Scared of speaking out Against Gay marriage?

[Thorolfr]

Compare the number of references to gay sex on this forum and on even gay fora. Yes, you guys really are obsessed about this. More, bizarrely, than the guys who actually do it.

I’ve participated in more discussions on gay sex since I joined CAF a couple of months ago than I had in many years before that. It seems like there is a new thread about it every few days.

 

[DrTaffy]

Trying to drag this thread back to the topic, in addition to Claire proudly declaring how she punished students for daring to support same sex marriage, there is this story of a heterosexual Catholic teacher fired for daring to support same sex marriage outside of the workplace. A move that had considerable support here.

How do you reconcile this with complaining about not ‘feeling safe’ (not even being fired or having complaints made to your parents) in the workplace when expressing a view that is directly insulting to many of your co-workers? You may disagree with same sex marriage support, but it does not directly insult you.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

30% is a ‘majority’ according to you?

No, the 30% is 30% of the 50% who claimed to be in monogamous relationship who did not honor the fidelity of a monogamous relationship. The other 50% claimed to be in “open” relationships that included multiple partners. By my arithmetic, that means 80%
of the respondents who claimed to be in ANY relationship are not monogamous and are merrily spreading disease.

Obviously we cannot expect the overall majority of homosexuals to honor fidelity in any form of homosexual relationship. I find it offensive to refer to an open relationship as a marriage.

But only for heterosexuals? Despite the study posted on this forum showing that marriage reduces mortality for homosexuals?

Remember…the study found that mortality rate for homosexuals still exceeds that of heterosexuals. They are still not doing something right.

…and again the obsession with other peoples’ “sexual practices”. As though homosexuals will not have sex if their marriages are not recognised! :ehh:

I will remain obsessed with other peoples sexual practices as long as they remain a public health threat to society. You should be too.

 

[Thorolfr]

I will remain obsessed with other peoples sexual practices as long as they remain a public health threat to society. You should be too.

How can the sexual practices of gay people be a health threat to straight people, especially to monogamous or celibate Catholics?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Trying to drag this thread back to the topic, in addition to Claire proudly declaring how she punished students for daring to support same sex marriage, there is this story of a heterosexual Catholic teacher fired for daring to support same sex marriage outside of the workplace. A move that had considerable support here.

How do you reconcile this with complaining about not ‘feeling safe’ (not even being fired or having complaints made to your parents) in the workplace when expressing a view that is directly insulting to many of your co-workers? You may disagree with same sex marriage support, but it does not directly insult you.

It’s a private institution. If people cannot live up to their contract or Catholic teaching, then they may be fired.

At-will contracts.

 

[Midwest88]

Depending on your social circle, not being for gay “marriage” practically bumps you down two or three pegs these days. If you’re a young adult living in a major metro area and you’re against it, tread carefully if your group of friends lean on the secular side. If your career is in entertainment, journalism or academia … Good luck.

If you have any homosexuals or bisexuals in your family and you express you don’t believe/support gay “marriage” your name in their memory might as well be erased.

Basically, not supporting such a thing is like supporting the German Nazis instead of the Jewish people, or siding with racists during the Civil Rights Era. Or maybe you being a firefighter and there’s a kid trapped in a burning building yelling for help near a window and you’re standing there shrugging your shoulders – the civilian witnessing this jaw drops in disbelief.

What’s ironic about this is that the tables have turned – those who find themselves in environments as noted above might be “in the closet” if they aren’t for it, and those that are for it or are part of the LGBT community are encouraged to express support.

 

[DrTaffy]

No, the 30% is 30% of the 50% who claimed to be in monogamous relationship who did not honor the fidelity of a monogamous relationship.

Yeah, I was a bit startled to find that you were underreporting the number who were in open relationships.

But I still don’t find that 30% figure in the actual article. Full text here for those who want it.

Remember…the study found that mortality rate for homosexuals still exceeds that of heterosexuals.

For the first few years only, after which it drops to the same level as the general heterosexual population, in other words lower than that of the general unmarried homosexual population.

This has been explained to you several times in the last week.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DrTaffy;12640447]Not special rights, just the same rights as heterosexual couples.

:dts:

That can never be because a gay couple cannot have children.

They already have this. And why not? It is not as though christians don’t have parades all through the year. Not to mention billboards, TV programmes, people knocking on the door with magazines and leaflets, T-shirts, bumper stickers, politicians, preachers in the streets, publically funded monuments and events and so much more.

Apples and oranges. Straight people don’t have pride parades.

Compare the number of references to gay sex on this forum and on even gay fora. Yes, you guys really are obsessed about this. More, bizarrely, than the guys who actually do it.

That’s in no small part because individuals like yourself are on here. You sound angry, bitter and upset despite the fact that so-called gay “marriage” is becoming legal in many First World nations. Meanwhile, most of us are just calmly preaching the Truth.

Homosexuals are not pushing for you to be prevented from practising your religion, you are pushing for them to be prevented from practising their religion or sexuality.

Well, first of all, if the government is telling me that I have to rent rooms to homosexual couples or people who are not married, not only could that be preventing me from practicsing my religion, but it’s also a big, tyrannical government telling me how to run my business.

How would you like it if Westminster Abbey told pro-gay groups in London they had to respect no-gay zones as proposed by Muslims? Or how about if they told all the vegan restaurants in Britain they have to serve Texas steak—and it doesn’t matter why, because we’re the smart government, and we know best and all that…

Secondly, FEEL FREE to correct me CAFers, but I don’t think any of us are going to be physically stopping gays from their, ahem, leisure or whom they associate with.

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s a private institution. If people cannot live up to their contract or Catholic teaching, then they may be fired.

At-will contracts.

In other words, you are happy to discriminate overtly against those who support same sex marriage, but you scream blue murder if you are exposed to any expression of distaste when you oppose it? :ehh:

 

[Midwest88]

Please read “Pastoral Ministry to Young People with Same-Sex Attraction” as it actually talks to LGBT youth.

Obese people are “normal” and their sins are “relateäble” thus they are not attacked because that might hurt the feelings of someone they care about or even wind up attacking themselves.

I don’t attack it head on instead I argue about how overrated and meaningless sex is, then after I’ve done that and mentioned about how fornication is intrinsically disordered is when I discuss what the Catechism teaches. By labeling fornication intrinsically disordered and discussing how it is so it means when I refer to gay sex as intrinsically disordered it isn’t seen as me trying to label gay people as mentally ill deviants. It can also be useful to attack heterosexuality via arguments by Foucault, Church Fathers, the Bible and logic as it allows you to show homosexuality is a construct in a way that manages to build credibility with the LGBT community instead of making you look like the bigoted fools who run around screaming homosexuality doesn’t really exist.

I admit my strategy probably seems weird to people, but it works so

I have a hard time believing this actually works.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cena View Post
Why was marriage established? What purpose does it serve? … Why did the state establish marriage?

Because people, gay or straight, naturally come together and form new family units, and end up sharing houses, property, income and so on. Same sex couples even end up raising kids together, and studies show that they do so very well.

This creates all sorts of legal and financial situations, such as what taxes have to be paid when the first member of the household dies. This is what the civil institution of marriage (which is where the word ‘marriage’ comes from) addresses.

Now if you want a different, more restrictive religious institution, feel free. But if you choose to call it by the pre-existing term for the civil institution that does not give you a monopoly on the word.

The state did not establish marriage. Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. No one at the dawn of time sat down with a a blue-ribbon committee of religious leaders, sociologists and politicians to create marriage.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

The state has a duty to preserve and promote marriage as an institution that precedes the state, but the state does not have the authority to fundamentally redefine the nature of that institution.

The state has the authority to enact the “rules of the road” to protect drivers. But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics so that traffic accidents will be less destructive. Rather the State assesses the pre-existing factors that influence safe driving – the age when most persons can handle the responsibility of driving, the effect of alcohol on drivers, the best way to construct roadways, maximum safe speeds – in order to create rules that best accord with these** pre-existing** realities.

The same should be true of marriage.

 

[Rau]

In other words, you are happy to discriminate overtly against those who support same sex marriage…

Discrimination is not inherently wrong. The word has just been “co-opted” to suggest that. As an employer, I would discriminate against an employee who requires the right to harm the company’s reputation on his own time. This is an example of just discrimination and of course there are many more in everyday life.

 

[DrTaffy]

That can never be because a gay couple cannot have children.

…and yet I know many who do. For that matter there are all those studies of SS couples with kids that showed the claim that they were bad parents to be a vicious lie!

Apples and oranges. Straight people don’t have pride parades.

We have lots of parades. Many of them explicitly for christian, even catholic, events.

That’s in no small part because individuals like yourself are on here.

I have never started a single thread on this forum. Likewise, time and time again it is the Catholic anti-gay brigade who start salivating and drooling about sex acts in a thread allegedly about gay marriage or adoption or whatever.

You sound angry, bitter and upset despite the fact that so-called gay “marriage” is becoming legal in many First World nations.

Wishful thinking on your part, boyo. If anything, as you note, I would be gloating about the victory of the ‘homosexualists’ - if my position on this topic were what you probably think from my participation here. In reality I am horrified by the damage people like you are doing to the reputation of religion.

Well, first of all, if the government is telling me that I have to rent rooms to homosexual couples or people who are not married, not only could that be preventing me from practicsing my religion, but it’s also a big, tyrannical government telling me how to run my business.

Governments do that. You have to pay taxes, obey health and safety regs, and (yes) non-discrimination laws. You may dislike the latter, but society as a whole dislikes your kind of discrimination a lot more. You are at least being treated a lot better than Catholics treated dissenters when you were in power.

Secondly, FEEL FREE to correct me CAFers, but I don’t think any of us are going to be physically stopping gays from their, ahem, leisure or whom they associate with.

I know your are not, but I suspect many would like to if they could. You are certainly fighting hard to prevent gays from having legal recognition for their marriages, even if those form part of their religion and not yours.

 

[DrTaffy]

The state did not establish marriage…

It coined the word ‘marriage’, and applied it to an institution created by the state.

You are free to believe in some other more restrictive thing, and even to call that thing ‘marriage’, but not to bar the rest of us from using the word marriage to refer to the civil institution.

 

[DrTaffy]

Discrimination is not inherently wrong

Hypocrisy is, according to most people.

 

[Rau]

Hypocrisy is, according to most people.

Theft is inherently wrong. Is there a point?

I can reject a charge of “discrimination” when it is groundless and make one when it is justified without being hypocritical.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
In other words, you are happy to discriminate overtly against those who support same sex marriage…

Discrimination is not inherently wrong. The word has just been “co-opted” to suggest that. As an employer, I would discriminate against an employee who requires the right to harm the company’s reputation on his own time. This is an example of just discrimination and of course there are many more in everyday life.

“Discrimination” is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. Gay activists have exploited this association to legitimize their claims by adding homosexuals to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I have a hard time believing this actually works.

Why?

 

[Thorolfr]

“Discrimination” is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. Gay activists have exploited this association to legitimize their claims by adding homosexuals to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

It’s usually also illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion by firing them from their job or denying them housing, etc. Religion is also usually a category in anti-discrimination statutes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How can the sexual practices of gay people be a health threat to straight people, especially to monogamous or celibate Catholics?

Fact: Homosexual behavior spreads disease. (Centers For Disease Control)

Fact: Bisexual individuals move freely between the gay and straight communities.

Fact: Sexual practices of gay people are a health threat to straight people.

(Except monogamous and celibate persons of any religious denomination…as long as they remain monogamous and celibate)

I admit I would like to see a solid separation between these “communities”. My little homophobic devil is whispering in my ear…“Put up a fence, keep them out, have no contact…soon they will all die off…Heck! they don’t reproduce so they will all be gone in a generation.”

But the truth of the matter is that people are dying. What infuriates me are the gay activists who are more than happy to sweep these statistics under the rug in order to promote, glorify and justify homosexuality. Is it going to take the forum homophobe to stand on a soap box on Castro Street and shout: “You guys are killing yourselves…”???