The Homosexual Agenda

[BlackBeard54]

Also, you mention that your daughters and fiances are against gay marriage but aren’t Catholic…are they some other type of Christian? And if not, what are their reasons for not supporting it?

Daughters were baptized Methodist and Episcopalian (during my time away from the Church, when I was young and foolish). Neither have a “regular” affiliation, although at least one is leaning Catholic, and I pray for all their conversions. One fiance is lapsed Catholic, one was raised Baptist (I think) but is also leaning Catholic. None of them have good grounding in any religion.

I won’t presume to answer for them, but they are all sensible people, who have a sense that homosexuality is wrong under Natural Law. Both of my daughters are also strong conservatives, and constitutional originalists. I didn’t completely mess up their formation.

 

[edwest2]

what sexual moral ills do you believe are part of the secret homosexual agenda? You believe that the their goal of legalizing gay marriage is just a means to a more insidioius end. What end?

Mission Statement of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom:

"The NCSF is committed to creating a political, legal and social environment in the US that advances equal rights for consenting adults who engage in alternative sexual and relationship expressions.

"The NCSF aims to advance the rights of, and advocate for consenting adults in the BDSM-Leather-Fetish, Swing, and Polyamory Communities.

“We pursue our vision through direct services, education, advocacy, and outreach, in conjunction with our partners, to directly benefit these communities.”

These people have abandoned their right to privacy and now want social encouragement.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

So your against the 1st Amendment, and in favor of government censorship? If so, do you see any potential problems with this?

He clearly is. I only see that guy’s posts when someone else quotes him. Fringe, for sure.

 

[larkin31]

I just don’t think that homosexual acts or condoms are evil. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument against them either.

There isn’t one.

 

[edwest2]

So your against the 1st Amendment, and in favor of government censorship? If so, do you see any potential problems with this?

I see the stereotype posted all of the time. Yes, I am in favor of the censorship of immoral publications. I am not in favor of censoring criticism of the government. Go ahead, criticize the government all you want but be civil about it as opposed to people like Bill Maher.

The First Amendment does not apply to obscenity:

fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

I know a lot of people don’t want to believe that but it’s true.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

I see the stereotype posted all of the time. Yes, I am in favor of the censorship of immoral publications. I am not in favor of censoring criticism of the government. Go ahead, criticize the government all you want but be civil about it as opposed to people like Bill Maher.

Who, if anyone, should have a monopoly on deciding what is civil and what’s not, and what’s moral and what’s not?

The First Amendment does not apply to obscenity:

fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

I know a lot of people don’t want to believe that but it’s true.

This is like saying that the right to life, barring conviction by a jury of a crime, which is guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, doesn’t apply to the unborn (thus, abortion is constitutional). Just because the government currently interprets the constitution one way doesn’t mean that that is what the constitution says (explicitly or implicitly). If this were so, the courts could basically abolish the Constitution (which as mostly been done now anyways). The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just because a court rules something “constitutional” doesn’t mean it actually is.

 

[bingbang]

Daughters were baptized Methodist and Episcopalian (during my time away from the Church, when I was young and foolish). Neither have a “regular” affiliation, although at least one is leaning Catholic, and I pray for all their conversions. One fiance is lapsed Catholic, one was raised Baptist (I think) but is also leaning Catholic. None of them have good grounding in any religion.

I won’t presume to answer for them, but they are all sensible people, who have a sense that homosexuality is wrong under Natural Law. Both of my daughters are also strong conservatives, and constitutional originalists. I didn’t completely mess up their formation.

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.

 

[larkin31]

To be honest, I respect people that are against gay marriage for religious reasons than ones that are against gay marriage because of some sort of warped logic.

I agree.

Natural law is just something Catholic people use to try to have a “secular” argument against gay marriage and contraception.

I agree with this, also.

 

[BlackBeard54]

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.

You’re hilarious. You spend 12 pages arguing against anyone who is against gay marriage on religious grounds, now you say that anyone who is against marriage for other than religious grounds is a bigot. You even start to play the racism card, the last refuge of the liberal who is running out of arguments.

Also, Natural Law is not a secular argument. From the CCC:

1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

Also see CCC:

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

Finally, I said they were not Catholic, and not affiliated with a particular Religion, I didn’t say they did not believe in God or Christ. As a matter of fact, they would all say they are Christian, just in that sort of formless, uncommitted way that way too many of us (myself included up to last year) are. So a large part of their objection is they know it is morally wrong and contrary to God’s plan.

But, I’m sure none of that matters to you. You’ve pretty much demonstrated you believe that anyone who doesn’t see things your way is a religious zealot, or medieval, or Southern, or racist, or homophobic, or whatever variation of Godwin’s Law your side is currently resorting to to discredit the opposition. So I’ll leave you to it, breathlessly waiting for you to accuse of of being a Nazi.

God Bless You. You’re young still, hopefully you’ll come to your senses when you get older.

 

[bingbang]

God Bless You. You’re young still, hopefully you’ll come to your senses when you get older.

I hope you come to your senses as well.

 

[larkin31]

…Also, Natural Law is not a secular argument. From the CCC:

True! And thank you for helping me make this clear. But MANY posters here try to make the argument by Natural Law APPEAR to be secular and logical. But yes, as you say, argument by “Natural Law” is based on religious faith.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Re-opened by request.

Don’t make me come back again.**

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Wow, thanks are in order to the moderator for re-opening the thread. Let’s make an effort that it does not devolve again to useless offensive rants.

At the top of this sub-forum is an announcement for posters to read on the Church teaching on same-sex issues, so it’s best to read it first.

No more ad hominems please. You know who you are if you fielded such comments.

. . . . . .

 

[InSearchofGrace]

what sexual moral ills do you believe are part of the secret homosexual agenda? You believe that the their goal of legalizing gay marriage is just a means to a more insidioius end. What end?

Please refer to Post #47 on Page 4 and #67 on Page 5 , where I referred to the “Safe Schools” program under the U.S. Department of Education, under the banner of addressing the problem of anti-bullying in schools, but is also a quiet but de facto promotion of the (homo)sexualization and “pornification” of young school children.

In my Post #112 on Page 8, I referred to the alliance of influential homosexuals bent on using their wealth and power to effect election results by helping only pro-gay agenda candidates, the single issue for them, and media that is likewise beholden to them.

So, the goal (beyond gay marriage) is indeed insidious, sinister: education of the young, elections and media in a string, the means toward a culture which would, in the end, remove the stigma and sin attached to the homosexual act. The goal is to make homosexual behavior ‘respectable.’ As one poster mentioned, homosexual activists want approval of their entire lifestyle and encouragement from all segments of society. They should be, but, are not, contented with having civil unions which already afford them the necessary rights to health benefits, hospital visitation, survivorship upon death of the partner, etc.

Already, we are being conditioned by the media to accept the creative non-traditional methods of family creation by homosexual couples. They will not accept impediments to having and raising children by adoption or rental of a womb to grow a fertilized woman’s egg by a partner’s own sperm. It really gets creative, taking on creation of life, what belongs to our Creator. To what end? This is arrogance. This is pride. The greatest sin of all. Never mind if homosexual relationships are associated with a higher incidence of promiscuity and concupiscence for multiple sexual partners. Never mind about the psychological effect to a normal heterosexual child being raised by same sex parents.

And so on and so forth.

Here are three links which should tell us that legalized gay marriage in just some states have already resulted in, or moving right along, other sexual moral ills.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
ncsfreedom.org/
nambla.org/welcome.htm

Finally, here is a link with a good discussion of the slippery slope of same sex marriage, including other moral ills (not just sexual) that it will bring upon society.

frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02

Christians need to actively oppose the homosexual agenda in this country. Back to basics, back to preservation of our Judeo-Christian roots and ideals.

. . . . . .

 

[larkin31]

Please refer to Post #47 on Page 4 and #67 on Page 5 , where I referred to the “Safe Schools” program under the U.S. Department of Education, under the banner of addressing the problem of anti-bullying in schools, but is also a quiet but de facto promotion of the (homo)sexualization and “pornification” of young school children.

I am a high school teacher.

We run anti-bullying efforts every year. What is wrong with this? We also, specifically, mention NOT tolerating the bullying or harassment of gays, since students often feel that the rules about tolerance do not apply to them, partly because anti-gay slurs are so deeply ingrained in our culture.

I’d like to know what is wrong with the anti-bullying and harassment efforts in schools, particularly around gays.

 

[larkin31]

And your references to “fisting” all trace back to the one program in Massachusetts that was shut down after the schools found out what the program (the program was sub-contracted out) had detailed in their presentation. This is old news now, it has been covered, this kind of thing is NOT being done in any school in my state (Maine) and not at my school. You seem to be fixated on an old case and are setting fires around one man in a different role in the White House. He has not been fired because he is doing an adequate job, despite your fears and Jeremiad. Again, I have been a teacher for 28 years now, and I have never encountered this sort of thing you are worried about. The anti-bullying programs and anti-harassment programs are just that: efforts to reduce the culture of harassment about differences, particularly those differences that young persons feel excused in targeting and belittling.

What is wrong with that?

 

[dusty_david]

Again, I have been a teacher for 28 years now, and I have never encountered this sort of thing you are worried about. The anti-bullying programs and anti-harassment programs are just that: efforts to reduce the culture of harassment about differences, particularly those differences that young persons feel excused in targeting and belittling.

What is wrong with that?
Reply With Quote

Some boys like to beat up faggots. Don’t really need a reason. Used to be no one cared.

 

[larkin31]

Some boys like to beat up faggots. Don’t really need a reason. Used to be no one cared.

I can’t tell if you are purveying this callousness or criticizing it. Can you make your point clear?

 

[dusty_david]

I apologize. I’m new here and not used to the ediquette.
I’m really not that old. Graduated high school before 1980. But in the day the gays used to get beat up. I did it once too. A bunch of us beat up a homosexual right before graduation. I’m not proud of it. But it wasn’t unusual at the time. No one got arrested or anything. Don’t know what happened to the dude. That just was the way life was.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I am a high school teacher.

We run anti-bullying efforts every year. What is wrong with this? We also, specifically, mention NOT tolerating the bullying or harassment of gays, since students often feel that the rules about tolerance do not apply to them, partly because anti-gay slurs are so deeply ingrained in our culture.

I’d like to know what is wrong with the anti-bullying and harassment efforts in schools, particularly around gays.

Gays should not be harassed or bullied in schools. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the anti-bullying program by Mr. Jennings. I hope you did not skip the parts of my posts expressly against persecution of gays. I know the pain of seeing a loved one, my own brother who is gay. He was on the receiving end of much unkindness in the school yard as a youth.

It is the baggage that Mr. Jennings brings with him and his controversial record that present as problems:
• his unethical counsel of a young man, a student, with an older man, when he was a teacher,
• his praise of the NAMBLA founder,
• his authorship of the foreword to a book called Queering Elementary Education, and
• his support of a radical agenda that includes bringing sexual liberationist teachings into public schools as the former Director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network)

As “Safe Schools Czar” he introduced (homo)sexually explicit books in the library for young children to see and/or read. See here. Thank goodness, there are organizations like this one that is diligently checking what’s going on in middle schools and what books are in the library. Parents do not want that kind of exposure to their young children.

The only person I know of who does not mind his young son to be exposed to homosexually explicit books is that poster in this thread who just got suspended. He indicated so in his Post #73. He is vociferously pro-gay marriage as some are in this forum. You, pardon me for saying, were in agreement with several of his postings. As a teacher, do you also agree with this poster’s specific view that books in the library should include those that describe and have homosexually explicit pictures for young boys to see or read?

Supporters to Mr. Jennings claim that his program only combats bullying. But what had been uncovered are enough to the concerned that he appears to be using the cover of “bullying prevention” to enforce his radical positions on sex education.

Respectfully,

ISG

. . . . . .