Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Let me elaborate:

Melissia wrote:You're arguing something entirely different than I am, so I'm not really sure you disagree.

Because my statement is based off of polling data and people being asked questions, and as I said, it's simply easier to motivate someone based off of hate as opposed to "I'm fine with that", especially at the state level where these things don't get much press. A small group of highly motivated voters can sway the vote away from the way the majority feels (this is what the religious right claim is the "gay agenda", IE homosexuals "subverting" the majority somehow... even though in reality it goes the other way, with highly motivated backwards religious voters subverting the majority).

Your objection would be relevant if 100% of people voted ,but they don't.

Essentially, how people vote does not really actually indicate much about how the country feels about any particular subject because what motivates people to vote can be quite different than what they feel. A person who just doesn't care either way, for example, is not going to be motivated to vote against a ban on gay marriage. A person who is okay with it is harder to motivate than someone who absolutely detests it, as well.

Thus my last statement-- your objection would be relevant and a good objection to my statement ... if everyone voted all the time on all topics that concern them. They don't, however. I'm not arguing agains the assertion that people vote more often to ban gay marriage, but I am making my own counter assertion, that there is a very specific reason for this outcome despite the fact that the majority of Americans really aren't that bothered by it.

Yup.... just printed out my Maryland voter registration form. Lets just say that me and babydoll are fairly motivated.

GG

Yes, homophobia-- fear and hate, the basics of bigotry-- is a very strong motivator compared to acceptance.

I see what you're saying there Melissa, but gay marriage, from what I see on the news is a very real hot button topic where greater than normal numbers of people from both sides come out to vote.
It appears at this juncture that there are more people in the camp against gay marriage that are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Will it always be so? I think it is getting closer to the day where we see people actually voting it in instead of it being legislated
but currently I think most people are against it because if someone can't be bothered to vote for it, than they aren't really for it beyond lip service.

So basically like most people and religion.

But that aside, just because the majority is for or against it doesn't make it right or wrong.

Exactly like most people and religion. Very good analogy.

I dont'really view it the same way. If someone is for it but it isn't a major issue that is OMGWTFIMPORTANT to their lives, I can easily see why they'd let it slide. That doesn't mean just lip service, it just means that it's not a big deal.

Melissia wrote:I dont'really view it the same way. If someone is for it but it isn't a major issue that is OMGWTFIMPORTANT to their lives, I can easily see why they'd let it slide. That doesn't mean just lip service, it just means that it's not a big deal.

I really think your analogy cuts close, though. It got me thinking.

Melissia wrote:Yes, homophobia-- fear and hate, the basics of bigotry-- is a very strong motivator compared to acceptance.

Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.
-------------------------------------------------
On Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy

There is a specter haunting America. That specter is the movement to promote homosexual marriage. The movement has adopted a cunning political strategy to appeal to everyone from the suburban soccer mom to the urban white male liberal: It has packaged its demand for a radical re-definition of marriage in the rhetoric and images of the Civil Rights Movement. This strategy, though utterly cynical and possibly racist, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King, Jr. and pacifistic marchers facing down dogs and hoses? In the aftermath if the struggle for racial justice, who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?

As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the “poverty pimps”, of thirty-five years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African American history for partisan purposes.

But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the historiographical literature of the Civil Rights Movement and its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support their political and moral argument of equivalence. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed over thirty years ago, the Black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences historically and politically could compare with the physical and brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery the Civil Rights Movement was born.

The Civil Rights Movement was born with the establishment of the United States as a slaveholding republic. This extraordinary history included the kidnapping and brutal transport of Blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision—Dred Scott v. Sandford—denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.

It is these basic facts that weaken the efforts of apologist for homosexual marriage to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the interest of a generally privileged group.

In fact, the campaign for homosexual marriage is, ironically, an assertion of white skin privilege. Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to “marry” are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements if family life, with kids and proverbial white picket fence, without the benefit of a father for the children. From their positions if socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences. The dominant demographic behind this political initiative is neither homosexual males nor people of color, notwithstanding the occasional interracial lesbian couple who are projected for propaganda purposes.

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups’ desires and preferences as rights that has eviscerated the moral authority of the paleo-liberal civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a homosexual’s aspiration to overturn thousands of years if universally recognized morality and practice a “right”? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interest are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital conduct?

One must, in the current discussion, address directly the assertion of discrimination. The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination as based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation us utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage. Racial differences do not affect or interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become “one flesh,” as the Book of Genesis puts it, by sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation. As the law of marital consummation makes clear, it is this bodily union that serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level—biological, emotional, dispositional, rational, and spiritual—that marriage is. This explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people (despite the desire of polyamorist to have their sexual preferences and practices legally recognized and blessed).

Moreover, the analogy between the requirement if sexual complementarity and the prohibitions if interracial marriages disregards the fact that the whole point of those prohibitions was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition if marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or regulate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does to be sure, exclude the recognition as lawful “marriages” of some forms of sexual combining—including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as morally equal. People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law’s refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous , and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting true marriage, the law does not violate the “rights” of people whose “lifestyle preferences” are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

Well-intentioned moderates and liberals shudder upon hearing the very word “discrimination.” Its simple enunciation instills guilt and dulls their critical faculties. The word has now been emptied if its normative and historical content, thereby once again serving to disadvantage Blacks in American society. Malcontented members of any group—however privileged—can simply invoke the term and launch their own personalized civil rights industry. It is the recrudescense of a culture of narcissism.

Defending the Civil Rights legacy should prove cold comfort to its historic advocates, because the loss of its distinctive nature is our own fault. It was our failure, philosophically and politically, to develop a compelling historiography of the movement that contributed to its decline and decay. From the teaching in school, to the use of the term in the public square, the notion of civil rights has been diluted, ahistoricized, and nearly emptied of content in relation to the lived historical experience of Blacks in this country. That the authorized institutional inheritors if the Civil Rights Movement failed to recognize and prevent this loss brings in question their ability to continue as effective leaders of Black people.

It is especially sad and disturbing that the established leadership of the Civil Rights industry has utterly failed to resist the corruption and co—optation by a predominantly white special interest group of the history of the Civil Rights phase of the Black freedom struggle. This failure highlights the need for a regime change in favor of new leadership and a post-Civil Rights conceptual framework for addressing a more complex racial reality. Moreover, in light of the phenomenon of judicially mandated homosexual marriage, we believe that Black leaders need to speak forcefully in favor of President George W. Bush’s proposal for a Federal Marriage Amendment. If their support for true marriage alienates them from their white liberal friends, so be it. No community has suffered more than has ours from the weakening of the institution of marriage at the hands of purveyors of the doctrines of the sexual revolution. It is our sons and our daughters who have paid the bulk of the cost imposed by a cultural elite which seeks to overthrow cultural and Biblical principles of sexual restraint and responsibility. Leaders of our community should therefore be in the vanguard of the movement to prevent further moral erosion and begin reversing historical declines.

We respectfully suggest that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not give his life, nor Fannie Lou Hamer struggle, so that libertines could be free to pursue their polymorphous forms of sexuality under the banner if the Black Civil Rights Movement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.

Short answer:

Yes, largely because he's trying to riff off a hierarchy of suffering argument, and further possess the essential spirit of the CRM as intrinsically black (it wasn't), which is always stupid outside demagoguery (which is usually bad).

Long answer:

He likes to play fast and loose with the ideas of "sex", "caste", "right", and "preference." He's playing rhetorical games in order to justify his own opposition to gay marriage, going so far as to deny any commonality because, apparently, most gay people (lesbians only, though) are white.

There's also this line...

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

...which is comically stupid. It hearkens to the notion that people are equal in worth and dignity insofar as we ignore the things that make them unique individuals, which is to say: people.

Basically, his argument is crap, and his position is deplorable.

dogma wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:The moment he starts hitting on me is when the problem starts.

I'm not gay, or even bi, but I've taken great pleasure in making many an overly aggressive former or current frat boy feel uncomfortable after watching them push a little too hard with the ladies.

In a phrase:

"Hey, honey."

I'm probably going to end up doing something like that, as well; Not only will it creep them bastards out, but it will score me points with the ladies


You know something I just don't understand, going ever so slightly off topic? "Gay Marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage". So it's not ok for two women to love eachother for eternity, but it's perfectly fine for Kim Khardashian to turn her wedding into a publicity stunt for less than a month?

Not to mention Elvis weddings, Star wars weddings, Lord of the rings weddings and Star Trek weddings. Anyone had a Warhammer 40000 wedding yet?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.

Short answer:

Yes, largely because he's trying to riff off a hierarchy of suffering argument, and further possess the essential spirit of the CRM as intrinsically black (it wasn't), which is always stupid outside demagoguery (which is usually bad).

Long answer:

He likes to play fast and loose with the ideas of "sex", "caste", "right", and "preference." He's playing rhetorical games in order to justify his own opposition to gay marriage, going so far as to deny any commonality because, apparently, most gay people (lesbians only, though) are white.

There's also this line...

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

...which is comically stupid. It hearkens to the notion that people are equal in worth and dignity insofar as we ignore the things that make them unique individuals, which is to say: people.

Basically, his argument is crap, and his position is deplorable.

I think the point you missed is that when you start throwing the term bigot around the way melissia does it cheapens the word, and makes it actually useless. This is one of the main points he made. People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe). When peoples choices are criticized the people criticizing those choices are labeled bigot and when this happens it cheapens the african american civil rights movement usage of bigot, and quite frankly the overall usage. So he is offended by that.

GG

Slarg232 wrote:
I'm probably going to end up doing something like that, as well; Not only will it creep them bastards out, but it will score me points with the ladies

Its a fine line you walk when you do that type of thing. You can get lots of credit for it, but if you're not careful you can also end up being thought of as homophobic yourself.

Then, of course, there's the risk of someone deciding they want to kick your ass.

Slarg232 wrote:
You know something I just don't understand, going ever so slightly off topic? "Gay Marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage". So it's not ok for two women to love eachother for eternity, but it's perfectly fine for Kim Khardashian to turn her wedding into a publicity stunt for less than a month?

In my experience most arguments against gay marriage boil down to being fundamentally uncomfortable with homosexuality, or some (weird) preference for the idealized 50s family of Leave it to Beaver.

Private_Joker wrote:Not to mention Elvis weddings, Star wars weddings, Lord of the rings weddings and Star Trek weddings. Anyone had a Warhammer 40000 wedding yet?

Assuming all things about marriage are true, I think the Big Guy would be willing to forgive a Harry Potter Wedding if the two people lasted longer than a year (Or two hours, in Paris Hilton/Brittany Spears' case, forget which).

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.

Short answer:

Yes, largely because he's trying to riff off a hierarchy of suffering argument, and further possess the essential spirit of the CRM as intrinsically black (it wasn't), which is always stupid outside demagoguery (which is usually bad).

Long answer:

He likes to play fast and loose with the ideas of "sex", "caste", "right", and "preference." He's playing rhetorical games in order to justify his own opposition to gay marriage, going so far as to deny any commonality because, apparently, most gay people (lesbians only, though) are white.

There's also this line...

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

...which is comically stupid. It hearkens to the notion that people are equal in worth and dignity insofar as we ignore the things that make them unique individuals, which is to say: people.

Basically, his argument is crap, and his position is deplorable.

Thank god someone said this because after reading that steaming pile of feces I don't think I would have put it quite so nicely myself.

generalgrog wrote:
I think the point you missed is that when you start throwing the term bigot around the way melissia does it cheapens the word, and makes it actually useless.

I didn't see the word "bigot" in that piece. I saw a lot of stuff about not liking that the CRM was being compared to the GRM, and especially gay marriage as a particular issue.

generalgrog wrote:
This is one of the main points he made.

No it wasn't, the word didn't even appear. The whole of the piece was about why gay rights aren't like black rights because the author doesn't believe that being homosexual is like being black.

generalgrog wrote:
People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe). When peoples choices are criticized the people criticizing those choices are labeled bigot and when this happens it cheapens the african american civil rights movement usage of bigot, and quite frankly the overall usage. So he is offended by that.

Well, no, when people criticize the choice, or nature, of a person on the basis of what they claim is a rational argument, but which is in fact wholly irrational, they are considered to be a bigot because that disconnect indicates obstinance and intolerance. Or at least, that's what goes down when the term "bigot" is properly applied. Of course it isn't always properly applied for the same reason that "racist" isn't. That being most people are average, and average isn't very good.

And, beyond all that, whether or not you're a bigot has no bearing on what you're bigoted against. You can be bigoted against a choice.

Edit: And that's all before I dig into this:

What makes a homosexual’s aspiration to overturn thousands of years if universally recognized morality and practice a “right”?

Which is wrong on at least two levels.

I see I missed the "atheism is a religion!" bs argument from earlier in the thread. I am disappoint.

Atheism may not be a religion but The Church of the Space Octopus certainly is! His large dinner plate eyes are looking for your support! And though He may have eight divine appendages, we are always looking for extra hands.

fluffstalker wrote:Atheism may not be a religion but The Church of the Space Octopus certainly is! His large dinner plate eyes are looking for your support! And though He may have eight divine appendages, we are always looking for extra hands.

But why worship a giant Space Octopus when you can praise the noodly divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, homophobia-- fear and hate, the basics of bigotry-- is a very strong motivator compared to acceptance.

Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.
-------------------------------------------------

Well after reading that hogwash I can most definitely say that not only is he a bigot, he is an absolute ball-bag of a man.

"polymorphous forms of sexuality" was the best bit by far.. It was laugh out loud funny. I had to shout my missus in to read the article when I got to the bottom!

The bloke should write for Mad Magazine!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:

You know something I just don't understand, going ever so slightly off topic? "Gay Marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage". So it's not ok for two women to love eachother for eternity, but it's perfectly fine for Kim Khardashian to turn her wedding into a publicity stunt for less than a month?

Thats what Ive always said! The weird kinky gak that some people get up to, and MARRIAGE is the thing they get angry about?!

"Can I pick up a stranger outside the 7-eleven and feth him up against a dumpster?"

If you want.. Its your life...

"Can I dress up like a clown and then jack off twenty sailors one after another in a big long line?"

Whatever, nothing to do with me..

"Can I marry one partner and live together in a nice house and only sleep with them and nobody else forever?"

DISGUSTED!

mattyrm wrote:

Thats what Ive always said! The weird kinky gak that some people get up to, and MARRIAGE is the thing they get angry about?!

"Can I pick up a stranger outside the 7-eleven and feth him up against a dumpster?"

If you want.. Its your life...

"Can I dress up like a clown and then jack off twenty sailors one after another in a big long line?"

Whatever, nothing to do with me..

"Can I marry one partner and live together in a nice house and only sleep with them and nobody else forever?"

DISGUSTED!

Exactly. Though I am bit curious about the clown and sailors situation. Not from personal experience, is it?

I don't think people who aren't okay with gay marriage generally accept the sort of things matty described there.

generalgrog wrote:(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe).

All I needed to hear from you to know i don't need to read anything further you might post on this subject...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I don't think people who aren't okay with gay marriage generally accept the sort of things matty described there.

No, but a good many of them continue to be part of an organization that has allowed and covered up the practice of institutionalized sexual abuse of children for ages...

It is repeated, rampant and known about from the pope on down to the lowest member.

Noone that continues to be part of the catholic church (or any church that has shown a history of this abuse) has a leg to stand on as far as moral superiority and preaching to homosexuals about their supposed "evils".

I also don't believe that people are "born gay" in the sense that I usually hear that sentiment. I mean, I don't think people choose who they are attracted to and I think some people did not choose that they are predominately attracted to people of the same sex but I don't think all of this adds up to some kind of coherent a priori category called "gay." And I have trouble with the notion that a person has a right to marry anyone, whether a person of the same or of a different sex, or any other configuration, based on preferences concerning sexual attraction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:Noone that continues to be part of the catholic church (or any church that has shown a history of this abuse) has a leg to stand on as far as moral superiority and preaching to homosexuals about their supposed "evils".

How about people who continue to be members of a society that has done this? Or does it only matter if you can fallaciously insult religion?

Manchu wrote:I don't think people who aren't okay with gay marriage generally accept the sort of things matty described there.

True enough mate.. I was merely trying to be funny!

And failing obviously.. they cant all be good ones eh?

Well, I agree with the point you were making. What conservatives mean by the "sanctity of marriage" is long gone at the hands of heterosexual couples. But this idea of "sanctity" is pretty gakky anyway so, IMO, go heterosexauls!

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, homophobia-- fear and hate, the basics of bigotry-- is a very strong motivator compared to acceptance.

Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.
GG

Yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:How about people who continue to be members of a society that has done this? Or does it only matter if you can fallaciously insult religion?

I didnt insult religion. Personal faith isfine and everyone is free to practice it if they choose.

I called out an organization that has hijacked people's desire for faith and that holds peope hostage based upon that faith and forces them to live in fear/shame all the while bilking them out of their money and using them as pawns in their larger political machinations. An entity that makes a living (and a profit) telling others they are evil sinners while at the same time hiding the many skeletons in their own closet.


As to your first point, are you suggesting that people shouldnt try to change society and oppose/speak out against hypocrisy, but should rather run away?

When hatemongers and bigots who use faith as their excuse/shield stop trying to oppress others and instead mind their own buisness then perhaps allo f us "insulting religion" will do same?

A crazy idea I know...

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:GG, you are not a bogeyman. You post what I perceive to be dishonest and harmful things.

If I see a falsehood being spoken, I can help others by pointing out that falsehood and contradicting it. In this case one of your fellow Christians pointed out several of the, to put it charitably, inaccurate things you posted. But if you keep going on basing your reasoning and your arguments on untruths, I have to reference those untruths to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your reasoning.

But you seem to be hypersensitive to things I post.

A sinner in a congregation may feel that his priest is "hypersensitive to sins I make". He may feel singled out and persecuted. When in fact the priest is simply pointing out and correcting sin where he sees it. The sinner feels singled out even if other sinners are being responded to as well, because the sinner is guilty and at some level realizes his own wrongdoing. If you lack awareness of where I respond to other people (which is natural, as most moderation is private), you may be under the false impression that you're being singled out. If, on the other hand, in a given thread you're the only person posting something unreasonable or untrue, I'm not being biased against you for disagreeing only with you. It's just that no one else in the thread did what you did.

generalgrog wrote: Is it possible that I just made a mistake when I posted the information about the 7 year release? A mistake in not following through with enough research? Why do you immediately think there is something sinister at work.

It doesn't have to be sinister. You attempted to correct the record with regards to the Bible's opinion of slavery, but you falsely portrayed that record. It's possible that it was an honest mistake, but the conscientious move in such a circumstance would be for you to make an earnest effort to check what the Bible actually says. In this case it appears you did not do so. Whether that's because you were deliberately concealing the truth, or just first found a passage which seemed to reduce the appearance of the Bible sanctioning slavery and latched onto that without looking any further, the effect is the same. You presented a misleading and incomplete picture. Polonius, also a Christian, corrected you, but you made arguments seeming to imply that ancient slavery was not that bad, at least partially on the basis of this false and incomplete picture.

GG wrote:Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable. Who is the OT mod now? If it's manny then that would explain things.

It's always been snarky. I think it's actually pretty civilized at present. There are no specific OT mods. I acknowledge your accusation of bias. If any post of mine seems to you to be in violation of Dakka rules, please hit the yellow triangular "alert moderator" button on it, and a moderator will review it and respond appropriately. I will not touch the alert and will be sure to let other moderators see it.

Monster Rain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

Which, of course, unfortunately doesn't somehow make GG's posts in any way approving of slavery.

If you read what he posted, he attempted to argue in a couple of places that:

A) Biblical slavery was not nearly as bad as we think.
B) A female slave being taken as a wife hadn't been used sexually by the owner.
C) All slaves had to be freed after seven years.
D) Taking of unwilling slaves (rather than indentured bondservants) was actually forbidden by the Bible.
E) The passage about it being acceptable to beat your slave as long as you don't beat them to death isn't actually condoing the beating of slaves.

All of which are incredible, false, or both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Agreed. This whole line of thought about homosexuality as perversion and sin has no bearing on how Catholics ought to treat gay people, except insofar as barring them from sacremental marriage. And even that is not really a "punishment." People who want to marry someone of the same sex are simply not eligible for sacramental marriage.

Which is a sad thing for Catholic homosexuals who wish to be married.

Thankfully they are eligible for sacramental marriage in other religions, but it's obviously not the same thing.

I don't think it's wrong for Roman Catholics to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals.

I don't think it's wrong for Roman Catholics to argue that the US government should deny civil marriage to homosexuals.

I do think it's wrong for the US government to deny civil marriage to homosexuals on religious grounds.