With the pope against the homoheresy

[NeedImprovement]

Well here is one piece:

Fr. Mychal Judge Must Not Be Used for Cultural Revolution

I remember clearly hearing about Fr. Judge shortly after 911 occurred. I don’t remember reading any of the unconfirmed allegations until well after 911 (didn’t even actually have internet up until early in 2006) . But I do clearly remember , saying more than one prayer for him after 911 and also asking his intercession on more than one occasion.

I wouldn’t change any of that. I may not know how he lived, but we were all given a fairly good idea of how he died by more than one witness.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ringil]

I remember clearly hearing about Fr. Judge shortly after 911 occurred. I don’t remember reading any of the unconfirmed allegations until well after 911 (didn’t even actually have internet up until early in 2006) . But I do clearly remember , saying more than one prayer for him after 911 and also asking his intercession on more than one occasion.

I wouldn’t change any of that. I may not know how he lived, but we were all given a fairly good idea of how he died by more than one witness.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/.../Photos 2/Emoticans/Smileys/salute_smiley.gif

Indeed, he died as a priest doing the work of his vocation.

I hate to read diatribes against this holy man.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Homomafia
Homoheresy
Homosexualist
Homolobby

Is this your idea of Christian behavior? Have you people no shame? Have you no shame at all?

 

[migueltojose]

Homomafia
Homoheresy
Homosexualist
Homolobby

Is this your idea of Christian behavior? Have you people no shame? Have you no shame at all?

Are you upset with the verbiage? Homolingual… Homo sapien…

I remember when milk has ‘homo’ and queer was ‘different, weird, quarky’ and gay was ‘happy, giddy’ and fruit was ‘mean spirited’… and bye meant ‘see ya later’…

Semantics change and in our world of secular relativism, not necessarily for the better…

So should we go with LBGT? Not me… I’m not succumbing to the PC secular relativism pressure.

When someone sneezes do you say ‘Bless You’? …Or… God Bless You? Pay attention, almost everyone says “Bless You”… it’s not as subtle as it seems…

GOD BLESS US ONE AND ALL

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Are you upset with the verbiage? Homolingual… Homo sapien…

I remember when milk has ‘homo’ and queer was ‘different, weird, quarky’ and gay was ‘happy, giddy’ and fruit was ‘mean spirited’… and bye meant ‘see ya later’…

Semantics change and in our world of secular relativism, not necessarily for the better…

So should we go with LBGT? Not me… I’m not succumbing to the PC secular relativism pressure.

When someone sneezes do you say ‘Bless You’? …Or… God Bless You? Pay attention, almost everyone says “Bless You”… it’s not as subtle as it seems…

GOD BLESS US ONE AND ALL

Oh please. You know good and well that this is no natural evolution of language.

These are foul-mouthed insults, intended to demean an entire group of the children of God. They are designed to spread fear and hatred. Just look at the sensationalistic nature of this thread.

These words are no better than curse words. You want to damn people, not damn sin.

GOD BLESS US ONE AND ALL

Except the “homosexualists” right?

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh please. You know good and well that this is no natural evolution of language.

These are foul-mouthed insults, intended to demean an entire group of the children of God. They are designed to spread fear and hatred. Just look at the sensationalistic nature of this thread.

These words are no better than curse words. You want to damn people, not damn sin.

Except the “homosexualists” right?

Veritas,

Your thinking on this may require reconsideration. The history of the word “gay” has evolved in meaning. The meaning that you give words and the emotions are those supplied by you.

english.stackexchange.com/questions/19350/gay-homosexual-and-gay-happy

The development is actually quite straightforward once it has been pointed out.

As your question indicates that you already know, ‘gay’ originally meant ‘carefree’ and ‘happy’.

Over time, the liberalness of ‘carefree’ increased and by the 1600s, it was used to describe someone of promiscuous sexual proclivities. Womanisers, prostitutes and other such sexually liberal people were termed ‘gay’.

The idea of sexuality within the word continued to become more liberal and sexual promiscuity came to be sexual obscurity and eventually, by C20 (yes, that recent) it was used to refer to homosexuals.

Now, that meaning has developed even further and the word ‘gay’ has taken on a negative connotation (since many oppose homosexuality) and can now be used almost interchangeably with the word ‘bad’, in certain youth cultures. i.e.: “I don’t want that one; it’s gay”

and

lifechapters.net/2007/10/13/the-evolution-of-word-meanings/

THe evolution of word meanings

The above states pretty much what I was going to begin with. Finding the information saved me the trouble.
I don’t know if this is happening in other parts of the world, but I have noticed in recent years that the word has evolved among young people into something new. I remember my son using the word and giggling when he was about 8 years old. I was concerned about this and explained the meaning I was aware of from my generation, as in referring to both sexes. It wasn’t until the last couple of years that I’ve become aware of an unofficial change.

“gay” meaning stupid or ridiculous either referring to a person, object or situation. I

It seems it can also mean “uncool” .

 

[fix]

So should we go with LBGT? Not me… I’m not succumbing to the PC secular relativism pressure.

Words like “gay” and “straight” and “homophobic” and “pro choice” and “marriage equality” are all contrived political terms invented to obfuscate the serious evils that are being discussed.

Not that many years ago parents would name their daughters Gay. Now that word is so usurped that it no longer is used in its traditional meaning. This use of language is part of a culture war. It is a war. No one is “gay” or “straight” unless they buy into the homosexual lobby that demand all accept what is entirely unacceptable.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Oh please. You know good and well that this is no natural evolution of language.

These are foul-mouthed insults, intended to demean an entire group of the children of God. They are designed to spread fear and hatred. Just look at the sensationalistic nature of this thread.

These words are no better than curse words. You want to damn people, not damn sin.

Except the “homosexualists” right?

There is someone on this forum running around with a marvelous quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen which states that intolerance is reserved for Ideas and tolerance is reserved for persons. I think no one here desires anything but the lords blessing and true conversion for homosexualists, and desires nothing but the most universal condemnation of homosexualism.

 

[migueltojose]

---

Oh please. You know good and well that this is no natural evolution of language.

Yes it is, but you are half right, it’s more than that. It’s about accepting the culturalization and institutionalization of homosexuality. I am not in favor of supporting this.

These are foul-mouthed insults, intended to demean an entire group of the children of God. They are designed to spread fear and hatred. Just look at the sensationalistic nature of this thread.

**In your opinion. Not in mine. They were accurately descriptive and rather tame in nature. **

These words are no better than curse words. You want to damn people, not damn sin.

That’s absurd. You don’t know me or what I want to do. I love everyone so much it makes me want to cry just about anytime and anywhere. Everyone I get to know I love. I want to get to know you. I want to get to know everyone.

Except the “homosexualists” right?

I said ONE AND ALL and absolutely meant ONE AND ALL

And finally, I haven’t even read the thread… I just jumped in when I read your reply and was surprised that of all things it was the language that riled you. I shouldn’t have jumped in the thread unprepared. Sorry, again. But it would seem like there would be plenty of other things to get riled about …but you chose to get riled about the choice of words. I was trying to play a little of the old game - sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me…

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There is someone on this forum running around with a marvelous quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen which states that intolerance is reserved for Ideas and tolerance is reserved for persons. I think no one here desires anything but the lords blessing and true conversion for homosexualists, and desires nothing but the most universal condemnation of homosexualism.

May I suggest, then, that you begin to show a little ounce of respect for these people? Can we avoid inflammatory, hateful language such as homoconspiarcy, homoheresy, homoagenda, homomafia, etc.?

Unless you really don’t think that these terms are hateful, in which case I suppose it would be OK to accuse “Papists” of belonging to the “Papalmafia” with their “Papalagenda” promoting their “Papalheresy”?

 

[fix]

May I suggest, then, that you begin to show a little ounce of respect for these people? Can we avoid inflammatory, hateful language such as homoconspiarcy, homoheresy, homoagenda, homomafia, etc.?

Unless you really don’t think that these terms are hateful, in which case I suppose it would be OK to accuse “Papists” of belonging to the “Papalmafia” with their “Papalagenda” promoting their “Papalheresy”?

You compare unlike items and then draw a false conclusion.

 

[ringil]

There is someone on this forum running around with a marvelous quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen which states that intolerance is reserved for Ideas and tolerance is reserved for persons. I think no one here desires anything but the lords blessing and true conversion for homosexualists, and desires nothing but the most universal condemnation of homosexualism.

Homosexualist, homosexualism.

Using these terms just make people look silly.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You compare unlike items and then draw a false conclusion.

How are they unlike? I notice that you did not bother to explain why.

In both situations, one is taking a group of people that one dislikes and inventing inflammatory and hyperbolic phrases to vilify them.

ringil:

Homosexualist, homosexualism.

Using these terms just make people look silly.

They do, but homomafia is really taking it to a new level. SMH.

 

[ringil]

Unless you really don’t think that these terms are hateful, in which case I suppose it would be OK to accuse “Papists” of belonging to the “Papalmafia” with their “Papalagenda” promoting their “Papalheresy”?

OH, that would be TERRIBLE and just the same old’ tricks of the. . . . . . . . . . .

Communist, secularist, socialist, relativistic, Godless, media.

 

[CopticChristian]

May I suggest, then, that you begin to show a little ounce of respect for these people? Can we avoid inflammatory, hateful language such as homoconspiarcy, homoheresy, homoagenda, homomafia, etc.?

Unless you really don’t think that these terms are hateful, in which case I suppose it would be OK to accuse “Papists” of belonging to the “Papalmafia” with their “Papalagenda” promoting their “Papalheresy”?

Veritas,

homoconspiarcy…to conspire could mean

1. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

So, it may be used to suggest that homosexuals act to bring about certain acts and it is not wrong to suggest that they/some politically conspire. As we speak there are some LGBT representatives visiting the UN to discuss reparative therapy. This is a conspiracy.

homoheresy

1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

The attempt to form opinion that is contrary to any of the above would be considered homosexuals expressing heresy.

homoagenda

There is no question that the LGBT have a history and they have a timeline. If they have a history and a timeline, then it ain’t coming to an end anytime soon.

aglp.org/gap/1_history/

Quote:
GOAL
The participant will understand major events in the history of psychiatry and homosexuality.
OBJECTIVES
• to understand how homosexuality became thought of as a psychiatric disorder
• to understand the research that led to the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder
• to have an appreciation of current professional positions on homosexuality

ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/wmv/pd…bt_history.pdf

Quote:
Timeline of LGBT history

So the LGBT have a history and a timeline that continues with a goal…

homomafia,

What about the Amish Mafia…the word Mafia is thrown around…

I believe you are too sensitive…

 

[fix]

Homosexualist, homosexualism.

Using these terms just make people look silly.

Like “gay” “straight” “transgender” all make people look silly.

 

[fix]

How are they unlike? I notice that you did not bother to explain why.

In both situations, one is taking a group of people that one dislikes and inventing inflammatory and hyperbolic phrases to vilify them.

One group refers to the Church founded by Christ. One group refers to political agitators that further an immoral agenda.

 

[buffalo]

How is it we are discussing terminology rather than the real issue?

 

[fix]

How is it we are discussing terminology rather than the real issue?

Deflection. Always make an issue of tone or terms that way it deflects from the serious issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

OH, that would be TERRIBLE and just the same old’ tricks of the. . . . . . . . . . .

Communist, secularist, socialist, relativistic, Godless, media.

Let us not forget the agenda of the licensed professionals trying to propagate that the DSM was changed by science and not by vote…now there is a conspiracy if you want one…

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation.

discussed here…

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/transcript

and here

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-Words

The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.