Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Pope Gaycis not even trying anymore

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Latest example of Pope Francis's unambiguous support of homosexuality:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pop.../04/id/622803/
    Last edited by KingsGambit; 02-05-2015, 02:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Yeah Christ valued thieverey, murder, harlotry and homosexuality.
    No, Christ valued souls. You are confusing the person with the person's actions.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:03 PM
3 responses
35 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:34 PM
18 responses
127 views
2 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
2 responses
42 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
10 responses
80 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Cow Poke, 09-17-2021, 05:33 PM
15 responses
98 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X