Bishop tells his flock what they are allowed to think on AZ Marriage amendment.

Gorzak
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-07-17
User is offlineOffline
Bishop tells his flock what they are allowed to think on AZ Marriage amendment.

I recieved propoganda in the mail that directed me to a site with this video on it. This is the part that scared me: (0:50 - 1:08)

"Some aspects of Catholic teaching require the use of prudential judgement as to which course of action may be the most desirable. Other parts of Catholic teaching involve issues that are non-negociable, ones on which Catholics cannot legitimately disagree."

He then goes on to urge all cathoics to go vote catholic come voting day.

Now I will state for the record I am biased against homosexuals, likely as a result of social influence, and I don't really see much benefit from going through the effort to change that about myself. Nevertheless, I will be voting to protect them from further discrimination, and do my part to try to put this amendment where it belongs, in the trash.

What really gets my back up is that people can listen to that quote above, and not feel the hairs on the back of thier neck raise. Perhaps I am more averse to authority than most, but if anyone in any group I was a part of said something like that to me, I would explain that their group was a bit too exclusive for my tastes, good luck with it, and buh bye. I mean really, who wants to be told what they are allowed to think?


Gorzak
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-07-17
User is offlineOffline
I seem to have lost my edit button.

I made a misstatement. I am not biased against homosexual people. I love my sister, who is a man hating lesbian. I have been friends with homosexual people both male and female. I am biased against homosexuality. Homosexual pornography, being hit on by other men, even public displays of affection elicit a negative emotional response. Yes, that means I am one of the rare guys that doesn't enjoy girl on girl sexuality. I don't dislike the people doing them, and I feel thats an important point.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
My parents used to do that

My parents used to do that kind of shit, and I guess they still do.  "This is what WE believe..." while stating some load of crap that not all of 'WE' believe.  Unfortunately, the bishop has likely not lost many of any followers.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Gorzak wrote:I made a

Gorzak wrote:

I made a misstatement. I am not biased against homosexual people. I love my sister, who is a man hating lesbian. I have been friends with homosexual people both male and female. I am biased against homosexuality. Homosexual pornography, being hit on by other men, even public displays of affection elicit a negative emotional response. Yes, that means I am one of the rare guys that doesn't enjoy girl on girl sexuality. I don't dislike the people doing them, and I feel thats an important point.

First, the bishop is an ass.  He's allowed to be an ass and I don't think there's anything against him endorsing a political endeavour, but it's hard to believe that it's not taboo.

On your misstatement... You're not biased against homosexuals, but you are biased against homosexuality?  Cognitive dissonance.  You should look it up.  How can you not be biased against homosexuals and be biased about that which defines homosexuals; namely homosexuality?  They are one and the same.

Quote:
I don't dislike the people doing them, and I feel thats an important point.
It is.  I'm confused (understandably) as to what 'negative emotional response' you derive from seeing gay men or women holding hands or with arms about waists or kissing that involves not disliking the people performing the action?  If it was the action, it wouldn't matter who was doing it, but it is specifically that action performed by certain people.  What gives?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually, by tax law if he's

Actually, by tax law if he's endorsing anything political his church can lose tax exempt status.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Actually,

MattShizzle wrote:
Actually, by tax law if he's endorsing anything political his church can lose tax exempt status.
You're right, Matt.  The IRS can revoke the tax exempt status, but it's not likely to.

Below is a section of the Wikipedia article on 501(c) ((501(c)3)) on political activity.

Quote:
Political activity Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations[citation needed]) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying.  All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code. Another example is the The American Foreign Policy Council is a lobbyist organization operating under this code.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:not biased

Thomathy wrote:

not biased against homosexuals, but you are biased against homosexuality?  Cognitive dissonance.  You should look it up.  How can you not be biased against homosexuals and be biased about that which defines homosexuals; namely homosexuality?  They are one and the same.

It is.  I'm confused (understandably) as to what 'negative emotional response' you derive from seeing gay men or women holding hands or with arms about waists or kissing that involves not disliking the people performing the action?  If it was the action, it wouldn't matter who was doing it, but it is specifically that action performed by certain people.  What gives?

i think i understand what he means.  i also think it's unfortunate to identify a person completely with their sexual orientation, which your logic seems to do.  there is more to a person than their sexual orientation, and i think gorzak is just saying that he doesn't condemn the whole person for being homosexual, but that their sexual orientation, or at least the display of it, makes him uncomfortable.  he's not trying to defend it as something rational; he's just being open about an honest emotional reflex.  i think that's perfectly reasonable, and i applaud his honesty in this politically correct age.

PDA makes me uncomfortable too, especially when it's noisy.  here in europe, it's very prevalent, but in the USA, where i grew up, it's not.  thus, no doubt due to being conditioned by my american upbring, i get thoroughly annoyed here in slovakia when i'm trying to read joyce in a bar with a good pipe clamped between my teeth and half a liter of czech beer in front of me, and at the next table over a couple of high school kids are slurping and sucking at each other.  i can't concentrate.  does that make what they're doing "wrong" in either a rational or a metaphysical, moral sense?  certainly not!  it's just my reaction.  nor do i hate or dislike those kids as people: i don't even know them!

to be honest, i have a similar reaction to displays of homosexuality, at least between men (unlike gorzak, i find the lesbians in magazines and movies fucking hot).  when i see two men kissing, it just makes my gorge rise.  i don't condemn their lifestyle in any sense, nor do i see it as "unnatural," nor do i see it as something "less" than heterosexual intimacy.  my body and mind just cry "gross!" when i see two men kissing.  i see nothing wrong with that nor feel the need to apologize for it.  nor should gorzak. 

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i also think

iwbiek wrote:
i also think it's unfortunate to identify a person completely with their sexual orientation, which your logic seems to do.  there is more to a person than their sexual orientation
I think it's unfortunate that you failed to understand me.  Let me make myself perfectly clear.  I never have, nor would I ever, suggest that a person is solely defined by her sexual orientation.  What I did do was to point out that if we are referring to someone as homosexual that person is called thus because of her homosexuality.  The two are intrinsically linked.  One cannot be homosexual if one does not engage in homosexuality; and that is what I meant when I used the word 'defined'.

Perhaps Gorzak should make clear what he means by 'bias'?  It's possible that I simply inferred more than he really means.  Can you spot the fallacy in the, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' doctrine so many Christians suggest they live by?  A belief in that doctrine is the impression I got from Gorzak.

Almost sorry to have threadjacked a bit. Smiling  Get this thread back on track.  That bishop is batshit insane!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
So... who wants to take

So... who wants to take video cameras (small ones) into churches and videotape pastors making political statements?  Sounds like a public service to me.  After all, if these churches are supposed to be paying taxes and aren't... IT'S YOUR CHILDREN THAT ARE PAYING THE PRICE!!!!

 

How's that for an appeal to emotion?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Can you spot

Thomathy wrote:

Can you spot the fallacy in the, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' doctrine so many Christians suggest they live by?  A belief in that doctrine is the impression I got from Gorzak.

i think that maxim is bullshit as long as a person believes in "sin" as a christian would define it: a transgression of an objectively and universally "true," i.e., "divine," law.  i certainly hope gorzak doesn't believe in such shit.

however, i think it's completely possible to respect and even love a person even if something they do naturally repulses you.  i certainly hope so, or my wife will be out the door soon.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:So... who

Hambydammit wrote:

So... who wants to take video cameras (small ones) into churches and videotape pastors making political statements?  Sounds like a public service to me.  After all, if these churches are supposed to be paying taxes and aren't... IT'S YOUR CHILDREN THAT ARE PAYING THE PRICE!!!!

 

How's that for an appeal to emotion?

 

you know something?  i used to sing unequivocally the praises of slovakia as a part of liberal, secular europe.  there is no debate about prayer in schools or ten commandments in city halls here; no religious organization is even able to set foot in a state building on religious business.  i was ecstatic.  then, one day, my lovely slovak wife told me that, like it or not, a portion of MY fucking taxes goes to, of all things, the church.  and not just any church: the slovak catholic church.  for some reason, they get government funding.  my jaw hit the table.  then rage ensued.  suddenly, i was not just a marxist but a leninist too; fuck that, a stalinist.  you should have heard the noise i made as i stalked up and down the house.  "fucking priests!  leeches!  robbers!  parasites on society!  i'd line 'em all against the fucking wall and shoot 'em like dogs!"

understand, i very rarely get that angry. 

i'm not sure if other legally recognized religions are eligible or not, but the catholic church definitely gets the lion's share.  there has been an outcry about it for years but hey, it's the largest religion in slovakia.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, I suspect we wouldn't

Well, I suspect we wouldn't agree on a lot of politics, but I'm right with you on this one.  I can leave a lot of Marxism behind and feel ok about the world, but there's no reason for religion and politics to ever mix.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Gorzak
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-07-17
User is offlineOffline
I had a feeling you would

I had a feeling you would challenge me on this, as I read an earlier thread where you explained that to emotionally accept heterosexual displays of affection while rejecting homosexual displays is bigoted. While I feel uncomfortable being called a bigot, and like to think of myself as tolerant, I find I must agree with you, despite identifying myself within that group.

Quote:
You're not biased against homosexuals, but you are biased against homosexuality?  Cognitive dissonance.  You should look it up.  How can you not be biased against homosexuals and be biased about that which defines homosexuals; namely homosexuality?

As stated earlier, there is more to a person than thier sexuality. To a degree, I suppose I am biased against homosexuals for thier homosexuality, but that is limited by how thier sexuality is expressed around me. What goes on behind closed doors is none of my business, and I would have no cognitive dissonance fighting for a homosexuals person's right to express thier homosexuality in thier home with a consenting partner. Where I would encounter the dissonance is fighting for thier right to express the homosexuality that defines them in circumstances that would make me an audience to it. I concede that you cannot be biased against homosexuality without being biased against homosexuals, but wanted to distinguish myself as I don't feel I am biased against homosexuals the way most would mean with such a statement. 

Quote:
It is.  I'm confused (understandably) as to what 'negative emotional response' you derive from seeing gay men or women holding hands or with arms about waists or kissing that involves not disliking the people performing the action?  If it was the action, it wouldn't matter who was doing it, but it is specifically that action performed by certain people.  What gives?

In the case of men, it grosses me out. In the case of women, it's a bit more complex. Mostly a large helping of indifference with a slight twinge of feeling rejected. I think both responses are based on both the natural and in my case trained reflex to put yourself in other peoples shoes. You are correct that its not the behavior, I don't find a man and woman kissing repulsive, but I do find a man kissing another man repulsive. How can I not dislike someone who does something that grosses me out? I still fail to see a connection there. Why must I judge people on emotional responses that are backed by nothing but social convention? I understand intellectually that homosexuality is normal, natural, and immutable. I understand intellectually that clothes are unnessecary in good climate, but understanding something intellectually doesnt prevent emotional responses that may not agree with intellect. I would certainly do a double take if a nudist was strolling down the street. I think what may be hanging you up is it is unusual to find people who check thier emotions with reason. Just because I don't like seeing two men kissing doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be able to. It simply means I don't like seeing it.

Quote:
Perhaps Gorzak should make clear what he means by 'bias'?  It's possible that I simply inferred more than he really means.  Can you spot the fallacy in the, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' doctrine so many Christians suggest they live by?  A belief in that doctrine is the impression I got from Gorzak.

I think what seperates me from that doctrine is that I am not saying homosexuality is bad or wrong, or should not occur. I am saying I am uncomfortable with its expression. I am also not even saying homosexuality should not occur around me because of that response. I do not have a right to not be offended. The only harm two men kissing inflicts is what I manufacture internally as a reaction, no one but me is responsible for that. I cannot however, honestly say I am unbiased. It does limit me in small ways. As you mentioned, I can't feel a warm fuzzy for a homosexual display similarly to a hetero one because I am too hung up on being grossed out. I would feel much more uncomfortable getting a play by play of a sexual encounter from a homosexual friend than a hetero one (though I must admit, even hetero play by plays do make me somewhat uncomfortable). Intellectually, I feel my response is wrong. I am not self-righteous about my bias, I think it is unfounded. Having examined how it limits me, I do not feel it is worth the effort to change. I am simply and honestly recognizing a part of who I am. If that makes me a bigot so be it, I am a bigot that will fight for the rights of people to express what I am bigoted against.