The Homosexual Agenda

[Seeker2010]

Quite a list. In an ideal world, it would happen. In reality, it can’t.

You are right, because virtually every suggestion on the list would require a constitutional amendment to implement, and that’s about as likely as the sun failing to rise tomorrow.

 

[NE_Catholic]

You are right, because virtually every suggestion on the list would require a constitutional amendment to implement, and that’s about as likely as the sun failing to rise tomorrow.

no, it wouldn’t. I listed four which can be done. Others can’t be outright banned but can be regulated.

 

[Seeker2010]

no, it wouldn’t. I listed four which can be done. Others can’t be outright banned but can be regulated.

Here’s what you listed as ‘doable’.

Ban all swinger sites and sex clubs.
You have to repeal freedom of speech and overturn Lawrence v. Texas for this to pass muster.

Increase fines and prison time for prostitution.
This can be done, I concede. Unlikely that it will, but it can.

Viagra and similar products to be sold by perscription only.
Already is, though I am still unclear why I need another persons permission to put drugs into my body.

Thong ban on public beaches.
Why would you want to?

 

[NE_Catholic]

Here’s what you listed as ‘doable’.

Ban all swinger sites and sex clubs.
You have to repeal freedom of speech and overturn Lawrence v. Texas for this to pass muster.

Huh? Just last year police raided and arrested a “swingers club” in my city. Seems they are against the law in my state. No constitutional issues were raised. I think you are confusing issues here.

Viagra and similar products to be sold by perscription only.
Already is, though I am still unclear why I need another persons permission to put drugs into my body.

Blame the FDA, Narcotics Act, Upton Sinclair, the early 20th century, history, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. Even though your view is valid IMO, it will never come to pass.

Thong ban on public beaches.
Why would you want to?

I personally find them offensive. Go to a private beach if you want to be nude.

 

[Seeker2010]

No constitutional issues were raised. I think you are confusing issues here.

Lawrence v. Texas declared that the State has no compelling interest in regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior. Thus laws against sodomy, sex toys, etc are by definition unconstitutional. ‘Swinging’, were it legally defined, would I suppose be described as sexual activity including three or more persons, and under Lawrence, it’s protected behavior. Perhaps the club in question was in violation of liquor control laws, or any number of things, but I assure you, there are (legal) swing clubs in all 50 states, many of them. I know of 6 within 10 miles of my home.

I personally find them offensive. Go to a private beach if you want to be nude.

We can’t have some beaches designated as clothing optional for those who wish to use them?

 

[Rocinante]

most are Democrats. Catholics are pretty liberal.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Lawrence v. Texas declared that the State has no compelling interest in regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior. Thus laws against sodomy, sex toys, etc are by definition unconstitutional. ‘Swinging’, were it legally defined, would I suppose be described as sexual activity including three or more persons, and under Lawrence, it’s protected behavior. Perhaps the club in question was in violation of liquor control laws, or any number of things, but I assure you, there are (legal) swing clubs in all 50 states, many of them. I know of 6 within 10 miles of my home.

Can’t remember but it was raided. I suppose once you invite the general public in, you become a business not a club. Or if you charge a fee. Maybe the clubs you list have no fees? I don’t know where you live, but in New England, I can assure you they are very secret.

We can’t have some beaches designated as clothing optional for those who wish to use them?

Public beaches? No. Private beaches can serve that purpose.

 

[Seeker2010]

Can’t remember but it was raided. I suppose once you invite the general public in, you become a business not a club.

Of course. And many ‘clubs’ make legal mistakes that do get them shutdown, because people like those on this thread feel somehow threatened by their existence and look for excuses to nail them with. But the underlying behavior (consensual multi-person sexual activity) is constitutionally protected under Lawrence.

I don’t know where you live, but in New England, I can assure you they are very secret.

Hah, well not if you know where to look. I just found 18 in Mass alone with just one source, though not sure exactly what you mean by ‘New England’.

Public beaches? No. Private beaches can serve that purpose.

By my observation, private beaches are rare indeed. In fact, I don’t think there’s any in my neck of the woods. I live in NYC, and most beaches are either state or federal property. But I suppose that suits you fine, as you’d just as soon not have any clothing optional beaches at all.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Of course. And many ‘clubs’ make legal mistakes that do get them shutdown, because people like those on this thread feel somehow threatened by their existence and look for excuses to nail them with. But the underlying behavior (consensual multi-person sexual activity) is constitutionally protected under Lawrence.

They set up in in a residential neighborhood. Not too smart.
Fine line with these clubs.

Hah, well not if you know where to look. I just found 18 in Mass alone with just one source, though not sure exactly what you mean by ‘New England’.

I did my own search and have come to the conclusion “quasi-prostitution” not unlike Craigslist (now gone) and other “end arounds”. Sure, their might be “legit” ones, but not what I saw.

By my observation, private beaches are rare indeed. In fact, I don’t think there’s any in my neck of the woods. I live in NYC, and most beaches are either state or federal property. But I suppose that suits you fine, as you’d just as soon not have any clothing optional beaches at all.

I don’t care what people do on private property as far as wearing clothes, as long as it is shielded from the public view.

 

[Seeker2010]

They set up in in a residential neighborhood. Not too smart.

Actually one of my favorite parties is a guy in Long Island who hosts parties at his house 5 or 6 times a year. Of course his closest neighbor is a good quarter of a mile away through pretty thick woods. You could argue that he’s running an unlicensed business, but you could also argue that the ‘customers’ are just sharing the cost of the party, akin to a group of guys each kicking in $20 for beer and chips on poker night. But, yes, many times doing something in a residential area does cause issues.

I did my own search and have come to the conclusion “quasi-prostitution” not unlike Craigslist (now gone) and other “end arounds”. Sure, their might be “legit” ones, but not what I saw.

On what legal theory do you base that? I assure you, there are legit ones, there’s one that we go to in Manhattan that’s been there for over 20 years. (As an interesting side note, and perhaps it speaks to the character of people who go such places, but in those 20 years, and despite the fact that alcohol flows pretty freely, there’s never been so much as a single fight.)

I don’t care what people do on private property as far as wearing clothes, as long as it is shielded from the public view.

There’s a nude beach in northern New Jersey that’s on federal park land. As there is no private beaches in the area, what do you propose? Too bad, so sad, ya’ll lose your beach?

 

[NE_Catholic]

Actually one of my favorite parties is a guy in Long Island who hosts parties at his house 5 or 6 times a year. Of course his closest neighbor is a good quarter of a mile away through pretty thick woods. You could argue that he’s running an unlicensed business, but you could also argue that the ‘customers’ are just sharing the cost of the party, akin to a group of guys each kicking in $20 for beer and chips on poker night. But, yes, many times doing something in a residential area does cause issues.

real rocket scientists in my town. Set up in a neighborhood with 10,000 sq ft. lots.
Don’t kid yourself, the host is making a profit.

On what legal theory do you base that? I assure you, there are legit ones, there’s one that we go to in Manhattan that’s been there for over 20 years. (As an interesting side note, and perhaps it speaks to the character of people who go such places, but in those 20 years, and despite the fact that alcohol flows pretty freely, there’s never been so much as a single fight.)

C’mon. Stop playing niave. Single men can join in for $100-150 on one site. One place franchises. Are you that determined to win an internet arguement? I agreed there are probably “legit” ones, but what i saw, either scams or quasi-prostitution

There’s a nude beach in northern New Jersey that’s on federal park land. As there is no private beaches in the area, what do you propose? Too bad, so sad, ya’ll lose your beach?

The authorities are just looking the other way. We have one of those on the Cape. They should enforce the rules… Just like gays hooking up in public parks.

 

[Seeker2010]

Don’t kid yourself, the host is making a profit.

Agreed, and if push ever came to shove, he’d probably lose, unless he has a business license, and knowing him, he just might.

The authorities are just looking the other way.

No, they’re not. The authorities put up signs that say ‘Beyond this point you may encounter nude bathers.’, and the federal parks police the joint. It’s well known and extremely popular. You can visit it yourself, it’s Gunnison Beach at Sandy Hook National Park.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have the moral courage to say you’re wrong. I face these arguments every time. You just get unhappy and frustrated and then derogatory because you can’t persuasively (in an objective way) demonstrate the actual existence of this thing called “natural law.” I KNOW that you believe it to exist, but its actual existence is a whole other matter. And I full respect those posters above who have stated that “natural law” is based on religious belief. Yes, it sure is. And on a series of broad generalizations about the natural world and human existence.

“Natural Law” is not based on religious belief. Another name for “Natural Law” is “Universal Law” and involves morality, not religion. It’s reflected as the final step in development of morality. It is because of Universal Law that abortion is wrong, that all people have basic rights including the right to life, food to eat, and freedom to develop autonomy (among many more).

Kohlberg, a psychologist, is usually given credit for developing the well-known stages of moral development.

"In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development (bolding added; yes I know this is from Wiki but I like what the site states and I have limited time here)

Those people who are religious may be more apt to reach the stage where they understand Universal Law, but the Law is not based on religion.

Kohlberg did theorize that in a seventh step religion became involved, but he found it very difficult to show this step in any sort of empirical way (he also had problems with stage six) and IMHO that is because so few people actually develop that far, which is a shame.

BTW, are you actually suggesting that only religious people can understand Universal Law? That atheists are too dumb to understand? That something that cannot be proven empirically doesn’t exist? First you say there is no way to demonstrate that what you call “Natural Law” exists. Then you say it is based on religious belief. Well, which is it? If you can’t prove it exists why are you stating what you believe it is based on?

Universal Law (Natural Law, Moral Law) is TRUTH. It does exist, independent of religious belief. "Depending on religious belief " smacks of moral relativism.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, they’re not. The authorities put up signs that say ‘Beyond this point you may encounter nude bathers.’, and the federal parks police the joint. It’s well known and extremely popular. You can visit it yourself, it’s Gunnison Beach at Sandy Hook National Park.

Seeker, you are indeed correct. There is a nude beach near San Diego, CA. I’ve never been there because if I dared to take my clothes off people would head for the hills, screaming and retching.

However, I fully endorse the existence of nude beaches, as long as it is clear that a family with children can’t stumble onto one accidentally. And it’s my impression (though I can’t be absolutely sure) that nude beaches do have signs indicating they are nude beaches.

There aren’t any around where I live but that’s because it’s too darn cold to take off one’s clothes without ending up clothed with goosebumps.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…You are in favor of censorship (e.g. banning adult book stores and porn), you are apparently in favor of banning sex toys (which people won’t be able to buy, anyway, as there would be no more adult book stores in Ed’s world), and while I haven’t seen you say so in so many words, my guess is you would favor making certain sexual ACTS (like say, gay sodomy) literally illegal. As you are no doubt aware, they once were.

Given your rants against contraception, it would not surprise me if you would ban condoms and birth-control pills were you to awake in the morn and find you’d been anointed King.
So it strikes me that if you are willing, wanting even, society to sets it’s laws vis-a-vis sexuality based on your churches teachings, how far would you go? Go to mass or go to jail? Confession or probation? 15 to life for consensual fornication? 25 to life for homosexual fornication. Write a titillating novel, get a visit from the Vice and Purity Police?

Ours is a secular society, for good reason. It is as it should be, and we do not pass laws because your God said so.

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?

Seeker, you do not make points with fake indignation and unrealistic scenario building.

If you think Ed is only one voice here against licentious sex that you espouse, no matter the consequence for the future of society and this country’s children, you are very much mistaken.

As Ed has repeated a number of times, no Catholic, not the CC, is forcing you to live your life according to what and how you are living it now. But here you are, in this Catholic forum, to what end?

. . . . . .

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It works for millions of people. Just because you are not one of them does not mean they do not exist.

In my experience with consensual non-monogamy, most participants utilize multiple forms of birth control. While that cannot provide 100% protection, it is close enough for practical purposes.

An over-reaching generalization. It may be true that taken as a whole women are less sexually adventurous than men, but when looking at individuals that is not always the case. I speak from personal experience.

Your point?

Again, an over generalization. There are millions of Americans who are straight and married and yet are not sexually monogamous.

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.

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.

This is a Catholic board. Surely, you are not surprised that Catholics do not share, in fact, shun your beliefs and worldview.

You have the misimpression that members on this board would be interested in what you share about your lifestyle. If this were the case, your thread on consensual non-monogamy would not be the dud thread that it is.

So what do you do, you inflict the story of your lifestyle on us, in this thread. It is not only unappreciated, but your last several posts are offensive and also OT!

The OP is about the homosexual agenda which promotes, among things, gay marriage. You have expanded the thread to be a discussion of your unapologetic life of consensual non-monogamy / swinging. You may believe that what you have done is not in-your-face to us, as it’s just text on the internet. Well, sir, it is crass and you have no shame in posting in this forum. This is not an information board for swingers.

I hope the moderators catch your offensive and OT postings!

 

[Seeker2010]

As Ed has repeated a number of times, no Catholic, not the CC, is forcing you to live your life according to what and how you are living it now. But here you are, in this Catholic forum, to what end?

As has been made abundantly clear in this thread, Catholic beliefs do not really allow for free societies, much the same way the very freedoms that we have been discussing do not exist in most Muslim countries, and for effectively the same reasons. The list of things Ed endorses criminalizing is bone chilling, and could only be accomplished in a land that is more or less a tyrannical theocracy.

Fortunately, due to constitutional restrictions, those proposals of Ed are DOA, and won’t even be given a debate, but those of us who truly endorse and cherish real freedom understand what side of the fence you guys are on.

The only reason you’re not forcing the rest of us to live your way is because you quite literally lack the power. If you had it, you’d use it. Because when you did, you did.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is a Catholic board. Surely, you are not surprised that Catholics do not share, in fact, shun your beliefs and worldview.

Actually I disagree with the way Seeker lives a part of his life, but I certainly do not shun all his beliefs nor his worldview. And I’m Catholic, through and through.

You have the misimpression that members on this board would be interested in what you share about your lifestyle. If this were the case, your thread on consensual non-monogamy would not be the dud thread that it is.

It is certainly not a dud. Although it is open to all, the thread was instituted at my request so that the thread we were currently on would not be taken off-topic. Unfortunately I have had a terrible week with the painful death of my best friend (yes, a dog who has been by my side for nine years and a dog I loved deeply) and have not been able to post as much as I want to. Seeker, on the other hand, has been posting. Put the blame on me, not on an innocent person. You don’t know the whole story. Making assumptions can be dangerous.

So what do you do, you inflict the story of your lifestyle on us, in this thread. It is not only unappreciated, but your last several posts are offensive and also OT!

I appreciate it!! It is good to learn about what people believe. As a research psychologist I find Seeker’s posts intriguing, well-written, and quite interesting. OT? Old Testament? Off-topic? Perhaps.

The OP is about the homosexual agenda which promotes, among things, gay marriage. You have expanded the thread to be a discussion of your unapologetic life of consensual non-monogamy / swinging. You may believe that what you have done is not in-your-face to us, as it’s just text on the internet. Well, sir, it is crass and you have no shame in posting in this forum. This is not an information board for swingers.

I hope the moderators catch your offensive and OT postings!

Seeker’s posts are some of the least offensive posts I have ever read on CAF. And I would like to point out that everyone is welcome here, not just Catholics or those who bow down to a Catholic viewpoint. Actually I consider Seeker to be a friend. We are taught to love everyone, not just those who share our beliefs. And I share some of Seeker’s beliefs.

Just one more thing: Let he who is without fault cast the first stone.

 

[NE_Catholic]

As has been made abundantly clear in this thread, Catholic beliefs do not really allow for free societies, much the same way the very freedoms that we have been discussing do not exist in most Muslim countries, and for effectively the same reasons. The list of things Ed endorses criminalizing is bone chilling, and could only be accomplished in a land that is more or less a tyrannical theocracy.

Fortunately, due to constitutional restrictions, those proposals of Ed are DOA, and won’t even be given a debate, but those of us who truly endorse and cherish real freedom understand what side of the fence you guys are on.

The only reason you’re not forcing the rest of us to live your way is because you quite literally lack the power. If you had it, you’d use it. Because when you did, you did.

I differ. We would still be free, but there would be no public perversions in your face.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, Seeker’s posts are off-topic. As are the posts of almost everyone in this thread. After scanning the posts I see that this thread veered off-topic quite awhile go (as far as threads go).

But in the defense of all the posters here (or at least most of them), if someone writes a post I disagree with I am going to respond. That is human nature. Not responding makes it appear as though one has conceded. I’ve been in this situation many times and I refuse to concede without good cause (and yes, I have conceded in the past).

I want to say that I have been attacked by Catholics on several threads, told I am immoral and leading men to sin by showing my knees (which are not pretty and make horrible cracking noises when I climb stairs - I even made a physician cringe when she heard the noises coming from my knees). It has even been strongly implied that I can lead a priest to sin if I don’t cover myself up with the equivalent of a burqa during Confession. I’ve been told I must cover my knees and elbows and most of my neck (I never got that neck part straight). Towards the end of that particular thread a male poster, who happened to be Catholic, came on board and said he feared the people who were attacking me more than the Taliban. I agree with him.

Seeker is near one end of a wide spectrum. I disagree with his swinging and have told him so. I am at the other end of the spectrum as I have offered my celibacy to God as a prayer and sacrifice.

When I told Seeker about my celibacy he didn’t laugh at me. He didn’t tell me I was stupid. He appeared to understand and to accept my way of life as important and holy to me.

I like Seeker and I like most of the posters who are disagreeing with him. Why don’t we try to learn what we can from each other and show God’s love to those with whom we disagree?

May God bring us all peace and joy.