The Homosexual Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter InSearchofGrace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dangerous? Scary? I think not. I think it’s entirely about people coming here to lecture Catholics on their version of right and wrong while hiding under the ‘live and let live’ delusion. People have a right to privacy, OK?

However, there are reasons certain types of establishments are not allowed near schools.

Lengthy posts and verbally stamping your feet here might be enjoyable for some, but that’s all it boils down to. In the meantime, there’s a bit of the air of a conspiracy. “You… you people are plotting and planning to take away my rights.” Where? The Church speaks openly. If you want to listen, fine, if not, fine.

Just saying, You… you can’t do that, is not much of an argument, and I’ll take Church teaching over post-post-post modern living any day. Catholics are in the world but not of the world. That does not mean we want to kick everybody else off.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
People have a right to privacy, OK?
Click to expand...
This statement is completely incompatible with the list of things that you would see banned. If you believe people have a right to privacy, then strip joints and swing clubs have the right to peacefully exist. If you have the right to ban them, then you’re violating their right to privacy, for consensual acts done in private are exactly that.

As I said to another poster earlier today, the only thing on your list that could even arguably apply to public behavior is wearing thongs on the beach.

Which is too ridiculous to even discuss.
 
Seeker2010 said:
This statement is completely incompatible with the list of things that you would see banned. If you believe people have a right to privacy, then strip joints and swing clubs have the right to peacefully exist. If you have the right to ban them, then you’re violating their right to privacy, for consensual acts done in private are exactly that.

As I said to another poster earlier today, the only thing on your list that could even arguably apply to public behavior is wearing thongs on the beach.

Which is too ridiculous to even discuss.
Click to expand...
The judges gave the quantity of your rants a 10, however, quality was a bit lower.

Regards,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The judges gave the quantity of your rants a 10, however, quality was a bit lower.
Click to expand...
And I would say the the quality of your rebuttals reflects the quality of your position. Which is to say, 0.
 
Oh, but I did. And no one else felt the need to chime in in case I didn’t.

Simple question: Why was same sex marriage on the ballot?

Had it not been, homosexuals would still be doing whatever they wanted and not involved me.

And let me blunt - the same States that are bad for not giving homosexuals their rights, are suddenly good if they use their power to force little kids to be instructed in homosexual sex acts. So, it never had a thing to do with privacy.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Simple question: Why was same sex marriage on the ballot?
Click to expand...
No idea. Don’t know what state you’re talking about, nor the circumstances that led it to being on the ballot.

Presuming you voted no (you did vote no, right), why? Again, how are you personally harmed if gays are allowed to wed? Why do you care?
 
No idea? No idea? OK.

Why did proponents of gay marriage want my OK? The people have voted this down, twice in California. Since LGBT supporters had already spent a lot of money on billboards and other forms of advertising and still lost, I guess it was easier to go to a handful of people in power and convince them.

As you appear to have blithely ignored my links, I’d just like to point out that I’m not the only dangerous and scary person out there.

Oh, and one more thing about power. I sincerely like President Obama. I think he is an intelligent man but woefully misguided on a few issues. Right now, he is like a fish with two hooks in his mouth. One belonging to the Gay Lobby and one to the Military. So, as he splashes about in the water, we’re told Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over, then it’s not, then it’s over again, then it’s not. I don’t want to live in a country where instead of the voters deciding (you know, like voting for a President), a powerful, and heavily financially backed (not counting Lady Gaga) Lobby decides it knows what’s better for this country.

The tyranny of the minority.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The judges gave the quantity of your rants a 10, however, quality was a bit lower.

Regards,
Ed
Click to expand...
That is rude and completely inappropriate, although I would expect such a comment from a person who openly boasts about being a prude yet seems to know all about the “inappropriate” content on TV shows (not one of which I have ever seen) and the “immoral” clothes being worn by women (Note: ONLY women) on beaches.
 
buffalo said:
Yup - It is a waste of my time. Pretty much seen all this stuff that is being peddled.
Click to expand...
Duly noted. Someone has an issue with the text that is the foundation of your religion, and your response is to simply ignore it.

Nice.
 
edwest2 said:
No idea? No idea? OK.

Why did proponents of gay marriage want my OK? The people have voted this down, twice in California. Since LGBT supporters had already spent a lot of money on billboards and other forms of advertising and still lost, I guess it was easier to go to a handful of people in power and convince them.

As you appear to have blithely ignored my links, I’d just like to point out that I’m not the only dangerous and scary person out there.

Oh, and one more thing about power. I sincerely like President Obama. I think he is an intelligent man but woefully misguided on a few issues. Right now, he is like a fish with two hooks in his mouth. One belonging to the Gay Lobby and one to the Military. So, as he splashes about in the water, we’re told Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over, then it’s not, then it’s over again, then it’s not. I don’t want to live in a country where instead of the voters deciding (you know, like voting for a President), a powerful, and heavily financially backed (not counting Lady Gaga) Lobby decides it knows what’s better for this country.

The tyranny of the minority.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Well uh, gee Ed, if you would take the five seconds it takes to actually quote someone you are responding to, maybe your posts would make more sense. You seem to think this is a conversation you are carrying on and we are all aware of your great importance so it isn’t necessary for you to do what the rest of us do - quote the post to which you are responding.

Not everyone is waiting here just for the second your posts appear, knowing exactly whom they refer to.

Your inability or unwillingness to follow forum decorum shows how little you think of your fellow posters and frankly I am tired of it.

And you missed the third hook in Obama’s mouth - the one securely attached to those who believe that abortion, including late-term abortions and PBAs should be the right of every American. Abortion is an issue far more important than gay marriage or the military.
 
Seeker2010 said:
No idea. Don’t know what state you’re talking about, nor the circumstances that led it to being on the ballot.

Presuming you voted no (you did vote no, right), why? Again, how are you personally harmed if gays are allowed to wed? Why do you care?
Click to expand...
Why Seeker, I am surprised at you! Surely you know exactly what Ed means. His posts are so clear to everyone else. Why not to you? 🤷
 
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...
OK, let’s give you an example. This is the most widely used scenario to show if someone understands Universal Law. There is a pharmacist who has developed a cure for a horrible disease. It works well and it’s remarkably inexpensive to produce. There is a man who lives in the town where the pharmacist works. The man’s wife is horribly ill with the disease that the medication would cure. In fact, she is dying from this disease. But there is a problem. The pharmacist insists that an exorbitant amount of money be paid for the medication. Sure, he should make a profit, but he’s asking way more than that man could ever come up with. The man pleads with the pharmacist. He offers to set up a payment plan. He offers to work off what he would owe. He begs and pleads. But the greedy pharmacist simply says “no.”

The man steals the medication and gives it to his wife, who is cured.

Is what the man did moral? Should he be arrested for theft or burglary and put in jail?
 
LittleSoldier said:
That is rude and completely inappropriate, although I would expect such a comment from a person who openly boasts about being a prude yet seems to know all about the “inappropriate” content on TV shows (not one of which I have ever seen) and the “immoral” clothes being worn by women (Note: ONLY women) on beaches.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but speak for yourself, LittleSoldier. You do not speak for other Catholic posters here.

I don’t believe Ed’s post is rude and completely inappropriate.

You hopped on this thread today, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have not really followed the line of argument through the 36 pages.

If you notice, the thread fortunately got back on track, thanks to Ed’s effort and Seeker’s cooperation. They’re big boys, so let’s hold back on unhelpful interjections, okay?

Thank you!

. . . . . .
 
edwest2 said:
No idea? No idea? OK.

Why did proponents of gay marriage want my OK? The people have voted this down, twice in California. Since LGBT supporters had already spent a lot of money on billboards and other forms of advertising and still lost, I guess it was easier to go to a handful of people in power and convince them.

As you appear to have blithely ignored my links, I’d just like to point out that I’m not the only dangerous and scary person out there.

Oh, and one more thing about power. I sincerely like President Obama. I think he is an intelligent man but woefully misguided on a few issues. Right now, he is like a fish with two hooks in his mouth. One belonging to the Gay Lobby and one to the Military. So, as he splashes about in the water, we’re told Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over, then it’s not, then it’s over again, then it’s not. I don’t want to live in a country where instead of the voters deciding (you know, like voting for a President), a powerful, and heavily financially backed (not counting Lady Gaga) Lobby decides it knows what’s better for this country.

The tyranny of the minority.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top