Kindergartners To Be Taught Homosexuality, Bisexuality, And Transsexu

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: We, as Catholics do not believe that sex is all about pleasure. On the contrary, sex has two purposes. The first one being the creation of new life. The second one being the strengthening of the union between Husband and Wife.

Thus any sexual act that is not open to both, the creation of new life, and the strengthening of the union between Husband and Wife is disordered.[/quote]

Is this belief your loss or your gain?

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1289795' date='Jun 6 2007, 10:32 PM']As Catholics we believe sodomy is sinful for "straights" too.

And homosexual men can only have anal sex and other forms of sodomy with one another.
And it is [i]impossible[/i] for two persons of the same sex to have natural, life-giving sexual intercourse with one-another. That's not prejudiced -[color="#FF0000"]that's just biological fact.[/color][/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]So is adoption and artificial insemination.[/color]

[carrdero]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1288833' date='Jun 5 2007, 05:28 PM']Anywho, maybe Carderro is confusing lust with love. That happens.[/quote]
Carrdero is not confusing love with lust, carrdero has a very good understanding of what love is.

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1290127' date='Jun 7 2007, 06:55 AM']Is this belief your loss or your gain?[/quote]


It is most certainly a gain. It is liberation!

When you realize that it is through sex that a new life is brought into the world, and thus the sexual act is sacred in and of itself, you appreciate sex for the gift that it is. It cannot be undertaken strictly for pleasure or for lust, it's too important.

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1290120' date='Jun 7 2007, 06:04 AM']Never did I admit that homosexuality was natural but I did refer repeatedly that it was not immoral. Just becasue something is Natural or Unnatural does not imply that it is right or wrong or that it even cares what we think.[/quote]


Can you refresh my memory about your standards for morality?? I thought it was something along the lines of different strokes for different folks [quote]A difficult question that I think no one human should have to answer for everyone. I do not believe that there is any scientific method to measure morality so we would most likely have to rely on our own personal principles, understanding and/or experiences[/quote]

So how exactly do you know that homosexuality is not immoral?

Edited June 7, 2007 by SJP

[SJP]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1289650' date='Jun 6 2007, 07:31 PM']That I didn't actually know.
My point was that in those kind of situations they get exactly the same from sex as do gay couples, still you don't say they are "using each other". Even though they could easily abstain from all sex.[/quote]

I'm going to steal a quote from Aloysius that I found in a different thread:

[quote]Aloysius writes: The procreative aspect is maintained during infertile periods in reference to fertile periods and the state of marriage and parenthood.

the three goods of marriage, as listed by the Council of Florence in order of importance, are first procreation and raising of the children, second intimacy, and third stability and permanence. now, there's this little arrow running through those from the last to the first: stability and permanence are there to make intimacy good; intimacy is there to make procreation and parenting good. so one should be able to engage in the sex act as often as one desires with one's spouse (within reason, of course) without having to have periods of abstinence in which one is forced by circumstances not to engage in the conjugal act.

but intimacy is a good because it makes for better parents, when it comes down to it. that's where the "procreative aspect" remains in sex during infertile periods or after menapause and such, all the intimacy remains directed towards that ultimate procreative good. and so there's nothing inherently wrong about sex when there's no possibility of procreation; where there is an imperfection is when the circumstances cause it so that you must refrain from sex during the infertile periods because you cannot, due to circumstances, have children at that time.[/quote]With respect to how NFP differs from Artificial Birth Control:
Fr. Frank Pavone:

[quote]NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be "open" to life as long as the spouses do nothing to "close" it. Here's the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately "close" the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body's fertility and infertility -- patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman's cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.[/quote]

Edited June 7, 2007 by SJP

[jckinsman]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1290128' date='Jun 7 2007, 06:07 AM'][color="#FF0000"]So is adoption and artificial insemination.[/color][/quote]
First off, Adoption and artifical insemination are two very different things. The church is for adoption,and not for artifical insemination anyway.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='SJP' post='1290181' date='Jun 7 2007, 09:46 AM']Can you refresh my memory about your standards for morality?? I thought it was something along the lines of different strokes for different folks

So how exactly do you know that homosexuality is not immoral?[/quote]
thats a tough one! How???? hum??? I would like to know this also!

[jckinsman]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1290118' date='Jun 7 2007, 04:59 AM'][color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: GOD did NOT create Anal-Sex, we in our own disturbed minds did, as a form of "getting off".[/color]

Some people call this making love, even some heterosexual couples.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: That is what Sex has been reduced to"what you can do for me".[/color]

I understand that some people have these “sexpectations” as I understand that some people can misunderstand Love but I have also experienced that this is not the case for all relationships.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: God DID create us for love.[/color]

Then you can understand that our expression of love varies with each individual. That like snowflakes, no two loves are exactly equal.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: We are the ones that messed with it and I think people like you, want what you want, so your not going to tell anyone anything different. [/color]

I think it is important for everyone to define the kind of love that they will accept in their lives.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: Your motives are self-serving. Defending what is wrong by saying" God created it" is a cop-out for justifiying your own sins.[/color]

All I am demonstrating is that love is completely open ended. That it is not assigned to one’s opposite gender but that it can honestly be shared and returned by two (or more) consenting adults.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: God gave us all Free-Will and we DO have control over any behavior that we may have.[/color]

One cannot have rules, judgment and sentencing [b][i]and[/i][/b] the gift of free will. So which is it? Do we have the will to live and love freely or do we have the threat of a Supreme Being hanging over us?

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: We are still a notch above animals,remember? [/color]

Animals don’t march off to war, so I think I just put us all on equal standing again.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: So by your statement above you are saying it DOES boil down to one thing, SEX.[/color]

No, what I am saying is that is boils down to Love and if sex is a way for two consenting adults to sincerely celebrate and extend that love to each other, who is anyone to judge dishonestly?

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: I have plenty of very loving relationships with woman, I do NOT have sex with these women. My husband has loving relationships with other men and does NOT have sex with them. [/color]

Homosexuality is a preference and an individual’s choice. It may not be your choice, and it may not be mine but it is a lifestyle (that is not illegal) for other people.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: Homosexual sex is WRONG[/color]

Judging others is wrong.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: You will be held accountable in the end.[/color]

I am not sure that one could be held accountable for the collected explanations and reasonable deductions for the continuance of homosexuality. I don’t have the power to stop homosexuality, bi-sexuality or transsexuals even if I wanted to. If one has faith in a God, and if one has the faith that God is all-knowing and if one has faith that God has a serious problem or concern with alternative sexual preferences and if one has the faith that God has the power to stop these practices, it would probably have been best handled in the beginning when these activites started, not in the end. If you ask me, this is a great amount of faith for anyone to expend for something that they feel is so wrong in spite of any evidence from God that He feels the same way that they do.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: I look at it as a sacred and holy act to be kept between a man and a woman. Look at the human body>The penis and the vagina were made for eachother during the act of intercourse.[/color]

So with this line of reasoning rape between a man and a woman is acceptable. The parts all fit, the fluids still flow and a woman may still conceive a child so it must be a natural and sacred event.

[color="#000080"]Jckinsman writes: You do not see it as such. I do. I know there will be consequences for are actions.[/color]

I'm not sure you do know Jckinsman but am I willing to believe that you have put a lot of faith in it[/quote]

I'am so sorry,I did not want to quote so much and have eveyone read all the distortion again. Although A little part of me would like it if you did though. I wish that others on PM would realize that this topic is key to what Christ has taught us about the sanctity of all of humanity. It is the one thing that Our Lord Holds most sacred and Holy,The act by which HE creates a human being, able to love and serve him. I know that we grow weary listening to the endless garbage,with little thought. Ask yourselves, What better to defend at its core,then the sanctity of marriage and the Sacredness of the act. Keeping it as pure and Holy as possible in this world. These are the people leading the next generation down the wide road of "go ahead and do it,if it feels good"
Do you hear what she is saying? Read it over again,if you are unsure!
They are "grooming" our children for their perverted behavior.
How did a intercourse between a man and woman,switch to Rape! The whole thing sounds so unreal as I read it ,it was almost funny..... if it wasn't so sad.
So many contradictions, my mind is going a million miles an hour. Did you actually hear the part about Homosexuality is a choosen behavior! Wow, thats news to me! I thought thay were born that way!
I wonder what stops them from having sex with their Dogs???? I mean If they have loving feelings toward their dog, why not? ( I think that there's a name for that!) Hum???? Yah, that would be wrong, but the thought was there and the feeling was also. Hummmm????? Why then is it wrong??? Oh that's right! It's an animal! Yes, very wrong! So Sex with animals is wrong, right???? EVEN IF YOU WANT TO.Right?(KEY NOTATION HERE)
Can we agree on that, or maybe you do think its okay,you have mentioned two or three people would be okay. Maybe its okay if the Dog is involved too????? Only under the context of "LOVE" and "self expression "though
My point ,I think you can Grasp quite Clearly. Just Because there's a thought process, does not make it a Good or Right thought process. What if the thought was of a small child??? What is the difference? There is no limits to your way of thinking! No morals! No standards! And your mind is can be endless! Where is the self control? YOU may have the self control to stop at certain sick behaviors, but does the next guy and the next and then, when is it OUR problem????
I'll tell you when, When they want to teach MY CHILD the garbage that you spew! (ORIGINAL THREAD TOPIC)
This does not even come close to what judgment is like, my friend! Sorry! JC ROM 1;27 1 COR 6;9 1 GN 19 TIM 1;9-10
Your right animals do not march off to war BRAVE MEN AND WOMAN SERVING IN OUR VOLUNTARY MILITARY DO!

Edited June 7, 2007 by jckinsman

[Semalsia]

[quote name='jckinsman']Look at the human body> The penis and the vagina were made for eachother during the act of intercourse.[/quote]

That's true, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be used for other things. Proving one thing natural doesn't make another unnatural.

Nor does it make it necessarily immoral. That's not something you can determine from biology alone.


[quote name='jckinsman']I would have to say, I love the sinner, I hate the Sin.[/quote]

You claim you do, but I don't think it's possible in this case. If you hate homosexuality, you don't just hate what the homosexual does, you hate what she is, her very nature. You hate her feelings, her happiness and her love. You can't love the person, if you hate the person.

[quote name='jckinsman']Not messing with any of what he created. Do you understand that?[/quote]

I understand what you mean, but you can't know what is messing and what isn't.

If our bodies are created by God, then it's rational to assume that what feels good and natural is good and natural. If you say our feelings can't be trusted, then it's not possible to know how we should behave.

[quote]I choose not to be blind![/quote]

I believe we're both blind. But unlike you, I don't believe God would punish a blind man for bumping into a door.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='JSP']Aloysius writes: The procreative aspect is maintained during infertile periods in reference to fertile periods and the state of marriage and parenthood.

[b]the three goods of marriage, as listed by the Council of Florence in order of importance, are first procreation and raising of the children, second intimacy, and third stability and permanence.[/b] now, there's this little arrow running through those from the last to the first: stability and permanence are there to make intimacy good; intimacy is there to make procreation and parenting good. so one should be able to engage in the sex act as often as one desires with one's spouse (within reason, of course) without having to have periods of abstinence in which one is forced by circumstances not to engage in the conjugal act.

[b]but intimacy is a good because it makes for better parents, when it comes down to it. that's where the "procreative aspect" remains in sex during infertile periods or after menapause and such, all the intimacy remains directed towards that ultimate procreative good. and so there's nothing inherently wrong about sex when there's no possibility of procreation[/b]; where there is an imperfection is when the circumstances cause it so that you must refrain from sex during the infertile periods because you cannot, due to circumstances, have children at that time.[/quote]

Gay couple can procreate and raise children together. Their relationship can have intimacy, stability and permanence. So could someone at least admit that they can produce good fruit? Make a family? A good family?

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1290527' date='Jun 7 2007, 06:38 PM']That's true, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be used for other things. Proving one thing natural doesn't make another unnatural.

Nor does it make it necessarily immoral. That's not something you can determine from biology alone.
You claim you do, but I don't think it's possible in this case. If you hate homosexuality, you don't just hate what the homosexual does, you hate what she is, her very nature. You hate her feelings, her happiness and her love. You can't love the person, if you hate the person.
I understand what you mean, but you can't know what is messing and what isn't.

If our bodies are created by God, then it's rational to assume that what feels good and natural is good and natural. If you say our feelings can't be trusted, then it's not possible to know how we should behave.
I believe we're both blind. But unlike you, I don't believe God would punish a blind man for bumping into a door.[/quote]
I can Love my nephew, because he has been made in the image and likeness of our Lord! I do not have to LOVE the sin that he commits! When the Blind man Knows the door is there he, does not make the same mistake twice. Go and SIN no more! JC

[SJP]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1290543' date='Jun 7 2007, 08:22 PM']Gay couple can procreate and raise children together. Their relationship can have intimacy, stability and permanence. So could someone at least admit that they can produce good fruit? Make a family? A good family?[/quote]

How can two gay people procreate?

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: When you realize that it is through sex that a new life is brought into the world, and thus the sexual act is sacred in and of itself, you appreciate sex for the gift that it is. [/quote]And what is your take on the 26,000 miscarriages, stillbirths, RH disease, umbilical accidents that occur every year or the 500,000 annual prematures that die after a few days/weeks? Do you consider these gifts too? How about the 6.1 million people in the U.S. alone who cannot conceive children or have never been given the gift of life? Do you believe that these “unholy” immoral people should be denied the pleasure that sexual intimacy brings?

[quote]SJP writes: It cannot be undertaken strictly for pleasure or for lust, it's too important.[/quote]

Important? Possibly. Overrated? Definitely.

[quote]SJP writes: Can you refresh my memory about your standards for morality?? I thought it was something along the lines of different strokes for different folks.[/quote]My standards for what is moral or immoral are my own and my not be agreeable to other people. My standards for what is Natural and Unnatural is a whole other topic entirely (Post #81).

[quote]SJP writes:So how exactly do you know that homosexuality is not immoral?[/quote]
It doesn’t represent itself as immoral. There is not enough evidence to consider consenting homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexual a threat to anyone who does not prefer to participate in that lifestyle.

[SJP]

[quote]carrdero writes: And what is your take on the 26,000 miscarriages, stillbirths, RH disease, umbilical accidents that occur every year or the 500,000 annual prematures that die after a few days/weeks? [/quote]That's terrible and we should keep all people who have been through such situations in our prayers. However, I fail to see how that at all detracts from the sacntity of sex or the beauty of new life. Perhaps you could elaborate. I think your reasoning fails you.

[quote]carrdero writes: How about the 6.1 million people in the U.S. alone who cannot conceive children or have never been given the gift of life? Do you believe that these “unholy” immoral people should be denied the pleasure that sexual intimacy brings?[/quote]

Can please show me where I stated that people who could not conceive children are "unholy".


[quote]carrdero writes: Important? Possibly. Overrated? Definitely.[/quote]I'm sorry you feel that way.

[quote]carrdero writes: It doesn’t represent itself as immoral. There is not enough evidence to consider consenting homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexual a threat to anyone who does not prefer to participate in that lifestyle.[/quote]

Well what evidence do you have to support your view that homosexuality is not immoral?

[quote]carrdero writes: My standards for what is moral or immoral are my own and my not be agreeable to other people[/quote]

Well by that line of reasoning, there is no truth when it comes to morality. There can be no Truth. You're believing it does not make it moral or true. So I fail to see why you make any pronouncements whatsoever about morality. By your own admission, morality should be left up to individauls, so why are you trying to push your views on me?

Edited June 8, 2007 by SJP