The Homosexual Agenda

[Seeker2010]

I will fight to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman being perverted to include gays.

Fight away.

You’ve already lost. Gay marriage WILL be the law of the land. It’s not a question of if, it’s when. If SCOTUS upholds the Prop-8 ruling, it’s game over. If they don’t, it’s just a matter of time until it’s passed by popular sentiment. The average 25 year old is pro-gay marriage. The average 75-year-old is opposed to it. But the 75-year-olds will likely be passing on, and today’s 15-year-olds become tomorrows voting 18-and-overs.

The war is already lost, you just don’t know it yet.

 

[buffalo]

Fight away.

You’ve already lost. Gay marriage WILL be the law of the land. It’s not a question of if, it’s when. If SCOTUS upholds the Prop-8 ruling, it’s game over. If they don’t, it’s just a matter of time until it’s passed by popular sentiment. The average 25 year old is pro-gay marriage. The average 75-year-old is opposed to it. But the 75-year-olds will likely be passing on, and today’s 15-year-olds become tomorrows voting 18-and-overs.

The war is already lost, you just don’t know it yet.

and then they get older and wiser. Natural law will always win.

 

[Seeker2010]

and then they get older and wiser. Natural law will always win.

Well, let’s put our money where our mouths are.

I’ll bet $1,000 to your favorite charity, to your $1,000 to mine that 20 years from today gay marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states. As I am 41, I should still be alive by then.

 

[JimG]

Well, let’s put our money where our mouths are.

I’ll bet $1,000 to your favorite charity, to your $1,000 to mine that 20 years from today gay marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states. As I am 41, I should still be alive by then.

You may be right that gay marriage will be legal everywhere. So might many other forms of marriage not currently allowed. As society continues to unravel, more and moral restrictions will be loosened. But I don’t expect the collapse of a culture to be pretty sight.

 

[larkin31]

and then they get older and wiser. Natural law will always win.

natural law does not exist

 

[buffalo]

Well, let’s put our money where our mouths are.

I’ll bet $1,000 to your favorite charity, to your $1,000 to mine that 20 years from today gay marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states. As I am 41, I should still be alive by then.

37 States now have laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

[larkin31]

37 States now have laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And it will be just as easy to remove that language when the time comes as it was to have it written in.


It will take a while, but Seeker is right. It is already over for civil marriage. The seeds of change are already deeply planted and beginning to root. Churches, of course, can hold on to their sacraments and ceremonies as long as they wish. I don’t begrudge them that right and control at all.

 

[buffalo]

natural law does not exist

Oh boy. Larkin says natural law does not exist so it doesn’t. Did you wiggle you nose and make it disappear?

 

[rodomonte]

Fight away.

You’ve already lost. Gay marriage WILL be the law of the land. It’s not a question of if, it’s when. If SCOTUS upholds the Prop-8 ruling, it’s game over. If they don’t, it’s just a matter of time until it’s passed by popular sentiment. The average 25 year old is pro-gay marriage. The average 75-year-old is opposed to it. But the 75-year-olds will likely be passing on, and today’s 15-year-olds become tomorrows voting 18-and-overs.

The war is already lost, you just don’t know it yet.

Gay marriage won’t change anyone’s behavior. It is just a slap in the face of straights. Be careful what you wish for. Married gays will be subject to the same marital pressures as straights. When they split up, they will need a divorce lawyer to divide their property. The gay life style is fundamentally promiscous, so not that many will marry.

That war may be lost already, but it is not much of a war.

 

[NJJMBVB]

natural law does not exist

Yeah, sure. And gravity doesn’t, either.
Whether you believe in gravity or not, you will still plummet to your doom if you jump off the empire state building.
Whether you believe in natural law or not, our country will still plummet to its doom if it jumps off the natural law that it was based on.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I really dont understand how people dont get that Natural Law is based upon the theological principle that we live in a created universe and therefore an atheist would not understand its purpose, truth, or recognize its existence.

[FROM LARKIN]You’re not being juvenile; you’re being obtuse.

I said “ONLY” and even capitalized it. Then you ignored the word “ONLY” and substituted “primary” as if they are the same.

Did you do this intentionally, or by mistake?

Well, it was a happy mistake. Had I thought of it while responding it would have been done anyway. If the primary purpose is ignored, all other purposes become essentially null. If you were to have open heart surgery, but not to repair anything just because you felt like it, that would be stupid. If you were to buy a car, but not have a license and have no intention of getting a license, that would be stupid. If you were a jar of peanuts, but have an allergy to peanuts that prevents you from ever eating them, that would be stupid.

The primary purpose is the thing from which all other purposes for a thing flow. Open heart surgery is to correct a problem, it can also be done to prevent problems, but primarily it is a surgery of correction. A car is primarily a transportation device, if purchased to be a lawn ornament that is stupid. Peanuts are primarily a food source, if someone cannot eat them than buying them is stupid. Marriage is primarily for procreation and care/upbringing of children, if it is entered into without the intention of being open to a family, then that is stupid. Especially in todays society of promiscuity, free sex, and contraception.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And it will be just as easy to remove that language when the time comes as it was to have it written in.

Could you explain this to Secular Freedom? He doesn’t seem to understand this point.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I really dont understand how people dont get that Natural Law is based upon the theological principle that we live in a created universe and therefore an atheist would not understand its purpose, truth, or recognize its existence.

Great post.

Let’s get into the nitty gritty:

Why are male and female bodies complementary?

What happens when we use things in ways that are not intended like stuffing peas up our noses?

 

[John21652]

Yeah, sure. And gravity doesn’t, either.
Whether you believe in gravity or not, you will still plummet to your doom if you jump off the empire state building.
Whether you believe in natural law or not, our country will still plummet to its doom if it jumps off the natural law that it was based on.

You’ll have to excuse Larkin 31, for he beleives in nothing of substance outside his own hedonistic desires. He and some of his ‘supporters’ here would tell you up was down if they thought it would in some way bolster their argument and to hell with logic in the process! By trying to tell us there is no such thing as Natural Law, he is trying to tell us he does not beleive in at least half of the philosophical enquiry undertaken by humanity over the last, say, two thousand years and he consines to the dustbin of history many of humanity’s greatest thinkers. Oh, such hubris!!

The whole trouble with people like Larkin 31 and his contempories is that Natural Law condemns the homosexuality they espouse as being in some way normal, or natural. According to the Natural Law, the practices of homosexuals is an aberation in human conduct and diminishing to the human status of both the individual and to society. According to the hiostorical development of Natural Law principles, a common morality is required for the proper development of human societies. The most defining statement on this is captured in Veritatus Splendor, where JPII wrote that moral norms apply equally to all and that

In this way the moral norms, and primarily the negative ones, those prohibiting evil, manifest their meaning and force, both personal and social. By protecting the inviolable personal dignity of every human being they help to preserve the human social fabric and its proper and fruitful development.

Of course Larkin 32 and his cohorts will scream that this a a typical theological argument and so should be discarded. However a little backtracking will see that this very same idea is behind the framing of the U.S Declaration of Independence which, of course, aimed for “the proper development of a human society”. And, the very same idea can be raced all the way back to Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece and even in Taoism. Down through the ages, morality and the Law were closely allied and at times indistinguishable. Finally, along came one Jeremy Bentham, whose hedoniistic ideals found an outlet in his Utilitarian ethics and so the break between Natural Law morality and positivist laws took place. Bentham is a most important figure in the secularisation of the law. Positivism solely embraces laws set by political superiors to political inferiors and that’s how rulers such as Hitler and Stalin were legitimised. Hedonistic, relativistic, self serving moral codes developed according to the whims of the political superiors, devoid of any logic and certainly not aimed at the “proper development of human societies”.

So too, as the secularisation of society continues, that society will by force of politics, break into special interest groups, each seeking to influence the political superiors for self serving outcomes and so society slowly flounders and disintegrates. This is the inevitable end of the cry for "individual rights and freedoms which lie outside the ambit of those Laws and moral codes required to “preserve the human social fabric and its proper and fruitful development”.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

You’ll have to excuse Larkin 31, for he beleives in nothing of substance outside his own hedonistic desires. He and some of his ‘supporters’ here would tell you up was down if they thought it would in some way bolster their argument and to hell with logic in the process! By trying to tell us there is no such thing as Natural Law, he is trying to tell us he does not beleive in at least half of the philosophical enquiry undertaken by humanity over the last, say, two thousand years and he consines to the dustbin of history many of humanity’s greatest thinkers. Oh, such hubris!!

The whole trouble with people like Larkin 31 and his contempories is that Natural Law condemns the homosexuality they espouse as being in some way normal, or natural. According to the Natural Law, the practices of homosexuals is an aberation in human conduct and diminishing to the human status of both the individual and to society. According to the hiostorical development of Natural Law principles, a common morality is required for the proper development of human societies. The most defining statement on this is captured in Veritatus Splendor, where JPII wrote that moral norms apply equally to all and that

Of course Larkin 32 and his cohorts will scream that this a a typical theological argument and so should be discarded. However a little backtracking will see that this very same idea is behind the framing of the U.S Declaration of Independence which, of course, aimed for “the proper development of a human society”. And, the very same idea can be raced all the way back to Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece and even in Taoism. Down through the ages, morality and the Law were closely allied and at times indistinguishable. Finally, along came one Jeremy Bentham, whose hedoniistic ideals found an outlet in his Utilitarian ethics and so the break between Natural Law morality and positivist laws took place. Bentham is a most important figure in the secularisation of the law. Positivism solely embraces laws set by political superiors to political inferiors and that’s how rulers such as Hitler and Stalin were legitimised. Hedonistic, relativistic, self serving moral codes developed according to the whims of the political superiors, devoid of any logic and certainly not aimed at the “proper development of human societies”.

So too, as the secularisation of society continues, that society will by force of politics, break into special interest groups, each seeking to influence the political superiors for self serving outcomes and so society slowly flounders and disintegrates. This is the inevitable end of the cry for "individual rights and freedoms which lie outside the ambit of those Laws and moral codes required to “preserve the human social fabric and its proper and fruitful development”.

Come now, there is no reason to single out Larkin as though he were some sort of pariah or atheistic/moral relativistic/modernist paragon. Your point could have been made as effectively without the insulting tone aimed at a forum member.

But thats just one mans opinion.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve chosen a feminist law site to give my fellow Catholics here a different perspective on gay so-called marriage in Canada:

feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=4117

Apparently, to them, only the individual really matters, not couples.

God bless,
Ed

 

[John21652]

I’ve chosen a feminist law site to give my fellow Catholics here a different perspective on gay so-called marriage in Canada:

feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=4117

Apparently, to them, only the individual really matters, not couples.

God bless,
Ed

A reading of that article would suggest that the gay agenda and the socialist agenda are one and the same thing. Two forms of immorality supported by state largesse.

 

[Flglades]

I think there is a agenda to bully Christians not to stand up for the gospel. Christians are now being label as haters and bigots by the gay community

I got banned two weeks ago and again this week under different sign on by Huffington Post for defending the Churchs teaching of Homosexuality is a sin. I posted quit openly from the bible and church teaching.

THe result was being banned. So much for our liberal media open and honst discussion. They currently have a article from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson on how christians must not consider homosexuality a sin.

Need i say more about the gay lesbian agenda

 

[Abu]

Larkin31 (#281)
natural law does not exist

False.
Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), ISI Books, 2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.

John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See *Christians For Freedom, Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].

 

[larkin31]

Great post.

Let’s get into the nitty gritty:

Why are male and female bodies complementary?

What happens when we use things in ways that are not intended like stuffing peas up our noses?

Their bodies aren’t.

Their gametes are. And this is due to the fact that most life on earth has evolved from a process of genetic reproduction that results in diploid structures.