The question of gay marriage has nothing to do with delineating sins. Like most groups the Catholic church has a list of actions it considers immoral, like taking drugs, using birth control, and gay sex. People on the other end of that list tend not to like it and sometimes call it hate speech.
I’m going to ignore the whole hate speech thing to start, as you seem oddly hung up over that. You, on the other hand, seem to keep ignoring the fact that gay sex isn’t comparable to “using birth control”, “taking drugs”, etc. Gays wanting to have sex with someone of their own gender is not something they can control, any more than straights wanting to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. If you really want a valid analogy to compare to gay sex, the closest would probably be sex between a white person and a black person. Both are perfectly natural biologically, yet were (and are) frowned on by a large subset of people. Miscegenation was also illegal not to long ago, much as same sex marriage is now in most places. Neither are comparable to “using birth control”, “taking drugs”, etc., unless you think birth control and drug users can’t legally marry.
So far we’ve seen comparisons of it to lying, extramarital sex, premarital sex, using birth control, taking drugs, having an addiction, and I think I lost track at that point. I think my comparison above is a much better one. Are people who condemn interracial marriage, calling it “a destruction of God’s work”, using hate speech?
All we’re missing now is the obligatory reference to bestiality. You know the sort of thing: “First we allow gays to marry and pretty soon everyone will be fucking dogs!”
I was supposed to wait until gays got the right to marry?
Oh, I get it. I have to live my entire life celibate and alone and miserable, just to conform to your (not my) idea of morality. To repeat what I’ve said in another thread, my choice is not between “men” and “women.” My choice is between “men” and nothing. And this is coming from a religion that supposedly preaches love and compassion? This is more like torture.
Actually, we’ve been calling it hateful, not “hate speech”. They’d hate just as much if they never said a word. It’s what they do, not what they say that is the problem.
If I understand your earlier posts you don’t live a celibate life and would only need to do so if you joined the Catholic church. So currently the Catholic church calls it a sin, you ignore it, and life moves on.
panache45 calls it “hate speech” in post #13. I agree, though, that there are way too many people who use their perceived superior morality as an excuse to be hateful towards others, which is why I’ve stated that I’d like to see churches put more emphasis on it.
I have been away for a few days and have not had a chance to reply.
I’m sorry if this thread has decayed into a “Catholic Church hates gays therefore Catholic Church is evil” discussion.
If I were gay, I would stay away from the Catholic Church too.
I am going to need some help in lumping the Catholic Church and its supposed hateful view on gays with extreme Islamics hateful views of the west.
To respond to other posts, I have no trouble separating Islamic extremists from mainstream Islam. The movie Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West claims that radicals may occupy 10% or more of the Islamic faith. This is upward of 100 million individuals who openly hate Western values and are hopeful for its destruction by any means. To me this is a separate religion from mainstream Islam and I apologize if I have in any way lumped the two together.
Are these cultural or religious differences? Of course both but the foundation for the hate is their interpretation of the Koran as a tool to preserve their culture.
How can this compare with the Catholic Church’s stand on homosexuality? The Catholic Church has a non violent, philosophical problem with homosexuality. They view the act as unnatural. They do not organize terrorists to kill them. It’s as simple as that.
Personally, I do not philosophically agree with children being allowed to play violent video games at home. I voice my opinion and try and convince others. I may in the future organize a commercial campaign to end violent video games in the home. Video gamers may hate me for stepping on their rights. I do not hate the parents who allow this or the kids who play the games. I am certainly would never organize for their elimination.
Please help me sort this out.
You continue to ignore what is said and to repeat the same thing. Oh well. I guess I can only repeat the same thing.
There are millions of Muslims who are not violent. In fact, the immense majority of Muslims are not violent. You continue to ignore this. Let me reiterate: There are millions of Muslims who are not violent. In fact, the immense majority of Muslims are not violent. You continue to ignore this fact because it does not mesh with your argument.
So, some people use Islam as an excuse for their violence. That does not mean Islam is inherently violent.
America today is very violent and aggressive and has killed many Muslims in the name of “democracy” and other such poor excuses for violence. Now, can you tell me that because of this democracy is inherently violent and murderous? Can you tell me all Americans are inherently violent and murderous?
My point is that, according to the Catholic Church (and others), homosexual behavior is a sin, not merely for Catholics but for everyone. This, in and of itself, has no direct impact on my life, until they try to influence public policy. Contrast that with Orthodox Jews, who believe it’s a sin ***for them ***to eat pork, but have no objection to other people eating it, and they don’t try to influence public policy on the matter.
This I mostly agree with. I get irritated by my more conservative Christian friends who think that gay-friendly policies are somehow worse than, say, common-law marriages (where the couple have “lived in sin” for enough years to be assumed to be married). I’m sure your response would be stronger than irritation.
Please reread post #68. I will repeat, "There is a difference between the religion of mainstream Islamics and fundamentalist Islamics. Radicals may have hijacked Islam for their own purposes and the vast majority of Muslims that are peaceful have been unable to voice their opposition to this violence for fear of reprisal from the radical Muslims.
Right on! I agree. Of the hotspots in the world, the vast majority have been sparked by Islamic confrontation (except in the Congo and Zimbabwe).
I am not claiming that Muslims are inherently violent and murderous. I am asking if people agree or disagree that a religion such as Islamic extremism that preaches hate is inherently evil.
Evidence ?
Islamic extremism isn’t a religion, it’s nutjobbery.
The same is true of Christian extremism.
I think you are assuming “Islamic extremism preaches hate” when that has not been proven. That they believe in using violence to achieve their ends (which they believe to be good) does not automatically imply they preach hate. America believes in using violence to achieve its ends and in fact uses violence to achieve its ends but I would not say America preaches hate.
In any case, I would generalize because I do not care whether they preach hate or not. If people preached strictly non-violent hate it would be much better and less evil than using “non-hateful violence”.
So, my opinion is that people, individuals and groups, who preach, and especially who support and use, the use of violence to try to extend their ideas or to resolve conflicts with others are evil. Even if they do not know it (and many don’t) what they are doing is evil. The initiation of violence to favor one’s own interests is always evil.
I can accept this, but it grates on me that if the extremists make up 10% of the population, that the other 90% hasn’t done much other than issue statements. If they truly disapproved of what was going on they would divorce themselves from the extremists and offer them neither support, nor access to any of the 90%'s mosques etc.
When America goes around the world overthrowing democracies or invading countries it has the support of much more than 10% of Americans and what have the rest done other than “issue statements”?
It’s true of religion in general. Since none of it is based on reality, all of it is equally nutty.
One is a religious community divorcing itself from the troublemakers as cutting off as many resources within that community as possible. The other is basically advocating secession or civil war on the basis on an unpopular descision made by elected officials. There is a great degree of difference in terms of the level of control of resources and ability to effect changes between those two groups.
Well I may be off on this. Check out this site and decide for yourself.
I count six out of 10 conflicts being related to Islamic fundamentalism.