Yay, Texas! We're No. 1!

CorporateWhore

surferdude wrote:

Have we all become so biased that we have completely lost the ability to learn when to shut up and listen?

Yes

surferdude

Kann wrote:

correlation is not causation

Touche. I appreciate a sharp retort.

Kann wrote:

Are any actions going to be taken to solve this issue?

I'm not sure the affected people think of it as a problem. It's only really a problem for society as a whole if the ultimate end product is a larger segment of society feeling no responsibility or atachment to the greater community. Dissaffected people come with quite the price tag.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

I never said I opposed sex before marriage or contraception.

no, you said you opposed homos on the grounds of religious morals... religious morals you seem to readily ignore when they get in the way of YOUR fun. and you still showed nothing to back up your contention that minorities have more kids solely a result of their women being tramps who just like to fuck au naturale cos it feels better.

CorporateWhore

surferdude wrote:

It's only really a problem for society as a whole if the ultimate end product is a larger segment of society feeling no responsibility or atachment to the greater community. Dissaffected people come with quite the price tag.

That is an excellent observation.

Nations cannot stay together when an entire part of it is balkanized. Just look at Quebec. To this day there are those who would break apart from Canada simply because they speak a different language and have a different culture.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

no, you said you opposed homos on the grounds of religious morals... religious morals you seem to readily ignore when they get in the way of YOUR fun. and you still showed nothing to back up your contention that minorities have more kids solely a result of their women being tramps who just like to fuck au naturale cos it feels better.

Homosexuality is a more serious issue than pre-marital sex. Not that I engage in pre-marital sex all the time or have plans to. The point is: Catholics have been having pre-marital sex for generations. Homosexuality has always been frowned upon more though.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

It did not take long for this to turn into a religion and damn the catholic church thread. What is amazing is that religion was not mentioned at all. All I see is a lot of educated and uneducated/ignorant stereotypes being made.

The one poster who is Hispanic and lives in Texas was basically dismissed as not knowing what's going on. Have we all become so biased that we have completely lost the ability to learn when to shut up and listen?

i stand corrected by his points. i never said damn the church. i was talking more about a perception of hispanic culture that is heavily infused with a catholic heritage, in a similar way to the irish culture. it wasn't intended as a "this is the church's fault for banning condoms" post so much as "this seems to reflect a set of cultural values, part of which have their root in catholicism." apparently, my info is out of date. and as i said, i think race has far less to do with it than income, which DOES fit with what said hispanic poster indicated... education and whatnot. poor white people fare equally poorly in this arena.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

Homosexuality is a more serious issue than pre-marital sex. Not that I engage in pre-marital sex all the time or have plans to. The point is: Catholics have been having pre-marital sex for generations. Homosexuality has always been frowned upon more though.

not from a theological perspective. pre-marital sex was a serious business about 100 years ago. in 100 years, who is to say homosexuality won't be viewed the same way? from the biblical perspective, they're both on equal footing from my recollection of 13 years of catholic school.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

no, you said you opposed homos on the grounds of religious morals... religious morals you seem to readily ignore when they get in the way of YOUR fun. and you still showed nothing to back up your contention that minorities have more kids solely a result of their women being tramps who just like to fuck au naturale cos it feels better.

So he's a hypocrite. We're all hypocrites. I hang with a girl who's best friends are all gay and the way they talk you'd think that discrimination was perfectly fine. When they use the term breeder it's purely derogatory. Does that mean I get to discount everything that gay people bring up? It's probably smarter for me to leave their biases and hypocracy at the door and focus on what they are actually saying and debate the merits of the idea and not of their actions.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

not from a theological perspective. pre-marital sex was a serious business about 100 years ago. in 100 years, who is to say homosexuality won't be viewed the same way? from the biblical perspective, they're both on equal footing from my recollection of 13 years of catholic school.

Clearly all of that schooling didn't do you much good.

Homosexuality is definitely worse than pre-marital sex, but I make no serious defense of pre-marital sex either. The point is: Paul refers to homosexual acts as unnatural. They oppose the natural order. Pre-marital sex does not oppose the natural order.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

So he's a hypocrite. We're all hypocrites. I hang with a girl who's best friends are all gay and the way they talk you'd think that discrimination was perfectly fine. When they use the term breeder it's purely derogatory. Does that mean I get to discount everything that gay people bring up? It's probably smarter for me to leave their biases and hypocracy at the door and focus on what they are actually saying and debate the merits of the idea and not of their actions.

that is my point. how much merit can his idea have when it's basis is so flawed that even he does not rely on it?

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

Clearly all of that schooling didn't do you much good.

Homosexuality is definitely worse than pre-marital sex, but I make no serious defense of pre-marital sex either. The point is: Paul refers to homosexual acts as unnatural. They oppose the natural order. Pre-marital sex does not oppose the natural order.

but condoms do, becos sex is, according to the doctrine, about a man and a woman uniting to bear children. a condom flies in the face of the second half, homosexuality flies in the face of the first. it is sex for the sake of lust that is a sin. the assumption is since you can't have kids as a gay couple, it has to be about lust. by definition, the same can be said of people wearing condoms. they flat out refuse to make sex about procreation, thus is it solely about the sin of lust.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

Homosexuality is a more serious issue than pre-marital sex. Not that I engage in pre-marital sex all the time or have plans to. The point is: Catholics have been having pre-marital sex for generations. Homosexuality has always been frowned upon more though.

No. From the Church's perspective, they're the same. Individual Catholics like yourself tend to pick and choose what they follow and what they don't, but your opinion doesn't really matter in the end. You're going to Hell just as fast as the faggots.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

Clearly all of that schooling didn't do you much good.

Homosexuality is definitely worse than pre-marital sex, but I make no serious defense of pre-marital sex either. The point is: Paul refers to homosexual acts as unnatural. They oppose the natural order. Pre-marital sex does not oppose the natural order.

It opposes God's order - and all sins are equal in the eyes of God.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

that is my point. how much merit can his idea have when it's basis is so flawed that even he does not rely on it?

Have you ever stolen something? If yes, does this make the idea of stealing is wrong a bad idea?
Have you ever lied? If yes, does this mean you don't think of honesty as a good character trait?
No one is perfect, we are all hypocrites. I've done many things I am against in general. Usually for very selfish reasons.

CorporateWhore

soulsinging wrote:

but condoms do, becos sex is, according to the doctrine, about a man and a woman uniting to bear children. a condom flies in the face of the second half, homosexuality flies in the face of the first. it is sex for the sake of lust that is a sin. the assumption is since you can't have kids as a gay couple, it has to be about lust. by definition, the same can be said of people wearing condoms. they flat out refuse to make sex about procreation, thus is it solely about the sin of lust.

I disagree with the church's teaching on birth control.

In the long term, a heterosexual couple benefits by using birth control. If they can plan pregnancies at the right time, they can better afford children. When they're married, having lots of kids is a good thing. If you have a child when you can't afford it at a young age, you injure future opportunities to have children because your income will not be as high in the future since you may have quit school to get a job to support the child.

The length of term makes no difference for homosexuals. They can't have kids now and they can't have them in the future. They can't pull the condom off and decide to make a baby. Heterosexual couples can do that.

For heterosexuals, sex is always about pro-creation. It's just a matter of time and will. Perhaps the individual act might not pro-create, but across the spectrum of time, the couple will pro-create if they want to.

CorporateWhore

RainDog wrote:

all sins are equal in the eyes of God.

That is not the teaching of the church.

Venial sins and mortal sins. Look 'em up.

inmytree

CorporateWhore wrote:

No need to get racist on us.

somebody's a being a widdle baby today...

it must hurt to get called out on your shit...

have a good one...:)

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

Have you ever stolen something? If yes, does this make the idea of stealing is wrong a bad idea?
Have you ever lied? If yes, does this mean you don't think of honesty as a good character trait?
No one is perfect, we are all hypocrites. I've done many things I am against in general. Usually for very selfish reasons.

But the point comes in where you're supposed to actually be sorry and stop doing it because you view it as wrong. You can't keep stealing all the while saying how wrong it is for everyone else.

beachdweller

love to see those abstinence programs working so well

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

Have you ever stolen something? If yes, does this make the idea of stealing is wrong a bad idea?
Have you ever lied? If yes, does this mean you don't think of honesty as a good character trait?
No one is perfect, we are all hypocrites. I've done many things I am against in general. Usually for very selfish reasons.

there is a difference. saying i occasionally lie but strive not to or have occasionally stolen but try not to is different from saying "sure pre-marital sex is wrong but i don't care and will continue to do it whenever i feel like it and will also condemn all others who engage in similar behavior for it becos my situation is special." there is a huge difference between falling short of perfection and simply disregarding values. it would be like saying stealing is wrong, but it's ok for me to steal cars at gunpoint becos that's an ok exception.