Catholic Church Threatens D.C.
- Thread starter AfricanFruitWaynely
- Start date
whuzizname
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']You never had a point.[/QUOTE]
Are you able to write in sentences more than five words long? If so, why not try to refute what I said, line by line?
Your dismissive attitude merely shows that you do not have a cogent counter-argument.
Are you able to write in sentences more than five words long? If so, why not try to refute what I said, line by line?
Your dismissive attitude merely shows that you do not have a cogent counter-argument.
Strell: I'm not saying that we are defined by our actions - a person of one gender is not defined by who (or what) they have sexual relations with. Your understanding of my statement is flawed.
Regardless of your sexuality, *you* make the choice of who (or what) you wish to engage in sexual activities with.
"The Church" (as if it is one, giant organization, something like the Borg) says some relationships are sinful. If you make the *choice* to engage in sexual activities that they deem to be sinful, then you are, by The Church's definition, a sinner. You then get to make the choice to repent or not. If you are an unrepentant sinner (whatever the sin may be), then you will find yourself unwelcome at most churches.
Now, I'm not going to argue if homosexuality is a sin. As someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't follow scripture and doesn't necessarily believe in "God", I'm not qualified to do so. I'm not going to argue if homosexuality is a choice. Not a scientist and sure as heck am not an expert on the makeup of human DNA or human psychology.
But your actions, short of involuntary things like blinking and breathing, are choices you make every day. Right, wrong or indifferent.
As I said before, Homosexuality may or may not be a choice. The decision to act upon one's sexual urges (homo or hetero) *is* a choice. You control your penis and where it goes. Your choice.
Regardless of your sexuality, *you* make the choice of who (or what) you wish to engage in sexual activities with.
"The Church" (as if it is one, giant organization, something like the Borg) says some relationships are sinful. If you make the *choice* to engage in sexual activities that they deem to be sinful, then you are, by The Church's definition, a sinner. You then get to make the choice to repent or not. If you are an unrepentant sinner (whatever the sin may be), then you will find yourself unwelcome at most churches.
Now, I'm not going to argue if homosexuality is a sin. As someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't follow scripture and doesn't necessarily believe in "God", I'm not qualified to do so. I'm not going to argue if homosexuality is a choice. Not a scientist and sure as heck am not an expert on the makeup of human DNA or human psychology.
But your actions, short of involuntary things like blinking and breathing, are choices you make every day. Right, wrong or indifferent.
As I said before, Homosexuality may or may not be a choice. The decision to act upon one's sexual urges (homo or hetero) *is* a choice. You control your penis and where it goes. Your choice.
[quote name='whuzizname']Are you able to write in sentences more than five words long?[/quote]
Yes.
Why bother?
I have been hearing the "arguments" from your ilk for years, it is like you all copy and paste it from somewhere.
I am being dismissive of a bunch of false premises and nonsense.
See above.
Yes.
Why bother?
I have been hearing the "arguments" from your ilk for years, it is like you all copy and paste it from somewhere.
I am being dismissive of a bunch of false premises and nonsense.
See above.
Oh, what is this? Logic 101 class at the community center?
Look - some people don't believe the Bible or its teachings. That's kosher, whether or not some of you like that. Therefore, basing your whole argument around something they don't believe in - and then crying "Bigot!" when they refuse this as grounds for substantive argument - doesn't work.
Dressing all this rhetoric up into some gigantic "OH MAN, YOU CAN'T CALL ME A HOMOPHOBE FOR (textbook copy and paste reasons X, Y, and Z)" shouldn't be the heart of the argument. I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a shit, and expounding upon doesn't actually benefit or reinforce your point.
Man up and attack it head on, since you've got no problem condemning millions to a lake of fire. Cuz with chutzpah like that, why are you suddenly so angry when this discussion comes up? I'd like to think flavored genocide would be the more difficult thing to stomach - not someone saying "Hey man, your argument stinks."
Look - some people don't believe the Bible or its teachings. That's kosher, whether or not some of you like that. Therefore, basing your whole argument around something they don't believe in - and then crying "Bigot!" when they refuse this as grounds for substantive argument - doesn't work.
Dressing all this rhetoric up into some gigantic "OH MAN, YOU CAN'T CALL ME A HOMOPHOBE FOR (textbook copy and paste reasons X, Y, and Z)" shouldn't be the heart of the argument. I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a shit, and expounding upon doesn't actually benefit or reinforce your point.
Man up and attack it head on, since you've got no problem condemning millions to a lake of fire. Cuz with chutzpah like that, why are you suddenly so angry when this discussion comes up? I'd like to think flavored genocide would be the more difficult thing to stomach - not someone saying "Hey man, your argument stinks."
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='whuzizname']Ahh yes....someone predictably pulls the "HOMOPHOBE" card.
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.[/QUOTE]
Are you telling me that the thought of a more openly homosexual world doesn't frighten Catholics (or other religious people for that matter)?
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.
Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.[/QUOTE]
Are you telling me that the thought of a more openly homosexual world doesn't frighten Catholics (or other religious people for that matter)?
[quote name='JolietJake']Are you telling me that the thought of a more openly homosexual world doesn't frighten Catholics (or other religious people for that matter)?[/QUOTE]
Like I said before all that scaremongering about the "Homo Agenda" apparently never happened.
Like I said before all that scaremongering about the "Homo Agenda" apparently never happened.
[quote name='Strell']Oh, what is this? Logic 101 class at the community center?
Look - some people don't believe the Bible or its teachings. That's kosher, whether or not some of you like that. Therefore, basing your whole argument around something they don't believe in - and then crying "Bigot!" when they refuse this as grounds for substantive argument - doesn't work.
Dressing all this rhetoric up into some gigantic "OH MAN, YOU CAN'T CALL ME A HOMOPHOBE FOR (textbook copy and paste reasons X, Y, and Z)" shouldn't be the heart of the argument. I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a shit, and expounding upon doesn't actually benefit or reinforce your point.
Man up and attack it head on, since you've got no problem condemning millions to a lake of fire. Cuz with chutzpah like that, why are you suddenly so angry when this discussion comes up? I'd like to think flavored genocide would be the more difficult thing to stomach - not someone saying "Hey man, your argument stinks."[/QUOTE]
I assume this reply wasn't aimed at me, or I'm really missing something?
Look - some people don't believe the Bible or its teachings. That's kosher, whether or not some of you like that. Therefore, basing your whole argument around something they don't believe in - and then crying "Bigot!" when they refuse this as grounds for substantive argument - doesn't work.
Dressing all this rhetoric up into some gigantic "OH MAN, YOU CAN'T CALL ME A HOMOPHOBE FOR (textbook copy and paste reasons X, Y, and Z)" shouldn't be the heart of the argument. I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a shit, and expounding upon doesn't actually benefit or reinforce your point.
Man up and attack it head on, since you've got no problem condemning millions to a lake of fire. Cuz with chutzpah like that, why are you suddenly so angry when this discussion comes up? I'd like to think flavored genocide would be the more difficult thing to stomach - not someone saying "Hey man, your argument stinks."[/QUOTE]
I assume this reply wasn't aimed at me, or I'm really missing something?
[quote name='UncleBob']Regardless of your sexuality, *you* make the choice of who (or what) you wish to engage in sexual activities with.[/quote]
Rape comes to mind right now.
That's nice and all, but it is woefully tangential to the discussion, and really dilutes any sort of honest argument. It's like talking about whether or not Tiger Woods reads Superman comics, or is really more of a She-Hulk man.
For the record, I am a She-Hulk man.
This is HUGELY debatable, depending on how I want to approach it, but it's getting us far off the issue at hand. We're entering philosophical and psychological territory here.
So if you thought you were having sex with a (gender), and it turns out to be the other (gender), what happens then? Does your really-wanting-it-to-be-a-____ change the fact that you were duped?
Again, this is a murky road. I'm amazed we insist of traveling down it when the result is nothing but Oregon Trail "you have died of dysentery" results.
[quote name='UncleBob']I assume this reply wasn't aimed at me[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Rape comes to mind right now.
That's nice and all, but it is woefully tangential to the discussion, and really dilutes any sort of honest argument. It's like talking about whether or not Tiger Woods reads Superman comics, or is really more of a She-Hulk man.
For the record, I am a She-Hulk man.
This is HUGELY debatable, depending on how I want to approach it, but it's getting us far off the issue at hand. We're entering philosophical and psychological territory here.
So if you thought you were having sex with a (gender), and it turns out to be the other (gender), what happens then? Does your really-wanting-it-to-be-a-____ change the fact that you were duped?
Again, this is a murky road. I'm amazed we insist of traveling down it when the result is nothing but Oregon Trail "you have died of dysentery" results.
[quote name='UncleBob']I assume this reply wasn't aimed at me[/QUOTE]
Yes.
JolietJake
Banned
It's just easier to hate a group of people than to try and understand them.
whuzizname
CAGiversary!
The Archdiocese of Washington has been quietly helping the poor through its social services for ages.
Were all you anti-Catholic bigots here praising the Archdiocese back then?
If you're going to criticize anything, criticize the government for trying to impose itself on a private organization. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Or do you just care when the government tries to impose itself by regulating videogames?
Were all you anti-Catholic bigots here praising the Archdiocese back then?
If you're going to criticize anything, criticize the government for trying to impose itself on a private organization. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Or do you just care when the government tries to impose itself by regulating videogames?
[quote name='whuzizname']The Archdiocese of Washington has been quietly helping the poor through its social services for ages.
Were all you Catholic bashers here praising the Archdiocese back then?[/quote]
For doing what Jesus commanded him to do? Am I SUPPOSED to keep tabs on this guy? Is he keeping tabs on me? Tell that jerk to keep his hands off my privates. And private life. Skeezy peeping tom sonofabitch.
That shit has been thrown out the door for a long time now, right around when religious organizations started throwing millions of dollars to run ads to convince people that "IT'S OUR GOD'S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY TO HELL, BUSTER!" And I'm pretty sure it's gone on FAR longer than Prop 8 a year ago.
Are you trying to duck the argument now, or is this an honest attempt to appear like everything is equal?
'Cuz man, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I was born hating on JRPGs, and I don't believe that's a choice. You people who like them are total JRaPpaGgots, and I hope you all burn in digital Game Over hell for all eternity, until the great Resetvelation.
Were all you Catholic bashers here praising the Archdiocese back then?[/quote]
For doing what Jesus commanded him to do? Am I SUPPOSED to keep tabs on this guy? Is he keeping tabs on me? Tell that jerk to keep his hands off my privates. And private life. Skeezy peeping tom sonofabitch.
That shit has been thrown out the door for a long time now, right around when religious organizations started throwing millions of dollars to run ads to convince people that "IT'S OUR GOD'S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY TO HELL, BUSTER!" And I'm pretty sure it's gone on FAR longer than Prop 8 a year ago.
Are you trying to duck the argument now, or is this an honest attempt to appear like everything is equal?
'Cuz man, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I was born hating on JRPGs, and I don't believe that's a choice. You people who like them are total JRaPpaGgots, and I hope you all burn in digital Game Over hell for all eternity, until the great Resetvelation.
[quote name='Strell']Rape comes to mind right now.[/quote]
Well, that's not really a case of someone making the *choice* to engage in sexual activities, now is it?
But I don't think having sexual relations with someone of the same gender necessarily makes you homosexual (or bisexual even). But that's just my humble opinion.
However, I do think we are the sum of the choices we make and the actions we take. Otherwise, we're all just brainless animals and we should just
it all and lay around and get high all the time. Why bother?
Well, that's not really a case of someone making the *choice* to engage in sexual activities, now is it?
But I don't think having sexual relations with someone of the same gender necessarily makes you homosexual (or bisexual even). But that's just my humble opinion.
However, I do think we are the sum of the choices we make and the actions we take. Otherwise, we're all just brainless animals and we should just
it all and lay around and get high all the time. Why bother?I was just trying to explain the thought process from earlier when someone asked about why "The Church" is willing to help all sinners except homosexual "sinners". From the viewpoint of "The Church", I understand the thought process and thought I might be able to explain it.
whuzizname
CAGiversary!
Wow, Strell. Such bitterness and hatred. Not a shred of logic.
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling is the last resort of those who can't argue cogently.
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling is the last resort of those who can't argue cogently.
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, that's not really a case of someone making the *choice* to engage in sexual activities, now is it?[/quote]
By rape I think he was referring to what you do to logic and rational thought.
Your padawan whuzit might eclipse the master however.
By rape I think he was referring to what you do to logic and rational thought.
Your padawan whuzit might eclipse the master however.
What you put your body in/in your body is a choice (as far as anything else is a choice), but of course you could be a dude and bang 5000 other dudes and you still wouldn't necessarily be gay. When it comes down to it, the physical sexual act itself is not what people want to stop and is not what various religions are actually against (and btw, reducing all of homosexuality to a sex act is belittling as well).
You're not a hell-bound sinner because you're a dude banging a dude, you're a sinner for the thought of it, for the desire. It's about more than controlling actions, it's about controlling thoughts, attitudes, etc. and the threat lies there. The tirades against a homosexual agenda are obviously not all about where you're putting your junk.
You're not a hell-bound sinner because you're a dude banging a dude, you're a sinner for the thought of it, for the desire. It's about more than controlling actions, it's about controlling thoughts, attitudes, etc. and the threat lies there. The tirades against a homosexual agenda are obviously not all about where you're putting your junk.
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, that's not really a case of someone making the *choice* to engage in sexual activities, now is it?[/quote]
I dunno. I hear a lot of arguments about "that girl went to that party dressed like that and got drunk" all the time.
Then saying it's just a choice isn't the correct way to phrase your stance, since you're clearly suggesting that emotional content augments one's sexual identity.
Remember, Freud suggested that every action we do every second of our lives is toward the relentless pursuit of sex. Think of that the next time you give someone a hug, man or woman. I'm not saying he's the sole authority, but it is an amusing theory.
But again, we're getting far off base here.
This is entering into predestined fate versus free will argument. It will not be solved here, nor pretty much ever in the span of humanity's existence, and thus should be removed since it is functionally insolvent.
But that's going against the word of Jesus, who clearly said to love thy neighbor. At this point we're letting the Church interpret a book that - according to their own definition - is the infallible word of God.
This is a pick-and-choose scenario, something wholly contradictory to a fundamentalist standpoint, since it serves up the word of Man before their diefied Creator. That's actually a form of idolatry, something the Ten Commandments - which are sort of like the tactical nukes of the Biblical world - prohibits. You could argue you are setting yourself up directly against God at that point.
You can't call yourself the "love the sinner/hate the sin" type if you start saying "Hold on..." every few minutes.
I dunno. I hear a lot of arguments about "that girl went to that party dressed like that and got drunk" all the time.
Then saying it's just a choice isn't the correct way to phrase your stance, since you're clearly suggesting that emotional content augments one's sexual identity.
Remember, Freud suggested that every action we do every second of our lives is toward the relentless pursuit of sex. Think of that the next time you give someone a hug, man or woman. I'm not saying he's the sole authority, but it is an amusing theory.
But again, we're getting far off base here.
However, I do think we are the sum of the choices we make and the actions we take. Otherwise, we're all just brainless animals and we should just
This is entering into predestined fate versus free will argument. It will not be solved here, nor pretty much ever in the span of humanity's existence, and thus should be removed since it is functionally insolvent.
But that's going against the word of Jesus, who clearly said to love thy neighbor. At this point we're letting the Church interpret a book that - according to their own definition - is the infallible word of God.
This is a pick-and-choose scenario, something wholly contradictory to a fundamentalist standpoint, since it serves up the word of Man before their diefied Creator. That's actually a form of idolatry, something the Ten Commandments - which are sort of like the tactical nukes of the Biblical world - prohibits. You could argue you are setting yourself up directly against God at that point.
You can't call yourself the "love the sinner/hate the sin" type if you start saying "Hold on..." every few minutes.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='whuzizname']Wow, Strell. Such bitterness and hatred. Not a shred of logic.
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling is the last resort of those who can't argue cogently.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, you really haven't made an argument at all.
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling is the last resort of those who can't argue cogently.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, you really haven't made an argument at all.
[quote name='whuzizname']Wow, Strell. Such bitterness and hatred. Not a shred of logic.
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling is the last resort of those who can't argue cogently.[/QUOTE]
Spare me your petulance. I grind that up and make bread with it, even though it'll taste like crybaby.
Ad hominem attacks and name-calling is the last resort of those who can't argue cogently.[/QUOTE]
Spare me your petulance. I grind that up and make bread with it, even though it'll taste like crybaby.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='whuzizname']The Archdiocese of Washington has been quietly helping the poor through its social services for ages.
Were all you anti-Catholic bigots here praising the Archdiocese back then?
If you're going to criticize anything, criticize the government for trying to impose itself on a private organization. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Or do you just care when the government tries to impose itself by regulating videogames?[/QUOTE]
We should praise them for doing what they're book tells them to do? Whatever happened to a selfless act, they need praise now? Have you ever thought for a second (heh...) that it isn't fair that a private business would have to comply with the law, yet somehow these Catholics think they should be exempt?
Were all you anti-Catholic bigots here praising the Archdiocese back then?
If you're going to criticize anything, criticize the government for trying to impose itself on a private organization. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Or do you just care when the government tries to impose itself by regulating videogames?[/QUOTE]
We should praise them for doing what they're book tells them to do? Whatever happened to a selfless act, they need praise now? Have you ever thought for a second (heh...) that it isn't fair that a private business would have to comply with the law, yet somehow these Catholics think they should be exempt?
JolietJake
Banned
Btw, it's been proven that homosexuality exists in nature, but i guess the chimps chose to act that way too. Bad comparison? That's your decision to make, but it does show homosexuality is natural, not a choice. The physical act may be a matter of choice, but the attraction is not.
The idea that one can be cured of homosexuality is laughable at best and despicable at worst.
The idea that one can be cured of homosexuality is laughable at best and despicable at worst.
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
Once again, Strell, you rock.
[quote name='JolietJake']Btw, it's been proven that homosexuality exists in nature, but i guess the chimps chose to act that way too. Bad comparison? That's your decision to make, but it does show homosexuality is natural, not a choice. The physical act may be a matter of choice, but the attraction is not.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I'm saying though. The *act* is a choice.
And come on Strell, I'm a little rusty on my Bible learnin', but I'm pretty sure that Jesus wants us to help those who seek our help and guidance - but to stay away from those who are unrepentant. (Assuming, of course, Jesus is real and all...
)
This is exactly what I'm saying though. The *act* is a choice.
And come on Strell, I'm a little rusty on my Bible learnin', but I'm pretty sure that Jesus wants us to help those who seek our help and guidance - but to stay away from those who are unrepentant. (Assuming, of course, Jesus is real and all...
)
bread's done