The problem, actually, is that the people who say they hate the sin, but love the sinner, have failed to demonstrate a difference. If someone is voting away my rights, does it matter if one of them is only doing it because he hates the “sin,” and the other is doing it because they hate the sinner? The harm is identical in both cases. It’s no less insulting or demeaning when it comes from someone who claims to have our best interests at heart. More so, even - at least the outright bigots aren’t condescending to us on top of everything else. “I hate the sin, but love the sinner,” doesn’t make anything better about the situation, except in the mind of the person mouthing the phrase. Which, I think, tells you everything you need to know about its purpose.
I think this is kind of a silly argument. Because most of the people on this forum would vote away the Catholic Church’s religious exemption if they could. So it cuts both ways. Maybe you wouldn’t do that, but a lot of people on this board would, they’d vote in a heartbeat to revoke people’s rights.
In Christianity love and hate as an internal process have validity. You show very clearly that only their material manifestation have any meaning to you. This shows the divide very precisely for someone who DOES understand what love the sinner, hate the sin means.
No one ever actually answers the question regarding Pedophilia. Can you hate pedophilia and love the pedophile? I’d like to get a straight answer to this, to this day I have only seen dodges and obduscations.
People who believe things without thinking are choosing not to think. Thinking is a choice, and so it its absence.
It may be a “minor point” to you, but it’s a huge issue for many of us. And nowhere have I condemned Catholicism in general. I think it’s done a great deal of harm over the centuries, but there are aspects of it I don’t disagree with.
The only thing I’m “hating” here is a dogma that considers my sexuality a sin.
Are you seriously equating removing tax exemption with revoking people’s rights? This is beyond laughable.
So; not only do you bring up something from another thread without even a link, you distort it. In that other thread I pointed out that someone who was really operating on faith couldn’t learn anything about what they had faith in, because learning means improving your knowledge according to outside experiences. And changing your beliefs according to experience is the opposite of faith. If a religion has no religious beliefs about how to drive a car, then that doesn’t apply. As is obvious to anyone not trying to twist my words.
And someone defending homophobia is in no moral position to condemn someone else’s “hateful screeds”. Why don’t you branch out and defend the racial opinions of the KKK while you are at it? How about the belief that women are the “Daughters of Eve”, temptresses that lure men into Sin and who according to the will of God must submit to men? You willing to defend that too? And if not, why are you willing to defend homophobic beliefs but not other bigoted beliefs?
“Minor”? It does major damage to the world, creates a huge amount of suffering. And it is evil enough that it renders the entire system worth of rejection, yes. Especially since that’s hardly the only evil aspect of the religion.
It hasn’t been answered because it’s a loaded question designed to falsely compare homosexuality and pedophilia. Which is exactly what you are doing, despite your preemptive attempt to label pointing that out a “strawman”.
Well, that depends on whether or not there’s actual objective grounds for linking someone to some objective moral evil (coffpaedophiliacoff).
Yes, it is kinda stupid to equate a defeated group that is currently represented by a handful of pathetic social rejects with an extant major organization.
I would certainly vote to take away special privileges such as tax exemption (though it would be wrong to target only one of many recipients thereof). That has nothing to do with rights – if anything, revoking the privileges would uphold rights (e.g. by relieving others of carrying someone else’s share of the cost of government).
If the Catholic church tolerated and protected homosexuals half as much as it has pedophile clergy, I’m sure there wouldn’t be all this trouble.
I do not know if it still hold true, but there was a time that anyone who commited suicide was buried in a separate part of the Cemetery. Any Catholic who died with out being able to take communion. So it was probably not because of his sexual orientation but the fact that he commited suicide.
Some one more up to date may have the latest ruling.
I thought homosexuality and pedophilia were different.
The trouble being, this shades off almost at once into “you have to agree with me, or else.” There is no way, or at least in the USA there should be no way, to force a religious group to change its doctrines.
And, of course, it is rather easy to apply this same standard to other groups, and see if still sounds like a good idea. Atheists like some in this thread are certainly intolerant of the Roman Catholic church, and are doing their utmost to foster an environment of hatred towards them. And there have certainly been hate crimes committed against religious groups, including some against religious groups based on their beliefs about gay marriage. Therefore, by the logic above, gays are not only the victims but the perpetrators of hatred and intolerance. Are gays a hate group therefore?
Regards,
Shodan
No, we are simply pointing out what they have done and what they are doing. Again; if a less powerful, non-religious organization acted the way they do you wouldn’t see people bending over backwards to cater to them. Why does the Catholic Church demand the extra consideration you want for it?
:rolleyes: No, they are a biological category, like people with green eyes or left handed people. They aren’t a “group” in the political sense, much less a hate group.
Do you also love gangs? Drug abuse? Apathy towards school? ‘Black’ can also be a culture. And just like any other culture, it has a lot of negative aspects. Isn’t it possible to condemn the negative aspects of a culture/lifestyle while still embracing the individual people?
I think the most important part of sexuality from the Church’s POV is monogamy. (They’ve relaxed their birth control stance in recent years, and any argument against non-heterosexual sex would follow the same path. ) I happen to agree. I think society as a whole benefits when people maintain monogamous relationships, even if it’s serially. Unfortunately, I think that it’s only a recent trend in gay culture. In my opinion, a large part of the disapproval of homosexuality stems from the stereotypical gay lifestyle of anonymous hookups, promiscuity, t-rooms, etc.
In that respect, I think the Church will eventually come around to gay marriage, and have the same expectations of gay youth as it does for everyone else: A Sexual relationship should be in the context of a monogamous one. Creating an expectation among youth for monogamous relationships, even if you are gay, would go a long way towards constructing an society that minimizes a large part of what the Church disapproves of homosexuality.
Garbage. If that was true the homophobes wouldn’t come out in force to vote down single sex marriage. They hate homosexuals because they are homosexual, not because of anything homosexuals do.
That’s nice. Next time you should post it in a thread about homophobes instead of the Catholic Church. That way it would actually be topical.
The Catholic Church is stuffed with homophobes, promotes homophobia, and has it as its official policy. It’s topical.
The RCC has a lot of disgusting policies and it doesn’t nearly deserve the amount of respect it gets. Sadly, RC is one of the largest and most powerful religions on the planet, which is why they do get the respect. It also allows people to point to all the “good” stuff they’ve done when you question their overall influence.
That doesn’t mean that members of the RCC should be shunned - for one, I’ve known plenty of catholics who were way out of line with official church dogma and had a lot better morals than the church itself. I would guess that that would be the case to some extend for most catholics. And I guess for members of other religions too.
IMO, politicians should be made to explain their own morality and views on potentially divisive issues - it’s no use just assuming that they believe X just because “their church” does - if only because they know very well that, at least in the states, you have to look religious in order to get elected so they may not be as religious or so aligned with any church as you’d think.
No, you are just posting the usual mindless rant.
When one eats something nasty, one vomits. When you see mention of a religious group, you do the same. The only difference is that your emissions wind up on the SDMB instead of being sprinkled with sawdust and swept up by the poor janitor.
No one has asked for any special consideration for the Catholics. You want to spew your hate at them, go ahead - it doesn’t make them bigots. It is more like the other way around - you want special consideration to hate and revile and persecute (if you ever got the chance, which God forbid) without being called a bigot.
Won’t happen, though.
Very true. Some people think, some people hate. Very few do both.
Der Trihs has made his choice.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t you get it? It’s different because the Catholic Church started it! So therefore it’s ok for atheists to hate them!
There’s some truth here. As the writer of the link says, “Any hate crime is one too many.” There is perhaps a line worth drawing, between violent and non-violent hate crime. Painting a swastika on a synagogue is a hate crime: vandalism, with the intent of causing fear to Jews. But, though heinous and reprehensible in and of itself, it is not a violent act, as a physical assault would be. I am wondering what the numbers might be for violent and non-violent hate crimes for anti-religious and anti-gay acts. I suspect that the anti-religious ones tend more non-violent than the anti-gay ones, though I don’t know this for sure.
All said, though, it was a worthwhile point to make.