The Homosexual Agenda

[FidesSpesCarita]

As I said, I don’t care whether you take my personal claim to be true about the limits of my support for ALL the things that various gay groups have sought. I am sure that I don’t even know what all gay causes seek or stand for. I am not actually all that curious, nor am I all that politically inclined even to find out. Who cares? The only reason I said anything about gay causes was because I was charged with supporting them all by someone who clearly does not know me and does not know what they are talking about and is overgeneralizing from a few topics here at CA.

Is there nothing more here, then, about bullying programs in schools?

Do you really not see that an “anti-gay” bullying program in schools is redundant and can in fact be counterproductive to the anti-bullying programs as a whole by giving one group more emphasis than another?

And

“ Who cares?”

really? Apathy is always a bad thing. To have no opinion means that you will accept any opinion put forth as having equal weight. We must keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out.

And the charge of supporting all gay causes was made because you have supported every single one brought up, regardless of topic, while simultaneously trying to assert that you do not support all of them. Do you see how we might read “wholesale acceptance” into this?

And, ftr, what is your purpose here? Are you simply trying to give a divergent opinion to further the discussion or are you trying to convert us to your point of view? Because I, for one, have already lived in and subsequently abandoned as your camp having seen its irony, false tolerance, and feigned (I would say self-serving) niceness. I strive to be kind, not nice, and as such I could no longer allow myself to be hoodwinked and mollycoddled by the intolerant tolerance brigade.

FSC

 

[InSearchofGrace]

As I said, I don’t care whether you take my personal claim to be true about the limits of my support for ALL the things that various gay groups have sought. I am sure that I don’t even know what all gay causes seek or stand for. I am not actually all that curious, nor am I all that politically inclined even to find out. Who cares? The only reason I said anything about gay causes was because I was charged with supporting them all by someone who clearly does not know me and does not know what they are talking about and is overgeneralizing from a few topics here at CA.

Is there nothing more here, then, about bullying programs in schools?

Perhaps you should read Post 209

…

first before you submitted your post.

If you are referring the bolded parts to me, and if it’s coming from what you do for a living, this is what I have to say:

1. 
   *]No one at CAF really knows another beyond the username and declared positions.
   
   *]I think teachers do not have a corner on knowledge, or have a perfect worldview. I may not be a teacher, but I obtained a four year degree, made it half way through graduate business school, and worked 14 years in professional liability claims. Your comments are disdainful and unnecessary.
   
   *]I appreciated and paid attention to your posts on anti-bullying, since you know about it more than people from other fields. I agreed with it, but that seemed to have gone over your head.
   *]The majority of posts from you in this forum, in excess of 3,000 in under a year, are to express a contrary opinion whenever you read a thread or post regarding the unchanging Catholic teaching on homosexual relations and same-sex unions. As you said you don’t start anti-gay threads, you just react to it every time a Catholic poster starts one or indicates a position consistent with the teaching. Imagine, Catholics doing this in a Catholic forum! For shame!
   
   *]When you stated you support only SOME gay causes, you were taken to task to prove it, because you come across as one who puts yourself completely behind the homosexual agenda. Instead of admitting there is no gay cause you don’t support, you now retreat to saying you don’t know all gay causes, are not really curious or politically inclined to find out. Yep, that’s credible.
   
   *]It seems, for now, you are confining yourself to the discussion of anti-bullying program, and ask “if there is nothing more here” in this thread. The homosexual agenda is not an insignificant concern to Catholics. Anyway, if this is your exit post, it’s just as well. Your posts reflect you are in the forum no more than a provocateur, an agitator.
   
   *]By the way, nobody has called you on it, but just look back at your Post 163,
   

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

   in reply to another poster. You referred to a veteran Catholic member of CAF as fringe, or having a fringe position. So your posts are not all respectful.
   
   . . . . . .

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Do you really not see that an “anti-gay” bullying program in schools is redundant and can in fact be counterproductive to the anti-bullying programs as a whole by giving one group more emphasis than another?

And really? Apathy is always a bad thing. To have no opinion means that you will accept any opinion put forth as having equal weight. We must keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out.

And the charge of supporting all gay causes was made because you have supported every single one brought up, regardless of topic, while simultaneously trying to assert that you do not support all of them. Do you see how we might read “wholesale acceptance” into this?

And, ftr, what is your purpose here? Are you simply trying to give a divergent opinion to further the discussion or are you trying to convert us to your point of view? Because I, for one, have already lived in and subsequently abandoned as your camp having seen its irony, false tolerance, and feigned (I would say self-serving) niceness. I strive to be kind, not nice, and as such I could no longer allow myself to be hoodwinked and mollycoddled by the intolerant tolerance brigade.

FSC

Wow, FSC. Your post was just 3 minutes ahead of mine.

 

[NE_Catholic]

“Please state your view(s). 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?”

I skipped over all the other answers but will skim through later.

My answer is depends. In some areas of the country, yes. Parts of Massachusetts and California come to mind. Overall? I doubt it. People have become more accepting of homosexuals but the reality is their lifestyle is still mocked, reviled or pitied. How than can they revamp morals?

 

[buffalo]

“Please state your view(s). 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?”

I skipped over all the other answers but will skim through later.

My answer is depends. In some areas of the country, yes. Parts of Massachusetts and California come to mind. Overall? I doubt it. People have become more accepting of homosexuals but the reality is their lifestyle is still mocked, reviled or pitied. How than can they revamp morals?

Right - the natural law will trump in the long run. The only alternative is: you will accept and embrace the homosexual act or else.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

well you don’t have to be religious to be against gay marriage. Simply put if you are for marriage as an institution that is good for society then you must oppose gay marriage. Once you accept gay marriage, marriage as an institution ceases to exist. This is also happening in today’s society which is one of the reasons gay marriage will succeed.

I predict that once ‘gay marriage’ becomes legal, polygamy will be legalized as well and at that point the state might as well get out of the marriage business at all. So where does that leave society? Look around, you can see where that leaves us. High births of illegitimate children. Unwed mothers. Children with no fathers. Children with loose family structures. Infanticide, pedophilia, and warped kids growing up to vote.

This started long before gay marriage was on the horizon. This started with the loosening of the marriage bonds, the acceptance of birth control, and the tolerance of teenage sexual activity.

The Catholic Church teaches No Divorce, No Birth Control, No Premarital Sex. Now if everyone followed those teachings I wonder what the rate of infanticide, pedophilia, and fatherless children would really be?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The Catholic Church teaches No Divorce, No Birth Control, No Premarital Sex. Now if everyone followed those teachings I wonder what the rate of infanticide, pedophilia, and fatherless children would really be?

This is the pivotal point for me and I wanted to reiterate it for emphasis.

 

[vsedriver]

I consider justice on earth more important than sexual morality or the pursuit of salvation.

I consider the pursuit of salvation the whole point of being on earth. What good is all the justice on earth if you lose your immortal soul? Or to put it another way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I consider the pursuit of salvation the whole point of being on earth. What good is all the justice on earth if you lose your immortal soul? Or to put it another way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Moral relativism. The secular concept of what is just and unjust has changed over the history of mankind. Even today, one culture’s definition of what is just differs from another.

 

[secular_freedom]

well you don’t have to be religious to be against gay marriage. Simply put if you are for marriage as an institution that is good for society then you must oppose gay marriage. Once you accept gay marriage, marriage as an institution ceases to exist.

Except this is simply patently untrue. After same-sex marriage is accepted and legal across the country, couples will still be able to get married. Marriage won’t somehow become illegal (which is what you’re claiming) just because same-sex couples gain the right to marry. But all of this is beyond obvious.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Except this is simply patently untrue. After same-sex marriage is accepted and legal across the country, couples will still be able to get married. Marriage won’t somehow become illegal (which is what you’re claiming) just because same-sex couples gain the right to marry. But all of this is beyond obvious.

No. The assertion was that marriage will become worthless since all obstacles to marriage will have been removed it will become as obtainable and valuable as dirt.

 

[larkin31]

Perhaps you should read Post 209
first before you submitted your post.

If you are referring the bolded parts to me, and if it’s coming from what you do for a living, this is what I have to say:

1. 
   *]No one at CAF really knows another beyond the username and declared positions.
   
   *]I think teachers do not have a corner on knowledge, or have a perfect worldview. I may not be a teacher, but I obtained a four year degree, made it half way through graduate business school, and worked 14 years in professional liability claims. Your comments are disdainful and unnecessary.
   
   *]I appreciated and paid attention to your posts on anti-bullying, since you know about it more than people from other fields. I agreed with it, but that seemed to have gone over your head.
   *]The majority of posts from you in this forum, in excess of 3,000 in under a year, are to express a contrary opinion whenever you read a thread or post regarding the unchanging Catholic teaching on homosexual relations and same-sex unions. As you said you don’t start anti-gay threads, you just react to it every time a Catholic poster starts one or indicates a position consistent with the teaching. Imagine, Catholics doing this in a Catholic forum! For shame!
   
   *]When you stated you support only SOME gay causes, you were taken to task to prove it, because you come across as one who puts yourself completely behind the homosexual agenda. Instead of admitting there is no gay cause you don’t support, you now retreat to saying you don’t know all gay causes, are not really curious or politically inclined to find out. Yep, that’s credible.
   
   *]It seems, for now, you are confining yourself to the discussion of anti-bullying program, and ask “if there is nothing more here” in this thread. The homosexual agenda is not an insignificant concern to Catholics. Anyway, if this is your exit post, it’s just as well. Your posts reflect you are in the forum no more than a provocateur, an agitator.
   
   *]By the way, nobody has called you on it, but just look back at your Post 163,
   in reply to another poster. You referred to a veteran Catholic member of CAF as fringe, or having a fringe position. So your posts are not all respectful.
   
   . . . . . .

1. 
   This is kinda weird. Should I be flattered by all this scrutiny? You hiding in the bushes outside my house, too? A peeping Thomas?
   
   You have no point here at all, except that I post often on gay marriage. Yep. I do. Never said I didn’t, and it wasn’t the point here.
   
   What else ya got? Are you trying to go off topic even further? I keep asking that we get back to the topic. I am not the topic, despite your kind of weird fixation on me.

 

[larkin31]

No. The assertion was that marriage will become worthless since all obstacles to marriage will have been removed it will become as obtainable and valuable as dirt.

Has hetero marriage stopped in Massachusetts? What are you possibly talking about?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Has hetero marriage stopped in Massachusetts? What are you possibly talking about?

Once you have changed the definition of marriage from between a man and a woman to “two consenting people” there’s no stopping what it can be changed to such as “three consenting people.” Then the definition of “consenting” will be changed.

 

[secular_freedom]

No. The assertion was that marriage will become worthless since all obstacles to marriage will have been removed it will become as obtainable and valuable as dirt.

“Once you accept gay marriage, marriage as an institution ceases to exist.” Perhaps he meant “worthless,” but the assertion was that marriage will “cease to exist.”

But your assertion is also false and ridiculous. 1) It’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any coupling can get married. 2) 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.

 

[qui_est_ce]

1. It’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any coupling can get married.

Why? What about polygamy?

1. 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.

What does marriage mean for you? Surely the cultural norm for marriage has changed since the 1950’s.

 

[secular_freedom]

Why? What about polygamy?

Read what I wrote again: It’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any coupling can get married. This would still be true even if polygamy were legal.

What does marriage mean for you? Surely the cultural norm for marriage has changed since the 1950’s.

I’m not married, so I can’t speak from any personal understanding. But if I were married, then I’d imagine that its meaning would derive from a deeply intimate connection between me and my partner. Of course, such connection differs from couple to couple. What’s your point?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Read what I wrote again: It’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any coupling can get married. This would still be true even if polygamy were legal.

I read your post. 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.

I’m not married, so I can’t speak from any personal understanding. But if I were married, then I’d imagine that its meaning would derive from a deeply intimate connection between me and my partner. Of course, such connection differs from couple to couple. What’s your point?

Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman who promise to love honor and obey until death do part, and for the purpose of having children. Deep intimate connections take time to develop.

I’m not married either.

 

[secular_freedom]

I read your post. 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.

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.

Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman who promise to love honor and obey until death do part, and for the purpose of having children. Deep intimate connections take time to develop.

I’m not married either.

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.

 

[larkin31]

Once you have changed the definition of marriage from between a man and a woman to “two consenting people” there’s no stopping what it can be changed to such as “three consenting people.” Then the definition of “consenting” will be changed.

Cultures simply decide, through their laws, what is legal and what is not. If you are afraid that legalization of alcohol will then mean that we must also legalize heroin and crack, then…oh wait…alcohol consumption IS legal but crack is not??..so…wait…society actually CAN expand certain privileges and not grant THEM ALL? Wait, what about my slippery slope fears???