Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Feel free to keep thinking that. God and I will continue to believe otherwise.

Another issue that I have with the Catholic church ...

I think the answer on this issue, when we finally get to hear it in person, will not be so simple as you think ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just to make clear: I don't think that you or Gwai are homophobic. Your posts show that both of you are thoughtful and willing to engage with potential contradictions posed by your faith.

Thank you for saying that "out loud" here. Some people just love to stereotype, and I appreciate that you're not one of them. I hope it will teach them to be more openminded and to listen what people say, not just assume an answer based on a stereotype.

Also to propose a deal: I won't point the finger over the paedo analogy if you don't make it, nor the polygamy one. Gay people are just born that way; polygamists are just greedy.

I don't know, Gaffer; I really don't think all of them are. There's been a ton of stuff on the news over here lately, and I've seen a lot of interviews, and while I would say that some seem definitely unhealthy, I really think some others are love-based, or at the least desired by consenting adults. Listening to some of the women, they love that they can usually "specialize" in areas that they prefer in running the home. I really don't see anything different between gay marriage and multiple spouse marriage if the parties wish to marry. I honestly don't.

I don't need to tell you that arguments by analogy may seem to work because they have the same logical structure but that has no bearing on whether or not they're true.

Not quite sure what this bears on ... I think I was just saying that the argument for gay marriage seems to be "if they love each other, then let them marry", so I don't see why this reason shouldn't be valid for ANY combination. I mean, why stop at two?

I also agree that things shouldn't be changed just for the sake of it. However, I don't think they should be kept the same just for the sake of it either.

I certainly agree with you here.

Clearly, prohibiting gay marriage is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for homophobia.

I'm so glad you agree!

But don't you agree that it might facilitate homophobia by legitimising the idea that gays are outwith (sorry - Scots word for which there is no English equivalent) the bounds of acceptable society?

I don't think that denying a change to the marriage definition (i.e., changing it to allow gay marriage) IS saying that gays are outside the bounds of acceptable society. I think it's just saying that someone thinks that marriage should be between one man and one woman. It doesn't have anything to do with putting someone outside the bounds of society, IMO. Perhaps some people might use that as an excuse, but I think if that excuse was taken away, they'd find another excuse.

Do you agree that allowing gays equal rights might, in the long term, result in a reduction in the prevalence of those ideas?

(I don't think it's an issue of equal rights, but I'll substitute "allowing gays to marry" so I can honestly answer your question)
I honestly don't know. It might, but as I explained before, I don't think that's the determining factor in deciding whether to allow gay marriage. I think that changes in, for example, how blacks are viewed in the US right after slavery was outlawed came about because it IS true that blacks are just the same as whites. So I think that making gay marriage legal would NOT have the same effect because I think that it's NOT "true", for lack of a better word, that marriage can be between two men or two women.

And an ancillary question: if we don't allow gay marriage, what do you think SHOULD be done to eliminate homophobia?

Each of us can start right wherever we are. As I said, whenever I hear hateful comments, cruel jokes, etc. about gays, I confront the person if at all feasible. "Gay" is used as slang that doesn't even refer to homosexual sometimes, and I told my kids I didn't want them using that term because it was hurtful to many people. I think threads like this help, too - that's why I'm on this thread. I've heard one of our youth pastors give a talk where he really tore into people for making gay jokes. I guess all that I can do is influence my own sphere, and I do that. Beyond that, I really don't know. What do you think?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Another issue that I have with the Catholic church ...

I was just teasing, Rian.

I think the answer on this issue, when we finally get to hear it in person, will not be so simple as you think ...

But will it be as simple as you think?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"Gay" is used as slang that doesn't even refer to homosexual sometimes, and I told my kids I didn't want them using that term because it was hurtful to many people.

I know, that really bugs me.


All in all, I think you have the right approach there, Ri.

[Nurvingiel]

People using gay as an insult ticks me right off. Gay is an acceptable term for a homosexual person though. I like it since it's much less formal.

I don't think I'd feel differently if I was actually gay either.

[inked]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../23/ngay23.xml

Comments?

The first investigation seems to have been inadequate.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I don't think that denying a change to the marriage definition (i.e., changing it to allow gay marriage) IS saying that gays are outside the bounds of acceptable society. I think it's just saying that someone thinks that marriage should be between one man and one woman. It doesn't have anything to do with putting someone outside the bounds of society, IMO. Perhaps some people might use that as an excuse, but I think if that excuse was taken away, they'd find another excuse.

But when the status of marriage is denied to committed gay couples it does indicate that their relationship and thus a significant and meaningful part of their lives is not acceptable to society.

And that leads to the belief that the people themselves are unnatural and outside the bounds of acceptable society.

Which in turn leads to a great deal of emotinal, psychological and physical harm.

Yes, another excuse would be found and used by those who truly do intend harm and nothing else, but that doesn't mean that legalizing gay marriage would be completely ineffective in fighting the discrimination.

[inked]

the UN and homosexuals and (it's an international issue) pedophiles:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051902.html

[inked]

Originally Posted by inked

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../23/ngay23.xml

Comments?

The first investigation seems to have been inadequate.

follow up: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052308.html

[GreyMouser]

ROME — The Vatican announced Friday that it was disciplining the Mexican founder of an influential Roman Catholic order after an investigation into decades of allegations that the now elderly priest sexually abused seminarians and boys in his care.

Father Marcial Maciel appears to be the highest-ranking priest to be sanctioned in an abuse case. Maciel enjoyed protective support from the late Pope John Paul II for many years, but Pope Benedict XVI, in his first major decision in the church's sex abuse scandal, put aside his predecessor's wishes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world

To make it clear, Ratzinger tried to investigate this, and was ordered to back off by JPII- does this count as a miracle towards canonisation? A miracle for Father Maciel, anyway, being allowed to get away with it so long.

[Elfhelm]

Sounds pretty suspicious. The Church has used accusations of homosexuality to discredit powerful men before. They have set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner. Condone this action, and you condone backroom justice. Either there is enough to move forward with a trial, or there is not. If not, then this may be an attempt to weaken the influence of a very powerful order within the Church.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

the UN and homosexuals and (it's an international issue) pedophiles:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051902.html

But motions by Iran to reject both applicants were nonetheless approved 9-7. Voting "no" both times were Cameroon, China, Iran, Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

nice company. birds of a feather, and all.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Sounds pretty suspicious. The Church has used accusations of homosexuality to discredit powerful men before. They have set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner. Condone this action, and you condone backroom justice. Either there is enough to move forward with a trial, or there is not. If not, then this may be an attempt to weaken the influence of a very powerful order within the Church.

Certainly. I'd like to see this out into the open, in a secular court, with charges openly brought.

After the manifold coverups of the Catholic Church in many countries over many years, and their attempts to use political influence to obstruct investigations of these crimes, the last thing I'm worrying about is a frame-up by the Church. It's become obvious that only the threat of civil and criminal action has forced them to address these abuses.

I was extremely skeptical of Ratzinger, given his history of crushing dissent, but it appears that at least on this issue he is serious about "the filth" (his words) swamping the Church.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

the UN and homosexuals and (it's an international issue) pedophiles:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051902.html

The vote on Iran's proposal ensued and again the United States voted against the measure. In the end, the Committee rejected NGO status for the homosexual activist group in a recorded vote of 9 in favour (Cameroon, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe), 7 against (Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Peru, Romania and the United States), and 2 abstentions (India and Turkey).

So, do your moral values line up with Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe, or France, Germany and the USA? Asking everyone else; we already know who inked is supporting.

[Elfhelm]

Oh yeah, "filth" is the typical emotion laden way they approach what should be an objective civil case.

Fact is, despite thousands of charges against priests that they are gay, there have been very few cases tried.

If you care about justice, then the possibility of a frame-up by the Church should not be ruled out. It shouldn't be "the last thing" to worry about. In fact, historically, it should be the first thing to suspect.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

But when the status of marriage is denied to committed gay couples it does indicate that their relationship and thus a significant and meaningful part of their lives is not acceptable to society.

I think that's VERY different from saying "gays are outside the bounds of acceptable society". There are parts of my life that are not acceptable to society, either.

And even if legalizing gay marriage did lessen homophobia, it does other things on the harmful side that far outweigh that good, IMO. It's certainly a complex issue, and I never lose sight that we're talking about people here, even when my posts are somewhat "technical".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Sounds pretty suspicious. The Church has used accusations of homosexuality to discredit powerful men before. They have set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner. Condone this action, and you condone backroom justice. Either there is enough to move forward with a trial, or there is not. If not, then this may be an attempt to weaken the influence of a very powerful order within the Church.

Technically speaking, I don't think the Legion of Christ is an order, but rather a congregation.

If you care about justice, then the possibility of a frame-up by the Church should not be ruled out. It shouldn't be "the last thing" to worry about. In fact, historically, it should be the first thing to suspect.

I hardly think THAT argument flies. Politically speaking, the Catholic Church of today is simply too vastly different from the Catholic Church of yesteryear to say that because it happened then, we should suspect it now.

[inked]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So, do your moral values line up with Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe, or France, Germany and the USA? Asking everyone else; we already know who inked is supporting.

GM,

I must protest that I do not resemble that remark!

I was merely pointing out that the issue has world-wide import and I must confess that I was frankly astonished at this.

I was amused by the odd political bed-fellows (is that a sexist term, by the way, implying as it does the maleness of parties? but I meant no pun) as well as you.

On the other hand, one can get a clear picture of the attitudes culturally engendered, can one not? And we know that since each society determines its own norms which are morally true (per BJ), how can you suggest that there is any difference between choices? Rather, you should select prenatally (best of all pre-fertilization!) where you shoul be born. That would solve the problem, eh?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

...to say that because it happened then, we should suspect it now.

This priest is considered guilty by EVERYONE, yet there has been no trial. Newspapers refer to "hundreds of charges, including sex abuse." Yet on close examination, there are nine accusers and only one of them makes an accusation of sex abuse. The one accusation of sex abuse is by a 60 year old Mexican professor who claims the priest's order to give him a massage was actually an order to masterbate him. This professor also wastes no time in extensive psychological speculations of the sort that DO resemble the witch hunts - that he was angry at God, for instance. These accusers are called victims, even though no crime has been found to have been committed.

In short, our prejudice inclines us to presume guilt whenever a priest is accused of sex abuse.

Then when the Church decides not to prosecute, when they decide to let an old man avoid a trial that could kill him, provided he agree to censure, we assume that the accusers must be right.

Because of homophobia.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't assume the accusers are right; I don't know about you. And anyway, I don't see how homophobia would make people assume that the accusers are right; more likely, anti-clericalism would. We ain't just talking about homosexuality, but abuse.