Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[Keystone Phil]

I didn't have a problem with what he was saying. He made some valid points that you tooks cheap shots at rather than trying to answer.

I took the cheap shots? I did? Wow. Nice to see you ignoring many of his half truths, his bitter tone towards the Church and his condescending tone towards the person he's debating. I guess you don't have much a problem with the latter since you decided to join in the fun, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm tired of you have the high ground because you're gay and a practicing Catholic. Basically, it's Andrew does no wrong an alarming amount of the time. Before you tell me that I don't understand the experiences, please remember that you don't know me as well as you think you do. I have friends that deal with this (maybe not marriage but life as a gay person as a very active member of the Church) and show me much more respect than you extended to me. What you said earlier was nasty and embarrassing. I know it's easy to go after the lone debater on the other side but it was totally uncalled for.

[Alcon]

I don't have much time to continue this conversation, and you're getting into angry mode again, Phil, so I'm going to phase out my participation in this topic:

1. That's not the only survey out there, and there are no serious estimates that I'm aware of that don't indicate over-representation of homosexuals in the priesthood.

2. I wasn't trying to prove that the Catechisms compelled gays to the priesthood, but that their guidelines suggest chastity and service to God for homosexuals, which may lead a disproportionate many to the priesthood, while heterosexuals would prefer marriage.

And:

I'm offended that you are allowed to basically say that HIV/AIDS is a gay man's disease. Now if the distinguished former Senator Santorum or I suggested anything like that...

It's not a gay man's disease.  It's a disease that disproportionately affects gay men.  I don't understand why you feel compelled to insinuate homophobia on my part after I've gone out of my way to make it clear I don't feel that from you.  If you genuinely thought that was a homophobic comment, I don't really know what to say.  It wasn't.  I thought you knew me enough to know it wasn't.

[afleitch]

I'm tired of you have the high ground because you're gay and a practicing Catholic. Basically, it's Andrew does no wrong an alarming amount of the time. Before you tell me that I don't understand the experiences, please remember that you don't know me as well as you think you do. I have friends that deal with this (maybe not marriage but life as a gay person as a very active member of the Church) and show me much more respect than you extended to me. What you said earlier was nasty and embarrassing. I know it's easy to go after the lone debater on the other side but it was totally uncalled for.

Well Phil, I already quickly apologised for telling you to 'shut' up. There is nothing else I can say.

And I don't take the high ground on this, I actually keep a pretty low profile now that i've found a parish, a congregation and a priest that I am comfortable with (and vice versa)

[Keystone Phil]

I don't have much time to continue this conversation, and you're getting into angry mode again, Phil,

Oh, as always, of course. I think that's what might happen when it is something like four on one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still dispute it. You show me two polls that seem faulty, at best, when it comes to sexual orientation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Maybe" is the best answer here, I guess. Not very compelling evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought I knew certain people here well enough, too. After this debate, it's clear that I don't.

And I don't take the high ground on this, I actually keep a pretty low profile now that i've found a parish, a congregation and a priest that I am comfortable with (and vice versa)

You most certainly take the high ground on this forum on this subject. I know from previous butting of heads with you on these topics. Anyway, as the gay Catholic, you win. I lose. I was the one apparently taking cheap shots. I'm still the "anti gay" voice here as a supporter of civil unions.

There are some battles on our beloved forum that some of us will just never win. It's a shame really but it's reality.

[afleitch]

You most certainly take the high ground on this forum on this subject. I know from previous butting of heads with you on these topics. Anyway, as the gay Catholic, you win. I lose. I was the one apparently taking cheap shots. I'm still the "anti gay" voice here as a supporter of civil unions.

There are some battles on our beloved forum that some of us will just never win. It's a shame really but it's reality.

I didn't say you were anti-gay. I made no reference to that at all - you were the one that brought that up. I was saying, quite clearly that the position of gays in civil society and in the state is a different issue from from the position of gays in the Church. I never even had a problem with what you said on the matter, only the tone which you adpoted when putting your points across. And you're still using that 'scorned' tone which is unfortunate as it makes it difficult to discuss things with you.

[Brittain33]

I took the cheap shots? I did? Wow. Nice to see you ignoring many of his half truths, his bitter tone towards the Church and his condescending tone towards the person he's debating. I guess you don't have much a problem with the latter since you decided to join in the fun, too.

My (I hope) last word on this... yes, I was condescending. It's a character flaw.

I stand by the accuracy of what I said, and also stated where I come from with this, which is as the partner of a gay Catholic who loves the church and does not wish to split it, and who has seen the experiences of gay men therein. It's not my policy to be bitter about a faith I don't belong to and never did, and which no longer wields great political influence in my state. However, I don't mince words. I do think a focus on my tone can detract from the points I was trying to make.

But I do not expect us to resolve this here, nor is it worth trying to, because it's a deeply personal subject for both of us and no longer connected to the purpose of the forum. 

[Keystone Phil]

You most certainly take the high ground on this forum on this subject. I know from previous butting of heads with you on these topics. Anyway, as the gay Catholic, you win. I lose. I was the one apparently taking cheap shots. I'm still the "anti gay" voice here as a supporter of civil unions.

There are some battles on our beloved forum that some of us will just never win. It's a shame really but it's reality.

I didn't say you were anti-gay. I made no reference to that at all - you were the one that brought that up. I was saying, quite clearly that the position of gays in civil society and in the state is a different issue from from the position of gays in the Church. I never even had a problem with what you said on the matter, only the tone which you adpoted when putting your points across. And you're still using that 'scorned' tone which is unfortunate as it makes it difficult to discuss things with you.

Take a look through the thread at others that said it or hinted that I was, Andrew. Then tell me again how appropriate it was that you singled me out when you first threw yourself into this. Again, it's the instinct to go after the straight guy defending the Church (and apparently being intolerant of gays). That's why you felt the need to say, "Phil, shut up. You're embarrassing yourself and your Church." It's a real pity you didn't bother to read through the thread before you jumped at me.

[afleitch]

Again, it's the instinct to go after the straight guy defending the Church (and apparently being intolerant of gays). That's why you felt the need to say, "Phil, shut up. You're embarrassing yourself and your Church." It's a real pity you didn't bother to read through the thread before you jumped at me.

Phil

Once again - I said you 'embarassed' the Church because as a fellow Catholic you were pretty awful in putting your point across. I don't care what the hell your point was, whether it was pro or anti anything, it was put across poorly and yes it was 'borderline hysterical' at points (Alcon noted it too, but was more tactful than I was in saying so.)

I am not 'going after the straight guy' (you know I'm not that tribal) What I said above, that's what I pulled you up for. Not what you said and what he said, and what you think about civil unions or, what sexuality you are or he is or I am.

I don't know where you got this into your head that it was about 'the gays' and your stance on the issues.

[phk]

No.

[Keystone Phil]

Once again - I said you 'embarassed' the Church because as a fellow Catholic you were pretty awful in putting your point across. I don't care what the hell your point was, whether it was pro or anti anything, it was put across poorly and yes it was 'borderline hysterical' at points (Alcon noted it too, but was more tactful than I was in saying so.)

I really don't see how anything was borderline hysterical. Was it borderline hysterical to suggest that our Church does have a place for gays, Andrew? Or maybe it was my crazed view that the Church isn't "full of" gay priests. Perhaps it was my disputing of a poll, conducted by the polling expert Franciscan friar, that suggested about half of priests are gay?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bottom line is that you didn't feel the need to put brittain in his place after he resorted to Church bashing and patronizing. It's something he has now even admitted to and you still say that you didn't have a problem with his conduct. Fair? I don't think so.

[afleitch]

Bottom line is that you didn't feel the need to put brittain in his place after he resorted to Church bashing and patronizing. It's something he has now even admitted to and you still say that you didn't have a problem with his conduct. Fair? I don't think so.

I don't know him. I know you. And I knew you were above the level at which you decided to take the argument. When a poster you know and quite like goes off on one then you tend to try and reel them in. People do that to me too.

[Keystone Phil]

Bottom line is that you didn't feel the need to put brittain in his place after he resorted to Church bashing and patronizing. It's something he has now even admitted to and you still say that you didn't have a problem with his conduct. Fair? I don't think so.

I don't know him. I know you. And I knew you were above the level at which you decided to take the argument. When a poster you know and quite like goes off on one then you tend to try and reel them in. People do that to me too.

I still don't see how I went off but whatever. This argument can't be won.

[Brittain33]

Bottom line is that you didn't feel the need to put brittain in his place after he resorted to Church bashing and patronizing. It's something he has now even admitted to

Patronizing yes, "church bashing" no.

[Torie]

That's very good VB; very well written and composed.

Here is my little query for those who at once believe in the existence of a loving God, and that one of "His" laws is sex only for married dual gender couples (words deliberately chosen, since I assume sex is OK for a gay and a lesbian who are married to each other).  Assuming some are indeed born gay, as a hard wired predisposition, and yet are "burning with passion," just why would a loving God consign them to a life of unhappiness and alienation by virtue of having to obey "His"  stricture of celibacy? 

[Alcon]

This post misunderstands chastity and the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church considers themselves guardians of the teachings of Christ.  The problem is that you are looking at everything with a 'tolerance' angle.  The Church tolerates gays, but it does not encourage homosexuality, just as it does not encourage other sins such as gluttony, sloth, greed, et cetera.  It is interesting that there are no modern activists advocating changing those sins.  Indeed, if it were not for the Church's views on sexuality then it would not be so attacked.

Nothing in my post misunderstands that.  I'm aware that your moral belief is whatever the religious text you believe dictates to you.  That doesn't mean that, if I find that wrong, I won't use humanist reasoning to point out my disagreement, because that's the origin of my moral beliefs.

What would I say to a gay Christian?  I would say, stop sinning.  Everyone struggles with sin, some more than others, but indulging in sodomy is a choice, just as being angry is a choice, eating to excess is a choice, and hitting someone is a choice. 

Coming against from my secular moralism, I see where you're coming from, but I will point out that all of your other examples are also wrong in the conventionally secular sense.

Being a Christian is also a choice.  If they disagree with what the Bible has to say on sexuality, then they are free to leave.  It is easy to belong to a religion when you agree with everything it has to say.

I thought it was faith that was important, not mortal "agreement" and thought and everything.  I thought you were supposed to teach people to overcome their skepticism.  I guess eventually, if something gives, something gives, eh?

When people say that the Church ought to change its position to match a modern view, I am reminded of the Bible's teaching to be "in the world but not of it".  Though others may be captivated and enticed and enslaved by sin, the Church will stay firm - for it was built on a rock.

Pretty.

I suppose that sort of symbolic prettiness is a distraction from things which, were you not bound by the religious teachings you've chosen to accept, you would find rather ugly.

[Torie]

VB stated: What would I say to a gay Christian?  I would say, stop sinning.  Everyone struggles with sin, some more than others, but indulging in sodomy is a choice, just as being angry is a choice, eating to excess is a choice, and hitting someone is a choice.

Alcon stated: Coming against from my secular moralism, I see where you're coming from, but I will point out that all of your other examples are also wrong in the conventionally secular sense.

Alcon, the "wrong in the conventionally secular sense," confuses me a bit. Eating to excess, anger and pugilism (ah I was able to slip in that word again) are not sins in the "conventionally secular sense?" Maybe I am just being obtuse here to an obvious meaning.

[Keystone Phil]

I suppose that sort of symbolic prettiness is a distraction from things which, were you not bound by the religious teachings you've chosen to accept, you would find rather ugly.

I would still have the moral beliefs that I have now. I was always taught and truly believe that as a Catholic, I believe in something because I'm human. That's how we are taught to believe.

[JSojourner]

I don't care if it's "appealing" or not. It's not the job of the Church to compromise ideals for that which is "appealing" to the masses.

(You edited your post, so these seems tangential, but it isn't)

I'm not sure why you're being so reactionary.  I know a closeted Catholic kid who essentially feels compelled to go into service to the Church because he'll never be able to have a meaningful relationship or children.  In fact, the official Catholic Church positions on the matter essentially say, suck it up, serve God, make God your wife.  What better way to do that?

Hundreds of Catholic priests in the U.S. have died of HIV.  Either they're shooting black tar heroin, many of them are closeted homosexuals attracted to the cloth to serve the only love they're allowed to have.  Not letting people ever physically express love is going to have repercussions in some instances, obviously.

This post misunderstands chastity and the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church considers themselves guardians of the teachings of Christ.  The problem is that you are looking at everything with a 'tolerance' angle.  The Church tolerates gays, but it does not encourage homosexuality, just as it does not encourage other sins such as gluttony, sloth, greed, et cetera.  It is interesting that there are no modern activists advocating changing those sins.  Indeed, if it were not for the Church's views on sexuality then it would not be so attacked.

I'm looking forward to a renewed effort on your part to establish a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the state from recognizing the marital union of gluttons, lazy people and greedy people. And for that matter, it will be interesting to see how many communion wafers are left over when the church starts denying the sacrament to people who persist in gluttony, slothfulness and greed.

[Albus Dumbledore]

The way the church handles it shouldn't affect how the state/the rest of society handles it. Or does america need a Kulturkampf?

[Stranger in a strange land]

VB: What would I say to a gay Christian?  I would say, stop sinning.  Everyone struggles with sin, some more than others, but indulging in sodomy is a choice, just as being angry is a choice, eating to excess is a choice, and hitting someone is a choice.

if homosexuality is a choice, why would somebody choose to be thrown out of their home at age 15? Why would somebody choose to have awkward conversations with relatives about a girlfriend who doesn't exist? Why would somebody choose to face the wrath and anger of their entire community? Why would somebody choose to be singled out for beatings and ridicule?

[Alcon]

I would still have the moral beliefs that I have now. I was always taught and truly believe that as a Catholic, I believe in something because I'm human. That's how we are taught to believe.

If you weren't a Catholic, you would still be a Catholic because you were taught to be?  Sorry, what?

Of course you believe in something because you're a human.  Everyone believes in something.  I guess I'm missing your point.

[Keystone Phil]

I would still have the moral beliefs that I have now. I was always taught and truly believe that as a Catholic, I believe in something because I'm human. That's how we are taught to believe.

If you weren't a Catholic, you would still be a Catholic because you were taught to be?  Sorry, what?

I would still believe everything I believe as a Catholic if I wasn't Catholic/if there was no Catholic Church. For example, I am not opposed to abortion "because I'm Catholic." I don't believe waiting for marriage until one has sex is the ideal choice "because I'm Catholic." I don't like when people say that. I don't know if this was the type of argument you and Vander were having but that's what it seemed like.

[JSojourner]

VB: What would I say to a gay Christian?  I would say, stop sinning.  Everyone struggles with sin, some more than others, but indulging in sodomy is a choice, just as being angry is a choice, eating to excess is a choice, and hitting someone is a choice.

if homosexuality is a choice, why would somebody choose to be thrown out of their home at age 15? Why would somebody choose to have awkward conversations with relatives about a girlfriend who doesn't exist? Why would somebody choose to face the wrath and anger of their entire community? Why would somebody choose to be singled out for beatings and ridicule?

Because the gays are in control of the liberal, left-wing media...Hollyweird...the government schools and are in cahoots with The Illuminati to rule the world.

Have you not been paying attention to Dr. Dobson and Reverend Phelps?

[Torie]

JS responds to the query of "why would somebody choose to be thrown out of their home at age 15?", with the response "Because the gays are in control of the liberal, left-wing media...Hollyweird ... ."

Trying to to connect the dots over rather rugged terrain here, I guess the point you were making JS is that the omnipotent gays want 15 year olds to move out of the parents' home and into theirs.  How perspicacious of you! 

[JSojourner]

JS responds to the query of "why would somebody choose to be thrown out of their home at age 15?", with the response "Because the gays are in control of the liberal, left-wing media...Hollyweird ... ."

Trying to to connect the dots over rather rugged terrain, I guess the point you were making JS is that the omnipotent gays want 15 year olds to move out of the parents' home and into theirs.  How perspicacious of you! 

Exactly.  And think of the temptation!  I mean, all those horny, heterosexual 15 year olds would so easily be turned.  Reminds me of the abject fear of gays serving in the Marine Corps.  I'm guessing one, maybe two, gay men per Marine platoon.  Yeah, I am sure the gay Marines would easily force their -- errr --- "lifestyle choice" on the rest of the unit.