Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

[Crescentinus]

I’ll reword the first word in my first question in this thread.
Which standards of morality tells the homosexualists to shove their views down people’s throats?

 

[fix]

Why can’t conservative Catholics realise that gay activists would leave them alone if they just realised that not everyone believes in the abrahamic God or the concept of sin?

Catholics do realize not every person has a properly formed conscience or accepts God. The problem is those who support relativism, hedonism, homosexualism, and much more want Catholics to accept the inclination of homosexual attraction and the acts that can go along with it as normal, healthy and acceptable and that children must be indoctrinated into this same mind-set.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why can’t conservative Catholics realise that gay activists would leave them alone if they just realised that not everyone believes in the abrahamic God or the concept of sin?

Regular,

I realize that when you ask a question like this “why” you will get a sundry of answers and no resolve…

It would be better to ask “How can conservative Catholics recognize that “gay” activists would leave them alone and realize that not everyone believes in the abrahamic God or the concept of Sin” and then “What must be done to complete this”…

This would yield a better answer…

My answer to this is Conservative Catholics could put their head in the sand and ignore the “gay” activists so that they would leave us alone and we could stop talking about God and sin…

My answer would then be this…For I am not ashamed of the Gospel…

20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

and then of course…

31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36Just as it is written,
“FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG;
WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.”

37But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I will not, I cannot, and plan not to stop saying what I need to say because not leaving me alone is your choice…and the consequences is that nothing will separate me from the love of God…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Crescentinus (I’m just looking for your somewhere ), free up your PM box.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

I realize that when you ask a question like this “why” you will get a sundry of answers and no resolve…

It would be better to ask “How can conservative Catholics recognize that “gay” activists would leave them alone and realize that not everyone believes in the abrahamic God or the concept of Sin” and then “What must be done to complete this”…

This would yield a better answer…

My answer to this is Conservative Catholics could put their head in the sand and ignore the “gay” activists so that they would leave us alone and we could stop talking about God and sin…

My answer would then be this…For I am not ashamed of the Gospel…

and then of course…

I will not, I cannot, and plan not to stop saying what I need to say because not leaving me alone is your choice…and the consequences is that nothing will separate me from the love of God…

No, what I mean is you people stick your religious dogma into issues that don’t concern religion. Take this, for example:

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

The type of same-sex marriage that would have been passed was CIVIL marriage. That is to say, it would still legally be considered marriage and give all of the benefits, but would be carried out by a government official and religion would play no part in it. I’m sure that, as far as your God is conerned, anyone who gets married via a civil marriage is not actually married.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Catholics do realize not every person has a properly formed conscience or accepts God. The problem is those who support relativism, hedonism, homosexualism, and much more want Catholics to accept the inclination of homosexual attraction and the acts that can go along with it as normal, healthy and acceptable and that children must be indoctrinated into this same mind-set.

No, I don’t. That’s pretty much the only way I can respond to this. Teach your children what you want.

 

[Stephen168]

No, what I mean is you people stick your religious dogma into issues that don’t concern religion. Take this, for example:

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

The type of same-sex marriage that would have been passed was CIVIL marriage. That is to say, it would still legally be considered marriage and give all of the benefits, but would be carried out by a government official and religion would play no part in it. I’m sure that, as far as your God is conerned, anyone who gets married via a civil marriage is not actually married.

so that gives homosexual activists the right to disrupt the Mass?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Are they nessecarily upsetting the mass? Some may be. Intolerance lies within all groups of people. African Americans, Sikhs, Buddhists, heterosexuals, homosexuals, even Catholics. It’s not really fair to make such a broad statement.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, what I mean is you people stick your religious dogma into issues that don’t concern religion. Take this, for example:

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

The type of same-sex marriage that would have been passed was CIVIL marriage. That is to say, it would still legally be considered marriage and give all of the benefits, but would be carried out by a government official and religion would play no part in it. I’m sure that, as far as your God is conerned, anyone who gets married via a civil marriage is not actually married.

Regular,

This is the final paragraph that conflicts with your opposition.

“Schools with a religious character are allowed to teach sex and relationships – and conduct assemblies – in accordance with the religious views of the school. The Catholic view of marriage is not a political view; it’s a religious view.”

 

[Bradski]

Catholics do realize not every person has a properly formed conscience or accepts God. The problem is those who support relativism, hedonism, homosexualism, and much more want Catholics to accept the inclination of homosexual attraction and the acts that can go along with it as normal, healthy and acceptable and that children must be indoctrinated into this same mind-set.

I’m with you Fix. I don’t think that children should be indoctrinated. They should be given all available information so that as they grow up they’ll be able to make educated decisions about things.

Would that be acceptable?

 

[atheistgirl]

Take this, for example:

guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage

How could they possibly give a presentation, then ask a bunch of 11 year olds to sign a petition against homosexual marriage when no 11 year old could possibly know their mind on such issues since they aren’t mature enough

If that’s not indoctrination and bullying, I don’t know what it

Although I did like the response of some of the students

Sarah x

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The heterosexuals with same sex attraction that you refer to as “gay” cannot get married because they are a bunch of bloody galars, probably spent too much time out behind the black stump and many may be bloody drongos…then there are of course those that may be winding POHM’s…that may be part of the problem…

Are you aware that “galah” (which is what I think you mean by “galar”) and “drongo” are both Australian slang words for “idiot”? And what do the English (POHMs) have to do with anything? What exactly are you saying?

I don’t know which is worse: the possibility that you intend to be as insulting as you’re being, or that you think it’s harmlessly amusing to categorically refer to same-sex attracted people as idiots. I mean there’s all kinds of humor, some harmless, some bawdy, some of it “offensive” but riotously funny…but then there’s utter gobsmacking cluelessness. What could you possibly be thinking?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Are you aware that “galah” (which is what I think you mean by “galar”) and “drongo” are both Australian slang words for “idiot”? And what do the English (POHMs) have to do with anything? What exactly are you saying?

I don’t know which is worse: the possibility that you intend to be as insulting as you’re being, or that you think it’s harmlessly amusing to categorically refer to same-sex attracted people as idiots. I mean there’s all kinds of humor, some harmless, some bawdy, some of it “offensive” but riotously funny…but then there’s utter gobsmacking cluelessness. What could you possibly be thinking?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo,

Do you operate under the pen name Bradski? Do you eat vegemite?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo,

Do you operate under the pen name Bradski? Do you eat vegemite?

Ah. So insulting language–even if it is made publically, such as on an internet forum–can never be insulting if it was intended as an in-joke?

Again, I have to ask: What could you possibly be thinking?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Ah. So insulting language–even if it is made publically, such as on an internet forum–can never be insulting if it was intended as an in-joke?

Again, I have to ask: What could you possibly be thinking?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo,

Now that is a question I can answer. What could I possibly be thinking. I was thinking of an Australian Nurse I dated. I was thinking of my walk about in Australia in the past and my love for Australia. I was thinking about words that only, I assumed, a native Australian would understand. Bradski is in Australia, I discerned and I was thinking I would shoot some verbage that garnered commonality with Bradski. That is what I was thinking.

Ok:thumbsup:

By the way have you ever eaten Goana or Morton Bay Bugs?

 

[Bradski]

Ah. So insulting language–even if it is made publically, such as on an internet forum–can never be insulting if it was intended as an in-joke?

It’s all good, Deo. It was taken in good humour. Even if the terminology was execrable (‘winding POHM’ should be read as whingeing pom. I mean, fair dinkum, mate).

 

[PRmerger]

I’m with you Fix. I don’t think that children should be indoctrinated. They should be given all available information so that as they grow up they’ll be able to make educated decisions about things.

Would that be acceptable?

Well, Bradski, that’s a strawman.

“I think children should be indoctrinated!” said nobody on this forum…ever.

 

[Bradski]

Well, Bradski, that’s a strawman.

“I think children should be indoctrinated!” said nobody on this forum…ever.

Good grief, there seems to be a tendency for some people to take a snippet of a post and head off in all sorts of directions without any indication at all that they recognised the original intent of the post or had even read it in context.

Case in point: Fix said that some people (who support lots of –isms, so I assume she thinks they’re bad people) think it’s acceptable to indoctrinate children. Please read the post below.

The problem is those who support relativism, hedonism, homosexualism, and much more want Catholics to accept the inclination of homosexual attraction and the acts that can go along with it as normal, healthy and acceptable and that children must be indoctrinated into this same mind-set.

OK, now let’s see what I said:

I’m with you Fix. I don’t think that children should be indoctrinated.

I know. Kinda sneaky, me agreeing with the original post and all. But maybe it’ll keep you on your toes, start you reading what I write and stop you double guessing what I mean.

Incidentally, talking of indoctrination, someone did say in an earlier post (and it might have been in another thread) that they were of the opinion that children should be told what to believe. Do you agree with that? (I won’t tell you if it was a Catholic or an atheist who posted it, so no clues there).

 

[karoleck]

It’s a good advert for keeping marriage. If I was going to write one I’d like to think it would be something like that. But I don’t agree with it.

Gay people can’t get married in Australia yet. But the polls indicate that the majority want it already. It will probably be allowed within a few years.

Incidentally, our Prime Minister is an atheist who is living with someone to whom she is not married, but she disagrees with gay marriage. It’s not just the ‘right wing’ who disagrees with it.

I have followed your posts in this thread and I have generally found that you have a respectful manner and an intelligent person,which is refreshing.But I do think that since you are so smooth in presenting your opinions(which makes you a very dangereous person!).The reason I say this is, because you are not only being a “devils’ advocate”;but I believe by your opinions, you are doing the devils’ work for him.

You are correct in your observation about your Prime Minister,I think that there is a general weakenning of the natural moral fibre within the western society.I think that this video link sums it up perfectly, in my books anyway.

This 3min.Video is called Sexual Brokennes-When Sex got a Divorce.

youtube.com/watch?v=VfkP4kL5oic&feature=youtu.be

 

[Bradski]

Thanks, Karolek. You made me chuckle which doesn’t happen often in religious forums. I normally type through gritted teeth rather than smiling which I am now.

You might be interested to know that my signature on another forum is a quote to me from one of their more fundamenatlist posters: You don’t seem to be an advocate of evil…’

Cue thunder, a flash of lightning and maniacal laughter!