Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Meanwhile, back to the topic. Where is the pride in being gay? Honest question.

Ed

Where is the pride in being Irish or black?

 

[ricmat]

If I had told him the bridge was down and he told me not to worry as he could manage quite well then I’d wish him a safe trip. I don’t know how things work where you come from, but if I were to ‘grab him gently and try to hold him back’ and insist that I knew what was good for him, then I’d better be prepared to lose a few teeth.

I’m pretty much a coward, and a few lost teeth would probably make me let go. I’m still working on that.

If you read the stories of the saints, a huge number of them told the truth and ended up being killed in the most awful gruesome ways you could imagine because they refused to “let go of the issue” The only Apostle to die a natural death was John, and he died in exile on a remote island. And then there’s Jesus, the Truth incarnate, who came to bring “division”, to make people choose between good and evil. Jesus and all those saints died willingly so that you and I could live.

And I’m barely at the “lose a few teeth stage.” I have a long way to go.

 

[Bradski]

And I’m barely at the “lose a few teeth stage.” I have a long way to go.

No, you don’t have any further to go. You tell the guy you don’t think it’s safe and if he says thanks, but he’s going to be fine, then that’s your job done. You need do no more and most people would prefer that you didn’t in any case.

The analogy with the dark road and the bridge being down can be taken further. Far from a lot of Christians simply giving the warning, they want to block the road. They don’t want you to get to the river. They don’t want you even travelling in that direction. They don’t want people to know how to get there.

Most people who are on that road would likely thank you for your concern but politely, and firmly, ask you to step aside.

 

[inocente]

You are oh so transparent at changing the subject. I’ll ask again.

Are you and Baptists generally O.K. with sodomy? If so, how do you deal with St. Paul’s quotes given earlier in Romans and Corinthians?

Are you O.K. with the sodomites who get AIDS and pass it on to other sodomites?

Are you O.K. wkith rectal tearing?

Would you agree that it’s against common sense to engage in anal sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual?

If you don’t agree, why? What benefit is obtained from anal sex?

I certainly did not change the subject. You asked for my views on sodomy, and I gave them.

I see you want to limit the definition of sodomy to exclude oral sex, and you want to pretend that no one in the 96% heterosexual majority ever has anal sex but all 2% gay men always engage in anal sex.

That’s irrational, but in any case it’s off-topic. The OP isn’t about sex acts or about reducing human beings to whichever machine parts you think ought to fit together.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Not to be pedantic, but it wasn’t a computer as such. …/

Thanks for the clarification. It’s been over 50 years and memories fade.

Have you read “Rosum’s Universal Robots”?

 

[inocente]

Just because a person believes that Gay Marriage should be legalized doesn’t mean that person thinks that the marriages are valid.

One can support Gay Marriage because of belief in civil liberties and freedom of expression. I voted for gay marriage because of my libertarian leanings. Do I think a homosexual union is on par with a hetero one? Not really.But I do support the fact that our nation allows for varying beliefs.

That sounds good to me. Here in Spain most people declare themselves to be Catholic, and a majority approved legalizing LGBT marriage nine and a half years ago. I agree with you that we don’t need to believe it is absolutely the same, the important thing is the principle that all tax-paying law-abiding citizens have a right to be treated equally by the State. As our prime minister at the time said:

*"There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.

Aware that some people and institutions * profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs."**

 

[inocente]

Having an informed conscience, open to the word of God is essential. Some people have disabled their consciences so far that they can no longer hear God, and no longer listen to their consciences.

Do you really think that a majority vote overrides God’s commands?

First rule of morality - never obey anyone who tells you to follow their orders and ignore your God-given conscience.

If God isn’t dead then the word of God is alive. I think morality has changed down through the centuries, just as it varies between cultures today. This issue is no different.

 

[signit]

Meanwhile, back to the topic. Where is the pride in being gay? Honest question.

Ed

From the recent thread about the gay CEO:

signit:

I don’t agree that someone should be “proud to be gay.”

But he mentions later in the article that he had to overcome discrimination. I can see why he might be proud of that.

I’m not proud of the fact that I came from a relatively low-income, low-class family background. But I feel good about the fact that someone who had little help in life could accomplish what I did.

Where is the pride in being Irish or black?

Similar.

I can see someone of Irish descent going to an Irish parade celebrating the accomplishments of Irish-Americans and the fact that some of them had to overcome adversity. In generations past a lot of Irish-Americans (and Catholics) were servants for the well-to-do, and a lot of them had to take whatever jobs were offered to them.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… As our prime minister at the time said:
…

And you believe someone whose only talent is that he has the ability to get people to vote for him? He has nothing to back up his claim. However, we have something to back up ours:
Reynolds v. United States was the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws. It was a landmark decision. It defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. … For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.
“Polygamy Versus Democracy: You can’t have both.”
by Stanley Kurtz
Likewise, same-sex “marriage” will lead to divergent governing principles of which we are just beginning to encounter.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not exactly sure what you want. Post after post seems to be nothing more than you telling us how much you dislike the idea of anal sex. Would you like it made illegal? Along with all other sexual acts that you think might cause harm and/or you find distasteful?

How about you put your cards on the table, stop complaining about how bad you think things are and tell us exactly how you think it can be made better. What exactly do you propose?

That people voluntarily stop engaging in anal sex, both for the public safety and for the sake of their immortal souls. Also that they stop marching for anal sex as if that were something to brag about. Is that such an irrational request in your book?

Come on, put **your **cards on the table. Do you think anal sex is something to celebrate?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That sounds good to me. Here in Spain most people declare themselves to be Catholic, and a majority approved legalizing LGBT marriage nine and a half years ago.

You do this in almost every post. You insist that what most Catholics believe trumps what the Catholic Church teaches.

Please get off that mantra. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy, with Christ the King at its head. Take your democratic Protestant churches and let them vote all they like on the teachings of Christ. They have divided Christianity into a thousand competing sects instead of following the principle taught by Christ of one flock and one shepherd.

 

[ricmat]

First rule of morality - never obey anyone who tells you to follow their orders and ignore your God-given conscience.

Some people have purposely disabled their God-given conscience.

If God isn’t dead then the word of God is alive. I think morality has changed down through the centuries, just as it varies between cultures today. This issue is no different.

Has the word of God regarding morality changed down through the centuries?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The OP isn’t about sex acts or about reducing human beings to whichever machine parts you think ought to fit together.

What do you have against machine parts fitting together?

Do you think it’s rational and pleasing to force machine parts that don’t fit into each other?

One thing is rather likely: the vast majority of heterosexual humankind do not think it rational, pleasing, or sane to to force a penis up an anus.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Some people have purposely disabled their God-given conscience.

Has the word of God regarding morality changed down through the centuries?

Excellent! The idea that it has is really relativism.

 

[inocente]

And you believe someone whose only talent is that he has the ability to get people to vote for him? He has nothing to back up his claim. However, we have something to back up ours:
Reynolds v. United States was the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws. It was a landmark decision. It defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. … For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.
“Polygamy Versus Democracy: You can’t have both.”
by Stanley Kurtz
Likewise, same-sex “marriage” will lead to divergent governing principles of which we are just beginning to encounter.

What claim? Who are “we”? Who said anything about polygamy?

 

[inocente]

You do this in almost every post. You insist that what most Catholics believe trumps what the Catholic Church teaches.

Please get off that mantra. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy, with Christ the King at its head. Take your democratic Protestant churches and let them vote all they like on the teachings of Christ. They have divided Christianity into a thousand competing sects instead of following the principle taught by Christ of one flock and one shepherd.

Que? I never made any claims, I stated a couple of facts. I said (you even quoted me) “Here in Spain most people declare themselves to be Catholic, and a majority approved legalizing LGBT marriage nine and a half years ago.”

I take it that’s inconvenient for you.

Oh! Oh! Did I point out that opinion polls show a majority of American Catholics are also in favor of gay marriage?

Facts don’t stop being facts when they’re inconvenient for you.

Just not your day is it?

 

[unstoppable_II]

What claim? Who are “we”? Who said anything about polygamy?

What claim? Everything you put in italics in post #145. Don’t you read what you post?

Who are “we”? Those of us in the U.S.

Who said anything about polygamy? I put that in my reply because the court found that “American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle which undermines democracy.” SS"M" will likewise change the family structure and undermine democracy. Capisce?

 

[unstoppable_II]

Que? I never made any claims, I stated a couple of facts. I said (you even quoted me) “Here in Spain most people declare themselves to be Catholic, and a majority approved legalizing LGBT marriage nine and a half years ago.”

I take it that’s inconvenient for you.

Oh! Oh! Did I point out that opinion polls show a majority of American Catholics are also in favor of gay marriage?

Facts don’t stop being facts when they’re inconvenient for you.

Just not your day is it?

Truth doesn’t stop being truth because of some opinion polls shifting. That’s why they call them opinion polls, and not truth polls.

 

[inocente]

Some people have purposely disabled their God-given conscience.

Wow. So you think anyone who doesn’t slavishly follow your rules but questions them and thinks for herself has disabled her conscience? How is that conclusion even remotely rational?

Has the word of God regarding morality changed down through the centuries?

*Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.

When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.*

 

[inocente]

What claim? Everything you put in italics in post #145. Don’t you read what you post?

Who are “we”? Those of us in the U.S.

Who said anything about polygamy? I put that in my reply because the court found that “American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle which undermines democracy.” SS"M" will likewise change the family structure and undermine democracy. Capisce?

Still don’t see how a civil marriage between two women or two men can possibly affect your marriage or family structure unless it’s some sort of magic rays, but you should maybe start a separate thread on your theory that treating citizens equally under the law somehow undermines democracy, as we’re getting a long way off-topic.

Truth doesn’t stop being truth because of some opinion polls shifting. That’s why they call them opinion polls, and not truth polls.

Interesting you should say that, as it gives me another opportunity to point out that a majority of Catholics in Spain approved legalizing LGBT marriage nine and a half years ago, and opinion polls show a majority of American Catholics are also in favor of gay marriage.

(In the nearest seaside town to me, the hairdressers are a gay couple, and moms take their kids there to have their hair done for Confirmation. So there you go, gayness undermining democracy one haircut at a time.)