Cathedral damaged in anti-gay exorcism...

man, I wish the catholic church would curl up and die sometimes.

in all honesty, catholicism was just a big political mahcine from the get go.

I do believe in a seperation of religion and politics. you can't legislate morality no matter how hard you try, and that's how they got their start. plus they got the whole thing wrong anyways, worshipping Mary and praying to the saints. Where's that in the Bible?

but to be fair, this wasn's something initiated by the catholic church, just some misguided catholics. so we shouldn't be accusing "the whole church" but it's still a funny article.

Yes, and it's amazing, that these people (some catholics?) just seem to refuse to live in the 21. century. Can't they see that they lost, the the middle ages are over.

yeah... hello... get with the 16th... er 21st century man.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]man, I wish the catholic church would curl up and die sometimes.

in all honesty, catholicism was just a big political mahcine from the get go.

I do believe in a seperation of religion and politics. you can't legislate morality no matter how hard you try, and that's how they got their start. plus they got the whole thing wrong anyways, worshipping Mary and praying to the saints. Where's that in the Bible?

but to be fair, this wasn's something initiated by the catholic church, just some misguided catholics. so we shouldn't be accusing "the whole church" but it's still a funny article.[/QUOTE]
Yea don't blame the whole church. Most Catholics I know, and I went to Catholic school for eight years and am from an Italian Catholic family, are much more open and accepting than moany of the born again Christians who populate so many churches. You know, the ones who listen to 'Christian bands' and buy WOW cds.

Still, whoever committed it, this is a disguting act for someone to commit. Even if homosexuality were a sin, which it obviously isn't, it's still ridiculous since we all sin according to Catholocism. To say one sin is greater than another is stupid in its own right, though the Catholic church has mortal and venial sins.

Stupid bigots are taking over, I swear!

[QUOTE=dim71886]Even if homosexuality were a sin, which it obviously isn't[/QUOTE]where is it written that buttfucking another dude isn't a sin, exactly?

[QUOTE=alex cassun]where is it written that buttfucking another dude isn't a sin, exactly?[/QUOTE]
Personal opinion basically. Most people believe it is a sin, and there are a lot of people that believe any kind of sodomy is a sin, so meh. It's was best put on the Simpsons when Reverend Lovejoy explained that in the Bible he'd found passages that technically made it a sin to go to the bathroom.

shutup. it's wrong to stick your penis in another man's anus and you know it. it's just not right.

My friend studies Biological Psychology and they discussed gayness recently. There are a lot of clues that homosexuality has a good deal physical/genetic background:

- Research shows a difference in brain development between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
- Usage of the fertility stimulation hormone DES caused an increase of homosexual offspring, from 1/30 up to 7/30. Supressing homosexual behaviour by means of hormones during pregnancy is difficult, but stimulation is easy.
- With monozygotic twins, when one is homosexual, there's about 50% change the other is also.

Instead of exorcism, they could try surgery in Church. But that will also leave a mess, I think.

that's fucked up

[QUOTE=big S]that's fucked up[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your finely tuned judgement!

[QUOTE=ireLocus]man, I wish the catholic church would curl up and die sometimes.

in all honesty, catholicism was just a big political mahcine from the get go.

I do believe in a seperation of religion and politics. you can't legislate morality no matter how hard you try, and that's how they got their start. plus they got the whole thing wrong anyways, worshipping Mary and praying to the saints. Where's that in the Bible?

but to be fair, this wasn's something initiated by the catholic church, just some misguided catholics. so we shouldn't be accusing "the whole church" but it's still a funny article.[/QUOTE]

I think you may have some misconceptions of the catholic church man.
Started out as a big political machine? I guess getting fed to lions by the Romans helps you enforce doctrine somehow?
You can legislate anything you fuckin care to. The questions is: How do you enforce this "morality"? Ahhhh you've seen the "otherside" and know for a fact that they got it wrong? Impressive. Never in my years of catholic school did I ever hear of worship of Mary or the saints. If prayer goes to either it is thought of as a go between to God, a messenger of sorts.

[QUOTE=dim71886]Still, whoever committed it, this is a disguting act for someone to commit. Even if homosexuality were a sin, which it obviously isn't, it's still ridiculous since we all sin according to Catholocism. To say one sin is greater than another is stupid in its own right, though the Catholic church has mortal and venial sins.

Stupid bigots are taking over, I swear![/QUOTE]

For these people, who go by everything in the bible, it is a sin.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

Calling people stupid and/or bigots is not going to be the bridge to understanding one another. You put yourself on their level by doing that. They look down on people for their sexuality the same way you ridicule people simply for their religion or their beliefs on morality.

Not saying I agree with any of this. I am not "anti-gay", nor am I catholic. I did go to catholic schools for my K-12 education and picked up a little bit from religion classes and the endless Sundays at church with my parents. It just seems that there aren't any Catholics here to defend themselves.

I don't see how the word 'wrong' can be applied to something which has been proven to be genetically determined. It isn't a choice. Only choices can be right or wrong.

[QUOTE]Main Entry: 1wrong
Pronunciation: 'ro[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wrang, from (assumed) wrang, adjective, wrong
1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : TORT
2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3 : the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect b : the state of being guilty[/QUOTE]

I imagine definition 2 is the one they would refer to.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]I imagine definition 2 is the one they would refer to.[/QUOTE]

of course they would, because they separate being homosexual from 'having homosexual sex' - which is why they say it's okay to have gay priests so long as they are celibate. I too went to catholic school
your definition refers to principles, practices or conduct - things which people do have a choice about. I understand how the word 'wrong' could be applied to them (because I'm not a dumbass), even though I disagree. I was referring to 'being gay' as opposed to 'having gay sex'. I don't understand how the word wrong can be applied to that, given that it is not chosen.
Many gay men have gotten married, had kids, never fucked a guy despite feeling the same urge to that we straight guys feel to fuck women - they're still gay.

Another thing I don't understand is why people would say homosexuality is wrong on the fan site of a gay writer?

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]of course they would, because they separate being homosexual from 'having homosexual sex' - which is why they say it's okay to have gay priests so long as they are celibate. I too went to catholic school
your definite refers to principles, practices or conduct - things which people do have a choice about. I understand how the word 'wrong' could be applied to them (because I'm not a dumbass), even though I disagree. I was referring to 'being gay' as opposed to 'having gay sex'. I don't understand how the word wrong can be applied to that, given that it is not chosen.
Many gay men have gotten married, had kids, never fucked a guy despite feeling the same urge to that we straight guys feel to fuck women - they're still gay.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind, I'm just arguing a side, not my personal opinion. So you're saying a state of being, if it is not chosen, cannot be wrong? I can disagree with that. Mental defects, while not immoral or the fault of the sufferer, are not the normal, natural state of being for a person, making it wrong. Say, for example, you kill someone, not by choice, a complete and total fucking accident. But, it is still none-the-less your fault. Is that "murder" not wrong? You didn't choose to kill anyone, never wanted to. But, it happened, and morally and legally, killing is wrong. I don't think choice always comes into play with right and wrong.

[QUOTE]Another thing I don't understand is why people would say homosexuality is wrong on the fan site of a gay writer?[/QUOTE]

Depending on who you are around you change your opinion, censor yourself, edit your speech?

And if you thought I was trying to imply that I you were a dumbass, then I apologize. I don't know you well enough say how intelligent you may or may not be.

[QUOTE=dim71886]Stupid bigots are taking over, I swear![/QUOTE]
you know.... i don't agree with what the catholic church did, or any of the bigotry many christians/catholics, etc, exhibit.
but that statement ^^, them "taking over"...
(forgive me if anything i say here has already been covered in this thread)
does anybody remember anymore that these religions have been around for hundreds, even thousands of years? they aren't "taking over." they've been in charge for centuries. the new-ish movement of acceptance of homosexuality is what is taking over, and the churches are struggling to fight against it because they've been against it for millenia. i'm not saying either side is right or wrong, although of course i have my own opinion about which one is wrong, but i want to make sure it's clear that i'm not taking either side here.
there's just this attitude these days among the younger people that when the church steps up to go against homosexuality (or any other "sinful" lifestyles in modern soceity) that they are coming out of nowhere and attacking the supposed strong foundation of secularism in america. in fact, it's the opposite. the church, no matter which religion we are talking about, has been the foundation of almost every country and government (especially in white / european countries) for about as far back as we can go in history. some religions were 'darker', some accepted things the modern churches do not, but the fact remains that the newest form of the secularist movement is what is has always been, a percentage of people going against the grain of beliefs that have lasted through generations and that have had direct or indirect effects on almost any law that has been around for any good amount of time.
the example i'll give: the election of Bush.
mostly everybody here at the Cult was shocked and appaled that Bush got elected, and wondered in the many many election threads who the hell these people were that would dare to vote for Bush! in contrast, i went to visit my parents recently over the weekend, and they are pro-bush, baptists-for-life, strong christians from long-lasting christian families. they were amazed that there was anybody in this country that would vote against Bush at all, much less for Kerry.
i hate to sound cliched here, and i really hate taking on an argument that you hear christians using, but i think there's some truth to it. the steady and strong rise of instances of homosexual marches, literature, books, movies, and especially tv shows makes it seem like people everywhere have already accepted it, so the normal reaction to a non homosexual viewpoint is shock and revulsion. the fact is, there are millions upon millions of people in the country who don't like homosexuality, and would vote for Bush for the next forty years if he could run for that long.
and if you want to find proof locally, try tagging along with co-workers to see how they talk outside of work, or even out on smoke-break. half of the employees who smile and nod at the pc anti-discrimination rules while on the clock wait until they are out of earshot of bosses and unknown co-workers to start bitching about 'fags and ragheads and feminist bitches' taking over the country.
or if you want hard factual evidence, look at how many states shot down the legalization of gay marraige just this month: [url]http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/a/Election2004.html[/url].
i hope this rant hasn't seemed too harsh, but this has been bothering me for some time with some of the comments i see on these boards.
fuck the high ratings of "Queer Eye", we're a long way away from the day when the majority of america will be pro-gay and pro-abortion and pro-secularism and anti-christianity. you just don't see it if you don't live in the right city or hang out with the right people.

[QUOTE=Ioota Rhoo]Apparently sprinkling of blessed oil and salt will exorcise gayness...

[URL=http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10263482.htm]Your brother sucks cocks in Hell, father Karras?[/URL][/QUOTE]
Only if you sprinkle it widdershins, during the full moon!

damn.....

Do you think they could exorcise the movie Alexander for us?

[QUOTE=big S]shutup. it's wrong to stick your penis in another man's anus and you know it. it's just not right.[/QUOTE]
Alright, im not homosexual here. However, I'd like everyone to keep in mind that everything said here is OPINION. Yes, its true. Just becuase it is wrong for YOU to stick your phallus in another's rectum does not mean it is wrong from Joe Gay to do so. Comprende?

Anyone who truly has the gall to say becuase something is true to them it should be true for all is a bigot and an idiot. I guess that's my biggest problem with legistlating morality, hehe.. how can any number of people, let alone any one person, dictate what is to be universally right or wrong? History has proven it does not work well, yet it continues.

I wasnt joking... The movie might actually be a bit better if they took out the 2 or 3 hours of male on male contact and replaced it with some story... I think we should try to contact these exorcists and see if they can do Hollywood and the public in general a favor...

[QUOTE=RunAmok]Alright, im not homosexual here. However, I'd like everyone to keep in mind that everything said here is OPINION. Yes, its true. Just becuase it is wrong for YOU to stick your phallus in another's rectum does not mean it is wrong from Joe Gay to do so. Comprende?

Anyone who truly has the gall to say becuase something is true to them it should be true for all is a bigot and an idiot. I guess that's my biggest problem with legistlating morality, hehe.. how can any number of people, let alone any one person, dictate what is to be universally right or wrong? History has proven it does not work well, yet it continues.[/QUOTE]
dude. SHIT comes out of your ass. nasty, warm, waste-ridden shit. nobody can convince me it's normal to stick a penis in a place shit comes out of. however, it is normal to stick a penis in a place a baby comes out of.

[QUOTE=big S]dude. SHIT comes out of your ass. nasty, warm, waste-ridden shit. nobody can convince me it's normal to stick a penis in a place shit comes out of. however, it is normal to stick a penis in a place a baby comes out of.[/QUOTE]
try to take a moment and think about normal heterosexual natural coitus from a completely unbiased viewpoint. imagine you're a sexless alien or a robot or something. the act of sex itself, when viewed that way, is rather disgusting. so is childbirth. but we still enjoy it (sex, not childbirth)
this is what i remind myself of whenever i cringe at the thought of homosexual butt sex... because seriously it's just nasty.
but it's consensual, so, hey....

[QUOTE=izen]try to take a moment and think about normal heterosexual natural coitus from a completely unbiased viewpoint. imagine you're a sexless alien or a robot or something. the act of sex itself, when viewed that way, is rather disgusting. so is childbirth. but we still enjoy it (sex, not childbirth)
this is what i remind myself of whenever i cringe at the thought of homosexual butt sex... because seriously it's just nasty.
but it's consensual, so, hey....[/QUOTE]
What about heterosexual butt-sexual.

EDIT: I meant to say just butt-sex. And to use a question mark. I'm going to ask Mr Brown.

[QUOTE=Vendetta]What about heterosexual butt-sexual.

EDIT: I meant to say just butt-sex. And to use a question mark. I'm going to ask Mr Brown.[/QUOTE]
the idea of heterosexual butt-sex disgusts me too. for serious.
some guys like it. some girls like it. i don't.
people are into what they are into.

[QUOTE=Vendetta]What about heterosexual butt-sexual.

EDIT: I meant to say just butt-sex. And to use a question mark. I'm going to ask Mr Brown.[/QUOTE]
aw shit. maybe i'm wrong then because i'd do that if the girl wanted me to. penises and penises don't mix...or....something.

All right, to izen and DillingerEscape, and anyone else I suppose, sorry fopr the comment about bigots. I kind of typed it in the moment not really thinking. To anyone who might be offended, sorry. And I do realize that many people aren't bigots, it's just their natural beliefs and I have no more right to judge than they do. Thanks for calling me out on that one.

[QUOTE=big S]aw shit. maybe i'm wrong then because i'd do that if the girl wanted me to. penises and penises don't mix...or....something.[/QUOTE]

The fact you're trying to express that you find gay sex repugnant proves only that you are not gay. Okay? You are not gay. That's all it means.
If you found the idea of sex with a woman repugnant (as many gay men do), that would mean that you are gay.
Repeating that you find gay sex disgusting (the idea of it disgusts me, as a heterosexual without the genes to give me those inclinations) is just a repetition of the fact that you are not gay. Neither of us has the right to speak for what everybody else on the planet finds disgusting or attractive.

I find obese women repugnant too, but there are men who seek them out. Good luck to them.

>Keep in mind, I'm just arguing a side, not my personal opinion.

Yes, I realise you say you're playing devil's advocate on this issue - one thing we agree about is that you have to take both sides of an argument seriously because blank dismissal of the other side leads nowhere. The homophobe's argument is problematic enough that it's a waste not to point out the flaws.

>Mental defects, while not immoral or the fault of the sufferer, are not the normal, natural state of being for a person, making it wrong.

I'd be curious which of the definitions of the word 'wrong' you quoted above you think applies in this case. We were talking about application of the word 'wrong' as an ethical judgment - now you're using it as a synonym for 'not ideal' or 'unfortunate'.
Any individual's idea of the 'normal state of being' is culturally-dependent and has less to do with anything objective than it does to do with what they are used to and therefore comfortable with. What seems intuitively 'normal' (with the word 'normal' really just being a label for the aggregated qualities we happen to be used to - we would have grown used to other things in other places at other times and therefore would consider them 'normal') to you may not be for me, etc. etc.
The word 'natural' is horribly misused in this argument. They basically try to have it both ways. They say, okay gayness is genetic, just don't have sex - be a priest, but be celibate - then they talk about being true to nature. For a gay man to be true to his nature - to be 'natural' - would be for him to follow his inherited instincts to have gay sex. They can't have it both ways - appealling to what is 'natural' for heterosexuals but then insisting that gay men ignore what is natural and stick to man-made precriptions. Also, re: 'natural' - Do they not cook food? No creature on this planet, including our ancestors for many tens of thousands of years, cooks its food - it's all raw meat or raw vegetables, if you want to consider a base, Hobbesian 'state of nature'. The fact eating cooked food, sitting at a computer and flying in planes is not 'natural' is unlikely to lead many homophobes to question these activities. They may claim that the human body in particular should not be used for pleasurable activity which they find 'unnatural' and repugnant - well, I find dancing the Macarena unnatural and repugnant (seriously, how is dancing any more natural a use of the body than any non-reproductive sex?) but I don't feel the need to legislate for everybody.
This use of the word 'natural' is also uncomfortable in that it evokes arguments used to defend other prejudices - it's unnatural for a man and a man to have sex because it goes against their 'natural state of being' (they are both men) and this is not outweighed by their natural compatibility (both being homosexual humans)... it's unnatural for a black man and white woman to have sex because it goes against their 'natural state of being' (they have differing physical characteristics, including skin colour) which is not outweighed by their natural compatibility (both being heterosexual humans)...

>Say, for example, you kill someone, not by choice, a complete and total fucking accident. But, it is still none-the-less your fault.

Could you give an example? The extent to which any such scenario would be my fault would be the extent to which I could have prevented the accident, done otherwise - made a different choice.

>Is that "murder" not wrong? You didn't choose to kill anyone, never wanted to.

It's part of the definition of murder that it's premeditated i.e. is chosen. It's part of the legal definition of manslaughter that somebody bears responsibility because of their choices in acting or failing to act.

>But, it happened, and morally and legally, killing is wrong.

It isn't always. When a doctor kills somebody on the operating table in a heart operation with a 20% chance of survival - it is neither legally nor morally wrong if it happened when they were trying to save a life. There are no blanket rules - it depends on the situation, the intentions of the people involved - the decisions, choices they made. Both legally and ethically (this is what teleological ethics is all about - intentions).

>I don't think choice always comes into play with right and wrong.

well, i think you're on your own there - application of the word 'wrong' in ethical judgment implies that a 'right' alternative was available.

>Depending on who you are around you change your opinion, censor yourself, edit your speech?

No, i was just curious as to why people would feel comfortable here if they really believe chuck is 'wrong' and 'a sinner!' I wouldn't go to the fan site of a spanish author to say 'spaniards are stupid' - or the fan site of a disabled author to say 'cripples are retards' - ' ...I didn't have a point to make here, I was just curious.

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]
I'd be curious which of the definitions of the word 'wrong' you quoted above you think applies in this case. We were talking about application of the word 'wrong' as an ethical judgment - now you're using it as a synonym for 'not ideal' or 'unfortunate'.[/QUOTE]

I think what I am trying to say (hell, I don't even know sometimes) is the opinion may be anything against the grain, out of the ordinary is wrong.

[QUOTE]Any individual's idea of the 'normal state of being' is culturally-dependent and has less to do with anything objective than it does to do with what they are used to and therefore comfortable with. What seems intuitively 'normal' (with the word 'normal' really just being a label for the aggregated qualities we happen to be used to - we would have grown used to other things in other places at other times and therefore would consider them 'normal') to you may not be for me, etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

Our 'world' is filled with 'cultures' all things including morallity are influnced by the culture we live in. In Afghanistan they ride a horse a beat a dead goat, in their culture that is a perfectly normal activity. You would never see someone in the UK or US doing something like that. It's fucking wrong... to us. In ancient Rome homosexuality was commonplace. Which may be one reasons the early christians hated it so much (anything the Romans do is bad kinda thing). So the Roman culture was 'OK' with it, and so it was morally wrong or ethically wrong, everybody was doing it.... in the butt. The culture you live in decides the ethics or morals for the times, and religion for the most part of history has been a major piece of an area's culture.
[QUOTE]The word 'natural' is horribly misused in this argument. They basically try to have it both ways. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=webster]unnatural-1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSE [/QUOTE]
Now aparrently, if it is genetic, then it is natural. That's the way I think of it.
Normal human feelings or behavior, what is normal? Popular opinion? Majority rule? Fuck, I don't know. The vast majority of the world's population is heterosexual.

[QUOTE]They say, okay gayness is genetic, just don't have sex - be a priest, but be celibate - then they talk about being true to nature. For a gay man to be true to his nature - to be 'natural' - would be for him to follow his inherited instincts to have gay sex. They can't have it both ways - appealling to what is 'natural' for heterosexuals but then insisting that gay men ignore what is natural and stick to man-made precriptions. [/QUOTE]

I don't think most of 'them' think it is genetic or natural. Probably under the misconception that it is a chosen lifestyle.

[QUOTE]Also, re: 'natural' - Do they not cook food? No creature on this planet, including our ancestors for many tens of thousands of years, cooks its food - it's all raw meat or raw vegetables, if you want to consider a base, Hobbesian 'state of nature'. The fact eating cooked food, sitting at a computer and flying in planes is not 'natural' is unlikely to lead many homophobes to question these activities. They may claim that the human body in particular should not be used for pleasurable activity which they find 'unnatural' and repugnant - well, I find dancing the Macarena unnatural and repugnant (seriously, how is dancing any more natural a use of the body than any non-reproductive sex?) but I don't feel the need to legislate for everybody.[/QUOTE]

No it's not, but it's not immoral and it's not the teachings of the church. And you bring the point of sex being for the act or purpose of procreation. Last time I check gays can't do that... correct me if I'm wrong. People have said that sex just for the sake of sex is wrong in or out of marriage is immoral, it should only be for procreation. And i agree with you about the macarena... that shit is disgusting.

[QUOTE]This use of the word 'natural' is also uncomfortable in that it evokes arguments used to defend other prejudices - it's unnatural for a man and a man to have sex because it goes against their 'natural state of being' (they are both men) and this is not outweighed by their natural compatibility (both being homosexual humans)... it's unnatural for a black man and white woman to have sex because it goes against their 'natural state of being' (they have differing physical characteristics, including skin colour) which is not outweighed by their natural compatibility (both being heterosexual humans)...
[/QUOTE]

I agree. But, I think the agrument is more about god's intention was for people .

[QUOTE]Could you give an example? The extent to which any such scenario would be my fault would be the extent to which I could have prevented the accident, done otherwise - made a different choice.

It's part of the definition of murder that it's premeditated i.e. is chosen. It's part of the legal definition of manslaughter that somebody bears responsibility because of their choices in acting or failing to act.

well, i think you're on your own there - application of the word 'wrong' in ethical judgment implies that a 'right' alternative was available.[/QUOTE]

Taking a life in any circumstance is wrong... in my opinion... There is always a series of choices that lead to any action. Whether you believe it to be a choice or not. But, that gets more into philosophy and more off subject.

[QUOTE]No, i was just curious as to why people would feel comfortable here if they really believe chuck is 'wrong' and 'a sinner!' I wouldn't go to the fan site of a spanish author to say 'spaniards are stupid' - or the fan site of a disabled author to say 'cripples are retards' - ' ...I didn't have a point to make here, I was just curious.[/QUOTE]

I'd do that to the French, not the Spaniards. I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and I read Chuck's work because I enjoy reading and I like the style and content of his books. His personal life and sexuality don't make much of a difference to me.

I think DillingerEscape, you and I basically agree about much of this - and you're trying to argue the other side but you know a lot of it doesn't hold together unless you're willing to fideistically appeal to 'faith' and 'the word of god' without argument...
And we agree that you have to take the other side in an argument seriously and address their concerns rather than dismiss them.

"People have said that sex just for the sake of sex is wrong in or out of marriage is immoral, it should only be for procreation"
I've never been able to believe that people who say things like this would be able to stick to them! My god, talk about tying a knot in a hosepipe... Two nuns in a bath - one says 'where's the soap?' - the other says 'it does, doesn't it?'

FOOD - SEX - DEATH

first of all, gobo_fraggle, gotta give props for your post (the long one a few above). very objective and well-thought out, which is good to see in these boards, especially concerning a topic like this.

i wanted to point out, just to anybody thinking about this whole issue, that christianity (and catholicism pretty much) have very different viewpoints about the definitions of right and wrong. to a christian (the example i'll use, but once again other similar religions based to some degree on the bible are the same) there are universal rights and wrong; universal moral laws, as they are normally called. thus, it doesn't matter to them if something is culturally accepted. this is why they are constantly against ten hundred things they see being done in whatever culture they are a part of; if isn't because they are just antagonistic for the hell of it, it's because any deviation from what they consider a proper way to live is something they oppose. and, let's face it, just about any culture if going to have a thousand examples of behavior that goes against their version of right and wrong.
in other words, if you use an example about a certain culture doing something americans consider wrong, an american christian (if he or she is living a very strict by the good book lifestyle) will make their judgement upon whether said culturally acceptable activity is right or wrong based on the bible, NOT based on the current culture they live in. we can sit there all day typing back and forth about the different definitions of right and wrong, but to a christian it's always a matter of going down the checklist.
homosexuality: wrong.
premarital sex: wrong
capital punishment: right
etc etc.
i don't need to say it, but i will, to avoid having someone remind me of this in another post; different religions and denominations have slightly different checklists. and most christian's today are very lax by the standards of a century or even a few decades ago. but the main issues (sex and anything related, murder, theft, all the big sins) stay the same pretty much no matter who you talk to.

as for the whole thing involving gay bishops who can be gay but not practice... this is still a huge heated issue in the catholic church. i'm sure there are more catholics that are against than are for it... especially overseas, outside of pc-facist america.

what I dont' understand is, if you think gay sex is wrong, fine, don't have gay sex. But if some gay guys wanna bang each other's poop shoots, then who cares? they're not hurting anyone else and they're not bothering you. I don't understand people who want to force other people to live a certain way, when it has nothing to do with you. I have a neighbor who gets VERY angry over the issue of gay marriage. Who cares? If some gay guys you will never meet want to get married, how does that effect you? Why do you need to force your moral beliefs on someone else? If you don't like it, don't do it. If someone else wants to do it, mind your own goddam business.

plus, he has 3 sons. I'm willing to bet at least one of them will be/is gay.

[QUOTE=dim71886]Yea don't blame the whole church. Most Catholics I know, and I went to Catholic school for eight years and am from an Italian Catholic family, are much more open and accepting than moany of the born again Christians who populate so many churches. You know, the ones who listen to 'Christian bands' and buy WOW cds.

[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, you're one of those people who has a major gripe with the segregation of denominations? "Why can't they just all get along?! Idiot Christians..."

I'm trying to argue the other side and fuckin struggling. We get stuck on different definitions and shit that seems to be a matter of opinions.

Some people may be able to. And some, priest included, fall to often and sometimes in the worst way.

"to a christian it's always a matter of going down the checklist.
homosexuality: wrong.
premarital sex: wrong
capital punishment: right"

Literal interpretation of the bible is always going to be a bad idea - thinking and reaching own conclusions (bearing religious concerns in mind, if that's your preference) is always healthy.
Do the people who take the bible literally not realise how difficult translation is? as someone who's had to do some translation at college and read up on translation issues - the fact is that it's very hard to capture meaning when translating between languages. The bible was not written in english! I said to my southern-baptist-in-california cousins that jesus was not a white man and the bible was not written in english and their faces went blank. not that they were disagreeing - they just couldn't absorb the information. I'm not generalising at all - it may be that few other people are as dumb as they are - but they just didn't get how mediated all of this information is, how much of it has been distorted through time and between versions.

[QUOTE=Trail Fodder]what I dont' understand is, if you think gay sex is wrong, fine, don't have gay sex. But if some gay guys wanna bang each other's poop shoots, then who cares? they're not hurting anyone else and they're not bothering you. I don't understand people who want to force other people to live a certain way, when it has nothing to do with you. I have a neighbor who gets VERY angry over the issue of gay marriage. Who cares? If some gay guys you will never meet want to get married, how does that effect you? Why do you need to force your moral beliefs on someone else? If you don't like it, don't do it. If someone else wants to do it, mind your own goddam business.

plus, he has 3 sons. I'm willing to bet at least one of them will be/is gay.[/QUOTE]
1.) christians see their beliefs as universal moral laws. UNIVERSAL. in their minds it is justified and obligatory to try to get everybody to follow them.
2.) homosexuals shove their beliefs down people's throats just as often as christians do. it's fucking true. a christian calling a homosexual a "sinner" is just as one-sided and judgemental as a homosexual calling a christian a "bigot."
3.) i know it sounds nice to say "that guy doesn't like gays, so one of his kids is sooo gonna end up being gay", but that's not the way the world works. also it's not a good argument, at all; so what if one of his kids turns up gay? you really think it'll be like some gay hollywood movie, the dad learning a lesson about pc-ality and acceptance, and the family collapsing into a group hug of love and non-sexual-preference-specific emotion as the credits roll?
worst case scenario: the gay kid ends up getting disowned by the family. but that's okay, because that bigoted christian got what was coming to him!

"worst case scenario: the gay kid ends up getting disowned by the family. but that's okay, because that bigoted christian got what was coming to him!"

this happened to one of my cousins.
very ugly.
his mother wanted my dad to drive him three hundred miles to visit a priest who specialises in 'talking people out of being gay'...
thankfully, my dad refused to take sides.

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]"to a christian it's always a matter of going down the checklist.
homosexuality: wrong.
premarital sex: wrong
capital punishment: right"

Literal interpretation of the bible is always going to be a bad idea - thinking and reaching own conclusions (bearing religious concerns in mind, if that's your preference) is always healthy.
Do the people who take the bible literally not realise how difficult translation is? as someone who's had to do some translation at college and read up on translation issues - the fact is that it's very hard to capture meaning when translating between languages. The bible was not written in english! I said to my southern-baptist-in-california cousins that jesus was not a white man and the bible was not written in english and their faces went blank. not that they were disagreeing - they just couldn't absorb the information. I'm not generalising at all - it may be that few other people are as dumb as they are - but they just didn't get how mediated all of this information is, how much of it has been distorted through time and between versions.[/QUOTE]
yeah, there is that.....
you are right, very right, but that's a whole 'nother argument.
i was thinking really generalized, like ten commandments-ish.
"though shalt not murder" is what we have, the original pre-translation might have been more like "murder is what you should not ever do, never! mmkay?" but the point is still the same.
and, yes, there are christians who take the words of the bible literally. it's not it's own denomination but it's integrated into many, and it's called "legalism", among other things (such as "anal-retentive asshats").
even if i was a christian i would hate those fuckass legalists.

[QUOTE=izen]2.) homosexuals shove their beliefs down people's throats just as often as christians do. it's fucking true. a christian calling a homosexual a "sinner" is just as one-sided and judgemental as a homosexual calling a christian a "bigot."[/QUOTE]
Which one's trying to impose his lifestyle on the other ?
Which one's trying to simply receive equal treatment from society ?

>such as "anal-retentive asshats"

ha! asshats! somebody who was anal-retentive would have a really tight-fitting hat too.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]Which one's trying to impose his lifestyle on the other ?
Which one's trying to simply receive equal treatment from society ?[/QUOTE]
as if i don't know the answer you're looking for.

>Which one's trying to impose his lifestyle on the other ?

Don't forget franc that the homophobes find any extrovert homosexuality to be an imposition upon their way of life. Even having 'Queer Eye' on the TV chafes their nuts. Do you get Queer Eye in France? It's a bunch of gay men giving fashion advice.

>Which one's trying to simply receive equal treatment from society ?

I think maybe it was a mistake to use the word 'marriage' in 'gay marriage' - it has such strong religious connotations. It is all about rights, as franc rightly says - and I think those rights (legal, financial) may've had a better chance of being recognised if they'd just called it 'civil union' or something. I think they have civil unions in France, don't they? somebody told me that. And they're going to in Spain, I think.

Be smart. Entertain me.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]Be smart. Entertain me.[/QUOTE]
first, i'd just like to say that all my desire to be in this thread and argue anymore was destroyed by your very generic and not-at-all-open-ended double-header of questions up above.
unless a person is completely blind (or close-minded) they cannot deny that homosexuals hate christians. they would be so very happy if christianity was abolished and made illegal. the same can be said for christians wishing this of homosexuality.
equal rights for homosexuals is a completely worthy and justified cause, and i am all for it, i really am. but just like any other group of defiant people in this society, no statis will ever be admitted; once the homosexuals have equal rights, you really think they'll all just settle down and never complain ever again? i don't fucking think so.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]Be smart. Entertain me.[/QUOTE]

that was exceptionally smug

I just learned a new word.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]I just learned a new word.[/QUOTE]
care to elaborate?

I had to check the dictionary to know what smug means. I liked it.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]I had to check the dictionary to know what smug means. I liked it.[/QUOTE]
it's a good word, says a lot.
just a head-ups; if you use the word 'smug' in a convo with americans, by default it almost always has a negative connotation.
any english-speaking europeans know if this is the same o'er there?
any americans disagree with me?
i would never use the word 'smug' in reference to myself, i would rather say 'confident' or 'assured'.