Heil Intolerance

[Octavius]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
if this thread gets to 500 sob, im gonna find some real good porn for ya.

ooh!  Can I have some too?

[SOB]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/po/20030809/co_po/gaycatholicgroupspeaksoutagainstpope&e=1

Gay Catholic group speaks out against pope
Fri Aug 8, 8:13 PM ET

A week after the Vatican condemned same-sex marriages and homosexuality in general, dozens of gay Catholic couples plan to affirm their commitments in Las Vegas Sunday. The group ceremony will cap the 16th convention of Dignity/USA.

The event has become one part of the national gay Catholic organization's answer to those and other papal attacks as the group convenes for the first time since the church's sex-abuse scandal last year. The Vatican blamed the scandal largely on the existence of gay priests.

Both controversies loomed large over the conference as it opened Thursday night with a fiery admonition from Dignity President Patrick McArron, who called the Vatican's actions forms of "spiritual terrorism."

"We have come under vicious attack from within our own church," he told the 300 attendees. "I would be lying to you if I did not say that I have been very angry with the elite old-boys club, and it is time to say, 'No more.' Enough is enough. "

On July 31, the Vatican issued "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," a 12-page edict that branded gay relationships as "against the natural moral law" and warned Catholic politicians around the world that supporting legislation recognizing same-sex couples would be "gravely immoral."

Sunday's ceremony, the first of its kind for a national Dignity conference, will not be a full-fledged Catholic wedding but rather a group affirmation of the couples and their commitments, as some have already had more formal ceremonies. Nonetheless, the long-planned event is taking on a new significance amid the current furor.

"Because the Vatican threw down the gauntlet on this issue of same-sex marriage, the fact that a week later we're doing this blessing will be seen by some as an act of defiance," Dignity Executive Director Marianne Duddy said. "In some ways, it is. We should be allowed -- like all other couples -- to define our own relationships, and to have them honored and celebrated. Making a commitment to another person is a sacred act. It is no less sacred if it's two women or two men than if it's a man and a woman."

Dignity will also issue a new statement on gay marriage, expected to be approved by members on Saturday, that insists there's nothing inconsistent about being gay and Catholic, despite the Vatican's claims. "The love that brings and binds two people of the same, or opposite, sex together has a divine source," the position paper concludes. "It is therefore sacramental in nature, and should be celebrated as such by our church."

That view was backed up Friday by a keynote address from Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk who for decades has studied the problems created by the requirement that Catholic clergy remain celibate. In his speech, Sipe insisted that the pope misleads the flock by not taking science into account when interpreting the scriptures, and that the Vatican's inappropriate approach to sex fostered an atmosphere that resulted in widespread sexual abuse by priests.

"I do not hesitate to say that the church's teaching on human sexuality is not correct," Sipe said. "Its basis of biblical revelation and interpretation is insufficient to account for the realities we already know."

Wow, gay and Catholic.  I wonder if they believe they're going to hell when they die?


SOB

[Thrawn]

A recent poll in Canada indicated that 57% of Catholics here support same sex marriages.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Thrawn
A recent poll in Canada indicated that 57% of Catholics here support same sex marriages.

"Catholics"

[Thrawn]

"What" "about" it" "?"

[Hortlund]

Well, they cant really be Catholics if they ignore what the Pope say, now can they...?

[majic]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, they cant really be Catholics if they ignore what the Pope say, now can they...?

They are unless they are excommunicated.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, they cant really be Catholics if they ignore what the Pope say, now can they...?

dumb

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by OIO
well homosexuality is not hereditary...

the world is full of confused people.

dumber

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
if this thread gets to 500 sob, im gonna find some real good porn for ya.

pay up

[Holden McGroin]

501 on the way to 1k

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Mini D
Ummm... dead... I do believe you misread the sarcasm intended with that statement.  I know that things experienced at times growing up shape what you become... it was someone else that was stating it was predetermined genetically.

I know its alot of work and alot of crap... but you should read through the thread a bit more.

As it's a subject that's obviously close to your heart, I offer you this salutary lesson in the perils of poor reading comprehension with extra highlighting for for your edification and entertainment:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm saying is that hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet, causes each one of us to be attracted to either the same sex, or the opposite sex. Nobody gets to choose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Did you actually say "nobody get's to choose"? Does this mean the Romans were more likely to have homosexual traights? Or Greeks? I mean, at some point it was a part of their culture. Maybe something changes when you get locked up in prison and are surrounded by nothing but men?

Nah. Its not about choice at all. Its all about genetics.

MiniD

If you read closely, you'll note that banana does not imply it's anything to do with genetics. He suggests "hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet" are to blame. Not very genetic at all.

Earlier in the thread (which, in a surprise twist, it turns out I had bothered reading, thank you for your kind concern) Thrawn posted an article that is headlined "Sheep study suggests sexual orientation may be genetic". This elicited no direct reply from you, whilst banana's did - and with quotes no less - so I did assume you were merely refuting banana's (non genetic cause) position.
However, if you actually get past the headline and intro of the Thrawn piece and read the whole thing - you'll find that none of the scientists actually quoted go so far as to suggest that it may be genetic at all. The closest Charles Roselli, the researcher, offers is "It indicates that there may be a biological (reason) for this sexual preference". Biological doesn't mean genetic. Sure, the piece goes on to say (about the 1991 LeVay study) "While scientists were careful to label the size difference a correlation rather than the cause of heterosexuality, they said it could indicate that sexual preference was genetic rather than a choice" - the "could indicate" implies that genetics is only one option, and (having done a little research) the scientists are leaning towards genetics as a possibility because this correlation - the size of the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus - is a product of prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation. This would certainly preclude the sizing being the result of a choice, but without further studies the point is still moot. And again this does not preclude a non-genetic cause, such as banana suggests.
 
In fact the first person in this thread to be so bold as to explictly suggest sexual preferences are genetically determined is your good self, albeit sarcastically (or so I presume). So the whole genetics issue (at least on this thread of the BBS) appears to be something of a straw man of your own making (although a few others in the religious camp [no pun intended, honest] have helped). Particularly in the context of banana's post to which you replied.  

However, it's probably a good idea to point out that the discovery that sexual preferences do not have a genetic cause would not invalidate the hypothesis that sexual preferences are not a concious choice. Environmental causes - which you believe can shape the psyche (if I'm reading you right and you're not being sarcastic) - would also not be a concious choice. Neither would banana's hypothesis of hormones or an as-yet-unknown agent.

As to my misreading of the sarcasm intended with the 'Its[sic] a fundamentally flawed argument and I don't believe you'd find a single scientist or sociologist that would agree with the "nobody has a choice" philosophy' statement - I was indeed unaware that the  comment was meant sarcastically, and I did think you were being serious. Guilty as charged. And so I refuted this claim. But in my defence I do have to point out that normally sarcasm is a tonal thing, which just doesn't come across on a BBS. You might want to try using comments or something when there is this level of ambiguity involved.

It's great to see SOB cleared the 500 mark.

[SOB]

So, do I get some sort of button or something?

"I started a retarded thread, and all I got was this stupid button!"

[Frogm4n]

i think you deserve some sort of gay custom title.