Re: Ron Brown -- Long Rant

[ND NYC]

who the hell is ron brown?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I am confused by this part. it seems to talk about pedophilia which is completely different from Homosexuality. So you arguement holds no water there. I am not agreeing with Bob just disagreeing with your proof.

You're right, pkt. I cited that article in response to an over-generalization about Catholic priests by BobD, but it wasn't relevant to the specific point. There's no evidence that pedophilia is more prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Actually this cracks me up. If you are Catholic and want to become a priest you must be celibate and not marry but if you are a Lutheran preacher and want to become a Catholic priest you can keep your wife. Why not turn down the Lutheran preacher who who wants to become a priest just like a married practicing Catholic would be turned down. Again a rule that makes no sense.

The practice makes sense. Priestly celibacy has been traditional within the Western rite for hundreds of years, and it has plenty of scriptural support behind it. Special exceptions are made for converted Lutheran and Episcopal preachers because marriage isn't categorically forbidden to clergy; the practice of selecting clergy from among those men who have voluntarily renounced marriage doesn't become senseless simply because it's not a blanket prohibition.

With hundreds of thousands of priests worldwide, odds are "many" is an accurate word to use, since just one gay priest would be way more than current rules allow.

Most days I read your posts and wish I was able to put my thoughts to writing as well as you, then some days you post things that make me hope I never come across that arrogant.

I'm sorry if I came across as arrogant. Your post just struck a chord with me.

Many American Catholics proudly distinguish their personal beliefs from what the Church teaches as if it's proof of one's enlightenment: "Yeah, I'm Catholic... but I don't accept the Church's teachings on homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc."

If that's truly the case, you shouldn't be professing it with pride in a public forum. There are two possibilities in such circumstances: (1) you don't have a sufficient understanding your faith, so you scandalize your Church by publicly distancing yourself from it; or (2) you're jeopardizing your immortal soul (and, apparently, your reputation as a reasonable American) by persisting in a counter-cultural faith. In both cases, the proper response is further study to ensure your crisis of faith is correctly resolved.

You disagree with the Church's "stance on homosexuality" and the practice of priestly celibacy; that, in and of itself, isn't unusual. What offended me was your implication that those two things are directly related; as if celibacy is a conspiracy by the Church to oppress the disproportionate number of homosexuals within its ranks. That's a despicable thing to say about the Church in which you claim membership.

 

[woolybug25]

1. Well, yes. In the end...who suffers? Not the consumer, who can go elsewhere....but the business. They lose customers and potential employees. If some guy wants to be a racist a-hole, let him....again, HE WILL LOSE.

The Segregated South told a different story. Without government intervention, african Americans would probably still not be able to eat at the same restaurants as white people. A black consumer in 1960's Alabama couldn't just "take his business elsewhere", it was institutionalized racism and completely against what we stand for as Americans. The US government did the right thing to end these types of practices.

2. Problem is, they're overreaching with this type of legislation. Governments job is not to tell me that I need to hire this guy becuase I have too few of his kind in my office. I agree that we all win when we are able to accept each others differences....but we lose when we're forced to do so.

Remember: The same freedom that protects you to be you...also guarantees my freedom from you. That's why I'm always scratching my head when we pass laws that "protect" certain groups.

I'm not getting into an argument on Affirmative Action, but I highly disagree that companies should be allowed to not hire a qualified person based solely on their race, gender or sexual orientation. As you said, you are guaranteed that your freedom is protected from others that would otherwise like to impose themselves upon you. That is all the aforementioned group is asking for.

 

[irishpat183]

The Segregated South told a different story. Without government intervention, african Americans would probably still not be able to eat at the same restaurants as white people. A black consumer in 1960's Alabama couldn't just "take his business elsewhere", it was institutionalized racism and completely against what we stand for as Americans. The US government did the right thing to end these types of practices..

-How do you know? We've evolved as a society and while some may still be racist, most people have moved in the right direction. I doubt people would still be using "colored only" signs and segragated bathrooms....it is bad for business. Could you imagine a business these days with that attitude?? There aren't many (if any). And why would a black/hispanic want to work at said company anyway!? And it's not because of government that this attitude changed....but because it's hard to make money when you have your head up your a$$.

Again, people didn't become more accepting because of the civil rights movement. Because no matter what laws you pass, you can't control the way someone thinks. And that is what government is trying to do. End racism with legislation. Which is f*cking insane.

I'd be a fool to not acknowledge that it didn't help, but all this other garbage that they want to cram down our throats "in the name of diversity" is BS and uneccessary these days.

I'm not getting into an argument on Affirmative Action, but I highly disagree that companies should be allowed to not hire a qualified person based solely on their race, gender or sexual orientation. As you said, you are guaranteed that your freedom is protected from others that would otherwise like to impose themselves upon you. That is all the aforementioned group is asking for.

-I highly disagree that companines should be FORCED to hire anyone based on the color of their skin because they have to meet some imaginary quota. And believe me, most companies, good ones, will hire the better person.

In a truly "Free" market...good people will find jobs. Skin color doesn't matter.

We legislate these kinds of things because of exceptional cases. The kinds of cases that happen once in a blue moon and we think we need to pass overreaching laws to prevent. Problem is, it doesn't happen enough to put good businesses through all the red tape to warrant all this special attention.

 

[Grahambo]

Fascinating debate going here. A tough and personal subject that has been kept clean of personal attacks.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. That's my personal take. I know a few gays and I really could care less who they spend their time with. There are plenty I'd be willing to go to war with and die for. No greater sacrifice then giving my life for a brother, regardless of sexual orientation. All men are created equal. I can't and should not force my beliefs on them as I don't want them to force theirs on me. I believe in what I choose to believe, nothing more and nothing less.

Is it racist if I hate everyone equally? Kidding aside, its not my place to judge, its His and His alone, again, being a Christian its my belief. I certainly am not without faults and won't pretend to be clean. I personally believe it is a choice and doesn't bother me what someone chooses. If someone disagrees, that's fine, no issues here. I certainly respect someone's opinion whether I agree with it or not is beside the point.

I think someone should be able to speak freely but also believe an establishment reserves the right to do as they please.

I love and hate everyone the same.

 

[ACamp1900]

We just disagree then. I think you're flat out wrong. Hating someone for no reason (their skin color or their sexual orientation, for example) is not the same as hating someone for a good reason (like, because they hate people because of their skin color or their sexual orientation). If your argument is a semantic one, substitute another word for "hate." The same idea applies.



And all this time I thought what was wrong with liberal thinking was its tendency to incorporate "moral equivalency" and not distinguish right from wrong. Funny how this works; I feel like a dog chasing its tail trying to follow the lecturing coming from my right.



Me. I'm deciding that it is not OK to tell a black person or a gay person they can't eat in your establishment, but if you want to tell a racist or a homophobe to eat somewhere else, that is OK. That is called having values.



No, hypocrite would be to contradict your own logic. If there is a logical distinction between two positions it isn't hypocritical.

yup, agree to disagree, at least on this point, reading the rest of your thoughts, we agree for the most part... but yeah, not on this... first, who said anything about denying rights??? (kicking people out of an establishment) huge leap on your part... my point is you can't fight hatred and discrimination with hatred and discrimination and actually expect to solve anything... Here's a question, you say it is okay to hate someone on their actions, but is not the idea of sexual orientation attached to a certain act?? I don't agree with the hate, but it is not for "no reason" in the eyes of people like whoever the hell this Brown guy is... but that's my point, you are picking and choosing when and where it is okay to discriminate according to your own code by saying " I can hate this person because it is justified by me, but that person can't hate someone else because I refuse to justify it"... that is and always has been a very dangerous road imo

where another issue arises is any time a person now stands up against, say gay marriage, they are labeled homophobic and let the hate rain down on them... any time a black person is criticized, again, racist... let it fly... it's fighting generalizations with generalizations... it's used to simply silence rational, non hate filled, but opposing, thoughts.

 

[ACamp1900]

Here's a true story to perhaps better make my point... I do not support gay marriage, or better phrased, I do not support ANY marriage overseen or sanctioned by the gov. That's me.

I also stand up against bigotry and support most if not all fights against real civil rights violations that gays (or any group) may face. I have a very close gay friend and MANY homosexual students... so, with them in mind, I have, through my friend, tried to work with local gay rights groups in the past. When I voiced my overall stance I was abused with a variety of hate and names that were not needed, then I was forced to leave (to RI's point I suppose)... this was okay and fine because PC says certain groups can deem such things... yet if the situation were reversed and I threw someone out of my meeting because they believed in a variety of unions that didn't match the original religious rite I would have been in deep ****...

I have issue with the selcetiveness, especially in the name of equality and fariness for all.

just my thoughts to the different levels of hate point.

 

[irishpat183]

Here's a true story to perhaps better make my point... I do not support gay marriage, or better phrased, I do not support ANY marriage overseen or sanctioned by the gov. That's me.

I also stand up against bigotry and support most if not all real civil rights violations that gays (or any group) may face. I have a very close gay friend and MANY homosexual students... so, with them in mind, I have, through my friend, tried to work with local gay rights groups in the past. When I voiced my overall stance I was abused with a variety of hate and names that were not needed, then I was forced to leave (to RI's point I suppose)... this was okay and fine because PC says certain groups can deem such things... yet if the situation was reversed and I threw someone out of my meeting because they believed in a variety of unions that didn't match the original religious rite I would have been in deep ****...

I have issue with that with the selcetiveness, especially in the name of equality and fariness for all.

just my thoughts to the different levels of hate point.

Thank you. We've literally legislated it to this point.

I don't see how you disagreeing with Gay marriage is any diffferent with them supporting it.

Government should've never gotten involved in the sanctity of marriage in the first place.

 

[Zwidmanio]

yup, agree to disagree, at least on this point, reading the rest of your thoughts, we agree for the most part... but yeah, not on this... first, who said anything about denying rights??? (kicking people out of an establishment) huge leap on your part... my point is you can't fight hatred and discrimination with hatred and discrimination and actually expect to solve anything... Here's a question, you say it is okay to hate someone on their actions, but is not the idea of sexual orientation attached to a certain act?? I don't agree with the hate, but it is not for "no reason" in the eyes of people like whoever the hell this Brown guy is... but that's my point, you are picking and choosing when and where it is okay to discriminate according to your own code by saying " I can hate this person because it is justified by me, but that person can't hate someone else because I refuse to justify it"... that is and always has been a very dangerous road imo

where another issue arises is any time a person now stands up against, say gay marriage, they are labeled homophobic and let the hate rain down on them... any time a black person is criticized, again, racist... let it fly... it's fighting generalizations with generalizations... it's used to simply silence rational, non hate filled, but opposing, thoughts.

I don't want to jump in the middle of your debate and I'm certainly not picking sides here, but I just wanted to address a point/idea from your post, which I bolded for convenience.

If we're discussing sexual orientation in the context of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, I don't think you can tie homosexuality to an act any more than you can tie heterosexuality to an act. I'm not saying that you hold this belief as I don't know your beliefs well enough, but I just thought I'd address it since the idea that homosexuality is all about sex and homosexual "actions" is a pretty prevalent but false idea.

It is a false idea because there are celibate homosexuals as well as virgin homosexuals. Although their sexual preferences/inclinations might lean towards a homosexual act as compared to a heterosexual act, being a homosexual does not necessarily mean that you are engaging in any actions that could be assigned to homosexuality at all.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Did anyone listen to what this guy had to say?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/alXxsKLVofM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't want to jump in the middle of your debate and I'm certainly not picking sides here, but I just wanted to address a point/idea from your post, which I bolded for convenience.

If we're discussing sexual orientation in the context of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, I don't think you can tie homosexuality to an act any more than you can tie heterosexuality to an act. I'm not saying that you hold this belief as I don't know your beliefs well enough, but I just thought I'd address it since the idea that homosexuality is all about sex and homosexual "actions" is a pretty prevalent but false idea.

It is a false idea because there are celibate homosexuals as well as virgin homosexuals. Although their sexual preferences/inclinations might lean towards a homosexual act as compared to a heterosexual act, being a homosexual does not necessarily mean that you are engaging in any actions that could be assigned to homosexuality at all.

I don't hold that belief... just playing devil's ad. and pointing out that one may judge the act or attraction, or any act for that matter, who the hell knows, since that seemed to be the factor that makes hate acceptable... point is the slippery slope of the whole thing...

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Did anyone listen to what this guy had to say?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/alXxsKLVofM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah. He said correct things because he's Dan Savage and he's a great writer and pretty awesome in general.

 

[irishpat183]

Yeah. He said correct things because he's Dan Savage and he's a great writer and pretty awesome in general.

No, he's a clown. MTV generational douche who prays on an audience demographic that doesn't know their a$$es from a hole in the ground.

Same channel as Jersey Shore. Nuff said.

 

[irishpat183]

"It gets better project".....LOL


In reality, it doesn't get better. You know why? Because you constantly need people to lean on for strength rather than just growing up and accepting that some people just don't like you for any number of reasons.

Welcome to real world.

 

[Anchorman]

"It gets better project".....LOL


In reality, it doesn't get better. You know why? Because you constantly need people to lean on for strength rather than just growing up and accepting that some people just don't like you for any number of reasons.

Welcome to real world.

Yeah, because the societal acceptance and quality of life of open homosexuals hasn't improved in the last twenty years...

As someone with friends and relatives who happen to be gay, I can assure you that they would tell you it does in fact get better.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

"It gets better project".....LOL


In reality, it doesn't get better. You know why? Because you constantly need people to lean on for strength rather than just growing up and accepting that some people just don't like you for any number of reasons.

Welcome to real world.

Yes it does. Gays stop getting bullied because other people grow up and stop being *******s to people who are different unless they are hateful bigots like Ron Brown.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

With hundreds of thousands of priests worldwide, odds are "many" is an accurate word to use, since just one gay priest would be way more than current rules allow.

Most days I read your posts and wish I was able to put my thoughts to writing as well as you, then some days you post things that make me hope I never come across that arrogant.

Still, I respect you and I'd bet money your a pretty cool dude.

On behalf of DShans and the rest of the grammar cops, it's "you're" damn it. Carry on.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Well if you opinion held sway than 75% of Catholics would just disappear (and probably close to 90% in the US if you count people who think priests should marry, homosexuality is ok or use birth control).

Are those the results of a scientific poll you conducted? It's simply untrue that 75%-90% of practicing Catholics believe that priestly celibacy is unjust, and that homosexual activity and contraception are perfectly moral. And even if they did, it would have no bearing on the merits of the Church's position on those subjects.

These are not truths they are man made rules that can be changed.

Do you know why the Church holds these positions? They're clearly not popular anymore. If the Church were a political party, it would have long ago discarded such positions as losing talking points. Underlying these positions is a consistent philosophy which hasn't change in over 2000 years, and given that philosophy, the Church has no choice but the uphold what it believes to be right. That's more than can be said for most other denominations, which sway every time the wind blows. Winds like moral relativism and the sexual revolution have been blowing quite hard for the last 50 years or so, but that doesn't make them any more true than a thousand other ideologies which have come and gone in recent human history.

Do you still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? because for the longest time the Church believe that as well and persecuted anyone who spoke out against them?

Everyone believed in geocentricity at that time, and Galileo was "persecuted"-- if you can even call it that-- for demanding that the Church conform its interpretation of Scripture to his theory; not for simply advocating a new scientific theory.

In full disclosure while I was born and raised Catholic (and I even have baptized my children) I am a Deist by belief).

With all due respect, have you studied Catholicism at all? Like many fallen away Catholics, you seem to have taken every negative thing ever written about the Church at face value, without making the slightest effort to learn the other side of the argument.

Things seem to be sort of regressing to the mean, so to speak - women and homosexuals are beginning to experience the kind of equal treatment they seem to naturally deserve, and I don't see that trend reversing. People's attitudes about sex and marriage are becoming more logical and less influenced by a church-based attitude that is seemingly devoid of reason or logic. Like so many things with the church, the reason has always been "because we said so" or "because God wants it that way," and those explanations just don't stand up once people begin to question them.

It's not surprising that you're no longer Catholic if you think the reason behind these positions is "because we said so". IIRC, your main beef with the Church is its positions on "women" (which I assume to be birth control and abortion) and "homosexuals" (which I assume to be the immorality of homosexual activity).

You might be surprised to learn that, prior to 1930, every Christian denomination, along with Judaism and Islam, was united in condemnation of those practices; so in the grand scope of human events, this "regression to the mean" you refer to is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Church's position on these subjects is not based solely on Scripture, but also on experience, tradition, the magisterium, and Natural Law (as an attorney, I would hope you can respect arguments based on that last source).

You're too smart to truly believe that the basis for most Church teachings is so arbitrary, Rhode.

 

[BobD]

an over-generalization about Catholic priests by BobD

I do see how my comment could be taken as an over-generalization. I'm not good at putting my thoughts to writing.


I'm sorry if I came across as arrogant. Your post just struck a chord with me.

No need to apologize, I understand the impact a statement like mine might have and expect to be challenged.

Many American Catholics proudly distinguish their personal beliefs from what the Church teaches as if it's proof of one's enlightenment: "Yeah, I'm Catholic... but I don't accept the Church's teachings on homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc."

It's amazing how many Catholics world-wide disagree with the Church on abortion, homosexuality, priests celibacy etc.


If that's truly the case, you shouldn't be professing it with pride in a public forum.

I will always speak my mind in public or private, I have nothing to hide.


(1) you don't have a sufficient understanding your faith

Your right, I'm not a very knowledgeable Catholic.

so you scandalize your Church by publicly distancing yourself from it

There are homosexual priests. There are priests having relationships with women. There are priest who shoud be in jail. I scandalize the church?


(2) you're jeopardizing your immortal soul (and, apparently, your reputation as a reasonable American)

Really? Do you believe this? If I have jeapordized my immortal, I'm still one of the best Americans you've ever had a chance to talk with. Know that.


In both cases, the proper response is further study to ensure your crisis of faith is correctly resolved.

About 4 years ago I had a Priest tell me that my three disagreements were very common among members, I am seeking answers for my "crisis"


What offended me was your implication that those two things are directly related; as if celibacy is a conspiracy by the Church to oppress the disproportionate number of homosexuals within its ranks. That's a despicable thing to say about the Church in which you claim membership.

I don't think they are using celibacy to oppress homosexuals.


Peace, Love and Go Irish!

Well I added my comments to whiskeys, looks like I screwed up the post. Hopefully you can make sense of it.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Irish Pat,

I negative repped you, not because you negative repped me but because of this:

No, he's a clown. MTV generational douche who prays on an audience demographic that doesn't know their a$$es from a hole in the ground.

Same channel as Jersey Shore. Nuff said.

This is for real. You don't have the right to talk about anybody that way. Nobody does, especially when someone cannot even take the heat when "they think” someone else turns it up a little bit.

Even if my post had been about you the other day it was mild compared to what you said here. The problem with all your posts is the schism between what you can dish out and what you can take.


Bogtrotter

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's amazing how many Catholics world-wide disagree with the Church on abortion, homosexuality, priests celibacy etc.

A popularity poll is a pretty poor way to formulate one's faith.

I will always speak my mind in public or private, I have nothing to hide.

I wasn't suggesting that you should censor yourself, Bob, only that you find yourself in a serious dilemma, which isn't something to be proud of.

Your right, I'm not a very knowledgeable Catholic... there are homosexual priests. There are priests having relationships with women. There are priest who shoud be in jail. I scandalize the church?

Really? Do you believe this? If I have jeapordized my immortal, I'm still one of the best Americans you've ever had a chance to talk with. Know that.

It wasn't intended as an insult, Bob. If you find yourself seriously disagreeing with the Church on such positions, one of the two circumstances I described is likely to be true: (1) either the Church is right, in which case you have a duty to be better informed; or (2) the Church is wrong, in which case you should probably find another faith. In either case, remaining a publicly dissenting Catholic is an unacceptable choice, as it's harmful to both the Church and yourself.

This bothers me because publicly dissenting Catholics, who can't be bothered to properly catechize themselves or to find another church, are largely to blame for the Obama administration's calculated decision, through Sebelius and the HHS, to force Catholic organizations to provide their members with birth control. They figured that since so many American "Catholics" use birth control themselves, the Church wouldn't be able to defend its right of conscience.

When your laziness starts to impact my First Amendment rights, I get upset. Either get in or get out.

About 4 years ago I had a Priest tell me that my three disagreements were very common among members, I am seeking answers for my "crisis"

I truly have no idea how you could have been actively searching for answers to these admittedly common objections for three long years. Five minutes on Google would provide you with in-depth descriptions of the Church's position on these issues, and lead you to further reading on their philosophical underpinnings.

I don't think they are using celibacy to oppress homosexuals.

What exactly did you mean by this then?

I believe [the Church's stance on homosexuality] and [the Church's insistence on maintaining priestly celibacy] are kind of intertwined because if they did allow priest to marry, they'd be a little p!ssed at who many of them wanted to marry.

That implies that a disproportionate number of Catholic priests are homosexuals. Do you have anything to back such an assertion up? Even if the Church allowed all clergy to marry tomorrow, it still wouldn't sanction same-sex marriages, so that statement (which set me on this 1,000+ word war path) amounts to little more than poorly articulated libel.

 

[Anchorman]

15% Identify as Gay or 'on Homosexual Side' - Los Angeles Times

15% of priests identify as homosexual. So yes, the priesthood does contain a larger proportion. Probably not too far off to guess that the true number is actually higher but some didn't admit given the stigma against it.

As a Catholic, I have every right to disagree with pieces of the doctrine. Just because I don't agree with a certain position doesn't mean I must leave, just as disagreeing with a certain decision in government means I should leave the country. Particularly when Church doctrine is dynamic and has changed, meaning that it has at times by the Church's own admission been flawed. Many priests, including most that I've met at Notre Dame, would concur. Ultimately, the Church's teaching is delivered by man and thus imperfect. If all who disagreed with a piece of Catholicism or questioned were to leave, our Church would find itself in near extinction.

Hesburgh was certainly at odds with traditional Church teaching and the Pope at times as one example, but the number of examples are endless.

As for our infringing on your first amendment rights, thanks for the laugh.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Amazon.com: Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic (9780824514723): Philip S. Kaufman, Richard A. McCormick: Books

Written by a priest.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

15% Identify as Gay or 'on Homosexual Side' - Los Angeles Times

15% of priests identify as homosexual. So yes, the priesthood does contain a larger proportion. Probably not too far off to guess that the true number is actually higher but some didn't admit given the stigma against it.

As a Catholic, I have every right to disagree with pieces of the doctrine. Just because I don't agree with a certain position doesn't mean I must leave, just as disagreeing with a certain decision in government means I should leave the country. Particularly when Church doctrine is dynamic and has changed, meaning that it has at times by the Church's own admission been flawed. Many priests, including most that I've met at Notre Dame, would concur. Ultimately, the Church's teaching is delivered by man and thus imperfect. If all who disagreed with a piece of Catholicism or questioned were to leave, our Church would find itself in near extinction.

Hesburgh was certainly at odds with traditional Church teaching and the Pope at times as one example, but the number of examples are endless.

Great freaking post and couldn't agree more.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

15% Identify as Gay or 'on Homosexual Side' - Los Angeles Times

15% of priests identify as homosexual. So yes, the priesthood does contain a larger proportion. Probably not too far off to guess that the true number is actually higher but some didn't admit given the stigma against it.

That's fine. I've read other similar reports. It still doesn't make BobD's post any more coherent.

As a Catholic, I have every right to disagree with pieces of the doctrine. Just because I don't agree with a certain position doesn't mean I must leave, just as disagreeing with a certain decision in government means I should leave the country. Particularly when Church doctrine is dynamic and has changed, meaning that it has at times by the Church's own admission been flawed. Many priests, including most that I've met at Notre Dame, would concur.

It depends upon what you disagree with. Priestly celibacy isn't a moral issue, so a Catholic can disagree with it without contradicting his faith. But abortion, birth control, and homosexual activity simply aren't negotiable. They are mortal sins which the Church has opposed since its inception, and has infallibly condemned on multiple occasions. To engage in or advocate for any of those activities is to condemn yourself under the very faith to which you claim to adhere.

Why would you continue in a faith that condemns you for your actions? There are ~30,000 other Christian denominations, and every single one of them is more flexible on those divisive subjects.

Church doctrine is not flawed, dynamic, or changing. The Church has never contradicted itself or changed its position on a matter where the Pope has exercised his infallibility.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Checking in from my phone here....looks like lots of good stuff to read later when I hopefully get some time. Just throwing this out there in case anyone responded to me and was wondering why I haven't gotten back yet.

Overall, I'm impressed with the level of discourse here. Lots of people with divergent opinions, yet not too much flaiming based on my quick scan of the last page and this one.

 

[Walter White]

You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone who has actually done any amount of reflection, research, or just put a decent amount of thought into it who still believes homosexuality is a choice. Plenty of people think homosexuality is wrong (I'm not one of them), but not many still believe that gay people choose to be gay. This notion has been all but entirely disproven, and the science is right there for anyone who wishes to see it.

I'd like to see some of this "science". I don't believe in the discrimination of gays, but I also believe it is a choice. There is no gay gene.

 

[Redbar]

Magog ian threw an M-80 in the teepee on this one.

 

[magogian]

Magog ian threw an M-80 in the teepee on this one.

I'm a proud Papa.

 

[Bubba]

I'd like to see some of this "science". I don't believe in the discrimination of gays, but I also believe it is a choice. There is no gay gene.

Why would someone choose a lifestyle that they know is going to subject them to ridicule and torment? I didn't choose to like women, it just came naturally... I didn't choose to be straight, I just am. You are attracted to who you are attracted to. I don't know the science, but I do not believe a gay person can choose otherwise. Many do suppress their desires because they are aware of the negative attention that it brings. But, ultimately the only choice they have is to ignore their natural desires in order to be straight.