Anti-gay pastor is gay shocker...(ethics of the violating support group confidence)

The_Minister

http://www.lavendermagazine.com/this-issue/featured-article/antigay-lutheran-pastor-protests-too-much/

...But, this story has a twist.

He is gay, but he does not act on his feelings - he attends a 'gay support group' designed to help homosexuals overcome their 'desires'.

A journalist infiltrated the support group, took notes on what was said, and broke confidentiality, outing the pastor using information gleaned while he was in the group.

This raises a dubious moral question: "Is it acceptable to break the confidentiality of a support group?"

On the one hand the members of his flock have a right to know the truth about their pastor, and obviously the revelations damage his credibility when condemning gays (a good thing).

On the other hand the simple fact is that support groups can only function if the members involved can be assured of anonymity - if word gets around that journalists are now willing to break the confidentiality of groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, then those groups will likely become defunct.
Also, he deliberately joined the group with a view to breaking confidence.

I would edge towards the view that the article should not have been written, and that the privacy of the group should have been respected. I don't think it's my call whether or not I think a group is 'valid' or not.

EDIT: Wouldn't the contents of a support group have been considered off-the-record?

robbie_998

Daddy, Where do babies come from ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ah yes. "Journalistic integrity" - my favourite oxymornon.

AnonoBoy

It's not really that much of a shocker really though, is it?

The_Minister

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's not really that much of a shocker really though, is it?

My shocker was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

AnonoBoy

The_Minister wrote: »

My shocker was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

That's what he said!!!












Wait, that doesn't work.

Herb Powell

this happens surprisingly often

Gummy Panda

well he is still anti-gay if he joins the support group. It shows he doesn't agree with his instincts/desires.

Tbh, i think its a bit dirty to be joining this groups to name and shame people. It would be a bit different if the pastor was preaching anti-gay propaganda then going to the equivalent of the George on a saturday night.

Chuchoter

What this journalist did was wrong. I don't think anyone deserves to be outed. Sexuality is an intensely private thing and for that journalist to go into a place where people made themselves vulnerable and expose them and embarrass them in front of the whole world is cruel. As much as I disagree entirely with the views of the pastor, the journalist didn't do it to help the man or else. He just did it to get a story. This is going to cause damage to a lot of confidential support groups if you can't even trust that there isn't a reporter there.

tommy21

The_Minister wrote: »

http://www.lavendermagazine.com/this-issue/featured-article/antigay-lutheran-pastor-protests-too-much/

...But, this story has a twist.

He is gay, but he does not act on his feelings - he attends a 'gay support group' designed to help homosexuals overcome their 'desires'.

A journalist infiltrated the support group, took notes on what was said, and broke confidentiality, outing the pastor using information gleaned while he was in the group.

This raises a dubious moral question: "Is it acceptable to break the confidentiality of a support group?"

On the one hand the members of his flock have a right to know the truth about their pastor, and obviously the revelations damage his credibility when condemning gays (a good thing).

On the other hand the simple fact is that support groups can only function if the members involved can be assured of anonymity - if word gets around that journalists are now willing to break the confidentiality of groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, then those groups will likely become defunct.
Also, he deliberately joined the group with a view to breaking confidence.

I would edge towards the view that the article should not have been written, and that the privacy of the group should have been respected. I don't think it's my call whether or not I think a group is 'valid' or not.

EDIT: Wouldn't the contents of a support group have been considered off-the-record?

Interesting that a poster named "The Minister" started this thread ...;):eek:

The_Kew_Tour

Gays rock

plein de force

i can understand support groups to help people with problems like alcohol, hard drugs and even the trial and tribulations that come with being gay
but come on, get over your desires? i'm gay and i would never want to overcome my fondness for the fellas, it's not exactly an ilness or a life-damaging activity, it's just the way you are

Chuchoter

plein de force wrote: »

i can understand support groups to help people with problems like alcohol, hard drugs and even the trial and tribulations that come with being gay
but come on, get over your desires? i'm gay and i would never want to overcome my fondness for the fellas, it's not exactly an ilness or a life-damaging activity, it's just the way you are

Though I am gay I don't begrudge people who go to these groups. I completely disagree with the methods of groups like focus on the family, but I mean people have to weigh up losing their family, friends, job, religion against following their desires. I obviously don't know your story, but not everyone has it as easy as their family and friends being all accepting. Some people could lose everything, and I mean you only get one life, you should get to live it the way you want, even if that means going against your heart.

plein de force

crayolastereo wrote: »

Though I am gay I don't begrudge people who go to these groups. I completely disagree with the methods of groups like focus on the family, but I mean people have to weigh up losing their family, friends, job, religion against following their desires. I obviously don't know your story, but not everyone has it as easy as their family and friends being all accepting. Some people could lose everything, and I mean you only get one life, you should get to live it the way you want, even if that means going against your heart.

oh don't get me wrong i'm more than for the groups that give support to people that are having problems coming to terms with their sexuality
but it's just absurd to think you can overcome sexual orientation that is healthy, i can't change the colour of my eyes, well i can put a contact lense that turns them brown but no matter what i do they'll always be truly green same way people can cover up their sexuality

Hunchback

OP says that the minister in question doesn't act on his impulses but the article states that he acted on his homosexual impulses in slovakia, during the period he was attending the group

Coriolanus

Bring in non-disclosure agreement for them I guess.
Whatever about the pastor, it's pretty sucky to break confidentiality like that.

Zen65

The_Minister wrote: »

A journalist infiltrated the support group, took notes on what was said, and broke confidentiality, outing the pastor using information gleaned while he was in the group.

This raises a dubious moral question: "Is it acceptable to break the confidentiality of a support group?"

On the one hand the members of his flock have a right to know the truth about their pastor, and obviously the revelations damage his credibility when condemning gays (a good thing).

I think the editor should be held accountable for this. No public good is served by this article, indeed the breaking of the confidentiality of a support group is very much against the greater good.

I do not understand why OP thinks the members of the flock have a right to know. To know what? That the pastor who condemns GLBT lifestyles is himself gay? So what? If he condemned the abuse of alcohol but was a member of AA for many years does this make his argument any weaker? If anything it shows the convictions he has in his beliefs because he is seeking support to stop himself acting on those feelings he believes are wrong.

Far too often we confuse the message with the messenger. We are all flawed humans, but this should not stop us from seeking to achieve a higher level of achievement in our lives, nor stop us from expressing our beliefs in what is right or wrong.

BTW, I cannot agree with this pastor's views on GLBT lifestyles, but I respect his right to those beliefs. I hope in time that we humans can all get over the unimportant in life, stop judging others by their life preferences, and treat each other with real love and acceptance. I also believe in capital punishment for serious crimes of aggression, and I can live with the dichotomy of those beliefs.



Z

Prof.Badass

I wonder do those groups have "gay shame" festivals......

Chuchoter

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I wonder do those groups have "gay shame" festivals......

Gay shame exists!

Gay Shame is a movement from within the LGBT and queer communities described as a radical alternative to gay mainstreaming and directly posits an alternative view of traditional "gay pride" events and activities which have become increasingly commercialized with corporate sponsors and "safer" agendas to avoid offending supporters and sponsors.

http://www.gayshamesf.org/
Its really quite interesting.

Overheal

All this means is Support groups will require legally binding confidentiality agreements.

gulf

Gummy Panda wrote: »

well he is still anti-gay if he joins the support group. It shows he doesn't agree with his instincts/desires.

Tbh, i think its a bit dirty to be joining this groups to name and shame people. It would be a bit different if the pastor was preaching anti-gay propaganda then going to the equivalent of the George on a saturday night.

The majority of the world's population would be "anti-gay" according to the system that's developed inside your head.

strobe

plein de force wrote: »

oh don't get me wrong i'm more than for the groups that give support to people that are having problems coming to terms with their sexuality
but it's just absurd to think you can overcome sexual orientation that is healthy, i can't change the colour of my eyes, well i can put a contact lense that turns them brown but no matter what i do they'll always be truly green same way people can cover up their sexuality

Well for some religious people they believe that commiting homosexual acts means they will spend eternity being tortured once they die. So for them it is a logical thing to try and suppress that behaviour. So the groups, if they are genuine, believe they are helping people to avoid that fate.

gulf

strobe wrote: »

Well for some religious people they believe that commiting homosexual acts means they will spend eternity being tortured once they die. So for them it is a logical thing to try and suppress that behaviour. So the groups, if they are genuine, believe they are helping people to avoid that fate.

Sodomy is not restricted to acts committed by a man on another man or a woman on another woman.

Gummy Panda

gulf wrote: »

The majority of the world's population would be "anti-gay" according to the system that's developed inside your head.

what are you on about?

strobe

gulf wrote: »

Sodomy is not restricted to acts committed by a man on another man or a woman on another woman.

and.......? Is that the set up to a punchline you forgot to include or something?

Doop

I heard these groups are a great way to pick up..

Dean820

'Bitch and Brunch'....ding ding! We have a winner!

Handsome Bob

Ah journalists, ethics don't mean **** to them.

What this person did was wrong on so many levels. For one, no-one should be forced out of the closet. Secondly, infiltrating groups is fine for research just as long as you ensure the anonymity of the people within the group. This "journalist" should be held up as a hack, but truth be known he'll get a pat on the back.

That journalist and his editor should be fired. Appalling behaviour.

sponsoredwalk

This is a joke right?

You people are defending a gay man for hypocritically insulting people just like him from the sanctity of a religious pulpit.

You people are defending this man for hypocritically demeaning, with pseudo-authority, people who are naturally just like him.

I'm sure you don't mean to do that, but you are implicitly conceding that when you condemn the journalist for exposing the truth.

Did any of you read the article? This man has a history of publicly condemning gay people and women from his podium and when it arises there are ulterior motives for him doing these sickening things to other human beings you ignore this - and try to talk about ethics... :mad:

Taken to it's not-so-far-off logical extreme margin this BS argument a few of you are using can be used by the KGB, or the CIA, or Stalin etc... who, in secret documents classified confidential by law, order wars or murders etc... should such a thing happen.
I suppose it's the journalists fault for telling the world in that case too :rolleyes:
After all, they had the law/vow of secrecy on their sides :rolleyes:

This is the one piece of credible journalism that's surfaced in the public sphere in quite a while and people condemn it...

The whole idea of the support group is a sham too, there is no credible scientific/psychological evidence that people can iron out teh ghey,
but barely anyone here sees fit to criticize the whole facade of this meeting, no - it's the journalist who goes undercover to expose a public charlatan and hypocrite that's immoral :rolleyes:

No public good is served by this article, indeed the breaking of the confidentiality of a support group is very much against the greater good.

So exposing a gay priest who very vocally criticises other people for being gay as a complete hypocrite to inform the general public that he is a hypocritical charlatan serves no purpose?

Brock regularly broadcasts conservative views on homosexuality and criticizes the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for liberalizing its gay clergy policy.

I wonder, does his own hate-filled rhetoric put him out of a job :rolleyes:

Nervous Wreck

Tbcfh, I don't give the slightest shít what happens to a homophobe.

gulf

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is a joke right?

You people are defending a gay man for hypocritically insulting people just like him from the sanctity of a religious pulpit.

You people are defending this man for hypocritically demeaning, with pseudo-authority, people who are naturally just like him.

I'm sure you don't mean to do that, but you are implicitly conceding that when you condemn the journalist for exposing the truth.

Did any of you read the article? This man has a history of publicly condemning gay people and women from his podium and when it arises there are ulterior motives for him doing these sickening things to other human beings you ignore this - and try to talk about ethics... :mad:

Taken to it's not-so-far-off logical extreme margin this BS argument a few of you are using can be used by the KGB, or the CIA, or Stalin etc... who, in secret documents classified confidential by law, order wars or murders etc... should such a thing happen.
I suppose it's the journalists fault for telling the world in that case too :rolleyes:
After all, they had the law/vow of secrecy on their sides :rolleyes:

This is the one piece of credible journalism that's surfaced in the public sphere in quite a while and people condemn it...

The whole idea of the support group is a sham too, there is no credible scientific/psychological evidence that people can iron out teh ghey,
but barely anyone here sees fit to criticize the whole facade of this meeting, no - it's the journalist who goes undercover to expose a public charlatan and hypocrite that's immoral :rolleyes:

So exposing a gay priest who very vocally criticises other people for being gay as a complete hypocrite to inform the general public that he is a hypocritical charlatan serves no purpose?

Brock regularly broadcasts conservative views on homosexuality and criticizes the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for liberalizing its gay clergy policy.

I wonder, does his own hate-filled rhetoric put him out of a job :rolleyes:

Lots of people publicly condemn homosexual behaviour. And with good reason too. Get over it. I'm sure you've got to participate in plenty of church-bashing in your time.

AnonoBoy

gulf wrote: »

Lots of people publicly condemn homosexual behaviour. And with good reason too.

Oh really? And what good reasons are they when they're at home?

The_Minister

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is a joke right?

You people are defending a gay man for hypocritically insulting people just like him from the sanctity of a religious pulpit.

You people are defending this man for hypocritically demeaning, with pseudo-authority, people who are naturally just like him.

I'm sure you don't mean to do that, but you are implicitly conceding that when you condemn the journalist for exposing the truth.

Did any of you read the article? This man has a history of publicly condemning gay people and women from his podium and when it arises there are ulterior motives for him doing these sickening things to other human beings you ignore this - and try to talk about ethics... :mad:

Taken to it's not-so-far-off logical extreme margin this BS argument a few of you are using can be used by the KGB, or the CIA, or Stalin etc... who, in secret documents classified confidential by law, order wars or murders etc... should such a thing happen.
I suppose it's the journalists fault for telling the world in that case too :rolleyes:
After all, they had the law/vow of secrecy on their sides :rolleyes:

This is the one piece of credible journalism that's surfaced in the public sphere in quite a while and people condemn it...

The whole idea of the support group is a sham too, there is no credible scientific/psychological evidence that people can iron out teh ghey,
but barely anyone here sees fit to criticize the whole facade of this meeting, no - it's the journalist who goes undercover to expose a public charlatan and hypocrite that's immoral :rolleyes:

So exposing a gay priest who very vocally criticises other people for being gay as a complete hypocrite to inform the general public that he is a hypocritical charlatan serves no purpose?

Brock regularly broadcasts conservative views on homosexuality and criticizes the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for liberalizing its gay clergy policy.

I wonder, does his own hate-filled rhetoric put him out of a job :rolleyes:

You keep calling him a hypocrite, but he is no more a hypocrite than an alcoholic who supports prohibition.

He believes that having gay sex is wrong.
He believes that people with those urges should abstain.
He goes to a group to help him try and abstain.

That is not hypocrisy.

sponsoredwalk

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is a joke right?

You people are defending a gay man for hypocritically insulting people just like him from the sanctity of a religious pulpit.

You people are defending this man for hypocritically demeaning, with pseudo-authority, people who are naturally just like him.

I don't give a damn what happens to him, I care about the methods. I'm sure the journalist could have found another way than "infiltrating" a support group. They're not there for journalists to pick up choice tidbits to publish in papers, they're support groups. How is anyone supposed to open up in a group in future knowing a journalist might be listening in ??
In any case considering the typeof group he's not exactly a hypocrite, he's just yet another homophobe

sponsoredwalk

gulf wrote: »

Lots of people publicly condemn homosexual behaviour. And with good reason too. Get over it. I'm sure you've got to participate in plenty of church-bashing in your time.

Of course I indulge in justifiable church bashing - an organization like that deserves nothing less... A moneyed up death-driven company like that deserves to be criticized when it approves of, and partakes in, lying to poor peasants about aids, condoms, life, greet's the legal face of murderous paramilitaries, spreads messages of hate while exuding the air of morality, etc... etc...

However, there is nothing justifiable about criticizing homosexuality, which you obviously think there is, so unless you're willing to intelligently convince us you've got nothing interesting to say and fail if you try...

You keep calling him a hypocrite, but he is no more a hypocrite than an alcoholic who supports prohibition.

He believes that having gay sex is wrong.
He believes that people with those urges should abstain.
He goes to a group to help him try and abstain.

That is not hypocrisy.

Just read that carefully, read it again before reading on.

What you're trying to convince us of is that because he believes that the way he naturally feels inside, and is trying desperately to suppress, this makes him to be just in his criticisms of homosexuality. This is like saying that even though I have a liver I don't believe I do so when I tell you I have no liver I'm not lying.

It's also like me saying I don't think politicians should squeeze the system for travel expenses, and because I actually do believe it, even if I criticize my colleague's for getting free taxi's I am justified because even though I squeezed 81,000 out of the system over 3 years it's okay because I believed I wasn't - I'm not a hypocrite therefore I shouldn't lose my job.

If I criticise you for liking Marcel Proust because he was "a gaybo" but I secretly love In Search of Lost Time, is that hypocritical?

If I criticize you for voting Sinn Fein in light of the alleged links with IRA and then vote Sinn Fein myself, is that not hypocritical?

If I criticize gay people for being gay and secretly am gay myself, is that not hypocritical?

The hilarious thing here is that the guy publicly condemned the Evangelical Lutheran Church for being lenient towards homosexuals yet all irony is lost on some here since this truth came out :rolleyes:

By your standards, he is not hypocritical for keeping his job seeing as he doesn't like it when the Lutheran's are so welcoming of gay people...

I would of thought someone so moral as a priest would actually follow his convictions i.e. if he doesn't like gay people in church then he shouldn't be there himself - but then again I'm in some fantasy land...

Oh, and you're not born with a bottle of vodka in your hand, and being gay is not an addiction, it's being who you are without shame - (hopefully).

sponsoredwalk

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What you're trying to convince us of is that because he believes that the way he naturally feels inside, and is trying desperately to suppress, this makes him to be just in his criticisms of homosexuality. .

That's not even remotely what we're saying.
We're saying since he's trying to suppress his own homosexuality, there's no hypocrisy in his condemnation of it.
The fact that he's an ignorant narrowminded homophobe with a lot of issues is an entirely separate matter.

sponsoredwalk

bluewolf wrote: »

That's not even remotely what we're saying.
We're saying since he's trying to suppress his own homosexuality, there's no hypocrisy in his condemnation of it.

If I am a gay priest and I go around compaining that the church is too lenient with it's laws on accepting homosexual priests when I myself am gay is that not hypocrisy? Should I not, if I want to appear consistent, not quit my job in order to live up to the hate-doctrine I myself would force on others if I could?

That is the first aspect of this hypocrisy.

The other part, which I think you are all focusing on, and is really not the important issue here, is the hypocrisy of a gay man criticizing other people for being gay.

To me, I believe that a man forcefully denying his own nature, which he can't change and therefore is that which he deny's, is hypocritical for criticizing others for being that which he himself is. To deny what you are and then criticize others for being that which you are is hypocrisy, but I see others do not agree - that's fine but I don't think your right.

The important issue here, if you actually thought about the article, is that a man criticizes the church for accepting people like him and that he hasn't already resigned in order to be in accord with his beliefs...

He is a hypocrite, wanting other gay people not to be in the church but he himself would stay there, under the cover of annonymity i.e. people assume he's straight, and if it wasn't for a journalist doing his job this wouldn't be public knowledge and he wuld continue to lie to the people.

raah!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If I am a gay priest and I go around compaining that the church is too lenient with it's laws on accepting homosexual priests when I myself am gay is that not hypocrisy? Should I not, if I want to appear consistent, not quit my job in order to live up to the hate-doctrine I myself would force on others if I could?

That is the first aspect of this hypocrisy.

The other part, which I think you are all focusing on, and is really not the important issue here, is the hypocrisy of a gay man criticizing other people for being gay.

To me, I believe that a man forcefully denying his own nature, which he can't change and therefore is that which he deny's, is hypocritical for criticizing others for being that which he himself is. To deny what you are and then criticize others for being that which you are is hypocrisy, but I see others do not agree - that's fine but I don't think your right.

The important issue here, if you actually thought about the article, is that a man criticizes the church for accepting people like him and that he hasn't already resigned in order to be in accord with his beliefs...

He is a hypocrite, wanting other gay people not to be in the church but he himself would stay there, under the cover of annonymity i.e. people assume he's straight, and if it wasn't for a journalist doing his job this wouldn't be public knowledge and he wuld continue to lie to the people.

It isn't hypocritical because he is saying that homosexual actions are a sin, moreso than homosexual desires. Him choosing not to pursue his desires is completely in line with what he preaches (which is: "don't pursue your sexual desires")

Also, he's a gay man criticising others for acting on their desires, which isn't something he does.

I've talked to religious people before about this anti-gay business in particular, and while they may not reflect the official stance, they said things like "it's the lifestyle that's bad", "Love the sinner hate the sin" etc etc.

The catholic church is all about resisting their desires, this anti-gay stuff is in the same category as extramarital sex.

gulf

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh really? And what good reasons are they when they're at home?

I take it having sex with ones mother at home is grand so. (Once one uses a prophylactic of course...)

Banned Account

What's a gay shocker? Is it some kind of kiny device using lenths of copper piping and car batteries?

AnonoBoy

gulf wrote: »

I take it having sex with ones mother at home is grand so. (Once one uses a prophylactic of course...)

If you have sex with your mother you're not gay - silly boy. :rolleyes:

Banned Account

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you have sex with your mother you're not gay - silly boy. :rolleyes:

What if she tanks you up the jacksie with a strap on?

sponsoredwalk

raah! wrote: »

It isn't hypocritical because he is saying that homosexual actions are a sin, moreso than homosexual desires. Him choosing not to pursue his desires is completely in line with what he preaches (which is: "don't pursue your sexual desires")

Also, he's a gay man criticising others for acting on their desires, which isn't something he does.

I've talked to religious people before about this anti-gay business in particular, and while they may not reflect the official stance, they said things like "it's the lifestyle that's bad", "Love the sinner hate the sin" etc etc.

The catholic church is all about resisting their desires, this anti-gay stuff is in the same category as extramarital sex.

Yes I'm aware of that distinction and I thought I explained it - some people would define it differently, not me. If you read the wiki on hypocrisy there is debate about what falls under that category, I would class this issue as falling under that category in two seperate ways - with only one of them questionable.

The important issue here is that the man criticizes the church for being lenient in it's acceptance of homosexuals while he is himself homosexual - that is blatant hypocrisy, is it not?

sponsoredwalk wrote:

Brock regularly broadcasts conservative views on homosexuality and criticizes the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for liberalizing its gay clergy policy.

Here we've exposed him. If he meant what he was saying, how could he remain in the church? The laws he is advocating would force him to leave the church. However he was playing the role of a straight man and criticizing others for being what he secretly is.

If you try to refute the description of hypocrisy by using the word act i.e. he criticizes those that act on their homosexuality, most homosexual priests don't act on their feelings (just like him) and it's not a question of acting when he denounces homosexual men joining the church, (this is the reason a lot of men joined in the first place), he's simply criticizing the church for being so liberal in accepting these people in the first place yet if his kind of rule were in place he would not get in - unless he deceived them (which he was doing anyway) :rolleyes:

The less important issue here is whether or not he is hypocritical for criticizing other gay people when he hasn't actually acted on his feelings, he merely admitted to suffering with temptations...
I see this as bland hypocrisy, for the reasons I've repeated three times in previous posts, but if people do not agree then alright.
I think it's hypocritical to criticize others for being just like you, even if you hate it. You are you, you do - so to speak, i.e. you act like yourself and you can't act in a way that is not who you are. You can try, but then you're trying to be somebody else - i.e. you're changing your orientation identity, not your orientation.

The important issue is that he should resign in accordance with this hatred of the churches liberal views he so vocally expresses, if he doesn't he's a bland hypocrite for remaining under their employ seeing as he despises their practices so much & it's good to nail the guy with his own hate-filled ideology :mad:

AnonoBoy

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

What if she tanks you up the jacksie with a strap on?

Nope, still not gay.

Banned Account

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Nope, still not gay.

What if she uses her giant clitoris?












Do I need help?

Truley

If he had been found to be actually engaging in homosexual acts I might have felt a degree of smugness at his misfortune. But to be honest he hasn't really been caught out doing anything wrong. Hey may have some warped views, but in a weird way it's actually less hyprocritical of him considering he knows what homosexuality is actually like. It always p*sses me off when straight men give out about homosexuality when they haven't any expereince of what it feels like to be gay.

So yeah, I think that stunt was a very low blow and slightly unethical. I might dislike organised religion, but I hate the tabloid media even moreso :mad:

Dublin_Gunner

Truley wrote: »

So yeah, I think that stunt was a very low blow and slightly unethical. I might dislike organised religion, but I hate the tabloid media even moreso :mad:

There's a distinction between the two?

gulf

AnonoBoy wrote: »

If you have sex with your mother you're not gay

They're both sexual perversions. All extramarital sex that doesn't involve both a unitive bond the intention to procreate is sinful.

So no, the church does not specifically target homosexuals like certain homosexual groups like to think (or at least that's what they tell their members). The teachings are very clear: get married and be fruitful. If you wish to live as a bachelor, you should remain chaste and spend what would otherwise be family time, doing charitable works. If you've a calling from God, you should become a priest or join a religious order.

gulf

gulf wrote: »

If you wish to live as a bachelor, you should remain chaste

No thank you

sponsoredwalk

gulf wrote: »

All extramarital sex that doesn't involve both a unitive bond the intention to procreate is sinful.

Ignoring the rest of the ridiculous sentences there, why is the above true?