Anti-Gay Beliefs More Important than Children?

[Crim]

Well that's just it. I don't hate gay people. The Catholic Church doesn't hate gay people or anyone for that matter. Again, Catholic Charities is a generous organization giving out of the goodness of their heart and I think they should have a choice as to where their money goes.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

I'm pretty sure Jesus chilled out with and lent a hand to tax collectors, whores, and other nefarious types, so the idea of "we chose who our money helps" seems to be a little bit less open minded than jesus.


edit: not to say that a gay person is on the same level as a whore or a tax collector of biblical proportions (most tax collectors back then were the equivalent of strong armed mob thugs from what I'm aware of)

 

[jpchewy01]

Well that's just it. I don't hate gay people. The Catholic Church doesn't hate gay people or anyone for that matter. Again, Catholic Charities is a generous organization giving out of the goodness of their heart and I think they should have a choice as to where their money goes.

I completely agree with you. Catholic Charities should be able to choose where their money goes, but not the public money that they are receiving from the government.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I completely agree with you. Catholic Charities should be able to choose where their money goes, but not the public money that they are receiving from the government.

Bingo.

Public money is not their money. It's the public's money, and that includes gay people.

 

[jpchewy01]

Bingo.

Public money is not their money. It's the public's money, and that includes gay people.

I got it right this time?!:CHappy

 

[Brandon Rhea]

For once, commie.

 

[Viggy]

Well that's just it. I don't hate gay people. The Catholic Church doesn't hate gay people or anyone for that matter.

Don't make me laugh. You can wrap your hate up in flowery language all day, but you believe that gay love is somehow less 'correct' then straight love. You don't believe it's good enough for marriage or for a family with children. The whole reason that some places in the States have this 'civil union' nonsense for gays, instead of just having 'marriage' for everyone, is that people like you think gay love is not good enough for marriage. You believe it defiles the super sacred sacredness of that super sacred bond, because apparently it's up to you (and some ancient book) to decide who's allowed to have this sacred bond with whom.

You believe only straight love is good enough for marriage. Ipso facto, you believe that gay love is somehow inferior to, or worse than, straight love. Only 'normal people' should be allowed to get married and raise children. That kind of superior posturing is exactly what hate and prejudice are all about. Don't you ever subscribe to views like those and then try to ****ing pretend you're not full to bursting with hate. If you're going to be a prejudiced douchesniffer you should at least be honest about it.

 

[Cailst]

Don't make me laugh. You can wrap your hate up in flowery language all day, but you believe that gay love is somehow less 'correct' then straight love. You don't believe it's good enough for marriage or for a family with children. The whole reason that some places in the States have this 'civil union' nonsense for gays, instead of just having 'marriage' for everyone, is that people like you think gay love is not good enough for marriage. You believe it defiles the super sacred sacredness of that super sacred bond, because apparently it's up to you (and some ancient book) to decide who's allowed to have this sacred bond with whom.

You believe only straight love is good enough for marriage. Ipso facto, you believe that gay love is somehow inferior to, or worse than, straight love. Only 'normal people' should be allowed to get married and raise children. That kind of superior posturing is exactly what hate and prejudice are all about. Don't you ever subscribe to views like those and then try to ****ing pretend you're not full to bursting with hate. If you're going to be a prejudiced douchesniffer you should at least be honest about it.

You can disagree with the conduct of people without hating them. People can be opposed to drinking, smoking, murder, adultery, theft, lying, coveting, and gum chewing without hating those who do them.

Certainly, there are some who hate both the conduct and the people but they are not necessarily representative of the whole.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

You can disagree with the conduct of people without hating them. People can be opposed to drinking, smoking, murder, adultery, theft, lying, coveting, and gum chewing without hating those who do them.

Certainly, there are some who hate both the conduct and the people but they are not necessarily representative of the whole.

That argument holds no water. While I don't agree that opposing gay marriage is full on hatred, you can't equate homosexuality with anything you just mentioned. Drinking, smoking, murder, adultery, theft, lying, coveting, and gum chewing are all choices. Homosexuality is not.

 

[Tarranium]

Ignorant idiots.

 

[Cailst]

That argument holds no water. While I don't agree that opposing gay marriage is full on hatred, you can't equate homosexuality with anything you just mentioned. Drinking, smoking, murder, adultery, theft, lying, coveting, and gum chewing are all choices. Homosexuality is not.

While the attraction may not be a choice, whether you act on it is an entirely different matter. People will want to do any of the above mentioned activities but many can control themselves so they do not do it.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

While the attraction may not be a choice, whether you act on it is an entirely different matter. People will want to do any of the above mentioned activities but many can control themselves so they do not do it.

That's such a stupid ass argument that if you're playing devil's advocate you should be ashamed of yourself. The idea of telling a homosexual not to act on it is no different then telling a heterosexual not to act on it, and both are equally stupid. Everyone has a right to love who they love.

 

[Thorn]

Sorry, but I find this quote hilarious

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill.

I read to that, and just stopped.... it really isn't worth continuing past that...

 

[Cailst]

That's such a stupid ass argument that if you're playing devil's advocate you should be ashamed of yourself. The idea of telling a homosexual not to act on it is no different then telling a heterosexual not to act on it, and both are equally stupid. Everyone has a right to love who they love.

Whether it is stupid or not is irrelevant for this argument, I don't see how it is necessarily hateful in any sense for someone to say that any particular action is wrong. Certain people may be prone to undertake certain actions, but someone objecting to them doing it doesn't have to hate them. After all, people that love an alcoholic usually want them to stop drinking.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Sorry, but I find this quote hilarious



I read to that, and just stopped.... it really isn't worth continuing past that...

It made me think of Karl Popper:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

Whether it is stupid or not is irrelevant for this argument, I don't see how it is necessarily hateful in any sense for someone to say that any particular action is wrong. Certain people may be prone to undertake certain actions, but someone objecting to them doing it doesn't have to hate them. After all, people that love an alcoholic usually want them to stop drinking.

That argument holds no water. While I don't agree that opposing gay marriage is full on hatred, you can't equate homosexuality with anything you just mentioned. Drinking, smoking, murder, adultery, theft, lying, coveting, and gum chewing are all choices. Homosexuality is not.

I disagreed with the hate part. I was pointing out that your examples were choices, but homosexuality is not. Acting on homosexuality is a choice, sure, but being homosexual is not.

The difference between what you're saying, though, is that everything you mentioned is a choice. The act of murder is a choice, as is being a murderer. The act of drinking is a choice, as is being a drinker. The act of adultery is a choice, as is being an adulterer.

The act of homosexuality can be acted on or not acted on, but being homosexual is not a choice.

 

[Thorn]

Whether it is stupid or not is irrelevant for this argument, I don't see how it is necessarily hateful in any sense for someone to say that any particular action is wrong. Certain people may be prone to undertake certain actions, but someone objecting to them doing it doesn't have to hate them. After all, people that love an alcoholic usually want them to stop drinking.

but you are classifying homosexuality as if it's wrong. I like pie, you like cake, doesn't mean you are wrong for liking cake, nor I for liking pie. Take that to a bigger issue like sexuality, and it's the same concept. Just because one's religion says it's not right, doesn't mean you can call someone out on it and treat them unequally for it. Christians as a whole, last time I checked, believe god gave free will... and also told Christians to let him be the judge. So, in what way is what the Catholic churches' refusal, with public money mind you, not judging someone for their beliefs, whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice or not.

 

[Green Ranger]

Cailst, are you playing devil's advocate or do you honestly believe what you're saying?

 

[Crim]

Don't make me laugh. You can wrap your hate up in flowery language all day, but you believe that gay love is somehow less 'correct' then straight love. You don't believe it's good enough for marriage or for a family with children. The whole reason that some places in the States have this 'civil union' nonsense for gays, instead of just having 'marriage' for everyone, is that people like you think gay love is not good enough for marriage. You believe it defiles the super sacred sacredness of that super sacred bond, because apparently it's up to you (and some ancient book) to decide who's allowed to have this sacred bond with whom.

You believe only straight love is good enough for marriage. Ipso facto, you believe that gay love is somehow inferior to, or worse than, straight love. Only 'normal people' should be allowed to get married and raise children. That kind of superior posturing is exactly what hate and prejudice are all about. Don't you ever subscribe to views like those and then try to ****ing pretend you're not full to bursting with hate. If you're going to be a prejudiced douchesniffer you should at least be honest about it.

Speaking of bursting with hate, I see you picking on Catholics a lot. If you're going to rant, please don't be a hypocrite.

Cal, very well said about the choice point you made.

 

[Insanity]

Concerning the article this thread was started for, the Catholics ****ed up.

Which, to be honest, isn't new.

That said, it seems everyone is making stupid decisions lately. Humanity sucks.

 

[Cailst]

It made me think of Karl Popper:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

So there can be no truly tolerant society?

I disagreed with the hate part. I was pointing out that your examples were choices, but homosexuality is not. Acting on homosexuality is a choice, sure, but being homosexual is not.

The difference between what you're saying, though, is that everything you mentioned is a choice. The act of murder is a choice, as is being a murderer. The act of drinking is a choice, as is being a drinker. The act of adultery is a choice, as is being an adulterer.

The act of homosexuality can be acted on or not acted on, but being homosexual is not a choice.

You can be genetically predisposed to drinking, murder, and philandering. Certainly, one can reject their genetic endowment though it may be harder for them than the average person. So essentially, it's the same as for homosexuals and homosexuality. We just don't have terms for people genetically disposed to drink, murder, or philander.

Cailst, are you playing devil's advocate or do you honestly believe what you're saying?

Which statements?