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.
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.
You think those are easy to come by?
Except by “ban”, I mean “non legally enforced Catholic disapproval”. No change.
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.
Easier for straight people than for gay people.
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.
Homosexual is not equivalent to promiscuous. And you haven’t demonstrated any such thing.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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:
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.
Brevity, plain and simple.
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 phrasefor it. Interestingly, the wiki article even gives an example using this very topic. It’s not a stretch at all.
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.
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.
I’ll spring for the popcorn.
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:
It is a right, no matter how often you claim it isn’t.
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.
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.
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.
What a crock of shit.
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.)