Cantab's rant

rsynnott

Oops, yes, how very embarrassing.

UU

Hmmmm...I'm not sure what religion Cantab. is but it seems like him/her has very fascist or dare I say Scientologist beliefs about homosexuality and continuity of life and reproduction. I don't think we have any cases of underpopulation of the world as a whole but rather overpopulation - hello! look at India, China and Africa. Also, there will always be more heterosexuals in the world who will procreate. I think that's the only reason why religions are so hostile to gays because of sodomy and non-procreation.

Cantab.

Enigma365 wrote:

Cantab

Stark wrote:

The dividing issue is one of consent. Paedophilic acts are wrong because the child is not old enough to consent and they cause untold trauma to the child. However, I wouldn't consider simply being a paedophile to be morally wrong.

I completely agree with Stark...

I don't think anyone believes that just because something occurs naturally, that it is morally good.

A progressive step forward.

Enigma365 wrote:

Morality, in my mind, has to do with whether anyone is harmed. If something does not harm anyone, or society, then I cannot see it as immoral.

The paediophile scenario has been dismissed over the issue of consent which is a reasonable counter-argument.

However where the thesis 'morally ok as long as nobody gets hurt' breaks down is when it comes to animal sex (who's to say the animal doesn't consent, and besides nobody will ever know because animals can't talk and society is not hurt), necrophilia (no consent needed and society isn't hurt), indeed sex with ones mother/cousin/step-mother/aunt - two consenting adults sharing in a physical and romantic relationship - both parties are consenting and society is 'not hurt'.

Now if there are exceptions to the rule 'morally ok as long as nobody get hurt' what are these exceptions and where is the line drawn?

Cantab.

UU wrote:

Hmmmm...I'm not sure what religion Cantab. is

Catholic.

UU wrote:

but it seems like him/her has very fascist or dare I say Scientologist beliefs

Scientology? <sarcasm>And yeah, all Catholics are facists...</sarcasm>

UU wrote:

Also, there will always be more heterosexuals in the world who will procreate.

True.

UU wrote:

I think that's the only reason why religions are so hostile to gays because of sodomy and non-procreation.

They must be all wrong so.

An aside: What do you mean when you say you 'pray to humanity' and not God? Is this some advance form of thinking? I'm intruiged.

UU

An aside: What do you mean when you say you 'pray to humanity' and not God? Is this some advance form of thinking? I'm intrigued.

I suppose it could be some advance form of thinking! Well, let me explain, I'd describe myself as Scientific Humanist: http://scihuman.org/ and a bit more so of course I don't see God I the way religions do as a Supreme supernatural being but rather human (and animal) power. Essentially, I hear and behold "God" in every heart of every mammal so I pray to the hearts and souls of all humans to make a difference rather than some "God" that there is no evidence for and I don't believe in. Maybe I'll set up my own religion called "Faith"! (lol)

Anyway, thanks for asking but I better not go off-topic as they can get nasty!

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

So, maintain love and respect for all humans while persecuting them on the side

If you had it your way you'd persecute Catholics and saying 'homosexuality is morally wrong' would be outlawed as thought-crime.

rsynnott wrote:

and despite all your fine words we all know that this comes down to partnership rights, and possibly even right to exist in the first place? Fine, fine.

Let's not get started on partnership rights. I think we both know each other's position. It's good for both sides of this argument to understand each other's position whilst affirming our differences in a civilised way. The Church gets enough bashing in today's liberal, secular media, but it's important for homosexual persons to realise that no matter how many trials and tribulations
the Church is put through, the Faith will always stand firm through thick and thin.

rsynnott wrote:

When you talked about morality, I assumed you were referring to the morality of the people, and not the morality of the church. I'm fully aware that the Catholic church, and most other organised religious groups, consider homosexuality immoral. Much of the church's morality, however, is at odds with that of the general public.

Since when did popular opinion of the day affect the Church's stance on matters of faith and morals?

rsynnott wrote:

How many these days consider prophylactics and contraception immoral?

You'd be surprised.

rsynnott wrote:

How many consider it immoral to eat meat on Friday?

Again, you'd be surprised. Our very own Dining Hall in Trinity serves fish every Friday. I suppose you and the LGB group would want that banned too? even though there's a meat option for the non-believers.

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

If you had it your way you'd persecute Catholics and saying 'homosexuality is morally wrong' would be outlawed as thought-crime.

Persecute Catholics? Why-ever would I do that? I believe people should be free to believe whatever they like. If you choose to follow the church of the Divine Hippopotamus, it is no skin off my neck. I ask only that you do not require others, who share not your crazy beliefs, to take a mud bath every day, or whatever else His Wobbliness might require. Religion should not be allowed to mess with civil law.

And as to thought-crime, I actually find banning the ravings of bigots, as they do in France and other countries, rather distasteful.

Cantab. wrote:

Let's not get started on partnership rights. I think we both know each other's position. It's good for both sides of this argument to understand each other's position whilst affirming our differences in a civilised way. The Church gets enough bashing in today's liberal, secular media, but it's important for homosexual persons to realise that no matter how many trials and tribulations
the Church is put through, the Faith will always stand firm through thick and thin.

Shed a tear for the church, who after ruling Europe for a millennium finds that people are no longer ready to light the bonfires under the heretics on its say-so. 'the church gets enough bashing' indeed. I'm sure its little feelings aren't that badly hurt. And partnership rights, in modern Ireland, need have little to do with any religious organisation.

Cantab. wrote:

Since when did popular opinion of the day affect the Church's stance on matters of faith and morals?

Again, we have both, I think, become a little confused. As stated before, I was referring to the morals of the people, and not that of the Catholic church or any other religious body.

Cantab. wrote:

You'd be surprised.

The number of Contraceptive Pill and IUD users leads me to believe they're in a minority. I believe condoms also sell quite well.

Cantab. wrote:

Again, you'd be surprised. Our very own Dining Hall in Trinity serves fish every Friday. I suppose you and the LGB group would want that banned too? even though there's a meat option for the non-believers.

Nope, in fact I think you'll find that many in the LGBT are quite religious. I am an unapologetic atheist; it is, however, far from compulsory.

I don't doubt that there are some people who continue to hold with all the church's morals. They don't seem to be a majority, however, and it would be foolish to assume that their morals are public morals, or to base public policy on those morals.

I have, I now realise, dragged this thread somewhat off-topic and for that I apologise.

UU

I'm not sure what everyone thinks about the Partnership Bills but why is the one in Britain of any concern to heterosexuals? It doesn't affect them in any way and they can still get married so what's the problem? It seems to me that people just want some excuse to cause arguments. I think the Civil Unions are great. Religions can't give out about them because they aren't actually marriages and it is a bond between two people who love each who are willing to support each financially. I think it is a real breakthrough for British homosexuals as for once they are recognised by the State as a couple. I hope it comes to Ireland soon so us homosexuals over here can have the rights which we also deserve.

Also, I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church being bashed by today's liberal media as they bashed the weak and powerless people for long enough so they are getting a taste of their own medicine and they deserve it! I feel sorry of course for the good people within the RC Church who help a lot of people like in Africa and even the homeless here and want a more free and liberal Church and it was the few who are giving it a bad name. You must realise Cantab. that the Church doesn't own faith. Faith is different from religious organisations - it is the belief in something we have which rises out of the heart's core not from some old, egotistic, abusive men dressed in frocks, kippahs and crucifixes pretending to preach the teachings of Jesus and contradicting themselves by declaring hatred upon homosexuals and users of contraception. If Jesus were around today, I think he'd be appalled!

Anyway, I'm not letting religious groups tell me that I am a sinner because of my sexual orientation. I know definitely what a sin is and what isn't and the love for somebody of the same gender doesn't hold any sinful nature (unless it is false love of course).

Enigma365

In the end of the day, does it really matter to non Catholics, what the Catholic Church believes?

I mean the Jewish faith teaches that eating pork is wrong. The sausage fans amongst us (excuse the pun), do not argue over this. If the Catholic Church wishes to teach that homosexuality is wrong, then that is their right.

As long as nobody tries to push their religious beliefs on me either directly or by legislation, then I could care less if they believe the moon is made of cheese.

I know I'm grossly oversimplifying the issue, but I want to make this point anyway because this topic has gone from a debate over science to a debate over Catholic teaching.

MicraBoy

However where the thesis 'morally ok as long as nobody gets hurt' breaks down is when it comes to animal sex (who's to say the animal doesn't consent, and besides nobody will ever know because animals can't talk and society is not hurt), necrophilia (no consent needed and society isn't hurt), indeed sex with ones mother/cousin/step-mother/aunt - two consenting adults sharing in a physical and romantic relationship - both parties are consenting and society is 'not hurt'.

Children, animals and the dead are all incapable of giving consent. This makes it morally wrong. Incestuous relationships can harm society because of the increased risk of genetic defects of any children produced from the relationship, although the relationship itself may not harmful to society. I suspect though that the majority of incestuous relationships are abusive and or paedophilic.

UU

Yeah you're very right Enigma365! Now that our society here is no longer under Catholic rule, they can no longer enforce their beliefs and teachings over us. They can declare their views but that's all. I feel sorry for those homosexuals in those strict Arab countries which can put you in jail or even hang you if you're gay! I suppose many of us gays in Ireland and the Western World don't realise how lucky we truly are compared to the denial of human rights carried out in certain countries. To me, the Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism and half a dozen other religions and groups can teach what they want but as long as it doesn't affect me I couldn't care less.

Anyway, I know some Catholics who don't even care what their Church teaches! Some of my uncle's friends are devout gay Catholics!

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

I'm sure its little feelings aren't that badly hurt. And partnership rights, in modern Ireland, need have little to do with any religious organisation.

Well the Church has been through worse. Anyway what you fail to realise is that the citizens of Ireland are predominately Catholic (87% according to the last census) and, when true to their Church, will certainly not vote for a set of 'progressive' laws for the sake of being progressive and 'with the times'.

People are getting sick of 'modern Ireland' and the morals that go with it especially when you look around the streets at weekends, the STD clinics on Monday mornings, the number of young women going off to have abortions, the belief in nothing except 'me', and the belief that it's morally ok to do whatever I want and to hell with everyone else 'so long as nobody [apparently] gets hurt'.

Cantab.

MicraBoy wrote:

..., animals and the dead are all incapable of giving consent.

Says who? My friend's dog is a horny little fella and will rub himself up against anybody that walks in the door. Why not take advantage of him. Both parties could really enjoy it?

MicraBoy wrote:

This makes it morally wrong. Incestuous relationships can harm society because of the increased risk of genetic defects of any children produced from the relationship,

i.e. Goes against natural law.

MicraBoy wrote:

although the relationship itself may not harmful to society.

Put another way: so as long as they don't have children (say they use contraception), then it's morally ok. Wow. Now that's hardcore liberalism.

MicraBoy wrote:

I suspect though that the majority of incestuous relationships are abusive and or paedophilic.

Well specifically, I was referring to the non-abusive/non-paedophillic scenarios from a morals perspective. Do you have more to add on the morality of such relationships?

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

Well the Church has been through worse. Anyway what you fail to realise is that the citizens of Ireland are predominately Catholic (87% according to the last census) and, when true to their Church, will certainly not vote for a set of 'progressive' laws for the sake of being progressive and 'with the times'.

Interesting. Do none of these 87% use condoms or contraceptives or have sex before marriage? Do they all go to mass every Sunday? Or could it simply be the case that they tick the box because it's the handiest thing?

UU

Cantab. wrote:

Well the Church has been through worse. Anyway what you fail to realise is that the citizens of Ireland are predominately Catholic (87% according to the last census) and, when true to their Church, will certainly not vote for a set of 'progressive' laws for the sake of being progressive and 'with the times'.

People are getting sick of 'modern Ireland' and the morals that go with it especially when you look around the streets at weekends, the STD clinics on Monday mornings, the number of young women going off to have abortions, the belief in nothing except 'me', and the belief that it's morally ok to do whatever I want and to hell with everyone else 'so long as nobody [apparently] gets hurt'.

Ha! I wouldn't be so sure of that Cantab.! Sure 87% are Catholic but how many are practising and consider themselves Catholic but refuse to stay 100% loyal to the Church with all the scandals occurring and how many are conservative? People much prefer the modern, progressive and multi-cultural Ireland full of opportunities and it will stay that way and I prefer it! There is no attraction to Church rule of Ireland again - most people hate it! We are only a wealthy nation since we became more liberal. How many Catholic families do you know disallow the mother from working, refuse to use contraception and stick by the Church 100% by giving their "dues" (Maybe in some rural areas?) Do you really expect women to give up work once married and conceive about 15 children and be poor like in the 1920s?

Did you know that it was only since the 1970s homosexuality is legal? Senator David Norris took our state to the EU courts and they said that we have to change our law on homosexuality or we can't remain a part of the EU! There was programme about it on TV the other night.

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

Interesting. Do none of these 87% use condoms or contraceptives or have sex before marriage? Do they all go to mass every Sunday? Or could it simply be the case that they tick the box because it's the handiest thing?

Much Mass-going in the past was socially conditioned, or at least socially supported. Not so long ago, people or families who missed Mass, especially in small Irish towns, were commented upon or criticised harshly. This is not longer the case with a Vatican II decree on religious liberty which says: "Only in freedom can people direct themselves towards goodness." True religion flourishes best in freedom and that freedom has arrived in Ireland. It is one of the church’s main challenges to respond to this freedom.

But when push comes to shove and a close family member dies suddenly, the local Church is usually the first port of call and everyone is miraculously Catholic once more. Ultimately if someone is baptised and has fallen away or even was never baptised and they (or their family) wish to have a funeral in a Catholic Church, they won't find a closed door. It is rather hypocritical though and I was at a memorial Mass there recently and I was disgusted to see so many impure souls queueing up to receive Holy Communion.

Cantab.

UU wrote:

We are only a wealthy nation since we became more liberal.

Mmm. Liberalism = wealth.

dbnavan

No you catch it from the tooth-fairy :rolleyes:

before anyone starts I am neither gay or homophobic, every to there own. Just giving the question the answer it deserves.

rsynnott

UU wrote:

Did you know that it was only since the 1970s homosexuality is legal? Senator David Norris took our state to the EU courts and they said that we have to change our law on homosexuality or we can't remain a part of the EU! There was programme about it on TV the other night.

Actually, 1993, the same year condoms became fully legal.

Cantab. wrote:

I was disgusted to see so many impure souls queueing up to receive Holy Communion.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Cantab.

dbnavan wrote:

before anyone starts I am neither gay or homophobic, every to there own.

God help anyone branded a 'homophobe'. Being branded 'homophobe' is one of the biggest social taboos of modern times and has been achieved very sucessfully by several gay lobby groups.

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with 'homophobia': that they hold the position they do because they are 'afraid' of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behaviour. The fact that a person is afraid of guns would not nullify arguments against guns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of gun control diminish arguments against gun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behaviour are in no way 'afraid' of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying 'homophobe!' falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

So let's all be aware why 'homophobia' actually exists and what it really means.

dbnavan

Cantab. wrote:

God help anyone branded a 'homophobe'. Being branded 'homophobe' is one of the biggest social taboos of modern times and has been achieved very sucessfully by several gay lobby groups.

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with 'homophobia': that they hold the position they do because they are 'afraid' of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way 'afraid' of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying 'homophobe!' falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

So let's all be aware why 'homophobia' actually exists and what it really means.

WOW...............o.............k.........sorry for breathing was just avoiding anyone misreading that I was trying to be funny.

didnt think i needed a lecture,

biofreak

Cantab. wrote:

God help anyone branded a 'homophobe'. Being branded 'homophobe' is one of the biggest social taboos of modern times and has been achieved very sucessfully by several gay lobby groups.

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with 'homophobia': that they hold the position they do because they are 'afraid' of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behaviour. The fact that a person is afraid of guns would not nullify arguments against guns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of gun control diminish arguments against gun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behaviour are in no way 'afraid' of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying 'homophobe!' falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

So let's all be aware why 'homophobia' actually exists and what it really means.

For the rest of this article (from which this paragraph was cut and pasted from) read here http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

rsynnott

biofreak wrote:

For the rest of this article (from which this paragraph was cut and pasted from) read here http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Oooh, what a giveaway!

And Cantab, posting copyright material here is probably not the best of ideas.

Cantab.

biofreak wrote:

For the rest of this article (from which this paragraph was cut and pasted from) read here http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Thank heavens I'm not writing a university thesis. (I believe plagarism is the word, although I'm sure catholic.com won't mind :cool: ).

I'm glad you put the link up. There's lots more interesting reading there.

And I hope you weren't pointing out the plagarism in an attempt to divert attention away from what we're discussing here?

Good to know there's millions of others out there who think just like me eh?

Cantab.

rsynnott wrote:

And Cantab, posting copyright material here is probably not the best of ideas.

And why not? Afraid boards.ie>Soc>LGB will get shut down?! How awful!

rsynnott

Cantab. wrote:

And why not? Afraid boards.ie>Soc>LGB will get shut down?! How awful!

No, no, merely afraid that you'll get banned. That would be tragic.

MicraBoy

Cantab. wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicraBoy
..., animals and the dead are all incapable of giving consent.
Says who? My friend's dog is a horny little fella and will rub himself up against anybody that walks in the door. Why not take advantage of him. Both parties could really enjoy it?

Very convieniently you left "children" out of my quote. If you substituted the word "child" for "dog" in your rebuttal it would have sounded very similar to the arguments made by paedophiles to justify child abuse. The point is where someone/thing is not capable of giving consent it is irrelevant whether they enjoy it or not.

Cantab. wrote:

i.e. Goes against natural law.

No, if it exists in nature it cannot be against natural law. It is against man made moral law.

Cantab. wrote:

Put another way: so as long as they don't have children (say they use contraception), then it's morally ok. Wow. Now that's hardcore liberalism.

No, but it won't cause the world to explode in a hail of brimstone and fire.

Cantab. wrote:

Well specifically, I was referring to the non-abusive/non-paedophillic scenarios from a morals perspective. Do you have more to add on the morality of such relationships?

No, because discussing sex with children, animals and the dead is diversionary and not relevent to the morality of homosexual relationships between consenting adults. To quote your plagarised piece on homophobia, it is an attempt "avoid rational discussion of an issue".

Enigma365

Cantab...

How would society benefit if homosexuals were successfully encouraged to not partake in same-sex relationships? What would be the short-term/long-term benefits in your mind?

How is a homosexual living a life of solitude, advantageous to a homosexual living a life where he gets involved in consensual relationships with those of the same sex?

How is society being harmed by homosexual behaviour?

Cantab.

Cantab. wrote:

No not really. Perhaps Earthman can speak for himself?

I see so it was just your opinion then and not fact.
Why didnt you say that in the begining then and not give the impression you were stating fact.

No matter how many laws and equality measures that are implemented, the ultra-advanced form of civilisation that is the gay couple can never share in the same level of intimacy between a man and his pregnant wife.

Yours appears to be an uninformed opinion and that Sir is the very essence of prejudice.

UU

Ah, Cantab. is a bit conservative but is alright as he doesn't think us gays are mentally ill like Wiseone2cents. I really didn't like that fellow - he was the biggest homophobic bigot you'd ever find! Anyway, it certainly paid off for him as his offensive comments resulted in his exile from Board.ie!

Now I'm ranting! Ah well, it is Saturday - I'm allowed to rant. I wonder if my rant will become a thread too like Cantab. (lol!)