|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking crypto-homophobes
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.
This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Most people are members of a particular religion because they are born into it, yes. But this is not an excuse. Especially not for religion. Are there not multiple teachings regarding examining one's belief? Surely more lines in the bible condemning the lack of sincere faith than condemning homosexuality.
And, as moron points out, the effects seem to be heavily slanted in one direction.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.
This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Most people are members of a particular religion because they are born into it, yes. But this is not an excuse. Especially not for religion. Are there not multiple teachings regarding examining one's belief? Surely more lines in the bible condemning the lack of sincere faith than condemning homosexuality.
And, as moron points out, the effects seem to be heavily slanted in one direction.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My post was ironic.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.
This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Most people are members of a particular religion because they are born into it, yes. But this is not an excuse. Especially not for religion. Are there not multiple teachings regarding examining one's belief? Surely more lines in the bible condemning the lack of sincere faith than condemning homosexuality.
And, as moron points out, the effects seem to be heavily slanted in one direction.
My post was ironic.
I caught that.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
My apologies, then. Both for missing this and for the assumptions which followed.
ETA: But wait! Your location is in the US, but you say you used irony. I'm confused now.
[ 26. August 2013, 15:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My apologies, then. Both for missing this and for the assumptions which followed.
No worries.
What you said is true enough.
quote:
ETA: But wait! Your location is in the US, but you say you used irony. I'm confused now.
If that is the case you take it as ironic as well.
I am in sunny England.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And if I may so, quite delicious irony, ACR. I did enjoy it.
It's always difficult on the internet, as clues about irony are absent, e.g. a raised eyebrow, a curl of the lip, a tone of voice, etc.
I once did a ironicalistic post about my (male) dog humping other male dogs, and saying that evangelicals came out of their houses to remonstrate with him, and his gayness. And with me for being his male pimp.
Anyway, would you bleeve it, a few posters expressed shock that evangelicals could be so puritanical!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And if I may so, quite delicious irony, ACR. I did enjoy it.
It's always difficult on the internet, as clues about irony are absent, e.g. a raised eyebrow, a curl of the lip, a tone of voice, etc.
I once did a ironicalistic post about my (male) dog humping other male dogs, and saying that evangelicals came out of their houses to remonstrate with him, and his gayness. And with me for being his male pimp.
Anyway, would you bleeve it, a few posters expressed shock that evangelicals could be so puritanical!
What fun!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If you give too many clues it isn't as much fun. There was one in mine: abomination. Does anyone ever use that word, apart from irt ss activity?
When was gluttony, avarice, theft, adultery, or indeed Catholicism, ever called an abomination before the Lord?
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You've not been round the Ship that long. I've seen homosexuality described as an abomination:
quote:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
ACR
Yes, if you play it too dead-pan, nobody gets it. Some of my jokes fall flat because of that.
So you have to over-egg the pudding just enough to give the wink, but not too much, as then you are becoming crass, and as Oscar said, that is enough wall-paper for one day.
My example above was well over-egged, what with the evangelicals remonstrating with a gay dog! But still, there is also the rule of POE, that is, the most egregious satire of creationism cannot exaggerate its literal expression. This seems correct.
But maybe it's true of religion in general - there is nothing so ridiculous that a religious person has not said it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You've not been round the Ship that long. I've seen homosexuality described as an abomination:
quote:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
Sorry Ck, perhaps my abbreviations were too obscure; 'apart from in relation to same sex activity.'
Is it just me ... ?
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No, I knew it was a reflection back of the religious position on homosexuality to the RC church. You're assuming accusations of abominations aren't thrown around that much. It's surprising when it is used.
John Wyndham used it a lot in the Chrysalids iirc.
[ 26. August 2013, 16:14: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
I'm fed up with any mention of gay rights getting swamped by not only the obvious homophobes but the fucking "concern" trolls waving their wimpy little privileged "concern" dicks around. I don't give a shit about your "concerns" that churches might be forced to conduct gay marriages, because they're bullshit. They're an excuse for not owning up to your own homophobia and still getting to oppose equal marriage. On that score fuck the Evangelical Alliance and their fellow travellers in "Scotland for marriage" who got one of our extremely elderly elders handing out leaflets on the steps of the church while our minister is away on long term sick and unable to object. Every single backer of that pestilential organisation opposed every single advance in rights for gay people and their arguments are disingenuous, dishonest sophistry.
As for the homophobic fuckers acting as apologists for the Russian government and trying to use democracy as a shield to defend their vile actions and engaging in whataboutery to try and distract attention: when you've finished having tea with Mr. Tumnus, kindly go and suck the dick you clearly so desperately crave.
Another confirmation why I rarely post on Ship of Fools these days.
You'd have been well-placed in any of the totalitarian regimes of the last 100 years with your heady brew of intellectual-thuggery and contempt for individual conscience. I suspect when parents start getting arrested for trying to protect their children from State indoctrination you'll be outside the court jeering at them.
What depths of unhappiness must have given birth to the display of hatred and obscenity in your OP.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
And if you wish the right to express your beliefs, then I've the right to express my opinion of them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Another confirmation why I rarely post on Ship of Fools these days.
You'd have been well-placed in any of the totalitarian regimes of the last 100 years with your heady brew of intellectual-thuggery and contempt for individual conscience. I suspect when parents start getting arrested for trying to protect their children from State indoctrination you'll be outside the court jeering at them.
What depths of unhappiness must have given birth to the display of hatred and obscenity in your OP.
You're confusing anger with hatred. In any case individual conscience means you get to choose not to marry someone of the same sex as you. It doesn't mean you get to prevent others doing so.
I'll gladly acknowledge that my anger is unproductive; that the people oppressed by those I lashed out against in the OP are not served by it. Indeed elsewhere on the ship I have discussed at length the causes and impacts of my anger over this issue. As I've already mentioned in this thread the purpose of the post was catharsis as much as anything, to let off some steam.
I'm not, however, willing to pretend that this is an issue on which there are a range of equally valid viewpoints, any more than I would be on the issue of slavery (to choose an example with plenty of Biblical backing). There is a historic injustice which is being rectified before our eyes and some people are trying to lay down in front of it. To oppose equality for gay people is to perpetuate and promote evil. At the root of that is homophobia - the fear or hatred of gay men and women. I'm not going to rehash every argument again here. Suffice to say that my anger is a sometimes excessive and inappropriate response to a genuine evil.
The better way to fight that evil is probably things like this:
http://thurible.net/2013/08/24/congratulations-3/
The wedding, in all respects except the legal formality, of 2 men at St. Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow. Congratulations and many happy years to them both.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
(Hoo Boy.)
HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T LET HIS PERSONAL VIEWS AFFECT THE PASSAGE OF FAIR LEGISLATION.
Even back when I was a GLL teenager and believed homosexuality was definitely a sin, I had this concept solid.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T LET HIS PERSONAL VIEWS AFFECT THE PASSAGE OF FAIR LEGISLATION.
Forgive me, Kelly, but you sneaked a question-begging "fair" into that. But leave that aside: why hasn't he or anyone else in a liberal democracy got a right to protest against what he holds to be harmful legislation - even if he might be wrong about that? It seems like a setting a very dangerous precedent to me to urge people with opinions that conflict with the majority on a matter of legislation to shut up and keep out of the debate in case they influence the decision. What right have you got to ask anyone to do that?
[ 26. August 2013, 18:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the harmful effects of homosexual sex. Been waiting for years, actually.
Every other sinful thing has negative effects in this life -- sometimes they're subtle, but sooner or later they're observable. For this one, all anyone can ever say is that it's bad, God doesn't like it, etc etc.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
I've had the impression that you can be close-minded and bull-headed, but until this point I hadn't considered you stupid. Did I state he could no express his opinion? Did you read the sentence you clipped from my post?
And what RuthW said. No one has yet explained how homosexual marriage has any effect on hetero marriage. But legislation prohibiting it certainly has a negative effect. If you have any explanation, please drop down to DH and we can discuss.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
He's within his rights to hold that opinion, and to express it, at least here in the US.
Others are within their rights to think he's a homophobic asshole, and to say so.
Free speech is messy...
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why hasn't he or anyone else in a liberal democracy got a right to protest against what he holds to be harmful legislation - even if he might be wrong about that? It seems like a setting a very dangerous precedent to me to urge people with opinions that conflict with the majority on a matter of legislation to shut up and keep out of the debate in case they influence the decision. What right have you got to ask anyone to do that?
Well, I think institutionalized celibate priesthood is a bunch of crazyass bullshit that causes a shit ton of harm. Doesn't mean I'm going to force my opinion into your bedroom dynamics, or lack thereof.
We all have our opinions, sunshine. it's the forcing of others to comply with our view of the ideal world that turns us into dickheads.
now, if in some wacky series of events I was given the opportunity to vote on whether priests need to stay celibate, I'd definitely vote my conscience. barring that, I'll keep myself and my children away from people in that situation that I don't know well enough to trust, and allow you guys to just go on fucking your own heads up. So long as your weird little bedroom habits don't harm me and mine, fine. I'll let you embrace your crazy.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Reading through this thread, something has become clear to me that's made me think. Maybe it's only me, but maybe it's not… anyways:
ISTM that the RCC's (and others, but they're the ones under discussion at present) condemnation of homosexual people feels personal in a way that others of its condemnations don't. To wit: I am also in a relationship that the RCC would never sanction. I am currently dating a divorcee, thus the RCC writes me off as an immoral adulteress. After careful scientific checking and re-checking, I can confirm that the number of rips I give about their opinion amounts to precisely zero with no remainders. I Just Don't Care™. The RCC apologists can go on into they're blue in the face about their dogma on the question and it just doesn't upset me. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I'm in no danger of shedding any tears about it.
Would you care more about the RCC position on divorce if they were busy trying to rescind the laws that make divorce valid the way they have in other countries where they have more power on the subject?
You might find the dogma more upsetting if you were not allowed an adulterous remarriage.
quote:
OTOH, homosexual participants seem to be saying quite clearly that the condemnation of homosexuality hurts and does feel personal to them. I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason must be to do with the amount of crap they've already faced, but anyway, it's given me food for thought.
It felt quite personal here in Seattle when the RCC lectured from the pulpits to their faithful to vote against legalizing same sex marriage in the last election, even for non-Catholics. The deluge of crap is not in the past tense in the U.S. It's an ongoing struggle and tolerating the crap has direct consequences for the personal lives of gay people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the harmful effects of homosexual sex. Been waiting for years, actually.
Every other sinful thing has negative effects in this life -- sometimes they're subtle, but sooner or later they're observable. For this one, all anyone can ever say is that it's bad, God doesn't like it, etc etc.
It's well known that homosexual sex leads to dancing. :-)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the harmful effects of homosexual sex. Been waiting for years, actually.
Actually, I was talking about harmful legislation - implicitly about defining legal marriage to include same-sex couples - and was admitting that the perception of harm there was subjective and fallible. Should those of us living in liberal democracies really be questioning or attempting to restrict someone's right to act even on an erronious conception of the common good - up to and including attempting to influence future legislation and others' opinions - so long as that action is within the law? Some comments here seem to suggest that we should. I think that's quite alarming and deeply imprudent.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
I've had the impression that you can be close-minded and bull-headed, but until this point I hadn't considered you stupid. Did I state he could no express his opinion? Did you read the sentence you clipped from my post?
I did, and I understood it. If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not iminge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expresion of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Reading through this thread, something has become clear to me that's made me think. Maybe it's only me, but maybe it's not… anyways:
ISTM that the RCC's (and others, but they're the ones under discussion at present) condemnation of homosexual people feels personal in a way that others of its condemnations don't. To wit: I am also in a relationship that the RCC would never sanction. I am currently dating a divorcee, thus the RCC writes me off as an immoral adulteress. After careful scientific checking and re-checking, I can confirm that the number of rips I give about their opinion amounts to precisely zero with no remainders. I Just Don't Care™. The RCC apologists can go on into they're blue in the face about their dogma on the question and it just doesn't upset me. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I'm in no danger of shedding any tears about it.
Would you care more about the RCC position on divorce if they were busy trying to rescind the laws that make divorce valid the way they have in other countries where they have more power on the subject?
You might find the dogma more upsetting if you were not allowed an adulterous remarriage.
quote:
OTOH, homosexual participants seem to be saying quite clearly that the condemnation of homosexuality hurts and does feel personal to them. I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason must be to do with the amount of crap they've already faced, but anyway, it's given me food for thought.
It felt quite personal here in Seattle when the RCC lectured from the pulpits to their faithful to vote against legalizing same sex marriage in the last election, even for non-Catholics. The deluge of crap is not in the past tense in the U.S. It's an ongoing struggle and tolerating the crap has direct consequences for the personal lives of gay people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.
Hostly Notice
Palimpsest,
Give everyone a chance please and include the names of those you quote in your posts. There's a whole UBB practice thread in The Styx, and it isn't just for other people.
Hostly Notice ends
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
I've had the impression that you can be close-minded and bull-headed, but until this point I hadn't considered you stupid. Did I state he could no express his opinion? Did you read the sentence you clipped from my post?
I did, and I understood it. If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not iminge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expresion of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.
So oppressing others by legal means is "Free Expression"? Slavery was "Free Expression"? Denying women the vote was "Free Expression"?
The premise behind enacting laws, in a free(ish) society is to benefit said society. Your interpretation that God feels homosexual marriage is icky does not meet this standard.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Forgive me, Kelly, but you sneaked a question-begging "fair" into that.
Perhaps that is a bit American of me. We have the First Amendment that prevents creation of laws that support one religion of another. The objections of homosexual marriage largely devolve down to religious objections. Even when I firmly believed homosexuality was a sin, I saw it as not my place to restructure constitutional precedent to accommodate my religious beliefs. In fact, I saw such accommodation as unsporting and self-indulgent-- my religion was founded in a time when if someone in the right mood, they could crucify you for not admitting Caesar was God. Early Christians did not have the luxury of whining about how they couldn't get non-Christians to restructure society to serve them, and I have always believed it insults the martyrs when we do such whining. Always. Even when I was con-evo.
So, Perhaps my statement might "beg a question" in some places, but in my country it's pretty clear, to me at least-- it is totally unfair to find ways to work around the laws of the country that you live in and it is especially repugnant if you use God as an excuse. It is very un--Christian, if you asked me.
[ 26. August 2013, 21:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hostly Notice
Palimpsest,
Give everyone a chance please and include the names of those you quote in your posts. There's a whole UBB practice thread in The Styx, and it isn't just for other people.
Hostly Notice ends
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
My apologies, I'll try to be tidier.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not iminge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expresion of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.
So oppressing others by legal means is "Free Expression"?
Load the question, why don't you.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Slavery was "Free Expression"? Denying women the vote was "Free Expression"?
This is a weird sort of rhetorical question, because the obvious answer to your question is not "no" as you seem to expect but "yes" - within the restricted democracy prevailing at that time. To be precise, it was free expression on the part of those who had the freedom of expression. Now, in most liberal democracies, both those who support and those who oppose moves to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples have complete freedom of expression. The majority of voices in the majority of such places seem to be pretty equally balanced but with a small majority perhaps prevailing in favour. So far, freedom of expression seems to have been granted to both sides. Is that something you are unhappy with? I can hardly imagine so.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The premise behind enacting laws, in a free(ish) society is to benefit said society.
Ha! Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, but let's be realistic. What would be ideal and what tends to be actual in the motivation for laws are often radically divergent. That's the way liberal democracies actually work.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your interpretation that God feels homosexual marriage is icky does not meet this standard.
What - supposing it were a fair summation of my actual opinions - has that got to do with anything? I'm talking about people being free to express their opinions - however arrived at - and to seek to influence others to share them, right or wrong (within the limits of the law).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Perhaps relevant to the experience of oppression-as-free-expression is a point I made earlier today on a different subject: equality feels like confinement to the privileged. Or, in this case, formerly privileged.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm talking about people being free to express their opinions - however arrived at - and to seek to influence others to share them, right or wrong (within the limits of the law).
Share their opinions, fine. Create legislation, not so fine. Homosexuals are a minority. The legislative systems in most of the countries represented herein are designed to protect minority groups from the majority groups.
Was the persecution of RCC's in the past just a "Free Expression" of opinion? Would you consider it so again?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Perhaps relevant to the experience of oppression-as-free-expression is a point I made earlier today on a different subject: equality feels like confinement to the privileged. Or, in this case, formerly privileged.
Ah yes, the old trick of painting a minority as privileged or undeservedly well-off in order to take action against them without proper justification. Stick 'em in a ghetto I say.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm talking about people being free to express their opinions - however arrived at - and to seek to influence others to share them, right or wrong (within the limits of the law).
Share their opinions, fine. Create legislation, not so fine.
This is what I really don't get. As a minority within most of the relevant states ourselves, Catholics who hold these views are in no position to "create legislation". For a start, the existing marriage legislation in most places would have sufficed for most of us - we weren't looking to create anything. What you seem to be saying is that even to attempt to influence legislation by the exercise of our freedom of expression is not acceptible ("not so fine"). Since in most places it has been necessary to "create legislation" to permit same-sex marriage unions, why is it ok in your book for those in favour of that to do so, but not ok for those who oppose it to, um, oppose it?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Creating legislation to allow gay marriage is exactly the same as creating legislation to prevent other discrimination. Such as preventing racial or gender discrimination. Are you saying those laws are not a good thing?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Creating legislation to allow gay marriage is exactly the same as creating legislation to prevent other discrimination. Such as preventing racial or gender discrimination. Are you saying those laws are not a good thing?
No. I'm saying that, in a liberal democracy, the expectation ought to be that those who - in my view mistakenly - oppose unfair discrimination on the grounds of race and sex ought to be allowed to voice that opposition, even if wrong and even at the risk of influencing others to oppose it themseleves. Ask yourself what the ramifications of the alternative are, and I'm pretty sure you won't like them.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not impinge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expression of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.
So oppressing others by legal means is "Free Expression"?
Load the question, why don't you.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Slavery was "Free Expression"? Denying women the vote was "Free Expression"?
This is a weird sort of rhetorical question, because the obvious answer to your question is not "no" as you seem to expect but "yes" - within the restricted democracy prevailing at that time. To be precise, it was free expression on the part of those who had the freedom of expression. Now, in most liberal democracies, both those who support and those who oppose moves to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples have complete freedom of expression. The majority of voices in the majority of such places seem to be pretty equally balanced but with a small majority perhaps prevailing in favour. So far, freedom of expression seems to have been granted to both sides. Is that something you are unhappy with? I can hardly imagine so.
I think my Americanism is too embedded to give a global argument. So here's the US version.
The United States has constitutional protections that protect people from "unfair" application of laws that have passed by a majority vote. The recent Supreme Court case said that there was no evidence that society benefited from prohibiting gays from marrying so to deny marriage to some was an unconstitutional law because the unfairness served no demonstrable purpose.
Now the Supreme Court is no rock of Gay rights so the establishment of "fairness" may waver in the upcoming onslaught of cases on Gay Marriage on a state by state basis. However the underlying principal is not symmetric; those who are protected by constitutional fair application can democratically pass laws promoting fairness, and those who oppose fair application will have their democratically voted laws struck down.
Some such fairness decisions become quickly established; for example the Supreme Court invalidated laws passed by states prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In modern times, you would have trouble re-establishing the restrictions on democracy that allowed laws denying woman suffrage or black votes. Pretty much anyone proposing that is viewed in modern US society as despicable or deranged. Other rulings can be retracted as the political surge in the supreme court goes back and forth, for example the recent decision that there was not long need to monitor states to protect the rights for Blacks to vote.
So when you ask "are you opposed for the right of those who oppose allowing gays to marry to pass laws preventing that" I say, yes I am, by exercise of the fairness doctrine. And as much as "fairness" is a tug of war I'm going to keep working to keep it as a doctrine. I think the odds are pretty good for that and part of that fight is establishing social convention that prohibiting same sex marriage is despicable. The states that have allowed Gay Marriage for a few years such as Massachusetts have seen the opposition fade away, in the same way the movement to prohibit inter-racial marriage faded from a law, to an attempt to subvert laws, to a social prohibition and then an unenforceable custom. You may term that "anti-free expression" but we have lots of 'anti-free expression" in our laws.
This asymmetric position is not unjust. It would be unjust to not allow laws against same-sex marriage because of constitutional rights and to allow laws prohibiting heterosexual marriage. The same constitutional protections defeat all such laws, and they should all be deemed despicable. Of course, such balance is artificial because there are not laws prohibiting heterosexual marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And yet, most of the governments herein represented do exactly this. They are structured to balance the will of the people with the good of the people.* Therefore enacting legislation not necessarily directly supported by the majority.
*Theoretically, at least. In practice it is a bit messy.
ETA: Response to Chesterbelloc and to acknowledge cross-post.
[ 26. August 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
There's a big difference between personally thinking opinions are immoral and the question of how far they should be legally expressed in a democracy, but it's an entirely different question as to how far people who express anti-gay views should be able to get away without anyone mentioning the word 'homophobe' or 'homophobic'
Personally I can't help wondering if one of these days some of the nastier middle-eastern regimes will get themselves decent PR and start arguing that they are right to legally discriminate against Christians because those evil Christians with their whacky Trinitarian views have 'redefined God'.
If the only allowed and accepted religious definition of worship is to a single God with no multiple persons, then by definition those nasty Christian people are teaching some evil perversion which simply can't be worship and which redefines the community's traditional definition of worship. Ergo public expression of that nasty stuff simply shouldn't be made legal or the next thing you know, people will be being forced to have masses in mosques by jackbooted Christian social workers or something, obviously.
Children - won't somebody think of the children? - what would happen to them if Christians were given equal rights to worship? Why they would be indoctrinated by the state into thinking this Christian perversion should be legal and considered to be a normal ordinary way for some people to worship! Also the sky would fall, there would again be masses in mosques, and it would be as bad for the believers as if they lived under Hitler and all the other totalitarians ( thanks Craigmaddie!) because people on bulletin boards might use the phrase 'fuck off' or the suffix -phobia when talking about them.
See that's what happens if you let people have equal rights to perform non-violent consenting solemn religious ceremonies which harm no-one. At least that's what I glean from some of the sillier stuff on this thread. And you know what? Yes when applied to LGBT people that sort of argument is homophobic in the normal usage of the word to mean showing anti-gay prejudice.
The 'redefinition of marriage' stuff is just a fancy way to say 'Blasphemy!' to people with different religious views. If people tried the same spin as a reason for keeping public Christian worship illegal in countries where it's banned, not one of the vociferous proponents of 'redefinition' as a terrible outrage would fail to recognise it as anti-Christian prejudice to be opposed. And if 'liberals' proposed to use nicey-nicey mealy-mouthed words about it to avoid calling it out as prejudice and discrimination, we'd soon hear from the Mudfrogs et al about the error of our ways. But when Mudfrog (and others) do it to gay people, nobody's supposed to comment on it by using the ordinary word for anti-gay prejudice.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Ah, “homophobes”….. a word apparently coined to denigrate and intimidate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of (what might loosely be called) the gay agenda – for whatever reason they disagree with it. And now we have “crypto-homophobes”….which I assume, are those people who are suspected of having reservations about homosexuality, but are thought to be too cowardly to raise their heads above the parapet. Well, maybe that’s true. Maybe there is indeed a significant number of people who have been cowed into silence, yet still secretly think it is wrong.
If you really wanted to know what the word homophobe means, it's been around for 40 or more years and you could bother to look it up in Wikipedia rather than guessing what it means. Cryptic Homophobe and Concern Troll are people who are nominally in favor of gay rights but think no action against those who damage gay people should be done right now because it's not perfect and oh well, better to take the damage.
If you want an example
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
You are not likely to change the mind of anyone who holds that the bible condemns homosexual practice, whatever you do….and perhaps, in such circumstances, it would be better just to look for unity on what you can agree on, rather than confrontation on what you can’t. But with those who might come closest to giving ‘homophobes’ a worthwhile meaning – those who have a serious and irrational prejudice against homosexuals – the witch-hunt will always be counter-productive. It might make you feel better, but it will only serve to harden that prejudice. They need to see grace, they need to see Christ in you….and you need to see them through his eyes. If there is going to be a change of heart it will come through love, not condemnation.
Yup, no need to do anything practical like defend yourself against getting beaten up. No need to call people who do this damage because it might hurt their feelings. Better to do nothing says the concern troll.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Of course, it is not just the more strident members of the gay community who lambast homophobes – real or imagined.
Alongside them, are many people who are genuinely compassionate, who understand that gays have had a raw deal for years….and who feel constrained to attack those who they see as the persecutors.
Yes there's so little homophobia out there that it has to be made up. You're saying "don't do anything to confront persecution since RM is an expert who knows it doesn't really exist . Instead I'd rather my friends help me as they have. Making sure I don't get fired from my job for being gay, or being beat up in front of a policeman for being gay. Rather than wait for the magic of Rhythm Methodists Christ like behavior to fix things.
You seem to slipped in that persecution is imaginary into your rhetoric.
It's not, and people being damaged like the person you describe in your post are the result of that. He's not a unique case. It would be great to argue with those who have do the persecution.
But if the homophobes can't be convinced, and it's been done a lot of times, even sometimes by me, I'd settle for them being scared of the consequences of indulging in their god given hobby of tormenting gay people.
For example, the Dan Savage "it gets better" program tells teenagers that the anti gay crap they get in church and school can be survived and they can have a good life. It calls homophobia for what it is, and there are a lot of young people who have figured out the problem is not them, it's the people in their schools and churches and homes who are damaging them. The people we call homophobes.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
And sure, I think we all realise they have also been joined by regiments of others, whose motivation may be somewhat less honourable – the usual band of self-righteous crusaders looking for a cause, as some would have it. That always happens, and one can hardly blame those who have a genuine stake in an issue. Often, these people seem desperate to establish their enlightened, liberal credentials….but in reality, they can come over as nothing more than crypto-fascists. They attach themselves to a ‘cause’, stifling meaningful debate, and intimidating those who oppose them. They give the impression that they cannot see a bandwagon without jumping on it, and if they can embrace a campaign which makes them feel heroic and righteous - it’s a cause worth fighting for. But while I don’t particularly warm to guys like that, I’m pretty sure my own self-esteem needs are just as strong, just as wrong….and likely even less attractive.
I'm not a Christian so I'll skip the part that isn't addreesed to me.
I do note that in yourc prescription for Christ like behavior you seem quick to tell Gay people that what they are doing is wrong rather than waiting around for these gay people to see Christ in you and magically accept your opionon. Shouldn't you just shut up about their dislike of homophobia and only discuss things you have in common?
It is amusing that you see vast hordes of supporters who want to jump on a bandwagon. I see a few and a much larger group that don't say very much but are appalled by the homophobia of the churches toward their friends who are gay. They seem to leave the church rather than sitting around stifling the meaningful debate about god knows what that so eager to have and yelling about homophobia. These are all people who have been convinced even though most of them started with the homophobic view and were convinced it was nonsense. They aren't afraid to label their former view (if they had one) as homophobic.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
There you go again, Louise, writing thoughtful and cogent arguments. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And I see now that I cross-posted with Palimpsest, who was also laying out clear arguments.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And I see now that I cross-posted with Palimpsest, who was also laying out clear arguments.
Thank you but I should try to emulate Louise's conciseness. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I was just reading Amina Wadud's blog and--wow. this conversation is happening everywhere.:
quote:
Once I started meeting out Muslims from the gay community, I also learned that they were most often told they had to make a choice. Either be gay, lesbian, or whatever their sexual orientation, or be Muslim. In fact, they were barred from having access to Allah through customs, families, communities, mosques, and the institutions constructed in the name of Islam. That’s not possible.
No one can intercede between a believer and Allah.
That’s when I knew the opposition was clearly in the wrong, no matter what interpretations they claim to follow. When you cannot simply say, well I disagree, or even, I think it is wrong; but then the matter is between the person and Allah. When your disagreement must put you between a person and Allah, you have just sunk as low as you can go. Nothing you can say or do would exonerate your perspective in my mind.
Full article here.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So when you ask "are you opposed for the right of those who oppose allowing gays to marry to pass laws preventing that" I say, yes I am, by exercise of the fairness doctrine.
But I asked no such question: I asked whether some posters were opposed to allowing opponents of gay marriage to voice that opposition, even if wrong and even at the risk of influencing others to oppose it themselves. It seems as if in the US the Supreme Court has ruled that not opening marriage up to include same-sex couples would be intrinsically unfair, thus trumping individual state legislatures' decisions to keep the status quo ante. Did I get that right? Alright then - if that floats in the US sobeit. But why - especially when the USSC can overturn legislation that prohibits or same-sex marriage - should opponents be expected to keep out of any legislative debates about it? Surely their attempts to shape the law will be frustrated anyway, if your analysis is true.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The states that have allowed Gay Marriage for a few years such as Massachusetts have seen the opposition fade away.
I don't see the relevance of this fact. Surely attempts to prevent the extension of marriage to same-sex couples once they have actually failed will stop - which could account for the opposition "fading away".
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You may term that "anti-free expression" but we have lots of 'anti-free expression" in our laws.
I don't: it is obviously not anti-free expression, so long as everyone still has the right to express their legislatively vanquished opinions and as long as everyone still has the right to debate the constitution that vanquisehd them.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
There's a big difference between personally thinking opinions are immoral and the question of how far they should be legally expressed in a democracy, but it's an entirely different question as to how far people who express anti-gay views should be able to get away without anyone mentioning the word 'homophobe' or 'homophobic'
In a liberal democracy, the "anti-gay" crowd should be able to "get away" without anyone countering them with labels at all. But it should be a rule of civil discourse that both sides afford the other the respect due to deeply interested and sincere expressions of opinion without either side trying to shut the other up by mere abuse. I may have to accept that the label "homophobic" (with all its overtones of nasty hatred and bigotry) is the accepted term used by those who oppose Catholic taching in this area to describe the content of that teaching and those who hold to it. But I don't have to like it or think it a fair one.
Alas, that's all I'll have time for today.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Why is there such a need to confront everyone with their "sin" when God is the one who defines the sin for each individual and does the convicting? Why the need to legislate everyone else's behavior according to your personal definition of sin? (General, not specific you)
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But why - especially when the USSC can overturn legislation that prohibits or same-sex marriage - should opponents be expected to keep out of any legislative debates about it?
Because we are not a theocracy. Imposing religious rules on the country as a whole is a breach of the establishment clause.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In a liberal democracy, the "anti-gay" crowd should be able to "get away" without anyone countering them with labels at all.
Just quickly to correct a typo: that "should" should read "shouldn't".
quote:
Originally posted by niteowl:
Why is there such a need to confront everyone with their "sin" when God is the one who defines the sin for each individual and does the convicting? Why the need to legislate everyone else's behavior according to your personal definition of sin?
As far as I'm concerned, there is usually no "need to confront everyone with their sin" and certainly it wouldn't usually be any of my business to confrion gay people over what I might consider theirs. And I'm certainly not trying to legislate everyone else's behaviour. In the UK, those who want to introdusce legislation are pro gay marriage: to alter the legal definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But why - especially when the USSC can overturn legislation that prohibits or same-sex marriage - should opponents be expected to keep out of any legislative debates about it?
Because we are not a theocracy. Imposing religious rules on the country as a whole is a breach of the establishment clause.
It's a theocracy if Catholics have the same rights as everyone else to attempt to influence legislation through free speech and association? Wow. I'd hoped there'd be more papal processions, priestly bling and auto da fe: I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I can have (a little) sympathy here for the Catholic case because I live in a state where an outrageously named "Death with Dignity" referendum just barely failed last year. I don't care if people think suicide is a free choice, I think it is evil.
If only a little- I still disagree with it.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: I don't care if people think suicide is a free choice, I think it is evil.
Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but I agree that it is evil. However, these forums usually aren't about the right to choose suicide, they are about the right to demand society's assistance for suicide. I am pontifically against that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
