[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I feel it's more than a bit disingenuous. Where are the pizza shops preemptively refusing to to serve at the weddings of mastrubators? Adulterers? Divorcées? Athiests? Users of birth control? This kind of persecution- this public shaming- which if not 'hatred' is certainly 'hateful,' is reserved for homosexuals. I will say again, I can't know what is in someone's heart or mind. I can only judge their words and actions. The words and actions are hateful.

No one knows you are any of the above, unless you tell them you are.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I had many more Catholic friends in America (just haven't met many Catholics in the UK), but they were, almost without exception, socially liberal and/or 'lapsed.' My Mother is a practicing Catholic. She converted in protest of the Episcopal Church's ordination of a gay Bishop. My political/ethical conversations with her are at least this heated. I love her deeply but fundamentally disagree with her on many, many issues. I suppose I love the sinner but hate the sin.

Was your mother upset when they allowed women clergy?

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Would I walk up to a Catholic/Fundamentalist on the street and lambast them unprovoked? Absolutely not. I don't do public shaming.

Not from you, but I would not be surprised to see this happen in the not so distant future.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said earlier, marriage is the gatekeeper for sex if you're Catholic.

If the gatekeeper lets in people who are not allowed to have sex under any possible circumstance, it has ceased to function as a gatekeeper.

With the exception of divorcees, none of the examples you provide are people who are not allowed to have sex under any possible circumstance.

I don't disagree with you. However, I am not one who believes the ends justify the means. Motivations and intentions are almost irrelevant. Actions matter.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No one knows you are any of the above, unless you tell them you are.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. But as said above, judging intentions or motivations are all but impossible. Judging actions is easy.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Was your mother upset when they allowed women clergy?

I would say more uncomfortable than upset. She continued to attend the same church for years after a female priest joined the clergy and got on with her.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Not from you, but I would not be surprised to see this happen in the not so distant future.

In the not so distant future? It happens today. I don't agree with with these tactics- as I have said again and again, public shaming is reprehensible from any side. However, an ethical argument delivered unethically is still an ethical argument.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said earlier, marriage is the gatekeeper for sex if you're Catholic.

If the gatekeeper lets in people who are not allowed to have sex under any possible circumstance, it has ceased to function as a gatekeeper.

With the exception of divorcees, none of the examples you provide are people who are not allowed to have sex under any possible circumstance.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I don't disagree with you. However, I am not one who believes the ends justify the means. Motivations and intentions are almost irrelevant. Actions matter.

Jesus set marriage as the gatekeeper for sex. He also raised the bar to include motivations and intent in the Sermon on the Mount.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Jesus set marriage as the gatekeeper for sex. He also raised the bar to include motivations and intent in the Sermon on the Mount.

I'm not clear on what that has to do with anything. Just because you (and many, many, others- not singling you OR Catholics out here) follow discriminatory teachings, it doesn't give you the ethical justification to treat people in a hateful, judgemental, way. I abhor much of what you preach, but I would still treat you with respect- even sell you a pizza- because treating people decently is the right thing to do. We all have to live together in this world. Try to change my mind- I will try to change yours. But at no point will I say that who you are at your core- that the person nature (or even God) made you- is somehow broken or an abomination. Without question there are many gays, liberals, humanist, atheists, etc, that hold beliefs that I fundamentally disagree with, and I will gladly tell them so. But those are beliefs, not a defect in their very person. I don't think you believe what you believe because you are inherently evil, I just think your'e wrong, and I don't believe you have to deny who you are to lead an ethical life. You just have to come around to the concept that the person standing in front of you, even if he is a dude that likes kissing other dudes, matters more than your bronze age superstitions.

[Atheist]

So it seems most opposition to same-sex marriage is faith-based. The only faith I'm remotely familiar with is Christianity so I'll address that one. As far as I can see, the NT effectively overrules the OT. So things like cursing your mother or father no longer result in death or stoning or some such. The NT seems to say a lot more about things like adultery and divorce than it does about homosexuality. Jesus makes it very clear that marrying a divorced woman is adultery. The few references to homosexuality in the NT are pretty minor in comparison. Implying only that homosexuality is not natural and not really getting into any kind of penalties for engaging in homosexual acts.

I really wish someone who uses their faith as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage can explain how divorce and adultery is basically okay in this day and age yet the apparently lesser evil of homosexuality is going to destroy humanity.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I really wish someone who uses their faith as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage can explain how divorce and adultery is basically okay in this day and age yet the apparently lesser evil of homosexuality is going to destroy humanity.

I asked something like this a while ago, basically asking for sins to be ranked by severity. Homosexuality was ranked pretty high because of sodomy or something. I'll try to dig up the thread.

[The Final Dakar]

Here it is: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...-christianity/

That said atheism has to be pretty bad, but no one is trying to outlaw that (Though I suppose one could see the fight against civic secularism as an attack on atheism).

[Chongo]

This is what one Senator said during the 2004 Marraige Ammnedment debate. No mention of G*d or scriptures.

“So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.”

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is what one Senator said during the 2004 Marraige Ammnedment debate. No mention of G*d or scriptures.

Of course not, Hilary is a godless heathen.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So it seems most opposition to same-sex marriage is faith-based. The only faith I'm remotely familiar with is Christianity so I'll address that one. As far as I can see, the NT effectively overrules the OT. So things like cursing your mother or father no longer result in death or stoning or some such. The NT seems to say a lot more about things like adultery and divorce than it does about homosexuality. Jesus makes it very clear that marrying a divorced woman is adultery. The few references to homosexuality in the NT are pretty minor in comparison. Implying only that homosexuality is not natural and not really getting into any kind of penalties for engaging in homosexual acts.

I really wish someone who uses their faith as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage can explain how divorce and adultery is basically okay in this day and age yet the apparently lesser evil of homosexuality is going to destroy humanity.

Under Christian law the worst penalty that can be levied against a gay person is that you love them, and while that can be annoying, it's far better than a stoning.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is what one Senator said during the 2004 Marraige Ammnedment debate. No mention of G*d or scriptures.

People change their minds for the sake of political expedience all the time, Leftist Dems more frequently than others.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

People change their minds for the sake of political expedience all the time, Leftist Dems more frequently than others.

I would be curious to hear her rationale as to what changed her stance.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, make not that it was a Democrat making the secular argument. Coincidence?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I would be curious to hear her rationale as to what changed her stance.

More potential voters, as the nation started swinging to being more pro-gay.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

More potential voters, as the nation started swinging to being more pro-gay.

You know that's not what I meant.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So it seems most opposition to same-sex marriage is faith-based. The only faith I'm remotely familiar with is Christianity so I'll address that one. As far as I can see, the NT effectively overrules the OT. So things like cursing your mother or father no longer result in death or stoning or some such. The NT seems to say a lot more about things like adultery and divorce than it does about homosexuality. Jesus makes it very clear that marrying a divorced woman is adultery. The few references to homosexuality in the NT are pretty minor in comparison. Implying only that homosexuality is not natural and not really getting into any kind of penalties for engaging in homosexual acts.

I really wish someone who uses their faith as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage can explain how divorce and adultery is basically okay in this day and age yet the apparently lesser evil of homosexuality is going to destroy humanity.

They are sins agianst the sixth commandment and are equal in severity. Divorce in itself is not a sin. Divorce and "remarriage" is. St Paul says in 1 Coronthians 6 the penalty is not inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

They are sins agianst the sixth commandment and are equal in severity. Divorce in itself is not a sin. Divorce and "remarriage" is. St Paul says in 1 Coronthians 6 the penalty is not inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven.

Which is why Christians should be just as opposed to divorce and remarriage as they are against same-sex marriage. Why am I not seeing state constitution amendments outlawing remarriage?

It's the hypocrisy that I find most revolting.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Which is why Christians should be just as opposed to divorce and remarriage as they are against same-sex marriage. Why am I not seeing state constitution amendments outlawing remarriage?

It's the hypocrisy that I find most revolting.

Don't think there aren't people out there who would support such a thing. They just know the cause is lost. I wouldn't call it hypocrisy so much as resignation. Resignation that they also reached with interracial marriages and in 25 years, probably homo ones as well.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't think there aren't people out there who would support such a thing. They just know the cause is lost. I wouldn't call it hypocrisy so much as resignation. Resignation that they also reached with interracial marriages and in 25 years, probably homo ones as well.

Resignation or not, their behavior is still hypocritical and bugs the **** out of me. If you're going to stand for something, then do it 100%... don't pick and choose which tenets of your faith you subscribe to.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Resignation or not, their behavior is still hypocritical and bugs the **** out of me. If you're going to stand for something, then do it 100%... don't pick and choose which tenets of your faith you subscribe to.

Here's where the hypocrisy stands: Claiming to be for the 'sanctity of marriage' in the opposition. The sanctity died for the reasons you cited long ago.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's where the hypocrisy stands: Claiming to be for the 'sanctity of marriage' in the opposition. The sanctity died for the reasons you cited long ago.

You can thank Martin Luther and friends for that. Luther decided marriage was a "worldy thing"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You can thank Martin Luther and friends for that. Luther decided marriage was a "worldy thing"

I'm not sure what you're referring to (as always), but I don't think Luther is responsible for the US civic law and the fundamental hypocrisy of those who think it should conform to religious convention in only certain circumstances.

[Chongo]

Luther decide marriage wasn't of G*d and rendered it to Caesar.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Luther decide marriage wasn't of G*d and rendered it to Caesar.

Traditionally, he was right. Unless you choose to ignore everything outside of Christianity.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Traditionally, he was right. Unless you choose to ignore everything outside of Christianity.

If Luther was right, does that make Jesus wrong when he says "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If Luther was right, does that Jesus wrong when he says "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder"?

I think there's a word or two missing here. Also, I don't speak biblical. Translate for a layman, please.

[Chongo]

Highlight, right click, look up:

asunder |əˈsəndər|
adverb archaic or literary
apart; divided: those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.
• into pieces: the desk burst asunder.
ORIGIN Old English on sundran‘in or into a separate place’; compare with sunder.

The preceding passage:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?[a] 6 So they are no longer two but one.[b] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Highlight, right click:

Not the word, the phrase. But your correction to the preceding sentence doesn't necessitate a need for that anymore.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

does that make Jesus wrong when he says

Here's the thing – what Jesus says is completely unimportant to marriage law in the US. Religious (and Christian) marriage is subset of marriage and a branch in its history. That's what a lot of people don't get.

Too many Americans approach marriage as if a very specific instance of it is the end-all be-all of the subject, and those people are disregarding both pre-christian history and not realizing (or caring) that by trying to get government to legislate their specific, Christian view of marriage, they are violating the Establishment Clause.

In my opinion, that trying to impose your specific interpretation of marriage on the state is just as reprehensible as having the state try to impose its non-discriminatory view on the Churches.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In my opinion, that trying to impose your specific interpretation of marriage on the state is just as reprehensible as having the state try to impose its non-discriminatory view on the Churches.

You can say it's not going to happen "slippery slope" etc. That doesn't mean there are those who will go to court and try. I heard on the IHradio Jeran Artery, Chairman of Wyoming Equality posted on his Facebook page about going after the 501(c)(3) status of Churches that support traditional marriage. He deleted the post after it hit the news. That sounds like using the power of the state to impose its view on the Church.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You can say it's not going to happen

Yes, it's impossible to prove a negative. That's also a terrible argument.

Chongo, the SCOTUS rules against homosexuals and then Christians will then legislate them into second-class citizens. You can say it's not going to happen

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That doesn't mean there are those who will go to court and try.

People misusing the court isn't a reason to oppose legal policy. Christians go to court to try and impose their beliefs often enough. Does that mean it's rational for me to oppose religious freedom?

[Waragainstsleep]

I've come down before in favour of trying to make churches perform marriages they don't want to, but actually I'm not 100% sure about it. Its one freedom versus another.

When it comes to threatening their tax exempt status for refusing to perform SSMs, I think thats perfectly fair. A tax break is essentially the same thing as taking taxpayers money so if you get that benefit then you should expect to have your religious freedoms take second place to issues of discrimination because gay people have to pay taxes too. Unless all the religious institutions would prefer to pay the percentage of their taxes based on the percentage of the population they collectively discriminate against? Plus an admin fee of course since that seems like a PITA for the IRS that they could do without.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not advocating demonising anyone. I'm saying that to change insular, fundamentalist attitudes the most effective way might be to encourage the tolerant, uninvested majority to stop being so tolerant of anything with a #religion hashtag stamped across it and start questioning things that they know to be wrong.
As soon as religion starts to lose its special sacrosanct status when it comes to being questioned or argued with, so much of this nonsense will begin to crumble.

This absolutely not the solution, and in a crowning irony, the real solution comes from a Bible quote...

"Love your enemy."

You may take offense at the following, and maybe you should.

You want to change Chongo's opinion because you think he's wrong.

I want to change his opinion because I care about him.

Because of this, I'm going to show his beliefs some respect. It's inpossible to care about someone who holds their beliefs as strongly as Chongo does without respecting their beliefs as well.

It doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge him. In fact, the only reason I've stopped is because a half-dozen people dogpiled someone I care about.

This is a 6-on-1 game, but the only way you can conceive of winning this match is to go nuclear?

[The Final Dakar]

If this guys is one of the more moderate ones, Shaddim, its certainly not on the gimme of social issues
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/op...an-region&_r=0

That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.

As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.

Good on you

In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.

I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion.

My view is formed by our cumulative consensus. I won't change it if consensus does!

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My view is formed by our cumulative consensus. I won't change it if consensus does!

Does that man (Jindal) not even realize how stupid he sounds? If he's going to use his faith to support his stance he needs to at least present a cogent argument.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Does that man (Jindal) not even realize how stupid he sounds? If he's going to use his faith to support his stance he needs to at least present a cogent argument.

Not if you're part of the minority that believes this was founded as a Christian nation, which gives you cart blanche to enact any legislation that is based on your interpretation of Christian morality.

Edit: And that's not factoring in if this is purely conniving politics, pandering to the religious base. Honestly, I'd be fascinated by a look at what the GOP would look like without the overt religious element. I think a lot of us could stomach them otherwise, improving the political system.

[The Final Dakar]

Do you like palpable desperation?
Steve King unveils radical court scheme | MSNBC

Congressman Steve King released the following statement after introducing his bill “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015.” This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs. […]

“My bill strips Article III courts of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, ‘to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.’”

"We'll pass an unconstitutional bill to block the SCOTUS from invalidating unconstitutional bills! Brilliant!" All that's missing is a clause indicating the SCOTUS can't rules this bill unconstitutional also.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

This absolutely not the solution, and in a crowning irony, the real solution comes from a Bible quote...

"Love your enemy."

I think maybe you still misunderstand what I meant.

Originally Posted by subego 

You may take offense at the following, and maybe you should.

Like I say, I don't offend easily.

Originally Posted by subego 

You want to change Chongo's opinion because you think he's wrong.

I want to change his opinion because I care about him.

Thats an odd assumption.

In fact I want to change his opinion because I care about him, the people around him, the people who will come after him and the people who are negatively affected by his the opinion. I think I should stand a good chance of success because he is wrong.

Originally Posted by subego 

Because of this, I'm going to show his beliefs some respect. It's inpossible to care about someone who holds their beliefs as strongly as Chongo does without respecting their beliefs as well.

This is just wrong. Even Chongo should disagree with this because he claims to love and care for gay people while holding no respect for their lifestyle. This might not technically be their beliefs, but for the purposes of this point its a fair equivalence to draw.

Originally Posted by subego 

It doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge him. In fact, the only reason I've stopped is because a half-dozen people dogpiled someone I care about.

And thats very nice of you but right and wrong are not so often influenced by consensus these days. Social acceptance of what is right and wrong might be, but its often been the case that a minority works out that something is wrong long before consensus catches up.
What you are doing is exactly what I think should be discouraged because it legitimises bad or wrong opinions and validates the idea that even a majority viewpoint can claim victimisation the second a member is isolated and outnumbered.
I wonder if someone you cared about committed a crime and you walked in on a discussion where several others were lecturing or condemning that person or their actions, would you lay off because they were being dogpiled? Would it depend on the crime? I'll let you run the spectrum of potential crimes in this little scenario without further suggestion from me.

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a 6-on-1 game, but the only way you can conceive of winning this match is to go nuclear?

Your use of the term nuclear suggests you aren't grasping my intent.

All I'm proposing is that anti-theists should focus their efforts on encouraging the neutrals to change their response to fundamentalists from "Live and let live, I respect your religious freedom." to "I don't agree with you at all, and I believe you should rethink but thats really up to you."

I'm not advocating attacking the neutrals or stopping them from being tolerant and all, just to try and stop them from so tolerant that fundamentalists interpret that tolerance as endorsement because in a way, thats what it is, If you aren't part of the solution you really are a part of the problem.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do you like palpable desperation?
Steve King unveils radical court scheme | MSNBC


"We'll pass an unconstitutional bill to block the SCOTUS from invalidating unconstitutional bills! Brilliant!" All that's missing is a clause indicating the SCOTUS can't rules this bill unconstitutional also.

It's been done before.
Jurisdiction stripping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It's been done before.
Jurisdiction stripping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh hey, you're back! Any thoughts on my last reply to you?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, it's impossible to prove a negative. That's also a terrible argument.

Chongo, the SCOTUS rules against homosexuals and then Christians will then legislate them into second-class citizens. You can say it's not going to happen

I can't speak for non Catholics, but the Catechism say:

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

People misusing the court isn't a reason to oppose legal policy. Christians go to court to try and impose their beliefs often enough.

What beliefs are those?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Does that mean it's rational for me to oppose religious freedom?

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was on Catholic Answers week. She mentioned this article: Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren’t Working - Crisis Magazine
You can read it if you want.

She mentions three reasons, reason one sounds like it applies here.

People who don’t believe in God, couldn’t give a rip whether we religious believers are inconvenienced in our religious practice.

Secondly, the controversies over religious liberty are not about transubstantiation or the Trinity or predestination. We are arguing about sex: abortion, contraception, homosexuality and similar topics.

Our fellow citizens have absorbed and are committed to a particular view about the meaning of human sexuality and its place in our lives. Millions of people have ordered their lives around these beliefs. They are not going to give up those views, in the absence of an attractive alternative.

If this is you, then of course you would think it's rational.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was on Catholic Answers week. She mentioned this article: Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren’t Working - Crisis Magazine
You can read it if you want.

Interesting article. I mostly agree with her on he points as to why the religious freedom arguments are not working. I think there is a real argument to be had on the points she made as to the 'sexual revolution' as a whole. She certainly lists a number of negative consequences, but I'm not at al convinced that the net effect is negative, even if you fully accept the the consequences she enumerates.

Originally Posted by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

The truth is that the Sexual Revolution has harmed millions of people: Children of divorce, whose families were broken up and who never really felt like part of a real family again. Reluctantly divorced people, who wanted to stay married but whose spouse pulled the plug. Heartbroken middle-aged professional women, who “had it all,” except for the children they are now too old to bear. Refugees from the hook-up culture, jaded, cynical, and old before their time.

For every divorce which has caused suffering, how much suffering has been avoided because couples no longer felt social or religious pressure to stay in destructive or abusive relationships? How much less marital rape occurs? How many young women have been saved from the Magdalene Laundries? Has a society more open to discussing sexuality brought pedophilia and other sexual abuse to light that would have otherwise remain in the shadows? How many forced marriages have been stopped? To pretend that the time before the sexual revolution was a utopia is nonsense. There has always been rape, sexual violence, abused children, unmarried mothers, and more.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I can't speak for non Catholics, but the Catechism say

You can't speak for Catholics, either. Unless you think they 100% obey their rules and never do stupid shit either.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What beliefs are those?

Creationism, School-prayer, religious monuments on public property, etc.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was on Catholic Answers week. She mentioned this article: Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren’t Working - Crisis Magazine
You can read it if you want.

She mentions three reasons, reason one sounds like it applies here.

People who don’t believe in God, couldn’t give a rip whether we religious believers are inconvenienced in our religious practice.

That's the very definition of a two way street. By imposing their religious take on marriage Christians don't care whether non-believers are inconvenienced by their actions.

I myself have clarified my take on non-discrimnation laws before, though. Either way someone will be inconvenienced. I choose to inconvenience those that would discriminate – they are still compensated with money after all.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Secondly, the controversies over religious liberty are not about transubstantiation or the Trinity or predestination. We are arguing about sex: abortion, contraception, homosexuality and similar topics.

Our fellow citizens have absorbed and are committed to a particular view about the meaning of human sexuality and its place in our lives. Millions of people have ordered their lives around these beliefs. They are not going to give up those views, in the absence of an attractive alternative.

If this is you, then of course you would think it's rational.

No one is asking them to give up those views. Merely tolerate that the opposing view is legal. Dancing is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Alcohol is legal, it doesn't mean you have to drink it or buy it. Same goes for: low cut blouses, short skirts, gambling, Kevin James movies, condoms, the pill, pornography, sodomy, abortion, or divorce. And if gay marriage is legal – guess what? You don't have to do that either.

Religious people tolerate a lot of 'immoral' acts being legal. If they can't handle that, maybe they should re-examine their understanding of the American experience.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

How many young women have been saved from the Magdalene Laundries?

Brendan O'Neill blogs on the McAleese Report on the Magdalene laundries
Catholic-bashers have embellished the truth about abuse in Catholic institutions. It's time to put the record straight – Telegraph Blogs

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Brendan O'Neill blogs on the McAleese Report on the Magdalene laundries
Catholic-bashers have embellished the truth about abuse in Catholic institutions. It's time to put the record straight – Telegraph Blogs

Did you actually read the blog you posted? All he's saying is that films and plays have exaggerated the horribleness of the laundries- that the truth of them was horrible enough, so why embellish? These were hellish institutions. If you are defending them, you need to do some serious soul searching.

[Waragainstsleep]

Wandering a bit off topic, but I spoke with someone from Sierra Leone the other day about Catholicism and when the paedophile priest scandal briefly came up she raised an excellent point simply saying: "If you think its bad whats come out in the west, just imagine what they've been getting away with in Africa and the third world."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Did you actually read the blog you posted? All he's saying is that films and plays have exaggerated the horribleness of the laundries- that the truth of them was horrible enough, so why embellish? These were hellish institutions. If you are defending them, you need to do some serious soul searching.

Of course I read it. The point is that those who love to bash the Church "massively embellish the alleged evilness of the modern Catholic Church" while at the same time ignoring the same evil in other segments of society.

Meanwhile, in your neck of the wood..
Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds - BBC News

The worst part is the police knew what was going and did nothing because they did not want to be called racists.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Wandering a bit off topic, but I spoke with someone from Sierra Leone the other day about Catholicism and when the paedophile priest scandal briefly came up she raised an excellent point simply saying: "If you think its bad whats come out in the west, just imagine what they've been getting away with in Africa and the third world."

What happen with the abuse scandal is horrible. Those involved need to go to jail. The US Bishops have protocols in place that are supposed make sure it doesn't happen again.

I post a link to this Dept. of Ed. report before. : Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature it details abuse that goes in in the public schools. It also has recommended actions to take, none of which appears to have been implemented. There isn't a week that goes by with another married female teacher arrested. The school districts are not the ones turning them in, the parents are.

[Chongo]

An Oregon administrative law judge recommended today that the bakers who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding should be fined $135,000.

Judge: Sweet Cakes bakery should pay $135K to lesbian couple

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Serious question for all here: Of all the trans people you've met who have had gender-reassignment surgery, have any of them been happy? Of the 5 I've encountered, all were completely miserable.