Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gay Marriage]: It Hurts Jesus Real Bad

2456764

Posts

  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.

    I addressed that in my third point. This is really no different from divorce. In Catholicism, divorce isn't just immoral - it's impossible. If you've already in a valid marriage, you cannot divorce yourself from them. You're married forever. (Annulments is when the Church rules that there really was no marriage from the start.)

    Similarly, the Church doesn't believe that two homosexuals can get married. It's impossible for two men or two women to join together in holy matrimony. It's not just immoral, it's impossible.

    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.

    Melkster on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    I guess all I meant was "Are you in favor of gay marriage?" would have been a much simpler question, and wouldn't lend itself to either side claiming they were fooled.

    But that's not the same question. I can be against gay marriage but still recognize their rights to marriage, or I can think it's not my place to decide even if I'm still against gay marriage.

    Damnit. :P

    "Are you in favor of gays having the right to marry?"

    My point was to make it a non-ambiguous, crystal-clear yes/no question.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.

    You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.

    I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.

    You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.

    I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.

    Lots of Catholics certainly believe divorce is wrong. I'd say among regular Catholic church-goers, it's along the same levels as anti-gay marriage sentiment.

    And yeah, it really is entirely hypocritical of them. Because they don't say "It would be impossible to make divorce illegal, however, that is still our official position." They say, "It is not appropriate for the Church to impose it's will on marriage on the entire people of a state because not all people are Catholic." They changed their theology. They changed their reasoning. They changed their position. It's not just a matter of "giving up" on cause they believe in, they stopped believing in the cause. Why can't they apply that same exact reason to marriage generally? What makes gay marriage special?

    Melkster on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    its easier to get people to hate on gays than divorcees these days?

    nexuscrawler on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    The more religious you are the more the presence of people who break the illusion hurts.

    It's like if you are so committed to WoW that you can't stomach the cows not being bipedal.

    What you have in Maine is people wanting to have the cows bipedal because it's "authentic" and they don't want the illusion to break just because they've logged out. If you don't want to play along, hold up the scenery and make them feel good about something their limbic systems tell them is hunky-dory, they'll abuse democracy and force you to play along somehow. It's just as sickening as exclusive water fountains, but it's "religious" and Christians have their own laws of political correctness and identity politics.

    In a decent society no amount of xtians would have the democratic power to mess with that which has no relation to their big LARP. The special status of faith must be destroyed utterly, preferably by top-bottom, undemocratic decree and enforcing.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
    I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church would be in favor of a tightening of divorce laws. If there was a referendum to enact such laws, the Catholic Church would support it.

    I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Church lobbying a certain way on a political referendum. They have the same right to do so as any other organization in this country.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Actually, churches do not have the same political rights as other organizations. It's part of their tax-exempt status.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Actually, churches do not have the same political rights as other organizations. It's part of their tax-exempt status.
    IIRC, they can't lobby pro or con on a certain candidate, but they can take sides on referenda and such. Basically, they can do anything other than endorse a particular candidate.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    They also don't do shit about red meat on Fridays anymore either, so what's your point? The church has decided to let a few things slide in the last 2000 years and not others? Big deal. Trying to figure out why the church is against gay marriage is like looking for the meaning of life. It's not the worth the effort and you probably won't like the answer.

    Hold the phone! Whoa. When did they backtrack that one? Does this mean that for the many sins I'm going to be damned to hell for, a burger on Friday is now not among them, or did the pope issue a "LOL, just Kidding, meats cool now, k"?

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Well, you see, the Catholic Church has a personal vested interest in this law because if it was passed, they would be required to marry homosexuals in their churches. Wait, no, no they wouldn't. Let me try again...

    The Church can call it double Satan marriage it it makes them happy. Just so long as they don't try to influence public policy.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Meat on Friday is okay unless it's Lent.

    Captain Carrot on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.

    Now, the fact that they diverted what, 500k to this while closing down churches is the part that's deplorable.
    What?

    No, look at that. Look at that and look at all the things all of us do all the time that are against "Catholic Beliefs". There's more to this than not believing it's a good thing or a holy thing. There's hatred.

    It's not like there's a big "No on Pork" campaign by Jewish people.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.
    The church doesn't have a vested interest in making gay marriage illegal. Bitches need to shut the fuck up and render unto Caesar.

    Bama on
  • SpoonySpoony Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If you've seen the Yes on 1 television spots, you'd probably recognize them if you're from California.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html

    Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.

    "Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.

    Spoony on
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
    I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church would be in favor of a tightening of divorce laws. If there was a referendum to enact such laws, the Catholic Church would support it.

    I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Church lobbying a certain way on a political referendum. They have the same right to do so as any other organization in this country.

    Tightening the law, perhaps. Making it illegal? With all the restrictions that the Catholic Church places on it's own marriage/annulment rules? I can't find a single document out of the Vatican or the Conference of Catholic Bishops expressing an ideal of making divorce illegal. With gay marriage, of course, it's totally different.

    Melkster on
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Spoony wrote: »
    If you've seen the Yes on 1 television spots, you'd probably recognize them if you're from California.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html

    Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.

    "Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.

    You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.

    Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.

    Melkster on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Spoony wrote: »
    If you've seen the Yes on 1 television spots, you'd probably recognize them if you're from California.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html

    Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.

    "Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.

    You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.

    Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.

    Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.

    Couscous on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Spoony wrote: »
    If you've seen the Yes on 1 television spots, you'd probably recognize them if you're from California.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html

    Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.

    "Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.

    You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.

    Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.

    Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.

    Gay parents means no Batman.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • TasteticleTasteticle Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Here is the whole problem:

    "The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!


    Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."

    Tasteticle on

    Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    Here is the whole problem:

    "The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!


    Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."

    To be fair, the Catholics are the ones who don't pick and choose, right?

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.

    Now, the fact that they diverted what, 500k to this while closing down churches is the part that's deplorable.

    It might make you question their tax exemption status. I disagree with a non-profit attempting to manipulate politics in any manner other than encouraging people to register and vote.

    In this case, the opposition is motivating voters with misinformation and fear, and to think a non-profit is contributing to that is troubling.

    NailbunnyPD on
    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    Here is the whole problem:

    "The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!


    Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."

    To be fair, the Catholics are the ones who don't pick and choose, right?

    The proto-orthodox Christian Church (which Catholics claim as their own) picked and chose what went in the Bible and what didn't.

    The Catholic Church continued to grow, picked and chose what parts of the Bible they would emphasize and what they wouldn't, and then made that part of it's established, inerrant teaching.

    The Catholic Church continued to grow, and picked and chose what parts of it's established, inerrant teaching to emphasize and what to let die out.

    The Catholic Church continues to grow, now, and individual Catholics pick and choose what parts of their Church to believe and what parts not to believe; the hierarchy similarly picks and chooses what issues to make a big deal of (gay marriage, abortion), and what issues to emphasize the truth of, but leave to individual Catholic's conscience (contraception in America), and what issues to just completely re-interpret, ignore or renounce (Latin masses, Limbo, the doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation," slavery, holy war, inquisitions, indulgences, etc).

    The entire freaking institution is filled with rather arbitrary picking and choosing.

    Melkster on
  • TasteticleTasteticle Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    Here is the whole problem:

    "The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!


    Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."

    To be fair, the Catholics are the ones who don't pick and choose, right?

    Everybody picks and chooses.

    I used to be a Catholic.

    "Hey yeah don't take the old testament seriously because it just doesn't make any sense. But these parts here and here do. Not here. But here...."

    Tasteticle on

    Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    See, the thing is, it's easier to try to impose your will upon a group through the masses when the target amounts to roughly 10% of the population, instead of when they make up that 90% of the population (ignoring gays because, well, who cares what people who can't get married in the first place think).

    :x

    They're just picking the fights they think they can win.

    C'mon Maine, prove me wrong!

    Edit: Damnit, beaten.
    its easier to get people to hate on gays than divorcees these days?

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Spoony wrote: »
    If you've seen the Yes on 1 television spots, you'd probably recognize them if you're from California.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html

    Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.

    "Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.

    You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.

    Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.

    Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.

    Gay parents means no Batman.

    Gay parents means Alfred marries a similarly awesome British fellow and makes Batman even more awesome.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    Here is the whole problem:

    "The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!


    Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."

    To be fair, the Catholics are the ones who don't pick and choose, right?

    Everybody picks and chooses.

    I used to be a Catholic.

    "Hey yeah don't take the old testament seriously because it just doesn't make any sense. But these parts here and here do. Not here. But here...."

    I am a Catholic... it was a joke... maybe not a good one...

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Oh, right.

    Crap.

    Gosh I can't tell sarcasm when it comes to religion.

    Melkster on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Oh, right.

    Crap.

    Gosh I can't tell sarcasm when it comes to religion.

    Nor my religious affiliation through an internet forum... how weird :P

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    As long as the bible exists, ideation involving the killing of men with long hair, slavery under certain circumstances and death penalties for bestiality exists. If Christians just agreed to purge the obviously dumb shit from the bible for good, problem solved. But it's lying there, unedited, like a softly humming entity ready to harm, kill or indoctrinate innocent people as long as the societal circumstances allow it. The only echelon between the theocracy and oppression the Abrahamic texts extol and people like me is Christians, followers of Judaism and Muslims. My concerns are understandably not allayed. Rather, I get a lot of whining about them being persecuted and treated meanly because I would stop them from letting their political power intrude on the sovereignty of others, like in Maine or California.

    You can't deify and sugarcoat one passage (completely arbitrarily), say that you've put the worst behind you and then prance about saying that you have legitimate interests against your children being told the truth about homosexuals (Do you expect we want to tell them how gay people fuck or something? Get a grip.). That is dog shit.

    Until the catholic church joins the real world and starts fighting sexuality-based prosecution the way it defended free religion and opposed racism, I'm not respecting it for even a micron. I have accomplished more, intellect-wise, than the entire Vatican. It's a dangerous organization with tenets just as bad and insane as racism.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.

    The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.

    You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.

    I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.

    You'll also find plenty of Catholics who believe that gays should be allowed to marry. Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of them, but probably more in Maine than in other parts of the country.

    By all accounts, the new bishop is a real asshole. Maine had a huge French-Catholic community by way of Canada for the better part of a century, but in the last fifteen-or-so years those numbers have been spiraling down (no more gigantic immigrant families) and I guess the Cardinal wanted to bring in a real nutbuster thinking that the solution to all their problems lay in grabbing onto as many wedge issues as they could. Back when my mother worked for the Council of Churches (a liberal non-profit community organization) the diocese was a lot more reasonable and they often worked together on a lot of social justice issues, but these days it really seems like they're too busy finding things to hate.

    The fact that every TV in the state gets EWTN doesn't help, either.

    Zimmydoom on
    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Gim wrote: »
    Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
    Flew away in a balloon
    Had sex with polar bears
    While sitting in a reclining chair
    Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
    Running around and clawing eyelids
    Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    They also don't do shit about red meat on Fridays anymore either, so what's your point? The church has decided to let a few things slide in the last 2000 years and not others? Big deal. Trying to figure out why the church is against gay marriage is like looking for the meaning of life. It's not the worth the effort and you probably won't like the answer.

    Especially when you have the answer right in front of you.

    Hint: It's Bigotry.

    The Muffin Man on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    Spoony wrote: »
    If you've seen the Yes on 1 television spots, you'd probably recognize them if you're from California.

    http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html

    Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.

    "Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.

    You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.

    Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.

    Is it because we want our kids to fight for the right to marry robots?

    Or is it because raising a kid to respect others is never a bad thing but teaching them to hate who you hate is horrible and many people think it should b child abuse?

    The Muffin Man on
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.

    Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.

    MuddBudd on
    steam_sig.png
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.

    Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.

    High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.

    Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.

    High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.

    All I know is I've met a staggering number of former seminary students who were gay, most of whom said there were a LOT of gay students there. I'll grant it's anecdotal.

    MuddBudd on
    steam_sig.png
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.

    Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.

    High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.

    You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.

    Hachface on
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.

    Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.

    High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.

    You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.

    I'm aware of that, I'm disagreeing with the "pretty high" part of the statement.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yeah, homosexuality is very, very common in the priesthood, and it makes absolute sense. If you're a young man and you have been raised to believe in Catholicism - and then you discover that you're exclusively attracted to other guys - what choice do you have? If you believe in the truth of your religion, there are two choices: a lay single life, or a religious vocation. Marriage is not an option, obviously. So what do you do? Live a life alone, without meaning, without purpose -- Or give your life purpose. Live of a life of meaning, with a specific mission: the priesthood.

    It's extremely common. Hell, I wanted to be a priest. I lived in a "priest-in-training" house as an undergrad for a semester. I majored in Religious Studies.

    Melkster on
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.

    Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.

    High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.

    You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.

    I'm aware of that, I'm disagreeing with the "pretty high" part of the statement.

    A book by Donald Cozzens who runs a seminary and a graduate theology school, takes his personal experiences and empirical studies and makes a pretty convincing case that the rate of homosexuality in the priesthood is up near 50% in some dioceses. It's rampant, dude.

    Melkster on
This discussion has been closed.