Lazarus, Come out!
frank w elliott jr
Theodore M. Seeber (see...@teleport.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 12 May 1998, janet wrote:
:
: > I thought you were arguing that it WAS our business?
:
: I was arguing that it only becomes our business if and when the
: participants choose to make it our business.
: If they choose not to, we can't do anything about it.
: Thus, if a homosexual stays in the closet enough so that nobody suspects
: that they are a homosexual, then they can't be discriminated against for
: being a homosexual.
:
Ted, you don't even know what being "in the closet means." You continue
to speak from great ignorance. I will explain this not because
I believe you can be reached. That no longer matters. I am
writing this for the benefit of others whom you are misleading.
Being "in the closet" means living life looking over your shoulder.
It means wondering if your thoughts or emotions will be betrayed by
a word, a gesture, a glance, or a facial expression. It means
trusting no one-- especially not yourself. Avoidance of "impure"
behavior or thoughts brings no ultimate solace, because the
emotions somehow associated with them are still there. Being
unable to speak of these emotions means that these emotions
and your fear of them become burdensome. This burden
grows with every day and year of silence. You are led not merely to
avoid sin or even the occasion of sin; you are led to avoid your
emotions. To this end you avoid first those you find attractive,
then those you might love, and finally those you merely like.
Ultimately, living with this obsession becomes more imporant
than living with other people. You distance yourself from
those you care for even when they need you.
If you are fortunate, God gives you the opportunity to
find freedom. Sometimes, this means finding someone who
will accept your love, even though the source of that
love is imperfect. Human love is always imperfect while
seeking perfection, ephemeral while seeking the immortal.
Understanding this makes you whole. This is what "coming
out" means: learning to accept who you are with the help
of another.
: In other words, there's a middle ground here where the
: person can choose to take responsibility for their own sin. And it's a
: middle ground that the church has left open to homosexuals....
When the Vatican said that lesbians and gay men should be subject
to discrimination merely for acknowledging what they are, the
Vatican left no middle ground. If lesbians and gay men
assent to this silence, they surrender their voices, their
only means of defense in an often intolerant society, and
their best means of becoming a part of this society. This assent
would dehumanize them. It would make them live as children
of a lesser god.
: Ted
: Join IDIC at the web page above if you believe in Christ as Government!
If the Cross is to be anything other than a weapon, an instrument of
oppression, and a force for _ruthless_ conformity, I must say "No."
Frank
Theodore M. Seeber
On 14 May 1998, frank w elliott jr wrote:
> When the Vatican said that lesbians and gay men should be subject
> to discrimination merely for acknowledging what they are, the
> Vatican left no middle ground. If lesbians and gay men
> assent to this silence, they surrender their voices, their
> only means of defense in an often intolerant society, and
> their best means of becoming a part of this society. This assent
> would dehumanize them. It would make them live as children
> of a lesser god.
If we heteros are truly unreachable, as you continually claim, then that
means of defense is rather ineffective. You do understand the reason
society IS intolerant, don't you?
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Miracles are 90% showmanship and 10% knowledge of technology we don't
understand yet--Seeber's corollary to Clarke's Law.
frank w elliott jr
:
: > When the Vatican said that lesbians and gay men should be subject
: > to discrimination merely for acknowledging what they are, the
: > Vatican left no middle ground. If lesbians and gay men
: > assent to this silence, they surrender their voices, their
: > only means of defense in an often intolerant society, and
: > their best means of becoming a part of this society. This assent
: > would dehumanize them. It would make them live as children
: > of a lesser god.
:
: If we heteros are truly unreachable, as you continually claim, then that
: means of defense is rather ineffective.
I've said that I believe that _you_ are unreachable. I don't believe you
represent every heterosexual. More importantly, there are gay Catholics
reading this newsgroup and many of them haven't come out. I'm
providing encouragement to them.
Frank
Theodore M. Seeber
Providing that encouragement will only mean that one day they'll run into
somebody far more conservative on this issue than me and get beat up for
it. Intollerance exists, and there isn't much we can do about it.
Padraic42
>Theodore M. Seeber (see...@teleport.com) wrote:
>: On 14 May 1998, frank w elliott jr wrote:
>:
>: > When the Vatican said that lesbians and gay men should be subject
>: > to discrimination merely for acknowledging what they are, the
>: > Vatican left no middle ground. If lesbians and gay men
>: > assent to this silence, they surrender their voices, their
>: > only means of defense in an often intolerant society, and
>: > their best means of becoming a part of this society. This assent
>: > would dehumanize them. It would make them live as children
>: > of a lesser god.
>:
>: means of defense is rather ineffective.
>
>I've said that I believe that _you_ are unreachable. I don't believe you
>represent every heterosexual. More importantly, there are gay Catholics
>reading this newsgroup and many of them haven't come out. I'm
>providing encouragement to them.
>
'FACTS' are that the Church NEVER said that "lesbians and gay men should be
subject to discrimination merely for acknowledging what they are"
In fact, the Church teaches:
"Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
(Catholic Catechism, #2358)
This does not mean the Church can accept and ok homosexual activity. Unless
you think the Church also says that murderers, theives, adulterers, etc. are
subject to discrimination?
Get real Frank. You can keep trying to say the sky is green, but it will
always be blue. Likewise, you can 'claim' the Church encourages discrimination
against gays, but it doesn't.
Pax Christi, Pat
"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross
and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses
his life for my sake will find it." (Matt. 16:24-15)
Padraic42
>On 14 May 1998, frank w elliott jr wrote:
>
>> : If we heteros are truly unreachable, as you continually claim, then that
>> : means of defense is rather ineffective.
>>
>> I've said that I believe that _you_ are unreachable. I don't believe you
>> represent every heterosexual. More importantly, there are gay Catholics
>> reading this newsgroup and many of them haven't come out. I'm
>> providing encouragement to them.
>
>somebody far more conservative on this issue than me and get beat up for
>it. Intollerance exists, and there isn't much we can do about it.
The Church teaches against war, and works toward peace. However, it isn't so
foolish to say that actions by various people won't lead to war. The Church
teaches against unjust discrimination and violence against homosexuals, but it
knows full well that it's teachings often go unheeded and know that the actions
of both sides can lead ot violence. It doesn't 'tolerate', accept or encourage
it, it just understands it.
Padraic42
>Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>
>> Providing that encouragement will only mean that one day they'll run
>> into
>> somebody far more conservative on this issue than me and get beat up
>> for
>> it. Intollerance exists, and there isn't much we can do about it.
>>
>> mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
>> http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
>> Miracles are 90% showmanship and 10% knowledge of technology we don't
>> understand yet--Seeber's corollary to Clarke's Law.
>>
>> Join IDIC at the web page above if you believe in Christ as
>> Government!
>
>kill everybody you know. Oh murderers exists. Lets do nothing. Do you
>DARE call yourself a Christian? Even someone with the least social
>moral? Any sort of moral? What is the difference between you and a rock?
>You are a waste or good food and air. You are a pathetic excuse for
>whatever you claim to be. Why are you even here? Why write this message?
>Do you think God put you here to eat and breath? It's unbelievable how u
>can take a "nothing I can do about it" attitude about this. This can
>easily be changed in my life-time. Bet on it. And you shitheads can sit
>around and do all the nothing you like because the next time you look
>around everything you know will be different. Everything you want won't
>be there. The world would leave you behind along with a cloud of dust.
>Might as well kill yourself, at least that way we can extend the worlds
>oxygen supply by a fraction of a nanosecond, which is a hell of a lot
>more useful than you.
>
What do 'you' propose to do about it?
Does the Church teach against war? Of course, do we have them? you betcha.
Does the Church teach to help our fellow men? (mankind) You betcha, do we?
No.
The fact is that if the world actually follwoed Catholic teachings, there
would be no war, no poverty, no discrimination, no STD's, etc.
As G.K. Chesterton wrote:
"It isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it's een tried
and found hard."
Stephanie Rendino
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980514...@user1.teleport.com>,
Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On 14 May 1998, frank w elliott jr wrote:
>
>> : If we heteros are truly unreachable, as you continually claim, then that
>> : means of defense is rather ineffective.
>>
>> I've said that I believe that _you_ are unreachable. I don't believe you
>> represent every heterosexual. More importantly, there are gay Catholics
>> reading this newsgroup and many of them haven't come out. I'm
>> providing encouragement to them.
>
>somebody far more conservative on this issue than me and get beat up for
>it. Intollerance exists, and there isn't much we can do about it.
If fear of being attacked was adequate reason for hiding, then no woman
would ever leave the house. Queers bash back!
Theodore M. Seeber
On 15 May 1998, Stephanie Rendino wrote:
> >Providing that encouragement will only mean that one day they'll run into
> >somebody far more conservative on this issue than me and get beat up for
> >it. Intollerance exists, and there isn't much we can do about it.
>
> If fear of being attacked was adequate reason for hiding, then no woman
> would ever leave the house. Queers bash back!
Many women don't leave the house for exactly this fear. And as for queers
bashing back, when a group of people half your age armed with clubs
attack, the only thing you can do about it is run away. And sometimes
even that doesn't work. And if you're city has already passed
conservative fight-back laws against education, then there's not much you
can do in the way of calling the police for help. And the same also goes
if you're not really queer, but only just look a little wierd to the group
of 10-year-old bigots that attacked you.....
I've said to much.
Keith Ng
Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> Providing that encouragement will only mean that one day they'll run
> into
> somebody far more conservative on this issue than me and get beat up
> for
> it. Intollerance exists, and there isn't much we can do about it.
> Ted
>
> mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
> http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
> Miracles are 90% showmanship and 10% knowledge of technology we don't
> understand yet--Seeber's corollary to Clarke's Law.
>
> Join IDIC at the web page above if you believe in Christ as
> Government!
Poverty exists. Lets do nothing. War exists. Lets do nothing. I go and
kill everybody you know. Oh murderers exists. Lets do nothing. Do you
DARE call yourself a Christian? Even someone with the least social
moral? Any sort of moral? What is the difference between you and a rock?
You are a waste or good food and air. You are a pathetic excuse for
whatever you claim to be. Why are you even here? Why write this message?
Do you think God put you here to eat and breath? It's unbelievable how u
can take a "nothing I can do about it" attitude about this. This can
easily be changed in my life-time. Bet on it. And you shitheads can sit
around and do all the nothing you like because the next time you look
around everything you know will be different. Everything you want won't
be there. The world would leave you behind along with a cloud of dust.
Might as well kill yourself, at least that way we can extend the worlds
oxygen supply by a fraction of a nanosecond, which is a hell of a lot
more useful than you.
--
Keith Ng (Gisarme)
E-mail at gis...@paradise.net.nz
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
- Karl Marx
Keith Ng
In a message dated 98-05-16 05:12:50 EDT, you write:Well, if you can't say what you mean, you can't mean what you say.<< I propose to do whatever I can. That's the whole reason I'm on this
newsgroup, I want to change people's attitude. I want to do everything
that I can to rip the stick out of these Christian's arses. >>My, how 'Christian'.
<<So far I think I've gotten through to two, but I intend to do more. This is
a
"war" of attitude and ideals. People can no longer live like they did
several centuries ago, and religion is the last (and biggest) stronghold
of the old school of thought.>>You mean you've deluded two? Your right though, this is a war. Not against
'attitudes' and 'ideals', but between light and darkness, truth and
error/lies, God and Satan.
St. Paul said that the 'battle' we waged wasn't against nations, but againstOh? Am I the personification of evil now? I am Lord of Darkness and Terror (OK, maybe a little lower down)? Why are you so quick to judge? Can you be sure that I am wrong? I believe in what I say, and I also believe that the things I do are good. I wonder if you realise that this "Light vs Dark" thing is very close to what they said during the Crusades. The "Truth" has changed many times during the brief history of the church. Women use to be inferior. Blacks use to be inferior. The earth was flat. Man weren't supposed to fly. The list goes on. And on. And on. Right now you are firm in your believe that nothing will change, ten years from now you'll think to yourself "Gee. I'm right as always. Homosexuality was ALWAYS accepted by the church and never have they discriminated against them.", just like some people in this group refuse to acknoledge that the church discriminated against anybody in its history, and that it has always be squeaky clean. Anyway...
the forces of darkness. If your 'new' school of thought, is filled with error
and fables, then it 'has' to be fought. Truth isn't 'old school', it simply
the truth, regardless of the age.
<<Point. YOU go out and do what YOU think is right. The problem is that
people because they are to stuck up in what the Church says is right,
they fail to judge for themselves, and to go out and do that.>>What 'I" do because it's right is precisely because the CHURCH says it's
right, not me. Judge for ourselves? This pernicious attitude rewards error
and fables.
People 'judged' for themselves that Christ was John the Baptist, or one ofHmm... the church saying that the church is always right. So what's new? And who is Tim? A person. What is the church? A collective body of people. Has any of them lived more than a lifetime? Noo... Have I lived a lifetime? Getting there. WHY would they know better than me? Are they not human? If God were to speak to you, he would speak to YOU and not indirectly through a bunch of other people dishing out their version of God's Will in a fastfood, mass production fashion.
the Prophets, only Peter said who He really is, and that came from the Father,
not himself.'YOU' are NOT the infallible determiner of truth. The Church is the 'pillar
and bulwark' of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), not you, or me.
<< I don't believe in following totally. I will follow on specific issuesI *WAS* (emphasis on past tense). And about the chanting, it's really quite freaky if you stand back and look at it. Very Pagan (or cult-like).
that I agree on, but it is highly unlikely that people will agree on
everything. >>Then I must assume you aren't Catholic. The Creed we ALL say is "I
believe... in the Holy, Catholic Church..." Faith in the Church which Christ
established, believing waht that Church teaches, IS believing God.
Well actually I dismiss Jesus as a Christian story/myth. Not that it makes too much difference, because if I AM a Christian, Jesus is basically God, and if I'm NOT, then Jesus don't exist. So either way, it's really just God. (Don't worry, hardly worth the trouble of replying)" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who
rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Lk. 10:16)You 'disagree' with Christ? You 'don't believe' what Christ said?
EXCATLY!!!! You took the words right out of my mouth/keyboard. The church is a body of men. The bible is written by men. They are people, and should be treated as such. The church is NOT God. I don't think they stare too closely at the bible to see God in the real world. What I am saying is to *look* for God. Right now, I think that Christians are being told where God is, and they're just complacently sitting down, believing they know exactly where God is. It's no good taking direction from other people who have no better idea of where they are going than you do. And if you can't rely on their directions, then the only other way is to look for God yourselves isn't it? And you can't rely on the church's directions. They are not special people, they are not "better" people. They are people. There is no way that they know more about God than any of us, so why are they giving out directions when they don't know if they are right or not? Maybe to get people going somewhere spritually. Now if you're already going somewhere, maybe it's time for you to see just WHERE you are going, and to start searching for God instead of taking directions from people.The person who puts their trust in the judgement of men, is a fool.
--
Keith Ng (Gisarme) accused "Minor Lord of Darkness and Very Wrong
as Well"
Oldguyteck
Padriac, I wounder now if this just another loose nut. or spammer? Just
another misguided soul, thinking he can be an island all to himselfe .Like
the kid in school thinking they know more than the teacher.... seen it all
before, and by golly guess I'm still seeing more and more of it the older I
get. (unfortunatly)
God bless you all. and my prayers are with all my Catholic brothers and
sisters in Christ.
Ed..................(Oldguyteck) †
Keith Ng <gis...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in article
<355ED09F...@paradise.net.nz>...
owhi...@hotmail.com
In article <199805150406...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
> >I've said that I believe that _you_ are unreachable. I don't believe you
> >represent every heterosexual. More importantly, there are gay Catholics
> >reading this newsgroup and many of them haven't come out. I'm
> >providing encouragement to them.
> >
> How Frank?
As long as you possess your stony heart, Padraic, you'll never know how.
> In fact, the Church teaches:
>
> "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
> (Catholic Catechism, #2358)
Yet the Church routinely engages in unjust discrimination in our regard. The
emperor has no clothes, so why does he need such a HUGE closet?
Oscar
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Padraic42
>> >I've said that I believe that _you_ are unreachable. I don't believe you
>> >represent every heterosexual. More importantly, there are gay Catholics
>> >reading this newsgroup and many of them haven't come out. I'm
>> >providing encouragement to them.
>> >
>> How Frank?
>
>As long as you possess your stony heart, Padraic, you'll never know how.
>
>> In fact, the Church teaches:
>>
>> "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
>> (Catholic Catechism, #2358)
>
>Yet the Church routinely engages in unjust discrimination in our regard. The
>emperor has no clothes, so why does he need such a HUGE closet?
I don't know, why do you?
This is typical oscar garbage. Unless the Church tells Oscar his having sex
with his male buddy is ok, then the Church is discriminating.
Your as bad as Nick Oscar!
From the other side of course.
Nick says the Church is terrible because it teaches that a homosexual person
is a child of God, though their sexual activity is a sin.
You want the Church to say homosexual sexual activity is ok.
Bzzz, sorry, truth is truth.
Shawn
The fact is that if the world actually follwoed Catholic teachings, there would be no war, no poverty, no discrimination, no STD's, etc.
What a crock! Some of the poorest areas in the world are places where the Church has been predominant for centuries. The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti, is 80% Roman Catholic.
Furthermore, if the church ruled the world, we'd have few advances in science and technology, and forget art and literature.
No war? One word: Crusades
But none of it would matter, because we'd have gone extinct from overpopulation years ago.
In fact, it seems to me that the only religion that would live up to Padraic's claim would be Buddhism.
- shawn
Padraic42
In article <355ED09F...@paradise.net.nz>, Keith Ng
<gis...@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>> St. Paul said that the 'battle' we waged wasn't against nations, but
>> against
>> the forces of darkness. If your 'new' school of thought, is filled
>> with error
>> and fables, then it 'has' to be fought. Truth isn't 'old school', it
>> simply
>> the truth, regardless of the age.
>
> Oh? Am I the personification of evil now? I am Lord of Darkness and
>Terror (OK, maybe a little lower down)?
This is so typical. Did I ever say he was the personification of evil? No.
That he was ther Lord of Darkness? No.
Deluded by him? Probably, since he feels it's within his 'authority' to
cahnge the truth for a 'new' truth.
Keith Ng
Padraic42 wrote:
> Typical. Read what I wrote, not what you 'want' to think I wrote.
Are you refering to this?
>>The person who puts their trust in the judgement of men, is a fool.
>EXCATLY!!!! You took the words right out of my mouth/keyboard. The
church is a body >of men. The bible is written by men. They are people,
and should be treated as such. The >church is NOT God. I don't think
they stare too closely at the bible to see God in the real >world. What
I am saying is to *look* for God. Right now, I think that Christians are
being >told where God is, and they're just complacently sitting down,
believing they know exactly >where God is. It's no good taking direction
from other people who have no better idea of >where they are going than
you do. And if you can't rely on their directions, then the only >other
way is to look for God yourselves isn't it? And you can't rely on the
church's >directions. They are not special people, they are not "better"
people. They are people. >There is no way that they know more about God
than any of us, so why are they giving >out directions when they don't
know if they are right or not? Maybe to get people going >somewhere
spritually. Now if you're already going somewhere, maybe it's time for
you to >see just WHERE you are going, and to start searching for God
instead of taking directions
>from people.
Do tell me what you think, because this is the essential foundation of
my case against the church.
Do you think that the church are (composed of) humans? Do you think that
they know any better than everybody else? If so, why?
--
Keith Ng (Gisarme)
Padraic42
<< Do tell me what you think, because this is the essential foundation of
my case against the church. >>
says He will protect this Church?
"And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and
blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18* And I
tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the
powers of death * shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:17-18)
According to you idea, the Church either did succumb, or worse.
" "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19* Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all
that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the
age." (Matt. 28:18-20)
God told His Apotles to go 'teach' in His name and that he would be with them
until the end of time. Did he leave as as orphans to make our own way blindly?
""These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. 26 But the
Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach
you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
(Jn. 14:25-26)
Christ sends his Holy Spirit to guide His Church in all things, reminding us
what He taught. This He does 'through' the Church's Magesterium, which He
established to guide us, and teach us His commands.
" "He who hears you (the Pope and Magesterium) hears me, and he who rejects
you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Lk. 10:16)
This is so the 'Church' remains " the church of the living God, the pillar
and bulwark of the truth." (1 Tim. 3:15)
Your idea of "The church is a body >of men. The bible is written by men. They
are people, and should be treated as such. The >church is NOT God.", denies
what Christ said, taught, and did.
It follows a Protestant notion of personal interpretation. If truth was
'relative' could Christ say that " "I am the way, and the truth, and the life"
(Jn. 14:6) and not 'A way, A truth, and A life.?
Wouldn't Pilate be the true 'prophet' of the world by saying:
"Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" (Jn. 18:38)
So, who do 'you' say He is?
If He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, then why oppose the Church He
established, which continues His mission of salvation, teaching all that He
commanded, and bringing truth to world in need of His light.
Or is He someone else who can be disregarded?
Adam Knight
Shawn <sjf...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Padraic wrote:
>
> > The fact is that if the world actually follwoed Catholic teachings, there
> > would be no war, no poverty, no discrimination, no STD's, etc.
>
> What a crock! Some of the poorest areas in the world are places where
> the Church has been predominant for centuries. The poorest country in
> the Western Hemisphere, Haiti, is 80% Roman Catholic.
And so because these people are Catholic, the country is poor? Ummm
... that doesn't work.
> Furthermore, if the church ruled the world, we'd have few advances in
> science and technology, and forget art and literature.
Oh of course. I mean why study God's Creation when we can just sit
here on our knees showing off our Catholicity? Hmph. Don't think so.
Many of the foremost scientists and artists of history were devout
Catholics. As for art ... go to a European cathedral THEN tell me
Catholics would not continue the arts.
> No war? One word: Crusades
Of which you know nothing about, more than likely.
In 1095/6 the pope (Innocent II I beleive) ordered a crusade against
the Turkish invaders of Jerusalem (at the request of the patriarch of
Constantinople for help). The Turks were ransacking holy sites and
defiling Christian churches and monuments (namely the Holy
Sepluchure(sp?)). The mistake here is that the pope said that those who
did this would have whatever pennance they had been prescribed nullified
and replaced with the crusade. In other words, if you were to risk your
life for the defense of God's City, you had done your deed for God.
Idealy and theologically, good. In practice, an invitation to the
murderers and theives to go.
First was the unofficial People's Crusade led by the infamous Peter
the Hermit of France. No need to elaborate, they never made it to
Jerusalem in any significant numbers. Next were the actual knights of
the royals. Jewish hate at the time was similar to WWII-era thought.
The Jews had money, others did not. It's the Jews fault for the mess
we're in. That's not Christian thought -- that's human irrationality.
So along the way the crusaders, God's army if you will, killed and
plundered the Jews, God's people. Christian? No. Ordered by Catholic
officials? They excommunicated most of the crusaders upon their return
home.
In all, it was more due to the hatred breeding in the people of the
time rather thant he teachings of the Catholic church. In and of
themselves, the first three Crusades were good things in that they were
ordained to take back God's city into hands what would protect it and
use it for God. In practice, it was the people who went ont he Crusades
who ruined the idea and turned it into a horrible desecration of the
Church's name.
> But none of it would matter, because we'd have gone extinct from
> overpopulation years ago.
If you tookt he world population and gave every family a suburban
plot of land (complete with house, yards, and a driveway) we could all
fit in the country of Mexico. There will not be an overpopulation
problem. Ever. It's the reports of the WHO and UN, which have been
proven to be falsified, that have made people believe this.
> In fact, it seems to me that the only religion that would live up to
> Padraic's claim would be Buddhism.
Taoism would do it too. But the apathy that confused newcomers
would mistake for the actual way of life would kill us all after one
generation (no crops, no procreation, etc.).
Buddism might do it, but I'd be worried about eccentric Shiva
followers who have been known to create quite a stir in India on
occasion (small groups of misguided souls, of course, nothing
organized).
I concurr with Padraic. A world of true Catholics would be nice.
If anyone were to look up on the town of Kracow, Poland in the 1920s,
you'd see what a Catholic world could be like. It's beautiful. =)
--
Adam Knight
Computer Science, 2001 -- Baylor University, Waco, TX
Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net
Theodore M. Seeber
On Sun, 17 May 1998 owhi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yet the Church routinely engages in unjust discrimination in our regard. The
> emperor has no clothes, so why does he need such a HUGE closet?
Could you point out some true unjust discrimination not related to the
calling of Eros without possibility of progeny a sin? After all, the
church holds that position for heterosexuals as well, which means like it
or not, it's not just homosexuals who are discriminated against in this
way.
owhi...@hotmail.com
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98051...@user2.teleport.com>,
>
> > Yet the Church routinely engages in unjust discrimination in our regard.
The
> > emperor has no clothes, so why does he need such a HUGE closet?
>
> Could you point out some true unjust discrimination not related to the
> calling of Eros without possibility of progeny a sin? After all, the
> church holds that position for heterosexuals as well, which means like it
> or not, it's not just homosexuals who are discriminated against in this
> way.
I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's been
around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for gay
persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing, then
that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
Theodore M. Seeber
On Tue, 19 May 1998 owhi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Could you point out some true unjust discrimination not related to the
> > calling of Eros without possibility of progeny a sin? After all, the
> > church holds that position for heterosexuals as well, which means like it
> > or not, it's not just homosexuals who are discriminated against in this
> > way.
>
> I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's been
> around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
> political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for gay
> persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing, then
> that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
do't believe in?
Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
housing and employment.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
If you believe in puting the 'ethics' back into government, click on the
above link.
frank w elliott jr
:
: > > Could you point out some true unjust discrimination not related to the
: > > calling of Eros without possibility of progeny a sin? After all, the
: > > church holds that position for heterosexuals as well, which means like it
: > > or not, it's not just homosexuals who are discriminated against in this
: > > way.
: >
: > I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's been
: > around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
: > political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for gay
: > persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing, then
: > that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
:
: Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
: do't believe in?
Why, yes. How else are they to learn tolerance?
: Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
: housing and employment.
It's a question of where one lives.
In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
got to be kidding.
: Ted
:
Theodore M. Seeber
On 19 May 1998, frank w elliott jr wrote:
> : Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
> : do't believe in?
>
> Why, yes. How else are they to learn tolerance?
Tolerance is a good thing in all situations?
Ok, so you have a neighbor who is a hetrosexual pedophile. Do you really
want your daughters to learn to tolerate his actions?
Or you have a Jeffery Dahmer next door (what would we classify him as? A
canablaistic necrophiliac homosexual? Certainly NOT normal by anybody
else's standards) would you let your son go to visit even if he might end
up in a barrel of brine for next Sunday's dinner?
> : Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
> : housing and employment.
>
> It's a question of where one lives.
>
> In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
> got to be kidding.
In which case it isn't exactly a teaching of the entire magisterium yet
either way, is it?
Which way do you think the Magisterium as a whole is leaning? I'd say
towards denying gays access to children while promoting their employment
in other areas.
Certainly NOT against housing.....
Padraic42
>I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's been
>around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
>political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for gay
>persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing, then
>that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
Poor Oscar, a rebel without a clue.
Firstly, the Church doesn't ok all aspects of sexual expression. He
continues to harp that homosexuals should be able to act as heterosexuals. But
the Church teaches against illicit heterosexual sexual acts as well.
The 'gay rights' Oscar keeps harpng on is just that. The right to homosexual
acts.
The Church can never accept that.
"Under no circumstance can they (homosexual sexual contact) be approved."
(Catholic Catechism; #2357)
Though the person is defended against 'unjust discrimination'. (Ibid; #2358)
"Why Is Homosexuality Wrong?
Introduction. As conservative Christian and Jewish activists, we are
often confronted with the question: "Why do you think homosexuality is
wrong? After all, it is just another permutation of the infinite variety
of human love!"
Most Christians, when confronted with this question, become distinctly
uneasy. Homosexuality is a touchy subject, and the average Christian does
not know much about it, although he may have a few vague notions about it
that may mildly disturb or disgust him. He may not reply to the question
for fear of appearing ignorant, judgmental, or just plain nonenlightened.
If the inquirer is another Christian (and, more specifically, one who
believes in the inerrancy of the Bible), then there is really no problem.
As described later in this chapter, there are many Scripture passages in
both the New and the Old Testaments that very explicitly condemn sodomy.
If the questioner is a Humanist, or a 'Christian' who does not believe
in what the Bible has to say, then this question must be answered with very
concise and logical reasoning. It is not a difficult question to answer,
but it needs to be analyzed and prepared for ahead of time so that the
Christian can have a logical and coherent response ready. Debating
homosexuality demands that the Christian think out his position carefully
ahead of time.
Judge the Sin, Not the Sinner. To begin with, Christians must
recognize that a homosexual orientation, whether genetic or acquired,
cannot be sinful in and of itself. Homosexual urgings are similar to other
human weaknesses, in that they constitute an unnatural and unhealthy
manifestation of our fallen nature, like urgings for normal sex, drugs, and
excessive food and alcohol. It is quite possible that the Lord Himself
gives such crosses to people in order to test their resistance to sin. We
are certainly more worthy in God's eyes if we confront our weaknesses and,
through the grace of God, defeat them.
The homosexual urge only causes damage to the person's soul if he
caves in and <acts> on his desires, in the same manner that an alcoholic
does no damage to himself until he begins to drink.
In truth, homosexuals who are chaste and who successfully struggle
against their urges through a lifetime of self-discipline carry a very
heavy cross indeed and are to be admired. So the simple fact that someone
has a homosexual <orientation> is not "bad" ДД unless the person <acts> on
that orientation.
The Ten Reasons. There are ten logical reasons why the "gay rights"
movement in general and homosexual activities in particular present extreme
dangers to individual and societal health and freedom. These are listed
below and are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.
These principles are described in detail in the referenced chapters.
Anyone who wants to debate the "gay rights" issue intelligently should
carefully study the complete text of Chapters 115 to 122.
НННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННН
WHY CHRISTIANS MUST OPPOSE THE "GAY RIGHTS" MOVEMENT
НННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННН
(1) The "gay rights" movement is a public health menace (Chapter 122).
(2) The "gay rights" movement is predatory (Chapter 121).
(3) The "gay rights" movement is coercive (Chapter 117).
(4) The "gay rights" movement completely disregards the rights of others
(Chapter 117).
(5) The "gay rights" movement is extremely violent in nature (Chapter
118).
(6) The "gay rights" movement enables addictive behavior to continue
(Chapter 116).
(7) The "gay rights" movement degrades society (Chapter 117).
(8) Homosexuals are <not> a legal minority.
(9) The "gay rights" movement is superfluous (Chapter 118).
(10) The "gay rights" movement is unbiblical and, indeed, actually
antithetical to Christianity (Chapter 115).
НННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННН
Why Christians Must Oppose
The "Gay Rights" Movement.
Introduction. At first glance, it may seem that Christians should be
on the side of "homosexual equality," because Christ taught us that we
should recognize the equal dignity of all human beings.
But we must look deeper into the homosexual agenda in order to find
that they are not just agitating for equality; they have that already under
the laws of our country. The militant homosexuals demand a <superior>
position in our society."
(INTRODUCTION TO THE "GAY RIGHTS" DEBATE; Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia>,
published by American Life League)
Pax Christi, Pat
I\
I/ "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross and
_I_ follow me" (Matt. 16:24)
I
frank w elliott jr
:
: > : Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
: > : do't believe in?
: >
: > Why, yes. How else are they to learn tolerance?
:
: Tolerance is a good thing in all situations?
In many cases, it is.
: Ok, so you have a neighbor who is a hetrosexual pedophile. Do you really
: want your daughters to learn to tolerate his actions?
: Or you have a Jeffery Dahmer next door (what would we classify him as? A
: canablaistic necrophiliac homosexual? Certainly NOT normal by anybody
: else's standards) would you let your son go to visit even if he might end
: up in a barrel of brine for next Sunday's dinner?
You said mentioned a "lifestyle I don't believe in"-- not a physical danger
to the child. Ted, this may come as a shock to you, but I don't believe
in your "lifestyle." Yet, I would have no problem living next door to you.
I would not change my mind even if I had children.
Furthermore, if I had a son and he happened to be gay, I could make
arguments similar to your own that members of the religious right
represent a danger to him. However, I would still be willing to
live with them provided they show no signs of harassing or threatening
or menacing my son.
:
: > : Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
: > : housing and employment.
: >
: > It's a question of where one lives.
: >
: > In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
: > got to be kidding.
:
: In which case it isn't exactly a teaching of the entire magisterium yet
: either way, is it?
: Which way do you think the Magisterium as a whole is leaning? I'd say
: towards denying gays access to children while promoting their employment
: in other areas.
Certainly, the CDF's denial of fairness in housing, employment, and
military service has nothing to do with children. Moreover, any
priest who singles out a homosexual as a potential corrupter of
children is nothing but a hypocrite-- even if that priest is the
Pope.
: Certainly NOT against housing.....
Reread the CDF's letter to the NCCB in 1992 and Ratzingers 1986 "Halloween
Letter."
--Frank
Theodore M. Seeber
On 19 May 1998, frank w elliott jr wrote:
> : Tolerance is a good thing in all situations?
>
> In many cases, it is.
But is it in all situations?
> : Ok, so you have a neighbor who is a hetrosexual pedophile. Do you really
> : want your daughters to learn to tolerate his actions?
> : Or you have a Jeffery Dahmer next door (what would we classify him as? A
> : canablaistic necrophiliac homosexual? Certainly NOT normal by anybody
> : else's standards) would you let your son go to visit even if he might end
> : up in a barrel of brine for next Sunday's dinner?
>
> You said mentioned a "lifestyle I don't believe in"-- not a physical danger
> to the child.
To many parents, a lifestyle that they don't believe in IS a physical
danger to the child.
> Ted, this may come as a shock to you, but I don't believe
> in your "lifestyle." Yet, I would have no problem living next door to you.
> I would not change my mind even if I had children.
Even if I forced them to grow up hetero?
> Furthermore, if I had a son and he happened to be gay, I could make
> arguments similar to your own that members of the religious right
> represent a danger to him. However, I would still be willing to
> live with them provided they show no signs of harassing or threatening
> or menacing my son.
The point is that they DO show signs of harassing and threatening and
menacing such a person.
Just as in the view of the religious right, homosexuals are threatening
and menacing to their way of life.
> Certainly, the CDF's denial of fairness in housing, employment, and
> military service has nothing to do with children. Moreover, any
> priest who singles out a homosexual as a potential corrupter of
> children is nothing but a hypocrite-- even if that priest is the
> Pope.
I'm not familiar with that acronym. However, here in Oregon and in
Colorado, the church protested against anti-gay ballot measures now four
times. In Colorado, they failed....
> : Certainly NOT against housing.....
>
> Reread the CDF's letter to the NCCB in 1992 and Ratzingers 1986 "Halloween
> Letter."
Could you give me a pointer to the first? The second, like most things on
this topic, is a single cardinal, not the entire magisterium.
owhi...@hotmail.com
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980519...@user2.teleport.com>,
>
> > : do't believe in?
> >
> > Why, yes. How else are they to learn tolerance?
>
> want your daughters to learn to tolerate his actions?
> Or you have a Jeffery Dahmer next door (what would we classify him as? A
> canablaistic necrophiliac homosexual? Certainly NOT normal by anybody
> else's standards) would you let your son go to visit even if he might end
> up in a barrel of brine for next Sunday's dinner?
Come now, Ted, the great majority of heterosexuals are as harmless as the
great majority of homosexuals--*except* that homosexuals have the best
gardens, the classiest parties, the best taste in home design and decor, plus
MUCH more leisure time from not having to run the kids all over town in the
van (at least for us childless ones). No wonder the hets can't stand us!
They're jealous!
>
> > : Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights
in
> > : housing and employment.
> >
> > It's a question of where one lives.
> >
> > In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
> > got to be kidding.
>
> In which case it isn't exactly a teaching of the entire magisterium yet
> either way, is it?
> Which way do you think the Magisterium as a whole is leaning?
Uh, that would be far, far to the right, of course.
> I'd say
> towards denying gays access to children
Shockingly, I'll disagree with you here: Most days, working in a crowded
school, I have much more access to children than I would ever usually care to
have. (But that's my work, and I try to do a good job.) So far, Rome hasn't
gotten involved.
> while promoting their employment
> in other areas.
Hmmm, they are in the highest ranks of the Church.
> Certainly NOT against housing.....
At least not at the Vatican, or in quite a few bishop's mansions and parish
rectories.
Padraic42
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980519...@user2.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>> I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's
>been
>> around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
>> political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for gay
>> persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing, then
>> that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
>
>Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
>do't believe in?
>Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
>housing and employment.
Not only Federal Law, but Catholic teaching (again Oscar, refer to the
Catechism of the Church instead of the Catechism of Act Up) says that a
homosexual person cannot be discriminated against 'solo;y' for being
homosexual.
If you are fired, or not hired, for a job just because you're gay, you can
take the company to court (and win, by law) and the Church would support you.
If you are refused,or deprived medical care because you are gay you can,
again by law, take the hospital and clinic to court. and the Church would
support you.
If you wish to declare your 'present ;ife partner' as your insurance
benefiary, that is your right, and the Church will support you.
If you wish to designate that same person to act for you in medical
decisions, you can and the Church will support you.
In every basic civil, human right, the law backs the homosexual and the
Church supports that.
However, if you want schools to teach homosexuality as a valid, life giving
lifestyle, the Church will not support that. (Just s it doesn't support illicit
hetrosexual lifestyles), the church will not support that.
If you want to have a sacramental 'marriage', the Church cannot support that.
In short, the 'rights' you clamor for, you already have.
The rights you 'demand' are beyond normal civil rights.
Padraic42
In article <6jsnc1$goq$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott jr)
writes:
>: Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
>: do't believe in?
>
>Why, yes. How else are they to learn tolerance?
>
But are you teaching tolerance? harldy. I see tons of intolerance.
If a homosexual lived next door, I'd have no problem. Until they began
foring their ;views' on my family.
>: Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
>: housing and employment.
>It's a question of where one lives.
>
>In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
>got to be kidding.
In Oregon yes, in Colorado the Church said yes, but no to 'special' rights.
In NY, the same. In Rome, the same.
As with oscar Frank, read the Catholic Catechism, not Act Up's.
Padraic42
>Furthermore, if I had a son and he happened to be gay, I could make
>arguments similar to your own that members of the religious right
>represent a danger to him.
Maybe the religious right, evangeliccal fundamentalsists, but not from
Catholics following Church teaching.
Keith Ng
Oldguyteck wrote:
> Padriac, I wounder now if this just another loose nut. or spammer?
> Just
> another misguided soul, thinking he can be an island all to himselfe
> .Like
> the kid in school thinking they know more than the teacher.... seen it
> all
> before, and by golly guess I'm still seeing more and more of it the
> older I
> get. (unfortunatly)
Who is the teacher? What do you know? How many lives have you had? Do
you know that you are better than me? Hell, in the tiny space of a
lifetime, anything can happen. Can you say that one person is
smarter/wiser/better than another? I can't say that I'm better than you,
and I never have, and never will. But right now you are doing that. Can
you say that you are better than me?
> God bless you all. and my prayers are with all my Catholic brothers
> and
> sisters in Christ.
> Ed..................(Oldguyteck) †
Oh? Not the rest of us anymore? 8-)
--
Keith Ng (Gisarme)
Padraic42
In article <35626691...@paradise.net.nz>, Keith Ng
<gis...@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>Who is the teacher? What do you know? How many lives have you had?
We only have one. How many lives do you 'think' you had?
frank w elliott jr
Padraic42 (padr...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <6jsnc1$goq$2...@news.nyu.edu>,: >: Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
: >: housing and employment.
:
: >It's a question of where one lives.
: >
: >In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
: >got to be kidding.
:
: In Oregon yes, in Colorado the Church said yes, but no to 'special' rights.
for considerably less than the protections you enjoy as a Catholic.
God knows that Catholics need them.
: In NY, the same. In Rome, the same.
Not true. Cardinal O'Connor is on record as having opposed the
kind of equal employment opportunities for gay people which
Catholics already enjoy. He did this even when religious institutions
were given an exemption from the law.
Pat, no matter how often you repeat lies, they don't
become the truth.
:
: As with oscar Frank, read the Catholic Catechism, not Act Up's.
:
Read something other than the Vatican's propaganda for a change
Pat. Show some intellectual integrity. It would be a pleasant
change from pietistic intellectual primitivism.
:
:
: Pax Christi, Pat
:
Padraic42
>
>Padraic42 (padr...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <6jsnc1$goq$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
>: elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu (frank w elliott jr)
>: writes:
>:
>: >: Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights
>in
>: >: housing and employment.
>:
>: >It's a question of where one lives.
>: >
>: >In Oregon, yes. In Colorado, no. In New York, no. In Rome-- you've
>: >got to be kidding.
>:
>: In Oregon yes, in Colorado the Church said yes, but no to 'special'
>rights.
>Once again, the "special rights" lie. In fact gay people are asking
>for considerably less than the protections you enjoy as a Catholic.
>God knows that Catholics need them.
>
>: In NY, the same. In Rome, the same.
>
>Not true. Cardinal O'Connor is on record as having opposed the
>kind of equal employment opportunities for gay people which
>Catholics already enjoy. He did this even when religious institutions
>were given an exemption from the law.
>
>Pat, no matter how often you repeat lies, they don't
>become the truth.
>
to have. So they twist and distort. Just as a reminder, I've posted the
Catechism ad infintitum that the Church teaches against unjust discrimination
against homosexuals. But you and Oscar keep saying that is a lie. What a
crock. You can't even accept that the Church teaches that, but some don't
follow the teaching.
>:
>: As with oscar Frank, read the Catholic Catechism, not Act Up's.
>:
>Read something other than the Vatican's propaganda for a change
>Pat. Show some intellectual integrity. It would be a pleasant
>change from pietistic intellectual primitivism.
I have Frank, that why I know you've been led down the garden path.
frank w elliott jr
Padraic42 (padr...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: In NY, the same. In Rome, the same.
: >
: >Not true. Cardinal O'Connor is on record as having opposed the
: >kind of equal employment opportunities for gay people which
: >Catholics already enjoy. He did this even when religious institutions
: >were given an exemption from the law.
: >
: >Pat, no matter how often you repeat lies, they don't
: >become the truth.
: Just as a reminder, I've posted the
: Catechism ad infintitum that the Church teaches against unjust discrimination
: against homosexuals. But you and Oscar keep saying that is a lie. What a
: crock. You can't even accept that the Church teaches that, but some don't
: follow the teaching.
Pat,
All documents, even the Catechism, have their context. The
context for these remarks is the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith letter to the National Council of Catholic Bishops.
The letter begins with a brief condemnation of "unjust discrimination"
but continues with tortured dialectical reasoning to do the utmost
to justify various forms of discrimination. The ultimate proof
required for such discrimination is that the object acknowledge
that he or she is gay.
By borrowing language from this letter, the authors of the Catechism
give it a nod of approval. Instead of an apology from Rome, which we
have every right to demand, we are given salt for our wounds.
Frank
owhi...@hotmail.com
In article <199805200154...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980519...@user2.teleport.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> >> I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's
> >been
> >> around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
> >> political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for gay
> >> persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing,
then
> >> that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
> >
> >do't believe in?
> >housing and employment.
>
> Catechism of the Church instead of the Catechism of Act Up) says that a
> homosexual person cannot be discriminated against 'solo;y' for being
> homosexual.
I don't care what the Church says--what it *does* is discriminate.
> If you are fired, or not hired, for a job just because you're gay, you can
> take the company to court (and win, by law) and the Church would support
you.
The Church has openly opposed laws which specifically protect gays from
discrimination in employment. And the Church certainly doesn't tolerate gay
people who acknowledge their homosexuality while employed within the
Church--even if one is living according to the teaching of the Church.
> If you are refused,or deprived medical care because you are gay you can,
> again by law, take the hospital and clinic to court. and the Church would
> support you.
Gays can count on the Church's "support" especially if they're dying. The
Church doesn't help us live with any dignity or integrity.
> If you wish to declare your 'present ;ife partner' as your insurance
> benefiary, that is your right, and the Church will support you.
Who gives a sh*t? I'll bet if the insurance policy originated from Church
employment benefits they wouldn't support it.
> If you wish to designate that same person to act for you in medical
> decisions, you can and the Church will support you.
Again, who cares? That is a civil matter. The Church couldn't touch if they
wanted to.
>
> In every basic civil, human right, the law backs the homosexual and the
> Church supports that.
That is an outright, transparent, stupid lie.
>
> However, if you want schools to teach homosexuality as a valid, life
giving
> lifestyle, the Church will not support that.
The Church doesn't tolerate known homosexual teachers in it's schools, despite
it's "be-but-don't-do" teaching.
> (Just s it doesn't support
> illicit
> hetrosexual lifestyles), the church will not support that.
Yet the Church covers up and supports it's own pedophile employees.
Go figure.
owhi...@hotmail.com
In article <199805200209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, if I had a son and he happened to be gay, I could make
> >arguments similar to your own that members of the religious right
> >represent a danger to him.
>
> Maybe the religious right, evangeliccal fundamentalsists, but not from
> Catholics following Church teaching.
The Church's teaching on homosexuality feeds the despair of young gay people
struggling to affirm and accept themselves. It represents a danger to those
persons and, IMO, is partly responsible for the suicides of young, despondent
gay Catholics.
Luser 7
In article <6jugi2$mib$1...@news.nyu.edu>,wrote:
#: In Oregon yes, in Colorado the Church said yes, but no to 'special'
rights.
#Once again, the "special rights" lie. In fact gay people are asking
#for considerably less than the protections you enjoy as a Catholic.
#God knows that Catholics need them.
Civil rights protection for did not amount to a special right in
Colorado law. The portrayal of the amendment blocking civil rights
protection for gays in Colorado by Focus on the Family and other
fundamentalist groups (and to a lesser extent, some Catholics) was
definitely mean-spirited. These laws then existing in several communities
sought to give gays a legal recourse if they were denied employment,
housing, etc. because of their status. In the communities in which they
existed, they were probably unnecessary laws, BTW. These laws were nullified
by the amendment and it became impossible to construct legal protections
for gays even if there was a demonstrated need. Well, not impossible,
you just had to amend the state constitution, which in Colorado is
not so hard, but you couldn't do anything in a timely fashion.
Gays argued that, far from special rights, they had been denied
equal protection of the law available to any other group, majority
or minority. For instance, in Colorado, the constitution allowed
you to have ordinances protecting the owners of pets from harassment
on that account, but you could not do the same for gays.
So the amendment was not about special rights for homosexuals, but a
denial of basic rights to specific protection in the event that it was
needed.
Luser 7
Some people have trains of thought.
Others have bumper cars.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <35638755...@concentric.net>,
RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I just don't believe this. Unless they're agoraphobes, which
>> is a mental illness.
>>
>I believe it, although I have not seen it. I work in peoples homes and have
>had the opportunity of showing up at an appointed time only to wait while the
>wife at home calls her husband and has him come over to let me in the house. I
>am not exactly a scary looking guy, either. I guess I can understand this to a
>degree since having someone strange inside the home may be unnerving for some
>people and anything can happen behind a closed door. Usually after the first
>visit to a house this ceases and oftentimes I am left a note to go ahead in if
>noone is at home. Very confusing, but I do my job as friendly as I can and I
>dont take anything that doesnt belong to me.
But this sounds totally like an emotional problem. They're incapable of
asking you for your (I'm hypothesizing) electric company ID or whatever?
I was previously living in an apartment with a gas and an electric meter.
Both utilities carry badges, and Hydro-Quebec even carries a
Star-Trekesque handset to record the meter reading.
This all touches on something Steve and I were talking about...why are
women such babies sometimes? He was volunteering at a self-defense course
once, and the "ladies", as opposed to the more fiery types who really did
want to learn to defend themselves, thought that the moves against the
attacker were all too much. I mean, they were being told to _hurt_
someone, right?
I don't have kids, so my data is a little outdated. I just hope this is a
1950s phenomenon. (Women at home? Must be.)
RJ England
Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
> In article <35638755...@concentric.net>,
> RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
> But this sounds totally like an emotional problem. They're incapable of
> asking you for your (I'm hypothesizing) electric company ID or whatever?
> I was previously living in an apartment with a gas and an electric meter.
> Both utilities carry badges, and Hydro-Quebec even carries a
> Star-Trekesque handset to record the meter reading.
Worse yet the vehicle I drive has a huge banner painted on the side. There can
be no mistake. Since I dont go to apartment buildings most people can see who
it is very clearly. They know who I am but there is still a hesitation
sometimes. Very rare but it happens.
>
> This all touches on something Steve and I were talking about...why are
> women such babies sometimes?
I'm glad you said this. I try to explain some of the simplest things and
receive answers like. 'I dont know anything about stuff like that.' or 'My
husband takes care of that'. If there is anyone out there reading this and it
sounds like something you may have said to get out of knowing anything then
you are in for a rude awakening if your husbands passes away. Unfortuneatly I
see it all the time.
RJ
Stephanie Rendino
In article <3564D399...@concentric.net>,
RJ England <reng...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>> This all touches on something Steve and I were talking about...why are
>> women such babies sometimes?
>
>I'm glad you said this. I try to explain some of the simplest things and
>receive answers like. 'I dont know anything about stuff like that.' or 'My
>husband takes care of that'. If there is anyone out there reading this and it
>sounds like something you may have said to get out of knowing anything then
>you are in for a rude awakening if your husbands passes away. Unfortuneatly I
>see it all the time.
Sheesh, and people ask me why I'm a feminist. To get women out of this
stupid mindset! Most I've ever done is put a guy's name on my answering
machine tape to mask the fact that I live alone. "You have reached
Stephanie and Dennis Murphy". Dennis Murphy is my big fluffy orange cat,
who now lives with my former roommate because they became such great
friends.
Padraic42
>
>In article <199805200154...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980519...@user2.teleport.com>,
>> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>>
>> >> I could focus on sexual expression, but that's a tired discussion that's
>> >been
>> >> around the clock several times already here. When the Church engages in
>> >> political campaigns to help thwart the attainment of equal rights for
>gay
>> >> persons (most of whom aren't even Catholic) in emplyment and housing,
>then
>> >> that is one way the Church engages in unjust discrimination.
>> >
>> >Would you want your kids growing up next to people who's lifestyle you
>> >do't believe in?
>> >Other than that, I see the Church as a whole comming out FOR gay rights in
>> >housing and employment.
>>
>> Not only Federal Law, but Catholic teaching (again Oscar, refer to the
>> Catechism of the Church instead of the Catechism of Act Up) says that a
>> homosexual person cannot be discriminated against 'solo;y' for being
>> homosexual.
>
>I don't care what the Church says--what it *does* is discriminate.
People IN the Church may discriminate, the Church doesn't. Unless you feel
that telling you that teaching that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin is
discrimination?
>> If you are fired, or not hired, for a job just because you're gay, you
>can
>> take the company to court (and win, by law) and the Church would support
>you.
>
>The Church has openly opposed laws which specifically protect gays from
>discrimination in employment. And the Church certainly doesn't tolerate gay
>people who acknowledge their homosexuality while employed within the
>Church--even if one is living according to the teaching of the Church.
As in where? Colorado? Again, people IN the Church may do so, but not the
Church. Regarde':
"In article <luser-ya02408000...@news.idt.net>, lu...@home.com
(Luser 7) writes:
>Civil rights protection for did not amount to a special right in
>Colorado law. The portrayal of the amendment blocking civil rights
>protection for gays in Colorado by Focus on the Family and other
>fundamentalist groups (and to a lesser extent, some Catholics) was
>definitely mean-spirited."
"SOME' Catholics. Catholics not aware of, or opposing Church teaching that
says:
"Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC
#2358)
Once again Oscar, you either forget to read it, or disregard the truth for
your own truth.
As for the last part, about the Church discriminating even against those who
follwo Church teaching? Get real, the same thing applies.
>> If you are refused,or deprived medical care because you are gay you can,
>> again by law, take the hospital and clinic to court. and the Church would
>> support you.
>
>Gays can count on the Church's "support" especially if they're dying. The
>Church doesn't help us live with any dignity or integrity.
>
Another lie provided by the 'good' people of Act Up, et al.
>> If you wish to declare your 'present ;ife partner' as your insurance
>> benefiary, that is your right, and the Church will support you.
>
>Who gives a sh*t? I'll bet if the insurance policy originated from Church
>employment benefits they wouldn't support it.
>
Gee, showing some anti-catholic prejudice there aren't we Oscar? But I
forget, you think it's fun to trash the Church.
>> If you wish to designate that same person to act for you in medical
>> decisions, you can and the Church will support you.
>
>Again, who cares? That is a civil matter. The Church couldn't touch if they
>wanted to.
>
But Oscar, you just finished saying the Church does stop that from happening?
Now, can the Church affect it or not?
>>
>> In every basic civil, human right, the law backs the homosexual and the
>> Church supports that.
>
>That is an outright, transparent, stupid lie.
>
No, your statements are.
>>
>> However, if you want schools to teach homosexuality as a valid, life
>giving
>> lifestyle, the Church will not support that.
>
>The Church doesn't tolerate known homosexual teachers in it's schools,
>despite
>it's "be-but-don't-do" teaching.
>
Well, I'd have to say that if you were a teacher, I'd be concerned. But
again, Oscar wants to take the exceptions and make them the rules.
>> (Just s it doesn't support
>> illicit
>> hetrosexual lifestyles), the church will not support that.
>
>Yet the Church covers up and supports it's own pedophile employees.
>
NO, the Church protects and tries to investigate 'false' charges. Or do you
think we ought to just feed them to the wolves.
>Go figure.
>
Yeah, go figure. You'd cry foul if we pointed out homosexual pedophiles as
the 'norm', yet you think it's ok to paint an entire Church with a handful of
pedophiles in the Church.
What a hypocrite you are Oscar.
Padraic42
>>
>> >Furthermore, if I had a son and he happened to be gay, I could make
>> >arguments similar to your own that members of the religious right
>> >represent a danger to him.
>>
>> Maybe the religious right, evangeliccal fundamentalsists, but not from
>> Catholics following Church teaching.
>
>The Church's teaching on homosexuality feeds the despair of young gay people
>struggling to affirm and accept themselves. It represents a danger to those
>persons and, IMO, is partly responsible for the suicides of young, despondent
>gay Catholics.
Contrary to Oscar's deluded belief, Church teaching helps affirm the persons
dignity, wether homosexual or not.
The only 'danger' Church teaching presents is to those who desire to justify
sinning in a variety of ways.
Padraic42
In article <6juvbd$91g$1...@news.nyu.edu>,writes:
>All documents, even the Catechism, have their context. The
>context for these remarks is the Congregation for the Doctrine
>of the Faith letter to the National Council of Catholic Bishops.
>The letter begins with a brief condemnation of "unjust discrimination"
>but continues with tortured dialectical reasoning to do the utmost
>to justify various forms of discrimination. The ultimate proof
>required for such discrimination is that the object acknowledge
>that he or she is gay.
What a crock of bull excrement. Care for me to post it again Frank?
All it said was that though it's understandable that some may take violent
action against homosexuals, or discriminate against them, those acts are not
correct.
The actions come from a fear, which is justified in the actions and teachings
of some militant homosexuals. You and Oscar seem intent on painting the
'entire' Church as 'homophobic' and teaching violence and discrimination
against homosexuals, while at the same time, you get upset if someone paints
all homosexuals with the same brush as militant, and/or pedophile gays.
Both you and Oscar are hypocrites. You read 'into' the letter what you
'wanted' to read, not what it said.
Luser 7
In article <6k13d0$g...@stratus.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
#In article <35638755...@concentric.net>,
#This all touches on something Steve and I were talking about...why are
#women such babies sometimes? He was volunteering at a self-defense course
#once, and the "ladies", as opposed to the more fiery types who really did
#want to learn to defend themselves, thought that the moves against the
#attacker were all too much. I mean, they were being told to _hurt_
#someone, right?
#
#I don't have kids, so my data is a little outdated. I just hope this is a
#1950s phenomenon. (Women at home? Must be.)
Certainly it is not a 1950's phenomenon. It's still the same with
women who grew up in the 60's and 70's. Some of them have a VERY
hard time bringing themselves to really hit someone, unless they're
angry or frightened. The most timid can't even do it then, but most
women automatically overcome their inhibition when really threatened.
Even as young children, boys seem more physically aggressive
AND defensive. This is very evident in comparing my daughter and son
(not a valid statistical sample set, but a case in point). My daughter
rarely expresses anger physically. She yells and cries. She's four
and has always behaved this way. My son is almost three and is quite
aggressive in play. He hits and pushes even his mother and me when
he gets angry (he also cries, but less). I can assure you that his
mother and I expressed exactly the same disapproval of these acts
with both our children. I think girls just do not have as strong
an impulse to act out violently or have an innate inhibition that
boys lack.
Luser 7
In article <6k2kid$r...@stratus.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
#Sheesh, and people ask me why I'm a feminist. To get women out of this
#stupid mindset! Most I've ever done is put a guy's name on my answering
#machine tape to mask the fact that I live alone. "You have reached
#Stephanie and Dennis Murphy". Dennis Murphy is my big fluffy orange cat,
#who now lives with my former roommate because they became such great
#friends.
You let your roomate steal your cat???
Alan Craft
I once had a female orange tabby...a rarity. I now have a solid black
tom with gold eyes...oooooooh, an elderly female Lhasa Apso...O what
a voice! :-\>, and a female Beagle pup...that my brother dumped on me.
I'm growing fond of her, though. A couple of months ago, he "gave" me
some Guinea pigs...I sold them to a pet shop and afterwards told him,
" I am King Midas...I turn rats to gold!"
Alan :-)>
Mitch
On Fri, 22 May 1998 10:34:46 -0700, lu...@home.com (Luser 7)
enlightened us all with:
>Even as young children, boys seem more physically aggressive
>AND defensive. This is very evident in comparing my daughter and son
>(not a valid statistical sample set, but a case in point). My daughter
>rarely expresses anger physically. She yells and cries. She's four
>and has always behaved this way. My son is almost three and is quite
>aggressive in play. He hits and pushes even his mother and me when
>he gets angry (he also cries, but less). I can assure you that his
>mother and I expressed exactly the same disapproval of these acts
>with both our children. I think girls just do not have as strong
>an impulse to act out violently or have an innate inhibition that
>boys lack.
Spherical objects, sir!
My 2 kids also expressed different reactions similar to the ones
described above, and they're both lads. We are talking about
personality traits here, not gender differences.
--
Mitch
J. Northwood
On 21 May 1998 07:32:48 -0400, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
< snip >
>This all touches on something Steve and I were talking about...why are
>women such babies sometimes? He was volunteering at a self-defense course
>once, and the "ladies", as opposed to the more fiery types who really did
>want to learn to defend themselves, thought that the moves against the
>attacker were all too much. I mean, they were being told to _hurt_
>someone, right?
On your query re: women at home, well, my wife and MiL live at home
(Yup, both with me. Ain't I lucky?) and my wife does her pastels and
writing out of a combination studio/office upstairs.
(Want a pastel portrait of your pet or a favored horse, fantasy scene
or photograph? Just contact Judith at Northwood Studios -- the URL:
www.northwood.org/studios/)
On a second note re: women as babies and attacking -- the one
self-defense course she took she watched the other women slapping at
the instructor and hitting at him and she got disgusted. I watched
from the waiting room with a growing sense of horror/amusement as she
stepped up, yanked the current "attacker" away and kneed the
instructor in the groin. She then said "If I had my car keys, you'd
be dead. What can you teach me?" Him not responding, we left.
(And yes, that is how she responds when attacked.)
Now, I'm not saying she wins _all_ our arguments . . .
Stephanie Rendino
In article <luser-ya02408000...@news.idt.net>,
Luser 7 <lu...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <6k2kid$r...@stratus.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>
>#Sheesh, and people ask me why I'm a feminist. To get women out of this
>#stupid mindset! Most I've ever done is put a guy's name on my answering
>#machine tape to mask the fact that I live alone. "You have reached
>#Stephanie and Dennis Murphy". Dennis Murphy is my big fluffy orange cat,
>#who now lives with my former roommate because they became such great
>#friends.
>
>You let your roomate steal your cat???
You must not understand cats. I shared a place with Don for three years,
during which time he and Dennis became best friends. Dennis slept on
Don's bed, followed him around the house, sat with him on the couch while
watching tv, etc. It would have been mean to break them up, so I left him
with Don when I moved. It was Dennis's choice more than mine.
Stephanie Rendino
>
>#In article <35638755...@concentric.net>,
>
>#This all touches on something Steve and I were talking about...why are
>#women such babies sometimes? He was volunteering at a self-defense course
>#once, and the "ladies", as opposed to the more fiery types who really did
>#want to learn to defend themselves, thought that the moves against the
>#attacker were all too much. I mean, they were being told to _hurt_
>#someone, right?
>#
>#I don't have kids, so my data is a little outdated. I just hope this is a
>#1950s phenomenon. (Women at home? Must be.)
>
>Certainly it is not a 1950's phenomenon.
I know I expressed myself badly here. What I meant was if the women were
consistently at home, they must have been married in the 50s. But anyway:
It's still the same with
>women who grew up in the 60's and 70's. Some of them have a VERY
>hard time bringing themselves to really hit someone, unless they're
>angry or frightened. The most timid can't even do it then, but most
>women automatically overcome their inhibition when really threatened.
But why are they deferring to "Oh, I don't know, you'd have to ask my
husband?" No excuse for that.
>Even as young children, boys seem more physically aggressive
>AND defensive. This is very evident in comparing my daughter and son
>(not a valid statistical sample set, but a case in point). My daughter
>rarely expresses anger physically. She yells and cries. She's four
>and has always behaved this way. My son is almost three and is quite
>aggressive in play. He hits and pushes even his mother and me when
>he gets angry (he also cries, but less). I can assure you that his
>mother and I expressed exactly the same disapproval of these acts
>with both our children. I think girls just do not have as strong
>an impulse to act out violently or have an innate inhibition that
>boys lack.
Okay, but also bear in mind that your kids are not growing up in a vacuum.
They pick up on their parents and the society around them which still
does say "boys should be strong, girls shouldn't."
If your boy is hitting his parents, that's not normal and you should have
that checked out, though.
Theodore M. Seeber
On Wed, 20 May 1998 owhi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Come now, Ted, the great majority of heterosexuals are as harmless as the
> great majority of homosexuals--*except* that homosexuals have the best
> gardens, the classiest parties, the best taste in home design and decor, plus
> MUCH more leisure time from not having to run the kids all over town in the
> van (at least for us childless ones). No wonder the hets can't stand us!
> They're jealous!
It's certainly a part of it. They also see you as not doing your part to
keep the traditional basic structure of the American Culture in place.
> > In which case it isn't exactly a teaching of the entire magisterium yet
> > either way, is it?
> > Which way do you think the Magisterium as a whole is leaning?
>
> Uh, that would be far, far to the right, of course.
I don't see that. I see the Magisterium leaning towards the center. We
have both types in the Magisterium right now, both far right and far left.
History shows us that they will eventually come to a compromise somewhere
in the center.
> Shockingly, I'll disagree with you here: Most days, working in a crowded
> school, I have much more access to children than I would ever usually care to
> have. (But that's my work, and I try to do a good job.) So far, Rome hasn't
> gotten involved.
Public or Private School? What power should Rome have over a Public
School?
> Hmmm, they are in the highest ranks of the Church.
So are the ones who are saying that homosexuals should not be
discriminated against, and should be loved for who they are.
> > Certainly NOT against housing.....
>
> At least not at the Vatican, or in quite a few bishop's mansions and parish
> rectories.
What makes you think you should be able to sleep in the private chambers
of a bishop?
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
If you believe in puting the 'ethics' back into government, click on the
above link.
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6k35a0$qhr$5...@gte1.gte.net>,
J. Northwood <jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net> wrote:
>On your query re: women at home, well, my wife and MiL live at home
>(Yup, both with me. Ain't I lucky?) and my wife does her pastels and
>writing out of a combination studio/office upstairs.
ONce again, I phrased the bit about "women at home" badly. Nothing wrong
with being at home (I just don't like it when people act as if it should
be mandatory). And your wife's an artist too? See, that's a great life.
>(Want a pastel portrait of your pet or a favored horse, fantasy scene
>or photograph? Just contact Judith at Northwood Studios -- the URL:
>www.northwood.org/studios/)
Hm, don't tempt me.
>On a second note re: women as babies and attacking -- the one
>self-defense course she took she watched the other women slapping at
>the instructor and hitting at him and she got disgusted. I watched
>from the waiting room with a growing sense of horror/amusement as she
>stepped up, yanked the current "attacker" away and kneed the
>instructor in the groin. She then said "If I had my car keys, you'd
>be dead. What can you teach me?" Him not responding, we left.
Heh heh heh. See, that's the way it should be. I met a woman once who
said it'd be easy to find the guy who tried to mug her--he only has one
thumb. Jaws are strong!
>(And yes, that is how she responds when
attacked.) >
>Now, I'm not saying she wins _all_ our arguments . . .
Steve and I flip a coin. Works pretty well.
owhi...@hotmail.com
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98052...@user1.teleport.com>,
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 May 1998 owhi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Come now, Ted, the great majority of heterosexuals are as harmless as the
> > great majority of homosexuals--*except* that homosexuals have the best
> > gardens, the classiest parties, the best taste in home design and decor,
plus
> > MUCH more leisure time from not having to run the kids all over town in
the
> > van (at least for us childless ones). No wonder the hets can't stand us!
> > They're jealous!
>
> It's certainly a part of it. They also see you as not doing your part to
> keep the traditional basic structure of the American Culture in place.
Would that be the traditional, straight, church-goin', gay-hatin', family
values American Culture whose children blow away their classmates in the
school cafeteria?
OK... Ted, I'm kinda speechless now, and I do believe you're kinda clueless.
J. Northwood
On 22 May 1998 15:05:56 -0400, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) wrote:
>In article <6k35a0$qhr$5...@gte1.gte.net>,
>J. Northwood <jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net> wrote:
< snip >
>>(Want a pastel portrait of your pet or a favored horse, fantasy scene
>>or photograph? Just contact Judith at Northwood Studios -- the URL:
>>www.northwood.org/studios/)
>Hm, don't tempt me.
She does good work . . . she's got a unicorn completed (the one on the
page is available), a nice henge, she's working on two different ones
(horses) right now . . .
Nice rates . . .
Just relax, Stephanie (your hand is moving toward the mouse),
just . . . relax . . .
< snicker >
< snip >
>Heh heh heh. See, that's the way it should be. I met a woman once who
>said it'd be easy to find the guy who tried to mug her--he only has one
>thumb. Jaws are strong!
Ulp!
< snip >
>Steve and I flip a coin. Works pretty well.
Actually, we just talk it out. On the rare occasions when we can't
agree, we usually shelve it for a day or two. (Then we usually wind
up forgetting it. Go figure.)