|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking crypto-homophobes
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Shame.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's unlikely to happen precisely for reasons hashed out on this thread - people believe that marriage is the God-ordained holy word for the God-ordained thing, and that's that.
These must be the same people who think that Jesus and Paul spoke King James English. The word "marriage" isn't in the Bible, the simple reason being it's an English word. (Not saying you're arguing this point, orfeo.) And of course plenty of non-Christian cultures have marriage in a mode rather similar to that of Christian countries. The theoretical underpinnings (which arguably in the Christian case are post hoc rationalizations) may be different, but the institution is not all that different.
_____
post hoc = after-the-fact
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why not just call the state bit 'civil partnership' and then, like Zach82 said, let people have their own celebration (sober ceremony or wild party, as you wish really!) within their family, neighbourhood, faith community or whatever.
Good question, Kevin. Why is that not a good compromise? It was, after all, what we were told was going to happen when the whole gay marriage issue began to roll. Don't worry, we were told, gay couples will be accorded full civil rights, but it's just crazy scaremongering to say that you will be forced to accept they are married next. Civil partnership gives gay couples all they reasonably request - much of which many Catholics were glad to see them get.
I think international recognition is a big problem here: countries which have SSM do not IIRC recognise UK Civil Partnerships.
Yes, international reciprocity is a big problem. One of the Supreme Court cases was a same sex widow who had married in Canada. Not giving her married status in the US cost her about 300,000 dollars for the house they had bought together.
It's even more complicated in the United States where some states have civil marriages, some have civil unions and some prohibit both. The U.S> Internal Revenue Service just announced that they would treat ssm partners married in a state where it's legal even if they move to a state where it's not allowed.
Walmart also announced coverage for same sex partners. Because of the (hopefully temporary) patchwork they have their own criteria which involves living together for a year.
There are many, many, laws that have bits that give rights to married couples. Amending them for a new status would be a very tedious business. It gets worse internationally.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
This brings up another flavor of concern trollery.
Having lost the battle to prevent same sex marriage in many places, the concern troll advises those who have won the victory after a decade or two of work that the best course for them is to graciously throw away the fruits of victory in a spirit of compromise and generosity.
Some of these are the cryptic homophobe variety and some are of the "If I was in charge I could offer a compromise solution" and some are the "I am in charge and the losers are my pals".
This compromise was not proposed seriously by the opponents of SSM until after it became clear that Same Sex Marriage was going to happen.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
T.S.S.DOVER
Apprentice
# 17820
|
Posted
Some exhilarating views-but why so complicated?
EVERYONE TO THEIR OWN
simple as that-no further argument required
Posts: 2 | From: Kent | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Welcome T.S.S. Dover. You're a bit brave making your first post in Hell but it's been done before.
Do have a look at the Ship's Ten Commandments (which aren't those Moses brought down the mountain) and the guidelines which differ from board to board, especially so for the Hell board guidelines.
Happy sailing!
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
|
|
T.S.S.DOVER
Apprentice
# 17820
|
Posted
Thanks for the welcome Sioni. I was expecting a torrent of profanity. I've already checked out the 10 commandments hence my post.
I was brought up a Catholic (subjected to my mother's conversion from Anglican).At primary school was beaten up by nunns-at Catholic secondary school was taught maths,technical drawing and RE by a liberal-who taught me to be succint and set me free.
My current parish priest(I go now to mass now and again)is a good bloke-he delights in mentioning that christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish religion.His church is always packed out(but not as busy as Ballinrobe)and he welcomes everyone-gays included-and he would conduct same sex marriage if he could(he'd probably do it on the quiet if he could get away with it).He uses the expression-EACH TO THEIR OWN.So now do I.
Posts: 2 | From: Kent | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Welcome Benjamin. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If we were all isolated in our own universes, then your pithy saying would be delightful. But when we all have to play nice together, It falls apart. As this thread displays.
Enjoy the ship.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
...and his bosom companion, Seymour Butts.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by T.S.S.DOVER:
Thanks for the welcome Sioni. I was expecting a torrent of profanity. I've already checked out the 10 commandments hence my post.
I was brought up a Catholic (subjected to my mother's conversion from Anglican).At primary school was beaten up by nunns-at Catholic secondary school was taught maths,technical drawing and RE by a liberal-who taught me to be succint and set me free.
My current parish priest(I go now to mass now and again)is a good bloke-he delights in mentioning that christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish religion.His church is always packed out(but not as busy as Ballinrobe)and he welcomes everyone-gays included-and he would conduct same sex marriage if he could(he'd probably do it on the quiet if he could get away with it).He uses the expression-EACH TO THEIR OWN.So now do I.
So why would he have to do it on the quiet or wait for the law? Surely he can just say "Each to their own" and marry anyone who wants to get married?
[ 14. September 2013, 06:27: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by T.S.S.DOVER:
My current parish priest(I go now to mass now and again)is a good bloke-he delights in mentioning that christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish religion.His church is always packed out(but not as busy as Ballinrobe)and he welcomes everyone-gays included-and he would conduct same sex marriage if he could(he'd probably do it on the quiet if he could get away with it).He uses the expression-EACH TO THEIR OWN.So now do I.
So why would he have to do it on the quiet or wait for the law? Surely he can just say "Each to their own" and marry anyone who wants to get married?
I expect he is wary of someone reading the register and seeing the marriage ceremony of "Michael, bachelor of this parish" and "David, bachelor of some other parish" and asking a few simple questions.
Dear oh dear, some of the Hellions do make me wonder ....
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I expect he is wary of someone reading the register and seeing the marriage ceremony of "Michael, bachelor of this parish" and "David, bachelor of some other parish" and asking a few simple questions.[
Dear oh dear, some of the Hellions do make me wonder ....
Well, then perhaps going around shouting "Each to their own" is not the universal solution TSS Dover thinks it is. It seems to crumple on contact with people who have a different view.
[edited to fix code and fucked up attribution. *sigh* the shit I do for you people.... comet, Hellhost]
[ 14. September 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: comet ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
Mudfrog wrote
quote:
Er, no they are not. God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?
No. I thought not. There is NO SUCH BIBLICAL PROHIBITION. You just decided to interpret some stuff to make one.
Don't try and make the Bible say things it doesn't.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
And another thing Mudfrog:
This distinction between moral and celemonial laws in Leviticus.
Where in the BIBLE does it say, this is a ceremonical law which can be done away with and this is a moral one?
It doesn't. That is a post-Biblical distinction overlaid on the text. Convenient for you. But wholly human and something that we can disregard quite happily. Why not try disregarding your non-Biblical Biblicism.
It would be good for you and for the rest of us.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?
Where does it say that it is permissible?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?
Where does it say that it is permissible?
Where does it say it is permissable to buy bonds? Have oral sex? Do anything but "rest" on the Sabbath? At my church nobody complains if I clean up dishes after the coffee hour.
[ 16. September 2013, 17:23: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
French kissing? That's not an invite, but another question about Biblical permission.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do anything but "rest" on the Sabbath?
I'm pretty sure that one is covered by "the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ah. True.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Doesn't the exhortation "It is better to marry than to burn, except for Sodomites" apply? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 16. September 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?
Where does it say that it is permissible?
I could probably name 1000 things I do that the Bible doesn't say are permissible. And you and every one of us.
Where in the Bible does it say that anything not specifically allowed is forbidden? Answer that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm fairly sure it was on this very thread that I made the point that the Bible doesn't say anything positive about message boards on the Internet.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
It must have been an oversight.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm fairly sure it was on this very thread that I made the point that the Bible doesn't say anything positive about message boards on the Internet.
It doesn't give much leeway about gossip.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]
Anglo Catholic Relict is willing to excuse homophobic actions by those following the homophobic teachings of her church. This puts her in the first category of concern troll despite her disavowals that she doesn't condone homophobia.
I left for a while because I was unwell. It may happen from time to time. Don't flatter yourselves that anyone here is able to cause it, or indeed prevent it. It happens.
For now I am here. And it would appear that there is a degree of misrepresentation going on in this thread.
First of all, the above slander. Where exactly did I ever condone homophobic actions? You are going to have to find evidence for that one. Good luck with that.
Gay sex is not a sin per se, imho. It may or may not be sinful, the same as any other sexual act. The sin is not inherent in the act, but in the intent, the motive, the attitude towards the other person; it is far more complex than just being about the mechanics. A marriage licence is not a get out of sin free card for all sexual encounters with one's spouse, neither is all gay sex (married or not) necessarily sinful.
The requirements are the same in either case; treating the other person with love, respect, consideration and as they would want to be treated.
Slander is a sin, however. There may be situations where that sin can be mitigated, but I cannot for the moment think of any.
quote:
She also thinks that the only way to deal with the homophobia is to be nice and show pity to people in this church who are struggling with homophobic teachings.
Once again, where did I say that the only way to deal with homophobia is by being nice?
Certainly we ought to pity anyone trying to reconcile love for those around them with the very intransigent teachings of their church. The only people I know who are incapable of pity are sociopaths, and that is not a good way to go. But pity is not at all the same thing as condoning those teachings, let alone being actively or even passively homophobic.
I thank God for gay people; I genuinely owe my life to a gay priest. I don't know what I would do without his love and friendship, without his unfailing generosity throughout the past 20 years.
If anyone still wants to call me names, then go ahead. Those lies will say more about you than they ever will about me.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am confused as well.
I will summarise.
You defend the position of Chesterbelloc (et al).
Chesterbelloc's position is that it is right and just to use law to impose one's religious/moral beliefs on others who do not share said beliefs.
Therefore you share the guilt and remonstrations.
Where am I wrong?
I did not condone using the law to impose any religious beliefs on other people. I have not seen Chesterbelloc say such a thing, so I cannot comment on that, or on his opinions. I think of all forms of government, a theocracy is always the very worst kind. I do not mind Christian values, but I would vote Monster Raving Looney before any Christian political party.
What I said is that Catholics who want to remain faithful to their church are in a very difficult position. They cannot disagree with those teachings and remain in communion. (I can, because I am Anglo Catholic, not Vatican Catholic.) They also cannot agree with the teachings and at the same time treat gay people with the love that is imperative for all of us, towards everyone else.
How can they love a gay person, and at the same time accept that this person is effectively excommunicate, simply for having a partner? The same goes for a lot of other 'sins'; the same will apply in many other aspects of life. The RCC is a very cumbersome animal; it simply cannot change the way people want it to. Even if the Pope wanted to change all these things tomorrow, he would not be able to. He is doing what he can, imo, in terms of refocussing on love and acceptance, and away from intolerance.
A sensible Catholic will decide that love is far more important than anything else, and I think that in everyday life this is what happens; Catholics do NOT go around in general treating gay people with disrespect or with disdain. Far from it. Some might, but I do not think it is true of the majority of people. Certainly not those that I know.
The same clearly cannot be said for the RCC. Its first motivation is far too often nothing to do with love.
But the average Catholic trying to reconcile faithfulness towards his church with love for his neighbour is in an unenviable position. It is this which I would hope to have compassion for.
I would not have any compassion whatever for anyone who engaged in abusive behaviour of any kind, no matter who the target might be.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic.
Of course it is.
But teachings do NOT have to be applied, and particularly not when applying those teachings means breaking the most imperative commandments of all; that of loving God and our neighbour as ourselves.
Christian love comes first. Nothing else can possibly contradict that love.
quote:
You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers.
Why would I want to do that?
I have not said anywhere that homophobia is acceptable in any context.
quote:
It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.
Some of the teachings are homophobic, yes, they are, in my view.
But that does not make every Catholic on earth a homophobe. That is all that I have tried to say, and I have been called all sorts of vile names as a result.
quote:
The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.
Nobody gets a free pass to abuse anyone, neither Catholics nor gay people, no matter how sincere.
quote:
...
This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.
Newsflash: I do not oppose same sex marriage. Never have; never will.
Marriage is a legal construct, and is defined in law. When the law defines marriage as being between same sex couples equally as between opposite sex couples, then that is what marriage is. I have no problem with that.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I'm curious how you find the natural law arguments against homosexuality. I mean the teleological argument that human sex is 'unitive and procreative', if that's the right phrase, and therefore gay sex is 'disordered'.
Well, I am not a Vatican Catholic, so to me that comes under the heading of barking mad back formation argument. Perhaps unlike others here I do not expect too much of Rome. A church predicated upon a celibate clergy and religious orders is hardly going to be a beacon of erudition in relation to human sexuality, is it?
Natural law is not applied to any other aspect of human life, so I see no reason why it ought to apply here. Wearing clothes is against natural law. So is reading and writing. So is agriculture. So is flying a plane, driving a car, standing in a queue at Greggs, using money and indeed using a bathroom.
The RCC has no problem with 'disorder' in these areas. I see no reason to apply natural law to sex, when we have rather moved on from it in pretty well every other aspect of life.
If natural law applies, then it stands to reason we ought to all stop wearing clothes, eat raw turnips and live in caves. I would respect such an argument from St Anthony of Egypt, therefore, but not people who drive cars and eat hot dinners.
quote:
It strikes me that this kind of argument just does not ring any bells with most people today, and so it is a dead duck.
What do you think?
Apart from the rather unfortunate mixed metaphor of ducks ringing bells, I would agree.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]When the Catholic Church in the State of Washington lectured in all its churches before the last state election that Catholics should vote against the state allowing Gays to get married that's NOT belief, that's hurtful behaviour. When Lennon Cihak, a teenager in Minnesota, was denied communion because he had posted a pro-gay marriage page on Facebook, that's behavior by the hierarchy which is a homophobic attempt to prevent secular marriage by Gay people.
I've already mentioned the much older behavior attempt to prevent Gays from being a protected category in the hate crime laws. That's three examples of BEHAVIOR and not just abstract belief in doctrines.
Indeed so.
And all three are abhorrent in the extreme.
Meanwhile, I have done none of these, and condoned none of these, and yet I have been called all sorts of names.
That is behaviour as well.
quote:
You evade that by saying that the actions of the Catholic Church cannot be homophobic by (your) definition. Even when they are homophobic actions that are official policy and clearly damage Gay Catholics and Non Catholics.
I did not say that.
quote:
Bigotry is acceptable to you if it's ordered by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and executed by members of the church.
Where is your evidence for this statement?
quote:
You seem to throw around straw man charges of Nazi's around a lot as a rhetorical device.
I was not the one who brought up Nuremberg.
quote:
Are you condoning the homophobia in the behavior? Are you going to continue to pretend it's a wholesale bigoted condemnation of all Catholics and a charge that you are guilty of Nazism to point out this is homophobic behavior? What do you think of those Catholics who fail in your assigned impossible task of reconciling the doctrine and marching orders of the Vatican and actually do damaging homophobic behavior. Do you just pity them and ignore their victims?
Don't be silly.
On this thread, in this place, I have not seen the word 'some' used often enough. I have seen Catholics condemned; I have seen Chesterbelloc struggling with his conscience, and anathamatised soundly for it.
Perhaps I have missed that word, perhaps it was there, and I just did not notice it. But I certainly have got the impression from this thread in this place that all Catholics bear collective responsibility for doctrines irt gay people, and are vilified accordingly.
Not least because the same has happened to me, and I am not even Roman.
[ 21. September 2013, 00:31: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic.
Of course it is.
But teachings do NOT have to be applied, and particularly not when applying those teachings means breaking the most imperative commandments of all; that of loving God and our neighbour as ourselves.
Christian love comes first. Nothing else can possibly contradict that love.
quote:
You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers.
Why would I want to do that?
I have not said anywhere that homophobia is acceptable in any context.
quote:
It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.
Some of the teachings are homophobic, yes, they are, in my view.
But that does not make every Catholic on earth a homophobe. That is all that I have tried to say, and I have been called all sorts of vile names as a result.
quote:
The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.
Nobody gets a free pass to abuse anyone, neither Catholics nor gay people, no matter how sincere.
quote:
...
This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.
Newsflash: I do not oppose same sex marriage. Never have; never will.
Marriage is a legal construct, and is defined in law. When the law defines marriage as being between same sex couples equally as between opposite sex couples, then that is what marriage is. I have no problem with that.
Nobody here is trying to cure or cause your unwellness. Your health is a topic for a different board.
You've demonstrated several times it's not worth a lot of effort to compile specifics for you because your response will be a flippant "LA LA LA". Still once more...
My previous alleged lies consisted of quotes from your posts. Let's do another.
You say you're not saying being nice is the only way to treat homophobia. You then used the word "certainly" in the next sentence on dealing with homophobic actions.
"Certainly" implies an invariable conclusion that the only way we should deal with those who are enacting actions against gay people because the pope told them to do so is pity. If you thought that this was one of several tactics you would have used a word such as "sometimes".
The reader can determine if I lied in quoting your use of the word "certainly".
In prior posts I enumerated a set of actions against gay people that were instigated by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and implemented by Church members. I prefer to hold these accountable for their vile actions and pity their victims. After they are rendered harmless you can consider pity for those that feel compelled to follow the homophobic actions advocated by the teachers of the teachings of the church. I enumerated several of these actions in detail in earlier posts that you ignored as you sweep forward with your pity for those orchestrating and implementing these actions. If they have a dilemma of choice between harm to others and the teachings and teachers of the church, they should ditch the latter.
Re your newsflash,here's a clue for you; The Catholic Church disagrees with you about Same Sex Marriage and is actively working to prevent secular same sex marriage around the world. You're an example of the cryptic homophobe that this thread is about. "I'm for same sex marriage" but I won't tell members of the Catholic church that they're wrong to follow the churches teachings against it because I have pity for them because they're obliged to follow the teachings of the church, no matter how much harm they cause others.
Aren't you a special one? Isn't your support of same sex marriage ever so useless?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Nobody here is trying to cure or cause your unwellness. Your health is a topic for a different board.
Thank you for your compassion.
I was just explaining the gap, that is all.
quote:
If they have a dilemma of choice between harm to others and the teachings and teachers of the church, they should ditch the latter.
Who died and made you Pope, exactly?
I am not an expert, but afaiaa The Roman Catholic Church does not have a doctrine of the lesser of two evils. All evils MUST be avoided.
Therefore, a Catholic CANNOT cause harm to anyone else without sin. There is no 'choice'. It cannot be done.
Those who harm others, whoever they are, are sinning.
quote:
Re your newsflash,here's a clue for you; The Catholic Church disagrees with you about Same Sex Marriage and is actively working to prevent secular same sex marriage around the world. You're an example of the cryptic homophobe that this thread is about. "I'm for same sex marriage" but I won't tell members of the Catholic church that they're wrong to follow the churches teachings against it because I have pity for them because they're obliged to follow the teachings of the church, no matter how much harm they cause others.
Liar.
A Catholic cannot be blamed for following Church teaching. That teaching does NOT give them permission to treat anyone with disrespect, or indeed other than as they would treat Christ himself.
quote:
Aren't you a special one? Isn't your support of same sex marriage ever so useless?
No, I am not special. And yes; most of what I do is useless.
Congratulations on finally saying what is true about me; you got there in the end.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Liar.
A Catholic cannot be blamed for following Church teaching. That teaching does NOT give them permission to treat anyone with disrespect, or indeed other than as they would treat Christ himself.
But they do. The members of the church do treat others with disrespect, following the teachings of the church leadership. I gave you several specific examples of disrespectful homophobic actions toward gays. Historically, the treatment of the Jews in Spain by the church was disrespectful.
Did God whisper in your ear that Catholics can't be blamed for their actions as long as the church told them to do it?
Do you believe this is some universal law of nature? Why shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions no matter what their motivation? And if the actions are vile, and they claim that the actions are the results of following the teachings, then their interpretation is wrong or the teachings are vile.
I don't give Catholics a free pass the way you do for their homophobic actions. I don't have to be Pope to do that. I don't blame them for following their teachings, I just blame them for their actions and not their theological excuses.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]When the Catholic Church in the State of Washington lectured in all its churches before the last state election that Catholics should vote against the state allowing Gays to get married that's NOT belief, that's hurtful behaviour. When Lennon Cihak, a teenager in Minnesota, was denied communion because he had posted a pro-gay marriage page on Facebook, that's behavior by the hierarchy which is a homophobic attempt to prevent secular marriage by Gay people.
I've already mentioned the much older behavior attempt to prevent Gays from being a protected category in the hate crime laws. That's three examples of BEHAVIOR and not just abstract belief in doctrines.
Indeed so.
And all three are abhorrent in the extreme.
Meanwhile, I have done none of these, and condoned none of these, and yet I have been called all sorts of names.
That is behaviour as well.
quote:
You evade that by saying that the actions of the Catholic Church cannot be homophobic by (your) definition. Even when they are homophobic actions that are official policy and clearly damage Gay Catholics and Non Catholics.
I did not say that.
quote:
Bigotry is acceptable to you if it's ordered by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and executed by members of the church.
Where is your evidence for this statement?
quote:
You seem to throw around straw man charges of Nazi's around a lot as a rhetorical device.
I was not the one who brought up Nuremberg.
quote:
Are you condoning the homophobia in the behavior? Are you going to continue to pretend it's a wholesale bigoted condemnation of all Catholics and a charge that you are guilty of Nazism to point out this is homophobic behavior? What do you think of those Catholics who fail in your assigned impossible task of reconciling the doctrine and marching orders of the Vatican and actually do damaging homophobic behavior. Do you just pity them and ignore their victims?
Don't be silly.
On this thread, in this place, I have not seen the word 'some' used often enough. I have seen Catholics condemned; I have seen Chesterbelloc struggling with his conscience, and anathamatised soundly for it.
Perhaps I have missed that word, perhaps it was there, and I just did not notice it. But I certainly have got the impression from this thread in this place that all Catholics bear collective responsibility for doctrines irt gay people, and are vilified accordingly.
Not least because the same has happened to me, and I am not even Roman.
1 You say these are abhorrent actions in the extreme.
2. The preaching from the pulpit against same sex marriage was a teaching of the church.
3. You say one can't blame Catholics that follow the teaching of the church.
When you say that Catholics can't be blamed for following teachings, you are condoning those Catholics who engage in the action demanded by the abhorrent teaching and voting against the legalization of same sex secular marriage.
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.
If you find the use of the word "Some" falls below your minimum requirements, too bad. Your automatic translation to "All" is your problem.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.
The term "Catholic" refers to Catholics. Members of the Church of Rome. It doesn't selectively apply based on who you want it to apply to. Words don't work that way.
When you say "Catholics do X" in English that is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics do X" unless there is something in the immediate context to make it clear the term is not being used universally. The default meaning for a collective term used without qualifier is ALL not SOME. That's just how the language works. So sorry. Make you could write your own language? There's a webpage for people like that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.
The term "Catholic" refers to Catholics. Members of the Church of Rome. It doesn't selectively apply based on who you want it to apply to. Words don't work that way.
When you say "Catholics do X" in English that is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics do X" unless there is something in the immediate context to make it clear the term is not being used universally. The default meaning for a collective term used without qualifier is ALL not SOME. That's just how the language works. So sorry. Make you could write your own language? There's a webpage for people like that.
I should have written the above qualifier should as "the term Catholic in the above paragraph"
It was an attempt to make clear the description was not a universal description of all Catholics.
However the question is, is the immediate context the sentence or the thread?
The term Catholic has been qualified in this thread multiple times, to be describing the Catholics who follow homophobic teachings. There are least four places where I or Orfeo have said that explicitly at length.
To quote Orfeo:
quote:
ACR, you really seem to have missed the point that Palimpsest was talking about applying beliefs. Not merely believing them in some sort of abstract, oh yes I know that's the official doctrine of the Catholic church sort of way. Actually applying them.
Because half of what you've said after that is actually in agreement with the people you think you're arguing against.
or mine;
quote:
No, we are describing the responsibility of some Catholics for some homophobia. Unfortunately that group of some Catholics includes the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. You're trying evade descriptions of specific homophobic behavior by the church by making a straw man claiming the charge is all Catholics are homophobic. News flash, not all Catholics follow all teachings of the Church. e.g. Contraception.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The term Catholic has been qualified in this thread multiple times, to be describing the Catholics who follow homophobic teachings. There are least four places where I or Orfeo have said that explicitly at length.
That is an attempted rationalisation of bigoted language. No matter how many times you have said this 'at length', it is not true. Not now, not ever.
'Catholic' does NOT mean 'Catholic who follows homophobic teachings.' That is a distortion of language, and it is evidence of distorted thinking, imo.
By twisting language this way, you express a very nasty anti-Catholic attitude. It is simply not possible to do away with the modifiers, to condemn everyone equally, and then say, we only meant the bad ones.
The way I have been described shows clearly enough that you do not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. Everyone is condemned equally, everyone is guilty.
Shame on you.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.
The term "Catholic" refers to Catholics. Members of the Church of Rome. It doesn't selectively apply based on who you want it to apply to. Words don't work that way.
When you say "Catholics do X" in English that is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics do X" unless there is something in the immediate context to make it clear the term is not being used universally. The default meaning for a collective term used without qualifier is ALL not SOME. That's just how the language works. So sorry. Make you could write your own language? There's a webpage for people like that.
At last, a voice of sanity.
Thank you, Mousethief.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Did God whisper in your ear that Catholics can't be blamed for their actions as long as the church told them to do it?
Do you believe this is some universal law of nature? Why shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions no matter what their motivation? And if the actions are vile, and they claim that the actions are the results of following the teachings, then their interpretation is wrong or the teachings are vile.
I don't give Catholics a free pass the way you do for their homophobic actions. I don't have to be Pope to do that. I don't blame them for following their teachings, I just blame them for their actions and not their theological excuses.
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.
Indeed not.
Neither is being gay.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.
Indeed not.
Neither is being gay.
When has anyone used being gay as an excuse for bigotry?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ACR,
Perhaps not, but it is certainly understandable.
-----------
Group X officially states position a. Some members believe this, some do not, some do not think about it.
This is true for most values of X and a. The larger the group, the nearer this statement moves to all values.
So, the statement X believes a, is not wrong, but it is sloppy.
The Catholic Church teaches homosexuality is a sin. It actively campaigns to repress homosexual rights. A significant percentage of membership accept this or say nothing against it.
It is more than acceptable to say Catholics are anti-gay without this being a bigoted statement. If the qualifier all is added, then it becomes inaccurate and bigoted.
[ 24. September 2013, 09:32: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The definition of bigotry is NOT 'disliking someone for a reason'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
religion is no excuse for bigotry.
Indeed not.
Neither is being gay.
When has anyone used being gay as an excuse for bigotry?
To be fair, gay people have used the way that they were treated by certain non-gay people as an excuse for not liking those non-gay people. If "excuse" is the right word. Perhaps "impetus" or "reason" works better. And if their dislike spills over onto others who say nasty things about them, I for one am not going to blame them.
To borrow an idea from another field, everyone who spews venomous words about gays is, to a gay person, Schrödinger's Gay-basher. Will they attack me? Will they not? I can't know until they do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.
Indeed not.
Neither is being gay.
On this thread.
I have never encountered anything like this irl. I do hope it is only hell bringing out the worst in people.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
To a degree, yes, that's Hell for you. But don't underestimate the raw nerves hit here by this particular topic.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To a degree, yes, that's Hell for you. But don't underestimate the raw nerves hit here by this particular topic.
I don't. That is why I have stayed polite in the face of some appalling treatment. Being oppressed gives nobody the right to oppress anyone else. That is not how it works.
The vast majority of ordinary, everyday Catholics are NOT homophobic in any way whatever, and do nothing to promote hostility towards gay people, or to support their oppression.
They do not deserve to be vilified, simply because they are Catholic, any more than any gay person deserves to be vilified for being gay.
It is not sufficient to say, we have been hurt by some Catholics, therefore we are entitled to say anything we want to about all Catholics, and then if anyone gets offended they are homophobic as well. Feelings may well run high, but that does not justify such language.
Catholics are taught that their church has the fullness of truth. They are also taught some very outdated and frankly untrue things about gay people. Most Catholics are sensible enough to make up their own minds about this, just as they do about contraception and other issues.
I have no doubt that if they could effect change, they would, and many do try. But the RCC is very cumbersome and incredibly difficult to change. This is not the only issue which presents problems to Catholics.
As I said above, ordinary everyday Catholics do not have the choise of the lesser of two evils; they cannot hurt anyone without committing sin. And homophobia is a sin.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
For crying out loud, ACR, if you're truly as hurt and sad as you keep telling us you are, do yourself a favor stay out of Hell.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To a degree, yes, that's Hell for you. But don't underestimate the raw nerves hit here by this particular topic.
I don't. That is why I have stayed polite in the face of some appalling treatment. Being oppressed gives nobody the right to oppress anyone else. That is not how it works.
ACR, if you don't want to be hurt, Hell isn't the place to be. Quite a lot of people have thrashed this issue out on this thread and moved on. It's time you did the same for your own good.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
It is not sufficient to say, we have been hurt by some Catholics, therefore we are entitled to say anything we want to about all Catholics, and then if anyone gets offended they are homophobic as well. Feelings may well run high, but that does not justify such language.
Strong language is not bigotry, it is not persecution - it's simply strong language.
Best to look past the means of expression to the ideas and thoughts behind it imo.
[ 24. September 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
