Re: Ron Brown -- Long Rant

[irishpat183]

Gay people don't believe that they need redeeming or believe that they are damned to hell. They have no intention of repenting or even admitting that their actions are wrong. So excuse me if I find it dumb that many Christians feel like damning someone to hell, openly chastising them as immoral, and openly saying that they find their behavior reprehensible isn't offensive.

Yet they constantly get into it with churches and other religious groups? Excuse me, but I think that they in fact DO care about what religious groups think about them.

Why would gays care about some wacko religious leader condemming them...if they didn't care as you claim??

 

[ACamp1900]

Yet they constantly get into it with churches and other religious groups? Excuse me, but I think that they in fact DO care about what religious groups think about them.

Why would gays care about some wacko religious leader condemming them...if they didn't care as you claim??

and more to that point, why then does the gay community even care about marriage... either they don't understand what it actually is, or they care about religious rites.... hmmmmm

 

[woolybug25]

So many of you dismiss the Church's stance on sexuality as bigoted, anachronistic, and arbitrary. It's none of those things. It's supported by a consistent philosophy (Aristotelian/ Thomist/ Natural Law) and informed by Holy Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the magisterium.

You don't have to agree, but a little respect would be appreciated instead of the condescension and ignorance that's been directed toward the Church in this thread.

My apologies if I seem to be bashing the Catholic Church, that is not my intent. But if there is going to be a conversation on the topic, it's fair that both opinions are represented.

Homosexuality does not oppose Natural Law.

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

As I noted earlier, nothing in nature shows that it's morally wrong to be homosexual. It's Christian Natural Law that you are referring to which is very loosely tied to the true definition of Natural Law, but really just an assimilation of Catholic beliefs stemming from the middle ages.

The rest of the support for the immorality of homosexuality comes from long held beliefs of a religion. Not of the natural world nor current philosophies of today's society. Nor scientific evidence.

The Catholic Church gave my Great Uncle no sympathy when they kicked him out of the church he loved. No amount of charity he did in his life (and he dedicated his life to charity) gave him salvation. Lifelong friends turned on him, the church refused him and he was buried without last rights. So please excuse me if I find the Catholic Church's behavior to be the morally reprehensible of the two in that situation.

I obviously do not hate the Catholic religion (i'm a Notre Dame fan for crying out loud), but I simply don't agree with them regarding this and have no desire to learn more about why they feel it is so. I care about reality, and the reality is that they openly discriminate against people for no other reason then who they choose to love, not what type of human being they are.

This time i'm really out. I have no intention of talking about this any further and wont be checking this thread anymore. Personally, I hope the mods close it.

 

[irishpat183]

You are throwing a false blanket over two entire communities while pretending to be insulted by such things... you realize that??? Also, who says that gays are damned to hell?? Pretty much nut bag 'Baptists' from Oklahoma and those you wish to paint average Christians the wrong way...

again, I believe every single person on the planet sins... gays are no different and yes they can be redeemed, if they don't care about that then fine... I find it unreal I can't hold that completely reasonable stance without it being 'reprehensible'...

If you're not in line with the PC world....you're reprehensible.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This time i'm really out. I have no intention of talking about this any further and wont be checking this thread anymore. Personally, I hope the mods close it.

I'm checking out, too. Said my piece. Apologies if I offended anyone.

 

[irishpat183]

and more to that point, why then does the gay community even care about marriage... either they don't understand what it actually is, or they care about religious rites.... hmmmmm

Exactly!

They care because of the tax breaks...but wait.....it's about love.....but if it's about love, then what does it have to do with government? But if it's about tax breaks, what does it have to do with the church...

hmmmmmmm

 

[irishog77]

The rest of the animal kingdom is. There are over 1500 documented species of animals that display homosexual behavior. I doubt birds and squirrels are making a proactive choice to do so, rather just acting on natural instincts.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality



With all due respect, Whiskey. That is you're personal belief system, not a scientific fact of nature. As I mentioned above, the rest of the animal kingdom is littered with homosexual activity. They are not concerned with religious morality and are acting simply on natural instincts.

From a completely centrist position (ie -non-religious), what are some of the hosts of reasons that make it immoral? To clarify, other than some verse from the Bible, what are some unilateral, widely-accepted reasons that classify it as immoral?

If someone feels that it is morally wrong to be gay, then don't be one. But you cant say in one note that someone is morally reprehensible and in another say that you "you don't have anything against them". If someone feels that someone else's sexual preference damns them to hell, they obviously find them to be poor examples of people.

Sorry to jump in on a post sorta directed at one person in particular, but I think Whiskey's received a little undue criticism on this thread (and not that he needs me to jump in anyway-- he does quite fine on his own). I think what he's been getting at that people either aren't acknowledging or accepting is that 1) he's Catholic and is defending his Faith against erroneous attacks/criticisms of it (shouldn't we all do that???) 2) he's not claiming homosexuals are "wrong" or evil people, but rather, the engagement in homosexual activity is wrong. I'm sure he'd also properly point out that heterosexual people engaging in pre and extra marital sex are "wrong" and engaging in evil/sinful activity. Or people engaging in self-fulfilling and selfish sexual activities are "wrong" and engaging in evil/sinful activity. But one isn't obligated or compelled to "hate" the person, just the activity. And yes, we are still called to respect and even love the person. Obviously Jesus himself was the example of this we are called to follow. And even if you aren't Catholic, Christian, or whatever, I think reasonable people can agree that it's still a good example to follow. 3) the claims of homosexual activity in nature are valid. But all kinds of things (oddities, outliers, distortions, etc., etc,) occur in nature. But they are the exception. Clearly any animal species that opts to engage in homosexual activity, as the rule, will not flourish nor survive.

Sorry again, just a little stuff off the top of the head.

Btw- where is BGIF in all this?

 

[irishpat183]

ACamp1900....guess it's just you and me!


This suits me, as I don't get offended. LOL

 

[irishog77]

Well, I got sidetracked by a phone call mid-composition and was thus delayed in my post. Seems like a lot was taken care of for me.

Good stuff, fellas.

 

[Zwidmanio]

You don't have to agree, but a little respect would be appreciated instead of the condescension and ignorance that's been directed toward the Church in this thread.

Condescension and ignorance have no part in a civil debate, but I think that, as with any complex issue, the debate tends to get derailed easily. As much as I don't share your views on the subject of homosexuality, I just have to accept the fact that they are your beliefs and it's not my place to try to change your mind in regards to issues of your faith.

Similar to my views on Acamp1900's post a little above, although I have some issues with the view that homosexual behavior is sinful, as long as everybody can treat each other respectfully and allow others to make their own decisions and live in peace, I can accept it.

However, circling back to the impetus of this entire thread, my issue with injecting religion into the homosexuality debate (and the reason I think the debate gets muddled) is the fact that far too many people use their religious beliefs as justification for discriminatory behavior and even worse, to justify statutory discrimination. I think much of the ire directed towards the Church in general would be more suitably directed towards the Church's actions towards driving public policy towards its moral (religious) beliefs. I'm not certain how much those two can be separated, which is why I can understand the anger towards the Church. However, similar to how the Church advocates the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts, I attempt to separate the Church's beliefs from the Church's acts in the debate. I can live with the beliefs but I have serious issues with the acts.

 

[General Colon Bowel]

Here are a few questions I have that I would love some feedback on:

1. If being homosexual was a choice, then why would some devoutly religious people choose it? For example, a guy I went to high school with is a devout Catholic and also out as a homosexual. He believes so strongly in his faith and the teachings of the Bible, that he has chosen to be celibate for the rest of his life. If his sexuality was truly a choice, why would he not choose to be attracted to women rather than condemning himself to a life without physical intimacy (really, any kind of intimacy in all likelihood)?

2. Does it really matter if it is a choice or not? Shouldn't a person be able to live a life that makes them truly the happiest? If a man wants to raise a family with another man, and be able to make love to his husband (same with two woman) then what is not ok with that?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Seriously, do you realize how many of you are making things up based upon your prejudices?

News flash: I had my daughter watch that tape from the Ron Savage speech. She said she could relate. The people that got up were the typical bullies and socials that ran the school, and if you ever confronted them, that's what they did, got up and walked out in a huff like pansies. She said she didn't see any "bullying at all!.

Of course she is the one who faced a three day suspension and fists, for standing up to a gang, "bullying" a girl in her class. The first thing the gang did was threaten to beat her, she smiled and said bring it on, the second thing they did is report her as the offending party. When called down she respectfully told the counselor to go ahead and suspend her if she thought it was waranted; but she told the counselor that it would continue while she was gone. The counselor chose to address the real problem; that's my girl.

 

[Mr. Larson]

Exactly!

They care because of the tax breaks...but wait.....it's about love.....but if it's about love, then what does it have to do with government? But if it's about tax breaks, what does it have to do with the church...

hmmmmmmm

Some of your posts on this thread have really pissed me off. I get it..you think gays chose to be gay. You think being liberal is a bad thing, and somewhere in your mind you are convinced that if someone disagrees with you they must be inferior.

As someone who has been to a gay wedding (if you want to call it that- I just called it ______ and ____'s wedding). I can assure you that people didn't drive and fly from all over the country to see two friends get a tax break. Friends and family didn't cry over a tax break. A brother of the bride- who was vehemently opposed to his sister being a lesbian- didn't cry during a speech he gave welcoming the other woman into his family and, rather beautifully I must add, stating his love for his sister due to a tax break. (I can also assure you that neither ____ nor _____ chose to be gay.)


Are you familiar with the straw man fallacy?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I said wayyyyy back on page one that this thread should be closed before things get personal. And yes it's my business because this will bleed into other threads at some point. Seriously, close this thread please

Neg rep anyone who gets personal. Otherwise enjoy the stimulation.

 

[Rack Em]

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

I didn't want to get involved in this thread because I am perpetually defending the Catholic Church at law school (and a supposed Catholic one at that).

Your statement isn't entirely correct, pkt. The Church has certain Truths (note the capital "T") that are unchanging and eternal, religious truths. One of those would be that Jesus Christ was "married" to His Church. Since priests are acting "in the person of Christ" they aren't allowed to marry a woman since they are "married" to the Church, in a sense.

The Church has no issue whatsoever with homosexuality. It disagrees with homosexual marriage due to its views on marriage. Sex is reserved for married men and women because all sexual acts should be open to the creation of human life. Since the Church believes sex is reserved for marriage and sexual acts between homosexual partners doesn't have the procreative ability, it doesn't support homosexual marriage. It doesn't disagree with the concept on its face, but rather has conflicting issues with what would take place sexually in such a marriage.

Pope Paul VI outlined in Humanae Vitae how the Church felt about artificial birth control. The Church was concerned that it would lower moral standards of sex and would put men in a position to use women as a means of sexual satisfaction, rather than make the act out of love and openness to new human life.

 

[NDinL.A.]

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....

LOL...narrow-minded? YOU are calling someone narrow-minded??? Irony much?

Dude, I base my views of you off all the asinine things you say on this site.

All you do is talk sh!t on pretty much every single thread on this site, and then boast about your 'ability' to always start sh!t as if you're some sort of Internet bad-***. Yawn. You call Irish fans 'morons' who don't agree with you, you tell us all to shove it if we don't agree with you, you call us liberals if we don't agree with you or if we're considered 'soft' in your eyes (I'm a conservative btw, but with your twisted logic I'm a liberal LOL), etc etc etc. Just look at your post history if you don't believe me.

As for the whole 'choice argument', there are scientific studies out there...but many choose to not to believe them. We could go in circles for days and days on that. Aside from the science, I will say this: I personally can't believe so many millions of people would 'choose' to put themselves through a lifetime of ridicule, discrimination, hiding, bullying, hatred, etc just to be with another person of the same sex. And I've been in education long enough to see kids who you can tell like in 3rd grade that they are gay (and I've turned out to be right virtually every time) - there is no 'choice' for these kids.

But hey, that's just the way I feel about it. It's all good if people disagree - I won't even argue this any further b/c we're all Irish fans here. That's why I never even discuss religion and politics on this board cause that's not what I'm here for. But sorry Pat, the way you try and talk sh!t to everyone on this site, I had to respond...

 

[pkt77242]

I didn't want to get involved in this thread because I am perpetually defending the Catholic Church at law school (and a supposed Catholic one at that).

Your statement isn't entirely correct, pkt. The Church has certain Truths (note the capital "T") that are unchanging and eternal, religious truths. One of those would be that Jesus Christ was "married" to His Church. Since priests are acting "in the person of Christ" they aren't allowed to marry a woman since they are "married" to the Church, in a sense.
The Church has no issue whatsoever with homosexuality. It disagrees with homosexual marriage due to its views on marriage. Sex is reserved for married men and women because all sexual acts should be open to the creation of human life. Since the Church believes sex is reserved for marriage and sexual acts between homosexual partners doesn't have the procreative ability, it doesn't support homosexual marriage. It doesn't disagree with the concept on its face, but rather has conflicting issues with what would take place sexually in such a marriage.

Pope Paul VI outlined in Humanae Vitae how the Church felt about artificial birth control. The Church was concerned that it would lower moral standards of sex and would put men in a position to use women as a means of sexual satisfaction, rather than make the act out of love and openness to new human life.

Thank you for being respectful in your comments. I would agree with the bolded part (and do to a certain extent) but the fact that priests use to be allowed to marry (yes that was a long time ago) and that they allow preachers who are christian and married to convert and be priests while staying married seems to disagree with point.

To the italicized part, I know that when I got married in the Catholic church my wife and I had to promise that we were open to having children. What would the church say about a couple that didn't want children? or more importantly were the woman or man was incapable of having children?

To the underlined pointI completely understand this line of thought, and while I disagree with it, I found it one of the most enjoyable Papal Encyclicals (one of my least favorite was Inter Insigniores which I had some big issues with the reasoning behind).

Rack Em, thank you for making points without attacking me as an individual.

 

[irishpat183]

LOL...narrow-minded? YOU are calling someone narrow-minded??? Irony much?

Dude, I base my views of you off all the asinine things you say on this site.

All you do is talk sh!t on pretty much every single thread on this site, and then boast about your 'ability' to always start sh!t as if you're some sort of Internet bad-***. Yawn. You call Irish fans 'morons' who don't agree with you, you tell us all to shove it if we don't agree with you, you call us liberals if we don't agree with you or if we're considered 'soft' in your eyes (I'm a conservative btw, but with your twisted logic I'm a liberal LOL), etc etc etc. Just look at your post history if you don't believe me.

As for the whole 'choice argument', there are scientific studies out there...but many choose to not to believe them. We could go in circles for days and days on that. Aside from the science, I will say this: I personally can't believe so many millions of people would 'choose' to put themselves through a lifetime of ridicule, discrimination, hiding, bullying, hatred, etc just to be with another person of the same sex. And I've been in education long enough to see kids who you can tell like 3rd grade that they are gay (and I've truned out to be right virtually every time) - there is no 'choice' for these kids.

But hey, that's just the way I feel about it. It's all good if people disagree - I won't even argue this any further b/c we're all Irish fans here. That's why I never even discuss religion and politics on this board cause that's not what I'm here for. But sorry Pat, the way you try and talk sh!t to everyone on this site, I had to respond...

WOOOHOOOO!!!!

Thata boy! That's the fire I like to see.


(and for the record, I'm a bada$$ in real life as well)

Dont' take things so personally.....it's bad for your health. Let me buy you a beer if we ever meet.

 

[Rack Em]

Thank you for being respectful in your comments. I would agree with the bolded part (and do to a certain extent) but the fact that priests use to be allowed to marry (yes that was a long time ago) and that they allow preachers who are christian and married to convert and be priests while staying married seems to disagree with point.

I'm not as familiar with the exceptions as I should be. However I do believe them to be more of "exceptions to the rule" than the rule itself.

To the italicized part, I know that when I got married in the Catholic church my wife and I had to promise that we were open to having children. What would the church say about a couple that didn't want children? or more importantly were the woman or man was incapable of having children?

If you don't want children, that's cool. Just know the woman's reproductive cycle and refrain from sex when she's the most eligible to get pregnant. To your second question, do it all you want. You're still open to procreation even though it is extremely unlikely.

To the underlined pointI completely understand this line of thought, and while I disagree with it, I found it one of the most enjoyable Papal Encyclicals (one of my least favorite was Inter Insigniores which I had some big issues with the reasoning behind).

Rack Em, thank you for making points without attacking me as an individual.

No problem brah. I've had these same discussions with Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

LOL...narrow-minded? YOU are calling someone narrow-minded??? Irony much?

Dude, I base my views of you off all the asinine things you say on this site.

All you do is talk sh!t on pretty much every single thread on this site, and then boast about your 'ability' to always start sh!t as if you're some sort of Internet bad-***. Yawn. You call Irish fans 'morons' who don't agree with you, you tell us all to shove it if we don't agree with you, you call us liberals if we don't agree with you or if we're considered 'soft' in your eyes (I'm a conservative btw, but with your twisted logic I'm a liberal LOL), etc etc etc. Just look at your post history if you don't believe me.

As for the whole 'choice argument', there are scientific studies out there...but many choose to not to believe them. We could go in circles for days and days on that. Aside from the science, I will say this: I personally can't believe so many millions of people would 'choose' to put themselves through a lifetime of ridicule, discrimination, hiding, bullying, hatred, etc just to be with another person of the same sex. And I've been in education long enough to see kids who you can tell like 3rd grade that they are gay (and I've truned out to be right virtually every time) - there is no 'choice' for these kids.

But hey, that's just the way I feel about it. It's all good if people disagree - I won't even argue this any further b/c we're all Irish fans here. That's why I never even discuss religion and politics on this board cause that's not what I'm here for. But sorry Pat, the way you try and talk sh!t to everyone on this site, I had to respond...

You're an old time conservative. The current climate doesn't allow for such nuance.

We would likely disagree on a number of things, but we'd have a great conversation. And, as we are both educators, I think we have much in common.

 

[irishpat183]

Some of your posts on this thread have really pissed me off. I get it..you think gays chose to be gay. You think being liberal is a bad thing, and somewhere in your mind you are convinced that if someone disagrees with you they must be inferior.

As someone who has been to a gay wedding (if you want to call it that- I just called it ______ and ____'s wedding). I can assure you that people didn't drive and fly from all over the country to see two friends get a tax break. Friends and family didn't cry over a tax break. A brother of the bride- who was vehemently opposed to his sister being a lesbian- didn't cry during a speech he gave welcoming the other woman into his family and, rather beautifully I must add, stating his love for his sister due to a tax break. (I can also assure you that neither ____ nor _____ chose to be gay.)


Are you familiar with the straw man fallacy?

Hell, there are PLENTY of people that disagree with me that I don't think are "inferior"...LOL. There are people out there that are a whole helluva lot smarter than me.

I have no issue with those disagreeing. I love the arguments and discussion. I love discussing subjects that make people uncomfortable. The problem in this country is that we don't often have those discussions.

And you didn't understand my comment. I was having a discussion with another poster about gays and wanting to be accepted by the church.....Frankly, I don't feel like explaining it again. Just take my word for it.

And being a liberal is a bad thing.

 

[Rack Em]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W5FfJ89rGPc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishJayhawk]

And being a liberal is a bad thing.

Nope.

 

[irishpat183]

Nope.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

All I know is that some of my best, most loyal, and most generous friends happen to be gay. There are jerks who are straight and there are jerks who are gay.

I didn't think these things until I had met people who are gay. Suddenly I had a different perspective.

 

[Walter White]

All I know is that some of my best, most loyal, and most generous friends happen to be gay. There are jerks who are straight and there are jerks who are gay.

I didn't think these things until I had met people who are gay. Suddenly I had a different perspective.

Getting to know people always opens things up to a new light. My experiences with the gay community and guys I know who are gay have left a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not judging everyone who claims to be gay, but the guys I know personally will readily shove their sex lives in your face and for some reason deem it necessary to tell the whole world about it. I don't care whether your straight or gay, I don't want to hear explicit details about what you did last night. Maybe I'm sexually repressed or something, but in my opinion, sexual orientation is one of the least interesting things about a person.

My beliefs lead me to believe that having gay sex is a choice, just like having straight sex is a choice. I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against, but I am also pretty libertarian in believing that the government can't do anything to stop discrimination without impeding on others individual liberties. My faith challenges me to love like Christ loves which I admit, I fail at everyday. One thing that always helps me when I'm tempted to judge is realizing that my sin is no better/worse than anyone else's, it is just different. Thank goodness for grace.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

. I'm not judging everyone who claims to be gay, but the guys I know personally will readily shove their sex lives in your face and for some reason deem it necessary to tell the whole world about it. I don't care whether your straight or gay, I don't want to hear explicit details about what you did last night. Maybe I'm sexually repressed or something, but in my opinion, sexual orientation is one of the least interesting things about a person.

So...most every commercial during any football game ever is offensive to you (hyperbole intended)? Or are they okay because the sex being portrayed is straight?

"Locker room" talk is off limits to you? Or, is it okay because it's straight?

Truly just asking you. It seems to me that there's a double standard.

 

[ACamp1900]

Good old Contact Hypothesis... there definately is something to that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

My experiences with the gay community and guys I know who are gay have left a little bit of a bad taste in my mouth

I hear pineapple juice can help with the taste.

Thought this thread could use a little locker-room levity.

 

[Walter White]

So...most every commercial during any football game ever is offensive to you (hyperbole intended)? Or are they okay because the sex being portrayed is straight?

"Locker room" talk is off limits to you? Or, is it only because it's straight?

Truly just asking you. It seems to me that there's a double standard.

When I used the word "explicit" I meant it. I feel just as uncomfortable when I have to hear about details of straight guys "conquests".

I can go for some sex humor now and then, but I wish that sex was used less often by the media and advertising. I think its degrading to women the way the media portrays them as purely sex objects.