# Why don't people consider the Catholic Church a hate group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558 "2009-12-01T04:40:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/161 "2009-12-04T19:14:52Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I mean, you can point to self-hating gays, but I can point to a bajillion people that hate their marriages. And if you stick with Catholic doctrine that says you can only have one marriage, forever and ever and ever, then it’s probably over 6 bajillion troubled souls. Except that even then, the Catholic Church provides a loophole with annulment, which is yet another compromise the Church has provided straight people to get their freak on in a Holy Ghost approved manner. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/162 "2009-12-04T19:34:07Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I can’t really answer that because I don’t know what you mean by “as big a problem”. Do you mean “has as big a scope” as in “affects as many people” or do you mean “is as severely problematic to the individual”? > > If you mean the latter, then I am arguing Option 1- the ban on premarital sex is problematic for both the marriage-hater and the homosexual, in equal proportion. If you define it as having as wide a scope, then I am arguing none of the above. I find the scope of the CC’s influence to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since religious decisions aren’t based on popular opinon. I can’t really expect them to change their dogma, attempting to influence or harm the least amount of people. > > To restate Option 1 so that I perfectly agree with it: The ban on premarital sex is terribly problematic and vexing for a sex-desiring Catholic man (or woman) if he is a) repulsed by marriage, or b) gay. It makes no difference if the reason is a) or b), as both men are unable to live their lives sin-free without making _drastic_ changes in their beliefs and lifestyles. > > I think that if you believe that reason A is less problematic than reason B, it’s because you’re not giving enough _gravitas_ to the man’s resistance to marriage. Like being gay, it’s not something you can just choose to change your mind on. It’s not something you can compromise on, nor should anyone expect it of you. > > I mean, you can point to self-hating gays, but I can point to a bajillion people that hate their marriages. And if you stick with Catholic doctrine that says you can only have one marriage, forever and ever and ever, then it’s probably over 6 bajillion troubled souls. So you are arguing Option 1 then, but in your restatement of it you made one extremely important change: you changed “non-legally-enforced Catholic disapproval” to “ban”. The reason you’re not getting traction here is because nobody really _cares_ what it takes for a person to be a good Catholic. They care what impact the catholic church has on _everybody else_. Which in terms of premarital sex is zero. There is no “ban” and the catholic church seeks no ban, not in any way that even remotely compares to the very, very real ban against homosexual marriage that they’re trying to shove down _everyone’s_ throat. The disparity is so great that this is _clearly_ a false analogy due to being based around a false equivalence. If your argument is Option 1, then you have no argument. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/163 "2009-12-04T20:38:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Except that even then, the Catholic Church provides a loophole with annulment, which is yet another compromise the Church has provided straight people to get their freak on in a Holy Ghost approved manner. You think those are easy to come by? > [@begbert2](#): > > you changed “non-legally-enforced Catholic disapproval” to “ban”. Except by “ban”, I mean “non legally enforced Catholic disapproval”. No change. > [@begbert2](#): > > The reason you’re not getting traction here is because nobody really _cares_ what it takes for a person to be a good Catholic. They care what impact the catholic church has on _everybody else_. Which in terms of premarital sex is zero. There is no “ban” and the catholic church seeks no ban, not in any way that even remotely compares to the very, very real ban against homosexual marriage that they’re trying to shove down _everyone’s_ throat. The disparity is so great that this is _clearly_ a false analogy due to being based around a false equivalence. > > If your argument is Option 1, then you have no argument. You’re moving the goalposts. We’re debating the OP, which said: > [@The\_Cleveland\_Steamer](#): > > They have a disgusting view of homosexuals I have demonstrated that their view of homosexuals isn’t any different than their view of other promiscuous types. It’s not disgusting, and thus, they’re not a hate group. The reason you’re not getting any traction here is because no one cares about marriage laws. The impact that the catholic church has on premarital sex is zero, as you say. Thus I win the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/164 "2009-12-04T20:47:56Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > You think those are easy to come by? Easier for straight people than for gay people. > [@](#): > > Except by “ban”, I mean “non legally enforced Catholic disapproval”. No change. But the Catholic disapproval on gay marriage is a legally enforced ban. Unlike the Catholic disapproval on premaritial sex, divorce, remarriage, and not being a Catholic. > [@](#): > > I have demonstrated that their view of homosexuals isn’t any different than their view of other promiscuous types. Homosexual is not equivalent to promiscuous. And you haven’t demonstrated any such thing. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/165 "2009-12-04T20:48:21Z")
I wouldn’t call the RCC a hate group – I see them more like a Mafia for pedophiles. I would like to see some gutsy Federal prosecutor try to bring RICO charges against the church for their decades long support and coverup of child sexual abuse. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/166 "2009-12-04T21:13:59Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I wouldn’t call the RCC a hate group – I see them more like a Mafia for pedophiles. I would like to see some gutsy Federal prosecutor try to bring RICO charges against the church for their decades long support and coverup of child sexual abuse. Now that would be sweet, and a boon to society. I would buy a ticket to watch. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/167 "2009-12-04T21:17:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But the Catholic disapproval on gay marriage is a legally enforced ban. Unlike the Catholic disapproval on premaritial sex, divorce, remarriage, and not being a Catholic. It’s not a Catholic ban. It’s a Catholic-supported ban. You might as well call everyone that supports the ban a hate group. That’s half the country, apparently, as well as the majority of congress. You’ve (collectively) pitted them numerous times. We get it. Let’s not do yet another round of _that_, if you please. > [@Miller](#): > > Homosexual is not equivalent to promiscuous. It is in the sense that it’s premarital sex. You’re not going to nitpick it down to something like “homosexual doesn’t mean you’re having sex” are you? I realize this is GD and all, land of the nitpick, but come on. Can’t you just take my posts at face value? Do you really think I mean promiscuous in the nonmonogamous sense, instead of the promiscuous=extramarital sense? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/168 "2009-12-04T21:34:41Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Except by “ban”, I mean “non legally enforced Catholic disapproval”. No change. Then why’d you change it? Oh, right, because you then immediately went on to say that this ‘ban’ is “terribly problematic and vexing for a sex-desiring Catholic man”, which is rather a stretch to say the least, since the catholic man can merely shrug and say, “well, I’ll confess later or something”. Wow, that’s _so_ “terribly problematic”. Just _exactly_ like being legally _barred_ from doing the act would be, especially if the barring was perfectly enforceable, as it is with the gay marriage stuff. Yeah. False equivalence. And good luck convining anyone otherwise. (Though admittedly you might be able to find like-minded people who are willing to _pretend_ your argument isn’t crap in order to support their perferred worldview.) > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > You’re moving the goalposts. We’re debating the OP, which said: > > I have demonstrated that their view of homosexuals isn’t any different than their view of other promiscuous types. It’s not disgusting, and thus, they’re not a hate group. The reason you’re not getting any traction here is because no one cares about marriage laws. The impact that the catholic church has on premarital sex is zero, as you say. Thus I win the thread. Actually I’m debating the OP which said “Why don’t people consider the Catholic Church a hate group?” Obviously you have to at least give lip service to word meanings for this to matter, but merely having a “disgusting view” of something isn’t usually enough to qualify as a hate group - and in fact, neither is banning a set of people from membership! A men’s club with a strict “no girls allowed” policy might be backward and bigoted, but if they don’t do anything else, they’re not generally considered to be a hate group. So. What’s a hate group? Excellent question, clever of you to ask. As I noted earlier in the thread: > [@begbert2](#): > > [Wikipedia definition: A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group) > > Note the “or” - advocating violence is not necessary (though it helps). Advocating hostility is sufficient. And the Catholic church’s actions towards homosexuals that it advocates in its followers can certainly be classified as hostile. So. What does the Catholic church advocate its followers do to horny marriage-hating heterosexual men, again? To deny them the right to marry the people they love? No, I think that may have been some _other_ group… Now, if the Catholics got all biblical and told people to stone to death people who had premarital sex, then you could argue they were a hate group against them. But last I checked they were comparatively slack on this front. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/169 "2009-12-05T02:00:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Then why’d you change it? Brevity, plain and simple. > [@begbert2](#): > > Oh, right, because you then immediately went on to say that this ‘ban’ is “terribly problematic and vexing for a sex-desiring Catholic man”, which is rather a stretch to say the least, since the catholic man can merely shrug and say, “well, I’ll confess later or something”. Classy. Real classy. You know full well that’s not how it works, and you know full well that religious people struggle under their individual crosses just like everyone else does with their own vices. A Catholic man can’t shrug and say “oh well” without a lot of self-hate. There’s even a [common phrase](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt)for it. Interestingly, the wiki article even gives an example using _this very topic_. It’s not a stretch at all. > [@begbert2](#): > > Wow, that’s _so_ “terribly problematic”. Just _exactly_ like being legally _barred_ from doing the act would be, especially if the barring was perfectly enforceable, as it is with the gay marriage stuff. Allow me to similarly mock your viewpoint for a second: oh, it’s so _terribly problematic_ to not be able to get married! Whaaaaaaaa. Would you drop this horseshit about the Catholic church being responsible for DOMA, prop 8, et al.? It’s not their fault, not by a long shot. > [@begbert2](#): > > So. What does the Catholic church advocate its followers do to horny marriage-hating heterosexual men, again? To deny them the right to marry the people they love? It’s not a right, no matter how many times you say it is. And I’m glad you brought up the definition of a hate group again. Let’s go down the list: Hate? Nope. “Hate the sin…” and all that. Hostile? Only with an extremely broad definition of “hostile” that would include countless other groups against a variety of things. Violent? Definitely not. Thus, not a hate group. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/170 "2009-12-05T02:09:21Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > Now that would be sweet, and a boon to society. I would buy a ticket to watch. I’ll spring for the popcorn. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/171 "2009-12-05T03:18:45Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It is in the sense that it’s premarital sex. If so, that’s the ultimate Catch 22. Can’t have sex because you’re not married. But you’re not allowed to GET married in the first place! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/172 "2009-12-05T04:35:17Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s not a right, no matter how many times you say it is. It is a right, no matter how often you claim it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2009, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/173 "2009-12-06T07:09:56Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s not a Catholic ban. It’s a Catholic-supported ban. You might as well call everyone that supports the ban a hate group. That’s half the country, apparently, as well as the majority of congress. I’ve not argued that the Catholic Church is a hate group. I’ve argued that they have hateful attitude towards homosexuals, but I don’t think that makes them a hate group, as hating on gays is clearly not the primary purpose of the organization. > [@](#): > > It is in the sense that it’s premarital sex. You’re not going to nitpick it down to something like “homosexual doesn’t mean you’re having sex” are you? I realize this is GD and all, land of the nitpick, but come on. Can’t you just take my posts at face value? Do you really think I mean promiscuous in the nonmonogamous sense, instead of the promiscuous=extramarital sense? Promiscuous doesn’t _have_ an extramarital sense. That’s not what the word means. Promiscuous means you have a lot of indiscriminate sex with a variety of people. A person involved in a monogamous, long term, but extra-marital relationship is not promiscuous. And, yeah, I think I’ll take that nitpick, too, because homosexual _doesn’t_ mean sex - as is made evident by the fact that it applies equally to virginal gays as it does to rent boys. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/174 "2009-12-07T17:30:47Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Classy. Real classy. You know full well that’s not how it works, and you know full well that religious people struggle under their individual crosses just like everyone else does with their own vices. A Catholic man can’t shrug and say “oh well” without a lot of self-hate. There’s even a [common phrase](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt)for it. Interestingly, the wiki article even gives an example using _this very topic_. It’s not a stretch at all. Stretchy like rubber, and the elasticity here comes largely from your assumption that all Catholics are _good_ Catholics, and that they’re all each and every one struggling to the hilt under these crosses, which you know full well is not the case. Of course, even if it _were_ the case that there were no such thing as a lapsed Catholic, there’s one _other_ source of rubberiness here: the fact that the Catholic Guilt business has zero effect on persons who aren’t catholics. Which is a bullet in the head of the corpse of this false equivalence that you’re pushing so enthusiastically, because regardless of your pathetic and disgusting attempt to pretend that it’s no big deal to ban a class of people from the marriage of their choice, such a ban _does_ effect homosexuals who are not part of the club in a way that you are utterly incapable of finding a parallel to in your retarded ‘promiscuous marriage-hater’ stuff. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Allow me to similarly mock your viewpoint for a second: oh, it’s so _terribly problematic_ to not be able to get married! Whaaaaaaaa. Would you drop this horseshit about the Catholic church being responsible for DOMA, prop 8, et al.? It’s not their fault, not by a long shot. > > It’s not a right, no matter how many times you say it is. What a crock of shit. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > And I’m glad you brought up the definition of a hate group again. Let’s go down the list: > > Hate? Nope. “Hate the sin…” and all that. > Hostile? Only with an extremely broad definition of “hostile” that would include countless other groups against a variety of things. > Violent? Definitely not. > > Thus, not a hate group. Please give a definition of “hostile” that is _distinct_ from “hate” and “violent” that would qualify. (Personally I think that a lot of Catholics are pretty dodgy about the “hate the sinner” thing - though that wouldn’t enter into _your_ mind, because you are pretending that all Catholics are good Catholics.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558.md?page=8)