Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Durin]

Durin, I was basically with you (the Catholic Church is a VERY dogmatic institution) up until this:

Treating what is essentially a sexual kink as a civil rights issue

Homosexuality is no more a sexual kink as heterosexuality, nor is it a choice, or even strictly a behavioral issue. If being gay is a "kink", so is being straight, and the civil rights issue comes into play when you treat each of those orientations differently within the law.


Also, I don't think anybody is really saying the Catholics shouldn't be able to believe what they want to believe. However, we also have the right to vehemently disagree with it, and to say their religious beliefs shouldn't impact how the actual legal system operates and what laws or rights do/don't exist.

Of course you have a problem with it. It is the foundation and cornerstone of the new left's renewed attack on Christians. First the psychological community lied and called it an illness. Now they lie and state there is no choice involved. Problematically, there is no scientific model for choice at all. The psychological community knows this, and yet continues to press this issue as if it were cut and dried.

That is simply dishonest and unethical.

The entire issue is based on the personal testimony of the handful of people who claim no control. Anyone else is automatically tagged as "bisexual" and sent on their merry way. It is specious.

[Max White]

I'm having a little trouble seeing your exact point Durin.
Are you arguing that the term 'kink' is being applied as a dishonest term by the left wing for gay rights, or are you trying to argue that it is, in fact, what one might call a 'kink' and the dishonest lift wing is trying to label it otherwise and get offended when people call them on this?

[Truean]

You're acting like the bible is a lot more explicit than it actually is.

Or.... It isn't me, thinking this way, but rather this is what I've heard my whole life:

This supposed confusion over words is an invention. There is no confusion at all over the accepted sexual relationship detailed in Genesis and repeated over and over again in the Bible. The ideal model is further fleshed out in the New Testament as one man and one woman....

Honest question to G-Flex: who do you think has the more "It's spelled out" view? Do you honestly not see how the gay person would totally wanna side with you on this instead of Durin? Right or wrong, his view of it, which he and a whole lot of people like him state is the clearly correct one, doesn't end well for me as a GLBT person.

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

[Max White]

What part of this thread ever ends well? Ending well is not what this thread does, it just gets more brutal until we decide to draw the line and introduce a new topic.

[Durin]

You're acting like the bible is a lot more explicit than it actually is.

Or.... It isn't me, thinking this way, but rather this is what I've heard my whole life:

This supposed confusion over words is an invention. There is no confusion at all over the accepted sexual relationship detailed in Genesis and repeated over and over again in the Bible. The ideal model is further fleshed out in the New Testament as one man and one woman....

Honest question to G-Flex: who do you think has the more "It's spelled out" view? Do you honestly not see how the gay person would totally wanna side with you on this instead of Durin? Right or wrong, his view of it, which he and a whole lot of people like him state is the clearly correct one, doesn't end well for me as a GLBT person.

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

The article does not say that her mother wanted her to take communion. There is nothing heartbreaking about someone who is not Catholic not taking Catholic communion. The article is sparse on details, and I think purposefully so.

If her mother was a devout Catholic, and it sounds as if she might have been, then she would have known her daughter would not be partaking of communion. If she was using her death as an opportunity to poke a finger in the eye of the church, well, I do not see the nobility or tragedy in that either.

[G-Flex]

The passing of the Old Testament Law is detailed in the New Testament rather extensively, and twice in Acts sexual sin is specifically singled out as an exception to the injunctions against holding people to the Judaic law.

Got any references for this?

This supposed confusion over words is an invention.

Er, no it's not. There are a lot of specific words whose meanings are unclear. I mentioned three of them.

For anyone who finds difficulty in a word that roughly translates to "man couching" used in the context of a whole slew of other obviously sexual references, I can only say they should take some time to refresh themselves on the importance of context in reading comprehension.

Words that sound simple aren't always necessarily so. Language is filled with context-specific and idiomatic language as a general rule.

Of course you have a problem with it. It is the foundation and cornerstone of the new left's renewed attack on Christians. First the psychological community lied and called it an illness. Now they lie and state there is no choice involved. Problematically, there is no scientific model for choice at all. The psychological community knows this, and yet continues to press this issue as if it were cut and dried.

That is simply dishonest and unethical.

The entire issue is based on the personal testimony of the handful of people who claim no control. Anyone else is automatically tagged as "bisexual" and sent on their merry way. It is specious.

I'm honestly not sure what you think it is, or why you're saying these things about homosexuality without saying them about heterosexuality as well.

Let me put it this way: Did you choose to be straight?

It's also more than a "handful of people". It's homosexuals in general. It's virtually always put in terms of realizing that you're of a certain orientation, rather than choosing it or even becoming it.

I'll be the first to say that I think it's wrong to considering it a completely innate/genetic thing, either. It's not. Sexuality is more complex than "genetic or a choice" and more complex than "gay, straight, or bi". Lots of factors are involved, and I personally believe it's more fluid than a lot of liberals seem to think. However, to say that you can decide which sexual orientation to be is incredibly absurd.


Also, I have no idea what this whole "renewed left" and "attack on Christianity" thing is supposed to be. Is there some kind of conspiracy I've forgotten to take part in?

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

I sympathize with that, and I very strongly disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings on anything remotely sex-related. And I say this as an irreligious person who was raised Catholic. Just so it's clear that I sympathize with you here more than I might have led you to believe.

On the other hand, even though their anti-gay stance is certainly harmful, I don't think they should have been expected to grant their religious rites and rituals to someone who they obviously have such a problem with, nor do I think she should have expected it. Them having a problem with her in the first place is the problem here.

[NobodyPro]

This is like when they banned the inclusion of cow udders in children's books. *shakes fist*

Citation needed.

In Australia. Six years ago.
EDIT:

Illustrators have been asked to avoid showing uncut loaves of bread and freestanding wardrobes because they might be unfamiliar to American readers.

You should be offended.

[Truean]

You're acting like the bible is a lot more explicit than it actually is.

Or.... It isn't me, thinking this way, but rather this is what I've heard my whole life:

This supposed confusion over words is an invention. There is no confusion at all over the accepted sexual relationship detailed in Genesis and repeated over and over again in the Bible. The ideal model is further fleshed out in the New Testament as one man and one woman....

Honest question to G-Flex: who do you think has the more "It's spelled out" view? Do you honestly not see how the gay person would totally wanna side with you on this instead of Durin? Right or wrong, his view of it, which he and a whole lot of people like him state is the clearly correct one, doesn't end well for me as a GLBT person.

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

The article does not say that her mother wanted her to take communion. There is nothing heartbreaking about someone who is not Catholic not taking Catholic communion. The article is sparse on details, and I think purposefully so.

If her mother was a devout Catholic, and it sounds as if she might have been, then she would have known her daughter would not be partaking of communion. If she was using her death as an opportunity to poke a finger in the eye of the church, well, I do not see the nobility or tragedy in that either.

You're right, sparse on details. I had to talk to someone at HRC (Human Rights Campaign) for the rest.

Let's try this: Can you say it's possible, even probable, that her mom wanted her daughter to attend her funeral and to take the sacrament like everybody else at the funeral? Misguided or not, can you envision mom wanting that? I guess anything's possible, but I don't see it as likely that mom would use this to give one final finger to the church. Do you?

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

I sympathize with that, and I very strongly disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings on anything remotely sex-related. And I say this as an irreligious person who was raised Catholic. Just so it's clear that I sympathize with you here more than I might have led you to believe.

On the other hand, even though their anti-gay stance is certainly harmful, I don't think they should have been expected to grant their religious rites and rituals to someone who they obviously have such a problem with, nor do I think she should have expected it. Them having a problem with her in the first place is the problem here.

Thank you. My point:

Siding with you every way I can for this argument. Rule: Those who aren't in good standing with the church don't get sacrament. Facts: Lots of people at funeral. A good deal not in good standing with the or any church. Analysis: Thus, all the people part of the church shouldn't get the sacrament. Inconsistency: Why, of all the people who shouldn't have recieved that sacrament, was the gay the only one who didn't get it when everyone else did?

[Durin]

The passing of the Old Testament Law is detailed in the New Testament rather extensively, and twice in Acts sexual sin is specifically singled out as an exception to the injunctions against holding people to the Judaic law.

Got any references for this?

Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25 for the passing of the law save a handful of actions, fornication being a common denominator.

Romans 1:27, which conveniently  bypasses any misunderstanding you might have about any specific word by describing the exact behavior in question.

The passing of the law, what it means, why it is relevant to Christians, and so forth, is covered by reams of scripture too numerous to list. The majority of the rest of Romans is dedicated to the concept, for one.

[Truean]

There are, unfortunately for me, a lot of people out there like Durin. Just so I don't characterize him:
I'm gonna say it's pretty safe to say he doesn't like gay marriage or anything that has to do with the gay rights movement. I think him saying the familiar "one man; one woman" (paraphrase) sorta leads to that.
He, I think pretty clearly, believes the bible is quite express in what it says and not really open to a lot of interpretation.

His view, is not uncommon at all, much to my dismay. I've seen it a lot before.

[Durin]

You're acting like the bible is a lot more explicit than it actually is.

Or.... It isn't me, thinking this way, but rather this is what I've heard my whole life:

This supposed confusion over words is an invention. There is no confusion at all over the accepted sexual relationship detailed in Genesis and repeated over and over again in the Bible. The ideal model is further fleshed out in the New Testament as one man and one woman....

Honest question to G-Flex: who do you think has the more "It's spelled out" view? Do you honestly not see how the gay person would totally wanna side with you on this instead of Durin? Right or wrong, his view of it, which he and a whole lot of people like him state is the clearly correct one, doesn't end well for me as a GLBT person.

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

The article does not say that her mother wanted her to take communion. There is nothing heartbreaking about someone who is not Catholic not taking Catholic communion. The article is sparse on details, and I think purposefully so.

If her mother was a devout Catholic, and it sounds as if she might have been, then she would have known her daughter would not be partaking of communion. If she was using her death as an opportunity to poke a finger in the eye of the church, well, I do not see the nobility or tragedy in that either.

You're right, sparse on details. I had to talk to someone at HRC (Human Rights Campaign) for the rest.

Let's try this: Can you say it's possible, even probable, that her mom wanted her daughter to attend her funeral and to take the sacrament like everybody else at the funeral? Misguided or not, can you envision mom wanting that? I guess anything's possible, but I don't see it as likely that mom would use this to give one final finger to the church. Do you?

I got sad that some gay girl couldn't do what her mom wanted at the funeral.... I shoulda known this wouldn't end well.

I sympathize with that, and I very strongly disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings on anything remotely sex-related. And I say this as an irreligious person who was raised Catholic. Just so it's clear that I sympathize with you here more than I might have led you to believe.

On the other hand, even though their anti-gay stance is certainly harmful, I don't think they should have been expected to grant their religious rites and rituals to someone who they obviously have such a problem with, nor do I think she should have expected it. Them having a problem with her in the first place is the problem here.

Thank you. My point:

Siding with you every way I can for this argument. Rule: Those who aren't in good standing with the church don't get sacrament. Facts: Lots of people at funeral. A good deal not in good standing with the or any church. Analysis: Thus, all the people part of the church shouldn't get the sacrament. Inconsistency: Why, of all the people who shouldn't have recieved that sacrament, was the gay the only one who didn't get it when everyone else did?

No. You are attempting to define Catholicism in lieu of letting Catholics define it. Firstly, the typical person is able to repent. If the girl was openly living a homosexual lifestyle, she CANNOT have repented. That is the basic problem here. She is flaunting her sexuality at a funeral, attempting to claim victimhood status over it, and there is no WAY her mother was ignorant of the church's practice. Catholics do not just show up on the doorstep like Protestants do. She would have HAD to have passed through some fairly comprehensive teaching to be Catholic to begin with.

So no, your objections are demonstrably manufactured for the purpose of making a victim out of someone who seems to have been using her mother's death as a vehicle to make a political point.

[Truean]

What part of this thread ever ends well? Ending well is not what this thread does, it just gets more brutal until we decide to draw the line and introduce a new topic.

[sigh] Yeah....

[G-Flex]

and there is no WAY her mother was ignorant of the church's practice. Catholics do not just show up on the doorstep like Protestants do. She would have HAD to have passed through some fairly comprehensive teaching to be Catholic to begin with.

Plenty of Catholics, hypocritical or not, disagree with Church teachings on a variety of issues, but remain practicing Catholics. One prime example of this is birth control.


You still haven't responded to my questions regarding your characterization of homosexuality, or explained why you think my being okay with gay rights means I'm "attacking Christianity".

[Durin]

There are, unfortunately for me, a lot of people out there like Durin. Just so I don't characterize him:
I'm gonna say it's pretty safe to say he doesn't like gay marriage or anything that has to do with the gay rights movement. I think him saying the familiar "one man; one woman" (paraphrase) sorta leads to that.
He, I think pretty clearly, believes the bible is quite express in what it says and not really open to a lot of interpretation.

His view, is not uncommon at all, much to my dismay. I've seen it a lot before.

And then there are people like you, who seem to think that someone disagreeing with you is tantamount to being an immoral and judgmental ogre.

I don't agree with you. That is all. Why is that so hard for you to stomach?

[G-Flex]

There are, unfortunately for me, a lot of people out there like Durin. Just so I don't characterize him:
I'm gonna say it's pretty safe to say he doesn't like gay marriage or anything that has to do with the gay rights movement. I think him saying the familiar "one man; one woman" (paraphrase) sorta leads to that.
He, I think pretty clearly, believes the bible is quite express in what it says and not really open to a lot of interpretation.

His view, is not uncommon at all, much to my dismay. I've seen it a lot before.

And then there are people like you, who seem to think that someone disagreeing with you is tantamount to being an immoral and judgmental ogre.

I don't agree with you. That is all. Why is that so hard for you to stomach?

Could you at least say where you do stand, if you think homosexuality is "a kink" and don't see it as a civil rights issue?