I disagree. The question is: Where does the truth come from? For those who mostly believe the media, it’s the media. So nothing is getting lapped up for no reason.Media barons would promote it either because they judged it ‘right’, or they recognised which way the wind was blowing and decided what was best for their business. Separately, yes, they exploit it as you’ve suggested - but that only works because a sufficient number of their customers lap it up.
Not clear to me what you disagree with??I disagree. The question is: Where does the truth come from? For those who mostly believe the media, it’s the media. So nothing is getting lapped up for no reason.
The truth is promoted here but that does not fit the ongoing narrative. Destroying the family. That’s been going on for decades.
Fox News seems to be veering to the left lately. Outside of commentators like Sean Hannity they usually try to show both sides. I wouldn’t say that lately they’re that family friendly in some of their reporting, and I don’t remember many criticizing the SCOTUS decision on SS marriage although they did have some criticizing it. I really think there’s some scare tactics here, and fear of accusations of bigotry and lawsuits. It’s gotten that bad Better start watching EWTN moreOn the news side there is Fox News. I know there used to be a number of family friendly networks like ABC Family and a few others a few years ago. Shows like 7th Haven and such.
No idea what is out there now. But I don’t consider the media outlets to be any effective form of “brainwashing” in either direction.
Scary.Fox News seems to be veering to the left lately. Outside of commentators like Sean Hannity they usually try to show both sides.
What someone does in private with another consenting adult is their business not the governments. My only objection comes with progressive liberals who are using progressive homosexuals to advance their political agenda. Especially trying to change the gospelI wonder if the question of same-sex marriage is really the important one.
Shouldn’t be better to campaign to make homosexual acts criminal? A lot of Christian African countries have done this. And pretty much all Islamic countries. And British countries too, until relatively recently.
It seems all people, even the least educated, feel a natural moral revulsion to homosexual acts. Bestiality is still illegal (I think). Surely, the same principal applies.
The question is not so much about what is ‘marriage’, but rather if our society will tolerate these acts which abhorrent to all moral laws.
This is not to say we should discriminate against people afflicted with these tendencies. In fact, to prevent them from acting on them, is actually doing them a favour, like not allowing drug users access to harmful and degrading substance abuse. A good idea?
Why is it shameful?Links to this thread and similar ones discussing the idea of not just overturning the same sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court, but re-criminalising homosexuality should be posted all over the internet for all to see.
The fact that you are even discussing this is shameful!!!
Heroine as a substance is itself dangerous in ways not in dispute. There is ample reason to understand why offering it to others, publically or privately, is illegal. And buying it encourages the purveyors of it, so again one can see why that activity might be proscribed.…And Consent has NOTHING to do with the issue- buyers and seller or heroin also give mutual consent…
I had been wondering how long it would take for someone on this thread to say that it is “liberal” to not want to criminalize homosexual acts.Why is it shameful?
Many countries in the world (e.g. Gambia, Zimbabwe) have already enacted laws criminalising homosexual activities. Or perhaps you consider YOUR liberal culture superior to them?
Yes, ours is superior in some respects though I wouldn’t call it liberal. I’d also expect them to view their culture as superior to ours as well. Tis the nature of one’s culture.Many countries in the world (e.g. Gambia, Zimbabwe) have already enacted laws criminalising homosexual activities. Or perhaps you consider YOUR liberal culture superior to them?
Perhaps marriage was a “state endorsement” of sexual activity at one point, but at present I don’t see marriage as an endorsement for either traditional or SS marriage. By that logic laws against fornication should be reinstated, otherwise the states is fairly neutral on adult sexual pairings.What is TRULY shameful is that people advocating homosexual marriage (i.e. state-endorsed sodomy) should be posting on the internet. For a politician to endorse publicly such state-endorsed acts of inhuman violence and degradation is quite shocking- it’s a form of genoicide…
IMO those laws are wrong too.And Consent has NOTHING to do with the issue- buyers and seller or heroin also give mutual consent…
No, that does not follow at all. There is no dichotomy that demands the State EITHER afford something a formal recognition OR legislate against it.Perhaps marriage was a “state endorsement” of sexual activity at one point, but at present I don’t see marriage as an endorsement for either traditional or SS marriage. By that logic laws against fornication should be reinstated, otherwise the states is fairly neutral on adult sexual pairings.
, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.]There are 46 English Bible translations by different denominations, literal and liberal, from the 1600 hundreds till today on Bible Gateway. They all agree they may use different terminology but they never contradict.
[1Cor6:9 **Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators
I believe there is a conscious effort by some in the Magisterium to normalize the “homosexual person” look at:trying to change the gospel
Is that why we don’t need ministries to homosexual persons? Because they’re mythical?the mythical “homosexual person”
I’m curious as to why you think this. Why do you think that someone with exclusive attraction to people of the same sex is a “myth”, when the majority of people have exclusive attraction to people of the opposite sex?I believe this was a conscience effort by some to inject the mythical “homosexual person” into
St. Paul’s teaching. I believe SSA is real a temptation or sinful if obsessed on, SS behavior is real
always a sin and exclusive SSA is a myth promoted by an LGBT orthodoxy that demands acceptance
with no tolerance of differing views.
God bless
Here’s why I think it’s liberal. Most societies historically, and even currently, have considered, or do, consider it unacceptable, and this has been supported by laws. This:I’m curious as to why you think this. Why do you think that someone with exclusive attraction to people of the same sex is a “myth”, when the majority of people have exclusive attraction to people of the opposite sex?
OP - I’m also curious as to why you think not criminalising homosexuality is liberal? That seems an extreme stance to take.
Lou
It may happen, perhaps at an after work function, that much as you described occurs. One of your work colleagues, a man, will introduce you to another man - who he calls his ‘partner’ - and you will understand clearly what he means. How will you respond? What does charity demand?…I mean, if a couple of men introduce themselves as ‘a couple’, what do they expect right-thinking people to do?** Treat them like everyone else, shake their hands, act as if ‘everything’s OK’??**
I think not…
Well- I like to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is a business partner. Maybe they are a couple of bachelors who share a flat, like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.It may happen, perhaps at an after work function, that much as you described occurs. One of your work colleagues, a man, will introduce you to another man - who he calls his ‘partner’ - and you will understand clearly what he means. How will you respond? What does charity demand?
Including shake hands I presume? Perhaps this is all you needed to say. Certainly it presents a more Christian face than your remarks in the previous post suggested.…To be honest, if there was no escaping it…in practice, I would probably extend all customary civilities…