# Why is it okay???



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Now...anybody who knows me, knows how much I dislike San Francisco...I try not to go out there that often, unless I'm going out to eat, or to the museums, or absolutely need to go shopping there (I try to do most of my shopping in the East Bay or South Bay)...any who...the actual city of SF isn't so bad...but a certain sect of the people absolutely ruin it...SF values really do keep me away...a town that prides it's self on having pot clubs...yet bans smoking cigarettes in public places??? or my most recent favorite...the blatant and outright insults to Catholics that we've seen there recently that have basically gone unchallenged by the local (and most of the national) media...this includes the poster for some gay fair that they were having a few weeks back, mocking the last supper...aparently there were people throwing tomatoes at a depiction of Jesus on the cross during this fair...and most recently, the outright blasphemy in a Catholic church which was obviously intended as a direct insult to the Arch Bisop...Now, I understand that SF is probably too far gone, and there is really no way that this kind of attitude would ever be erased...but I just wonder...why is it okay??? I mean, let them do it...fine...but if a group of Christians had a fair in which they lynched manequins dressed like some of these carachters that you might encounter in SF, or came in and broke up the gay pride parade all the while mocking and insulting them...it would be considered a hate crime...I realize that these idiots do not speak for the entire gay community, but honestly, stunts like this are only hurting their cause...I don't see why intellegent members of the gay community don't stand up and say something...I was actually talking to this gay guy who works in the same hospital as me the other day about this, and he seemed to be proud of it (the again, he's convinced that every guy in the world can be "turned gay" with the right persuasion)...I asked him the same question about if the shoe were on the other foot, and he couldnt come up with an answer other than the typical "Christians are bad, they dont want us to get married" speil that's about as tired as tired gets...

not trying to start a riot here...just wondering if anybody can tell me...why is it okay for gays to insult Christians...in a downright malicious fashion and recieve very little media coverage for doing it...but if Christians did the same thing, these "hate crimes" would be plastered all over every front page in the country...


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Simple, It's NOT okay. But in the present political climate, it's inevitable. Remember that the media here has a definite political agenda and reports, or doesn't report, news so as to advance that agenda. E.g. the Sheppard kid got national media attention but the 13 year old boy who was raped and strangled by a couple of men down in GA (IIRC) got none. Both heinous crimes with completely unequal coverage.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Gabba,

You're missing the insight here:

Attacking Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna or Wiccan practices means you're a bigot and need to learn ethinic and/or religious tolerance. In fact, you should be forced to attend some sensitivity training to make sure you don't make such backward mistakes again.

On the other hand, criticizing, demonizing or outright ridiculing of Jesus or Moses means you're sophisticated and urbane. Your right to artistic or speech freedom is the key here.

I guess you missed the memo.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> (the again, he's convinced that every guy in the world can be "turned gay" with the right persuasion)


I thought the line of the day was that it's the gay gene that's responsible. He must not have attended the last meeting.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

When liberals tell me how tolerant they all are, I just shake my head. The true term is _selective_ tolerance.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

KenR said:


> When liberals tell me how tolerant they all are, I just shake my head. The true term is _selective_ tolerance.


I always hear that they're intolerant of intolerance.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

KenR said:


> When liberals tell me how tolerant they all are, I just shake my head. The true term is _selective_ tolerance.


Amen!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

When they are actually tolerant of intolerance. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

KenR said:


> When they are actually tolerant of intolerance. :icon_smile_big:


...which is intolerable.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with Gabba. 

And the established media wonders why fewer and fewer viewers watch the network news and why newspaper readership is down.

I am relatively moderate about most of the gay agenda. I have no problems with civil unions. However, the "mature" side of the gay movement shocks me by refusing to condemn those clowns that took communion and the other crap.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> not trying to start a riot here...just wondering if anybody can tell me...why is it okay for gays to insult Christians...in a downright malicious fashion and recieve very little media coverage for doing it...but if Christians did the same thing, these "hate crimes" would be plastered all over every front page in the country...


Anything that is established, stable, or has otherwise been around long enough is not considered a "cause" or deserving of respect or consideration. To wit, the current liberal trend of banishing the very fundamental pillars upon which our current society was built in the name of separation of church and state - lest we impinge upon someone's freedom to practice atheism.

When the disenfranchised attack establishment, it's a cause. When establishment fights back, it's given a heinous label.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

*I left my heart in San Francisco*

My family has a long connection with SF and the Bay. My great grandmother Hanna O'Donafin-Rossa who taught me the Gaelic was in SF during the great earthquake. My parents were at Berkeley doing research and roomed next to this 'funny, jewish poet' named Allen who I later met at City Lights Bookstore, mentioned my parents and impressed everyone ( and starting rumours of my own sexuality) getting hugged by Mr Ginsberg. I was stationed at both Governor's Island wedged between Alameda and Oakland and Treasure Island for two years. That is 'my' SF where you could date interracially and not realise it because people could care less. The old irish district had become gay and I took emotional revenge on a high school tormentor in Oil Can Harry's with the full approval of the regulars who knew me as the Coast Guard SP KAV who you didn't mess with gay or straight, especially if that ( fluttering of hearts) big guy Jo Jo was on duty with him. But there was room for the 'Old San Frrancisco' of women who wore white cotton gloves like Tilley Zimmerman, 90 something years old who got knocked over by a Cable Car on Geary I helped. It was Tilley who taught me about sapphires and drinking tea. And I learned how to dress at Cable Car Clothiers through my gay russian jew refugee mentor who tossed GQ in the round wire trashcan and urged me to buy my season ticket at the operahouse and learn. There was the SF of early fog mornings at the japanese garden in Golden Gate Park meditating before the Buddha and meeting another fascinating lady who performed a very old school tea ceremony for me. I bought my first Colt New Service, and their last sale at a landmark store closed by legislation. I bought the ammunition that very week in Oakland and carried it, loaded in SF on a few ocassions. It's all gone now, or at best marginalised. I saw it when old SF butted heads with the new and a diswrought former supervisor shot the mayor and a popular gay supervisor. The gay community rioted, and in the fragmented irish housholds I.R.A. veterans stayed up at night with stick magazine loadedThompsons bought in the 1950s from a thief gunner's mate in the Navy. We got Feinstein, a power shift that has turned vindictive, nasty and as provincialy hick and prejudiced as anything Harper Lee could record. But be of good cheer! There is a very old tradition in San Francisco. If it doesn't periodicaly burn down the earth shakes it off like a dog water. As long as we can get sourdough bread bakeries and the Anchor Steam plant up and running, the Balclutha, Chinese Junk And Fleet Submarine ( itself a matter of controversy) are safe at their moorings, the Opera House and my buddha intact I'll be satisfied. The rest can replicate Sodom and Gommora with Feinstein looking back unbelieving and turning to salt.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> not trying to start a riot here...just wondering if anybody can tell me...why is it okay for gays to insult Christians...in a downright malicious fashion and recieve very little media coverage for doing it...but if Christians did the same thing, these "hate crimes" would be plastered all over every front page in the country...


Uh, Jews and Christians have been stoning gay people to death, burning them in oil, lynching them and otherwise persecuting them for thousands of years. Our current Pope claims physical violence against gays "should be expected".

Why? Well, because hate crimes in this case equates to "God's Word".

As for San Francisco, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I do. I just don't want any smoke damage to the rest of the house.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Slamms FrankDC up against the refrigerator knocking magnets off with store coupons. Leans forward and hisses" IT'S MY EFFING KITCHEN TOO!"


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, Jews and Christians have been stoning gay people to death, burning them in oil, lynching them and otherwise persecuting them for thousands of years. Our current Pope claims physical violence against gays "should be expected".
> 
> Why? Well, because hate crimes in this case equates to "God's Word".
> 
> As for San Francisco, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Ah, so two wrongs does make a right! Or is it just that your intolerance is justified.

Doesn't this all dovetail nicely with Gabba's original thread?!!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, but three lefts do.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> Ah, so two wrongs does make a right! Or is it just that your intolerance is justified.
> 
> Doesn't this all dovetail nicely with Gabba's original thread?!!


If you're seriously comparing a few insults to 3500 years of murder, torture, persecution etc etc, it says far more about you than it does about gay people.

Gabba's post speaks for itself.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm comparing intolerance, period. It seems that it is something you believe you are justified in having. That's quite an entitlement.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, Jews and Christians have been stoning gay people to death, burning them in oil, lynching them and otherwise persecuting them for thousands of years. Our current Pope claims physical violence against gays "should be expected".
> 
> Why? Well, because hate crimes in this case equates to "God's Word".
> 
> As for San Francisco, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


aaaw...look who woke up...

Frank...is that you in your Avi??? if so, you look awfully pale...so by your own logic, if turnabout is fair play, shouldnt you be off working on a plantation for a black master somewhere???


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Mark from Plano said:


> Gabba,
> 
> You're missing the insight here:
> 
> ...


That about sums it up for me. Everyone *should* play by the same rules, but unfortunately that's not the case.

Brian


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Kav said:


> Slamms FrankDC up against the refrigerator knocking magnets off with store coupons. Leans forward and hisses" IT'S MY EFFING KITCHEN TOO!"


exactly...why should I move just because some whackos have hijacked a city close to me???

Once again Frank...by your own logic...you should be out of here...I mean you do hate America and all...so why don't you get out of the kitchen???


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wait a minute, 3,500 years of torture and murder against gay people? Wait a minute while I adjust my ancient Windows 98 screen-BANG! BANG! Ah, yes, I am correct. This is 2007 A.D. or A.C.E. for the P.C. in S.F. who jump on such issues P.D.Q. Now, give me 10 minutes here, math to me is like writing to WA. HMMMMM, 2007 - 3500, licks pencil lead, oh yea, drop from zero gives you 1493 B.C. or B.C.E. again for the P.C. of S.F. Stares at computer screen waiting for inspriation. Should I GOOGLE or yahoo here? Frank, dear Frank, There weren't any Catholics in 3500 B.C. or B.C.E. for the P.C. of S.F.


----------



## Alistair (Aug 12, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> If you're seriously comparing a few insults to 3500 years of murder, torture, persecution etc etc, it says far more about you than it does about gay people.
> 
> Gabba's post speaks for itself.


+1, Frank.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> not trying to start a riot here...just wondering if anybody can tell me...why is it okay for gays to insult Christians...in a downright malicious fashion and recieve very little media coverage for doing it...but if Christians did the same thing, these "hate crimes" would be plastered all over every front page in the country...


Well, the way of the world nowadays is "might is right" and we know which group carries the "might" in SF.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Our current Pope claims physical violence against gays "should be expected".


I find that hard to believe.

MrR


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Now...anybody who knows me, knows how much I dislike San Francisco...I try not to go out there that often, unless I'm going out to eat, or to the museums, or absolutely need to go shopping there (I try to do most of my shopping in the East Bay or South Bay)...any who...the actual city of SF isn't so bad...but a certain sect of the people absolutely ruin it...SF values really do keep me away...a town that prides it's self on having pot clubs...yet bans smoking cigarettes in public places??? or my most recent favorite...the blatant and outright insults to Catholics that we've seen there recently that have basically gone unchallenged by the local (and most of the national) media...this includes the poster for some gay fair that they were having a few weeks back, mocking the last supper...aparently there were people throwing tomatoes at a depiction of Jesus on the cross during this fair...and most recently, the outright blasphemy in a Catholic church which was obviously intended as a direct insult to the Arch Bisop...Now, I understand that SF is probably too far gone, and there is really no way that this kind of attitude would ever be erased...but I just wonder...why is it okay??? I mean, let them do it...fine...but if a group of Christians had a fair in which they lynched manequins dressed like some of these carachters that you might encounter in SF, or came in and broke up the gay pride parade all the while mocking and insulting them...it would be considered a hate crime...I realize that these idiots do not speak for the entire gay community, but honestly, stunts like this are only hurting their cause...I don't see why intellegent members of the gay community don't stand up and say something...I was actually talking to this gay guy who works in the same hospital as me the other day about this, and he seemed to be proud of it (the again, he's convinced that every guy in the world can be "turned gay" with the right persuasion)...I asked him the same question about if the shoe were on the other foot, and he couldnt come up with an answer other than the typical "Christians are bad, they dont want us to get married" speil that's about as tired as tired gets...
> 
> not trying to start a riot here...just wondering if anybody can tell me...why is it okay for gays to insult Christians...in a downright malicious fashion and recieve very little media coverage for doing it...but if Christians did the same thing, these "hate crimes" would be plastered all over every front page in the country...


I guess every race, religion, sexual orientation has a few bottomfeeders. I know alot of gay guys and they are as cool as anyone else. Whats funny is to hear them talk about how they could care less about gay marriage and how its more of an issue for straight voters and a few thousand angry gays than the gay population at large.

I'm still reeling from last years "holiday tree" arguement

MrR


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> I find that hard to believe.
> 
> MrR


oh don't mind Frank...he's just spewing his normal anti-Catholic hatred...but, it's just like I said...if the Catholics were the ones publicly mocking the gays he'd be the first one out there bemoaning this "injustice"...

...it's amazing how openminded and tolerant these liberal are...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> oh don't mind Frank...he's just spewing his normal anti-Catholic hatred...but, it's just like I said...if the Catholics were the ones publicly mocking the gays he'd be the first one out there bemoaning this "injustice"...


I'm sure gay people would be thrilled if Christians had limited their persecution to "mocking". And never mind the fact the Roman Catholic Church is, by far, the largest organized group of homosexuals on planet Earth.



The Gabba Goul said:


> ...it's amazing how openminded and tolerant these liberal are...


Nice try at trolling. Better luck next time.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This may come as a shock, but not all of Catholic History is of Crusades, Inquisitions and the present scandal over pedophile priests. Catholicism managed to squeeze in one or two accomplishments in arts and sciences and more than a few people of the cloth who stood up against world tyranny at the expense of their own lives. The problem with bashing----- anybody is so few of us have a better alternative. I think it's good for our temporal society homosexuals can reasonably expect the same security as anyone else. Like Rosa Parks, there is a flashpoint when you just get tired of it all. With gays it was a riot when the police had hassled them in the bars once to often. The problem is when we replace Rosa Parks with Al Sharpton, or, dare I say it- Ellen Degenerate who thinks we all need to see her lip locked with her main squeeze on prime time and then thinks she is above a contract with a animal rescue group. Forgive me for this stereotype, but there is nothing more offensive or wearisome than a vindictive lesbian with a mad on. BTDT. Her catterwalling on TEEVEE, the supporters making death threats against the rescue society while so many more pressing issues face society was the pinnacle of self indulgance. Civil Rights means being- civil. Forget that and you can forget the second part.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'm sure gay people would be thrilled if Christians had limited their persecution to "mocking". And never mind the fact the Roman Catholic Church is, by far, the largest organized group of homosexuals on planet Earth.


Wait a second...I thought that Catholics hated gays??? Now they are all gay???

Which is it??? Oh I know...you belong to the camp who believe that if a guy finds the prospect of bumping uglies with another dude to be disgusting then he must secretly be gay right??? because there's no way that anybody could actually be rupulsed by such a _beautiful_ and _natural_ act right???

to quote Master Shake...you and your quasi intellectual hob-nobbery...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> I find that hard to believe.
> 
> MrR


"When civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior _to which no one has any conceivable right_(!), _neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase._"

A few years later, in 1992, _he rejected the notion of human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be `legitimately limited'_.

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_327/ai_30301234


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Wait a second...I thought that Catholics hated gays??? Now they are all gay???


True Catholics don't hate. You do. And Ratzinger does. He's been spewing the same homophobia for 30+ years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I like the use of the findarticle feature to hide this stuff is from The Internationalist, which is basically a socialist/communist rag.

Logical answer to this thread:

gay bashing = bad
Catholics (papists :icon_smile_big: ) bashing = bad

a group of gay people causing mayhem for Catholics = bad

So to sum it up, bad behavior by anyone is bad. End of story.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> True Catholics don't hate. You do. And Ratzinger does. He's been spewing the same homophobia for 30+ years.


gee...thanks for letting me know that *I* hate gays...and all this time I just thought I hated whack jobs on the fringe who needed to mock my religion in the most tasteless fashion...didnt realize that aparently that's all gays...glad you cleared that up for me...


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I think it all a matter of location and the culture of the group you making those statements towards. I know many sections of society where gay bashing won't cause anyone to complain. I'm not sure but I think the sections of society where gay bashing is acceptable outnumbers those where it frowned upon. 
I've been involve so much racial & cultural in my days that, I really don't care about it anymore. Long as no ones impeding anyone's lifestyle or rights, I care little about the slander bandied about.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> And never mind the fact the Roman Catholic Church is, by far, the largest organized group of homosexuals on planet Earth.


Let me get this straight, the Catholic Church is the largest organized group of homosexuals on the planet, but they also persecute homosexuals, so really they're persecuting themselves!? Fascinating 

Brian


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, Jews and Christians have been stoning gay people to death, burning them in oil, lynching them and otherwise persecuting them for thousands of years. Our current Pope claims physical violence against gays "should be expected".
> 
> Why? Well, because hate crimes in this case equates to "God's Word".
> 
> As for San Francisco, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Pardon me for butting in, but what? You want absolution? Don't think so... 
You want to be another persecuted group? Well, stand in line! But, don't expect me to feel any sympathy. Dude, life ain't fair. Just gotta butch up and take it like a man. The world is full of persecuted people.

You think just because 1500 years ago a gay was stoned to death even though it was against the law in that primitive society that you can act like a heathen in this modern society? Oh please! Take your silly complaint down the hall and tell someone who really gives a cr*p.

This self justified abhorrent behavior in San Francisco is inexcusable, rude, and does more harm to the gay society than you can ever imagine. And to claim some privileged status touting persecution gives me sharp shooting pains!


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

The problem is very simple. In the cultural revolution of the 1960s many people were convinced that all of western culture is bad. Lock stock and barrel. And they didn't stop thinking that later 'drop out/sell out' and become yuppies. Think Katha Pollit. So these deluded people operate on that with their children. Any faith but Christianity is cool. Any culture but native (be that blueblood or *******) is interesting and worthy of a large role in the schools (this got so stupid they tried pushing Kwanzaa).

The terrible consequence of this is that they stopped doing their primary job as parent-citizens: civilizing their offspring.

Take a look if you dare at what actually happened on Folsom street:
https://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
NOT SAFE FOR WORK


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

*There are catholics and there are catholics*

My mother grew up in a smaller community than today's monstrous Los Angeles. The Mahoney's were a well known family of who my grandmother's one and only comment consisted of 'lace curtain irish.' My mother told me little Roger was a nasty piece of work, that thin smile always alerting others he was watching for perceived infractions to tell teachers,parents, priests or the local cop. His childhood nickname was 'Roger Dodger' and his mother was determined to raise a future Pope. If you weren't catholic you were nothing. The Nisei deported to the camps were 'heathens' and the good catholic mexicans brought up to work their former jobs and lands would make a better California. One day Roger saw another irish girl with my mom step around a fairie ring after the rain and curtsey to 'The Good Nieghbors.' She was off to have her fortune read by the Gypsies in their Caravan. Roger announced he was telling on her and walked briskly to the church, my mom and friend following. But the parish Priest was out and only newly arrived Sister Brigid in attendance. Roger blurted " Dierdre believes in fairies and-SMACK! he received an ear boxing, a pinch on the arm and a withering lecture on the sin of gossip and " what manner of fool raised you without respect to 'the gentry folk?' Decades later I was on the team excavating the 1822 rectory at The Plaza Church in L.A. The parish wanted to start construction on the new youth center and no little impatient with our deliberate work. One day his emminence himself visited and urged us to ' work faster' with a thin smile. My good polish catholic partner Bob Wlodarski bent his head and mumbled a humble yes. I replied "Your emminence, do you think Sister Brigid would want us doing our work without respect? "The smile disappeared and he turned heal and walked off briskly. I lit a candle at the outside shrine and said a prayer for Sister Brigid, fine irish catholic woman of charity she was in my mother's memory. Cardinals come and go. Popes come and go. The gospel of Jesus doesn't and only fools forget that.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

flylot74 said:


> Pardon me for butting in, but what? You want absolution? Don't think so...
> You want to be another persecuted group? Well, stand in line! But, don't expect me to feel any sympathy. Dude, life ain't fair. Just gotta butch up and take it like a man. The world is full of persecuted people.
> 
> You think just because 1500 years ago a gay was stoned to death even though it was against the law in that primitive society that you can act like a heathen in this modern society? Oh please! Take your silly complaint down the hall and tell someone who really gives a cr*p.
> ...


Word...furthermore...I think it speaks volumes about the tolerance levels of Catholics that some parishoner didnt get up and deck one of those jerks, or at least wait for them outside so as not to disrespect the church then plowed them into the concrete, now there's a sin worth going to confession for...of course then that would have been an "unprovoked hate crime"...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm warming up a motorpool car with another enlisted to pick up our Co at the airport. It was really nasty weather and my shipmate looked worried. I start singing " I don't care if it rains or freezes long as I got my plastic Je-s-us--- as the base chaplin ( catholic) slipped into the back seat and filled the mirror replying " I don't care if it's dark and scary, long as I have my virgin Mary" Kav, would you be kind enough to drop me by the infirmary? He gave us a blessing for a safe trip before getting out. " Life is a banquet and some poor SOBs are starving." - Auntie Maime


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

flylot74 said:


> This self justified abhorrent behavior in San Francisco is inexcusable, rude, and does more harm to the gay society than you can ever imagine. And to claim some privileged status touting persecution gives me sharp shooting pains!


I'll try and remember that, next time my kids are channel surfing and stumble on women flapping their jugs at the cameras in "Girls Gone Wild".

But God forbid men ever show their genitalia publicly, then it's "abhorrent behavior". At least the SF fair caters to a specific audience and isn't piped into millions of people's homes.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

vwguy said:


> That about sums it up for me. Everyone *should* play by the same rules, but unfortunately that's not the case.
> 
> Brian


No, everyone plays by the rules they select for themselves. If your rules include judgment and criticism of others, then you should expect to be held to that when you screw up. If you are tolerant and forgiving, then guess what, people will usually cut you more slack when you transgress.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

android said:


> No, everyone plays by the rules they select for themselves. If your rules include judgment and criticism of others, then you should expect to be held to that when you screw up. If you are tolerant and forgiving, then guess what, people will usually cut you more slack when you transgress.


What I was saying was people shouldn't/can't have it both ways. Either you're "tolerant" of every view & opinion or you're not.

Brian


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Tolerance can not be guaranteed if one takes a stand on any issue. 
Some will disagree and others will disagree violently. When there are enough people congregated who share one extreme view then it becomes a cause of vocal protest or worse. If you are part of the majority you have a cause to fight for uniformity and stability, but if you are the minority you are persecuted for being different. 
At some point in our lives we can expect to be the minority but we forget this when we have the security of numbers.

Lets me see how may ways I could be hated for being different. I will limit this to religion just to keep it short. Each one should draw the ire of someone reading this. However being "right" depends on which group I happen to be with at the moment. It should be noted that even with my several views I can still be intolerant.

I was raised a Christian in the Fundamentalist mindset.
I believe in the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy who founded the Church of Christ, Scientist.
I believe Christianity is a departure from and not an extension of Judaism. 
I believe in some concepts of the Church of Scientology.
I believe in the teachings of the Buddha at least to the 5 Precepts.
I believe in a supreme being regardless of his/her/it's name.
I always have faith but not always religion.
I believe that all of the above can be embraced at once without being a heretic .

And just to move back to the San Fransisco theme- I love SFO in the daytime but I hate SFO at night. 

The purpose of this is simple. We are all individuals and have our own views by thought and/or indoctrination. It would be improbable to be in agreement with everyone on every subject. As each of us express our believes it will be viewed as condemnation of someone else whether or not it is intended.
We are stuck on this planet. Learn to live together.
Ken


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'll try and remember that, next time my kids are channel surfing and stumble on women flapping their jugs at the cameras in "Girls Gone Wild".
> 
> But God forbid men ever show their genitalia publicly, then it's "abhorrent behavior". At least the SF fair caters to a specific audience and isn't piped into millions of people's homes.


1) Breasts are not genitalia 
2) "Jugs"? Did I time warp back to 1978?
3) You have kids?
4) V-chip.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Word...furthermore...I think it speaks volumes about the tolerance levels of Catholics that some parishoner didnt get up and deck one of those jerks, or at least wait for them outside so as not to disrespect the church then plowed them into the concrete, now there's a sin worth going to confession for...of course then that would have been an "unprovoked hate crime"...


That's the point, isn't it?

Some wacky gay guys dressed like nuns went to communion, and they were treated like ordinary parishioners. The archbishop served them like anyone else and nobody rioted in church.

The video you've probably seen was taped by some parishioners who are angry at this parish for being too liberal and accepting towards outlandishly nun-offending churchgoers.

The church, classily, ignored this disruption and carried on as normal.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> True Catholics don't hate. You do. And Ratzinger does. He's been spewing the same homophobia for 30+ years.


I like Ratzinger. He is a man of conviction. Doesn't appear to be a pushover. Says what he believes. And, anybody that says what they believe is going to be disliked by a number of people. He will be slandered until he dies and probably some more. Jerry Falwell is another man who stuck with what he believed in.

So Frank do you really know what he believes other than the surface words? He is probably a lot softer and gentler than you make him out to be, at least most of the Fundamentalist are. Sure, they believe in a higher Authority who made the rules and that the rules are to be lived by but, the rules in detail are way more complicated than what you are saying, so you can't really say they hate people.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> I like Ratzinger. He is a man of conviction. Doesn't appear to be a pushover. Says what he believes. And, anybody that says what they believe is going to be disliked by a number of people. He will be slandered until he dies and probably some more. Jerry Falwell is another man who stuck with what he believed in.


Yes, such as claiming that "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals". We all have a right to our beliefs, and one of mine is that Falwell's soul is burning in hell for his.



WA said:


> So Frank do you really know what he believes other than the surface words? He is probably a lot softer and gentler than you make him out to be, at least most of the Fundamentalist are. Sure, they believe in a higher Authority who made the rules and that the rules are to be lived by but, the rules in detail are way more complicated than what you are saying, so you can't really say they hate people.


I've had 30+ years of experience with Ratzinger, on a few occasions direct personal experience with him. His hatred and arrogance are as deep as they are long and wide.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'll try and remember that, next time my kids are channel surfing and stumble on women flapping their jugs at the cameras in "Girls Gone Wild".
> 
> But God forbid men ever show their genitalia publicly, then it's "abhorrent behavior". At least the SF fair caters to a specific audience and isn't piped into millions of people's homes.


Covered breasts on tv does not equal a crucifix dildo stuffed up some guys ass. Gays are following the lead of other minorities in that they themselves are their only roadblock to acceptance.

Gay or straight, the people in those pictures are sick and deranged.

MrR


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The young man stands poised, eyes clear, muscles alerted for the commands that will fling a small, carefully selected pebble towards his foe. His genitalia are exposed. And they were viewed outdoors until moved inside by Catholics who could distinquish the work of the holy against that of the evil one. Frank, I know you disparage anyone who actually participates in the world at large, putting our own genitalia on the line we walk after talking. I can send you money for a creme pie or even an old Carcano carbine in 6.5 with two packets of stripper clipped ammo should you ever 'rise' to any giants casting shadows over your life.I'm here for you.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> The young man stands poised, eyes clear, muscles alerted for the commands that will fling a small, carefully selected pebble towards his foe. His genitalia are exposed. And they were viewed outdoors until moved inside by Catholics who could distinquish the work of the holy against that of the evil one. Frank, I know you disparage anyone who actually participates in the world at large, putting our own genitalia on the line we walk after talking. I can send you money for a creme pie or even an old Carcano carbine in 6.5 with two packets of stripper clipped ammo should you ever 'rise' to any giants casting shadows over your life.I'm here for you.


Kav, I don't condone public sex of any flavor, and my complaints are not directed at Catholics or Christians in general. But when a Pope declares gay people have "no conceivable right" to their sexuality -- something they are neither responsible for nor are able to change -- it's nothing other than emotional gay bashing which leads to other, far more violent forms of bashing. Gay people not only will fight back against this hatred, bigotry and ignorance, they should and must fight back.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, such as claiming that "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals". We all have a right to our beliefs, and one of mine is that Falwell's soul is burning in hell for his.


And at what point did Pope Benedict XVI say this??? Jerry Falwell and the Pope are two very different people...

furthermore...let's examine AIDS when it came to the forefront...it reached epidemic levels in the gay community and was, up until probabably the early 90's, regarded as "the gay man's disease"...not saying that it's God's punishment for them being gay, but the gays most certainly did have a hand in making it the prolific epidemic that it is today, just because they're an "opressed" minority doesn't mean that they are saints...so spare me all this nonsense, because perhaps from somebody like Falwell's standpoint, or anybody that could put 2 and 2 together at the time, the connection between AIDS and the gay community was pretty obvious...I suppose next you're going to say that the Republicans secretly engineered AIDS and gave it to all those poor innocent gays right???

You fancy yourself some sort of crusaider fighting for _"truth_" and "_justice"_...the problem is that you know very little abotu who or what you're fighting against...


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I suppose next you're going to say that the Republicans secretly engineered AIDS and gave it to all those poor innocent gays right???


No, you've got it all wrong. It was intended for the African-Americans after the crack plan didn't work.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> No, you've got it all wrong. It was intended for the African-Americans after the crack plan didn't work.


:idea:OF COURSE!!!

how could I have been so insensitive???:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> furthermore...let's examine AIDS when it came to the forefront...it reached epidemic levels in the gay community and was, up until probabably the early 90's, regarded as "the gay man's disease"...not saying that it's God's punishment for them being gay, but the gays most certainly did have a hand in making it the prolific epidemic that it is today, just because they're an "opressed" minority doesn't mean that they are saints...so spare me all this nonsense, because perhaps from somebody like Falwell's standpoint, or anybody that could put 2 and 2 together at the time, the connection between AIDS and the gay community was pretty obvious...I suppose next you're going to say that the Republicans secretly engineered AIDS and gave it to all those poor innocent gays right???


Actually, the true damage was done when HIV/AIDS was made a civil rights issue and not a public health issue. Did you know you can be held against your will if you are an active, non-compliant TB patient? Many of you probably do given that recent lawyer that flew around with MDR-TB. However, not only can a non-compliant HIV+ person not be held against their will (and by non-compliant I mean having unprotected sex with unknowing people), but many states have special laws making divulging the fact someone is HIV+ a felony! I remember when I was still in the clinical side of things in Michigan and finding that out...I was totally floored.

Now yes, TB can be spread by casual contact and HIV involved much more intimate contact. However, HIV is a much more serious disease and there is not a special class of crimes for letting slip someone is on isoniazid but, depending what state you are in, there is if you let slip someone is on an anti-retro-viral. HIV is a public health issue, not a civil rights issue IMO.

I am aware there have been some attempt at criminal charges for people exposing unknowing people to HIV, but this is action after the fact. TB detainment is a pro-active measure.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> And at what point did Pope Benedict XVI say this??? Jerry Falwell and the Pope are two very different people...
> 
> furthermore...let's examine AIDS when it came to the forefront...it reached epidemic levels in the gay community and was, up until probabably the early 90's, regarded as "the gay man's disease"...not saying that it's God's punishment for them being gay, but the gays most certainly did have a hand in making it the prolific epidemic that it is today, just because they're an "opressed" minority doesn't mean that they are saints...so spare me all this nonsense, because perhaps from somebody like Falwell's standpoint, or anybody that could put 2 and 2 together at the time, the connection between AIDS and the gay community was pretty obvious...I


Well at least you're consistent in your abysmal cluelessness. HIV infection and AIDS are are a result of specific acts (unprotected anal sex, needle sharing etc) and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Lesbians have the lowest HIV infection and AIDS rates of any group, heterosexual OR homosexual.

But please, don't let that fact get in the way of your pathetic little gay bashing hate fantasy.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

Time for my $0.02...

SF is a city I tend to avoid. It really has no excuse for how filthy and run down it has become over the last 15 years. During the time when Rudy was making NYC a place I felt very safe in, SF was awash in tons of .com and real-estate related money. What did they spend all that tax revenue on? Who knows.

The homeless problem, drugs, the insane -- all worse in SF than in any other major city I've ever been to. Frankly, I think most of Oakland is in better shape given the resources they have to work with.

And then there's the provincialism. People from SF forget that they are not living in the greatest city in the world, and even worse, they seem to think they are living in the most important city in the region - the more populous San Jose to the south really seems to have more of a right to this claim.

I'm glad I don't work in the city. While I was willing to put up with commuting into NYC from NJ, I don't think I could take a commute where the ultimate destination would be a city so disappointing in its ability to live up to its potential.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Well at least you're consistent in your abysmal cluelessness. HIV infection and AIDS are are a result of specific acts (unprotected anal sex, needle sharing etc) and have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Lesbians have the lowest HIV infection and AIDS rates of any group, heterosexual OR homosexual.
> 
> But please, don't let that fact get in the way of your pathetic little gay bashing hate fantasy.


Oh Frank...my boy...how convenient it is to label somebody a biggot and hope that ends the argument...

Now I know that us conservatives are so much stupider than you, but believe it or not, I did know that AIDS isnt confined to just the gays beofre you decided to be so generous and educate me...but just for fun...Let's hop into the time machine here...way back when...a different time...a simpler time really...the world was just hearing about this disease known as AIDS...in which community...oh wise and powerful sage...did this condition rise to an epidemic level first and gain the national spotlight??? perhaps a group who's known for their fondness of unprotected anal sex (at the time)???, that is one of the ways that you said that you could get it...was AIDS or was AIDS not known as "the gay man's disease"??? did AIDS or did AIDS not have a stigma of being a homosexual disease??? Back in those days most people were not as smart as you (although, I'm sure you were as much of a shining beacon of intellegence back then as you are today) and even the medical community wasn't entirely sure how this disease was transmitted, yet, it seemed like alot of the people contracting this virus were gay...now stick with me here, I'm sure that it's hard for you to comprehend such concepts that are so far below you...if I'm a Christian fundamentalist who has every right in the world to dislike gays (and they have every right in the world to dislike me)...maybe I'm going to use a little simple logic and conclude that this is a disease that gays get...

Not saying it was right, not saying it was wrong...that's just how it was...and don't you let any facts get in the way of your anti-Christian rants...

also...I have to give you kudos for the cute little way you've managed to dodge the original issue and turn it into a Jerry Falwell vs the gays debate...the fact of the matter is that as I said before, just because the gays are an "opressed" minority (and they do a pretty good job at keeping themselves down with stunts like they've been pulling) doesnt automatically make them saints, and certainly doesnt give them a free pass to wreak havoc on the ideals and beliefs of Christians (the so called "opressor")...not everybody with a goofy ideology is a revolutionary...these idiots (and no, not all gays, but these specific ones are idiots) are a modern day equivalent of Don Quixote they keep on fighting those windmills completely oblivious to the fact that they look ridiculous to the rest of the world...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, the true damage was done when HIV/AIDS was made a civil rights issue and not a public health issue. Did you know you can be held against your will if you are an active, non-compliant TB patient? Many of you probably do given that recent lawyer that flew around with MDR-TB. However, not only can a non-compliant HIV+ person not be held against their will (and by non-compliant I mean having unprotected sex with unknowing people), but many states have special laws making divulging the fact someone is HIV+ a felony! I remember when I was still in the clinical side of things in Michigan and finding that out...I was totally floored.
> 
> Now yes, TB can be spread by casual contact and HIV involved much more intimate contact. However, HIV is a much more serious disease and there is not a special class of crimes for letting slip someone is on isoniazid but, depending what state you are in, there is if you let slip someone is on an anti-retro-viral. HIV is a public health issue, not a civil rights issue IMO.
> 
> I am aware there have been some attempt at criminal charges for people exposing unknowing people to HIV, but this is action after the fact. TB detainment is a pro-active measure.


Yes, when I started working in a hospital some years ago, I was floored to find this out too...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

gar1013 said:


> Time for my $0.02...
> 
> SF is a city I tend to avoid. It really has no excuse for how filthy and run down it has become over the last 15 years. During the time when Rudy was making NYC a place I felt very safe in, SF was awash in tons of .com and real-estate related money. What did they spend all that tax revenue on? Who knows.
> 
> ...


SF just loves to wallow in it's own self importance...yet, they'll never be the metropolis that places like NY or LA are, so they chose to go a different rout, they have decided that sence they can't become famous, they'll become infamous, I honestly believe that they don't just condone this bad behavior, but actually encourage it...


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Gabba-
The fact that Frank's anti-Catholic drivel ( Frank-the closest you've ever been to Josef Ratzinger has been a TV screen) hasn't gotten him banned proves your point as to the level of tolerance that even "good" people have when it comes to deriding the Catholic church as opposed to any other group.

You've proved your point- even here.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Gabba-
> The fact that Frank's anti-Catholic drivel ( Frank-the closest you've ever been to Josef Ratzinger has been a TV screen) hasn't gotten him banned proves your point as to the level of tolerance that even "good" people have when it comes to deriding the Catholic church as opposed to any other group.
> 
> You've proved your point- even here.


Frank has yet to drop the p-bomb. If he ever pulls the cord on that, I predict he's toast.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Gabba-
> The fact that Frank's anti-Catholic drivel ( Frank-the closest you've ever been to Josef Ratzinger has been a TV screen) hasn't gotten him banned proves your point as to the level of tolerance that even "good" people have when it comes to deriding the Catholic church as opposed to any other group.
> 
> You've proved your point- even here.


sad but true...could you imagine if somebody said some of these horrible things about the Muslims (who are also none too fond of the gays)???


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank has yet to drop the p-bomb. If he ever pulls the cord on that, I predict he's toast.


P-bomb?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> P-bomb?


I'll PM you.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Kav said:


> Frank, I know you disparage anyone who actually participates in the world at large


Well put Kav lol
What are you so angry about Frank? 
C'mon.....Let it out brother

MrR


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Gabba-
> The fact that Frank's anti-Catholic drivel ( Frank-the closest you've ever been to Josef Ratzinger has been a TV screen)


My first letter to Ratzinger was in 1978 and was answered personally by him -- as were five other letters over the years.

As for "anti-catholic drivel", that depends on whether you're talking about "catholic" with a capital or small C. Today's RCC leadership is as removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ as the Jews were removed from their religion in Jesus' time, and they're just as immoral and evil IMO.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> As for "anti-catholic drivel", that depends on whether you're talking about "catholic" with a capital or small C. Today's RCC leadership is as removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ as the Jews were removed from their religion in Jesus' time, and they're just as immoral and evil IMO.


WOW...

...that pretty much speaks for its self...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Today's RCC leadership is as removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ as the Jews were removed from their religion in Jesus' time, and they're just as immoral and evil IMO.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I've had 30+ years of experience with Ratzinger, on a few occasions direct personal experience with him. His hatred and arrogance are as deep as they are long and wide.





FrankDC said:


> My first letter to Ratzinger was in 1978 and was answered personally by him -- as were five other letters over the years.


I don't think 6 letters since 1978 would qualify as 30+ years of experience and a direct personal experience with the pope.

I've PM'd back and forth with quite a few members here, and I wouldn't say that I really _know _them.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> My first letter to Ratzinger was in 1978 and was answered personally by him -- as were five other letters over the years.
> 
> As for "anti-catholic drivel", that depends on whether you're talking about "catholic" with a capital or small C. Today's RCC leadership is as removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ as the Jews were removed from their religion in Jesus' time, and they're just as immoral and evil IMO.


A good pastor trying to save even Frank's benighted soul.

Assuming what you say is true, the fact that he wrote you back pretty much proves up Benedict's goodness as a human being. If your letters were of the same vein as what you post, I, a much more sinful man, would have given you a less reasoned response than Josef did.

Sorry, Frank, all the whining and diatribe in the world won't make Church change just because you don't approve of their stance on issues near and dear to your wittle-biddy heart. As to the teachings of Jesus, are you now a scholar on theology? What do you really think He'd have done if he was at the event posted previously in SF?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> My first letter to Ratzinger was in 1978 and was answered personally by him -- as were five other letters over the years.


So what prompted you to write this letter in 1978 and what was its subject(s)?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Frankly, I'm OK with stuff like the Fulsom Street poster parodying the Last Supper complete with sex toys on the table and I’m OK with the “Sister” Edith Myflesh going into church in drag (though the Bishop was a fool for giving him communion) and I’m OK with guys running around in leather jockstraps at the gay pride parades because it all goes to diminish their claims that their movement in analogous to the civil rights movement of the ‘50/60s for African Americans.

Can anyone imagine what would have happened to MLK Jr. and the civil rights movement if he hadn’t behaved with the sobriety and dignity that he did when giving the I have a Dream Speech. What would have happened to the civil rights movement if a good portion of the marchers had only confirmed the worst negative stereotypes of black people at the time? They acted with courage and dignity and shamed those who would deny them their rights.

Portions (large?) of the homosexual (particularly males) community seem to be unable to gather in any large numbers without falling into the most debasing and raunchy behavior. I remember CSPAN airing a gay rights parade in Washington DC back around 1992 – complete with the requisite men dressed as nuns, men walking with other men on leashes, people holding signs saying feed the Christians to the lions, etc. They harm only themselves and their attempts to be viewed as just normal people with a different sex attraction. The rudeness, the vulgarity of their behavior only reinforces that quiet voice in MOST peoples’ brains that there’s something not quite right.

FrankDC, all these silly assertions about the Catholic Church lunching and boiling, etc. I think you’ve watched too many Vincent Price movies about Torquemada (or, maybe it was History of the Worl, Part I?). First off, to the extent it happened, it was done by the state, not the Catholic Church; it was and always has been the state that punished homosexuality. All kinds of city and nation states over the course of human history have seen fit to prosecute homosexuals. Nations largely devoid of Christian influence have found their own good reason for making homosexual behavior illegal including India and China.

Perhaps you should consider what would happen to man dressed in drag who went into a mosque in Saudi Arabia before you spout your bile and hatred about the Catholic Church.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If you're seriously comparing a few insults to 3500 years of murder, torture, persecution etc etc, it says far more about you than it does about gay people.
> 
> Gabba's post speaks for itself.


What's this mean? "It's our turn now?"

How f'n twisted are you?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You speak of the leadership of the Catholic Church. Uh, wait a minute here as I drop half my notes on the floor and shake cookie crumbs, smoked nuts and pull a sticky disposable cup of flat creme soda from another page. Just a minute here, shuffle,shuffle- AHA! hey Frank! Why did you surrender your role of leadership in the church? I know Roman Catholics talk obedience. One of the first anecdotes I heard of in the eastern church was a community changing the locks on a priest who 'wasn't attentive.'


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I truly believe that the outrageous acter-outers make it more difficult to achieve what is probably a fair lessening of the discrimination against gays. I do not believe that their orientation is something they choose. (Over time, given the nastiness shown toward them, I don't know that it is a choice that many would make.)

To make this really work, gays need to change hearts and minds. Incidents like the one in San Francisco only play into the hands of those who don't wish to change the status quo.

I'm totally against most of the gay agenda, especially where it cheapens and demeans religion. I have no problem with civil unions, and making laws that give equal rights. Why do they need to be inflammatory toward religions by calling it marriage?

The disgusting public displays would be equally disgusting if done by heterosexuals, but with the possible exception of mardi gras, they are not generally done by heterosexuals. There is something to be said for the cause, but little if anything to be said for the utter lack of respect that the demonstrators display for anyone in society who questions them.

I find it interesting that very few conservative gays seem to have a problem with the acter-outers. All they are doing is making people who might have some sympathy toward them (like me) think of them as animals.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I truly believe that the outrageous acter-outers make it more difficult to achieve what is probably a fair lessening of the discrimination against gays. I do not believe that their orientation is something they choose. (Over time, given the nastiness
> shown toward them, I don't know that it is a choice that many would make.)


There's no longer any controversy on this question. 40+ years of formal research has proven sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed. People who refuse to acknowledge this reality are generally the same people who have a specific agenda against gay people.

It's also been proven that response toward homosexuality (both positive and negative) is entirely a learned behavior.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> To make this really work, gays need to change hearts and minds. Incidents like the one in San Francisco only play into the hands of those who don't wish to change the status quo. I'm totally against most of the gay agenda, especially where it cheapens and demeans religion. I have no problem with civil unions, and making laws that give equal rights. Why do they need to be inflammatory toward religions by calling it marriage?


Marriage is a civil and spiritual institution, not a religious one, i.e. atheists and atheist couples are accorded the exact same set of federal and state marriage rights and responsibilities as theists. And government has as much business discriminating on the basis of gender in this regard as they do on the basis of race or religion. Society accrues no benefits by denying gay couples the right to legal marriage. Not only that, but those who complain loudest about promiscuity in the gay community are the same people who're seeking to deny gay people any legal recognition of long-term relationships. Can you not see the irony?

As for terminology, other countries have found it both ridiculous and expensive to maintain two different labels (and two administrations) for the same set of rights. As far as I know, no one is pushing for laws which would require churches to perform same-sex marriages. It's entirely a civil issue.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> The disgusting public displays would be equally disgusting if done by heterosexuals, but with the possible exception of mardi gras, they are not generally done by heterosexuals. There is something to be said for the cause, but little if anything to be said for the utter lack of respect that the demonstrators display for anyone in society who questions them.


These displays (and similar ones in the past) are simply responses to 3500+ years of institutionalized repression. There would be no need for this in-your-face attitude if our government, major religions etc weren't busy trying to deny them basic human rights and trying to shove them back into the closet.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I'll try and remember that, next time my kids are channel surfing and stumble on women flapping their jugs at the cameras in "Girls Gone Wild".
> 
> But God forbid men ever show their genitalia publicly, then it's "abhorrent behavior". At least the SF fair caters to a specific audience and isn't piped into millions of people's homes.


In Girls Gone Wild,If women shown their breasts in public to the camera,they'd recieve necklaces but on the other hand if men shown their genitalia to a camera,god only knows what they'll recieve.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

There might be a lot less cooperation from society in regard to the shoving back into the closet thing if the behavior in question were more civil. Even if it is arguably justifiable (which I don't agree with), it is dumb if progress in this area is the goal.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> There might be a lot less cooperation from society in regard to the shoving back into the closet thing if the behavior in question were more civil. Even if it is arguably justifiable (which I don't agree with), it is dumb if progress in this area is the goal.


You mean in regards to if someone was gay?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If I believed you really did not know the answer to that, I MIGHT consider answering your question. Whatever jollies you get from trolling, I hope they are worth it.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If I believed you really did not know the answer to that, I MIGHT consider answering your question. Whatever jollies you get from trolling, I hope they are worth it.


Then don't answer it,I'm not stopping you.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I didn't, Howard. Troll away.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I didn't, Howard. Troll away.


Just get back to the topic at hand already,let's not discuss this any further.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> Just get back to the topic at hand already,let's not discuss this any further.


Wow, quite forceful. I bet you would make a good dom.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> There's no longer any controversy on this question. 40+ years of formal research has proven sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed. People who refuse to acknowledge this reality are generally the same people who have a specific agenda against gay people.


Frank, I won't argue that some people are born homosexual, but what about the others who are homosexual for awhile, then become straight again? In college, I was friends w/ the president of the 10% society on campus, she knew how I felt, I knew how she felt so we talked about other stuff. She was a very in your face lesbian, but years later when I ran into her again she introduced me to her (male) fiance. I asked her what happened and she said basically it was just a phase. I know other males & females that went thru the same thing, so some may be born that way, but for others it is definitely a "choice".

Brian


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> These displays (and similar ones in the past) are simply responses to 3500+ years of institutionalized repression. There would be no need for this in-your-face attitude if our government, major religions etc weren't busy trying to deny them basic human rights and trying to shove them back into the closet.


Who's trying to shove them back in the closet??? Most all of their demands have been met to one level or another, they don't have to ride on the back of the bus, they are free to get away with all kinds of lewd and disgusting acts in public that you know damn good and well a straight person would be locked away for...they are on the good end of a serious double standard, and yet they continue to b!tch and moan about how they cant get a fair shake...I'm not quite sure what their "cause" is but they surely are hurting it by acting like idiots, I'm sorry, but you know damn good and well, if I organized a group of my straight Catholic buddies to go down to the next gay pride day in SF and disrupt the proceedings, we'd all be spending the night in the slammer, and our pictures would on the front page of every liberal rag in this country right next to an article about the "intolerant hate crime" that just went down...so don't give me that crap like the gays are being burned at the stake, they've got it pretty good...and I find it interesting that they have chosen the Catholics as a prime target, because I'm quite sure there are many other religions who find their way of life wrong...so, oh educated one...would you care to tell me why that is??? well, I'm no genious like you...but I'm guessing that it might have something to do with the fact that the Catholics are probably the only mainstream religion that it's perfectly okay to publicly criticize...heck, if anybody is being "repressed" it's us...

And, I'd love to know, what institution was repressing the gays 3500 years ago??? there were no Republicans, no Catholics...who was doing it??? and what exactly is the signifigance of this 3500 year argument that you keep brining up??? So what you're telling me is that if I encounter somebody today that bullied me as a kid, I have every right to beat the living tar out of this person, because way back when they were mean to me??? By that logic surely then you'd be in support of the Jews bombing the hell out of Egypt, oh wait...bad example...you're an anti Semite...okay...how about the blacks taking all the civil rights of white people (including you) away...just because somebody got a raw deal in the past doesnt mean that they automatically have the right to retaliate many generations later...and surely these gays from 3500 years ago must have no decendants, so we couldnt even give them reparations...

How many gays do you personally know (or know of) that were "repressed" 3500 years ago??? Where are your examples??? And spare me the cut and paste garbage from the daily worker website or whatever other anti-American rag not fit to line a birdcage with...the fact of the matter is that your argument has serious flaws, and your skull is too thick to let any actual logic sink in...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Howard is recovering from trephanation. He is to dum to be dom. Howard, after looking up trephanation check out my sight gag with the u and 0. I thought I'd point it out, so many other things apparently over your head.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> Frank, I won't argue that some people are born homosexual, but what about the others who are homosexual for awhile, then become straight again? In college, I was friends w/ the president of the 10% society on campus, she knew how I felt, I knew how she felt so we talked about other stuff. She was a very in your face lesbian, but years later when I ran into her again she introduced me to her (male) fiance. I asked her what happened and she said basically it was just a phase. I know other males & females that went thru the same thing, so some may be born that way, but for others it is definitely a "choice".
> 
> Brian


It's the difference between orientation and behavior. Behavior can be changed, orientation cannot. People can experiment with behavior, especially when they're young, others are confused about their orientation while they're young, still others can change their behavior based on need (e.g. prison inmates). But it's all behavior and has zilch to do with sexual orientation.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> It's the difference between orientation and behavior. Behavior can be changed, orientation cannot. People can experiment with behavior, especially when they're young, others are confused about their orientation while they're young, still others can change their behavior based on need (e.g. prison inmates). But it's all behavior and has zilch to do with sexual orientation.


so if straight people can "behave" gay, how come gays can't "behave" straight...hell, I just wish they'd behave themselves...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank:

I'm still quite interested to know what prompted you to write your 1978 letter and what the topic of conversation was.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> It's the difference between orientation and behavior. Behavior can be changed, orientation cannot. People can experiment with behavior, especially when they're young, others are confused about their orientation while they're young, still others can change their behavior based on need (e.g. prison inmates). But it's all behavior and has zilch to do with sexual orientation.


I am following you, but...how do you know if it truly is homosexual orientation and not just homosexual behavior? Again, I can think of guys I have known who, all of a sudden they are now gay, so they start acting like a sterotypical gay man in their speech, mannerisms, etc. To me that says it's more behavior than orientation.

Brian


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank:
> 
> I'm still quite interested to know what prompted you to write your 1978 letter and what the topic of conversation was.


The subject was a letter Ratzinger wrote in 1978, a ridiculous diatribe about the "right" and "wrong" ways to pray, and against so-called "eastern" meditation.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> I am following you, but...how do you know if it truly is homosexual orientation and not just homosexual behavior? Again, I can think of guys I have known who, all of a sudden they are now gay, so they start acting like a sterotypical gay man in their speech, mannerisms, etc. To me that says it's more behavior than orientation.
> 
> Brian


Sexual orientation is not changeable, let alone "all of a sudden". What _can_ happen all of a sudden is that guys come out of the closet, and stop butching it up for the benefit of their family and friends.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The subject was a letter Ratzinger wrote in 1978, a ridiculous diatribe about the "right" and "wrong" ways to pray, and against so-called "eastern" meditation.


Hold on a second! And from this you gathered he hated gays in 1978?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Hold on a second! And from this you gathered he hated gays in 1978?


No, and that's not what I claimed. Ratzinger has been targeting gay people for bigotry since at least 1975 as far as I know, and probably even earlier.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Portions (large?) of the homosexual (particularly males) community seem to be unable to gather in any large numbers without falling into the most debasing and raunchy behavior. I remember CSPAN airing a gay rights parade in Washington DC back around 1992 - complete with the requisite men dressed as nuns, men walking with other men on leashes, people holding signs saying feed the Christians to the lions, etc. They harm only themselves and their attempts to be viewed as just normal people with a different sex attraction. The rudeness, the vulgarity of their behavior only reinforces that quiet voice in MOST peoples' brains that there's something not quite right.


Ahh, This could easily explain why God created a disease that afflicts a much larger percentage of homosexuals vs. lesbians. He thinks they're idiots also. ;-)


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The subject was a letter Ratzinger wrote in 1978, a ridiculous diatribe about the "right" and "wrong" ways to pray, and against so-called "eastern" meditation.


Okay...let me get this straight...your first correspondance with the man was you complaining about him and calling his views on things like prayer "ridiculous" (how dare a man of the cloth have an opinion on prayer), and he was good enough to respond to you (if it was anything like some of your rants here, the man must indeed have the patience of a saint to have sat through the whole thing)...yet he's the bad guy...

to quote father Guido Sarducci in the Godfather III..._What, you think you know better than the Pope???_


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Howard said:


> In Girls Gone Wild,If women shown their breasts in public to the camera,they'd recieve necklaces but on the other hand if men shown their genitalia to a camera,god only knows what they'll recieve.


brilliant, maybe there should be a Howard quotables thread.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone who knows one iota of the cult phenomenon that exploded in the 1970s understands his warning on 'eastern meditation.' As a longtime student of buddhism I understand his concern. It was a tool of evil by charismatic personalities who hurt people. Ghee, even his Holynes the Dalai lLma mentioned this in the lecture I attended.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Anyone who knows one iota of the cult phenomenon that exploded in the 1970s understands his warning on 'eastern meditation.' As a longtime student of buddhism I understand his concern. It was a tool of evil by charismatic personalities who hurt people. Ghee, even his Holynes the Dalai lLma mentioned this in the lecture I attended.


Oh come on, Kav. Now you're just being ridiculous. Communication with God isn't limited to Christians, or to "western" meditation. That was the basis of my complaint to Mr. Ratzinger. And as for cults, the vast majority of them are/have been perversions of Christianity, not of eastern religions.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> There's no longer any controversy on this question. 40+ years of formal research has proven sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed. People who refuse to acknowledge this reality are generally the same people who have a specific agenda against gay people.
> 
> It's also been proven that response toward homosexuality (both positive and negative) is entirely a learned behavior.


Your grabbing at straws. Under the wrong circumstance many guys could become gay. While some believe that some people were born gay it certainly hasn't been proven that anybody has been born gay. And most Christains believe that God never made anybody gay and didn't make gay marriage possible, so gay marriage would be make believe to those who want to believe. Anybody who reads the Bible can see why Jerry Falwell and the Pope, who believe the Bible, say gay is sin, as It says God never made anybody gay, so then, gay would be a deviation. Even bank robbers will acknowlege the Bible says not to steal. They don't blame preachers for saying don't steal.

When childern get to puberty they automatically are repulsed toward gay behavior, so that part is not taught. What they do with the repulsion may be taught.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Oh come on, Kav. Now you're just being ridiculous. Communication with God isn't limited to Christians, or to "western" meditation. That was the basis of my complaint to Mr. Ratzinger. And as for cults, the vast majority of them are/have been perversions of Christianity, not of eastern religions.


Do you believe in the 10 commandments?

It sounds to me you are saying that the Christain God is also Budda, the many Gods of Hindu and any other god or gods. I'm beginning to wonder if your brains got fried on drugs, since you don't seem to be able to seperate this from that.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Your grabbing at straws. Under the wrong circumstance many guys could become gay. While some believe that some people were born gay it certainly hasn't been proven that anybody has been born gay. And most Christains believe that God never made anybody gay and didn't make gay marriage possible, so gay marriage would be make believe to those who want to believe. Anybody who reads the Bible can see why Jerry Falwell and the Pope, who believe the Bible, say gay is sin, as It says God never made anybody gay, so then, gay would be a deviation. Even bank robbers will acknowlege the Bible says not to steal. They don't blame preachers for saying don't steal.
> 
> When childern get to puberty they automatically are repulsed toward gay behavior, so that part is not taught. What they do with the repulsion may be taught.


Heterosexuals don't "become" homosexual, just as homosexuals don't "become" heterosexual. Circumstances can cause temporary changes in sexual behavior, but sexual orientation is unchangeable:

And your other claim is equally ignorant. Sexual discovery, and the vast majority of experimentation with homosexuality and bisexuality among humans take place during and immediately after puberty. Repulsion is a learned response, and doesn't occur in absence of cultural/religious/etc conditioning.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

WA said:


> Your grabbing at straws. Under the wrong circumstance many guys could become gay. While some believe that some people were born gay it certainly hasn't been proven that anybody has been born gay. And most Christains believe that God never made anybody gay and didn't make gay marriage possible, so gay marriage would be make believe to those who want to believe. Anybody who reads the Bible can see why Jerry Falwell and the Pope, who believe the Bible, say gay is sin, as It says God never made anybody gay, so then, gay would be a deviation. Even bank robbers will acknowlege the Bible says not to steal. They don't blame preachers for saying don't steal.
> 
> When childern get to puberty they automatically are repulsed toward gay behavior, so that part is not taught. What they do with the repulsion may be taught.


exactly...I have a hard time with this whole "gay gene" argument...I mean, by that logic, we shouldnt punish people who like to have sex with children or animals or whatever, because perhaps that's just in their genes, and they were just born that way...sorry, but I aint buying it...they choose to be gay, and that's fine...but just for the sake of argument, let's just assume that there is a gay gene...just because they're wired to like other men, they still have no excuse to act out the way that some of them do...so Frank, what's the excuse for that...and put a cork in that "the Catholic Republicans have been opressing them for 3500 years, now it's their turn" BS because it just won't fly...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Do you believe in the 10 commandments?


Depends on how you define "believe". Do I think they're a good general code of conduct for humanity? Sure. Do I think they're absolutes? No way. Even Jesus condensed the 10 commandments down to two, and said, "On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> exactly...I have a hard time with this whole "gay gene" argument...I mean, by that logic, we shouldnt punish people who like to have sex with children or animals or whatever, because perhaps that's just in their genes, and they were just born that way...sorry, but I aint buying it...


Studies among monozygotic twins consistently show a strong genetic component for sexual orientation. References gladly furnished on request.

Also, children and animals are unable to give legal consent to sexual relations, so the questions of whether genetic components exist for pedophilia and beastiality, and whether these activities should be punishable are moot.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Also, children and animals are unable to give legal consent to sexual relations, so the questions of whether genetic components exist for pedophilia and beastiality, and whether these activities should be punishable are moot.


So silly, so you can kill a cow and eat it without its consent, but you can't put it in a nice warm barn and [email protected] it because it can't consent?

Does this really pass for a rational argument in your brain?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Can't we talk about something more sensible? Like the grooming habits of people from former Soviet Bloc countries :icon_smile_big:

LMAO at *FrankDC*!

M8


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> So silly, so you can kill a cow and eat it without its consent, but you can't put it in a nice warm barn and [email protected] it because it can't consent?
> 
> Does this really pass for a rational argument in your brain?


It's our law. If you have a "rational" problem with it, you'll need to take it up with our lawmakers.

And to Martinis at 8, glad you're amused.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> It's our law. If you have a "rational" problem with it, you'll need to take it up with our lawmakers.


That's straw man and irrelevant to what you said. You said that whether someone has a genetic disposition toward pedophilia or bestiality is irrelevant becasue neither children nor animals can consent. The point is, the consent of an animal is irrellevant; if one could ask, presumably, a calf would not consent to being served on a plate and its skin made into shoes. An animal is, legally, property. Bestiality is illegal for large number of the same reasons as homosexual sodomy used to be illegal - consent has nothing to with it. Accordingly, by your reasoning, bestiality should be legalized if one can show that there is a genetic link to the behavior.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That's straw man and irrelevant to what you said. You said that whether someone has a genetic disposition toward pedophilia or bestiality is irrelevant becasue neither children nor animals can consent. The point is, the consent of an animal is irrellevant; if one could ask, presumably, a calf would not consent to being served on a plate and its skin made into shoes. An animal is, legally, property. Bestiality is illegal for large number of the same reasons as homosexual sodomy used to be illegal - consent has nothing to with it. Accordingly, by your reasoning, bestiality should be legalized if one can show that there is a genetic link to the behavior.


Nope. I'm simply pointing out that animals and minor children are unable to give legal consent to sexual relations with human adults. The issue of whether animals "would" "presumably" consent to these relations (or to being eaten) is entirely moot. The fact is, they _cannot_ give legal consent -- so the question of whether they _would_ consent is irrelevant, as is the question of whether genetic links exist to behaviors such as pedophilia and beastiality.

And BTW, the absurd analogy (sometimes implicit, often explicit) between homosexuality and beastiality is wearing very thin on the gay community, as it should. It's horribly ignorant, hateful, bigoted and mean spirited.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Nope. I'm simply pointing out that animals and minor children are unable to give legal consent to sexual relations with human adults. The issue of whether animals "would" "presumably" consent to these relations (or to being eaten) is entirely moot. The fact is, they _cannot_ give legal consent -- so the question of whether they _would_ consent is irrelevant, as is the question of whether genetic links exist to behaviors such as pedophilia and beastiality.
> 
> And BTW, the absurd analogy (sometimes implicit, often explicit) between homosexuality and beastiality is wearing very thin on the gay community, as it should. It's horribly ignorant, hateful, bigoted and mean spirited.


okay...so beastiality and pedophelia are illegal (as well they should be)...so why then should gay marriage be any different, it's not recognized as legal most anywhere...if some sheep f***er started howling about how he wanted to do the skinny bop with livestock, I doubt you would call anybody who told him that he couldnt "ignorant, hateful, bigoted, or mean spirited"...and I don't think the comparrisons between homosexuality and beastiality are too off the mark, they both can be seen as unnatural sexual acts...once again, your argument lacks substance...


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> And BTW, the absurd analogy (sometimes implicit, often explicit) between homosexuality and beastiality is wearing very thin on the gay community, as it should.


And I hear the Mormons love how you talk about them.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> And I hear the Mormons love how you talk about them.


...and the Catholics...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> okay...so beastiality and pedophelia are illegal (as well they should be)...so why then should gay marriage be any different, it's not recognized as legal most anywhere...if some sheep f***er started howling about how he wanted to do the skinny bop with livestock, I doubt you would call anybody who told him that he couldnt "ignorant, hateful, bigoted, or mean spirited"...and I don't think the comparrisons between homosexuality and beastiality are too off the mark, they both can be seen as unnatural sexual acts...once again, your argument lacks substance...


Homosexuality can be called a lot of things, but "unnatural" definitely does not apply. In addition to humans homosexuality is observed in hundreds of other animal species, of every type. It is therefore a part of nature.

But thanks for the continuing perfect illustrations of the abysmal ignorance and hatred that so often pawns itself off as "Christianity" these days. I call it what it is: Antichrist.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank:

They have a point regarding your arguments. You really weakened your position with the legal argument.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Homosexuality can be called a lot of things, but "unnatural" definitely does not apply. In addition to humans homosexuality is observed in hundreds of other animal species, of every type. It is therefore a part of nature.


Let me suggest that instead of unnatural, people just refer to it as abnormal (or not normal) behavior.

A normal dog that is male mates with female dogs. A male dog that would seek to mate with a female dog is not normal.

And before someone bursts a blood vessel, abnormal isn't saying that something is evil, it's simple saying that it is something that runs counter to the normal course of events. Some people are abnormally tall, some people are abnormally short. Being a heterosexual is the normal thing, because if it was abnormal, human beings would eventually vanish off the face of the earth.

So while you can argue that homosexuality is or isn't unnatural with whatever animal/human anecdotal evidence that's out there, you really can't say that it's the standard human behavior. Homosexuality is something that falls into the big ol' bucket that people refer to as "different". Otherwise, people who were homosexual wouldn't need to make reference to the fact that they are homosexual.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets see; Nicheren Shoshu of America ( yen buddhism) that made millions off and then excommunicated the entire North American Flock while chanting Nom me oh ho Renge Ke yo and caught a midnight flight to Tokyo, The Hare Krishna movement that has splintered into several rival factions with allegations of sexual abuse, EST, ENKANKAR which are commmercialised claptrap erstaz Zen for profit, Bagwan Shri Rashneesh with his two Rolls Royces, The so called baby Guru and finally 'mother' who goes around giving hugs with beautific smiles and rakes in the money. Those were, and are eastern cults. I could ad cults that incorporate large blocks of eastern theology and ritual into their 31 flavours menu. Groups like Guru Ma and her co ascended master dead husband and boy who run Universal Church Triumphant grooving on the colour purple, Saint Germain and chanting protection chants non stop with the Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, and probably Snow White and the 7 dwarves all co opted into her outfit that fled Mullholand Drive for Montana ( there will be a nuclear war any day now- now going on 20 years) and unable to chant the buffalo away from stomping through her power spot community of vegans. No cults influenced from eastern thought?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

omairp said:


> brilliant, maybe there should be a Howard quotables thread.


You know,I've been here almost 3 years and maybe there should be,I'm sure lots of you could come up with some.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Howard, I come up with something everytime you post.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh well, I don't have to worry about the muscles that roll my eyelids withering because of a lack of exercise.

What a shame some folks can't see condescension when they read it.

I wonder how this will be responded to without blowing "cover."


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Studies among monozygotic twins consistently show a strong genetic component for sexual orientation. References gladly furnished on request.


I've seen them too- and it's a weak link, not a stong one. Also it was not separated out from environmental factors. In a nutshell, those studies were politically motivated and dubuous validity. This was essentially a political ploy to drive acceptance of that lifestyle which was dropped by the gay rights movement as soon as research for a "cure" was proposed.

Please try again.

For all your attempts to take a moral high ground in this, your position is untenable and exposes your venomous bigotry.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Howard said:


> You know,I've been here almost 3 years and maybe there should be,I'm sure lots of you could come up with some.


*Howard*,

I think most of us believe you are not a real person except in the sense that there is somebody typing at your keyboard. Your notes appear to portray a person that does not really exist. In other words, you are simply entertaining yourself. Some of us, including myself, have played along, but it is now getting tiring. Get a new gig dude!

M8


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I've seen them too- and it's a weak link, not a stong one. Also it was not separated out from environmental factors. In a nutshell, those studies were politically motivated and dubuous validity. This was essentially a political ploy to drive acceptance of that lifestyle which was dropped by the gay rights movement as soon as research for a "cure" was proposed.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> For all your attempts to take a moral high ground in this, your position is untenable and exposes your venomous bigotry.


Absolute hogwash! Every study ever done on the issue has shown a strong genetic component to sexual orientation. Without exception. Monozygotic twins, raised either together or separately(!) have rates of homosexuality FOUR TO FIVE TIMES that of dizogotic twins. By now this link has been so widely established and is so widely accepted, those who still insist on denying it have been correctly relegated to the status of pathetic gay bashing idiots who have a specific political agenda to deny gay people civil liberties, shove them back into the closet etc. You and the current Pope are perfect examples of this ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Frank, I'll concede that I think you are right. However, you are doing nothing that is likely to get anyone to listen to your point.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I've seen them too- and it's a weak link, not a stong one. Also it was not separated out from environmental factors. *In a nutshell, those studies were politically motivated and dubuous validity. *This was essentially a political ploy to drive acceptance of that lifestyle which was dropped by the gay rights movement as soon as research for a "cure" was proposed.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> For all your attempts to take a moral high ground in this, your position is untenable and exposes your venomous bigotry.


Politically motivated research!? And to think, my science profs always told us that science is amoral.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Absolute hogwash! Every study ever done on the issue has shown a strong genetic component to sexual orientation. Without exception. Monozygotic twins, raised either together or separately(!) have rates of homosexuality FOUR TO FIVE TIMES that of dizogotic twins. By now this link has been so widely established and is so widely accepted, those who still insist on denying it have been correctly relegated to the status of pathetic gay bashing idiots who have a specific political agenda to deny gay people civil liberties, shove them back into the closet etc. You and the current Pope are perfect examples of this ignorance and bigotry.


As dizogotic twins are basically just "normal" people that happened to have shared the same womb at the same time, you are maintaining that identical twins have 4-5 times the chance of being gay as people without an identical twin? Sources please, and nothing from one with an obvious agenda. At least make the agenda hidden.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Politically motivated research!? And to think, my science profs always told us that science is amoral.


All you profs are belong to us.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Frank, I'll concede that I think you are right. However, you are doing nothing that is likely to get anyone to listen to your point.


Look, I have nothing to prove. But my conscience dictates a response be made to gay bashing, whether this bashing takes the form of physical, emotional or civil/political. I've said it before: among the half dozen or so online forums in which I participate, this is the only one where people appear to be stuck in the year 1950: when sexual orientation was considered a "choice", when the RCC's positions on homosexuality and a wide range of other issues were considered somehow moral or defensible, etc. The levels of ignorance among some members here are simply astonishing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As dizogotic twins are basically just "normal" people that happened to have shared the same womb at the same time, you are maintaining that identical twins have 4-5 times the chance of being gay as people without an identical twin? Sources please, and nothing from one with an obvious agenda. At least make the agenda hidden.


The NIH is a good starting point. They have the results of dozen of studies on this issue over the past 30+ years, e.g. https://tinyurl.com/25b8xf


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> As dizogotic twins are basically just "normal" people that happened to have shared the same womb at the same time, you are maintaining that identical twins have 4-5 times the chance of being gay as people without an identical twin? Sources please, and nothing from one with an obvious agenda. At least make the agenda hidden.


No, I think the argument is if one twin child is gay, his idenitcal twin is, allegedly, much more like to be gay than fraternal twins i.e., becasue identical twins have the same genes, this argues that there is a strong gentic influence in gayness and the role of environment is diminished.

However, if you read about the studies you runt into the usual problems of sample size, how monozygotic is determined/proven, finding a sample population that's honest about their sexuality, etc.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Look, I have nothing to prove. But my conscience dictates a response be made to gay bashing, whether this bashing takes the form of physical, emotional or civil/political. I've said it before: among the half dozen or so online forums in which I participate, this is the only one where people appear to be stuck in the year 1950: when sexual orientation was considered a "choice", when the RCC's positions on homosexuality and a wide range of other issues were considered somehow moral or defensible, etc. The levels of ignorance among some members here are simply astonishing.


FrankDC, there are lots of things that are heritable - the most recent twin study basically demonstrates that an identical twin has a 20% chance of being gay if the other sibling is gay - this is hardly determinative. Alcoholism is heritable, but we don't ignore drunkenness; depression is heritable and we encourage people to seek medical treatment; schizophrenia is heritable and again, we believe it should be treated; In short, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the vast majority of behaviors have heritable components from tendencies to addictive behavior to tendencies for violent behavior - that doesn't mean society has to tolerate it or excuse it or allow it to go untreated :devil:

And, again, I ask since you are so biologically determinative - if there is a biological/genetic component to bestiality, or any other sexual deviancy such as necrophilia or pedophila, must society refrain from prohibiting such acts because there is a genetic component to the drive?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> FrankDC, there are lots of things that are heritable - the most recent twin study basically demonstrates that an identical twin has a 20% chance of being gay if the other sibling is gay - this is hardly determinative. Alcoholism is heritable, but we don't ignore drunkenness; depression is heritable and we encourage people to seek medical treatment; schizophrenia is heritable and again, we believe it should be treated; In short, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the vast majority of behaviors have heritable components from tendencies to addictive behavior to tendencies for violent behavior - that doesn't mean society has to tolerate it or excuse it or allow it to go untreated :devil:
> 
> And, again, I ask since you are so biologically determinative - if there is a biological/genetic component to bestiality, or any other sexual deviancy such as necrophilia or pedophila, must society refrain from prohibiting such acts because there is a genetic component to the drive?


The way you phrase your posts, e.g. "must society refrain from prohibiting such acts", "allow it to go untreated" etc says far more about you than it does about gay people. You're either a gay basher of the first magnitude or you're simply trolling.

The question of genetics might be interesting from a scientific perspective, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with civil law. Whether a given activity should be prohibited depends on whether it entails predation, victimization, etc. Homosexuality among two consenting adults does not involve these things. If it did, laws proposed to prohibit it would be discussed in serious terms. But it's only in this forum where I've heard such gay bashing discussed in serious terms.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

^^^ Typical pointless rant. Agree with me or you're a:
Please pick from the following list
Gay basher
Homophobe
fool
Idiot
(-a) ignorant
etc.

Frank has delusions of grandeur and a need to be always right. IIRC this is a treatable psychological condition.

Tell me Frank, do you post as Napoleon Bonaparte on some other board?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I remember the first black family who moved to Simi Valley and their daughter Shirley. She joined the summer committee for our new High School.I was walking back from the Giacopuzzi drive-in dairy and market. I bought a 16 oz coke in the green bottle glass that tastes better and met the committee on campus. She was thirsty and asked for a sip. I handed her the coke, she drank a good 5 cents worth ( cokes with deposit all of a quarter.) She handed it back and all eyes, especially hers watched me as I drank from it without wiping the top. We all had Black Studies shoved down our throats for 2 years till James Baldwin, Malcom X , REV King etc came back up like that coke fizzing in my nose when I drank to fast. I think we all 'got it' that summer day when I unconsciously set the tone for Simi Valley race relations for decades to come. I did get sent to the Boy's Dean once. I was flirting with Shirley regarding a after school party in the abandoned walnut orchard behind my house. The teacher, who reminded us he starred in one episode of Petticaot Junction and should be the department chair for literature and Drama asked what my conversation was all about? I was honest, said I was flirting with Shirley to improve my black studies and The Confessions of Nat Turner was trash. If blacks have made progress in civil rights it's in no part due to class act people representing the community. We may decry a Al Sharpton or a Rap Star with a foul mouth and don't snich, gangsta morality. That there are class act Gays is a given. What is not a given is the usurpation of 'gay rights' by the dog and pony show of deliberate confrontational behavior including miscegenation by said dog and pony. And you Frank, find empathy with them because you define yourself, not by any aspirations of class, but by constant judgmental assaults on any and everyone who doesn't equaly aspire to your dumbing down studied mediocrity and self indulgent self importance of 'moral hedonism.' In case you haven't noticed, any cogent arguments or just causes you espouse are ignored like that stupid Novel Shirley and I agreed was trash.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> That there are class act Gays is a given. What is not a given is the usurpation of 'gay rights' by the dog and pony show of deliberate confrontational behavior including miscegenation by said dog and pony. And you Frank, find empathy with them because you define yourself, not by any aspirations of class, but by constant judgmental assaults on any and everyone who doesn't equaly aspire to your dumbing down studied mediocrity and self indulgent self importance of 'moral hedonism.' In case you haven't noticed, any cogent arguments or just causes you espouse are ignored like that stupid Novel Shirley and I agreed was trash.


Responding to bigotry and ignorance, and correcting disproven and hateful notions about gay people does not equate to "judgmental assaults". Just read some of the garbage in this thread and tell me where the "assaults" are coming from, e.g. claiming "homosexuality and beastiality are not far removed from one another" is a good start. Simply outrageous IMO.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Responding to bigotry and ignorance, and correcting disproven and hateful notions about gay people does not equate to "judgmental assaults". Just read some of the garbage in this thread and tell me where the "assaults" are coming from, e.g. claiming "homosexuality and beastiality are not far removed from one another" is a good start. Simply outrageous IMO.


but calling the Catholics and the Jews "evil and immoral" is in no way an assault right???

If I flat out clled the gays evil and immoral, you'd be having a field day...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> but calling the Catholics and the Jews "evil and immoral" is in no way an assault right???
> 
> If I flat out clled the gays evil and immoral, you'd be having a field day...


My comments were (and are) aimed at the current leadership and some official positions of the RCC. You call it an assault, I call it simply a defense against their assaults. Their hypocrisy literally makes my blood boil, e.g. Ratzinger saying the civil rights of gay people "can be legitimately limited", while he presides over the largest organized group of gay people on Earth; Ratzinger spewing his nonsense about homosexuality being "objectively evil", while his diocese across the U.S. are being sued nearly into bankruptcy by child molestation lawsuits! Etc etc etc.

If there's any consolation in this madness, it's safe to say gay people are going to be around long after Mr. Ratzinger, and perhaps even the RCC are distant bad memories.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> My comments were (and are) aimed at the current leadership and some official positions of the RCC. You call it an assault, I call it simply a defense against their assaults. Their hypocrisy literally makes my blood boil, e.g. Ratzinger saying the civil rights of gay people "can be legitimately limited", while he presides over the largest organized group of gay people on Earth; Ratzinger spewing his nonsense about homosexuality being "objectively evil", while his diocese across the U.S. are being sued nearly into bankruptcy by child molestation lawsuits! Etc etc etc.
> 
> If there's any consolation in this madness, it's safe to say gay people are going to be around long after Mr. Ratzinger, and perhaps even the RCC are distant bad memories.


Frank...face it...you look for any excuse you can to knock the Pope and the Catholics...there is only one ignorant hateful person here and it's you...get over yourself, in real life you're not the crusaider that you'd like to imagine you are...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Frank...face it...you look for any excuse you can to knock the Pope and the Catholics...there is only one ignorant hateful person here and it's you...get over yourself, in real life you're not the crusaider that you'd like to imagine you are...


And I've wasted enough time responding to your trolls. I actually knew better, considering a private (and unsolicited, btw) email I received last month from another AAAC member who explained what a pathetic lifeless coward you are when you're not sitting behind a computer keyboard.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> . . . . Ratzinger saying presides over the largest organized group of gay people on Earth . . . .while his diocese across the U.S. are being sued nearly into bankruptcy by child molestation lawsuits!


Don't you think there might be a linkage there? - BTW, the VAST majority of the victims weren't children per se (i.e., pre-pubescents) - they were teenage boys, i.e. it wasn't pedophilia (though the media prefers to call it "child" moelstation in order to avoid having to raise questions about the potential predatory nature of homosexual behavior) - it was gay sex - in the old idealized version of the ancient Greeks.

And I've never yet called you "evil", antichrist" "Nazi", etc. - words which you 've used to describe people with whom you disagree.

And if there is a genetic link to homosexuality - why wouldn't it be compassionate to encourage homosexuals to seek treatment just as we might for any other heritable charatceristic that is anti-social such as alocoholism, depression, schizophrenia, etc.?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> *Howard*,
> 
> I think most of us believe you are not a real person except in the sense that there is somebody typing at your keyboard. Your notes appear to portray a person that does not really exist. In other words, you are simply entertaining yourself. Some of us, including myself, have played along, but it is now getting tiring. Get a new gig dude!
> 
> M8


But Martini,I am a REAL person,Don't you see the picture of myself as an avatar,THAT's me not some phoney baloney moron who's invisible to others.

I'm not getting a new gig just because people are telling me to!


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> My comments were (and are) aimed at the current leadership and some official positions of the RCC. You call it an assault, I call it simply a defense against their assaults. Their hypocrisy literally makes my blood boil, e.g. Ratzinger saying the civil rights of gay people "can be legitimately limited", while he presides over the largest organized group of gay people on Earth; *Ratzinger spewing his nonsense about homosexuality being "objectively evil",* while his diocese across the U.S. are being sued nearly into bankruptcy by child molestation lawsuits! Etc etc etc.
> 
> If there's any consolation in this madness, it's safe to say gay people are going to be around long after Mr. Ratzinger, and perhaps even the RCC are distant bad memories.


Since you can't even get a quote right- or you don't mind libeling someone to make a point, I'll help you:

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that homosexual *acts* are intrisically disordered. Unless you equate homosexuality with acting on it ( which is incorrect) your statement is in error.

FYI, the Church will be here long after you're gone- for which I'm eternally grateful.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Since you can't even get a quote right- or you don't mind libeling someone to make a point, I'll help you:
> 
> The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that homosexual *acts* are intrisically disordered. Unless you equate homosexuality with acting on it ( which is incorrect) your statrement is in error.
> 
> FYI, the Church will be here long after you're gone- for which I'm eternally grateful.


Frank has already stated in his posts in other threads that it is impossible to separate homosexuals from homosexual behavior, because...you know...who you have sex with really is the most important character defining trait...or something.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Frank has already stated in his posts in other threads that it is impossible to separate homosexuals from homosexual behavior, because...you know...who you have sex with really is the most important character defining trait...or something.


Evidently it is- _for him. :icon_smile_wink:_


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Howard said:


> But Martini,I am a REAL person,Don't you see the picture of myself as an avatar,THAT's me not some phoney baloney moron who's invisible to others.
> 
> I'm not getting a new gig just because people are telling me to!


What happen to the Samuel L. Jackson avatar? Plus you are no longer writing in Ebonics.

I know, I know, very self-amusing.

M8


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, We all create personaes online. I am sure when I finally connect with Andy and a few others at some clothing venue, People will look at this carbon based lifeform and think ' this is Kav?' And there are no doubt a number who find my posts without merit and pass PMs back and forth. And on issues I will bang heads with others like Mountain Sheep until we stagger off with migraines only to find ourselves in agreement on others. I thnik, I hope my presence is still welcome here. Were it not, I'd exit stage left and hope the door didn't bang my but on the way out. Frank, You are not Horatio at the bridge. If you take a look, everybodys wading across the river rather than bother with you. By alienating people with your shrill catterwalling you do a disservice to whatever agnecy of change you hope to promote.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And I've wasted enough time responding to your trolls. I actually knew better, considering a private (and unsolicited, btw) email I received last month from another AAAC member who explained what a pathetic lifeless coward you are when you're not sitting behind a computer keyboard.


That is pretty lame Frank.

Frank, you are your own worse enemy. You pathologically perseverate on a few issues and manage to bring every conversation around to basically how much you hate Dubya or how badly gays have it/have had it. Frank, I will tell you that I personally am not out to get you just for your sexuality and I will defend you if someone does attack you for that reason. But you have to stop the paranoia and stop seeing every damn issue as it relates to gay people or Dubya hate. And seriously, lay off the Catholics and Mormons.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> And I've wasted enough time responding to your trolls. I actually knew better, considering a private (and unsolicited, btw) email I received last month from another AAAC member who explained what a pathetic lifeless coward you are when you're not sitting behind a computer keyboard.


...hmmmm...not quite sure that I've met anybody here in real life to any capacity other than a few hours worth of dinner and drinks a couple of years ago where (IIRC) no political arguments or anything of that nature broke out, so I'm not quite sure who you could be refering to, but, this person is either as deranged as you are, or you're making it up...either way...nice try kid...

...and for the record, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has recieved unsolicited PM's about what a nutbag you are...it's just the name of the game...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that homosexual *acts* are intrisically disordered. Unless you equate homosexuality with acting on it ( which is incorrect) your statement is in error.


And claiming the two are different is the precise reason no one (other than a few gay bashers in a men's fashion forum) takes the RCC's position seriously. Imagine if someone told you it's ok to have a heterosexual orientation, but not ok to have sex with women. Would that make any sense to you? Why do you believe it makes any more sense to gay people? Their orientation is every bit as hard wired and unchangeable as yours, and expression of their sexuality is every bit as necessary for their emotional well being.

The notion that gay people should live celibate, emotionally starved lives, just to avoid making you and Joey Ratzinger uncomfortable is beyond pathetic. It's a relic of past bigotry and ignorance.

If you believe homosexuality per se is "objectively evil" (Ratzinger's exact words), you have a moral obligation to push for civil laws to prohibit it. How many of these laws have been proposed at the federal or state levels in the last 50 years? Any? Even one?


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> And claiming the two are different is the precise reason no one (other than a few gay bashers in a men's fashion forum) takes the RCC's position seriously. Imagine if someone told you it's ok to have a heterosexual orientation, but not ok to have sex with women.


Ah...isn't it the Church's position that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong as well?

Brian


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

vwguy said:


> Ah...isn't it the Church's position that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong as well?
> 
> Brian


Psssssht...obviously not, because that isn't convenient to Frank's argument...


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And claiming the two are different is the precise reason no one (other than a few gay bashers in a men's fashion forum) takes the RCC's position seriously. Imagine if someone told you it's ok to have a heterosexual orientation, but not ok to have sex with women. Would that make any sense to you? Why do you believe it makes any more sense to gay people? Their orientation is every bit as hard wired and unchangeable as yours, and expression of their sexuality is every bit as necessary for their emotional well being.
> 
> The notion that gay people should live celibate, emotionally starved lives, just to avoid making you and Joey Ratzinger uncomfortable is beyond pathetic. It's a relic of past bigotry and ignorance.
> 
> If you believe homosexuality per se is "objectively evil" (Ratzinger's exact words), you have a moral obligation to push for civil laws to prohibit it. How many of these laws have been proposed at the federal or state levels in the last 50 years? Any? Even one?


A lot more people take the Church's position seriously than take you seriously. I'd really like a cite to your deranged quotes. Provide it or I'll assume it's just another part of your vivid fantasy life.

Frank, I'm starting to think you're some kind of sex addict. Only someone with that predeliction would give such an all-encompassing importance to sex. How does not having a particular form of sexual act (or not having sex at all regardless of one's orientation) equate to emotional starvation? Your world is a very strange one if you think that emotional well being has engaging in sex as a necessary precondition.
Nor do I buy your immutible orientation arguement either- have you been watching the news recently? It seems there's a rash of Hollywood starlets "switch-hitting" these days. What do you say to that Mr. Fixed, unchangable, emotionally necessary, etc?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> A lot more people take the Church's position seriously than take you seriously. I'd really like a cite to your deranged quotes. Provide it or I'll assume it's just another part of your vivid fantasy life.


Frank does have quite an imagination doesnt he???



> Frank, I'm starting to think you're some kind of sex addict. Only someone with that predeliction would give such an all-encompassing importance to sex. How does not having a particular form of sexual act (or not having sex at all regardless of one's orientation) equate to emotional starvation? Your world is a very strange one if you think that emotional well being has engaging in sex as a necessary precondition.


Well...no, according to frank, only gay sex...



> Nor do I buy your immutible orientation arguement either- have you been watching the news recently? It seems there's a rash of Hollywood starlets "switch-hitting" these days. What do you say to that Mr. Fixed, unchangable, emotionally necessary, etc?


Heck, all you have to do is watch one of those girls gone Wild DVD's...you mean to tell me that all these attractive young girls are dyking because they really enjoy it??? heck no, they just do it because they're trying to turn men on...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

*I tried not to comment on this for as long as I could...*

But now I gotta wonder Frank, is there any way someone can disagree with you without being an ignorant hateful gay-bashing bigot?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

This thread keeps generating complaints. Here is a simple solution for all:

Frank, Gabba, M-8, and Yachtie:
*Muskets at dawn by the roaring sea*

Wayfarer and Kav:
*Keyboards on the high plain at ... what else ... high noon*

Howard:
*Bring a few carts to pick up the mess.*

Those who don't like this thread
Those who don't aprove of this thread
Those who think this thread is over the limit:
Here's a clue:
*STOP READING THE DAMN THREAD!

* ​


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> This thread keeps generating complaints. Here is a simple solution for all:
> 
> Those who don't like this thread
> Those who don't aprove of this thread
> ...


Thank you, Alex.

And to most everyone else: the reason you find yourselves running to the mods for protection, like pathetic 12 year-old schoolgirls, is not because of my indictment of the RCC, it's because your own consciences are howling at you. On some level you understand homosexuals are one of the last major persecuted minorities in the world, persecuted for something they are neither responsible for nor have any control over, and that this entire "defense of marriage", "it's ok to be gay, just don't have gay sex" etc nonsense coming from the RCC amounts to nothing more than institutionalized gay bashing, from an institution that has a 2000+ year history of gay bashing.

And that is my parting shot in this thread. Ad hominem away, I won't be reading any more of it.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Lose the argument- run away. Good going Frank.

Yeah yeah yeah, 2000 years of Catholics, 5000 years of Jews- whatever. Need I continue? My conscience is clear. Whether I like or dislike someone is based on their actions to me or others and not membership in some "group" of your devising. Nor does THAT doesn't require agreeing with your bigoted swill.

Sorry Alex- no muskets this time (sounded like fun!)


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Lose the argument- run away. Good going Frank.
> 
> Sorry Alex- no muskets this time (sounded like fun!)


Word...

...on both accounts...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> what a pathetic lifeless coward you are when you're not sitting behind a computer keyboard.





FrankDC said:


> running to the mods for protection, like pathetic 12 year-old schoolgirls


You lost the moment you resorted to random insults and name calling.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

omairp said:


> You lost the moment you resorted to random insults and name calling.


The sign of desperation.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, 2000 years of Catholics, 5000 years of Jews- whatever. Need I continue? My conscience is clear. Whether I like or dislike someone is based on their actions to me or others and not membership in some "group" of your devising. Nor does THAT doesn't require agreeing with your bigoted swill.


Word...trust me Frank...I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that you think I'm picking on gay people...


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

I don't think FrankDC is solely responsible - he evidences a very modern American mindset. For one thing life is all about gratification and the idea of not having what one wants is abhorrent to most Americans (including me). Most of us are hedonists to some extent – hell, in the last month, I spent over a thousand dollars on shoes that I wanted, but did not need – didn’t even remotely need. I have hundreds of ties and way too many suits and yet I continue to “consume” when I REALLY should give more money to charity.

For many of us it is impossible to believe that God doesn’t want us to be happy. It’s a product of most of our comfortable material environments and it’s a product of the prosperity gospel/positive thinking zeitgeist that permeates our culture and it’s a product of our consumer culture. And, we think because God wants us to be happy, God would not deny us what we want – whether behavioral or material. That most saints were martyred or led lives of asceticism and self-denial seems not to register; I think if one believes that God sent his son to be tortured and die, it seems to indicate that God has bigger concerns for us than whether we’re happy. 

To think that God does not use or allow suffering to effect change in us is incredibly naïve; to think that God’s sole concern for us is that we’re happy and fulfilled is ludicrous from a Christian perspective – again, I cite to you Jesus and the martyred Apostles – they were not spared suffering or self-denial; and one wonders how fulfilled Jesus felt on the Cross when he asked why God had forsaken him. Jesus told Christians to take up their cross – this was not an invitation to do what we want, or to be happy (in a worldly sense) or to lead lives of self-indulgence.

That FrankDC can’t conceive of a God who may allow urges but expects self-denial (and suffering) in the face of them and concludes that anyone who believes this is evil or sadistic or whatever……….well, it’s a very modern American conception. That the single most important defining aspect of life and love to him is sex seems like a relatively modern attitude as well. 

I don’t mean to preach or force my religion down throats (and I apologize if I’ve offended in this regard), but I found some of the mind set evidenced in this thread to be, well, surreal. And as a recent Catholic convert, I found FrankDC's comments about the Catholic Church to be among the most muddle headed statements about both the Church and Christianity that I've heard for quite some time.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Kav said:


> Ellen Degenerate who ... thinks she is above a contract with a animal rescue group.


 Kav, this has some connection to her being a Lesbian?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

This thread is beyond belief ... well into the absurd.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If you believe homosexuality per se is "objectively evil" (Ratzinger's exact words), you have a moral obligation to push for civil laws to prohibit it.


This is absolutely not true. The fact that you apparently believe that government exists to stamp out the things in this world that you do not want, or to force the world to conform to your vision of goodness, is itself a profound error. Please review my signature quote.

Whether that error is as serious and intractable as your contrived, baseless concept of "orientation" is, as yet, undetermined.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Rocker said:


> To think that God does not use or allow suffering to effect change in us is incredibly naïve; to think that God's sole concern for us is that we're happy and fulfilled is ludicrous from a Christian perspective - again, I cite to you Jesus and the martyred Apostles - they were not spared suffering or self-denial; and one wonders how fulfilled Jesus felt on the Cross when he asked why God had forsaken him. Jesus told Christians to take up their cross - this was not an invitation to do what we want, or to be happy (in a worldly sense) or to lead lives of self-indulgence.
> 
> That FrankDC can't conceive of a God who may allow urges but expects self-denial (and suffering) in the face of them and concludes that anyone who believes this is evil or sadistic or whatever&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.well, it's a very modern American conception. That the single most important defining aspect of life and love to him is sex seems like a relatively modern attitude as well.
> 
> I don't mean to preach or force my religion down throats (and I apologize if I've offended in this regard), but I found some of the mind set evidenced in this thread to be, well, surreal. And as a recent Catholic convert, I found FrankDC's comments about the Catholic Church to be among the most muddle headed statements about both the Church and Christianity that I've heard for quite some time.


Not offensive at all, very thoughtful. :icon_smile:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Frank,

You are a very good man. You argue with reason and passion. I'm not in 100% agreement with you ... but I'm far more with you than the others. 

However, it seems to me that arguing with those who refuse - or feel they are above -- reason is a loosing battle. You cannot debate with those who find fact in fiction and resort to insult. 

I am an Episcopalian ... a "catholic and apostolic" church facing schism because of those similar to your adversaries on these pages. Because we are not Bible literalist and have gone on to embrace a Gospel of deeds as being more relevant to Christianity than one based in the old Mosaic laws ... our Bible literalist minority has gone apoplectic. They have made our election of a woman (Katharine Jefferts Schori) as Presiding Bishop and a gay man (Gene Robinson) in a committed relationship as the Bishop of New Hampshire ... their call to rally. 

And for them there can be no compromise ... the only acceptable settlement is full capitulation (read admission of sin and rolling back the tide to their exclusive view) with punishment added (suffering a reduced status within the Anglican Communion). 

What I find most interesting &#8230; is that much of the work of those moving toward schism is being funded by Right-Wing foundations and individuals who have nothing to do with our denomination. Theirs is a world so small that it can only exist if all hold to the same view ... or at least say they do even when they don't. Everyone else must be out of sight and out of favor. 

For them ... tolerance is very one-sided. You must tolerate them ... they need not tolerate you.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

RSS, many sincere thanks for your post.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> Frank,
> 
> You are a very good man. You argue with reason and passion. I'm not in 100% agreement with you ... but I'm far more with you than the others.
> 
> ...


Broken promises, so sad......

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=482057&postcount=45


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have to say this thread makes me very glad I am agnostic. I just cannot fathom worshiping a god that would create some of the paradigms being pondered.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Wayfarer and Kav:
> *Keyboards on the high plain at ... what else ... high noon*


Kav:

I will bring my kharmically charged wireless keyboard specifically made for playing World of Warcraft. All my bolts will be virtual ones and then we can share a bottle of Craigganmore 

AK, if you do not mind rubbing elbows with the P-bomb, I am sure there is enough for you to join us for a drink too. Could you bring a bespoke picnic blanket to sit on though?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

In response to my having written ...

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again. 

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again. 

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

Rocker says ...



Rocker said:


> Broken promises, so sad......


I'm assuming that you are teasing ... but if not ... I could respond by saying ... we all make mistakes ... I'm sure_ you're_ no exception.

However, I'd have thought you recognized it for what it was ... humor. But I realize that some of us don't recognize humor ... as in the above example of "old school style" discipline of writing on the blackboard ... even that with which we don't agree.

So sad ...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

RSS said:


> This thread is beyond belief ... well into the absurd.





Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Those who don't like this thread
> Those who don't aprove of this thread
> Those who think this thread is over the limit:
> Here's a clue:
> ...


problem solved...


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

The Gabba Goul said:


> problem solved...


Problem? The absurd is not a problem ... it is simply ... well ... absurd.

So, Gabba, my dear youth ... stop your attempt at manipulation of my post. That is most uncharitable of you.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> What happen to the Samuel L. Jackson avatar? Plus you are no longer writing in Ebonics.
> 
> I know, I know, very self-amusing.
> 
> M8


I just decided to show the "real" ME,You don't need to see Samuel L.Jackson anymore.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

RSS said:


> Problem? The absurd is not a problem ... it is simply ... well ... absurd.
> 
> So, Gabba, my dear youth ... stop your attempt at manipulation of my post. That is most uncharitable of you.


so what was the point of your original post??? What's so absurd about such a debate???

if there's something that bothers you about this thread...you are free not to read it...


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Kav:
> 
> I will bring my kharmically charged wireless keyboard specifically made for playing World of Warcraft. All my bolts will be virtual ones and then we can share a bottle of Craigganmore
> 
> AK, if you do not mind rubbing elbows with the P-bomb, I am sure there is enough for you to join us for a drink too. Could you bring a bespoke picnic blanket to sit on though?


 Would you settle for a non-bespoke Alex Begg cashmere throw?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

To paraphrase JPM ... if you have to ask what's so absurd ... you can't understand it.

And for some reason you seem not to comprehend that visiting this thread doesn't bother me. There is _no_ problem. Does that bother you, Gabba?

Given that I've been around here for a while (although mostly on the style side) I know what most of the regulars think ... I know how they fall on the issues ... and I'm fairly familiar with most members ability at logic ... or lack thereof. I also know those with an affinity for reason ... and well as those who find their arguments easier when they avoid it. The regulars typically fit the peg ... most being fairly predictable. But this time ... some went further out than ever on the limb ... so the read was ... well ... interesting. 

This dependence on pseudoscience and pathetically bad psychology &#8230; and a rather poor knowledge of it at that -- not to mention the shear lack of intelligence inherent in some of the "comments" -- is alarmingly funny. A few even mistake religious faith for fact. By comparison, the superstitions of the Dark Ages appear to be enlightened thought.

Of course, this is a style forum ... so the incongruity is amusing in the extreme. If our advice on men's style were at the level of this thread ... this website would be history. 

And now Gobba old fellow ... it's almost 5:30 PM here in San Francisco ... and Kathryn has just called me into the living room. I have more important matters to attend ... my martini awaits.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Would you settle for a non-bespoke Alex Begg cashmere throw?


Never let it be said I cannot flexible! (The colour is nothing too bright though? )


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

RSS said:


> Given that I've been around here for a while (although mostly on the style side) I know what most of the regulars think ... I know how they fall on the issues ... and I'm fairly familiar with most members ability at logic ... or lack thereof. I also know those with an affinity for reason ... and well as those who find their arguments easier when they avoid it.


read: you know what their political affiliation is...right???


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I don't think FrankDC is solely responsible - he evidences a very modern American mindset. For one thing life is all about gratification and the idea of not having what one wants is abhorrent to most Americans (including me). Most of us are hedonists to some extent - hell, in the last month, I spent over a thousand dollars on shoes that I wanted, but did not need - didn't even remotely need. I have hundreds of ties and way too many suits and yet I continue to "consume" when I REALLY should give more money to charity.
> 
> For many of us it is impossible to believe that God doesn't want us to be happy. It's a product of most of our comfortable material environments and it's a product of the prosperity gospel/positive thinking zeitgeist that permeates our culture and it's a product of our consumer culture. And, we think because God wants us to be happy, God would not deny us what we want - whether behavioral or material. That most saints were martyred or led lives of asceticism and self-denial seems not to register; I think if one believes that God sent his son to be tortured and die, it seems to indicate that God has bigger concerns for us than whether we're happy.
> 
> ...


I had to post this again. This is one of the most insightful posts i've seen in a long time. Well Done Rocker!
+10!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

The Gabba Goul said:


> read: you know what their political affiliation is...right???


Duhh ... I could guess most of them. But honestly ... I really only care what folks think. But, Gabba ... you read into it whatever you want to read ... 'cause that's what you are gonna do anyway ... right? No ... never mind ... I'll answer that one. Right.

Now ... what possible good could there be in continuing this "conversation?" I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing ... and no reasonable point is being presented for me to debate.

Now ... it's time for dinner. Say good-bye Gabba.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> I had to post this again. This is one of the most insightful posts i've seen in a long time. Well Done Rocker!
> +10!


Word...I think Rocker hit the nail on the head more than one time on this thread...

and RSS...I'm not mad at you m'boy...do what you do...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That FrankDC can't conceive of a God who may allow urges but expects self-denial (and suffering) in the face of them and concludes that anyone who believes this is evil or sadistic or whatever


You have a real knack for straw man arguments, Rocker. When's the last time you heard anyone claim heterosexuals should be expected to suffer and "self-deny" their sexual orientation? That wouldn't make any sense, because heterosexuality is "normal". Right?

Your argument is the essence of traditional Judeo-Christian bigotry and ignorance on this issue. Who are you to dictate to gay people that they're somehow more obligated to celibacy than heterosexuals? And why do you suppose physical expression of one's sexuality is somehow less important and necessary for gay people? The RCC prohibits marriage for their own priests, and just look at the results. Thousands upon thousands of child molestations, and half the men in Catholic seminaries are active homosexuals.

Be honest, Rocker: how many openly gay people do you know? Assuming you know any, how many of them are celibate simply because of the RCC's position? It's ridiculous even at face value. No one takes it seriously, nor should they. Even most priests I know don't take it seriously.

And I'll save Gabba and his emotionally retarded coffee boi crew the effort: yes I did say I was done with this thread.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Just have to get the last word dont you???



FrankDC said:


> You have a real knack for straw man arguments, Rocker. When's the last time you heard anyone claim heterosexuals should be expected to suffer and "self-deny" their sexual orientation? That wouldn't make any sense, because heterosexuality is "normal". Right?


Right...there I said it...



> Your argument is the essence of traditional Judeo-Christian bigotry and ignorance on this issue. Who are you to dictate to gay people that they're somehow more obligated to celibacy than heterosexuals? And why do you suppose physical expression of one's sexuality is somehow less important and necessary for gay people? The RCC prohibits marriage for their own priests, and just look at the results. Thousands upon thousands of child molestations, and half the men in Catholic seminaries are active homosexuals.


...and your argument is the essence of traditional Anti-Christian bigotry and ignorance...if people are hard wired to be gay, perhaps then they are hard wired to be child molesters and you're just being hateful and ignorant by not acknowledging that "fact"...you know, I think that occasionaly somebody other than a Catholic preist might have inappropriate relations with a child...and half the men in Catholic seminaries are gay??? Proof (and no more links to comunist propaganda please)...



> Be honest, Rocker: how many openly gay people do you know? Assuming you know any, how many of them are celibate simply because of the RCC's position? It's ridiculous even at face value. No one takes it seriously, nor should they. Even most priests I know don't take it seriously.


...and how many preists do you know??? I thought Catholics were all evil biggots marching arm in arm with the Mormons and Jews out to burn gays alive in oil like they've done for the past 3,500 years...so what are you doing hanging around with the enemy???



> And I'll save Gabba and his emotionally retarded coffee boi crew the effort: yes I did say I was done with this thread.


but you just can't concede the fact that your argument is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun-fight...hey, to me this is fun...you have no idea how many laughs I've had at some of the off the wall crap you've been saying...


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> *1)* You have a real knack for straw man arguments, Rocker. When's the last time you heard anyone claim heterosexuals should be expected to suffer and "self-deny" their sexual orientation? That wouldn't make any sense, because heterosexuality is "normal". Right?
> 
> *2)*Your argument is the essence of traditional Judeo-Christian bigotry and ignorance on this issue. Who are you to dictate to gay people that they're somehow more obligated to celibacy than heterosexuals? And why do you suppose physical expression of one's sexuality is somehow less important and necessary for gay people? The RCC prohibits marriage for their own priests, and just look at the results. Thousands upon thousands of child molestations, and half the men in Catholic seminaries are active homosexuals.
> 
> *3)*Be honest, Rocker: how many openly gay people do you know? Assuming you know any, how many of them are celibate simply because of the RCC's position? It's ridiculous even at face value. No one takes it seriously, nor should they. Even most priests I know don't take it seriously.


I had to break this one down to respond to all of your points Frank:

1) Again, how about the church's position that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong?

2) Seriously, are you just making that up? Half of the men in seminaries are gay? Give me a break...

3) I know gay men who are celibate for those reasons & I know others who aren't so you can't say that "no one" takes them seriously. And, which priests are you talking to who are saying you shouldn't take teachings of the church seriously? I know there are a full spectrum of priests out there, but the rules are still the rules whether you like it or not.

Brian


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> I had to break this one down to respond to all of your points Frank:
> 
> 1) Again, how about the church's position that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong?


What about it? I'd consider it to be good general advice, IF the RCC wasn't busy running around pushing for civil laws which deny gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. And as I said earlier, people who're complain loudest about promiscuity in the gay community are generally the same people who're pushing for these inane and pointless "defense of marriage" laws.



vwguy said:


> 2) Seriously, are you just making that up? Half of the men in seminaries are gay? Give me a break...


No, I'm not making it up:

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm



vwguy said:


> 3) I know gay men who are celibate for those reasons & I know others who aren't so you can't say that "no one" takes them seriously. And, which priests are you talking to who are saying you shouldn't take teachings of the church seriously? I know there are a full spectrum of priests out there, but the rules are still the rules whether you like it or not.
> 
> Brian


The issue isn't whether I like the "rules" or not. The fact is, a sizeable chunk of the money you drop into that big basket every week goes to pay defense attorney fees for child molesters. Maybe you don't have a problem with that. I do.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

From the sourced webpage:



> However, nobody knows with any degree of accuracy.





> An anonymous priest from the Boston area commented in an interview with Joe Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald...


There's a solid source!

I read through the sourced link and through several of the links this one uses as sources. All the "evidence" I could find were similar to:



> Chris Pett, who is also gay, was an active priest in Illinois for 12 years.
> 
> Mr. CHRIS PETT: There is absolutely a predominance of gay men who are priests, in my experience.


That is from the pbs.org link in the original page's sourcing. And PBS? Yeah, I trust them to be objective in regards to the priesthood and homosexuality.

Can you give me a couple of independent studies with the survey tool and methodology please Frank? I am sure there is indeed many gays in the priesthood, but this is at best so/so sourcing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> From the sourced webpage:
> 
> There's a solid source!
> 
> ...


And we're back to your usual "Please do my homework for me", "I can't refute the claim, so I'll attack the source" tactics.

Not this time, WF. It's up to you to produce evidence that gay men do NOT comprise somewhere around 50% of Catholic seminary students.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And we're back to your usual "Please do my homework for me", "I can't refute the claim, so I'll attack the source" tactics.
> 
> Not this time, WF. It's up to you to produce evidence that gay men do NOT comprise somewhere around 50% of Catholic seminary students.


LOL Frank. Sorry, it is not up to me to produce evidence to the contrary of your claim. Why? You made a claim and I aptly demonstrated your "evidence" is, to be charitable, very flimsy. Claims by "Priest X" in an interview (yes people, take the time to read Frank's "proof" and this is part of it) are not "evidence". And the only one doing their "usual tactic" is you. Supporting a rather hard to believe claim with an asinine attempt at "proof" and then tell anyone that actually examines your "proof", to do DYOH.

Nope Frank, I am plenty ready to believe any real evidence you can dig up. You just have not done so yet.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think I need to provide even greater critique to Frank's "evidence".

Eleven sources where given on the website he used as reference. Of the 11 sources, several had weblinks. Most are not working. I have already quoted the pbs.org one. One of the other three working links leads to:

where you will find it is an *opinion* page written by:



> Veteran gay journalist Rex Wockner dissects gay culture, politics and entertainment -- and calls it as he sees it -- every other Friday in the Wockner Wire.


So we have an ex-seminary student, who is gay, writing an opinion column on a website dedicated to gay issues given to us as "evidence". The evidence this article gives is the author's (unsupported) personal statement that:



> When I was in the Catholic seminary in my early 20s (St. Meinrad College, St. Meinrad, Ind., 1982-1983; University of St. Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, Ill., 1983-1984), at least 50 percent of the students were gay.


This is the level of "proof" we are being given by Frank to support his claim. The article does end with another observation by the author though:



> You, on the other hand, may spend two hours at the gym every day, wax your back regularly, and get aroused at the sight of those who do the same. If so, West Hollywood is your undisputed homeworld. Nowhere in America nails the porno-boy look better.


Please note: I am in no way saying anything about gay people. In this and my last few posts, the topic is completely not the point. My issue is the credibility of the "evidence" being presented. As I said three posts ago, I am willing to believe Frank's assertion, I am just asking for some real evidence.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Please note: I am in no way saying anything about gay people. In this and my last few posts, the topic is completely not the point. My issue is the credibility of the "evidence" being presented. As I said three posts ago, I am willing to believe Frank's assertion, I am just asking for some real evidence.


Number of references provided by me: 11
Number of references provided by you: 0

I'll let everyone else do their own math.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

To me, this seems more like a clash of cultures than one of religion and sexuality. Christianity does note homosexual behavior as being a problem area in its religion, but without any sort of special distinction to make it more problematic than a slew of other things to watch out for...That focus seems to come from cultural issues with the act among certain groups that are members of the religion. I've yet to see this kind of fervor produced over, say, gluttony. At the same time, homosexuality really only defines a single thing, sexual preference for and activity with members of the same sex. The popular culture that has grown around the act is not the same thing, the same way that popular Jewish culture is only tangentially related to actual Judaism. Just as it is possible to be Jewish yet hate gefilte fish, it's possible to be gay and not be a fan of the sort of behavior that prompted the original post, or to be Christian while taking a non-polarized view of homosexuality.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> And we're back to your usual "Please do my homework for me", "I can't refute the claim, so I'll attack the source" tactics.
> 
> Not this time, WF. It's up to you to produce evidence that gay men do NOT comprise somewhere around 50% of Catholic seminary students.


Frank, you are the one claiming this to be true, so it's up to you to prove it.

Brian


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> Frank, you are the one claiming this to be true, so it's up to you to prove it.
> 
> Brian


It would be like proving the sky is blue, to people who've been blind since birth. There's no shortage of evidence, for those who're interested in finding it. Entire books have been written on this specific issue.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Number of references provided by me: 11
> Number of references provided by you: 0
> 
> I'll let everyone else do their own math.


Frank, Frank, Frank. I think I discussed those 11 "references" possibly? Please tell me how this is a "reference":



> Not Found
> 
> The requested URL /datalounge/news/record.html was not found on this server.
> Apache/2.0.49 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.49 OpenSSL/0.9.7c-p1 Server at archive.datalounge.com Port 80


or:



> Error 404
> The page you are looking for could not be found. It may have been removed, or is otherwise unavailable.
> Please report any dead links to us by filling out the form below.


Care to re-do that math? And again, I do not have to provide references as my claim is merely that yours is rather specious until some real proof is given.

I will let people not only do their own math but also judge who here is being rather disingenuous in this debate. Not only am I willing to be convinced you are correct Frank, I have actually put forward a good faith effort in reading not only your link to "proof" but in reading their links for citations of said "proof". I cannot help the fact that basically you have provided the opinions of a few people with obvious personal agendas and/or anonymous people giving testimony to reporters. All I want is a couple peer reviewed independent studies with a look at the survey tool and methodology. Honestly, you get me two of those to read, and I will happily post for all to see that your claim was 100% correct.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> What about it? I'd consider it to be good general advice, IF the RCC wasn't busy running around pushing for civil laws which deny gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. And as I said earlier, people who're complain loudest about promiscuity in the gay community are generally the same people who're pushing for these inane and pointless "defense of marriage" laws.


So...it's a good idea for heterosexuals not to have sex outside of marriage, but if you expect the same for homosexuals that's not "fair"?



FrankDC said:


> No, I'm not making it up:
> 
> https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm.


Wayfarer already covered that.



FrankDC said:


> The issue isn't whether I like the "rules" or not. The fact is, a sizeable chunk of the money you drop into that big basket every week goes to pay defense attorney fees for child molesters. Maybe you don't have a problem with that. I do.


Frank, I could go a bunch of different routes w/ your last statement of "facts", but I won't. Am I upset about the abuse and cover-ups that have gone on in some dioceses? Of course. I'll just leave it at that.

Brian


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Can you give me a couple of independent studies with the survey tool and methodology please Frank? I am sure there is indeed many gays in the priesthood, but this is at best so/so sourcing.


Wayfarer ... I think PBS can be trusted on this one. I live very near what is referred to locally as Holy Hill, a number of seminaries in a collective known as the Graduate Theological Union.

I'm am a regular visitor at a Roman and an Episcopal seminary. In all sincerity, a very, very high percentage of the men at the Roman seminary are gay.

At the seminaries, a student's sexuality is not necessarily overt ... but it's not really hidden either. For the most part ... it's not an issue ... for them ... the seminary ... or me. The only time it becomes an issue for me ... is when the person is a hypocrite.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> Wayfarer ... I think PBS can be trusted on this one. I live very near what is referred to locally as Holy Hill, a number of seminaries in a collective known as the Graduate Theological Union.
> 
> I'm am a regular visitor at a Roman and an Episcopal seminary. In all sincerity, a very, very high percentage of the men at the Roman seminary are gay.


RSS, even if you put complete faith in PBS, the "evidence" was merely the testimony of one person with no supporting data. Now we can say we have the testimony of two people if we include you (again with no supporting data). In no way did PBS present researched data, so please do not quote my request for an academic study as you have, as if one has not read this thread, they might think you are saying a study was presented and I will not accept the study. That is not the case, PBS did not present a valid academic study that I can find.

RSS, if you have one, please present it. Also, please take note, I am not saying anything in regards to gay people, merely questioning Frank's assertion. I am not saying that homosexuals are not part of the Catholic clergy, I am not even saying they might not be over-represented. What I am saying is that to tell me 50% of seminary students are gay will require some valid research evidence for me to believe.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

I have absolutely no idea if a study -- academic or otherwise -- has _ever _been conducted. My post relates my _personal _opinion based on my _personal _experience over a number of years at one particular seminary. When one is around people ... he gets to know them a bit. But I'll admit ... I've never reflected long or seriously on this ... primarily because it isn't an issue to me. 

As for the validity of my experience ... you are free to believe or doubt. It's entirely your prerogative. As to whether you choose to believe my experience or not ... I have no real interest.

Sorry to have interrupted the high ground of your argument ... and sorry if you feel someone might have gotten the wrong impression from my post. I do realize that at this point you are arguing about evidence. But given the nature and tone of this thread in its entirety (and I in no way single out your posts) ... I can't imagine that anyone is just tuning in at this point ... not without a bit of history. It definitely ain't a very impressionistic thread ... that's pretty clear. At the very least, many of the participants have been cruel. And yes, that's just my opinion. 


And now ... I leave you to continue. I have nothing further to add.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> But I'll admit ... I've never reflected long or seriously on this ... primarily because it isn't an issue to me.


I will admit the same thing and also agree, it is not an issue to me either. However, when one makes a claim on this topic that seems rather outlandish, I will require actual proof to accept said claim.



RSS said:


> As for the validity of my experience ... you are free to believe or doubt. It's entirely your prerogative. As to whether you choose to believe my experience or not ... I have no real interest.


I find your experience to be perfectly valid. However, it is just that: your experience. Academic proof as to the make up of all seminary students it is not. I also have no real interest whether you accept the distinction or not.



RSS said:


> Sorry to have interrupted the high ground of your argument ...


I have no "argument" here and certainly no high ground. I thought I was *very* clear. I am more than willing to believe Frank's assertions. I just require some legit proof. If this is a "high ground" position, I am aghast, as I thought the default position was...proof.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

And for the benefit of the reader ... if _anyone_ out there deems this thread appropriate reading. Just so there is no confusion as to which has more merit, I am considering a new quote as follows:

*Personal experience does not academic proof make.* --RSS 

Of course, in my experience, it is understatement to say that thread has not exactly been academic level discussion. But that is my personal experience ... not academic proof. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I will admit the same thing and also agree, it is not an issue to me either. However, when one makes a claim on this topic that seems rather outlandish, I will require actual proof to accept said claim.


The extent to which the claim seems outlandish is directly proportional to one's ignorance -- usually intentional ignorance -- on this subject. There is absolutely no shortage of evidence to support the claim that half (or something around half) of Catholic seminarians are gay:

National Catholic Reporter:
https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n28_v30/ai_15271933

"Clerical Celibacy", William E. Phipps
https://tinyurl.com/2pl2nx

Newsweek:
https://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/may/02051506.html

Numerous studies:

And again, if you have any references that refute this established number, I'd love to see them.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> So...it's a good idea for heterosexuals not to have sex outside of marriage, but if you expect the same for homosexuals that's not "fair"?


How on Earth did you get that from what I said? My point is, sex within marriage is preferable to sex outside marriage, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the couple involved. Yet that first option isn't an option for gay couples, at least in the U.S.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The extent to which the claim seems outlandish is directly proportional to one's ignorance -- usually intentional ignorance -- on this subject.


Yes Frank, clearly, by actually taking the time to read not only your first attempt at proof, but also the 11 citations it provided, *I am intentionally keeping myself ignorant on the topic* 



FrankDC said:


> There is absolutely no shortage of evidence to support the claim that half (or something around half) of Catholic seminarians are gay:
> 
> National Catholic Reporter:
> https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n28_v30/ai_15271933


Okay, I took the time to read all 11 pages of this article. Here is the "proof".



> A priest involved with candidate selection and training said, "You can only estimate. They say that 10 percent is the national average for all groups. If that's the case, then seminaries are 20 percent gay.
> 
> "But I'd be careful not to exceed that figure. *You could lose credibility with statements that the seminaries are 30 to 40 percent gay."*


Note the bold. This person's outside non-credible number is 40%. That is 20% less than your claim. And as to my issue of credibility, this person feels 30% will not be credible, a full 40% less than your number!



> A.W. Richard Sipe's figures may sum up the situation. Sipe is the author of A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy. He is a resigned priest, now a psychotherapist in private practice. His figures are compiled from years of treating priests but may readily apply to seminarians. Sipe's reading:
> 
> * 10 percent identified themselves as homosexual;
> 
> ...


Please note, this is not an academic study. However, this person "feels" these numbers are correct based on his exposure as a defrocked priest. Please note, a homosexual ideation does not make one gay. No claims of 50% of seminarians being gay.

Okay, this next quote...well even I am hesitant to present it. Please note this quote is Frank's citation for "proof" and that it does not reflect my personal beliefs. However, the nature and credibility of the citation is the issue here, so I will let the reader judge it:



> The gay issue is inevitably tied to the problem of pedophilia. Although national research holds that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual,* this does not seem to be the case among clergy.*




So basically, this article is saying there is indeed a tie between pedophilia and homosexuality *within the sample universe of the Seminary, not the general population*. Please, no knee jerking, I am quoting Frank's source, not mine, and going to lengths to point out the claim is not all homosexuals, just those that belong to the seminary. This article was presented as credible proof.



FrankDC said:


> And again, if you have any references that refute this established number, I'd love to see them.


And again Frank, under the usual methods of debate, you have not placed the onus of proof on me yet. I will admit I am not going to bother with the other articles. I have taken care to read a large bit of your sources, and nothing showing some solid evidence for you claim has appeared.

At this point, I am done with this thread. It is just getting me in deeper on a topic I really do not care about. I do care about bogus or unsubstantiated figures being tossed about and that is how got dragged into this.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Good job at selective quoting, and proving that no amount of evidence is enough to prove something you don't wish to admit, or want to believe.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Good job at selective quoting, and proving that no amount of evidence is enough to prove something you don't wish to admit, or want to believe.


I am sorry, I need to make one more post before I drop this thread. This is in no way a true, accurate, or even fair statement Frank. It was 11 pages, of course I could not quote the whole thing. I want everyone to know, the Sipe's numbers I quoted were the closest thing to a researched number in the article. If you do not believe me, please read all 11 pages.

And Frank, why would I not want to believe you? I do not even want to deal with what you are implying. You have shown your hatred and bile and I am quite finished with your trolling.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am sorry, I need to make one more post before I drop this thread. This is in no way a true, accurate, or even fair statement Frank. It was 11 pages, of course I could not quote the whole thing. I want everyone to know, the Sipe's numbers I quoted were the closest thing to a researched number in the article. If you do not believe me, please read all 11 pages.
> 
> And Frank, why would I not want to believe you? I do not even want to deal with what you are implying. You have shown your hatred and bile and I am quite finished with your trolling.


You've been reduced to endlessly arguing a semantic point while completely ignoring the larger points made in this discussion. It's downright pathetic.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You've been reduced to endlessly arguing a semantic point while completely ignoring the larger points made in this discussion. It's downright pathetic.


The only thing here that's pathetic is you, Frank. You come up with some bogus and politically motivated "research' to "support" your own twisted version of reality and call it proof. The only thing that you've proved here is that you're an irrational hater of all who don't agree with your unsupported garbage and when called on it by the members here you go off into some even more perverse "investigation".

Dude, I say this in all seriousness and charity: You need therapy.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I thought it good counsel to retire from this thread. But as thinking is a continual process, I am compelled to comment again. The argument has been put forward homosexuality is not a choice. It is a bit of DNA no different than that which compels Sockeye Salmon to hurl themselves upstream or a Bower Bird to construct a lovenest. Ergo, by scientific tradition, logic and world view Gays have no choice. This is accepting the word of science by it's precepts. And so, another tradition, equally compelled to order the world by a set of precepts says Gays do, and more importantly by that tradition Christians are equally without choice in viewing the matter. Civil protection for the gay community is a earthly imperative for our temporal society. Extending those protections at the expense of religous freedom is not. A gay man can 'take' communion dressed as a nun, but it is not given. A lewd mockery of the Last Supper can be portrayed as easily as long standing stereotypes of gay men. So congratulations, the people involved have just performed political masturbation, with or without a MILLER BEER banner.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> The only thing here that's pathetic is you, Frank. You come up with some bogus and politically motivated "research' to "support" your own twisted version of reality and call it proof. The only thing that you've proved here is that you're an irrational hater of all who don't agree with your unsupported garbage and when called on it by the members here you go off into some even more perverse "investigation".
> 
> Dude, I say this in all seriousness and charity: You need therapy.


And you need a fricking clue. If you seriously believe the RCC isn't by far the largest organized group of gay people on Earth, you're absolutely delusional. And if you believe the RCC's position on homosexuality is credible, or viable, or even moral, you're equally delusional.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And you need a fricking clue. If you seriously believe the RCC isn't by far the largest organized group of gay people on Earth, you're absolutely delusional. And if you believe the RCC's position on homosexuality is credible, or viable, or even moral, you're equally delusional.


Frank, please read your statement above and call a psychiatrist. How is it that a gay organization is so rabidly anti-gay? The two positions you're positing as true at the same time are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you are insane.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The RCC, with us Orthodox and Coptic brothers was founded as 'The One, Holy and Apostolic Church.' There have been some temporal rifts and the rise of protestantism true. But last time I checked the one compelling membership criteria is belief in the Gospel. Sorry Frank, but I don't care if your allegations of gay numbers in the priesthood is accurate or not. If men quietly join the Los Angeles Gay Men's Choir over a period of time until half are straight it is still the LAGMC. And if 'Bruce' outs the 'breeders' it is no difference than the Holy Father 'outing' priests or laymen of any stripe who don't follow that Gospel.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Rocker said:


> So silly, *so you can kill a cow and eat it without its consent, but you can't put it in a nice warm barn and [email protected] it because it can't consent?*
> 
> Does this really pass for a rational argument in your brain?


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Frank, please read your statement above and call a psychiatrist. How is it that a gay organization is so rabidly anti-gay? The two positions you're positing as true at the same time are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you are insane.


Far from it. The leadership of the RCC (which represents an infinitessimally small percentage of Catholic clergy, and of which Mr. Ratzinger has been a predominant member for the last 30 years) is rabidly anti-gay *precisely because* such a large percentage of Catholic rank and file clergy are gay. When this absolute hypocrisy overflows its banks and gets lots of press coverage (which has happened regularly in recent church history, due mainly to sex and child molestation scandals), it starts affecting the RCC's coffers -- and that's when we see the church's gay bashing rhetoric in its full evil glory, and Vatican witch hunts take place among rank and file Catholic clergy. In fact one has been taking place since 2005, not long after the California/Oregon/Massachusetts child molestation scandals that bankrupted the diocese of Portland and others.

The bottom line is that the Vatican has lost control, not only of their laity in America and many other parts of the world, but even of their own bishops on many issues -- including this one. IMO the problem is self-correcting: the church will eventually be forced to either come to honest terms with this and other issues, or be relegated to the dust bin of history. Ratzinger's approach, as with other problems he's faced is not one of reconciliation and love but of confrontation and hate. IMO he's not "God's rottweiler", but Satan's.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank, you're nuts. Troll away.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Your argument is the essence of traditional Judeo-Christian bigotry and ignorance on this issue. Who are you to dictate to gay people that they're somehow more obligated to celibacy than heterosexuals? And why do you suppose physical expression of one's sexuality is somehow less important and necessary for gay people? The RCC prohibits marriage for their own priests, and just look at the results. Thousands upon thousands of child molestations, and half the men in Catholic seminaries are active homosexuals.


Yeah, I agree. This is a GREAT argument - if only public school teachers were allowed to marry, there would probably be a lot fewer sex abuse problems as well:

And maybe if Protestant clergy were allowed to marry, we could cut down of sex abuse problems there as well.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm

The problem is/was that the vast majority of priests who were accused of this kind of behavior were priests who attended seminary in the 60s and 70s when some elements of the Catholic Church thought that Vatican II was going to overthrow old teachings on issues related to sexuality like birth control or homosexuality. These priests are a product of the same liberal forces which have caused all of the mainline Protestant churches to dwindle in numbers.

What I do find interesting is that call the Catholic Church clergy the largest club of homosexuals in the world but you fail to make the obvious connection. Various reports/studies have put the number of male victims of Church sex abuse at variously 85 to 95% of the victims. Further, other studies put the figure at around 90% for the male victims being teenagers, i.e. not small children. - ephebophile rather than pedophile. Now, do you think there might be a linkage between the high population of homosexuals and the high number of teenage boys being molested?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Yeah, I agree. This is a GREAT argument - if only public school teachers were allowed to marry, there would probably be a lot fewer sex abuse problems as well:
> 
> And maybe if Protestant clergy were allowed to marry, we could cut down of sex abuse problems there as well.
> 
> ...


exactly...frank cant get it through his thick skull that these kind of controversies exist outside of the Catholic church aswell...it's just too inconvienient to his anti-Catholic hate-mongering...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Frank, you're nuts. Troll away.


+1 Quote of the week...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> The problem is/was that the vast majority of priests who were accused of this kind of behavior were priests who attended seminary in the 60s and 70s when some elements of the Catholic Church thought that Vatican II was going to overthrow old teachings on issues related to sexuality like birth control or homosexuality. These priests are a product of the same liberal forces which have caused all of the mainline Protestant churches to dwindle in numbers.


Rocker, these kinds of outlandish claims make it obvious you know little or nothing about the RCC's history. The issue of molesting priests is nearly as old as the RCC itself, and the claim it has more (or even something) to do with Vatican II and "liberal forces"(!), rather than church policy on marriage for priests is nothing short of ridiculous, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentum_Poenitentiae



Rocker said:


> What I do find interesting is that call the Catholic Church clergy the largest club of homosexuals in the world but you fail to make the obvious connection. Various reports/studies have put the number of male victims of Church sex abuse at variously 85 to 95% of the victims. Further, other studies put the figure at around 90% for the male victims being teenagers, i.e. not small children. - ephebophile rather than pedophile. Now, do you think there might be a linkage between the high population of homosexuals and the high number of teenage boys being molested?


Yes, when a clergy is half gay, homosexual child molesters are going to be proportionally overrepresented. And when a religious culture gives far more ready access to young boys than girls (i.e. altar boys, etc), you'll see a further preponderance of male molestations. File those two under D for Duh.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Boy, Frank, you're just making this up as you go along. Child molestation in the Church is as old as the church itself? Where do you get this stuff? Did the doc's change your meds or something?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You also appear to be ignoring the point that most of the molestation is adolescent boys, not younger ones.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Boy, Frank, you're just making this up as you go along. Child molestation in the Church is as old as the church itself? Where do you get this stuff? Did the doc's change your meds or something?


Keep those hands firmly pressed over your eyes and ears, Yachtie. Better yet, pick up a freaking book or two and expand your brain a little:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Priests-...ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_title_3/102-0544303-6776936


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Rocker, these kinds of outlandish claims make it obvious you know little or nothing about the RCC's history. The issue of molesting priests is nearly as old as the RCC itself, and the claim it has more (or even something) to do with Vatican II and "liberal forces"(!), rather than church policy on marriage for priests is nothing short of ridiculous, e.g.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentum_Poenitentiae


Please, I didn't deny that there have been abuses in the past as well. But, it's simply a fact that the vast majority of the priests involved in the recent abuse scandal attended seminaries in the 60s and 70s.

And, if you looked at the sources I provided you, you'll note that the there are abuse problems in public schools (higher than in the Catholic Church) and in Protestant churches as well - and there's no celibacy requirement in those institutions. Celibacy does not turn heterosexual men into buggerers of boys. And marriage is no more likely to stop the problem in the Catholic Church than it prevents it in the public schools.

Nor has it prevented abuse claims in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where priests are free to marry:
e.g.

https://www.pokrov.org/resources.asp?ds=Article

https://www.helleniccomserve.com/devastatinglawsuit.html



FrankDC said:


> Yes, when a clergy is half gay, homosexual child molesters are going to be proportionally overrepresented. And when a religious culture gives far more ready access to young boys than girls (i.e. altar boys, etc), you'll see a further preponderance of male molestations. File those two under D for Duh.


Actually - they disproportioantely represent the abusers. If we use your figure of 50% gay clergy and 85-95% of the victims are male.......well, you get the picture. The problem is not celibacy requirements (which they're obviously not honoring anyway, right?), it's predatory homosexual priests with a penchant for teenage youths who are disproportionately committing the acts.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Please, I didn't deny that there have been abuses in the past as well. But, it's simply a fact that the vast majority of the priests involved in the recent abuse scandal attended seminaries in the 60s and 70s.


That's NOT what you said:

"The problem is/was that the vast majority of priests who were accused of this kind of behavior were priests who attended seminary in the 60s and 70s..."

You stated it as a generality, not specific to "the recent abuse scandal".



Rocker said:


> And, if you looked at the sources I provided you, you'll note that the there are abuse problems in public schools (higher than in the Catholic Church) and in Protestant churches as well - and there's no celibacy requirement in those institutions. Celibacy does not turn heterosexual men into buggerers of boys. And marriage is no more likely to stop the problem in the Catholic Church than it prevents it in the public schools.
> 
> Nor has it prevented abuse claims in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where priests are free to marry:
> e.g.
> ...


Most formal research (as well as our FBI) tells us homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals:
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Gay men are the scapegoats for the RCC's immoral policies, and always have been.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think we should treat gay folks the way we want to be treated,with respect.They're people too,you know!


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Most formal research (as well as our FBI) tells us homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals:
> https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
> 
> Gay men are the scapegoats for the RCC's immoral policies, and always have been.


Most - like 85% were not "children" - they were adolescents. And even if your assertion were true for the general population, it, apparently, is not for the homosexual Catholic clergy population.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Rocker, these kinds of outlandish claims make it obvious you know little or nothing about the RCC's history. The issue of molesting priests is nearly as old as the RCC itself...
> 
> Yes, when a clergy is half gay...


Frank, you can keep repeating whatever points you want, but that's not going to make them true.

Brian


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> That FrankDC can't conceive of a God who may allow urges but expects self-denial (and suffering) in the face of them and concludes that anyone who believes this is evil or sadistic or whatever&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.well, it's a very modern American conception.


As many of you have praised Rocker's post ... and Rocker seems to be piling it on Frank for mentioning sex ... are readers of this thread to assume that when those of you in agreement with Rocker have sex with your wife (assuming that you do ... both have have a wife and have sex, that is) that the sole intent is procreation? And of course ... none of you have ever taken matters into hand ... or if you prefer the more biblical language &#8230; "spent your seed on the ground." Correct? And then there is that matter of lusting ... be it in your heart or &#8230; well &#8230; a bit lower. Never? Not Once? What about thousands of times? 

So I inquire &#8230; why might _*your *_"sins" &#8230; be &#8230; well &#8230; less sinful? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Ain't your guise of bigotry rubbin' a little thin? Why it's so flimsy ... it could make a harlot's dress look respectible. Hail, it might as well just be nekked! At least it would be honest ... even if not respectable.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

RSS said:


> *As many of you have praised Rocker's post ... and Rocker seems to be piling it on Frank for mentioning sex ... are readers of this thread to assume that when those of you in agreement with Rocker have sex with your wife (assuming that you do ... both have have a wife and have sex, that is) that the sole intent is procreation? *And of course ... none of you have ever taken matters into hand ... or if you prefer the more biblical language &#8230; "spent your seed on the ground." Correct? And then there is that matter of lusting ... be it in your heart or &#8230; well &#8230; a bit lower. Never? Not Once? What about thousands of times?
> 
> So I inquire &#8230; why might _*your *_"sins" &#8230; be &#8230; well &#8230; less sinful? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Ain't your guise of bigotry rubbin' a little thin? Why it's so flimsy ... it could make a harlot's dress look respectible. Hail, it might as well just be nekked! At least it would be honest ... even if not respectable.


I'm Lutheran, we don't have to worry about such things.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Speaking of Lutheran ... I seem to recall ...Martin Luther blamed homosexuality on the Catholic Church! :icon_smile_wink:

I'm Episcopalian ... we don't have to worry about them either. I just like to point out inconsistencies ... with a bit of humor.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

You know, I'm not a Catholic, but enough already.

Don't like how the Catholic church behaves with regards to gays? Then either don't be gay or don't be Catholic - but do one or the other and then GET OVER IT. While I understand the first choice may not be an option, I'm just throwing out all the possibilities.

I'm a Protestant, and have theological beliefs that may be considered heresey in the Catholic Church. Does it bug me? NO! Am I going to run around complaining about it? NO! They're perfectly free to label me a heretic, just as I am perfectly free to view them as not being true to the Gospel. I don't let it ruin my day, and last I checked, they weren't letting it ruin their day either.

Frankly, there comes a point in time where, "Whaa! They don't accept me for who I am!" gets tiring. Agree to disagree and then move on in life. If you don't, you run the risk of sounding like some dumpy goth chick who write bad poetry, and always complains about how nobody understands the pain they feel.

Do you (everyone here) go on religious boards and discuss fashion? Probably not, so maybe it's not a good idea to do it here. Do those of you who are gay or have an issue with it go on gay discussion forums and talk about fashion? Of course n....okay, probably a bad example, but you get my drift.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

And Yachtie ... not to worry ... I'm going to take my meds right now. Promise. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> You know, I'm not a Catholic, but enough already.
> 
> Don't like how the Catholic church behaves with regards to gays? Then either don't be gay or don't be Catholic - but do one or the other and then GET OVER IT. While I understand the first choice may not be an option, I'm just throwing out all the possibilities.


I'm sure most gay people would be more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but when a church starts organizing politically, and specifically, to push for CIVIL LAWS WHICH AFFECT EVERYONE (e.g. "defense of marriage" laws), and we have a fascist Pope who claims gay people have "no conceivable right" to their sexual orientation, that "civil rights of homosexuals can be legitimately limited" etc etc, what choice do gay people have but to fight back and defend themselves?


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> Frankly, there comes a point in time where, "Whaa! They don't accept me for who I am!" gets tiring. Agree to disagree and then move on in life. If you don't, you run the risk of sounding like some dumpy goth chick who write bad poetry, and always complains about how nobody understands the pain they feel.


Great point! You know, Tori Amos understands those type of girls, at least they all thought she did when I was in college 

Brian


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'm sure most gay people would be more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but when a church starts organizing politically, and specifically, to push for CIVIL LAWS WHICH AFFECT EVERYONE (e.g. "defense of marriage" laws), and we have a fascist Pope who claims gay people have "no conceivable right" to their sexual orientation, that "civil rights of homosexuals can be legitimately limited" etc etc, what choice do gay people have but to fight back and defend themselves?


...and what's the best way for the gays to combat these "injustices"???hmmmmm I know...hold a steet fair where they engage in lewd acts, violate the cross, run around naked and act like retards in general...then violate the sanctity of the holy comunion while dressed like nuns...yeah, that'll get people to take them seriously...

sorry frank, you can b!tch and moan about what an unfair shake you people get all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you are your own worst enemy...you wonder why people don't take your cause seriously...look at some of the footage from some of these disgusting fairs...shame is a concept that those people are not at all familiar with...oh but it's the Catholics' fault, it's the Jews' fault, it's the Pope's fault, it's the Republican's fault, It's GWB's fault...why dont you people just own up to your bad behavior???



FrankDC said:


> Keep those hands firmly pressed over your eyes and ears, Yachtie. Better yet, pick up a freaking book or two and expand your brain a little:


HOLY COW!!! Look who's talking...


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I'm sure most gay people would be more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but when a church starts organizing politically, and specifically, to push for CIVIL LAWS WHICH AFFECT EVERYONE (e.g. "defense of marriage" laws), and we have a fascist Pope who claims gay people have "no conceivable right" to their sexual orientation, that "civil rights of homosexuals can be legitimately limited" etc etc, what choice do gay people have but to fight back and defend themselves?


So let me ask you, who did more for Civil Rights: Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcom X. One behaved in a dignified manner, the other referred to white people as "blue-eyed devils".

If you want to get your way, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. You should also realize that just because a society doesn't allow same sex marriage, it doesn't mean you're being treated unfairly. I would encourage you to examine what happens in most other countries in the world to homosexuals.

In short, be happy that you live in a society that is allowing you to conduct yourself in a manner that makes you happy, but also recognize that the minute you start demanding special rights, you'll be met with significant resistance.

Gay people are totally free to marry, so long as they do it within the law - that is, a pairing of a man and woman. Just because such a pairing isn't acceptable to you shouldn't make it anyone else's problem but your own. There are plenty of people that want multiple spouses - we don't allow it, and that's that. There's no more constitutional right for two men to marry than there is for a man to have 5 wives.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> So let me ask you, who did more for Civil Rights: Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcom X. One behaved in a dignified manner, the other referred to white people as "blue-eyed devils".


Oh give me a f**king break!!! Gays have been murdered, tortured, beaten, that is, when they're not being emotionally bashed, targeted in civil laws etc.



gar1013 said:


> If you want to get your way, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. You should also realize that just because a society doesn't allow same sex marriage, it doesn't mean you're being treated unfairly. I would encourage you to examine what happens in most other countries in the world to homosexuals.


Yeah, like in Canada and Denmark and Finland and a dozen other countries where same-sex couples are accorded the same rights as opposite-sex couples? Yes indeed. America: land of the free, home of the brave.



gar1013 said:


> In short, be happy that you live in a society that is allowing you to conduct yourself in a manner that makes you happy, but also recognize that the minute you start demanding special rights, you'll be met with significant resistance.


Legal recognition of marriage is not a "special right", it's a basic human right. If marriage doesn't qualify as part of man's unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, NOTHING ELSE DOES.



gar1013 said:


> Gay people are totally free to marry, so long as they do it within the law - that is, a pairing of a man and woman.


Spare me the lame rationalizations. These same ridiculous arguments were unsuccessfully used to justify laws against interracial marriages a half century ago. They're just as absurd now as they were then.

Look, I'm clearly outnumbered here by the clueless and bigoted, as if that is at all surprising on this particular board, and it's utterly futile trying to explain colors to blind people. In light of 3500 years of persecution it's amazing that gay people have made such progress toward inclusion and acceptance in the last 40-45 years, and this progress will continue whether or not Mr. Ratzinger likes it, or whether anyone here likes it. I'm done wasting my time.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Look, I'm clearly outnumbered here by the clueless and bigoted, as if that is at all surprising on this particular board, and it's utterly futile trying to explain colors to blind people. In light of 3500 years of persecution it's amazing that gay people have made such progress toward inclusion and acceptance in the last 40-45 years, and this progress will continue whether or not Mr. Ratzinger likes it, or whether anyone here likes it. I'm done wasting my time.


hmmmm...



FrankDC said:


> if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Na-na Naaa-na, Na-na Naaa-na, Heeeey, Heeeeeeeeey, Hey, Gooooooood-bye...


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Legal recognition of marriage is not a "special right", it's a basic human right. If marriage doesn't qualify as part of man's unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, NOTHING ELSE DOES.


And I want a new flat screen tv, how about my basic human right to a flat screen tv? Oh wait, that's not a right, just like having words redefined to fit your agenda so that you're no longer sad isn't a right.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

hopkins_student said:


> And I want a new flat screen tv, how about my basic human right to a flat screen tv? Oh wait, that's not a right, just like having words redefined to fit your agenda so that you're no longer sad isn't a right.


So you want a flat screen TV ... get off your duff and go buy one. Not enough cash? Then get off your duff and get a job. Of course the other side of your comparison can't be bought.

Don't you feel it a tad lame to compare a consumer product (one which is legally and easily purchased) with a human emotion (your already inept substitute for one group's desire to have access to a state institution). The thought process evident here is in short supply of substance.

And you're prepping at Hopkins? What is happening back in the halls of New Haven?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> And I want a new flat screen tv, how about my basic human right to a flat screen tv? Oh wait, that's not a right, just like having words redefined to fit your agenda so that you're no longer sad isn't a right.


There was no legal definition of marriage until the so-called "defense of marriage" movement, and the laws which resulted from this movement have no conceivable purpose whatsoever except to define a specific class of 10-30 million Americans, and deny them a specific right.

At some point in the future Americans will look back at this current era in astonished wonder. How utterly pointless, counterproductive, mean spirited and bigoted these laws are, and how truly embarrassing for gutless cowards who support them.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> As many of you have praised Rocker's post ... and Rocker seems to be piling it on Frank for mentioning sex ... are readers of this thread to assume that when those of you in agreement with Rocker have sex with your wife (assuming that you do ... both have have a wife and have sex, that is) that the sole intent is procreation? And of course ... none of you have ever taken matters into hand ... or if you prefer the more biblical language &#8230; "spent your seed on the ground." Correct? And then there is that matter of lusting ... be it in your heart or &#8230; well &#8230; a bit lower. Never? Not Once? What about thousands of times?
> 
> So I inquire &#8230; why might _*your *_"sins" &#8230; be &#8230; well &#8230; less sinful? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Ain't your guise of bigotry rubbin' a little thin? Why it's so flimsy ... it could make a harlot's dress look respectible. Hail, it might as well just be nekked! At least it would be honest ... even if not respectable.


RSS, for Shame! What a red herring! Look ,being perfect is NOT a requirement for admonishing others for their behavior. Look at St. Paul. Not bigotry at all- but acceptance of any and all behavior due to the fact that we're all sinners and so we can't comment is the short road to anarchy. E.G. I can't say anything about those who murder others because I may have had a murderous thought? Ridiculous!

There's a big difference between being a sinner who acknowledges that what he does is sinful and tries to amend himself and a sinner who tries to rewrite the world to have everyone acknowledge that what he does is not a sin.

And no, sex has both unitative and procreative aspects. It becomes problematic when they're seperated, however.

Frank, marriage laws are there for the benefit of children, not adults. Since children are benefited by being raised by their parents, it is in the interest of the state to promote that.

Don't start in on the " all the kids abused by their parents" BS either.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Oh give me a f**king break!!! Gays have been murdered, tortured, beaten, that is, when they're not being emotionally bashed, targeted in civil laws etc.


So has just about every single other group that exists in any society at any time. What makes you so damn special? Hell, it's not like they had slave ships full of gays, or that gays were stuck on reservations where the only advantage they have is the ability to open casinos.



> Yeah, like in Canada and Denmark and Finland and a dozen other countries where same-sex couples are accorded the same rights as opposite-sex couples? Yes indeed. America: land of the free, home of the brave.


Then move. Canada has very liberal policies on immigration, and a strong currency.



> Legal recognition of marriage is not a "special right", it's a basic human right. If marriage doesn't qualify as part of man's unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, NOTHING ELSE DOES.


So find a woman and get married. Not my problem if it doesn't float your boat. If you wanted 20 wives, you'd still have the same problem. What you want to do is something that society does not want to endorse. Deal with it.



> Spare me the lame rationalizations. These same ridiculous arguments were unsuccessfully used to justify laws against interracial marriages a half century ago. They're just as absurd now as they were then.


Interracial marriages are different in that there is still a man and a woman involved. There's not really a point to gay marriage in that marriage is supposed to be the joining of two people for the purposes of procreation...and before you ask it, it is my belief that having a marriage without kids is a bit of an indulgence (assuming it is done by choice), but one which society grants because it's easier to let it slide.



> Look, I'm clearly outnumbered here by the clueless and bigoted, as if that is at all surprising on this particular board, and it's utterly futile trying to explain colors to blind people. In light of 3500 years of persecution it's amazing that gay people have made such progress toward inclusion and acceptance in the last 40-45 years, and this progress will continue whether or not Mr. Ratzinger likes it, or whether anyone here likes it. I'm done wasting my time.


Oh no! The pope read your post and is quaking in his pointy shoes. Look, you want to be gay, that's perfectly fine. Enjoy it, and enjoy the fact that it's perfectly legal to do so. If you want to partner up with someone, do so and sign whatever legal agreements you want to in order to arrange your affairs. Just don't demand that everyone stand up and cheer your life and choices, nor provide a special enshrinement in law for it. We don't allow bigamy, which is something that I think would be far more valid for inclusion in our laws than gay marriage.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

First yachtie ... my points are not in reference to the Roman Catholic church ... they are addressed to the thinking process of the those participating in this forum.



yachtie said:


> I can't say anything about those who murder others because I may have had a murderous thought? Ridiculous!


Indeed it is ridiculous ... as is your jump from the subject of consensual sex (between adults) to murder ... a not typically consensual act that results in death. Yachtie ... I might expect that of Sean Hannity ... but not you!



yachtie said:


> There's a big difference between being a sinner who acknowledges that what he does is sinful and tries to amend himself ...


 Do you really expect me to believe that the married men on these pages are attempting to amend their sexual practices/desire within their relationship ... well ... in any way other than to "spice it up." I'm certainly not ... of course, I'm Episcopalian.



yachtie said:


> ...and a sinner who tries to rewrite the world to have everyone acknowledge that what he does is not a sin.


 Your use of the word "world" is particularly revealing ... and yachtie ... this is NOT about one man's attempt to change the world to his view. Whether or not the world (or more accurately religion) changes its view of sin is not really the issue at hand (although it is certainly being used as a guise by many in this thread). The religions of the world (and the various denominations within each religion) are free to hold their beliefs of sin ... BUT to impose those beliefs on the legal citizens of government is quite another matter.



yachtie said:


> ...marriage laws are there for the benefit of children, not adults. Since children are benefited by being raised by their parents, it is in the interest of the state to promote that. Don't start in on the " all the kids abused by their parents" BS either.


Then yacthie ... don't you resort to the BS of marriage is for children. My father (of a very advanced age) married (a woman of an advanced age) several years after my mother's death. Heck, I may wish to do the same some day. Giving birth to children was NOT part of the equation ... and yet marriage was available to them.

In summary ... your beliefs about sin and the Church's beliefs about sin are none of my business ... it is no one's business ... except for those within the Church. But when you or others use the Church's view of sin to clobber someone outside the church ... that crosses a line of propriety and decency.

--RSS ... just another old Berkeley liberal.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Interracial marriages are different in that there is still a man and a woman involved.


And again, defenders of anti-miscegenation laws used the same "logic" for 150+ years in the U.S: anyone is free to marry someone of the same race, therefore the laws are not unconstitutional. Uh huh.



gar1013 said:


> There's not really a point to gay marriage in that marriage is supposed to be the joining of two people for the purposes of procreation...and before you ask it, it is my belief that having a marriage without kids is a bit of an indulgence (assuming it is done by choice), but one which society grants because it's easier to let it slide.


Of all the lame arguments used to justify "defense of marriage" laws, this is one of the weakest. The list of childless marriages endorsed by the RCC and recognized by our government is longer than your arm: infertile couples, post-menopausal couples, disabled couples etc etc etc.

In my view the government has as much business discriminating on the basis of gender as they do on the basis of race. In other words, no business at all. But the likes of you and me will probably never see eye to eye on this issue, so I'll sit back and let the inevitable happen of its own accord. With more and more countries recognizing same-sex marriages every year, U.S. policy on the matter will become completely irrelevant within 10 years, 20 tops. Sorry about that, gay bashers.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"Ladies and Gentlemen, friends and niegbors! I bring you the future! What do you think your doin? Why taking advanatge of this fine crowd you assembled. Well If you Don't mind, I'm trying to raise a posse here and... I bring you, the future of the world, I bring you- THE BICYCLE!" Thankyou Frank! Now, people I have these Ask Andy CDs here for a paltry sum, a mere pittance of a bright new future of sartorial correctness. Yes, You; Gay, Episcopalian one and all can look good regardless of social ocassion. Need to coordinate your black leather slave and crome ensemble? Well, er ask Frank! Otherwise be it greeting his Holyness, attending a horse show, opera or running down to Trader Joes in the rain don't be caught with your pants, er down, well, back to Frank.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Of all the lame arguments used to justify "defense of marriage" laws, this is one of the weakest. The list of childless marriages endorsed by the RCC and recognized by our government is longer than your arm: infertile couples, post-menopausal couples, disabled couples etc etc etc.


He said " childless by choice". Do you have trouble reading? (Unless it's some uberleft political tract, that is).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> He said " childless by choice". Do you have trouble reading? (Unless it's some uberleft political tract, that is).


Intent has zilch to do with it. The point is, gay couples can and do use the exact same methods to start and raise families as infertile opposite-sex couples: surrogate parenting, adoption etc. The government has no business involving itself with intent on this issue, and in fact they do not do so.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> First yachtie ... my points are not in reference to the Roman Catholic church ... they are addressed to the thinking process of the those participating in this forum.


Fair enough, Frank's on the other hand are directed to the Church.



> Indeed it is ridiculous ... as is your jump from the subject of consensual sex (between adults) to murder ... a not typically consensual act that results in death. Yachtie ... I might expect that of Sean Hannity ... but not you!


Thanks, I'm no friend of Sean.The point I was having a problem with is the idea that no-one can hold an opinion contrary to anyone's actions because they themselves are imperfect. That's the red herring. Here's the scenario: You do X, I tell you you shouldn't do X, because it's wrong, fattening etc.. To which you reply- don't tell me that! You do Y! To which I'll reply,yes, but you still do X. If you want to talk about my faults, we can have that discussion.



> Do you really expect me to believe that the married men on these pages are attempting to amend their sexual practices/desire within their relationship ... well ... in any way other than to "spice it up." I'm certainly not ... of course, I'm Episcopalian.


See above. I'm talking about amendation of faults. If they were married and doing something that was wrong, there's no reason to differentiate just because they're straight and married.  I'm missing your point.



> Your use of the word "world" is particularly revealing ... and yachtie ... this is NOT about one man's attempt to change the world to his view. Whether or not the world (or more accurately religion) changes its view of sin is not really the issue at hand (although it is certainly being used as a guise by many in this thread). The religions of the world (and the various denominations within each religion) are free to hold their beliefs of sin ... BUT to impose those beliefs on the legal citizens of government is quite another matter.


That's generalizing the FrankDC's of the world. They want acceptance of any behavior that they want to engage in. It won't be forthcoming. If you're a relativist, you have a point. If you're philosophy admits to the possibility of an objective right and wrong- regardless of what anyone happens to think about it, it's a function of govenment ( or has been for th last 9000 years or so) to promote an objective right and dissuade and objective wrong. Is our understanding of the Right and the Wrong flawed? Sure, but it's amenable to improvement. A relativistic approach to governance is anarchy and I couldn't support that.



> Then yacthie ... don't you resort to the BS of marriage is for children. My father (of a very advanced age) married (a woman of an advanced age) several years after my mother's death. Heck, I may wish to do the same some day. Giving birth to children was NOT part of the equation ... and yet marriage was available to them.


A wonderful thing. That, however doesn't change the validity of the thesis concerning the purpose of the laws.



> In summary ... your beliefs about sin and the Church's beliefs about sin are none of my business ... it is no one's business ... except for those within the Church. But when you or others use the Church's view of sin to clobber someone outside the church ... that crosses a line of propriety and decency.
> 
> --RSS ... just another old Berkeley liberal.


Aah, privacy of religion. No, religion informs the members of the public and those who hold a view are free to discuss it in public and have as much of a right as anyone else to convince the majority of the validity of their position in the public square. That's democracy.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> That's generalizing the FrankDC's of the world. They want acceptance of any behavior that they want to engage in.


That's an outrageous claim, one that has been disproven in every country that has recognized same-sex marriage. Societies have not collapsed, people did not start marrying their pets, polygamy and prostitution have not been legalized. Etc.

It's the typical Rick Santorum Sky is Falling School of Hysteria. And it's downright pathetic.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> A wonderful thing. That, however doesn't change the validity of the thesis concerning the purpose of the laws.


Here's a pop quiz for you, Yachtie. Fill in the blanks:

A society accrues the following benefits by recognizing same-sex marriages:

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

A society accrues the following benefits by not recognizing same-sex marriages:

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

If you're honest, as courts from Hawaii to Massachusetts have been, you'll immediately realize how utterly pointless these "defense of marriage" laws are, how counterproductive, and how ridiculous the arguments used to justify them are.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Aah, privacy of religion. No, religion informs the members of the public and those who hold a view are free to discuss it in public and have as much of a right as anyone else to convince the majority of the validity of their position in the public square. That's democracy.


Yachtie, is it fair to say that you consider homosexuality a sin ... and take a stand in opposition to it solely due to your understanding of your religion? If so ... I have no issue with that stand, per se. In America, you are entitled to have such a view.

But, while you are entitled to your opinion ... and are free to discuss it in public ...until our constitution is changed (and it can, within the law, be amended and even replaced with another constitution and/or form of government) it is at odds with the current constitution to use that or any view to apply rights selectively to law-abiding citizens. America does not -- or should not (it seems to me that it does) -- permit the existence of first and second class citizens.

When I last checked ... the laws of America, as written, protect law-abiding minorities from a majority populist opinion. Of course, it is possible_ --_ _quite underhandedly --_ to pass laws which make the very existence of some citizens outside the law. Many such laws are already on the books.

And as for our "democracy" ... I believe our founding father's considered our form of government to be a republic.

_Democracy is the most vile form of government&#8230; Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths_._-James Madison _

Now ... if it is marriage you are trying to "protect" ... then remove it from the public square and give it back to the Church. Let the government perform civil ceremonies -- not marriages -- available to all ... while the Church decides who can and cannot marry.

In conclusion ... I can say that being a blond-headed, blue-eyed male ... born to a family of social & financial means ...sent to private preparatory schools & colleges ... possessing a fair degree of athletic ability ... and now having means of my own ... I have rarely experienced prejudice on a personal level. I have, however, witnessed it and I find it nothing short of evil ... and yes, a sin ... in my Episcopalian eyes. But my thoughts about sin have no place in government.

EDIT: Just saw this part ... 


yachtie said:


> They want acceptance of any behavior that they want to engage in.


 No, no, no ... that's enough of those outlandish Sean Hannityisms! Such comments about having no bounds in society have no place in real discussion. When I hear that ... I realize I'm up against a position about as flexible as a 1' piece of #5 steel re-bar with no bending tools at hand.

Why ... I can just a hear it now ... Before you know what hit us ... America we'll be saying yes to child pornography ... bigamy ... and flesh eating cults at Grace Cathedral (thank you, Maupin ... but it was humorous). Wait a minute ... what's that outside my window? Oh my heavns, it's a witch ... why it's done already hit America! Oh, that's right ... it's Halloween. Whew!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> See above. I'm talking about amendation of faults. If they were married and doing something that was wrong, there's no reason to differentiate just because they're straight and married.  I'm missing your point.


I get your point ... what's wrong is wrong ... within a particular mindset. And if it is based in religious doctrine ... one shouldn't expect his actions to be given the green light by the Church. I do understand.

But in reality ... sin or not ... it's beside the point here. This all started with Rocker's assertion that the other side should deny itself ... while one might assume that Rocker's side has it's fill of recreational sex ... even if it too is sinful in the eyes of the Church.

Not one married man on earth -- other than those who are in bad marriages -- are going to amend their sexual behavior to exclude all sex beyond that needed for procreation. And that is my point. In this case ... X and Y are identical ... except when the desire for procreation (pretty rare these days) is involved. So to deny one side ... while the other side humps away in bliss (sinful, hypocritical or otherwise)... how outrageous!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

RSS said:


> But, while you are entitled to your opinion ... and are free to discuss it in public ...until our constitution is changed (and it can, within the law, be amended and even replaced with another constitution and/or form of government) it is at odds with the current constitution to use that or any view to apply rights selectively to law-abiding citizens. America does not -- or should not (it seems to me that it does) -- permit the existence of first and second class citizens.


That's correct. Gay couples are not asking for "special rights", and if the state wishes to deny them (or any defined class of American) the right to legally recognized marriage, the burden is on the state to prove a compelling interest in doing so. While the state has proven this interest in the case of polygamists, incestual couples etc, they've failed miserably in the case of same-sex couples. No one can come up with a credible reason why gay people shouldn't have this right. Instead we're given disproven claims, scare tactics, bigotry and demagoguery.



RSS said:


> When I last checked ... the laws of America, as written, protect law-abiding minorities from a majority populist opinion. Of course, it is possible_ --_ _quite underhandedly --_ to pass laws which make the very existence of some citizens outside the law. Many such laws are already on the books.
> 
> And as for our "democracy" ... I believe our founding father's considered our form of government to be a republic.
> 
> ...


+1000 Fantastic post.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

A short reply RSS, and I'll add to it later:



> Not one married man on earth -- other than those who are in bad marriages -- are going to amend their sexual behavior to exclude all sex beyond that needed for procreation. And that is my point. In this case ... X and Y are identical ... except when the desire for procreation (pretty rare these days) is involved. So to deny one side ... while the other side humps away in bliss... how outrageous!


Who says that they're mutually exclusive. One follows from the other. Sexual relations have an aspect that serves to unify the couple AND has a procreative aspect. The point I'm making is that they are not (or should not) be seperable. One has fun having sex and gets the added bonus of having a kid once in a while. Speaking solely as a member of my religion, one should not have one without the possibility of the other. Although according to your post I must be alone in this, but we've abstained for periods due to medical concerns about having a baby without any wailing and gnashing of teeth. :icon_smile_wink: 
I really don't know why so many are adverse to having kids-they're really the best part of having sex.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Sexual relations have an aspect that serves to unify the couple AND has a procreative aspect. The point I'm making is that they are not (or should not) be seperable. One has fun having sex and gets the added bonus of having a kid once in a while. Speaking solely as a member of my religion, one should not have one without the possibility of the other.


As a member of your religion you have the right to believe in your religion. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on anyone (or everyone) else. Last I checked, our government is still issuing marriage licenses to atheist couples and infertile couples.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on anyone (or everyone) else.


So why are you trying to impose your beliefs on us?

Brian


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> So why are you trying to impose your beliefs on us?
> 
> Brian


Call me when legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage is outlawed.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> So why are you trying to impose your beliefs on us?
> 
> Brian


+1

Thanks, Brian.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

vwguy said:


> So why are you trying to impose your beliefs on us?
> 
> Brian


Word...that about sums up this whole argument...


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

vwguy said:


> So why are you trying to impose your beliefs on us?
> 
> Brian


Reminds me of a quote I once saw: "A Femi-Nazi is a feminist who gets mad when a woman DOESN'T have an abortion."


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

gar1013 said:


> Reminds me of a quote I once saw: "A Femi-Nazi is a feminist who gets mad when a woman DOESN'T have an abortion."


LoL...very true...I suppose the same could be said for frank...sence everybody who isnt exactly like him in every way is an ignorant biggot...I guess he just wants all of us guys to be whiny mouthy gay left wing extremists with a screw loose and an axe to grind...


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I guess he just wants all of us guys to be whiny mouthy gay left wing extremists with a screw loose and an axe to grind...


Oooh! Can I raise all of our taxes too and give the money to people who make poor life decisions as well? I promise not to use it for people that have lost their jobs to factories leaving the US or those who are either unemployed or underemployed by being priced out of the job market by illegal immigrants.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

gar1013 said:


> Oooh! Can I raise all of our taxes too and give the money to people who make poor life decisions as well? I promise not to use it for people that have lost their jobs to factories leaving the US or those who are either unemployed or underemployed by being priced out of the job market by illegal immigrants.


of course, those poor irresponsible drug addicted teenage mothers shouldnt have to go to work, in fact we should send them to college for free on John Q. Taxpayer's dime, never mind the fact that kids who have made good decisions and actually do try hard should have to jump through hoops and pay through the nose...and if you have a problem with that, then you are obviously an ignorant biggot...


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> of course, those poor irresponsible drug addicted teenage mothers shouldnt have to go to work, in fact we should send them to college for free on John Q. Taxpayer's dime, never mind the fact that kids who have made good decisions and actually do try hard should have to jump through hoops and pay through the nose...and if you have a problem with that, then you are obviously an ignorant biggot...


What's a biggot? You spelled the word that way twice, so i doubt it's a typo.Well, at least I gather you'r not a *****?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Oooh! Can I raise all of our taxes too and give the money to people who make poor life decisions as well? I promise not to use it for people that have lost their jobs to factories leaving the US or those who are either unemployed or underemployed by being priced out of the job market by illegal immigrants.


Read it and weep, kids:

https://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions."

Marry 30%
Civil Unions 26%
Neither 38%
Unsure 6%

56% of Americans now favor recognition of same-sex marriages or unions, while just three short years ago over 60% were opposed to either one.

Face facts, the writing is on the wall for you idiots. If you had two brain cells to rub together you'd be able to figure out, as Andrew Sullivan has noted, *support for same-sex marriage is in fact the conservative position*. You're simply too knee jerk and ignorant to understand this.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

rsmeyer said:


> What's a biggot? You spelled the word that way twice, so i doubt it's a typo.Well, at least I gather you'r not a *****?:icon_smile_big:


no, I'm not...but I'd imagine that any guy who agonizes over another guy's spelling on an internet message board might be...


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Face facts, the writing is on the wall for you idiots. If you had two brain cells to rub together you'd be able to figure out, as Andrew Sullivan has noted, *support for same-sex marriage is in fact the conservative position*. You're simply too knee jerk and ignorant to understand this.


And so your posts resort to name calling, nice Frank...

Brian


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Read it and weep, kids:
> 
> https://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
> 
> ...


I forgot to ask, did you bother looking at any other of the polls besides the first one you quote? Second one listed says:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

should 40%
should not 46%

From there on down, most of the other polls show people do not support gay marriage. And those Frank, are the facts.

Brian


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> And so your posts resort to name calling, nice Frank...
> 
> Brian


Compared to "whiny mouthy gay left wing extremists with a screw loose and an axe to grind", "idiot" is not only a tame ad hominem, it's accurate in this case. Goul is a bona fide moron as far as I can tell, and have heard privately from others.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Face facts, the writing is on the wall for you idiots. If you had two brain cells to rub together you'd be able to figure out, as Andrew Sullivan has noted, *support for same-sex marriage is in fact the conservative position*. You're simply too knee jerk and ignorant to understand this.


Again with the name calling. Do you really expect anyone to change their minds and agree with you after calling them every name in the book?

You seem eager to paint being pro-gay marriage as somehow the "default" for any society, and opposition to such as being an abberation. History shows otherwise.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

vwguy said:


> I forgot to ask, did you bother looking at any other of the polls besides the first one you quote? Second one listed says:
> CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
> 
> "Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
> ...


Yes I did see those numbers, but I never claimed more Americans support gay _marriage_ than oppose it. A substantial majority support legal recognition of same-sex _unions_, and more than half of these people support gay marriage.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> Again with the name calling. Do you really expect anyone to change their minds and agree with you after calling them every name in the book?


Changing minds? On this board?? You must be kidding. I'm simply trying to interject some reality into a cesspool of right-wing cluelessness, and defend gay people against institutionalized bigotry.



omairp said:


> You seem eager to paint being pro-gay marriage as somehow the "default" for any society, and opposition to such as being an abberation.


No, and that's yet another crazy assertion. I just said in another post that I'm amazed gay people have made such progress for human rights in the last 40-45 years. Nature makes at least 90% of us heterosexual and will continue to do so, regardless of whether we legally recognize same-sex marriages.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Compared to "whiny mouthy gay left wing extremists with a screw loose and an axe to grind", "idiot" is not only a tame ad hominem, it's accurate in this case.


I'd say that my assesment is pretty accurate aswell (and I'm sure others would aggree)...frank...I dont need to insult you...you do a pretty good job of that without my help...


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Nature makes at least 90% of us heterosexual and will continue to do so, regardless of whether we legally recognize same-sex marriages.


So does it bother you to know that if a genetic link is found to homosexuality, that you'll have to thank the catholic church for standing up for the right of gays to enter this world in one piece? (as opposed to in little bits and pieces)


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> So does it bother you to know that if a genetic link is found to homosexuality, that you'll have to thank the catholic church for standing up for the right of gays to enter this world in one piece? (as opposed to in little bits and pieces)


Quite a quandary... if being gay is genetic, is it a woman's absolute right to abort a fetus for containing the definitive all encompassing gay gene because she doesn't want it?


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

omairp said:


> Quite a quandary... if being gay is genetic, is it a woman's absolute right to abort a fetus for containing the definitive all encompassing gay gene because she doesn't want it?


I would argue that abortion is not a right, and that furthermore the unilateral ability of the woman to decide if the baby will be born or not (regardless of the input of the person who fathered said child) compounds the wrong.

What I've never understood is how the left wants murdering low-lifes to be spared the just punishment of death, but are so eager to sanction the execution of the unborn -- all in the name of supposed rights. While one can argue that some good may have come from abortion in the form of potentially better lives for those who were not burdened with a child, and a safer society because of a reduced growth of the underclass, it is still ultimately a BAD THING.

But when all's said and done, if the left wants to let people have abortions for whatever reason, then the potential for a gay child to be aborted because of gay-gene should not be criticized any more than all the other reasons, which often distill down to a single notion: selfishness.

Somewhere out there, someone is getting an abortion....at the same time, there is some family out there that would love to adopt an infant. Unfortunately, our society would prefer to make it easier to terminate the unborn child's life than to put the two parties together.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

omairp said:


> Quite a quandary... if being gay is genetic, is it a woman's absolute right to abort a fetus for containing the definitive all encompassing gay gene because she doesn't want it?


Now you've done it, omairp. Just when this thread was starting to wind down after going on for 12 pages...

I'm going to read the Pathmark thread. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> What I've never understood is how the left wants murdering low-lifes to be spared the just punishment of death, but are so eager to sanction the execution of the unborn -- all in the name of supposed rights.


But how can women ever be free without the right to "choose?" I guess somewhere there exists a right to have unprotected sex without any consequences. This right, however does not exist for men; their financial future is tied to the decision of the women who were exercising their "rights."


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> no, I'm not...but I'd imagine that any guy who agonizes over another guy's spelling on an internet message board might be...


GGGGGabbbbba: I will inquire of my wife, son and 3 grandchildren about my sexual preference, thank you. In the meantime, learn to spell, then learn to think, in that order.If the worst you can say about a person is their sexual identity, you are both a bigot and an ignoramus.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> In response to my having written ...
> 
> I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.
> 
> ...


RSS - it's just so hard to know when you're joking. My sense of humor is fine - I can assure you. I did take your above post seriously. And, I took the post back in April seriously when you wrote that you were no longer going to particpate in the forum for health reasons. Based on your recent posts, however, I have learned my lesson and when you make posts bemoaning the lack of civility in the forum or decry the presence of ad hominem attacks, or laud FrankDC's rational arguments - I now know to take them in the good humor you intended.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> But how can women ever be free without the right to "choose?" I guess somewhere there exists a right to have unprotected sex without any consequences. This right, however does not exist for men; their financial future is tied to the decision of the women who were exercising their "rights."


No one is "free" to choose an objective evil. Freedom is the ability to choose the good without obsticle.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

You're in fine form, my friend, but there are some points that you may have misinterpreted so here we go:


RSS said:


> Yachtie, is it fair to say that you consider homosexuality a sin ... and take a stand in opposition to it solely due to your understanding of your religion? If so ... I have no issue with that stand, per se. In America, you are entitled to have such a view.


"Homosexuality" is something of a misnomer since it doesn't differentiate from inclinations and acts. Inclinations are, of themselves, not sinful; acts, however are. Inclinitions can however be ordered ( in conformance with the natural law) or disordered (contrary to the natural law). The gravity of acts driven by those inclinations are of course dependent on the free choice of the actor. If that freedom is impaired, the gravity of the act is mediated. In the view of Christianity, Catholicism in particular, yes, homosexual acts are sinful. The inclination to homosexual acts is disordered in the same way that the inclination to avarice, sloth, envy, etc. is disordered. FWIW, everyone has to deal with disordered inclinations to varying degrees and has to struggle against them many times a day.



> But, while you are entitled to your opinion ... and are free to discuss it in public ...until our constitution is changed (and it can, within the law, be amended and even replaced with another constitution and/or form of government) it is at odds with the current constitution to use that or any view to apply rights selectively to law-abiding citizens. America does not -- or should not (it seems to me that it does) -- permit the existence of first and second class citizens.


Let me be clear. I have no desire to make anyone a 'second class citizen'. That being said, I'm strongly adverse to making any group a protected class either. The Canadian experience is instructive here: Canada passed a number to "hate speech" laws a few years ago ostensibly to eliminate the perceived discrimination against gays. What resulted was people going to jail for quoting Bible passages and priests and bishops being chilled from discussing these subjects. That would be a panacaea for Frank. 
The reality is that gays as a group are among the highest ranked economically and are doing pretty well here. Heck, RSS, they can even preform lewd acts in public, viciously disparage their detractors and desecrate the sacraments of a major religion without censure. They need nothing more.



> In conclusion ... I can say that being a blond-headed, blue-eyed male ... born to a family of social & financial means ...sent to private preparatory schools & colleges ... possessing a fair degree of athletic ability ... and now having means of my own ... I have rarely experienced prejudice on a personal level. I have, however, witnessed it and I find it nothing short of evil ... and yes, a sin ... in my Episcopalian eyes. But my thoughts about sin have no place in government.


The push by some for so called "gay marriage" is really a red herring as well. In the Nordic countries where there is some history with this almost no-one makes use of it and those that do tend to dissolve the relationship in a few years. The state has an interest in having children raised in stable families which is why there are some remaining advantages to getting married. Statistically (N.B. we're looking at the mean here), gay relationships tend to be brief, serial (encompassing a multitude of partners) and stormy. Cohabitating gays account for a grossly disporportionate number of domestic violence calls for example. That's why I don't think that adoption of children by gay "couples" is a good idea. Nor is adoption by single people or unmarried heterosexuals for similar reasons. That's NOT to say that there aren't gay couples that are loving, committed and would make wonderful parents, but that's not the mean and laws have to deal with the most average case. 
There are legal manoevers that gay couples can take now to allow for transfer of assets, control of healthcare etc. There is no need for any additional action by the government to allow this.



> EDIT: Just saw this part ...
> No, no, no ... that's enough of those outlandish Sean Hannityisms! Such comments about having no bounds in society have no place in real discussion. When I hear that ... I realize I'm up against a position about as flexible as a 1' piece of #5 steel re-bar with no bending tools at hand.


Whether you choose to describe it as a "Hannityism" or not, the reason behind this is an attempt to normalize a behavior that deviates from the norm. And no, gay activists are not alone in this. They just have the most traction due to their friends in the media. Re: your child pornography comment below, do you know that the Supreme court decided that CGI (computer generated images) of little kids having sex is protected speech? I think my worries are justified.



> Why ... I can just a hear it now ... Before you know what hit us ... America we'll be saying yes to child pornography ... bigamy ... and flesh eating cults at Grace Cathedral (thank you, Maupin ... but it was humorous). Wait a minute ... what's that outside my window? Oh my heavns, it's a witch ... why it's done already hit America! Oh, that's right ... it's Halloween. Whew!


Happy Halloween to all! :devil:


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Alright, after being in Texas last week and missing all of this, it’s MY TURN now!

Yee Haw!

These arguments are getting pretty circular (and a bit boring). Come on, think of something new.

As to the original question that started this all off, as far as I am concerned, I agree that it isn’t right for one group to be able to denigrate another group, but when the second groups denigrates the first group it is considered a hate crime. That said, good old fashioned satire and insulting activity are time honored institutions in this country. As long as what your group does, does not incite violence against another group or prevent basic civil rights as guaranteed by law, go for it. Hang the drag queens in effigy, dress up Mohammad in a Kiss outfit, play with a Madonna (either one) statue, re-paint the Last Supper. If you don’t like it, don’t look, but keep your sense of humor.

Your religion is your religion, live it as you see fit, but don’t try to make me live it that way. Go ahead and prosthelytize, but don’t force, I have a choice to listen, argue, or walk away (or change the channel). Keep your religion out of my laws!

As to all of the discussion about gays, my opinion is Who Cares? It doesn’t affect me if you are gay or straight one way or the other. Being gay doesn’t mean the downfall of civilization; gays have always been around and always will be. 

As to whether or not it’s a choice, again, Who Cares?

As to whether being gay normal or not, I don’t buy the argument that being gay is not normal. The definition of “normal” in not concrete. It changes as society changes and always will. I’m about 6’2”; 200 years ago I would have been abnormally tall, now I am pretty much “normal”. It used to be considered abnormal for people of different races to marry or date (not just black and white, but white and oriental, etc), now it’s becoming more and more common and considered pretty much normal. It used to be very unusual to wear jeans to a professional office, now it is becoming normal. It used to be abnormal for a woman to work outside of the house, now its more of a rule for many of us and is completely normal. Its becoming very normal for couples to live together without ever getting married or if they do, they don’t get married in a church.

And again, Who Cares if it is Normal or Not?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> I took the post back in April seriously when you wrote that you were no longer going to particpate in the forum for health reasons.


Actually Rocker ... I was then and am still undergoing chemo. At the time the treatment was a bit overwhelming ... and some of the medications caused unexpected memory issues for me. For this reason, I had parental controls installed on my computer so that I could not post without assistance. I even informed the moderators as to why I was leaving. In time, however, I have adjusted ... so have returned. And fortunately my prognosis is good.

To quote Truman Capote speaking to Babe Paley ... How positively unChristian of you. Of course, Babe was Jewish.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> Actually Rocker ... I was than and am still undergoing treatment for cancer. At the time the treatment was a bit overwhelming ... and some of the medications caused memory issues for me. I had parental controls installed on my computer so that I could not post without assistance. I even informed the moderatora as to why I was leaving. In time, however, I have adjusted ... so have returned. And fortunately my prognosis is good.
> 
> To quote Truman Capote speaking to Babe Paley ... How positively unChristian of you. Of course, Babe was Jewish.


I am very gratified your prognosis is good; I'm sure all are pleased to hear that. You never updated us after saying your farewell and simply reappeared.

I don't think anything I said was harmful or untrue - did I misquote you or misrepresent any of your statements?

Needless to say as you attend a church which ordains divorcee openly practicing homosexuals, practicing muslims, agnostics, neo-druids, wiccans, atheists, people who can't even affirm the most basic and ancient of creeds about Christianity, and so forth, we'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes Christianity or Christian behavior. Or, was the "unChristian" statement another joke? I just can never tell with you.........


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker,

Actually, you have made me realize that I need to explain to people why I am back. While the moderators knew why I left ... most folks did not know the situation in as much detail.

And Rocker ... I'll agree to disagree as well as agree on occasion.

*PS * The Truman Capote quote was meant in jest ... just as he meant it. I will not fault you for your faith. I will only fault you when I feel you apply it inappropriately to others. You should feel free to do the same.

--RS


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

rsmeyer said:


> GGGGGabbbbba: I will inquire of my wife, son and 3 grandchildren about my sexual preference, thank you. In the meantime, learn to spell, then learn to think, in that order.If the worst you can say about a person is their sexual identity, you are both a bigot and an ignoramus.


hmmmmmm.....dooooh I guess you sure showed me...although...the fact that you agonize over such things still makes me wonder...and if your best shot is "learn to spell"...you really do need to work on your approach...

I mean we can have another pissing contest like in the Amy Winehouse thread...then you can go run to FNB's site again and post about how you dont like me...but either way, I could care less...

what's next you're going to post about an "email" somebody sent you telling you what a jerk I am in real life???

...lame...truly lame...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> *Keep your religion out of my laws!*


This statement seems to be predicated on the assumption that secularism is somehow "more correct", that the masses should conform to secularism in case of any disargeement amongst people. The arguement can be made that secularism is a thinly veiled attempt to make atheism or agnosticism a societal norm. Besides, if you're referring to American laws, its the laws of religious Americans as well.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Now you've done it, omairp. Just when this thread was starting to wind down after going on for 12 pages...
> 
> I'm going to read the Pathmark thread. :icon_smile_big:


So you're saying The Pathmark thread is more important this this one?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Howard said:


> So you're saying The Pathmark thread is more important this this one?


Much more, Howard. In fact, it's the _most_ important.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Much more, Howard. In fact, it's the _most_ important.


Thanks,I'm glad you think so.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Pathmark thread ... why I must have a look. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

omairp said:


> This statement seems to be predicated on the assumption that secularism is somehow "more correct", that the masses should conform to secularism in case of any disargeement amongst people. The arguement can be made that secularism is a thinly veiled attempt to make atheism or agnosticism a societal norm. Besides, if you're referring to American laws, its the laws of religious Americans as well.


No, thats not what I ment and sorry if I was unclear. Its not that secularism is necessarily more "correct" its that religious laws are just that, religious laws. If we adopt too much religion into law, which religion do we choose? Hindu, fundamental Protestant Christian, Fanatical Islam, other Islam sects, Sufi, Roman Catholic, Judiasim etc...........

If we were to agree that we should adopt Christian laws, which ones? The Roman Catholic Bible has differences from some Protestant bibles. The Episcopalians teach a religion a lot different than some of the southern evangelical Christian churches. Within the international Episcopal church there are real differences with the African Bishhops threatening to remove the American church from the Anglican fold becase they ordained a gay Bishop. When the Episcopal church started ordaining women, some of the priests went tothe Episcopal Catholic church as it doesn't allow woman priests.

That is the crux of my religious issue. Who's laws do we adopt? I don't want the Talliban telling me how to live (or the Morale Majority), but they have religious laws. Keep your religious laws to yourself, live what your sect says, but don't make me live that way.

As to the laws of the US, yes they include laws passed by religious Americans through the democratic process (I know, we are a Republic, not a true Democracy) but they don't necessisarily include specific religious laws, ie we are not forced to eat kosher or woman are not forced to cover their faces for example.

It seems like each religion or at least some members think that their religion is the only true religion with the Pope saying only Roman Catholics can go to heaven or certain Protestant Ministers saying the Pope is not Christian and will go to hell). I like laws passed in our fashion which at least tries to seperate church and state.

(The US was not founded as a Christian country, look at how many of the founders were not at all religious in the standard evangelical sense. Two very famous are Jefferson and Franklin who were not at all religious).


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> If we adopt too much religion into law, which religion do we choose? Hindu, fundamental Protestant Christian, Fanatical Islam, other Islam sects, Sufi, Roman Catholic, Judiasim etc...........


The religion the laws are to be based on are for the voters to decide. But it's worth pointing out that in this gay marriage debate, the above mentioned religions are all pretty consistent on their stance. Specific interpretations of different religions mary vary widely, but more often than not, the guiding tenets are quite similar, and can be useful foundation for law.



MichaelS said:


> Keep your religious laws to yourself, live what your sect says, but don't make me live that way.


Well this is a two way street, just as you don't want religious laws you disagree with imposed on you, there are other people who don't want a secularist culture imposed on them. In many states, children are required as part of their education to learn about same sex relations, even if their parents disagree with the messages being sent. You can see on the other thread related to this pics of what was imposed on the public in Folsom, and I'm sure there are lots of parents who object to that being imposed on them and their families in a public place.

Just as you may feel that there are some people trying to tell you how to live, there are other people who feel they're being told how to think and feel about certain issues.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

omairp said:


> The religion the laws are to be based on are for the voters to decide. But it's worth pointing out that in this gay marriage debate, the above mentioned religions are all pretty consistent on their stance. Specific interpretations of different religions mary vary widely, but more often than not, the guiding tenets are quite similar, and can be useful foundation for law.


El wrongo.

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First...States_Constitution#Establishment_of_religion


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> El wrongo.
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First...States_Constitution#Establishment_of_religion


But it did make such a law. In fact, Mormons were almost wiped out because of their religious beliefs in 'plural marriage". Now Frank, of course, has said there is a "compelling interest" is stopping polygamy. He has yet to show me this data. So my point stands, the US government has indeed made laws that limit the practice of one's religion.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Laws making it a jailable offence for native americans to own,display or use native american religous objects were not ovedrturned until the 1970s


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> But it did make such a law. In fact, Mormons were almost wiped out because of their religious beliefs in 'plural marriage". Now Frank, of course, has said there is a "compelling interest" is stopping polygamy. He has yet to show me this data. So my point stands, the US government has indeed made laws that limit the practice of one's religion.


Personally I think if a man (or woman, in the interest of equality) can support more than one spouse and it causes no harm, I don't see the reason to not allow polygamy/polyandry, religion or not.

I have always wondered what happens when a Muslim from a country that allows plural marriage comes to the US. Is he "grandfathered" in to his marriages? Or does he have to divorce a wife or two? I think the US law against polygamy stands because no one has challenged it.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Attention All:

A great deal of what has been written in this thread is:

A] Wrong

B] Offensive

C] Wrong

D] Highly Offensive

E] Childish

F] Wrong

G] Immature

H] Wrong

I] Extremely Offensive

J] Wrong

So ... if you find it extremely offensive, wrong, immature, and totally lacking in factual basis as do I and the rest of the Moderators, WHY ARE YOU READING IT???

But more to the point, why are you forcing us to read it by selectively reporting posts with whose viewpoint you do not agree?

Here are two simple solutions, either of which will sit just fine with the Mod Squad:

1] Don't read the thread. 
2] If you insist upon reading the thread, *DON'T* report the posts. *DON'T *force us to read it. We have better sense ... and certainly have better things to do!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> But it did make such a law. In fact, Mormons were almost wiped out because of their religious beliefs in 'plural marriage". Now Frank, of course, has said there is a "compelling interest" is stopping polygamy. He has yet to show me this data.


Our courts, even our Supreme Court has made this determination, not me. These court decisions are available online, so kindly do your own homework.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> But more to the point, why are you forcing us to read it by selectively reporting posts with whose viewpoint you do not agree?
> 
> Here are two simple solutions, either of which will sit just fine with the Mod Squad:
> 
> ...


Because those posts are a violation of the forum rules.

_1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators. _

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_ask_andy_rules


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Our courts, even our Supreme Court has made this determination, not me. These court decisions are available online, so kindly do your own homework.


No Frank, SC opinions actually are not the final arbiter in what is correct and incorrect. Think about all the opinions by them you disagree with and ponder that.

*sigh* Sorry about this post and the last one, I forogt I had tossed in the towel on this thread. Please forgive an absent minded person.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> 2] If you insist upon reading the thread, *DON'T* report the posts. *DON'T *force us to read it. We have better sense ... and certainly have better things to do!


Alex, I'd love to know who's complaining about this thread. In fact, you might be interested in who I've heard from privately during these discussions, expressing gratitude and admiration for my posts.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Alex, I'd love to know who's complaining about this thread. In fact, you might be interested in who I've heard from privately during these discussions, expressing gratitude and admiration for my posts.


Frank, you keep talking about these private messages as if they're something important, so why don't you just spit it out if you really think they make a difference.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No Frank, SC opinions actually are not the final arbiter in what is correct and incorrect. Think about all the opinions by them you disagree with and ponder that.


Neither one of those statements have anything to do with anything. I said, correctly, that our courts have decided the state has shown a compelling interest in outlawing polygamy, and in denying marriage rights to polygamists. Everything beyond that is simply your usual sidestepping and straw men.[/quote]


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> Frank, you keep talking about these private messages as if they're something important, so why don't you just spit it out if you really think they make a difference.


Because doing so in this case is, as far as I know, against forum rules.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Because doing so in this case is, as far as I know, against forum rules.


So what you're trying to say here is... absoloutley nothing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> So what you're trying to say here is... absoloutley nothing.


To you? Yes, nothing. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> To you? Yes, nothing. :icon_smile_wink:


Well whoever this is directed at, I'm sure they're terrified and sweating bullets. We all know there's nothing more gut-wrenching than someone else on a web forum who got a nasty PM about you and can't say anything.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> Well whoever this is directed at, I'm sure they're terrified and sweating bullets. We all know there's nothing more gut-wrenching than someone else on a web forum who got a nasty PM about you and can't say anything.


Every one of the half dozen PMs I've received on this topic have expressed thanks and admiration. My comment to Alex was to Alex.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Every one of the half dozen PMs I've received on this topic have expressed thanks and admiration. My comment to Alex was to Alex.


Maybe that's because the people who disagree with you are willing to state it publicly! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Maybe that's because the people who disagree with you are willing to state it publicly! :icon_smile_big:


Amazing, isn't it? This is the one and only public discussion forum (of the half dozen I regularly participate in) that's stuck in the year 1950. Admittedly that has some charming aspects, but this definitely isn't one of them.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Because those posts are a violation of the forum rules.
> 
> _1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators. _
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_ask_andy_rules


So why is FrankDC still here?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> So why is FrankDC still here?


I'm here because I never start personal attacks. I'm here because I tolerate personal attacks from other AAAC members, including YOU, until they reach an absurd level, and then I start responding in kind.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Uh, Jews and Christians have been stoning gay people to death, burning them in oil, lynching them and otherwise persecuting them for thousands of years. Our current Pope claims physical violence against gays "should be expected".
> 
> Why? Well, because hate crimes in this case equates to "God's Word".
> 
> As for San Francisco, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Your first post in this thread. Shall I continue? It really has been one long flame for you.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Amazing, isn't it? This is the one and only public discussion forum (of the half dozen I regularly participate in) that's stuck in the year 1950. Admittedly that has some charming aspects, but this definitely isn't one of them.


Would you prefer that people state openly that they are not in favor of gay marriage, and that they find the actions of gay people who practice religious bigotry to be offensive -- or would you prefer that people refuse to speak out on their beliefs out of fear of not being PC?

I think one thing that you're missing is that the vast majority of people who are against gay marriage and/or don't think that it's a particularly good lifestyle, don't necessarily have anything against you as a person. They would gladly help you out if you were in need of something, dine at the same table with you, etc. This is in sharp contrast to my experience with those on the left, the supposedly open minded folks, who often will refuse to associate with those who have not gone through the process of PC thought cleansing.

One thing I'll think you'll find is that people have no problem with what you do on your own time - what they do have a problem with is being forced to be a part of it. Think back to Ellen -- believe it or not, there are some people who think she's funny (I could never figure out why), but she lost a lot of fans when the only thing she could talk about was being a lesbian.

If gays want some sort of marriage arrangement, that can be handled with a series of legal paperwork. No need to disrupt the rest of society to create a special form of marriage just to cater to a newly discovered "right". At the same time, the gay community should realize that while they may consider offending the religious sensibilities of others to be hip and edgy, all it does it make everyone pause to wonder why they should give a damn about a bunch of people who are so incredibly self-centered that they run around offending others, while demanding that people make a major societal change to make them feel happier about themselves.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Your first post in this thread. Shall I continue? It really has been one long flame for you.


What part of my post was a personal attack, or was incorrect? Are you claiming the RCC hasn't been persecuting homosexuals for thousands of years? Are you saying that stoning gay people to death, as instructed in the Bible isn't considered a hate crime by today's standards? Is telling a person who says he doesn't like SF to stay out of SF a personal attack?


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Are you claiming the RCC hasn't been persecuting homosexuals for thousands of years?


Actually, last I checked, there weren't roving packs of Catholic clergy looking for gay people to persecute.

Wait, there's something outside.

Nevermind, it was just a cat.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Would you prefer that people state openly that they are not in favor of gay marriage, and that they find the actions of gay people who practice religious bigotry to be offensive -- or would you prefer that people refuse to speak out on their beliefs out of fear of not being PC?
> 
> I think one thing that you're missing is that the vast majority of people who are against gay marriage and/or don't think that it's a particularly good lifestyle, don't necessarily have anything against you as a person. They would gladly help you out if you were in need of something, dine at the same table with you, etc. This is in sharp contrast to my experience with those on the left, the supposedly open minded folks, who often will refuse to associate with those who have not gone through the process of PC thought cleansing.
> 
> ...


Well that post really does speak for itself. You have a real knack for speaking for "vast majorities", without the slightest clue of what you're talking about. Open your brain a little, and instead of believing wacko right-wing propaganda and scare tactics, do some research into what has _actually happened_ in countries that have recognized same-sex marriages and civil unions.

No disruptions of society have taken place. In fact no one except gay people have noticed any changes at all. And why should they? Do you believe people have started marrying their pets in these countries? Or that polygamy has been legalized? Etc.

Barney Frank asked the question before Congress over 10 years ago, and no one has answered his question: How does the fact that two men love each other. and wish to commit themselves to each other in marriage, affect YOUR marriage? Be specific and tell us, please. I'd love to know.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Barney Frank asked the question before Congress over 10 years ago, and no one has answered his question: How does the fact that two men love each other. and wish to commit themselves to each other in marriage, affect YOUR marriage? Be specific and tell us, please. I'd love to know.


It's not about MY marriage. It's about MY society.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> It's not about MY marriage. It's about MY society.


What you mean is, traditional gay bashing Christian hetero society.

If you believe homosexuality is immoral you have an obligation to push for laws to outlaw it. In the meantime, there are no laws against it. It's an acceptable part of YOUR society.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> What you mean is, traditional gay bashing Christian hetero society.
> 
> If you believe homosexuality is immoral you have an obligation to push for laws to outlaw it. In the meantime, there are no laws against it. It's an acceptable part of YOUR society.


Actually, I have no such obligation. I'm perfectly fine with letting gay people do whatever they want, I simply have no desire for it to be an endorsed practice. What you fail to grasp is that most people are willing to live and let live, but that doesn't mean that they're going to cater to your every demand.

Frankly, I'd be more in favor of granting the mormons polygamy. You'd be hard pressed to find any actions that were sanctioned by the Church of LDS that ever cause any great harm or offense.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Actually, I have no such obligation. I'm perfectly fine with letting gay people do whatever they want, I simply have no desire for it to be an endorsed practice.


You keep missing the point. Society has already endorsed homosexuality by repealing laws which made it illegal. It's no longer your place to "endorse" the "practice".


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Society has already *endorsed* homosexuality by repealing laws which made it illegal.


Endorsing it implies that it's being encouraged. I've heard Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell accuse the government is encouraging homosexuality, now you have the honor of being added to that list. You're confusing legality with morality. If you really think they are one and the same, maybe G.W. should be your spiritual leader.



FrankDC said:


> It's no longer your place to "endorse" the "practice".


He's speaking on behalf of himself, so he has the right to endorse or not endorse the practice. Your statement implies that he is wrong for having an opinion on this issue.

You're post reminds me of an old quote from The Simpsons:
_Rev. Lovejoy: Once the government approves something, it's no longer immoral!_

Getting back to the OP, you continually accuse everyone of gay bashing, yet you're first post was in defense of gays bashing Christians and desecrating religious symbols. Surely you can see the inconsistency there. Please feel free to trot out the "two wrongs make a right" argument again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> Endorsing it implies that it's being encouraged. I've heard Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell accuse the government is encouraging homosexuality, now you have the honor of being added to that list. You're confusing legality with morality. If you really think they are one and the same, maybe G.W. should be your spiritual leader.


14 pages of discussion and references, and apparently you haven't learned anything. Sexual orientation cannot be "encouraged". That's as true for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals.



omairp said:


> He's speaking on behalf of himself, so he has the right to endorse or not endorse the practice. Your statement implies that he is wrong for having an opinion on this issue.


He's not speaking for himself. He's speaking for "his" society.

Of course each of us the right to live as we see fit. The issue here is this "defense of marriage" nonsense, and the limiting of civil rights on one entire class of American by another entire class.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

gar1013 said:


> It's not about MY marriage. It's about MY society.


How does it negatively affect your society?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> Actually, I have no such obligation. I'm perfectly fine with letting gay people do whatever they want, I simply have no desire for it to be an endorsed practice. What you fail to grasp is that most people are willing to live and let live, but that doesn't mean that they're going to cater to your every demand.
> 
> Frankly, I'd be more in favor of granting the mormons polygamy. You'd be hard pressed to find any actions that were sanctioned by the Church of LDS that ever cause any great harm or offense.


That's right... live and let live. How would you know if the gay couple down the street is married or not? How do you know if the hetero couple down the street is married or not? It's none of your business. Tend to your own garden before you start digging in someone else's. Your whole argument against gay marriage, and all those who oppose it, is a boogeyman; it's totally groundless.


----------

