American Multinational Oil Company Says 'no' To Homosexual Age

[4588686]

Socrates is just another cafeteria Catholic.  Buyin' exxon and hatin them babies.  Probably majored in women's studies.  lolz

[IcePrincessKRS]

 Probably majored in women's studies.  lolz

 

That made me LOL.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I would definitely favor buying gas from an oil company that did not give money to abortion-providing organizations over Exxon, which was why I inquired if anyone was aware of such companies.  (Though nobody seems interested in answering - folks here seem more interested in cheap shots, however dishonest.)

Valero. Specifically my station. I don't know about our track record but I'll hook you up with free slurpies.

Edited June 6, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Chestertonian]

Valero. Specifically my station. I don't know about our track record but I'll hook you up with free slurpies.

 

Howz about free fountain soda refills?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Howz about free fountain soda refills?

 

I got chu!

[Vincent Vega]

I'm going to respond to that which bears being responded to, and edit out that which is superfluous to the argument with the following:  :cry:

 

1)  Your assertion that I'd rather see babies die than for people to commit homosexual acts is simply a bald-faced lie and slander.

 

I was not aware of Exxon-Mobil's donations to PP, etc.  I would definitely favor buying gas from an oil company that did not give money to abortion-providing organizations over Exxon, which was why I inquired if anyone was aware of such companies.   :cry:

The fact that you were more eager to jump on the bandwagon of a company for a purely political reason without checking out any of the company's other political stances - one of which, I will venture, is much graver and pertinent to those not directly involved in it - would to some suggest that one stance is, for whatever reason, given more gravity in your mind.

 

2)  People will commit sins of sodomy whether or not companies award them special benefits and such for it, though I'm against any active supporting of homosexuality, and awarding homosexuals special benefits or recognition.  I'm simply with the Church on this one.

No argument there.

 

And I am opposed to sodomitic acts within marriage, and divorce and remarriage - and have never defended such practices.  People just don't seem to post that often on here promoting or defending those particular sins.

Funny that. 

 

3)  "Disagreement" with homosexual activity is not my personal opinion, but is the constant moral teaching of the Church founded by Christ.  Pretending that it's nothing more than a personal disagreement on my part is dishonest.  (Whether or not you personally agree with the Church on this is beside the point here.)

It is, in fact, a personal disagreement, whether you assent to that or not. To be sure, it is one shared by anywhere from several hundred million to several billion others and endorsed by your church, certainly, but at the end of the day, it is your opinion [spoiler]synonym = belief[/spoiler]. It is not an absolute fact that homosexual activity is bad, or for that matter, acceptable -- it would be preposterous to argue that from any standpoint except a religious or philosophical one. 

 

4)  I certainly never claimed to be the only real Catholic around, though I believe Catholics should assent to the teachings of the Church.  Obviously, as you've apparently gone Protestant, you reject the Church's teaching authority, though it seems you at least realize you should not claim to belong to a Church whose teachings you reject.  I'm not sure why a Protestant should be so concerned about who thinks who's a "real Catholic," though.

 

 

:cry:

 

( :cry: )

 

For somebody who employs implications an awful lot, you seem to not be familiar with them. In any case...

You have this interesting opinion that anybody who doesn't spend as much time thinking about homosexuals as you do (and, as an aside, most homosexuals that I know don't seem to spend as much time thinking about homosexuals as you apparently do) is a lukewarm Catholic. Perhaps you are correct in this belief; all shall be revealed in due time, I guess. Whatever the case may be, I don't, in particular, care who is or is not a "real Catholic" (in fact, I suspect that you'd find my definition as laughable as I do yours). What I do care about is that there are a lot of good people on this forum who are actively and earnestly discerning the will of God and living in accordance with the teachings of the Roman church (whether that jives with your peculiar interpretation of them or not) who you would have made out to be living hybrids of equal parts Margaret Sanger and Harvey Milk. And that stance, which is completely bereft of charity or compassion, is what irks me.

 

 

Perhaps something nearing the bottom line for me in all of this is that spending money on campaigns to keep homosexuals from being joined in civil unions (or whatever the special terminology one wishes to use is) is that it's throwing money away. The entire developed world and the citizens thereof are rapidly moving to accepting some sort of homosexual marriage-like arrangement. More Americans than ever before are in support of or ambivalent to arrangements like these. It is only a matter of time before it is common place. That said, if one wanted to donate to "The No Gay Marriage and Flat-Earth Inquisition Society (501(c)(3))", I see no issue with that -- I like a free market. However, spending money on this particular sysiphean endeavor while at the same time supporting abortion is a thought that I find to be bizarre at best (and revolting at worst). 

[Vincent Vega]

The entire developed world and the citizens thereof are rapidly moving to accepting some sort of homosexual marriage-like arrangement. More Americans than ever before are in support of or ambivalent to arrangements like these. 

[Socrates]

I'm going to respond to that which bears being responded to, and edit out that which is superfluous to the argument with the following:  :cry:

 

The fact that you were more eager to jump on the bandwagon of a company for a purely political reason without checking out any of the company's other political stances - one of which, I will venture, is much graver and pertinent to those not directly involved in it - would to some suggest that one stance is, for whatever reason, given more gravity in your mind.

 

This thread was specifically about Exxon-Mobil's decision regarding special benefits for homosexuals, which was one I believe was good and deserving of commendation.  Nothing was said about abortion, and I was not aware of their donating to PP and other such organizations.  Perhaps I was too hasty to make my post before researching all the organizations they donate to (perhaps this had something to do with the story coming from a pro-life news outlet), but we're all fallible.

 

Being ignorant of their funding of abortion organizations does not equate to me giving lesser importance to the issue of abortion (which had not been raised in the thread), and insinuating that I'm okay with the company supporting abortion through donations is simply false and slanderous.

 

Again, if you know of an oil company which does not donate to pro-abortion organizations, I'd be glad to know, and would happily support that company over Exxon at the pump.  But apparently you're more interested in impugning my character and rashly judging my motives than you are in offering positive input.

 

 

 

 

No argument there.

 

 

Funny that. 

 

 

It is, in fact, a personal disagreement, whether you assent to that or not. To be sure, it is one shared by anywhere from several hundred million to several billion others and endorsed by your church, certainly, but at the end of the day, it is your opinion [spoiler]synonym = belief[/spoiler]. It is not an absolute fact that homosexual activity is bad, or for that matter, acceptable -- it would be preposterous to argue that from any standpoint except a religious or philosophical one. 

 

 

The moral acceptability or unacceptability of any action is ultimately a philosophical or religious issue.  Morality is not determined by popularity or opinion polls.

 

I'm sad that you've apparently succumbed to moral relativism.

 

 

 

For somebody who employs implications an awful lot, you seem to not be familiar with them. In any case...

You have this interesting opinion that anybody who doesn't spend as much time thinking about homosexuals as you do (and, as an aside, most homosexuals that I know don't seem to spend as much time thinking about homosexuals as you apparently do) is a lukewarm Catholic. Perhaps you are correct in this belief; all shall be revealed in due time, I guess. Whatever the case may be, I don't, in particular, care who is or is not a "real Catholic" (in fact, I suspect that you'd find my definition as laughable as I do yours). What I do care about is that there are a lot of good people on this forum who are actively and earnestly discerning the will of God and living in accordance with the teachings of the Roman church (whether that jives with your peculiar interpretation of them or not) who you would have made out to be living hybrids of equal parts Margaret Sanger and Harvey Milk. And that stance, which is completely bereft of charity or compassion, is what irks me.

 

 

Again, my opposition to homosexual activity and policies which positively endorse it as a good is not simply a personal opinion, but is rooted in the moral teachings of the Catholic Church (though they are also in accord with right reason and natural law).

 

As a believing Catholic, I believe all of the moral truths taught by the Church should be taught and adhered to - not just those that are politically correct or personally convenient.  Certainly not all the moral teachings are easy to follow, and I've failed plenty of times - that's why we have the Sacrament of Penance.  But the moral teachings are not a pick-and-choose deal for Catholics.

 

This is supposed to be a Catholic forum, and there is certainly nothing wrong with pointing out what the Church teaches on moral issues when they are debated on here. There's nothing uncharitable about telling others what the Catholic Church teaches, even if it may upset some.  Unlike you, I never judged the soul of any Catholic on here - merely pointed out what positions are and are not in accord with Catholic teaching.  Instructing the ignorant is considered a spiritual work of mercy by the Church.

 

I don't spend much of my time dwelling on homosexuality, but the Catholic teachings on homosexuality are ones that happen to be frequently attacked or misrepresented on these boards (because such teachings are unpopular, and this has become a political "hot button" issue.)

If this is a subject you have no interest in, certainly no one is forcing you to read or post in threads on these topics.

 

And, once more, the position that homosexual activity is immoral and disordered, and should not be publicly endorsed or supported is not "my own peculiar interpretation" of Catholic teaching.  That homosexual activity is gravely immoral and disordered is stated plainly in the Catechism.  Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF published a document plainly teaching that Catholics are bound by conscience to oppose legal recognition of homosexual civil unions and "marriages."  Whether you agree with this teaching or not, to claim that this is my own "peculiar interpretation" is plainly and blatantly false.  I'm merely repeating what a former Pope has taught.

 

 

Perhaps something nearing the bottom line for me in all of this is that spending money on campaigns to keep homosexuals from being joined in civil unions (or whatever the special terminology one wishes to use is) is that it's throwing money away. The entire developed world and the citizens thereof are rapidly moving to accepting some sort of homosexual marriage-like arrangement. More Americans than ever before are in support of or ambivalent to arrangements like these. It is only a matter of time before it is common place. That said, if one wanted to donate to "The No Gay Marriage and Flat-Earth Inquisition Society (501(c)(3))", I see no issue with that -- I like a free market. However, spending money on this particular sysiphean endeavor while at the same time supporting abortion is a thought that I find to be bizarre at best (and revolting at worst). 

 

You can site all the opinion surveys and poll data you like - it's completely irrelevant to my beliefs, which are not determined by popularity.  As Christians, we are called to stand up for what is right and oppose what is wrong without regard to whether it is popular or currently has a high likelihood of political success.  How much money is donated is another matter.  I'll continue to to vote against "gay marriage" and those who support it so long as I am able.

 

Would you be against supporting anti-slavery groups, if the overwhelming majority of Americans supported slavery? [Or you can substitute any other less politically correct moral evil.]

The idea that we should only support what is right and oppose that is wrong if it is popular, or base it purely on monetary concerns is bizarre and revolting.

 

And once more, I do not support abortion (and currently don't favor Exxon over any other gas company).  Repeating that lie does not make it true.

 

Have a good day.

[4588686]

 

And once more, I do not support abortion (and currently don't favor Exxon over any other gas company).  Repeating that lie does not make it true.

 

Have a good day.

 

 

The problems with you libs is that none of you 'personally' support abortion.  You just want to give women the 'choice' to murder or not murder her innocent child.   :rolleyes: