Gay companies

[capoly]

Originally Posted by HelligUsvart

The problem is that homosexuals wish for everyone, including Catholics, to view their relationships as being valid. The Church has guidelines for what a valid marriage is (this also applies to heterosexuals), you can't change their own rules on that matter.

I have not seen anyone who wanted to force the church to validate homosexual marriage (though I am sure some people might want that to happen). Secular marriage has nothing to do with church-endorsed marriage.

Originally Posted by HelligUsvart

By government law, homosexuals have rights obviously, and no one is trying to take them away or discriminate agianst them as human beings.

That is the point. They do not, and the church uses its not-miniscule influence to make sure that they will not have the same rights: "namely to have a legally respected relationship with someone they love". Of course it will happen, eventually.

Originally Posted by HelligUsvart

This kind of already happened - 2,000 years ago.

Oh, but that is just a story. Today with the mass media, the instant access to information Christ's appearance would not be an insignificant event in some obscure corner of the world around some illiterate goat-herders... it would really be Earth-shattering.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by capoly

I have not seen anyone who wanted to force the church to validate homosexual marriage (though I am sure some people might want that to happen). Secular marriage has nothing to do with church-endorsed marriage.


That is the point. They do not, and the church uses its not-miniscule influence to make sure that they will not have the same rights: "namely to have a legally respected relationship with someone they love". Of course it will happen, eventually.
Oh, but that is just a story. Today with the mass media, the instant access to information Christ's appearance would not be an insignificant event in some obscure corner of the world around some illiterate goat-herders... it would really be Earth-shattering.

Capoly,

I am so glad to see you come out of the closet...you are showing your thoughts and feelings and making it easier to know your mind.

This was your first posting....

According to my understanding (which could be erroneous), christians in general and catholics particular are called to spread the "good news", to evangelize the non-christians, to explain them why they should consider to convert. Obviously, this process can be either very effective or maybe not so effective, depending on the person who performs the task and the one who listens to the apologetics.

I am asking your opinion: on the boards here - how effective is this process? What are the different methods employed? And how effective are they? Which method seems to be effective when talking to people of different dispositions, protestants, jews, muslims, or atheists? Also how would you evaluate the process in general (world wide)?

Remember, I am simply asking your opinion. If you have some links to provide, it would be also nice. Thank you for your consideration.

This sounds like a neutral mindset...

You followed this thought in another thread in support of your beliefs...

Why are you surprised that people consider you "strange"? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important "thing" of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.

and conclude what you believe to be the inevitable...thank you for coming out...

You might consider coming on inside and not staying outside so that you could understand....

[Allegra]

Originally Posted by capoly

I am sure you are smart enough to figure it out for yourself. But just in case ... Think about an exemplary heterosexual couple whom you know and observe their behavior. They respect each other, they are each other's best friends, when one of them is ill, the other one comforts him/her. They share the ups and downs of life. If one needs comfort, the other one is there. They feel mutual attraction and affection toward each other. They care about the other... little things like that. I hope I don't have to explain what "respect" is, what "caring" is, what mutual "attraction" and "affection" is all about.

There is nothing extraordinary about these traits, which would be the exclusive domain of a heterosexual couple. Two people of the same gender can and do exhibit the same behavior. Love is the same.

This is where the problem lies. That is a general definition of love. That is not the definition of marital love. Given your definition, I could marry my sister, my father, my grandma, or my pug dog, a good friend...or five good friends. A marriage is a special kind of love. It is the giving of oneself to the purpose of creating a family unit. This is why the marital relationship is afforded legal privileges. It is foolish to attempt to claim those privileges for a relationship that is clearly not a marriage. And no, friendship+sex does not equal marriage.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by Allegra

This is where the problem lies. That is a general definition of love. That is not the definition of marital love. Given your definition, I could marry my sister, my father, my grandma, or my pug dog, a good friend...or five good friends.

Apart from the fact that close relatives would likely produce genetically deficient offspring, and your dog cannot sign the legal document - you are right.

Originally Posted by Allegra

A marriage is a special kind of love. It is the giving of oneself to the purpose of creating a family unit.

What is a "family unit" is up for definition.

Originally Posted by Allegra

This is why the marital relationship is afforded legal privileges. It is foolish to attempt to claim those privileges for a relationship that is clearly not a marriage. And no, friendship+sex does not equal marriage.

Why not? Mutual commitment to spend their live together, to love and cherish till death do them part... that is what the wedding wows is all about. There is no word about attempting to beget children, or to raise children. People past the child bearing age cannot do that and yet there is no objection if they wish to get married.

[Allegra]

Originally Posted by capoly

Apart from the fact that close relatives would likely produce genetically deficient offspring, and your dog cannot sign the legal document - you are right.


What is a "family unit" is up for definition.


Why not? Mutual commitment to spend their live together, to love and cherish till death do them part... that is what the wedding wows is all about. There is no word about attempting to beget children, or to raise children. People past the child bearing age cannot do that and yet there is no objection if they wish to get married.

The term family unit is not up for definition. It is a unit that can produce a family. A family means a man and woman that endevor to produce and raise the next generation of citizens in the best manner possible. Others may object to that definition, but any other definition does not merit the privileges the government grants to those who are married. There may be some men and women who seek these privileges without any intention of ever meeting that plan, but that is the expectation and that is the reason why married couples get tax breaks and insurance breaks. There is no benefit to bestowing such benefits of homosexual unions because such a union is incapable of producing a family.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by capoly

Why are you surprised that people consider you "strange"? There is no difference between the love shared by two heterosexual and two homosexual people. The love is just as real, just as deep, just as giving, and it would be just as sacrificial in case of need. And you consider love to be the most important "thing" of all. Nope, we outsiders cannot understand you at all.


That could be fixed in a heartbeat. If Christ would show up in person, he would be invited to become a major star.

There is evidence that there is not a one to one comparison to be made.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/wo...ted=all&src=pm




Peace,
Ed

[CopticChristian]

[quote=capoly;9498933]

Why not? Mutual commitment to spend their live together, to love and cherish till death do them part... that is what the wedding wows is all about. There is no word about attempting to beget children, or to raise children. People past the child bearing age cannot do that and yet there is no objection if they wish to get married.[/QUOTE]

Cap,

This is the gay sterility argument for marriage...


Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.


Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.


The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

[Sonic]

Originally Posted by aquohn

More pro-gay corporations (and that's just the fully pro-gay ones).

If you're not gay, you murder babies

I wish these two articles were properly source, but the webpage from 2008 has broken links and blog post gives no source at all. I don't doubt that many corporations give donations to subversive movements. I would like to know more information beyond just a list. Kraft has publicly supported homosexuality, but I haven't seen Coke do it yet. When it comes to private donations, there is very little anyone can do about it. The companies are not owned by a single person. These are corporations with stock holders.

Originally Posted by aquohn

I suppose this is kind of reducible to a Robin-Hood sort of situation. So is Robin Hood moral? And, if you do not think it is reducible, is this moral?

The original Robin Hood legend was not about a thief (at least in the Sherwood legends). He was helping to defend his king and country from the unlawful usurpation of Prince John while King Richard was away. The illegal tax money which he took back from John's administrators and cronies were given back to the people from which it was stolen. In essence, he did not steal from the rich to give to the poor (as the modern phrase goes).

Robin Hood was the most Catholic of English folk heroes. He had a particular devotion to the Virgin Mary and continuously prays to Our Lady for her intercession.

While the legend of Robin Hood is most likely just a folk story, Robin's devotion to Our Lady gives us insight into devotional practices in Medieval England. The Scottish hero William Wallace, was also said to have a devotion to Our Lady, and Blind Harry's Wallace also mentions this devotion... even going so far as to attribute Wallace being visited by Our Lady in a dream.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by Allegra

The term family unit is not up for definition. It is a unit that can produce a family.

Circular definition.

Originally Posted by Allegra

A family means a man and woman that endevor to produce and raise the next generation of citizens in the best manner possible.

The unit of "one man, one woman" is very recent concotion. During the ages there were "extended families", sometimes even a whole village was considered a family. Obviously it would be much better for the next generation to have a "village-full" of mommies and daddies, who ALL care about the well-being of the children. So the current "one-man one-woman" is a step down from the more efficient organizarion of the past.

Originally Posted by Allegra

Others may object to that definition, but any other definition does not merit the privileges the government grants to those who are married. There may be some men and women who seek these privileges without any intention of ever meeting that plan, but that is the expectation and that is the reason why married couples get tax breaks and insurance breaks. There is no benefit to bestowing such benefits of homosexual unions because such a union is incapable of producing a family.

Tell you something. If you look for a good, prosperous neighborhood, with low crime rate and stability, look for those areas where homosexual couples live. They are usually more affluent, they keep the neighborhood on a higher level of prosperity. So if you look at the "bigger picture", it is a legitimite interest of the govermnent to endorse such arrangements.

[fix]

Originally Posted by capoly

Why not? Mutual commitment to spend their live together, to love and cherish till death do them part... that is what the wedding wows is all about. There is no word about attempting to beget children, or to raise children. People past the child bearing age cannot do that and yet there is no objection if they wish to get married.

There is no wording about children because it is self evident.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.

No, that is a mistaken point of view. The pimary purpose was always political and economical. Marriages were arranged to gain political power in the upper echelons of society and for economical gains everywhere else (the concept of love and personal compatibility was irrelevant, even considered undesirable...). Procreation happened both inside and outside the marriages, and no one payed special attention.

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

Hehe. The "O tempora, o mores!" is an exclamation of the older generation since time immemorial. The old people have always been complaining about the decreasing morals, they all predicted the impending "doom" of the civilization. Every new generation is condemned for their loose morals. It would be hilarious, if it were not so pathetic.

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five?

Why not indeeed? There are few people who would want polygamy and polyandry... but they do not hurt anyone. Do you know the joke: "What is the opposite of polygamy? It is monotony!".

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

There is no indication of this.

[fix]

Originally Posted by capoly

No, that is a mistaken point of view. The pimary purpose was always political and economical. Marriages were arranged to gain political power in the upper echelons of society and for economical gains everywhere else (the concept of love and personal compatibility was irrelevant, even considered undesirable...). Procreation happened both inside and outside the marriages, and no one payed special attention.

Oh yea, I guess that is why we have so many examples of two men being "married" throughout history. To solidify power, right?

[Newbie2]

Capoly seems to be confusing this with a secular forum. Coming here and arguing that secularism trumps the teachings of the RCC is an exercise in futility.

[capoly]

Originally Posted by Newbie2

Capoly seems to be confusing this with a secular forum. Coming here and arguing that secularism trumps the teachings of the RCC is an exercise in futility.

No, I am well aware of the nature of the forum. I am simply curious if there are secular arguments for your positions. If you would argue: "God said it, I believe it, that is the end of it" then your position would be crystal clear: "blind, unquestioning faith", and as far as I am concerned, I would leave you alone.

When you argue with another catholic, you can use all sorts of arguments, the bible, references to the magisterium, to the writs of the popes. You can also use simple, logical, fully secular arguments, too. When you argue with a protestant, your "arsenal" shrinks. You can try to refer to the magisterium, but that will fall on deaf ears. You need to argue sola scriptura, if you wish to be convincing. When talking to atheists, you can only use secular reason and logic. Of course, this is only pertinent IF you wish to convince the other party that your position is right, and his is wrong. Since you are required to spread the "word", to help other people to "see the light", you really should choose your "weapons" wisely.

I am simply here to help you to hone your weapons and become efficient in their use. Too bad that most posters waste their time (and mine, too) when they mindlessly regurgitate the "theological" arguments.

[Seeker1961]

Originally Posted by capoly

No, I am well aware of the nature of the forum. I am simply curious if there are secular arguments for your positions. If you would argue: "God said it, I believe it, that is the end of it" then your position would be crystal clear: "blind, unquestioning faith", and as far as I am concerned, I would leave you alone.

When you argue with another catholic, you can use all sorts of arguments, the bible, references to the magisterium, to the writs of the popes. You can also use simple, logical, fully secular arguments, too. When you argue with a protestant, your "arsenal" shrinks. You can try to refer to the magisterium, but that will fall on deaf ears. You need to argue sola scriptura, if you wish to be convincing. When talking to atheists, you can only use secular reason and logic. Of course, this is only pertinent IF you wish to convince the other party that your position is right, and his is wrong. Since you are required to spread the "word", to help other people to "see the light", you really should choose your "weapons" wisely.

I am simply here to help you to hone your weapons and become efficient in their use. Too bad that most posters waste their time (and mine, too) when they mindlessly regurgitate the "theological" arguments.

And to add to this-when you are arguing for civil laws- "God says it and I believe it" isn't going to cut it. We don't live in a theocracy and that argument fails every time. Anyone outside the church tunes you out and the discussion is over.