An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[brightmorningstar]

Absolutely the whole gay agenda is deny everything that might be negative to same sex sexual relationships.

 

[Shane Roach]

It really is discouraging to watch this in action. Someone posts a link with all the information you'd need to at the very least discuss the topic with some context, and all that ends up happening is little one paragraph attempts to obfuscate, some of which are downright misleading if not utterly dishonest.

Whatever. I know an organized attack when I see it. Maybe your games are working on other people.

They still try to deny there is an organized attack going on against Christimas too.

In fact, they still try to deny there is a liberal agenda on the televised media. Even after Matthew's little leg thrill episode.

 

[Psudopod]

How is this furthering the "gay agenda" (what ever that is)?

 

[Shane Roach]

It weakens the ability of the actual church hierarchy to control the church's funds, allowing liberal members of the congregation to basically block actions of the church through control of funding.

 

[Shane Roach]

How is this furthering the "gay agenda" (what ever that is)?

The gay agenda, succinctly, is to mainstream homosexuality.

As such, it has to attack Christianity as it stands as a bastion preserving the concept of natural families raising kids of their own, the dominance of which is itself is a major contributor to the idea that something is a little off about homosexuality.

 

[lawtonfogle]

no, He might have some issues with Christianity though...

I'm not trying to attack anyone here. It just find it odd that the one bill that in itself is a direct attack on the Church and religious freedom happens to be promulgated by 2 ardent homosexual activists and proponents. People are gonna notice..

You know, I bet you most of the attacks on religious freedom came from heterosexuals. Of course, they want to hide the heterosexual agenda, but how? Well, they had a great idea, like E=mc^2 great. Create the homosexual agenda to focus on. So, by focusing on the homosexual agenda, the majority will not notice the heterosexual agenda to do away with marriage, freedom, protection of religion from state rule, ect. Why do I say this? Because, those who attack the above are more often than not heterosexual. Of course, we shouldn't just let this stand, we need to take them down. Down with the heterosexuals!

 

[Shane Roach]

Way to avoid commenting on the actual evidence in the OP.

Obfuscate, deny, mock, scream holler yell....

three pages now.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The gay agenda, succinctly, is to mainstream homosexuality.

As such, it has to attack Christianity as it stands as a bastion preserving the concept of natural families raising kids of their own, the dominance of which is itself is a major contributor to the idea that something is a little off about homosexuality.

Actually, Christianity only protects certain forms of it, and it also protects certain forms of 'unnatural families'. But, if one actually read the Bible, there is a commandment to not have sex or get married unless one would otherwise 'burn with passion'. That is to say, having families is a last resort, it is not what is optimal.

And to you Mr. Shane (I would say Mr. Roach, but that may be considered an attack), yes I normally do have 'fun' by shining scripture in different light, but this is one time where I am not 'twisting' it. The scripture actually shows that one should do away with traditional family and focus purely on Jesus, just Paul realized that most were unlike him, most couldn't just do without, and so he left a last resort, which theoretically should not be needed.

 

[Psudopod]

As such, it has to attack Christianity as it stands as a bastion preserving the concept of natural families raising kids of their own, the dominance of which is itself is a major contributor to the idea that something is a little off about homosexuality.

Okay, so how does homosexuality becoming accepted and normal (I assume that’s what you meant by mainstream) affect the idea of mother/father/2.4 children? (I assume that’s what you mean by natural families). If I accept that John and Jim down the road are gay and living together and there is nothing wrong with that, how does it affect my ability to bring up children with my partner?

 

[Cabal]

Are you also a representative?

You mean, am I gay? No.

Is CreedIsChrist a representative, so he can claim that two people of out 4% of the US's electorate represent the entirety of that group's opinions?

I'm not gay, but I'm enough of a mathematician to know that 2 =/= 4% of the US's electorate.

 

[LittleNipper]

Can you give me a detailed list of the 'motives of the gay agenda' according to you?

Because I can't think of anything other than wanting equal rights that everyone else already enjoys and being against discrimination that's based on sexual preference.

The only reason why these two points are in conflict with your religion is because your religion thinks its better than some other people and wants to limit their rights.

- Ectezus

Everyone doesn't enjoy equal rights. Adulterers, fornicators, polygamists, the incestuous, molesters, just to name a few, are discriminated against. They don't enjoy equal rights. What makes homosexual activity so special? What exactly is contributed to society at large by such sexual activity? NOTHING.

 

[Cabal]

Because the same two people also introuced a bill with broad and far reaching goals for mainstreaming homosexuality. Please read the link in the original post.

Two gay guys attacking the church while simultaneously introducing legislation to further the gay agenda.

Two pages into this and we are still arguing about the plainly established facts because those supporting the gay agenda do not want people to know it's going on.

When accused, deny.
When confronted with witnesses, deny.

When confronted with pictures, deny deny deny!!!!

Not really. Most people who "support the gay agenda" (according to you only) have expressed their concern at the actual bill. But excuse us for not hopping on the "2 extreme gay people = CONSPIRACY!!!!!1" bandwagon.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It weakens the ability of the actual church hierarchy to control the church's funds, allowing liberal members of the congregation to basically block actions of the church through control of funding.

It really is discouraging to watch this in action. Someone posts a link with all the information you'd need to at the very least discuss the topic with some context, and all that ends up happening is little one paragraph attempts to obfuscate, some of which are downright misleading if not utterly dishonest.

Whatever. I know an organized attack when I see it. Maybe your games are working on other people.

They still try to deny there is an organized attack going on against Christimas too.

In fact, they still try to deny there is a liberal agenda on the televised media. Even after Matthew's little leg thrill episode.

Here is the news article the blogged linked two. Please show the following.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15316

1. How this will be used to help gays. It seems to decentralize power a bit, which means the majority gets a bit more power, or so that is what I read, though I do not fully know how the structure works. Yes, this allows an overall pro-gay group to use it to their advantage, but by spreading the power, this seems to not give any power to gays unless they already make up a majority here, which I find extremely unlikely.
2. How this is an 'organized attack'. I understand two politicians organized it together, but the way people are spouting 'organized attack' around here make it should more like a large operation. So can you show how more than the actions of two people (and their underlings, the guy who actually printed the bill on paper, the guy who spell checked it, and all the other people no one cares about but who were only doing it for their bi-monthly paycheck)?

 

[lawtonfogle]

(b) The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote.

Not all church's have an archbishop. It may not be Catholic specific but it surely would not include Baptists.

Since when is a church a corporation?

Does the Catholic church actually organize itself like a corporation?

 

[Psudopod]

Everyone doesn't enjoy equal rights. Adulterers, fornicators, polygamists, the incestuous, molesters, just to name a few, are discriminated against. They don't enjoy equal rights. What makes homosexual activity so special? What exactly is contributed to society at large by such sexual activity? NOTHING.

But they do have equal rights. They have the same rights as you and I. Equal rights doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want. However the issue with gay rights is that it is not equal: anyone can marry the consenting adult of their choice, not matter what apart from gender. People are discriminated against on the basis of thier gender preference. People used to be discriminated against on the basis of their racail prefernce but this has been fixed.

And also no one is talking about sexual activity. That's already legal.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I find it telling that people are trying to pretend there is no "agenda" or that they do not know what the "agenda" is even when shown a bill whose only purpose appears to be to open up the Catholic to near constant legal harassment concerning how they spend their money.

The bill also clearly reorganizes the church. I don't know how anyone reading the text could come away with the idea that it does not inappropriately cause the state to interfere in church government matters.

So what if it doesn't include the right to change church policy? You don't get to reach into a church organization and jumble around the organization's chain of command by a legal fiat. Period.

No Gay agenda? How about the agenda to obfuscate and deny the obvious so that they can destroy the church? Yeah, I think this thread is pretty much shaping up that way.

Yes, it messes up the church. Yes, it was purposed by homosexuals. How does this actually make it an attack by homosexuals (as a general group) on the church? Yes, this can be seen as two homosexuals attacking a church, but how do you conclude this means the majority, homosexuals (as a general group) will do this?

 

[Shane Roach]

Actually, Christianity only protects certain forms of it, and it also protects certain forms of 'unnatural families'. But, if one actually read the Bible, there is a commandment to not have sex or get married unless one would otherwise 'burn with passion'. That is to say, having families is a last resort, it is not what is optimal.

And to you Mr. Shane (I would say Mr. Roach, but that may be considered an attack), yes I normally do have 'fun' by shining scripture in different light, but this is one time where I am not 'twisting' it. The scripture actually shows that one should do away with traditional family and focus purely on Jesus, just Paul realized that most were unlike him, most couldn't just do without, and so he left a last resort, which theoretically should not be needed.

Nothing to say about the actual op I see.

And no, the Bible does not say a thing about doing away with families, nor does it condone homosexuality, nor are people who point this out disobeying.

 

[Shane Roach]

You mean, am I gay? No.

Is CreedIsChrist a representative, so he can claim that two people of out 4% of the US's electorate represent the entirety of that group's opinions?

I'm not gay, but I'm enough of a mathematician to know that 2 =/= 4% of the US's electorate.

The circumstances of the bills being introduced was what he spoke of. He never said what you are accusing.

 

[sidhe]

Since when is a church a corporation?

Does the Catholic church actually organize itself like a corporation?

If a religious organization in the USA is tax-exempt, it must incorporate as a non-profit under 501(c) standards. Therefore, while the Church is not a corporation, the financial and tax-paying aspects of it are.

 

[Shane Roach]

Read the below. Click the link. Read the whole link or at least skim it enough to familiarize yourself with the whole content. Then respond.

That's how this usually works.

Creed touched a major nerve here. Everyone is basically just trying to bury the OP in a blizzard of unrelated comments at this point.

I'm sure everyone remembers the defunct bill that state lawmakers brought up in Connecticut to "regulate the Catholic Church under the state" not too long ago. The bill its essence tried to take away the authority from the Bishops to govern the Church and give it to the state to control. The bill didn't pass because public hearings where canceled.

Whats interesting is that the 2 lawmakers who proposed the bill, Andrew McDonald, and Mike Lawlor are (you guessed it) open homosexuals, and ardent activists and proponents of the gay movement. Does anyone just find this an easy coincidence? Or does it show the true colors of the gay community? Is the Church too much for they're consciences to bear that they must try to shut it down and give it to state control?

Bad move on their parts considering it shows to other christians the motives of the Gay agenda. It just shows how much they are a threat to religious freedom and unity.

http://catholicgop.blogspot.com/2009/03/chaput-warns-that-conn-bill-threatens.html