How do I hate MC? Let me count the ways . . .

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
When it comes right down to it, the reason I do not accept the homosexual lifestyle is because I believe it is a sin. It is a behavior my faith find reprehensible. (I’m Catholic.)

Oh. Well, in that case, who the fuck cares?

The irony here, of course, is that you’d have no problem letting your child hang out with an unmarried male Catholic priest, which as we all know is the kind of person who would never molest a child.

Now I understand homosexuality is not illegal, and is many orders of magnitude less deviant than thievery, murder, and pedophilia

“Many orders of magnitude”? Here’s a little quiz for you:

Which of the following activities causes harm to individuals who are not willing participants?

A. Theft
B. Murder
C. Pedophilia
D. Homosexuality
E. None of the above
F. All of the above
G. A, B and C only.

Any answer other than “G” is the sign of a mind inhabiting the body of a complete idiot. To even conceive of a class which contains all four of those things as similar is an indicator of intellectual and moral bankruptcy?

Why do liberals insist some behaviors are determined “in the womb” (e.g. homosexuality), and others are not (e.g. pedophilia)?

1. Why do you think only liberals insist that? (Let me guess–because anyone who approves of homosexuality in any way simply must be a liberal, right? Like those noted liberals the Log Cabin Republicans, say. Or Republican pundit [url=“http://www.andrewsullivan.com/”]Andrew Sullivan[/url.] Or our very own goboy, also a Republican.)

2. Pedophilia is quite likely often innate as well.

3. Some behaviors are, in fact, genetic, and if not genetic, innate. Why you seem to find that so threatening, I can’t imagine. Perhaps you are afraid of the freedom which stems from truth, something you’re prepared to trumpet when it suits your agenda.

I have read interviews with some of these people; they admit their behavior was immoral, and admit it was ultimately their own decision. Not surprisingly, the gay-rights crowd has attacked this treatment, saying either 1) Those individuals weren’t really gay to begin with (ha!), or 2) Those individuals are still gay, but are now living in denial (ha!).

I’ll let others address this, but Esprix will be able to provide you with interesting links concerning the leader of one of those “ex-gay” Evangelical movements who was recently caught cruising . . . I mean, “trying to make a phone call” in a gay bar.

[MrVisible]

Breaking it down. Bear with me, folks.

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
**(This is a continuation of my previous post.)

When it comes right down to it, the reason I do not accept the homosexual lifestyle is because I believe it is a sin. It is a behavior my faith find reprehensible. (I’m Catholic.)**

You know what? I’m not. You have a right to your faith. Have a good time with it. Don’t inflict your faith on the world. Don’t make laws based on you faith. What you consider to be sinful is entirely irrelevant to the law, and the law is what we’re talking about here.

**Now some people love to argue about whether a homosexual is “born that way” or if it’s a “learned behavior.” When it comes right down to it, it really doesn’t matter. **

You’re right. All people should be judged as individuals, and treated with the respect they deserve, as their actions and their words merit.

** Think about it… do we ask if rapists are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter. Do we ask if pedophiles are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter. Do we ask if thieves and murderers are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter; we simply declare that the behavior is wrong, and dole out the consequences accordingly. Now I understand homosexuality is not illegal, and is many orders of magnitude less deviant than thievery, murder, and pedophilia, but my point is still the same: Why do liberals insist some behaviors are determined “in the womb” (e.g. homosexuality), and others are not (e.g. pedophilia)?**

You have truly mastered the unsubtle art of rabid propaganda, haven’t you now. Rarely have I seen as nauseating a collection of innuendo and ignorance. Comparing gays to pedophiles, thieves and rapists, that’s classy.

Simply declare that the behavior is wrong, and dole out the consequences accordingly, huh? Okay. What part of homosexual behavior is wrong, and what should the consequences be?

**To recapitulate, I don’t ask if a person with an unacceptable behavior (i.e. any behavior I find evil, immoral, or sinful) is “born that way or not”; it’s a stupid question to ask. It doesn’t matter. I simply look at it as a sin, and respond accordingly. This includes helping people change. Which brings me to my last point… many homosexuals have changed with the help of one-on-one counseling. I have read interviews with some of these people; they admit their behavior was immoral, and admit it was ultimately their own decision. Not surprisingly, the gay-rights crowd has attacked this treatment, saying either 1) Those individuals weren’t really gay to begin with (ha!), or 2) Those individuals are still gay, but are now living in denial (ha!). **

I submit to you the possibility that, using the same methods, I could get you to renounce heterosexuality. Wanna try it?

Crafter_Man, you are a bigoted prick, unable to see past your own ingrained ignorance. All of the issues that you’ve brought up here have been discussed and debated on these boards, ad nauseum. If you really want to debate them, go to GD, do a search for the word homosexual, research what’s been said, and then if you have any questions left, start a GD thread. What are the chances you’ll do this? Depends on how much you actually want to learn about the subject, versus how badly you want to keep mewling out your own misinformed, unexamined, prejudiced miasma of hatred.

[Waverly]

**Crafter_Man:**Now some people love to argue about whether a homosexual is “born that way” or if it’s a “learned behavior.” When it comes right down to it, it really doesn’t matter. Think about it… do we ask if rapists are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter. Do we ask if pedophiles are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter. Do we ask if thieves and murderers are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter; we simply declare that the behavior is wrong, and dole out the consequences accordingly

Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and homosexuals, Oh My! And what exactly should the consequences of be?

Oh, and nice use of the God card. When logic fails, let’s bring something that can’t be argued like faith. Did God tell you himself that it is a sin, did you personally read it in the bible, or did someone else make this interpretation for you? I’m guessing the latter. Did you question the reasons, or did you readily accept this because it you happened to mesh well with your already formed prejudices? Please fill me in, quote scripture, pray for me if you must, but make this part clear.

[andros]

Crafter, please do not forget that you are a sinner.

[waterj2]

Which of the following activities causes harm to individuals who are not willing participants?

A. Theft
B. Murder
C. Pedophilia
D. Homosexuality
E. None of the above
F. All of the above
G. A, B and C only.

Actually, I thought the term pedophilia applied on to sexual attraction towards children, and not to any actual activity. A man who wants to have sex with kids is doing no more harm than a man who wants to murder. Child molestation, on the other hand, clearly causes harm. Thus, I would answer A. B. and perhaps C. depending on what exactly it means.

As for the Catholic Church, they seem to not advocate discrimination against homosexuals:

For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition”.[(Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358)] “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”.[(Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2359)]

From The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
And:

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence.

From Persona Humana (Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, December 29, 1975 )

In any event, I’ve always believed that the state exists to keep people from hurting each other, and religion exists to tell people the requirements for gettting into Heaven. In other words, it’s not the job of the government to tell people how to be good, just to keep them civilized with respect to each other.

Didn’t we do the whole “conversion therapy” argument a while ago? I seem to recall the reliable data indicated a success rate of about 2%. Let me go look for those threads.

[pldennison]

I’ll bet that if someone from “Take Back the Night” were to state in a thread stating that all men are potential rapists, that men all use violent power over women to keep them subjugated, and that she would not want herself or her daughter alone around men because of the potential for rape, I can confidently predict Crafter_Man’s reaction. He’d call it a bunch of liberal, PC-laden, feminist bullshit.

But he comes in here and tells us that homosexuals are all potential child molestors, and he wouldn’t let his child be around one, and we’re supposed to admire him. He’s taking a courageous, anti-PC stance! He’s telling the truth!

Well, I call bullshit on you, I’m afraid. You aren’t fighting ignorance–you’re wallowing in it. You talk about the truth setting people free? You wouldn’t know the truth if it held you down on the floor, sat on your face and expelled gas.

[Jester]

Okay, Crafter_Man, you’re Catholic. We’re all proud of you. You know what? I’m Catholic, too. I guess I missed the part in the membership requirements that said that you had to be a bigoted prick.

Or did you just miss the whole “Love thy neighbor” thing?

Listen, C_M. You say that homosexuals, like pedophiles, rapists, and thieves, are immoral. How do you get off making this comparison? What part of homosexuality hurts anybody? And besides, Pedophiles, rapists, and thieves all get treated equally under the law until they do something that hurts someone. Homosexuals want the same to go for them. You can rant and rave all you want about how they’re going to Burn in the Lake of Fire[sup]tm[/sup], but we’re talking about the here and now, on Earth. Why is it that a homosexual should be treated unequally if they don’t hurt anyone? You’re not a Catholic, you’re a judgemental prick who hides behind religion to further your own bigoted attitudes. You make me want to puke.

Oh, and by the way, I’m gonna have to agree with NaSultainne about whoever signed her up on that mailing list being a stupid asshole. She’s shown a real desire to learn about this stuff, and I really hope that your moronic little prank doesn’t turn her off to the whole issue completely.

[John_Corrado]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Okay, folks, this is a warning.

As those of you who’ve been around the boards for a while know, our software tends to have problems with threads that get too long- once it gets beyond six or so pages, opening the thread puts a larger-than-expected strain upon our servers.

Therefore, come tomorrow morning (Tuesday, 9 or so AM EST*), I’ll be shutting this thread down. However, since there still seems to be discussion here (as well as, glory to Cecil, the actual dispelling of ignorance), I’ll create a sequel thread.

I’ll post a link to the sequel thread as I close this one; I’m just letting people know that we’ll be jumping off soon, and not to get frantically confused when this thread gets closed.

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

*Or is it EDT? I can never remember when is one or the other.

[Montfort]

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
***Or is it EDT? I can never remember when is one or the other. **

EDT = Eastern Daylight Time.

EST = Eastern Standard Time.

We’re on Daylight Saving’s now, so EDT it is.

[Crunchy_Frog]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
**When it comes right down to it, the reason I do not accept the homosexual lifestyle is because I believe it is a sin. It is a behavior my faith find reprehensible. (I’m Catholic.) **

So you’ve been brought up your whole life told it is wrong. Other people have told you it is an immoral and reprehensible activity. And it is so ingrained now, you refuse to think for yourself and just cling to the ideas that have been forced on you by your faith?

Has it occurred to you that this may be one item that your faith is wrong about? There’s lots of divisions in the Christian religion. They can’t all be right about everything.

Anyway, this is all beside the point, as your faith is not the end-all be-all of US laws. Your religion should not affect anyone who is not a member of that faith.

[phantomdiver]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
Some people need to go through flame school. “Abortions of shoebags”? What the hell is that?!?

Sounds like he went through Babelfish with a brilliant insult that originates in another language.

Like Moronese or something.

[phantomdiver]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
When it comes right down to it, the reason I do not accept the homosexual lifestyle is because I believe it is a sin. It is a behavior my faith find reprehensible. (I’m Catholic.)

Wow! What an ironic coincidence! I’m Catholic too, and my faith does NOT find it reprehensible behavior!

But maybe y’all are the ones who call yourselves Catholic because it makes you feel good for some reason, I don’t know. What I DO know is that you, Crafter_Man, are full of shit, though at this point in the thread I’m about as surprised to be saying that as a porcupine is to find it has sharp, pointy things on itself.

Now, please explain, if you would be so kind:

A. What do Catholics consider to be the “homosexual lifestyle”? And remember that I’m Catholic; I’ll know if you’re lying.

B. What do you, apart from your faith, consider to be the “homosexual lifestyle”?

Think about it… do we ask if rapists are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter.

They have committed a crime (in any state in the Union) by raping. Whether it’s ingrained in them is a matter for someone else to consider.

Do we ask if pedophiles are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter.

See above.

Do we ask if thieves and murderers are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter; we simply declare that the behavior is wrong, and dole out the consequences accordingly.

See above.

All of these people you mentioned did something to deserve their label; a rapist raped. A thief stole, a murderer killed, etc.

A homosexual is such because of thoughts, not actions. A person of any sexuality is such because of thoughts, not actions. Otherwise those of us who hadn’t engaged in sexual acts would be defined as devoid of sexuality, and we all (should) know THAT isn’t the case:)

Now I understand homosexuality is not illegal, and is many orders of magnitude less deviant than thievery, murder, and pedophilia, but my point is still the same: Why do liberals insist some behaviors are determined “in the womb” (e.g. homosexuality), and others are not (e.g. pedophilia)?

IMO, it’s the other side of the extreme that says “it [homosexuality]'s all a choice . . . leading a deviant and perverted lifestyle is a choice and against God’s will.” And they (we?) don’t say that the behavior is determined that young so much as that it’s something that’s partly genetic. Pedophilia, last I checked, was not.

It doesn’t matter.

To you it doesn’t; to others it definitely does.

I simply look at it as a sin, and respond accordingly.

How can it be a sin to exist? Other than original sin, I mean. I was under the impression that it was not possibly to sin by fact of existing . . . certainly God’s a better designer than that:)

This includes helping people change.

Ah yes . . . conversion therapy (I refuse to call it “reparative therapy”. It ain’t broke; don’t bother trying to fix it.). One of their main goals, as far as I have been able to tell, is to change behavior. Sounds to me like saying “we don’t care what you think, just don’t DO X, Y and Z.”

Which brings me to my last point… many homosexuals have changed with the help of one-on-one counseling.

And many have gone back. The founders, in particular.

I have read interviews with some of these people; they admit their behavior was immoral, and admit it was ultimately their own decision.

I have read some testimonials of “ex-gays” as well. I find them largely unconvincing. Basically they’re operating under the premise that they were doing something that made them gay. Now they’re doing stuff that makes them straight.

Uh-uh.

Not surprisingly, the gay-rights crowd has attacked this treatment, saying either 1) Those individuals weren’t really gay to begin with (ha!), or 2) Those individuals are still gay, but are now living in denial (ha!).

Considering that it doesn’t work with many, and sticks with fewer . . .

[iampunha]

Crap. That last post was me, not pd. And I thought I’d clarified a few things before I posted that, but evidently I didn’t. So lemme clarify:
"Wow! What an ironic coincidence! I’m Catholic too, and my faith does NOT find it reprehensible behavior!

But maybe y’all are the ones who call yourselves Catholic because it makes you feel good for some reason, I don’t know. What I DO know is that you, Crafter_Man, are full of shit, though at this point in the thread I’m about as surprised to be saying that as a porcupine is to find it has sharp, pointy things on itself."

I have found that the more conservative a Catholic is (and yes, there’s a spectrum), the more likely s/he is to believe that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. I’ve met Fundies who didn’t care either way and liberal Christians who thought homosexuality was the worst thing since evolution. The vast majority of Catholics I have met either don’t really care either way or say that actions are sinful but the orientation itself is not.

If you’re going to speak on behalf of my faith, might want to make sure you have your shit in a row. It’s been a few years since my last religion class, but I happen to have a father who’s a monk. He wrote a book on the history of monasticism (and as it relates to Christianity and other major religions). If I don’t know something, odds are he will.

[omni-not]

For what it’s worth:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively dirordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.vatican.va

[DougC]

The discussion here was over prejudices, those being one’s opinion of others, not any actual assessment of those others by themselves. - me!

How do you separate the two? How do you have an opinion of others, and not assess them, by themselves (forgive me grammar mavens, I’m just trying to keep up with MC) - Jack Batty

• • • Let’s say there’s a guy named Joe Blow. And Joe Blow sells drugs. Now you might assume some fairly undesirable things about Joe and you may not want him around your kids, but Joe Blow might feel like he has some pretty good reasons for selling drugs and call you a hypocrite for passing such a judgement because after all he’s still a person. Now, knowing all this, how much does Joe Blow’s opinion matter to you? Remember, you didn’t start out looking for a reason not to like Joe; Joe just does something you find objectionable. -Something that you would find objectionable in anyone if they also did it.
• My statement was meant that there is a difference between [your opinion of anybody] and [their opinion of themselves]. [Your own prejudices] are based on [your own opinions of others] and not [their opinions of themselves]. Every point I have made is that which bears on the individual and not on the group; prejudice does not occur in groups. - MC

[tavalla]

*Originally posted by MC *
Let’s say there’s a guy named Joe Blow. And Joe Blow sells drugs. Now you might assume some fairly undesirable things about Joe and you may not want him around your kids, but Joe Blow might feel like he has some pretty good reasons for selling drugs and call you a hypocrite for passing such a judgement because after all he’s still a person. Now, knowing all this, how much does Joe Blow’s opinion matter to you? Remember, you didn’t start out looking for a reason not to like Joe; Joe just does something you find objectionable. -Something that you would find objectionable in anyone if they also did it.

There is all the difference in the world between drug dealers and gays. My friendly neighbourhood drug dealer is not just “doing something that I find objectionable”. He’s selling shit that is going to kill people, tear up lives, hurt people.

The gay guy down the street, by comparison, is doing nothing that harms me, my family, my friends. He’s doing exactly what I do - going to work, paying taxes, keeping up a house, having a love life. He’s just another guy living his life, getting on with it the best way he knows how.

I judge the drug dealer by his actions; by selling the shit he does, he’s a negative influence. I judge the gay guy by his actions too; he may be a good human being or he may be a complete shitheel. But guess what - his gayness has nothing to do with determining what calibre of person he is. If he’s a good person, then I’m happy to call him friend.

My statement was meant that there is a difference between [your opinion of anybody] and [their opinion of themselves].

I know what you mean. You, presumably, think you’re a bastion of rationality. I, however, think otherwise. I have formed my opinion solely on what you’ve posted in this thread, since - before reading here - I didn’t know you from a bar of soap.

[Your own prejudices] are based on [your own opinions of others] and not [their opinions of themselves]. Every point I have made is that which bears on the individual and not on the group; prejudice does not occur in groups.

Bullshit of the purest ray serene. Every time some moron joins in a mob mentality, with that “let’s not think for ourselves, let’s just go with popular opinion and to hell with the facts” way of thinking - the sort of thinking that explains why tabloid tv is so damned popular - prejudice is occurring in a group.

[John_Corrado]

As I stated earlier, I am now closing this thread. You may continue the debate in How do I hate MC? thread, Part Two.

Thank you for your time.