with agenda or propaganda.
With all due respect, what you’re suggesting is bizarre and is not even remotely in line with Church teaching. Instead we must pray and continue to speak the truth.
Yes, I agree, it is bizarre: but it is the least worst solution to a situation which has no good solution.
Tolerance (one ‘l’) is something we only apply to the bad or undesirable. No one “tolerates” what is good. The call for tolerance (even with 2 l’s) is most revealing.
Color me confused… I mean, I’m as pro-letting-consenting-adults-get-with-the-getting-on as can be, but this is just freaky. Seriously, gay concentration camps? Quarantines? You don’t catch the gay if you’re sneezed on by some guy wearing a feather boa, you know. It’s not a communicable disease.
Not entirely. G_d has designed us such that we cannot fly withut artificial means. Thus that we do not so fly is nothing to do with free will, but is entirely the responsibilty of G_d.
Bizarre.
What’s the deal with G_d?
How people behave is God’s responsibility? That would deny the notion of free will.
G-d’s business is only our busines when it impinges upon us.
Other schemes have been successfully used, including poligamy and poliandry. Also in situations wher the isolation of populations involves the risk of genetic inbreeding, deliberate interbreeding with accidental sojourners is/was encouraged.Methinks there are more important reasons; marriage, family, children. That sort of thing.
Hola,
Nothing. But that’s not what constitutes the radical Homosexual lobby’s major goal, which is to force acceptance through whatever means necessary; legal, “moral”, societal, etc. As said previously, the activism won’t stop until that is accomplished.
I agree. JPII also addresses this passage from Paul in his Theology of the Body. When you look at the context and intent of Paul, he clearly wasn’t recommmending marriage just to alleviate lust but a holy sacramental marriage to bring us back to the original intent of sexuality (desire in a self-donating type of way not a lustful way). Anyway, JP II and Christopher West (in his Theology of the Body Explained) explain it far better than I.
I think here we are slipping into ‘special pleading’
It is quite sad that they have to resort to that to get things that others take for granted.
You forgot a couple like “please dont arrest me for being gay or because you think that I am” and “please dont beat/kill me for being gay or because you think that I am”.
Its quite sad that they had to demand rights in the first place, its also sad that such a law as “hate crimes” has to exist and are necessary.
I did a search and came across this:
In all seriousness, though, it really depends on the “gay” you’re talking to. To be honest, I don’t like to let others define what other people think or believe (letting others tell me what people believe kept me out of the Church for years!..once I investigated what the Church says, I became Catholic), so I tend to take people at their word when they say what they want. Most of the time, I hear about gay people wanting to have the legal ability to “marry” one another. The Church opposes gay “marriage,” so I am obliged to so do, but I do believe in non-discrimination laws to protect persons with same-sex attraction (gay or not) in employment and housing with exceptions for religious organizations and laws that increase penalties for violence against persons with same-sex attraction (again, gay or not).
As far as I can tell the gay “agenda” essentally comes down to gay people wanting to be treated like other human beings in society. Like not being fired from their job simply because they are gay, being able to “marry” the person that they love and having the same rights and responsibilities as other “married” couples, not being arrested and jailed for being gay, being free from persicution and other such things that “normal” people take for granted.