Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

Pardon me for not wanting to live in the Victorian age.

Personally it's my favorite period in history.

[Giancarlo]

Personally it's my favorite period in history.

I don't care for an age of murder and treachery. Also an era of subjugation of natives and mass atrocities. It just seems more glamorous to you. An era where women had no rights and slavery was still accepted (until 1865 in the southern US).

How about one of the least known butchers of that time? King Leopold anyone? Are you a fan of his?

Nice part of history. Not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, who are you to say that we should not see homosexuality in society? And how do you plan to accomplish that? With a "final solution" like a certain Austrian in the 1930s?

This is a good question.

One - it's not my decision. It's the decision of society. It's why Lawrence was so heavily quoted on both sides. Scalia's argument I find rather provocative, arguing that the societal regulations were in place because society had issues with homosexuality in the past. He argued that if the restrictions were lifted that we'd see what we see today. He was right. However, I see Lawrence, again as a symptom of other problems that were already evident.

Social Darwinism, of the late 1890s would argue for that, but I am not a social Darwinist. The only long term solution I see is one of education of the risks and dangers associated with it. I think the problem has more to do with the fact that we're not doing a great job with formation - teaching children morality. It's part of why I do what I do. I would take sex ed out of the classrooms, and push private schooling to work towards this end, exemption of parochial schooling, etc.

I wouldn't actually touch the other laws, save for Oberfell. It's already causing immense problems, and I don't see a resolution other than getting rid of Oberfell altogether. We're going to see conflicts between religious education and the churches and Oberfell. I am not sure which way that conflict will resolve. There's really no way to reconcile the two. The Church has discrimination in the sense of having a male priesthood, and that cannot be reconciled with public laws on discrimination as they are written. There's an exemption, but exemptions can be revoked.

[Ben Kenobi]

Catholics are welcome to their perspective. But freedom of religion allows for other perspectives.

Society in the past has said no. I believe there's a reason why that has nothing to do with the Church and her teachings. I think this is a very old argument that is much older than Aquinas or even the Church, and that there are important consequences for our future.

Western society isn't really doing very well right now - by any stretch of the measure. Rome fell, we can too. I don't see the snide comments about, "why don't you go to Islam" as very funny in a climate where we have muslim only swimming days on Fridays in London. We're going to have to make a choice, what we value more about western society. All of us.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what do you plan to do about people like me who choose to call you out on your bull****?

I believe in freedom of association and I don't agree with Lawrence, but I have a tough time arguing against Scalia's brilliant dissent. You and I, both individually and collectively are going to have to make some pretty hard decisions in the future as to what to keep and what not to keep. Right now with the way things are going, I don't see very much at all being kept. We're talking about fundamentals like, Western Democracy, etc. The Church will survive, but the rest? I'm not sure.

[Giancarlo]

This is a good question.

One - it's not my decision. It's the decision of society. It's why Lawrence was so heavily quoted on both sides. Scalia's argument I find rather provocative, arguing that the societal regulations were in place because society had issues with homosexuality in the past. He argued that if the restrictions were lifted that we'd see what we see today. He was right. However, I see Lawrence, again as a symptom of other problems that were already evident.

Social Darwinism, of the late 1890s would argue for that, but I am not a social Darwinist. The only long term solution I see is one of education of the risks and dangers associated with it. I think the problem has more to do with the fact that we're not doing a great job with formation - teaching children morality. It's part of why I do what I do. I would take sex ed out of the classrooms, and push private schooling to work towards this end, exemption of parochial schooling, etc.

I wouldn't actually touch the other laws, save for Oberfell. It's already causing immense problems, and I don't see a resolution other than getting rid of Oberfell altogether. We're going to see conflicts between religious education and the churches and Oberfell. I am not sure which way that conflict will resolve. There's really no way to reconcile the two. The Church has discrimination in the sense of having a male priesthood, and that cannot be reconciled with public laws on discrimination as they are written. There's an exemption, but exemptions can be revoked.

Lol. He basically called for a final solution. First off, society is accepting LGBT people more and more. So your ideas are basically irrelevant at this point.

Secondly, your views on LGBT people are all wrong and we aren't to blame for societal problems. You are lying and trying to play victim again.

Third, you have no right to legislate your form of morality onto us. Scalia? That is all you can cite? The man was a lunatic.

And what problems are Oberfall causing? None at all. You are delusional and your lack of respect for the courts is evident.

[Giancarlo]

I believe in freedom of association and I don't agree with Lawrence, but I have a tough time arguing against Scalia's brilliant dissent. You and I, both individually and collectively are going to have to make some pretty hard decisions in the future as to what to keep and what not to keep. Right now with the way things are going, I don't see very much at all being kept. We're talking about fundamentals like, Western Democracy, etc. The Church will survive, but the rest? I'm not sure.

You are in direct defiance of equality and my very existence. You will not push religious laws to destroy my value in society. Scalia was possibly senile for years. Hardly a brilliant source to cite.

And please stop trying to talk for me, you paranoid delusional man.

[Ming]

Society in the past has said no. I believe there's a reason why that has nothing to do with the Church and her teachings. I think this is a very old argument that is much older than Aquinas or even the Church, and that there are important consequences for our future.

Western society isn't really doing very well right now - by any stretch of the measure. Rome fell, we can too. I don't see the snide comments about, "why don't you go to Islam" as very funny in a climate where we have muslim only swimming days on Fridays in London. We're going to have to make a choice, what we value more about western society. All of us.

We are making choices... No more slavery... Woman's rights... Religious rights (yes, for all religions) Sexual choices... all summed up by INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Western society is improving every day. No longer are we limiting the rights of individuals... Individual freedom is getting better all the time. All of us are making a choice of what we want Western Society to be. We are no longer going to let the bigots decide the law. We are no longer going to let the "morality of a few" dictate to others what morality should really be.

[Ben Kenobi]

He basically called for a final solution.

He called to keep the law. I am not in agreement with his dissent, I believe that the 1st protects your right to freedom of association. I don't see that law in particular as enforceable. I don't see how Scalia's dissent jives with the first.

The problem though, is that it's hard to rebut Scalia when pretty much everything he predicted has happened. The question being, would upholding Texas have stopped it? I don't think so. The problems were much longer and deeper.

First off, society is accepting LGBT people more and more. So your ideas are basically irrelevant at this point.

I don't matter, really, in the end what I say has very little impact on things. Society, however - this plays a very large role on the future of western society.

Secondly, your views on LGBT people are all wrong and we aren't to blame for societal problems. You are lying and trying to play victim again.

Didn't say you were responsible. These problems are much longer, larger and deeper. You also seem to think that society will impact me and not you. That's not how it works. Everyone is going to be affected, and you're going to have to decide which things are most important to you. We're, unfortunately, young enough that we're going to have to deal with this.

Third, you have no right to legislate your form of morality onto us. Scalia? That is all you can cite? The man was a lunatic.

All of legislation is morality. Relativism gives no reason to keep Oberfell. Again, the issue is less homosexuality and more moral relativism.

And what problems are Oberfall causing? None at all. You are delusional and your lack of respect for the courts is evident.

I gave specific instances of examples - CA's bill which just failed is an example.

[Ben Kenobi]

We are making choices... No more slavery... Woman's rights... Religious rights (yes, for all religions) Sexual choices... all summed up by INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Atomized individuals (and I hate making this argument), do not form a society.

Western society is improving every day. No longer are we limiting the rights of individuals... Individual freedom is getting better all the time. All of us are making a choice of what we want Western Society to be. We are no longer going to let the bigots decide the law. We are no longer going to let the "morality of a few" dictate to others what morality should really be.

But you'll need people willing to defend that society, Ming. There are a lot of people who disagree with these changes that do not believe that a society with these things are worth fighting for. This might not be a problem today... or for you - but I think that it will be a problem that Giancarlo and I will have to deal with because we are still young enough.

[Ming]

Atomized individuals (and I hate making this argument), do not form a society.

Your opinion. Thank god more people disagree with your form of society.

But you'll need people willing to defend that society, Ming. There are a lot of people who disagree with these changes that do not believe that a society with these things are worth fighting for. This might not be a problem today... or for you - but I think that it will be a problem that Giancarlo and I will have to deal with because we are still young enough.

Sure, some people do disagree... But the majority of people don't. They are more than willingly ready to defend society. The people that disagree are getting older. The young will fight to defend the new society. The young don't harbor the hate and discrimination. I feel happy leaving them to defend a society of individual freedom.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure, some people do disagree... But the majority of people don't. They are more than willingly ready to defend society. The people that disagree are getting older. The young will fight to defend the new society. The young don't harbor the hate and discrimination. I feel happy leaving them to defend a society of individual freedom.

The problem I see is that the same group that shuns military service and participation is the same group that's supporting these changes. Also, the fitness standards are becoming more of a problem. I don't know how someone on the other side would reconcile this.

[Giancarlo]

He called to keep the law. I am not in agreement with his dissent, I believe that the 1st protects your right to freedom of association. I don't see that law in particular as enforceable. I don't see how Scalia's dissent jives with the first.

He was a senile old man and he didn't have a grasp of the constitution. This is why he lost in the end along with his viewpoint.

The problem though, is that it's hard to rebut Scalia when pretty much everything he predicted has happened. The question being, would upholding Texas have stopped it? I don't think so. The problems were much longer and deeper.

And what has happened? You keep yapping on and on about it.. But you are lying once again. You always lie.

I don't matter, really, in the end what I say has very little impact on things. Society, however - this plays a very large role on the future of western society.

Paranoid stupid and backwards. I am glad most people don't think as ****ed up as you do. LGBT people have a part in society just as anyone else. Your views would mean the collapse of democracy and the West as we know.

Didn't say you were responsible. These problems are much longer, larger and deeper. You also seem to think that society will impact me and not you. That's not how it works. Everyone is going to be affected, and you're going to have to decide which things are most important to you. We're, unfortunately, young enough that we're going to have to deal with this.

You are beyond screwed up. Society is progressing and there isn't a ****ing thing you can do. This is what I want. Equality. And you will not stop the march to progress. What problems, you demented idiot?

I seem to be doing very well with the changes and can be open. You seem to have a problem with that and think it will cause problems for me. You are a delusional paranoid fool.

All of legislation is morality. Relativism gives no reason to keep Oberfell. Again, the issue is less homosexuality and more moral relativism.



I gave specific instances of examples - CA's bill which just failed is an example.

You are backwards and I too am glad nobody is paying attention to an idiot like you. Nothing failed in CA. We will get every single thing we want and you will be left in the dustbin of history.

[Giancarlo]

Atomized individuals (and I hate making this argument), do not form a society.



But you'll need people willing to defend that society, Ming. There are a lot of people who disagree with these changes that do not believe that a society with these things are worth fighting for. This might not be a problem today... or for you - but I think that it will be a problem that Giancarlo and I will have to deal with because we are still young enough.

Can somebody tell this stupid **** to stop speaking for me?

What problems?

And military service now? What the **** are you going on about?

Sure some stupid right wing idiot won't like it, but this will be defended and this nation will become even stronger.

[Giancarlo]

The problem I see is that the same group that shuns military service and participation is the same group that's supporting these changes. Also, the fitness standards are becoming more of a problem. I don't know how someone on the other side would reconcile this.

You couldn't reconcile anything in your little brain because nothing you wrote makes any sense. Are you demented? Or suffering from dementia?

And young? I'm 31. You are in your late 50s. I may still be young, but your youth was gone about two decades ago.