I'm seeing a lot of words but none of them are, "I'm sorry." It's always everybody else's fault that you're a century behind the times at the best of times.
Pope Francis: “Being Homosexual Isn’t a Crime.”
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can you even imagine me coming here and asking people to apologize for their perspective?
Oh, it's not perspective. You've clearly caused some offense in this thread here and are treating the people offended like they're the ones in the wrong for taking issue with your mealy-mouthed apologetics for bigotry. You like to make a big deal out of how respectful you are, but you keep putting the lie to your civility.
It's going to really depend on someone being able to get through a law that suits their agenda AND take rights away from people
For example, a gay marriage law has never taken anything way from hetero marriage. This is fine.
A banning of gay marriage takes away from gay people. Your suggestion of banning marriage to only child bearing people takes away from a lot rights from certain people. Taking away rights is something people should apologize for (othe examples being property rights and the Trail of Tears or slavery or Aussie not classing Indigenous Australians as human)
Now, do I ever expect you to actually apologize? Never. Your God tells you to hate on people, and that always going to trump what people think. It's just what is
When did anyone say that?
I cannot, for the life of me, even begin to understand how you of all people would suggest I make a show of my civility. There is only one other user on this forum that I am meaner to than I am to you. I have definitely called you useless multiple times. You think I'm making a big deal about how respectful I am? Lol.
What can you expect? He came in and proudly, defiantly, shat his pants right where everyone can see. And when questioned on it, all he can do is retreat into good ol' catholic guilt and act like everyone else is weird for pointing out the brown water flowing down his legs.
I'd like to say something like that, but that seems so much more benign than what Tstorm is actually doing.
You've lectured me on it at least once dude. We can practically see your nose up in the air.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Tstorm doesn't care about "love." He's Catholic, he's miserable, and he wants everyone else to be just as miserable.
I mean, not only do I think we shouldn't be using the Pope who quit do to the pressure of trying to prevent sex abusing clergy from facing secular justice as a moral arbiter, but it should be plain fact that the reason nuPope's statement is only remotely noteworthy is because it is a shift in the Church's stance re: the criminalization of queer people.
That such an innocuous change has the trad caths in a tizzy is...not great
That such an innocuous change has the trad caths in a tizzy is...not great
Then we'll make you a deal: Disconnect marriage from all the secular advantages it provides, and make it solely a religious thing, and then the church can restrict it to left-handed albinos named George for all I'd give a damn.
When the Catholic church talks about "marriage", they mean their specific ceremony, which is supposed to be a sacrament and thus have some real supernatural effect. It is still a religion. And this supernatural ritual is only supposed to work with a real priest (coming though apostolic succession) and for a partnership between a man and a woman and is valid for the whole rest of life (no divorce possible under any circumstances*) who want to create offspring (or are at least open to do so).
That means it is less that the Catholics don't allow gay marriages and more that they don't believe that the ceremony works for gay couples. That is very different from many protestant churches for which most sacramental rituals are explicitly only symbolic and don't confer real blessings.
No, that is not exactly what legal marriage is in most countries nowadays. The clear distinction between legal marriage and Catholic marriage is somewhat recent, but generally excepted nowadays.
Now as for legal marriage between gay people ... the church position is not really clear at all. Currently it favors a "legal partnership framework" for gay couples. But does that extent to "legal marriage" for gays ? Well, depends on who you ask. On one hand the church avoids calling legal marriage "marriage", so that might indeed be meant but it could also be interpreted as explicitely meaning a different kind of legal framework. And you will basically get differnt answers from different priests. Some of them are pretty explicit in their opinion.
There have been instances where the local church campaigned against legalization of gay marriage. There have also been instances where the opposite happened, but the former is more common. Most of the time the church does stay silent on the topic and let the politicians do their thing.
* yes, that means even a Catholic couple that is legally divorced is treated as still married by the church. Which is why Catholic remarriage is not possible in this case and sexual contact with other people is treated as adultery even after divorce and civil remarriage.
Instead of divorce there is the option annullment. But that means you basically have to prove that the marriage ceremony was faulty to begin with and thus you never actually had been married at all.
Last edited:
It's not a bet I made. I said he didn't make the comments about heterosexuality. This letter is specifically about homosexuality, which you've subsumed into a wider conversation that has little to do with sexuality. You cannot equate comments directed specifically at homosexuality with general comments that apply to anyone.
You're literally defending a letter stating I have a tendency towards "intrinsic moral evil", that I have "no conceivable right" to be what I am or love who I want, and that its "not only licit but obligatory" to discriminate against me. You can pretend that you (and the letter's author) treat me with dignity and respect all you want. But that's fucking contempt.
That's not all I am, though, is it? I have characteristics. I am a certain height, phenotype, hair colour, blood type, sex, and sexuality. And you're happy to use some of those to deny me the same opportunities in housing and work that straight people have.
The letter's author is the one who wants to use these characteristics to have me treated differently. He's the one here making it "significant", insisting that not all human beings be treated the same because some have characteristics he considers intrinsically evil.
Last edited:
I'm gonna say that didn't happen, it just does not sound like me, but feel free to quote the post if you've got it.
Catholics aren't in a tizzy. I'm telling you, there is no change here. This is exactly the position the church has held for basically forever.
Sure! The way modern governments manage marriages is a product of the Protestant Reformation. The state determining what qualifies as a marriage and what that entails was pushed by Protestant sects as an effort to take influence away from the Vatican. The whole setup exists to not let Catholics just do our own thing. I would love to just do our own thing.
Of course, every time I suggest that, I get accused of taking my ball and going home.
Actually, funny enough, matrimony is the only sacrament not performed by the priest. It doesn't change what you're saying, because you still need the Church as witness, but the minsters of the sacrament are the bride and groom.
I think it makes the position rather clear if instead of marriage it was the Eucharist. If the government started a program where they handed out bread to people and called it "the Eucharist", the Catholic Church would be a little miffed. Not because the government handing out bread is a problem, but because of the whole stepping on and trivializing the sacraments part.
Fun fact: one of the standards by which a Catholic marriage can be nullified is if you never intended to have children. If you get married and then find out your partner isn't even open to the idea of children, that is grounds for annulment.
It's not, it's just a perspective you don't understand and don't want to understand. Like, the phrase "love who I want" is interesting. My perspective, I don't want anyone to "love who they want to". You shouldn't be picking who to love, you should love everyone. A Catholic marriage is not "you get married because you love someone". You're supposed to love everyone, you're supposed to love even your enemies, but you're only supposed to marry a maximum of one person, and you do that for the purpose of starting a family. It's not romance, it's vocation, and its a vocation you can't fulfill with 2 members of the same sex.
The is explicitly not it. I don't know how many times it's said to be activity that's the sin, not simply the desire, but the whole thing is very very much "discriminate based on what people do, not who they are."
This is almost a masterclass in empty deflection. If you want me to believe that a husband and wife love eachother in exactly the same way that a good Catholic loves a perfect stranger or convicted killer, you're patently talking out of your ass.
You know what i meant. Ratzinger opined that my wish to have a romantic or sexual relationship with someone of the same sex was an intrinsic moral evil. Now address that, at long bloody last, will you?
Which is functionally identical to stating that gay people or infertile people or those past menopause can avoid the ire of the Catholic Church if they live lives of celibacy and a refusal to enter romantic relationships.
The number of times you've said it is irrelevant if the argument itself is bunkum.
The Catholic church had had to handle non-Catholic marriage and even Catholics in non-Catholic marriages from the very beginning. It is perfectly able to do so, even if it doesn't consider those marriages to be the real deal.
As for the Eucharist, well, it very much still claims that the Protestant one doesn't count. And it still manages to be civil about it. Most of the time.
I think that married couples who have sex after the menopause are not considered bad. That was one of the disagreements with the Waldensian heresy in the 12th and 13th century. I don't think that point has been revisited since unless i am missing something.
Last edited:
Plus, of course, the fact that the Catholic Church has no claim of ownership over marriage. It did not invent it. It is in no way unique to it. It predates Christianity, let alone Catholicism, by thousands of years.
Sure, historically. But if tstorm wants to argue this on the basis of marriage and sexual relationships being acceptable solely for procreation, then that is necessarily excluding the infertile and those past menopause.
That's the practical result of making the argument he's making: that the "intrinsic moral evil" is merely the behaviour of non-procreational sex and/or marriage, and nothing to do with homosexuality.
Well, the Church does not allow new marriages for the infertile.
However the church has not a habit of telling people they are too old to have children and generally does not want to have to decide who is infertile. There is also the thing with the Abraham bible story and a couple that was regarded as too old eventually getting a child after a lot of prayer, so they are extra careful when saying it can't happen..
You say a lot of things, most of them wrong. I'm not going to go digging through the archives to prove what evreyone on this forum already knows.
So you're pro-discrimination against queer people for living their truth. This is what you need to apologize for because you're fucking wrong.