For all of those intelligent people here to like to debate things, check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719974/
Basically, it's a "new policy for gay outreach" by the Catholic Church. Personally, I think it's terrible, but that's just me. What does anyone else think?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
It's ridiculous. They would have been better off not discussing it at all. They haven't changed their 'policy', they've simply made it more condescending.
The only good part I saw, was this -
"To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice."
It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.
The only good part I saw, was this -
"To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice."
It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's ridiculous. They would have been better off not discussing it at all. They haven't changed their 'policy', they've simply made it more condescending.
The only good part I saw, was this -
"To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice."
It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.[/QUOTE]
*laughes* I think I've got a guess!! :-)
I just thought the best part about this whole thing (for those of us clear thinkers out there) is that they are trying so hard to make their condescention sound like it's not. It almost works, if you don't really think about what they mean by what they are saying. It's just so funny to me to watch them try and cover their hate with pretty words.
The only good part I saw, was this -
"To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice."
It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.[/QUOTE]
*laughes* I think I've got a guess!! :-)
I just thought the best part about this whole thing (for those of us clear thinkers out there) is that they are trying so hard to make their condescention sound like it's not. It almost works, if you don't really think about what they mean by what they are saying. It's just so funny to me to watch them try and cover their hate with pretty words.
In this day and age, anyone with brains knows that an institution does not have to dictate what their values and beliefs are supposed to be. This is ridiculous. It's pathetic. It's unnecessary. It's obsolete. They said you need to examine your conscience to see if you're worthy of holy communion... yeah, right. It's as if a governing group of people has some kind of authority over people, and that communion represents the blood of someone's death (rather than that person's life and philosophies, which should be the point of interest). Guess what, folks? The authority is there only if you believe it is.
Why in the world would any gay person choose to be catholic (I refuse to capitalize that word, as if capitalizing should add some kind of sacredness to it), if they can equally choose to live a seccular life without the restrictions, judgementality, bigotry, and segregation as dictated by the church? But if they want some kind of spiritual life that involves church in some way, then like anything else in life, there are alternatives. There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them!
The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing.
If there are people in this world who feel the need to be controlled by ancient religious doctrine, and don't seem to care that the doctrine has little moral ground in today's complex world, then great. The catholic church is exactly what they need. But it speaks volumes about their self-esteem, and their need to be controlled by something other than themselves. The church condemns people who think for themselves, calling it "selfish self-doctrine", or something like that, as if thinking for yourself (relativism) is a bad thing. For catholics specifically, they condemn free thought by calling it "cafeteria catholicism". Like any other topic, I find simple peace in the fact that people can choose whether or not to swallow this garbage. Even most catholics I know barely follow the doctrines of the church. But since this topic is about US catholics, then I guess it's worth noting that the baptists have much more control than the catholics there, as far as I know. But that's a whole other topic of discussion!
I've wasted enough time on this post. This topic should turn out to be interesting.
Why in the world would any gay person choose to be catholic (I refuse to capitalize that word, as if capitalizing should add some kind of sacredness to it), if they can equally choose to live a seccular life without the restrictions, judgementality, bigotry, and segregation as dictated by the church? But if they want some kind of spiritual life that involves church in some way, then like anything else in life, there are alternatives. There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them!
The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing.
If there are people in this world who feel the need to be controlled by ancient religious doctrine, and don't seem to care that the doctrine has little moral ground in today's complex world, then great. The catholic church is exactly what they need. But it speaks volumes about their self-esteem, and their need to be controlled by something other than themselves. The church condemns people who think for themselves, calling it "selfish self-doctrine", or something like that, as if thinking for yourself (relativism) is a bad thing. For catholics specifically, they condemn free thought by calling it "cafeteria catholicism". Like any other topic, I find simple peace in the fact that people can choose whether or not to swallow this garbage. Even most catholics I know barely follow the doctrines of the church. But since this topic is about US catholics, then I guess it's worth noting that the baptists have much more control than the catholics there, as far as I know. But that's a whole other topic of discussion!
I've wasted enough time on this post. This topic should turn out to be interesting.
LMAO!
Does this mean that it's OK for gay people to beat off in front of each other as long as they don't have intercourse or any sort of sexual physical contact?
Does this mean that it's OK for gay people to beat off in front of each other as long as they don't have intercourse or any sort of sexual physical contact?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing.[/QUOTE]
That can be said about every religion. It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion. (I capitalize it.) Usually when the Baptists or Unitists come to my door it takes 'em about 10 seconds before they specifically start attacking the Catholic faith. Scare tactics. That's what the Baptists and Unitists are using now.
My parents were Catholic, and so were their parents, and so on. Do I go to church on Sundays? No, I think God watches football too.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them![/QUOTE]
1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar.
2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?
3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.
But then, haven't Queen fans donated millions to Aids research? (The Terence Higgins Trust)
Instead of trying to incite a religious argument, SIR GH, you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above. I could change the word Catholic to any other religion in your post and it would apply as well. It's not just the Catholics!!! But then, apparently all you can do is insult a specific group.
BACK TO THE TOPIC:
After all that, I still tend to find anything the Vatican does lately to be about 200 years behind or just completely ridiculous. This one is just par for the course.
It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face. We want to teach our kids from day one that a man loving another man is OK. So we have TV shows about them, Congressional hearings, marches, etc.
When was the last time there was a Hetero Parade or a Hetero Debate or some kind of bill introduced into congress regarding Hetero acts? And WHY does there have to be a gay guy involved whenever a TV show about building a house comes on now? Every time, every show!!!
It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.
That can be said about every religion. It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion. (I capitalize it.) Usually when the Baptists or Unitists come to my door it takes 'em about 10 seconds before they specifically start attacking the Catholic faith. Scare tactics. That's what the Baptists and Unitists are using now.
My parents were Catholic, and so were their parents, and so on. Do I go to church on Sundays? No, I think God watches football too.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them![/QUOTE]
1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar.
2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?
3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.
But then, haven't Queen fans donated millions to Aids research? (The Terence Higgins Trust)
Instead of trying to incite a religious argument, SIR GH, you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above. I could change the word Catholic to any other religion in your post and it would apply as well. It's not just the Catholics!!! But then, apparently all you can do is insult a specific group.
BACK TO THE TOPIC:
After all that, I still tend to find anything the Vatican does lately to be about 200 years behind or just completely ridiculous. This one is just par for the course.
It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face. We want to teach our kids from day one that a man loving another man is OK. So we have TV shows about them, Congressional hearings, marches, etc.
When was the last time there was a Hetero Parade or a Hetero Debate or some kind of bill introduced into congress regarding Hetero acts? And WHY does there have to be a gay guy involved whenever a TV show about building a house comes on now? Every time, every show!!!
It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion.[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. Yes, I could have easily mentioned other religions, cults, or whatever... but the topic of discussion right now is catholicism, so I'm focusing on them. Even so, I don't think anyone can deny that of all the organized religious institutions in the world, there isn't one that is nearly as powerful and influential on people's minds as the catholic church. That's also why I'm singling them out over the others at the moment.
[QUOTE]1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar.
2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend. United church ministers (at least in Canada) are required to go through years of formal education, most of which is learning about biblical criticism and history. They are taught exactly how, when, and why scripture was written, and how and when the creeds came to be - thus they know that the majority of it isn't everlasting historical fact. Generally, they are taught not to share this information with their parishes, because if they did, the united church (and then surely other denominations) would die even quicker than they are now. Many denominations don't require their preachers to have such education, and thus they preach whatever they want, like you said - and it's usually historically misinformed babble that the average church-going person can't argue against, because they haven't read the books and learned for themselves. And for the record, I don't follow the united church, or any church.
[QUOTE]3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.[/QUOTE]
Once again, you're confusing "unity" with "united". If you're interested, you can contact the "United Church of Canada" and ask them how much money they have donated towards AIDS to date. It is plenty. As for the catholic church, I recall the last pope urging Africa not to use condoms, because they allegedly have holes in them. That doesn't sound like an institution who cares about fighting AIDS, but rather one who is pushing their own theological and social agenda. I don't doubt that many denominations have helped out with AIDS. I'm well aware that many church groups are socially aware, and care about helping the third world. Based on the history I'm aware of, I don't think the catholic church is interested in helping out with AIDS, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
[QUOTE]It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face.
It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.[/QUOTE]
Those are pretty generalized statements. The "in your face" gays are the minority. But with regards to that portion of the gay population, I do agree with you.
No, not at all. Yes, I could have easily mentioned other religions, cults, or whatever... but the topic of discussion right now is catholicism, so I'm focusing on them. Even so, I don't think anyone can deny that of all the organized religious institutions in the world, there isn't one that is nearly as powerful and influential on people's minds as the catholic church. That's also why I'm singling them out over the others at the moment.
[QUOTE]1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar.
2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend. United church ministers (at least in Canada) are required to go through years of formal education, most of which is learning about biblical criticism and history. They are taught exactly how, when, and why scripture was written, and how and when the creeds came to be - thus they know that the majority of it isn't everlasting historical fact. Generally, they are taught not to share this information with their parishes, because if they did, the united church (and then surely other denominations) would die even quicker than they are now. Many denominations don't require their preachers to have such education, and thus they preach whatever they want, like you said - and it's usually historically misinformed babble that the average church-going person can't argue against, because they haven't read the books and learned for themselves. And for the record, I don't follow the united church, or any church.
[QUOTE]3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.[/QUOTE]
Once again, you're confusing "unity" with "united". If you're interested, you can contact the "United Church of Canada" and ask them how much money they have donated towards AIDS to date. It is plenty. As for the catholic church, I recall the last pope urging Africa not to use condoms, because they allegedly have holes in them. That doesn't sound like an institution who cares about fighting AIDS, but rather one who is pushing their own theological and social agenda. I don't doubt that many denominations have helped out with AIDS. I'm well aware that many church groups are socially aware, and care about helping the third world. Based on the history I'm aware of, I don't think the catholic church is interested in helping out with AIDS, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
[QUOTE]It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face.
It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.[/QUOTE]
Those are pretty generalized statements. The "in your face" gays are the minority. But with regards to that portion of the gay population, I do agree with you.
Ha! I knew this was going to get interesting!! And I also knew I'd attract Bob and Dan to this thread by posting it :-P
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
Does it surprise anyone the Catholic Church is behind the times? I mean, come on! They are just having a hard time accepting the fact that society has progressed to become far more tolerant than they are, because heaven forbid they teach tolerance. They've built themselves on excusivity...you are either one of us or one of them. Defining yourself in that way doesn't mesh well with toleration for everyone. (And yes, this goes for anyone...catholics, baptists, the amish, mormans...pick your superstition) When you define yourself that way, you are bound to be intolerant to someone.
Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
Does it surprise anyone the Catholic Church is behind the times? I mean, come on! They are just having a hard time accepting the fact that society has progressed to become far more tolerant than they are, because heaven forbid they teach tolerance. They've built themselves on excusivity...you are either one of us or one of them. Defining yourself in that way doesn't mesh well with toleration for everyone. (And yes, this goes for anyone...catholics, baptists, the amish, mormans...pick your superstition) When you define yourself that way, you are bound to be intolerant to someone.
Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!!
and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)
Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!!
and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
[/QUOTE]
IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.
[QUOTE]Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else. [/QUOTE]
Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it?
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
[/QUOTE]
IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.
[QUOTE]Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else. [/QUOTE]
Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it?
I've been hearing about stuff like this for a while.
I remember something about somebody banning gay people from the priesthood or something that I (quite clearly) didn't pay all that much attention to.
I'm not going to call catholics "stupid" or anything, but I just don't understand some things - like the no birth control. I mean, we learned in health class that not all the little fishies make it anyway.
From an ecological stand-point, it doesn't matter if gay people fuck or not. Either way, there is something there that is preventing little "bundles of joy" from entering the world on account of the persons who don't have the compulsion to engage in reproductive sex.
And from the way the population is expanding (though not yet near capacity), you would think this "Bob" fellow wouldn't mind if some of the fishies didn't make it to the egg.
Looking at it this way, the church would have been more "helpful to humanity" back when the population "needed" expanding (such as with a high mortality rate and death in general). But, today, condoms, masterbation, and gay sex seem - from an ecological point of view, an efficient population-control method (if increased to high enough levels to counteract those who choose to create new bundles-of-joy).
The article says the church believes it's only a sin to act on these "impulses". But, as I see it, everyone uses things for purposes other than this "Bob" guy could have originally intended. Then again, his followers don't even know what he intended. Maybe he wanted free green jello every Saturday.
Also, church programmes that claim they can "fix" a gay person. Which, to be honest scare the wits out of me, after learning how conditioning methods can be used to make animals STARVE themselves to death from fear of food.
We just finished the "Conditioning" unit in Psychology and there are some very scary things people / animals can be conditioned to do. I haven't heard too much about counseling methods these "catholic" people use - but I've heard about them taking away things from the "afflicted" and such.
In my opinion, that's the slimy version of torturing a "criminal" to a point where they'll "confess" anything.
On a whole, I don't really care about catholics. I'm not trying to attack them. To be honest, I don't really care about THEM. I respect thier right to believe whatever they want, same with the wiccans, moonies, and athiests. Of course, if people are getting hurt physically or mentally, there is something there which goes beyond any theological tolerance.
I remember something about somebody banning gay people from the priesthood or something that I (quite clearly) didn't pay all that much attention to.
I'm not going to call catholics "stupid" or anything, but I just don't understand some things - like the no birth control. I mean, we learned in health class that not all the little fishies make it anyway.
From an ecological stand-point, it doesn't matter if gay people fuck or not. Either way, there is something there that is preventing little "bundles of joy" from entering the world on account of the persons who don't have the compulsion to engage in reproductive sex.
And from the way the population is expanding (though not yet near capacity), you would think this "Bob" fellow wouldn't mind if some of the fishies didn't make it to the egg.
Looking at it this way, the church would have been more "helpful to humanity" back when the population "needed" expanding (such as with a high mortality rate and death in general). But, today, condoms, masterbation, and gay sex seem - from an ecological point of view, an efficient population-control method (if increased to high enough levels to counteract those who choose to create new bundles-of-joy).
The article says the church believes it's only a sin to act on these "impulses". But, as I see it, everyone uses things for purposes other than this "Bob" guy could have originally intended. Then again, his followers don't even know what he intended. Maybe he wanted free green jello every Saturday.
Also, church programmes that claim they can "fix" a gay person. Which, to be honest scare the wits out of me, after learning how conditioning methods can be used to make animals STARVE themselves to death from fear of food.
We just finished the "Conditioning" unit in Psychology and there are some very scary things people / animals can be conditioned to do. I haven't heard too much about counseling methods these "catholic" people use - but I've heard about them taking away things from the "afflicted" and such.
In my opinion, that's the slimy version of torturing a "criminal" to a point where they'll "confess" anything.
On a whole, I don't really care about catholics. I'm not trying to attack them. To be honest, I don't really care about THEM. I respect thier right to believe whatever they want, same with the wiccans, moonies, and athiests. Of course, if people are getting hurt physically or mentally, there is something there which goes beyond any theological tolerance.
Remember a couple of years ago when the Episcopalians (spelled wrong, I know) "came out" and said they would allow gay priest "as long as they didn't show signs of their sexuallity for four years"?
I wonder who got the job of testing candidates?
Just goes to show, the bedroom is the last place for religion. But the TV is NOT the place for gays! Get your own channel, dammit! GTV or Fudge Television or something...
I wonder who got the job of testing candidates?
Just goes to show, the bedroom is the last place for religion. But the TV is NOT the place for gays! Get your own channel, dammit! GTV or Fudge Television or something...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
[/QUOTE]
IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.
[QUOTE]Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else. [/QUOTE]
Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it?
[/QUOTE]
Please don't think I was insulting you, I wasn't. Your response just came off as alittle hot under the collar is all. Passion is good, but too much of it can be damaging.
I didn't say that Gay people don't want to be defined...they just don't want to be defined on the basis of their sexuality. We don't define hetero couples that way. We define them as a couple, as a married unit, or whatever. Gays can't be defined that way, they can only be defined as deviant. That's the lable they want to get rid of. And, coincidently, men and women who aren't married but live together CAN have insurance policies together. Those gay marriage bans that just passed in a bunch of states (including, unfortunatly mine...but give it twenty years and we'll reverse that) have actually wound up hurting non married heterosexual couples more than gays, who couldn't get married in the first place. Now it's the cohabitors who can't get the same rights as married couples, and a lot of times they are avoiding marriages for good reasons.
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
[/QUOTE]
IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.
[QUOTE]Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else. [/QUOTE]
Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it?
[/QUOTE]
Please don't think I was insulting you, I wasn't. Your response just came off as alittle hot under the collar is all. Passion is good, but too much of it can be damaging.
I didn't say that Gay people don't want to be defined...they just don't want to be defined on the basis of their sexuality. We don't define hetero couples that way. We define them as a couple, as a married unit, or whatever. Gays can't be defined that way, they can only be defined as deviant. That's the lable they want to get rid of. And, coincidently, men and women who aren't married but live together CAN have insurance policies together. Those gay marriage bans that just passed in a bunch of states (including, unfortunatly mine...but give it twenty years and we'll reverse that) have actually wound up hurting non married heterosexual couples more than gays, who couldn't get married in the first place. Now it's the cohabitors who can't get the same rights as married couples, and a lot of times they are avoiding marriages for good reasons.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]¼Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!!
and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)[/QUOTE]
S'all good! :)
and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)[/QUOTE]
S'all good! :)
i'm a catholic myself, but i don't wholly agree with what these bishops are saying. i may be sinning right now. but oh well. i just think that we shouldn't really "follow" what the bishop says because the only thing that we should believe and follow is what the pope says. obviously, the pope had nothing to do with the whole... gay out reach thing.
here's what i learned in philo class: it is unnatural for man to have an intimate relationship with a man of the same gender because... well, God didn't make Adam and Steve. i agree with the whole... adam and steve thing but it doesn't mean that i'm a gay basher or something. i just let them be. i actually find them cool.
the thing i do not agree about the bishop's statement is that catholicism is a choice. i don't think that the gays should be told to stop practicing the faith and all because after all, they're catholics, but they just violated the whole metaphysical state of man. it can't be helped that they prefer men or something, i understand that. but you know... it's just hard to explain this part.
someone said something about the catholics being against birth control, and i have the reasons why.
1.) God created sex to be done inside marriage. children are born out of love. so if you use contraceptives and all that stuff, it's like you're stopping the natural flow of things and that you've changed God's plans.
2.) contraceptives are used to protect people during sex. most of the time, people who use contraceptives are people who do "it" outside of marriage, so they can do "it" all they want and not get preggy and all. the point is, no one should even be doing "it" outside of marriage, because it's more or less taking away each others virginities, and soit's better to do "it" with someone you trust and love, not just with someone you had a fling with.
please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)
here's what i learned in philo class: it is unnatural for man to have an intimate relationship with a man of the same gender because... well, God didn't make Adam and Steve. i agree with the whole... adam and steve thing but it doesn't mean that i'm a gay basher or something. i just let them be. i actually find them cool.
the thing i do not agree about the bishop's statement is that catholicism is a choice. i don't think that the gays should be told to stop practicing the faith and all because after all, they're catholics, but they just violated the whole metaphysical state of man. it can't be helped that they prefer men or something, i understand that. but you know... it's just hard to explain this part.
someone said something about the catholics being against birth control, and i have the reasons why.
1.) God created sex to be done inside marriage. children are born out of love. so if you use contraceptives and all that stuff, it's like you're stopping the natural flow of things and that you've changed God's plans.
2.) contraceptives are used to protect people during sex. most of the time, people who use contraceptives are people who do "it" outside of marriage, so they can do "it" all they want and not get preggy and all. the point is, no one should even be doing "it" outside of marriage, because it's more or less taking away each others virginities, and soit's better to do "it" with someone you trust and love, not just with someone you had a fling with.
please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)