They have a disgusting view of homosexuals (unless the homosexuals repress their desires). Shouldn’t someone like John Kerry be shunned by fellow liberals for being a member of a hate group?
Why don’t people consider homosexuals a hate group for disapproving of Catholic values?
Political Correctness has jumped the shark.
While the Catholic Church does not approve of homosexuality it does not endorse anyone carrying out any criminal acts against homosexuals.
They shouldn’t be tax exempt, but I don’t think they are a hate group. They disapprove of gays but I don’t see them breaking the law against them.
John Kerry should be shunned, but not for that reason.
The Catholic Church loves the sinner, hates the sin. And according to their doctrine, homosexuality is a sin. They would embrace the person who is a homosexual and work mightily to save him. So the thing they hate is an act, not a person. Or people.
Because disapproving of people who genuinely hate you and want to hurt you isn’t bigotry. Are you going to claim that the Jews are a hate group for despising the Nazis next?
To answer the OP; because the Church is a religion, and politically powerful. Both mean that most people treat it with kid gloves. A less powerful, non-religious group that acted the way it does would long since have been destroyed, not just called names. If it wasn’t a religion the child molestation scandals alone would have resulted in it being destroyed, at least in America and the more civilized nations. What would be left of IBM if it had been discovered to be protecting and hiding large numbers of child molesting executives for generations?
Plus, it’s not like the Catholic Church is the only church that is against homosexuality. And quite frankly, compared to some other churches, they’re pretty friendly when it comes to how they treat gays. (Relatively speaking, that is)
Hate groups are people who go out and advocate violence against gays/various races/religions, etc. I don’t see the Church doing that.
Because then God would be a hater.
LOL, to address this I’d have to make an argument you can’t understand. One where I point out that different groups are separated by different value systems, and that calling any disagreement on values, ‘bigotry’, reduces the word to meaninglessness. But, I don’t really want to get into a Der Trihs-a-thon, where you argue passionately by assertion, and insist that your opinion is objective fact, so I won’t respond to your rebuttal unless I see evidence that you actually comprehend what I just said, which would be a deviation from anything I’ve ever seen from you with your moral absolutism.
We’ve been through this before, and it’s total bull. Sexual orientation is a fundamental part of a person’s identity. It’s not possible to separate it from the person. It’s like saying it’s a sin to be black, but I love black people . . . and I will work mightily to save them, by making them white. Or even more stupid: It’s ok to be black, so long as you don’t act on it.
And the Church’s record of protecting pedophile priests doesn’t help.
Sure, the Catholic Church doesn’t go out and literally beat up gays, but what they do is worse. They create an environment of intolerance that destroys people from within. I had a friend in college who was driven to suicide by his church because he was gay. They even dictated that his body had to be buried in a separate part of the cemetery.
This part, without the gratuitous Nazi analogy, works for me.
Tradition is a hard nut to crack.
Also, rank-and-file Catholics, whom we are more likely to encounter in real life, don’t necessarily hold to the Latest Silliness from the Vatican. That helps.
LOL, yourself. He raised a valid point, and you answered him with snot. If that’s all you’ve got, it’s not much of a debate.
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Replace ‘homosexual’ as you see fit. Being likened to ‘an intrinsic moral evil’ is pretty hateful no matter how you slice it.
It’s not a valid point at all. He is merely flinging the word, bigot, in the way he always does. I’ve heard that argument before. If you think it’s a good argument then you didn’t think about it at all, much less very hard.
The entire point is determining who is a bigot. Der Trihs does this by just claiming that someone is a bigot. By his definition of values, anyone who disapproves of homoesexuality is a bigot, case closed. Just as from the Catholic churches point of view, homosexuality is a sin, case closed.
It’s not a valid point, it’s the depth of intellectual laziness and is the bludgeon that he trots out every time this topic is addressed.
He Godwinized himself in his very first rejoinder. Since when is that considered a ‘valid point’? Show me the homosexual death camps being setup by the Vatican, and then I’ll concede that it’s a valid point.
I’m afraid it is not bull. It is what they believe. You might not agree with it and find it distasteful, but it’s Catholic doctrine. It all stems from them viewing the act as a sin.
That’s about as gross an oversimplification as is possible.
Political Correctness is useless.
People disapprove of your lifestyle, get over it.
The current pontiff calls the ‘lifestyle’/the fundamental part of a person’s sexuality ‘morally evil’ (or specifically, that it will lead to moral evil) and a ‘disorder’. Yeah, I don’t think they’re ‘getting over it’ any time soon.
Like I said, replace ‘homosexual’ with any group you choose and tell me it isn’t hateful.
But you are oversimplifying it because the grouping of homosexuals is determined by an order of behavior. And the Catholic Church deems that behavior to be immoral. So essentially what you are doing is making a moral absolutist argument where Liberal morality is the supreme morality, not unlike what they are doing, and claiming that any group that deviates from it and deems any behavior deemed by the liberal mainstream to be the basis for an ‘identity group’, as being ‘hateful’.
Your view of the term hateful is tautological. It is hateful because based on your value system it is deemed hateful.
But really how is it different to call the Catholic Church hateful. Isn’t ‘hate’ essentially the Liberal PC version of ‘sin’? You are making a moral judgment of Catholics. You could do like Der Trihs does and cry, “He started it!”, but it’s not a very compelling position, at least to me.
I mean the Catholic Church views homosexuality on a level of sin with masturbation. So does the Catholic Church then hate every Onanist too? Or does that not matter because Onanism isn’t a recently deemed, ‘class’ of people?
This is where you and I seemingly differ in our views of homosexuality. I view it as an unchangeable, natural part of human sexuality - it is an inescapable fact that there are people who cannot physically find themselves attracted to the opposite sex, whilst finding themselves attracted to the same sex. This isn’t behaviour, this is who they are.
My value system would tend towards the view that considering others morally evil, or sinful, or disordered somehow because of a factor they cannot change is hateful, yes.
Not really. It goes back to the justification. If they preach, I don’t know, let’s Godwin it again - the views of Nazism were morally evil and should be hated, well I can’t get worked up on that (bar the idea that a simple ‘hate’ reaction isn’t particularly useful for dealing with root causes of problems, but that’s a separate issue). But I don’t think there’s any justification for saying that homosexuals are in any way morally wrong because of their nature.
Hate the sin, not the sinner, right? But the two are often inseparable in the case of the homosexual. You could stop masturbating if you really wanted, and really believed it was a sin. A homosexual can’t stop being attracted to the same sex any more than a heterosexual can stop being attracted to a member of the opposite sex. That’s the distinction, that’s why it is an immoral doctrine.
What caused you to form this opinion about me? I said nothing indicating my views on the basis of homosexuality. Whether or not you are attracted to the same sex for biological reasons, homosexual sex is still a behavior.
Do you hate Pedophiles?
Get back to me with the locations of the Vatican death camps.
Except that a homosexual who isn’t having sex with his same gender is not sinning by Catholic doctrine.
So your entire view of morality is based in how we are physically wired? Nothing else matters?
*Waits for the OMG you compared homosexuals to pedophiles straw man.