The Homosexual Agenda

[bingbang]

What did slavery look like three thousand years ago? Do you know?

In any case, a human standard is flawed because it is based on power. And what human standard should prevail and why? How does one go about finding the best one? What is it based on? feelings, health, material goods, food?

I can flip this around on you.

In any case, a Catholic standard is flawed because it is based on the God of the Bible. And what God should prevail and why? How does one go about finding the best one? What is it based on? Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam?

You say that human systems are wrong because you don’t know which one is best. But I could say that your system based on Catholicism is wrong because you don’t know which religion is best.

As for what slavery looked like 3,000 years ago…it probably wasn’t moral. Is that what you are trying to argue? Why don’t you just get a slave now?

 

[Julian0404]

Sorry, this isn’t going to happen. The world is becoming more liberal and secular. No matter what there are going to be a core of religious people, but I think in the next generations the default is going to change from the slightly religious, believes in God, goes to church type a year to agnostic or atheist.

Gay marriage WILL be legalized, and if you don’t think so you are really out of touch with what is going on in this country. I am 24 and I don’t think I know one person around my age that is against gay marriage. And I have a feeling that most people my age have the same experience.

BINGBANG, it is already happening. Your circle of 24 year old’s is very limited. Yes, they may all agree with you, but “they” are your tribe. Broaden your horizon of media and investigate and learn that there is an equally large tribe of 24 year old’s that are embracing the Catholic faith, and as vocal as the homosexual marriage crowd is, the silence of the vote is what at the end of the day moves a republic.

 

[buffalo]

I can flip this around on you.

In any case, a Catholic standard is flawed because it is based on the God of the Bible. And what God should prevail and why? How does one go about finding the best one? What is it based on? Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam?

You say that human systems are wrong because you don’t know which one is best. But I could say that your system based on Catholicism is wrong because you don’t know which religion is best.

As for what slavery looked like 3,000 years ago…it probably wasn’t moral. Is that what you are trying to argue? Why don’t you just get a slave now?

Great - are you ready to engage?

How do we know Catholicism is the truth?

Where do you want to start? First. let’s evaluate all major religion for their truth claims.

Ethical Aspect of Slavery

 

[bingbang]

BINGBANG, it is already happening. Your circle of 24 year old’s is very limited. Yes, they may all agree with you, but “they” are your tribe. Broaden your horizon of media and investigate and learn that there is an equally large tribe of 24 year old’s that are embracing the Catholic faith, and as vocal as the homosexual marriage crowd is, the silence of the vote is what at the end of the day moves a republic.

Uhh, no there isn’t. I know a lot of people and I don’t know anyone in this super Catholic 24 year old crowd. I am sure there are people of all ages that are embracing the Catholic faith, but the amount of 24 year olds that are embracing Catholicism is MUCH less than the amount of 24 year olds embracing Catholicism 50 years ago. Probably a small fraction of what it was like back in 1960. People have begun to question things and religion has become much less popular to the average teen and 20 something.

 

[bingbang]

Great - are you ready to engage?

How do we know Catholicism is the truth?

Where do you want to start? First. let’s evaluate all major religion for their truth claims.

Ethical Aspect of Slavery

lol, I don’t really want to engage. I am just saying that you have your arguments to be a Catholic and I am sure there are arguments for other religions that are compelling as well. Just like there are compelling arguments for Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. Do you know what I mean?

 

[buffalo]

lol, I don’t really want to engage. I am just saying that you have your arguments to be a Catholic and I am sure there are arguments for other religions that are compelling as well. Just like there are compelling arguments for Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. Do you know what I mean?

Is there absolute truth?

 

[bingbang]

Is there absolute truth?

Probably but I don’t think there is really proof that there is or isn’t. Something like “what is beautiful” is not something that can be answered as an absolute truth.

 

[buffalo]

Probably but I don’t think there is really proof that there is or isn’t. Something like “what is beautiful” is not something that can be answered as an absolute truth.

This is essential. There is truth or there isn’t. What do you believe?

 

[valoriuslobo]

Probably but I don’t think there is really proof that there is or isn’t. Something like “what is beautiful” is not something that can be answered as an absolute truth.

There is absolute truth and that’s what God has handed to us through the Holy Spirit via the prophets and in the Bible. The Church, being the Body of Christ endowed with the Holy Spirit is another medium of God’s expression of His truth, ie. the Truth. Not to get all “Bible Belt” on you but John 14:6 says “I am the way and the truth and the life.”[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[bingbang]

There is absolute truth and that’s what God has handed to us through the Holy Spirit via the prophets and in the Bible. The Church, being the Body of Christ endowed with the Holy Spirit is another medium of God’s expression of His truth, ie. the Truth. Not to get all “Bible Belt” on you but John 14:6 says “I am the way and the truth and the life.”[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Well I think there probably is some sort of absolute truth, though I can’t prove it. And I don’t think that it is in the Bible.

 

[John21652]

I don’t really agree with that. Not everyone’s conscience is the same. If natural law is written on the hearts of all men, I don’t think that homosexuality can really be part of it. There has been so much variance on what is right and wrong in different societies over the course of history that I don’t think there is any evidence that there is some sort of innate human conscience. I think that the conscience is derived from your upbringing and isn’t something you are born with. And if there IS some sort of universal morality, it stems from empathy…and there is really no empathetical argument against homosexuality.

Either way I still don’t see how homosexuality is against this natural law anyway. I guess the argument is that sex for procreation is good and anything like this act but doesn’t cause procreation is bad.

Apparently natural law is based on logic, but that doesn’t seem that logical to me. What seems logical to me is treating others the way you want to be treated, which is one of the two greatest commandments according to Jesus. That is logical and rational. Dubbing an act good and then saying anything that is “opposed” to this act is bad is not rational at all.

The Natural Law is not based on logic. It is based on Reason, which is not the same as logic. Logic requires a syllogistic argument. Reason does not. Reason uses our mental faculties within the context of our place in society and the world in which we live. It discovers universal truths about the observable nature of things, man included and requires objective practical rationality. And if man does have a nature, made up of observable, universal characteristics, then why cannot it also be open to rational observation and reflection? Goodness and badness comes from what it is that best fulfills man’s nature. This is the objective moral order. It is rather obvious that man’s nature is universally directed to certain things, obvious across cultures and societies. His inclinations, his makeup, his physiological design, for the sake of this thread’s discussion, is for the propogation of the species. Natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place and if those actions and behaviours are outside the observable and universal norms about man’s fulfillment, then those actions are disordered and wrong according to Natural Law morality, which guides man’s actions according to the good.

According to Natural Law, homosexual activity is disordered, not universal and morally wrong. Those that try to normalise and legalise homosexuality are flying in the face of Natual Law and generations and generations of ethical behaviour. To attempt to normalise the abnormal is devoid of rationality and is relativistic in the extreme. However, you suggest that empathy should be a determinant in moral judgements. I ask, should we be empathetic to the bank robber, devoid of funds, who is desperate for money? we surely can empathise with someone who is in a desperate financial state, but we cannot condone his behaviour which is outside the norm, disordered and deleterious to the greater community. Empathy may win the bank robber a reprieve from the full weight of the law, but he is still morally wrong in his behaviour. So it is with homosexual behaviour. We can empathise with those so afflicted, but not condone their disordered behaviour.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

David Bohnett is very wealthy and influential. His vision is aggressive promotion of the homosexual agenda, with funding and grants to organizations and institutions that share this vision thru his foundation. As of last year, the foundation had given out more than $34 million in grants, with $10.8 million going to non-profits that “benefit gays and lesbians.”

Just before the November 2008 elections, Mr. Bohnett was identified in a Time Magazine article, as one of the Gay mafia that’s redefining liberal politics. The intention of this powerful and wealthy group of homosexuals is to pool their financial resources to help elect pro-gay candidates and defeat those that oppose gay marriage. It is the one and only issue for them in elections. He promises an aggressive response, a pre-emptive campaign to undermine the credibility of the opponents to the homosexual agenda.

According to this C N A article, Mr. Bohnett not only condemns intolerance to the gay agenda, but aims squarely at choking off the financial support of its targeted enemies.

As for his friends like those in the media outlets, who seek his endorsement and financial support, it would not be surprising at all that good news mean news that please Mr. Bohnett, who has only praise for news features such as young people “coming out” as homosexuals in middle school. He wants to erase the association of homosexual acts and behavior to sin, to put homosexuality on a spiritual plane.

Of course, Mr. Bohnett places the Catholic Church on top of the list of organization that he wants to totally discredit, since all his money would not be enough to bring it down.

And, of course, Mr. Bohnett supports Mr. Kevin Jennings (see post #67 upthread), because their respective missions are in complete accord, if not identical.

Elections, media, education. With these three under the homosexual agenda’s sphere of influence and control, our culture, imperfect as it is, is turning into something that our Lord would not approve of.

I hope lurkers and posters in this forum who wish for the country to just go along or embrace the homosexual agenda do NOT assume that the majority of us are for bullying, persecution and discrimination of gays at all. We know the life of a homosexual is a trial, and there is a majority of people who will not participate nor tolerate injustice towards homosexuals.

I come from a big Catholic family of eight children, six boys and two girls. My parents were blessed and adopted another boy, who was abandoned as a baby by his mother in a trash dump. This is not to say our family life has been perfect and free of problems. But to make my point, out of my six natural brothers, the handsomest and most gifted (in the arts) is gay. The signs were there even when he was a young boy. He is an adult homosexual who would have to carry this cross until the end of his days. I have love and compassion for him and will not stand for injustice against him

. . . . . .

 

[John21652]

It has is apparent that too many of those who would seek to have homosexual marriage “normalised” base their arguments around comparing apples with oranges. Doing so might confuse some responders for a while, but in the longer term all that can be said is that the argument for legalised homosexual marriage has become convoluted and illogical. Those who support the normalising of homosexuality and homosexual marriage display a total desregard for all standards of morality and decency that have been handed down through the ages, from one generation to the next. They use the tactic of perservering with a convoluted argument which might might one day win them some acceptance. To a certain extent it has, because homosexuals are not hounded and persecuted as once they were. However, to suggest that one day homosexual marriage will be considered “normal” is a case of self delusion.

More and more young people today than ever before speak disparagingly of being ‘gay’. It is an insult thrown from one young man to another in jest during rambunctious behaviour. Young girls will even challenge a young man by asking “you gay or something”. I know because I hear it a lot. The attitudes that people normally espouse out loud are being repressed by all manner of anti-discrimination and anti-hate speach legislation that minorities have managed to get instituted in western societies, sometimes under tha banner of civil rights. Nevertheless, that fact will never alter the basic abhorrence towards same sex unions that most people have.

In 2009 The Seimas, Lithuania’s parliamentary body, passed the law on Tuesday, which prohibits the dissemination of public information that is recognized in general to have a negative effect on the mental health, physical, intellectual, and moral development of youth. This includes the spreading of information that “agitates for homosexual, bisexual relations, or polygamy.”

**Poland ** is considering a imilar law. The measure would also provide a strong legal barrier to homosexual “Pride” parades that promote the social acceptance, display, and celebration of aberrant sexual behaviors in civil society.

In countries such as the US and Australia, there is still a battle being waged over this “in your face” attitude and I suspect the harder the pro-gay lobby pushes it, the bigger will be the backlash. That “in your face attitude” is on display on this thread and it reeks of a total disregard for standards of basic morality which hold societies together.
As a man, I find homosexual behaviour as “icky” and that’s putting it mildly and politely. That’s the natural way of things.

Moral Relativism is driving the pro-gay agenda. The objective and universal moral standards of the Natural Law are what gives humankind the natural distaste for homosexual behaviour and homosexual ‘marriage’. It can be only overturned by an embrace of purely subjective morality, based on nothing but personal preferences supported by positivist laws.

 

[bingbang]

The Natural Law is not based on logic. It is based on Reason, which is not the same as logic. Logic requires a syllogistic argument. Reason does not. Reason uses our mental faculties within the context of our place in society and the world in which we live. It discovers universal truths about the observable nature of things, man included and requires objective practical rationality. And if man does have a nature, made up of observable, universal characteristics, then why cannot it also be open to rational observation and reflection? Goodness and badness comes from what it is that best fulfills man’s nature. This is the objective moral order. It is rather obvious that man’s nature is universally directed to certain things, obvious across cultures and societies. His inclinations, his makeup, his physiological design, for the sake of this thread’s discussion, is for the propogation of the species. Natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place and if those actions and behaviours are outside the observable and universal norms about man’s fulfillment, then those actions are disordered and wrong according to Natural Law morality, which guides man’s actions according to the good.

According to Natural Law, homosexual activity is disordered, not universal and morally wrong. Those that try to normalise and legalise homosexuality are flying in the face of Natual Law and generations and generations of ethical behaviour. To attempt to normalise the abnormal is devoid of rationality and is relativistic in the extreme. However, you suggest that empathy should be a determinant in moral judgements. I ask, should we be empathetic to the bank robber, devoid of funds, who is desperate for money? we surely can empathise with someone who is in a desperate financial state, but we cannot condone his behaviour which is outside the norm, disordered and deleterious to the greater community. Empathy may win the bank robber a reprieve from the full weight of the law, but he is still morally wrong in his behaviour. So it is with homosexual behaviour. We can empathise with those so afflicted, but not condone their disordered behaviour.

You could have empathy for the bank robber, but what about people at the bank that he could hurt or kill? What about the people he put in danger? What about all the people who had their money stolen? What about the bank itself? Maybe the bank has to lay people off to recoup money lost in the robbery (I don’t think this is how things work, but you know what I mean). There are obvious victims in this case which you also need to empathize with.

In homosexual relationships, who is the victim? You could say that the homosexuals themselves are victims, and to some degree that is true. They are victims of a society that doesn’t agree with their lifestyle. But there is no one getting hurt in a homosexual relationship that should make it immoral or wrong. For something to be morally wrong, in my opinion, there has to be some wrong done to someone. When two homosexuals make love, neither are wronging the other or anyone else. Thus, it is morally acceptable.

 

[bingbang]

David Bohnett is very wealthy and influential. His vision is aggressive promotion of the homosexual agenda, with funding and grants to organizations and institutions that share this vision thru his foundation. As of last year, the foundation had given out more than $34 million in grants, with $10.8 million going to non-profits that “benefit gays and lesbians.”

Just before the November 2008 elections, Mr. Bohnett was identified in a Time Magazine article, as one of the Gay mafia that’s redefining liberal politics. The intention of this powerful and wealthy group of homosexuals is to pool their financial resources to help elect pro-gay candidates and defeat those that oppose gay marriage. It is the one and only issue for them in elections. He promises an aggressive response, a pre-emptive campaign to undermine the credibility of the opponents to the homosexual agenda.

According to this C N A article, Mr. Bohnett not only condemns intolerance to the gay agenda, but aims squarely at choking off the financial support of its targeted enemies.

As for his friends like those in the media outlets, who seek his endorsement and financial support, it would not be surprising at all that good news mean news that please Mr. Bohnett, who has only praise for news features such as young people “coming out” as homosexuals in middle school. He wants to erase the association of homosexual acts and behavior to sin, to put homosexuality on a spiritual plane.

Of course, Mr. Bohnett places the Catholic Church on top of the list of organization that he wants to totally discredit, since all his money would not be enough to bring it down.

And, of course, Mr. Bohnett supports Mr. Kevin Jennings (see post #67 upthread), because their respective missions are in complete accord, if not identical.

Elections, media, education. With these three under the homosexual agenda’s sphere of influence and control, our culture, imperfect as it is, is turning into something that our Lord would not approve of.

I hope lurkers and posters in this forum who wish for the country to just go along or embrace the homosexual agenda do NOT assume that the majority of us are for bullying, persecution and discrimination of gays at all. We know the life of a homosexual is a trial, and there is a majority of people who will not participate nor tolerate injustice towards homosexuals.

I come from a big Catholic family of eight children, six boys and two girls. My parents were blessed and adopted another boy, who was abandoned as a baby by his mother in a trash dump. This is not to say our family life has been perfect and free of problems. But to make my point, out of my six natural brothers, the handsomest and most gifted (in the arts) is gay. The signs were there even when he was a young boy. He is an adult homosexual who would have to carry this cross until the end of his days. I have love and compassion for him and will not stand for injustice against him

. . . . . .

I actually support David Bohnett’s agenda as you describe it here. IF he got his way, things like this wouldn’t happen.

nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/09/29/2010-09-29_rutgers_freshmen_busted_for_spying_on_fellow_students_online_sex_session_officia.html

 

[bingbang]

It has is apparent that too many of those who would seek to have homosexual marriage “normalised” base their arguments around comparing apples with oranges. Doing so might confuse some responders for a while, but in the longer term all that can be said is that the argument for legalised homosexual marriage has become convoluted and illogical. Those who support the normalising of homosexuality and homosexual marriage display a total desregard for all standards of morality and decency that have been handed down through the ages, from one generation to the next. They use the tactic of perservering with a convoluted argument which might might one day win them some acceptance. To a certain extent it has, because homosexuals are not hounded and persecuted as once they were. However, to suggest that one day homosexual marriage will be considered “normal” is a case of self delusion.

I’m sorry but when has tradition and history become the place to look for morality? If we just went by tradition and history, women would have no rights, everyone would have slaves, etc. Our past is not where we should look for our morality. To suggest morals = tradition is absolutely insane.

 

[larkin31]

I’m sorry but when has tradition and history become the place to look for morality? If we just went by tradition and history, women would have no rights, everyone would have slaves, etc. Our past is not where we should look for our morality. To suggest morals = tradition is absolutely insane.

well, you’re dealing with Catholics here, and they consider that they have a mostly infallible tradition.

 

[bingbang]

It has is apparent that too many of those who would seek to have homosexual marriage “normalised” base their arguments around comparing apples with oranges. Doing so might confuse some responders for a while, but in the longer term all that can be said is that the argument for legalised homosexual marriage has become convoluted and illogical. Those who support the normalising of homosexuality and homosexual marriage display a total desregard for all standards of morality and decency that have been handed down through the ages, from one generation to the next. They use the tactic of perservering with a convoluted argument which might might one day win them some acceptance. To a certain extent it has, because homosexuals are not hounded and persecuted as once they were. However, to suggest that one day homosexual marriage will be considered “normal” is a case of self delusion.

More and more young people today than ever before speak disparagingly of being ‘gay’. It is an insult thrown from one young man to another in jest during rambunctious behaviour. Young girls will even challenge a young man by asking “you gay or something”. I know because I hear it a lot. The attitudes that people normally espouse out loud are being repressed by all manner of anti-discrimination and anti-hate speach legislation that minorities have managed to get instituted in western societies, sometimes under tha banner of civil rights. Nevertheless, that fact will never alter the basic abhorrence towards same sex unions that most people have.

In 2009 The Seimas, Lithuania’s parliamentary body, passed the law on Tuesday, which prohibits the dissemination of public information that is recognized in general to have a negative effect on the mental health, physical, intellectual, and moral development of youth. This includes the spreading of information that “agitates for homosexual, bisexual relations, or polygamy.”

**Poland ** is considering a imilar law. The measure would also provide a strong legal barrier to homosexual “Pride” parades that promote the social acceptance, display, and celebration of aberrant sexual behaviors in civil society.

In countries such as the US and Australia, there is still a battle being waged over this “in your face” attitude and I suspect the harder the pro-gay lobby pushes it, the bigger will be the backlash. That “in your face attitude” is on display on this thread and it reeks of a total disregard for standards of basic morality which hold societies together.
As a man, I find homosexual behaviour as “icky” and that’s putting it mildly and politely. That’s the natural way of things.

Moral Relativism is driving the pro-gay agenda. The objective and universal moral standards of the Natural Law are what gives humankind the natural distaste for homosexual behaviour and homosexual ‘marriage’. It can be only overturned by an embrace of purely subjective morality, based on nothing but personal preferences supported by positivist laws.

I find homosexual activity to be icky too. I also find elderly people having sex to be icky. Does that make it wrong?

In my opinion there is absolutely nothing objectively wrong with homosexuality or homosexual sex. Natural law is basically only followed by Catholics and Christians…not because it is logical or rational, but because it is the only moral system that they can argue against homosexuality with.

 

[bingbang]

well, you’re dealing with Catholics here, and they consider that they have a mostly infallible tradition.

This is unfortunately very true.

 

[larkin31]

The Natural Law is not based on logic. It is based on Reason, which is not the same as logic. Logic requires a syllogistic argument. Reason does not. Reason uses our mental faculties within the context of our place in society and the world in which we live. It discovers universal truths about the observable nature of things, man included and requires objective practical rationality. And if man does have a nature, made up of observable, universal characteristics, then why cannot it also be open to rational observation and reflection?..

This argument assumes that there ARE universal (absolute) truths to discover. One needs first to establish that there is/are even such a thing(s).