Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[abaris]

At the end of the day, if Miss Thing believes sex is between a married couple, and practices such in her own life choices, that's her right. It only becomes "bigoted" (by definition of what "bigoted" actually means) when one tries to force their views onto other people and push for legislation that oppresses people, which from what I've read I've not seen CL saying.

Yes, and that's exactly what happens with many influencial groups - most, but not all religious. Most, if not all, conservative. Whatever that means.

It's one of the reasons why we still haven't got same sex marriages, but only civil unions in my country. It's also the reason why the supreme court had to step in to lift the ban on same sex adoptions. Miss Thing doesn't hold her believes in a vacuum. And these believes still have no base in reality. Only in some screwed up world view that doesn't allow for anything other than traditional views.

[Esquilax]

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. 

The part that is bigoted- or just plain bad, since I saw you had a disagreement over the definition of bigotry earlier- is that you have a morally acceptable avenue for people to have a sex life for straight people, but that your religion works to prevent gay people from having access to that same avenue, instead offering them a simplistic "just don't do it," path for them to abstain from sinning. That uneven dynamic is bad enough, without having to add in the obvious additional problems that denying gays the right to marriage brings.

To be clear, my point is that the way you phrase your actions is less important than the actions themselves, and in this case the current church position on homosexuality is largely identical to the bigoted version of old; they still can't be allowed to marry, their sexuality is still immoral, etc etc. The actions have remained the same, the church is just attempting to PR it up so that they don't face any disapproval for what is, essentially, a refusal to change stance at all.

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.

In certain cases, specifically where there is an actual, demonstrable negative consequence to allowing people to fully acknowledge that part of themselves. I have no problem requiring that, say, pederasts deny their urges because of the demonstrable negative impact they would have on children. In the case of gay people I can find no reason to deny them at all, and all those in favor of forcing them into chastity can bring to the table are claims of immorality according to the will of a god they're unable to demonstrate.

It's not denial that I take issue with, it's pointless denial that only causes suffering among those being commanded to deny; there are young men and women committing suicide because their church explicitly tells them that a fundamental part of their nature is immoral when acted upon, and honestly, there's no reason at all to go there as emphatically as religions tend to do if Jesus forgives all sins.

[Javaman]

Personally, I find it very telling that she is seemingly incapable of providing such an example.

If you 2 looked at the origin of when this whole subject came up, it was in a question to Esq asking him if there were any caveats to his stance that it's wrong to believe people should ever deny huge parts of themselves. It wasn't any claim that I made.

Fine then, now that you've got the disclaimer out of the way, go ahead and give us an example. If you have a valid comparison to make, put it out there and let's discuss it.

And yes, I still remember when you compared IVF to a criminal act: so here's your opportunity to set things right and show us that Catholic doctrine isn't as intolerant as it appears.

[drfuzzy]

mercy? According to your church, I'm supposed to be celibate all my life, because of something I did not choose for myself, or go to hell, and this is MERCY?   I can fall in love, desperately want to be with that one person for the rest of my life, but I can't TOUCH them, because if I do, I'm banned from communion?  This is mercy?

No, by "mercy" I meant you wouldn't necessarily go to Hell for it.

"No, by "mercy" I meant you wouldn't necessarily go to Hell for it."       If I believed Hell existed, that MIGHT be comforting.  You probably mean it that way, and I appreciate that.

I knew I was gay when I was 11 years old.  This is not something I chose.  The utter, horrible, unfairness of the Church's position -- being disowned by my parents many years ago because of church teachings -- (I learned that my father died 6 months after the funeral.  My mother is still alive, I think.)  -- these are a few of the dozens of "coffin nails" that helped destroy what little belief in god was left.   

And it is one of the benefits of my choice of Atheism.  I no longer worry about hell, or about any deity that would send me there.

[Regina]

At the end of the day, if Miss Thing believes sex is between a married couple, and practices such in her own life choices, that's her right. It only becomes "bigoted" (by definition of what "bigoted" actually means) when one tries to force their views onto other people and push for legislation that oppresses people, which from what I've read I've not seen CL saying.

Yes, and that's exactly what happens with many influencial groups - most, but not all religious. Most, if not all, conservative. Whatever that means.

It's one of the reasons why we still haven't got same sex marriages, but only civil unions in my country. It's also the reason why the supreme court had to step in to lift the ban on same sex adoptions. Miss Thing doesn't hold her believes in a vacuum. And these believes still have no base in reality. Only in some screwed up world view that doesn't allow for anything other than traditional views.

I actually don't disagree with you on this, I just think that if someone believes it as a personal thing just for themselves, I'm not interested and I don't care. It's only when you get people who move into politics with it that's a problem.

But my bigger point is to say that there's more we can argue than just "this view is bigoted", which is what so many of the girls immediately jump to today. I don't agree with CL's views in reality, but that's where we can use well thought-out arguments to support our opinions, instead of jumping immediately to ad hominem. Sure if they keep it up you can call them a bigot then, but it's something people jump to too quickly and the word has lost all meaning because of it.

Explaining why somebody is wrong and actually having the discussion that needs to be had goes a lot further, and changes more minds, than shutting it down with trendy accusatory buzzwords.

[Catholic_Lady]

To be clear, my point is that the way you phrase your actions is less important than the actions themselves, and in this case the current church position on homosexuality is largely identical to the bigoted version of old; they still can't be allowed to marry, their sexuality is still immoral, etc etc. The actions have remained the same, the church is just attempting to PR it up so that they don't face any disapproval for what is, essentially, a refusal to change stance at all.

The stance hasn't changed, you are correct on that. We still believe that Holy Matrimony is the union between one man and one woman, and we still believe that sex is meant for husband/wife. I never claimed anything different. I guess I don't know what you mean about how I "phrased" it.

[Javaman]

mercy? According to your church, I'm supposed to be celibate all my life, because of something I did not choose for myself, or go to hell, and this is MERCY?   I can fall in love, desperately want to be with that one person for the rest of my life, but I can't TOUCH them, because if I do, I'm banned from communion?  This is mercy?

No, by "mercy" I meant you wouldn't necessarily go to Hell for it.

Is it necessary for anyone to go to hell? Is that really the best your god could come up with?

Have you ever considered how completely absurd (and offensive!) your words sound?

[Catholic_Lady]

If you 2 looked at the origin of when this whole subject came up, it was in a question to Esq asking him if there were any caveats to his stance that it's wrong to believe people should ever deny huge parts of themselves. It wasn't any claim that I made.

Fine then, now that you've got the disclaimer out of the way, go ahead and give us an example. If you have a valid comparison to make, put it out there and let's discuss it.

And yes, I still remember when you compared IVF to a criminal act: so here's your opportunity to set things right and show us that Catholic doctrine isn't as intolerant as it appears.

I don't have any examples that would be a "comparison" to homosexual sex, because I wasn't trying to compare it to anything. That is exactly what I told both Becca and Rob. Glad I could clear it up for the 3rd time though.

[Javaman]

Fine then, now that you've got the disclaimer out of the way, go ahead and give us an example. If you have a valid comparison to make, put it out there and let's discuss it.

And yes, I still remember when you compared IVF to a criminal act: so here's your opportunity to set things right and show us that Catholic doctrine isn't as intolerant as it appears.

I don't have any examples that would be a "comparison" to homosexual sex, because I wasn't trying to compare it to anything. That is exactly what I told both Becca and Rob. Glad I could clear it up for the 3rd time though.

Well, in that case, I can only hope you realize that your attempts to justify the homophobic elements of RCC doctrine come across as incredibly underwhelming.

ETA: Do you agree with the decision of the RCC to spend millions of dollars to prevent the legalisation of SSM?

[abaris]

I actually don't disagree with you on this, I just think that if someone believes it as a personal thing just for themselves, I'm not interested and I don't care. It's only when you get people who move into politics with it that's a problem.

But these people are the fuel for these politicians. If they didn't exist, if these views became unpopular, the politicians wouldn't push their agenda, since they couldn't cash in on votes. Truth is, they keep each other going. And so the individual very much counts if you actually want to change how things are handled.