Catholic homosexuals

are horrid sinners, deserving of all spite and contempt from the catholic church high instances. They should be banished to hell and its the only wish of the catholic church we lived back in the middle ages when proper measures could be taken. That is, persecute and kill them all.

2 weeks ago over here we finally allowed two men or two women to marry. Not a biggie. I mean, who gives a ........! Good on them. I'm all pro for anything that means giving equal rights to everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, political or sexual orientation. Sounds familiar?

But for the past 2 weeks, the catholic church in this country and even the damned pope have been making a spectacle on the decision. Today I even heard the higher representative of the catholic church in this country say homosexual marriage will undermine and eventually destroy the values of heterosexual marriage.

To hear these pathetic excuse for human beings whose insanity makes them believe they have a mandate from their god try to influence a political decision in the minds of the population who still cares to listen to their ramblings makes my boil blood. The same it would boil if it was a dictator making a speech on how black men and jews are subhumans. Sounds familiar?

The problem with religion is its constant attempt to include dogma in reason. The problem with faith is how foolish it makes people look and how dangerous they become to any democratic society which we want free and respectful of the most basic human rights. And my only moment of relief is when I realize that it is precisely the catholic church outdated and fallacious dogma that is slowly emptying it from followers and its unmovable faith that makes them not realize they are the problem and not the world around them. I can hardly wait!

Originally Posted by Mario F.

To hear these pathetic excuse for human beings whose insanity makes them believe they have a mandate from their god try to influence a political decision in the minds of the population who still cares to listen to their ramblings makes my boil blood. The same it would boil if it was a dictator making a speech on how black men and jews are subhumans. Sounds familiar?

A incredible amount -- like 20-30% -- of public discourse in America revolves around Christians (in this case, generally evangelical, but to a lesser extent Catholic) trying to force their ridiculous and hypocritical "moral" codes down everyone's throat.

I've gotten use to this altho I find it odd, since it is not like that in Canada, where there is much more a real separation between church and state. The two countries are almost identical in most other ways.

IMO, the success of the fundamentalist enterprise in the US leads other people around the world to mimic it. The same way mimicing a business or industry is motivated by greed (and not an interest in anything particular about the business or its products),* this is about consolidating power, and not any real interest in ethics. They are proto-faciscts. Consider what just happened in Uganda, partially due to the influence of an evangalist US Senator.

Catholics are not nearly so bad as evangelicals, so perhaps you are lucky.

*a similar parallel would be that a "good profiteer" or investor does not buy stock in a company because he or she likes what it does, he or she does it in the hopes that the value of the stock will rise regardless of the reason.

Evangelical Catholics are a much bigger issue in Europe than the USA, these days. Most of the more evangelical groups in the US are the Southern Methodist and Baptist sects. As far as New York goes (where I'm from) you tend to find more Orthodox Judaism in conflict with state issues.

That said... my opinion is that the US government shouldn't allow gay marriages... they shouldn't allow straight marriages, either. Marriage is the decree of a church... all the state should supply is a civil union amongst two individuals, gay or straight, for the purposes of tax and all other relevant laws.

There are churches that believe marriage is between a man and a woman... it's their belief and they have the right to it. Which is why the government shouldn't have any stake in the issue what-so-ever. No state marriages... only unions.

Religion is deeply ingrained in the US political system.

A person who is not Christian/Catholic will never be considered for president.

There should be a seperation of church and state.

Amen.

If they are so concerned about the sanctity of the marriage, why are they not working on getting divorces banned ...

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Evangelical Catholics are a much bigger issue in Europe than the USA, these days. Most of the more evangelical groups in the US are the Southern Methodist and Baptist sects. As far as New York goes (where I'm from) you tend to find more Orthodox Judaism in conflict with state issues.

Wow -- "Evangelical Catholics". I'd never heard of this one before, it seems a little oxymoronic to me.*

SlyMaelstrom makes an incredibly excellent point about "marriage" and unions here, thanx dude and I concur 100%. But I gotta observe that I've been living in New York for a few years now and have not really noticed this about Orthodox Jews. They seem like more of a fringe element in right-wing conservative politics, eg, in NYC they have an armed militia that very occasionally pops up doing the kind of bizzaro things an armed militia might do, alto to date I believe no one has been killed ** Excepting the VERY SIGNIFICANT relationship of the US and Israel, I certainly would not say they have anything close to the influence of fundamentalist Christians in the US on any level -- altho I imagine they "silently support" each other quite a bit to extend this mutual influence.

Originally Posted by Memloop

If they are so concerned about the sanctity of the marriage, why are they not working on getting divorces banned ...

Three guesses Hey if yer still reading here's my somewhat offensive moment of the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERfW_TWoEkU

PS. I think Mario's real reason for doing this was to see what google ads would respond with

*I have a few close friends that are born again (aka, "evangelical") Pentacosts; we go on hiking trips together and watch movies and such. If you get them talking about it, they do have completely absurd ideas about gay people (among other things) BUT it always appears to me that amongst themselves, they deride Catholics more than anyone else, gays included.

** maybe not so funny, since people have definitely been shot at and wounded with guns.

Originally Posted by MK27

PS. I think Mario's real reason for doing this was to see what google ads would respond with

Actually I was more hoping some die-hard catholic, orthodox, jew, or other ignorant life-form would come on the open and violently disagree with me so I got an excuse to smack their face with a baseball bat.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

There are churches that believe marriage is between a man and a woman... it's their belief and they have the right to it.

That's a part of the problem. Somewhere in history we established that it is ok to be intolerant and gospel segregation as long as it is the church doing it. And while it is true the church has long been replaced in the seat of power, it is no less true it still holds influence in the weaker minds of the uneducated societies we keep building.

My quarrel is not with faith. If someone still wants to believe in the fairy tooth and this superhero of theirs, whatever. My quarrel is with those allowing faith to rule their lives, actions and their minds. And especially with those spreading faith as a political and sociological weapon that degrades our humanity in the name of a set of "values" THEY say are the right values, when in fact they are nothing more than a beautified version of persecution.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Actually I was more hoping some die-hard catholic, orthodox, jew, or other ignorant life-form would come on the open and violently disagree with me so I got an excuse to smack their face with a baseball bat.

Challenge accepted Though I am not catholic.

First of all, is christianity against homosexuals? If it is, why would a homosexual be a crhistian? If he is not a christian, why would he want a religious marriage?
If it not against homosexuals, then whoever is against homosexuals and christians is misguided and/or corrupted.

So give me a scenario to work with. Because usually I hear stupid things like homosexuals wanting the right of a religious marriage without believing in the religion in the first place. In which case, the fact that they are homosexuals is irrelevant. The fact that they want blessings from a god they don't believe should trouble them.

I mean, you hear a prist say "you have no right to marry" implying that religion is against homosexuals. And you hear the defenders go "they are humans of a democratic society and they have the right to marry". So they don't mind that their religion is against the way of live the chosen, as long as they get married?

Now, I have to clarify that a religous marriage and a political marriage are different. The first you are blessed by god to live together happily etc etc. The second you are registerd as a couple (and a family) in a society. No, you don't need a religous marriage to have a political one. But you have a political if you have a religous one.

So, concluding, lets assume that christianity is against homosexuals. And assume the couple is not christians to avoid paradoxes. They can get married if society allows it (which it should lets say). If a preacher goes and complains we (the rest) can just let him rant to death. The matter is social.
Lets assume that christianity is not against homosexuals. Then the priest should be corrected. Note that christians are divided in a lot of sub-religions. What christianity says about a subject is not that clear. The term "homosexual couple" didn't exist back then at all.

I am speaking purely logical here. The problem is that media tend to "categorize" things. It becomes "religon" against "homosexuals". Every scenario, every case is different. Except if you are completely against one or the other. Which would need some serious argument.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

that degrades our humanity in the name of a set of "values" THEY say are the right values, when in fact they are nothing more than a beautified version of persecution.

But you dont say that YOUR values are the right values? Or do you have any possible argument to prove, even just justify that YOUR values are right?
Or should we follow the rules of THE society? Maybe the laws of THE country? Or our so WELL defined morals?
In any case, what values do you think we should have. Based on what and who?

And "humanity". You are completely wrong if you think it has the same meaning in a society and in a religion.

As for faith, I would answer in the same sense. You believe in something, you create a set of believes and ideas and it rules your life and your mind. So faith does rule your life. What should rule your life if not faith? Will? I prefer it, but it leads to chaos. Emotions? Logic? Morals, rules without faith in them?

The word "Marriage" isn't a trademark of any particular religion, so why should the government have to call their marriages a "civil union" when it's exactly the same thing?

If the Catholic church wants to ban gay marriages in their churches that's fine; it's their churches and they can do whatever they want with them. But they have no right saying who can get married outside their churches.

I agree completely (and have a few homosexual friends myself) - if all parties are happy, why not?

But then the same can be said for human-animal marriages, and polygamy, too. Should they also be allowed? Or should we draw a line somewhere?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

That's a part of the problem. Somewhere in history we established that it is ok to be intolerant and gospel segregation as long as it is the church doing it.

It has nothing to do with it being the church. It has to do with it not being the government. In any modern society, people have the right to their intolerance as they should. What the church wants to do on their property and what an individual wants to do on their property is entirely up to the individual if it doesn't break any national or state law. The only time the government has the need to step in is when tax money (a.k.a. the citizen's money) goes, in some way or another, to support these injustices. At that point it's like the person being offended is paying, in part, for the offenses against them to occur. The government (in the US, anyway) doesn't give money to the church which is why they seem to be under a different set of rules. In reality, though, they aren't as there are plenty of organizations that stand for some sort of intolerance that is not supported or funded at all by the government.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

But then the same can be said for human-animal marriages, and polygamy, too. Should they also be allowed? Or should we draw a line somewhere?

The idea of human-animal marriage is very different, and not really worth discussing. Polygamy, though, does have some similarities to the homosexual marriage question, as does incestuous marriage despite the insulting nature of the analogies.

But one thing that makes same-sex marriage stand apart is that there is a very real group of people who have an innate predisposition to love someone of the same sex, and their right to marry is being refused. I'm not sure it would be easy to show that polygamous or incestuous relationships have a biological basis for their formation. There is no class of polygamers that are biologically required to love only multiple people at a time.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

The government (in the US, anyway) doesn't give money to the church which is why they seem to be under a different set of rules.

Churches are tax-exempt, which is one way the US government "gives" money to them. So while it's kind of a dirty little secret that nobody messes with, one could easily argue that any church that discriminates should not be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status.

Originally Posted by Daved

Churches are tax-exempt, which is one way the US government "gives" money to them. So while it's kind of a dirty little secret that nobody messes with, one could easily argue that any church that discriminates should not be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status.

Churches are also, or at least are supposed to be, non-profit... which is why they don't pay taxes. You could argue, of course, the corruption in this... but in that stance you might as well argue in the corruption of all non-profit organizations or in the various loopholes that exist in non-profit tax law.

Originally Posted by Daved

But one thing that makes same-sex marriage stand apart is that there is a very real group of people who have an innate predisposition to love someone of the same sex, and their right to marry is being refused. I'm not sure it would be easy to show that polygamous or incestuous relationships have a biological basis for their formation. There is no class of polygamers that are biologically required to love only multiple people at a time.

I don't agree with this, at all... I mean, I'm no polygamist... but I'd imagine a broader audience would under stand the desire for polygamy greater than that of a homosexual. Most people fall in love at more than one point in their life... so should someone hold both loves simultaneously, why shouldn't they be able to marry both? I don't mean to take a stance in support of polygamy, but I really can't see how you'd argue they don't have, or can't prove, a biological need that is pretty much innate in every human on the planet. The primary stance against polygamy is that it introduces a whole new loophole in the tax system. In reality... the same could be said for incest. The fact is, however, that there is medical reasoning for why incestuous relations shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Because usually I hear stupid things like homosexuals wanting the right of a religious marriage without believing in the religion in the first place. In which case, the fact that they are homosexuals is irrelevant. The fact that they want blessings from a god they don't believe should trouble them.

But the fact they are asking for the end of segregation in the church didn't come to your mind? Because it doesn't take an homosexual to know the church still holds an important doctrinal role in our society, and that by openly wanting to separate heterosexuals from homosexuals, this institution is openly spreading segregation like a cancer.

Of those homosexuals I know or heard defending the idea they should have the right to a marriage in the church, I know only of two types:

- Those who speak for other homosexuals who are catholic
- Those who are catholic and wish to be fully accepted within their religious community without any strings attached.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

The problem is that media tend to "categorize" things. It becomes "religon" against "homosexuals". Every scenario, every case is different. Except if you are completely against one or the other. Which would need some serious argument.

Stop with the media. I'm not a gullible fool who makes their mind from prime time news.

I'm the one categorizing things here. And the church. And it does when it makes it completely clear its doctrine and its dogma which basis itself entirely on fear, persecution and the promise of a better life somewhere after you die, should include homosexuals as a group with less privileges in that absurd ritual they call marriage.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

But you dont say that YOUR values are the right values? Or do you have any possible argument to prove, even just justify that YOUR values are right?

Read the Letter of Human Rights. And possibly read even your own country constitution, which more than likely -- and just like mine own -- makes it clear stopping homosexuals from getting married is in fact against the constitution.

That's where I base my "values". Not in church doctrine. I base them on my desire for equality and tolerance among all living beings. A thought that definitely I didn't get from the catholic church.

They are better values! Because I don't have them based on the promise of an afterlife in paradise, or out of fear for a vengeful, vindicative, and in fact even evil, god. Neither I expect any reward for following them.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

As for faith, I would answer in the same sense. You believe in something, you create a set of believes and ideas and it rules your life and your mind. So faith does rule your life.

Noun: Faith
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

That's the only meaning of the word faith I'm discussing here. And it's clear to everyone. It should so to you too. So, don't start trying to dissect words for argument building. Instead debate the ideas if you must.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

It has nothing to do with it being the church. It has to do with it not being the government. In any modern society, people have the right to their intolerance as they should. What the church wants to do on their property and what an individual wants to do on their property is entirely up to the individual if it doesn't break any national or state law. The only time the government has the need to step in is when tax money (a.k.a. the citizen's money) goes, in some way or another, to support these injustices. At that point it's like the person being offended is paying, in part, for the offenses against them to occur. The government (in the US, anyway) doesn't give money to the church which is why they seem to be under a different set of rules. In reality, though, they aren't as there are plenty of organizations that stand for some sort of intolerance that is not supported or funded at all by the government.

Please explain why in this context it is forbidden to raise a communist flag or Nazi flag in a public square in many countries in the world, or to hold a public speech in these ideologies name?

Because it breaks the law, of course. My point thus being, we haven't decided yet to stop allowing the church to disseminate intolerance.