I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
30 comments:
LGBTs seem to have gained the upper hand on the traditional values people. It's as if the latter's God-given rights to put down the former has been taken away from them by human institutions. All the latter can do is cry persecution.
The truth isn't democratic, and this shows where society is going.
When being heterosexual becomes illegal, it will be too late to cry persecution.
Note, however, that I didn't say the bigotry wasn't justified, at least in their minds. Once you accept subjective morality, anything is justifiable.
"I went from being that nice progressive liberal Catholic guy in favor of civil unions to that evil Catholic bigot who wants to limit gays and non-Catholic heterosexuals to civil unions."
You say that facetiously but I can see some truth to the way you are now. I think I would have liked you better in one of your past lives. The atheist one was probably you at your best and you just don't see it because you have drank the Kool-Aid.
The Atheist me was killed by atheists, just as the pro-gay me was killed by homosexuals. The old song "They will know we are Christians by our love" has a darker side few people ever run into- there is no dignity in committing suicide by sin, and tolerance is just another name for negligent indifference and hate.
"The old song "They will know we are Christians by our love" has a darker side few people ever run into."
I think people see that darker side all the time.
"..tolerance is just another name for negligent indifference and hate."
Wait a minute. Tolerance is not a good thing? You have a sick twisted attitude toward our modern world. Tolerance exudes love, not hate? What's the matter with you?
I have learned that "twisted attitude" from the original twisted attitude of tolerance. You can't help the world be a better place if you can't even name what is wrong with it.
Tolerance is hatred- of a very dark sort. Love is grabbing the man before he falls off the cliff; tolerance is saying that he must want to run off the cliff and thus we shouldn't interfere.
I get what you are saying. I'll still take tolerance over intolerance in most cases where there is no clear right and wrong.
Actually, monogomy reduces the chances of STD, and that is the purpose of taking wedding vows. So SSM will help prevent the spread of STDs. Promoting abstinence is not being realistic. People just don't take to it.
Yes, but given the tendency of men to cheat, and the fact that such people have already rejected any sort of sexual morality, what are the chances of such a union staying monogamous? Plus, given the state of civil marriage today with easy no-fault divorce, there is NOTHING LEFT in non-sacramental marriage (or even sacramental marriage- the annulment rate in the Catholic Church is 50%) that links it to lifelong monogamy at all.
Always bet on Original Sin- even if the fall never happened, the disobedience is universal. Vows are hard, cheating is easy; cowardice is rampant.
You are using the breaking of the marriage vows to say that marriage is not the proper mechanism for fidelity. But only as it applies to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals.
I'm going to give this a rest and focus on my work.
Modern marriage has nothing to do with fidelity at all.
Maybe not for heterosexuals. But why should their not honoring their vows affect homosexuals' right to give it a try?
Maybe because gay marriage, given the arguments presented, currently has NOTHING to do with vows or commitment, but only finances?
That is a very cynical view of marriage. Some marriages really are commitments to one another and not just financial arrangements.
Heterosexual marriage is. But I have yet to see an argument from the gay marriage side that has convinced me of anything other than the financial aspects (which, BTW, is why I'm for civil unions and a separation of Church and State on the issue of marriage- the financial side *IS* important and we need to be extending it to far more than just heterosexuals and gays; polygamous, polyamerist, incestous, beastiality, and pseudosexual relationships all deserve equal protection under the law when it comes to saving our culture resources by cohabitating; as a software engineer I even favor making such contracts able to be registered online with no other human beings involved than the people enacting the contract).
Of course, part of this comes from my experience with homosexuality- which has almost always been one partner having some level of control over the other, almost NEVER a truly equal partnership.
And then of course there is also the religious side, which says that if you love somebody of the same gender you *won't* force them into homosexual acts that could damage their bodies and do eternal damage to their souls.
"And then of course there is also the religious side, which says that if you love somebody of the same gender you *won't* force them into homosexual acts that could damage their bodies and do eternal damage to their souls."
Yes. That is the religious side. That is why religion isn't necessarily a good thing. Religiously induced homophobia is a major problem in this world.
So preventing the spread of AIDS is now homophobia. Good to know.
Not all people who point at STDs as a reason for two males to not have sex with one another are homophobes. But you just might be a homophobe if you use the risk of STDs as a reason to be against all gay rights across the board.
But I am not against same sex attracted people across the board- I am for civil unions. I am using the risk of STDs (and the decision to expose a partner to that risk) as proof that homosexuals do not love their partners.
If I was exposed to an STD, I would rather stay celibate than expose my wife. Homosexuals do not do that.
"I am using the risk of STDs (and the decision to expose a partner to that risk) as proof that homosexuals do not love their partners."
Only those exposing their partners to the risk. Not all homosexuals in general. You can't condemn all homosexual behavior just because a small percentage of it is risky.
According to the Center for Disease Control, it is not a small percentage. There is only ONE homosexual lifestyle that is free of this scourge: celibacy.
Being an active homosexual is as much a method of suicide as my own gluttony.
"There is only ONE homosexual lifestyle that is free of this scourge: celibacy."
You obviously are not an expert on human sexuality if you consider all homosexual activities to be risky. Some obviously are not.
Once again, not according to the data from the Center for Disease Control. They're not experts on human sexuality either- but they are most certainly experts on DISEASE CONTROL.
One cannot support active homosexuality if one loves the same sex attracted person.
"One cannot support active homosexuality if one loves the same sex attracted person."
Therein lies the problem. What they need is your acceptance of their lifestyle and you can't give it, supposedly out of concern for their own well being but really because your faith won't allow you to. So you look for other reasons not to. The risk of STDs comes to your rescue. You can go with that and not have to make excuses for the institutional homophobia of the Catholic Church.
" What they need is your acceptance of their lifestyle"
They need lies? I reject that completely.
Nobody needs "acceptance of their lifestyle", what they need is TRUTH. No more lies, please, Bill.
I rejected Catholic Church teaching on this subject until March 2004. It was only after that I began to learn the *scientific* truth around this subject- and for you to ignore it is irrational and showing hatred for homosexuals.
I'm the one who hates them? That's an interesting twist.
Bill, you are the one in this discussion promoting behavior that spreads STDs. You are the one in this discussion who "accepts their lifestyle" even when that lifestyle has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be damaging and destructive.
I am the one promoting inclusion (through Courage, Dignity, and civil unions) and telling the homosexuals the truth about the risks and dangers of their lifestyle instead of merely "accepting" it.
Acceptance of harm is promotion of harm.
"even when that lifestyle has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be damaging and destructive."
So you say. I am not aware of any studies supporting claims that gay marriage will be damaging and destructive to couples.
You are unaware of this?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/
or this?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
or this?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
Three studies showing homosexuality either *is* damaging and destructive (to the homosexuals themselves) or *can be* damaging and destructive (due to a severe lack of data on the subject thanks to the idea that 10% of America is homosexual being a lie, it is really more around 2%).
Post a Comment