Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Peter_Plato]

@Bradski

So your argument, as far as I can tell, boils down to…

Children should be allowed to have whatever candy they want.
Anyone who denies the right of children to have all the candy they want is a childhater and a candyphobe.
Charles denies the right of children to all the candy they want.
Therefore, Charles is a childhater and a candyphobe.

That Charles only allows appropriate nutritional guidelines to be followed in his home means that he does not allow the unrestricted eating of candy in his home.

Ergo, by following appropriate nutritional guidelines, and not allowing unrestricted eating of candy to occur in his home, Charles is a denier of the right of children have to all the candy they want.

Therefore, again, Charles is a childhater and candyphobe.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Behind me? They’re all the people who think that your secular arguments are risible and your religious ones are irrelevant. I’m handing out popcorn whilst we wait for more incisive comments from Charles.

Sure, the candy lovers are well-represented and, admittedly, your free popcorn is a great gimmick.

Say… don’t those faces look familiar to me? Aren’t they the ones doling out cash on CyberMonday and elbowing each other in the jaw on Boxing Day?

So, it’s bread, circuses and popcorn, now?

No need for lions when you have that snarling mob of popcorn eaters behind you, I guess.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I prefer to call it pointing out bigotry.

Of course, that would be what you PREFER to call it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m handing out popcorn whilst we wait for more incisive comments from Charles.

This is not an incisive comment from me but rather from someone else.

Yet I’ll adopt it as my own.

“The fool says in his heart, ’ There is no God.’ Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is good.” Psalms 14:1

 

[ricmat]

Why does there need to be exactly?
Just because that would make determining what is moral easier doesn’t make it true.

And technically I originally said that morality comes from sentience as many other animals display signs of empathy and compassion same as humans.

Humans / sentience are also responsible for a host of many immoral things. Why would you trust a species which has such a lousy track record on morals with determining what is right and wrong?

And do you think that a trial in court should be reduced to one sentient being’s opinion versus another sentient being’s opinion? We have a set of laws outside the arena of opinion so that an independent judgement can be made.

BTW - the difference between animal “empathy” and human empathy is that animals cannot choose to go against their nature. They don’t think “should I be empathetic or not?” God gave humans the capability to choose to do things contrary to our nature as a test. Animals cannot choose, therefore they cannot even take the test, therefore they can’t go to Heaven. God has put good and evil in front of us, and let’s us choose our destiny. We all need to choose wisely, and not just in the arena of Gay Parades (and related issues).

 

[Bradski]

So your argument, as far as I can tell, boils down to…

There’s no need to hind behind analogies and euphemisms. We have posters here, Catholics, who say that children should be kept away from people who are gay. There are posts that associate gay people with paedophiles. Scroll back a page or two and we have them described as perverts.

You’re in a bar with your niece or a friend or a work colleague. Either one will do. And you know that they are gay. Some guy rolls up and says – hey, get that perverted kiddy fiddler out of here and away from my kids. What do you say to your niece/friend/colleague? ‘Look, it’s OK, you just have to understand that he’s Catholic’.

You wouldn’t put up with it at all. Not in any circumstances. And where I come from, punches would be thrown. How come you turn a blind eye to what’s written here? Or do you agree with it all but rather have someone else do the dirty work?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s no need to hind behind analogies and euphemisms. We have posters here, Catholics, who say that children should be kept away from people who are gay. There are posts that associate gay people with paedophiles. Scroll back a page or two and we have them described as perverts.

When I was young I knew a single woman with two sons who lived next door to a male pedophile. She learned he was same, and moved as fast as she could to Florida. Too late, apparently. One son got AIDS and died at the age of 30. The other committed suicide.

To you that seems to be screamingly improbable, and anybody who fears the same fate for their own child, or warns others to look out for their own children, must be a bigoted sexual terrorist.

Well, we all know who the real sexual terrorists are. They are everywhere, including among the priests of the Catholic Church if you have been aware of the news over the last twenty years.

So get yourself good and warm and cuddly with your gay and pedophile friends, but don’t you dare say that it goes without saying everyone’s child is safe in their presence and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

Come to think of it, why are you not the bigot for screaming anti-Christian propaganda and name calling in this forum?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s no need to hind behind analogies and euphemisms. We have posters here, Catholics, who say that children should be kept away from people who are gay. There are posts that associate gay people with paedophiles. Scroll back a page or two and we have them described as perverts.

There are unstated and, perhaps, deliberately hidden assumptions in your points.

You say, “We have posters here, Catholics, who say that children should be kept away from people who are gay…”

What you leave out is the qualifier: “…when those gay individuals espouse - either by their words or actions - a gay lifestyle, promote gay sex as licit or proclaim gay marriage to be equivalent to a conjugal one.”

By leaving that premise unstated you equivocate on the word “people,” as if the condition of “gayness” is, by definition merely an aspect of being a person.

“Those Catholics” would very likely have no issues with the person acting as a person provided they did not make being “gay” or being “accepted as gay” the issue that they do. It is the aversion to having a contentious moral position foisted or imposed upon them by intentional censure of their own moral position that “those” Catholics appear to have issue.

 

[Winterwolf00]

See Genetic Fallacy or Fallacy of Irrelevance

Neither of which apply.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Humans / sentience are also responsible for a host of many immoral things. Why would you trust a species which has such a lousy track record on morals with determining what is right and wrong?

And do you think that a trial in court should be reduced to one sentient being’s opinion versus another sentient being’s opinion? We have a set of laws outside the arena of opinion so that an independent judgement can be made.

BTW - the difference between animal “empathy” and human empathy is that animals cannot choose to go against their nature. They don’t think “should I be empathetic or not?” God gave humans the capability to choose to do things contrary to our nature as a test. Animals cannot choose, therefore they cannot even take the test, therefore they can’t go to Heaven. God has put good and evil in front of us, and let’s us choose our destiny. We all need to choose wisely, and not just in the arena of Gay Parades (and related issues).

Humans / sentience are also responsible for a host of many immoral things. Why would you trust a species which has such a lousy track record on morals with determining what is right and wrong?

Correct and I’ll never claim otherwise.

Why would you trust a species which has such a lousy track record on morals with determining what is right and wrong?

I guess you could call it lousy if you were to ignore all the progress that has been made, there’s also the matter of there not being another provable source of morality to work with.
So wanting something better doesn’t mean it exists.

And do you think that a trial in court should be reduced to one sentient being’s opinion versus another sentient being’s opinion?

Of course I don’t, and thankfully humans have come up with a court system that removes personal bias from the equation as much as possible and puts a higher emphasis on objective evidence.

We have a set of laws outside the arena of opinion so that an independent judgement can be made.

Those same laws that were concieved and created by the same humans you so distrust.

BTW - the difference between animal “empathy” and human empathy is that animals cannot choose to go against their nature.

What does that even mean? I’ve heard the phrase ‘human nature’ used in so many different ways that the entire concept has become meaningless.

They don’t think “should I be empathetic or not?”

Neither do humans, thoughts and feelings are rarely a choice.

God gave humans the capability to choose to do things contrary to our nature as a test.

[Citation Needed]

Animals cannot choose, therefore they cannot even take the test, therefore they can’t go to Heaven.

False, animals have displayed moral behavior on multiple occasions even when doing so may or has led to their own injury or death.

God has put good and evil in front of us, and let’s us choose our destiny.

God or not I choose the side of compassion and reason against fear and superstition.

 

[SMGS127]

When I was young I knew a single woman with two sons who lived next door to a male pedophile. She learned he was same, and moved as fast as she could to Florida. Too late, apparently. One son got AIDS and died at the age of 30. The other committed suicide.

To you that seems to be screamingly improbable, and anybody who fears the same fate for their own child, or warns others to look out for their own children, must be a bigoted sexual terrorist.

Well, we all know who the real sexual terrorists are. They are everywhere, including among the priests of the Catholic Church if you have been aware of the news over the last twenty years.

So get yourself good and warm and cuddly with your gay and pedophile friends, but don’t you dare say that it goes without saying everyone’s child is safe in their presence and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

Come to think of it, why are you not the bigot for screaming anti-Christian propaganda and name calling in this forum?

Just because someone’s a pedophile doesn’t mean they’re gay .

It’s insanely frustrating dealing with ultra-conservative radicals in the Church. They run around screaming that “gay = pedophile!” No evidence exists showing any such link though. And then they bring up anecdotal cases of child molesters whose sexual orientation they are completely unaware of. In other words, their argument hinges on a completely unfounded belief that “child molester” = “gay,” and thus any evidence of a child molester is evidence of a gay predator. Completely ridiculous.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Just because someone’s a pedophile doesn’t mean they’re gay .

It’s insanely frustrating dealing with ultra-conservative radicals in the Church. They run around screaming that “gay = pedophile!” No evidence exists showing any such link though. And then they bring up anecdotal cases of child molesters whose sexual orientation they are completely unaware of. In other words, their argument hinges on a completely unfounded belief that “child molester” = “gay,” and thus any evidence of a child molester is evidence of a gay predator. Completely ridiculous.

Thank you! Some sense at last.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Neither of which apply.

Right. I forgot.

When rules, whether of logic or morality, don’t support your position, declare them inapplicable.

The laws of logic also are of “human” origin, right?

Ergo, YOU as “human” can generate new laws of logic, at will.

I see.

Relativism declares itself regnant at the same instant that it claims it isn’t.

We’ll just ignore that such a position is incoherent and, therefore, inconsistent with existing laws of logic, i.e., non-contradiction.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Right. I forgot.

When rules, whether of logic or morality, don’t support your position, declare them inapplicable.

The laws of logic also are of “human” origin, right?

Ergo, YOU as “human” can generate new laws of logic, at will.

I see.

Relativism declares itself regnant at the same instant that it claims it isn’t.

We’ll just ignore that such a position is incoherent and, therefore, inconsistent with existing laws of logic, i.e., non-contradiction.

No you just didn’t know what you are talking about.
At this point I don’t even think you are CAPABLE of actually understanding my position, much less addressing it honestly.
Sad.

 

[Thorolfr]

So get yourself good and warm and cuddly with your gay and pedophile friends, but don’t you dare say that it goes without saying everyone’s child is safe in their presence and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

Most pedophiles are not gay:

An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that’s not the case.

For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.

A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.

“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children,” wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.

livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

there’s also the matter of there not being another provable source of morality to work with.

Leaving aside, of course, that your “source of morality” is just as unprovable by those standards according to which you dismiss the “other” sources of morality.

Care to explain the inconsistency?

Not that I have much hope you even recognize it.

The way I understand it, you are acclaiming your morality by default since no other source can be proved by the arbitrary criteria you apply to those “other sources.” Curiously, you do not apply the same arbitrary criteria to your source, which wins, not because it was left standing after demonstrating it could stand up to scrutiny, but merely because you confer the crown upon it.

Sure, the game is easy when you get to make up the rules about the rules.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Leaving aside, of course, that your “source of morality” is just as unprovable by those standards according to which you dismiss the “other” sources of morality.

Care to explain the inconsistency?

Not that I have much hope you even recognize it.

The way I understand it, you are acclaiming your morality by default since no other source can be proved by the arbitrary criteria you apply to those “other sources.” Curiously, you do not apply the same arbitrary criteria to your source, which wins, not because it was left standing after demonstrating it could stand up to scrutiny, but merely because you confer the crown upon it.

Sure, the game is easy when you get to make up the rules about the rules.

just as unprovable by those standards according to which you dismiss the “other” sources of morality.

You think there needs to be a source for the existence of humanity?
I would suggest you actually do some research into this topic.

huffingtonpost.com/kidspirit/where-does-morality-come-from_b_1982110.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Just because someone’s a pedophile doesn’t mean they’re gay .

It’s insanely frustrating dealing with ultra-conservative radicals in the Church. They run around screaming that “gay = pedophile!” No evidence exists showing any such link though. And then they bring up anecdotal cases of child molesters whose sexual orientation they are completely unaware of. In other words, their argument hinges on a completely unfounded belief that “child molester” = “gay,” and thus any evidence of a child molester is evidence of a gay predator. Completely ridiculous.

The notion that pedodphiles cannot be same-sex pedophiles is off-the-wall ridiculous.

The victims of same-sex pedophile priests have collected billions of dollars proving adult priests “love” little boys.

Shame on your silly-putty logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You think there needs to be a source for the existence of humanity?
I would suggest you actually do some research into this topic.

huffingtonpost.com/kidspirit/where-does-morality-come-from_b_1982110.html

So, let me get this straight…

You want me to do actual “research” into morality using HuffPo?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17308

 

[jmcrae]

Just because someone’s a pedophile doesn’t mean they’re gay .

In this case, he was, since he went after little boys rather than little girls.