Gay, Catholic and Doing Fine

[athrock]

I've never been divorced, and I believe that divorce is wrong. Period.

So, you are in error about my beliefs. I have neither cherry-picked nor judged nor hated in this regard.

Ah, so you go out and rant and rave to your divorced friends about how they're WRONG, do you?  Glad you cleared that up.

After the fact? No. But I would generally counsel against it if I were asked in advance. Some circumstances would require a more nuanced approach...domestic violence being one.

[drfuzzy]

I would bet my house that you did not read the Scientific American article.  It goes on at length, repeatedly, how homophobic attitudes are instilled by the reaction of parents and authority figures in a child's life.  It says nothing about genetics.  Do you really think I'm so stupid that I will accept a list of a google search?  My 9-year-old niece could have come up with that list, and then told me what most of the articles were about.

I did. So, where are the keys? 

Okay, I'll be honest (as I always am) - I skimmed, so, you're off the hook.

But that's why I posted the ENTIRE search results instead of just that one link. Because I knew there were a range of positions.

But you're the Dr. You tell me what science is saying about the genetic origins of homophobia.

I'm not a homophobe...so, I frankly don't have a dog in the fight. However, it is erroneous for dumbasses like rob to start crying "homophobia" every time someone expresses the view the homosexual acts are against the will of God.

I am opposed to having spiders in the house, but I am not arachnophobic. I am opposed to homosexuality without being phobic about homosexuals.

I can be opposed to something without being phobic about it.

Nearly every post you've written here proves that you are a homophobe.  The homophobia satire was over-the-top homophobic.  You referred to homosexual acts as "disordered".  I assume this also applies to the many gay couples who have been together for more than 50 years and are devoted to each other.  And you cannot say that you love the gay person while referring to a private act of devotion between two people, that harms no one, as "disordered".  You are a homophobe, and an egotistical, offensive, abusive one at that.

[Mister Agenda]

Ah, yes, another example of a smarmy, egotistical, snarky, hateful, holier-than-thou, homophobic supposed christian.  They think that they get to insult and disrespect anyone who is perceived as being disrespectful to their imaginary friend.  And some people are surprised by those studies that find that christian children are more judgmental and less empathetic than secularly-raised children.  If you're not a member of their church, you're scum, and they're looking forward to watching you fry in hell from their comfy little perch in heaven.

And you are an example of an evolutionary superior "bright"? Of one who is above all others and can look down upon those you have judged because of your compassion for the lowliness of their backward state of existence?

Nah.

You know that the atheists who call themselves 'Brights' are a tiny minority of atheists, right? It never really caught on. Because it sounds like we're saying we're smarter than other people. Even people who refer to themselves by that term don't claim to be 'evolutionarily superior'. Are we Bond villains in your head?

And if you consider yourself a Bright, the term they use for people who aren't Brights is 'Supers'. A contraction of supernaturalists. It must mean they think believers are dumb, huh?

[drfuzzy]

Ah, so you go out and rant and rave to your divorced friends about how they're WRONG, do you?  Glad you cleared that up.

After the fact? No. But I would generally counsel against it if I were asked in advance. Some circumstances would require a more nuanced approach...domestic violence being one.

I would also bet that you haven't objected to divorce openly before the fact or otherwise, anywhere, and you know it.  That's because even priests accept most divorce these days, who the hell cares what Jesus said.  Same with slavery, and the rights of women, and a whole bunch of other stuff.  But it's OK to rant and rave against homosexuals, because a few verses in the bible says that they should be stoned to death.  So what?  The bible also says that a women who was raped should be stoned to death.

[Mister Agenda]

athrock:

"Carnal desires include far more than sexual matters, LC.

To be "carnal" means to live according to the desires of the flesh. This could mean anything from a desire for more chocolate, a bigger house, a promotion at work. These things are not bad - nor is sex, btw - but our DESIRES for them can be the things that DRIVE us each day. As such, these desires are disordered."

I've never noted the slightest indication that Catholics are free of these desires, or particularly disposed to not acting on them.

[athrock]

I did. So, where are the keys? 

Okay, I'll be honest (as I always am) - I skimmed, so, you're off the hook.

But that's why I posted the ENTIRE search results instead of just that one link. Because I knew there were a range of positions.

But you're the Dr. You tell me what science is saying about the genetic origins of homophobia.

I'm not a homophobe...so, I frankly don't have a dog in the fight. However, it is erroneous for dumbasses like rob to start crying "homophobia" every time someone expresses the view the homosexual acts are against the will of God.

I am opposed to having spiders in the house, but I am not arachnophobic. I am opposed to homosexuality without being phobic about homosexuals.

I can be opposed to something without being phobic about it.

Nearly every post you've written here proves that you are a homophobe.  The homophobia satire was over-the-top homophobic.  You referred to homosexual acts as "disordered".  I assume this also applies to the many gay couples who have been together for more than 50 years and are devoted to each other.  And you cannot say that you love the gay person while referring to a private act of devotion between two people, that harms no one, as "disordered".  You are a homophobe, and an egotistical, offensive, abusive one at that.

Sex between two men or two women is disordered. Stating this does not make me a homophobe.

Calling me a homophobe is simply YOUR attempt to capture the moral high ground and end the discussion.

You could just say, "I don't like what you're saying, and I don't want to talk with you anymore."

[athrock]

athrock:

"Carnal desires include far more than sexual matters, LC.

To be "carnal" means to live according to the desires of the flesh. This could mean anything from a desire for more chocolate, a bigger house, a promotion at work. These things are not bad - nor is sex, btw - but our DESIRES for them can be the things that DRIVE us each day. As such, these desires are disordered."

I've never noted the slightest indication that Catholics are free of these desires, or particularly disposed to not acting on them.

Lent begins next week. If you see some grumpy Catholics on Friday, you'll know it's because they are resisting the urge to scarf down a cheeseburger. 

But seriously, it's not the Christians are without desires for these things; it's that we resist them as best we can, failing often.

And if your Catholic friends are NOT trying to resist their flesh, then that says more about them, doesn't it? 

No one said becoming a saint was easy.

[athrock]

And you are an example of an evolutionary superior "bright"? Of one who is above all others and can look down upon those you have judged because of your compassion for the lowliness of their backward state of existence?

Nah.

You know that the atheists who call themselves 'Brights' are a tiny minority of atheists, right? It never really caught on. Because it sounds like we're saying we're smarter than other people. Even people who refer to themselves by that term don't claim to be 'evolutionarily superior'. Are we Bond villains in your head?

And if you consider yourself a Bright, the term they use for people who aren't Brights is 'Supers'. A contraction of supernaturalists. It must mean they think believers are dumb, huh?

Yes, I realize that the term was coined and, thankfully, discarded. Apparently, it wasn't a very bright idea. 

That's why I enjoy using it to poke fun at atheists.

[LadyForCamus]

I am a happily married woman, and faithful wife to my husband; No slave to my carnal desires.  I don't understand why you don't feel you deserve the very same.  And yeah, you're right.  I don't need a sky daddy to show me right from wrong any more.  I grew up and learned to think for myself.  Freedom.  

Carnal desires include far more than sexual matters, LC.

To be "carnal" means to live according to the desires of the flesh. This could mean anything from a desire for more chocolate, a bigger house, a promotion at work. These things are not bad - nor is sex, btw - but our DESIRES for them can be the things that DRIVE us each day. As such, these desires are disordered.

You may have seen the bumpersticker "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins." This is an example of a carnal, or worldly, philosophy. Perhaps you have a friend or neighbor whose whole life revolves around his new boat, her vacation plans, her wardrobe, his promotion. Bigger. Better. Faster. More expensive toys. They are not trying to merely keep up with the Joneses, they want to BE the Joneses. They have a hunger for things, for pleasures - drugs, alcohol, sex, money, power - that is insatiable, and they strive to find anything to fill the emptiness they feel inside. Something to distract them from the pain. This is because the things of this world cannot satisfy us for very long. We are eternal and these momentary, material pleasures are not.

And not to replay a subject which has been beaten to death in this forum, but without God, you can ACT according to your ideas of right and wrong, but you cannot KNOW what is right and wrong.

What you are actually describing is hedonism. Please demonstrate to me that all atheists are drug addicted, STD-spreading, greedy, unbridled hedonists and you may have a point. It's a ridiculous assertion. There is no reason to think that a rational, mentally healthy, well adjusted person is not capable of tempering their "desires of the flesh" to live a fulfilling, and well balanced life -without- inserting God into the picture. I have yet to see a theist make a good case for this.

[GrandizerII]

athrock:

"Carnal desires include far more than sexual matters, LC.

To be "carnal" means to live according to the desires of the flesh. This could mean anything from a desire for more chocolate, a bigger house, a promotion at work. These things are not bad - nor is sex, btw - but our DESIRES for them can be the things that DRIVE us each day. As such, these desires are disordered."

I've never noted the slightest indication that Catholics are free of these desires, or particularly disposed to not acting on them.

Lent begins next week. If you see some grumpy Catholics on Friday, you'll know it's because they are resisting the urge to scarf down a cheeseburger. 

But seriously, it's not the Christians are without desires for these things; it's that we resist them as best we can, failing often.

And if your Catholic friends are NOT trying to resist their flesh, then that says more about them, doesn't it? 

No one said becoming a saint was easy.

For most people, there's a big difference between fasting for a very short period of time per year, and not enjoying sex at all for the rest of your life.