Naughty Vatican (gay thread)

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
You've read Da Vinci's code too many times

I don't sell myself cheaper than Foucault's Pendulum.

[Heresson]

This was to chegitz, not to You.
When it comes to your post: molly's examples were deliberately chosen to offend Ben, to offend catholics as a whole. They were inappropriate.

[Kontiki]

And again, that was the whole point. And you're missing it, badly.

[duke o' york]

And Ben's post was deliberately chosen to offend gay people?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kontiki
And again, that was the whole point. And you're missing it, badly.

You're missing my point that You should not offend people if they offend You. Especially in cases like this one, and if You offend others by the way. Even if You're not meaning what You say.

[Boris Godunov]

On the contrary, one of the best ways to point out to people the offensive things they say is to say something analagous that you know will sting them back. Otherwise they're likely to dismiss people's offense as being hypersensitive net nannyism.

[Heresson]

I would've overlooked it if it was not the same as often at Apolyton remarks about catholicism and paedophilia.
These are too sensitive matters for such treatment.

[duke o' york]

Boris is right.
molly's comment was deliberately pointed at Ben's lack of understanding of these matters, It was meant to show this, and not to showcase molly's own prejudices, and I'm not that sure too many people other than you took it that way.

molly.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Boris is right.

Really, it's about time this became the Apolyton motto.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
You should keep some level in discussion, even if You thinks others do not. If You claim such claims are bad, You should not make similar yourself. Especially that laughing at catholicism, esp. in connection to paedophilic affairs in USA, is common here and not restricted, as it should be.

I was using the same kind of analogies and erroneous links that Obi Gyn was, to show the false 'logic' in his thinking.

Trust you to completely misinterpret what I'd written.

If You claim such claims are bad, You should not make similar yourself.

I didn't, quite evidently.


However, if an international organisation describes me thus:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

Cardinal Ratzinger


I'll feel free to attack it in any way I see fit.

I do not have an 'inclination', I have a sexuality, like other human beings.

I would've overlooked it if it was not the same as often at Apolyton remarks about catholicism and paedophilia.

Are they remarks I made ? No.

And yet somehow I don't see you getting your knickers equally knotted over Obi Gyn's offensive remarks though. Curious, that.



I do not consider that I have a 'tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil'- odd judgmental statements coming from someone who is the head of a church which knowingly sheltered war criminals and deliberately shielded paedophile priests from justice.

Which, I wonder, shows the greater 'tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil' - a man who has had a loving relationship with another man for the past 21 years, or a religious organisation which through its inaction and deliberate misconduct prevented child abusers being brought to justice and kept war criminals from the reach of international justice ?



My feeling is, it's the latter.

[Heresson]

If a person has a good opinion of himself and yet he encounters bad opinion of himself by someone else, he will attempt to destroy the disonance by creating a bad opinion of the one who has bad opinion of him.
In another words: perhaps You dislike RCC so much because it dislikes sth about You?

Are they remarks I made ? No.

No, but by people of similar anti-catholic convictions.

And yet somehow I don't see you getting your knickers equally knotted over Obi Gyn's offensive remarks though.

1) I started this thread, so my opinion on that is already known
2) Someone else commented it already

However, if an international organisation describes me thus:

quote:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”


Cardinal Ratzinger


I'll feel free to attack it in any way I see fit.

I do not have an 'inclination', I have a sexuality, like other human beings.

Sexuality is a means of procreation. Use of sexuality in a manner that does not lead to procreation is a sin according to a long tradition of catholic teaching. Of course, You don't have to agree with that, I do not. It is not stated to offend You though, but because they find it right. If they think that it's what Jesus claims, it's their right and their duty to say it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


No, but by people of similar anti-catholic convictions.

And therefore nothing to do with me. You can criticise me for remarks I have made, not remarks made by people I don't know. I don't have 'anti-Catholic' convictions- as far as I know, I'm still a Roman Catholic, not having been excommunicated.

I started this thread, so my opinion on that is already known

Really ? And yet when he makes such egregiously insulting and inaccurate remarks, you choose not to challenge him on the basis of his comments, but rather leap to making inaccurate assumptions about my reply.

Quite a remarkable feat, that.

Sexuality is a means of procreation.

No it isn't. You can be heterosexual, bisexual or gay or lesbian, and procreation doesn't have to enter into it. Sexual activity for reproductive purposes is not the same as 'sexuality'.

Celibates can be gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual- obviously.

...is not stated to offend You though, but because they find it right.

Oh that's all right then- when the Pope calls me 'objectively disordered' or 'tending towards moral evil' he's not really 'meaning' to offend me, it's just tradition, and he can't help it.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-6

[Alexander's Horse]

Having seen the Pope in a couple of ceremonies I think he is gay.

Alot of this anti-gay stuff is really self loathing - catholicism would fall apart without its gays.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom
And therefore nothing to do with me. You can criticise me for remarks I have made, not remarks made by people I don't know. I don't have 'anti-Catholic' convictions- as far as I know, I'm still a Roman Catholic, not having been excommunicated.

Also, there is a thing like authomatical excommunication. It does not have to be proclaimed.

Really ? And yet when he makes such egregiously insulting and inaccurate remarks, you choose not to challenge him on the basis of his comments, but rather leap to making inaccurate assumptions about my reply.

When I called what You said "even dumber", ipso facto I agreed that Ben's post was not wise.

No it isn't. You can be heterosexual, bisexual or gay or lesbian, and procreation doesn't have to enter into it. Sexual activity for reproductive purposes is not the same as 'sexuality'.
Celibates can be gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual- obviously.

The only reason why God/nature gave us sexuality as well as other animals is reproduction. That we learned to use it in another way, it's something additional, not basic, just like the basic use of mouth is eating and making noises, not oral sex.

Oh that's all right then- when the Pope calls me 'objectively disordered' or 'tending towards moral evil' he's not really 'meaning' to offend me, it's just tradition, and he can't help it.

Yes, it is so. If order is heterosexualism, and it is, homosexuality is a disorder. Homosexualist may not do evil things (that is, practice homosexualism), but by his homosexual tendencies, he's more likely to engage in sin (homosexual relations).

Matthew 7:1-6

See! The Bible is the answer!

Anyway, remember that Jesus said that, but He also said to Mary Magdalaine: go and sin no more,
so He did consider her actions as sinny. Therefore we should understand the words You quoted such that You should not condemn sinners by law, but not abstain from judging their actions in our conscience as sinny and telling them about it.

Having seen the Pope in a couple of ceremonies I think he is gay.

Alot of this anti-gay stuff is really self loathing - catholicism would fall apart without its gays.

Funny that anytime someone criticises homosexuality, he is regarded as closeted homosexualist. I've even read on one page that St Paul was homosexual! Of course, there are no proofs... but in search for homosexuals in history, gays are often as naive as black activists proud of great black general Hannibal.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Heresson
I would've overlooked it if it was not the same as often at Apolyton remarks about catholicism and paedophilia.
These are too sensitive matters for such treatment.

Summary: You had a knee-jerk overreaction to a legitimate tactic that Molly used to highlight the flaws in Ben's statement.