Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Zevico]

I don't hate anyone, I just call bull**** where it deserves to be called.

Such as this:



No. BK has a long, storied history here on Apolyton of lying his ass off in arguments. He has been called out time and time again by innumerable Apolyton posters for his constant, pathological lying. Stop trying to give him cover. He lies in the same way you or I breathe.

The internet is very serious business.

[Ben Kenobi]

you're lying about what it means to be a "devout" Catholic, as it in no way requires such a Catholic to accept the anti-gay dogma of the Catholic hierarchy.

It absolutely is required for a devout Catholic to believe that homosexuality is sinful. Apparently, 'lying' means, 'disagreeing with Boris'.

[Zevico]

It absolutely is required for a devout Catholic to believe that homosexuality is sinful. Apparently, 'lying' means, 'disagreeing with Boris'.

Bk has a good point. Catholicism is defined as a system of beliefs propounded by the catholic church. That belief on homosexuality is one.
If one doesnt adhere to these beliefs one may be christian but not catholic.
I dont equate modern catholicism or protestantism to its past but there were a number of wars about this. Is it really up for debate? The only one coming off as a fanatic unable to understand how oter people think is boris.

[MrFun]

The internet is very serious business.

It's perfectly fine to speak up against ignorance and hatred.

[David Floyd]

Let's bring this back to the beginning.

Let's stipulate that federal funds will be granted to a particular purpose.

Is it unreasonable that the federal government attach certain conditions to said funding?

No, it happens all the time. It is, in fact, why many states have a 21 year old drinking age, as a simple example (ie, tying a portion of highway funding to a state drinking age).

Federal funding is not a grant with no strings attached. In fact, the federal government has a CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that they do not fund a program that violates the US Constitution.

Does the US Constitution protect homosexuals, including gay marriage? Yes, I think so. But that's also IRRELEVANT, because the US federal government has the Constitutional power to attach conditions to funding. It's very, very simple. You can disagree with their application of their power, but you cannot disagree with either their right to do so, or in some cases, their duty to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Does the US Constitution protect homosexuals, including gay marriage? Yes, I think so

What's your take on Reynolds?

[Elok]

I suggest that we retire homosexuals from the post of United States Whipping Boy and appoint the S&M crowd instead. Aside from being far creepier at this stage in the game, they'd probably enjoy it.

[Zevico]

I don't think this could be any worse than the pride parades. Bring on the whippping.

By the way Felch--'from the beginning' this was about the state of illinois defunding an adoption program. It wasn't about the federal government. I frankly think illinois is doing the right thing here in principle but I don't know about the practicalities. A reasonable counter-argument to the policy doe exist is if the state has no alternative program to fall back on, in which case it needs to establish or support one first. Only then would defunding be in any way sensible. And no, saying that people ought to give children away to people they don't want to give children away for strongly held religious beliefs and that they're playing politics for doing otherwise is not a tenable argument.
I also happen to think Asher/Boris/Mf find it difficult to think rationally about this issue, or indeed any issue in which discussion with BK is a vague possibility. It's all liar this and bigot that. I mean in this case he's presented a case and argued for it and the automatic assumption is that he's the devil in disguise trying to convert people away from the church of rainbow tolerance. Respond to the case in a coherent manner instead of arguing that he's the devil incarnate and you might convince someone other than yourselves. Implausible arguments about BK's "lying tendencies" help not one bit. More to the point, the merest hint of discussion--in my case, summarising BK's argument--is met with an unthinking, groupthink pile-on. The slightest risk of intellectual heresy brings forth chest-thumping replies like "I can only guess what your motives are [for summarisng an argument]." Well Boris, you see, it's all part of an evil plot to summarise arguments. I wake up every day and summarise, then I rub my hands with villianish glee and run off to steal the next door neighbour's petunias, but not before kicking her garden gnome collection into the mud first.

Oh and lastly? If BK hated you he'd say as much. And he hasn't, notwithstanding your repeated invitations. This is you projecting onto him.

[MrFun]

He won't say that he hates gay people, because it's politically incorrect to admit that.

[Ben Kenobi]

He won't say that he hates gay people, because it's politically incorrect to admit that.

Because we all know I bow to the altar of political correctness.

[Asher]

GO NUCKS GO!

WE WANT THE CUP!

LOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

[MrFun]

Because we all know I bow to the altar of political correctness.

Then I don't know why you won't say that you hate gay people.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then I don't know why you won't say that you hate gay people.

Well let's use some logic here.

1. It's politically incorrect to say that you hate gay people.
2. I'm not a politically correct person.

Ergo, IF I hated gay people THEN I would express such an opinion.

However, I've never expressed such an opinion. Therefore:

I must not hate gay people.

[MrFun]

No, I'm trying to figure out some other reason why you won't admit that you hate gay people.

[Zevico]

Why is the assumption that BK hates gays necessarily or inherently correct?