The tolerant Catholic Church

[Fran]

I wasnt talking about you personally.

Yes you flipping were

Obvious homophobes not realizing that they are homophobic

That followed on directly from my post and it was clearly directed at me, and the plural implying spud too I guess.

A lot of people say blatantly homophobic / racist things, yet when called out on it will immediately defend themselves with 'Im not a homophobe or a racist because I have gay / black friends'.

Throughout this thread I have not said anything homophobic and I've had this exact same discussion with gay people, the only one who still considers my position homophobic is oddly just you. Someone who has probably only seen gay people on TV.

Almost everything I say is backed up by evidence which proves its validity.

That only works when you actually understand what you are posting, read back a little and you'll find a lot of posts where you didn't.

People having different opinions despite being given valid evidence yet still deny it without giving any evidence to support their claims are always going to be '100% wrong' to me, because without evidence you only have opinions.

You still deny what people say because you don't grasp the meaning of what people say to you, whether evidence has been provided or not. Also, and you are certainly not alone in this, whenever a point has been definitely dismissed you swiftly move on to the next ridiculous assertion. It's like whack-a-mole.

There are some people on here with whom it really isn't worth arguing with, because basically they are always right, have always been right and will continue to be right in any discussion within their field of expertise.

Yet you bizarrely keep telling all these people that they are wrong ?


The only other type of person that would do that is an Evangelical Christian

 

[bhavv]

That followed on directly from my post and it was clearly directed at me, and the plural implying spud too I guess.

Are you flipping mad? That post followed one from RDM, above which was a post from Setter. No one was quoted in the post, it was a completely unpersonal comparison I was making between homophobia and racism.

Fail less and get over your victim syndrome.

 

[steve-h]

Wouldn't it be cool if we could have a for and against chart where both sides slap their reasons for and against down which is then distributed throughout the country for people to read, consider and then vote on

 

[Xordium]

Wouldn't it be cool if we could have a for and against chart where both sides slap their reasons for and against down which are then distributed throughout the country for people to read and consider and then vote on

Nar, I want a cage fight to settle this I hear them Jesuits have pretty good standup skills and that Magnanti genetic epidemiologist lass is supposed to be pretty good working from her back.

 

[steve-h]

Nar, I want a cage fight to settle this I hear them Jesuits have pretty good standup skills and that Magnanti genetic epidemiologist lass is supposed to be pretty good working from her back.

I don't fancy their chances against some of the butch hell-bound lesbians I see knocking about.

 

[Fran]

Are you flipping mad? That post followed one from RDM

....which was replying to me

So let's get this straight, you randomly decided to accuse somebody of homophobia but it's not any of the Catholics in the thread.

or

You randomly decided to make a comparison between homophobia and racism but incorrectly using the pronoun 'they', whilst also personalising it an example politician ?


Large quantity of faecal matter + male bovine

 

[bhavv]

One thing I'll never understand though is butch lesbian females, and camp gay men.

If a lesbian is attracted to other women, why would she want to look like, or want to be with a woman that resembles a man?

If a gay man is attracted to other men, why would he want to look like, or want to be with a man that resembles a woman?

These butch and camp personalities / appearances are not the same thing as being transgendered, as the people are comfortable with their gender and wear their own genders clothing, but choose to act, and / or mimick the personalities of the opposite gender.

Maybe its to do with some degree of masculinisation of a woman's, or feminisation of a man's brain?

So let's get this straight, you randomly decided to accuse somebody of homophobia but it's not any of the Catholics in the thread.

Maybe try and read better and understand the meaning of what was written. The meaning of what I wrote is that anyone that opposes same sex marriage is a homophobe.

Large quantity of faecal matter + male bovine

Describes everyone of your posts in this thread perfectly

 

[Fran]

If a lesbian is attracted to other women, why would she want to look like, or want to be with a woman that resembles a man?

Because she's still a woman regardless of appearance,
kinda obvious surely ?
Some lesbians have a masculine side with which they are more comfortable with.
Equally not all lesbians are butch, quite a few are femme, you just wouldn't notice them.

Maybe try and read better and understand the meaning of what was written. The meaning of what I wrote is that anyone that opposes same sex marriage is a homophobe.

Oh, so you are still spouting the same nonsense that was discredited on page one ?
Marvellous.

Describes everyone of your posts in this thread perfectly

But I'm not the one being bitchslapped by everyone in here with an IQ over 50

 

[bhavv]

Its not possible to discredit that being opposed to two people being able to marry is discrimination against them and people of their kind.

PS my IQ is 140. That's probably why I also support gay marriage because I understand homosexuality without any religious or homophobic bias.

 

[Castiel]

It seems that this is turning in a personal grudge match rather than a discussion......

It isn't really neccessary...just put forward your points of view without making personal accusations....

Makes for a better debate, don't you think.

 

[Threepwood]

There are eight types of marrige mentioned in the bible... Would the rape a virgin and pay the father 50 sheckles to marry her be appropiate nowadays? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Anyway, I don't understand how people can be so passionately hateful about something that won't affect their lives one bit.

 

[nemtizz]

Anyway, I don't understand how people can be so passionately hateful about something that won't affect their lives one bit.

You have to wonder why people get so riled up on 'Gay' issues. It just screams closet.

As long as you're not infringing on anyone else's happiness, do as you wish.

 

[Tute]

I've been thinking about this recently, and i've decided that on the whole gay marriage thing, I really just don't care at all what happens.

I know that sounds quite mean, and it's right that if homosexuals want to marry then that's their choice, but I wouldn't be picking up my pitchfork and marching to Westminster if the government said no.

I just can't put my finger on why I feel this way at all.

 

[Xordium]

PS my IQ is 140.

Which proves your argument neither way. It is also not a reliable measure of intelligence as someone as allegedly learned as yourself should know. If you are as intelligent as you claim then demonstrate that with your posts.

 

[Pate]

You have to wonder why people get so riled up on 'Gay' issues. It just screams closet.

As long as you're not infringing on anyone else's happiness, do as you wish.

Yay!

Whip out the old "if someone doesn't agree with me, then they must be xxxxxxxx" line.

Funnily enough, not all of us feel the same way about every issue, and I certainly don't think my position on the matter is wrong.

 

[RDM]

I wouldn't draw a parallel with apartheid at all. Apartheid discriminates against a human being on the basis of their skin colour.

Well I can see why you wouldnt want to make that comparison, but I do think it is relevant as you are effectively discriminating on an arbitary factor that is, by and large, outside the control of the individual being discriminated against.

Christianity broadly speaking, or the Catholic Church more particularly in this case, is concerned with preserving the status of marriage as the institution which promotes/raises the status of a lifelong partnership between a man and woman, which itself is ordered not only towards their own good but also and critically to the procreation of offspring.

Which is the churchs definition of marriage but not one universally shared as evidenced by the many childless marriages (by choice) and the commitment that many gay individuals have with civil partnerships. Why should the church get to force their view of marriage on to those that do not follow their religion? Would you be comfortable having another religions strictures you disagreed with being forced on to you?

Well yes, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally (in the biological sense) have offspring, because the sexual act is biologically designed to function in its purpose of reproduction only between a man and a woman. Therefore the biologically natural parents of a child are only a man and a woman.

But that only matters if you define children as a neccessity to marriage which just isn't the case. It is also an argument against the infertile marrying, any woman who has undergone the menopause marrying and an argument against adoption too. Yet no one seems to be making that argument.

 

[Xordium]

But that only matters if you define children as a neccessity to marriage which just isn't the case. It is also an argument against the infertile marrying, any woman who has undergone the menopause marrying and an argument against adoption too. Yet no one seems to be making that argument.

Totally agree I would also dispute the insinuated line that also follows from his logic that children should only be found in a married household.

 

[Danthus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17329902

The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is intensifying its campaign against the government's plan to legalise same-sex marriage.

In a letter to be read in 2,500 parish churches later, the Church's two most senior archbishops say the change would reduce the significance of marriage.

The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen.

The government wants to introduce gay marriage by 2015, but says churches would not have to perform weddings.

They really aren't going to give up are they.

 

[Xordium]

They really aren't going to give up are they.

Matters not. It's not a case of if but when the change occurs. Maybe they should be a bit more gracious in defeat before they find that the lobbyists are then directed into campaigning for the removal of the things the church takes for granted that arguably have no place in this country anymore.

 

[Castiel]

Matters not. It's not a case of if but when the change occurs. Maybe they should be a bit more gracious in defeat before they find that the lobbyists are then directed into campaigning for the removal of the things the church takes for granted that arguably have no place in this country anymore.

They may well have to do that to make this law anyway......apparently, I haven't had to confirm this, but the legal definition of marriage being between a man and a woman is in the articles of the Church of England and this is enshrined as an Act of Parliament, so the argument is that you change the Act of Parliament you must first disestablish the connection of that Act to the Articles of the Church of England...which would have significant impact on the overall establishment of the Church.

If this is a valid legal issue then there will be significant problems and far more resistance to this, mainly because of the wider legal and constitutional implications with a move toward the disestablishment of the Church rather than the actual issue of Gay Marriage.