Religion
Related: About this forumPope Francis: Kids Must Have Moms and Dad
http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/04/11/pope-francis-kids-must-have-moms-and-dadsPope Francis says children must be raised with 'the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother.'
Pope Francis offered his sharpest critique against so-called nontraditional families on Friday morning, suggesting that the church must advocate for the rights of children to be raised "in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother."
...
Back in December, Bishop Charles Scicluna of Malta said he discussed adoption of children by same-sex couples with Pope Francis. The bishop said the pope was "shocked" by the idea, and that he was encouraged to preach against the idea during Christmas services.
As archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, before he was elected pope, then-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio said children raised by same-sex parents were suffering a form of discrimination.
Speaking out against a proposed law to legalize same-sex marriage in Argentina, Bergoglio said, "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
------
&feature=kp
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and I don't think he has any experience with that role!
As a priest he is supposed to be celibate and as a human sexual being is aberrant at a minimum and most likely perverted in totality.
longship
(40,416 posts)There are some things to like about this guy, but there's still the problem that the Catholic Church is not likely to be bending on some things.
I find it odd that he takes the forgiveness ploy for his buggering priests, but then makes this statement. They are oddly discordant. Makes one scratch ones head in puzzlement.
Or maybe a face palm.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)
with the hordes of pope-lovers and Catholic apologists here and elsewhere. It will go over well with the rank and file gay haters and bashers that the Catholic Church has trained, nurtured and encouraged with its unbending, bigoted doctrines and policies. Many, many people will applaud this stance. And those who oppose them will be accused of being "toxic", "bigots" "Anti-Catholic cranks" and all manner of other epithets.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And for that, we were attacked bitterly. Called names like "anti-Catholic cranks." All for simply understanding that his "Who am I to judge?" remark was made in the specific context of gay priests who refrain from having any kind of homosexual relationships.
The man does not support homosexuality, does not support homosexual relationships, and certainly does not support homosexual marriage or homosexual couples raising children. Despite what some really, really, REALLY wanted to believe.
Would be nice to get an apology for being called nasty names and attacked for trying to point out the truth, but I've been here long enough to realize that won't happen.
longship
(40,416 posts)Cranks? Really? Interesting choice of words. Whoever used it apparently has a problem understanding the LBGT issue, just like the Pope.
I have mostly stayed out of the Pope discussions. I went to church in my youth, but it was milk toast liberal Congregational. So Catholicism is more or less foreign to me, as are most religions. 
I imagine that the social changes happening around the world with respect to LBGT is going to make quite a few more lapsed Catholics. Then maybe the church will change its tune. Somehow I doubt it.
Who knows?
pinto
(106,886 posts)Especially in the US - that's the only culture I'm very familiar with.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if the rest of the religionistas here didn't close ranks around the really toxic and despicable Catholic apologists in the group, and feign ignorance about what happens to people who dare to challenge their precious convictions.
rug
(82,333 posts)if the rest of the nonbelievers here didn't close ranks around the really toxic and despicable religion haters in the group, and feign ignorance about what happens to people who dare to challenge their precious convictions.
There, fixed.
Goacher
(38 posts)How do you feel about what the Pope said?
Will you be posting this in the Catholic forum for further discussion? I see it hasn't appeared there yet.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll repeat here what Sister Mary Sarah said there: "
his) deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of (his) expertise."
You waited 14 months to make your second post on that account for this?
AFAIK there isn't a minimum (or maximum) number of posts a person is supposed to make on DU. Let me know otherwise
I was really more interested in your own thoughts on what the Pope said
And if you would be posting this to the Catholic forum
rug
(82,333 posts)There are a lot of Catholic folks in the world
You are Catholic
Since you decided to participate in the thread, I thought you might have some thoughts and feelings on what the Pope said. Are you pleased? Disappointed?
Also it might be worthwhile posting to the Catholic group for further discussion, especially since its something I assume (?) people might disagree with. Or maybe not
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)You have a curious interest in my views. Why is that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Now onto my next question, do you think kids need a mom and dad? More specifically, do you think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children?
I'll be honest and say I'm curious about your views because I want to know if you are ethically superior to the Church you defend so much.
In the interest of disclosure, I'll make my views on this crystal clear. I believe in family values that are built on love, mutual respect and support. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and as long as they have those 3 things in them, then I view them as healthy relationships. Whether its single parents and their children, or any number of adults and children in whatever size households they are comfortable with. All should be cherished, encouraged and aided as needed by society. Many short sighted people lament the destruction of the "nuclear family" as if the structure was all that mattered, when in reality what really matters it what composes that structure, not its overall form. Ties of blood are secondary to ties of love, mutual respect and support.
A family held together due to tradition, fear, and/or authority is, in my opinion, dysfunctional.
rug
(82,333 posts)I didn't ask your opinion and I don't respect either the question or the questioner that puts this as a reason for the question: "I want to know if you are ethically superior to the Church you defend so much."
It's clear ethical superiority, no matter how inapt, is important to you. It explains much of your postings.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)My ethics are mostly human focused, I don't give a shit what beliefs your church has unless they are about other people, on those I judge, and judge harshly. Especially when it comes to the Church's attempts(and sometimes successes) in influencing public policy to discriminate against other people, whether its on Choice, Contraception or Same Sex Marriage, and I will call them out on that, and yes, I view those of us who don't hold to the antiquated views on sexuality that your Church does as ethically superior, because they are, they value human rights over tradition, they value equality.
This is why I state that most Catholics are better than their Church.
I don't expect, nor do I seek respect from those who value their Church over the rights of others, who values their God above their fellow human beings, for such people deserve no respect in turn.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm surprised I didn't hear ominous organ music.
Sorry, I don't hold much truck with those who stomp through life with an air of ethical superiority pronouncing harsh judgments on people they encounter.
The melodrama doesn't equal the amusement.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)anti-semites and other bigots. Oh wait, no I don't.
And don't pretend you don't do the same, everyone does, on some level, whether consciously or unconsciously.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in the interests of getting along with them?
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)shock that the person thought it was appropriate, etc. But I definitely think what you created in your quote or at least something along those lines.
Mostly I just think about how twisted or warped their morals and ethics are to become so bigoted.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Rug never judges anybody.
Everyone here KNOWS that!
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)No.
Clearly, your "harsh judgments" are quite selective. Would "I judge homophobes and misogynists as harshly as I do racists, anti-semites and other bigots whom I disagree with" be a better statement of your actual attitude?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)"proper" reverence for your beliefs. So please cry me a river there.
Learn to distinguish the two.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)So get off your high horse and admit that atheists can be just as bigoted as everyone else.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Excessive whining from a group who isn't used to having their privileges discarded. Their complaints sound a lot like white people who complain about "reverse racism".
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And don't even try to claim that atheist whine about having their feelings hurt because non-atheists complain about what they say.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Have a nice day.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)After all, he says it plain as day.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)As a Catholic, I mean. Do you agree with your church's leader? Or do you disagree with the Pope? As a Catholic.
rug
(82,333 posts)Other than this.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)like, no complaints, good job Pope, tell us again how children need a man and a woman as parents or they'll grow up to lead a sinful life?
rug
(82,333 posts)to condemn all things Catholic and religious. Those comments are even more predictable than his.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I see lots of people decrying the Pope, but no Catholics, they are all mysteriously silent on the issue. In fact most Catholics are silent on all issues about the problematic things their hierarchy are doing.
Remember: a broad brush is when you say "All of X is Y" like "All Atheists hate Christians" a comment like "The RCC/The Pope is a hateful Bigoted organization/person that harbors pedophiles" is not a broad brush, as it references a single entity in either case. If you take offence to someone mentioning true facts about a global organization then maybe you should reconsider your membership.
rug
(82,333 posts)"In fact most Catholics are silent on all issues about the problematic things their hierarchy are doing."
That's a mighty broad brush and it's not about an entity, it's about Catholic people.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/catholics-church-contraception-abortion-survey
http://cta-usa.org/
http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/what-we-do
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
http://www.dignityusa.org/
http://paxchristiusa.org/
http://www.catholicworker.org/
There are literally thousands of groups with millions of Catholics around the globe who are doing much more than logging onto the internet and calling bishops hateful and bigoted criminals . Those are only the active ones. If they're not "most", that's because half a billion people is a pretty big number. I can't think of any group, including the Chinese Communist Party, that has that many activists.
The only offense I take is to the ignorance of viewing the RCC as a monolithic, uniform entity and then proceeding to beat that caricature. It's the ultimate strawman.
If you want to know what Catholics in the Catholic Church are actually doing, the information is out there.
Maybe you should reconsider your data and separate fact from bias.
Will you be posting this to the Catholic group? Discussion amongst you folks would be a good first step
rug
(82,333 posts)We discuss what interests us. Unlike another safe haven, it's not used to discuss other groups and other DUers.
Goacher
(38 posts)So, presumably, it doesn't interest you or any other DU Catholics
Not that you HAVE to post or discuss it there, but it's certainly indicative of your priorities
Lordquinton was spot on about "mysteriously silent"
rug
(82,333 posts)Tell you what. Go in and post it - civilly - and test that statement. You are a DUer, aren't you?
Obviously I'm a DUer. I've got this here name and everything
But the point isn't for me to post it. I'm not Catholic. The point is for you, a DU Catholic, the DU Catholic, to post it and discuss with other Catholic folks. Just to know you're at least talking about it would be a small step
If you don't feel it's important enough to address, that's fine and you can say so. Actually, perhaps you already have
rug
(82,333 posts)7 posts in 14 months, all in here in the last week. I wonder where you've been.
If you don't want to post it, your loss. That is, if you think it's important enough for a civil discussion.
Goacher
(38 posts)It's enough to know that you won't post it. That says everything, really. The silence isn't so mysterious anymore
Back to obsessing over my number of posts I reckon
rug
(82,333 posts)I guess you don't really want a civil discussion.
Goacher
(38 posts)If you post it I'll be glad to participate - civilly
And you won't even have to wait 14 months
I just think it's really, deeply important for you to post it
Deal?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I appreciate that a lot.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)amusing and sad at the same time.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sorry you experienced that. It was used on me as well. No more. The ignore feature works like a champ. I encourage its use.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)So I don't bother using it. I'm too curious for my own good. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But it seems to keep that person from seeing my posts as well, entire subthreads vanished when I clicked it. So, the effect has been most gratifying, and has removed much of the temptation from me.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Accepting that fact and dealing with it is IMO more important than calling others bigots. We are not responsible for their bigotry, but we are for our own.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and deal with your own bigotry, before you falsely call others bigots simply for denouncing the despicable behavior that you defend.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You, of all people, should recognize that. I defend the victims of bigotry, not the bigots. You, of all people, should know that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)where you went to great lengths to defend and deflect criticism of the Catholic Church's ongoing attempts around the world to deprive whole classes of humans of their rights, mostly by denying that those attempts even took place. About as nauseating an anti-woman and anti-gay display as I'd ever expect to see on a progressive web site.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Show me one example where I defend the RCC. Asking you and your buddies why you give a shit what that organization does is not defending the catholic church. Just the same as why anyone gives a shit about extreme anti-theists claiming to speak for the secular community. You and the Vatican need to get over yourselves. Neither of you speak for the majority. Deal with it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)various countries. In addition, stop ranting and raving about "extreme anti-theists" they only exist in your mind.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?
I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.
I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.
You tried to pretend that this was about forcing the RC church to marry couples it didn't want to. You are spouting the exact mendacious crap the RC church does. You even spew the far right turds about marrying inanimate objects and animals.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Bingo.
He utters the most sophomoric feel good platitudes and everyone is AMAZED such a thing came from the head of the Catholic Church.
That right there is hysterical..... that they can't BELIEVE he's so compassionate! You'd think the Catholic Church is unfamiliar with the concept of altruism.
Too funny!
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)This pope has not changed the policy on how the RCC views gays, women, or contraception. Until he gets some actual policy changes accomplished, I will continue to view him as nothing more than a spin doctor.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What a crock. Bigoted old fools run that organization, and it is sad how much power it has to shape public policy and contribute to making life harder for our LGBT allies.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Admittedly, he is probably the most progressive Pope, with the possible exception of JP1, who was taken off the board in short shrift. But I doubt the RCC is going to change many of it's core values overnight. All said and done, it is a problem for Catholics to deal with. I fail to see how it affects the rest of us, especially the non-religious. We atheists should be more concerned about confronting the anti-theist bigots who use religious intolerance to spread their own toxic views. We need to clean our own house and leave the Catholics to clean theirs.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The anti-theists are running quite wild, denying believers all sorts of basic rights and funding bigotry based on their non-philosophy...
And this really is just a Catholic problem. Thankfully, Catholics have no power or control in our culture and don't fund bigoted campaigns to take away people's rights, like the right to choose or to marry....
Your perspective is seriously out of whack. Intolerance of religious views is no different than intolerance of any other kind of idea. Religion is a belief system, not an inherited trait. There is nothing wrong with criticizing terrible beliefs.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Because you can't possibly be thinking that the harm from whomever you are thinking is the mean nasty anti-theist is anywhere close to what happens because of Catholic policies and power.
This is either a new level of cluelessness for you or some of the most ridiculous apologist tripe to be typed in here in some time.
You forgot to specifically talk about how horrible Dawkins is, though. That is disappointing and will likely cost you that writing gig at Slate out HuffPo.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They don't affect me. I am not a Catholic. How do they affect you? Right, they don't. You and your little group just troll them to find fodder for your anti-theist propaganda.
The harm you and your ilk do is to atheists and humanists. You pretend to speak for us all and you DON'T, so get over yourself. We may be atheists, but we do not share your disdain for people of faith. I apologize for nobody, including you and the other anti-theists. I'm here to set the record straight, that's all.
Your buddy Dawkins does not speak for me, regardless of our shared lack of belief in a deity. If the Pope were trying to impose rules on non Catholics, I would be as outraged as anyone else, but he isn't.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)are very much responsible for anti-gay laws in many countries. For horrible policies toward women around the world. For helping to spread AIDS in 3rd world countries due to telling many that condoms actually spread AIDS so they wouldn't use them. I thought progressives were supposed to be opposed to those kind of things. Thanks for letting me know I was wrong. How about you pop over to GD and defend the Republican policies that do the same thing and see what kind of reception you get.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You're grasping at straws again. Maybe you'd like to back up your accusations instead of spreading hate propaganda.
People are Catholic by choice. The Vatican doesn't make policies or enact laws for other countries. I guess you haven't traveled much.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You seem to have broadband again so you get the googles too. Feel free to look those things up. I don't feel like I need to support the fact that the rcc has spent a good deal of effort trying to deny birth control to women in the us. Feel free to call saying that "hate propaganda" all you want. You are setting a wonderful tone.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You and I may think that is wrong, but we don't make the rules for Catholics. It's their business. They don't have to go to Catholic hospitals and clinics. Nothing is being forced on anyone. Implying that it is and using that as a means to attack the personal beliefs of others is hate propaganda and disgusting. I do not share their beliefs, but I respect them and recognize that for many they are strongly held and are not ill intentioned. The issue of abortion is extremely sensitive and those who oppose it come in all stripes, including atheists. Sort out your own house and let them sort out theirs.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And doctors, nurses, technicians, secretaries, administrators, and janitors don't have to work at Catholic hospitals, right? If they want their health insurance to cover birth control, they can just work somewhere else, right?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Or they could go to any drugstore and buy some rubbers. That's what most of us do.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Many are used for other health concerns such as hormone imbalances. Rubbers alone can't do that.
Depending on the contraceptive it can be quite expensive.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If it is used for something else then it isn't birth control. Why would anyone go to a catholic establishment for birth control? Do you go to a kosher butcher and ask for bacon? You anti-theists are really grasping at straws if this is all you've got.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)I am not an anti-theist. I did not mention a word about your debate with them, but rather was commenting on your statement:
What I am, is a liberal who greatly supports the ACA and its mandate for reproductive healthcare, and have heard too many conservative arguments against it by ignoring that contraception is for more than pregnancy prevention and trivializing it to nothing more than condoms.
Contraception can and is used for things such as hormone imbalances and polycystic ovarian disease all the time. This does not make it any less of a form of contraception, but rather shows that the issue is far more delicate than just going to a drug store and buying rubber or stopping by a nearby PP (if you have one nearby) and getting them for free. They still prevent pregnancy but are used for more reasons than just that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraceptive#Medical_Uses
Hormonal contraception is primarily used for the prevention of pregnancy, but is also prescribed for the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome, menstrual disorders such as dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, and hirsutism.[4]
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome[edit]
Hormonal treatments, such as hormonal contraceptives, are frequently successful at alleviating symptoms associated with polycystic ovary syndrome. Birth control pills are often prescribed to reverse the effects of excessive androgen levels, and decrease ovarian hormone production.[5]
Dysmenorrhea[edit]
Hormonal birth control methods such as birth control pills,the contraceptive patch, vaginal ring, contraceptive implant, and hormonal IUD are used to treat cramping and pain associated with primary dysmenorrhea.[6][7]
Menorrhagia[edit]
Oral contraceptives are prescribed in the treatment of menorrhagia to help regulate menstrual cycles and prevent prolonged menstrual bleeding. The hormonal IUD (Mirena) releases levonorgestrel which thins the uterine lining, preventing excessive bleeding and loss of iron.[8]
Hirsutism[edit]
Birth control pills are the most commonly prescribed hormonal treatment for hirsutism, as they prevent ovulation and decrease androgen production by the ovaries. Additionally, estrogen in the pills stimulates the liver to produce more of a protein that binds to androgens and reduces their activity.[9]
This was what Sandra Fluke was referring to when she went before congress and testified for the need of reproductive health care to be included in the ACA. She specifically referred to her friend who had the polycystic ovarian disease and how some women had to stop taking it because of the prohibitive cost.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/427417/sandra-fluke-contraception-testimony/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/10/what-sandra-fluke-means-to-a-young-woman-in-america/
Whether you meant it or not your comments trivialize the burden that getting needed contraception has on young women. I was trying to NICELY set the record straight. And as for why would they go to a catholic establishment? It could be the only place anywhere near them to obtain them for treatment.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You make a good point and I agree with you. It's been a long day and I confused you with another member. Gotta sleep now. 
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)not by the actual information being presented but by who presents it? So you prejudge what those you deem "anti-thesits' have to say? That has to be the case because these same things you agree with have been presented to you earlier. There's a word for that prejudging thing...what is it again?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Yup! I am bigoted against bigots. That's the cross I have to bear and the hypocrisy I must deal with. Woe is me.
But wtf, I still enjoy life and get along with most folk.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That means doubled birth control, the pill, AND condoms.
Like, life threatening important.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Is she catholic? Hint, there are lots of ways to avoid pregnancy and still enjoy a healthy sex life. But if you want to lay all your ills on some religious policy of a church you don't even belong to, be my guest.
Do you live in the US, because when I lived there I never had trouble finding birth control or access to clinics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the morning after pill, for instance, if the first line of defense fails. We had to fight, kicking and screaming against their lobbying efforts to get that made into a OTC medication. (Locally it is.)
For issues like that, time is of the essence. We also had to force licensed Pharmacists statewide to carry it. Otherwise, you get to go shopping.
An entity that lobbied, heavily, against my personal end of life choices, when the time comes.
These issues do not belong to members of the RCC alone, because they lobby BEYOND their membership to pass laws.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have no love for their policies or their lobbying. Glad you have options and the morning after pill is available. I'm sure many, if not most catholics agree with us on this. Hopefully, they will convince their leaders to rethink their dogma. They have a ways to go, but Francis is definitely a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, no pun intended. I wish them the best.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that we are magically immune, is that now changed?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Obviously that is completely incorrect, as has been painstakingly shown.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Free market at its finest, yo.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)What then?
Many of the deals have been reached in near secrecy, with minimal scrutiny by regulators. Virtually all involve providers in Western Washington, which voted heavily for same-sex marriage last November and the Death with Dignity Act in 2008. The cultural divide between the region’s residents (Seattle recently edged out San Francisco as the area with the largest proportion of gay couples) and the Catholic Church (whose local archbishop led the effort against marriage equality and is overseeing a Vatican crackdown on independent-minded American nuns) couldn’t be wider. And yet more and more hospitals there — sustained by taxpayers, funded by Medicare, Medicaid, and other government subsidies — could be bound by church restrictions on birth control, sterilization and abortion, fertility treatments, genetic testing, and assisted suicide.
...
The dilemma is that Catholic hospitals — there are 630 or so in the United States, representing 15 percent of all admissions every year — are not independent entities. They are bound by a 43-page document called the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which have been around in some form since 1921 and were last revised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2009.
The 72 directives explicitly ban abortion and sterilization. They restrict other types of care as well, including emergency contraception for rape victims (“It is not permissible... to initiate or to recommend treatments [for sexual assault] that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum”), in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination (“contrary to the covenant of marriage, the unity of the spouses, and the dignity proper to parents and the child”), surrogate pregnancy, and anything that remotely resembles assisted suicide (the bishops’ preferred term is “euthanasia”).
http://www.propublica.org/article/catholic-hospitals-grow-and-with-them-questions-of-care
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)No reason to attack Catholics, as individuals, for their personal beliefs. Abortion is a single issue, that crosses party and religious lines. Using this issue as a scare tactic to attack catholics and spread bigotry is pretty sick shit. There should be more public hospitals in the US and a single payer, one tier system.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)not the beliefs of individual Catholics. It's quite possible that if individual American Catholics were polled, they'd change a great deal of those hospital policies. But they're not; it's the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy that controls the policies. The Pope, of course, could tell them they're being intolerant, but he doesn't.
Another example of how Catholic policy affects non-Catholics: the church campaigned in favour of Proposition 8. A Roman Catholic bishop was instrumental in campaign.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Bunch of the top individual donors were publicly open Catholics as well.
I wouldn't have a problem with them if they kept to themselves, with their dogma and edicts, but they deign to tell ME what I can do with MY life, and MY body. So, of course you know, this means war.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Where exactly did I, or anyone in this thread, attack Catholics as individuals? If you look back, I said Catholic power and policies. That's about the church. But you SOOOOOO want to paint me as a bigot that you don't even care what I actually say. Like I said, build those straw men elsewhere.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)beliefs; and I don't think many are doing so.
The problem occurs when people use religion to restrict the rights of others. For example, in Nicaragua women cannot even have abortions when their life is at stake, and some have died as a result. The president and government of Nicaragua are not right-wing; nor is Ortega a coward or a weathercock; he courageously stood up to external interference and hostility and internal terrorism. But either he and his fellow leaders cannot stand up to the pressures of the 'pro-life' movement, or they actually believe in restricting women's rights, including their right to life, for this reason.
In this case, the pressure comes from Catholicism. But it also comes from other sources. In Uganda, it is hardline evangelical Protestants who have enacted draconian laws against homosexuality, and were barely restrained from actually imposing the death penalty for it. As I have mentioned before, the worst political pro-lifer in history was probably the atheist Ceaucescu, who banned birth control and abortion for nationalist rather than religious reasons.
The point is that no one should be using their ideology to restrict other people's human rights. This includes nonreligious as well as religious ideologies, but a number of people and groups are attempting to argue for exceptions being made for religious beliefs; and implying that a pharmacist should able to refuse birth control on religious grounds, whereas they would not consider that a vegetarian shop worker should be able to refuse to sell people meat.
'There should be more public hospitals in the US and a single payer, one tier system.'
Yes, I agree with this!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Heddi
(18,312 posts)then yes, people DO have to go to a catholic hospital, regardless of the religion of the patient, and be subjected to rules against birth control, abortion (therapeutic, not elective), surgical sterilization, and end of life decisions.
The Catholic Church, while not writing laws in other countries, contributes significant amounts of money to get certain laws passed. Or have you forgotten Proposition 8.
You're being incredibly dishonest to say that the RCC doesn't have anything to do with laws, that even if they did it doesn't affect you, and believers are the ones who are doing the voting/law passing. I'd say you're being naive but I know that's not the case. You're being intentionally dishonest or obtuse regarding the absolutely horrific laws the RCC has supported and put forth dealing with LGBT issues, women's issues, and health issues...here and globally.
Your tired argument 'They don't have to go to Catholic hospitals and clinics" is what Right-Wing Anti-Abortionists say when they are successful in closing the last abortion clinic in a state "well, they can just go elsewhere." Or when women are denied access to birth control, plan-b, and RU486 (and other meds) by religious-minded pharmacists "Well, they can just go elsewhere."
Your wife has spoken many times about the lovely cross-country driving jaunts you take every year. Are you that completely clueless to the reality of a woman living in the middle of Kansas. What options does she have to "go somewhere else" when that somewhere else could be hundreds of miles away, if not in a completely different state.
I'm just blown away by your insensitivity of this issue. "They don't have to go to Catholic hospitals and clinics." Yes, they do. In more cases than you're apparently aware, that IS their only option if they want any health care of any kind. And when the Catholic hospital or clinic refuses to treat using the accepted standard of medical practice, and instead treat the soul better than they treat the patient (Regardless of the patient's needs or wishes), then that's a fucking problem.
But, then again, I'm guessing you're
1) not a woman
2) not of child bearing age
3) not struggling in the lower income strata
4) not married to someone who is of child bearing age
and I suppose when it comes to YOUR medical care, or your FAMILY's medical care, as long as it hasn't personally affected you, then it really isn't an issue for anyone else.
Here's some reading for your next roadtrip. When your'e reading, pretend you're 18, living in the middle of nowhere, and are either pregnant, or trying not to be, and pretend, just for a millisecond, that your only choices in healthcare come from the Catholic Church. Now just for another milisecond see how these choices (and lack thereof) affect people. And how "go somewhere else" may not be at all feasable for a young, poor, scared, carless highschooler with a baby growing in her belly, or doing everything she can to keep one from growing in her belly.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396
Catholics Are Taking Over Local Hospitals, Imposing Their Faith on Your Health Care, and Planning to Deny Certain Treatments for Patients Who Are Pregnant or Dying
I was past 24 weeks when doctors at Swedish told me I was miscarrying," explains the woman sitting across from me at the coffee shop. We'll call her Mary. She's asked to remain anonymous to maintain her privacy,
During Mary's Swedish visit last year, "They said that they couldn't save the fetus but it still had a heartbeat, so there was nothing they could do. They had to wait for the heartbeat to stop."
Mary says she demanded an abortion but was basically told her options were to "wait for nature to take its course" or unhook herself, crawl out of bed, and find another hospital. "It was a nightmare," she says. "It still is."...
Catholic institutions across the nation are merging with secular hospitals, clinics, and even small private practices at an unprecedented rate. Optimists explain that the consolidation and shared infrastructure help reduce costs. Pessimists point out that the aggressive mergers come at a time when Catholic bishops are exerting and expanding their authority. "I see it as a conscious effort to achieve through the private market what they failed to achieve through the courts or at the ballot box," says Monica Harrington, a San Juan Island resident who's spent the last year fighting a Catholic hospital in her town.
"In the 15 years we have been tracking religious/secular hospital mergers, we have never seen so many active cases in one state—until now," says Lois Uttley, the founder and director of MergerWatch. Compounding the problem: All 10 mergers would happen in Western Washington, which means that in the space of a few years, patients with needs that go against Catholic teaching could be forced to drive hundreds of miles to access the health services they need.
The mergers wouldn't just affect women's health care, they would affect end-of-life care for everyone and, potentially, compassionate medical care for members of the LGBT community.
To understand Catholic health care, it's important to know the rules that guide Catholic hospitals, otherwise known as Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs). These directives are drafted and tweaked by the rotating cast of mostly white, mostly celibate bishops couch-surfing at the Vatican. ERDs operate like a code of conduct that medical staff in Catholic hospitals agree to abide by, regardless of whether or not a particular staffer is Catholic. For the most part, the directives aren't suggestions—they're prescriptive.
"Any partnership... must respect church teaching and discipline," one directive states. The church monitors the implementation of these directives through hospital ethic committees overseen by regional bishops like our very own Archbishop Peter Sartain.
(so much for your comment that these hospitals and their rules aren't influenced by the RCC)
http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/communities-fight-control-hospitals
When Catholic hospitals take over secular ones, and in some cases when two hospitals affiliate more loosely, the employees of the formerly secular facility are bound by guidelines called Ethical and Religious Directives that prohibit abortions, emergency contraception for rape victims, and delay essential medical procedures until a woman’s life is in danger. They can also override directives for end-of-life care and allow discrimination against LGBT patients, all in the name of church doctrine. “What surprises most in these cases is that a hospital has ‘saint’ in the name but they don’t really know what that means,” says Meghan Smith, a domestic associate at Catholics for Choice.
With ten completed or proposed affiliations between secular and Catholic hospitals in just the past three years, Washington has become the main battleground over hospital mergers. Nearly half of the state’s hospital could be affiliated with the Catholic Church by the end of the year.
If three hospitals in Northwest Washington affiliate with PeaceHealth, a Catholic health care organization, there would be no secular hospital between Seattle and the Canadian border, says Mary Kay Barbieri, co-chair of People for Healthcare Freedom, a group that has been fighting the mergers. Barbieri began agitating when she overheard a health care provider mention a possible merger at a dinner party.
**So much for your comment that "they dont have to go to a Catholic hospital or clinic" Apparently some people will. Shocking!**
**oh, look here, a country that actually allows the Catholic Church "special place in the formation of laws." Surprisingly ANOTHER one of your statements is completely and utterly without merit.
http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/is-ireland-trying-to-shake-off-the-shackles-of-the-catholic-church-212464231-238186561.html
But we have always been a peculiar kind of Republic. Our Constitution, introduced by de Valera in 1937, specifically gave the Catholic Church a special and influential place in the formation of Irish laws and Irish society. And although that special position has now been withdrawn, the resonance here of what used to be called Rome Rule lives on.
This fear of the church bedeviled our politics until very recently. When the “rebel” Charlie Haughey finally introduced contraception, it was only available to married couples on prescription!
The influence and power of the church pervaded all levels of Irish society for decades, in fact for nearly all of the life of the state since its formation in the 1920s. You don't have to be as old as me to remember what it felt like.
In rural Ireland where I grew up nothing -- and I mean nothing -- was done without the tacit approval of the local priest. Holding a dance or running a club or doing virtually anything that brought people, especially young people, together required the imprimatur in advance.
The image of the local priest out at night with his flashlight and blackthorn stick patrolling the laneways after dances in search of canoodling couples may now be seen as a joke, but it was all too real in the Ireland of the fifties and sixties and even the seventies.
he new legislation will offer very little increased protection for women in crisis situations, and the complexity of the regime will mean that the vast majority of Irish women who want abortions will continue to go to the U.K. to get them.
https://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/06/06/irish-feminists-still-fighting-churchs-political-influence/
The Church also figured prominently in the death of Savita Halappanavar last year, which sparked outrage and focused the world’s attention on women’s rights in Ireland. Halappanavar was admitted to a Galway hospital on October 21st, miscarrying at 17 weeks. She was repeatedly denied the abortion that might have saved her, being told she couldn’t have the procedure because Ireland is a “Catholic country.
But in a country where abortion is illegal and it takes a minimum of five years to get divorced, there are clearly still obstacles to overcome.
----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/catholic-influence-gay-marriage-_n_3371052.html
In early May, Rhode Island became the sixth and final New England state to allow gay couples to marry. The Democratic-dominated Legislature, led by an openly gay House speaker, overcame years of successful lobbying by the Catholic Church.
The church for decades has employed aggressive lobbying efforts on a range of political issues, and Catholic leaders have used the power of the pulpit and substantial financial resources to maintain clout. At times they've gone so far as to tell leading Catholic lawmakers they were not welcome to receive Communion if they opposed church teachings on matter such as abortion and gay marriage.
In Minnesota, Catholic leaders spent nearly $1 million last year to support a ballot measure banning gay marriage. The year before, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis produced and distributed 400,000 copies of a DVD in which Archbishop John C. Nienstedt called same-sex marriage, at best, "an untested social experiment."
**So yet another COMPLETELY WRONG STATEMENT BY YOU...the Catholic Church **Does*** influence laws and legislation. SO surprising!**
SO basically, every single thing you've written in your post has been proven wrong. Let's recap:
You: You and I may think that is wrong, but we don't make the rules for Catholics. It's their business.
Me: they are making rules for everyone else, and they make it our business when they do
You: They don't have to go to Catholic hospitals and clinics.
Me: When there is no secular hospital between Seattle and the Canadian border, then yes, they DO have to go to Catholic hospitals and clinics
You: Nothing is being forced on anyone.
Me: Catholic lobbying has led to anti-gay marriage bills, anti-abortion bills. They certainly do force their beliefs on people who are not Catholic, particulary in the area of health-care
You: Implying that it is and using that as a means to attack the personal beliefs of others is hate propaganda and disgusting.
Me: Hate propaganda? Facts are hate propaganda? Okay....
You: I do not share their beliefs, but I respect them and recognize that for many they are strongly held and are not ill intentioned.
Me: If you find yourself in a Catholic hospital, regardless of whether you want to be there or not, you will end up sharing their beliefs because their beliefs will be forced on you. Want to get married to your same-sex partner and can't because of RCC lobbying in your state? then you're having their beliefs forced on you in that instance as well.
You:The issue of abortion is extremely sensitive and those who oppose it come in all stripes, including atheists. Sort out your own house and let them sort out theirs.
Me: If someone doesn't want an abortion, then they shouldn't get one. They should not stop anyone else from getting a medically necessary procedure, medication, or treatment. All of these are things the RCC and their affiliated hospitals have done. Not all abortions are done for choice and convenience. Ectopic pregnancy is in no way a viable pregnancy and can (and in many cases does) kill the woman if it is not surgically removed. The Catholic Church considers this an abortion, and catholic hospitals will not remove ectopic pregnancies, even though they are not viable pregnancies. Birth Control is used for reasons other than contraceptive purposes. Tubal Ligation and hysterectomy are done for reasons other than sterilization. The reason doesn't matter, the entire procedure, medication, or therapy is prohibited by the RCC and therefore not done in Catholic-run hospitals. If these were TRULY issues that affected Catholics, and Catholics only, then yes, it is their house to sort. However, when their antiquated, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-medicine views are put into the public sphere, and the RCC expects ALL patients of their hospitals, catholic or not to abide by their rules, then it is not just THEIR HOUSE...it is OUR HOUSE.
I'm sorry that everything you typed in your response above was just, well, absolutely 100% without question wrong. You'll be forthcoming with an apology, or retraction shortly, right?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)just to read this epic smackdown. Thank you.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)
Heddi
(18,312 posts)
and it was allowed to stand 6-1 by a jury of his peers.
peers, indeed.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I wouldn't expect to see something that vile outside of FreeRepublic. Certainly some of our champions of civility jumped all over that and called him out for such offensive bullshit, right?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Are non-believers
trotsky
(49,533 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
Best post of the thread. Possibly evar.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that it's really sickening to see on a progressive web site.
This is the sort of thing that the Catholic Church engages in regularly, as you well know:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26938667
The law requires government health centres to distribute free condoms and contraceptive pills.
The court had deferred implementation after the law's passage in December 2012 after church groups questioned its constitutionality.
The government of President Benigno Aquino defied years of church pressure by passing the bill.
It says the law will help the poor, who often cannot afford birth control, and combat the country's high rates of maternal mortality.
The provisions will make virtually all forms of contraception freely available at public health clinics.
Sex education will also be compulsory in schools and public health workers will be required to receive family planning training.
There will also be medical care for women who have had illegal abortions.
The Philippines is about 80% Catholic, and with a population approaching 100 million, has one of the highest birth rates in Asia.
The church fought fiercely against the bill, denouncing it as evil and a threat to life. It denounced politicians who supported it, including President Aquino.
The Catholic Church has played a significant role in Philippine political life and continues to wield much influence over the population.
The Catholic Church is not just trying to make rules for Catholics. They are not just trying to "sort out their own house". They are trying to impose their rules on people who are not Catholics, and to dictate the laws of sovereign nations. That anyone would try to defend this and still call themselves a progressive is absolutely nauseating. Almost as nauseating as trying to label other people as bigots for pointing out the Catholic Church's strong-arm tactics in trying to restrict reproductive rights.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Now, how am I defending any of that? I'm not and I don't see anyone else here defending it. Nice try though.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)church lobbied or sanctioned laws?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Ruh-roh, raggy.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Where did I use the word "immune", for example?
I stand by that post, btw.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Y) They don't affect me.
Z) I am not a Catholic.
You have no interest in Catholic policies or power (X). Why?
Because they don't effect you (Y).
Why don't they effect you?
Because you're not Catholic (Z).
Whether you meant it or not, the argument this paragraph conveys is that Catholic policies do not effect anyone who is not Catholic.
"Immune", as it happens, is synonymous with "exempt", which conveys freedom from the effects of a particular rule or law. So, you either said precisely what you now deny having said, or you fail at English composition and/or vocabulary.
It's okay. It's a tough language.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I used neither "immune", nor "exempt".
I don't let the rules of clubs or organizations I don't belong to affect me. Does that make any sense to you?
I've lived in a dozen countries, some of them catholic, some muslim and never have I felt coerced or manipulated by the religious beliefs of the majority.
In just the same way, I don't let the beliefs of the anti-theists affect my attitude toward people of faith. Respect begets respect. Intolerance begets intolerance. It's not complicated.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that forbids it due to Church teaching, or fear for their lives because of Islamic teaching, they are bringing that oppression on themselves, because THEY let those religions do that.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?
I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.
I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)What extreme situations? I'm talking about situations that exist in most countries on this planet, the notable exceptions being some nations in Latin America(Uruguay, Argentina being most obvious examples), Some States in the United States, Mexico City(not the country), Canada, and many European Nations as well as South Africa.
You claim to support LGBT rights, but would rather defend the Catholic Church in its lobbying to oppress LGBT people who are NOT members of the church! Let me see if I can make this more clear for you, leaving a church does NOT make you immune from laws like Proposition 8, is that understood?
I'll be clear here, religious rights do NOT extend to oppressing others, no religion has the right to oppress those outside its church, and this has NOTHING to do with marrying same sex couples at church, but strictly legal protections and recognition, along with equal rights.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)as long as it doesn't affect you personally. When others here bring up the problems that Catholic lobbying and influence cause around the world, you still don't care, and you say you don't believe that they care either.
And now you trot out the Republican "How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster" (and that after saying "you really look for extreme situations"!). HA did not say anything about marrying in a church. They're talking about the effect the RC church has on national laws. And then you follow up with the Republican "I'm supporting religious rights".
Frankly, your posts in this thread would get a new member of DU banned. You are trotting out Republican talking point after Republican talking point.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)for religious rights, and very little for other types of political rights.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The Republican line is in the vein of "what's next, marrying a hamster?" I actually support being able to marry a hamster, or vole, if that's your choice. So, I am in direct opposition to conservatives. Why don't you tell me if and where you draw the line as to who can marry? I'm cool with anything, provided nobody is harmed.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Of human rights and equal rights, if you think that's wrong then you aren't worth my time.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I guess here we differ is how we go about it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Someone with fewer than 100 posts would have MIRT on their ass for saying that stuff. If you really don't know that those are sold RW talking points, you are more clueless and sheltered than I thought.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)for the second time I might add, felt that your post was our of line. Perhaps you might want to reflect on your rhetoric.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It's his deep and sincere beliefs about same same sex marriage, which he tries to hide, but which are exposed in unguarded moments. More and more frequently, these days, in fact. They have no place on a progressive web site.
rug
(82,333 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)That sounds like the sort of thing Santorum would say! It goes way beyond anything that the Pope has said, and frankly I'm shocked to see it on DU!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We should all have the right to marry whomever or whatever, provided it is consensual and conducted of sound mind.
Do you have a problem with sisters marrying each other? I don't. How about other family members? Do you draw lines and, if so, why?
My point, as I'm sure you are already aware, was about seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state. Fuck the church and fuck those who want to paint me as an enemy of equal rights. Fuck the bigots and bullies and nasty hate mongering anti-theists. Fuck all fascists.
Happy Easter! 
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)But the main point here is about:
'seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state'
Fine; I don't think that any church is morally or legally obliged to marry anybody. The problem occurs not when a church or other religious institution does not give its approval for a couple to marry; but when it puts pressure on the state not to allow people to marry/ live together without marriage/ use birth control/ or whatever it might be in a particular case.
And no, the Catholic church is not the only group that does this.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Except, possibly when it comes to family members. What is your objection? I'm not proposing it btw, just curious as to why anyone would object nd on what grounds, especially if we're talking about same sex marriage.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Unbelievable.
How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #175)
Post removed
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Here, let me help:
Affect
af·fect [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt]
verb (used with object)
1. to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.
2. to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.
3. (of pain, disease, etc.) to attack or lay hold of.
ef·fect [ih-fekt]
noun
1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.
2. power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence: His protest had no effect.
3. the state of being operative or functional; operation or execution; accomplishment or fulfillment: to bring a plan into effect.
4. a mental or emotional impression produced, as by a painting or a speech.
5. meaning or sense; purpose or intention: She disapproved of the proposal and wrote to that effect.
...
verb (used with object)
10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
The Catholic Church doesn't effect me means the Catholic Church doesn't change you. Despite possibly being an accurate statement, it seems a rather stupid thing to say, doesn't it?
So, let's, for the sake of argument, assume what you meant by "affect" was "to impress the mind or move the feelings of" (and to be honest, given your batshit insane defense of the Church denying medical care to patients and adequate health coverage to its own fucking employees, I am not inclined to believe this is the case). Alright. Catholic laws and policies don't move you emotionally. That's fucking fantastic... but how on earth is it relevant? We're not talking about your goddamn feelings, we're talking about the Church lobbying to have its peculiar opinions legislated upon wider society.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You quoted me as using "effect" as a verb, which I didn't. Maybe a little grammar lesson in your spare time might help.
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #119)
Act_of_Reparation This message was self-deleted by its author.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I just posted the respective definitions of "affect" and "effect"; both may be used as a noun or as a verb.
"Effect", when used as a verb, indicates a causal relationship. For example: Carbon dioxide emissions effect global climate change demonstrates the proper usage of "effect" as a verb, conveying the message that global climate change is, at least in part, brought about by carbon emissions.
You are claiming that I am confusing "effect" and "affect"; but, if that were the case, I would be arguing against the assertion that you are an emergent property of the Catholic Church.
Obviously, I am not. Nor, for that matter, is anyone else.
The policies and power of the Catholic Church do not affect me, meanwhile, conveys the message that the policies and power of the Catholic Church do not act upon you. This assertion is what I and every-fucking-one else are disputing.
I'll concede that you could have used "affect" in the lesser-deployed context of emotion (meaning, the policies of the Catholic Church don't arouse you emotionally), but again, saying so wouldn't make the statement any less obtuse... just less relevant to the conversation.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Therefore, they have no effect on my life, nor my decisions. Is that clear enough for you? If they affect you or any other non-catholic, then by all means speak up about it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that Catholic policies and power don't affect non-Catholics, were you just making that up, or did you have no idea what you were talking about?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Or that this very Pope lobbied against same sex marriage and those couples adopting in his home country? Or that many of the Cardinals and Bishops in the United States lobbied against same sex marriage in California, Washington, Maine, etc.?
Is all of this a figment of our collective imaginations?
How about the policies implemented by Catholic clinics and hospitals, or those that were bought out by said religious organizations, don't tell me those policies only affect Catholics and don't give the bullshit excuse that people have a choice of what hospitals to go to, because too often they don't.
We may share a lack of belief in a deity, but at least I don't lie to disparage LGBT people, women, atheists, etc.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's their problem. How are they hurting you? If I were Catholic, I would be outraged nd would speak out, but I'm not. As non-believers, we have plenty of things to work on without worrying about members of organizations we don't subscribe to. I support LGBT struggles for equal rights across the board, but I'm not going to get involved in issues between them and their religious leaders. Nobody is forcing them to be catholic. The RCC has made it's position clear on several issues that would preclude me being a member, apart from the fact that I'm an atheist. I offer them my moral support, but I'm not going to attack all my catholic friends and accuse them of being anti gay because of their overall faith.
The anti-theists here do not discuss specifics with progressive religionists. They make nasty broad brush attacks and revel in their bigotry. And they give atheists, in general, a bad reputation, because they are loud, extreme and have nothing good to say about anything to do with religion. They suck the air out of the room.
Feel free to enlighten me as to how non-catholics are being persecuted by catholic policies.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)about people other than themselves. They don't wait until the bigotry and injustice which the Catholic Church attempts to impose on everyone affects them personally and directly before they get angry and speak out against it.
You, obviously, are not one of those.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Your claim to care about catholics and Phillipinos who are so oppressed by the RCC is laughable. You are far more interested in attacking people for their beliefs, or their tolerance of believers, than any social injustices they may suffer at the hands of the evil RCC.
Maybe your disciples buy your claim to altruism, but I doubt any others around here give it much credence.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Like you are doing now?
The RCC is a huge filthy rich corporation that influences politics around the world from contraception to censoring films and books they don't like. This "you're not catholic so why should you care?" line is pitifully disingenuous.
Hey.... you're not an "anti-theist" so why should you care what they do? Right?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you outed yourself as a dishonest apologist for oppression.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you think I should also apologize for asshole anti-theists?
Looks like you've made your bed HA. Enjoy!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the rights of others, you focus on us instead of the fucking Catholic Church?
Here, I have a suggestion, why don't you go to one of the LGBT groups here on DU, and school them on how the Catholic Church does NOTHING to hurt them. Do that for me, ok?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)No, of course not. Does that mean I should endorse them and the vitriol they spew? No, of course not.
Now why would I even think of doing anything for you? First, you need to earn my respect, then you need to show you are unable to do it yourself. So quit begging.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I don't need respect from someone with their head in the sand about the activities of the Catholic Church, especially not when they are enabling, through inaction, the oppression of my friends and family.
You elevate beliefs above the rights of people, you deserve no respect, you don't respect human rights.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)where have we heard that before?
oh yeah.
free republic.
And for the alert happy: a screenshot of the nasty post where he wonders of supporters of same-sex marriage would support his marriage to a bicycle or marriage to a hamster.
THis post was allowed to stand 1-6. Someone else alerted on it before I did, and I find it sickening that this tripe is allowed to stand. Let this be posted by a 20-post newbie and MIRT would show their ass the door. I guess it's okay to say anti-gay things if you're a high-post-count poster with a star
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #110)
Post removed
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Seriously though, did you ever see the ASPCA complain about fumigators? I come here, now and again, to perform a public service.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)not only deeply compromised in whatever intellectual integrity you might once have had, but viscerally angry for reasons the rest of us can only guess at, and unable to understand at all why someone might care about people in another country.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But you are entitled to your beliefs, as is everyone else.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that the Catholic Church helped lobby to pass, starting with Proposition 8?
Do you have any fucking...aww fuck it, I have no words.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Who needs birth control? Use rubbers (his advice)
Don't like the rules at a catholic hospital? Find another hospital (his advice)
Don't like the prohibition on same sex marriage? find another church (his advice)
His tone-deafness regarding the fact that these things don't just affect CATHOLICS really makes no difference to him. HE doesn't take birth control, and no one around him does, so who cares. HE isn't in a same-sex marriage, so who cares. HE isn't affected by death with dignity decisions, so who cares. HE doesn't have to worry about lack of contraceptive coverage in workplace health insurance so who cares?
Not Starboard Tack, that's for sure! Unless it affects him directly, who cares?
When I made a lengthy post above pointing out that using rubbers, finding another hospital, or finding another church is really not the point at all, there is no response. So either I'm on ignore (doubt it), or he had his ass handed to him and can't respond to facts (which he calls Hate Propaganda).
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In fact, I have nobody on ignore.
Now, what do you have against my relationship with my bicycle and what is your problem with me wanting to marry a hamster, if I should so choose? You think I'm making light of same sex marriage, right? Well, you are wrong. I totally support same sex marriage and any other kind of marriage between consenting adults. What I don't understand is why anyone would insist on being married in a church that rejects them. I cannot marry anyone in a catholic church or several reasons. Do I give a shit? No!
And why should I? Marriage equality rights have nothing to do with religion. They are civil rights. Admittedly, religious organizations oppose those rights and should be fought on the political battlefield. I think everyone on DU supports equality of marriage. So why even bring it up here, if not to use as a wedge to alienate believers and paint them as supporters of conservative christian values. Go to Free Republic and fight that fight, if you want to get bloody.
My point is, fight the battles here that are worth fighting, instead of muddying the waters with bullshit issues that have nothing to do with equality of marriage rights, and more to do with bashing believers and blaming them for all the evils perpetrated by the RCC.
Of course I oppose the policies of the RCC regarding same sex marriage and women and the LGBT community. I also oppose anti-theists who make broad brush attacks against all believers and who smear fellow non-believers who don't share their disdain for believers. Extremists of all flavors suck.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I would consider rewriting this argument.
Also some people are both Catholic and Homosexual; they don't want to be made to choose between the two. You might think that that's tough, but it's not hard to understand why they are upset at being rejected by a church that they consider their own.
Bryant
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"The Catholic Church" and "Catholics" and the Anti-Atheists here like to ignore that we talk about The Pope and the RCC when we bring up policies, while they talk broadly about Atheists.
The RCC is an organization, a hateful, bigoted organization that I don't want any part of and owes a lot of apologies and reparations to the world at large. Until they turn over all involved in the child abuse scandal to secular authorities they will not be forgiven. Somehow this translates in the mind of Anti-Atheists into "I think all Catholics are child abusers" and that's where the dishonesty comes in, not on my behalf, but on the behalf of the Anti-Atheists misrepresenting my, and most others here, words.
On the other hand, when you talk about "Atheists" you are broad brushing, because there is no central Atheist group, there are a couple groups, like American Atheists (which routinely gets trashed here without a word from anyone) but nothing on the scale of major religions. We don't all subscribe to a single book, we don't worship anything, we all simply share a rejection of the idea of a divine being.
ETA: on topic here, if you really think that the RCC doesn't have massive, world-wide influence on non members, then you really need to look at how the world works.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Regarding atheists, I do not broad brush. I am an atheist, but I despise the broad brush attacks by anti-theists on this board. As far as the RCC affecting non-catholics in a negative way, I am not convinced, but I may be wrong. I can only speak from personal experience. I have lived in catholic countries, including several years in Rome, Italy, where I encountered some of the best and worst human beings who were part of the Vatican hierarchy. So, I try to avoid broad brush attacks. Not all anti-theists are as hateful and vicious as the small cabal who hang out here.
The RCC, for which I have very little respect, is struggling to stay alive, and unless it changes its attitude toward women and the LGBT community, I doubt it will survive. OTOH, the new Pope appears to be a sincere, well meaning guy overall. But he has his work cut out for him.
I don't think most catholics really give a damn about Vatican HQ. They tend to deal on a local level, probably much the same as other religions and organizations.
Vatican policy is such an easy target for the angry anti-theists and they use it's excesses to attack believers.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the Bayer clan ONLY speaks from personal experience. We've heard the "no [fill in the blank] that I know of does/thinks that", cited as "evidence" so many times from you and your relatives that you'd think the whole world hinged on what happened in your little family bubble.
But when you say you're not convinced that the RCC affects non-Catholics in a negative way, you're not even remotely believable. You're an alleged progressive and never heard of Prop 8? Had no idea that the RCC has fought tooth and nail to restrict abortion and family planning rights, in concert with the nutbag Protestant right. Sure...we believe that.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Obviously very little.
Firstly, my friend, we are not a clan. We are individuals with different experiences and beliefs, but we do share a mutual respect for tolerance and understanding. We all fight in our own ways for equality, education and understanding. We all oppose bigotry and extremism. We all recognize our own imperfections.
We all fought against prop 8. We were in the trenches fighting for civil rights and gay rights in the sixties and seventies. Where were you? I was in Italy, standing up for rights that the RCC opposed. I fought for abortion rights with underground movements and doctors who risked everything. I saw enough suffering to last a lifetime. Friends died because of laws imposed by the pro-Catholic government. So, don't tell me what I know or don't know.
I'm sure you like to think you speak from the experience of others, but you don't. I don't know how young you are, but I get the impression that you're fairly young. The four of us who comprise our "clan", as you put it, have over 250 years of combined personal experience. So get over yourself and enough with your personal attacks.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)spent millions of dollars to pass, and even succeeded in passing in many cases, and yet you still claim the RCC doesn't have a negative influence on non-Catholics? How the fuck are we to take anything you say seriously if your head is that far in the sand?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What the fuck were they (allegedly) fighting against, if Catholic policies and powers don't impact non-Catholics?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)anybody they knew. So I guess it didn't count.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Working with liberal priests who fought for the rights of women and gays in the political arena. Good men who risked excommunication for their defiance of the Vatican. We fought for abortion rights and won. We fought for the right to divorce and won. The church didn't change it's position, but we won. Whining about church policies will get you nowhere. Standing up against them in the political arena will bring about change. Many of those who fought this battle are still faithful believers, people who the anti-theists attack for supporting the church. You really have no idea. You attack your own kind, just because you don't share their spiritual beliefs. If you worked with them, instead of bashing them, you'd be amazed at how much could be accomplished.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)That's what you said about Catholic control of hospitals in the USA. Business or politics, you don't care what the Catholic church does in them.
And when someone gave the example of "when an LGBT couple can't marry in a country that forbids it due to Church teaching", you likened it to wanting to marry your bicycle or hamster in a church. So clearly you thought that such a desire was ridiculous, and you don't care that the Catholic church has been instrumental in the political fight against equal marriage. After all, it's just politics, right?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Gay couples marry every day and more power to them. Some are my friends and some are family members. There are still many states that don't allow same sex marriage, and shame on them. This has little to do with the Catholic church, which has always opposed same sex marriage. Shame on it, but like any club/religion/organization it gets to make it's own rules. Is that a reason to attack ordinary folk who happen to subscribe to the catholic tradition?
This is a sideshow for anti-theists to spread hatred and divisiveness. Very ugly imo.
The politics of same sex marriage is about equality, not about religious conversion. I support and fight for equality. I don't give a damn about an individual's religious beliefs. That said I have no respect for any religious organization, be it catholic, anglican or atheist.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)That's who is attacked in this thread. He said that children raised by same-sex parents are discriminated against.
No, it's untrue to say "There are still many states that don't allow same sex marriage, and shame on them. This has little to do with the Catholic church". You ignored this before when I linked to it in reply to you, so I will put it in your face so that your uncaring attitude is plain for all to see. Here's the Catholic church in the USA (who is whom we are attacking - not 'ordinary folk', as you falsely claim in a dishonest attempt to divert attention away from the Pope and the bishops you are desperate to protect):
...
Fifth, as citizens of California, we need to avail ourselves of the opportunity to overturn this ruling by the California Supreme Court. On the November general election ballot, there will be Proposition 8 which reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That language simply affirms the historic, logical and reasonable definition of marriage—and does not remove any benefits from other contractual arrangements.
And finally, we strongly encourage Catholics to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed for the passage of Proposition 8. And—please exercise your citizenship and vote in November.
http://www.cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/family-life/marriage-public-policy/465-a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8-a-constitutional-amendment-to-restore-the-definition-of-marriage-2
Yes, the Catholic church was at the heart of Proposition 8. It poured money and campaigning into it. That's what you are defending.
Meet Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, the apostle of the movement to deprive gay men and lesbians of the right to marry.
What almost no one knows is that without Bishop Sal, gay men and lesbians would almost surely still be able to get married today. As an auxiliary bishop in San Diego, Cordileone played an indispensable role in conceiving, funding, organizing, and ultimately winning the campaign to pass Proposition 8. It was Bishop Sal and a small group of Catholic leaders who decided that they had to amend the state constitution. It was Bishop Sal who found the first major donor and flushed the fledgling campaign with cash. It was Bishop Sal who personally brought in the organization that took the lead on the petition drive. And it was Bishop Sal who coordinated the Catholic effort with evangelical churches around the state. Bishop Sal even helped craft the campaign's rhetorical strategy, sitting in on focus groups to hone the message of Proposition 8.
We know all this because as homosexuals and their supporters were wondering how this all came about, Cordileone gloated about his work in an interview with an obscure Catholic radio network. He bragged about how gay men and lesbians never saw him coming and called gay marriage a Satanic plot by "the Evil One" to destroy morality in the modern world.
...
At first, Cordileone's project looked utterly impossible. After all, everyone said so. "People who are very supportive of this, with lots of experience in California politics, said that this was impossible to do," Cordileone said on A Body of Truth radio show. "We needed to file the initiative by the third week of April; we would need to raise at least $1.5 million, possibly more, in order to collect paid signatures. ... In addition to that, we would have needed a record number of volunteer signatures through the churches and other means. They said we simply did not have enough time; it would have been wiser to wait until June 2010."
...
Fortunately, Bishop Sal had a little more than God on his side. Cordileone had been strategizing with ecumenical opponents of gay marriage for years, and a shadow network known as "Protect Marriage" was already in place. The National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey nonprofit dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage around the country, had what Cordileone called both the intellectual arguments and the "practical know-how" to run the campaign. On December 23, 2007, Cordileone called organization president Maggie Gallagher and asked her group to come to California and get to work. Within weeks, the organization was helping to collect signatures.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-father-of-proposition-8/Content?oid=1370716&showFullText=true
There's a lot more at that 2nd link. Go and read it. Educate yourself on how the Catholic church was at the heart of the denial of equal marriage rights in law for everyone - not just advice to Catholics or a refusal to perform ceremonies in church. Realise just how hate-filled your use of the Republican strawman of "what if I wanted to marry my bicycle in a church" was. You are allying yourself with Maggie Gallagher and the man who is now the Archbishop of San Francisco - oh, yes, Cordileone has been well rewarded for leading the Catholic fight for bigotry. And, with your false claim that attacking the Pope and the Catholic church is attacking "ordinary folk who happen to subscribe to the catholic tradition", you are deliberately defending that archbishop, and you are insulting DUers too.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have never defended the RCC or any church. Attack them at will, be my guest. Neither do I defend the Pope for his failings. I admire him for his goodness, but condemn him for his failings.
What I object to is the attacking of catholics for their religious faith. Is that so hard to comprehend.
I support the fight for equality across the board. My reference to marrying a bicycle or a hamster or my dead grandmother is to demonstrate the absurdity of those who think same sex marriage is ever going to be approved by the RCC and the absurdity of wanting to be married by that organization. Don't lecture me on Prop 8, please. I was part of the fight against it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)are being attacked by someone here. They're not.
It's hard to comprehend why you're bringing it up, because no-one's doing it here. You now say "attack (the RCC) at will, be my guest", but throughout the thread, you've been attacking DUers for criticising the church, its policies, and their effect on secular laws.
No-one was talking about that. You simply made that up. We're talking about laws against same-sex marriage. Prop 8, that you claim to have been part of the opposition to, was the Catholic church, organised by a rising star in its Californian hierarchy, preventing it for everyone. That seems so damn obvious that I can't believe I have to point it out to you. But, in this thread, you've said time and again that Catholic policy has no effect on anyone who isn't a member that decides to follow its doctrine.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The RCC, along with other church leaders, many of them from minority communities, were responsible for the passing of Prop 8. They lobbied hard and spent a lot of money. We lost, temporarily.
This is about politics, not religion. It is about religious leaders manipulating their followers by distorting the reality of same sex marriage and using scare tactics. I find little difference between these leaders and those who lead the packs of anti-theists spreading hatred by distorting the words and beliefs of individual catholics.
I do not defend bullies of any ilk.
Let me state, for the record, that I believe Francis to be dead wrong on the issue of gay marriage and gays raising children.
Let me also state, for the record, that the bullies on this board are dead wrong when they blame liberal and progressive people of faith for the sins of the RCC.
I have never considered you to be part of that group, but you have decided to jump in on sub threads. I'm sorry if my replies are not as organized as they could be. I do not have access to a computer, or consistent internet at present, having been on the road for the past 2 weeks. It is not so easy navigating DU on a smartphone.
I hope I have made my position a little clearer and apologize for any confusion. Have to go now, we just had a pretty big earthquake. Time to leave the building.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)#19: " All said and done, it is a problem for Catholics to deal with. I fail to see how it affects the rest of us, especially the non-religious." + attack on atheists
#22: " If the Pope were trying to impose rules on non Catholics, I would be as outraged as anyone else, but he isn't. " + attack on atheists
#24: "People are Catholic by choice. The Vatican doesn't make policies or enact laws for other countries." + attack on a specific DUer
#27: "It's their business. They don't have to go to Catholic hospitals and clinics. Nothing is being forced on anyone." + attack on a specific DUer
#35: "They could do as you suggest, or buy their insurance elsewhere Or they could go to any drugstore and buy some rubbers"
#100: attack on DUers
#79: "Francis is definitely a step in the right direction"
#36: "but it's about business and politics" + attack on DUers
#107: "I don't let the rules of clubs or organizations I don't belong to affect me. Does that make any sense to you?
I've lived in a dozen countries, some of them catholic, some muslim and never have I felt coerced or manipulated by the religious beliefs of the majority. "
#112: "And this has what to do with the RCC?
Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?
I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one"
#66: "Why do you care, if you are not Catholic?
It's their problem. How are they hurting you? If I were Catholic, I would be outraged nd would speak out, but I'm not." + attack on DUers: "The anti-theists here do not discuss specifics with progressive religionists. They make nasty broad brush attacks and revel in their bigotry" - holy shit, just how un-self-aware are you? Broad brush attacks and bigotry? That's exactly what your posts in this thread are.
That's enough. You have spent the thread calling DUers bigots, being oh-so-concerned about the awful damage that someone does by criticising the Pope or the Roman Catholic church, and repeating offensive right wing idiocies.
As we've said, you're so bad, you'd have been banned from DU if you said all that in your first 100 posts.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)White Nationalist Group Claims Legalizing Gay Marriage Is 'Slippery Slope' To Pedophilia, Zoophilia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/michigan-gay-marriage_n_5071346.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
"If a state cannot be permitted to define marriage as simply as constituting one man and one woman, then our culture will be taken down a very slippery slope that will see pedophiles, polygamists, zoophiles, those in incestuous relationships, and every other sexual deviant with proclivities now known or to be invented to challenge laws that, likewise, prevent them from marrying whom -- or what -- they wish."
---
Let's see...you equate same-sex marriage with man-bicycle, man-hamster, man-dead-grandmother marriage. Later on you compare it to marrying a vole, your mother, or your sister.
The attorney quoted above agrees with you, because HE TOO equates gay marriage with man-child marriage, man-man-woman marriage, man-animal marriage, man-sister marriage and man-whatever they wish marriage"
You've found some interesting company to share your views with, ST.
Does ****THIS***** help you understand why people find your comments so repugnant? Does *******THIS******** illustrate why we find your constant defense of your comparison of gay marriage with marriage to __fill in the blank___ to be just so ridiculous and twee as to not even be believable? Being a member of DU, I find it hard to believe that you have NO FUCKING IDEA why your comments are seen as being as vile as they are. And rather than back down when TOLD that they're offensive, you just double back. You don't stop at the hamster/bicycle reference. No, you go for vole, dead grandmother, sister, mother....
See, here's the thing. A same-sex marriage involves two adults who have emotions, and famillies, and history, and consent. A marriage to a bicycle has none of that. A marriage to a hamster has none of that. To equate homosexuality with incest or necrophilia is equally beyond the pale, yet you continue to do it and with an "aw shucks, gee whiz, what's the problem???" attitude.
I would expect this kind of filth from Free Republic. Not from a DU'er, and not repeatedly from a DU'er despite being educated, and re-educated, and re-educated on why it's offensive.
Maybe now, by posting the company you keep when you make comments like that, you'll see what the problem is with your statements. Maybe. Doubtful, but maybe.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who get all wound up about the use of the term "religionists" have expressed the slightest dismay at this display of homophobic bigotry.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"I have little to no interest in Catholic policies or power'. They don't affect me. I am not a Catholic."
Sound familiar? Your own words. Were you lying when you said them, or are you lying now?
I'm rather amazed that the Bayer clan hasn't also tried to take credit for the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the moon landing and the eradication of smallpox, too.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You stoop lower and lower with every personal attack you make. I'm sure your family is very proud of you. Have a nice life.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)when every post you make exposes you more and more for what you are.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Good fucking riddance to that garbage nonsense. No, gay marriage is not like marrying a hamster or a bicycle. Because gay marriage is between two people, people with feelings and emotions and family and all the things that a dead grandmother, hamster, or bicycle isn't.
I really hope MIRT looks at this nastiness. We surely don't need to continue to have such blatant homophobic remarks on this board. I am reminded of when Laconicsax, who is Transgender, and ST were getting into disagreements, ST kept making disparaging comments about whether or not to call Laconicsax a he, or a she, because HE has a male name but wants us to call him HER....very off-base nastiness that most progressives don't even make an issue about. But he had a real fucking problem with a transgender atheist poster. He didn't get banned for that bit of transphobia,
Transphobia then and not using preferred gender pronouns. Gay Marriage = marrying a bike now.
walks like a duck...quacks like a duck....
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)whose homophobia took a while to reveal itself. It was well hidden under general dickishness, but eventually he just couldn't hold it in any more. He is not missed.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)White Nationalist Group Claims Legalizing Gay Marriage Is 'Slippery Slope' To Pedophilia, Zoophilia
----
not the kind of company I'd like to associate with...but then again, I'm not a transphobic, homophobic bigot who compares gay marriage to marrying a bicycle, a hamster, a vole, a dead grandmother, my own sister, or my own mother.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You have to put on blinders and ignore very public information like how the church is buying up hospitals in states severely limiting options to people. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth to seem all nice and progressive, while still demonizing the same groups, and still covering for Ratzinger.
My point was that when an Atheist talks about the Catholic church, they get labeled a bigot anti-theist for pointing out glaring, and very damning flaws in the organization, while an anti-atheist can talk about how awful atheists are all day and when they get called out for actually broad brushing a group of people they get slammed for, well, whatever is at hand really.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Mind boggling disingenuousness!!!!!
eridani
(51,907 posts)--and our side won. Given that most American and European Catholics approve of marriage equality, contraception and abortion, not sure what difference it makes what the pope says.
On the other hand, the 99% is still being badly creamed by the 1% in the class war.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)from over. At least not in the United States, and certainly not in all developed countries either.
In most of this country, you can be fired for being gay(that may change due to a court case, but not clear yet), with no legal recourse. You still don't have legal same sex marriage in most of this country, there are still states that restrict adoption to opposite sex couples only, etc.
Don't be like George W. Bush and stand up in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner when we aren't even halfway through the battle yet.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Almost no one, even progressives, ever thought we would get as far as we have in the last ten years. This momoentum is never going to be reversed.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)they aren't, mostly because of the increasingly undemocratic nature of how both State and Federal government are run.
Changing the culture is becoming easy, changing the legal framework is getting harder. Oddly enough, this is a reverse of interracial marriage, where the legal framework legalized it long before the culture became largely accepting.
Its one thing to have the majority of people on the right side of history, its quite different to try to motivate them to go out and vote in support of equality, for example.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)I think what he should be saying is that same-sex couples provide children with a loving home .. where they will be cared for, fed, taught to treat their fellow human beings with understanding and kindness. But above all else they will be loved. Now that is reality! Francis seems to take two steps forward .. then takes two steps back by making these sorts of statements.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)that should be enough to give a mix of femininity and masculinity. How ever that is defined.
I am always sad when people do not have strong families - while my family is drifting apart but no kids involved (my fault, I used to give the parties that family attended). In many ways your friends can be your family, certainly more reasonable than a real family, haha.
rurallib
(62,448 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Whether its a mom and/or dad, 2 moms or 2 dads, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends of their blood relatives, adopted relatives, who cares, the more the merrier.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They need help, not aspersions of inadequacy. (Not suggesting you did, the pope did.)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Children need people who will give proper care to them. Priests are clearly not qualified for that job, Jorge.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)I'm really surprised.
WovenGems
(776 posts)In trying to justify not letting gay folks adopt children more than one religious person has inadvertently insulted every single parent. If dad dies is mom required to remarry? Nope.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And shove it where the sun don't shine. Showing religion is "real", we enable the climate change deniers. I say enough.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)indicators, as those of heterosexual couples.
And if people discriminate against them, that's the fault of the discriminators. And people were using the same arguments 50 years ago against interracial marriage.
