New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Perigrina]

Given that there is no difinitive source of morality and given USA politics it seems USA people are left to decide for themselves what is morally acceptable or not.
Some people choose to join an organisation and let that organisation tell them what is morally acceptable or not e.g. Catholic church.
Some people decide for themselves,
Others see it as a futile excercuse.

Probably because they recognise that people have the right to love, and the right to form a family.
Government probably deem it not the government's business to interfere in the lives of concenting adults whom present no threat or danger to society.

As religious dogma has lost its prejudice and oppresive grip on people, people have decided to mind their own business and not to judge or oppress others unless it makes society dangerous.

 

People are not being allowed to decide what is morally acceptable, or at least not to act on that decision.  People who think that same-sex marriage is not acceptable are forced to support these weddings.  They are not asked because they are the only baker, florist, or reception hall available.  They are asked because they believe that same-sex marriage is wrong.  Minding one's own business is exactly what is not happening. Owners of businesses are asked so they can be coerced to provide services they do not want to provide.  

 

This is not about protecting anybody's rights.  It is about taking away the right to follow one's religion. 

[NotreDame]

PAGE 4!!!

 

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[The Bus Station]

My dog has three legs

[KnightofChrist]

Each blade of grass whispered to the other, the king of togo togo has two horns.

[Not The Philosopher]

My dog has three legs

 

Maybe your three legs have a dog.

[CrossCuT]

Don't redefine marriage. If you want civil unions, that's a different issue entirely, but you can't redefine marriage.

 

?????????? lol

[CrossCuT]

Don't redefine marriage. If you want civil unions, that's a different issue entirely, but you can't redefine marriage.

 

?????????? lol

[superblue]

pretty easy to redefine marriage, politicians do it all the time, I bet I could do it even faster.

 

maybe instead of gay, we call it " butt buddies " ( south park , hilarious )

 

oh no the gays are coming !

 

Big Gay Al, Stans dog on south park was gay, over all pretty funny stuff, if they didn't throw a friggin parade everytime someone came outa the closet that would be nice.

Infact for every gay parade here on out, we should have straight parades, and heterosexual families marching in a flotilla .

[Maggyie]

They have the same opportunity to enter into a sacramental marriage with someone of the opposite gender as everyone else who doesn't have a canonical impediment.

Norseman you're very confused. Someone who is homosexual is likely unable to contract a valid and binding sacramental marriage, period, because of the difficulties involved in their emotional and sex lives. And secondly even if they do have the right under canon law to attempt such a marriage, it's ludicrous to think a gay man in a heterosexual marriage will obtain the same satisfaction as a heterosexual man in a heterosexual marriage. Duh.

[NotreDame]

it's ludicrous to think a gay man in a heterosexual marriage will obtain the same satisfaction as a heterosexual man in a heterosexual marriage. Duh.

I dunno... John Travolta seems pretty happy.

 

[Semper Catholic]

pretty easy to redefine marriage, politicians do it all the time, I bet I could do it even faster.

maybe instead of gay, we call it " butt buddies " ( south park , hilarious )

oh no the gays are coming !

Big Gay Al, Stans dog on south park was gay, over all pretty funny stuff, if they didn't throw a friggin parade everytime someone came outa the closet that would be nice.
Infact for every gay parade here on out, we should have straight parades, and heterosexual families marching in a flotilla .

We have parades for all kinds of people all the time. This is like arguing about black history month.

[Semper Catholic]

I have no difficulty facing the issue. However, if I have to choose between a flame war and posting memes, I choose memes.

I would very much like to have a reasonable, civil, and charitable discussion of this topic. If we discuss it, I promise to talk about ideas rather than posters, to make no personal attacks, to address everyone courteously and to wait until I have calmed down if I am tempted to post in anger. I encourage anyone else who wishes to discuss this to follow guidelines of this sort.

In what world is this a flame war?

[Semper Catholic]

I'm sure that's what you think you were having, but to anyone who has been around longer than 4 weeks, it's just a couple of new people debating the same two phishy people, rehashing the same arguments that had gone on ad nauseam on 20 other threads the few months before you got here.

I don't start these threads I just finish them.

[Perigrina]

In what world is this a flame war?

 

This thread is not a flame war.  Someone predicted that it would become a flame war because that is what usually happens here.  I am a fairly new member so I do not know what usually happens here.

[Perigrina]

Why have yet another thread on homosexuality?

 

Some object to this thread.  They say it is pointless to discuss this topic because all the arguments have already been made countless times before and nobody ever changes his mind.  I agree that there probably are no new arguments.  That, however, does not mean the thread of pointless.  Sometimes how one says things is more important than what one says.  When we focus on the 'how' rather than the 'what' there are very good reasons for this thread.  In honour of the feast day, I will give three.

 

Our society faces a crisis of civility.  The culture wars are turning our world into a massive screaming match.  Christ told us to be the light of the world and one way we can do that is to preserve reason and courtesy.  When the Roman Empire fell, it was the Church which preserved knowledge, literacy and order.  Now it is our turn to stand against the darkness of our own time.

 

It is an opportunity to grow in virtue.  A discussion like this is likely to provide occasions to exercise self-control, to receive insults without returning them, and to be kind and courteous when it is difficult to do so.  If we avoid situations in which we may practice virtues, how will we ever develop them?

 

It is also an opportunity for evangelism.  It is not our job to win arguments but to win souls.  We can enter debate resolved to love our opponents.  We can be channels of the love of Christ as we discuss the issues.  That love is where the power exists that can change minds and hearts and lives.

 

So, yes, there are good reasons for this thread and probably for every 'pointless' debate we will ever encounter.  It will always be good to be the light of the world, to grow in virtue, and to evangelize by our way of life.  Let's start with this thread.