The Homosexual Agenda

[edwest2]

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

Proof? What kind of proof do you want? There is either truth or there isn’t. Truth is not a multiple choice answer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[katieh921]

Proof? What kind of proof do you want? There is either truth or there isn’t. Truth is not a multiple choice answer.

God bless,
Ed

This very well could very well be so. But you need to prove that homosexuality is morally wrong in a way that convinces the other side it is truth…otherwise you just have what you believe to be truth and they have what they believe to be truth and neither side has a valid argument for the other. Do you see what I am saying? You can’t PROVE that your “truth” is more valid than their “truth.” It can’t be done.

So by you saying that you are on the side of truth serves absolutely no purpose because the other side is saying the same exact thing, and neither side can prove they hypothesis to be true.

 

[St_Francis]

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?

I understand that homosexuals are often guardians of children, their own or others’, and I do not doubt that homosexuals can love their children as much as heterosexual people do, but the basis for a homosexual union and a purposely infertile heterosexual union is still flawed to the point that there is a lack of self-giving in the relationship, and an excess of self-gratification.

 

[JimG]

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.

If gay marriage becomes legal under option B, it will of course be a new constitutional right, one that, like abortion, is not actually in the constitution. One that the Founders were not smart enough to actually list in the constitution or the bill or rights.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
i want conversation rather than for anyone to shut up.

What do you hope to achieve with conversation about gay marriage / behavior in a Catholic board?

. . . . . .

 

[Seeker2010]

“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.

Wow.

Read the gay press? I didn’t even know there WAS gay press. You really are obsessed.

Like you, whether or not this passes it will not affect my life. I am not gay, and do not have a need or desire to marry another man. However, because I believe in little things like freedom and equality, it means that I HAVE to be in favor of it.

Now that I’ve explained my interest, can you share yours?

 

[Seeker2010]

One that the Founders were not smart enough to actually list in the constitution or the bill or rights.

When the bill of rights was being debated, some were opposed to it NOT because they opposed the principals therein, but because they were concerned that future citizens would point at the list and declare since something was not specifically enumerated, it’s not protected, as you have done here. Furthermore, our constitution SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS government from treating one kind of citizen differently than another.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Wow.

Read the gay press? I didn’t even know there WAS gay press. You really are obsessed.

the Advocate comes to mind without even googling

 

[edwest2]

This very well could very well be so. But you need to prove that homosexuality is morally wrong in a way that convinces the other side it is truth…otherwise you just have what you believe to be truth and they have what they believe to be truth and neither side has a valid argument for the other. Do you see what I am saying? You can’t PROVE that your “truth” is more valid than their “truth.” It can’t be done.

So by you saying that you are on the side of truth serves absolutely no purpose because the other side is saying the same exact thing, and neither side can prove they hypothesis to be true.

This isn’t a math problem where argument components are plugged in to yield the desired answer. Are there things you believe are true? If yes, then would you accept a different “true” answer? All I’m saying is that there is truth, singular.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NE_Catholic]

Furthermore, our constitution SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS government from treating one kind of citizen differently than another.

polygamy and mother/son marriages are forbidden

please refraine from bringing up sex or children, since neither apply in the New Marraige Order

 

[edwest2]

Seeker2010;7186949:

Wow.

Read the gay press? I didn’t even know there WAS gay press. You really are obsessed.

the Advocate comes to mind without even googling

I’m a professional researcher for the media company I work for. There’s no sense posting if I don’t know what I’m talking about. Hey, we have non-Catholics here, so what’s your point? Yeah, there’s a bunch of publications, both print and online. Heard of Between the Lines? Big time LGBT celebrities appear on the front page and it’s a free paper.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Wow.

Read the gay press? I didn’t even know there WAS gay press. You really are obsessed.

Like you, whether or not this passes it will not affect my life. I am not gay, and do not have a need or desire to marry another man. However, because I believe in little things like freedom and equality, it means that I HAVE to be in favor of it.

Now that I’ve explained my interest, can you share yours?

Sure. It all started when I went to vote one day and Same Sex Marriage was on the ballot. Why were they asking me? By they, I mean whoever sponsored this. What was the point? Like I wrote elsewhere, there’s a lot of stuff the government does and I get no (name removed by moderator)ut. None.

Yeah, freedom. I heard it in the late 1960s. “Are the people free, man?” All that meant was sex, sex and more sex and taking dangerous illegal drugs.

Equality? Gay people have every equality under the law. Redefining marriage is not among those rights. And just in case you think that Catholics are the only ones obsessed, a few words from our Jewish neighbors:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

By the way, I’m not in charge of anything. I don’t belong to any groups outside of being a member of the Catholic Church. To be blunt - once this was shoved in the face of the American people and I was required to respond at the voting booth, I responded.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

I understand that homosexuals are often guardians of children, their own or others’, and I do not doubt that homosexuals can love their children as much as heterosexual people do, but the basis for a homosexual union and a purposely infertile heterosexual union is still flawed to the point that there is a lack of self-giving in the relationship, and an excess of self-gratification.

What is wrong with pleasure? We are hard-wired for pleasure, including sexual pleasure. Humans are biologically wired to be open to sex 12 months of the year, whether fertile or not, whether capable of reproducing or not. And all recognize that for humans, sexual intimacy–whether children are produced or not–is a major factor in relationship building among adults. This is ALL good. My wife and I grow closer through our intimacy with each other whether we want children (formerly) or not (presently). Fertility is relevant to SOME sexuality, but not to all. PLEASURE is relevant to ALL of it.

 

[larkin31]

Wow.

Read the gay press? I didn’t even know there WAS gay press…

Somewhere, something is printed that promotes issues that gays support.

But a “gay press”? HAHA. Um, no, there is no such thing. Wait, Neil Cavuto? He mentions gay stuff…

 

[Seeker2010]

All that meant was sex, sex and more sex

While a free person has the right to consensual sex with any willing partner or partners, it’s about so much more than that. That’s why your mindset drives me nuts, if you’re willing to sacrifice that freedom, what comes next?

and taking dangerous illegal drugs.

Are they illegal because they’re dangerous or are they dangerous because they’re illegal? You do realize that a big part of the reason marijuana was prohibited was because it makes black men rape white women? (It doesn’t, btw, but that was the testimony to congress.) I also have read, but not yet confirmed, that one gentleman testified that he turned into a bat after having used it.

Good, solid, accurate reasons to restrict someone’s freedoms, there, dontcha think?

 

[St_Francis]

Somewhere, something is printed that promotes issues that gays support.

But a “gay press”? HAHA. Um, no, there is no such thing. Wait, Neil Cavuto? He mentions gay stuff…

YOu gotta be kidding me. There was a gay press when I was in college, back in the 1980s!!! In DC, which was not particularly an enclave, not like SF or NYC.

 

[larkin31]

YOu gotta be kidding me. There was a gay press when I was in college, back in the 1980s!!! In DC, which was not particularly an enclave, not like SF or NYC.

Which newspapers are they? Which radio stations? How many? Honestly, I don’t hear of any of it, so just give us some facts about this “gay press” beyond a few local rags in the SF or Provincetown.

 

[St_Francis]

Which newspapers are they? Which radio stations? How many? Honestly, I don’t hear of any of it, so just give us some facts about this “gay press” beyond a few local rags in the SF or Provincetown.

“Press” would not include radio stations. Here is a link to the first page of what Google turned up with “gay newspapers.”

 

[larkin31]

“Press” would not include radio stations. Here is a link to the first page of what Google turned up with “gay newspapers.”

I clicked on the New York one, figuring I’d start with the biggest US city. Here is what I found:

Community Media publishes The Villager, a weekly newspaper serving residents of Manhattan’s Greenwich Village; Downtown Express, a weekly newspaper serving Lower Manhattan; Gay City News is the twice monthly newspaper of record for America’s largest GLBT community; and Chelsea Now, a twice monthly newspaper serving the Chelsea District of Manhattan. The printed editions of our newspapers are distributed free of charge in select retail locations and in strategically located bright yellow street-boxes.

Two weeklies, a bi-weekly, a bi-monthly. Free. Mostly online and very small.

Interesting.

 

[edwest2]

While a free person has the right to consensual sex with any willing partner or partners, it’s about so much more than that. That’s why your mindset drives me nuts, if you’re willing to sacrifice that freedom, what comes next?

Are they illegal because they’re dangerous or are they dangerous because they’re illegal? You do realize that a big part of the reason marijuana was prohibited was because it makes black men rape white women? (It doesn’t, btw, but that was the testimony to congress.) I also have read, but not yet confirmed, that one gentleman testified that he turned into a bat after having used it.

Good, solid, accurate reasons to restrict someone’s freedoms, there, dontcha think?

Your mindset? Who’s sacrificing any freedoms? Tell me. Do I have to give anyone permission anytime they want to do anything? It hasn’t happened yet and I’m sure it never will. You know, and I know, you are free to stand on your head the rest of the week and engage in whatver pleasure it is you like. Meanwhile, you post here telling me I’m taking freedom away from you? Zero evidence of that.

Peace,
Ed