Any argument coming from a transvestite is invalid. Stop your pseudo intelectual babbling and just ignore whatever the churches are doing since any argument based on religion is also invalid and of no importance.
@yarpen800 here's what i don't understand about you haters: you hate this guy so much, yet you're willing to come here and watch his videos just to troll in the comments. that's a lot of effort to put in for someone who supposedly is of no importance.
don't be a hating troll. when you do that, you look like a 32 year old fat loser living in his parent's basement with no friends and nothing better to do than watch youtube videos he doesn't like. it's very unbecoming.
this person is criticizing priests and nuns who have given up everything (money , sex, what else?) to help the poor.
now i am listening to this nobody of a person who i believe has not given up everything ( i don't think she has given up sex and money, not that she could get layed anyway) criticize priests and nuns for not being more selfless.
The Catholic Church spreads like a commuter virus hidden in a really useful utility. They are great at raising volunteers through their sales pitch, but they infect your area.
LOL I'd rather fuck a guy than have some creepy old pedophiliac pop person "bless me" im pretty sure that water isn't water at all. its Holy Cum. -shudders- though im asexual, so i have no interest in relationships... but yeah. Religion is stupid. The Pope is stupid. The CHURCH and their followers are stupid. most of them can't even tell me what 9 squared is...
It does not matter, what you think the church's point is on gay marriage, The church follows the Holy bible and will not accept gay marriage, God made Adam And Eve, Sex is for procreation. And there is no way you will see a gay couple getting married in a catholic church. And there is no way its going fund gay people instead there are many others in poverty that they can fund, why would they go to the people they disagree with the most, that's like saying we accept gay marriage.
@ChaldeanDavid "It does not matter, what you think the church's point is on gay marriage, The church follows the Holy bible and will not accept gay marriage"
Churches say a lot of stuff. But they evolve with society and change over time as well, even if they have to play catch-up.
@ZJemptv Well the catholic church will not change the bible , just to suit this generations needs, it's god word, they can't just play with it and change it around for there own personal needs? This isn't a joke.
@GDOBSSOR Yes, Because Sin is what separates us from god, Jesus Christ's Sacrifice was for the sole purpose of freeing us from the consequences of sin, He covered all sins, now repentance from all sins is possible.
The Catholic church clothes more people, comes to the aid of more sick people and educates more people than any other group in the world. Within the church and throughout history there are people who have made bad decisions they have supported ill advised crusades, did not take action against priests who abused etc. Btw, less than 5000 died in the crusades and 2-4% of priests at the peak of the crisis were engaged on sexual misconduct. People in the church will fall short. But the church w
@eclipsema the issue is not wether homosexuals should want to work there, it is the problem that this organisation is allowed to refuse them on basis of their sexual orientation, which is discrimination.
look ABORTION!!! has killed more ppl than any other so called "organization" if that is how you referr to the Catholic Church. and dont start saying that abortion hasnt because it has!!!
@eagley2j The Catholic church has also killed and tortured more people than any organization that has ever existed. The bad they've done has far outweighed the good. If the Catholic church had never existed we would have been spared some of the greatest atrocities, including the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, and the slave labor camps in Ireland known as the Magdalene Asylums. Not to mention one of the largest cover ups of child abuse, if not the largest.
@eagley2j 1) only if you believe life begins at the moment of conception 2) even if that's so, how does that let the Catholic Church off the hook? Pointing to someone else's wrongdoings does not excuse one's own wrongdoings. Even if we accept that abortion is wrong, that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has been one of the most destructive, abusive, murderous organization the world has ever known.
@eagley2j And no, abortion has not killed more people. The Catholic church has murdering people en masse for centuries. And there's all the non-fatal atrocities the CC has committed, like the slave labor camps, and allowing protecting pedophiles and allowing them to abuse children.
catholicsm is a good religion. We are all to give to the poor. God is great and may he lead you to the right path. "Give all your riches to the poor and you will recieve riches in heaven."- Jesus Christ. You will go to hell for not believeing in god. Unless you start believing in him and believe jesus is the saviour and son of god you will burnin the eternal fires of hell. Those who believe in god and are baptised will be saved. Right, now your are going to hell unless you repent.
@2012DI "catholicsm is a good religion" Your church is responsible for more murders, tortures, and human rights abuses than any other organization that has ever existed.
I am a Catholic who happens to be a homosexual. I am a Seminarian within the Reformed Catholic Church and my Church is open to ANY person! I however do not like your statements about GOD!
I am a bit confused why many comments here are blaming gay people for forcing the charities to close. I guess that is what the Catholic church wanted, but I thought it was to trasparent for people not to notice. You can not blame gay people for this because they have not done anything to actualy close the charities, or even asked for them to be closed. What are they expected to do, not exist? I guess that would make the Catholic church happy at least.
"gay marriages" are already legal in the U.S. They're called "civil unions". So what is the big deal? This is all about "gays" attempting to validate or legitimize their homosexual behavior as "normal". The terms "Marriage" and "matrimony" area religious-based ceremonial terms meaning "the uniting together of a male and female". Hey why stop there? Maybe homosexuals would also like to redefine the terms "Christian", "religious", "Holy", and "salvation" to meet their own personal needs as well.
IT was a mistake to fund thes etyppes of insitutions to begin with. Not just for the social services but also for construction of the churches, and all the tax breaks they get from being a bonafide religeon. I share part of this blame bcoz I very ignorantly donated money to many christian organisations bcoz I either didnt no, or I didnt discriminate but now that tey wont return the favour Ill think twice. Tax payers at least should be allowed to choose not to fund these institutions
Why should the Catholic Church support a lifestyle that is an abomination according to the Holy Scriptures, the Word of the Living God? In point of fact, gay people do not have a problem with any religion as such, or its followers, they have a problem with God.
There is no "God" in actuality, just a concept called God that certain religions promote. We have a problem with that homophobic concept which churches try to promote. It's an important distinction to make - we don't have a problem with something that doesn't actually exist, only with what these churches are doing: making life difficult for people in the name of a lie.
@victoriaReg29 nr1, we are not asking the Pope to star in a Amsterdam gay-club, just for a organization in America to obey American laws, and discrimination is against the law.
There are many different religions out there, and as far as I can tell few have as little credentials as Catholicism. I and many others with me could not care less what you have been told your God thinks of us.
Question: If any adoption agency refuses to adopt for any following reason 1) Prospective parent(s) live where there is no heat or water 2) Non-traditional commune (compound marriage, sex with under age. So would refusal to adopt to either of these constitute discrimination? How is discrimination defined? I can't accept your use of the term discrimination.
The Catholic Church uses its charity work as a shield against its repulsive history and current actions. The charities are ALWAYS cited in its defense "but, we help the poor!"
I dont like defending the Catholic church but to be fair, I think its their right to refuse to support any lifestyle that according to the Bible is said to be an "abomination". However the Catholic institution should really humble itself due to the recent relevation of the horrific,criminal behavior that it has been seemingly condoning and covering up for so many years. They should really be more understanding.
You are using legal means to attack the charity organizations of the Church. Your aim is to make them comply with your requirements, or put them out of business. They cannot comply and adhere to their moral obligations at the same time. Thus you are creating an impossible situation for the Church. That is a sin against the Holy Spirit. This will have grave spiritual consequences, and I remind you, you will not bring down the Church as it is not of human origin.
Marriage is a Divinely established institution. The Catholics cannot (are not permitted to) redefine that institution. Perhaps you are permitted? You are the one who wants to put Church charities out of business. That is a very foolish thing. There is a terrible spiritual price to pay for your kind lie. What you are doing is sinning against the Holy Spirit, remember that one?
The church's charities chose to put themselves out of business by insisting on adhering to their own self-imposed restrictions. Blaming others for the church refusing to let go of its dogma is asinine.
@ZJemptv . Again you are saying the charities must close their doors if they don't validate homosexuals, The choice is being forced upon them. I don't "blame" anyone for the integrity of the teaching of the Church, but I do blame the gay rights groups for pushing to make access to funding contingent on helping to advance their goals.
Prohibiting discrimination by an organization that makes use of public funds is a goal worthy of advancement. The public doesn't need to pay for discrimination and in this regard, gay rights groups are clearly in the right. They don't have to "validate" anyone, just simply not discriminate against them. The church had a choice. They chose to prioritize discrimination over helping people. They could have chosen otherwise, and it's nobody's fault but their own that they refused to.
@YentaY0 "What you are doing is sinning against the Holy Spirit, remember that one?" spare us. the catholic church has a laundry list of crimes against humanity stretching back into ancient antiquity, no one cares about your dying church that is devoid of any credibility.
It is difficult for some people to understand that the Church actually believes all that stuff it teaches about heaven and hell and sin. For the Church to support the homosexuals then sure, they would be providing for their physical needs but putting their souls in jeopardy by confirming them in their sin. The Church does treat all people equally. but you are advocating the position that if the homosexuals can't have it no one can. thats a twisted sort of "equality" don't you think?
No, eliminating preferential treatment for a majority based on the misguided belief that they are in some way inherently superior to a minority is not "a twisted sort of "equality"", it's a completely valid and acceptable way of achieving equality -- by removing inequality.
This is why the government and the church should remain separate. Unfortunately with nonreligious charity organizations you tend to get a lot...and i mean a lot of corruption(Chicago tried and it got the CHA). An unfortunate choice no?
I do agree that they should discriminate on their own time but i don't think a law should be able to tell an organization whom they can and can not fire or give benefits to.
NOW Srtriaght people will experience what it's like to be deprived of spousal benefits fromh the catholic church by imposing denial of benefits by imposing it on their own straight catholic couples. This is waht it's like to be oppresed by the catholic church.
NOW Srtriaght people will experience what it's like to be deprived of spousal benefits by the catholic church by imposing denial of benefits- by imposing it on their own straight catholic couples. This is waht it's like to be oppresed by the catholic church. It's true they don't intend to pacify faggots like myself but it teaches straight couples what it is like to experience benefits denial in the hands of the church YOU CALL YOUR OWN. LUV YA!
tetsubo57...umm...do you know what hypocrisy is ?? You call the church a pox ( whatever that means ) upon humanity, then you say "bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, some great "satandards'...dude, you got hypocrisy down to a "T"...I`d say you`re a bigot as well, moron.
@protocol63 A pox is a disease. The Church is a political entity. One step removed from an organized crime syndicate. I have no issue with individual Christians. But the Church itself is a disease upon the human species.
@ZJemptv The Church can in no way recognize as valid something contrary to its own teaching like the notion of homosexual "marriage". Governments should recognize this fact, and exempt the Church and her affiliate institutions from any Law that would force her into such a dilemma. Are Gay rights more important to society than the charitable work done by these institutions? Even homosexuals need a helping hand from time to time.
"Are Gay rights more important to society than the charitable work done by these institutions?"
That's for the church to decide -- is denigrating gay people more important to them than helping society? Apparently it is.
Why should any organization be exempted from following a law "contrary to its own teaching"? I'm not just talking about churches. If a church doesn't have to follow the law because they don't want to, then why does anyone have to follow the law? What makes a church special?
And by the way: "Are Gay rights more important to society than the charitable work done by these institutions?" The answer is yes. The recognition of equal rights for all citizens is indeed more important than these social services. It would be a stunning act of cowardice to effectively tell a segment of the population, "You can't have the same rights as everyone else because this one church's charity work is more important than your equality under the law." How disgusting that is.
"So to be clear, it is you, not the Church that advocates sacrificing the well-being of the poor to advance an agenda."
No, that's the church's decision. They're the ones who've made their charity contingent upon being allowed to exercise their bigotry. If it were up to me, I would never let prejudice stand in the way of social services. The Catholics have run into a roadblock of their own construction. It's completely unnecessary and there's no need for it, but they can't let it go.
If the church is operating as an organization that receives public funding, why should they be allowed to use that funding to discriminate? If they want to discriminate, they can do it privately and on their own dime. But don't expect the public to pay for discrimination. It is the church that must refrain from forcing its agenda upon the rest of us.
Homosexuality is detrimental both on a personal level and on a societal level, The Catholic Church refuses to endorse homosexuality simply because they love people and try to save them from harming themselves. We believe that putting an end to Homosexuality is a form of Charity, therefore I imagine the belief of the diocese of D.C. was that if Catholic Charities were forced to endorse/hire homosexuals they would cease being charitable institutions anyways, so they used their influence asleverag
Nobody needs to be "saved" from being attracted to the same sex. We're not interested. Just like how you don't need to be "saved" from being attracted to opposite sex. It's disturbing to hear you talking about "putting an end to heterosexuality", whatever that entails. How would you like it if people wanted to "put an end to heterosexuality"?
First off I don't want you thinking I'm some Holy-Roller, gay hater, I'm not. But it doesn't take a Catholic Theologian to realize that Homosexuality is detrimental on a societal level, and on a personal level, Homosexuals have much lower life expectancies then heterosexuals, and most psychologists agree that homosexuals are on average unhappier than heterosexuals
"detrimental on a societal level"? That's kind of like saying "it would be better for society if you were heterosexual instead". Why?
I don't know what kind of argument you think you're making by citing disparities (assuming you're not just making that up) in life expectancy or personal happiness. Such disparities exist between races, genders, etc. but you wouldn't use that to claim a certain race is "detrimental". Yet you accuse gay people of just that. Why is that okay?
The foundation blocks for society are families, the Catholic Church upholds the dignity of the Family and teaches that God set in place a standard for families to try to live by. These standards include a father and a mother who live chastley, Love God and follow his commandments. The family is the where individuals are formed and the Church teaches that these are the best tools for forming a moraly intact individual to enter into society. CONTINUED -
- CONTINUED that being said it is entirely possible for good and moral people to come out of situations unlike the familes i just described, just as it is possible for a plant to grow in conditions that aren't perfect, but as a farmer toils to make the conditions ideal for plants, so the RCC toils to make conditions ideal for raising individuals, this is why the Church has such strong teachings on abuse, infidelity, divorce, homosexuality, etc.
There are many families --loving, caring families -- that aren't Catholic, Christian or even religious. Isn't it kind of demeaning to imply that they are, in certain ways, inadequate to Catholic families? And I hope you can understand why abuse, infidelity and divorce are entirely different from homosexuality. That makes about as much sense as classifying heterosexuality with abuse, infidelity and divorce. Being compared to domestic abuse simply for loving another person is pretty insulting.
I totally agree that there are many loving, caring families that aren't religious - My family isn't; my parents are divorced, I have an agnostic dad, baptist step mom, agnostic step dad and my mom is one of those only Catholic by name people, and my family is definitely loving and caring - but not ideal. The center of our discussion, I think comes down to this, I believe in a God who became man, and began a Church through which he conveys the meaning of life and how to live ideally, CONTINUED
CONT- and I assume that you don't from the way you've been arguing, is this true? Would you agree that this is the center of our discussion?
as to the demeaning other families, the purpose of the Catholic Church's teachings on family is not to insult others or be like "I'm better than you!" The Church has the best of each individual and family in mind, we wish for all families to be Christ centered, why? b/c we believe its in the best interest of each family, CONT -
That being said, the best way to convince others to raise their families following Catholic teachings is not through seminars or even discussion it's through the living example of a devout Catholic Family. - A family of saints if u will, I don't know if you've met a family like this, but i have, a family of devout Catholics from the youngest to the oldest, and their happiness, functionality, success, etc is a testimony to the Catholic Faith that can only be experienced not adequately described.
One more thing (Sorry for my many long comments but I like having discussions with you, your pretty sincere honest and logical, and even polite - rare combination of traits on youtube!) I wasn't meaning to compare homosexuality with domestic abuse as in saying a homosexual is just as bad of a person as someone who beats their kids, I was just saying they all fall under the RCC's social teachings on the Family,
The Catholic Chuch will never die - we have Christ (God Himself)'s word on that - but those that reject the Church will die - witness the demographic decline of all western nations!! Never mind!
Only a CATHOLIC STATE - foundational state of the west - will resist your demographic wipeout and Islamisation at the hands of idiot secular governance!! You get more than you bargained for with a secular state - beware their plans for you!!
the catholic church is a cult - they have one agenda ... the catholic church & world domination - where's the Pope? is he going to Haiti to help? is the Vatican pledging millions of dollars in aid for the earthquake victims? didn't think so -
Ah, yeah. They took up a collection at all parishes across the world to send to Haiti. I know, because I gave at Mass. In fact, they probably collected more to help Haiti than any other single organization in the world so you maybe you should do your homework before you start spouting off nonsense.
First of all the statement by the Washington D.C. Diocese only stated was is obvious: the new legislation will most likely curtail its ability to work in the society. Since most of its work is with the poor, the that is part of the work that will suffer. It is not a choice. It is an observation.
Second: here is the question: What is marriage? It is an important institution, so it is an important question. We hear talk about the law, but not about the thing itself.
Examining sulkow's seemingly final and puerile comment to me, I can only conclude that he needed an out, while attempting to convince himself that he's nicely tidied up his trail of sloppy implications and obvious subtext. But I think he knows better.
I was thinking more or less the same thing. I like how when he apparently ran out of sensible responses, he told you that you don't "deserve" any more answers to your questions, as if doling out punishment to a misbehaving child. You must be so upset. I think you hit the nail on the head a day or so ago. He just doesn't like homosexuals.
Yeah, Timothy, I think he doesn't. It would be more honest and respectable if people just came out and said it, whether or not they know the reason, rather than try to justify it through contortions of logic.
So, sulkow83, why don't you just come out and say it, rather than pretending to be intellectual, compassionate, or scientific about it? Say it: you don't like homosexuals.
sulko82 has expressed his opinion accurately to what he believes. However, he is most likely unwilling to question or constructively criticize what he believes. Therefore, his opinion is only as good what he's been told to think. And that's not very good at all.
There's a great video on youtube by qualiasoup about critical thinking. Look it up.
I don't like the behavior. I have nothing against the person. By your question, that is a form of trying to define my position when you don't have enough information.
I don't buy your line of reasoning for a moment. If it was as simple as not liking the behavior, trying to justify an "unnaturalness" would not be on your agenda. What you seem to want to say is, "hate the sin, love the sinner." I attempt to define your position because you can't seem to, and because you seem as ultimately transparent as every other Christian I've seen attempting to wiggle out of an argument with poor logic. Homosexuals are not harming you, but you would limit them.
I have defined my position to the point where you can have an opinion on it. So you contradicted yourself by saying that I can't define it.
Actually, on the limiting of homosexuals, what I want is irrelevant if the law is not written for religious opt out because of the unconstitutionality of it.
Let me ask this... do you want a religious opt out clause in the law?
Sooo much time and effort wasted arguing about something as ridiculous and stupid as religion. Actually, it's kind of fun. Ultimately, it's an argument atheists cannot lose.
They do not teach gays to hate being gay. Many gays usually seek help because their conscience is bothering them. Their conscience is convicting them of sin and they are turning away. Sorry dude but your bigotry of the Church clearly shows. Until you get rid of yor hate and listen to your conscience you will never know.
No, your conscience or the conscience of others is not universal. My conscience, and the conscience of many others, finds nothing objectionable or troubling about being gay. When you say "get rid of yor hate and listen to your conscience", you really mean "don't listen to your conscience, listen to mine, which declares you to be a defective human being -- and how dare you hate me for that!"
This is why people see your faith as being utterly ridiculous.
I personally believe that homosexuality is against natural law. Natural law predates all nations, religious organizations, political views etc. It is the belief that nature itself tells us what the natural order is. Homosexuality can't create new life which is part of the purpose of sexual activity.
Besides, such an ordinance is a violation of separation of church and state. The govt. can't tell the Church how to conduct itself.
Nature doesn't tell us anything; nature simply is. A description of the natural world does not equate to prescriptive morality. Procreation is not always the purpose of sexual activity. If you're going to rely on descriptions of nature, then people have sex for pleasure -- not procreation -- all the time. So do other species. They even have gay sex, too. So, is nature "against natural law"? No -- there is no natural law.
I forgot to say in my last post. Yes, people have sex for may reasons which are not for pro-creation. This is cool. It is the denial that procreation is one of the reasons for sex which is why I made my "natural law" comment.
And yet homosexuals "get pregnant" all the time, and so homosexuals do have children. They have children biologically, and they adopt, too.
But more to the point, your Catholic lens is the only thing maintaining that procreation need be the purpose for sexual activity. Lust and love are human drives and are just as valid a reason for sex, if not more so, than procreation on an overpopulated planet.
Woman's organs are not "designed." And there is no "natural law," as ZJ said. Your Catholic lens is precluding reality, and you claim on your page to see things Catholically. Try thinking for yourself.
In that case, mouths are "structured" to receive both men's and women's organs, anuses are structured to receive men's organs and everyone's digits (as are women's organs and mouths and nostrils). Hmm...methinks you actually did imply something other than "structured" seeing as you began your post with: What tells me a lot is . . . .
What I'm saying is, asking yourself why you think what you think, and try employing critical thinking. See qualiasoup's video on critical thinking.
Also, you say I should "think for myself." I asked the question of what percentage of the population is gay or bi. This data was not supplied. How can I think for myself if I am not given all of the relevant data.
Also, asking for such data cannot be seen as "through a Catholic lens."
I have seen the percentage at anywhere between 1% and 20% of the population. I imagine a consensus would be difficult due to the sexuality spectrum, closet cases, cultural mandates, etc.
What are you getting at with this question? I certainly hope this is not going in the direction I think it is.
My point here is if the gay community can't even define itself (ie. its population), then how can the general community assist it?
Also, if you thought I was heading to the "tyranny of the few" argument, it could head that way where the tyrants are a minority even within the gay community. If there are no "opt out" laws for religious groups, it wouldn't matter if they don't represent the gay community at large. It takes just one radical to file a lawsuit.
Well for one thing it is a characteristic of populations that the larger it gets the more likely you are going to have that 1 radical. Defining the population helps everyone know if some outspoken person (who is willing to go further than words) actually expresses the opinion of the total population.
As for how that help would look, that is a decision for wiser people than me.
I ask again. Should a religious group have legally have the option to refuse to marry a gay couple?
The "opinion of the population" has been that there is a separation of church and state. And what you are implying is that equal rights ought to be put to a popularity vote. This has wrongly been done in CA and elsewhere. Do you really think that the general population is enlightened? Unconstitutionality is recognized, and laws are changed.
Only wne religious groups become fully disentangled from the sphere of public policy should have the right to refuse whatever they want to refuse.
In one way now you are redefining my statements. When I referred to a "population" I was speaking in the statistical sense. In this case the population I talked about is "those who actively practice the homosexual lifestyle." The larger this group gets, the more likely you'll have a radical in your midst.
You seem intent on finding radicals in the midst. Why "radicals?" And a radical what, exactly?
Can you define a "homosexual lifestyle?" Do you think that homosexuality is a lifestyle in a different way that heterosexuality is a lifestyle? Because either both are or neither are.
I am not intent on finding them in the way you seem to imply. I simply believe that the larger a group gets, there is going to be someone who decides to take more extreme action. I just see it as a fact of society at large.
sulkow82, What is this concern about "radicals" within the homosexual communty all about? What are you worried such "radicals" will do? Would you define Harvey Milk as a "radical". Barney Frank? What about ZJemptv? Is speaking out againt the catholic church for condemning and shunning gays radical? Face it, it's about human rights, and no church should have the right to take part in the making of laws and public policies regarding human rights. If speaking out against that is radical, so be it.
I'm not fuly aware of Mr. Milk, so I can't specifically say one way or the other.
One way to describe a radical is that is the person who is willing to go to extremes. He is willing to "take the situation into his own hands" even if it makes the people he is supposed helping look bad.
Barney Frank didn't have an agenda attached to a group, so technically no, but he was a bit of a nut.
Actually, speaking out is only radical if the person is willing to knowingly lie about the facts.
sulkow82, I don't think it has anything to do with how large a groups gets. I think it has everything to do with how bold a group gets, how smart a group gets, and finally, how correct the group actually is. It's clear that homosexuals should have equal rights because the tide has been turning in their favor since the 1960s. It's clear that a harmful group like NAMBLA should be barred from practicing because they abuse children.
A homosexual lifestyle is one where someone engages in homosexual behavior as their "personal normal" for sexual activity.
Also a radical might choose to request to get married in a church knowing that they would be denied. The real goal of the couple is so they could file a discrimination lawsuit. Topics like this which are emotionally charged increase the chances of a subgroup being willing to go to such extremes.
Okay, fine. 1) Radical, then, would be a good thing. Radical behavior is what it seems finally wins right by winning the attention of the policy makers, DESPITE popular opinion, and DESPITE the population size. (I hate using caps).
2) Would you then agree that a heterosexual lifestyle is one where someone engages in heterosexual behavior as their "personal normal" for sexual activity? Despite the population differences, do you still think that one is more "normal" than the other?
Funny, sulkow82, but "radical" does not by definition include anything about slander, so I think you're projecting. Radical reformers have shaped the country. The signers of the constitution were radical. The drag queens at Stonewall were radical, and Harvey Milk was radical.
I don't deserve to have the answers to any other questions? Excuse me, but who the fuck are you?
sulkow82, So apparently radicalism is always a bad thing. Tell that to Samuel Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martin Luther King, to name just a few. Hey, wasn't even Jesus, technically, a radical?
OTOH, are you saying that members of a religious group is not permitted to lobby its own members? I believe religious groups can and have the right to lobby its own members on how to vote as individuals.
In one way I think my last post may have been a bit vague. Let me be more clear by example. I am a member of a group within the Catholic Church (Secular Franciscans). I believe that I have the right to go to other Catholics (outside the Franciscans) and tell them about a bill and lobby them to vote one way or another.
I suppose you can do this on a personal level, as long as you're not a paid clergy person representing your church group, and as long as you don't approach these Catholics in a church setting. The legalities are beyond me, but I'd be very careful.
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes." —IRS
sulkow82, How can homosexuality be against natural law when they exist, not just in homo sapiens, but in just about all animal species? If they exist they are certainly part of nature. The majority of human sexual activity is for pleasure, not to make babies. To me, that is also quite natural. I was not aware that if same sex marriage were to be legalized in every state, that churches and it's clergy would be forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. Just another fear tactic.
This in a way gets into the nature/ nurture debate for homosexuality. There was a book titled "Brain Sex" several years back which argued the "nature" point of view. It actually claimed that a gland in the brain which controlled sexual activity was the correct size for the opposite gender. This only appeared in homosexuals who felt like they were "trapped in the wrong gender's body." Something would have to happen for this result to take place.
There is also homosexuality as a retreat from the trauma of sexual abuse (I've met someone who said straight out that was the situation).
Concerning the scare tactic issue, then this is a question for the author of this video. Does the legislation before the city council permit Churches to refuse to perform gay marriages?
If the proposed ordinance would mandate that Churches perform gay marriages despite Church regulations against it, then I would see it as unconstitutional.
Your desire to see homosexuality through a Catholic lens has led you to cherry-pick and either reinterpret or mine-quote.
Why?
Because there is mostly homosexuality as a natural state of being, occurring in people who led normal childhoods, who were not abused, and who do not feel trapped in the other gender's body.
Any argument coming from a transvestite is invalid. Stop your pseudo intelectual babbling and just ignore whatever the churches are doing since any argument based on religion is also invalid and of no importance.
yarpen800 1 month ago
@yarpen800 here's what i don't understand about you haters: you hate this guy so much, yet you're willing to come here and watch his videos just to troll in the comments. that's a lot of effort to put in for someone who supposedly is of no importance.
don't be a hating troll. when you do that, you look like a 32 year old fat loser living in his parent's basement with no friends and nothing better to do than watch youtube videos he doesn't like. it's very unbecoming.
MzCheshireKat 13 hours ago
this person is criticizing priests and nuns who have given up everything (money , sex, what else?) to help the poor.
now i am listening to this nobody of a person who i believe has not given up everything ( i don't think she has given up sex and money, not that she could get layed anyway) criticize priests and nuns for not being more selfless.
the world i live in is insane.
ned262626 3 months ago
The Catholic Church spreads like a commuter virus hidden in a really useful utility. They are great at raising volunteers through their sales pitch, but they infect your area.
calmreason 6 months ago
@calmreason They infect the poor and the uneducated, knowing that they can bully and ravage them with their religious dogma and indoctrination.
mscubana 6 months ago in playlist Religion
What was that thing you were saying about "What about the good things religion does?" This is all you have to say about those good things.
TheCeejReturns 7 months ago
Adam & Eve were made. They were opposite genders. Boy & girl. That is what god wants
MJacksonFakeDeath 7 months ago
LOL I'd rather fuck a guy than have some creepy old pedophiliac pop person "bless me" im pretty sure that water isn't water at all. its Holy Cum. -shudders- though im asexual, so i have no interest in relationships... but yeah. Religion is stupid. The Pope is stupid. The CHURCH and their followers are stupid. most of them can't even tell me what 9 squared is...
HarmanSoruco 8 months ago
It does not matter, what you think the church's point is on gay marriage, The church follows the Holy bible and will not accept gay marriage, God made Adam And Eve, Sex is for procreation. And there is no way you will see a gay couple getting married in a catholic church. And there is no way its going fund gay people instead there are many others in poverty that they can fund, why would they go to the people they disagree with the most, that's like saying we accept gay marriage.
ChaldeanDavid 9 months ago
@ChaldeanDavid "It does not matter, what you think the church's point is on gay marriage, The church follows the Holy bible and will not accept gay marriage"
Churches say a lot of stuff. But they evolve with society and change over time as well, even if they have to play catch-up.
ZJemptv 9 months ago
@ZJemptv Well the catholic church will not change the bible , just to suit this generations needs, it's god word, they can't just play with it and change it around for there own personal needs? This isn't a joke.
ChaldeanDavid 9 months ago
@ChaldeanDavid I'm not saying they have to change the bible... But have you heard the concept... love the sinner hate the sin?
GDOBSSOR 8 months ago
@GDOBSSOR Yes, Because Sin is what separates us from god, Jesus Christ's Sacrifice was for the sole purpose of freeing us from the consequences of sin, He covered all sins, now repentance from all sins is possible.
ChaldeanDavid 8 months ago
The Catholic church clothes more people, comes to the aid of more sick people and educates more people than any other group in the world. Within the church and throughout history there are people who have made bad decisions they have supported ill advised crusades, did not take action against priests who abused etc. Btw, less than 5000 died in the crusades and 2-4% of priests at the peak of the crisis were engaged on sexual misconduct. People in the church will fall short. But the church w
fishboise 9 months ago
@eclipsema the issue is not wether homosexuals should want to work there, it is the problem that this organisation is allowed to refuse them on basis of their sexual orientation, which is discrimination.
mdsatan 10 months ago
look ABORTION!!! has killed more ppl than any other so called "organization" if that is how you referr to the Catholic Church. and dont start saying that abortion hasnt because it has!!!
eagley2j 11 months ago
you are so wrong
if anything the catholic church has helped more people than your ignorant mind can
think of take mother teresa, despite her fame she helped the poorest of the poorest people
eagley2j 1 year ago
@eagley2j The Catholic church has also killed and tortured more people than any organization that has ever existed. The bad they've done has far outweighed the good. If the Catholic church had never existed we would have been spared some of the greatest atrocities, including the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, and the slave labor camps in Ireland known as the Magdalene Asylums. Not to mention one of the largest cover ups of child abuse, if not the largest.
PriscillaRelentless 1 year ago
@PriscillaRelentless abortion has killed more people!!!!!
duuuuuh
eagley2j 1 year ago
@eagley2j 1) only if you believe life begins at the moment of conception 2) even if that's so, how does that let the Catholic Church off the hook? Pointing to someone else's wrongdoings does not excuse one's own wrongdoings. Even if we accept that abortion is wrong, that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church has been one of the most destructive, abusive, murderous organization the world has ever known.
PriscillaRelentless 11 months ago
@eagley2j And no, abortion has not killed more people. The Catholic church has murdering people en masse for centuries. And there's all the non-fatal atrocities the CC has committed, like the slave labor camps, and allowing protecting pedophiles and allowing them to abuse children.
PriscillaRelentless 11 months ago
@ZJemptv
catholicsm is a good religion. We are all to give to the poor. God is great and may he lead you to the right path. "Give all your riches to the poor and you will recieve riches in heaven."- Jesus Christ. You will go to hell for not believeing in god. Unless you start believing in him and believe jesus is the saviour and son of god you will burnin the eternal fires of hell. Those who believe in god and are baptised will be saved. Right, now your are going to hell unless you repent.
2012DI 1 year ago
@2012DI "catholicsm is a good religion" Your church is responsible for more murders, tortures, and human rights abuses than any other organization that has ever existed.
PriscillaRelentless 1 year ago
Comming from a guy dressed as a girl......wow, now I've seen it all.
CheckTheBoxTwice 1 year ago
ROME WILL WIN
singapore7773 1 year ago
I am a Catholic who happens to be a homosexual. I am a Seminarian within the Reformed Catholic Church and my Church is open to ANY person! I however do not like your statements about GOD!
ljmuncy09 1 year ago
@ljmuncy09 THEN U R NOT A CATHOLIC
singapore7773 1 year ago
@singapore7773 EXCUSE YOU!! You are NOT God! so SHut up!
ljmuncy09 11 months ago
@ljmuncy09 ROME WILL STILL WIN.
singapore7773 11 months ago
HERE IS SOME LOGIC FOR YOU, U UGLY!!!!!
SeanstaThaMonsta 1 year ago
@SeanstaThaMonsta
... what?
pimpsonparade 1 year ago
@pimpsonparade HE UGLY
SeanstaThaMonsta 1 year ago
Well said!
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
I am a bit confused why many comments here are blaming gay people for forcing the charities to close. I guess that is what the Catholic church wanted, but I thought it was to trasparent for people not to notice. You can not blame gay people for this because they have not done anything to actualy close the charities, or even asked for them to be closed. What are they expected to do, not exist? I guess that would make the Catholic church happy at least.
Jesses001 1 year ago
@Jesses001 the catholic church will not change for no one. Not Henry the 8th, not Bill Clinton, no one
singapore7773 1 year ago
I love you so hard. I MEAN---you make me so much---I MEAN---(stutter)
Great video, as usual: I'm jealous.
ChurchOfKali66619 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
believe what you want to believe that is your right.
Flixstix 1 year ago
I can't tell if this is a weird dude or an ugly chick...
anthonywaynepalmer 1 year ago
@anthonywaynepalmer same here.
Flixstix 1 year ago
Say it little Brother!
lowincomeresources 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"gay marriages" are already legal in the U.S. They're called "civil unions". So what is the big deal? This is all about "gays" attempting to validate or legitimize their homosexual behavior as "normal". The terms "Marriage" and "matrimony" area religious-based ceremonial terms meaning "the uniting together of a male and female". Hey why stop there? Maybe homosexuals would also like to redefine the terms "Christian", "religious", "Holy", and "salvation" to meet their own personal needs as well.
CLumz100 1 year ago
Cut you hair and act like a man.
villian714 1 year ago
Let me play the smallest violin for you while i play back you nagging.
villian714 1 year ago
Yes, there are GODS exist. They are in religion people's long term memory brain cells.
bentusitheunbound 1 year ago
man or woman? which are U? gay man, or lezbo? just curious. i have nothing against either.
IllIIllIIIlIIIlI 1 year ago
True dat. True dat.
squigoo 1 year ago
IT was a mistake to fund thes etyppes of insitutions to begin with. Not just for the social services but also for construction of the churches, and all the tax breaks they get from being a bonafide religeon. I share part of this blame bcoz I very ignorantly donated money to many christian organisations bcoz I either didnt no, or I didnt discriminate but now that tey wont return the favour Ill think twice. Tax payers at least should be allowed to choose not to fund these institutions
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
watching this makes me soooooo confused. Mah brain is spining with the phrase Whisky Tango Foxtrot over & over!!
hwoods01 1 year ago
Why should the Catholic Church support a lifestyle that is an abomination according to the Holy Scriptures, the Word of the Living God? In point of fact, gay people do not have a problem with any religion as such, or its followers, they have a problem with God.
victoriaReg29 1 year ago
There is no "God" in actuality, just a concept called God that certain religions promote. We have a problem with that homophobic concept which churches try to promote. It's an important distinction to make - we don't have a problem with something that doesn't actually exist, only with what these churches are doing: making life difficult for people in the name of a lie.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
neither science, nor anything else can prove or disprove the existance of a diety. Labeling any religion "a lie" is incorrect.
fshjshshhs 1 year ago
Comment removed
fshjshshhs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZJemptv
neither science, nor anything else can prove or disprove the existance of a diety. Labeling any religion "a lie" is incorrect.
fshjshshhs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZJemptv
neither science, nor anything else can prove or disprove the existance of a diety. Labeling any religion "a lie" is incorrect.
fshjshshhs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZJemptv
neither science, nor anything else can prove or disprove the existance of a diety. Labeling any religion "a lie" is incorrect.
fshjshshhs 1 year ago
@victoriaReg29 Well, they do cover up pedos. Seem pretty suportive of a real abomination to me.
Symos 1 year ago
@victoriaReg29 nr1, we are not asking the Pope to star in a Amsterdam gay-club, just for a organization in America to obey American laws, and discrimination is against the law.
There are many different religions out there, and as far as I can tell few have as little credentials as Catholicism. I and many others with me could not care less what you have been told your God thinks of us.
mdsatan 10 months ago
@victoriaReg29 I agree with you
MJacksonFakeDeath 7 months ago
Question: If any adoption agency refuses to adopt for any following reason 1) Prospective parent(s) live where there is no heat or water 2) Non-traditional commune (compound marriage, sex with under age. So would refusal to adopt to either of these constitute discrimination? How is discrimination defined? I can't accept your use of the term discrimination.
YentaY0 1 year ago
The Catholic Church uses its charity work as a shield against its repulsive history and current actions. The charities are ALWAYS cited in its defense "but, we help the poor!"
BillKiernan 1 year ago
I dont like defending the Catholic church but to be fair, I think its their right to refuse to support any lifestyle that according to the Bible is said to be an "abomination". However the Catholic institution should really humble itself due to the recent relevation of the horrific,criminal behavior that it has been seemingly condoning and covering up for so many years. They should really be more understanding.
aloquicious 1 year ago
lol. Nice to see this vid is just another sacrificing integrity on the alter of bias.
gellymatos 1 year ago
sex in sin
3Michael82 1 year ago
You are using legal means to attack the charity organizations of the Church. Your aim is to make them comply with your requirements, or put them out of business. They cannot comply and adhere to their moral obligations at the same time. Thus you are creating an impossible situation for the Church. That is a sin against the Holy Spirit. This will have grave spiritual consequences, and I remind you, you will not bring down the Church as it is not of human origin.
YentaY0 1 year ago
Marriage is a Divinely established institution. The Catholics cannot (are not permitted to) redefine that institution. Perhaps you are permitted? You are the one who wants to put Church charities out of business. That is a very foolish thing. There is a terrible spiritual price to pay for your kind lie. What you are doing is sinning against the Holy Spirit, remember that one?
YentaY0 1 year ago
The church's charities chose to put themselves out of business by insisting on adhering to their own self-imposed restrictions. Blaming others for the church refusing to let go of its dogma is asinine.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv . Again you are saying the charities must close their doors if they don't validate homosexuals, The choice is being forced upon them. I don't "blame" anyone for the integrity of the teaching of the Church, but I do blame the gay rights groups for pushing to make access to funding contingent on helping to advance their goals.
OftenCommunicant 1 year ago
Prohibiting discrimination by an organization that makes use of public funds is a goal worthy of advancement. The public doesn't need to pay for discrimination and in this regard, gay rights groups are clearly in the right. They don't have to "validate" anyone, just simply not discriminate against them. The church had a choice. They chose to prioritize discrimination over helping people. They could have chosen otherwise, and it's nobody's fault but their own that they refused to.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv circular reasoning is not logical. Ideology is a poor substitute for reason and should never be confused with it.
sahale93 1 year ago
@YentaY0 "What you are doing is sinning against the Holy Spirit, remember that one?" spare us. the catholic church has a laundry list of crimes against humanity stretching back into ancient antiquity, no one cares about your dying church that is devoid of any credibility.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
The Church isn't against any "minority" It's against the Sin by which homosexuals define themselves.
OftenCommunicant 1 year ago
@OftenCommunicant Seperation of church and state, religious arguments are not of any influence in a secular government.
I don't know why you have quotation marks around minority, seeing as homosexuals are, in fact a minority.
mdsatan 10 months ago
It is difficult for some people to understand that the Church actually believes all that stuff it teaches about heaven and hell and sin. For the Church to support the homosexuals then sure, they would be providing for their physical needs but putting their souls in jeopardy by confirming them in their sin. The Church does treat all people equally. but you are advocating the position that if the homosexuals can't have it no one can. thats a twisted sort of "equality" don't you think?
OftenCommunicant 1 year ago
No, eliminating preferential treatment for a majority based on the misguided belief that they are in some way inherently superior to a minority is not "a twisted sort of "equality"", it's a completely valid and acceptable way of achieving equality -- by removing inequality.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
This is why the government and the church should remain separate. Unfortunately with nonreligious charity organizations you tend to get a lot...and i mean a lot of corruption(Chicago tried and it got the CHA). An unfortunate choice no?
I do agree that they should discriminate on their own time but i don't think a law should be able to tell an organization whom they can and can not fire or give benefits to.
wmwoods7 1 year ago
The catholic church has a new slogan: "Leave no child's behind". I'll admit it, I stole that from Christopher Hitchens.
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 1 year ago 2
The Catholic Church is the most evil organization in history, but why are you portraying yourself as a woman.
vivian6150 1 year ago
The Catholic Church is a pox upon humanity.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
NOW Srtriaght people will experience what it's like to be deprived of spousal benefits fromh the catholic church by imposing denial of benefits by imposing it on their own straight catholic couples. This is waht it's like to be oppresed by the catholic church.
FBoobieTubie 1 year ago
Im glad my church has standards and does not compromise to pacify faggot queers.
RobotMonster464 1 year ago
NOW Srtriaght people will experience what it's like to be deprived of spousal benefits by the catholic church by imposing denial of benefits- by imposing it on their own straight catholic couples. This is waht it's like to be oppresed by the catholic church. It's true they don't intend to pacify faggots like myself but it teaches straight couples what it is like to experience benefits denial in the hands of the church YOU CALL YOUR OWN. LUV YA!
FBoobieTubie 1 year ago
Bigotry, prejudice and discrimination. Those are some great 'standards'.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
tetsubo57...umm...do you know what hypocrisy is ?? You call the church a pox ( whatever that means ) upon humanity, then you say "bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, some great "satandards'...dude, you got hypocrisy down to a "T"...I`d say you`re a bigot as well, moron.
protocol63 1 year ago
@protocol63 A pox is a disease. The Church is a political entity. One step removed from an organized crime syndicate. I have no issue with individual Christians. But the Church itself is a disease upon the human species.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
"I do not believe the church discriminates against anyone"
The church openly stated their intention to discontinue services if they weren't allowed to discriminate.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv Correction, a diocese did. One diocese doesn't represent the whole church.
gellymatos 1 year ago
@ZJemptv Oh, shoot. Never mind. I didn't realize that this was a month ago. My bad.
gellymatos 1 year ago
@ZJemptv The Church can in no way recognize as valid something contrary to its own teaching like the notion of homosexual "marriage". Governments should recognize this fact, and exempt the Church and her affiliate institutions from any Law that would force her into such a dilemma. Are Gay rights more important to society than the charitable work done by these institutions? Even homosexuals need a helping hand from time to time.
OftenCommunicant 1 year ago
"Are Gay rights more important to society than the charitable work done by these institutions?"
That's for the church to decide -- is denigrating gay people more important to them than helping society? Apparently it is.
Why should any organization be exempted from following a law "contrary to its own teaching"? I'm not just talking about churches. If a church doesn't have to follow the law because they don't want to, then why does anyone have to follow the law? What makes a church special?
ZJemptv 1 year ago
And by the way: "Are Gay rights more important to society than the charitable work done by these institutions?" The answer is yes. The recognition of equal rights for all citizens is indeed more important than these social services. It would be a stunning act of cowardice to effectively tell a segment of the population, "You can't have the same rights as everyone else because this one church's charity work is more important than your equality under the law." How disgusting that is.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv So to be clear, it is you, not the Church that advocates sacrificing the well-being of the poor to advance an agenda.
OftenCommunicant 1 year ago
"So to be clear, it is you, not the Church that advocates sacrificing the well-being of the poor to advance an agenda."
No, that's the church's decision. They're the ones who've made their charity contingent upon being allowed to exercise their bigotry. If it were up to me, I would never let prejudice stand in the way of social services. The Catholics have run into a roadblock of their own construction. It's completely unnecessary and there's no need for it, but they can't let it go.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
If the church is operating as an organization that receives public funding, why should they be allowed to use that funding to discriminate? If they want to discriminate, they can do it privately and on their own dime. But don't expect the public to pay for discrimination. It is the church that must refrain from forcing its agenda upon the rest of us.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
I don't think you blinked in this one. I admire your stamina.
NosLycn 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Christ has returned. I AM.
IAMJESUSmovie 1 year ago
Homosexuality is detrimental both on a personal level and on a societal level, The Catholic Church refuses to endorse homosexuality simply because they love people and try to save them from harming themselves. We believe that putting an end to Homosexuality is a form of Charity, therefore I imagine the belief of the diocese of D.C. was that if Catholic Charities were forced to endorse/hire homosexuals they would cease being charitable institutions anyways, so they used their influence asleverag
TheBradBranch 2 years ago
Nobody needs to be "saved" from being attracted to the same sex. We're not interested. Just like how you don't need to be "saved" from being attracted to opposite sex. It's disturbing to hear you talking about "putting an end to heterosexuality", whatever that entails. How would you like it if people wanted to "put an end to heterosexuality"?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
First off I don't want you thinking I'm some Holy-Roller, gay hater, I'm not. But it doesn't take a Catholic Theologian to realize that Homosexuality is detrimental on a societal level, and on a personal level, Homosexuals have much lower life expectancies then heterosexuals, and most psychologists agree that homosexuals are on average unhappier than heterosexuals
TheBradBranch 2 years ago
"detrimental on a societal level"? That's kind of like saying "it would be better for society if you were heterosexual instead". Why?
I don't know what kind of argument you think you're making by citing disparities (assuming you're not just making that up) in life expectancy or personal happiness. Such disparities exist between races, genders, etc. but you wouldn't use that to claim a certain race is "detrimental". Yet you accuse gay people of just that. Why is that okay?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
The foundation blocks for society are families, the Catholic Church upholds the dignity of the Family and teaches that God set in place a standard for families to try to live by. These standards include a father and a mother who live chastley, Love God and follow his commandments. The family is the where individuals are formed and the Church teaches that these are the best tools for forming a moraly intact individual to enter into society. CONTINUED -
TheBradBranch 1 year ago
- CONTINUED that being said it is entirely possible for good and moral people to come out of situations unlike the familes i just described, just as it is possible for a plant to grow in conditions that aren't perfect, but as a farmer toils to make the conditions ideal for plants, so the RCC toils to make conditions ideal for raising individuals, this is why the Church has such strong teachings on abuse, infidelity, divorce, homosexuality, etc.
TheBradBranch 1 year ago
There are many families --loving, caring families -- that aren't Catholic, Christian or even religious. Isn't it kind of demeaning to imply that they are, in certain ways, inadequate to Catholic families? And I hope you can understand why abuse, infidelity and divorce are entirely different from homosexuality. That makes about as much sense as classifying heterosexuality with abuse, infidelity and divorce. Being compared to domestic abuse simply for loving another person is pretty insulting.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
I totally agree that there are many loving, caring families that aren't religious - My family isn't; my parents are divorced, I have an agnostic dad, baptist step mom, agnostic step dad and my mom is one of those only Catholic by name people, and my family is definitely loving and caring - but not ideal. The center of our discussion, I think comes down to this, I believe in a God who became man, and began a Church through which he conveys the meaning of life and how to live ideally, CONTINUED
TheBradBranch 1 year ago
CONT- and I assume that you don't from the way you've been arguing, is this true? Would you agree that this is the center of our discussion?
as to the demeaning other families, the purpose of the Catholic Church's teachings on family is not to insult others or be like "I'm better than you!" The Church has the best of each individual and family in mind, we wish for all families to be Christ centered, why? b/c we believe its in the best interest of each family, CONT -
TheBradBranch 1 year ago
That being said, the best way to convince others to raise their families following Catholic teachings is not through seminars or even discussion it's through the living example of a devout Catholic Family. - A family of saints if u will, I don't know if you've met a family like this, but i have, a family of devout Catholics from the youngest to the oldest, and their happiness, functionality, success, etc is a testimony to the Catholic Faith that can only be experienced not adequately described.
TheBradBranch 1 year ago
One more thing (Sorry for my many long comments but I like having discussions with you, your pretty sincere honest and logical, and even polite - rare combination of traits on youtube!) I wasn't meaning to compare homosexuality with domestic abuse as in saying a homosexual is just as bad of a person as someone who beats their kids, I was just saying they all fall under the RCC's social teachings on the Family,
TheBradBranch 1 year ago
The Catholic Chuch will never die - we have Christ (God Himself)'s word on that - but those that reject the Church will die - witness the demographic decline of all western nations!! Never mind!
Only a CATHOLIC STATE - foundational state of the west - will resist your demographic wipeout and Islamisation at the hands of idiot secular governance!! You get more than you bargained for with a secular state - beware their plans for you!!
amaqula 2 years ago
Crazier, more dogmatic words were never spoken. You outdid even Jesus, the megalomaniacal monster himself. Congrats.
rusH1023 2 years ago
Dont take this the wrong way but are you a guy or girl?
AtomicMonster454 2 years ago 2
LOL I was thinking the same thing I can't tell.
79743618 2 years ago
hahahahahahaha
i don't find this funny at all. this is bullshit
musicluver85 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Catholic Church have sex with kids,
MinishSword 2 years ago
the catholic church is a cult - they have one agenda ... the catholic church & world domination - where's the Pope? is he going to Haiti to help? is the Vatican pledging millions of dollars in aid for the earthquake victims? didn't think so -
harfbuttknuckles 2 years ago
Ah, yeah. They took up a collection at all parishes across the world to send to Haiti. I know, because I gave at Mass. In fact, they probably collected more to help Haiti than any other single organization in the world so you maybe you should do your homework before you start spouting off nonsense.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
First of all the statement by the Washington D.C. Diocese only stated was is obvious: the new legislation will most likely curtail its ability to work in the society. Since most of its work is with the poor, the that is part of the work that will suffer. It is not a choice. It is an observation.
Second: here is the question: What is marriage? It is an important institution, so it is an important question. We hear talk about the law, but not about the thing itself.
vnagle6 2 years ago
patfealy, Too bad your parents didn't do that before they conceived you.
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
your hung up on sex. try praying or singing a holy song. it will drive out lust from your loins.
patfealy 2 years ago
Examining sulkow's seemingly final and puerile comment to me, I can only conclude that he needed an out, while attempting to convince himself that he's nicely tidied up his trail of sloppy implications and obvious subtext. But I think he knows better.
infideluxe 2 years ago 2
I was thinking more or less the same thing. I like how when he apparently ran out of sensible responses, he told you that you don't "deserve" any more answers to your questions, as if doling out punishment to a misbehaving child. You must be so upset. I think you hit the nail on the head a day or so ago. He just doesn't like homosexuals.
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
Yeah, Timothy, I think he doesn't. It would be more honest and respectable if people just came out and said it, whether or not they know the reason, rather than try to justify it through contortions of logic.
I'm being punished - : )
lol
infideluxe 2 years ago
So, sulkow83, why don't you just come out and say it, rather than pretending to be intellectual, compassionate, or scientific about it? Say it: you don't like homosexuals.
infideluxe 2 years ago
I have expressed my opinion accurately to what I believe.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulko82 has expressed his opinion accurately to what he believes. However, he is most likely unwilling to question or constructively criticize what he believes. Therefore, his opinion is only as good what he's been told to think. And that's not very good at all.
There's a great video on youtube by qualiasoup about critical thinking. Look it up.
infideluxe 2 years ago
I don't like the behavior. I have nothing against the person. By your question, that is a form of trying to define my position when you don't have enough information.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82 -
I don't buy your line of reasoning for a moment. If it was as simple as not liking the behavior, trying to justify an "unnaturalness" would not be on your agenda. What you seem to want to say is, "hate the sin, love the sinner." I attempt to define your position because you can't seem to, and because you seem as ultimately transparent as every other Christian I've seen attempting to wiggle out of an argument with poor logic. Homosexuals are not harming you, but you would limit them.
infideluxe 2 years ago
I have defined my position to the point where you can have an opinion on it. So you contradicted yourself by saying that I can't define it.
Actually, on the limiting of homosexuals, what I want is irrelevant if the law is not written for religious opt out because of the unconstitutionality of it.
Let me ask this... do you want a religious opt out clause in the law?
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82,
What is your position on equal rights for gay people? Please state it succinctly, and tell me why you think what you think.
Thank you.
infideluxe 2 years ago
BTW: I don't understand how you have the right to say what is on my agenda for this issue?
sulkow82 2 years ago
This is great debating on infi's part. Still no addressing the question from the Christian who is so sure of him/herself.
rusH1023 2 years ago
Is that...a Keyboard Cat Shirt ZJ has?
aheurung 2 years ago
It is!
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Sooo much time and effort wasted arguing about something as ridiculous and stupid as religion. Actually, it's kind of fun. Ultimately, it's an argument atheists cannot lose.
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
They do not teach gays to hate being gay. Many gays usually seek help because their conscience is bothering them. Their conscience is convicting them of sin and they are turning away. Sorry dude but your bigotry of the Church clearly shows. Until you get rid of yor hate and listen to your conscience you will never know.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
No, your conscience or the conscience of others is not universal. My conscience, and the conscience of many others, finds nothing objectionable or troubling about being gay. When you say "get rid of yor hate and listen to your conscience", you really mean "don't listen to your conscience, listen to mine, which declares you to be a defective human being -- and how dare you hate me for that!"
This is why people see your faith as being utterly ridiculous.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
I personally believe that homosexuality is against natural law. Natural law predates all nations, religious organizations, political views etc. It is the belief that nature itself tells us what the natural order is. Homosexuality can't create new life which is part of the purpose of sexual activity.
Besides, such an ordinance is a violation of separation of church and state. The govt. can't tell the Church how to conduct itself.
sulkow82 2 years ago
Nature doesn't tell us anything; nature simply is. A description of the natural world does not equate to prescriptive morality. Procreation is not always the purpose of sexual activity. If you're going to rely on descriptions of nature, then people have sex for pleasure -- not procreation -- all the time. So do other species. They even have gay sex, too. So, is nature "against natural law"? No -- there is no natural law.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
What tells me a lot is the fact that women's organs are designed to receive men's organs. Also what percentage of the population are gay or bi?
Could you address my separation of Church and State comment.
sulkow82 2 years ago
I forgot to say in my last post. Yes, people have sex for may reasons which are not for pro-creation. This is cool. It is the denial that procreation is one of the reasons for sex which is why I made my "natural law" comment.
sulkow82 2 years ago
@sulkow82
Who denied that procreation is one of the reasons for sex? And what has that to do with your so-called natural law?
infideluxe 2 years ago
To me the very fact homosexual activity can't bring about a pregnancy suggests that procreation is not the purpose for that couples activity.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82
And yet homosexuals "get pregnant" all the time, and so homosexuals do have children. They have children biologically, and they adopt, too.
But more to the point, your Catholic lens is the only thing maintaining that procreation need be the purpose for sexual activity. Lust and love are human drives and are just as valid a reason for sex, if not more so, than procreation on an overpopulated planet.
infideluxe 2 years ago
@sulkow82
Woman's organs are not "designed." And there is no "natural law," as ZJ said. Your Catholic lens is precluding reality, and you claim on your page to see things Catholically. Try thinking for yourself.
infideluxe 2 years ago
I intended the word "designed" as meaning the same definition as "structured."
Are you saying that the only people who think for themselves are those who agree with you on this issue?
sulkow82 2 years ago
In that case, mouths are "structured" to receive both men's and women's organs, anuses are structured to receive men's organs and everyone's digits (as are women's organs and mouths and nostrils). Hmm...methinks you actually did imply something other than "structured" seeing as you began your post with: What tells me a lot is . . . .
What I'm saying is, asking yourself why you think what you think, and try employing critical thinking. See qualiasoup's video on critical thinking.
infideluxe 2 years ago
Also, you say I should "think for myself." I asked the question of what percentage of the population is gay or bi. This data was not supplied. How can I think for myself if I am not given all of the relevant data.
Also, asking for such data cannot be seen as "through a Catholic lens."
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82 -
I have seen the percentage at anywhere between 1% and 20% of the population. I imagine a consensus would be difficult due to the sexuality spectrum, closet cases, cultural mandates, etc.
What are you getting at with this question? I certainly hope this is not going in the direction I think it is.
infideluxe 2 years ago
My point here is if the gay community can't even define itself (ie. its population), then how can the general community assist it?
Also, if you thought I was heading to the "tyranny of the few" argument, it could head that way where the tyrants are a minority even within the gay community. If there are no "opt out" laws for religious groups, it wouldn't matter if they don't represent the gay community at large. It takes just one radical to file a lawsuit.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulko82 - How should defining the population size of the gay community affect anything? Does "assistance" mean equal rights and nondiscrimination?
infideluxe 2 years ago
Well for one thing it is a characteristic of populations that the larger it gets the more likely you are going to have that 1 radical. Defining the population helps everyone know if some outspoken person (who is willing to go further than words) actually expresses the opinion of the total population.
As for how that help would look, that is a decision for wiser people than me.
I ask again. Should a religious group have legally have the option to refuse to marry a gay couple?
sulkow82 2 years ago
The "opinion of the population" has been that there is a separation of church and state. And what you are implying is that equal rights ought to be put to a popularity vote. This has wrongly been done in CA and elsewhere. Do you really think that the general population is enlightened? Unconstitutionality is recognized, and laws are changed.
Only wne religious groups become fully disentangled from the sphere of public policy should have the right to refuse whatever they want to refuse.
infideluxe 2 years ago
In one way now you are redefining my statements. When I referred to a "population" I was speaking in the statistical sense. In this case the population I talked about is "those who actively practice the homosexual lifestyle." The larger this group gets, the more likely you'll have a radical in your midst.
sulkow82 2 years ago
You seem intent on finding radicals in the midst. Why "radicals?" And a radical what, exactly?
Can you define a "homosexual lifestyle?" Do you think that homosexuality is a lifestyle in a different way that heterosexuality is a lifestyle? Because either both are or neither are.
infideluxe 2 years ago
I am not intent on finding them in the way you seem to imply. I simply believe that the larger a group gets, there is going to be someone who decides to take more extreme action. I just see it as a fact of society at large.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82, What is this concern about "radicals" within the homosexual communty all about? What are you worried such "radicals" will do? Would you define Harvey Milk as a "radical". Barney Frank? What about ZJemptv? Is speaking out againt the catholic church for condemning and shunning gays radical? Face it, it's about human rights, and no church should have the right to take part in the making of laws and public policies regarding human rights. If speaking out against that is radical, so be it.
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
I'm not fuly aware of Mr. Milk, so I can't specifically say one way or the other.
One way to describe a radical is that is the person who is willing to go to extremes. He is willing to "take the situation into his own hands" even if it makes the people he is supposed helping look bad.
Barney Frank didn't have an agenda attached to a group, so technically no, but he was a bit of a nut.
Actually, speaking out is only radical if the person is willing to knowingly lie about the facts.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82, I don't think it has anything to do with how large a groups gets. I think it has everything to do with how bold a group gets, how smart a group gets, and finally, how correct the group actually is. It's clear that homosexuals should have equal rights because the tide has been turning in their favor since the 1960s. It's clear that a harmful group like NAMBLA should be barred from practicing because they abuse children.
infideluxe 2 years ago
A homosexual lifestyle is one where someone engages in homosexual behavior as their "personal normal" for sexual activity.
Also a radical might choose to request to get married in a church knowing that they would be denied. The real goal of the couple is so they could file a discrimination lawsuit. Topics like this which are emotionally charged increase the chances of a subgroup being willing to go to such extremes.
sulkow82 2 years ago
sulkow82 -
Okay, fine. 1) Radical, then, would be a good thing. Radical behavior is what it seems finally wins right by winning the attention of the policy makers, DESPITE popular opinion, and DESPITE the population size. (I hate using caps).
2) Would you then agree that a heterosexual lifestyle is one where someone engages in heterosexual behavior as their "personal normal" for sexual activity? Despite the population differences, do you still think that one is more "normal" than the other?
infideluxe 2 years ago
Since you consider being radical as a good thing. Then you don't deserve to have the answers to any other questions.
sulkow82 2 years ago
Funny, sulkow82, but "radical" does not by definition include anything about slander, so I think you're projecting. Radical reformers have shaped the country. The signers of the constitution were radical. The drag queens at Stonewall were radical, and Harvey Milk was radical.
I don't deserve to have the answers to any other questions? Excuse me, but who the fuck are you?
infideluxe 2 years ago
sulkow82, So apparently radicalism is always a bad thing. Tell that to Samuel Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martin Luther King, to name just a few. Hey, wasn't even Jesus, technically, a radical?
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
Slander (to an individual or a group) is a radical action.
sulkow82 2 years ago
But a radical action does not have be slanderous.
infideluxe 2 years ago
OTOH, are you saying that members of a religious group is not permitted to lobby its own members? I believe religious groups can and have the right to lobby its own members on how to vote as individuals.
sulkow82 2 years ago
In one way I think my last post may have been a bit vague. Let me be more clear by example. I am a member of a group within the Catholic Church (Secular Franciscans). I believe that I have the right to go to other Catholics (outside the Franciscans) and tell them about a bill and lobby them to vote one way or another.
sulkow82 2 years ago
I suppose you can do this on a personal level, as long as you're not a paid clergy person representing your church group, and as long as you don't approach these Catholics in a church setting. The legalities are beyond me, but I'd be very careful.
infideluxe 2 years ago
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes." —IRS
infideluxe 2 years ago
sulkow82, How can homosexuality be against natural law when they exist, not just in homo sapiens, but in just about all animal species? If they exist they are certainly part of nature. The majority of human sexual activity is for pleasure, not to make babies. To me, that is also quite natural. I was not aware that if same sex marriage were to be legalized in every state, that churches and it's clergy would be forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. Just another fear tactic.
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
This in a way gets into the nature/ nurture debate for homosexuality. There was a book titled "Brain Sex" several years back which argued the "nature" point of view. It actually claimed that a gland in the brain which controlled sexual activity was the correct size for the opposite gender. This only appeared in homosexuals who felt like they were "trapped in the wrong gender's body." Something would have to happen for this result to take place.
sulkow82 2 years ago
There is also homosexuality as a retreat from the trauma of sexual abuse (I've met someone who said straight out that was the situation).
Concerning the scare tactic issue, then this is a question for the author of this video. Does the legislation before the city council permit Churches to refuse to perform gay marriages?
If the proposed ordinance would mandate that Churches perform gay marriages despite Church regulations against it, then I would see it as unconstitutional.
sulkow82 2 years ago
@sulkow82
Your desire to see homosexuality through a Catholic lens has led you to cherry-pick and either reinterpret or mine-quote.
Why?
Because there is mostly homosexuality as a natural state of being, occurring in people who led normal childhoods, who were not abused, and who do not feel trapped in the other gender's body.
infideluxe 2 years ago
The reason that I expressed used those two examples are because those were the only ones expressed to me both inside and outside the Catholic Church.
sulkow82 2 years ago