Cantab's rant

wheresthebeef

i went to a school run by a religious order, and i had an excellent education there. i am very fond of my school, and wouldnt not hesitate to send my children there.

three words Cantab: incitement of hatred.
Some day the catholic church will meet those words in a court of law.

Cantab.

wheresthebeef wrote:

i went to a school run by a religious order, and i had an excellent education there. i am very fond of my school, and wouldnt not hesitate to send my children there.

three words Cantab: incitement of hatred.
Some day the catholic church will meet those words in a court of law.

The Catholic Church does not hate anybody. If you're so confident about 'incitement to hatred', why don't you take out a test case.

shay_562

Just like you have chosen your own lifestyle.

There are others who can rant far more eloquently and far more effectively than me about this, but in short - unlike religion, sexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice", and suggesting otherwise displays and ignorance that would be pitiable if it weren't so harmful.

The Catholic Church does not hate anybody.

The worst part is that you actually believe this.

In an effort to stay remotely on-topic: to reply to the other part of Cantab's post, yes, I'd avoid sending my kids to a Catholic school on the grounds that I think religious education should be taken care of by the individual family, not by a body that's supposed to be teaching kids about important stuff like reading and maths, and instead wastes the better part of two years of primary school on communions and confirmations. And no, I don't think that's bigoted - opting to send children to one school over another on the grounds that one will give them a better education is a fairly sensible choice, based on which course of action is best for the child as opposed to any kind of intolerance.

Boston

Cantab. wrote:

I went to an all boys school (St. Paul's, Dublin 5) and had a great time. There were no distractions from girls and we played lots of sport. Academic success was the primary focus built on tradition and vincentian values.

I went to TCD to do engineering (95% men!) and joined a mens sports club. And I'm not gay and still go to Mass every sunday.

I went to an all Boys school, just down the road from pauls, There where no distractions from girls either. I'm currently at TCD doing engineering (90% men now) and I've joined several manly sports clubs. Spoting a thrend.?

Cantab. wrote:

So, if by some miracle of God you had children of your own, you'd refuse to send them to a Catholic school? Isn't this just as bigoted?

No it is not, since you're entilted to raise you children in whatever believe system you want, even on a regressive, stiffled and down right backwards as the catholic religion. Oh and if he has kids it won't be thanks to your god.

Just like you have chosen your own lifestyle.

It's a choice for most akin to happiness Vs Mysery. Not really a choice then.

From what I gathered from many gay friends of mine

I doubt you have many gay friends, merely because being involved with a gay person to a level of intimacy wher you called them friend, would to tantamounth to condoning homosexuality, and as you've stated you don't. Also i doubt anybody would be up for a round of "Why I believe you're wrong, and how you're going to burn in hell".

Cantab.

Homosexuals may or may not be born homosexual, may or may not become homosexual as a result of the environment they find themselves in, may or may not become homosexual as a result of the friends they hang around with, etc., etc.

Sociologists, neurologists, psychics, even the homosexuals themselves, will bandy about ideas until the cows come home. Ultimately, homosexuals desire to bum each other and, right or wrong, I don't think we'll ever know just why humans have a desire to do this.

Conclusive reasoning as to whether one can be born homosexual or not would be most enlightening though. It might even be a revalation to the majority of people in the world whose religous authorities condemn homosexual acts.

Boston

Cantab. wrote:

Homosexuals may or may not be born homosexual, may or may not become homosexual as a result of the environment they find themselves in, may or may not become homosexual as a result of the friends they hang around with, etc., etc.

Sociologists, neurologists, psychics, even the homosexuals themselves, will bandy about ideas until the cows come home. Ultimately, homosexuals desire to bum each other and, right or wrong, I don't think we'll ever know just why humans have a desire to do this.

Conclusive reasoning as to whether one can be born homosexual or not would be most enlightening though. It might even be a revalation to the majority of people in the world whose religous authorities condemn homosexual acts.

Can someone be born a killer? I believe so. It seems preverse and replusive to think god would do such a thing, but I believe he does. If you believe that God would never create a killer, but that it is merely mans own doing, then why are people born with sin, why arn't they born perfect like christ. To murder is just another sin after all.

Cantab.

LiouVille wrote:

Can someone be born a killer? I believe so. It seems preverse and replusive to think god would do such a thing, but I believe he does. If you believe that God would never create a killer, but that it is merely mans own doing, then why are people born with sin, why arn't they born perfect like christ. To murder is just another sin after all.

Can someone be born a killer? I'm not sure. Nobody is 100% sure. Your 'belief' that someone can is as good as any other man's belief that they can't.

You talk about one of the greatest theological questions that is: "Why did God create the world at all if there is to be so much suffering?" And many atheists/nihilists/whatever pass-off biblical creation and indeed the existence of God on such philosophical grounds.

But you must ask how God could allow for love without the potential for evil? God could have created robots that do nothing more than forever say, "I love you, I love you, I love you." Such beings would be incapable of any kind of real love. Love is a choice, and the Bible says that God desires a real love relationship with His creation. Love is not real unless we have the ability to not love.

God knew that in a world with much choice, there would be much evil: to choose not to love is evil by definition. However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga once wrote that "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good".

The potential for love outweighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love. Suffering and death are a side effect of evil.

Of course if you refute the existence of God, you won't find much truth in the above, although you might get some insight as to where Christians come from.

Cantab.

Barry Aldwell wrote:

I went to Pauls, then the Institute for 6th year (which I found to be a very open, accepting environment), and then on to engineering in TCD (about 80 to 85% male in my class). I am involved in clubs and other organisations which are 90+% men.

Fair play to ye.

Barry Aldwell wrote:

I am a heterosexual, and an athiest, and unlike cantab I believe in the christian moral of acceptance of all people, whatever their lifestyle, provided they live within the confines of civil law.

Mmm. So morality is determined by a set of laws? Effectively what you're proposing is that morality is a function of the latest referendum or latest opinion from the courts? Who's to say that one day we will persecute Jews because the majority say so. Is this right? (It was in Hitler's time)

Cantab.

LiouVille wrote:

No it is not, since you're entilted to raise you children in whatever believe system you want, even on a regressive, stiffled and down right backwards as the catholic religion.

Well that sums up your attitude problem. You obviously know better that the Catholic Church.

LiouVille wrote:

Oh and if he has kids it won't be thanks to your god.

No matter how many laws and equality measures that are implemented, the ultra-advanced form of civilisation that is the gay couple can never share in the same level of intimacy between a man and his pregnant wife.

LiouVille wrote:

It's a choice for most akin to happiness Vs Mysery. Not really a choice then.

It's certainly a choice for persons with a fancy for pre-pubescent girls.

LiouVille wrote:

I doubt you have many gay friends, merely because being involved with a gay person to a level of intimacy wher you called them friend, would to tantamounth to condoning homosexuality, and as you've stated you don't. Also i doubt anybody would be up for a round of "Why I believe you're wrong, and how you're going to burn in hell".

Actually I do know gay people. Do you know any Catholics? And the fact that they dabble in intamacy with other men doesn't really bother me that much to be quite honest. I'm sure you have no problem with the fact that I go to Mass on Sundays either? You refute the way I live my life under God. I refute elements of your life. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the morality of homosexual behaviour.

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

No matter how many laws and equality measures that are implemented, the ultra-advanced form of civilisation that is the gay couple can never share in the same level of intimacy between a man and his pregnant wife.

With respect.
Thats a very ignorant statement to make just because you may have had a failed Gay relationship or two.

If you havent well you're just expressing an opinion with no basis in fact.
If you have had failed Gay relationships, then theres no basis either for the definitive conclusion you are expressing, as the conclusion you have came to could easily have arisen out of a myriad of other failings that you may have yourself.
I'm assuming you have had such failures as that could be the only fathomable explanation for your sweeping statement there.
It would have to be said that logically its quite wrong of you to state it as a fact though in either case.

I've never had time for sweeping statements.You might want to rethink that one as the first thing that jumps out from it is prejudice which by the way is also more than a tad inconsistant aswell given that you've just been complaining about someones distaste for catholicism probably because they are prejudiced against it.
Theres a crucial difference though, their opinion (Liouiville in this case) looks like its based on experience of catholicism, your prejudice doesnt appear to have any basis at all in experience.

BuffyBot

No matter how many laws and equality measures that are implemented, the ultra-advanced form of civilisation that is the gay couple can never share in the same level of intimacy between a man and his pregnant wife.

God help straight couples with fertility problems then...

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

Sociologists, neurologists, psychics, even the homosexuals themselves, will bandy about ideas until the cows come home. Ultimately, homosexuals desire to bum each other and, right or wrong, I don't think we'll ever know just why humans have a desire to do this.

Right or wrong? Do you have any non-religious reasons that it might be wrong? Remember, these are consenting adults.

Cantab. wrote:

Conclusive reasoning as to whether one can be born homosexual or not would be most enlightening though. It might even be a revalation to the majority of people in the world whose religous authorities condemn homosexual acts.

Fundamentalists are generally impervious to logic.

I personally am very much inclined to think that it may be bio-determined. I'm very sceptical of the psychology theory; after all, homosexuality occurs even in relatively stupid animals, like penguins.

Enigma365

The idea of being born gay is very interesting. I wonder could we extend this idea and ask, can one be born a paedophile, can one be born a necrophiliac, can one be born with a desire to have sex with other species?

I guess it is not unreasonable to ask if people can be born with an inherent attraction to kids/animals/corpses, when we are asking if people can be born with inherent attractions to those of the same sex.

I have plenty of sympathy for people who are afflicted with an attraction to kids for example. However, the ones who choose to act on these feelings are abusing children and must without question go to prison.

The other distinction I would bring up is that gay people have an attraction to those of the same sex that is both romantic and sexual. Are paedophiles romantically attracted to kids, or just sexually?

So you're open to the possiblity that the homosexual mind is akin to that of the paedophile's, the necrophile's and the man who wants to have sex with animals?

No more or less than the possiblity that the heterosexual mind is akin to the minds of those you have listed. I'm not sure why you are differentiating between the homosexual mind and the heterosexual mind, on this point(although I'm guessing it's related to your personal reglious/moral feelings towards homosexuals and not science, which is what we are discussing).

Cantab.

Earthman wrote:

With respect.
Thats a very ignorant statement to make just because you may have had a failed Gay relationship or two.

I can't say I've ever had the urge to jump into bed with a man now.

Earthman wrote:

If you havent well you're just expressing an opinion with no basis in fact.
If you have had failed Gay relationships, then theres no basis either for the definitive conclusion you are expressing, as the conclusion you have came to could easily have arisen out of a myriad of other failings that you may have yourself.
I'm assuming you have had such failures as that could be the only fathomable explanation for your sweeping statement there.
It would have to be said that logically its quite wrong of you to state it as a fact though in either case.

I never purported to it being fact. Fact is, I just do not see how the intimate and procreative bond between male and female can be miraculously re-enacted by a set of man-made laws and equality measures.

Earthman wrote:

I've never had time for sweeping statements.You might want to rethink that one as the first thing that jumps out from it is prejudice which by the way is also more than a tad inconsistant aswell given that you've just been complaining about someones distaste for catholicism probably because they are prejudiced against it.
Theres a crucial difference though, their opinion (Liouiville in this case) looks like its based on experience of catholicism, your prejudice doesnt appear to have any basis at all in experience.

What brings you to the conclusion that I am 'prejudiced'? Is it because I don't conform to some 'liberal consensus'? Have you ever acknowledged that the gay lobby is itself a dogma?

And are you implying that anyone who wants to voice their feelings any issue to do with gays must have kissed another man? How about gay marriage referendums that only gays can vote in? or maybe immigration laws that only immigrants can vote in? motoring laws that only motorists can vote in? Child protection measures that only paediophiles can vote in?
An absurd and completely unworkable way to run any fair society.

Stark

Cantab wrote:

And are you implying that anyone who wants to voice their feelings any issue to do with gays must have kissed another man? How about gay marriage referendums that only gays can vote in? or maybe immigration laws that only immigrants can vote in? motoring laws that only motorists can vote in? Child protection measures that only paediophiles can vote in?
An absurd and completely unworkable way to run any fair society.
Cantab.

Basically:

If I wanted to know what it felt like to drive a car, I'd ask a motorist rather than someone who's never driven a car.
If I wanted to know what it was like to live in Nigeria, I'd ask a Nigerian rather than an Irishperson.
If I wanted to know what children thought of a particular tv show, I'd try to get an opinion from the kids themselves rather a randomer.

And following on from that trend,

If I wanted to know what it felt like for a gay man to kiss another man, I'd ask a gay man who'd kissed a man.

That's the jist of what Earthman is saying.

UU

Enigma365 wrote:

I guess it is not unreasonable to ask if people can be born with an inherent attraction to kids/animals/corpses, when we are asking if people can be born with inherent attractions to those of the same sex.

I have plenty of sympathy for people who are afflicted with an attraction to kids for example. However, the ones who choose to act on these feelings are abusing children and must without question go to prison.

The other distinction I would bring up is that gay people have an attraction to those of the same sex that is both romantic and sexual. Are paedophiles romantically attracted to kids, or just sexually?

I think neither romantically or sexually. It seems to me that paedophilia is more about power and dominance than anything else. I think it is because the paedophile knows that raping a child will damage him/her permanently mentally and by putting scars and fear over the child, therefore the paedophile can control the child. I don't think paedophilia has anything got to do with sexuality - it's in its own boat. I believe the reason why paedophile Catholic priests raped boys over girls is because they were around boys more. If they were around girls I think they would rape them too and have done so.

As for psychology for homosexuality, I think it should be banned. In America many traditional Jewish families especially as well as Christian, have tried bringing their teenage offspring to psychologists to "cure" homosexuality but it is very wrong.

Enigma365

It seems to me that paedophilia is more about power and dominance than anything else. I think it is because the paedophile knows that raping a child will damage him/her permanently mentally and by putting scars and fear over the child, therefore the paedophile can control the child.

I'm far from an expert on the subject but I don't think it is as simple as that.
But to be honest I know very little on this subject and I am not overly inclined to defend paedophiles so whatever.

I do believe however that there may be those out there who have feelings of sexual attraction to children but are strong enough to never act on them. If such people exist, I would not consider them evil human beings.

Stark

I don't think it's a simple case of power either and while I'm sure there are purely evil people who do wish to deliberately abuse children (going on many reports from people who were abused by the Catholic church as children), there are the others who are simply weak. There have been first person reports from paedophiles who claim to have romantic feelings towards children as well as sexual. "Lolita", though a work of fiction, is a pretty good description of what can go through the mind of a paedophile and the path of the slippery slope.

By the way, like Enigma365, I wouldn't consider a paedophile to be evil if they restrained themselves from acting on their feelings. In fact, I would have nothing but the deepest sympathy for that person.

UU

Well perhaps you're right. Maybe paedophiles do have attractions for children both sexually and romantically but it is certainly about power and dominance over the weak and helpless child that provokes these terrible acts. I too would have sympathy for anybody with feelings for children in this way but not really for those who act upon them, especially in a very abusive manner. Although, many people forget that it isn't just some Catholic priests who have committed such atrocities - fathers, neighbours and anyone else have too, including Protestant reverends but on a lower scale of course as they can marry and procreate. But yes I do think there exists some strong link between paedophilia and enforced celibacy within the Catholic Church. I'm actually rather annoyed at the higher powers of the Church for not doing something about these known abuses by clergy. instead the f***ers just moved them to another parish where they can start all over again. Anyway, sorry for going a bit off-topic!

I think sexuality is a funny thing. For example, my uncle who is gay has fancied so many fellas but he actually had sexual feelings a while ago for his female Australian friend. This is the only time in his life he had a heterosexual feeling - perhaps many of us carry some hidden bisexual feelings which we are quite unaware of? Although I haven't fancied any females but only males so at present I'm certain I'm gay but if I start fancying girls, it would be rather awkward for me!

Boston

Cantab. wrote:

Well that sums up your attitude problem. You obviously know better that the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has been proven wrong more times then me.

No matter how many laws and equality measures that are implemented, the ultra-advanced form of civilisation that is the gay couple can never share in the same level of intimacy between a man and his pregnant wife.

You're a father then I take it.

It's certainly a choice for persons with a fancy for pre-pubescent girls.

paedophilia isn't a sexuality. Imho, and I’m not willing to get into a debate about it.

Actually I do know gay people. Do you know any Catholics? And the fact that they dabble in intamacy with other men doesn't really bother me that much to be quite honest. I'm sure you have no problem with the fact that I go to Mass on Sundays either? You refute the way I live my life under God. I refute elements of your life. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the morality of homosexual behaviour.

I know Catholics, some are fukwits, some are gay fukwits, some genuinely find it hard to reconcile the teachings of the church with there knowledge that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I knew a guy who would drink and whore all day and night, get into fights and hurt people, but it was all ok cause he could go to mass on sunday and all was forgiven.

Also I notice we've moved on from Homosexuality to homosexual behaviour, I guess metro sexuals are a big no no also.

As for the Catholic Church and morality, I think there’s a fundamental flaw in the notion that morality can be truly though in an artificial environment such as a class room. I had civics classes, and religion classes. Civics classes though the art of being PC, i.e. hold whatever opinion you like, once outwardly you say the right things and be non-offensive. Religion classes thought me the morality of letting millions die because condoms are a sin.* Morality comes for most people from family and friends, not religion anymore.

*Reminds me of a religion sex ED class I had. “Jenny got aids because Billy’s a Bi-sexual”.

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

Right or wrong? Do you have any non-religious reasons that it might be wrong? Remember, these are consenting adults.

Wrong in a moral sense. Logically, there are no arguments that would condemn any action as being immoral. Actions including murder, stealing and rape.
Have you ever wondered, from a metaphysical perspective, as to the validity of logic? Have you ever heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? And if logic can be used to reason everything in the universe, why then the great controversies of logic, namely: Bivalence and the law of the excluded middle, Tolerating the impossible, Implication: strict or material?, and Is logic empirical?

And since when is absolute truth determined solely by logic? What about theology, science, philosophy, politics, history? Logically, you might wonder about the long-term health implications of anal penetration.

rsynnott wrote:

Fundamentalists are generally impervious to logic.

The implication being I'm probably now a 'right-wing fundamentalist'. Put your branding iron away and get down off your politically correct band-wagon.

rsynnott wrote:

I personally am very much inclined to think that it may be bio-determined. I'm very sceptical of the psychology theory; after all, homosexuality occurs even in relatively stupid animals, like penguins.

A common pro-homosexuality argument is that because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral. However, there is more evidence that the criminal mind is genetic than there is for the homosexual mind. When we apply the same reasoning, we would then have to approve of criminal behaviour because it appears to occur naturally in some individuals. Likewise, gluttony and alcoholism are attributed to the physiology of the individual, yet we don’t see people who have the predisposition to overeat, or get drunk, demanding that society embrace these ills. All of us are born with the potential to sin, albeit in different ways.

Furthermore, an individual can only give their unsupported opinion that any given action is 'moral' or 'immoral', hence, the evidence for moral relativism that is found when one examines moral codes of different cultures and different individuals. One culture finds it morally acceptable to sacrifice its children to its god; another finds the same thing reprehensible. One individual sees nothing morally wrong in eating the meat of an animal; another views the human carnivore as primitive and barbaric. Morality, without the concept of God, can only be subjective opinion.

Cantab.

Stark wrote:

Basically:

If I wanted to know what it felt like to drive a car, I'd ask a motorist rather than someone who's never driven a car.
If I wanted to know what it was like to live in Nigeria, I'd ask a Nigerian rather than an Irishperson.
If I wanted to know what children thought of a particular tv show, I'd try to get an opinion from the kids themselves rather a randomer.

And following on from that trend,

If I wanted to know what it felt like for a gay man to kiss another man, I'd ask a gay man who'd kissed a man.

That's the jist of what Earthman is saying.

No not really. Perhaps Earthman can speak for himself? What I was trying to get across was that you don't have to have first-hand experience in something in order to voice an opinion. i.e. my vote is as good as yours.

Yes, if I wanted to know 'what it felt like to drive a car', I'd 'ask a motorist', but I don't see what that has to do with the original point...

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

Wrong in a moral sense. Logically, there are no arguments that would condemn any action as being immoral. Actions including murder, stealing and rape.

Tsk. Those things do harm to other people. As a species, it is not good for us to harm each other. Homosexuality harms no-one. Try harder next time.

Cantab. wrote:

Logically, you might wonder about the long-term health implications of anal penetration.

Are you referring to HIV, or something altogether odder? All homosexuals, in any case, do not have anal sex, while many heterosexuals do.

Cantab. wrote:

The implication being I'm probably now a 'right-wing fundamentalist'. Put your branding iron away and get down off your politically correct band-wagon.

Nope, I was talking about those 'majority who believe homosexuality to be wrong due to priestly ramblings'. Read back.

Cantab. wrote:

A common pro-homosexuality argument is that because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral.

Not my argument. I simply have issue with these people who go on about homosexuality being a choice, or, even worse, a 'lifestyle choice'. An open-plan kitchen is a lifestyle choice; homosexuality is not. I never signed any form, that I know of

But since homosexuality seems to be natural, and HURTS NOBODY, why not consider it moral? Really, I'm fascinated.

(Incidentally, does anyone remember a highly disturbing Dr Seuss book involving predestination?)

Cantab.

LiouVille wrote:

The Catholic Church has been proven wrong more times then me.

Examples? You'll find the Catholic Church has never been proven wrong on matters of faith.

LiouVille wrote:

You're a father then I take it.

Not really sure what you mean by that. Moving on...

LiouVille wrote:

paedophilia isn't a sexuality. Imho, and I’m not willing to get into a debate about it.

So because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral? Who's to say that paedophilia doesn't occur naturally and therefore we should all accept it as being morally ok? If you don't want to debate any further then fine.

LiouVille wrote:

I know Catholics, some are fukwits, some are gay fukwits, some genuinely find it hard to reconcile the teachings of the church with there knowledge that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

If they are Catholics, then I hope, for their sake, that they aren't taking the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist.

I wonder if they weren't Catholic would you refer to them as being 'fukwits'?

LiouVille wrote:

I knew a guy who would drink and whore all day and night, get into fights and hurt people, but it was all ok cause he could go to mass on sunday and all was forgiven.

That's a very simplistic outlook on the Sacrament of Penance. Being truly sorry for your sins should go without saying but the contrition for sins must be genuine. The priest gies everyone the benefit of the doubt, but no-one can fool God. If a man confesses the sin of adultery but isn't sorry; just sorry that he got caught, then none of his sins are absolved, venial or mortal, because he made a bad confession. Verbal confession must coincide with interior contrition for the sin.

LiouVille wrote:

Also I notice we've moved on from Homosexuality to homosexual behaviour, I guess metro sexuals are a big no no also.

Secularists teach that there is no restrictive sexual morality, as long as the sexual action in question is taking place between consenting adults. Traditional Christian morality, on the other hand, defines any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman as immoral. According to secularism, therefore, a person can be as promiscuous as he or she wants and still be a moral person so as long as he or she is not 'hurting' anyone (of course this definition of 'hurt' conveniently avoids having to analyse the impact of the collective actions of individuals on society, which may indeed result in a culture that will prove harmful to its members). Twenty or thirty one-night/no-commitment stands? Hey, no problem. Getting drunk at a party and swallowing the sperm of three or four men? Yup, you're still a respectable and moral person. Riiiiight. As far as I'm concerned, secular morality is a lie.

LiouVille wrote:

As for the Catholic Church and morality, I think there’s a fundamental flaw in the notion that morality can be truly though in an artificial environment such as a class room.

Oh so teaching the doctrine of the Church in a class room is a problem?
I wonder is the teaching of theology and ethics to students in the great Catholic universities/schools around the world also as problematic? You're a progressive sort aren't you? How about we have continuous assessment or oral exams to take the stress off the poor students...

LiouVille wrote:

I had civics classes, and religion classes. Civics classes though the art of being PC, i.e. hold whatever opinion you like, once outwardly you say the right things and be non-offensive.

Ah yes, well 'right things' and 'non-offensive' things smells of moral relativism to me. The basic proposition of such civics classes is substantively secular and relativist, and at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Such 'religous education' would logically produce secularised, sceptical, individualistic relativists with little reason to bother belonging to the Catholic Church, or any other religious group. (Thank 'god' I hear you cheer).

The assumption that world religions can be taught in a way which is compatible with "religious education" is not realistic. The popular strategy of religious education is one where there is no recognition of a Creator God and no recognition that this God revealed anything or influences human affairs. 'Religion' comes only from the human community and the cosmos and being 'religous' is reduced to living by the arbitrary value-system of 'religion'. Individual religions are expressions in particular communities of this universal 'religion'. All religions are of equal value, there are no objective truths of faith or morals, so all religious beliefs, valuses and practices are subject to continual change based on human experience.

LiouVille wrote:

Religion classes thought me the morality of letting millions die because condoms are a sin.*

As you probably know the Church advocates NFP (Natural Family Planning). Your statement that the Catholic Church are 'letting millions die' is absurd: What you conveniently ignore is that a huge percentage of HIV/AIDS are as the result of wars (rape, prostitution), abject poverty (prostitution) and imprisonment. The family is central to the Catholic way of life as it promotes a sense of belonging and community. Of course we don't live in an ideal world and the Church tries it's best to put things on track and promote sustainable, christian, peaceful and loving life in Africa despite the huge political barriers. In South Africa for example the Catholic Church is the largest provider of home-based care for the sick, of palliative care for the dying, and of care and support for AIDS orphans after the state itself.

LiouVille wrote:

Morality comes for most people from family and friends, not religion anymore.

Individual morality? Mmm. Like an individual knows better than any of the Christian communions. Well these individuals, families and friends can search for happiness through their individual moral frameworks, but ultimately they are probably just shallow consumers in a never-ending world of individual pursuit of pleasure. I pray for such people.

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

But since homosexuality ... HURTS NOBODY...

Secular Humanism teaches that any action, which involves the voluntary consent of two or more individuals, should be accepted as long as it does not violate 'the rights' of any other individual(s). However, this definition fails to weigh the rights of the individual against the welfare of society as a whole.

For example, an individual is granted the right of free speech (both gays and Catholics!), but he is not allowed to shout 'fire!' in a theater, unless there is a fire. He is not allowed to jeopardise matters of national security by revealing secrets to which he may have access. If he is a Cathoic teacher, he is not allowed to initiate prayer in a Islamic school, because the non-endorsement of Catholicism by the Islamic authorities takes precedence over the rights of an individual's free speech.

It is also the law, that an individual has to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet, not only for their own safety, but for the safety of others and to keep insurance rates low all.

Therefore, exceptions to secular humanism's definition of morality exclude those actions that speak for the welfare of society, and that place that welfare above the rights of the individual - an extreme example of this is abortion where the individual right of a woman is above that of all the children she chooses to abort or in China, where a woman must have an abortion if she has more than one child for the 'common good of society' or else pay a massive fine.

Anyway the Catholic Church is not going to turn around one day and say all sexaul endeavours bar rape are now morally ok as long as no individual nor society gets hurt. The position with regard to homosexual behaviour (my humble interpretation) is that homosexual unions lack the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family and do not contribute to survival of the human race. They are contrary to the natural moral order and revelation. And whilst the homosexual person requires to be treated with compassion and sensitivity, the homosexual inclination remains objectively disordered.

Can homosexuals be born homosexual? I guess the answer is we don't know. One thing is for certain though: and that is that the strength and resolve of good Catholics all over the world to oppose the normalisation of homosexual behaviour whether it is through prayer, discussion, education, debate, voting or politics whilst maintaining respect and love for all humans.

Stark

Cantab wrote:

Secular Humanism teaches that any action, which involves the voluntary consent of two or more individuals, should be accepted as long as it does not violate 'the rights' of any other individual(s). However, this definition fails to weigh the rights of the individual against the welfare of society as a whole.

For example, an individual is granted the right of free speech (both gays and Catholics!), but he is not allowed to shout 'fire!' in a theater, unless there is a fire. He is not allowed to jeopardise matters of national security by revealing secrets to which he may have access. If he is a Cathoic teacher, he is not allowed to initiate prayer in a Islamic school, because the non-endorsement of Catholicism by the Islamic authorities takes precedence over the rights of an individual's free speech.

It is also the law, that an individual has to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet, not only for their own safety, but for the safety of others and to keep insurance rates low all.

Okay, you say that just because something doesn't hurt anyone doesn't make it ago, but the examples you cite all involve someone hurting another individual/society in an indirect way. The only harm you attribute to homosexuality is that we're not "contributing" to the survival of the human race. It's not like the world faces the danger of underpopulation at the moment. If we don't engage in homosexual acts, that doesn't mean we're going to get married and raise families. In fact if we did so, then that would definitely be wrong as we'd be living a lie and hurting whomever we choose to take as wives/husbands(girls) in the process.

The government does make exceptions to the "if it doesn't hurt anyone it's okay" rule of thumb. Examples such as making cannabis use illegal spring to mind. But I think that's just bull**** on their part.

Stark

Cantab wrote:

No not really. Perhaps Earthman can speak for himself? What I was trying to get across was that you don't have to have first-hand experience in something in order to voice an opinion. i.e. my vote is as good as yours.

You can voice an opinion, but don't expect people to value it.

Cantab wrote:

So because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral? Who's to say that paedophilia doesn't occur naturally and therefore we should all accept it as being morally ok? If you don't want to debate any further then fine.

The dividing issue is one of consent. Paedophilic acts are wrong because the child is not old enough to consent and they cause untold trauma to the child. However, I wouldn't consider simply being a paedophile to be morally wrong.

Cantab wrote:

Secularists teach that there is no restrictive sexual morality, as long as the sexual action in question is taking place between consenting adults. Traditional Christian morality, on the other hand, defines any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman as immoral. According to secularism, therefore, a person can be as promiscuous as he or she wants and still be a moral person so as long as he or she is not 'hurting' anyone (of course this definition of 'hurt' conveniently avoids having to analyse the impact of the collective actions of individuals on society, which may indeed result in a culture that will prove harmful to its members). Twenty or thirty one-night/no-commitment stands? Hey, no problem. Getting drunk at a party and swallowing the sperm of three or four men? Yup, you're still a respectable and moral person. Riiiiight. As far as I'm concerned, secular morality is a lie.

While I don't argue with your knowledge of Church teachings, we're generally secularists here. As for the more lurid examples in your post, it's not my place to judge.

Cantab wrote:

As you probably know the Church advocates NFP (Natural Family Planning). Your statement that the Catholic Church are 'letting millions die' is absurd: What you conveniently ignore is that a huge percentage of HIV/AIDS are as the result of wars (rape, prostitution), abject poverty (prostitution) and imprisonment. The family is central to the Catholic way of life as it promotes a sense of belonging and community. Of course we don't live in an ideal world and the Church tries it's best to put things on track and promote sustainable, christian, peaceful and loving life in Africa despite the huge political barriers. In South Africa for example the Catholic Church is the largest provider of home-based care for the sick, of palliative care for the dying, and of care and support for AIDS orphans after the state itself.

The main issue here is that the Church spread false information to the people of Africa telling them not to wear condoms as condoms would not stop the spread of AIDS. They kept the people of Africa in ignorance and they are to blame for much suffering.

Liouville wrote:

Individual morality? Mmm. Like an individual knows better than any of the Christian communions. Well these individuals, families and friends can search for happiness through their individual moral frameworks, but ultimately they are probably just shallow consumers in a never-ending world of individual pursuit of pleasure. I pray for such people.

It is through love that friends and family accept gay people for who they are, not through shallow consumerism and pleasure seeking.

Enigma365

All homosexuals, in any case, do not have anal sex

Very true.

Anyway the Catholic Church is not going to turn around one day and say all sexaul endeavours bar rape are now morally ok as long as no individual nor society gets hurt. The position with regard to homosexual behaviour (my humble interpretation) is that homosexual unions lack the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family and do not contribute to survival of the human race. They are contrary to the natural moral order and revelation.

That is a pretty weak argument and Stark has basically already given my response to it. Practicing homosexuals cannot contribute to the "survival of the human race", certainly. But how does regarding homosexuality as morally bad change this fact? Whether you see homosexuals as good, bad or indifferent, they will never be able to contribute to the "survival of the human race". The only exception to this of course is if these homosexuals choose to form heterosexual bonds, which I think it is safe to say have historically shown to harmful to the individual and to society.

The only way your position makes any sense is if you believe that society accepting homosexuality is in some way going to result in more homosexuals in the world. Is this what you believe?

Also, as Stark says, underpopulation is hardly a concern in todays world and seems like a slightly desperate reason to hold on to the belief that homosexuality is bad.

Enigma365

So because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral? Who's to say that paedophilia doesn't occur naturally and therefore we should all accept it as being morally ok? If you don't want to debate any further then fine.

Cantab

The dividing issue is one of consent. Paedophilic acts are wrong because the child is not old enough to consent and they cause untold trauma to the child. However, I wouldn't consider simply being a paedophile to be morally wrong.

Stark


I completely agree with Stark...

I don't think anyone believes that just because something occurs naturally, that it is morally good. Morality, in my mind, has to do with whether anyone is harmed. If something does not harm anyone, or society, then I cannot see it as immoral.

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

Anyway the Catholic Church is not going to turn around one day and say all sexaul endeavours bar rape are now morally ok as long as no individual nor society gets hurt. The position with regard to homosexual behaviour (my humble interpretation) is that homosexual unions lack the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family and do not contribute to survival of the human race. They are contrary to the natural moral order and revelation. And whilst the homosexual person requires to be treated with compassion and sensitivity, the homosexual inclination remains objectively disordered.

So what then is to be done with the sterile, and post-menopausal women? Are they disordered? What of those who decline to reproduce? Are they disordered?

Cantab. wrote:

Can homosexuals be born homosexual? I guess the answer is we don't know. One thing is for certain though: and that is that the strength and resolve of good Catholics all over the world to oppose the normalisation of homosexual behaviour whether it is through prayer, discussion, education, debate, voting or politics whilst maintaining respect and love for all humans.

So, maintain love and respect for all humans while persecuting them on the side, and despite all your fine words we all know that this comes down to partnership rights, and possibly even right to exist in the first place? Fine, fine.

When you talked about morality, I assumed you were referring to the morality of the people, and not the morality of the church. I'm fully aware that the Catholic church, and most other organised religious groups, consider homosexuality immoral. Much of the church's morality, however, is at odds with that of the general public. How many these days consider prophylactics and contraception immoral? How many consider it immoral to eat meat on Friday?

Sapien

rsynnott wrote:

All homosexuals, in any case, do not have anal sex

Em. I know what you mean. Not all homosexuals have anal sex. (Sorry - syntax Nazi)

rsynnott

Oops, yes, how very embarrassing.

UU

Hmmmm...I'm not sure what religion Cantab. is but it seems like him/her has very fascist or dare I say Scientologist beliefs about homosexuality and continuity of life and reproduction. I don't think we have any cases of underpopulation of the world as a whole but rather overpopulation - hello! look at India, China and Africa. Also, there will always be more heterosexuals in the world who will procreate. I think that's the only reason why religions are so hostile to gays because of sodomy and non-procreation.

Cantab.

Enigma365 wrote:

Cantab

Stark wrote:

The dividing issue is one of consent. Paedophilic acts are wrong because the child is not old enough to consent and they cause untold trauma to the child. However, I wouldn't consider simply being a paedophile to be morally wrong.

I completely agree with Stark...

I don't think anyone believes that just because something occurs naturally, that it is morally good.

A progressive step forward.

Enigma365 wrote:

Morality, in my mind, has to do with whether anyone is harmed. If something does not harm anyone, or society, then I cannot see it as immoral.

The paediophile scenario has been dismissed over the issue of consent which is a reasonable counter-argument.

However where the thesis 'morally ok as long as nobody gets hurt' breaks down is when it comes to animal sex (who's to say the animal doesn't consent, and besides nobody will ever know because animals can't talk and society is not hurt), necrophilia (no consent needed and society isn't hurt), indeed sex with ones mother/cousin/step-mother/aunt - two consenting adults sharing in a physical and romantic relationship - both parties are consenting and society is 'not hurt'.

Now if there are exceptions to the rule 'morally ok as long as nobody get hurt' what are these exceptions and where is the line drawn?

Cantab.

UU wrote:

Hmmmm...I'm not sure what religion Cantab. is

Catholic.

UU wrote:

but it seems like him/her has very fascist or dare I say Scientologist beliefs

Scientology? <sarcasm>And yeah, all Catholics are facists...</sarcasm>

UU wrote:

Also, there will always be more heterosexuals in the world who will procreate.

True.

UU wrote:

I think that's the only reason why religions are so hostile to gays because of sodomy and non-procreation.

They must be all wrong so.

An aside: What do you mean when you say you 'pray to humanity' and not God? Is this some advance form of thinking? I'm intruiged.

UU

An aside: What do you mean when you say you 'pray to humanity' and not God? Is this some advance form of thinking? I'm intrigued.

I suppose it could be some advance form of thinking! Well, let me explain, I'd describe myself as Scientific Humanist: http://scihuman.org/ and a bit more so of course I don't see God I the way religions do as a Supreme supernatural being but rather human (and animal) power. Essentially, I hear and behold "God" in every heart of every mammal so I pray to the hearts and souls of all humans to make a difference rather than some "God" that there is no evidence for and I don't believe in. Maybe I'll set up my own religion called "Faith"! (lol)

Anyway, thanks for asking but I better not go off-topic as they can get nasty!

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

So, maintain love and respect for all humans while persecuting them on the side

If you had it your way you'd persecute Catholics and saying 'homosexuality is morally wrong' would be outlawed as thought-crime.

rsynnott wrote:

and despite all your fine words we all know that this comes down to partnership rights, and possibly even right to exist in the first place? Fine, fine.

Let's not get started on partnership rights. I think we both know each other's position. It's good for both sides of this argument to understand each other's position whilst affirming our differences in a civilised way. The Church gets enough bashing in today's liberal, secular media, but it's important for homosexual persons to realise that no matter how many trials and tribulations
the Church is put through, the Faith will always stand firm through thick and thin.

rsynnott wrote:

When you talked about morality, I assumed you were referring to the morality of the people, and not the morality of the church. I'm fully aware that the Catholic church, and most other organised religious groups, consider homosexuality immoral. Much of the church's morality, however, is at odds with that of the general public.

Since when did popular opinion of the day affect the Church's stance on matters of faith and morals?

rsynnott wrote:

How many these days consider prophylactics and contraception immoral?

You'd be surprised.

rsynnott wrote:

How many consider it immoral to eat meat on Friday?

Again, you'd be surprised. Our very own Dining Hall in Trinity serves fish every Friday. I suppose you and the LGB group would want that banned too? even though there's a meat option for the non-believers.

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

If you had it your way you'd persecute Catholics and saying 'homosexuality is morally wrong' would be outlawed as thought-crime.

Persecute Catholics? Why-ever would I do that? I believe people should be free to believe whatever they like. If you choose to follow the church of the Divine Hippopotamus, it is no skin off my neck. I ask only that you do not require others, who share not your crazy beliefs, to take a mud bath every day, or whatever else His Wobbliness might require. Religion should not be allowed to mess with civil law.

And as to thought-crime, I actually find banning the ravings of bigots, as they do in France and other countries, rather distasteful.

Cantab. wrote:

Let's not get started on partnership rights. I think we both know each other's position. It's good for both sides of this argument to understand each other's position whilst affirming our differences in a civilised way. The Church gets enough bashing in today's liberal, secular media, but it's important for homosexual persons to realise that no matter how many trials and tribulations
the Church is put through, the Faith will always stand firm through thick and thin.

Shed a tear for the church, who after ruling Europe for a millennium finds that people are no longer ready to light the bonfires under the heretics on its say-so. 'the church gets enough bashing' indeed. I'm sure its little feelings aren't that badly hurt. And partnership rights, in modern Ireland, need have little to do with any religious organisation.

Cantab. wrote:

Since when did popular opinion of the day affect the Church's stance on matters of faith and morals?

Again, we have both, I think, become a little confused. As stated before, I was referring to the morals of the people, and not that of the Catholic church or any other religious body.

Cantab. wrote:

You'd be surprised.

The number of Contraceptive Pill and IUD users leads me to believe they're in a minority. I believe condoms also sell quite well.

Cantab. wrote:

Again, you'd be surprised. Our very own Dining Hall in Trinity serves fish every Friday. I suppose you and the LGB group would want that banned too? even though there's a meat option for the non-believers.

Nope, in fact I think you'll find that many in the LGBT are quite religious. I am an unapologetic atheist; it is, however, far from compulsory.

I don't doubt that there are some people who continue to hold with all the church's morals. They don't seem to be a majority, however, and it would be foolish to assume that their morals are public morals, or to base public policy on those morals.

I have, I now realise, dragged this thread somewhat off-topic and for that I apologise.

UU

I'm not sure what everyone thinks about the Partnership Bills but why is the one in Britain of any concern to heterosexuals? It doesn't affect them in any way and they can still get married so what's the problem? It seems to me that people just want some excuse to cause arguments. I think the Civil Unions are great. Religions can't give out about them because they aren't actually marriages and it is a bond between two people who love each who are willing to support each financially. I think it is a real breakthrough for British homosexuals as for once they are recognised by the State as a couple. I hope it comes to Ireland soon so us homosexuals over here can have the rights which we also deserve.

Also, I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church being bashed by today's liberal media as they bashed the weak and powerless people for long enough so they are getting a taste of their own medicine and they deserve it! I feel sorry of course for the good people within the RC Church who help a lot of people like in Africa and even the homeless here and want a more free and liberal Church and it was the few who are giving it a bad name. You must realise Cantab. that the Church doesn't own faith. Faith is different from religious organisations - it is the belief in something we have which rises out of the heart's core not from some old, egotistic, abusive men dressed in frocks, kippahs and crucifixes pretending to preach the teachings of Jesus and contradicting themselves by declaring hatred upon homosexuals and users of contraception. If Jesus were around today, I think he'd be appalled!

Anyway, I'm not letting religious groups tell me that I am a sinner because of my sexual orientation. I know definitely what a sin is and what isn't and the love for somebody of the same gender doesn't hold any sinful nature (unless it is false love of course).

Enigma365

In the end of the day, does it really matter to non Catholics, what the Catholic Church believes?

I mean the Jewish faith teaches that eating pork is wrong. The sausage fans amongst us (excuse the pun), do not argue over this. If the Catholic Church wishes to teach that homosexuality is wrong, then that is their right.

As long as nobody tries to push their religious beliefs on me either directly or by legislation, then I could care less if they believe the moon is made of cheese.

I know I'm grossly oversimplifying the issue, but I want to make this point anyway because this topic has gone from a debate over science to a debate over Catholic teaching.

MicraBoy

However where the thesis 'morally ok as long as nobody gets hurt' breaks down is when it comes to animal sex (who's to say the animal doesn't consent, and besides nobody will ever know because animals can't talk and society is not hurt), necrophilia (no consent needed and society isn't hurt), indeed sex with ones mother/cousin/step-mother/aunt - two consenting adults sharing in a physical and romantic relationship - both parties are consenting and society is 'not hurt'.

Children, animals and the dead are all incapable of giving consent. This makes it morally wrong. Incestuous relationships can harm society because of the increased risk of genetic defects of any children produced from the relationship, although the relationship itself may not harmful to society. I suspect though that the majority of incestuous relationships are abusive and or paedophilic.

UU

Yeah you're very right Enigma365! Now that our society here is no longer under Catholic rule, they can no longer enforce their beliefs and teachings over us. They can declare their views but that's all. I feel sorry for those homosexuals in those strict Arab countries which can put you in jail or even hang you if you're gay! I suppose many of us gays in Ireland and the Western World don't realise how lucky we truly are compared to the denial of human rights carried out in certain countries. To me, the Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism and half a dozen other religions and groups can teach what they want but as long as it doesn't affect me I couldn't care less.

Anyway, I know some Catholics who don't even care what their Church teaches! Some of my uncle's friends are devout gay Catholics!

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

I'm sure its little feelings aren't that badly hurt. And partnership rights, in modern Ireland, need have little to do with any religious organisation.

Well the Church has been through worse. Anyway what you fail to realise is that the citizens of Ireland are predominately Catholic (87% according to the last census) and, when true to their Church, will certainly not vote for a set of 'progressive' laws for the sake of being progressive and 'with the times'.

People are getting sick of 'modern Ireland' and the morals that go with it especially when you look around the streets at weekends, the STD clinics on Monday mornings, the number of young women going off to have abortions, the belief in nothing except 'me', and the belief that it's morally ok to do whatever I want and to hell with everyone else 'so long as nobody [apparently] gets hurt'.

Cantab.

MicraBoy wrote:

..., animals and the dead are all incapable of giving consent.

Says who? My friend's dog is a horny little fella and will rub himself up against anybody that walks in the door. Why not take advantage of him. Both parties could really enjoy it?

MicraBoy wrote:

This makes it morally wrong. Incestuous relationships can harm society because of the increased risk of genetic defects of any children produced from the relationship,

i.e. Goes against natural law.

MicraBoy wrote:

although the relationship itself may not harmful to society.

Put another way: so as long as they don't have children (say they use contraception), then it's morally ok. Wow. Now that's hardcore liberalism.

MicraBoy wrote:

I suspect though that the majority of incestuous relationships are abusive and or paedophilic.

Well specifically, I was referring to the non-abusive/non-paedophillic scenarios from a morals perspective. Do you have more to add on the morality of such relationships?

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

Well the Church has been through worse. Anyway what you fail to realise is that the citizens of Ireland are predominately Catholic (87% according to the last census) and, when true to their Church, will certainly not vote for a set of 'progressive' laws for the sake of being progressive and 'with the times'.

Interesting. Do none of these 87% use condoms or contraceptives or have sex before marriage? Do they all go to mass every Sunday? Or could it simply be the case that they tick the box because it's the handiest thing?

UU

Cantab. wrote:

Well the Church has been through worse. Anyway what you fail to realise is that the citizens of Ireland are predominately Catholic (87% according to the last census) and, when true to their Church, will certainly not vote for a set of 'progressive' laws for the sake of being progressive and 'with the times'.

People are getting sick of 'modern Ireland' and the morals that go with it especially when you look around the streets at weekends, the STD clinics on Monday mornings, the number of young women going off to have abortions, the belief in nothing except 'me', and the belief that it's morally ok to do whatever I want and to hell with everyone else 'so long as nobody [apparently] gets hurt'.

Ha! I wouldn't be so sure of that Cantab.! Sure 87% are Catholic but how many are practising and consider themselves Catholic but refuse to stay 100% loyal to the Church with all the scandals occurring and how many are conservative? People much prefer the modern, progressive and multi-cultural Ireland full of opportunities and it will stay that way and I prefer it! There is no attraction to Church rule of Ireland again - most people hate it! We are only a wealthy nation since we became more liberal. How many Catholic families do you know disallow the mother from working, refuse to use contraception and stick by the Church 100% by giving their "dues" (Maybe in some rural areas?) Do you really expect women to give up work once married and conceive about 15 children and be poor like in the 1920s?

Did you know that it was only since the 1970s homosexuality is legal? Senator David Norris took our state to the EU courts and they said that we have to change our law on homosexuality or we can't remain a part of the EU! There was programme about it on TV the other night.

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

Interesting. Do none of these 87% use condoms or contraceptives or have sex before marriage? Do they all go to mass every Sunday? Or could it simply be the case that they tick the box because it's the handiest thing?

Much Mass-going in the past was socially conditioned, or at least socially supported. Not so long ago, people or families who missed Mass, especially in small Irish towns, were commented upon or criticised harshly. This is not longer the case with a Vatican II decree on religious liberty which says: "Only in freedom can people direct themselves towards goodness." True religion flourishes best in freedom and that freedom has arrived in Ireland. It is one of the church’s main challenges to respond to this freedom.

But when push comes to shove and a close family member dies suddenly, the local Church is usually the first port of call and everyone is miraculously Catholic once more. Ultimately if someone is baptised and has fallen away or even was never baptised and they (or their family) wish to have a funeral in a Catholic Church, they won't find a closed door. It is rather hypocritical though and I was at a memorial Mass there recently and I was disgusted to see so many impure souls queueing up to receive Holy Communion.

Cantab.

UU wrote:

We are only a wealthy nation since we became more liberal.

Mmm. Liberalism = wealth.

dbnavan

No you catch it from the tooth-fairy :rolleyes:

before anyone starts I am neither gay or homophobic, every to there own. Just giving the question the answer it deserves.

rsynnott

UU wrote:

Did you know that it was only since the 1970s homosexuality is legal? Senator David Norris took our state to the EU courts and they said that we have to change our law on homosexuality or we can't remain a part of the EU! There was programme about it on TV the other night.

Actually, 1993, the same year condoms became fully legal.

Cantab. wrote:

I was disgusted to see so many impure souls queueing up to receive Holy Communion.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Cantab.

dbnavan wrote:

before anyone starts I am neither gay or homophobic, every to there own.

God help anyone branded a 'homophobe'. Being branded 'homophobe' is one of the biggest social taboos of modern times and has been achieved very sucessfully by several gay lobby groups.

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with 'homophobia': that they hold the position they do because they are 'afraid' of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behaviour. The fact that a person is afraid of guns would not nullify arguments against guns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of gun control diminish arguments against gun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behaviour are in no way 'afraid' of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying 'homophobe!' falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

So let's all be aware why 'homophobia' actually exists and what it really means.