Las Vegas Catholic school fires gay teacher over MySpace page

SHNS ^ | May 24, 2006 | Emily Richmond

[MACVSOG68]

No surprise there. When you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS.

You're not exactly a student of critical thinking, are you? But if those two asinine questions were not your doing, I withdraw the comment.

Sorry, I'm done doing your research for you. You clearly have no interest in the subject aside from beating the "gay is OK" drum.

Well I'll give you one thing. I certainly don't have the interest in the subject you do. But if I did, I would certainly not toss out 95% of the studies without ever looking at them, simply because they ran contrary to what your ping list told you to think.

Yeah, whatever. Is that DNC talking point 21 or 25?

Nah, not really. I tend to lump all extremists together, left or right. Some of them deserve each other.

Not surprisingly, you completely misunderstood my point, which was--I think that ALL psychological and sociological statistical studies are of little worth. They are soft sciences trying to their darndest to look like hard sciences.

I thought we were talking about homosexual tendencies here, not astrophysics. Since your talking points tell you its simply a choice and not anything physical, why wouldn't psychology play a role? If by hard science you mean biology, careful, you may get tossed out of here quicker than me.

To confuse such with science or medicine is a profound mistake.

So, in other words, if a medical doctor made a statement about the physiology of homosexuals you would consider those opinions?

[SauronOfMordor]

Considering the trouble that the Church has had with gay priests molesting boys, I can see why the Church did not want a gay man ( an obviously promiscuous gay man from the fact that he was trolling for sexual partners on the Internet), being in a position of authority over adolescent boys

[TradicalRC]

Yeah, it's called freedom to think for youself, a concept engineered by them darn liberals a few years ago.

Yeah, those darn free-thinking liberals that gave us the French Revolution and every dictator since then.

[MACVSOG68]

Yeah, those darn free-thinking liberals that gave us the French Revolution and every dictator since then.

Yeah, the same ones who put those evil thoughts into Galileo's head, and led Newton astray. Durn libruls!

[longtermmemmory]

What a fluff piece.

No way this person should be around children. I bet there is FAR more to this story than the reporter is letting on.

The catholic school is 100% within their rights.

[Antoninus]

But if those two asinine questions were not your doing, I withdraw the comment.

The questions were only asinine because you didn't want to answer them lest you reveal your true opinion on the matter. It's ok, though. I understand. It's important for a troll to keep his head down.

But if I did, I would certainly not toss out 95% of the studies without ever looking at them, simply because they ran contrary to what your ping list told you to think.

Can you provide links for me to all the studies making up that 95%? And while you're at it, go subscribe to a bunch of APA journals for me, photocopy the relevant articles and fax them over to me, will you?

Nah, not really. I tend to lump all extremists together, left or right. Some of them deserve each other.

Ah, so someone who thinks that sexual relations within marriage between one man and one woman is normal, lifegiving, healthy and good but that homosexual behavior is grotesque and abhorrent, is an extremist? If that makes me an extremist, then guilty as charged.

Since your talking points tell you its simply a choice and not anything physical, why wouldn't psychology play a role?

I am critical of psychology as a science on the whole. It's not really a science at all. That's not to say that psychological problems don't exist. Or that psychology, as profession, doesn't have a role to play in helping people with mental illness.

My point is that psychological science, while reasonably good at identifying root causes of many problems, has done an amazingly poor job addressing and curing them. In the case of those with same-sex attraction disorder, they have simply been abandoned by the psychological community, patted on the head, and told to sodomize each other to their hearts' content. It's perfectly fine. Basic common sense should tell you that's not a great strategy for helping people.

So, in other words, if a medical doctor made a statement about the physiology of homosexuals you would consider those opinions?

"Homosexual" physiology is the same as any other human physiology--at least before the years of misuse and abuse. Any medical doctor who said otherwise is a crank.

[TradicalRC]

Yup and gave us the holocaust, Hiroshima, pornography on the internet, abortion-on-demand, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.

[mikeyc]

I've been thinking about your post.
I'm looking at the Church's approach to homosexuality from a much more sensible 'place' than I have before. Having been brought up as Catholic, I'm familiar with the general attitude of the Church to the disorder, but in those days I questioned it, due to my own affliction, and the conflicting public opinions on the disorder.

It's taken almost three decades (I'm 44) for me to eventually come round to being able to see why the Church sticks firmly to it's own understanding of the disorder. It's taken that long for me to have the guts to admit that the Church has the right response to it.

Ironically, it isn't the Christian message or Holy Scripture that's brought me round to this acceptance, but my own personal and comprehensive experience with homosexuality and others with the disorder.

The Catholic Church's approach is compassionate while being careful and sensible. The only concern that I would have would be the Church's 'trust' that a repentant homosexual can be somehow permanently 'cured'. Once an afflicted individual has enjoyed homosexual activity, then I really do feel that seed is permanent. It gives the individual an even heavier 'cross to bare' than if they hadn't done so.
It's a bit like a very addictive drug. Once taken, then they are always an addict... an ex-smoker can go for years without smoking, then just one cigarette, and they can be back to a packet a day. Homosexuality is very similar.

This is why I'm coming round to the idea that it wouldn't be appropriate for any self-declared 'former' homosexual to work with boys. Primarily for the protection of the boys, but also for the sake of the homo.

You said "Over time as with breaking any bad habit the disorder would have less effect on the individual and as such merit less concern and less need for legitimate discrimination to be necessitated..."

What I am saying is, you wouldn't suggest a 'former' alcoholic works as a barman. Just as you wouldn't choose a 'former' homosexual to work alone with vulnerable boys.

Regarding this teacher, he doesn't even fall into this catagory. The Church says about Ordination: "One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

For 'ordination', also read 'teaching vocation'.

[MACVSOG68]

Yup and gave us the holocaust, Hiroshima, pornography on the internet, abortion-on-demand, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.

Well, if that's your idea of free thinkers, ok.

[TradicalRC]

The free thinkers are quite proud of turning away from the church's moral authority. As Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, everything is permissible."

[MACVSOG68]

The questions were only asinine because you didn't want to answer them lest you reveal your true opinion on the matter. It's ok, though. I understand. It's important for a troll to keep his head down.

I'm sure with your background, you understand the concept of the false dichotomy. I gave your questions far more time than they deserved.

Can you provide links for me to all the studies making up that 95%? And while you're at it, go subscribe to a bunch of APA journals for me, photocopy the relevant articles and fax them over to me, will you?

Well faxes seem so backward. If you wish, and your thought police leader gives you permission, I will be happy to post a number of links, leaving out the APA addressing the issue of "it's only a choice". You let me know.

Ah, so someone who thinks that sexual relations within marriage between one man and one woman is normal, lifegiving, healthy and good but that homosexual behavior is grotesque and abhorrent, is an extremist? If that makes me an extremist, then guilty as charged.

Not at all. In fact I respect your right to believe whatever you want. An extremist is one who wants to prevent all other ideas but his own from entering the debate. While that definition doesn't fit you, because you have at least permitted the debate to go forward(even if you want to keep changing the rules), it does fit others here. The first sign of an extremist, or radical if you will, is a person who can not debate an issue and therefore attempts to stifle those who can.

My point is that psychological science, while reasonably good at identifying root causes of many problems, has done an amazingly poor job addressing and curing them.

Can't argue that one. Not much into that part of the medical profession anyway.

In the case of those with same-sex attraction disorder, they have simply been abandoned by the psychological community, patted on the head, and told to sodomize each other to their hearts' content

That's because they have determined (with concurrence from the AMA) that their condition is not psychological, but physiological. Yet they continue to treat those who do have problems which may be connected to the homosexuality, as quite a few do.

"Homosexual" physiology is the same as any other human physiology--at least before the years of misuse and abuse. Any medical doctor who said otherwise is a crank.

Well, among your other talents, you can now judge the qualifications of doctors. But I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Again, check in through your chain of command, and I'll be happy to provide some links if you like.

Enjoyed. Gotta go now. You're a good sport.

;-)

[MACVSOG68]

The free thinkers are quite proud of turning away from the church's moral authority. As Dostoyevsky said, "Without God, everything is permissible."

A free thinker is one who does recognize that the Church's "moral authority" has evolved and changed over time, and is therefore a fair topic for discussion. The concept of abortion comes to mind.

A free thinker is someone who recognizes and questions that which is completely ludicrous, regardless of who claims to be the final authority on the subject.

[TradicalRC]

Wonderful theory. However, in practice, a freethinker is one who disregards the Church's moral authority and claims to have their own. Inevitably, their own appetites are the only moral authority they choose to recognize.

[MACVSOG68]

Wonderful theory. However, in practice, a freethinker is one who disregards the Church's moral authority and claims to have their own. Inevitably, their own appetites are the only moral authority they choose to recognize.

Good dodge. Didn't think you would take me up on it. So at least you do agree that Galileo and Newton were free thinkers? But didn't God give us freedom to think? Are non free thinkers then those who are directed or told what to think?

[DBeers]

A free thinker is someone who recognizes and questions that which is completely ludicrous, regardless of who claims to be the final authority on the subject.

Freethinking is but another moral relative concept you introduce into the mix. Your conclusions are absurd REGARDLESS you cherish the freethinking that birthed them...

[TradicalRC]

Good dodge. Didn't think you would take me up on it. So at least you do agree that Galileo and Newton were free thinkers? But didn't God give us freedom to think? Are non free thinkers then those who are directed or told what to think?

I dodge nothing. As I recall, Galileo submitted to the Catholic Church. I have no problem with him, he recognized the importance of the church unlike his impious followers.

God gave us free will, so we can think and do whatever we want. We are just as "free" to murder as we are to create.

[gidget7]

If I take your meaning correctly, you left the lifestyle?

If that is indeed the case, (I know you aren't religious but can't hurt surely!) my prayers are with you for success. You're heart will heal in time. I also pray you got out before any of the more serious medical repercussions took hold in your body. Those for things are why I am so afraid for the youth of today.

May you be well.

[DBeers]

I read your post and appreciate and agree with your thoughts in general. Once I get a moment to respond in greater detail I will offer my thoughts on your thoughts.

[MEGoody]

No, just that their priority was something other than education.

That's only a valid assessment if there are no other qualified teachers available. As has already been said, that is not the case.

I don't think that just being a homosexual is the equivalent of being a pedophile.

From a biblical perspective, there's no differentiation in sexual sin. It's all perversion in God's eyes.

"I'm sure that's not what you were insinuating."

The church should not just shrug it's shoulders at sin, period.

[MACVSOG68]

As I recall, Galileo submitted to the Catholic Church. I have no problem with him, he recognized the importance of the church unlike his impious followers.

Yes, the Catholic Church was supreme in everything. They knew through dogma demonstrated by the Bible, that the earth was central to everything, and Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun was heresy and he was so convicted by the Inquistition. He was imprisoned for having such thoughts and trying to tell the world about them. Is that the kind of disregard for the Church's moral authority you are referring to? And you wonder why intelligent people question some of the Church's dogma today? Do you approve of how the Church has handled scientific inquiry such as that of Galileo?