Posted on 03/22/2005 7:22:25 PM PST by xzins
I don't see any logical inconsistency if difference is innocence.
Someone should clue in Jodi.
I have noticed that even on cable we are not hearing from religious and ethical authorities. Just journalists and lawyers.
It's the sensation that sells. Making their viewership feel guilty (unless it's about violating liberal causes) would be a no no.
"I'm sure they'll find a gay priest who will acccommodate them."
The amount of gratituous verbal bashing of gays on this site is very unseemly. First, there are many gays who are pro-life. Second, as a Roman Catholic who attends mass and who went to Catholic schools for 12 years, I've met a few gay priests (and I'm sure there have been many others who I didn't know were gay), and they aren't any different than heterosexual priests. They were apparently celibate (just like their straight brethren), and they were good parish priests, teachers, etc. who supported the Catholic Church's pro-life teachings. This site would be a lot better if not for the mean-spirited remarks about gays.
Should have wrote "gratuitous" in my previous comment. I'm terrible with the typos.
He will never see the inside of a catholic church or a catholic cemetary unless he repents.
you're right, not to mention over a year long marriage preparation course.
If they were celibate they can hardly be called homosexual with any accuracy.
I don't see what's wrong with ridiculing practicioners of that abominable practice. Frankly I'd be totally content to ignore them completely were they not shoving their agenda in our faces night and day, attacking the foundations of our society, recruiting children into their perversions, and acting as de facto biowarfare laboratories.
That's like saying this site would be much nicer without mean-spirited ridicule of liberals. As long as they push so aggressively to impose their values upon us, I see nothing wrong with pushing back.
Good point!
"If they were celibate they can hardly be called homosexual with any accuracy."
Does the above mean that celibate straight priests are not heterosexual? I believe that sexual orientation is more than just the sex act. But my main point is that like many postings I see on this site, you took a slap at gays when none was called for. You seem to believe that gays are a monolithic group. Believe it or not, Pres. Bush received 1/4 to 1/3 of the gay vote (which is better than Pres. Bush did among Black and Jewish voters), and there are many gays who are pro-life. Finally, I just believe that the kind of anti-gay rhetoric you used in your response is unkind and un-Christian. I think it's better to seek common ground with people on issues you can agree on. I think many people across the spectrum are appalled by what's going on in FL.
It is the behavior that is important. Celibate people are behaviorally non-sexual by definition. Christian arguments don't sway me, I'm an Old Testament guy, and according to the Bible homosexuality is unambiguously an abomination. (For your information, even if I were to concede that voting patterns mitigate the damage of homosexuality, which I do not, Bush did much better among Jewish voters than among homosexuals.)
I'll agree on one thing and that this disagreement is of no significance compared to the fact that our system of law is putting an innocent woman to death.
"Celibate people are behaviorally non-sexual by definition."
I didn't intend to get into a discussion of sexuality, but the above comment is frankly, nonsensical. Just because individuals, by choice or by circumstance, do not engage in sex does not make them "non-sexual". People who are celibate can still have sexual desire and of course, can have self-induced sexual release (the definition of celibacy is "abstinence from sexual intercourse"). Lastly, you can believe whatever you want about homosexuality. I just don't see what it has to do with the starving to death of a woman in FL (which is the subject of this thread).
However people feel themselves to be oriented is meaningless if they don't act on it. I really don't care about what people fantasize about in their own private time, that's their business. Once it comes to the active assault on health, decency, and the foundations of society, it becomes my business and I will not hesitate to ridicule or condemn it.
That said, it was mentioned in response to the question of who Michael Schiavo was going to find to consecrate his new marriage. I was implying that it was an abomination in suggesting another abomination as the appropriate facilitator.
"However people feel themselves to be oriented is meaningless if they don't act on it."
I don't think it's "meaningless" to them, and it certainly doesn't make them "non-sexual" as you claimed in an earlier post.
"I was implying that it was an abomination in suggesting another abomination as the appropriate facilitator."
Doesn't sound like you believe in "judge not, lest ye be judged". Condemn away.
I long ago decided that in judging myself, taking a stand against such behavior made me far the better man than being tolerant while fellow men destroyed themselves in the most degrading ways.
Judge away, I am willing to be accountable for that choice.
"I long ago decided that in judging myself, taking a stand against such behavior made me far the better man than being tolerant while fellow men destroyed themselves in the most degrading ways."
I doubt very much that your taking verbal swipes at gays is doing anything to stop "fellow men destroying themselves in the most degrading ways". It just looks mean-spirited.
Nonsense. Ridicule is a very effective tool in changing behavior.
"Ridicule is a very effective tool in changing behavior."
The above is almost as accurate as "Celibate people are behaviorally non-sexual by definition."
You have to be careful with statements like that because we don't really know what remarks you're talking about. If you're talking about remarks that demonstrate a gay gene doesn't exist, then we're going to want to know why it's mean spirited.
For instance, science is quite hostile to the born-that-way theory. In other words, there is no such thing as a gay gene. For an excellent overview of what science says, checkout:
Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim that Homosexuality is Genetic.Or read the following:
New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene TheoryThen there are remarks about homosexuals leaving the lifestyle:
The Importance of Twin Studies
The Gay Gene?
Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend
People Can ChangeSome may consider those remarks mean spirited, but informed folks consider them compassionate to those caught in a deadly lifestyle.
More Than One Way Out
I Do Exist
Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: Introductory Pages
Of course I'm leaving alone the homosexual agenda described in The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game... And the homosexual agenda pushed by Kevin Jennings of GLSEN. Do you consider the above remarks mean-spirited? If so, why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.