Jimmy Akin on President Obama’s proclamation that June 2010 is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.
So there you have it. President Obama taking credit for all he has done to normalize the open practice of sexual deviancy in our society, as well as measures he’d like to take in the future to further normalize it, including “creat[ing] safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.”
I wonder if he’d like to require private schools to be “safer” in this way?
And I wonder where all this is going and how long it will be until gets there.
Tolerance and “safe environments” will continue to become the blunt records used against anybody who does not believe that sexual deviancy is a right that must be normalized. Not accepting this behavior will get you labeled in oh so many ways and no doubt with words that end in ‘phobe.’ How long before the travesties that have occurred in Canada and England come our way is a good question. The real tragedy is that those who are afflicted with same-sex attraction or other disordered desires are confirmed in their sin instead of being helped.
So what month is Adultery Pride month?
119 comments
Well I guess Pat can be pleased that tax dollars are going to fund benfits for the ‘partners’ of gays. And, Pat, do you support the teaching of the homosexual agenda to the young school children as well.
Love is meant to be life giving. No life in sodomy. It is indeed a disorder and it always will be, no matter how things are legislated. It is not just another life style. Statistics show men with SSA have hundreds of partners in a vast percentage of them! Nothing is normal about that! This is not a matter of ‘love’ but sexual addiction, perversion, and lust.
What happened to friendship? Or purity or modesty or chastity? You know those ‘old fashioned’ things that are called virtues and are pleasing to God?
The man in the white house (who won a peace prize without bringing ANY peace anywhere and continues to send our young soldiers to their deaths oversees) has not done one moral or good thing. He funds abortions and wants to increase the taking of the lives of unborn persons. His promotion of the gay agenda continues the erosion of the family which IS the underpinning of society. As we embrace immorality and intrinsic evils, we will see the continued decimation of our country. And we will see religious persecution as well.
Pat,
No, I don’t think there are any teachings of the Church that are wrong. Do you think that there are any pronouncements of the major professional associations that are wrong?
We could continue this conversation ad infinitum with neither of us changing an iota about our position. So, as I said, see you on the other side over a nice heavenly beer.
Pat wrote, “I’ll own being a sinner, but never a Satanist pursuing ‘evil, sin and death.’ God forgive you.”
Stop twisting my words, Pat. I never said that, nor do I believe that of you. I do believe that all those who actively oppose what the Catholic Church believes and teaches are – usually unwittingly – in the thrall of the Evil One, Satan.
Those who support or acquiesce to same-sex marriage are tools of Satan – many unwittingly. But his tools nevertheless.
If you don’t like being a tool of Satan, then it is easy to quit being one. Ask God to deliver you.
Pat also wrote: “Please do not contact me again. ”
I have never contacted you, and don’t plan to anytime soon. I have only replied to your posts on a P U B L I C site of a fellow Catholic. And will freely continue to do so, whenever and however I please, as our host permits.
If you do not like what I write, then no one is forcing you to read what I write.
I do hope, though, that you will ask God to deliver you from the thralldom of Satan. That would be a good thing.
Sorry Roberto, drinking is a sin. 😉
Pat wrote, “Sorry Roberto, drinking is a sin.”
No, drinking a beer or two is not a sin. Drinking to excess is a sin. As it is a sin to participate in sexual activity outside of Christian marriage – one man, one woman, for life.
Satan likes very much to confuse and distort peoples’ understanding of sin so as to make it more likely that they will fall into temptation. The Catholic Church does a wonderful job of teaching and distinguishing which actions of ours will enhance the life of God’s grace in our soul and which actions kill that life, thus leading that soul to everlasting punishment in Hell.
Marion,
Pat was being facetious in his comment about drinking, but obviously I agree with his being misguided about the main issue.
By the way, I find it interesting how he (she?) is using many of the standard tricks in his attempts to promote his incorrect position:
* Present incorrect and unsupported claims about the Church
* Present false dichotomies as argument
* Jump from one topic to another when unable to counter
* Using evidence to promote a thesis opposite to what the evidence shows (such as the statement of the psychiatrists, which is clearly political and based on an incomplete and biased selection of research)
I also think that it is not wise to continue the discussion with people who have this attitude, as it leads nowhere. But of course there may be many silent readers who are genuinely interested in hearing both sides, so it is important to provide them.
May God bless us all and may he guide us all towards Truth
Roberto,
I find that Pat was being not facetious, but sarcastic, in his comment about drinking being a sin. By implying that the Catholic Church unfairly and unreasonably characterizes innocent pleasures such as moderate drinking as sinful, Pat is attempting to hammer home the argument that Satan has inspired him to make: that the Church is unreasonable in teaching that numerous other forbidden activities are sinful – such as the sin of Sodom, one of The Sins That Cries to Heaven for Vengeance.
Lucifer the Prince of Lies also inspires Pat and others to do the things you listed: “present incorrect and unsupported claims about the Church; present false dichotomies . . . ; jump from one topic to another when unable to counter . . . using evidence to promote a thesis opposite to what the evidence shows: all rhetorical tricks and gimmicks that persons who know they have not a leg to stand on employ to try to distract their audience from the lameness of their assertions, and all tricks and gimmicks that originate in the Pit “where the worm dieth not nor is the fire quenched.”
As you have informed us, Roberto, of your intention to draw to a close your own participation on this thread, I reply that I look forward to whatever future comments you may care to post, and afterwards, I wish you and yours all the best.
Roberto,
How disappointing. I got tired of us both giving our unsupported opinions, so I produced an authoritative excerpt from court documents. You have given us nothing but your conclusory statements. Plus, it’s hard to tell if you really want to engage. Re-read your postings. They pretty insulting and pedantic at times (my spelling? really?)
and You’re being unfair to me. You OPEN with a conclusory statement that I don’t have a priest but that I treat my doctor as my priest. Really? That’s a pretty big leap. Plus you just REALLY like to hear yourself talk a little too much. It’s not exactly reasoned debate; it’s more typing than anything frankly. I mean, you have TOO many overly broad and overreaching comments and complaints in each of your postings. You aid I live in a “matter only” universe. WTF? Am I supposed to address that one as well? When confronted with peeps like you I find it best to pick a point and post some facts/evidence in response. Done.
I’m also shocked to hear that there is not a single RCC teaching that you question. I’ve disagreed with medical pronouncements before. For example, my mother was pronounced free of cancer. They were wrong, they just didn’t see it. I think that God gave me a brain so that I could listen to experts in their fields but not swallow whole everything they say without a little critical thinking. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes the experts – theologians and scientists study a situation further and change their views. Like with church pronouncements on the Jews’ role in the crucifixion. Old view, wrong – new view, correct. Like with homosexuality. Old view, wrong – new view, correct. The church is just taking a long time getting their arms around that one. But I have faith.
Sad to say but there’s not much of a debate going on in the larger culture about homosexuality. I read an article by Brent Bozell discussing the show “Glee” and its treatment of gay characters. In the world of that program you are either tolerant and accepting of homosexuality or you are a vile bigot. They don’t make allowances for people to love the sinner but hate the sin. It’s the same in wider society…the act defines the person so you can’t criticize it.
Marion,
You may be correct in your assessment of sarcasm versus facetiousness, I don’t know. I was trying to interpret his (her?) smiley in a positive light.
I have not decided to withdraw from the thread and I enjoy posting occasionally here. But I have no intention to continue a conversation with someone who seems only interested in provoking, but not in listening. Should I really spend my time pointing out the obvious, when he (she?) does not even seem to bother to read what I wrote, what he (she?) wrote and what certain words mean in different cultures? Me no think so.
God bless you for you clear and direct expressions of your thoughts.
Fellow I know, name of Pat, once owned a fabulous Aston-Martin sports car, like James Bond 007 owns, but a different model. Lighter-weight, but still a two-seater convertible. Faster off the line than most motorcycles.
Pat loved that car. Bought a boat, too, a 30 footer. Wanted to use the Aston to tow the boat. Before he went to have a trailer hitch installed, he checked the Aston-Martin’s owner’s manual. There he read, “Your model is not designed to tow any trailer or any vehicle. Do not use your model to tow; do not install a trailer hitch.”
My friend Pat was disappointed to read that. First he went to the Aston dealer where he bought this baby; staffers there confirmed what the manual said. Then Pat went to a friend of his who owned a body shop. Mostly worked on domestic cars.
“I don’t see why not,” Pat’s body shop owner friend said, “those luxury vehicle manufacturers have a very old-fashioned view of what cars nowadays can do. Plus they’re snobby and elitist – don’t want to see their find handiwork doing something as utilitarian as pulling another vehicle! ”
Pat was convinced, and the car was ready two days later. Pat proudly hitched the boat up to the Aston-Martin, and off he went.
On this boat trip, Pat was meeting some friends to go scuba diving. He had brought along his favorite expensive, waterproof watch, and decided to read up on the manufacturer’s recommendations for diving with the watch. “This instrument” (that’s what they call fancy watches) “this instrument,” the manual read, “is waterproof in rain, sleet, snow, or when immersed in water at depths up to 12 feet. Additional water depths are not recommended.” Pat decided that didn’t sound good, and dialed a friend, a jeweler on his cell phone.
“What’s up?” Stan the jeweller asked.
Pat described his watch and his dilemma. “Oh, you can’t go by those old-fashioned conservative twerps who designed and engineered your watch. They’re a bunch of nerds. What do they know about guys who like to scuba? Take a chance! Enjoy!”
So Pat was convinced and decided to wear his watch as he spent time sight-seeing at depths of up to 50 feet.
The bill for the suspension repair and the transmission replacement? $5,000
The cost to replace the watch? Priceless.
Lovely, Marion! I keep forgetting that parables (especially when based on true stories) are much better than any philosophical argument. I will try to keep that in mind in the future.
Thanks
Thanks, Roberto.
Now since President Obama has created the “National Sin of Sodom Month,” it would appear that have to look for the President’s plans to designate certain months in honor of the other three Sins that Cry To Heaven for Vengeance:
“National Willful Murder Month”
“National Oppression of the Poor Month”
“National Defrauding the Laborer of His Wages Month”
Pat,
I can’t tell if you are Catholic or Episcopalian. If you are Catholic then you should know it is a sin to publicly dissent against church teaching and you should avoid receiving the Eucharist unless you go to confession and confess this sin so you don’t compound it with additional sin. And of course promise in your act of contristion to never to do it again.
So where in all of this is science? The biological definition of life includes reproduction. Celebrating sexual deviancy seems to me like celebrating paraplegics as if we want more of them.
Kevin,
Are you for real?
Pat
Pat,
Kevin’s comments are well-directed and well-placed. They couldn’t be more “real”; they signify an author who is real, sincere, and intelligent.
It is rather to those who believe that they are free to pick and choose which of the laws of God they shall obey and which deny and transgress, while hoping nonetheless to live happily in this life, and to aspire to eternal life, that your question, “are you for real?” would be more profitably addressed.
En fin, Excellent question to ask yourself: “Are you for real?”
or, put another way:
“On what planet do you think mankind is free to pick and choose which laws of God he will obey, and which deny and transgress, and live?”
Perhaps we should reflect on God as a loving Father, who wants only good for us. Just medically speaking, homosexual activity is unhealthy. Promiscuity is also damaging to the individual. One can argue that from a purely scientific standpoint. How loving are we if we encourage behaviors that are intrinsically unhealthy?
Catholic Mom, if a cadre of misguided individuals is able to prevail upon the various medical and psychological organizations to announce just the opposite of what you said, “that, medically speaking, and psychologically speaking, there is nothing inherently unhealthy or damaging about homosexual activity,” there where does that leave us?
The medical and psychological communities have already been railroaded into announcing just that, and more and more responsible organizations continue to cave, too.
Men of medicine and psychology did not design, engineer, or create mankind. God did. Men of medicine and psychology are maintenance and repair specialists. They do vital work. They don’t have a clue, though, what went into the design and engineering of the human creation, as God does. In His love for us, God wants the best for us, it’s true; to learn what the best for us is, we don’t go to repair specialists, we go to the Designer.
God’s word, contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition contains what we need to know about our Creator directions for happy, effective, and long (eternal) lives.
Pat, you stated “A large number of children are currently being raised by lesbians and gay men, both in same-sex couples and as single parents. Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents”. Granted there are more “same sex” couples raising children but the data is not in on whether or not the children show any “deficits” compared to heterosexual parents. Preliminary findings have been interpreted to the result of the outcome the interpreters want, actual results will take many years to study and interpret.
Some supporters of forcing the homosexual agenda down our throats feel that it is a “right” to be a parent. Some even feel that it’s noble, because they are taking in kids that were “unwanted.” Others do it because it’s fashionable, their friends are doing it so why not us? Well parenting is not a right, it is a vocation and it is a responsibility. A responsibility to God. The consequesnces of failing to understand this will result in unimaginable punishment, something I would be unwilling to chance.
Did this thread break the record for comments on this blog? In that case Pat deserves congratulations for his (her?) initiative and perseverance.
“Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.”
Empirical research undertaken by home appliance repair shops may also show that homeowners who plug their microwave oven into an extension cord, and then using a staple gun, staple that extension cord to their kitchen baseboard, have had statistically no more deficits in the quality of their microwave operation, than homeowners who follow the manufacturers’ instructions. . .
. . . to date.
However, data indicates that homeowners and renters that pushed thumb tacks into the cord had statisically higher rates of excessively curly hair.
“However, data indicates that homeowners and renters that pushed thumb tacks into the cord had statistically higher rates of excessively curly hair.”
Good one, Sid.
However, the microwave repair industry trade associations have been informed by their membership that “old-fashioned, backward, or oppressive” advice re extension cords and thumbtacks or staples should not be imparted. So the industry advice to the general public is: thumbtacks and staples in conjuction with the x-cord connecting your microwave to the juice is just plain hunky dory! No worries.”
Ultimately, the results for those members of the general public who discount the opposite advice from the old-fashioned, stuck-up conservative designer and manufacturer, will be unfortunate ones.
Us smart red neck knuckle draggin Bible reading types use duct tape!
Catholic Mom,
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that “medically speaking, homosexual activity is unhealthy.”
Are you a physician? I suspect you are not. Why then would you say such a thing? Most physicians disagree with your conclusion.
Please explain.
Thanks,
Pat
Do a Google search and check it yourself.
Oh.
http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx
Oh.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf
Sid,
And if the AMA and the APA were somehow induced to inform Americans it was perfectly safe for airline pilots to consume psychedelic mushrooms up to 30 minutes before flight time, there are folks who would be willing to believe that, too.
There’s one born every minute (P.T. Barnum)
Oh, look another one:
http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_GayTeen.htm
Nevertheless, psychologists and physicians are the repair and maintenance workers of humankind, not the designers and engineers of humankind. The designer and engineer is God alone.
When repairmen attempt to speak in contradiction of the original designer’s recommendation, who is the smart money on?
Would you believe the CDC? Plain old biology is enough to understand that our bodies are designed with a specific purpose, and plain old biology will attest to the fact that the morbidity/mortality rates for homosexual men are much higher. Moreover, it isn’t generally a good idea to make assumptions about the educational backgrounds of strangers 😉
Pat, none of your links addressed the physical ramifications of homosexual sex, which is really unfair. Before consenting to a behavior an individual really has the right to know what risk it carries. The CDC states that homosexual and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to contract anal cancer. Other studies indicate that the general life expectancy of gay men is 8-20 years less than that of the general population.
Catholic Mom,
Yes, the CDC carries weight, but I don’t see any CDC statements. I see your statements. Please add citations. (Not that I don’t trust you, but, um, I have no REASON to trust you.) More importantly, what about health ramifications from sexual acts between 2 women? Citations please.
Thanks,
Pat
p.s. Please don’t forget to be specific with respect to citations regarding “other studies.” I will be up late tonight and can wait.
CM: don’t forget to include the research about the HPV virus causing (A) cervical cancer in women who use use their vaginas for sex. Because , like anal cancer in sexually active gay men(as compared to men who don’t use that part of their anatomy for sex), cervical cancer is much more prevalent in sexually in sexually active straight women (as compared to women who don’t use that part of their anatomy for sex). So is this about being gay or is it about virginity and body parts? Ah, the manipulation of data.
Pat instructs Catholic Mom: “don’t forget to be specific with respect to citations regarding ‘other studies.’”
Whatever the technical geeks in their white coats may advise or advise against is utterly and truly moot; we already know what the Master Designer’s instructions are with regard to human sexuality.
Sure, the guys with the clipboards, thick glasses and pocket-protectors are smart! But if any one of them thinks that he knows better than the Boss, that’s when you know that he’s nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Not even close.
Oy, vey. Enough already.
“Enough already” . . .?
What, Pat, you’ve had enough?
Because several of us are just beginning to get warmed up.
The goal of the devil is to destroy us, and the family is what defines us. President Obama is only helping to destroy society (society evolved from families and tribes) by attacking the family.
Despite what some homosexual activists might claim, there is nothing normal about homosexual acts. “Reproductive organs” are supposed to be used to “reproduce.” Any other act with the reproductive organs goes against not only God, but the biological function of the anatomy. To even suggest homosexual acts are normal one must literally be ignoring the evidence.
In regards to society, LGBT “unions” should not be given the same rights as marriages for the simple reason that a marriage between a man and a woman can produce children, while a homosexual “relationship” cannot. Society has nothing to gain from homosexuality, whereas it depends upon heterosexuality. Married people get perks because they have children to serve in the army, to become leaders, to be taxpayers, etc.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/hpv&men-fact-sheet.pdf
Pat, are you really a Catholic?
Pat, cervical cancer is an std, as is penile cancer. Those would be avoided if people lived according to the teachings of the Church. Moreover, homosexual men are at a much greater risk for contracting hpv and other std’s due to their risky behavior. Another statistical fact.
Vaginal skin is meant for intimacy, rectal skin is not. Also the rectal sphincter is not designed for homosexuality. Fecal incontinence is another not often talked about problem among homosexual men.
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/lehrman.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf
I’d sent these in earlier, but they got lost in cyberspace. You don’t have to trust me, Pat, but simple physiology backs up my points. I get the impression, however, you are not interested in this from a physiological or spiritual pov, merely your own. That in and of itself is sad; sexuality, like parenthood, is not a right, but a privilege.
Catholic Mom,
Thanks for the CDC link, but as you could tell from my earlier reply, I already saw it. It fails to answer my direct challenge to your assertions; questions, to wit:
1. What about health ramifications from sexual acts between 2 women? Citations please.
2. Citations regarding the “other studies” you reference.
3. Comment please on cervical cancer in women who use their vaginas for sex and anal cancer in men who use their anuses for sex. Methinks the stats are not about the risks of homosexual sex. Methinks the stats are about the risks of sex. Period.
4. Again with the bald, conclusory statements? “Vaginal skin is meant for intimacy, rectal skin is not.” Really, says who? Are the straight women who have anal sex misusing their bodies? Really? Says who?
5. “Incontinence is another not often talked about problem among homosexual men.” Really, says who?
One of the recent studies that you quote is a study based only on lesbian couples that had children artificially inseminated and implanted. Nothing about homosexual males or adopted kids. Scientific study? Yeah right.
“‘Vaginal skin is meant for intimacy, rectal skin is not.’ Really, says who?”
Honestly? You are denying basic biology now? To be blunt, women can effectively push a baby out of the vagina because of the incredible stretch ratio of that skin. (can we agree this is a fact without having to site a basic biology or reproductive text?)
Also, with the correct birth support, this feat can be accomplished without tearing.
Also, can we agree that no one would want to have a bowel movement the size of even a small newborn? The rectum does not tolerate stretching the way the vagina does because the skin structure is not the same. Pat, if you want to argue this point, you could do that in a high school biology class.
It is a logical conclusion that repeatedly using a body part for something other than it’s ordinary purpose will be problematic.
One does not even need to believe that we were created by God to acknowledge that physical actions carry physical risks, the more out of the ordinary the activity the higher the risk. (defining ordinary as the regular or customary condition or course of things) Since Pat is unwilling to agree that the Church has valid points about homosexual behavior and I believe, he/she is wanting to be kind to the GLBT community, I will give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Are we being kind by denying the obvious?
Anal sex can not be declared as healthy because the lower end of our digestive system was not made for that sort of activity as long as we adhere to the commonly acknowledged biological purpose of the digestive system. So while some “mental health experts” say gay sex is mentally healthy, male to male sex will remain physically problematic.
It would be dishonest not to acknowledge this. Here is a psychiatrist who agrees, along with his article in the Journal of Physicians and surgeons, he lists 37 citations: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/lehrman.pdf
I do not believe anyone would claim that bulimia is a healthy way to control calorie consumption. The upper end of our digestive system is designed to function in a certain way and there really is no way around it. Along those lines, while discussing normal, it is perfectly normal to gain weight by consuming too many calories that does not mean we should encourage overeating in people who enjoy overeating.
The fecal incontinence is discussed on gay forums which yesterday I unfortunately actually read. Look it up yourself, Pat, if you can’t take my word for it. All the information presented to you can be verified and if you are truly sincere in wanting to help the GLBT community, you must be honest about biology.
As for sex between females, I suppose there are not as many physical health risks though I have read and thought there have been studies sited in this conversation that indicate there are some medical risks along with mental health risks.
I do not have more time for this conversation though I did want to make one more point. In supporting bisexuality, I can not see how it would be possible to support monogamy.
Sid,
I’ve posted a lot of facts recently, so I’m not sure which study you’re talking about. But I take your post to mean in essence that (A) lesbian sex is A-OK, and (B) a lesbian raising her biological child is A-OK. So, thanks!!
Granted it’s always hard to remeber that our battle is not against our brothers and sisters but against the power and principalities of Satan. Pat, you have been spewing so called factual studies left and right. These studies are for the most part slanted to achieve a desired result. Why is it that the Word of God means nothing to you? I will continue to pray for you.
Even the pro homosexual study done in Denmark is forced to acknowledge that life expectancy is lower among gay and lesbian people.
“Despite recent marked reduction in mortality among gay men, Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population.”
Yes, I’m aware that he goes on to say that further study is needed and the results are not as significant as other studies indicate, etc.
Honestly, I suppose we can justify almost any behavior if we subdue our conscience long enough. Pat, you brought science into this and yet want citations for common human anatomy and physiology knowledge. It appears as you don’t want to look at this from a medical or a spiritual viewpoint, merely your own.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/1/133