The Homosexual Agenda

[larkin31]

Again, it’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then marriage for everyone else will somehow be worthless or meaningless.

Sure 'nough!

My marriage is doing just fine, thank you, despite the thousands of gay marriages just slightly to my south in Massachusetts. And young people are still lining up to marry!

 

[Seeker2010]

I maintain that once you have changed the definition of marriage from “between one man and one woman” there is nothing to prevent you from changing it to anything you like.

You are, of course, correct.

If our society desires to legalize polyamorous marriages, we have the right, and the ability, to do so.

So what?

 

[edwest2]

Sorry, but this is just downright false and fallacious. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not permit the legalization of marriage between a child and an adult. To claim otherwise is simply disingenous.

Again, it’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then marriage for everyone else will somehow be worthless or meaningless.

The Man Boy Love Association would disagree with that first statement.

nambla.org/welcome.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Broadening of justice?

Let adults impose on youth a lowering of the age of consent so they can take advantage of their innocence. That is not justice, that is power.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry, but this is just downright false and fallacious. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not permit the legalization of marriage between a child and an adult. To claim otherwise is simply disingenous.

Again, it’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then marriage for everyone else will somehow be worthless or meaningless.

If you read my posts, I am talking about changing definitions.. If you can change the definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which it has been since at least the time of Jesus Christ, then you can change the definition of anything. You can change the definition of “consent” in “between two consenting adults.” You can change the definition of “adult.” You can change the number of consenters.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You are, of course, correct.

**If our society desires to legalize polyamorous marriages, we have the right, and the ability, to do so.
**
So what?

There you have it.

In Classic Roman and Greek society child prostitution in religious ceremonies was legal.

St Paul condemned it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sure 'nough!

My marriage is doing just fine, thank you, despite the thousands of gay marriages just slightly to my south in Massachusetts. And young people are still lining up to marry!

Yet over 50% over marriages now end in divorce. I don’t have the statistics, but many people have multiple divorces. In a personal example my ex-husband is on his third marriage to a woman who has been divorced three times, with children from each of the three marriages. It’s not that exceptional any more.

Divorce is Hell. It’s as bad as losing a loved one in death.

 

[secular_freedom]

If you read my posts, I am talking about changing definitions.. If you can change the definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which it has been since at least the time of Jesus Christ, then you can change the definition of anything. You can change the definition of “consent” in “between two consenting adults.” You can change the definition of “adult.” You can change the number of consenters.

But your claim just doesn’t follow. Assuming that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be a “change” in the definition of marriage, it doesn’t follow that all changes would be appropriate or acceptable. So again: Legalizing same-sex marriage would not permit the legalization of marriage between a child and an adult. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest and disingenous.

 

[buffalo]

But your claim just doesn’t follow. Assuming that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be a “change” in the definition of marriage, it doesn’t follow that all changes would be appropriate or acceptable. So again: Legalizing same-sex marriage would not permit the legalization of marriage between a child and an adult. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest and disingenous.

Not at the outset. But already suits have been filed to lower the age of consent. If that happens then it would. Many seemingly little steps mean big changes.

 

[NE_Catholic]

If you read my posts, I am talking about changing definitions.. If you can change the definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which it has been since at least the time of Jesus Christ, then you can change the definition of anything. You can change the definition of “consent” in “between two consenting adults.” You can change the definition of “adult.” You can change the number of consenters.

I’m in total agreement. It’s only a matter of time before polygamy becomes legal somewhere. There is no legal basis to oppose it. I also feel since marriage has been determined by homosexuals not to be about procreation, how can they argue against incentous marriages? Marriage is not about sex, according to them.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This is kinda weird. Should I be flattered by all this scrutiny? …

My, you do excel in dramatics and favor ridicule as tool. Except the ridicule did not address the points raised. Knock yourself out with self-flattery. As much as you like it to be, the scrutiny is not about you but the position(s) you make in this forum, unqualified championing of homosexual causes. You never answer the question by various posters on why you post in a Catholic forum, railing against the unchanging belief of the CC on same sex unions.

So you decided to stay on the thread, after all, to give us a piece of your mind on matters outside anti-bullying. Do not bother to reply to any of my posts from now on, because you earned first place in my ignore list. You might keep that in mind in participating in other threads started by me, sir.

. . . . .

 

[qui_est_ce]

But your claim just doesn’t follow. Assuming that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be a “change” in the definition of marriage,

It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact.

it doesn’t follow that all changes would be appropriate or acceptable.

Why not? If you can change the definition of marriage from between on man and one woman, to two consenting adults, why can’t you change it to whatever you want it to be? You have already done so.

So again: Legalizing same-sex marriage would not permit the legalization of marriage between a child and an adult. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest and disingenous.

That is not what I said,

If you read my posts, I am talking about changing definitions.. If you can change the definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which it has been since at least the time of Jesus Christ, then you can change the definition of anything. You can change the definition of “consent” in “between two consenting adults.” You can change the definition of “adult.” You can change the number of consenters.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m in total agreement. It’s only a matter of time before polygamy becomes legal somewhere. There is no legal basis to oppose it. I also feel since marriage has been determined by homosexuals not to be about procreation, how can they argue against incentous marriages? Marriage is not about sex, according to them.

A California judge, overturning Prop 8, ruled that gender is irrelevant in today’s society. You can have a baby in a petri dish.

I blame contracepting Christians for this whole mess. I was one of them. :imsorry:

 

[larkin31]

…You never answer the question by various posters on why you post in a Catholic forum, railing against the unchanging belief of the CC on same sex unions.

I don’t rail against Catholic positions because they are Catholic; I argue against the logic that they are based on in certain cases. ANY and EVERY Catholic poster who simply states, “I believe that homosexuality is a sin” I leave alone. I respect clean statements of faith nearly always. I do NOT argue faith.

But when someone tries to justify legal positions on faulty logic–whether it is based in faith or not–I tend to openly disagree.

And I ALWAYS answer relevant questions, and have several times explained why I am here. This, despite the fact that there is no reason that I SHOULD justify my presence, nor any reason why I should question yours–so I DO NOT. In fact, if you don’t stop focusing on this–which is entirely off topic–I will report your posts to admin. I have been warned to stay on topic and am trying to do so. You should too.

 

[NE_Catholic]

A California judge, overturning Prop 8, ruled that gender is irrelevant in today’s society. You can have a baby in a petri dish.
:

I disagree wih the judge. Gender will always be relevant. Does he not watch TV? Read magazines or newspapers?

 

[qui_est_ce]

In Search of and Larkin-
You should take your feud to PMing.

 

[colmcille1]

I don’t rail against Catholic positions because they are Catholic; I argue against the logic that they are based on in certain cases. ANY and EVERY Catholic poster who simply states, “I believe that homosexuality is a sin” I leave alone. I respect clean statements of faith nearly always. I do NOT argue faith.

But when someone tries to justify legal positions on faulty logic–whether it is based in faith or not–I tend to openly disagree.

And I ALWAYS answer relevant questions, and have several times explained why I am here. This, despite the fact that there is no reason that I SHOULD justify my presence, nor any reason why I should question yours–so I DO NOT. In fact, if you don’t stop focusing on this–which is entirely off topic–I will report your posts to admin. I have been warned to stay on topic and am trying to do so. You should too.

Hey larkin,
Is there any chance you could step out of the schoolroom when you log on here?
You’re dealing with grown-ups now, not a bunch of acne-ridden teens threatened with detention. A bit of respect and less “I’ll-report-you-to-admin” patronising garbage, thank you!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

If you read my posts, I am talking about changing definitions.. If you can change the definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which it has been since at least the time of Jesus Christ, then you can change the definition of anything. You can change the definition of “consent” in “between two consenting adults.” You can change the definition of “adult.” You can change the number of consenters.

Homosexual activists and moral relativists wish to change the meaning of quite a few words:

marriage
family
procreation of children
natural law
moral law
justice
civil rights

Here’s an interesting debate. The strong assertion that these people make is that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is hard-wired, inborn, even genetically dictated. Therefore homosexual behavior should be perfectly acceptable, perfectly moral, perfectly natural, free from association of sin and shame, etc.

I wonder if they ever think of the implication of such a finding that being gay is genetically dictated.

Finding a genetic cause for homosexuality, a “gay gene”, could pose serious global human rights questions as it becomes possible to identify a gay child prenatally.

One of the men who discovered DNA, Dr. James Watson, was quoted as saying, with possible reference to the gay gene: “[If] a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her [abort the foetus]” - Catholic World News, News Brief 02/17/1997.

Female infanticide and feoticide in countries such as China and India in the 1980s due to a woman’s low social status in those societies has been well documented. More over, the killings of gay men in places such as Iran and throughout Asia and into Africa continue to this day. This is done under the cover of charges for supposed kidnapping and rape. With the identification of the gay gene it would be even easier to carry out such blatant discrimination by terminating foetuses or even ‘curing’ the parents through selective gene therapy to prevent the child being born “evil” or “perverted”.

This demonstrates that the discovery of the gay gene could, potentially, pose a significant threat to gay people and the existence of homosexuals across the globe, something that even the United Nations will have to take notice of in if such a thing as the “gay gene” were ever to be found.

Source

If the march does not stop until complete acceptance by society of homosexual relations is reached and the gay gene is found, guess which organized religion would come to the defense of homosexuals, the very organization they hate and ridicule, the Catholic Church. It is the Church that has unchanging teachings on abortion and homosexuality, peeling the behavior, the sin, from the person, the sinner. It holds that each baby in the womb and person are to be regarded with dignity, with no exception to sex or sexual orientation.

This is why I find the Catholic faith to be true, good, and beautiful.

. . . . . . .

 

[JHow]

To be honest, I respect people that are against gay marriage for religious reasons more than ones that are against gay marriage because of some sort of warped logic. Do you live in the south? Are your daughters and fiances racist too? I honestly can’t fathom how someone that isn’t religious is against gay marriage, unless they just don’t like gays. And I would imagine that anyone that doesn’t like gays probably is racist as well.

Natural law is just something Catholic people use to try to have a “secular” argument against gay marriage and contraception. Anyone that isn’t Catholic and uses natural law is deluded.

This argument fails when you consider how many traditions world wide have a dislike for homosexuality. Traditional Chinese culture has nothing to do with Leviticus and has a deep-seated dislike of homosexuality.

It should surprise no one, that the opposition you encounter on a Catholic forum is influenced by the Christian religion, however.

 

[qui_est_ce]

{snip}

If the march does not stop until complete acceptance by society of homosexual relations is reached and the gay gene is found, guess which organized religion would come to the defense of homosexuals, the very organization they hate and ridicule, the Catholic Church. It is the Church that has unchanging teachings on abortion and homosexuality, peeling the behavior, the sin, from the person, the sinner. It holds that each baby in the womb and person are to be regarded with dignity, with no exception to sex or sexual orientation.

. . . . . . .

Wow, that is just so good. Thanks for posting.

This is why I find the Catholic faith to be true, good, and beautiful.

Me too!:bowdown: