Homosexual Unions are as evil as Hitler’s Nazism.

[Darat]

Sorry for the inflammatory title but I’ve just finished reading "Memories & Identity" - Personal reflections of Pope John Paul II. (The geezer in teh funny dress that just died.)

Just before the book was published several press stories came out decrying the following quote:


"...It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man..."

(See this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53105&highlight=ideology)


At the time I posted this:

Me

I'm not the biggest fan of the current Pope but I would like to know actually what he was saying as all I can conclude is a very artfully chosen quote from the Pope was used as the basis for the "sensational" headline.

The quote they used was:

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man,"

Now just from reading this it can be seen that it is not a complete statement, it is only part of a statement and the author of the CNN pieces has very carefully left the comma in it.

For all I know the whole quote might have been:

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man, even though the conclusion is that it isn't"


Sloppy reporting or (in my opinion) not so much sloppy reporting as "sexing" up an otherwise “boring� headline and story e.g. “Pope writes book detailing the philosophical underpinnings of his beliefs."



I've now read the book "Memory and Identity" and from context I can say that he is meaning that there is an argument that the EU by saying same sex unions are OK is another "ideology of evil".

The full quote is:

"I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognise homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

Just to put this in context the other “ideologies of evil� he identifies in his book are Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's communism, so homosexual unions are equivalent to the Holocaust and Stalin’s death camps.

Good to know where we stand.

Now his comments actually make me very angry and I find them disgusting, however is there anyway to avoid the conclusion I've come to?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Darat

Now his comments actually make me very angry and I find them disgusting, however is there anyway to avoid the conclusion I've come to?
Perhaps. Back in my Christian days, when I used to bat around theological ideas with my Christian friends, we long discussed what was meant by the scripture (I forget the exact wording or reference) that says to God, all sins are equal. Isn't it bloody obvious that rape, say, is worse than a white lie?

In human terms, we concluded, yes, of course it is. Because between humans, in a society, sins must be judged by the effects on society or its individual members. But in another, spiritual sense, all sin is simply the same thing: disobedience of God's will. Treating others nicely is not God's goal, though He does wish for you to do this. His goal is your complete obedience, submission to His will.

It could be viewed that the Pope is saying that the allowance of homosexual unions and the tolerance of homosexuality in general is creating an atmosphere more conducive to disobeying God's will, thus driving more people away from God's grace, much like the atmosphere in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. The sins committed under the current ideology may well be "better" in human terms, but they are still sins. The effects on humans may be lessened; the effects on souls are the same.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Darat
Just to put this in context the other “ideologies of evil� he identifies in his book are Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's communism, so homosexual unions are equivalent to the Holocaust and Stalin’s death camps.

Good to know where we stand.

Now his comments actually make me very angry and I find them disgusting, however is there anyway to avoid the conclusion I've come to? He didn't say homosexual unions are equivalent to the Holocaust. He inquired whether they might not be part of a much larger ideology that was evil. I could accurately say that the strong promotion of German traditional local culture was part of the ideology of National Socialism. So was the Holocaust. Does that mean the one is equivalent to the other?

[Scot C. Trypal]

oops, double post.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Eh, I’ll still try to be a bit upbeat.

It’s certainly a cruel thing for any person to write, and with the context you give it’s worse. But it is, for what it’s worth, unintentionally cruel--I do believe he means well--and, as I wrote in that thread, he leaves it as a question to ask oneself. He’s not really coming off as certain himself.

In fact, isn’t it a pretty big step to even acknowledge that gays have human rights, to be weighed against his other moral considerations? It’s as if he sees the moral case for equal human rights for gay people and their families, but it causes a contradiction with aspects of his faith and so it’s dismissed as “insidious and hidden�. The worse part has to be that he doesn’t seem to see gay people as part of “the family� or “man�, and that, no doubt, has and will hurt a lot of people in serious ways.

Still, I’d again say it’s better than some of the other thoughts on the topic put out under his direction (ceo_esq: if you're still interested I’ll post what I was thinking of here in detail. That thread died before I had a chance).

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
(ceo_esq: if you're still interested I’ll post what I was thinking of here in detail. That thread died before I had a chance). Sure Scot, cheers.

[Darat]

Chapter: “Ideologies of Evil�


At this point, we cannot remain silent regarding a tragic question that is more pressing today then ever. The fall of the regimes built on ideologies of evil put an end to the forms of extermination just mentioned in the countries concerned. However, there remains legal extermination of human being conceived but unborn. And in this case, that extermination is decreed by democratically elected parliaments, which invoke the notion of civil progress for society and for all humanity. Nor are other grave violations of God's law lacking. I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognise homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.


From this I interpret it as meaning homosexual unions being accepted as “alternative families� by a parliament should be examined because it may be a case of an insidious attempt to establish another ideology of evil.

Now this can be explained as “just asking the question�, but the very fact that question is being asked shows the assumption that not only is homosexuality wrong and evil in itself but also that evil (homosexual unions) could be the start of an ideology that is to be described in the same terms as Hilter’s Nazism. JP does not distinguish between these ideologies of evil and therefore I am sorry to say but he is saying that homosexual unions are part of the evil that resulted in the Holocaust.

It is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read from a so called intelligent, educated and good person. To consider that homosexual unions could be part of the same evil that Nazism inflicted on the world.. well it truly leaves me speechless.

[Pahansiri]

He was a man and like all men he did and said some very good things and like men do he said and did some very bad things.

[LostAngeles]

I personally find the idea of "human rights being pitted against... man" contradictory and if by "human rights," he's including "homosexual unions" in them, how can they be equated with Nazism and the Holocaust which were horrendously massive violation of human rights?

I agree that it's difficult to reconcile this Pope John Paul II with the Pope John Paul II that spoke out against oppression and torture.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Sure Scot, cheers.

I will have to search for the quotes later. I’m held up at work. My apologies.

LostAngeles
I personally find the idea of "human rights being pitted against... man" contradictory and if by "human rights,"

I agree; but he must not have seen it as contradictory and the only way I can see it making sense is if gays are not part of “man� or “the family� in his mind, which would be, to me, the most dehumanizing part of the quote.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
I will have to search for the quotes later. I’m held up at work. My apologies.

LostAngeles


I agree; but he must not have seen it as contradictory and the only way I can see it making sense is if gays are not part of “man� or “the family� in his mind, which would be, to me, the most dehumanizing part of the quote.

And with that thought, my stomach physically turned.

[hammegk]

Those darn theologians, recognizing the profane as separate from the sacred. Sorry some of you don't agree with the cut; tough noogies .... ;)

[Z]

Originally posted by hammegk
Those darn theologians, recognizing the profane as separate from the sacred. Sorry some of you don't agree with the cut; tough noogies .... ;)

More like, mis-defined 'profane' and 'sacred' - provided such terms have any meaning at all.

[hammegk]

You are obviously not a theologian .... :)

[wahrheit]

Something doesn't match up here, because if I remember correctly (and I certainly should if you glance at my given location) gays were stigmatized with a pink triangle and sent to concentration camp by the Nazis. Now what, victim or similarly bad like that evil ideology? I might add that I deny the pope any comment on gays on principle. He knew about them even less than about pregnant women.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by wahrheit
I might add that I deny the pope any comment on gays on principle. He knew about them even less than about pregnant women.

Perhaps he was a huge fan of Queer As Folk.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I personally find the idea of "human rights being pitted against... man" contradictory ... I'm pretty sure the pope was aware of the apparently contradictory formulation. I think what he was alluding to was along the lines of something I've encountered many times in the practice of law; namely (1) the tendency of the certain rights, under certain circumstances, to collide with other rights, and (2) the tendency of the proponents of certain interests to characterize such interests as "rights" - regardless of whether that status has been clearly determined or is even deserved - in order that those interests may be more effectively promoted under the banner of a "right" (even a "human right"). Both of these phenomena become a more acute challenge in a society that places a premium on radical libertarian autonomy.

What the pope was talking about (whether one agrees with him or not) is sketched out in greater depth in this comment issued by the Ramsey Colloquium (a distinguished, nonsectarian group of ethicists, philosophers and other scholars) on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:... In addition, human rights are threatened in the name of human rights. When claims to rights are severed from the just requirements of morality and the common good, the inevitable result is a distorted understanding of human rights that all too often leads to the violation of the rights of others. There is, moreover, a powerful inclination to pick and choose among human rights, which results in favoring some (e.g., the right to privacy) at the expense of others (e.g., the rights of the family). Such selectivity undermines the necessary connections between rights, wrenching "favored" rights out of context and weakening "disfavored" rights.

Also in the name of human rights, the number of rights is multiplied to the point that the very idea of rights is dangerously diluted. The Declaration is neither exhaustive nor perfect in its articulation of rights. But the essential rights specified by the Declaration are weakened by multiplying the number of interests, goods, and desires that are elevated to the status of rights. ...(The full statement can be found here (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9804/articles/ramsey.html), for anyone who's interested.)

Originally posted by wahrheit
I might add that I deny the pope any comment on gays on principle. He knew about them even less than about pregnant women.That doesn't seem a particularly enlightened stance. What makes you think that the pope, who was sometimes called the best-informed person alive, knew any less than the average person does about gays or pregnant women? Would you deny the average person any comment about gays or pregnant women? And frankly, what is the specialized knowledge in this field that you feel is a prerequisite for being allowed to express a point of view on such matters? Perhaps you could summarize the key esoteric facts for us so that we need no longer be denied the opportunity to form reasonable opinions and present them.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
... Perhaps you could summarize the key esoteric facts for us so that we need no longer be denied the opportunity to form reasonable opinions and present them.
Do we really need a primer on deviant and aberrant sex?

[uruk]

Do we really need a primer on deviant and aberrant sex? No just your definition of what is deviant and aberrant and then your definition of normal.

Or is that written in stone some where? Perhaps Moses?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do we really need a primer on deviant and aberrant sex?

According to the pope, deviant and aberrant sex includes sex using any kind of birth control.

If you disagree with him there, then why would you agree with him about gay sex?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk
No just your definition of what is deviant and aberrant and then your definition of normal.


Societies make that definition. Do you think there is a vast worldwide pool of homosex supporters? I suspect there is a vast worldwide pool of people who disagree. What do you think?

I'm all for 'coming out'; get the names on the lists ... ;)

[uruk]

Societies make that definition. agreedDo you think there is a vast worldwide pool of homosex supporters? I suspect there is a vast worldwide pool of people who disagree. What do you think? I think there is a vast world wide pool of both.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What makes you think that the pope, who was sometimes called the best-informed person alive, knew any less than the average person does about gays or pregnant women?
What are you talking about? I never thought nor said that the pope knew any less than the average person about whatever topic. I didn't mention "average persons" at all. I said that it is not up to a dogmatic monarch to judge gays or pregnant women or to tell the world which is "good" and which is "wrong" based on dogma but knowledge, understanding or experience.
Originally posted by ceo_esq
Would you deny the average person any comment about gays or pregnant women?
Sorry, but I think you are making up assumptions and using stone age discussion techniques to form them into provocative questions. The pope is _not_ "the average person", okay?

Originally posted by ceo_esq
And frankly, what is the specialized knowledge in this field that you feel is a prerequisite for being allowed to express a point of view on such matters?
Um, dunno. Maybe something which does not start with dogma* or end in *dogma would be cool.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk
I think there is a vast world wide pool of both.
On what basis? And where? Yup, western Europe, and the US have vocal minorities, although fortunately for society at large numerically insignificant.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by hammegk
On what basis? And where? Yup, western Europe, and the US have vocal minorities, although fortunately for society at large numerically insignificant.
Huh? Could some of the more experienced forum members and/or English native speakers please fill me in on whether the previous post does mean what I think it means.

[uruk]

On what basis? And where? Yup, western Europe, and the US have vocal minorities, although fortunately for society at large numerically insignificant. Well it depends on your definition of supporter. Do you mean a supporter who is publicly active or someone in the general public who has positive opinion or votes for rights? There are many different levels of supporting a cause. But I see your referring to just vocal or politicaly active groups. My Bad. At which case they are in the minority.

But I take it your anti-gay. So what do you think, Born or chosen?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk

So what do you think, Born or chosen?
Irrelevant. Behavior is a choice imo.

Celibacy is one choice.

Keeping your actions behind closed doors private is another.

[Scot C. Trypal]

This is a long overdue response to ceo_esq.

In light the extra context given by Darat, I don’t know that I can say what follows is much worse, and now that I’ve collected these, I’m wishing you, had your PM box open. It feels disrespectful to openly complain about the pope today. But…

Of course, after all that searching, I can’t find what stuck out in my mind as the most odious but I did find much in the same vein:

Moreover, when "de facto unions" [including homosexual unions] claim the right to adopt, they clearly show their disregard for the child's welfare and the minimum conditions he is owed for proper upbringing. [1]

I’ve been too candid with my situation on the JREF and I know many families headed by same-sex parents, so most should know I’d not claim to be impartial here. But to say these parents “clearly� have a disregard for their children’s welfare is probably one of the worst insults and mischaracterization I can think of from the pope. Parenting is the most selfless act in which most people will ever participate, and most take it to be a sacred duty. It’s dangerous and wrong, in a factual and moral sense, to use this blanket statement on same-sex parents.

Most all the children with disabilities I know are children of same-sex parents; they are the children typically deemed “unadoptable�. Many are adopted from orphanages (oddly, some of them Catholic), in poor countries, and come to the US malnourished and emotionally starved. Granted, I’m grateful the church orphanages are there for these kids, but talk about the minimum conditions a child is owed for proper upbringing. A friend of ours just got back from 6 months volunteering in a catholic orphanage and was horrified at the conditions and constantly chided by the nuns for picking up crying children.

To go on and say these families don’t meet the “minimum conditions� is outrageous. I mean, compare one adoptive family that is stable, loving, supportive, and has successfully raised happy healthy children to adulthood to another where the children are ignored or worse. If it’s two women, the 1st family fails to meet the minimum conditions necessary for proper upbringing while the 2nd, if heterosexual, does? In the Pope’s mind, it seems all the heath happiness and morality of the child can be meaningless if his parents have the same anatomy.

Actually, the quote of the pope’s I was thinking of (yet couldn’t find) on this topic was much worse. It equated same-sex parents with child abusers. Hopefully I remembered incorrectly. Not only does that fail to recognize the pain and injustice felt by the victims of child abuse, to compare them to happy kids who’ll never know that kind of suffering, it puts out an idea which, if it were put into political motion, would break up the families headed by same-sex parents and, in real lasting ways, harm these children.

More of the same:

This [same-sex parents] represents an even greater danger because the "higher interests of the child" are not respected... [2]

They [children] should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". [4]

At least in that list these children are closer to those in sex-ed courses than prostitution.

Worse still are the homosexual or lesbian unions, whose members also demand the right to adopt children. [5]

I have to say this may be misleading. As far as I know (in the US), gay people have always had the same right to adopt as anyone else, and, in many places, still do. The laws have traditionally only aimed for “the best interest of the child�, as they should. It is only recently that religious groups have demanded the law be changed to add “no gay couples�. This means a child will now either stay in foster care, an orphanage, or even go to a single gay person before they go to a two-parent home. To me, that ignores the best interest of the child for faith and politics.

Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family�. [14] With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations. [6]

So it is that the Church thinks gay people aren’t part of “the family�; I hope it’s clear just how threatening and dehumanizing that is. But at least we can agree on the last sentence.

Non-children stuff:

Lastly, "de facto unions" between homosexuals are a deplorable distortion of what should be a communion of love and life between a man and a woman in a reciprocal gift open to life. [1]

“Deplorable�. This is very common, the idea that same-sex unions are based on and a distortion of heterosexual unions. Like they have taken something good and pure and tainted it. Both unions are actually based on the exact same and very common human characteristics; it’s just that these characteristics sometimes appear in a different biological sex to create a same-sex couple.

What’s odd is that, in the same writing, John Paul 2 says this:

Man and woman experience in themselves the natural inclination to be joined in marriage. But marriage, as St Thomas states so clearly, is natural not because "it results by necessity from natural principles", but because it is a reality "to which one is inclined by nature, although it comes about through free will" (Summa Theol., Suppl., q. 41, a. 1, in c.). Any opposition, therefore, between nature and freedom or between nature and culture is extremely misleading. [1]

This actually give me some hope for the Catholic Church. Gays and Lesbians feel this same natural inclination to be joined in marriage; he just doesn’t see that. I’m sure he’s well informed, but I’ve found it’s terribly difficult for a person to accurately imagine how something so foreign to them would feel (Gays feel the same way about heterosexuals ;) ).

There is simply nothing unnatural about experiencing attraction to a woman, even if it is an attraction turned on in a woman (it’s well documented and happens often in nature). True, it’s a necessarily rare inclination, when considering the sex in which it appears, but that doesn’t make it any more unnatural than left-handedness or even asexuality.

The juridical framework proposed for de facto unions has surely not been presented as an alternative to marriage, but in reality and implicitly, this provision strikes at the family based on the conjugal bond. [2]

This one is ironic. Because I want to get health insurance for my stay-at-home-parent and equal inheritance rights for my children, rights just like every other citizen, that means I’m out to strike at your family? It’s your family under attack, not the homosexual’s. In light of the practical consequences in both families, how does that notion go on living?

Ah:

…attempting to extend the notion of family to homosexual couples has resulted in emptying the idea of family of its meaning. [2]

That one leaves me speechless.

It [homosexual union] has no social value. [3]

Detached from this vision of the fundamental unity and purpose of the whole human family, rights are at times reduced to self-centred demands: the growth of prostitution and pornography in the name of adult choice, the acceptance of abortion in the name of women’s rights, the approval of same sex unions in the name of homosexual rights. [7]

Asking for equal rights, regardless of your gender, is now a self-centered demand.

Really, if only these were “self-centered demands�, it wouldn’t be so frustrating. Gay people want these rights so that they can take care of each other, and their kids, through health insurance, next of kin rights for medical situations, inheritance, and more. They are willing to sacrifice and enter an agreement that would severely punish them if broken, for the love of their family, not for themselves. I can’t see how the Catholic Church really thinks that’s a self-centered demand that in any way unjustly tramples on the rights of others.

I mean, alternatively gay couples can and some do just rely on the state instead, and take welfare at about the same $/year they’d gain by legal recognition. After all, the stay-at-home parents are assetless, jobless, single parents to the law.

-----------

I’ve gone through and cherry-picked what I find troubling in many writings, but I’d like to point out that the Pope and the Catholic Church do/did have good, humane things to say on this topic as well. For example:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. [8]

In all, I still can’t help but respect the man.

(Note: some of these are directly JP2's, some aren't)
1. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1999/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_04061999_family_en.html

2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030614_family-europe-trujillo_en.html

3. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/Colonia2005/rc_pc_laity_doc_20030805_p-anatrella-gmg_en.html

4. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030124_families-manila-conclusions_en.html

5. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20021019_xv-plenary-conclusions_en.html

6. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20010329_jub-fam-conclusion_en.html

7. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040604_bishops-usa_en.html

8. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by wahrheit
Huh? Could some of the more experienced forum members and/or English native speakers please fill me in on whether the previous post does mean what I think it means.
It means that, in the opinion of hammegk, the people who support homosexuality make a lot of noise but are of small number in the USA and Europe. Further, this is a state of affairs that is agreeable to hammegk.

[supercorgi]

On what basis? And where? Yup, western Europe, and the US have vocal minorities, although fortunately for society at large numerically insignificant.
Originally posted by wahrheit
Huh? Could some of the more experienced forum members and/or English native speakers please fill me in on whether the previous post does mean what I think it means.
Yes he means what you think he means and is just another example of how vile this man's viewpoints are.

[Terry]

Originally posted by hammegk
homosex

Do you really believe that gay people do anything in bed that heterosexual people never do? The only difference between homosex and heterosex is who ya do it with.

--Terry

P.S.
Oops, I guess I'm on "the list" now. Quaking in my boots...
T.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Terry
Do you really believe that gay people do anything in bed that heterosexual people never do? The only difference between homosex and heterosex is who ya do it with.

--Terry

P.S.
Oops, I guess I'm on "the list" now. Quaking in my boots...
T.

But both heterosexual and homosexual people don't do anything like the dirty things that religiosexual people do; Getting drunk and having sex with both of your daughters? Heck, that's just deviancy above and beyond the call of dignity! If God says it's ok, though...

[TragicMonkey]

I'm glad that the trend is to tie the supposed evils of homosexual unions to the upbringing of children, because it suggests that opponents of gay unions would support any gay union of couples that don't have children.

Unless they're just reaching for excuses to justify opposing gay unions, and all the blather about children is a cover for something else.

Nah, people aren't that hypocritical.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
It means that, in the opinion of hammegk, the people who support homosexuality make a lot of noise but are of small number in the USA and Europe. Further, this is a state of affairs that is agreeable to hammegk. Originally posted by supercorgi
Yes he means what you think he means and is just another example of how vile this man's viewpoints are.
Thanks for the clarification to both of you. Now I know that my spontaneous disgust was not without reason.
Originally posted by hammegk
I'm all for 'coming out'; get the names on the lists ... ;)
Ha ha, very funny indeed. This makes me sick. What lists are you referring to - Schindler's or the other guy's ones?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Getting drunk and having sex with both of your daughters? Heck, that's just deviancy above and beyond the call of dignity! If God says it's ok, though...
When did (s)he contact you directly to ok that?


Originally posted by supercorny

Yes he means what you think he means and is just another example of how vile this man's viewpoints are.
Yeah. That darned right of free speech. What will we ever do?

Try 'ignore', bunkie.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by hammegk
When did (s)he contact you directly to ok that?

S/he doesn't have to contact me directly; Look, I have his/her Holy Bible which tells me that it's ok, as long as I am prserving my seed. Why, am I not supposed to not take this particular book as the Word Of God? Which bits am I allowed to ignore if so?

But don't worry Hammegk, I won't tax your little head by expecting you to answer that seriously. I expect you'll just post a one line witticism which persuades you that you are smarter than everyone else, whilst simultaneously making you feel devilishly naughty for upsetting people by being a bit of a prick...

Yeah. That darned right of free speech. What will we ever do?

Try 'ignore', bunkie.

Yup, that's the kind of thing I mean! So hey... why don't you just ignore pro-homosexual speech yourself, eh? After all, they have the right to state it, don't they? ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
...snip...

I’ve gone through and cherry-picked what I find troubling in many writings, but I’d like to point out that the Pope and the Catholic Church do/did have good, humane things to say on this topic as well. For example:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. [8]

...snip...

That seems quite a nice piece of compassionate prose doesn't it? However there is a nasty sting in its tail and that sting is the word "unjust".

The RC absolutely believes that discrimination against homosexuals is fine, it just has to be the "just" discrimination of the RC.

Therefore denying homosexuals the right to adopt would be just discrimination because (to go back to the quote that started this strand of discussion) granting homosexuals the right to form a family would be an attempt to "...to pit human rights against the family and against man". Mere human rights are of not of primary importance for the RC and especially the last Pope; his starting point was "love for God to the point of contempt of self".

(Edited for the formatting.)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by wahrheit

Ha ha, very funny indeed.
If you say so.


This makes me sick.
Using public schools to teach that homosex is as "normal" and socially acceptable as heterosex angers me.


What lists are you referring to - Schindler's or the other guy's ones?
The new ones, silly .... ;)


Originally posted by PSA

So hey... why don't you just ignore pro-homosexual speech yourself, eh? After all, they have the right to state it, don't they?
Thanks for the advice. I've decided otherwise, and have every right to state my position, as Gays/Lesbians/Bi-Sexuals/Transgendered (currently) enjoy theirs.


BTW, I don't need a book of fables to allow me to decide right from wrong. History does not appear to favor flagrant homosexual conduct as conducive to a viable, lasting, society.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
BTW, I don't need a book of fables to allow me to decide right from wrong. History does not appear to favor flagrant homosexual conduct as conducive to a viable, lasting, society.

And do you have any examples of where homosexual conduct was conducive to the opposite of a viable, lasting society?

Please don't trot out the ill-considered crap about "debauchery" and the fall of Rome. Rome fell after centuries of sober rule by heterosexual married Christians. It had its height in the pre-Christian era, when homosexuality was not uncommon nor excessively frowned upon, and debauchery of all types was more acceptable than it is today.

[Ipecac]

Scot,

Great post. My respects.

[Z]

Hammegk comes across as a repressed closet homosexual.

Nevertheless, his bigoted posts have earned him a rare honor...

Congratulations, Hammerhead! You are the only person on my IGNORE list.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by hammegk
Using public schools to teach that homosex is as "normal" and socially acceptable as heterosex angers me.
Never heard about that, but if you say so I'm sure it's not true. Maybe you mixed it up with teaching the kids "tolerance". My brother's wife is a teacher, I'll go and ask her if she teaches "homosex" and then tell her off!!
Originally posted by hammegk
The new ones, silly .... ;)
Ah, the new lists, I see. What is it going to be this time, good old concentration camp or just a quick bullet in the head? And who are the other lepers you include in your lists, I wonder? Can't be gays only, wouldn't be worth all the mess.
Originally posted by hammegk
BTW, I don't need a book of fables to allow me to decide right from wrong. History does not appear to favor flagrant homosexual conduct as conducive to a viable, lasting, society.
Book of fables you call it? Guess we'll see each other in hell.

Funny you would mention history, because I think this is a field you really need to catch up with.

Here's a quick guide for you:

Choose any of the two countries you can find at the left of my post. Then open a history book and flip to the pages referring to the years of 1933 through 1945 in the former case, and 1939 through 1975 in the latter. Look for keywords like "dictatorship", "minorities" and -- since you love it so much -- "free speech".

[kimiko]

Originally posted by hammegk
Using public schools to teach that homosex is as "normal" and socially acceptable as heterosex angers me. I'd like to see your references of this. Actual textbooks being used in actual schools that specifically assert that homosexuality is "socially acceptable".

Any mention of it as a behavior being "normal" would be accurate as it manifests consistently in human societies.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by kimiko
I'd like to see your references of this. Actual textbooks being used in actual schools that specifically assert that homosexuality is "socially acceptable".
Do you understand that connotation and group-think may not be words in a textbook? Schools that allow Gay/L/B clubs provide implicit and explicit approval of that behavior.


Any mention of it as a behavior being "normal" would be accurate as it manifests consistently in human societies.
Lots of human behaviors are consistently manifested in human societies. By no means are a fair number of them "normal" by the standard of being beneficial to a society in the long term (viz. more than a generation).

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

And do you have any examples of where homosexual conduct was conducive to the opposite of a viable, lasting society?
Nope, but I asked for positive benefit, remember? Do you feel debauchery is a long term good?

[Scot C. Trypal]

Darat,

That was the bother for me too. “Just� discrimination could be interpreted in dangerous ways. If you read what the Church thinks causes homosexuality, segregating homosexuals from the public could even be interpreted as just protection of the rights of others.

I’d still say to admit “They do not choose their homosexual condition� and “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.� is much more reasonable and humane than much of the opinion from those following that theology.

Hammegk:
On what basis? And where? Yup, western Europe, and the US have vocal minorities, although fortunately for society at large numerically insignificant.

Not true. By the voting, about 40-30% of US society does not want to ban gay marriage, and, by polling, about 60% want to allow civil unions. That is not a vocal minority; that 3% or more of the population has friends, family, Golden Rule Christians, and Rosie O’Donnell on their side.

Compare that to interracial marriage. At the time the court ruled on that (going from my memory of a book at home), about 70% of the population thought it should’ve remained illegal and 54% thought such couplings should be actively punishable by law.

There’s also South Africa, Australia, and many other countries granting these rights.

-------

Thanks Ipecac

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
Nope, but I asked for positive benefit, remember? Do you feel debauchery is a long term good?

I feel debauchery is irrelevant in the long term.

In a free society, restrictions on liberty are applied only when the liberty in question is harmful. "Not being helpful" does not equal "harmful".

[Z]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I feel debauchery is irrelevant in the long term.

In a free society, restrictions on liberty are applied only when the liberty in question is harmful. "Not being helpful" does not equal "harmful".

In fact, by that definition (not being helpful) we should ban video games, the entire entertainment industry, professional sports, and many churches. For that matter - sex for any cause other than procreation ought also to be banned. And in an over-crowded world like ours - perhaps procreation ought to be limited to once in a person's lifetime, period.

...

So Hammerhead is not only a bigot, but a Party member, eh? Doubleplusungood, if you ask me.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Schools that allow Gay/L/B clubs provide implicit and explicit approval of that behavior.

While I’d rather schools focus on education and leave the extracurricular stuff to other organizations, what behavior are you imagining? How do you know what all those gay kids do, or even if they ever had or ever will have anything resembling the sex you’re imagining? A lot of them have been disowned by family and/or friends and they just want a little safety and community.

It’s odd how many people can’t stop their mind from wondering to gay sex when gay topics come up. I mean, I know gay folks who simply never have any sort of sex.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
It’s odd how many people can’t stop their mind from wondering to gay sex when gay topics come up.
Very good point. It not only shows they don't know what they are talking about, it also shows they are obsessed with it. Sex, I mean.

Btw., thanks for your posts, they were very interesting, imho.

[hammegk]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I feel debauchery is irrelevant in the long term.

In a free society, restrictions on liberty are applied only when the liberty in question is harmful. "Not being helpful" does not equal "harmful".
Tell that to the Barbarians when they come over the walls. Or, I suppose you could try love & kisses.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In fact, by that definition (not being helpful) we should ban video games, the entire entertainment industry, professional sports, and many churches.
Could well be so. May you, your family, and its future generations prosper in this world of available choices.

Originally posted by Scot C. T.

Not true. By the voting, about 40-30% of US society does not want to ban gay marriage, and, by polling, about 60% want to allow civil unions.
Congratulations. Fifty years of "tolerance" and "understanding" have made converts of that many sheeple.


That is not a vocal minority; that 3% or more of the population has friends, family, Golden Rule Christians, and Rosie O’Donnell on their side.
Yeah, it's the 3% (or is it 0.03%) that actively pursue a G/L/B/T behavior pattern, and are publically vocal about it. And in general, is it 3%(or 0.5%). Reliable data seems scarce.

[wahrheit]

hammegk,

you seem to be very picky about what you quote and to what you reply. You quote this or that sentence and throw in either hatred or sermon. However, I noticed you didn't bother to reply to any of my last remarks, not even the history lesson you need so badly. That means: I won this debate(TM). The trademark is owned by someone who's avatar is a tank, I think.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I agree. We must be careful when we only pick certain parts of posts to reply to. We might take something out of context, and completely miss a poster's point.

Originally posted by wahrheit
hammegk,

you seem to ...need... a tank
I don't think giving hamme a tank is a good idea, really.

[uruk]

Irrelevant. Behavior is a choice imo.
So your saying that you made a conciouse choice to be heterosexual? I don't seem to remember making a concious choice concerning my sexual proclativities. Perhaps it is different for you?

Celibacy is one choice. But sexual arousal is not a choice. the decision to act upon it is.
Keeping your actions behind closed doors private is another. I don't believe homosexuals want anybody to know what they are doing in their bedrooms. I believe they are arguing for social acceptance and legal rights. You know the same kind of things that other minorities have asked for and been granted in the past.

Free speech? everybody has a right to say what they want. You don't have to like it, but you can't deny people their rights as huuman beings.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I agree. We must be careful when we only pick certain parts of posts to reply to. We might take something out of context, and completely miss a poster's point.
Originally posted by wahrheit
hammegk,

you seem to ...need... a tank

I don't think giving hamme a tank is a good idea, really.

:D You read my mind, you are psychic! Don't forget to give me my share of the million, though.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by wahrheit
Never heard about that, but if you say so I'm sure it's not true. Maybe you mixed it up with teaching the kids "tolerance". My brother's wife is a teacher, I'll go and ask her if she teaches "homosex" and then tell her off!!
As I said, here, previously, "Do you understand that connotation and group-think may not be words in a textbook? Schools that allow Gay/L/B clubs provide implicit and explicit approval of that behavior."


Ah, the new lists, I see. What is it going to be this time, good old concentration camp or just a quick bullet in the head? And who are the other lepers you include in your lists, I wonder?
Who knows. I don't think I'll be at the Policy making level.


Can't be gays only, wouldn't be worth all the mess.
Agreed. One takes what's offered, donchaknow.


Funny you would mention history, because I think this is a field you really need to catch up with.

Here's a quick guide for you:

Choose any of the two countries you can find at the left of my post. Then open a history book and flip to the pages referring to the years of 1933 through 1945 in the former case, and 1939 through 1975 in the latter. Look for keywords like "dictatorship", "minorities" and -- since you love it so much -- "free speech".
And what do you think I might learn I don't already know? I suspect, nothing.


you seem to be very picky about what you quote and to what you reply.
Should I call the Waaambulance? ;)

Originally posted by uruk

So you're saying that you made a conscious choice to be heterosexual? I don't seem to remember making a conscious choice concerning my sexual proclitivities. Perhaps it is different for you?
Nope. But you answered yourself;

"... sexual arousal is not a choice. the decision to act upon it is."

Originally posted by M de C

I don't think giving hamme a tank is a good idea, really.
:D

Originally posted by Scot C.

..... I’d rather schools focus on education and leave the extracurricular stuff to other organizations,
Yeah, me too.


what behavior are you imagining? How do you know what all those gay kids do, or even if they ever had or ever will have anything resembling the sex you’re imagining?
I'm not imagining anything. Homosex -- male/male or female/female says enough.


A lot of them have been disowned by family and/or friends and they just want a little safety and community.
Yeah, some choices, and behaviors, carry penalties -- some legal, some moral. Ain't life a bitch?


It’s odd how many people can’t stop their mind from wondering to gay sex when gay topics come up. I mean, I know gay folks who simply never have any sort of sex.
And I call bs. Without sex acts, G/L/B/T and heteros are all the same.

Then the question becomes -- should two guys (or gals) living together adopt children and enjoy the privileges of male/female marriage? If so, why?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
Tell that to the Barbarians when they come over the walls. Or, I suppose you could try love & kisses.


Shrink takes notes: "Fantasizes about invasion of gay barbarians. Possible rape fantasy? Coercion, sex, invasion/penetration anxiety. Mentions kissing. 'Over the walls', imagery suggestive of breaking barriers, overcoming denial. Capitalizes 'barbarian'; query, does patient know a Barbara?"

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
Then the question becomes -- should two guys (or gals) living together adopt children and enjoy the privileges of male/female marriage? If so, why?

Why not?

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Shrink takes notes: "Fantasizes about invasion of gay barbarians. Possible rape fantasy? Coercion, sex, invasion/penetration anxiety. Mentions kissing. 'Over the walls', imagery suggestive of breaking barriers, overcoming denial. Capitalizes 'barbarian'; query, does patient know a Barbara?" :clap: :roll: Thanks, I just died laughing reading this! Marquis de Carabas already made my sides split with his be-careful-what-you-quote post, now you put me over the edge :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Hammegk comes across as a repressed closet homosexual.


Originally posted by Tragic
Shrink takes notes: "Fantasizes about invasion of gay barbarians. Possible rape fantasy? Coercion, sex, invasion/penetration anxiety. Mentions kissing. 'Over the walls', imagery suggestive of breaking barriers, overcoming denial. Capitalizes 'barbarian'; query, does patient know a Barbara?"
Perhaps you two can assist writing a description for DSM-V? :D


Originally posted by wahrmacht

Thanks, I just died laughing reading this!
Kewl. A reponse from 'beyond'? Hot there?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps you two can assist writing a description for DSM-V? :D

Actually, I've been inspired to write a short story detailing the amorous adventures of Brutus the Barbarian and his amazing wall-climbing equipment. I suppose you'll want a credit line when the movie deal comes through.

[uruk]

Nope. But you answered yourself;

"... sexual arousal is not a choice. the decision to act upon it is."

Were not you implying that homosexuality was a chosen behaivour? Homosexuality isn't just about the act.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk
Were not you implying that homosexuality was a chosen behavior? Homosexuality isn't just about the act.
It is a chosen behavior. Of course it's about the act; otherwise, who would ever know.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hammegk
It is a chosen behavior. Of course it's about the act; otherwise, who would ever know.

Well, they would, for one. And anyone they talked to about it. Heterosexuals are allowed to discuss their attractions and interests all over the place. It hardly seems fair to expect everyone else to keep quiet about theirs.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, they would, for one.
Only after behavior.


And anyone they talked to about it.
Agreed. So what?


Heterosexuals are allowed to discuss their attractions and interests all over the place. It hardly seems fair to expect everyone else to keep quiet about theirs.
Humans are allowed to discuss their attractions and interests all over the place. And, BTW, talking is a behavior.

And, yes, behaviors usually have consequences.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, they would, for one. And anyone they talked to about it. Heterosexuals are allowed to discuss their attractions and interests all over the place. It hardly seems fair to expect everyone else to keep quiet about theirs.
Oh, we don't expect everyone to keep quiet about it, just the queers. Personally, I wish necrophiliacs were more willing to discuss their fantasies openly. Perhaps a show like Dead Eye for the Live Guy could really bring things into a more positive focus.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
.... Personally, I wish necrophiliacs were more willing to discuss their fantasies openly. ....
Beastiality for fun and profit; that'd be a good one too, huh?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you understand that connotation and group-think may not be words in a textbook? Schools that allow Gay/L/B clubs provide implicit and explicit approval of that behavior. No, they don't. Otherwise, they wouldn't allow students to have religious clubs either because they would be "implicit and explicit approval" of the respective religions. Allowing extracurricular activities is not the same as Using public schools to teach that homosex is as "normal" and socially acceptable as heterosex Unless you can provide examples of actual instruction, your assertion doesn't stand.

Lots of human behaviors are consistently manifested in human societies. By no means are a fair number of them "normal" by the standard of being beneficial to a society in the long term (viz. more than a generation). Things do not have to be beneficial to be normal.nor·mal (nôrml) Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical. Homosexuality is normal.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by wahrheit
What are you talking about? I never thought nor said that the pope knew any less than the average person about whatever topic. I didn't mention "average persons" at all. I said that it is not up to a dogmatic monarch to judge gays or pregnant women or to tell the world which is "good" and which is "wrong" based on dogma but knowledge, understanding or experience.You said "I might add that I deny the pope any comment on gays on principle. He knew about them even less than about pregnant women." You've referred to a "principle" that I wanted you to elaborate, and that principle appears from your second statement to hinge on the existence of an as-yet-unspecified threshold of knowledge about gays and/or pregnant women below which commentators shall be denied comment. I realize you didn't mention average persons. I assumed, however, that you would not say "I deny the average person comment (on gays/pregnant women, for example) on principle; he doesn't know enough about them." Perhaps that assumption was unwarranted, and the threshold of your principle lies beyond the "knowledge, understanding or experience" of the average person. At least we've narrowed it down.

Your mention of dogma is worth noting. Of course, the pope's opinions on matters of morals were consistent with "dogma" in the theological sense of things that his Church thought were true and ought to be believed, but they were not "dogmatic" in the perhaps more current sense of beliefs stated without providing or allowing for reasons.

I don't espouse the doctrines of the Catholic Church as a general matter, obviously. But on the other hand, it would be disingenuous of me to deny that the pope's views were informed by an intellectual history stretching back two thousand years and which has incorporated the "knowledge, understanding and experience" of most of the West's pre-eminent minds in the fields of ethics and moral philosophy, to which John Paul II was merely one of the latest contributors. We would be remiss to forget that the Church's positions reflect the combined weight of these endeavors. Accordingly, the beliefs need to be challenged on their own complex philosophical terms, not through ad hominem dismissals in the vein of "the pope doesn't know enough about X to make a valid comment."
Originally posted by wahrheit
Sorry, but I think you are making up assumptions and using stone age discussion techniques to form them into provocative questions. The pope is _not_ "the average person", okay?Indeed he was not. And I honestly do not mean to offend with my Stone Age (paleo- or neolithic?) rhetorical methods. But we are left to wonder why you suggested - if I understood you correctly - that the pope's knowledge, understanding and experience were so deficient that you would "deny him comment on principle" with regard to certain matters.
Originally posted by wahrheit
Um, dunno. Maybe something which does not start with dogma* or end in *dogma would be cool. You had me at "dunno".

[uruk]

It is a chosen behavior. Of course it's about the act; otherwise, who would ever know I have to disagree with you here. You would not act unless you felt the attraction or arousal. If you did not have the physical proclativities you could not perform the act.

There are priests who are admitted homosexuals. They claim homosexuality even though they have taken a oath of celibacy (sp?)

[hammegk]

So you also believe that thinking about murdering someone is equal to committing the act?

You & Jimmie Carter; IIRC, he stated he had "committed adultery in his heart". ;)

[uruk]

So you also believe that thinking about murdering someone is equal to committing the act? Well according to the bible it is. But that is not what I'm saying at all.
You stated that homosexuality is only about the act. It is not.

What makes you a heterosexual? The act of having heterosexual sex or is it what you are attracted to and aroused by? Are you sexualy attracted to women or men? If you are not attracted to women how can the mechanics of sex be in the proper state to perfom the act with a woman?

[Scot C. Trypal]

I'm not imagining anything. Homosex -- male/male or female/female says enough.

Is an embrace “homosex�? You must be thinking of some specific behavior. See:

Yeah, some choices, and behaviors, carry penalties -- some legal, some moral. Ain't life a bitch?

What choices, behaviors? Telling their parents they’re gay? That behavior? Is it that you think sex acts are what make a teen gay? If so there are a lot of people out there who think they’re gay but, by your standard, are not. You’ve cured them :).

You’re stating the obvious to say some choices have penalties. I doubt anyone would oppose penalties for some choices. What I find a bit funny is that you and I, not too long ago, could be sharing the same pyre for our behaviors. It’s difficult in the records of the inquisition to decide if a man was tortured and killed for homosexuality or heresy; they were thought of as equivalent enough crimes to use the same title for both criminals.

You think, if they get a government that stops caring about the freedom of the individual and are able to get rid of the gays, they won’t again come after the heretics, who call holy truth “fable�? ;)

And I call bs. Without sex acts, G/L/B/T and heteros are all the same.

That then makes clear why discussing this is probably not going anywhere.

No, they are certainly not the same. An average man and woman, for example, are not the same even if they are both virgins and will always remain so. One will want to couple up with a man and the other a woman, just on their instinct, triggered by whatever subtle cues we pick up from the sexes, even sans sex acts. You don’t even need a sex drive to have a sexual orientation.

I wish I could find some numbers on this but I’m know with certainty there are many celibate gays, both very young and old. Some live in families with children, some very young and don’t know what they’ll do in the future, and some in retirement homes. They all think they’re gay, but, by you’re thinking, they are not?

:) If your problem is really with some sex act then you should be all for gay marriage and parenting; it’s a near sure sex life killer.

[Iacchus]

Just keep em' away from my back door!

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
You said "I might add that I deny the pope any comment on gays on principle. He knew about them even less than about pregnant women." You've referred to a "principle" that I wanted you to elaborate, and that principle appears from your second statement to hinge on the existence of an as-yet-unspecified threshold of knowledge about gays and/or pregnant women below which commentators shall be denied comment.
Again, you replace "the pope" with "commentators". As I have stated before I don't think that's valid, as it tries to twist my words into another, quite different perspective. Where do you want this to go, anyway? Make the pope an expert in these fields? Or do you want me to say "You must be gay to talk about gays, you must be pregnant to talk about pregnancy or abortion?" These are social issues which a society should well be able to deal with without directions from the Vatican. This man is not an elected representative hired by the voters to fill them in with his moral. Also, I don't see what's wrong with my opinion that the pope should not be considered an authority on these topics, and therefor I might well choose to ignore any of his words regarding them. Maybe this sounds more reasonable to you than my initial, admittedly quite "radical", approach.
Originally posted by ceo_esq
I realize you didn't mention average persons. ...

Come on, admit it, you are sulky because I saw through your debate ploy and didn't fall for it ;) J/K.
Originally posted by ceo_esq
Your mention of dogma is worth noting. Of course, the pope's opinions on matters of morals were consistent with "dogma" in the theological sense of things that his Church thought were true and ought to be believed, but they were not "dogmatic" in the perhaps more current sense of beliefs stated without providing or allowing for reasons.

I don't espouse the doctrines of the Catholic Church as a general matter, obviously. But on the other hand, it would be disingenuous of me to deny that the pope's views were informed by an intellectual history stretching back two thousand years and which has incorporated the "knowledge, understanding and experience" of most of the West's pre-eminent minds in the fields of ethics and moral philosophy, to which John Paul II was merely one of the latest contributors.
Frankly, I think we will never agree here. Speaking of the past 2000 years regarding the Catholic Church your view is rather onesided (I didn't say wrong) and leaves out some of the not so intellectual, ethical and philosophical "contributions" this Church, or it's leaders, made.
Originally posted by ceo_esq
We would be remiss to forget that the Church's positions reflect the combined weight of these endeavors. Accordingly, the beliefs need to be challenged on their own complex philosophical terms, not through ad hominem dismissals in the vein of "the pope doesn't know enough about X to make a valid comment."
I certainly do not want to stand out doing any ad hominem attacks. However, I don't feel I did regarding the pope. Because it is not only the person (or rather I should say his office) I dismissed, but I also disagree with his "arguments", obviously. But to be honest: in case of the monarch of the Vatican I wouldn't feel too bad should anybody catch me arguing "ad hominem" once in a while. Not that there is any noticeable discussion between me and the pope going on, anyway :D

As for the "average person", you already agreed (now I'm trying a lame trick, eh?) that I was not talking about them. Anybody can comment on whatever he/she wants, but I don't like it when they do it because their religious leader(s) planted the idea, moral, dogma, whatever in them.

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by hammegk
Originally posted by wahrmacht
Very witty, very original and absolutely uber-funny your little play on words. And so tasteful.