Senethro wrote:That hes got a remotely public platform is just sad.
Senethro wrote:Whats the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom?
Senethro wrote:we don't know the consequences therefore we shouldn't do it
Senethro wrote:not a debate about equal rights, its cynical posturing by cameron patronizingpolitical posturing to people who won't vote for him, so bad idea
Senethro wrote:"something inside me tells me its wrong to be gay"
Senethro wrote:wrote a really quite vitriolic sentence difficult to reproduce accurately about how awful visibly gay people on the streets of soho are. boy george picks up on the self loathing suggested
Senethro wrote:he says (paraphrased): growing up gay is difficult, therefore we shouldn't put social acceptance on it.
No indication of why we should not socially endorse gayness. The assumption seems to be that any supposed deterrent effect from hardship is in fact desirable, rather than to be alleviated
Senethro wrote:"moral relativism, moral fashions", lots of tiresome reminders that the Catholic church is very old in an attempt to give it some kind of authority and that the present progressive trends are transient fuck is aquinas coming up next
macgamer wrote:I've noticed that there is a surprising absence of a debate on The Sinner on the topic of extending civil marriage to same-sex couples.
RedCelt69 wrote:Why in the hell should we have that discussion? Your position is well known and it will remain unchanged until the Holy See changes their view. What is left to talk about?
RedCelt69 wrote:It is a debate over a word; marriage rather than civil-partnership. Denying that one word to gay people is in the realm of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, who haven't evolved at the same pace as the rest of society.
RedCelt69 wrote:Marriage/civil-partnerships are (partly) about commitment and (mostly) about legality. The production of children doesn't require such a state, regardless of which word you use. Single people fuck each other too; contraception or gender be damned.
Senethro wrote:well fuck dude how we supposed to respond to that revelation
Senethro wrote:its pretty much the worst thing when a guy is told that his nature is abomination by a sinister authoriatarion institution and bleives it and defends it
Senethro wrote:i'm really getting my sad on here its so awful
Senethro wrote:edit: you're getting no more coherent response out of me tonight and maybe not atall because suddenly now its actually real and person al and a tragedy and im creeped out for it
Senethro wrote:its pretty much the worst thing when a guy is told that his nature is abomination by a sinister authoriatarion institution and bleives it and defends it
C.S. Lewis, Mere Chrisitianity, p. 42 wrote:But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. I do not mean, of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.
Senethro wrote:i'm really getting my sad on here its so awful
macgamer wrote:I, like Milo Yiannopoulos, am one of those 'gay' Catholics. […] So there's something else to talk about right there.
macgamer wrote:I fell into a awful depression and came very close to suicide.
macgamer wrote:Indeed it is a word, and I would have thought as some from the left you would understand the importance of that.
macgamer wrote:Marriage conveys, or used to, the coming together of a man and a woman for the creation of a family - children are a necessary component of that.
macgamer wrote:To be honest, in Britain the nails in marriage's coffin were driven in 50 or perhaps 80 years ago when contraception within marriage was permitted by the Church of England and then became more practical with the Pill in 1960s. Non-fault divorce further undermined the institution.
RedCelt69 wrote:All there is to talk about is that you have a personality-trait bestowed upon you at birth (that came into fruition as you developed as a human being). Your long-standing (or long-announced) anti-homosexual stance remains just as bad as it did before. That you, yourself, are gay makes it a tragedy (for you as a person) that you hold (or held) those views.
RedCelt69 wrote:And that's the tragedy right there.
RedCelt69 wrote:Imagine a world where Emperor Constantine didn't adopt Christianity… where Christianity was just another fringe religion that existed in secluded pockets of the Middle East and was no more pervasive in the UK as Zoroastrianism. Imagine a world where the UK either upheld pagan beliefs, or had long ago abandoned them and was even more secular than we know it. Imagine a world like that, where you would feel no more depressed about being gay as you would about having blue eyes.
RedCelt69 wrote:That is why I (and many like me) detest Catholicism (and Christianity in general)… because of the near-two-millenia of anti-female and anti-gay bullshit that has left people like you feeling so awful about something so natural. And yet you maintain the falsehoods that leave you feeling the way you do… so don't go getting all uppity about people lacking sympathy. The stable door is wide open, if you'd only have the courage to step outside of it.
RedCelt69 wrote:This discussion has been done-to-death on here already (and you took part in it) so why repeat the falsehood? If a heterosexual couple marry with no intention of having children, they aren't any less married than those that do. The same has to be true of a gay couple who want to commit to each other for life. Denying them the right to call it marriage is an act of discrimination.
RedCelt69 wrote:I'm not sure how to parse those sentences. The Pill was one of the greatest steps towards gender equality since the Suffragettes. If you're somehow claiming that it undermined the concept of marriage, the only easy conclusion is that you think that women with children find it more difficult to escape unhappy marriages. In no way can I see that sentiment as something approximating praiseworthy.
macgamer wrote:Firstly, there is no evidence of a 'gay gene'.
macgamer wrote:I might give some credence to several genes interacting with environmental factors to affect the incidence or development of SSA. If it were genes alone, then one could say that it would be a genetic 'defect' with all the horrid things that entails. From what I have read and analysing my own development, how a child interacts with his or her same-sex peers during puberty can affect the development of their sexuality.
macgamer wrote:You may be interested to know I've heard more homophobic comments from so-called liberals, people who hold themselves in high regard for their liberal values, than I ever heard from fellow Catholics.
macgamer wrote:Spare me the John Lennon bunkum philosophy.
macgamer wrote:Examine any culture in the world hitherto very recently and you'll find very few that actually endorced the kind of homosexuality we see today. Take, for example, the homosexuality advocated in ancient Greece. It was more of the English public school boy sort, something that was proper to a period in a man or boy's life. Those that continued to practise homosexuality later into adulthood were shunned.
macgamer wrote:Anti-female really? Have you heard of Maria Gaetana Agnesi? She was the first woman to hold chair of mathematics. Who appointed her? Yes, that's right, Pope Benedict XIV in 1750
macgamer wrote:Last year was the most difficult of my life hitherto. It was when I could no longer pretend to myself that I did not have same-sex attraction. I fell into a awful depression and came very close to suicide.
No, the self-loathing came from the bullying I received at school and from my parents' views on homosexuality -- my parents would disown me if they knew.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Chrisitianity, p. 42 wrote:But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. I do not mean, of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.
RedCelt69 wrote:I'll accept your Ms Agnesi…
…and raise you with… every single fucking example (across near-two-millenia) of women being shat-upon from a very great height from the Eve-blaming patriarchical cunt-knuckles that made your church what it is..
RedCelt69 wrote:I've lost the will to type any more because history tells me that you will ignore every single word I've written anyway.
RedCelt69 wrote:This response very nearly made me limit my reply to the sentence "Go fuck yourself."
RedCelt69 wrote:If the biblical Jesus had actually existed, you'd have hated his philosophy. You certainly don't live by it.
RedCelt69 wrote:Abomination, Sin...
RedCelt69 wrote:Nature has few shortages when it comes to males fucking other males. Have you ever had a dog? (I love the British double entendre). It was the first animal domesticated by man… and they really do follow the maxim "any hole's a goal".
wild_quinine wrote:I love how people always think that *their* worldview will finally sort things out after millenia. Humanism FTW!
wild_quinine wrote:Humanism is not going to significantly change the way we fuck things up. I've met enough lousy Humanists to know that.
wild_quinine wrote:Ignoring for a moment that half the people on this board are not welcome in that particular club, it more and more seems to be a clique run by the most dangerous people in the world: people who are sure they're right, and that everyone else is stupid.
wild_quinine wrote:Good one on the sexism, though. Reminds me of the time you savaged one of the female posters on this board for not completely agreeing with you on every aspect of feminist theory. Dumb bitch.
macgamer wrote:You do not know Jesus and you do not know me.
macgamer wrote:Your words, not mine. No human being is an abomination.
macgamer wrote:Thanks for likening homosexuals and me to animals. Call yourself a humanist, some optimism in mankind you have.
macgamer wrote:I don't understand why you are such an angry man. Your world view is the establishment opinion now, everything is going swimmingly for your moral philosophy.
macgamer wrote:Know this, I don't hate you. I would hope that if you had a conversation with me in person you'd be a bit more measured in your language than you have been here.
wild_quinine wrote:But that's a mortal sin, too. And it's worse, because you don't get a chance to say sorry: your doctrine, not mine. Yet for some reason you put that ahead of sex on your to-do list. Of course, depression does strange things to the mind. I know that.
wild_quinine wrote:But it still seems like you could have reprioritised.
wild_quinine wrote:So, you have a lot of issues to work through. That's not unusual. It's going to take you a long time to make headway, but I recommend that you start. You come awfully close to admitting that being gay isn't the reason why. I'd start from there.
wild_quinine wrote:You know, the fourth commandment can be followed from a safe distance.
wild_quinine wrote:I'm not surprised that you're torn over, well, everything. I'm more surprised that you continue to try to find the good in things.
wild_quinine wrote:I recognise that's what you're doing when you twist yourself through logical loops that even my hyperactive irony-GPS gets lost in. I recognise that you consistently try to be fair minded and even handed, even through the cloud of everything you believe. But I think that you're doing a lot of wrong in the world by trying to do right, because your anchor is *wildly* off the mark.
wild_quinine wrote:You brought this up. Think on it. The things you continually justify - and the way that you justify them - are genuinely harmful, and not only to yourself.
I recognise that you can't change scripture to suit your life choices, but of Faith, Hope, and Love, Faith was not the most important. Sometimes you have to think outside the box, and you continue to fail yourself here.
wild_quinine wrote:What I think about homosexuality and Christianity, is that it doesn't matter if it is wrong. Period. It's small fry, and I think Christians should see it as small fry.
There is more scriptural difference between different Christian sects than there is between Christians who believe gay sex is wrong, and those who believe it is not.
And, still, Christians tend to believe Christians of other denominations are still Christians, and still saved (despite the fact that their doctrines can differ significantly on sin...)
So why expend so much energy on a much smaller matter?
Protestants and Catholics have different bibles for crying out loud, and we're concerned about four or five ambigious and unemphasised lines between them?
wild_quinine wrote:Mac, have you ever considered leaving the Catholic Church, for some other denomination of Christianity?
Because, really, the pope is just a man.
wild_quinine wrote:Without his interference you could find someone, settle down, pick the curtains, all that jazz.
Are you really going to give up a chance at happiness for the unwavering love of a man? It seems so... out of character.
Hennessy wrote:A self-denying ordinance set upon one's deepest, secret desires is an extremely potent thing, and a very brave thing as well, and I for one congratulate Macgamer on having wrestled with it so long before committing to a life without. In Western and Eastern philosophies the ascetic qualities of this decision would once have drawn high regard. One door has closed, Macgamer, but others will open for you.
Hennessy wrote:Personally I think as long as the gay community continues to celebrate its much-hyped "otherness"* to us breeders it won't ever integrate. Until it integrates marriage should be off-limits. Simple as that.
*Sodomy and cross-dressing really isn't that interesting anyway - why the fascination?
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests