The Homosexual Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter InSearchofGrace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NE_Catholic said:
I differ. We would still be free, but there would be no public perversions in your face.
Click to expand...
Of the proposed bans Ed listed, only one (wearing thongs at the beach) is even remotely public or in your face. Each of the others you have to actively SEEK in order to find. No pun intended.
 
the point of seeker’s talk about swinging as i recall was to refute the notion that homosexuals being allowed to marry represents a danger to heterosexual marriage because homosexuals practice non-monogamous sex acts that heterosexuals don’t do. the point has been well-made that heterosexuals also do everything that homosexuals are accused of doing (anal and oral sex, group sex, consensual infidelity, etc), so objections to gay marriage at least on those grounds fail. they constitute a separate issue of concern that applies equally to gays and straits.

rocinante
 
@Rocinante, you are absolutely correct. It is true that the subject has drifted since I made that point, but that what internet threads do. They drift.

@Soldier, thanks for the kind words.
 
Seeker2010 said:
@Rocinante, you are absolutely correct. It is true that the subject has drifted since I made that point, but that what internet threads do. They drift.

@Soldier, thanks for the kind words.
Click to expand...
You are very welcome. My pleasure. 🙂
 
Seeker2010 said:
Of the proposed bans Ed listed, only one (wearing thongs at the beach) is even remotely public or in your face. Each of the others you have to actively SEEK in order to find. No pun intended.
Click to expand...
Never been to P-Town? :rolleyes:
 
Julian0404 said:
The question is rhetorical as you imply the answer in the question. Yes, you recognize that Catholics do not hate the sinner, but the sin. You just did not complete the inquiry by including “the sin” part.
Therefore, the answer to your question is clearly the Catholic layperson can not support any of the organization you list, as they advocate for “the sin”.

No, same sex marriage will not become the law of the land. It has been voted down by the populace everywhere some liberal judge has initiated it.
Click to expand...
I think you are right about this, even Californians overwhelmingly voted against same-sex marriage, and I’ve always been under the impression that California is a giant hippie commune lol.
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
What about Ogunquit?
Click to expand...
Ah, Ogunquit. Not “in your face” but you are made to feel “not welcome” there in certain establishments, particularly if you bring your wife and daughter. The off season is the best time to go, October through May. 👍
 
Seeker2010 said:
Never heard of it. Why was it ruined, and how is that even tangentially relevant to this discussion?
Click to expand...
Public, extreme, displays of homosexual affection and it has become the mecca for the gay community in new england with Ogunquit a close second.

When my cousin addressed a gay couple making out and groping in public (A line at an amusement park) they told her to f*** off and started “under the clothes” action in front of her children. Her comment was “You dont see my husband and me doing that so please dont do it. There are children around.”
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
Public, extreme, displays of homosexual affection and it has become the mecca for the gay community in new england with Ogunquit a close second.

When my cousin addressed a gay couple making out and groping in public (A line at an amusement park) they told her to f*** off and started “under the clothes” action in front of her children. Her comment was “You dont see my husband and me doing that so please dont do it. There are children around.”
Click to expand...
:eek:

My wife WILL never go back now that we have a daughter. It’s like walking through Sodom & Gomorah.

Ogunquit isn’t that bad, Northampton on the other hand…
 
LittleSoldier said:
“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.
Click to expand...
I don’t see Natural Law or Universal Law in the passage you quote above. It refers to “universal ethical principles” (without example or defense) and refers to ethics “categorically in an absolute way” (and this needs explication and defense, too). I admit to NEARLY universal ethics (a few of them). But I treat this empirically, from cultural studies, not from religion or some form of “reason”–that I always, when given examples, find incomplete and unpersuasive.
 
larkin31 said:
I don’t see Natural Law or Universal Law in the passage you quote above. It refers to “universal ethical principles” (without example or defense) and refers to ethics “categorically in an absolute way” (and this needs explication and defense, too). I admit to NEARLY universal ethics (a few of them). But I treat this empirically, from cultural studies, not from religion or some form of “reason”–that I always, when given examples, find incomplete and unpersuasive.
Click to expand...
I would have thought, Larkin 31, that after the debacle of your last attempt at denying Natural Law, you’d run away and spend a goodly amount of time studying up on the issue. You still haven’t explained away the rediculous assertion you made about there being no objective laws and then ‘discovering’ gravity as an objective, universal law. But then we know you need to denigrate and deny the existence of Natural Law so you can still mount some sort of argument in favour of the homosexual agenda, regardless of how illogical you become. God knows how many times people have posted here informing you of just how ethical laws are arrived at, yet you still persist in saying reason plays no persuasive part. You seem to also have forgotten that a few posts back, you even denied that there was empirical evidence. You need to untangle yourself.
 
InSearchofGrace said:
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? **

. . . . . .
Click to expand...
He’s here attempting to affirm in his own mind that which he knows to be a reckless and selfish moral vaccuity. He is a deeply insecure person and his attempts at the ‘in your face’ desriptions of his lifestyle are meant to shock the sensibilities of others. He even admitted to not caring as such. If he doesn’t care, then why all the effort at defending himself? In the process he is promoting an anarchical, hedonistic view of life which is totally at odds with what a civilised society is.
 
John21652 said:
In the process he is promoting an anarchical, hedonistic view of life which is totally at odds with what a civilised society is.
Click to expand...
Since you are apparently not pulling punches, I won’t either.

I’m here because people like you scare me. Because I am sick and tired of the so-called ‘Religious Right’ trying to shove their version of God down the throats of the rest of us. While many, maybe even a majority of Catholics are perfectly willing to live and let live, there are those more militant types, like Ed, and you, that not only would like to, but would actively try, and that makes you dangerous.

Do me a favor, though, and kindly don’t put words in my mouth. If I say something, so be it, I’m a big boy and I’ll live with that. The motivation you have ascribed to me could not possibly be farther from the truth.
 
Seeker2010 said:
Since you are apparently not pulling punches, I won’t either.

I’m here because people like you scare me. Because I am sick and tired of the so-called ‘Religious Right’ trying to shove their version of God down the throats of the rest of us. While many, maybe even a majority of Catholics are perfectly willing to live and let live, there are those more militant types, like Ed, and you, that not only would like to, but would actively try, and that makes you dangerous.

Do me a favor, though, and kindly don’t put words in my mouth. If I say something, so be it, I’m a big boy and I’ll live with that. The motivation you have ascribed to me could not possibly be farther from the truth.
Click to expand...
News Break!!! Defenders of truth are dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top