countmeout.ie

prinz · 28-07-2009 11:30AM

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

Why do you assume I studied politics? In fact, why does anyone have to formally study it to know about it?

I didn't. However people who know about politics don't make mistakes such as confusing separation of Church and state and personal participation in religion.

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

I fully understand that such a movement would have to come from within the church. And, rest assured, there's no danger of me setting up a countmein.ie, bapstising infants is an infinitely more effective method of signing people up, don't you think?

So when/if the Catholic Church corrects the wrongs you see it has, you won't encourage people to return to the Church as adults and be rebaptised? I thought you didn't have a problem with the Catholic faith?

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

Having a Catholic, Muslim or Jewish TD does NOT mean the church and state are not separated. They are not separated when those TDs use their religion in the discharge of their duties. Their personal faith should not impact on their role as legislators (in an ideal world).

However you just said defection from religion and separation of Church and state were "inextricably linked"... Now you see the difference between them.

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

Oh, and again you have brought up the study of politics. I'll indulge you: where did you study politics?

University. Honours multidisciplinary degree ta.

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2009 11:38AM

prinz wrote: »

Forgive me if my biology is a little hazy but hasn't he got a point? Firstly from a social point of view in a world with a fast aging population, where soon there will not be enough workers to support the retired encouraging and supporting the family and male/female relations is now seen as insulting?

Its a bit ironic that a celibate man who is the leader of a whole load of other celibate men is accusing homosexuality of being a danger because it will lead to fewer kids being born.

prinz wrote: »

Secondly, there was no insult to gay people... none that I could see tbh. A warning against homosexuality but no insult. Thirdly I presume you'll be as quick to congratulate the Church on this...

So christians dont feel insulted when atheists say that religion is a disease and is a danger to mankind?

countmeout.ie (Cormac) · 28-07-2009 11:38AM

prinz wrote: »

Forgive me if my biology is a little hazy but hasn't he got a point? Firstly from a social point of view in a world with a fast aging population, where soon there will not be enough workers to support the retired encouraging and supporting the family and male/female relations is now seen as insulting?

Are you speaking in the hypothetical here, or do you believe this is a genuine problem? I can't be sure of course - I haven't conducted the demographic studies the pope presumably commissioned before making the speech - but I would seriously doubt that the 8 to 10% of the population who are gay pose a threat to the world's future economic stability.

If this were the case, I presume you'd support the extension of reproductive rights to gay couples to help ameliorate the problem?

prinz wrote: »

Secondly, there was no insult to gay people... none that I could see tbh.

None that you could see.

prinz · 28-07-2009 11:48AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its a bit ironic that a celibate man who is the leader of a whole load of other celibate men is accusing homosexuality of being a danger because it will lead to fewer kids being born.

He's a bit old now. Don't know who'd have him tbh. However the family is central to Catholic teaching so what's your point? Do gay rights activist regularly campaign for protection for the heterosexual couple and to keep the insitution of marriage as is?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So christians dont feel insulted when atheists say that religion is a disease and is a danger to mankind?

I couldn't care less what the atheists over on the A&A forum say about Christians. Their opinions are irrelevant to me.

countmeout.ie (Paul) · 28-07-2009 11:49AM

prinz wrote: »

1. I didn't. However people who know about politics don't make mistakes such as confusing separation of Church and state and personal participation in religion.

2. So when/if the Catholic Church corrects the wrongs you see it has, you won't encourage people to return to the Church as adults and be rebaptised? I thought you didn't have a problem with the Catholic faith?

3. However you just said defection from religion and separation of Church and state were "inextricably linked"... Now you see the difference between them.

4. University. Honours multidisciplinary degree ta.

I've numbered your points to make the response more easily readable.

1. You will note from my original post that I explicitly stated 'In Ireland'. I feel, in this context, personally removing oneself from the church and contributing to the separation of church and state are inextricably linked. If you like, Ireland is a special case. Our constitution commits not to 'endow' any one religion, yet in practice this is clearly not the case.

2. I have no 'problem' with the Catholic faith. Kinda like saying I have no 'problem' with Fanta Lemon. However, I personally do not believe in the Catholic faith, just the same as I don't drink Fanta Lemon. As such, it would be a little disingenuous of me to try to encourage people back to the church if they fixed all the problems. Point of information: no such thing as a re-baptism.

3. I've addressed this in point 1.

4. Oh, university? Multi-disciplinary? I'm clearly out of my depth.

philologos · 28-07-2009 11:50AM

Daisy D wrote: »

This is the quickest and most recent I could think of.
LINK "Pope says gays are threat to human existence"

I don't believe that having different beliefs to other people constitutes an insult. In a pluralism where people have different views on different issues, someone will be offended by someone elses beliefs. We just have to grow thicker skin and learn how to deal with this offence in a mature manner.

The Catholic Church, like many other Christian denominations believes that the correct context for sexual intimacy is in a marriage. Anything outside of a marriage is deemed to be falling short of God's standard.

When the Pope speaks, he speaks for the Catholic Church. I find some of his speeches to be good, and I find some of them to be mistaken. As a non-Catholic however, I know that these speeches aren't in reference to me, but to the Catholic community.

If you don't believe in God, or if you don't believe in the standard set by Catholicism, these speeches shouldn't affect you. I personally believe that the Pope is mistaken in his regard to Protestant churches, and in respect to contraception.

Upon reading the article, it's clear that you skimmed by this:

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a sin but homosexual acts are. It opposes civil partnerships and gay marriage. The Pope has said that homosexual inclination was not a sin, but it represented a “more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil”.

prinz · 28-07-2009 11:53AM

countmeout.ie (Cormac) wrote: »

Are you speaking in the hypothetical here, or do you believe this is a genuine problem?

I believe it to be a genuine problem. Not solely confined to homosexuality but due to many factors, including socio-economic issues. I don't see a reason for the Pope to suddenly begin cherry picking what he can and cannot talk about.

countmeout.ie (Cormac) wrote: »

If this were the case, I presume you'd support the extension of reproductive rights to gay couples to help ameliorate the problem?

It would take a bigger person than me to give reproductive "rights" to gay couples

. Ask God. If you're asking me do I support the route of surrogacy and adoption etc, no I do not.

philologos · 28-07-2009 11:55AM

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

1. You will note from my original post that I explicitly stated 'In Ireland'. I feel, in this context, personally removing oneself from the church and contributing to the separation of church and state are inextricably linked. If you like, Ireland is a special case. Our constitution commits not to 'endow' any one religion, yet in practice this is clearly not the case.

They aren't inextricably linked. That's the issue.

Personal religious practice is a rather different thing than Church - State relations. They are entirely different.

Secularism as a political viewpoint insists that the Church should not be directly involved in deciding State affairs. That's where the line is drawn for me.

Secularism or Church - State separation does not insist that people leave their religion. Infact that would be the promotion of State atheism.

Kevin Rudd, the current Prime Minister of Australia, has a view on secularism that most resonates with what my view of secularism would be. It does not mean shutting out religion, or religious people entirely but it offers an alternative way with dealing with it:

A Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective … should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.

I.E philosophical traditions from all shapes and form of society should feel free to contribute their opinion, but they should have no deciding weight in how the Government carries out it's business.

That's where secularism ends for me, secularism has nothing to do with personal religious belief.

JimiTime · 28-07-2009 11:57AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Paul, word of advice. In the Christianity forum, misinterpretation and straw-man arguments are a speciality of regular posters. I would suggest some names, but I would get a slap on the bum from PDN.

LOL:D Ah FD, yer one of the good ones.

On a less juvenile note, I don't see any issue with this Countmeout thing.

Flamed Diving · 28-07-2009 12:06PM

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

4. Oh, university? Multi-disciplinary? I'm clearly out of my depth.

Translation: Arts degree.

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:07PM

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

1. You will note from my original post that I explicitly stated 'In Ireland'. I feel, in this context, personally removing oneself from the church and contributing to the separation of church and state are inextricably linked. If you like, Ireland is a special case. Our constitution commits not to 'endow' any one religion, yet in practice this is clearly not the case.

So how is this clearly not the case might I ask? tbh a non-believing, non-attending 'Christian' choosing to 'defect' will have no contribution whatsoever to the separation of Church and State.

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

2. I have no 'problem' with the Catholic faith. Kinda like saying I have no 'problem' with Fanta Lemon. However, I personally do not believe in the Catholic faith, just the same as I don't drink Fanta Lemon. As such, it would be a little disingenuous of me to try to encourage people back to the church if they fixed all the problems. Point of information: no such thing as a re-baptism.

Once baptised is always baptised in the eyes of God correct.

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

4. Oh, university? Multi-disciplinary? I'm clearly out of my depth.

Yes clearly.

.

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:08PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Translation: Arts degree.

Translation: LLB. If you figure out what that is I'll give you a silver star. Not that it's relevant here whatsoever. I am not the one confusing basic political foundations.

Daisy D · 28-07-2009 12:10PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that having different beliefs to other people constitutes an insult. In a pluralism where people have different views on different issues, someone will be offended by someone elses beliefs. We just have to grow thicker skin and learn how to deal with this offence in a mature manner.

It's different when he is the head of MY religion, and THIS is a reason for my defecting.

As for the quote:

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a sin but homosexual acts are. It opposes civil partnerships and gay marriage. The Pope has said that homosexual inclination was not a sin, but it represented a “more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil”.

I'm not too fussed about the line you bolded. It's this bolded line I've a problem (amoung the other many I have) with:

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a sin but homosexual acts are. It opposes civil partnerships and gay marriage. The Pope has said that homosexual inclination was not a sin, but it represented a “more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil”.

The church has no right to dictate on civil needs/wants. The same can be said for marriage RE: Marriage Equality's Website HERE if yer interested.

Anyway this all just leads back to countmeout.

Flamed Diving · 28-07-2009 12:13PM

prinz wrote: »

Translation LLB. If you figure out what that it I'll give you a silver star. Not that it's relevant here whatsoever. I am not the one confusing basic political foundations.

No one here is. The only confusion seems to lay in interpreting what someone is saying.

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:14PM

Daisy D wrote: »

It's different when he is the head of MY religion, and THIS is a reason for my defecting.

The religion based on God and Jesus...... you know those figures you do not believe in

Daisy D wrote: »

The church has no right to dictate on civil needs/wants. The same can be said for marriage RE: Marriage Equality's Website HERE if yer interested. Anyway this all just leads back to countmeout

The Church doesn't dictate. it opinionates. Take it or leave it. It would be interesting if the Pope came out and said he supported civil marriages for gay couples would you call it dictating.... I doubt it somehow.

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:17PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No one here is. The only confusion seems to lay in interpreting what someone is saying.

It would be if I was the first. However you may notice that PDN previously picked up on the confusing issue, about personal religion and Church/State separation and the poster in question reaffirmed that they do indeed confuse the two sorry "In Ireland".... because obviously we are a special case. i would be interested to know if countmeout.ie have any ideal country with a perfect system as they see it..

countmeout.ie (Cormac) · 28-07-2009 12:23PM

prinz wrote: »

I believe it to be a genuine problem. Not solely confined to homosexuality but due to many factors, including socio-economic issues. I don't see a reason for the Pope to suddenly begin cherry picking what he can and cannot talk about.

I presume you're referring to the fact that the rich West are having less children. If you believe that homosexuality is a factor in this then it follows you must believe that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon, or on the increase. Is this your position?

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2009 12:24PM

prinz wrote: »

He's a bit old now. Don't know who'd have him tbh. However the family is central to Catholic teaching so what's your point?

The pope is the leader of a group of celebate men. Surely advocating celibacy for heterosexual men is more of a danger to the future of humanity than homosexual couples who nowadays can get pregnant using fertility clincs even though they dont have procreational sex?

prinz wrote: »

Do gay rights activist regularly campaign for protection for the heterosexual couple

Do they campaign for the destruction of the heterosexual couple?

prinz wrote: »

and to keep the insitution of marriage as is?

They dont want to change it, they just want to join it, whats the problem?

prinz wrote: »

I couldn't care less what the atheists over on the A&A forum say about Christians. Their opinions are irrelevant to me.

Who said anything about the A&A forum? Atheists exists outside the internet too. Also I didn't ask if you alone where insulted, I asked if christians in general do.

philologos · 28-07-2009 12:24PM

Daisy D wrote: »

It's different when he is the head of MY religion, and THIS is a reason for my defecting.

It's fine if you want to defect. I personally don't mind if you defect from the Catholic Church. I asked you how did the Pope insult anyone, the clear point is the Pope hasn't the Pope has merely said that the Catholic Church does not agree with the LGBT community on the ethics of homosexual acts.

Daisy D wrote: »

The church has no right to dictate on civil needs/wants. The same can be said for marriage RE: Marriage Equality's Website HERE if yer interested. Anyway this all just leads back to countmeout.

The Pope isn't dictating. The Pope is offering the Church's opinion to those who are already faithful. When I as a non-Catholic listen to the Pope, I listen to him for his opinion. I actually do the same with the Archbishop of Canterbury even though he is the head figure of my church. I decide for myself based on my Biblical knowledge what I agree with and what I disagree with. I don't see them as "bad" people for offering their opinion.

I disagree with gay marriage, but I have no issue whatsoever with civil partnership. Therefore I disagree with the Pope on that, however I think it is his duty to inform his congregants of the churches stance on homosexual acts.

Infact people from other churches have also done this. The Episcopal Church of the USA recently said that they would consider ordaining more openly gay bishops this month in conflict with the rest of the Anglican Communion. They have also drawn up guidelines for a same sex blessing to be regarded as equivalent to marriage in the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury has advised them against this as it could potentially cause an ideological split in the Anglican Communion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/27/rowan-williams-anglican-communion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/27/archbishop-canterbury-opposes-gay-clergy

This article is from Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and Christian theologian:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece

We have to decide whether or not the church should conform to society, or conform to Christian tradition. I personally support the latter.

The question for this is, should we change our religion to suit cultural norms in a particular locality, or should we seek to be uniform and keep to traditional Christian teaching. This is a debate that has been going on for 6 years now if not longer.

I think the church has it's own guidelines to follow by, and it should stay true to what God has revealed to it over the centuries.

Flamed Diving · 28-07-2009 12:28PM

prinz wrote: »

i would be interested to know if countmeout.ie have any ideal country with a perfect system as they see it..

Why do you ask for a 'perfect' system? Such a nonsensical thing to say.

countmeout.ie (Paul) · 28-07-2009 12:33PM

prinz wrote: »

It would be if I was the first. However you may notice that PDN previously picked up on the confusing issue, about personal religion and Church/State separation and the poster in question reaffirmed that they do indeed confuse the two sorry "In Ireland".... because obviously we are a special case. i would be interested to know if countmeout.ie have any ideal country with a perfect system as they see it..

I know you want me to say Cuba or the USSR, don't you?

Listen guys, it's great that we can debate these things in a civil fashion, i'd like to think that the website has at least started that much.

Just to try to clarify my statement without any danger of misinterpretation:

In Ireland, many people are noted in the church records and the census as Catholics. We (countmeout) believe this figure to be grossly inaccurate in terms of the numbers of people who are 'lapsed' Catholics. Not to mention the amount of families who enter Catholic across the board, against the wishes of other family members.

As such, we think that facilitating people to formally leave the church will have a number of impacts:

1. Let people know defection is an avenue open to them
2. Generate a debate on the issue (safe to say we've achieved this?)
3. Make them reconsider what they enter on the census next time around
4. Let people give the church that unambiguous message that they no longer identify with the flock, for whatever reason

All of the above may help in some way to the separation of church and state, a more secular Ireland.

I'd be interested in asking the people who have opposed us on this thus far: do you think the Catholic church has a disproportionate influence in Ireland today?

Edit: I think the church/pope are fully entitled to publicly state their position on a whatever issue they wish.

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:33PM

countmeout.ie (Cormac) wrote: »

I presume you're referring to the fact that the rich West are having less children. If you believe that homosexuality is a factor in this then it follows you must believe that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon, or on the increase. Is this your position?

Not only the "rich West". And no I do not believe it is a recent phenomenon, yes I do believe it to be on the increase.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The pope is the leader of a group of celebate men. Surely advocating celibacy for heterosexual men is more of a danger to the future of humanity than homosexual couples who nowadays can get pregnant using fertility clincs even though they dont have procreational sex?.

Er no.The priesthood is a vocation, the Catholic Church rarely go on recruitment drives to round up hetero men. What they do do is to present an ideal, and a socially responsible structure, they promote and defend it. As it happens I am not 100% in favour of celibacy for the priesthood either. Saying the Pope cannot talk about this because he is celibate is like saying Bob Geldof cannot talk about Ethiopia because he's not a starving child.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do they campaign for the destruction of the heterosexual couple?

In a way, yes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They dont want to change it, they just want to join it, whats the problem?

By 'joining' it, they change it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who said anything about the A&A forum? Atheists exists outside the internet too. Also I didn't ask if you alone where insulted, I asked if christians in general do.

Like I said I don't care what atheists, say/think/do etc. I disagree, but it doesn't cause me sleepless nights. The point here is why someone who doesn't believe in Jesus, doesn't believe in God, is somehow upset by what the Pope says.

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2009 12:34PM

prinz wrote: »

Once baptised is always baptised in the eyes of God correct.

Interesting, so do we finally have a religion admitting that it cares not one wit about peoples actual beliefs, that all it cares about is people labelling themselves the correct label (or, as I'd imagine is the case for nearly every catholic in ireland, being labelled by someone else at an age when you have no say) because that is what gives them the most power?

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:39PM

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

I know you want me to say Cuba or the USSR, don't you? .

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

Listen guys, it's great that we can debate these things in a civil fashion, i'd like to think that the website has at least started that much.

True that.

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

In Ireland, many people are noted in the church records and the census as Catholics. We (countmeout) believe this figure to be grossly inaccurate in terms of the numbers of people who are 'lapsed' Catholics. Not to mention the amount of families who enter Catholic across the board, against the wishes of other family members.

I agree with everything above. And there are a lot of people I'd like to sign up

Few things grate me more than the false outpouring of interest and piousity when confirmations/communions/weddings etc come around. Especially since the churches are near empty most of the year. IMO it would do the Catholic Church a lot of good to cull the flock so to speak and get rid of the fair-weather Catholics. In that much I wish you success.

prinz · 28-07-2009 12:41PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Interesting, so do we finally have a religion admitting that it cares not one wit about peoples actual beliefs, that all it cares about is people labelling themselves the correct label (or, as I'd imagine is the case for nearly every catholic in ireland, being labelled by someone else at an age when you have no say) because that is what gives them the most power?

No. You might note I said "in the eyes of God", not in the eyes of the Church.

countmeout.ie (Cormac) · 28-07-2009 12:43PM

prinz wrote: »

Not only the "rich West". And no I do not believe it is a recent phenomenon, yes I do believe it to be on the increase.

Sorry for commenting as a series of questions, I'm just interested in your position.

By "increase", do you mean that more children are being born with the propensity to be homosexual, or that more self-indentified heterosexual people are switching to homosexuality?

Do you believe there is an upper limit on the percentage of the population that can become homosexual?

PDN · 28-07-2009 12:44PM

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

bapstising infants is an infinitely more effective method of signing people up, don't you think?

No, it probably isn't. Convincing non-cHRISTIANS of the truth of Christianity is a more effective recruitment tactic - like the Church did for its first 250 years or so, and like it is still doing in the parts of the world where it is growing most rapidly.

You have totally, and deliberately, misinterpreted what I said. My basic argument is this: you cannot wrest the church from the state if the majority of the population are members of that church. Formally defecting will reduce the numbers in the church and, thus, contribute to the removal of church from state.

Yes, we get that argument - we just don't agree with it. Separation of church and state is a matter of principle, not demographics. I am a Christian secularist and, along with many other Christians, I believe that church and state should be separate because it is wrong for anyone to force their religious beliefs on to someone else. Therefore, irrespective of whether we happen to be in the majority or the minority, the rights of the minority should be protected.

Having a Catholic, Muslim or Jewish TD does NOT mean the church and state are not separated. They are not separated when those TDs use their religion in the discharge of their duties. Their personal faith should not impact on their role as legislators (in an ideal world).

No, that is also wrong. I think you might have a better chance of running a successful campaign (something I wholeheartedly support in regards to the separation of church and state) if you understood what separation of church and state actually means.

Separation of church and state is when the church is given no preferential treatment in the legislation or administration of the state. That does not however, prevent TDs from allowing their decision making to be influenced by an ideology, a philosophy, or by a religious belief.

Let me use a simple example. William Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the North Atlantic slave trade. His opposition to slavery was a direct consequence of his evangelical Christian beliefs. Yet his campaign was not based on the authority of the church, but rather on the fact that abolition was the right thing to do. He appealed to the religious convictions of those MPs who professed to be religious, and he appealed to the rest on the grounds of common morality.

Wilberforce's campaign was entirely consistent with the principle of separation of church and state, in fact his campaign would have been successful far quicker in a genuinely secular society (some of the the Church of England bishops in the Lord opposed his campaign). Church and state remained separate because Wilberforce, despite being motivated by religious convictions, conducted his campaign on the basis of 'This is the right thing to do' rather than on the basis of 'This is what the church is telling you to do'.

If you genuinely want a separation of church and state then you would be wise to separate it from a defection campaign. There are thousands of committed Christians who desire to live in a truly secular state. You would be more likely to achieve such a goal by cooperating with them instead of repeating the mistakes of Michael Nugent's flop of a campaign against the Blasphemy Bill.

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2009 12:47PM

prinz wrote: »

Er no.The priesthood is a vocation, the Catholic Church rarely go on recruitment drives to round up hetero men. What they do do is to present an ideal, and a socially responsible structure, they promote and defend it. As it happens I am not 100% in favour of celibacy for the priesthood either. Saying the Pope cannot talk about this because he is celibate is like saying Bob Geldof cannot talk about Ethiopia because he's not a starving child.

I'm not saying he cant talk about it, just that its ironic, although know that I think about it, it seems a bit dishonest too. If he really cared about the future of humanity being damaged by fewer kids then he would call for priest to be allowed to be married. Between current priest and candidate priest you have over 1.1 million men, not to mention the 823,000 nuns, linky, so that nearly 2 million people who could have kids who the pope doesnt seem to care about.

prinz wrote: »

In a way, yes.

.....And what way is that?

prinz wrote: »

By 'joining' it, they change it.

How? My parents marriage hasn't been effected by the millions of people who have married since they wed 35-odd years ago. How is the "institute" of marriage changed by who gets married?

prinz wrote: »

Like I said I don't care what atheists, say/think/do etc. I disagree, but it doesn't cause me sleepless nights. The point here is why someone who doesn't believe in Jesus, doesn't believe in God, is somehow upset by what the Pope says.

Well no, the point was that you said what the pope said wasn't insulting. Surely by virtue of having someone posting here about how insulted they where by it shows that it was at least somewhat insulting.

Mark Hamill · 28-07-2009 12:48PM

prinz wrote: »

No. You might note I said "in the eyes of God", not in the eyes of the Church.

Fine, do we finally have a god admitting that it cares not one wit about peoples actual beliefs, that all it cares about is people labelling themselves the correct label (or, as I'd imagine is the case for nearly every catholic in ireland, being labelled by someone else at an age when you have no say) because that is what gives them the most power?

PDN · 28-07-2009 12:49PM

This thread is about countmeout.ie

If anyone wants to debate homosexuality take it to another thread. The topic under discussion should get interesting enough without the tired old cliches, strawmen and misrepresentations we get every time the gay issue is discussed.

countmeout.ie

Comments