No they don't, they want the "orders" to dovetail with their lives.  Or resident catholics wouldn't have -any- problem identifying whats wrong with their little cult if it was -their- object of affection, or indeed just their affection that was supposed to be wicked and sinful.  If their husbands and wives were what was prohibited to -them-.

That's too much to ask, though, instead we get a gay uncle tom story.  "Im sinful and wicked and my gayness is harmful to me, the church is just looking out.  I wish everybody could have a life like mine!"

The Abrahamic God is a homophobic god. Anyone who defends his homophobia, are homophobic. This includes gay people who justify his actions.

I suppose homophobic might not be the right word if you think 'phobic' just means afraid (hint: it doesn't). But if they don't like that word, we can call them pieces of shit. Works for me.

(February 6, 2016 at 3:26 am)Cato Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not here to argue with someone about the Church. I know how ya'll feel about it, and you know how I feel about it.

My objection was to Irrational accusing the guy of wanting everyone to suffer when what he actually said was "I wish everyone had a life as beautiful as mine."  

Regardless of whether you personally think his life sounds good or not, HE does think it's good. So his statement obviously doesn't mean he wants people to suffer.

I was polite and direct. Your response to me was totally evasive in that despite defending church doctrine you now choose not to argue about it. In addition you devoted half your reply (measured by number of sentences) to continuing your argument with another member.  Quite frankly, you're being disingenuous.

What? You replied to what was one of my responses to that member, so yes, that was the topic of my discussion. 

And just because I pick my battles and don't choose to argue with ya'll all the time about every single issue we disagree on doesn't mean I'm being disingenuous. So, shoot me I guess.

(February 6, 2016 at 11:20 am)robvalue Wrote: Saddest thing is, some people seem to want to be ordered around. Whether this is their nature, or whether it's years of conditioning is hard to say.

It's an evolutionary flaw. It isn't even the act of following that is bad in and of itself, it is the flawed logic of appeal to authority. Our species is a variety of individuals, some make better leaders and others make better subordinates. The problem is that humans mistake social order as being a title and role and script. It is why more often than not we can accept a man as the breadwinner in a family. The same can be said for a business CEO, a political leader, and very few women have leadership rolls in religion.

There will always be in our species more workers than leaders, in any aspect of society, there simply needs to be a better understanding that it isn't the gender, or title that makes one moral, but doing what works and consent to leadership and consent to being a subordinate and a better understanding that it is the cooperation and consent between the alpha and the beta. Because as Sagan said, it doesn't matter who is where, top or bottom, friend or foe, the ride ends for everyone.

We see many other species of life where the scripts between genders and social order are different.

(February 6, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 3:26 am)Cato Wrote: I was polite and direct. Your response to me was totally evasive in that despite defending church doctrine you now choose not to argue about it. In addition you devoted half your reply (measured by number of sentences) to continuing your argument with another member.  Quite frankly, you're being disingenuous.

What? You replied to what was one of my responses to that member, so yes, that was the topic of my discussion. 

And just because I pick my battles and don't choose to argue with ya'll all the time about every single issue we disagree on doesn't mean I'm being disingenuous. So, shoot me I guess.

NOBODY wants to "shoot you", we just want you to think without an old book of myth up your back. Try not thinking like a parrot or puppet, and be intellectually brave and aim the logic you use to reject the claims of others and aim that rightful logic at your own claims. LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Your privates will not fall off if you figure out you got it wrong. 

If our species never question social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

Brian, you just need to chill out sometimes.

(February 7, 2016 at 11:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Brian, you just need to chill out sometimes.

No I don't. You tried to defend a gay Catholic, and flipped out when we were not even angry at him or you, but simply questioned his logic and yours.

If you think an old book explains nature, and you are fine with basing your life on an old book, yes you have the legal right to do that. AND we also have the legal right to tell you FACTUALLY why your logic does not work.

Maybe instead of having a kneejerk reaction to our responses, consider you got it wrong.

Now, if you really want me angry at you, keep it up. And I will remind you again, you are talking to a former Catholic, so your poor me crap wont work.

If you think I flipped out, you have misunderstood. The only objection I have raised here is when someone accused the man of wanting people to suffer. I'm not trying to argue about homosexuality.

(February 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you think I flipped out, you have misunderstood. The only objection I have raised here is when someone accused the man wanting people to suffer. I'm not trying to argue about homosexuality.

We are. Nobody is accusing you of being a homophobe. We are simply saying your logic and his logic, even with you claiming to be accepting, still does not work.

As others keep trying to explain to you, that book teaches you to deny self with the word "sin" and since it was written in an antiquated past and has nothing to do with our modern understanding of evolutionary behavior of primates, of which we are, it really is not a good thing to use as gauge.

Denying self and using a crutch is not creating real happiness. It is placating others just to fit in, and it isn't even demonstrating any scientific reason as to why being gay is a "sin". The real scientists of evolutionary biology and human psychology do not see homosexual behavior as a bad thing to be denied.

And as we said before, even heterosexual couples can and do risk take in sexual acts, so a person's sexuality is not the issue. 

Now again, if you can be wrong about male rape victims, what would make you think an old book would explain to him why he is gay in any scientific sense? It really amounts to expecting him to deny himself. Saying "We aren't like Kim Davis" simply means you water down your justifications, but it is still bad logic no matter what.

Regardless of your intent, this also is the same ignorance both left and right ignore. Whatever empathy you'd like to find in your bible, others also use that same book to justify homophobia and denial of rights and physical harm to gays. You can have all the good intent in the world, it still does not change, for both left and right, that that bible DOES NOT in any real sense, explain the evolutionary behavior of primates, of which humans are part of.

Lot's of straws here, Brian, and you're bringing up a ton of stuff that has nothing to do with anything I said.