Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[Roq]

It does not dictate that they are not worthy of being part of their community, they are supposed to be welcome at church. However the church is not to sanction same sex unions and partnerships, which go against God's design and intent.

It is possible to love certain people and minister to them with charity and compassion, while not approving all of their behavior and standing firmly on certain sacred standards.




For the record I never lived in an American society where Christianity is associated with right-wing fiscal values, that always flew over my head. I live in a society that used to be practically a Catholic theocracy where people were taught all these things, such as relishing money being evil, etc.

It might look like a whole lot of energy being spent on a single issue among many others, but when the definition of something major like our expectations of what is marriage and what is a family are being changed, it will resound in a lot of people's minds and they will step up.

Since your god doesn't in fact exist (or at least you have zero evidence that it does) and homosexuals on the other hand do, I reckon that homosexuals take priority. You can believe whatever fantasies you like, as long as long as they don't impact on other people's lives. But, when they do you need to be very sure that you are right - and your Christian religion has no more right to be taken as a serious attempt at truth than any other religion or the flying spaghetti monster for that matter. We need to relegate religious discrimination against minorities to the past where it belongs and noone should have the right to tell any other adult what they can or can't do in the privacy of their homes.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Well where I live same sex marriage has been legal for ten years, so here it is indeed between them and God. It should be noted though that very few homosexuals or lesbians take advantage of it in countries where it is legal, I think it is something as low as 4%.

For the record though the arguments for keeping marriage for between a man and a woman are far from being solely Christian or religious. I recommend the book Correct, Not Politically Correct; How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone for anyone interested in this subject, which has entirely secular content.

 

[Thrasher]

Oh boy. That book is apparently full of false statements originating in family value and right wing think tanks. Here's an example:

On page 35 he accuses a third of homosexuals of being child rapists (based on statistics from the Family Research Council, and extreme right-wing think tank and a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group). What he fails to mention is the inconvenient fact that the vast majority of child rapists either have no attraction to adults of either gender, or identify as heterosexual.

You can't trust anything from people who use these sources.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I actually have the book in front of me, and this is not true, this is a misquote, he does not accuse them of that. There are many different points brought up in the book, which overall I found to be insightful.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a credible organization, or at least not anymore, as it designates conservative political think tank groups as hate groups on the same level as the likes of the Ku-Klux-Klan. It has even been dropped as a source by the FBI's web site earlier this year which has distanced itself from it.

 

[txa1265]

Well where I live same sex marriage has been legal for ten years, so here it is indeed between them and God. It should be noted though that very few homosexuals or lesbians take advantage of it in countries where it is legal, I think it is something as low as 4%.

For the record though the arguments for keeping marriage for between a man and a woman are far from being solely Christian or religious. I recommend the book Correct, Not Politically Correct; How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone for anyone interested in this subject, which has entirely secular content.

You could get more reliable information from Mad magazine ... that book is so incredibly incorrect it would be hilarious if there weren't so many dangerous gun-carrying right-wingnuts who believe that crap.

 

[Thrasher]

HHR, you have no credibility. You need to stop this schtick.

 

[Hexprone]

entirely secular content.

Frank Turek is an evangelical apologist.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Frank Turek is an evangelical apologist.

Of course he is and I listened to a lot of his material, I also have I don't have enough faith to be an atheist in fact. But the book he authored doesn't contain a single religious argument, it is largely a collection of various statistics.

I am sorry if it sounds I have a shtick. I really am a Catholic and I am sincere and well-intended in what I say. For instance I really own these books (this is from an old pic). I try to be careful not to flood this place with such views and to be tactful and respectful in all cases. But if every now and again these sorts of topics comes up, then I will sound off like everyone else, although it will be in a mature manner.

 

[txa1265]

But the book he authored doesn't contain a single religious argument, it is largely a collection of various statistics.

The entire history of marriage and religion are intertwined, so it is quite literally impossible to dissociate them. His premise of harm is based on standards which are either unproven or impossible to verify or have already been debunked, such as:
- The 'mother father' postulate - aside from a general assumption that having both parents is 'good', this is unproven, and entirely subjective.
- The male/female thing - is having a man and woman in the house better than two men or two women? Again, unprovable at this point.
- 'Both parents' - now this HAS been proven ... to be nonsense. Single parents are no less likely to produce successful or screwed up kids than dual-parent homes or same sex homes.

And then there is the whole 'gays as child molesters' thing ... which is SO dangerous and completely incorrect. Most important - it is WRONG. It is also dangerous because it gets people hurt and killed.

Anyway, he might not quote scripture, but when his entire basis comes from a church-centric viewpoint ... and his ideas come right from other religious bigots ... well, the outcome is clear.

 

[Thrasher]

He quotes statistics that are biased because they were not derived scientifically, but were instead constructed to re-enforce religious beliefs.

 

[Aubrielle]

I try to be careful not to flood this place with such views and to be tactful and respectful in all cases.

I think I could probably use my fingers to count the number of your posts where you haven't mentioned your religion (or very nearly).

It escapes me how someone that's sincere could end up looking like they're trolling...if they are, in fact, sincere.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

In the section meant specifically for it, sure, that might be a bit different, but it would be exaggerating to say it's practically all I'm talking about, and I don't think I have abused the freedom of expression granted here. And I have proven I do own the books referenced here in the last post.

All I can say is that I have great love for the homosexual, who struggles for acceptance in an uncaring world, with a difficult situation he or she never chose. If the church was doing its job of empathizing with them and ministering grace to them the world would be a much better place for them. No, the church cannot go against what is written in the Scriptures in this regard, but what it can do is treat them with kindness and grace, so they understand they are worthy children of God like everyone else.

 

[Damian]

In the section meant specifically for it, sure, that might be a bit different, but it would be exaggerating to say it's practically all I'm talking about, and I don't think I have abused the freedom of expression granted here. And I have proven I do own the books referenced here in the last post.

All I can say is that I have great love for the homosexual, who struggles for acceptance in an uncaring world, with a difficult situation he or she never chose. If the church was doing its job of empathizing with them and ministering grace to them the world would be a much better place for them. No, the church cannot go against what is written in the Scriptures in this regard, but what it can do is treat them with kindness and grace, so they understand they are worthy children of God like everyone else.

As a Christian I agree with this. Too many double standards in the church today.

 

[crpgnut]

And then there is the whole 'gays as child molesters' thing … which is SO dangerous and completely incorrect. Most important - it is WRONG. It is also dangerous because it gets people hurt and killed.

My uncle would love to agree with this statement as he is in jail for life for exactly this. He's gay, he molested his son and physically abused him. He also sexually assaulted his daughters as he hated them for being girls; which he admitted in court documents. He would have gotten away with all of this but he had to molest a neighbor boy and that kid started my uncle's well needed downfall.

Fortunately, I'm not related to this dude as he was my mom's step-brother, but I've dealt with the aftermath since we have kept in touch with all of the kids. 3 are totally messed up, but two have very productive lives. You should see my uncle's "husband" in prison. woof!

I wish predatory male homosexuals was a fairy tale, but it is very real and not all that uncommon as my uncle is one of several people in that jail for the same crime. BTW, the guy was a millionaire and almost bought himself out of prison. He would be loose right now and maybe living next door to you and yours. Almost.

As far as the religious side of this, I really don't care. My uncle lists himself as Catholic, but never went to church or anything. Both of his well adjusted, well off kids became religious but I couldn't tell you what brand.

 

[Aubrielle]

My uncle would love to agree with this statement as he is in jail for life for exactly this. He's gay, he molested his son and physically abused him. He also sexually assaulted his daughters as he hated them for being girls; which he admitted in court documents. He would have gotten away with all of this but he had to molest a neighbor boy and that kid started my uncle's well needed downfall.

There's predators in every group of people (including loads of heterosexual sex offenders). Is this any reason to maintain society-wide discrimination against LGBT people? How many children are preyed upon by straight predators?

And by the way, there are tons of studies that suggest that children of same-sex parents are healthier and better adjusted.

"the [authors of one particular study] were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression. " (Source)

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/children-same-sex-parents-are-healthier-study-n149901

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Edit: Predatory behavior toward children is a psychological disorder, not a manifestation of a given sexual orientation.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I don't think anyone implied that it was a manifestation of a sexual orientation.

These sorts of studies, whichever side they are for, need to be taken with a grain of salt though, as they suffer from the same issues that plague studies made in the domain of social sciences. That is, very small sample sizes, with candidates which are often cherry picked, and biased questioning and methodology.

The main reason to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman is to incentivize the nuclear family, which is the bread and butter of any society. That is to say, a man and a woman raising children which are biologically their own. This means that marriage is to be primarily about raising children, not about hedonistic love between two partners. We see that as the importance of marriage progressively diminishes, so does this sense of duty about the sacredness of monogamy and exclusivity, and raising children. One of the points brought up in Frank Turek's book is the work of J.D Unwin, an anthropologist who lived early in the 20th century and who studied the sexual ethics of dozens of different cultures, and found out that through the gamut of human history, no rising culture didn't protect traditional marriage very strictly, and those who didn't always fell apart.

I know that when my wife and I got married, we took it seriously, as such we already have two children.

I don't know about the law in various countries, but I know that in most of the western world same sex partners enjoy plenty of the same protections that heterosexual couples do, meaning that marriage itself becomes something symbolic. And I have shown that when same sex marriage actually becomes available, it is seldom taken advantage of, only by a very small minority.

Which brings us to the second biggest reason, that is, the rarity of monogamy among same sex relationships. One iconic example of this is Dan Savage, who is a famous gay activist. He has an adopted son with his husband, and he describes their relationship together as "monogamish", meaning it is what we commonly understand as an "open relationship", in that while they live together and are romantically involved, they frequently have sexual encounters with other people.

A few years ago I lived for roughly a year in a part of Montreal colloquially called the "gay village", where I worked for a technology company that had its office in close vicinity to it. It would be equivalent to the "Castro" in San Francisco, which means a borrough populated mostly by homosexuals. As such I had many coworkers who were homosexual, and I made many acquaintances and friends who also were, quite a few of which I keep in touch with to this day. In my anecdotal example, what I noticed among others was that none of those people were part of a stable, exclusive, long-lasting relationship with another partner. This is actually the part of my life where I became quite interested and touched by the fate of homosexuals, as what I found seemingly puzzling was that these people lived in a place where homosexuality was universally accepted, and yet they seemed so miserable, thriving on fleeting hedonistic pleasures which never seemed to fulfill them. I found they seemed to be in such pain.

This actually is an area where social scientists who have a progressive slant come up short when it comes to conducting studies that show monogamous relationships among same sex couples. You see a lot of them being featured in the media, but the question is, is this representative of the life of the average homosexual? Now usually at that point, people point out to me that monogamy is fleeting among heterosexuals themselves, which is of course true. However, the prorata is on a completely different scale. Monogamy is actually a small exception and is usually frail when it occurs, rather than the norm.

As such, civil partnerships and protections are more adapted to the kind of lives most homosexuals live, rather than usual nuclear family life, where factors such as monogamy, stability, and exclusivity are paramount, and as such marriage is best adapted to nurture these factors.

 

[Zewp]

Since your god doesn't in fact exist (or at least you have zero evidence that it does) and homosexuals on the other hand do, I reckon that homosexuals take priority. You can believe whatever fantasies you like, as long as long as they don't impact on other people's lives. But, when they do you need to be very sure that you are right - and your Christian religion has no more right to be taken as a serious attempt at truth than any other religion or the flying spaghetti monster for that matter. We need to relegate religious discrimination against minorities to the past where it belongs and noone should have the right to tell any other adult what they can or can't do in the privacy of their homes.

I think the biggest problem is that so many religions demand that their followers go forth and spread the word of their god to people who more often than not, just want to be left alone. Speaking as a gay man, I'm just so tired of listening to people preaching to me about how god loves me and wants only the best for me, just before they go off on a tirade about how the life I'm living is a life of sin and how through prayer and worship I can be curedTM!

I honestly don't want to hear it. By now I want to vomit when these people start with their so-called acts of compassion. Just shut up. I honestly don't care what people believe. If they want to believe I'm sinful and going to hell, cool. That's their business and I don't care. Just leave me out of it. I'm not religious but if it ever turns out that there's a god and he wants to send me to hell for daring to love another man, then oh well. I guess I'll spend a couple of eternities in agony. Until such time, these people need to shut up and mind their own business.

 

[Aubrielle]

Zewp, there's two kinds of Christians on this site. One is the type that believes what they believe but don't talk about it very often, and definitely don't preach to queer people about being queer. They just leave us alone. Then there's trolls who use every post to talk about their religion, pretending they're morbidly devout and lacing their posts with hypocrisy.

Either way, reasonable, or at the very least, indifferent people seem to carry the day here.

 

[crpgnut]

There's predators in every group of people (including loads of heterosexual sex offenders). Is this any reason to maintain society-wide discrimination against LGBT people? How many children are preyed upon by straight predators?

Um, didn't say it was. I was discrediting txa's argument that it doesn't happen. You can find a study to support any theory. There were several studies proving the Earth was flat, didn't make it true. If you dig deep into who paid/sponsored for which study, you'll find most of them aren't worth the time it takes to read the results. How many reviews have we read where someone who doesn't like rpgs reviews an rpg? Same thing.

Study by Christian group proves homosexuality can be cured.
Study by gay scientists proves homosexuality is genetic.
Study by gay households prove they're better than hetero households.
Study by Martians proves there is no life on Earth.
See? All are equally a waste of time. If you happen to believe any of them, that's on you. Most do it to validify their own worldview.

Bias exists everywhere, so the best thing to do is form your own opinion based on what you've seen and experienced. I've experienced, albeit second hand, a predatory gay male and therefore know they exist. They are not the norm however, just as Aubrielle pointed out.

My opinion? I don't care if you're hetero or homo as long as you don't push me to believe or accept a certain way because of your life choice. Lesbians don't bother me, I'm married and have a mate. Gay males don't bother me as long as they don't hit on me or my hetero friends. I have a buddy who might be interested though

Ah, that's another thing, I'm very hetero but that doesn't stop me from having gay friends. That'd be like not having friends that smoke, or drink, or are vegetarians, or any other thing that isn't one of my life choices. None of these other groups are "special" or require a certain type of treatment. Same with the LGBT, they're just people, not special people. Let's say I'm fat. I just have to get used to people being grossed out when I pile my plate 3 feet high at the buffet. Let's say I'm bald, I'll just have to live with folks making fun of my lack of hair and being discarded as a potential mate by certain females. Let's say I'm gay, I'll just have to live with folks being grossed out if I hold hands with my partner in public.

I see no need for HHR to change to fit person A's worldview anymore than person A needing to fit HHR's. Every person that has posted wants to push their view onto other people. As long as violence doesn't get involved all views are equal. It's only when someone tries to push their viewpoint onto other people that violence erupts. Don't try to force me to believe as you do, one of us will end up hurt.

 

[txa1265]

Um, didn't say it was. I was discrediting txa's argument that it doesn't happen.

Ah - I must have been unclear ... what I was TRYING to say was that there is no causal link between homosexuality and sexual violence or pedophelia (nor is there a link for heterosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, pansexuals, and so on).
The push by the author HHR cited was that we needed to fear homosexuals because they were coming to abuse your kids ... that is untrue in terms of the attempt to establish a causal link. In fact, if you take the '1 in 10' number for the fraction of homosexuals in the general population ... there is a MUCH greater likelihood that if someone is going to assault your child that they are heterosexual. But again, it isn't causal.

Every person that has posted wants to push their view onto other people. As long as violence doesn't get involved all views are equal. It's only when someone tries to push their viewpoint onto other people that violence erupts. Don't try to force me to believe as you do, one of us will end up hurt.

I mostly agree ... I think we are free to have a free and open debate and express our views. But that freedom is also separate from the rights of the individual to all of the equal freedoms enjoyed by other citizens without limitation based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and so on.

So if we want to discuss why fewer women are going into male-dominated software and gaming programming despite more overall STEM enrollment and degrees, that is great ... but when we get to the point where a half-dozen high level female figures have been driven from their homes and issued credible threats of violence and death based solely on gender, that starts to change thing.

Feeling 'grossed outu' by same sex kissing is likewise a personal choice, but calling police and getting same sex kissers thrown out of a public place ... not OK anymore. See what I am saying? But in those cases, someone else is taking an extreme measure based on what they perceive as someone else trying to force them to accept something.