Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: (Quote) Jerry-74383 said: What is your criteria for labeling a ...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

Quote:
Jerry-74383 said:

What is your criteria for labeling a "true" mental illness?


DSM5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Edition 5) homosexuality IS NOT a mental disease, as any scientific and medical person would know. See also McNaughtons rules 1645

--hide--
Would you say it is a spiritual illness?

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Angela-374523 said: I was going to say that, but you said it for me. On this issue, I take some...
(Quote) Angela-374523 said:




I was going to say that, but you said it for me.

On this issue, I take some guidance from how people of other faiths approach things that others view as acceptable, but they don't. Muslims and Jews don't eat pork, despite the fact that it is sold in the grocery store. Just because something is sold in the grocery store, doesn't mean you have to buy it.

So, while it is disheartening that so much of the world around us is enforcing official state sanction to these types of unions, I am exercising my right not to buy it. It does make things more challenging for raising children and teaching them what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for Catholics, but sin in various forms has always been out there.

--hide--

What you say is true. BUT as Catholics we have to stick our heads above the crowd and say "Whats wrong is wrong and can never be right no matter how many people say it is or want it to be"

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) William-607613 said: The American Psychiatric Association included this type of behavior (homosexuality)...
(Quote) William-607613 said:




The American Psychiatric Association included this type of behavior (homosexuality) as a mental illness until 1973 when, under enormous pressure from homosexuals, it removed it from the list.

Your "FYI" is misleading, because it omits this very important point.


--hide--

Nothing of the sort, thats complete bollocks. DSM definition was changed because there WAS NO empirical evidence to support homosexuality as a disease, and therefore was removed as I have told you in at least 3 other threads. They also removed epilepsy and Huntingtons Disease

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: (Quote) William-607613 said: The American Psychiatric Associ...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

Quote:
William-607613 said:




The American Psychiatric Association included this type of behavior (homosexuality) as a mental illness until 1973 when, under enormous pressure from homosexuals, it removed it from the list.

Your "FYI" is misleading, because it omits this very important point.



Nothing of the sort, thats complete bollocks. DSM definition was changed because there WAS NO empirical evidence to support homosexuality as a disease, and therefore was removed as I have told you in at least 3 other threads. They also removed epilepsy and Huntingtons Disease

--hide--
It could have been a political maneuver.

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: You do not have freedom of speech in Canada. A layperson saying homosexuality i...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:





You do not have freedom of speech in Canada. A layperson saying homosexuality is sinful and disordered could be prosecuted. It probably wouldn't happen - but it could. Canada is an overwhelming secular nation that doesn't value of marriage. For the minority of those of you that do, I suggest migrating south.

--hide--

They do as all Commonwealth nations have freedom of speach. Just not the US definition of Freedom of Speach. It is qualified as to harm, sedition, and causing treason or public disorder. You can still say what you like homosexual not excluded

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: But it has happened. Although I understand Angela's take on their laws which she feel...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

But it has happened. Although I understand Angela's take on their laws which she feels protects the preacher in His pulpit, Preachers have been taken to the panel under their laws that oversees "crimes" of this nature. It is sort of a Court and can assess fines. But as I understand it, and I could be wrong, it has no power to enforce its decisions except through public opinion.

Nevertheless, anyone in Canada charged with these defined crimes and brought before this "court", is still required to spend their time, money and effort defending themselves.

I also believe that the person has the right to appeal the case into the regular court system of Canada.

Whatever the case, its existence is a form of intimidation against anyone who dares to cross the line and indulge in any of the defined "hate" speech.

--hide--

It is more likely the action in defense would be taken by civil liberties, or religious organisations, and once the ruling made to support the speaker it would set a Commonwealth wide presidence. It would be highly unlikely to reach a court due to the public outcry and the non racial hatred of such a speach

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: But it has happened. Although I understand Angela's take on their laws which she feel...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

But it has happened. Although I understand Angela's take on their laws which she feels protects the preacher in His pulpit, Preachers have been taken to the panel under their laws that oversees "crimes" of this nature. It is sort of a Court and can assess fines. But as I understand it, and I could be wrong, it has no power to enforce its decisions except through public opinion.

Nevertheless, anyone in Canada charged with these defined crimes and brought before this "court", is still required to spend their time, money and effort defending themselves.

I also believe that the person has the right to appeal the case into the regular court system of Canada.

Whatever the case, its existence is a form of intimidation against anyone who dares to cross the line and indulge in any of the defined "hate" speech.

--hide--



Here is a link to an article about Ann Coulter. She was warned in 2010 about coming to Canada for her "hate speech."

www.huffingtonpost.com

Now, I highly doubt anyone speaking against gay rights in Canada would get in trouble with law, so I understand what my friends under the rule of the Queen are saying, but the freedom of speech rights we take for granted here in the US are not absolute in the Commonwealth.


LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: Why dont you push for a National Referendum binding in all States and National Governm...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

Why dont you push for a National Referendum binding in all States and National Government? Majority rules, you sound like you will have the majority, and then have a Constitutional admentment, or does that violate Church and State?

--hide--

The US Constitution does not allow national referendums.

It might be possible for the electorate to somehow legally force a Constitutional Convention. If we did, we would probably end up with something far worse than we have now, sort of like most supposed democratic republics.

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: Here is a link to an article about Ann Coulter. She was warned in 2010 about coming...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:




Here is a link to an article about Ann Coulter. She was warned in 2010 about coming to Canada for her "hate speech."

www.huffingtonpost.com

Now, I highly doubt anyone speaking against gay rights in Canada would get in trouble with law, so I understand what my friends under the rule of the Queen are saying, but the freedom of speech rights we take for granted here in the US are not absolute in the Commonwealth.

--hide--

Correct. They are governed by the legal maxium that one has to be mindful of the effects of your speach (Shorthanded, as the legalese will bore you, it did me) so any speach which may leed to social discord or public disorder is usually governed. That said you can say anything about anyone if it is true. Truth is an absolute defense. Hense our political satire and our tabloids are much freer with their expressions about people, events, and situations. Swings and round abouts. The courts and the Prosecutor would also take into account Public Interest. That is is it in the Public Interest to take this case on? If not they wont due to cost.

Another person banned for hate speech, at least in NZ, was the Holocaust Denier David Irving who was made persona non gratia and refused a visa to enter

LOCKED
Mar 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The US Constitution does not allow national referendums. It might be possible for ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

The US Constitution does not allow national referendums.

It might be possible for the electorate to somehow legally force a Constitutional Convention. If we did, we would probably end up with something far worse than we have now, sort of like most supposed democratic republics.

--hide--

How then are Amendments made? Arent they a form of referenda?

LOCKED
Posts 161 - 170 of 200