The Homosexual Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter InSearchofGrace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker2010 said:
You are right. Historically, religion has had a large hand in forging the laws of this country. But those days are over.

Courts have found that laws based purely on religious principals are unconstitutional. Rightfully so.

Laws against homosexual acts were struck down as explicitly unconstitutional.

Laws against porn, sex toys, and buying liquor on Sunday were also, rightly, found explicitly unconstitutional.

The days of your religious agenda influencing civil law are for the most part over. And they’re never coming back. Thank God.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: but also sad. Activist judges setting precedent is the reason. But remember if it is activism it can go both ways.
 
Seeker2010 said:
Religion has NO PLACE in civil law. That doesn’t mean any law that is a religious law has no place in civil law, taking it that far would mean laws against murder cannot be passed. That said, if the only reason for banning something is because ‘God said so’, and there are no legitimate secular reasons for it, the ban has no business happening.
Click to expand...
We live in a republican democracy. We can pass any law we want, religiously motivated or not.

A lot of our laws have to do with morality. They are laws that are based on a consensus of a majority. It’s hard to find a country (sure, I haven’t looked) where there are no laws based on morality. These laws define what is right and wrong, and they are based on a higher order sense of what is right and wrong – whatever source of morality that the legislators appeal to.

Religion has every right to be injected into civil law, in one fashion or another, if the majority so decides.

If issues are raised about the validity of laws, they are appealed to the highest court in our country, which then decides the issue by a majority vote of the justices.
 
1believer1 said:
Your religion indicates that you are Catholic yet your thoughts indicate otherwise. Man’s laws are to be followed, but they should also follow God’s law. This does not always happen since we as humans want our own way … our own freedom. The Catholic Church teaches the truth yet many Catholics want to follow their own truth. Passing any law that does not conform to God’s law is wrong. This country was formed in part to have freedom of religion … not to have freedom from religion. Yet we are free to have no religion, if that is our desire. God asks of us to have a relationship with HIM . but we have taken our freewill to the level that we choose what we want and do not allow GOD to be part of our decisions. We can make any laws that we want , but in the end … GOD will show us the truth and the law. I hope and pray that you study the truth by reading the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and praying that the HOLY SPIRIT will give you the Knowledge and wisdom that you need to see the truth.
Click to expand...
Perhaps my religion is misleading. I do not know what is out there spiritually.

And the thing is, no matter how much I tried back in my papist days, I could not view homosexuality as a sin. It was impossible for me. I choose to trust my own conscience rather than an organization that has opposed progress for so many years.
 
buffalo said:
Activist judges setting precedent is the reason.
Click to expand...
Not ‘activist judges’. Ones who can read. Who understand freedom, the constitution, and the rights of government, which are severely restricted.

Government does not, and should not, have the authority to regulate sexual acts between consenting adults. It does not, and should not, have the authority to regulate pictures and videos that people are allowed to view, when all involved are consenting adults. It does not, and should not, have the right to tell people what toys they can use.

That you think they not only can, but should, says much about you, none of it good.
 
In the last couple weeks, medical researchers have announced finding the physical basis (that is, genetic problems) responsible for migraine headaches and for attention deficit- hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

We have no reason to lose hope that continuing research will also find the physical basis for homosexuality and eventually a treatment and/or cure for it.

That is so politically incorrect, but it is no different from the other problems.

The only question will be, if there were a cure available for homosexuality, would the gay community embrace it and reform itself? If the problem of homosexuality proves to be the result of something gone wrong in development, which can be cured, wouldn’t 99% of gays want to be set straight?

I think the gays are having parades for the wrong reason – they should be lobbying for research for a cure for their condition, like this month is “breast cancer awareness” month.

And, we all should be praying for a cure for homosexuality, cancer, ALS, muscular dystrophy, etc.
 
Seeker2010 said:
Not ‘activist judges’. Ones who can read. Who understand freedom, the constitution, and the rights of government, which are severely restricted.

Government does not, and should not, have the authority to regulate sexual acts between consenting adults. It does not, and should not, have the authority to regulate pictures and videos that people are allowed to view, when all involved are consenting adults. It does not, and should not, have the right to tell people what toys they can use.

That you think they not only can, but should, says much about you, none of it good.
Click to expand...
You are confusing freedom with license.

Ever hear of community standards? They are unconstitutional?
 
Crumpy said:
In the last couple weeks, medical researchers have announced finding the physical basis (that is, genetic problems) responsible for migraine headaches and for attention deficit- hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

We have no reason to lose hope that continuing research will also find the physical basis for homosexuality and eventually a treatment and/or cure for it.

That is so politically incorrect, but it is no different from the other problems.

The only question will be, if there were a cure available for homosexuality, would the gay community embrace it and reform itself? If the problem of homosexuality proves to be the result of something gone wrong in development, which can be cured, wouldn’t 99% of gays want to be set straight?

I think the gays are having parades for the wrong reason – they should be lobbying for research for a cure for their condition, like this month is “breast cancer awareness” month.

And, we all should be praying for a cure for homosexuality, cancer, ALS, muscular dystrophy, etc.
Click to expand...
I find this morally reprehensible. A cure? Why would any healthy homosexual want a cure? One wallowing in self hatred may want it, sure, but that’s not healthy. It’s this anti-gay culture that surrounds youth that helps so many gay teens pull the trigger and end their lives.
 
Crumpy said:
We live in a republican democracy. We can pass any law we want, religiously motivated or not.
Click to expand...
That is factually incorrect. Our government has limited power, as enumerated in the constitution. Any law that does not pass constitutional muster is by definition null and void, regardless of how many people voted for it.
Crumpy said:
Religion has every right to be injected into civil law, in one fashion or another, if the majority so decides.
Click to expand...
Only if it’s constitutional. For example, a law against condoms would never pass muster. While it may violate your religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest, OTHER than your religious beliefs to ban them. Quite the contrary, given that they limit the spread of disease and pregnancies to people who cannot afford them, a law banning condoms is in direct opposition to the states interests.
Crumpy said:
If issues are raised about the validity of laws, they are appealed to the highest court in our country, which then decides the issue by a majority vote of the justices.
Click to expand...
True enough. But, in theory anyway, the justices of the supreme court vote not how they personally think the law SHOULD be, but rather how they think the law IS. A perfect supreme court justice says he or she thinks all gun ownership should be banned, but when voting on a case, nonetheless votes in favor of gun ownership, not because they are in favor of it, but rather because we are explicitly given that right by the second amendment and their job is interpretation, not legislation.
 
NicholasGH said:
I find this morally reprehensible. A cure? Why would any healthy homosexual want a cure? One wallowing in self hatred may want it, sure, but that’s not healthy. It’s this anti-gay culture that surrounds youth that helps so many gay teens pull the trigger and end their lives.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church teaches that SSA is disordered and the act intrinsically evil. The act is morally reprehensible.

If a cure for the tendency is found my bet is that company would make lots of money.
 
buffalo said:
The Catholic Church teaches that SSA is disordered and the act intrinsically evil. The act is morally reprehensible.

If a cure for the tendency is found my bet is that company would make lots of money.
Click to expand...
The Church has also supported geocentrism. They have also opposed science and political progress for centuries.
 
Seeker2010 said:
That is factually incorrect. Our government has limited power, as enumerated in the constitution. Any law that does not pass constitutional muster is by definition null and void, regardless of how many people voted for it.

Only if it’s constitutional. For example, a law against condoms would never pass muster. While it may violate your religious beliefs, there is no compelling state interest, OTHER than your religious beliefs to ban them. Quite the contrary, given that they limit the spread of disease and pregnancies to people who cannot afford them, a law banning condoms is in direct opposition to the states interests.

True enough. But, in theory anyway, the justices of the supreme court vote not how they personally think the law SHOULD be, but rather how they think the law IS. A perfect supreme court justice says he or she thinks all gun ownership should be banned, but when voting on a case, nonetheless votes in favor of gun ownership, not because they are in favor of it, but rather because we are explicitly given that right by the second amendment and their job is interpretation, not legislation.
Click to expand...
Over the last 50 years how many Supreme Court Justices were strict constructionists?
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Catholics are happy to accept the Church position that homosexuals are to be regarded with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. That is what our Lord Jesus Christ would do.

However, I would like to know how Catholics in this forum view U.S. organizations like GLSEN, The David Bohnett Foundation, The Human Rights Campaign, and even one that calls itself Catholics for Equality. The agenda of these organizations clearly promote same sex marriage and beyond, with approaches that range from liberal to militant.
Click to expand...
The Church is very, very clear in Her teaching on the subject of homosexual acts and the treatment of homosexuals.

References;
In the above documents (with links supplied), it provides a consistent message:
  1. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful.
  2. The inclination toward homosexuality is objectively disordered, but not sinful in of itself
  3. Homosexuality should not be seen as a basis for non-discrimination legislation on the same par as race, sex, age, etc. (“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.)
  4. Catholic politicians must oppose the recognition of legal unions of homosexual persons
With the above in mind:
5. Unjust discrimination against persons with homosexual tendencies is not to be tolerated
6. Persons with homosexual tendencies are to be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” which is in consistent with their basic human dignity

And, of course, we can go through the multitude of Scripture references in regard to the subject as well. I don’t bother because I think most of us are sufficiently familiar with the topic.
Now, do I support any of those groups you listed?

Do any of those groups support the teaching of the Church? No? Then how could any of us who call ourselves Catholic support them?

Do you think that it is only a matter of time when the forces pushing the homosexual agenda would be successful in revamping morals altogether and society as we know it?

Look at all of the people who claim to be Catholic on this message board who are deriding you. Consider this closely: they are not only cultural Catholics, but they actually take the time to find a Catholic apologetics board and take the time to post opinions that they know are in direct opposition to the clear and consistent teaching of the Church.

Personally, I think that the morals of society have already been revamped. And they won’t go back without direct divine intervention. Of course, we know that there will be that direct divine intervention at some point: the question only remains if that intervention will come in our lifetimes or not.
 
buffalo said:
Sources?
Click to expand...
  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair Scroll down to the part entitled “The Trial”
  2. Reichskonkordat.
Keep in mind. I am not saying that the Church is still like this. Granted, I think under the leadership of men like John Paul II, the Church has improved greatly. Yet one cannot accept its teaching immediately, as some of its teaching has been revoked and one would seem silly for supporting it today.
 
Ah, take a look at the numbers next to the statements in wikipedia sources. You can then visit the sources that wikipedia editors used, so you can asses their veracity for yourself.

I do realize that. The Church is a much better organization then it was when it signed the Reichskonkordat. My point was that the Church is a very, very, very fallible institution, so it seems preposterous to accept its teachings because it’s the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top