American Multinational Oil Company Says 'no' To Homosexual Age

[Apotheoun]

 

2. There's no such thing as a homosexual agenda, unless you're talking about the general collective feeling among non-heterosexuals that they should be given the exact same civil liberties as heterosexuals, but even then I think it's silly to act like it's a giant conspiracy.  

 

"In reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: 'One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (No. 9).'"

 

Interestingly the Church's Magisterium believes that there is a "homosxexual movement." The Church seems to believe that there is some kind of "agenda" in certain parts of society that is pushing the promotion of homosexual activity as normal. That said, Catholics must resist the forces of evil that are trying to destroy marriage and the family.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Yes, ignorance must indeed be bliss. :|

Pretending to to know what you are talking about must be bliss as well.

 

As I said in my previous post, the Church's magisterium has repeatedly said that Catholics are duty bound to resist the movement that is trying to promote homosexual activity as normal. How exactly did you get your Church Militant tag while being ignorant of what the Church teaches in connection with the homosexual inclination and homosexual activity?

[Apotheoun]

The text below is the Profession of Faith that Fr. Nugent and Sr. Gramick were required by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to make. They were required to make this confession because their own views on the homosexual inclination and on homosexual activity were not in conformity with the Church's Tradition:

 

 

 

With firm faith I believe that God, in creating human beings as male and female, has created them equal as persons and complementary as male and female. In marriage, they are united by God and become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), in a union that is by its very nature ordered to the procreation and education of offspring (cf. Genesis 1:28) and to the good of the spouses (cf. Gaudium et spes 12, 48-51; Familiaris consortio 11-15; Mulieris dignitatem 6-7; Codex Iuris Canonici canon 1055; Catechism of the Catholic Church 371-372).

 

I firmly accept and hold that every baptized person, "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27), is called to live the virtue of chastity according to his particular state of life; married persons are called to live conjugal chastity; all others must practice chastity in the form of continence. Sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage (cf. Persona humana 7, 11-12; Familiaris consortio 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2348-2350).

 

I also firmly accept and hold that homosexual acts are always objectively evil. On the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22, 10:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 3-8; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, 2396).

 

I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that the homosexual inclination, though not in itself a sin, constitutes a tendency towards behavior that is intrinsically evil, and therefore must be considered objectively disordered (Homosexualitatis problema 3; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that, while homosexual persons must be received with respect and protected from all unjust forms of discrimination, no one can claim any right to engage in homosexual behavior (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 9-10; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). Moreover, I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that homosexual persons, by the virtues of self-mastery which lead to inner freedom, by prayer and sacramental grace and other forms of assistance, can advance toward Christian perfection (Homosexualitatis problema 12; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2359). 

 

[Apotheoun]

I have no problem saying that I assent fully to the CDF's Profession of Faith found in Post #18, and that is why I will always resist any and all attempts to legally protect behavior that no one has any conceivable right either to perform or promote. Sexual deviancy should not be a protected category in the laws of any state or nation. After all, the Church teaches that it is just to discriminate against a person when the individual in question is promoting immorality.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[4588686]

Pretending to to know what you are talking about must be bliss as well.

 

As I said in my previous post, the Church's magisterium has repeatedly said that Catholics are duty bound to resist the movement that is trying to promote homosexual activity as normal. How exactly did you get your Church Militant tag while being ignorant of what the Church teaches in connection with the homosexual inclination and homosexual activity?

 

The Church's magisterium has also made numerous comments about the reality of anthropomorphic climate change and the moral duty of grapple with the challenge.   :unsure:

[Apotheoun]

I notice that the proposal was voted down by shareholders. Given that it is a publicly traded company that means that the vote itself represents the owners' collective wishes. Ownership which, you remember, you could be a part of for about $90, right this second.

 

That being said, the vast majority of their shares are held by other major corporations and mutual funds. Here is a list of all major shareholders.

 

So, taking all that into account, it is not really so much "ExxonMobil rejected such and such a proposal" as much as it is "The Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, BlackRock Institutional Trust, etc., etc., etc., rejected such and such a proposal on behalf of ExxonMobil." 

 

At the end of the day it is not particularly relevant, but I do think it is worth noting for the sake of accuracy.

Let's also remember - for the sake of accuracy - that the groups mentioned as being the major shareholders in Exxon-Mobil are run by human beings, which means that some actual person (or group of persons) made the decision to cast the votes of the shares held by those groups against the proposal.

[Nihil Obstat]

Let's also remember - for the sake of accuracy - that the groups mentioned as being the major shareholders in Exxon-Mobil are run by human beings, which means that some actual person (or group of persons) made the decision to cast the votes of the shares held by those groups against the proposal.

Yep, that is correct.
I am not familiar with how a major corporate shareholder determines how they will vote with all their common shares. Perhaps finance makes that call? Or the directors? I really do not know.

[Basilisa Marie]

"In reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: 'One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (No. 9).'"

 

Interestingly the Church's Magisterium believes that there is a "homosxexual movement." The Church seems to believe that there is some kind of "agenda" in certain parts of society that is pushing the promotion of homosexual activity as normal. That said, Catholics must resist the forces of evil that are trying to destroy marriage and the family.

 

 

Pretending to to know what you are talking about must be bliss as well.

 

As I said in my previous post, the Church's magisterium has repeatedly said that Catholics are duty bound to resist the movement that is trying to promote homosexual activity as normal. How exactly did you get your Church Militant tag while being ignorant of what the Church teaches in connection with the homosexual inclination and homosexual activity?

 

 

I have no problem saying that I assent fully to the CDF's Profession of Faith found in Post #18, and that is why I will always resist any and all attempts to legally protect behavior that no one has any conceivable right either to perform or promote. Sexual deviancy should not be a protected category in the laws of any state or nation. After all, the Church teaches that it is just to discriminate against a person when the individual in question is promoting immorality.

 

 

1. Let me repeat myself:

 

There's no such thing as a homosexual agenda, unless you're talking about the general collective feeling among non-heterosexuals that they should be given the exact same civil liberties as heterosexuals, but even then I think it's silly to act like it's a giant conspiracy.  

 

 

Did I say that any movement to accept non-heterosexual behavior doesn't exist? No.  People act like the cultural shift toward accepting non-heterosexual behavior as normal is a giant conspiracy. That's what people hear when people go on and on about the "homosexual agenda."  It sounds like you mean there's a big scary collective with a five point plan of how to take over the world and destroy the Church, and that most gay people are in on it.  If that's not what you mean, I highly recommend people stop using that rhetoric.  It makes people sound ridiculous, and like they've never actually spoken to a gay person. 

2. Last time I checked Dust is the arbiter of what constitutes Phatmass-worthy Catholicism. 

 

3. Thanks for questioning my integrity.  That was so charitable of you. 

[dominicansoul]

So how exactly is Exxon actively destroying my kids' future?  

Is it by being insufficiently supportive of homosexuality, or is it the fact that they drill for oil?

 

Or is it some other secret plot I'm not privy to?

 

 

it's the Exxon agenda...

[4588686]

it's the Exxon agenda...

 

 

Yes.

 

http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial.302183828.pdf

[jmjtina]

Because of my statements, you assume I haven't spoken to ppl who struggle with ssa or have people who I love dearly who identify themselves with ssa and therefore sound ridiculous? You've stated that before in another thread, only it was aimed at your parish priest.

 

 It sounds like you mean there's a big scary collective with a five point plan of how to take over the world and destroy the Church, and that most gay people are in on it.

 

 

Wow. For someone who is quick to point out what they did not say to someone, you do the same thing?

 

What about staying on topic?

 

What about what Apotheoun stated?

 

When stating the "homosexual agenda" I think it is crucial for a PM militant to make it crystal clear exactly where they stand, which means, clarifying and defending the Truth of what Mother Church teaches, which is exactly what Apotheoun did. Which is the beauty of phatmass. You don't just get the "media" spoonful of twisted reporting, you get some Phatmass Punch to go with it. (thus, stating the magesterium) And then we can actually talk about how that applies to us in real life. Hence, Socrates buying more Exxon gas, & probably an email of support.

 

However, If we are going in circles about political correctness on your end, then by all means, state that. Other than that, your statements only further confuse lurkers as to what Catholics are supposed to believe when faced with buisnesses either being bullied (do we put our blinders on? or think, "What is my role?") and how to use it in thier daily lives. As Catholics, it's important to use the Church's teachings to address these issues, not political correctness.

 

Is there an agenda? Anyone who knows Masha Gessen and Peter Thatchell, know there isn't a doubt. 

 

Now, anyone familiar with Thomas Peters, knows this young man works with the National Organization of Marriage and his dad is Ed Peters, a well known Canon Lawyer. One of the best debates I've seen on and I think he did a great job. We need to learn how to defend our faith, bottom line, and be militant about it. Tbh, that's the last of this thread I'm gonna say. The magisterium is there to read, and I can say no more. The rest is up to the reader.

 

+pax

 

http://youtu.be/GUlpmrmSbaI

 

Edited June 3, 2013 by jmjtina

[Basilisa Marie]

 

Because of my statements, you assume I haven't spoken to ppl who struggle with ssa or have people who I love dearly who identify themselves with ssa and therefore sound ridiculous? You've stated that before in another thread, only it was aimed at your parish priest.

 

 

Former parish priest.  And the reason why I said that was because I was responding to a letter he wrote, in which he talked about the causes of homosexuality, and the people who I know who aren't heterosexual don't think something made them that way, because they've always been attracted to the same sex and were raised in a perfectly normal Catholic family.  MY experience listening to the experiences of gay people doesn't resonate with what he says the Catholic Medical Association says are the experiences of gay people, and I noted the discrepancy.  If you cared to continue reading my posts, you would have noticed that I praised him for the way he was carrying out the decision in his parish.  So don't try to paint me as some giant hierarchy hater.  

 

My point is critical of the way some Catholics apply the Church's teaching on homosexuality, which is why my posts focused on the rhetoric and language, not doctrine.  I'm not critical of the Church's teaching on homosexuality. 

 

I'm not addressing the rest of this, because it's derailing into a discussion of whether or not I'm Catholic enough for the peanut gallery.  I'm not debating my worthiness of being Church Militant.  If you have a problem, take it up with Dust or a mod.  

 

I'm out.  

[Socrates]

 

2. There's no such thing as a homosexual agenda, unless you're talking about the general collective feeling among non-heterosexuals that they should be given the exact same civil liberties as heterosexuals, but even then I think it's silly to act like it's a giant conspiracy.  

 

 

 

 

Did I say that any movement to accept non-heterosexual behavior doesn't exist? No.  People act like the cultural shift toward accepting non-heterosexual behavior as normal is a giant conspiracy. That's what people hear when people go on and on about the "homosexual agenda."  It sounds like you mean there's a big scary collective with a five point plan of how to take over the world and destroy the Church, and that most gay people are in on it.  If that's not what you mean, I highly recommend people stop using that rhetoric.  It makes people sound ridiculous, and like they've never actually spoken to a gay person. 

 

As has been pointed out, there is (and has been) indeed an organized political movement to promote public approval of homosexual behavior at all levels of society - from the push for "gay marriage," to special employee benefits for homosexual couples, to mandatory "sensitivity training" regarding homosexuals in the workplace, to teaching kids positively about homosexuality in public schools as young as kindergarten, to "gays" in the Boy Scouts, etc., etc. etc.

 

Yes, there has been a "cultural shift" towards enforcing public approval of homosexuality, but this did not just emerge spontaneously out of the air - it is the result of actual persons working in positions of influence to push this attitude in politics and the media, starting before it was "cool" or commonly accepted.

 

There have always been homosexuals, but this movement to enforce approval of homosexuality in all our institutions is historically extremely recent.  Even when I was a kid (and I'm not that old), none of the things I've mentioned were mainstream, and if you told most people then that states would soon be recognizing same-sex "marriage" or that first-graders would be required to learn about homosexuality, they's think you were nuts.

 

No, I don't think all homosexual persons are pushing the above-described agenda, but I've never heard anyone who believed or claimed such.

 

You may not like the term "homosexual agenda," but if you can come up with a better shorthand term to describe this, let me know.  I've heard the word "homosexualist" used to describe this movement.

 

I also think one can legitimately broadly refer to a "conservative agenda," a "libertarian agenda," an "environmentalist agenda," a "feminist agenda," or a "pro-life agenda," etc. without necessarily implying some crazy deep, dark conspiracy of people in smoke-filled rooms in underground lairs.

 

 

It seems like you want to dismiss everyone opposed to the pushing for public approval of homosexual behavior as paranoid crazies, and it seems from you're posts that you're generally opposed to anything "socially conservative."  I wouldn't go so far as to call it an "agenda" . . .

[Socrates]

The Church's magisterium has also made numerous comments about the reality of anthropomorphic climate change and the moral duty of grapple with the challenge.   :unsure:

 

Anthropomorphic climate change?  Does this mean we have to personalize the whole process?

 

"Poor little Miss Earth broke out in a sweat, finding that mean old Mr. Sun's nasty rays were making her uncomfortably hot."

[Socrates]

Yes.

 

http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial.302183828.pdf

 

Taildeer.  But it looks like more of the usual "climate change" globaloney.

 

 

But this begs the question: since apparently I'm a horrible, awful person who doesn't care about my kids because I support some evil, evil oil corporation by filling 'er up at the pump, what, Oh Wise One, is the correct, moral course of action you take when driving your car and the needle on the fuel gauge starts heading to the "Empty" mark?