Re: Ron Brown -- Long Rant

[Walter White]

Irish Pat,

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



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

Bogtrotter,

I know you and Irishpat don't get along, but I don't see how this warranted a neg rep other than to get some revenge from earlier. He wasn't attacking you. He merely gave his opinion on the video you posted which was just some guy hating on the Bible. The video was not an intelligent argument and the guy actually came across as a huge a$$hole. Even though Irishpat was completely and utterly wrong about Harrison Smith, I think he was spot on this video.

Love,
Walter White

 

[dshans]

Imagine.

Here ya go:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yRhq-yO1KN8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​

 

[BobD]

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

But it's a good way to elect a Pope?

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.

I don't remember ever being proud of having a dilemma and I sure as heck ain't ashamed of having one.

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.

Thinking, discussing and wondering out loud are harmful things?

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.

"Publicly dissenting Catholics" should keep their mouths shut? Maybe we could just sweep things under the rug by transfering them to another assignment? Where have I heard that strategy before?

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

I have a different opinion so I must be lazy?

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.

Some people like to be led like sheep, some search for thier own destiny and the search is long.

What exactly did you mean by this then?

Exactly that.

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.

Libel? Think they'll sue me? Poorly articulated I'll give you, I'm a self admitted poor articulator or is it articulater, hmmmm?

 

[magogian]

Bogtrotter,

I know you and Irishpat don't get along, but I don't see how this warranted a neg rep other than to get some revenge from earlier. He wasn't attacking you. He merely gave his opinion on the video you posted which was just some guy hating on the Bible. The video was not an intelligent argument and the guy actually came across as a huge a$$hole. Even though Irishpat was completely and utterly wrong about Harrison Smith, I think he was spot on this video.

Love,
Walter White

The video is part of David Savage's speech to a large group of high school students that I referenced in the OP. That is why it was posted. The speech incredibly offensive, discriminatory, bigoted, and franky stupid. But, because of who David Savage is and the position he is advocating, he can say what he does with nary a peep from the PC crowd.

Ironically, David Savage's speech was on anti-bullying. It typifies the blatant hypocrisy. In the name of anti-bullying, he bullies a large of high school students, taking a dump all over their beliefs, and then starts heckling them as they quietly leave. Such it typical. Anti-bullying for the PC crowd; bullying against those that disagree. Tolerance for those in the PC crowd; intolerance, including attempts to silence, against those that disagree

 

[dshans]

... I'm a self admitted poor articulator or is it articulater, hmmmm?

I think it's "articulationist."

 

[stlnd01]

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.

The issue here is homosexuality, so in the interest of civil debate, let's leave abortion and birth control out of it for the time being, shall we? Please?

On homosexual activity, I dig the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept. But what's "loving the sinner" about laws that allow discrimination based on sexual orientation? Not "activity," but "orientation?" The church I believe in is more forgiving than that.

And, Whiskey, citing the doctrine of papal infallibility is pretty much falling back on the "because I said so" defense. I'm no canon scholar, but last I checked, the pope puts his pants on one leg at a time just like you and me.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

The issue here is homosexuality, so in the interest of civil debate, let's leave abortion and birth control out of it for the time being, shall we? Please?

On homosexual activity, I dig the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept. But what's "loving the sinner" about laws that allow discrimination based on sexual orientation? Not "activity," but "orientation?" The church I believe in is more forgiving than that.

And, Whiskey, citing the doctrine of papal infallibility is pretty much falling back on the "because I said so" defense. I'm no canon scholar, but last I checked, the pope puts his pants on one leg at a time just like you and me.

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

 

[pkt77242]

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.

They would just need to disagree with the church on one of the three not all of them. In that light I would say that the 75% number would be reachable. Contraception alone will just about get you there. The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul - The Washington Post I linked this article (not because of the 98% because that is obviously false) but because farther down they get into the real numbers "The data listed in the Guttmacher report, meanwhile, referred to current contraceptive use among “sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant.” That is a smaller universe of women, and it shows that 68 percent of Catholic women used what are termed “highly effective methods:” 32 percent sterilization; 31 percent pill; five percent IUD.

Again, only two percent currently used natural family planning. Interestingly, 11 percent used nothing, even though they were not trying to get pregnant. Four percent were placed in an “other” category, which mainly consisted of “withdrawal,” which is also not accepted by the Catholic Church as a birth-control method."
I am not saying that the church should always change it's opinion (or that it should in this case) but the whole if you don't agree with it then don't be Catholic would not go over very well for the church.


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.



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.



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.

Actually most of my time is spent was spent studying the gospels not so much Catholic teachings, if you don't believe that Christ is the Son of God then it doesn't really matter if you agree more with Catholics, Protestants, etc. Now having said that I have read up on the reason behind the IVF, birth control, priests marrying and women being priests and I disagree with them all. Having said that I don't think the church should just change based on popular opinion nor do I expect that they will change.

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.

Sorry I have been trying to write this post while taking care of a 4 month old, so if it is a little disjointed, my apologies.

 

[JD Irish]

"Diversity" has become America's new religion. Contrarian viewpoints are heresy.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The issue here is homosexuality, so in the interest of civil debate, let's leave abortion and birth control out of it for the time being, shall we? Please?

Sure.

On homosexual activity, I dig the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept. But what's "loving the sinner" about laws that allow discrimination based on sexual orientation? Not "activity," but "orientation?" The church I believe in is more forgiving than that.

I agree completely. I wish the states would get out of the "marriage" business altogether and leave defining marriage to churches. Both hetero- and homosexual couples should get the same civil union and equal rights under the law. I know of no other way to reconcile religious freedom with the Equal Protection clause.

And, Whiskey, citing the doctrine of papal infallibility is pretty much falling back on the "because I said so" defense. I'm no canon scholar, but last I checked, the pope puts his pants on one leg at a time just like you and me.

I didn't cite it in support of any particular position. I cited it as a evidence against Anchorman's assertion that "Church doctrine is dynamic and has changed, meaning that it has at times by the Church's own admission been flawed." On issues of faith and morals, that's simply not true.

To be clear, I doubt many of the people I've been debating in this thread would disagree with me on the policy decisions that often surround these issues. It just annoys me when former/ non-practicing Catholics try to lecture me on how arbitrary, backward, or nonsensical the Church is on certain issues. 9/10 of them haven't lifted a finger to learn the reasoning behind the Church's positions on these issues.

Not for you? Great, move on. But don't publicly tear down my faith because you couldn't be bothered to learn about the religion you were born into.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bogtrotter,

I know you and Irishpat don't get along, but I don't see how this warranted a neg rep other than to get some revenge from earlier. He wasn't attacking you. He merely gave his opinion on the video you posted which was just some guy hating on the Bible. The video was not an intelligent argument and the guy actually came across as a huge a$$hole. Even though Irishpat was completely and utterly wrong about Harrison Smith, I think he was spot on this video.

Love,
Walter White

Dear Walter White,

Here are two consecutive quotes from this thread by the user know as Irish Pat:

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.
__________________
Friends help you move....Real friends help you move bodies

"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.
__________________
Friends help you move....Real friends help you move bodies

I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread a post that was as personally demeaning and as vicious of an unwarranted attack as these quotes. Anywhere. And it is true this same person gave me my first and only negative rep ever, for relating a story about how when I got on this site, two and a half years ago, people really said some terrible things about Harrison Smith. This was six months before Irish Pat even joined IE. But that didn't stop him from going off . . . No. You see Harrison Smith is a perfect example of what I have found in life. There is a treasure in almost everything and everyone. I am not discussing sociopathic killers or mass murderers here, that is a different conversation.

But you see when you have someone that almost anyone has no use for and point them in the right direction; they can often accomplish miraculous things. So just from this standpoint I a cannot concur with your hypothesis that I "have any personal problems with Irish Pat." Also, you would have a hard time proving I am a vengeful person; just as an aside. In fact, as I have been lucky in life, I have taken a number of destitute individuals in. You know, like it says in the Bible.

Back to the second point Irish Pat made. Most people I talk to agree that Mr. Savage makes sense, the only people that I have met that have no use for him are reacting on an over-simplified basis to a simplistic set of values like, the Bible is the literal word of God; or, homosexuality is a grievous sin, no matter what. On the other hand, what I heard from Mr. Savage in this piece is that the Bible repeatedly condones slavery, (which it does) and that if the Bible expressed views not representative of what is right for modern society which slavery definitely is not, then could it be wrong on more sophisticated, or complicated issues? That is all. Irish Pat, with his misdirected cynicism, proves the point that the repression of homosexuals, just like it is true with African-Americans is real and does exist, and is a major discriminatory force to be reckoned with.

Now back to the youngsters I have taken in, some for a few days, and some for months. It was always with everyone’s permission, by the way. Several were very troubled. The ones with the biggest troubles were homosexual; either latent or overt, and the ones that were the most self-destructive, were the ones that hung on, to trying to live a straight life the longest. No there is no "gay" gene, but the issue is so much more complex than that. And the only simple part is that so many people treat others like crap, finding justification for it in the strangest places; one girl I took in was hounded down the hallway at school, had open containers of paint thrown on her and was called a pervert and worse, all because she was gay.

Now, with all this conversation what makes a difference? Faith. Faith is it. Some people need miracles to stoke their faith, others need tangible things to hold on to like Bibles, but here is what I have learned through my military experiences. You need faith to get you through. If you cannot visualize surviving, you may not. Furthermore, from all of my life experiences, the truest faith is based upon the least (tangible or logical) evidence. So arguments based upon words written long ago, are destine to fail. What is important is what is in our hearts. The problem I usually have with religious conversations is that when I look at the whole Bible, several thousand words are quotations of what Jesus said. The problem is the Bible contains well over thirty-three-million words. And to be frank, I can clearly see the difference between what Jesus spoke, and a few words the pro-monarch scribes added to Job.

Now all I need to sustain my faith, as far as miracles go, is one a Biblical scholar at the University of North Carolina, Bart D. Ehrman, PhD, pointed out. He believes that it was a cultural anomaly that allowed for the incredibly rapid spread of Jesus' word. Because the first that claimed to see him after resurrection were women, Mary, and Mary, the men covered that and claimed to see him with increased frequency and fervor, with more in depth witness accounts. The furor that propelled Jesus' word then was a misogynistic knee jerk reaction propelled a missile of communication. Imagine, the catalyst being low regard for women spread the word of loving forgiveness. I will end with the Sayings Gospel: "Q 13:30, •The Reversal of the Last and the First‚ •30‚ •.. The last will be first and the first last.‚" Jesus continually followed this in all his actions; he included women, and "the poor of spirit." That is why he was so powerful of a teacher, that is why his words were so powerful, and that is why I resist small mindedness and any attempt to pencil my actions as such.

Respectfully

Bogtrotter

 

[irishpat183]

Bogtrotter- My problem isn't with gays....it's with Mr Savage. Is part of the "It gets better" campaign, bashing christians? Hell, Mr. Savage DESERVES every discriminitory comment he has coming his way if that's his strategy. Encourging the youth of America to call people names and make derogatory comments.....yet championing a "anti-bully" campagin?? WHAT?

And my second point really touches on the fact that people are weak these days. Everyone else is to blame. Society is evil. Down with the man, because he holds me down.....etc.

I don't buy it. Yeah, some people don't agree with the gay lifestyle....doesn't make them evil. Just like I don't think gay people are evil or the end of humanity. They made a choice in lifestyle. And I respect that. I'm all about personal freedoms and liberties.

Just as I'm encouraged to accept their lifestyle choice....they need to accept my decision not to agree with their lifestyle choice. It goes both ways.

Nobody, NOBODY is responsible for your life, but you. There is not a name in the book that someone can call you, that prevents you from success in life. Sorry. And no MTV focus group is gonna fix that. You're not going to change society and you're not going to legislate people into acceptance.

And Savage is a douchebag. Anyone that goes around telling everyone to be more tolerant, then turns around and shows none himself, is a douchebag.

And the user known as IrishPat approves this message.

 

[irishpat183]

Bogtrotter,

I know you and Irishpat don't get along, but I don't see how this warranted a neg rep other than to get some revenge from earlier. He wasn't attacking you. He merely gave his opinion on the video you posted which was just some guy hating on the Bible. The video was not an intelligent argument and the guy actually came across as a huge a$$hole. Even though Irishpat was completely and utterly wrong about Harrison Smith, I think he was spot on this video.

Love,
Walter White

And it continues.....LOL.

I'll never live that down. I should change my name to "WrongaboutHayseed"

 

[irishpat183]

Dan Savage is the WORST kind of person. Like politicans, I don't need to get a lecture on how to treat people from some MTV idiot that doesn't pratice what he preaches.

Again, he's a fad amongst the 13-21 demographic.

 

[irishog77]

I don't know much about Don Savage...but that FRED Savage dude is awesome. Hell, Cory Savage is pretty awesome in his own right too.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Just as I'm encouraged to accept their lifestyle choice....they need to accept my decision not to agree with their lifestyle choice. It goes both ways.

It's not a choice. For you to say that says all I need to know about you and your views here.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The only beliefs Savage made fun of was being pro-slavery and hateful homophobic bigotry. Savage was spot on and anyone who can't see that is blind.

 

[irishpat183]

It's not a choice. For you to say that says all I need to know about you and your views here.

Good. You know where I stand. And for you to actually think that being gay is some genetically inherited condition, without proof, is all I need to know about you and your views.

So you base your entire view about me based on my view about gays? Talk about narrowminded....

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bogtrotter- My problem isn't with gays....it's with Mr Savage. Is part of the "It gets better" campaign, bashing christians? Hell, Mr. Savage DESERVES every discriminitory comment he has coming his way if that's his strategy. Encourging the youth of America to call people names and make derogatory comments.....yet championing a "anti-bully" campagin?? WHAT?

And my second point really touches on the fact that people are weak these days. Everyone else is to blame. Society is evil. Down with the man, because he holds me down.....etc.
I don't buy it. Yeah, some people don't agree with the gay lifestyle....doesn't make them evil. Just like I don't think gay people are evil or the end of humanity. They made a choice in lifestyle. And I respect that. I'm all about personal freedoms and liberties.

Just as I'm encouraged to accept their lifestyle choice....they need to accept my decision not to agree with their lifestyle choice. It goes both ways.

Nobody, NOBODY is responsible for your life, but you. There is not a name in the book that someone can call you, that prevents you from success in life. Sorry. And no MTV focus group is gonna fix that. You're not going to change society and you're not going to legislate people into acceptance.

And Savage is a douchebag. Anyone that goes around telling everyone to be more tolerant, then turns around and shows none himself, is a douchebag.

And the user known as IrishPat approves this message.

I think everything above is more about you than anything to do with reality. I think the bolded part is an over-used, under-imagine-ative cop out used for years by two dimensional people prompting over simplistic views of life, a life view muddied by their own gestalt. Negative people see the failings, positive people see the positives, possibilist see the possible solutions, etc.

From my experience and the incredible pain I have seen gay people in, pain they choose to hide from their detractors, I could never believe this is a choice. It is analogous to my Dad; in relating how his battalion was subjected to seven air raids in one night, someone went off and made a comment, while he was relating his experience. Now they attempted to be complementary to my dad, and his service, but he just let them have it. At the end of his diatribe he concluded that no one would, or should volunteer for what he was through.

So later I asked him, and he told me than nobody had any idea of what combat in the war would bring. So I asked him why they all went, and he said because they told them to. This is what he thought of them labeling his the greatest generation. It was a cop out for taking so much and giving back so little. Talking about homosexuality, and the discrimination we all cause, is a cop out for our own feelings of inadequacy, and the feelings the we are unescapably doing the wrong thing because we are locked in by an obsolete moral code.

 

[irishpat183]

I think everything above is more about you than anything to do with reality. I think the bolded part is an over-used, under-imagine-ative cop out used for years by two dimensional people prompting over simplistic views of life, a life view muddied by their own gestalt. Negative people see the failings, positive people see the positives, possibilist see the possible solutions, etc.

From my experience and the incredible pain I have seen gay people in, pain they choose to hide from their detractors, I could never believe this is a choice. It is analogous to my Dad; in relating how his battalion was subjected to seven air raids in one night, someone went off and made a comment, while he was relating his experience. Now they attempted to be complementary to my dad, and his service, but he just let them have it. At the end of his diatribe he concluded that no one would volunteer for what he was through.

So later I asked him, and he told me than nobody had any idea of what combat in the war would bring. So I asked him why they all went, and he said because they told them to. This is what he thought of them labeling his the greatest generation. It was a cop out for taking so much and giving back so little. Talking about homosexuality, and the discrimination we all cause, is a cop out for our own feelings of inadequacy, and the feelings the we are unescapably doing the wrong thing because we are locked in by an obsolete moral code.

What does it matter if I think it's a choice or not?? Is that really the issue here? Why is it that folks like you, and gays, demand that we accept that they were born that way, without any proof? Who knows??? Importantly....WHO CARES. Why does it offend people that I just don't buy the "gay gene" theory??

I couldn't careless about someone's sexual orientation. My problem with this entire Savage deal wasn't that he was gay....it was that he is just as guility of bullying as the people he was calling out. So don't make fun of gays.....but if you wanna slam Christians, go ahead. They deserve it for their beliefs.

 

[Grahambo]

It's not a choice. For you to say that says all I need to know about you and your views here.

Show me proof that it says otherwise. I strongly believe it is a choice.

Really? I mean seriously. We spend as much time as we do saying how much we appreciate having different views yet you toss that out there; insinuating his views are wrong simply because they don't match yours.

 

[woolybug25]

I agree completely. I wish the states would get out of the "marriage" business altogether and leave defining marriage to churches. Both hetero- and homosexual couples should get the same civil union and equal rights under the law. I know of no other way to reconcile religious freedom with the Equal Protection clause.

With all due respect, this is an impossible assertion. While I agree that government should not be the ones defining marriage, because of tax implications, they have to. Simply put, any type of legislature, tax break or tax code that addresses marriage is ad hoc defining marriage.

I think every homosexual person in this country would love for the government to get out of the defining of marriage business, it would free them up to pursue their desire of legal marriage. It is special interest groups like "Focus on the Family", etc that want the federal government to exclude them from their legal right of marriage.

It's the classic betrayal of our constitutional right of seperation of church and state. People only want it seperated when its other people's religious views that are being considered.

 

[woolybug25]

Show me proof that it says otherwise. I strongly believe it is a choice.

So you chose to be straight? You feel no attraction to women that makes you prefer them?

 

[Grahambo]

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.

That's a better question asked towards the 5 self proclaimed anarchists that just tried to blow up some bridge in Cleveland.

 

[woolybug25]

That's a better question asked towards the 5 self proclaimed anarchists that just tried to blow up some bridge in Cleveland.

That doesn't even make any damn sense and has no relevance to Bubba's point.


Answer my question above.

 

[Grahambo]

So you chose to be straight? You feel no attraction to women that makes you prefer them?

Yes I choose to be straight. I feel attracted to women and I prefer women.

Are you implying that a guy just has a natural attraction to other guys?

 

[Grahambo]

That doesn't even make any damn sense and has no relevance to Bubba's point.


Answer my question above.

I'll break it down:

5 people decide to become anarchists and try to blow up a bridge in Cleveland. A life they know will subject them to ridicule.

Makes sense to me.

 

[mgriff]

Show me proof that it says otherwise. I strongly believe it is a choice.

I have no scientific information, only experience. It's certainly your right to believe it's a choice, but seeing the persecution someone very close to me faced, being disowned for decades makes it pretty clear that he wouldn't have chosen that. He got married, and eventually had to give up the lie because he was living for other people instead of himself. He also has contracted an incurable disease over the course of this. Why he would throw away his life because he just wanted to have some man-sex? Please, continue to tell me that it was just his choice. End of my comment to you.

My grandmother, a more devout Catholic you will not find, had to clearly come to terms with her beliefs over a long time. So tell me, when someone you love with all your heart disagrees with church doctrine, you're supposed to abandon them? To cease contact? To believe in your heart that they are just making a choice and should be persecuted for it? It seems to me like the people in this thread that believe it's a choice, haven't seen the effects first hand. You probably do know gay people, but they would never tell you. <---Broad generalization, but that's the impression I'm getting. I can clearly be mistaken.

 

[mgriff]

I'll break it down:

5 people decide to become anarchists and try to blow up a bridge in Cleveland. A life they know will subject them to ridicule.

Makes sense to me.

So now you're comparing gays to anarchists? Gays are as unhinged as murderers? Real nice comparison. You're an idiot.

 

[Grahambo]

I have no scientific information, only experience. It's certainly your right to believe it's a choice, but seeing the persecution someone very close to me faced, being disowned for decades makes it pretty clear that he wouldn't have chosen that. He got married, and eventually had to give up the lie because he was living for other people instead of himself. He also has contracted an incurable disease over the course of this. Why he would throw away his life because he just wanted to have some man-sex? Please, continue to tell me that it was just his choice. End of my comment to you.

My grandmother, a more devout Catholic you will not find, had to clearly come to terms with her beliefs over this for a long time. So tell me, when someone you love with all your heart disagrees with church doctrine, you're supposed to abandon them? To cease contact? To believe in your heart that they are just making a choice and should be persecuted for it? It seems to me like the people in this thread that believe it's a choice, haven't seen the effects first hand. You probably do know gay people, but they would never tell you. <---Broad generalization, but that's the impression I'm getting. I can clearly be mistaken.

I have absolutely no problem with that story. Nor do I have a problem if someone is gay as I stated a day or two ago. I choose to believe that it is a choice until I see something that makes me change my mind. It does not mean I discriminate against gay because I don't. I already said I would lay my life down for another man (or woman) who is gay in a heartbeat if I had to. I'm sorry if you think I'm some terrible monster against the gay community because I believe it is a choice. I think gay people should have every right that I do. I believe they should get married if they so choose. I'm also not gonna sit here and give them sympathy either.