The Homosexual Agenda

[Captain_America]

Seeker2010. . .ickk!

 

[Rocinante]

This may be true in a situation in which the heterosexual couple has taken measures to avoid children, but would not be true in the typical heterosexual marriage in which children are hoped for and wanted. To take on in tandem with someone else the task of providing for society’s future brings in a level of commitment that a couple without that option cannot imagine.

you do realize that despite some religious efforts against them homosexuals often have children (either adopted or the biological product of one of them)? do you suppose that adoptive parents don’t love their children or one another as much as couples who raise their own biological offspring?

 

[Rocinante]

Nice attempt at a dodge. There is no reason to not allow homosexuals privacy. Again, why put it on the ballot? Why ask me?

God bless,
Ed

i don’t know. they certainly shouldn’t have to ask you since the constitution ensures that we all have the same rights.

what do you mean about a dodge? was their a question i didn’t answer?

 

[NE_Catholic]

Actually, you do, you just don’t know it. It really is much more common that you think, when we first started I was absolutely SHOCKED at how many people are in the community. Teachers, especially, are over-represented for whatever reason, but we’ve run into just about anything you can think of. Cops, lawyers, one CSI, business owners, postal workers, a preacher or three, you name it. If you interact with more than a handful of people on a daily basis I guarantee you have met some of us.

As for children, all my wifes son knows is that we have an active social life, and probably go out partying more frequently than his peers parents.

No, I do not know any. Sorry. You can tink that, but I do not know any.

 

[edwest2]

That’s true, but only ‘sort of’.

For our government is constitutionally limited on what it is and is not allowed to do, so even if you can get 50.1% of the population to vote for, say, restricting the right of the press to print what they choose to print, the vote would be invalidated by the constitution, as legally it is superior to a referendum. Now, if 90% of people think it should be limited, there is a way to change the constitution, but it’s long and arduous and would require a substantial plurality as a simple majority in any given jurisdiction won’t be able to get it done.

All gay marriage advocates do is point to public opinion. Look, they say, we’ve got 50 + per cent. Public opinion is going our way. Catholics are told to avoid public opinion without discernment. If we believe something is wrong then it’s wrong, and not just because the Pope, for example, tells us so. If you disagree with our reasoning, that’s up to you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

But that’s just it, Ed, that’s exactly what you want. You want to deny marriage to homosexuals based on the doctrine of your church. Your church is not so important as to be able to do that.

Your group wants to radically redefine marriage for American society. Again, why was same sex marriage on the ballot? Who is stopping you from living how you want? Me? I don’t think so. I have never had any messages on my answering machine from the Pentagon asking for my opinion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m not going to provide a link to swinger websites, as I suspect it violates the rules here, but a simple google search will find what you seek. Between the top 10 sites, there are probably 8-10 million profiles. Look it up for yourself.

And just how much personal experience do you have with extra-marital sex? My wife and I have been in the Lifestyle for 6 or 7 years now and have been with dozens, if not hundreds of other people, and observed an order of magnitude more than that. I’ve not a single time witnessed nor participated where protection was not used. Not a single time.

Most =/= All. Your point is irrelevant.

Why would presume children are ‘exposed’ to it? Do your children know the details of your sex life?

Consensually open relationships and cheating are two very different things.

I don’t think there is much point in redefing relationships in general here. It doesn’t matter if 10 million people are doing something wrong, it’s still wrong. You insisting that it is somehow OK is not convincing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

good point, but what you are being asked in a polling booth is not “do you think homosexuality is immoral?” you are in effect being asked “should there be a law against it so that your view gets imposed on other people?”

neither will anyone force you to gay marry!

there is disagreement about what the truth is here. i want conversation rather than for anyone to shut up.

The ballot wording had nothing about “imposing my view.” Hey, either the truth is the truth or there’s nothing to talk about. How can anyone say I know what the truth and then have someone tell them, No. I’ve got the real truth over here.?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

That’s pretty much what voting about any issue boils down to, isn’t it? Should your view be forced down my throat, or my view forced down yours? Whether the issue is homosexual “marriage,” taxes, road construction, or whatever.

As Catholics, we believe that it is a *fact *that *all *extra-marital activity is not only wrong/sinful, but bad for society. A lot of people agree with the latter, it is not a purely Catholic view.

that is a reasonable approach, though i disagree with your conclusion.

i hope you consider also that “bad for society” given the constitutional separation of church and state means that the justifications for that position must be arguable on premises that do not rely on religious dogma such as that the church teaches that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” we can’t just say, “this is immoral therefore it should not be allowed.” we have to have secular reasons for saying why something should not be allowed.

I try to vote what I believe is best for my society, the society in which I live, and a lot of other people do, too, as witnessed by the fact that the Democrats said on more than one occasion that they were surprised that people voted Republican “against their own self-interests.”

when liberals like myself point out that people voting republican are voting against their own self-interest, we don’t mean that they are acting self-lessly. we mean that they have been tricked into voting against “we the people” and in favor of the wealthy and powerful based on the right’s usual tactic of pitting the poor white against poor black people and religious people against nonreligious people and straight people against homosexual people, etc. (the establishment left of course is complicit in this as well.)

by keeping “we the people” arguing over nonsense, the kleptocrats continue to get their way. gays get to marry, or not. who cares? the kleptocrats don’t really care, so long as the rich continue getting richer on the backs of the rest of us.

(they don’t really care about abortion either. what has voting republican gotten catholics for the unborn? corporations are now considered persons. the unborn are not. what will help the unborn is help for the poor since poverty is a leading cause of abortion, and we know what happens to the poor under the republicans.)

rocinante

 

[NE_Catholic]

(they don’t really care about abortion either. what has voting republican gotten catholics for the unborn? corporations are now considered persons. the unborn are not. what will help the unborn is help for the poor since poverty is a leading cause of abortion, and we know what happens to the poor under the republicans.)

rocinante

Most Catholics are Democrats. My parents had only two pictures in our house, Cardinal Cushing & JFK.

 

[Seeker2010]

All gay marriage advocates do is point to public opinion. Look, they say, we’ve got 50 + per cent. Public opinion is going our way.

For the most part, gay marriage is currently not legal in our country, though there are a few places is it. I predict that it WILL be legal in all 50 states within the next 20 years, and that happens one of two ways.

A: Public opinion: Those opposed tend to skew older, those in favor tend to skew younger. As the older ones die off and are replaced by younger folks who have an opposite opinion, a critical mass will eventually be reached.

B: Constitutional Process. This has begun, with the Prop-8 ruling. If that ruling is upheld by SCOTUS, it’s game over, gay marriage is instantly recognized as a constitutional right in the entire country. I believe SCOTUS SHOULD rule that way, but I acknowledge that it’s an open question, and we won’t know until it happens.

The first relies on public opinion, in the second public opinion is irrelevant, unless it’s widespread enough that it can support a constitutional change.

 

[edwest2]

Poverty is a leading cause of abortion? Back in 1972, all I heard was poor women can’t afford to get an abortion like wealthy women who get on a plane and fly to wherever they could get one. Uh, uh. That’s flat out wrong.

That, they told, was why we had to legalize abortion - so that the poor could get access, instead of just the rich.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Most Catholics are Democrats. My parents had only two pictures in our house, Cardinal Cushing & JFK.

I hope not. The Democrats that existed when President Kennedy was in office are the complete opposite of the Democrats that exist today.

I was there when President Kennedy was in office. I saw him during a motorcade on Michigan Avenue. He was much loved by both blacks and whites.

The Democratic Party today? No good. That is why I have zero political party loyalty.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

Your group wants to radically redefine marriage for American society.

I’m not a part of any group, and as I am not gay I really don’t have a horse in the race. It does not affect me whether or not SSM becomes legal. But, as I can presume you are not gay either, it doesn’t affect you either, so I don’t understand why you care. Gay people already exist, and already have relationships. Whether or not it’s made legal, nothing about that will change. We won’t get MORE (or less) gay people, and they won’t all of a sudden start relationships that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.

Who is stopping you from living how you want? Me?

Marriage as it’s being debated here is a civil legal status. Power of attorney, inheritance, property. You, or at least people like you, are in ACTIVE opposition to an idea that frankly doesn’t affect you. One need not look any farther than this very board for evidence, as every other thread is in one way or another related to gay marriage. You all are absolutely OBSESSED with it. My guess is were you to visit a gay messageboard that they don’t talk about it nearly as much as ya’ll do.

 

[edwest2]

For the most part, gay marriage is currently not legal in our country, though there are a few places is it. I predict that it WILL be legal in all 50 states within the next 20 years, and that happens one of two ways.

A: Public opinion: Those opposed tend to skew older, those in favor tend to skew younger. As the older ones die off and are replaced by younger folks who have an opposite opinion, a critical mass will eventually be reached.

B: Constitutional Process. This has begun, with the Prop-8 ruling. If that ruling is upheld by SCOTUS, it’s game over, gay marriage is instantly recognized as a constitutional right in the entire country. I believe SCOTUS SHOULD rule that way, but I acknowledge that it’s an open question, and we won’t know until it happens.

The first relies on public opinion, in the second public opinion is irrelevant, unless it’s widespread enough that it can support a constitutional change.

There is a difference between public opinion based on the truth and public opinion that is not. Like I wrote elsewhere, the truth is the truth, not, “No. I’ve got the real truth over here. And it just so happens that it’s the opposite of the truth you’ve got.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[NE_Catholic]

For the most part, gay marriage is currently not legal in our country, though there are a few places is it. I predict that it WILL be legal in all 50 states within the next 20 years, and that happens one of two ways.

A: Public opinion: Those opposed tend to skew older, those in favor tend to skew younger. As the older ones die off and are replaced by younger folks who have an opposite opinion, a critical mass will eventually be reached.

B: Constitutional Process. This has begun, with the Prop-8 ruling. If that ruling is upheld by SCOTUS, it’s game over, gay marriage is instantly recognized as a constitutional right in the entire country. I believe SCOTUS SHOULD rule that way, but I acknowledge that it’s an open question, and we won’t know until it happens.

The first relies on public opinion, in the second public opinion is irrelevant, unless it’s widespread enough that it can support a constitutional change.

A: maybe, maybe not. We all tend to be more conservative as we age. I think the present balance will be maintained. Even though homosexuals are more accepted as individuals, homosexuality is still either hated, feared or looked down upon by the majority of straight people.

B. Could happen.

or

C. penedulum swing of opinion. Constitution ammendment against Gay Marriage. It happened to alcohol, it’s not far fetched.

 

[NE_Catholic]

I hope not. The Democrats that existed when President Kennedy was in office are the complete opposite of the Democrats that exist today.

I was there when President Kennedy was in office. I saw him during a motorcade on Michigan Avenue. He was much loved by both blacks and whites.

The Democratic Party today? No good. That is why I have zero political party loyalty.

God bless,
Ed

in North East, Catholics are Dems.

 

[katieh921]

There is a difference between public opinion based on the truth and public opinion that is not. Like I wrote elsewhere, the truth is the truth, not, “No. I’ve got the real truth over here. And it just so happens that it’s the opposite of the truth you’ve got.”

God bless,
Ed

And the truth of the matter is that you can’t prove your truth any better than the people on the other side.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not a part of any group, and as I am not gay I really don’t have a horse in the race. It does not affect me whether or not SSM becomes legal. But, as I can presume you are not gay either, it doesn’t affect you either, so I don’t understand why you care. Gay people already exist, and already have relationships. Whether or not it’s made legal, nothing about that will change. We won’t get MORE (or less) gay people, and they won’t all of a sudden start relationships that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.

Marriage as it’s being debated here is a civil legal status. Power of attorney, inheritance, property. You, or at least people like you, are in ACTIVE opposition to an idea that frankly doesn’t affect you. One need not look any farther than this very board for evidence, as every other thread is in one way or another related to gay marriage. You all are absolutely OBSESSED with it. My guess is were you to visit a gay messageboard that they don’t talk about it nearly as much as ya’ll do.

“I don’t understand why you care” either. I’m obsessed? I read the gay press - gay marriage is job one. No one has to be obsessed with anything to understand that. Nice try at diversion.

God bless,
Ed

 

[katieh921]

in North East, Catholics are Dems.

Most people are dems in the north east.