What happened? Your writing indicates you slept through your religious instruction classes!  It also indicates that you have abandoned the Faith and adopted the heresy of Modernism at least as far as the culture war goes.

The world clamours for the Church to give up its 2,000 plus year old position on abortion, homosexuality, male priesthood, contraception and euthanasia to name some. If the Church were to do so, she would be "welcomed" into the modern culture. 

The Church teaches Catholics that we are in the world but not to be of it. Read St. John 15:18-27 and 17:13-19

13 And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.

16 They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. 20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

You just don't get it Dan.

You made a statement...

No one has the authority to allow hatred of other people. And nothing in the Eagle Forum link indicates that.

When a child blatantly lies....we condemn the wrong behavior, that is the lying, we hate that.....but we love the child nonetheless.  Same thing with "gay folks' and homosexuality.

Again. Go back to your statement. Yet here, Schlafly was giving her personal pov (of which we both disagree). Was she or Eagle-Forum allowing social conservatives to really hate women?  Was she inciting hatred of women? I say no and I also say you haven't made your case. 

But to apply the argument of equality for all, circumstances must be equal. Blind people can't operate planes and trains, while short people don't make the basketball team.  

Regarding lawful marriage.....Since when did the State become custodians of marriage? States have the authority, responsibility, and duty to protect marriage, but not to change or defile it. Period.

Regarding marriage, circumstances are not equal. Homosexuality is far different from heterosexuality. Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed to function as compatible to continue the human race. Homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality becasue it is not rooted in a comparable physiological design. That's why lawful marriage is closed to homosexuals. Lawful marriage preceeds the State and is designed to perpetuate, protect and strengthen the natural family, which is itself rooted in the procreative design we all share.

Like everyone else, Homosexuals have the right to marry as long as they abide by the law. So homosexuals have access to marriage in civil society, they just must obey the law. Under the definition of marriage, (one man, one woman) any man can marry any woman. Just becasue he chooses not to do so doesn't mean that he cannot do so. 

Plain and simple, society has a stake in promoting marriage, but not homosexuality and other forms of sexual promiscuity.

Homosexual activists along with their kindred supporters and advocates and Leftists in the media, government, and academia like to frame this issue under the guise of equal/civil rights. Truth is they have the same rights as the rest of the human race. They are protected in the State and US Constitutions, like everyone else.

Our rights and freedoms are clearly stated in each State Constitution. There is not an asterick at the end that says homosexuals are not included.

What you would have society do is grant super rights to a select group distinguished solely by their sexual behavior, while taking away the rights and freedoms of others who disagree with that distinguishing behavior.

Says who?  You?  Are you the pope? 

Then explain it Lula.  She said it's not rape if a man sexually assaults his wife.  What do you call it?  "Ohhh it's just a personal point of view" of a woman who you say speaks 'truth' and is 'classy'.  Come on.  Explain it Lula.  Ohhhh and she just so happens to be the leader of an organization which is well known to have similar opinions on women. 

So what does that do, if not incite hatred of women?  Telling women who are sexually harassed that they're not 'virtuous' and telling women who get raped by their husband that they weren't really raped---they consented by virtue of having married the guy. 

Explain to us your deep, faith driven view. Ohhhh but you just 'disagree' with it.  IT'S RAPE.  It's kind of a serious issue. 

Except, once again, the woman who runs the organization clearly hates women.  She's apologizing for people who rape women.  What part of this is difficult for you to understand? 

Um.  You're not smart.  "marriage' is fundamentally a civil contract.  You can have your service.  But the brass tacks are handled with something called a marriage license.  And that license is a civil contract, which states most definitely should allow any 2 consenting adults to enter into. 

LOL.  You truly, truly are a wingnut.   "YEAH YEAH SO IF THE LAW DISCRIMINATES IT"S OK FOR ME TO"

Lula:  Your not a catholic.  Maybe you go to a Catholic church once in a while, but I assume you keep your mouth shut, because if you didn't---any diocese within a thousand miles of an urban area would escort your ass out in a heart beat.  Just stop.  In this post, you've informed us that you:

1.  Believe that the rape apologizing is 'truthful' and 'classy' and support those that apologize for rape. 

2.  You have an inability to recognize your own circular logic

And again Lula.  I don't think it's your fault.  You're just stupid and gullible and easy to trick.  But you should stop.  Soon. 

Dan posts:

Knock, knock Dan.  All laws discriminate against behavior.

Concerning discrimination, first,  a quote from Peter LaBarbera, writing for Americans for Truth about Homosexuality" back in 1998.

"I simply want the truth be told about homosexuality. I, along with other citizens, refuse to sit idly by and watch a human wrong with its devastating, potentially lethal consequences, be parlayed into 'homosexual rights'.  We believe there still is right and wrong, truth and error. We do recognize a lie when we see one. The homosexual's Big Lie, the one that undergirds all the others, is that sinful and abnormal sexual practices ...somehow form the basis for a healthy self-identity. This lie says a person with homosexual urges in naturally "gay", and to dispute this is to deny "who he is" as a human being. 

Moreover, to criticize behavior is to attack or to "hate" the person. Truth is a powerful and stubborn force...and it will never be a part of the homosexual movement. "Equality" and "civil rights" are the current slogans....as they manipulate the public they help to confuse. Don't you dare criticize, don't be judgmental, or even talk factually about homosexual behavior becasue they might offend people who think they are homosexual. "Discrimination", they cry. 

These falsehoods have as their corollary the "gay" myth that "homosexuals" cannot change...and that ...words like "sexual orientation" imply a fixed, natural identity rather than a reversible behavior. ...Some of you have ...acquiesced  to the spurious tenet of homosexual ideology that turns a sin into an identity...and then demands that everyone embrace the identity or at least tolerate it ....Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals says, "

Homosexuality is not an authentic identity; it is a construct. "....politically made up by and for the advancement of the homosexual movement. "We reject the false identity and the sin, but not the person. "

ONce you cast off the aspersions of homosexual activists who would confuse disagreement with "hate" and moral conviction with "prejudice" you will sin through the lies of the sin movement known as the "gay rights".

Civil contracts for Any two consenting adults???

Again, plain and simple, society has a stake in promoting marriage, but not homosexuality and other forms of sexual promiscuity. However. Laws, policies, ordinances, etc. that  condone and encourage homosexuality and other forms of sexual promiscuity are not directed to the common good.

Criminal behavior.  Being gay is not criminal behavior.  Having a gay relationship is not criminal behavior. 

BWA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You're quoting Labarbera now?  Let's talk about that: 

Peter Labarbera is a very disturbed individual. 

His adoration for well known hate monger Paul Cameron landed not only his "Americans For Truth About The Homosexual Agenda" organization on the SLPC hate gorup list, but also his former deranged group of clowns, the "Illinois Family Institute". That's the kind of thing that puts you on watch lists.

Well.  Yes.  That's the point. 

Now let's get back to Phyllis: 

So, Schlafly tell us all that when a husband sexually assaults a wife, it's not rape.  You claim you don't agree, but you maintain that Schlafly is a 'classy' 'woman' speaking 'truth':

How would you explain that to a woman who was just raped? Or, how would you explain that to a woman who's about to get married?  Or just a woman at your ----so called ---'church'?

So wait:  you think you and your religion should govern the sexual behaviors of the entire county? 

So wait: you think you and your religion should govern the sexual behaviors of the entire county?

Govern....no.   I'm not part of the civil governing authority and neither is the Catholic Church. 

On the topic of homosexuality, as far as Catholics are concerned, this article sums up our duties very well.

Priest Says it is "a Most Grievous Sin" to Fail to Oppose the Homosexual Agenda

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

EL PASO, Texas, August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Texas priest, writing as a guest columnist in the El Paso Times, has unequivocally come down on the side of the "precious and infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church" that affirms the dignity of human life at all stages and upholds the true meaning of marriage.

Fr. Michael Rodríguez, parish priest at San Juan Bautista Catholic Church, told readers that "a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda."

"I sincerely hope and pray," Fr. Rodríguez wrote, "that all El Paso Catholics will take to heart the precious and infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church in the moral sphere, particularly those most relevant to our city at this critical juncture."

Fr. Rodríguez pointed out that "Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions."

He also reminded readers that the homosexual agenda "thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of ‘equal rights,’ ‘tolerance,’ ‘who am I to judge?,’ etc."

Fr. Rodriguez quoted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ November 2009 pastoral letter on marriage, noting it was endorsed by the Bishop of El Paso, Most Rev. Armando X. Ochoa.

The pastoral letter explains: "It is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

Addressing the intrinsic moral value of actions, Fr. Rodríguez noted that the objective moral order established by God is the essence of what makes something right or wrong, and this objective truth, known in philosophy as natural law, does not depend on the opinion of the majority.

"While it's true that a majority of the citizens in a democracy has the political power to impose its ‘morality’ on society, this juridical reality has no bearing whatsoever on the intrinsic moral value of actions."

"Abortion and homosexual acts are unequivocally intrinsic moral evils," Fr. Rodríguez concluded. "And friends, this objective truth doesn't depend on the opinion of the majority. Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences."

"I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect," Fr. Rodríguez wrote.

"At the same time, never forget that genuine love demands that we seek, above all, the salvation of souls. Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls."

Do you agree yes or no? If you disagree then defend why homosexuality and other forms of sexual promiscuity are directed to the common good.

I highlighted the word "any"  for a reason. ANy would include any arrangement..... brother and sister, father and daughter, etc. 

Let's not. We've already been there, done that. I've stated my thoughts and you've stated yours, but didn't make your case that Eagle Forum allows social conservatives to really hate "gay folks and women."

You are very big into labeling. Your argument is that anyone who says anything about homosexuals or homosexuality that you disagree with is hateful.

..................

Ya, let's do....let's discuss the substance of his quote (message), instead of you bashing and labeling the messenger.