Gay organisations and Gay Pride parades

Remove all ads!

What Roman Catholic Church officially states is that homosexual sexual drive in itself is not sinful. I repeat: not sinful. There is no sin where there is no choice and homosexual people typically claim they didn't choose to be homosexual.

It is homosexual intercourse that is unlawful. Note that in Roman Catholic Church any intercourse that happens not in marriage is unlawful. Therefore, non-marital heterosexual intercourse is also unlawful. Homosexual intercourse cannot happen in marriage and so it cannot be lawful.

For some reason I don't see homosexuals who have sex without marriage marching all over town centres and urging people to get rid of the Catholic clergy or telling Catholic people to get bent.

What RCC says on same sex unions:

At the very beginning of Genesis (so for both Christians and Judaists), it reads: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one". Therefore, homosexual unions are against the Bible. This is not discrimination on the part of Catholic clergy, it touches the very core of the religion - the Scripture.

As for attitude towards homosexuals themselves:

From THE TRUTH AND MEANING
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY, Guidelines for Education within the Family from the Pontifical (ie Papal) Council for the Family.

It clearly says that psychological roots are largely unexplained and that it's only acts of homosexuality that are disordered. And, more directly:

As you see, unjust discrimination is condemned by the Roman Church.

Later, it says: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity". News: In RCC church everyone who doesn't have a spouse is called to chastity. Tough luck.

For some reason, though, I don't see massive parades of Catholic bachelors and spinsters shouting "we want sex!".

The document also includes further guidance for parents and educators.

Note that judging an act as disordered doesn't refer this attribute to persons involved in the act. In a similar way as in legal systems, a disordered act still remains disordered even if the actor is not culpable. The Church realises a possibility that in some given circumstances the culpability of a homosexual person engaging in homosexual activity may be reduced or even totally removed. This however does not constitute any ground for generalisations as it strictly pertains to individual judgement of an individual case. Here goes:

The quotation comes from the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

The problem that gay organisations have with the Church is that the Church insists that adolescents may be unsure of their sexuality as well as decidedly hetero- or homosexual and if they indulge in homosexual activity, they should not be pressured to embrace homosexual orientation on the grounds of more or less isolate cases of display of homosexual behaviour or even homosexual activity, but rather offered responsible guidance.

Next, the Church keeps her faithful aware that Catholic doctrine distinguishes between lawful and unlawful sexual activity and that unlawful sexual activity is sinful.

Homosexual activity is not the focal point of the Church's attention. The Church devotes much more attention to non-marital heterosexual unions within the sphere of sexuality, which is still not the main area of the Church's interest.

It would be, therefore, unfair to say that there is a modern crusade against homosexuals taking place.

What is a hell of a rough deal? Anyone who lives in sin isn't going to receive absolution and, therefore, can't receive sacraments. This includes unmarried heterosexual couples, but also everyone else not willing to atone, abandon sin and improve. Any sin. Sexual or not. From swearing to murder.

I also believe that the majority (or at least a great part) of homosexual people want just to be left alone. Some probably realise that everyone has the right to opinion - minority or majority, on a purely common-sense basis. However, gay organisations, including heterosexual pro-gay activists, speak for the whole totality of gay people and I don't hear many voices of gay people condemning violations of law that take place. Though I admit, I've heard a gay man speak against child adoption and legal marriage for gay couples.

What about someone discriminated because of belonging to a majority (sexual, racial, religious, whatever), or because of being, let's say, ugly? We still have discrimination.

Note: refusing to hire someone who does not have the qualifications you require is also discrimination. "I know I haven't finished any school myself, but I can still teach your kids!", "Who cares I'm an atheist? I so want to become a priest!" etc etc.

The point is: we are not the same. Tolerance is one, acting as though there were no differences is a different thing. And an intrinsically stupid one, if you ask me

The probability of a given citizen getting killed in a crime is close to zero. It does not rise to a realistic figure because of someone being gay.

The gay activists in question in this particular parade attacked the Roman Catholic Church who is not responsible for abuse committed by non-Catholics in the first place. Just how many of those who abuse gay people are Christian believers? Plus, abuse of gay people is condemned by Vatican, murder is a deadly sin and beating is not really a light one, either. If you were a Catholic and beat up a gay man because he was gay and then you went to confession, saying properly that you beat him up for being gay, the priest would give you greater penance than for a simple beating up of thy neighbour.

Look, I know you weren't referring to the Catholic Church directly and we aren't talking specifically about the Catholic church, either, but my point is to show that the attack on and intended harassment of Catholics were unmerited, adding to the burden of illegality of offences committed during the march.

You can be ordered to pay fine if you take your own belongings from a thief by force, such is the law. Physical power is not the way, especially if we bar one side from using it.

Should I support my human and constitutional right to freedom of cult by throwing insults on pro-gay activists, calling to "get rid" of their leaders and so on? I could also defend my right to my lifestyle and so on and so forth.

My point here is that rights collide. If we sanction the use of force, we may be unable to control it. There will be chaos and anarchy. Plus, setting two enemies against each other and giving a sharp edge to only one is unfair.

Er... is some gay organisation urging to get rid of my Church's priests enough reason for my to declare my sword a Holy Avenger and play paladin on the opposition, smiting and chopping?

You get my point correctly and you also raise another important one: freedom of association. The Church, however, doesn't even disown its gay believers. It only requires them (in no legally binding sense, since church is not state) to remain chaste if they aren't married - whether they can ever marry or not. Heterosexual priests, monks, nuns as well as lay bachelors and spinsters are "forbidden" from sex no less than gay people are.

The Church will not concede and bow to pressure, making exception for homosexual unlawful intercourse to become lawful (it has no such power, either), but it will and does offer special pastoral care to homosexual faithful willing to remain within the Catholic Church.

(About throwing used condoms and shouting insults during Gay Pride Parades)

There are photos, press reports and police records. Insults are sometimes repeated with pride even by the culprits themselves and their patron organisations. In each Gay Parade coverage there is also a catalogue of abuse reported, criminal offences included.

I've also heard from a man whose friend fell asleep in a park when drunk in Berlin on the day of the Parade, and woke up with his trousers down and used condom sticking out of his anus.

There is no need to discuss flashing, mooning and other instances of public nudity since those are widely transmitted on TV during nearly all such parades and marches.

Apart from that, there is also various other behaviour being displayed that is considered distasteful, disgusting, wrong and/or sinful by the majority of society. If something is offensive to a minority, it gets cut out. I see a reason. But if something is offensive not to a relatively little group gets cut out, shouldn't even more so be cut out something which is offensive to the majority?

The rule of democracy is that everyone has his rights and can have his opinion, but the majority's vote has the power and the majority's interest prevails. It's not just the law of the jungle, ie the stronger wins, but there are simple logical, rational and mathematical reasons: the most good to the greatest number of people possible.

Allowing a minority vote to prevail twists the democracy and may lead to its total inversion.

Wrong. I've quoted above from Vatican's own website what is RCC official standing and policy.

Most of people who discriminate against homosexuals aren't practicing Catholics. Those who spread hate against homosexuals in most cases are anticlericals. Christians oppose same sex marriages and same sex couple children adoption. If they are a bit more than Sunday believers, they're also peacefully minded people and don't get aggressive just because they disagree with someone. Of course, some will not mince their words, but there are no cases of unprovoked violence. Also, as I've already said here, abuse of homosexuals is condemned by the Church.

How? By teaching that homosexual intercourse is disordered?

Does the Church influence people to harass atheists as well? Or those who, I don't know, call God in vain or steal or swear, or cheat on spouses or whatever?

The Church teaches right from wrong. Each religion has a moral code and RCC has one as well. As you see, there are many things that are condemned in the RCC moral code, but people who do them don't get harassed by Catholics.

For instance, do I roam all over my city whacking gays on their heads with aspergillum and throwing holy water at them? Do I attack atheists or atheism when I'm bored? Do I incessantly lecture people who sleep with their girlfriends?

My point is: disagreement does not imply violent action.

Plus, I've already explained that the Church actually condemns such harassment and speaks against it when it occurs.

As a conclusion: there are quite a lot of false assumptions about Christian policy regarding homosexuality. Same goes for right-wing organisations and other conservatives. While not all of them come from gay organisations, some definitely do. I don't like that.

Neither do I like the idea of a group being allowed to break the law as they see fit.

Any special protections that minority groups are given serve one purpose: that human rights apply to all, without even marginal exceptions.

They cannot be used for a contrary purpose, making human rights apply to not all, let alone just a select group. That would defy the very purpose of those special protections.

Defensive means are not weapons. If the legislator wished to give weapons to minorities, they would be given instead of defensive means.

Edit: I had to remove the links because they didn't work properly. The board engine didn't recognise the closing "]" sign, made the message widen the page and cut it way before the end (but long after the links, anyway) for no apparent reason. If you want to access those documents, go to Vatican's pages (vatican.va), choose your language and launch the search function for the files. Entering "homosexuality" as the keyword should do.

[ May 18, 2004, 16:28: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Lol, GS. I certainly agree with that. And yes, I agree that an employer has every right to fire someone for poor standards. I used to belong to one of those pre-paid lawyering firms through one of my past jobs. I was told that I could not sue my employer as result of using their services. The only exception was if they accused me of stealing and it proved to be bogus. In that case I had every right to use the firm for legal defense and recourse. At least that's how they explained it to me.

 

@ Snook

Only if they were discriminated against to the same extend as the D persons. And you dont want to say that short fellows are facing the same hassle in life as a gay person. Sure, some goons say: "Look, a shorty - lets call him something". Said goons see a person who they think is gay they will say: "What a piece of ****, lets beat the living crap out of him." You know, I have friends who happen to be homosexual, I know what I am talking about. Plus I go to partys almost every weekend for more than 11 years. In that time I have seen all sorts of things happen. Sometimes we got involved because we had gays among us, sometimes I saw it while passing by.

and

I dont think you are right here, Snook. So, should we ignore the threat that, for example, jews face in Europe, in Germany? Should we turn a blind eye on the fact that there is special hatred for that particular group among nutcases such as nazis and some of the younger muslims in this (and other) country? Shouldnt there be a law protecting them as a (religious) minority? So, you suggest we are free to say 'well, some idiots dont like you - now, that is to damn bad for you of jewish faith'. Well, I wont. A crime is a crime, right. And a person in need of protection because there is special hatred for him/her is just that - a person in need. In Germany we feel that minorities need protection and that common laws are not always suited for their fickle situation.
I agree. Laws wont make certain people change their minds, laws wont be helpful to make jews (or gays or whoever) more accepted. But they will make jews, their places of worship, their graves a bit more safe until society as a whole is mature enough and finds ways to deal with the prejudice and eventually gets rid of it.
I want to life in a country where no one should be afraid because of what they are and all can move freely. They shouldnt have to hide (or as you said, 'dont go to certain places'). So, human society is far from perfect you say? There is hatred and resentment for most everything? Thats what laws are for.

Btw, I make it a point to strongly disagree with cretins who assume they can call human beings abominations and an insult to... whatever. Any decent person should.

@chev

Stained condoms used as err missiles?, rape, drugs, bare asses, physical assaults... I am out there a lot and I have never heard of something like it. Something is wrong with this picture. Bias? Thats all I will say here.

A few gays overreacted on a parade. That makes them intolerant and guilty of double standards as a whole?! Does that discredit their struggle for tolerance in your opinion? I have seen other straight individuals and even couples act in very inappropriate ways in my time. I will spare you details. That means they all behave the same?
I thought crude generalizations were forbidden on these boards.

I dont care what the catholic church has to say on this matter. An organisation that prohibits the use of condoms in the times of HIV and that has a... funny attitude towards women isnt a moral compass to me. Never mind how they justify their instructions for their followers. Its outdated and has nothing to do with real life.

[ May 18, 2004, 17:56: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

@ Dendri

My point is that there are already laws that make it illegal to do most of the things you mentioned. Making specially targeted laws to protect certain groups are not going to stop people that have a preconceived notion to already break the law. Someone who has it in their mind to lynch a black man is not going to be dissuaded because of a hate crime law. It is murder no matter how you look at it.

Now I agree with you that it is unfortunate that as a society we have to deal with these miscreants. Personally, I couldn't give a flying one about someone's sexual orientation. The same is true for religion, race, color, etc.

I just don't see how additional laws are going to make people behave better. If anything I think the additional laws do nothing but make it worse.

 

Hehehe, man, you almost got me to LOL there chev. The story about the man waking up on a parkbench with his pants down and a condom in his ass is precious. I have heard many variations on it, almost all as parts of jokes. It doesnt even qualify as an urban legend.

 

@ Snook

You are right, of course. Laws are a poor substitute for acceptance. Maybe laws are more about... symbols? in this case. They are of no real help, but possibly they will make clear that there is awareness for the problems at hand. A form of solidarity. I dont really know.

Or should we do nothing at all? Let just go of things.

 

The same way, I can say that a few people of whatever conservative persuasion just overreacted a few times, so there's no big deal of a discrimination and we generally have perfect tolerance, so gay organisations should keep quiet. Any other interpretation is a double standard.

Please note that heterosexual people don't make Pride Parades.

You accused the Catholic Church of having an anti-gay policy and discriminating gays. I repelled your accusations and showed how unbased they were and you now say that you don't care what the Church has to say on the matter. How typical.

And this has nothing to do with the subject.

I don't know what you mean by "funny attitude towards women", but from your post it isn't obvious if you're going to give any proof or example, or be any more precise, or just to throw some unbased accusations and general unsupported critique to dodge a difficult point in discussion.

Internal instructions for the followers are the competence of Catholic Church. If someone isn't a member of the Catholic Church, it's not his problem. Catholic Church doesn't tell gay organisations to accept, let's say, conservative Catholic priests opposing homosexual unions as members, so gay organisations should stay away and don't try to tell the Church what the Church should consider sinful for its followers.

Please note that Catholic Church doesn't urge people to get rid of gay organisation activists, nor does the Church refer to them as vermin.

[ May 19, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I just have to say this... this thread is getting more amusing by the minute! *Spelly bites her tongue.*

[ May 19, 2004, 02:57: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

I'm sorry for interrupting, but this had me hurting myself laughing.

 

If that were true then the opinion of gays - and other people who happen to have charactaristica, by choice or birth, different from the majority around them - that there is rejection and distance, indifference or outright scorn, must be a figment of their imagination only. I dont think that is true.

Please note that no one tries to grind heterosexual people down. Not even gays and their troublesome parades have that in mind. They arent contra, they are pro something. Like having selfesteem despite what some say, think or do.

Obviously I dont understand anything. You are right. The church fully supports homosexual people in their plight. And before you say that isnt the churchs obligation I will remind you that god created (in the creationists mind) all life. Unless harmful it should be cherished as an example of natures bountiful diversity. Of course this is nothing but Dendris funny view of things. Easily repelled, I fear.

The church makes a stand viewed as annoying by many, like their poorly hidden anger for homosexuality, women being denied priesthood, women being condemned for abortion, girls who arent allowed to aide in a mess (is that the term?), prohibiting the catholics to celebrate god in unison with evangelists.
I think this has something to do with the subject here. Many who are against homosexuals and/or what they do justify it with something picked up from clergy. In my opinion the church fails to adapt to modern times and needs. Why not open their arms for ALL? I see selective tolerance here. In both cases, women and homosexuals. It shouldnt change the message, only take into account all of human society. You will probably bring up a lot of 'good' reasons why women arent given priesthood and that homosexuals are welcome as long as they arent homosexual.

AAAH! What am I doing here! All this has been said often enough, and much more eloquently - without ever changing a single thing.
*dendri feels outmatched*

>edit< typos & tried to refine my points here and there

[ May 19, 2004, 12:03: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

Time to throw my thoughts in...

What I will say is my opinion. I agree with some of what some of you say and some of what some of you say I don't at all. Rather then try to organized my opinions so that they make sense, I will type them out in this order:

Firstly;
I agree with the original point of this post in that if people involved in the parade did what Chev reported that they did (ie flashing, condom toss, ect.) then it was wrong (On the other hand, there is that part of me that laughed at the guy on the park bench). If the roles were reversed, every church on the planet would have been sued simultaneously.


Secondly;
This is hard for me to articulate, so bare with me. I think that homosexuals (whom on a whole shall be referred to as HS's in my writings, just to ease my trouble) should not be granted any special concessions above that of your average man, woman, or couple. They should be allowed to have parades, as long as they get the proper permissions and permits, just as any non-HS's are allowed too (like if Splunge wanted to have a 'We're Old But Still Sexy' parade, all the power to him). But if at any time the HS's begin to infringe upon another's freedoms, then they should be treated like anyone else. So any of the loud conduct mentioned by Chev would see them punished by the governing powers accordingly.

Thirdly and lastly;
Splunge is holding his 'We're Old but Still Sexy' parade within the month. Any who wish to join my 'We're Young and Really Don't Need to See That' parade, please contact me.

 

...To which I reply that, if your views were true, then the majority's first hand experience of being abused, mocked or simply used, cheated and taken advantage of by militant minority activists (I don't say "minorities" because most of minority members are reasonable people, nor do I even say all minory activists because some of them are actually doing a god job) would have to be a figment of their imagination.

Furthermore, it must always be borne in mind that, if an intervention of state authorities is concerned, creating an advantage on the side of a social group creates a disadvantage on the side of other groups.

Your fear is quite based, I'm afraid.

That God created the whole diversity of life is right. However, if we used your reasoning that for this reason all life needs to be protected by the Church in its whole diversity, the Church would have to prohibit her faithful from eating meat and the flesh of plants as well as eggs and fruit that are intended to carry life, and to stop herding cattle, planting wheat for bread and so on. As you can easily check, Biblical prophets, apostles and disciples of Jesus, even Jesus Himself eat bread or fish and drink wine. Some also kill and kill a lot.

This shows that infering from creationism an obligation to preserve all life in all its forms leads to absurd, without even resorting to such extreme examples as killing in self-defence.

Therefore, while the faithful have a general obligation to preserve life, even in this case they are not bound unconditionally. Therefore, if even the high-ranking obligation to preserve life is not unconditional, no absolute obligation to condone all things as they appear in nature can be construed on the basis of the message of the Bible.

Moreover, the Church regards homosexuality as an objective disorder and not as something condemnable as moral evaluation does not apply. To be homosexual is no more immoral than to have hay fever or be arachnophobic.

Homosexual carnal activity consists of acts, however. Acts can be moral or immoral. Also, an act can be immoral even if the actor is not culpable much in the same way as an act can be moral even if the actor does not act out of any morally plausible motivation.

Consequently, the Church is in no obligation to condone homosexual activity solely because it happens. The Church has the right and the duty to apply moral criteria. Therefore, if the message of the Bible, which is the basis of the Church's moral criteria, speaks against homosexual activity, the church cannot condone it. As the Church is subordinate to God's will and the Bible is a revelation of God's will, the Church has no authority to change the message of the Bible. Therefore, if the Church has no authority to change the Bible, she cannot change her moral stance on the matter.

Consequently, the Church's moral stance on the matter is not a part of the Church's political or social policy and, therefore, there is no discrimination on the part of the Church's authorities.

Everyone has the right to disagree with the Church's dogma as everyone has the right to disagree with any dogmatic or moral or ethical system whatsoever. However, if a person rejects a religion's dogma, it is not reasonable to expect that religion's followers to accept the person as a member. Neither has the person any right to demand membership.

The local chess club example serves well in this case.

If someone wants the benefits of a religion for himself, he should also follow the limitations of the religion and the edicts of its clerical (or otherwise) superiors. No matter if it's Catholicism, Judaism, Islam or Cult of Aunt Jo.

Demanding for yourself the right to partake of the religious life of a given religion while refusing to obey its edicts is like demanding the benefits of citizenship of a state and refusing to pay taxes and obey the authority.

Citizenship is not just social welfare and religious cult membership is not just benefits.

What is more, the benefits that are being demanded are not material benefits or even immaterial benefits consisting of rights. No, nothing like that.

The benefit that is being required is the right to have your actions considered moral by a social group. What sort of right is this? Does anyone actually have any right to demand others to approve of his actions? If the local Vegetarian Union has every right to believe my act of eating meat to be morally wrong, even though it's legal and accepted by the society - and they have the right to voice their opinion - why shouldn't I have the right to voice my opinion on the wrongfulness of homosexual carnal activity, even though it's legal?

Now, if I have this right, it's only logical that all other citizens have the same right in similar circumstances. Those citizens also have the right to freedom of association. They can associate with whomever they want... or not associate with whomever they want. There is also freedom of conscience, which means you can believe in whatever you want, and there is freedom of cult, which means you can perform acts of worship. Those beliefs and those rites of cult are, therefore, not subject to any external regulation.

The criteria are set and fixed and everyone who meets the criteria can belong to the Church. Everyone who meets further criteria can receive sacraments or perform service. Who doesn't meet the criteria, can't. As in any other organisation.

Furthermore, freedom of conscience and freedom of cult are established with the intention that the sphere of religious life be left out of the state's authorities' sphere of influence. Therefore, it is not lawful for the authorities to interfere, especially in form of legislative action.

That's a piece of propaganda. Stop here. Believing homosexual acts to be morally wrong does NOT mean being against homosexuals.

The logic behind that faulty conclusion is:

Homosexual acts are performed by homosexuals, THEREFORE if you are against homosexual acts, you're against homosexuals.

Let's now take homicide as an example. Homicide is a crime and to commit a crime you need to be a human of an age of reason. So, homicide is performed by humans. According to your logic, if you were against homicide, you would have to be against humans.

Why? Because the only link that you use is the fact that homosexuals perform homosexual acts.

Now, according to the Church, a homosexual act is no less and no more sinful if it's committed by a heterosexual man or woman.

Can a heterosexual person have a homosexual intercourse? Sure he can. And the Church is against that.

Also, a homosexual person doesn't necessarily perform homosexual carnal acts. Is the person any less homosexual? Certainly not. Is the Church against this person? No again.

Out of the two: a heterosexual man who has had intercourse with a man and a homosexual man who hasn't had intercourse, who has likely committed a sin (supposing both were fully conscious of the act's sinful nature etc)? The hetero one. Is the Church against heterosexuals now?

Also, the homosexual man could have sex with a woman not being his wife. Would it be all right for the Church? No! He would have committed the sin of fornication. Without even touching a man.

The Church is not against homosexuals. Or against homosexuality. The Church is against homosexual carnal activity.

The Church welcomes all. However, you need to believe to be a believer, you know.

If you don't want to live by Catholic Church's morality, don't demand to be admitted. It's quite childish: all benefits with no obligations. All power with no responsibility.

You can be homosexual and still a member of the Catholic Church. And receive sacraments and so on. Heck, even some priests are homosexual, probably a few in Vatican. You can't, however, have sexual intercourse and claim to be OK with the Church's dogma and edicts.

There are many kinds of sins and they are to be confessed and atoned for, also involving penance. If we exempt one sin from this routine, why not exempt another one, or all? Let's say, remove the whole moral side of the church, the dogma of sin and whatever and just tell the faithful to live like they like? Receiving all benefits and still going to heaven, of course.

Look, I don't want to believe. But I still want to go to heaven!

I also remind you that you are speaking of moral judgment. No one has any right to enforce a specific moral judgment on another person, ie to force you to change your opinion.

Of course, homosexuals who live in a homosexual relationship involving sex can't receive the Church's sacraments.

But you can't receive the sacraments licitly if you commit any heavy sin which you don't regret, confess, try to improve on etc. Note also that unmarried heterosexual couple who have sex are in the same situation - they can't be absolved and receive sacraments.

It is not a matter of intolerance. Intolerance would be if persons were discriminated because of their homosexual condition. And they aren't.

Homosexual intercourse can't be declared morally acceptable by the Church without changing the message of the Bible.

As for women, women cannot be validly ordained priests. Priests are meant to be men and, when according to Catholic dogma Jesus started institutionalised priesthood on Maundy Thursday, no women were involved. Jesus sent men to remit sins and consecrate Eucharist, but He didn't send women.

Please remember that we aren't talking about women here, or about Catholic Church's priest ordination. If we speak about RCC's general view on homosexuality, we speak about it from the point of view of the subject of discussion that I started: Gay Pride parades and their being above the law.

Quite contrary, I've explained that homosexuals are actually as welcome as everyone else. The activity of gay organisations is not welcome, sure. However, the activity of an organisation claiming that in RCC let's say, calling God's name in vain should no longer be considered morally wrong, the reaction would also be far from what the organisation would like it to be. The Church defends her moral dogma and that dogma includes a catologue of acts that are believed sinful. Homosexual acts are not the only acts on that list.

You can't make a cake without breaking eggs. If you commit an act that is considered a crime in your law, you cannot say that you don't break the law, can you?

If you have homosexual intercourse (which is considered sin in RCC), you can't say that you're sinless in the eyes of the Church. Quite reasonable.

It's been said much more eloquently and still repelled. It has been repelled much more eloquently than I do here, too.

[ May 19, 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

My response to this - for what you say to be accurate, there must have been an act of intolerance beforehand to which those 'militant activist' reacted. Or did some pampered gays fall one day out of bed and said: 'Time to trouble all our benefactors'? If I understood you properly, you say that the homosexuals themselves are to blame for homophobia. You DO know what people share that kind of logic, do you?

Homosexuals are not some sort of plant or animal life. They are humans and there is absolutely no moral consequence for them because of the fact that we all need to eat!
Your logic is that of the church? I think it absolutely repulsive. We have the need to sustain our boodies by eating animals and plants - that gives us the freedom and right to speculate about the worth and validity of homosexual life in the very same context?! Bleh.

The cause for homosexuality is unknown. The church however takes the freedom to declare it a 'disorder'. Which is not supported by outsiders, scientists and all. I am for innocent until proven otherwise - therefore the logic on which you founded your explanaition is invalid in my eyes. Oh, and I think it is telling so much that the church is assuming the worse instead of the better in this case. Sad.

I could go on about the rest, but I think I dont want to. I dont want to follow where you are leading, chevalier. Perhaps others can make sense out of things such as:
The church deems homosexuality wrong because the bible says so? -> yes -> why? -> bible -> is it right to think homosexuals are immoral -> of course not, only if they do what makes you homosexual -> can this be questioned? -> no, we cannot question it because the bible is the very base of our faith, which must be upheld -> so, no 'why' is allowed? -> either you believe or you dont. You join the club, you accept all the rules and there is no questioning them.

I wont say what that sonds like to me.

For all your eloquence you fail to convince me. There is no real logic behind it all. No substance. Cooked up, circular, far-fetched abstractions.
Our minds cannot possibly work that different, nor can your light burn that much more brighter than mine. Or does it? I see nothing that would convince me in your words. And I am an agreeable person. Perhaps because I have too little faith.

My fears of being repelled were not that necessary after all.

 

I'm sorry in advance for going completely off-topic here, but I just have to respond to this from Jaguar:

ROTFLMAO!

The parade will consist entirely of floats with comfy mattresses so that we can take frequent naps when needed. Otherwise, we'll all be dancing to disco music from the 70's; men will be wearing tight leather pants and shirts unbuttoned down to the navel (which for some will be at knee-level), and women will be wearing mini-skirts and see-through blouses (also down to the knees for some). And rather than used condoms, we'll be throwing empty bottles of Geritol to the crowds.

We now return to the topic at hand...

 

Splunge!!
You are ruining the dramaturgy chev and I are working on! You know, until the big final when he rips me head off.

Btw - lol.

 

There isn't going to be a big final simply because my idea of this thread is not making a big show with special effects but discussing a certain point. For the umpteenth time I repeat that this point is: Are gay organisations above the law? If yes, should they be?

"There must have been an act"? Why? Why there must have been an act? Because it suits you?

If everything has a cause and reason, then that horrible act of discrimination of which you speak was for a reason and had a cause, which also had a reason and a cause and so on. Infinite loop.

If I have understood you properly, you say that heterosexuals have themselves to blame for violations of the law during Gay Pride parades.

Sorry, I'm not responsible for the logic of "people".

Please rephrase. Makes no sense to me in the current shape.

I once again repeat that the Church refers to actions and not to the condition of being homosexual or heterosexual or hamstercovetingsexual.

I see no connection between the fact that life forms are diverse and the postulate that Catholic Church change the Bible so as to make a sin not a sin.

The Church does not take liberty, the Church follows the Bible. I understand that for a person of no religious affiliation this may be difficult to understand, but following a set of religious dogmas is not taking liberty as to any of the moral consequences that follow.

Example: Rabbis don't take liberty in forbidding Jews to eat pork. Eating pork is forbidden for them in the Torah (restriction removed in New Testament for Christians - before you ask).

Example2: Mullahs don't take liberty in forbidding Muslims to drink alcohol. Drinking alcohol is forbidden in the Quoran.

The same way having sex with a person of the same sex is forbidden in the Bible.

The basic problem, however, is that all non-marital sex is forbidden in the Bible as the sin of fornication (some Protestants disagree on this one). Therefore, no matter the gender, if your partner is not your spouse, you commit a sin.

As for disorder, the Church refers to heterosexual sexual activity between unmarried people as "disordered" because the intercourse is unlawful. Therefore, heterosexual unmarried intercourse is disordered too according to the Church's dogma. Talk about discrimination.

First, I don't know what you understand by all. Next, outsiders by definition aren't insiders, which means they are not supporters of the Catholic version of Christianity. Therefore, your example is not valid. Scientists differ between one another and there is no chief scientific body to speak for all the scientists worldwide, either. This example, therefore, is not valid as well.

Furthermore, the purpose of a religious organisation is not to make people feel good. Neither is the purpose of a religion to get as many people as possible to like you.

Maintaining and guarding the message of the Bible is more important than appealing to any group that doesn't like a part of that message.

The Bible is revelation of God's will. The Church, therefore, consisting of human beings created by God, cannot change it. Why? Because creation cannot change the will of the creator.

Assuming otherwise is a logical error. Why? An irreligious person may think "they think up a god and a whole religion, they can change it as well - since they make it all up, anyway".

Religious people, however, don't see things this way. They don't believe (or "don't realise", if you prefer) that they make God up, but they believe God is a real entity that has something to say and says it (through the Bible). Therefore, it's not up to them to make things up or change them at will.

Logically, there is no sense in believing in a god if you know that you make that god up.

It's not my point to convince you. I'm not here to convert you or anything. My point is to explain things, not to convince you to believe. I can explain further if there's a need, but convincing you would be just a side benefit.

As for your evaluation of my logic:

"cooked up" is not a logical category - can't be evaluated as 0 or 1, therefore there's no need to continue on this one

"circular" - no proof given, so it's just an opinion. No example given, so it's objectless (empty).

"far-fetched abstractions" - as above.

That's it about your logic. Mine contains proper inference and has all points explained, without leaving out objectless claims - for instance. I've already shown formal errors in yours. So, why don't we skip the "who has a bigger one" part and move back to the subject?

Answer my question, please: should gay organisations get away with violating the law (including constitutions) and should officials acting in their official capacity condone said violations by supporting the offenders?

[ May 19, 2004, 21:31: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Forgive me if I skip most of your post, chev. I think it will lead nowhere to continue.

Only this:
Maybe it was unfortunate to put it like that and call it 'convincing'. I would like to understand you, as well as gaining an additional perspective on matters. Its in everyones interest to be open minded, it will serve no one if both sides are adamant and impervious to whatever is said by the opposition.

To answer your question: No one is above the law, as they say, and no one claimes they are. I have never suggested such a thing. So why ask me this?
If there is a crime committed by homosexuals there has to be a consequence. The same consequence heterosexuals have to face.
No matter how determined someone fights for gay rights, or how gay-friendly/supportive he/she is - they dont say that minorities are some sort of outlaws, free to do as they please. It goes without saying and there is really no need to point it out.

 

I'm sorry for butting in here, but *someone* has to say something before chev tears Dendri a new one...

The particular question that you're referring to is, as chev keeps telling you, the purpose of this entire thread!!
Might I recommend that you go back and read all of chev's posts, looking for this particular question. For your own good, just don't post the number of times that that particular question's been asked...

 

Faerus, I think I know what chev's opinion is by now. And I also think its okay to agree that we disagree.

My points
1) not to paint a picture in which all look and act the same
2) making a stance against discrimination doesnt make you intolerant per se - unless, of course, you act in the same way your opponents do. Knowing human nature that regretably happens all too soon. 'You get hurt - you want to hurt' Not that I agree with that, mind you!
3) I tried to illustrate why some of them might have reacted in that way.
The timing of that parade in Cracow was obviously meant as a provocation and a display of spite. A big mistake as it will do nothing for their cause. Even though its understandable why they lash out at those they perceive as unjust, and though it might even give them the feeling of satisfaction, that, for once they had the opportunity to shoot back - at the end of the day they have achieved nothing. They only made themselves vulnerable and present others, who are not so interested in tolerance at all, a perfect opportunity to label gay organisations radical, offensive. It would have been wiser for them to be less confrontational.
And lets please not forget just who the gay organisations oppose! People and organisations who call homosexuals unnatural, abominations... or just sickos.

Anyway, not once did I say they should be allowed to violate laws. So no one gets to ask me the question wether or not there should be a consequence when they do. Btw, the purpose of this thread is to discuss if those who claim fighting for tolerance are in fact the intolerant ones.

>edit< typos etc

[ May 20, 2004, 20:14: Message edited by: Dendri ]