Tony Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/02/06/california-lawmakers-pass-new-opposite-sex-marriage-ban/ :D Edited March 2, 2014 by Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Gays run some of the biggest companies in the world. They are all over daytime television with their own shows, they are a protected minority at most major companies (ie. quotas!) and they just bullied the governor of a state into vetoing a bill that would have protected religious freedom. Please, don't try to compare the "plight" of gays to the struggle of blacks under Jim Crow laws. There is no comparison. When did I compare the current situation of gay Americans to the situation of black Americans at the height of Jim Crow? However, as people view your comments, I would encourage them to watch this debate between William F. Buckley and James Baldwin and note the similarities between your argument and Buckley's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/02/06/california-lawmakers-pass-new-opposite-sex-marriage-ban/ :D It's like if somebody neither funny nor clever decided to submit an article to The Onion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 as it was attempted to be established on another thread, we should not go overboard on comparing blacks and gays, because they each have their own struggles, but NOR should we try to minimize that struggle. the number of gay suicides is staggering, the amount of rejection out there is huge... to point to the fact that there is generally a swing in the major culture and the media towards a more gay-accepting atmosphere, that there are very successful gay people out there, none of that should be used as a means to try to minimize the fact that they do face extreme hardships especially in their formative years of life... while black people were discriminated against by the white society at large, gay people often find themselves discriminated against, shunned, sent to torturous gay-change-"therapy" camps or disreputable "therapists", etc. It's a far different thing, but there are parallels in terms of trying to avoid discrimination... and as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding homosexuals, " Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" in a broader way, we should not conflate the overturning of jim crow laws with the other anti-discrimination laws in the civil rights act as in their relation to property rights they are two different things. jim crow laws required segregation by law, and as such absolutely had to be overturned for the sake of actually making sure private owners of businesses had the freedom to operate their businesses as they liked. the anti-discrimination provisions require that any place open to the general public should not discriminate... it's an entirely different thing than just merely overturning jim crow and some private-property-absolutists tend to argue that it infringes upon private property rights. I don't really go that far, because I recognize that especially in our system many times private businesses are organized in such a way that goods and services that would permit someone to have a dignified life relative to the society at large are in a way monopolized by private entities to the point where being discriminated against by them would be just as bad as being discriminated against by the government. if Wal-Mart alone, for instance, didn't allow blacks, or mexicans, or gay people, to shop in their stores... those people's basic living standards in America would immediately become second-class just as bad as if they were banned by the force of government. thankfully our culture, and actually through the ideology of free market profiteering, has become very much against any sign of discrimination.... to the point where huge segments of the BUSINESS COMMUNITY were the ones that "bullied" the governor of Arizona into vetoing that law. it is great that the business community is so culturally against discrimination that we don't have to solely and absolutely rely on the crutch of government enforced anti-discrimination laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) as it was attempted to be established on another thread, we should not go overboard on comparing blacks and gays, because they each have their own struggles, but NOR should we try to minimize that struggle. the number of gay suicides is staggering, the amount of rejection out there is huge... to point to the fact that there is generally a swing in the major culture and the media towards a more gay-accepting atmosphere, that there are very successful gay people out there, none of that should be used as a means to try to minimize the fact that they do face extreme hardships especially in their formative years of life... I think this sums up pretty much all that needs to be said (except possibly for the fact that was deceitful of Franciscanheart not to let us know that she is the CEO of a company with her own TV show ;) ). On a serious note, the insinuation that 'gays' are really very powerful and capable of bullying governments into doing exactly what they want is an insinuation that accompanies pretty much every sort of prejudice against minority groups. Yes, some gay people are very successful. It's easy enough to come out if you're a sporting celebrity (as happened with a British athlete at the Winter Olympics) or a Hollywood star who already has a large following and plentiful income. It's not so easy if you're just some high school kid who's worried about bullies or his family not wanting to know him any more. Discriminatory laws don't really affect celebrities (of which 'out' gay people constitute a minority anyway - it's not as if they have this monopoly on TV and high finance). They affect ordinary people on the street. Straight people are not persecuted. My religious freedoms as a Catholic are not compromised in any way simply because gay couples want to access the same public services as I do. I don't need a gay couple to be turned away from a restaurant or a hotel in order to be secure in my faith. But for my faith to matter, I have to take the part of the above-mentioned high school kid, because too many kids in that situation do, as Al has said, attempt to take their own lives. I don't think it's such a radical idea that there is a correlation between living in the kind of world where people see it as perfectly legitimate to sit around debating whether or not you're entitled to receive service in a cafe and feeling that maybe you'd rather be dead than live in a world like that. A while ago a very dear friend (who is lesbian, and an ex-Catholic, and who has attempted suicide twice) showed me this video, which she was very moved by. Even though she's British, so the cultural milieu she grew up in was different. she said the video still depicted her childhood and teenage experiences better than she could explain them to me in words. It does not make easy watching (there is a suicide-attempt scene in there, just so you are warned) but it really does force you to look at things through a new pair of eyes. We need that fresh sight, otherwise we will have no insight into what people are actually meaning when they talk about discrimination and persecution. For kids who have experiences similar to those shown in the video, it doesn't matter so much that a gay person has a talk show on TV, it matters that there is nowhere they feel truly welcome. It's one thing for orthodox Catholics to believe that marriage must be open to creating new life. It's quite another for us to try and minimise and belittle other people's experiences of discrimination in order to strengthen that point. Edited March 2, 2014 by beatitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) I think this sums up pretty much all that needs to be said (except possibly for the fact that was deceitful of Franciscanheart not to let us know that she is the CEO of a company with her own TV show ;) ). On a serious note, the insinuation that 'gays' are really very powerful and capable of bullying governments into doing exactly what they want is an insinuation that accompanies pretty much every sort of prejudice against minority groups. Yes, some gay people are very successful. It's easy enough to come out if you're a sporting celebrity (as happened with a British athlete at the Winter Olympics) or a Hollywood star who already has a large following and plentiful income. It's not so easy if you're just some high school kid who's worried about bullies or his family not wanting to know him any more. Discriminatory laws don't really affect celebrities (of which 'out' gay people constitute a minority anyway - it's not as if they have this monopoly on TV and high finance). They affect ordinary people on the street. Straight people are not persecuted. My religious freedoms as a Catholic are not compromised in any way simply because gay couples want to access the same public services as I do. I don't need a gay couple to be turned away from a restaurant or a hotel in order to be secure in my faith. But for my faith to matter, I have to take the part of the above-mentioned high school kid, because too many kids in that situation do, as Al has said, attempt to take their own lives. I don't think it's such a radical idea that there is a correlation between living in the kind of world where people see it as perfectly legitimate to sit around debating whether or not you're entitled to receive service in a cafe and feeling that maybe you'd rather be dead than live in a world like that. A while ago a very dear friend (who is lesbian, and an ex-Catholic, and who has attempted suicide twice) showed me this video, which she was very moved by. Even though she's British, so the cultural milieu she grew up in was different. she said the video still depicted her childhood and teenage experiences better than she could explain them to me in words. It does not make easy watching (there is a suicide-attempt scene in there, just so you are warned) but it really does force you to look at things through a new pair of eyes. We need that fresh sight, otherwise we will have no insight into what people are actually meaning when they talk about discrimination and persecution. For kids who have experiences similar to those shown in the video, it doesn't matter so much that a gay person has a talk show on TV, it matters that there is nowhere they feel truly welcome. It's one thing for orthodox Catholics to believe that marriage must be open to creating new life. It's quite another for us to try and minimise and belittle other people's experiences of discrimination in order to strengthen that point. My only complaint about that amazing video is they called the play "Romeo and Julio", rather than something more historically accurate like Julius or Julian. With that out of the way now, I've seen that video before, but it struck me more this time for some reason. The way gay people are bullied is simply unconscionable. Edited March 2, 2014 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 My religious freedoms as a Catholic are not compromised in any way simply because gay couples want to access the same public services as I do. I guess you have not been asked to suffer yet. Good for you? Or bad for you - because it is a privilege. But nevermind. You will probably have the opportunity in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I guess you have not been asked to suffer yet. Good for you? Or bad for you - because it is a privilege. But nevermind. You will probably have the opportunity in the future. What a crock of shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) i'll send you a bill, my snazzy gay friend Edited March 2, 2014 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 What even is this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not The Philosopher Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 What even is this thread It's kind of a thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) There's really no way to respond to all the posts without spending all evening, so just to be clear... I have trouble acknowledging the idea of any secular "victimhood" of gays in the USA while they are trying to put Christians in jail for not wanting to photograph their weddings or make them wedding cakes - and while they are trying to block laws that would protect Christians from this type of prosecution. Certainly where I live it would be more dangerous and damaging to one's secular career and social standing to come out as a conservative Catholic than as an active homosexual, so it should be kept in mind that discrimination in this sense is relative. Now from a Catholic perspective... Is same-sex attraction a difficult cross to bear? I don't know personally, but I would imagine that it certainly is. Yet everyone has their unique crosses to bear and our sanctity comes not through wallowing in these - our temptations, sins, and burdens - but in embracing the freedom offered by Christ. So while I'm certainly sympathetic, rather than affirming the cross, I'd prefer to affirm Christ so all know that He is an option for all our varying troubles. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, rather than dividing us up based on our various crosses, my gay catholic friends and I and so many other good Catholics can at least be united in our common goals of chastity and sanctity. Edited March 3, 2014 by NotreDame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'm attracted to other men and it's not a cross to bear. Why? Because I don't believe love between human beings is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'm attracted to other men and it's not a cross to bear. Why? Because I don't believe love between human beings is wrong. I'm not trying to pick on you but I hate when people say this. I'm not against love between any pair or group of people I just don't think it's appropriate to express that love seckshually within most contexts. For example, I'm against incest even between two consenting adults, and against polygyny between 3 or more consenting adults. Especially with the latter I think its possible that the people in the party may love each other and care a great deal about each other (as homosexuals are capable of sacrificial love as well). Do you agree that there are relationships wherein sexual expression is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'm not trying to pick on you but I hate when people say this. I'm not against love between any pair or group of people I just don't think it's appropriate to express that love seckshually within most contexts. For example, I'm against incest even between two consenting adults, and against polygyny between 3 or more consenting adults. Especially with the latter I think its possible that the people in the party may love each other and care a great deal about each other (as homosexuals are capable of sacrificial love as well). Do you agree that there are relationships wherein sexual expression is wrong? Sadly, this is the first thing that's always brought up when love is mentioned. I believe two consenting adults have the right to express their love however they should choose, sexually or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now