Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[robvalue]

An atheist once rung up on the Atheist Experience, claiming to be an "atheist homophobe". He then spent the rest of the call explaining that the definition of homophobe is wrong, and doesn't properly describe him, even though he chose the word in the first place.

Takes all sorts to fuck up a planet!

[Pyrrho]

[Pyrrho]

Everything the cathol says regarding sex makes me barf. It's why I can't have anything nice.

If someone bothers you that much, you may wish to just put them on your ignore list.

[Longhorn]

Everything the cathol says regarding sex makes me barf. It's why I can't have anything nice.

If someone bothers you that much, you may wish to just put them on your ignore list.

I mean 'the cathol' as in the RCC in general, not CL. I'll edit it to clarify.

I already have people who bug me on ignore. Too bad I can't do the same in real life ._.

[abaris]

I already have people who bug me on ignore.

I only have one person on ignore. He's no theist and only an occasional poster. But for me he's the embodyment of an ignorant presumptuous idiot.

Otherwise I take what's dished out. If I don't feel like reading posts of a certain member at a certain time, I just skip over them.

[Longhorn]

I'm too impulsive. If I see something stupid, I'll get mad and feel compelled to argue. Not good for my health.

[Esquilax]

No, it just means gays are no different from the rest of us. We all have temptations, we all do things that are immoral sometimes. This applies to everyone everywhere.  

The actual feelings of attraction towards the same sex are not sinful because they are not freely chosen. Whether they stemmed from genetics, from environmental factors, or from a little bit of both depending on the person, the important part is to remember that it is not voluntary. So being gay, in and of itself, is not immoral because it is not chosen.

While softly worded, I do have to point out that in practice this still means that gay people must deny huge parts of themselves in order to obey Catholic doctrine. That the church isn't directly, overtly hounding and discriminating against them (anymore) doesn't change the fact that what they are demanding of gay people, if they want to avoid hell and be in god's good graces, is amazingly cruel and callous. All the while, of course, the church offers a way out of that blanket, untenable denial to straight people, and they just studiously work to deny that same escape route to gay people for no real reason.

In reality, this new Catholic position on homosexuality is just a way to wrap a more subtle homophobia in nicer language; it's nothing more than a way for the church to continue demanding what it has of gay people for decades, while attempting to slip the charge of bigotry that they rightly deserve for doing so.

[Longhorn]

It's still saying fuck you, but this time with a nice smile and without the finger.

[Catholic_Lady]

No, it just means gays are no different from the rest of us. We all have temptations, we all do things that are immoral sometimes. This applies to everyone everywhere.  

The actual feelings of attraction towards the same sex are not sinful because they are not freely chosen. Whether they stemmed from genetics, from environmental factors, or from a little bit of both depending on the person, the important part is to remember that it is not voluntary. So being gay, in and of itself, is not immoral because it is not chosen.

While softly worded, I do have to point out that in practice this still means that gay people must deny huge parts of themselves in order to obey Catholic doctrine. That the church isn't directly, overtly hounding and discriminating against them (anymore) doesn't change the fact that what they are demanding of gay people, if they want to avoid hell and be in god's good graces, is amazingly cruel and callous. All the while, of course, the church offers a way out of that blanket, untenable denial to straight people, and they just studiously work to deny that same escape route to gay people for no real reason.

In reality, this new Catholic position on homosexuality is just a way to wrap a more subtle homophobia in nicer language; it's nothing more than a way for the church to continue demanding what it has of gay people for decades, while attempting to slip the charge of bigotry that they rightly deserve for doing so.

No one is saying that it's easy, or that God does not have mercy on those who fall short. It is a very tall order. Yes, ideally, we believe they should try to live a chaste life style. But we should not judge those who don't, because like you said, it is a very difficult thing to do. I don't think it's "bigoted" to have the belief that sex outside husband and wife is immoral. People can still do what they want in their sex life, and we should respect all people.  But it doesn't mean we have to think it's moral. That's not bigoted. 

On a semi unrelated note, do you think that it's wrong in general to believe someone should deny a huge part of themselves? Or only in certain cases? 

Because there are other cases where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves.

[rexbeccarox]

While softly worded, I do have to point out that in practice this still means that gay people must deny huge parts of themselves in order to obey Catholic doctrine. That the church isn't directly, overtly hounding and discriminating against them (anymore) doesn't change the fact that what they are demanding of gay people, if they want to avoid hell and be in god's good graces, is amazingly cruel and callous. All the while, of course, the church offers a way out of that blanket, untenable denial to straight people, and they just studiously work to deny that same escape route to gay people for no real reason.

In reality, this new Catholic position on homosexuality is just a way to wrap a more subtle homophobia in nicer language; it's nothing more than a way for the church to continue demanding what it has of gay people for decades, while attempting to slip the charge of bigotry that they rightly deserve for doing so.

No one is saying that it's easy, or that God does not have mercy on those who fall short. It is a very tall order. Yes, ideally, we believe they should try to live a chaste life style. But we should not judge those who don't, because like you said, it is a very difficult thing to do. I don't think it's "bigoted" to have the belief that sex outside husband and wife is immoral. People can still do what they want in their sex life, and we should respect all people.  But it doesn't mean we have to think it's moral. That's not bigoted. 

On a semi unrelated note, do you think that it's wrong in general to believe someone should deny a huge part of themselves? Or only in certain cases? 

Because there are other cases where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves.

What cases are those?