With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[sedonaman]

…The mistake you’re making is to believe that the goal of the gay marriage movement is to convince you. It’s not.

Finally, “Straight Talk” From the Homosexual Agenda
by Austin Nimocks
Oct. 20, 2008

We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. No matter what side of the issues of homosexual behavior you may find yourself supporting, a standing ovation is appropriate.

John Corvino, I salute you.

You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column 365gay.com/features/082908-corvino Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant. …

Read the rest here townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda

 

[sedonaman]

… and nobody is interested in changing your mind.

LMAO !

 

[sedonaman]

… It is illegal for the government to make any law respecting religion, so there will be no effort made to force your Church or anyone else’s to accept SSM.

Still LMAO !

 

[Regular_Atheist]

You say that you speak from common sense. You say you do not speak for homosexuals. You suggest that based on your common sense that my experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals.

You are suggesting that you have something that allows you to criticize yet not be a voice. You are in contradiction in your mind. Your mind allows you to criticize others based on some innate quality you call common sense. This same common sense allows you to deny the existence of a creator as you are “regular athiest”.

You manifest some sort of egalatarian quality that you suggest is innate that allows you to express unfounded opinions and criticisms based on “i am me”.

I didn’t suggest or imply any of that. It just stands to reason that the lives of the homosexuals you witnessed may not represent the lives of all homosexuals. I’m not criticizing, just stating that your experiences mean very little, like my experiences with certain heterosexuals do not represent all behaviour of all heterosexuals. I’m not saying your experiences are wrong, or did not happen, or that you’re lying. I’m just stating that you witnessed a community of homosexuals in one specific area, and it cannot by any means be used to judge all homosexuals. In a way, this seems to be your method of thinking:

1. The people in Castro Valley were promiscuous and hypersexual.
2. Those people happened to be homosexuals.
3. Therefore, all or most homosexuals are promiscuous or hypersexual.

Makes little sense, does it? It’s like me stating:

1. The Westboro Baptist Church are hateful.
2. The Westboro Baptist Church are baptists.
3. Therefore, all baptists are hateful.

See the problem?

Also, it is not through common sense that I am an atheist. I’m not really sure why I use the label atheist, since it implies that I am 100% certain that God does not exist. Better labels would be weak atheist, agnostic atheist or an agnostic leaning towards atheism. I prefer the second label, but some people get angry about that. However, I digress. It is not due to common sense that makes me an atheist, instead it is simply an evaluation of the evidence, and is really fuelled by the lack of convincing evidence for any deity.

Your common sense should be explained.

Were you born with common sense? Did you acquire common sense? Does everyone have common sense? Is common sense different from person to person?

Help me understand the source of your thinking.

That’s hard to say, and difficult to explain. When people use the term common sense, they generally don’t think about it. But I guess it’s just good sense and good judgement in certain situations. I suppose common sense is subjective, though, as people have different ideas of what is good judgement, but there are certain rules that most people would agree on.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The article sounded like the one Midwest88 was looking for, and all I did was offer it up. Something wrong with that?

When you consider that in the late '60s, gays said all they wanted was to be left alone, and what their demands are today, clearly there was an agenda to reach an ulterior motive. It doesn’t really take a genius to notice this. So the slippery-slope-is-a-fallacy argument doesn’t hold water.

Like I said, each homosexual will have their own motives for doing something. To claim that homosexuals operate under a hive mind all share the same views (perhaps via some kind of telekinetic power?) is absurd. There are indeed practising and open homosexuals that oppose same-sex marriage, or homosexual adoption. You do bring up an interesting point about the slippery slope argument, though. I just feel that the point it starts to deteriorate and becomes absurd is the point at which you claim that it will lead to the acceptance of, say, paedophilia or bestiality. The slippery slope argument is only really a fallacy when you can’t demonstrate any reasonable means of one event leading to another. To claim that making homosexuality legal and letting them ‘come out’ may lead to them wanting to marry is more reasonable than stating that allowing them to marry will lead to people marrying animals.

Edit: Oh, dear, double post. My reply to CopticChristian is on the previous page.

 

[epan]

A little quibble: the Church compiled Scripture, therefore cannot “find” the basis for their authority in Scripture. The authority of the Church was given to Her by Christ, not from Scripture!

I know you probably did not mean what you said this way, but it can be confusing, esp for Protestants who might be reading this.

Not meaning to be offensive. Sorry.

Reflecting in this, it seems that scripture has been handed down through the centuries. We turn to it, to find authority on spiritual and moral issues. That is the sense I meant for “finding” authority on something.

But thank you for correcting me with the semantics of this.

 

[epan]

The courts are under an obligation to understand biological reality.

Men and women have sex organs designed for each other. That is the only way we are going to get the next generation of human beings.

The anus is not a sex organ.

Ask any doctor.

Peace,
Ed

I might rephrase your statement to say that the anus is not a reproductive organ.

There are many parts of the body which are engaged in erotica activity, eyes, hands, mouth, breasts, etc… which are not reproductive organs. By some definitions they would be sex organs.

 

[CopticChristian]

I didn’t suggest or imply any of that. It just stands to reason that the lives of the homosexuals you witnessed may not represent the lives of all homosexuals. I’m not criticizing, just stating that your experiences mean very little, like my experiences with certain heterosexuals do not represent all behaviour of all heterosexuals. I’m not saying your experiences are wrong, or did not happen, or that you’re lying. I’m just stating that you witnessed a community of homosexuals in one specific area, and it cannot by any means be used to judge all homosexuals. In a way, this seems to be your method of thinking:

1. The people in Castro Valley were promiscuous and hypersexual.
2. Those people happened to be homosexuals.
3. Therefore, all or most homosexuals are promiscuous or hypersexual.

Makes little sense, does it? It’s like me stating:

1. The Westboro Baptist Church are hateful.
2. The Westboro Baptist Church are baptists.
3. Therefore, all baptists are hateful.

See the problem?

Also, it is not through common sense that I am an atheist. I’m not really sure why I use the label atheist, since it implies that I am 100% certain that God does not exist. Better labels would be weak atheist, agnostic atheist or an agnostic leaning towards atheism. I prefer the second label, but some people get angry about that. However, I digress. It is not due to common sense that makes me an atheist, instead it is simply an evaluation of the evidence, and is really fuelled by the lack of convincing evidence for any deity.

That’s hard to say, and difficult to explain. When people use the term common sense, they generally don’t think about it. But I guess it’s just good sense and good judgement in certain situations. I suppose common sense is subjective, though, as people have different ideas of what is good judgement, but there are certain rules that most people would agree on.

Regular,

I see your problem…

Living in San Francisco there are some good restaurants and sometimes driving causes you to drive by the Castro Valley or through the Castro Valley. It is a microcosm of the gay lifestyle.

This should read…It is a microcosm of the gay lifestyle that I observed in San Francisco in the Castro Valley.

 

[mark_a]

Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?

It would be just plain silly for the Church to accept always and everywhere sterile homosexual acts and still teach the sinfulness of contraceptive sex, now wouldn’t it?

By the way, if the Church ever does accept homosexual acts, we’ll know the gates of hell have prevailed and that the Protestants were right.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

I see your problem…

This should read…It is a microcosm of the gay lifestyle that I observed in San Francisco in the Castro Valley.

Then, what were you arguing for? You were trying to use your experience with homosexuals to confirm what Ronald G. Lee said about the homosexual agenda and what not, but if you yourself admit that your experience does not in anyway confirm that all homosexuals are like this, why even use the argument in the first place?

 

[CopticChristian]

**Then, what were you arguing for? **You were trying to use your experience with homosexuals to confirm what Ronald G. Lee said about the homosexual agenda and what not, but if you yourself admit that your experience does not in anyway confirm that all homosexuals are like this, why even use the argument in the first place?

Regular,

Your thinking is irregular… I provided clarification of a sentence and your response here is why do I argue…Look again at what I said…that you conclude is an argument…

I made no broad sweeping generalizations about anything from this article. It is what it is, one persons experience and a point of view. When I contrast that with my experience it has some consistencies.

Now your premise is that your opinions are based on “common sense”…Look here…

Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”[1] Thus, “common sense” (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, “the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way”.

There appears to be no consistency in the understanding of “common sense”. What you see and believe and what I see and believe can both be attributed to “common sense” so then the question is this. Is “common sense” something innate? Is “common sense” understood by one person exactly the same as understood by another? What exactly is “common sense”. In looking at the related topics seen as follows:

Some related concepts include intuitions, pre-theoretic belief, ordinary language, the frame problem, foundational beliefs, good sense, endoxa, axioms, wisdom, folk wisdom, folklore, and public opinion.

it is clear that we are talking about beliefs, frames, folklore and opinions. What we are dealing with is nominalization such that to do so causes difficulty in thinking on your part and difficulty in understanding for the reader causing mental cacaphony.

Can you show me a wheel barrel full of common sense? Can you buy common sense? Is common sense tangible? The answer is decidedly no. You labor over something that is an enigma and intangible and subject to explanation that unless you provide leaves a discussion void and in my opinion is not common sense at all but nonsense.

 

[jmcrae]

“Common sense” would seem to dictate that marriage is about the establishment of families and dynasties. Since homosexuals are not physically capable of this, it seems as if “common sense” would dictate that marriage is impossible for homosexuals - even if they are faithful to one partner for their entire lives.

 

[livingwordunity]

Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals?

The teaching of the Church on marriage is Christ’s teaching, and Christ is God in the flesh. Therefore the Church has no authority to change it.

 

[Crescentinus]

The teaching of the Church on marriage is Christ’s teaching, and Christ is God in the flesh. Therefore the Church has no authority to change it.

 

[Lochias]

Does a business run by one of the "Aryan Nation"churches have the legal right to discriminate on racial grounds? The Church itself does, it can legally appoint only white ministers. The business does not have the legal right to discriminate. There are limits to religious freedom and it seems reasonable to draw those limits at the door of the church where there is a major effect on other people. I would consider refusal of a job to be a major effect in this case.

rossum

Race has nothing to do with what is happening to faithful Catholics who do not wish to be forced to act against their convictions…it is a poor example to use.

Can you please explain for me how being forced to provide others with contraceptives is at all on the same level with refusing to hire someone due to the color of their skin?

 

[Crescentinus]

Race has nothing to do with what is happening to faithful Catholics who do not wish to be forced to act against their convictions…it is a poor example to use.

Can you please explain for me how being forced to provide others with contraceptives is at all on the same level with refusing to hire someone due to the color of their skin?

I find it sad that liberal-progressives would even use the race card to try and win debates.

 

[edwest2]

I find it sadder that the word progressive means only what liberals want. Ask God for guidance, my fellow Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

“Common sense” would seem to dictate that marriage is about the establishment of families and dynasties. Since homosexuals are not physically capable of this, it seems as if “common sense” would dictate that marriage is impossible for homosexuals - even if they are faithful to one partner for their entire lives.

So, you are saying that marriage should be impossible for all women who have passed the menopause, since they cannot have any children?

What about infertile men and women, should they also be forbidden to marry?

rossum

 

[fix]

So, you are saying that marriage should be impossible for all women who have passed the menopause, since they cannot have any children?

What about infertile men and women, should they also be forbidden to marry?

rossum

That is such a silly argument. What does that have to do with two, or more, same sex persons pretending to be married? There is no analogy.

 

[Crescentinus]

So, you are saying that marriage should be impossible for all women who have passed the menopause, since they cannot have any children?

What about infertile men and women, should they also be forbidden to marry?

rossum

Cheap rhetoric is very damaging.