Pope Gaycis not even trying anymore

[pancreasman]

Yeah Christ valued thieverey, murder, harlotry and homosexuality.

Probably not, but He certainly seemed to value those who might have practiced them, a subtle distinction.

[phank]

Try harder slaver:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...dding-at-their

Breaking the law brings fines. Sorry you don't like following the law, and think that SOME lawbreakers are just dandy.

We'll all cry crocodile tears that bigots who violate the law because they are bigots, must pay fines for breaking laws.

You continue to make elementary category errors, over and over. The relevant categories here are "seller" and "customer". NOT "Christian" and "homosexual". Religion and sexual orientation are irrelevant. Business licences and laws are relevant.

[phank]

Probably not, but He certainly seemed to value those who might have practiced them, a subtle distinction.

Well, maybe except for short people. I HATE short people, so the Christian god must hate them too. They've got no reason to live.

[Darth Executor]

Probably not, but He certainly seemed to value those who might have practiced them, a subtle distinction.

The OP is about the former, not homosexuals who genuinely try to avoid sin. Francis thinks there's something to value in homosexuality, even though it drives people to sin.

[Darth Executor]

Breaking the law brings fines. Sorry you don't like following the law, and think that SOME lawbreakers are just dandy.

The law is unconstutional. It's no different from runaway slaves "breaking the law". In both cases people refuse to do work demanded of them by Democrats.

We'll all cry crocodile tears that bigots who violate the law because they are bigots, must pay fines for breaking laws.

Yes, we all know you think "bigots" are subhuman, and unlike the slaveowners of old you want to force people to do work purely out of a sadistic desire to destroy people who aren't like you.

[phank]

The law is unconstutional. It's no different from runaway slaves "breaking the law". In both cases people refuse to do work demanded of them by Democrats.

No ant-discrimation laws have been found unconstitutional. And quite a few have been tested. You are simply wrong.

Yes, we all know you think "bigots" are subhuman, and unlike the slaveowners of old you want to force people to do work purely out of a sadistic desire to destroy people who aren't like you.

Wow, obeying the law is sure a burden on you. How you must suffer the slings and arrows of honest people obeying the law all around you!

[Darth Executor]

No ant-discrimation laws have been found unconstitutional. And quite a few have been tested. You are simply wrong.

I have been the only one to actually cite anything on the matter so far. You can squirm all you want slavery lover.

Wow, obeying the law is sure a burden on you. How you must suffer the slings and arrows of honest people obeying the law all around you!

Obeying the law must have been a huge burden for people being marched into Auschwitz too.

[pancreasman]

lol @ 'slavery lover'. There is no indication any jurist thinks anything remotely like this in interpreting the constitution.

[phank]

lol @ 'slavery lover'. There is no indication any jurist thinks anything remotely like this in interpreting the constitution.

Jurists tend to be sane. Wingnuts saying "slavery means disagreeing with my particular bigotry" are comic relief, falling just a bit short of human.

[Spartacus]

So apparently this is somehow now about the Constitution? What does that have to do with the Pope?

Pope Francis, along with a good proportion of the hierarchy, seems interested in staking out a middle ground between extremes-- of coming to terms with homosexuality without compromising (among other things) Christian doctrine on marriage as both a sacrament and a natural institution. What exactly the boundaries of that middle ground ought to be are still open for debate, and that's part of what the Synod is about. No doubt there are those who are trying to pull it too far in one direction or the other (both Burke and Kasper come to mind in this respect), but we shouldn't let either personalities or media narratives (to say nothing of tired old forum arguments) keep us from discussing these questions in nuance and depth.

As for the question of whether "valuing" is substantially different in meaning from "evaluating," I was initially confused by the change in wording, but I see some kernel of sense in the distinction between a neutral evaluation and positive valuing. To begin from neutrality is, in my understanding, beginning with the subject as an individual rather than as representative of a group identity, and to seek to understand that individual rather than blindly (and therefore blandly) offering affirmation. A neutral starting position also offers to the church on the ground the freedom to ask the same sort of questions that might be asked among the hierarchy-- not with respect to pushing the limits of orthodoxy or orthopraxis, but with respect to being open to ideas that are (or seem) genuinely creative and new (as opposed to simply conceding to the culture).

And if you found that confusing, just wait until you ask me to explain further I'd be just as willing to explain via PM, in case anyone finds this thread unlikely to yield worthwhile conversation on the subject

[Darth Executor]

So apparently this is somehow now about the Constitution? What does that have to do with the Pope?

Ask Phank.

Pope Francis, along with a good proportion of the hierarchy, seems interested in staking out a middle ground between extremes-

In this case "extremes" means the stance the Church has held for 2000 years.

[KingsGambit]

Latest example of Pope Francis's unambiguous support of homosexuality:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pop.../04/id/622803/

[pancreasman]

Let's not detract from the rhetoric with mere facts now, shall we?

[Darth Executor]

Latest example of Pope Francis's unambiguous support of homosexuality:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pop.../04/id/622803/

Eh, he tells them to continue their efforts in defense of the family, but it's unclear what His Holiness considers "family". If anything it sounds like he avoided saying anything important because it might interfere with his future plans.