Amidst the double standards discussion in several latest threads devoted to US administration, I've decided to touch an even more controversial problem belonging in the same category: gay organisations and Gay Pride Parades.

It has taken place recently, in Cracow, the ancient city of Polish kings and former capital. Up to this day considered more of a cultural centre than the current capital city. A seat of both benevolent but fair and lawful tolerance, according to the best traditions of royal Poland, and political as well as moral conservatism.

Despite the fact that for several years gay clubs in Cracow had functioned undisturbed and gay couples holding hands in parks didn't provoke any aggression at all, no one had been discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation and homosexuals were freely given opportunity to voice their opinions on the media so far as they remained within the boundaries of civil discussion (the ancient Polish rule: you can say whatever you want, but say it politely), someone in the lead of gay activists considered it proper to destroy the peaceful status quo and conduct a great march through the most time and tradition honoured quarters of the city.

The date was chosen to be the 9th of May, the Feast of St Stanislas (mart. 1058), bishop and martyr in a way similar to England's Thomas Beckett, one of the patron saints of Poland in the Catholic Church. The Gay Pride march was planned to end in exactly the same place where crowds of Catholic faithful were having a yearly Mass and Procession in honour of the Saint. Namely, the place was Wawel Castle, the seat of kings from 11th century.

The leading initiative group for the march was active under the name of Anticlerical Party of Progress Reason (Reason is the proper name). Campaign against Homophobia was one of the most civil names. During the march, leaflets were distributed with slogans such as "begone the black vermin" (ie Catholic clergy), T-shirts depicting a hand grenade with an inscription saying "throw in the basket" (idiom referring to donations collected from the faithful during the service of Mass), leaflets calling to fight against the Roman Catholic Church as the centre of reaction, and all sorts of similar materials.

At the same time, gay rights activists kept collecting all shreds of possible evidence of discrimination and handing it over to state prosecutors, demanding action.

During similar events in Berlin, where the society is more laicised, they were throwing used condoms in protesters (ie protesting against the parade) and publicly exposing their genitals. The most common slogan was "we are homo and **** you if you don't like it".

US Senator Trent Lott, who said "Yeah, it is. In America right now there's an element that want to make that alternative lifestyle acceptable. You still love that person and you should not try to mistreat them or treat them as outcasts. You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol ... others have a sex addiction or are kleptomaniacs.", was labelled fascist (Nazi) and racist by prominent gay organisations operating seemingly within the boundaries of law that include freedom of expression and protection against slander.

Apparently, freedom of expression applies only to gay organisations and not other people, even if the other people include the leader of US senate majority. Slander includes telling homo jokes, but it doesn't include calling a prominent politician a fascist (Nazi) and racist.

Nota bene, "racist" is pure propaganda and it serves to connect gay organisations' agenda with ethnic minorities' real or imaginated abuse, especially the stigma of slavery.

Nota bene bis, streaking is illegal in most countries and so is propaganda of hate, especially religious hate. Libel (accusing specified people of criminal acts without proof - which took place in the Cracow parade and was aimed at RCC clergy) is also illegal.

Disturbing a lawful religious cult practice violates basic constitutional human rights in many countries (Poland included).

Calling names and throwing other insults is illegal in most systems. Abuse of verbal vulgarity and public display of obscenity follows.

However, "tolerance" activists (yes, quotation marks are intentional and I can't make myself remove them) present themselves as the leading force of humanity, establishing moral, ethical and social standards. The rest doesn't matter.

Gay Pride Parades have been supported by state and municipal officials of Europe and US, not acting as private individuals but implicitly ex officio. Those include: Bertrand Delanoe, mayor of Paris; Francesco Rutelli, mayor of Rome; Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York; Hillary Clinton, NY senator; Gerhard Schröder (through letters but not in person), Chancellor of Germany; Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin.

All the said officials supported the activities of gay organisations during parades. As I enumerated above, those activities included not only unpopular and potentially discriminative opinions, but open violations of law in the light of day and in public. On the other hand, please fancy a thought: what would happen to an official who would appear on the opposite side of the fence in the same parade? Imagine charges of authority abuse. Senator Trent Lott serves as an example.

What gives gay organisations the authority they are so eager to take? Democracy? They make attacks on the majority, so I bet no. Natural order? Not really, since even they can't claim that homosexualism is the standard. Human rights? They violate them. The law? They openly disregard and break it. So what exactly?

Dealing with gay and gay supporters' arguments on a purely formal logical basis, one can see a lot of flaws in their logic even at first glance. In the most extreme cases, the skeleton of such an argument looks like below:

(the Law of Tolerance)

1. Tolerance activists are right and sensible (the Axiom of Tolerance).

2. Something is either right or wrong.

Mutual exclusion of antonyms

3. Something is either sensible or senseless.

Mutual exclusion of antonyms

4. 1 & 2 => Whoever disagrees with tolerance activists is wrong (as opposed to right)

modus tollendo ponens

If they are right, the opposition is wrong. Speaking for the opposition makes you wrong.

5. 1 & 3 => Whoever disagrees with tolerance activists is senseless (as opposed to sensible)

(modus tollendo ponens)

If they are sensible, the opposition is senseless. Speaking for the opposition makes you senseless.

6. Person X disagrees with tolerance activists

observation

A simple fact, person X speaks for the opposition.

7. From 4 & 6 => Person X is wrong

modus ponendo ponens

Disagreeing makes you wrong and person X disagrees, therefore person X is wrong.

8. From 5 & 6 => Person X is senseless

modus ponendo ponens

Disagreeing makes you senseless and person X disagrees, therefore person X is senseless.

QEDOther examples include sensitive, progressive, open-minded, agreeable and so on.

The first countermeasure to such reasoning that comes to mind is applying it the reverse way. Tolerance is for all, right? Everyone has a right to his opinion and voicing it and living like he wants etc without discrimination or unwanted interference. Mention this to gay organisations and the answer is similar to:

(the Law of Selective Tolerance)

There must be borders to tolerance. There cannot be tolerance for non-tolerance.There have to be limits of tolerance, of human rights and so on. As if I heard a conservative speaking. It's tolerance activists who say that from here, there's a short way to corporate fascism (Mussolini) and from there to Nazism (proper Nazism).

On an ending note, I'll quote a Polish bishop:

"If someone is being provoked for long enough, there is no wonder that a reaction comes, and often an aggressive one."

A note to all participants: please stick firmly to the subject and avoid side-topics so far as possible.

The Polish way of discussing things? Civil and calm? We have a saying here in Sweden, when something is chaotic and turbulent and everyone talkes at the same time we call it a "polish parliment". I just thought I wanted to point that out.

As for the topic of your post, well, there are hypocrites all over the place. Actually, I am convinced that more or less everyone is one to a greater or lesser degree. However, you should keep in mind that homosexuals *are* being harassed and discriminated against everywhere, and I would think to a quite large degree in very conservative and devout Poland. They are the minority fighting for their rights, them attacking the clergy will likely not have much effect while if it was the other way around bad things would quickly happen.

Perhaps gays in Poland dont want to live as timid, subdued individuals who better be grateful for not being punished and repressed for their 'unnatural' ways? Dunno. Our media reports that homosexuality is not that popular in Poland. Dont get me wrong - its demonized in other places as well.

Now, I can understand why someone who is a firm believer in the one loving god might be offended by their vile deeds, but I suppose for the gays its payback. A rebellion against a church and society that has shunned them. Let them vent their anger, chevalier. Being a discriminated minority led them to react like that in the first place, I guess. Even it they are a bit extreme, things will surely relax.

And better get used to gays fighting for equality, for their rights as fully accepted human beings and against what they view as unjust. Your country joined the EU club which has, to the best of my knowledge, massive anti-discrimination agendas and encourages this spirit. Which is a good thing, in my opinion, for once the polish gays feel they dont have to be constantly defensive, they wont be as... shrill anymore, but more moderate. The consequence will be the poor pestered majority wont have to put up with the terrible intolerance of a minority. ;)

When there is Christoper Street day in Cologne all join in, be it gays or straight. Sure, you can see some weird :spin: things there, however no one regards it as an personal attack. Rather they say: To each its own. That's what I call progress.

We have recently had an anti-racisim rally in Christchurch, New Zealand led by a chinense man whose name has slipped my mind. The rally went ahead very well drawing positive support from many people.

It was addressing the issue of random abuse from some (very, very few) Pakeha (white New Zealand born citizens), Maori (native New Zealanders) and Pacific Islanders (many Pacific Islanders are granted automatic NZ citizenship or residency) towards foreign migrants, especially Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants. The abuse would range from assault to unprovoked name-calling (simply yelling out "go back to China, yellow-monkey-boy!" while driving past). Although a very small minority of the country acts like this the rally was to draw attention to the actions of these few in an effort to stomp it out. Sounds perfectly reasonable and a good use of freedom-of-speech.

There was a stage where some person (Let's call him 'Idiot A') was claiming he would run an anti-anti-racisim (i.e. racisim) rally saying that people are entitled to be racist if they want. Course it never got off the ground (thankfully) but it's another clash between freedom of speech and the law - people defending their right to insult another race of people because they feel like it.

I guess this is where the Law of Selective Tolerancecomes into play.

Frankly I view it as: you're allowed to have freedom of speech and go about your life as you wish as long as it doesn't effect someone else intentionally and/or directly in a negative way.

Why 'intentionally and/or directly in a negative way' and not just 'in a negative way'? Take for example the Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants I have mentioned earlier. Most of this racisim is directed at them because they have been indirectly and unintentionally effecting people in negative ways. Almost all Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants are willing and determined to work. They are reliable workers who perform well. Employers prefer to employ these people. This angers people who can't get jobs. They dislike the migrants for "taking our [their] jobs". This is how the migrants are having a negative effect on somebody, however it is indirect and unintentional. You can't get angry at someone for taking your employment opportunity by simply being a better worker than you. The Olympics might as well be everyone hating the person who did better than they did.

Not exactly homosexual issue but it's still anti-abuse on a minority.

You make a good point about unintentional or unwilling negative effect. And about racist comments. However, what about a minority which makes a point of attacking the majority's lifestyle and no longer just fighting for their own rights?

"Begone the black vermin" is quite... well, intentional and conscious and willing... All sorts of physical attack and display of obscenity as well. Those people are well aware that they are breaking the law as well.

Minority or not, human rights are for all people and so is the law.

If I ever find myself in a position enabling me to report criminal offence or launch private prosecution against the minority in question, I will do it with utmost pleasure.

However, my chief concern here is double standards and faulty logic. Logic that is flawed from the very beginning and not as a result of simple mistake but as part of a certain lobby's policy.

You can be left, you can be right. You can be a commie, you can be a nazi, you can be green. But you have to make at least some sense. Some people don't get this one.

[ May 17, 2004, 22:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I have always been bothered by the giving of special "rights" to minorities. I'm not even sure that homosexuals should qualify as a minority. It isn't that they are a majority, it is more that it isn't anyones business what they are. Why aren't there laws to protect short people? A short person could be the same as a black person. There is no hiding it. An employer could put a sign in the window saying "No short people allowed" and would be within the law. The homosexuals want to given the exalted status of being a minority so they can get "special rights" not normal rights.

I have only found one right that a heterosexual married couple has that a homosexual couple cannot get by writing a contract/legal document. That is the ability upon death to gift unlimited assets to a spouse that are exempt from the U.S. estate taxes. Maybe I'm wrong, but if someone can come up with some others I would love to know what they are.

On another note the lawmakers that came up with "hate" crimes should be imprisoned themselves. A crime should not be worse because of the person it was done to. If a white man beats a white man with a bat and gets 10 years for assault and battery, he shouldn't get 15 because he beat a black man with hate in his heart. It makes no sense to me.

I am not so sure they want to be a minority at all. Or wish for an exalted place in society and special rights. What special rights? A life without all sorts of harassments in their jobs and social life? A simple thing such as marriage? To cross the street without someone hurling insults at them?
They want what we all crave for: Acceptance, a normal life and a non-hostile enviroment. Not the gays themselves but society labels them as something 'special' - in a negative way. They are marked, sorted out as different and they give voice to their troubles. Nothing more.

When was the last time that I was attacked because I am heterosexual? Maybe even by gays? Right, never. For homosexuals there are dangers out there. Some die because of what they are. They defend themselves against this, make their situation known to others and they are called intolerant for that effort? Oh yes, that makes sense to me.

@Dendri

That is my point. Everything you mentioned is a basic right. They should not have or be given special protections because of their "status"

A life without all sorts of harassments in their jobs Why should they be any different then anyone else? Here is a quick list of other people that get harrassed that nobody is passing laws to defend. The short, the tall, the fat, and the ugly. Why should the law say you can fire an ugly person, but not a homosexual? Here in the States most people are employees at the will of the employer. People can be fired with or without cause.

A simple thing such as marriageI would never consider a marriage simple. Regardless marriage has been between a man and a women for as long as the term has existed. If homosexuals want to come up with their own term let them.

To cross the street without someone hurling insults at them Last I knew sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Why should the law prevent me from hurling insults at homosexuals while allowing me to insult fat people? If it is too annoying and obnoxious call the police and have me arrested for disturbing the peace. At least that is a crime.

They want what we all crave for: Acceptance, a normal life and a non-hostile enviroment You can't legislate acceptance, maybe people do not consider them normal, and there are already laws to keep things non-hostile.

For homosexuals there are dangers out there. Some die because of what they are Once again, I'm not aware of any municipality that has a law making beating or murdering a homosexual legal. The laws should be applied the same to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If I kill my wife is that any less heinous than if I kill some random homosexual?

They defend themselves against this, make their situation known to others and they are called intolerant for that effort? Oh yes, that makes sense to me I wouldn't call that intolerant, however they are really quick to call everyone who doesn't agree with them intolerant. Society already has laws that protect everyone. Now that makes sense for me.

I still see no reason why to allow them to slander religious officials, offend religions and propagate hate without any legal consequences.

The law says: no hate propaganda, in most of civilised countries. No hate propaganda means no anti-gay hate propaganda, but it also means no gay hate propaganda.

Propaganda of hate against religious organisations is still propaganda of hate if it's committed by gay organisations.

Slander is no less criminal slander if it's done by gay organisations.

Public display of nudity and obscenity (including throwing used condoms at people) is prohibited under most of law systems and no exception should be made for any minority.

In fact, no such exception is present in the legal systems in question and therefore the acts are illegal. They should be prosecuted as any other criminal offence.

Next, the setting of the date on May 9th and the place at Wawel Castle, ie exactly the same date and place as a Roman Catholic Mass and procession, religious cult performance protected by the Constistution, was obviously aimed to disturb the said celebration and infringe on the Catholics' (majority) right to free peaceful performance of religious cult.

I see no reason why gay organisations should be above the law.

They defend themselves against this, make their situation known to others and they are called intolerant for that effort? Oh yes, that makes sense to meSlander, libel, public display of nudity and physical assault on fellow citizens is called making your situation known?

To cross the street without someone hurling insults at themI am speaking about them hurling insults. Should they be allowed to while at the same time hurling insults in them forbidden to other people?

Acceptance, a normal life and a non-hostile enviromentSomeone who attacks you, shows his bare ass to you, yells "**** you" at you and throws condoms full of sperm at you hardly wants your acceptance or seeks a non-hostile environment.

For homosexuals there are dangers out there. Some die because of what they areAnd heterosexual people get raped by drunken or drugged gays after parades. Just some people? Well, and exactly how many homosexuals have been killed recently for being homosexual? Dying in a car accident caused by a heterosexual driver doesn't count.

Chev, I have a lot of respect for you, though I would like you to re-examine one rather central thing to the debate you've brought up:

When exactly did the Catholic church give any sort of time / solidarity / Hell, let's be honest, anything other than Hell for - Homosexuals?

They never have as far as I've observed, not being gay or Catholic, call me an outsider, but hey?

The Catholic church simply doesn't take any time out for gays and that's why the gay rights march etc takes place as it does, not because they want anything special, but becasue they want to illustrate that they get a hell of a rough deal from the catholic church.

I'm guessing a little here, but I think that gay people just truly want to be treated the same as the rest of us, without being told that their sexual orientation is fundamentally wrong. SImple we all might think, but probably not if you're in that situation.

PS - Definitely not meant as any sort of personal attack.

Snook, hmm, interesting points.
You are right, the fat, small, overly tall and ugly are picked upon by their fellow humans. Is it a proper thing to do? No. Thats why homosexuals dont accept the treatment they receive.
Should they stand by and take the abuse they are dealt like good puppies? No! Nor should the fat, small and overly tall - not even the ugly. Others try to tear you down, you better fight back.
And thats all I am saying here. They dont take what others dish out. No one should. Other minorities (diaspora etc) band together to defend their interests, too. They are no less frisky when engaged in discussions. I refuse to see intolerance and special status where there is nothing but selfdefense. That is what this topic is about.

Why should the law say you can fire an ugly person, but not a homosexual? For the same reason no one should be fired because of their religion, sex, the shape of their nose? Where I live you need a reason to fire an employee. If a gay has trouble with his boss and a law would handle the indisputable fact that gays are discriminated he could defend himself. Just like a woman who gets kicked out because of her sex. Whats wrong with that?
Sometimes its important what is left out of a law, rather than whats included.

Once again, I'm not aware of any municipality that has a law making beating or murdering a homosexual legal. The laws should be applied the same to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If I kill my wife is that any less heinous than if I kill some random homosexual? Agreed. But you twist it a bit, I think. Of course there is no law legalizing the killing of a homosexual. But there are people dying because they are part of that minority. You might be attacked anytime, but if you are gay you are in that much more danger. Should law ignore this?

Anyway, all this legal stuff isnt what the gay organisations are about, I think (and I am not really competent enough for such a difficult thingy ;) ). Its about attention for their situation. And creating room for an 'alternative'. I dont know their agendas but I think if they felt genuine acceptance all the issues like gay marriage, special laws etc would become obsolete and less important. As it is they try to take what isnt freely handed to them. And they want it all the more because it is denied them for no good reason.
My take on the situation.

>edit< typos etc.

[ May 18, 2004, 02:18: Message edited by: Dendri ]

MATTHEW 7:1-5

Good old Matt.

What exactly did Matt say some 1900+ years ago?

Well, there's points of agreement on both sides of this.... but I do agree with Dendri here. I think what most homosexuals want is legal acceptance in society. Of course there are the radical groups on both sides, who feel peaceful protests aren't quite sufficient....and that's where the trouble starts. But both sides are guilty of this.

chev -- It's unfortunate that the march you described turned out so ugly....but there have been many peaceful marches here in Seattle...people just kind of take the stand that it's their right, just like any other group, as long as they follow the rules.

In my view -- the kind of lifestyle that homosexuals live is their own business. I don't agree with it, but it's not for me to judge. They may be termed of, and think of themselves as a "group" and fight for rights as a "group" (referring to the marriage issue here)....but when it comes down to it, they're just individuals, different from me....but then so are a lot of people. Frankly, I don't think about it much... but when I do, I say....whatever floats your boat....all the merrier.

(Btw....this is the first day that gay couples can get married in Massachusettes, legally.)

@Dendri

Others try to tear you down, you better fight back Precisely, however getting the law involved will only make people bitter and not solve any of the societal problems. What if people whose last name began with a "D" were discriminated against. If a law was passed saying the "D" people couldn't be fired, had preferential treatment in hiring, and being mean to "D" people was illegal, don't you think the other 25 letters would be bitter?

Where I live you need a reason to fire an employee I'll give you this point. That is a differnt culture than what I'm used to. Here in the states people are employees at the will of their employer. If they want to fire you for having a bad hair day it is allowed. Here the government cannot force anyone to employ anyone. We do have laws against making the workplace inhospitable, however those laws protect everyone. I can't call the women whores nor can I call a homosexual a faggot. Once again the law should be equal and give no preferential treatment. If I did anything to make my workplace inhospitable and my employer did nothing about it then they are open to lawsuits. This has made most employers have very strict discrimination policies. I consider this a good thing.

but if you are gay you are in that much more danger. Should law ignore this?
Yes in my opinion the law should ignore this. A crime is a crime. There is no need for special laws to make some crimes worse than others. Now if you are suggesting the police should have a cruiser parked outside "gay nightclubs" to help enforce the peace, then that makes sense. However, the police shouldn't offer everyone an escort home to keep them safe. People (including homosexuals) have a responsibility to keep themselves safe. Over the years women have learned not to go to dangerous places by themselves. I don't consider it that difficult of a concept.

I think if they felt genuine acceptance all the issues like gay marriage, special laws etc would become obsolete and less important. As it is they try to take what isnt freely handed to them. And they want it all the more because it is denied them for no good reason Many people feel that homosexuality is an abomination and an insult to God. If that is someone's opinion than it is just too bad for the homosexual. As I said in an earlier post. Acceptance cannot be legislated it must be earned. I am Jewish. Long ago I accepted that people that follow the Aryan superiority doctrine are not going to like me. Guess what? I don't hang out (or even know) any Aryans.

Responding to Chev's initial complaint the gay parade was a direct attempt to upset and cause havoc to the Catholics. I understand that many homosexuals were born Catholic and wish to be accepted by the mother church. However, if the church doesn't want you it is the church's decision. It is quite possible the local chess club doesn't want you either. In a free society people have to right to associate with whom they chose. If certain groups that use their own money and resources do not want other groups to participate that is their right.

Here in the States we have the same issue with the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts do not tolerate homosexuals. There has been lots of discussion if allowing the Boy Scouts to use "town property" would be considered the town using "town money" to support a possible discrimination. Some communities have decided yes and others have decided no. However, the courts have ruled if the scouts don't want homosexuals, they do not have the authority to force them to take them. Now, I also know that certain scouting groups have essentially adopted a "Don't ask, Don't tell policy" and as long as that works for them than so be it.

Just an aside on the "hate-crimes" issue. The most common justification I've seen for it (one which I personally discount as useless, BTW) is that greater sentences/consequences for crimes motivated by certain feelings/ideas will have a deterrent effect. I.e., golly, gee, if I beat up this guy of my own ethnic background, I'll get 5 years, but if I club this other minority/religious type, I'll get 10 years, I'd better not do that. I find that to be horse manure. People doing this type of crime are not going to be deterred by anything. If criminal sentences actually deterred criminals, there wouldn't be any intentional crimes, just bad accidents.

We already have enough laws on the books to deal with these issues and crimes, tailoring new laws to new groups to protect them probably does just the opposite -- causes resentment in the "majority".

@ Snook
Here in the states people are employees at the will of their employer. If they want to fire you for having a bad hair day it is allowed. In Canada, it's different. We have the Human Rights Code which prevents discrimination based on, amongst other things, sexual orientation. As well, there are labour laws which basically state that one can only be dismissed for "cause" (a bad hair day would not fall into this category). So perhaps the attitudes regarding gays are in part a function of existing laws which protect them.

Personally, and as I have stated in previous discussions in the Alley, I feel that gays are discriminated against in our society and, because I believe in the motto "to each his/her own" (provided that others are not harmed which, in this case, I don't feel is the case), I think laws to protect gays are needed and justified. Dendri has stated nicely the case for gay pride parades and the like, and since I agree with him, I won't bother repeating his arguments.

That is a differnt culture than what I'm used to. Here in the states people are employees at the will of their employer. If they want to fire you for having a bad hair day it is allowed. Here the government cannot force anyone to employ anyone. That may be, but employees can access the legal system to get damages for unfair firings. For instance, suppose I get fired because my employer accuses me of stealing. I go to court and the employer cannot prove any such thing. I can demand legal compensation for such actions against my character. We have had this so called "bad hair day" argument before. Employers are NOT above the law, despite such conservative rhetoric.

During similar events in Berlin, where the society is more laicised, they were throwing used condoms in protesters (ie protesting against the parade) and publicly exposing their genitals.I think, this is a rumor. Any proof?


Chev, try to walk a mile in their shoes: The catholic church uses propaganda against homosexual people. In catholic societies like poland this propaganda has a very deep impact on people in general. Maybe the church itself does not harass the gays, but it influences other people to do so. That's what behind this incident.

While I don't think it was okay for the gays to protest this way, it is quite understandable.

@Chandos,

I respectfully disagree with you. If your employer suspects you of stealing he/she is well within their rights to terminate your employment without cause.

Now I agree with you if the employer causes damages to the employee they may sue for said damages. If the employer were to slander or libel the person then they have cause for damages. This is what lay-offs are all about. When a company announces lay-offs they are effectively firing people without cause, but for business decisions.

To use a bad hair day example. If you had a job at a store that sold baby clothes and after a wild weekend you came in with your hair in a mohawk and piercings in your face in all probability you would be fired. You would not have any recourse even if you had been one of the best employees in the past. Your employer decided that you were no longer needed and that is the end of that.

I may be wrong and maybe this is a state to state issue. Hopefully, both of our employers never want to replace us with Chandos the blue or The Great Snaak and we have to find out. :)

[ May 18, 2004, 15:51: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

When exactly did the Catholic church give any sort of time / solidarity / Hell, let's be honest, anything other than Hell for - Homosexuals?

They never have as far as I've observed, not being gay or Catholic, call me an outsider, but hey?What Roman Catholic Church officially states is that homosexual sexual drive in itself is not sinful. I repeat: not sinful. There is no sin where there is no choice and homosexual people typically claim they didn't choose to be homosexual.

It is homosexual intercourse that is unlawful. Note that in Roman Catholic Church any intercourse that happens not in marriage is unlawful. Therefore, non-marital heterosexual intercourse is also unlawful. Homosexual intercourse cannot happen in marriage and so it cannot be lawful.

For some reason I don't see homosexuals who have sex without marriage marching all over town centres and urging people to get rid of the Catholic clergy or telling Catholic people to get bent.

What RCC says on same sex unions:

We can also see how incongruous is the demand to grant ‘marital’ status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being. Another obstacle is the absence of the conditions for that interpersonal complementarity between male and female willed by the Creator at both the physical-biological and the eminently psychological levels There is no equivalence between the relationship of two persons of the same sex and the relationship formed by a man and a woman. Only the latter can be described as a couple because it implies sexual difference, the conjugal dimension, the ability to exercise fatherhood and motherhood. Obviously, homosexuality cannot represent this symbolic whole.At the very beginning of Genesis (so for both Christians and Judaists), it reads: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one". Therefore, homosexual unions are against the Bible. This is not discrimination on the part of Catholic clergy, it touches the very core of the religion - the Scripture.

As for attitude towards homosexuals themselves:

From THE TRUTH AND MEANING
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY, Guidelines for Education within the Family from the Pontifical (ie Papal) Council for the Family.

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.It clearly says that psychological roots are largely unexplained and that it's only acts of homosexuality that are disordered. And, more directly:

"They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition".As you see, unjust discrimination is condemned by the Roman Church.

Later, it says: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity". News: In RCC church everyone who doesn't have a spouse is called to chastity. Tough luck.

For some reason, though, I don't see massive parades of Catholic bachelors and spinsters shouting "we want sex!".

The document also includes further guidance for parents and educators.

Note that judging an act as disordered doesn't refer this attribute to persons involved in the act. In a similar way as in legal systems, a disordered act still remains disordered even if the actor is not culpable. The Church realises a possibility that in some given circumstances the culpability of a homosexual person engaging in homosexual activity may be reduced or even totally removed. This however does not constitute any ground for generalisations as it strictly pertains to individual judgement of an individual case. Here goes:

In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase itThe quotation comes from the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

The problem that gay organisations have with the Church is that the Church insists that adolescents may be unsure of their sexuality as well as decidedly hetero- or homosexual and if they indulge in homosexual activity, they should not be pressured to embrace homosexual orientation on the grounds of more or less isolate cases of display of homosexual behaviour or even homosexual activity, but rather offered responsible guidance.

Next, the Church keeps her faithful aware that Catholic doctrine distinguishes between lawful and unlawful sexual activity and that unlawful sexual activity is sinful.

Homosexual activity is not the focal point of the Church's attention. The Church devotes much more attention to non-marital heterosexual unions within the sphere of sexuality, which is still not the main area of the Church's interest.

It would be, therefore, unfair to say that there is a modern crusade against homosexuals taking place.

The Catholic church simply doesn't take any time out for gays and that's why the gay rights march etc takes place as it does, not because they want anything special, but becasue they want to illustrate that they get a hell of a rough deal from the catholic church.What is a hell of a rough deal? Anyone who lives in sin isn't going to receive absolution and, therefore, can't receive sacraments. This includes unmarried heterosexual couples, but also everyone else not willing to atone, abandon sin and improve. Any sin. Sexual or not. From swearing to murder.

I'm guessing a little here, but I think that gay people just truly want to be treated the same as the rest of us, without being told that their sexual orientation is fundamentally wrong. SImple we all might think, but probably not if you're in that situation.I also believe that the majority (or at least a great part) of homosexual people want just to be left alone. Some probably realise that everyone has the right to opinion - minority or majority, on a purely common-sense basis. However, gay organisations, including heterosexual pro-gay activists, speak for the whole totality of gay people and I don't hear many voices of gay people condemning violations of law that take place. Though I admit, I've heard a gay man speak against child adoption and legal marriage for gay couples.

For the same reason no one should be fired because of their religion, sex, the shape of their nose? Where I live you need a reason to fire an employee. If a gay has trouble with his boss and a law would handle the indisputable fact that gays are discriminated he could defend himself. Just like a woman who gets kicked out because of her sex. Whats wrong with that?What about someone discriminated because of belonging to a majority (sexual, racial, religious, whatever), or because of being, let's say, ugly? We still have discrimination.

Note: refusing to hire someone who does not have the qualifications you require is also discrimination. "I know I haven't finished any school myself, but I can still teach your kids!", "Who cares I'm an atheist? I so want to become a priest!" etc etc.

The point is: we are not the same. Tolerance is one, acting as though there were no differences is a different thing. And an intrinsically stupid one, if you ask me :rolleyes:

Of course there is no law legalizing the killing of a homosexual. But there are people dying because they are part of that minority. You might be attacked anytime, but if you are gay you are in that much more danger. Should law ignore this?The probability of a given citizen getting killed in a crime is close to zero. It does not rise to a realistic figure because of someone being gay.

The gay activists in question in this particular parade attacked the Roman Catholic Church who is not responsible for abuse committed by non-Catholics in the first place. Just how many of those who abuse gay people are Christian believers? Plus, abuse of gay people is condemned by Vatican, murder is a deadly sin and beating is not really a light one, either. If you were a Catholic and beat up a gay man because he was gay and then you went to confession, saying properly that you beat him up for being gay, the priest would give you greater penance than for a simple beating up of thy neighbour.

Look, I know you weren't referring to the Catholic Church directly and we aren't talking specifically about the Catholic church, either, but my point is to show that the attack on and intended harassment of Catholics were unmerited, adding to the burden of illegality of offences committed during the march.

I dont know their agendas but I think if they felt genuine acceptance all the issues like gay marriage, special laws etc would become obsolete and less important. As it is they try to take what isnt freely handed to them.You can be ordered to pay fine if you take your own belongings from a thief by force, such is the law. Physical power is not the way, especially if we bar one side from using it.

Should I support my human and constitutional right to freedom of cult by throwing insults on pro-gay activists, calling to "get rid" of their leaders and so on? I could also defend my right to my lifestyle and so on and so forth.

My point here is that rights collide. If we sanction the use of force, we may be unable to control it. There will be chaos and anarchy. Plus, setting two enemies against each other and giving a sharp edge to only one is unfair.

Others try to tear you down, you better fight backEr... is some gay organisation urging to get rid of my Church's priests enough reason for my to declare my sword a Holy Avenger and play paladin on the opposition, smiting and chopping?

Responding to Chev's initial complaint the gay parade was a direct attempt to upset and cause havoc to the Catholics. I understand that many homosexuals were born Catholic and wish to be accepted by the mother church. However, if the church doesn't want you it is the church's decision. It is quite possible the local chess club doesn't want you either. In a free society people have to right to associate with whom they chose. If certain groups that use their own money and resources do not want other groups to participate that is their right.You get my point correctly and you also raise another important one: freedom of association. The Church, however, doesn't even disown its gay believers. It only requires them (in no legally binding sense, since church is not state) to remain chaste if they aren't married - whether they can ever marry or not. Heterosexual priests, monks, nuns as well as lay bachelors and spinsters are "forbidden" from sex no less than gay people are.

The Church will not concede and bow to pressure, making exception for homosexual unlawful intercourse to become lawful (it has no such power, either), but it will and does offer special pastoral care to homosexual faithful willing to remain within the Catholic Church.

I think, this is a rumor. Any proof?(About throwing used condoms and shouting insults during Gay Pride Parades)

There are photos, press reports and police records. Insults are sometimes repeated with pride even by the culprits themselves and their patron organisations. In each Gay Parade coverage there is also a catalogue of abuse reported, criminal offences included.

I've also heard from a man whose friend fell asleep in a park when drunk in Berlin on the day of the Parade, and woke up with his trousers down and used condom sticking out of his anus.

There is no need to discuss flashing, mooning and other instances of public nudity since those are widely transmitted on TV during nearly all such parades and marches.

Apart from that, there is also various other behaviour being displayed that is considered distasteful, disgusting, wrong and/or sinful by the majority of society. If something is offensive to a minority, it gets cut out. I see a reason. But if something is offensive not to a relatively little group gets cut out, shouldn't even more so be cut out something which is offensive to the majority?

The rule of democracy is that everyone has his rights and can have his opinion, but the majority's vote has the power and the majority's interest prevails. It's not just the law of the jungle, ie the stronger wins, but there are simple logical, rational and mathematical reasons: the most good to the greatest number of people possible.

Allowing a minority vote to prevail twists the democracy and may lead to its total inversion.

The catholic church uses propaganda against homosexual people.Wrong. I've quoted above from Vatican's own website what is RCC official standing and policy.

In catholic societies like poland this propaganda has a very deep impact on people in general.Most of people who discriminate against homosexuals aren't practicing Catholics. Those who spread hate against homosexuals in most cases are anticlericals. Christians oppose same sex marriages and same sex couple children adoption. If they are a bit more than Sunday believers, they're also peacefully minded people and don't get aggressive just because they disagree with someone. Of course, some will not mince their words, but there are no cases of unprovoked violence. Also, as I've already said here, abuse of homosexuals is condemned by the Church.

Maybe the church itself does not harass the gays, but it influences other people to do so. That's what behind this incident.How? By teaching that homosexual intercourse is disordered?

Does the Church influence people to harass atheists as well? Or those who, I don't know, call God in vain or steal or swear, or cheat on spouses or whatever?

The Church teaches right from wrong. Each religion has a moral code and RCC has one as well. As you see, there are many things that are condemned in the RCC moral code, but people who do them don't get harassed by Catholics.

For instance, do I roam all over my city whacking gays on their heads with aspergillum and throwing holy water at them? Do I attack atheists or atheism when I'm bored? Do I incessantly lecture people who sleep with their girlfriends?

My point is: disagreement does not imply violent action.

Plus, I've already explained that the Church actually condemns such harassment and speaks against it when it occurs.

As a conclusion: there are quite a lot of false assumptions about Christian policy regarding homosexuality. Same goes for right-wing organisations and other conservatives. While not all of them come from gay organisations, some definitely do. I don't like that.

Neither do I like the idea of a group being allowed to break the law as they see fit.

Any special protections that minority groups are given serve one purpose: that human rights apply to all, without even marginal exceptions.

They cannot be used for a contrary purpose, making human rights apply to not all, let alone just a select group. That would defy the very purpose of those special protections.

Defensive means are not weapons. If the legislator wished to give weapons to minorities, they would be given instead of defensive means.

Edit: I had to remove the links because they didn't work properly. The board engine didn't recognise the closing "]" sign, made the message widen the page and cut it way before the end (but long after the links, anyway) for no apparent reason. If you want to access those documents, go to Vatican's pages (vatican.va), choose your language and launch the search function for the files. Entering "homosexuality" as the keyword should do.

[ May 18, 2004, 16:28: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Hopefully, both of our employers never want to replace us with Chandos the blue or The Great Snaak and we have to find out.
Lol, GS. I certainly agree with that. And yes, I agree that an employer has every right to fire someone for poor standards. I used to belong to one of those pre-paid lawyering firms through one of my past jobs. I was told that I could not sue my employer as result of using their services. The only exception was if they accused me of stealing and it proved to be bogus. In that case I had every right to use the firm for legal defense and recourse. At least that's how they explained it to me.

@ Snook
Precisely, however getting the law involved will only make people bitter and not solve any of the societal problems. What if people whose last name began with a "D" were discriminated against. If a law was passed saying the "D" people couldn't be fired, had preferential treatment in hiring, and being mean to "D" people was illegal, don't you think the other 25 letters would be bitter?Only if they were discriminated against to the same extend as the D persons. And you dont want to say that short fellows are facing the same hassle in life as a gay person. Sure, some goons say: "Look, a shorty - lets call him something". Said goons see a person who they think is gay they will say: "What a piece of ****, lets beat the living crap out of him." You know, I have friends who happen to be homosexual, I know what I am talking about. Plus I go to partys almost every weekend for more than 11 years. In that time I have seen all sorts of things happen. Sometimes we got involved because we had gays among us, sometimes I saw it while passing by.

Yes in my opinion the law should ignore this. A crime is a crime. There is no need for special laws to make some crimes worse than others. Now if you are suggesting the police should have a cruiser parked outside "gay nightclubs" to help enforce the peace, then that makes sense. However, the police shouldn't offer everyone an escort home to keep them safe. People (including homosexuals) have a responsibility to keep themselves safe. Over the years women have learned not to go to dangerous places by themselves. I don't consider it that difficult of a concept.
and
Many people feel that homosexuality is an abomination and an insult to God. If that is someone's opinion than it is just too bad for the homosexual. As I said in an earlier post. Acceptance cannot be legislated it must be earned. I am Jewish. Long ago I accepted that people that follow the Aryan superiority doctrine are not going to like me. Guess what? I don't hang out (or even know) any Aryans. I dont think you are right here, Snook. So, should we ignore the threat that, for example, jews face in Europe, in Germany? Should we turn a blind eye on the fact that there is special hatred for that particular group among nutcases such as nazis and some of the younger muslims in this (and other) country? Shouldnt there be a law protecting them as a (religious) minority? So, you suggest we are free to say 'well, some idiots dont like you - now, that is to damn bad for you of jewish faith'. Well, I wont. A crime is a crime, right. And a person in need of protection because there is special hatred for him/her is just that - a person in need. In Germany we feel that minorities need protection and that common laws are not always suited for their fickle situation.
I agree. Laws wont make certain people change their minds, laws wont be helpful to make jews (or gays or whoever) more accepted. But they will make jews, their places of worship, their graves a bit more safe until society as a whole is mature enough and finds ways to deal with the prejudice and eventually gets rid of it.
I want to life in a country where no one should be afraid because of what they are and all can move freely. They shouldnt have to hide (or as you said, 'dont go to certain places'). So, human society is far from perfect you say? There is hatred and resentment for most everything? Thats what laws are for.

Btw, I make it a point to strongly disagree with cretins who assume they can call human beings abominations and an insult to... whatever. :rolleyes: Any decent person should.

@chev

Stained condoms used as err missiles?, rape, drugs, bare asses, physical assaults... I am out there a lot and I have never heard of something like it. Something is wrong with this picture. Bias? Thats all I will say here.

A few gays overreacted on a parade. That makes them intolerant and guilty of double standards as a whole?! Does that discredit their struggle for tolerance in your opinion? I have seen other straight individuals and even couples act in very inappropriate ways in my time. I will spare you details. That means they all behave the same?
I thought crude generalizations were forbidden on these boards.

I dont care what the catholic church has to say on this matter. An organisation that prohibits the use of condoms in the times of HIV and that has a... funny attitude towards women isnt a moral compass to me. Never mind how they justify their instructions for their followers. Its outdated and has nothing to do with real life.

[ May 18, 2004, 17:56: Message edited by: Dendri ]

@ Dendri

My point is that there are already laws that make it illegal to do most of the things you mentioned. Making specially targeted laws to protect certain groups are not going to stop people that have a preconceived notion to already break the law. Someone who has it in their mind to lynch a black man is not going to be dissuaded because of a hate crime law. It is murder no matter how you look at it.

Now I agree with you that it is unfortunate that as a society we have to deal with these miscreants. Personally, I couldn't give a flying one about someone's sexual orientation. The same is true for religion, race, color, etc.

I just don't see how additional laws are going to make people behave better. If anything I think the additional laws do nothing but make it worse.

Hehehe, man, you almost got me to LOL there chev. The story about the man waking up on a parkbench with his pants down and a condom in his ass is precious. I have heard many variations on it, almost all as parts of jokes. It doesnt even qualify as an urban legend.

@ Snook

You are right, of course. Laws are a poor substitute for acceptance. Maybe laws are more about... symbols? in this case. They are of no real help, but possibly they will make clear that there is awareness for the problems at hand. A form of solidarity. I dont really know.

Or should we do nothing at all? Let just go of things.

A few gays overreacted on a parade. That makes them intolerant and guilty of double standards as a whole?! Does that discredit their struggle for tolerance in your opinion? I have seen other straight individuals and even couples act in very inappropriate ways in my time. I will spare you details.The same way, I can say that a few people of whatever conservative persuasion just overreacted a few times, so there's no big deal of a discrimination and we generally have perfect tolerance, so gay organisations should keep quiet. Any other interpretation is a double standard.

Please note that heterosexual people don't make Pride Parades.

I dont care what the catholic church has to say on this matter.You accused the Catholic Church of having an anti-gay policy and discriminating gays. I repelled your accusations and showed how unbased they were and you now say that you don't care what the Church has to say on the matter. How typical.

An organisation that prohibits the use of condoms in the times of HIV and that has a... funny attitude towards women isnt a moral compass to me. Never mind how they justify their instructions for their followers. Its outdated and has nothing to do with real life.And this has nothing to do with the subject.

I don't know what you mean by "funny attitude towards women", but from your post it isn't obvious if you're going to give any proof or example, or be any more precise, or just to throw some unbased accusations and general unsupported critique to dodge a difficult point in discussion.

Internal instructions for the followers are the competence of Catholic Church. If someone isn't a member of the Catholic Church, it's not his problem. Catholic Church doesn't tell gay organisations to accept, let's say, conservative Catholic priests opposing homosexual unions as members, so gay organisations should stay away and don't try to tell the Church what the Church should consider sinful for its followers.

Please note that Catholic Church doesn't urge people to get rid of gay organisation activists, nor does the Church refer to them as vermin.

[ May 19, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I just have to say this... this thread is getting more amusing by the minute! :shake: *Spelly bites her tongue.*

[ May 19, 2004, 02:57: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

Please note that heterosexual people don't make Pride Parades. I'm sorry for interrupting, but this had me hurting myself laughing. :D

The same way, I can say that a few people of whatever conservative persuasion just overreacted a few times, so there's no big deal of a discrimination and we generally have perfect tolerance, so gay organisations should keep quiet. Any other interpretation is a double standard.

Please note that heterosexual people don't make Pride Parades.If that were true then the opinion of gays - and other people who happen to have charactaristica, by choice or birth, different from the majority around them - that there is rejection and distance, indifference or outright scorn, must be a figment of their imagination only. I dont think that is true.

Please note that no one tries to grind heterosexual people down. Not even gays and their troublesome parades have that in mind. They arent contra, they are pro something. Like having selfesteem despite what some say, think or do.

You accused the Catholic Church of having an anti-gay policy and discriminating gays. I repelled your accusations and showed how unbased they were and you now say that you don't care what the Church has to say on the matter. How typical. Obviously I dont understand anything. You are right. The church fully supports homosexual people in their plight. And before you say that isnt the churchs obligation I will remind you that god created (in the creationists mind) all life. Unless harmful it should be cherished as an example of natures bountiful diversity. Of course this is nothing but Dendris funny view of things. :D Easily repelled, I fear.

And this has nothing to do with the subject.

I don't know what you mean by "funny attitude towards women", but from your post it isn't obvious if you're going to give any proof or example, or be any more precise, or just to throw some unbased accusations and general unsupported critique to dodge a difficult point in discussion. The church makes a stand viewed as annoying by many, like their poorly hidden anger for homosexuality, women being denied priesthood, women being condemned for abortion, girls who arent allowed to aide in a mess (is that the term?), prohibiting the catholics to celebrate god in unison with evangelists.
I think this has something to do with the subject here. Many who are against homosexuals and/or what they do justify it with something picked up from clergy. In my opinion the church fails to adapt to modern times and needs. Why not open their arms for ALL? I see selective tolerance here. In both cases, women and homosexuals. It shouldnt change the message, only take into account all of human society. You will probably bring up a lot of 'good' reasons why women arent given priesthood and that homosexuals are welcome as long as they arent homosexual.

AAAH! What am I doing here! All this has been said often enough, and much more eloquently - without ever changing a single thing.
*dendri feels outmatched*

>edit< typos & tried to refine my points here and there

[ May 19, 2004, 12:03: Message edited by: Dendri ]

Time to throw my thoughts in...

What I will say is my opinion. I agree with some of what some of you say and some of what some of you say I don't at all. Rather then try to organized my opinions so that they make sense, I will type them out in this order:

Firstly;
I agree with the original point of this post in that if people involved in the parade did what Chev reported that they did (ie flashing, condom toss, ect.) then it was wrong (On the other hand, there is that part of me that laughed at the guy on the park bench). If the roles were reversed, every church on the planet would have been sued simultaneously.


Secondly;
This is hard for me to articulate, so bare with me. I think that homosexuals (whom on a whole shall be referred to as HS's in my writings, just to ease my trouble) should not be granted any special concessions above that of your average man, woman, or couple. They should be allowed to have parades, as long as they get the proper permissions and permits, just as any non-HS's are allowed too (like if Splunge wanted to have a 'We're Old But Still Sexy' parade, all the power to him). But if at any time the HS's begin to infringe upon another's freedoms, then they should be treated like anyone else. So any of the loud conduct mentioned by Chev would see them punished by the governing powers accordingly.

Thirdly and lastly;
Splunge is holding his 'We're Old but Still Sexy' parade within the month. Any who wish to join my 'We're Young and Really Don't Need to See That' parade, please contact me. ;)

If that were true then the opinion of gays - and other people who happen to have charactaristica, by choice or birth, different from the majority around them - that there is rejection and distance, indifference or outright scorn, must be a figment of their imagination only. I dont think that is true....To which I reply that, if your views were true, then the majority's first hand experience of being abused, mocked or simply used, cheated and taken advantage of by militant minority activists (I don't say "minorities" because most of minority members are reasonable people, nor do I even say all minory activists because some of them are actually doing a god job) would have to be a figment of their imagination.

Furthermore, it must always be borne in mind that, if an intervention of state authorities is concerned, creating an advantage on the side of a social group creates a disadvantage on the side of other groups.

The church fully supports homosexual people in their plight. And before you say that isnt the churchs obligation I will remind you that god created (in the creationists mind) all life. Unless harmful it should be cherished as an example of natures bountiful diversity. Of course this is nothing but Dendris funny view of things. Easily repelled, I fear.Your fear is quite based, I'm afraid.

That God created the whole diversity of life is right. However, if we used your reasoning that for this reason all life needs to be protected by the Church in its whole diversity, the Church would have to prohibit her faithful from eating meat and the flesh of plants as well as eggs and fruit that are intended to carry life, and to stop herding cattle, planting wheat for bread and so on. As you can easily check, Biblical prophets, apostles and disciples of Jesus, even Jesus Himself eat bread or fish and drink wine. Some also kill and kill a lot.

This shows that infering from creationism an obligation to preserve all life in all its forms leads to absurd, without even resorting to such extreme examples as killing in self-defence.

Therefore, while the faithful have a general obligation to preserve life, even in this case they are not bound unconditionally. Therefore, if even the high-ranking obligation to preserve life is not unconditional, no absolute obligation to condone all things as they appear in nature can be construed on the basis of the message of the Bible.

Moreover, the Church regards homosexuality as an objective disorder and not as something condemnable as moral evaluation does not apply. To be homosexual is no more immoral than to have hay fever or be arachnophobic.

Homosexual carnal activity consists of acts, however. Acts can be moral or immoral. Also, an act can be immoral even if the actor is not culpable much in the same way as an act can be moral even if the actor does not act out of any morally plausible motivation.

Consequently, the Church is in no obligation to condone homosexual activity solely because it happens. The Church has the right and the duty to apply moral criteria. Therefore, if the message of the Bible, which is the basis of the Church's moral criteria, speaks against homosexual activity, the church cannot condone it. As the Church is subordinate to God's will and the Bible is a revelation of God's will, the Church has no authority to change the message of the Bible. Therefore, if the Church has no authority to change the Bible, she cannot change her moral stance on the matter.

Consequently, the Church's moral stance on the matter is not a part of the Church's political or social policy and, therefore, there is no discrimination on the part of the Church's authorities.

Everyone has the right to disagree with the Church's dogma as everyone has the right to disagree with any dogmatic or moral or ethical system whatsoever. However, if a person rejects a religion's dogma, it is not reasonable to expect that religion's followers to accept the person as a member. Neither has the person any right to demand membership.

The local chess club example serves well in this case.

The church makes a stand viewed as annoying by many, like their poorly hidden anger for homosexuality, women being denied priesthood, women being condemned for abortion, girls who arent allowed to aide in a mess (is that the term?), prohibiting the catholics to celebrate god in unison with evangelists.If someone wants the benefits of a religion for himself, he should also follow the limitations of the religion and the edicts of its clerical (or otherwise) superiors. No matter if it's Catholicism, Judaism, Islam or Cult of Aunt Jo.

Demanding for yourself the right to partake of the religious life of a given religion while refusing to obey its edicts is like demanding the benefits of citizenship of a state and refusing to pay taxes and obey the authority.

Citizenship is not just social welfare and religious cult membership is not just benefits.

What is more, the benefits that are being demanded are not material benefits or even immaterial benefits consisting of rights. No, nothing like that.

The benefit that is being required is the right to have your actions considered moral by a social group. What sort of right is this? Does anyone actually have any right to demand others to approve of his actions? If the local Vegetarian Union has every right to believe my act of eating meat to be morally wrong, even though it's legal and accepted by the society - and they have the right to voice their opinion - why shouldn't I have the right to voice my opinion on the wrongfulness of homosexual carnal activity, even though it's legal?

Now, if I have this right, it's only logical that all other citizens have the same right in similar circumstances. Those citizens also have the right to freedom of association. They can associate with whomever they want... or not associate with whomever they want. There is also freedom of conscience, which means you can believe in whatever you want, and there is freedom of cult, which means you can perform acts of worship. Those beliefs and those rites of cult are, therefore, not subject to any external regulation.

The criteria are set and fixed and everyone who meets the criteria can belong to the Church. Everyone who meets further criteria can receive sacraments or perform service. Who doesn't meet the criteria, can't. As in any other organisation.

Furthermore, freedom of conscience and freedom of cult are established with the intention that the sphere of religious life be left out of the state's authorities' sphere of influence. Therefore, it is not lawful for the authorities to interfere, especially in form of legislative action.

I think this has something to do with the subject here. Many who are against homosexualsThat's a piece of propaganda. Stop here. Believing homosexual acts to be morally wrong does NOT mean being against homosexuals.

The logic behind that faulty conclusion is:

Homosexual acts are performed by homosexuals, THEREFORE if you are against homosexual acts, you're against homosexuals.

Let's now take homicide as an example. Homicide is a crime and to commit a crime you need to be a human of an age of reason. So, homicide is performed by humans. According to your logic, if you were against homicide, you would have to be against humans.

Why? Because the only link that you use is the fact that homosexuals perform homosexual acts.

Now, according to the Church, a homosexual act is no less and no more sinful if it's committed by a heterosexual man or woman.

Can a heterosexual person have a homosexual intercourse? Sure he can. And the Church is against that.

Also, a homosexual person doesn't necessarily perform homosexual carnal acts. Is the person any less homosexual? Certainly not. Is the Church against this person? No again.

Out of the two: a heterosexual man who has had intercourse with a man and a homosexual man who hasn't had intercourse, who has likely committed a sin (supposing both were fully conscious of the act's sinful nature etc)? The hetero one. Is the Church against heterosexuals now?

Also, the homosexual man could have sex with a woman not being his wife. Would it be all right for the Church? No! He would have committed the sin of fornication. Without even touching a man.

The Church is not against homosexuals. Or against homosexuality. The Church is against homosexual carnal activity.

In my opinion the church fails to adapt to modern times and needs. Why not open their arms for ALL?The Church welcomes all. However, you need to believe to be a believer, you know.

If you don't want to live by Catholic Church's morality, don't demand to be admitted. It's quite childish: all benefits with no obligations. All power with no responsibility.

You can be homosexual and still a member of the Catholic Church. And receive sacraments and so on. Heck, even some priests are homosexual, probably a few in Vatican. You can't, however, have sexual intercourse and claim to be OK with the Church's dogma and edicts.

There are many kinds of sins and they are to be confessed and atoned for, also involving penance. If we exempt one sin from this routine, why not exempt another one, or all? Let's say, remove the whole moral side of the church, the dogma of sin and whatever and just tell the faithful to live like they like? Receiving all benefits and still going to heaven, of course.

Look, I don't want to believe. But I still want to go to heaven!

I also remind you that you are speaking of moral judgment. No one has any right to enforce a specific moral judgment on another person, ie to force you to change your opinion.

Of course, homosexuals who live in a homosexual relationship involving sex can't receive the Church's sacraments.

But you can't receive the sacraments licitly if you commit any heavy sin which you don't regret, confess, try to improve on etc. Note also that unmarried heterosexual couple who have sex are in the same situation - they can't be absolved and receive sacraments.

I see selective tolerance here.It is not a matter of intolerance. Intolerance would be if persons were discriminated because of their homosexual condition. And they aren't.

It shouldnt change the message, only take into account all of human society.Homosexual intercourse can't be declared morally acceptable by the Church without changing the message of the Bible.

As for women, women cannot be validly ordained priests. Priests are meant to be men and, when according to Catholic dogma Jesus started institutionalised priesthood on Maundy Thursday, no women were involved. Jesus sent men to remit sins and consecrate Eucharist, but He didn't send women.

Please remember that we aren't talking about women here, or about Catholic Church's priest ordination. If we speak about RCC's general view on homosexuality, we speak about it from the point of view of the subject of discussion that I started: Gay Pride parades and their being above the law.

You will probably bring up a lot of 'good' reasons why women arent given priesthood and that homosexuals are welcome as long as they arent homosexual.Quite contrary, I've explained that homosexuals are actually as welcome as everyone else. The activity of gay organisations is not welcome, sure. However, the activity of an organisation claiming that in RCC let's say, calling God's name in vain should no longer be considered morally wrong, the reaction would also be far from what the organisation would like it to be. The Church defends her moral dogma and that dogma includes a catologue of acts that are believed sinful. Homosexual acts are not the only acts on that list.

You can't make a cake without breaking eggs. If you commit an act that is considered a crime in your law, you cannot say that you don't break the law, can you?

If you have homosexual intercourse (which is considered sin in RCC), you can't say that you're sinless in the eyes of the Church. Quite reasonable.

AAAH! What am I doing here! All this has been said often enough, and much more eloquently - without ever changing a single thing.It's been said much more eloquently and still repelled. It has been repelled much more eloquently than I do here, too.

[ May 19, 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: chevalier ]

...To which I reply that, if your views were true, then the majority's first hand experience of being abused, mocked or simply used, cheated and taken advantage of by militant minority activists My response to this - for what you say to be accurate, there must have been an act of intolerance beforehand to which those 'militant activist' reacted. Or did some pampered gays fall one day out of bed and said: 'Time to trouble all our benefactors'? If I understood you properly, you say that the homosexuals themselves are to blame for homophobia. You DO know what people share that kind of logic, do you?

Therefore, while the faithful have a general obligation to preserve life, even in this case they are not bound unconditionally. Therefore, if even the high-ranking obligation to preserve life is not unconditional, no absolute obligation to condone all things as they appear in nature can be construed on the basis of the message of the Bible Homosexuals are not some sort of plant or animal life. They are humans and there is absolutely no moral consequence for them because of the fact that we all need to eat!
Your logic is that of the church? I think it absolutely repulsive. We have the need to sustain our boodies by eating animals and plants - that gives us the freedom and right to speculate about the worth and validity of homosexual life in the very same context?! Bleh.

Moreover, the Church regards homosexuality as an objective disorder and not as something condemnable as moral evaluation does not apply. To be homosexual is no more immoral than to have hay fever or be arachnophobic. The cause for homosexuality is unknown. The church however takes the freedom to declare it a 'disorder'. Which is not supported by outsiders, scientists and all. I am for innocent until proven otherwise - therefore the logic on which you founded your explanaition is invalid in my eyes. Oh, and I think it is telling so much that the church is assuming the worse instead of the better in this case. Sad.

I could go on about the rest, but I think I dont want to. I dont want to follow where you are leading, chevalier. Perhaps others can make sense out of things such as:
The church deems homosexuality wrong because the bible says so? -> yes -> why? -> bible -> is it right to think homosexuals are immoral -> of course not, only if they do what makes you homosexual -> can this be questioned? -> no, we cannot question it because the bible is the very base of our faith, which must be upheld -> so, no 'why' is allowed? -> either you believe or you dont. You join the club, you accept all the rules and there is no questioning them.

I wont say what that sonds like to me.

It's been said much more eloquently and still repelled. It has been repelled much more eloquently than I do here, too. For all your eloquence you fail to convince me. There is no real logic behind it all. No substance. Cooked up, circular, far-fetched abstractions.
Our minds cannot possibly work that different, nor can your light burn that much more brighter than mine. Or does it? I see nothing that would convince me in your words. And I am an agreeable person. Perhaps because I have too little faith.

My fears of being repelled were not that necessary after all.

I'm sorry in advance for going completely off-topic here, but I just have to respond to this from Jaguar:
like if Splunge wanted to have a 'We're Old But Still Sexy' parade, all the power to him...any who wish to join my 'We're Young and Really Don't Need to See That' parade, please contact me. ROTFLMAO! :lol:

The parade will consist entirely of floats with comfy mattresses so that we can take frequent naps when needed. Otherwise, we'll all be dancing to disco music from the 70's; men will be wearing tight leather pants and shirts unbuttoned down to the navel (which for some will be at knee-level), and women will be wearing mini-skirts and see-through blouses (also down to the knees for some). And rather than used condoms, we'll be throwing empty bottles of Geritol to the crowds. :p :D

We now return to the topic at hand...

Splunge!! :p
You are ruining the dramaturgy chev and I are working on! :roll: You know, until the big final when he rips me head off. :grin:

Btw - lol. :D

There isn't going to be a big final simply because my idea of this thread is not making a big show with special effects but discussing a certain point. For the umpteenth time I repeat that this point is: Are gay organisations above the law? If yes, should they be?

My response to this - for what you say to be accurate, there must have been an act of intolerance beforehand to which those 'militant activist' reacted."There must have been an act"? Why? Why there must have been an act? Because it suits you?

If everything has a cause and reason, then that horrible act of discrimination of which you speak was for a reason and had a cause, which also had a reason and a cause and so on. Infinite loop.

If I understood you properly, you say that the homosexuals themselves are to blame for homophobia.If I have understood you properly, you say that heterosexuals have themselves to blame for violations of the law during Gay Pride parades.

You DO know what people share that kind of logic, do you?Sorry, I'm not responsible for the logic of "people".

Homosexuals are not some sort of plant or animal life. They are humans and there is absolutely no moral consequence for them because of the fact that we all need to eat!Please rephrase. Makes no sense to me in the current shape.

Your logic is that of the church? I think it absolutely repulsive. We have the need to sustain our boodies by eating animals and plants - that gives us the freedom and right to speculate about the worth and validity of homosexual life in the very same context?! Bleh.I once again repeat that the Church refers to actions and not to the condition of being homosexual or heterosexual or hamstercovetingsexual.

I see no connection between the fact that life forms are diverse and the postulate that Catholic Church change the Bible so as to make a sin not a sin.

The cause for homosexuality is unknown. The church however takes the freedom to declare it a 'disorder'.The Church does not take liberty, the Church follows the Bible. I understand that for a person of no religious affiliation this may be difficult to understand, but following a set of religious dogmas is not taking liberty as to any of the moral consequences that follow.

Example: Rabbis don't take liberty in forbidding Jews to eat pork. Eating pork is forbidden for them in the Torah (restriction removed in New Testament for Christians - before you ask).

Example2: Mullahs don't take liberty in forbidding Muslims to drink alcohol. Drinking alcohol is forbidden in the Quoran.

The same way having sex with a person of the same sex is forbidden in the Bible.

The basic problem, however, is that all non-marital sex is forbidden in the Bible as the sin of fornication (some Protestants disagree on this one). Therefore, no matter the gender, if your partner is not your spouse, you commit a sin.

As for disorder, the Church refers to heterosexual sexual activity between unmarried people as "disordered" because the intercourse is unlawful. Therefore, heterosexual unmarried intercourse is disordered too according to the Church's dogma. Talk about discrimination.

Which is not supported by outsiders, scientists and all.First, I don't know what you understand by all. Next, outsiders by definition aren't insiders, which means they are not supporters of the Catholic version of Christianity. Therefore, your example is not valid. Scientists differ between one another and there is no chief scientific body to speak for all the scientists worldwide, either. This example, therefore, is not valid as well.

Furthermore, the purpose of a religious organisation is not to make people feel good. Neither is the purpose of a religion to get as many people as possible to like you.

Maintaining and guarding the message of the Bible is more important than appealing to any group that doesn't like a part of that message.

The Bible is revelation of God's will. The Church, therefore, consisting of human beings created by God, cannot change it. Why? Because creation cannot change the will of the creator.

Assuming otherwise is a logical error. Why? An irreligious person may think "they think up a god and a whole religion, they can change it as well - since they make it all up, anyway".

Religious people, however, don't see things this way. They don't believe (or "don't realise", if you prefer) that they make God up, but they believe God is a real entity that has something to say and says it (through the Bible). Therefore, it's not up to them to make things up or change them at will.

Logically, there is no sense in believing in a god if you know that you make that god up.

For all your eloquence you fail to convince me. There is no real logic behind it all. No substance. Cooked up, circular, far-fetched abstractions.It's not my point to convince you. I'm not here to convert you or anything. My point is to explain things, not to convince you to believe. I can explain further if there's a need, but convincing you would be just a side benefit.

As for your evaluation of my logic:

"cooked up" is not a logical category - can't be evaluated as 0 or 1, therefore there's no need to continue on this one

"circular" - no proof given, so it's just an opinion. No example given, so it's objectless (empty).

"far-fetched abstractions" - as above.

That's it about your logic. Mine contains proper inference and has all points explained, without leaving out objectless claims - for instance. I've already shown formal errors in yours. So, why don't we skip the "who has a bigger one" part and move back to the subject?

Answer my question, please: should gay organisations get away with violating the law (including constitutions) and should officials acting in their official capacity condone said violations by supporting the offenders?

[ May 19, 2004, 21:31: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Forgive me if I skip most of your post, chev. I think it will lead nowhere to continue.

Only this:
Maybe it was unfortunate to put it like that and call it 'convincing'. I would like to understand you, as well as gaining an additional perspective on matters. Its in everyones interest to be open minded, it will serve no one if both sides are adamant and impervious to whatever is said by the opposition.

To answer your question: No one is above the law, as they say, and no one claimes they are. I have never suggested such a thing. So why ask me this?
If there is a crime committed by homosexuals there has to be a consequence. The same consequence heterosexuals have to face.
No matter how determined someone fights for gay rights, or how gay-friendly/supportive he/she is - they dont say that minorities are some sort of outlaws, free to do as they please. It goes without saying and there is really no need to point it out.

I'm sorry for butting in here, but *someone* has to say something before chev tears Dendri a new one...

So why ask me this? The particular question that you're referring to is, as chev keeps telling you, the purpose of this entire thread!!
Might I recommend that you go back and read all of chev's posts, looking for this particular question. For your own good, just don't post the number of times that that particular question's been asked...

Faerus, I think I know what chev's opinion is by now. And I also think its okay to agree that we disagree.

My points
1) not to paint a picture in which all look and act the same
2) making a stance against discrimination doesnt make you intolerant per se - unless, of course, you act in the same way your opponents do. Knowing human nature that regretably happens all too soon. 'You get hurt - you want to hurt' Not that I agree with that, mind you!
3) I tried to illustrate why some of them might have reacted in that way.
The timing of that parade in Cracow was obviously meant as a provocation and a display of spite. A big mistake as it will do nothing for their cause. Even though its understandable why they lash out at those they perceive as unjust, and though it might even give them the feeling of satisfaction, that, for once they had the opportunity to shoot back - at the end of the day they have achieved nothing. They only made themselves vulnerable and present others, who are not so interested in tolerance at all, a perfect opportunity to label gay organisations radical, offensive. It would have been wiser for them to be less confrontational.
And lets please not forget just who the gay organisations oppose! People and organisations who call homosexuals unnatural, abominations... or just sickos.

Anyway, not once did I say they should be allowed to violate laws. So no one gets to ask me the question wether or not there should be a consequence when they do. Btw, the purpose of this thread is to discuss if those who claim fighting for tolerance are in fact the intolerant ones.

>edit< typos etc

[ May 20, 2004, 20:14: Message edited by: Dendri ]

I've been scanning this thread periodically. At this point, I haven't noticed anything that qualifies as a clear cut violation of the rules. At least, not yet. Nonetheless, it looks like feelings are running tense, especially when the latest two participants have preceded their posts with a glaring smiley and thumbs down respectively.

So I'll try being prophylactic and avoid having things get out hand by reminding everybody of two pertinent rules:

If you have a personal issue, keep it personal. We don't want our forums clogged up with posts specifically for one person. If it can be handled over e-mail, take it to e-mail. Alternately, you can also use the private messaging system on our boards. and:

Criticize and discuss to your heart's content, but do it constructively. No attacks, insults, or flames - be it on someone's person, religious beliefs, race, national background, sexual orientation or whatever. This is one of our most important rules. If you have a problem with somebody, do not flame them on our boards. Take it somewhere else. No flaming of ANY kind is welcome here. The quickest way to get banned from our boards is to break this rule.