If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Here we get to the crux of the matter, sex. It's all about sex and nothing to do with redefining marriage.
Sex is a natural part of life. Surrounding it with guilt and shame is truly an awful practice. It is nothing but a control mechanism. Everyone wants to have sex. If you let some idiot convince you that you are only allowed to have it under certain circumstances, then you rush the creation of those circumstances and devalue that which you claim to hold holy or sacred.
If any part of marriage deserves to be held holy or sacred, its the love not the fine print or the system requirements. The practice of marriage predates the Catholic Church and any other church you care to name. This means it has been redefined before and therefore the world will not end if its redefined again. Banning pre-marital sex just means that horny teenagers will get married so they can screw. You end up with families built on lust and held together with guilt, shame and unwanted children that could have been easily avoided. Most people will adjust to these circumstances and try to appear happy to avoid feeling even privately that they have made huge mistakes or wasted their lives.
People living entire lives in misery and ignorance and lying to the world about it so god doesn't get upset. And training the next generation to do the same. Brilliant idea.
Originally Posted by Chongo
The Church does not hate people with SSA, now matter how much you want to believe that. She has an Apostolate to help people with SSA Courage
Like I said, the hate part is more from the followers, the Church would be condemned if it made this public policy, which is interesting. Perhaps they know its wrong but don't want to alienate their following of gay bashers.
Perhaps hate really is too strong a word but the time will come when your base gets more enlightened in their attitude than their church is and the church will follow suit once it becomes less controversial or more profitable to do so. Its just a pity they can't/won't get out ahead of it and lead instead of following. When your source of answers to the workings of the Universe is only telling you things you are prepared to hear, you have a problem, don't you think?
Originally Posted by Chongo
Are you saying the persecution of the Church in Mexico in 1920's and the Soviet era didn't happen?
20s Mexico is not something I'd previously heard about but the article seems to equating Catholic persecution with that of the Jews, just going by the title alone. Given the power and global influence the CC has wielded over time, its surprising this hasn't happened more often.
Clearly it didn't stick for long in this instance.
The Soviets didn't like any religion back then. There you go dismissing all the other victims again.
Originally Posted by Chongo
MGTOW AKA Men going their own way. Like I said Romans 1
Gay people are evil. Gotcha. Makes a refreshing change from Leviticus I guess.
Computers have gotten way faster since I was born in 1980. You're welcome. Also the Chinese GDP has skyrocketed since then. Because I'm just that good.
I don't agree with the boundaries the church has set up, but they get to do that, and if people desire that boundary (which they do, otherwise people wouldn't adhere to it) then they get to have that boundary.
Similarly, you get to have a chip on your shoulder about it. I'm not going to try and knock the chip off, but I'm wondering where it comes from.
I know atheists who were forced to go to Catholic School who are less punchy about this.
If only the people of Oregon were more enlightened like the people of France and Sweden.
Like I said, the hate part is more from the followers, the Church would be condemned if it made this public policy, which is interesting. Perhaps they know its wrong but don't want to alienate their following of gay bashers.
Perhaps hate really is too strong a word but the time will come when your base gets more enlightened in their attitude than their church is and the church will follow suit once it becomes less controversial or more profitable to do so. Its just a pity they can't/won't get out ahead of it and lead instead of following. When your source of answers to the workings of the Universe is only telling you things you are prepared to hear, you have a problem, don't you think?
It's about profit? You must be thinking of Joel Osteen.
20s Mexico is not something I'd previously heard about but the article seems to equating Catholic persecution with that of the Jews, just going by the title alone. Given the power and global influence the CC has wielded over time, its surprising this hasn't happened more often.
Clearly it didn't stick for long in this instance.
That's not surprising. I did not know about until recently myself. Most people in Mexico don't know about the Cristero War. The PRI has been the ruling party in Mexico for nearly 100 years, thus controlling the schools and does not allow that part of their history to be taught. The PRI has Masonic and Marxist roots.
The Soviets didn't like any religion back then. There you go dismissing all the other victims again.
No, I dont's dimiss all the other victims of Marxist/Socialist/Muslim persecution. It sounds like you are part of the people Pope Francis is asking “Don’t respond to the crisis with a Pontius Pilate-like attitude”
Gay people are evil. Gotcha. Makes a refreshing change from Leviticus I guess.
The conduct, not the person.
Computers have gotten way faster since I was born in 1980. You're welcome. Also the Chinese GDP has skyrocketed since then. Because I'm just that good.
Are you saying that there has not been: an increase in infidelity and STD's; a lowering of moral standards, a loss of respect for women, and that governments are not engaging in forced population control?
Mr. Obama will not explicitly call for a federal law banning therapists from using such therapies on their patients, but he is open to conversations with lawmakers in both parties, White House officials said on Wednesday. Instead, he will throw his support behind the efforts to ban the practice at the state level.
In a[n]…amicus brief recently filed with the Supreme Court, the state’s attorney general argues for a truly originalist understanding of the 14th Amendment, insisting that the Constitution permits discrimination not just against gays, but also against women.
…Here’s the gist of South Carolina’s…argument. The state wants to prove that the 14th Amendment—which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to every “person”—was not intended to displace state marriage laws. And what did those laws look like at the time? One major feature: In many states, married women were not permitted to own property or enter into contracts and had no legal existence apart from their husbands. According to South Carolina, the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly preserved the rights of states to deprive married women of the ability to function independently from her husband. This right to deprive married women of basic liberties, South Carolina argues, is enshrined in the 10th Amendment and is not at all undercut by the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equality.
The crux of South Carolina’s brief, then, is this: If the 14th Amendment permits discrimination against married women, it surely also allows discrimination against gay people who wish to wed. In fact, according to South Carolina, the 14th Amendment forbids only racial discrimination, leaving states free to disadvantage women and gays in any way they wish.
The state may well have its history right here. Congressional records show that the men who drafted the 14th Amendment were pretty adamant that their measure wouldn’t force states to recognize married women as independent humans with rights of their own. John Bingham, the chief framer of the amendment, assured one sexist congressman that he “need not be alarmed” that the measure would alter “the condition of married women,” since it would leave intact state property laws. Another framer, Samuel Shellabarger, explained that under the equal protection clause, states could still “deprive women of the right to sue or contract or testify.”
Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws disadvantaging women receive heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause—and even the current court’s most conservative justices would likely strike down laws that deprived married women of property rights.
No it isn't boundless, but where there is informed consent and no discernible harm it should be pretty close to it.
Originally Posted by subego
I don't agree with the boundaries the church has set up, but they get to do that, and if people desire that boundary (which they do, otherwise people wouldn't adhere to it) then they get to have that boundary.
Maybe you're right about people's desire to have boundaries but its my understanding that Catholicism heaps tremendous guilt on anything to do with sex and a lot of people and up shy, awkward, embarrassed, repressed or dysfunctional as a result. Even when they get to a stage when they are allowed to do it.
That said, how many adults or even teenagers even unconsciously decide they need to self impose sexual boundaries and decide that Catholicism is the answer? I submit that most of the people bound by these rules are born into them and are conditioned to believe that there will be terrible consequences if they break them. You may think 'conditioned' is a harsh term to use but given that many people break the rules anyway without terrible consequence, and still live in fear of breaking them again, it seems appropriate.
Originally Posted by subego
Similarly, you get to have a chip on your shoulder about it. I'm not going to try and knock the chip off, but I'm wondering where it comes from.
I know atheists who were forced to go to Catholic School who are less punchy about this.
I'm not sure whether you think I have a chip specifically about the sexual boundaries part or Catholicism as a whole. Neither is really right.
I totally understand that some people are much happier being less sexually active or more sexually conservative though I think they should not only be given the freedom, but the encouragement to make the choice themselves.
Its not really something I spend much time fretting about though, I only brought it up here it has some relevance to the church policies about gay sex and because as I mentioned, its one of the few things I think the RCC is still doing wrong. As religions go these days (I'm not going to rank them in order of my preference) but Catholicism is very nearly off my radar entirely bar one or two things it still ought to change. Compared to many other Christian denominations, its way out in front in many ways.
If I have a chip on my shoulder about any aspect of any religion, its the misinformation they peddle for no reason. I get the restrictions on sex, as I've stated I think its a powerful and timeless control mechanism. It remains baffling to me that a religion would place the stock that many do in trying to argue that Creationism is a viable explanation for the Universe came to be. That kind of stupid is what really gets my goat. Arguably I should have more of a chip on my shoulder about equal rights for gay people, and for women if you want to bring Islam in particular into the discussion.
I've already gone on more of a rant than I wanted to so I'll stop here.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Its icky for sure, but the problems with incest are to do with consent for the most part and then there is offspring. Most incest cases I would imagine concern one adult and one underage party and hence consent cannot be given. In the case you link to, even the authorities don't seem to think its that big a deal if the sentence is only 10 days. It is icky though.
Originally Posted by Chongo
It's about profit? You must be thinking of Joel Osteen.
Profit and power. And this is the case for virtually all religions ever.
Originally Posted by Chongo
No, I dont's dimiss all the other victims of Marxist/Socialist/Muslim persecution. It sounds like you are part of the people Pope Francis is asking “Don’t respond to the crisis with a Pontius Pilate-like attitude”
I don't really believe that you dismiss them, but the fact you don't mention them and only mention Catholics does say something. I have a Jewish friend who does the same thing a lot.
Originally Posted by Chongo
The conduct, not the person.
It sounds far more tolerant when you put it like this but I suspect most gay people would argue that the conduct is a big part of their person. Its clearly not their choice to be attracted to the same sex and maybe when enough people come to understand this is when the tide will turn over the policy on it.
Originally Posted by Chongo
The ends cannot justify the means.
Are you saying that there has not been: an increase in infidelity and STD's; a lowering of moral standards, a loss of respect for women, and that governments are not engaging in forced population control?
No, I'm questioning the causation. Though actually I haven't said anything at all about forced population control. I totally will though now though. The world population is growing fast. 40% or more in my lifetime and there were already enough of us. Population control is not inherently a bad idea. Its how you go about doing it. In fact if we don't control it ourselves, then something else will eventually do it for us. If you think that Catholic policy on birth control is helping the situation, you are deep in denial. Its making things worse.
Infidelity and STDs are certainly up, moral standards is a complicated one to sum up. In developed countries, I think standards have been improving in most important areas. We have issues with greed and materialism though. Respect for women, I think this might be something being revealed rather than reduced.
So as to causation, Catholic policy on birth control is actually increasing the population which will increase the cases of infidelity and STDs simply by numbers and of course this increases the need for population control by governments. There is also a non-inflationary effect on prevalence of STDs because condoms block transmission and the RCC is telling people not to use them.
Infidelity is probably also rising because women have greater rights and independence so they can be unfaithful without ending up battered or killed (unless they're Muslims) but those increased freedoms actually imply an increase in respect. I think the perceived lack of respect is just the last few generations of sexist dinosaurs (and their influence) dying out. That and male fear of obsolescence.
Anyway, as you can now see, that article was all kinds of wrong.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I do not live in Ontario and don't know much about Wynne....but that article sounds exceedingly reasonable, does it not? And I see no suggestion that it has absolutely anything to do with sexual orientation.
The province's sex ed policy has not changed since 1998 - and in the meantime, our society has gone from almost no internet use to almost everyone over the age of 9 having at least semi-regular access to email and/or a mobile phone with camera, and being able to send pictures, movies or messages to someone else with about 3 seconds' worth of thought.
It's a completely different world out there today when it comes to sex. If you do not feel that warrants an update in how sexual education is taught in school classrooms, then you must be absolutely off-your-head crazy.
I do not live in Ontario and don't know much about Wynne....but that article sounds exceedingly reasonable, does it not? And I see no suggestion that it has absolutely anything to do with sexual orientation.
The province's sex ed policy has not changed since 1998 - and in the meantime, our society has gone from almost no internet use to almost everyone over the age of 9 having at least semi-regular access to email and/or a mobile phone with camera, and being able to send pictures, movies or messages to someone else with about 3 seconds' worth of thought.
It's a completely different world out there today when it comes to sex. If you do not feel that warrants an update in how sexual education is taught in school classrooms, then you must be absolutely off-your-head crazy.
She want to teach six year olds the ability to consent? That sounds NAMBLAesque
Ontario students should start learning how to read facial expressions and emotions as early as Grade 1 to give them the ability to understand consent in sexual relations, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Monday
Yep, no internet back in 60's and 70's That didn't mean kids weren't getting their hands on Playboy, Penthouse, Oui, and Husltler. The VCR enabled watching porn at home.
I think you have the Canada stuff flipped, Chongo.
This is early "no means no" training.
This was not grade qualified.
"I want to make sure that we have a curriculum in place that gives young people the opportunity to learn about healthy relationships," she said. "I want students to understand what it means to say No, and what it means to give active consent."
Its icky for sure, but the problems with incest are to do with consent for the most part and then there is offspring. Most incest cases I would imagine concern one adult and one underage party and hence consent cannot be given. In the case you link to, even the authorities don't seem to think its that big a deal if the sentence is only 10 days. It is icky though.
To paraphrase you: Its clearly not their choice to be attracted to the each other and maybe when enough people come to understand this is when the tide will turn over the policy on it.
It's about profit? You must be thinking of Joel Osteen.
Profit and power. And this is the case for virtually all religions ever.
That's the heresy of the "prosperity gospel"
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No, I dont's dimiss all the other victims of Marxist/Socialist/Muslim persecution. It sounds like you are part of the people Pope Francis is asking “Don’t respond to the crisis with a Pontius Pilate-like attitude”
I don't really believe that you dismiss them, but the fact you don't mention them and only mention Catholics does say something. I have a Jewish friend who does the same thing a lot.
ISIS hasn't got to the Jewish people yet.
ISIS is in the process of committing the first genocide of the 21st century, just as the Ottoman's did almost 100 years ago upon the Armenians. What's really telling is when ISIS killed the Copts Obama did not mention the fact they were Christians. BTW Pope Francis has pissed off the Turks because he called it genocide. The Turks even made the same complaint about "he only mentioned the pains suffered by Christian Armenians and not Muslims and other religious groups. " The pope called the Armenian slaughter a genocide, and Turkey’s not happy | Crux
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The conduct, not the person.
It sounds far more tolerant when you put it like this but I suspect most gay people would argue that the conduct is a big part of their person. Its clearly not their choice to be attracted to the same sex and maybe when enough people come to understand this is when the tide will turn over the policy on it.
"Gay" is an identity politics word. It may not be their choice to have SSA, but they can choose not to act upon those attractions. That is what Courage is about.
No, I'm questioning the causation. Though actually I haven't said anything at all about forced population control. I totally will though now though. The world population is growing fast. 40% or more in my lifetime and there were already enough of us. Population control is not inherently a bad idea. Its how you go about doing it. In fact if we don't control it ourselves, then something else will eventually do it for us. If you think that Catholic policy on birth control is helping the situation, you are deep in denial. Its making things worse.
Infidelity and STDs are certainly up, moral standards is a complicated one to sum up. In developed countries, I think standards have been improving in most important areas. We have issues with greed and materialism though. Respect for women, I think this might be something being revealed rather than reduced.
So as to causation, Catholic policy on birth control is actually increasing the population which will increase the cases of infidelity and STDs simply by numbers and of course this increases the need for population control by governments. There is also a non-inflationary effect on prevalence of STDs because condoms block transmission and the RCC is telling people not to use them.
Infidelity is probably also rising because women have greater rights and independence so they can be unfaithful without ending up battered or killed (unless they're Muslims) but those increased freedoms actually imply an increase in respect. I think the perceived lack of respect is just the last few generations of sexist dinosaurs (and their influence) dying out. That and male fear of obsolescence.
Anyway, as you can now see, that article was all kinds of wrong.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!! According to Paul Ehrlich, we were supposed to eating our dead by the end of the 1970's
It is all kinds of right. We had a Freeview of HBO and Cinemax last weekend. There is a reason it has the nickname "Skinamax" HBO has loads of soft porn now, as does Showtime. Fifty Shades of Grey anyone? Lots of money to made off the exploitation of women.
Making easier to cheat on your husband or wife is what contributed to the increase of the spread of STD's. Condoms break and the possibility of pregnancy kept people in line. The best way to not get an STD is to not have sex with someone that is not your husband or wife. Even the CDC website says the EVIL "a word" is the only way to guarantee not contracting an STD
Carroll High School senior Claudetteia Love, an openly gay student and top academic scholar, won't attend the school's prom this year because the school won't allow her to wear a tuxedo.
The school says it's simply a dress code, but Love said the school's prohibition is more about her sexual orientation than her fashion choices.
Geraldine Jackson, Love's mom, said she talked to Principal Patrick Taylor about the school's rule of no tuxes for girls.
"He said that the faculty that is working the prom told him they weren't going to work the prom if (girls) were going to wear tuxes," she said. "That's his exact words. 'Girls wear dresses and boys wear tuxes, and that's the way it is."
On Friday, Taylor said the decision was simply a dress code and not anything personal against any student.
After hearing of Love's plight from members of the community who saw The News-Star's article, Monroe City School Board President Rodney McFarland contacted The News-Star to say that he will take action on Love's behalf.
McFarland said he will contact Superintendent Brent Vidrine and request that he discuss the rule with the school's principal.
"As school board president, I don't agree with Carroll banning her from her prom just because of what she wants to wear -- that's discrimination," he said. "As far as I know there is no Monroe City School Board policy saying what someone has to wear to attend the prom. You can't just go making up policies."
"I can not force my religious values or views up on someone else. Now it is a different story if you are member of my congregation - then I can tell you my belief. But as president, you have to separate church and state," McFarland said.
KNOE notes McFarland "reports the Department of Justice has contacted the school board's attorney. The department has let them know it is illegal to prohibit a girl from wearing a tuxedo to prom."
And the ACLU has weighed in as well.
"Schools can have a dress code and they can have a formal attire for a prom," ACLU Director Marjorie Esman says. "They can say that. But formal attire means a girl can wear a tux that a boy might wear and it also means that a boy can wear a formal gown if he wants to."
And the school cannot ban students from taking a member of the same-sex to the prom, either.
Just wait, they'll make this a private event instead of school sponsored. There was article about some school that still had segregated proms this way a year or two back.
To paraphrase you: Its clearly not their choice to be attracted to the each other and maybe when enough people come to understand this is when the tide will turn over the policy on it.
Really?
Originally Posted by Chongo
That's the heresy of the "prosperity gospel"
I'll take that as an agreement.
Originally Posted by Chongo
ISIS hasn't got to the Jewish people yet.
ISIS is in the process of committing the first genocide of the 21st century, just as the Ottoman's did almost 100 years ago upon the Armenians. What's really telling is when ISIS killed the Copts Obama did not mention the fact they were Christians. BTW Pope Francis has pissed off the Turks because he called it genocide. The Turks even made the same complaint about "he only mentioned the pains suffered by Christian Armenians and not Muslims and other religious groups. " The pope called the Armenian slaughter a genocide, and Turkey’s not happy | Crux
So the Pope is as insular in his considerations as you are? Shocking.
Originally Posted by Chongo
"Gay" is an identity politics word. It may not be their choice to have SSA, but they can choose not to act upon those attractions. That is what Courage is about.
So a significant portion of the population have to live a lie or live alone and be miserable because a bunch of medieval assholes in drag and silly hats and you say so? **** you, quite frankly.
Originally Posted by Chongo
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!! According to Paul Ehrlich, we were supposed to eating our dead by the end of the 1970's
So because we aren't eating the dead, the population is not a problem?
Originally Posted by Chongo
It is all kinds of right. We had a Freeview of HBO and Cinemax last weekend. There is a reason it has the nickname "Skinamax" HBO has loads of soft porn now, as does Showtime. Fifty Shades of Grey anyone? Lots of money to made off the exploitation of women.
Making easier to cheat on your husband or wife is what contributed to the increase of the spread of STD's. Condoms break and the possibility of pregnancy kept people in line. The best way to not get an STD is to not have sex with someone that is not your husband or wife. Even the CDC website says the EVIL "a word" is the only way to guarantee not contracting an STD
The CDC says that because its true and they are honest enough not to hide facts that don't suit them. A foreign concept I'm sure.
The sexual revolution happened because women got rights, independence and access to contraception. They became sexually empowered instead of being virtually owned and enslaved by men and dictated to by the church.
People cheat because they are weak and because humans are not really evolved for monogamy. Our closest animal relatives don't live that way. Our instincts aren't wired that way either. They have always cheated but in the past it was easier to get away with and people covered it up because of the shame associated with it by (mainly) the church. Pregnancies were covered up. Divorces were not allowed. Your "better" time was a lie enforced and artificially preserved. People forced to remain in unhappy, toxic or abusive relationships.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
So the Pope is as insular in his considerations as you are? Shocking.
That honeymoon didn't last long
So a significant portion of the population have to live a lie or live alone and be miserable because a bunch of medieval assholes in drag and silly hats and you say so? **** you, quite frankly.
That is what Courage is all about. To help that 2.6% to find fellowship with others.
So because we aren't eating the dead, the population is not a problem?
The CDC says that because its true and they are honest enough not to hide facts that don't suit them. A foreign concept I'm sure.
The sexual revolution happened because women got rights, independence and access to contraception. They became sexually empowered instead of being virtually owned and enslaved by men and dictated to by the church.
People cheat because they are weak and because humans are not really evolved for monogamy. Our closest animal relatives don't live that way. Our instincts aren't wired that way either. They have always cheated but in the past it was easier to get away with and people covered it up because of the shame associated with it by (mainly) the church. Pregnancies were covered up. Divorces were not allowed. Your "better" time was a lie enforced and artificially preserved. People forced to remain in unhappy, toxic or abusive relationships.
I'll chalk this up to classic Anti-Catholicism.
If you want to continue with this, please post in the Pope Francis Thread since your issues are with Jesus and his Church.
Its pretty pathetic to equate homosexuality with incest in general. Even for such a mindless cult member as brainwashed as you apparently are.
Originally Posted by Chongo
That is what Courage is all about. To help that 2.6% to find fellowship with others.
I find it really offensive that the term courage is used to describe baselessly self-imposed lifelong dishonesty and misery. People seem to think I'm weird for being so anti-religion but this is up there with creationism in terms of the stupidity levels and it has the extra zing of discrimination against innocent victims so its a great case study of why I hate this ****ing retarded shit sticking around in an age where we have long since known better as a species.
Originally Posted by Chongo
I'll chalk this up to classic Anti-Catholicism.
I guess I'm single-handedly oppressing billions of you.
Originally Posted by Chongo
If you want to continue with this, please post in the Pope Francis Thread since your issues are with Jesus and his Church.
Jesus if he existed as described was a pretty stand-up guy and I think he'd be appalled at the shit that you and your scummy church peddle and inflict in his name. So I have no issue with Jesus.
But let the focus of my disgust with you remain with your dismissal of gay people as being misguided and lacking "courage". Most of them probably show more courage coming out to their friends and families than you ever have or will. Especially when those friends have ridiculous views like yours.
Its interesting that your view of gay people as broken, misguided or simply lacking courage is treated as more acceptable than my view of people as religious as you being afflicted with a mental illness, given that I can substantiate my view with more than just some other asshole's opinion.
Since I will now likely be asked to provide some of that substantiation,
Its pretty pathetic to equate homosexuality with incest in general. Even for such a mindless cult member as brainwashed as you apparently are.
...
Its interesting that your view of gay people as broken, misguided or simply lacking courage is treated as more acceptable than my view of people as religious as you being afflicted with a mental illness, given that I can substantiate my view with more than just some other asshole's opinion.
The problem is, I'm much more in agreement with you regarding gay rights, but I hate the way you talk to people whom you disagree with, and it's a common, growing trend (atheists are in the same boat, as well). Can't you see? That only puts others off and makes people on the fence more sympathetic towards them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Lest my silence be construed as approval, I've been pretty much glossing over war's posts for years because I find they usually add nothing to the debate.
Jesus if he existed as described was a pretty stand-up guy and I think he'd be appalled at the shit that you and your scummy church peddle and inflict in his name. So I have no issue with Jesus.
But let the focus of my disgust with you remain with your dismissal of gay people as being misguided and lacking "courage". Most of them probably show more courage coming out to their friends and families than you ever have or will. Especially when those friends have ridiculous views like yours.
Its interesting that your view of gay people as broken, misguided or simply lacking courage is treated as more acceptable than my view of people as religious as you being afflicted with a mental illness, given that I can substantiate my view with more than just some other asshole's opinion.
We are all broken people, including myself. All the baptized are called to chastity.
This "stand up guy" says:
Matthew 10:34-39
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.
Jesus tells the Apostles (and their successors):
Luke 10:16
16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
It was nasty and I'm mildly sorry about it but I'm genuinely outraged to an extant that I don't recall being outraged to in a very long time.
That whole thing about gay people needing to have the courage to live a lie or be miserable and alone and basically deny an integral part of themselves at the baseless whim of disapproving others is so heavily laced with ignorance, arrogance, disrespect and its just so patronising. And even a percentage of people who disagree with it just let it go unchallenged because its got a religious "Can't argue with me tag" attached to it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The problem is, I'm much more in agreement with you regarding gay rights, but I hate the way you talk to people whom you disagree with, and it's a common, growing trend (atheists are in the same boat, as well). Can't you see? That only puts others off and makes people on the fence more sympathetic towards them.
I find when I am more tolerant and reasonable and less confrontational about things, I still largely get treated as if I'm being offensive and confrontational. I don't know if thats something subtle I'm giving off even when I'm trying to be nicer or if its simply a case of that ship having sailed a long long time ago and everyone just assuming they know what I think and what I'll say about anything.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
We are all broken people, including myself. All the baptized are called to chastity.
Its not the same though is it? Doesn't strike you as unfair?
Originally Posted by Chongo
This "stand up guy" says:
Matthew 10:34-39
Jesus tells the Apostles (and their successors):
Luke 10:16
I'm reading this as "Jesus wasn't that great after all" which is not the sort of response I was expecting. These quotes sound kinda like he had a bit too much wine and got a little fighty.
Can't help but wonder if this is a good example of there being suitable (and contradictory) biblical quotes to back or refute any assertion or opinion.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Its not the same though is it? Doesn't strike you as unfair?
We are all called to chastity, not just those with SSA.
I'm reading this as "Jesus wasn't that great after all" which is not the sort of response I was expecting. These quotes sound kinda like he had a bit too much wine and got a little fighty.
Can't help but wonder if this is a good example of there being suitable (and contradictory) biblical quotes to back or refute any assertion or opinion.
Funny you should that because when Jesus was presented at the Temple:
34 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted;
It's not to say he is not great. People like to portray Jesus as the hipster guy who was peace loving and handed out bread and fish. They ignore the Jesus who used his belt as a lash to drive the money changers out of the temple; or the Jesus that cursed the fig tree. The Jesus who said those who divorce and remarry commit adultery, etc. He knows his teaching will set families at odds, especially those who say "non serviam"
What do you mean by this? Are you referring to pre-marital chastity? Considerably more temporary than that which homosexuals are expected to impose on themselves no?
And what of the families of people who manage to succeed in living the lie for 20 or 30 years before finally lapsing and having to cash in their 'homosexuals anonymous' '30 years straight' chip?
What sort of damage does this do to a family, particularly to a spouse. Imagine how upset you'd be if you found out that someone you'd lived with for decades came out and said they were attracted exclusively to the opposite sex. Seems likely you'd question your masculinity/femininity under circumstances like that.
Is all this ok because Jesus said the rules would pit families against each other?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
It was nasty and I'm mildly sorry about it but I'm genuinely outraged to an extant that I don't recall being outraged to in a very long time.
That whole thing about gay people needing to have the courage to live a lie or be miserable and alone and basically deny an integral part of themselves at the baseless whim of disapproving others is so heavily laced with ignorance, arrogance, disrespect and its just so patronising. And even a percentage of people who disagree with it just let it go unchallenged because its got a religious "Can't argue with me tag" attached to it.
The last thing I'd want is for it to go unchallenged. What I question is whether what's been challenged is rooted in malice to the extent it deserves the outrage you attach to it.
There's no question what Catholicism teaches about sex is pretty screwy. I can't say the same for what it teaches about malice.
This doesn't insulate Catholicism or its devout followers from challenge, but it indicates ascribing motivators such as arrogance and disrespect is oversimplifying the dynamic involved.
The last thing I'd want is for it to go unchallenged. What I question is whether what's been challenged is rooted in malice to the extent it deserves the outrage you attach to it.
There's no question what Catholicism teaches about sex is pretty screwy. I can't say the same for what it teaches about malice.
This doesn't insulate Catholicism or its devout followers from challenge, but it indicates ascribing motivators such as arrogance and disrespect is oversimplifying the dynamic involved.
While I'm easy enough to wind up, I am not easily outraged. Its not just the 'rules' its specifically the use of the word 'courage' as the answer to any questions or complaints from that those who have to suffer under those rules.
You just have to be brave and live your entire life lying to everyone you know, denying your true self and likely being miserable and unfulfilled for most of it. We poor, straight Catholics have to keep it in our pants for a couple of years before we can get married and go nuts, you just have to also spend 50+ years living a lie. It just requires a little bit of courage on your part. Thats what it says to me. I'm disappointed that no-one else finds this offensive. As usual most of you take issue with what I say or how I go about saying it rather than sticking your necks out and and admitting that that 'courage' website is a dick move.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
My outrage is tempered by "going nuts" to Catholics means you get one shot at making the right choice of a permanent life partner through the haze of raging hormones.
It means no birth control, so if you have a normal sex drive you end up with eight freaking kids, like in my mother's family. Her brother married into a family of eighteen kids. That woman has spent over ten years being pregnant. That's some courage right there.
Or, get divorced like my parents when I was three... well, legally divorced. Church says they're still married, get a ticket to hell for living in sin, and my half-brother is considered a bastard. Lack the courage, pay the price in eternal damnation.
The fact that people flout these rules at the risk of going to hell tells me they don't really believe in it all. Not really. Pity they won't just take those convictions and run with them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Top