Your comment on newsvine really proved who the bigot was. Glad to see no one took you seriously, and you were slammed yourself the way it should be.
Just because someone slams catholicism doesnt mean they should equally slam other religions, like islam. Get a fucking brain. Catholicism is just as up for debate as any other religion; just because the one author focuses on catholic church and its erroneous missteps doesnt mean he has to do so for every other religion in existence, or just the ones you choose for him

Noneya - how rude to show up tossing the 'F' word around.

Makes for classy argumentation, and adds lots of gravitas to the discussion.

To disclaim before I begin: I am an ex-Catholic. That being said, I have no problem with anyone who is Catholic simply because they are Catholic-- coming from the extremely Catholic city of Philadelphia, over 3/4 of my friends are Catholic (case in point: when one Philadelphian is meeting another, he/she generally doesn't ask "What part of Philly are you from?" Rather, he/she asks, "What parish are you from?").

However, I think you're arguments presented here are quite flawed; not because you defend Catholicism, but because you simply have far too many logical fallacies in the arguments themselves.

I thought that Democrats championed people of any religion, any background, any race. Boy, was I wrong! I look around the blogosphere and see blogs like Pandagon, where Amanda (ex-official blogmistress of John (I hate Catholics) Edwards) goes on and on forever about the Catholic Church forcing women to have babies.

Welcome to the Internet. This has to be the worst generalization I've ever seen-- basing your entire opinion of the Democratic Party on the personal views of one person? FYI, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a civil libertarian, and I believe you have every right to have your religion and express your views, but I also believe I have every right to challenge them.

And then, there are people here on newsvine.com who hate the Catholic Church.

What happened to the liberal idea of tolerance?

Is it possible it doesn't really exist?

Or is hating Catholics the one safe bigotry left to liberals? After all, I have not seen any nuns chopping the heads off of people.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't make any sense. Liberalism is extremely pro-religious freedom. And once again, calling all liberals "bigots" because of the views of a few people is extremely flawed.

Personally, I have no problems with the Catholic religion. I'm extremely, extremely against the Church's stances on gay rights, and I will be very vocal in expressing my distaste at the Church for this position. However, attacking the views of an organization hardly makes me a bigot against that organization-- the connection between an attack on views and an ad hominem attack on the organization itself is extremely thin.

Catholics are pro-life - is that the problem? Liberals hate us because we revere life?

I'm anti-abortion in most cases; however, "we revere life" is not my argument. Look, both sides of the abortion debate have their pros and cons, and it certainly is not an easy issue. However, you're simply being nonsensical if you only believe your side is right and you have no concept of the other side.

Or is it charity? Catholics are pretty darn charitable - and you don't have to be Catholic to be a recipient of Catholic Community Services, you just have to have a need.

Non sequitur. No relation to the argument at hand.

Or maybe they hate us because we believe there is such a thing as sin?

Still mostly non sequitur, sin is a religious concept, and politicians, liberal or not, aren't going to be looking to religious concepts to see if they "hate" a religion. Furthermore, every religion has a concept like that of sin, and you won't be finding any politicians, liberal or not, who aren't religious, so how can you claim that liberals "hate" Catholics on a principle that they themselves hold?

I don't know. But I do know that I'm no longer a Democrat. I'm no longer a liberal - why on earth would I want to be identified with a bunch of people who hate me for my religion. Who hate all Catholics?

Once again, we return to the root. You say "a bunch of people"-- referencing liberals-- "hate all Catholics." Find me a reasonable survey or poll stating that even a simply majority-- hell, even 20%-- of liberals "hate all Catholics." I'm sorry, but you won't. Because it simply isn't true.

I'm not trying to persuade you to "reconvert" to liberalism-- like I've said, I'm not even a liberal myself. However, I can't sit back and watch someone make such rash generalizations about a group of people on the personal beliefs of a few.

If we always made these generalizations, where would we be? We'd live in a world where "every American is a fundamentalist Protestant" (well, our leader is, so we must be), "every technology is evil" (hey, the Internet can be used to distribute child pornography, so all technology must be evil), and "knives can only be used as deadly weapons" (you know that movie where the guy kills another guy with a kitchen knife? yeah, that's why).

See what I mean? When we make hasty generalizations about organizations, peoples, or even things, we lose sight of what really matters. Truth be told, most pro-abortion Democrats aren't "anti-life." They are doing what they believe is best for their country. At the same time, anti-gay Republicans truly believe that their stance protects "family values."

We all have good intentions. Denying these intentions hurts all of us.

Noneya, you sound like the typical illiberal leftard who can't defend anything they believe; it's always ATTACK. It is, of course, understandable--when your beliefs are all wrong, you have to do something, I suppose. I'm sure you're feeling pretty self-satisfied and tough now, by coming over here and taking a dump in the comments. Quite impressive.

Dom,

Liberalism is extremely pro-religious freedom.

Historically, that's true. And if you were going by the textbook definition, it's true. It's entirely correct to say that people like Marcotte and McEwan are about as far from "liberal" as it gets. But I think we both know exactly what Beth meant, so let's not parse words, OK?

The truth is, the Atheists (as opposed to "atheists" who aren't pissed at God and religious people--they just don't care) are at home on the Left for a reason, and it's not because the Right is some kind of theocracy (there are plenty of atheists and non-Christians of every flavor on the right).

The Left is where it's OK to scream "Christofascist," "godbag," "Jeebus," and all the other infantile euphemisms spouted by the terminally adolescent. Eventually, some people grow out of it and see the stupidity of these childish rantings about all that "authority" they imagine to be oppressing them, and they move on. There's a reason why there's that old saying "if you're a Democrat after age 30, you don't have a brain." (Forgive me for mangling the exact quote.)

I find it hilarious that Atheist evangelists actually think they'll convince anyone that There Is No God™ by ridiculing the faithful and being hateful. But again, it's that idiotic perpetually adolescent mentality, just acting out their angst. They can't be expected to act rationally, because their little juvenile brains haven't completely developed the capacity yet. Imagine a Catholic or Protestant trying to convert an atheist by telling them how f%&@ing stupid they are, or to compare with Islam, threatening to kill atheists who don't submit. Either way is pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Maybe you can understand why believers (and regular who-cares atheists!) think Atheists are full of BS and utterly repellent. It's not that anyone is repulsed by them because they don't believe, it's the nastiness and foaming bile. Think about it. And then remember where the nasty Atheists feel at home: the Democratic Party.

One more thing:

At the same time, anti-gay Republicans truly believe that their stance protects "family values."

Who's making "hasty generalizations" here?

Sigh.
Why proselitize here(newsvine)? It simply isn't going to work. It's like the anarchists response to a pro-life rally in SF. "Who the 'f do they think they are, bring that sh** here, this is SF!" Tossing something like this in someone's face isn't going to make them suddenly go, "Oops. We were a bit harsh there. We might want to back off or even appologize a little bit."

Maggs, Beth, pick your battles.
Fine to be pissed, but don't bring grief down on yourselves like this. T'aint healthy. John and SB would proll'y agree with me. So would your siblings. Not you Boston types. you guys love to brawl. Heathens. (owwwwwww! Stop twisting. That hurts.)

Sure, sometimes the arguments slaming Catholicism are a bit whacked and stupid. Some aren't.

The one that you objected to Beth really was suffering from vapor lock or tunnel vision. Ex:
"Natural law has "concrete applications" such as protecting human life from conception to its natural end, and the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, Benedict Ratzinger said.
Well now, that's interesting, isn't it? The Pope just said that human life must be protected from conception, e.g. it must not be allowed to happen."
The author knows he's being unfair here. Intentionally and utterly distorting the quote for his/her purposes. Rather a no-no to do that actually. But he's doing it on purpose to basically shit on my religion. So what. I didn't have to pay for it like with Piss Christ. Turn the other cheek.

Basically, so some people have a problem with us. Turn the other cheek. They aren't going to love us anyways, but it doesn't help to yell at them. They got burned with tactics they pioneered and they don't like it. Let them lick their wounds and whine about it. It's fair. They may not extend the same curt. later, but so what. You live the religion every moment of every day. It's tough. But you two can do it, and you've pulled me thru some tough days so I'm just returning the favor.

So pick your battles. Not going to change many, if any, minds here. Neither am I. So calm down, blog your own sorrows over it and don't draw fire to yourself since that's likely to keep you pissed longer.
ry (cross posted)

Addendum: See, now you brought people here to attack you at your home on the web. Was it worth it to do so by cross posting Beth? I hate to lecture, seeing as I have a really bad temper myself, but, Lady of The Armorer, Mistress of the Denizens(mind out of gutter please!), all that seems to have accomplished is make you more mad. I'm with you on the Pandagon and Newsvine thing---it offended me, they simply took a big dump on my religion and laughed about it(how cool of them to do that!).

BUt you aren't going to cure it by attacking them and leaving yourself open to counter attacks.
It's hard to turn the other cheek. But we have to. It's what we're asked to do and commanded to do in Cathecism. It's hard. But we can do it.

Ry, she *did* pick her battle.

It just isn't one you would have picked.

Y'know, let Montgomery loose in the Netherlands, or let Patton loose in the Saar.

Either way, Germans get killed, just not neccessarily the ones you want.

So to speak.

Fair enough.

Just trying to be somewhat helpful. Failed. As usual. Sorry. At least I didn't get Booted for failure this time.

Beth you're pretty much wrong on this issue. But to answer your opening question;

'Why is it okay to slam the Catholic Church?'

The answer is because we live in a free speech democracy.

Furthermore you've made far too many sweeping assumptions and irrelevant comments which are going to be too easy for people to pick apart.

What i do know is you stopped being a democrat well before this. So I'm wondering what the missing link is. I can see you've jumped from democrats hate catholics to liberals to personally hate towards you.

I don't expend much effort bagging catholicism because others do it better than I do. I'll go down the gay angle desite how this is goign to cause reactions since that's personal to me and briefly cover the crux of a simple matter.

You complain about people hating you over catholisicm. Just think how much hate myself and other gays have had to endure over the centuries thanks to your church. Just think of how your support of the church's official line harms people like me every day. You don't have to fear some catholic nitwit will decide religion is more important than law and beat you up or kill you. It happens. You don't have to hold back from holding John's hand in public. You don't need to be concerned that if catholicism or some other gay hating religion takes enough power that you'll be suppressed or killed for being 'evil' like it used to be. How often do you get called evil by a person cheered all around the world? When's the last time someone in your family screamed that you were going to hell? What hate have you really experienced as a catholic?

And this is just one issue.

Trias, I'll try to be fair and gentle here.
a) Since when is it okay as a result of past bigotry against you to be a bigot against someone else? Two wrongs don't make a right?
b) Ever been to the Castro in San Francisco? Then don't tell me gays aren't about to forget the law and just go beat up some f'n Catholic. It also happens. Why is your rage and vigilantism kosher? Beth and I weren't around 70 years ago when beating up a gay man was legal. Why are you holding us accountable for it?
c) This is tolerance? You can say all the mean and spiteful things about us, but we're not supposed to actually speak our minds because it's hurtful to you? Make up your mind what the rules are and so long as they're fair we'll play by them.
d) The official Cathecism is: Love the sinner hate the sin. Being homosexual isn't the problem any more than being born short tempered and violent are(you're the former and I'm the latter). Doctrine is not 'go beat up fags'.
One is bigotry and the other is not. One is saying that we disapprove of something(and that something earns you a ticket to hell---while your belief is that our unacceptance of you buys us a one way ticket to hell) and the other is unquestionable bigotry.
e) It is exactly this kind(the newsvine stuff) of talk amoungst Catholics that leads to gay beatings. It's a well studied phenomenon. So I bet someone in the Castro cracked the skull of someone coming out of St. Marks last night having read that.

Oh, and what bigotry have I actually experienced as a Catholic? None until I was 27 and moved to Indiana(my little slice of OC was very MExican and very Vietnamese. I'd never met a Protestant until I went to UC Davis. Then we were oddballs because Atheism was the norm). Now I hear all the time about those 'Damn Catholics,' and worse. Don't forget that the targets of the KKK are Blacks, Jews, and Catholics---and one of the last big Klan chieftans lives/lived down 231 from where I am. Sanger proll'y ran into more trouble here than I did, but my time hasn't been entirely rosy either. People start looking at you funny when you eat fish here on Fridays---and some people stop being your friends.

Just because you don't know of our suffering doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You want to see more? Look at the works of Gore Vidal. Geebus. Listen to him we're trying to take over the world. Bonnie Prince Charlie? Yeah, Cromwell didn't slaughter tons of us Catholics at all, did he? Turn of the 19th-20th century left intellectuals wrote THOUSANDS of tracts against us.

You aren't alone in your suffering. Others face persecution and experience messages that make them uncomfortable within their own skin or fear for their lives. Not just you. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't there.

And don't cry apples and oranges. In every developed country there are laws that protect gays as much as they protect Catholics from violence. The difference as we see it is that Kelly Ripa does something to Clay Aiken, that's in a gray area, and we have to examine our national behaviour towards gays, but someone like these folks at newsvine can nakedly say hateful stuff, mean spirited and outside the rules of decorum, and it's not to be questioned at all. Double standard maybe?

A couple of years ago there was a show called "Meet the Kelleys" One of the radio spots, that parralleled a major scene of the series, had someone saying 'Irish-Catholic, republican, baboons.' Now tell me if something like that was said about the gay family of the show Lambda Legal wouldn't sue. But we're told to shut up---me specifically when I wrote to ABC's Chicago radio affiliate about the spot.
Gravy. Goose.

We'd rather be friends, Trias. Really. Not because we want to proslytize or anything. But we aren't going to give up something as central to our identity, Cathecism, any more than you're going to give up who you are. We can simply agree to disagree or we can sit here and hate on each other. Your collective choice.

As far as I know nobody at Argghhh or here has ever had issues with you because you're openly gay. we've accepted you as one of our own because you are one of our own. Some of us just worry about you for theological reasons you wish we'd leave you alone over---so we do.
That's very Catholic, Trias. So we get a bit miffed when someone just attacks us. We too have suffured and continue to suffer.
hey, I hadn't run a 60 sec quarter mile since trashing my knee in 1991 until 1999 when a friend thought it funny to yell 'Here's a gay hating Catholic' while we were walking down Castro in SanFran. So it's not like there aren't places on this earth that aren't as gay as Boston is Catholic.

We can be friends so long as you admitt that we suffer too and that it isn't right to attack us because it makes you feel better. Disagree with us? Sure. But disagreement isn't mocking or attacking is it?

Stick around Trias. We do like you dude.

Well Ry lemme get to this I’m not speedy Gonzalez like you ya know.

a) I’m not claiming this is ok. If you’re hinting I’m being a bigot point it out so I can learn from my mistake or debunk it.

The link to the newsvine website shows bigotry in my view. The deliberate misquoting is enough for me. So I’m not saying what they are doing is OK if that’s the impression I give.

b) No Ry, I thought you knew I’ve never been to the US. So I can’t comment on that establishment. If what you say is true that is just as bad but doesn’t absolve Catholicism of its actions. My rage? You haven’t seen my rage. Nor have I been a vigilante. Where did you get that idea? Your accountability is related to the accountability of your church and your support of its ways.

c) Ry show me where I claimed to be tolerant to start with. Then show me where I said you can’t speak your mind and we’ll work from there. If you want to say something about gays I have not stopped you and you know I lack the power or right to do so anyway.

d) There are three aspects to this;
1) Its the same basically as support the troops (sinners) but not the war (sin).

2) Catholic doctrine is still to murder the fags. As I have pointed out was common in the past and the church has not rescinded it to this very day. Only law holds it back and popular opinion to a lesser degree. So instead the church does as much damage as it can in other ways.

3) You are wrong in your assumption about what I believe.

e) Maybe. I personally doubt it has the exposure. I am not supporting their words.

Now for the next post by which time you’ve prolly made another.

Fair enough about the suffering and persecution.

I have no expectation that someone is going to change religions just for me Ry. I’m not nearly that deluded. Ry I don’t hate you or Beth etc. And the choice of hate isn’t up to me alone at all.

I have no idea what the people in Castle Arghhh think on the matter. My main interaction is via the site and the gay issue is not brought up nor do I know what degree of difference there is between what one would write compared to what one thinks. Ry it’s not even reasonable or wise for me to play guessing games at it.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Did some gays attack you?

Ry I don’t have many friends it’s true and my lack of diplomacy is part of that. I’d like that but the truth is Castle Arghhh is a wonderful place for me to learn and express but it is too far and disconnected from me to really be a place of friendship. I’m sorry if you or Beth believe I am attacking you. I tried to make it clear but perhaps it isn’t because of the strong negativity. I am attempting to show you via comparison of hate none of which is mine.

Okay, maybe I caught you in a bit of muddled thinking and mea culpa, Trias. Could you please, now that the initial shock of it is passed, give your true feelings and beliefs?

Because this:
"'Why is it okay to slam the Catholic Church?'

The answer is because we live in a free speech democracy."
Does not jive with this:
"The link to the newsvine website shows bigotry in my view. The deliberate misquoting is enough for me. So I’m not saying what they are doing is OK if that’s the impression I give."

Emotional issues tend to make even the best of us get a little out of who we are and say what we don't mean. But that's why you got what you got from me, Trias. You did, at least seem, say that their bigotry was okay---because it's a free speech democracy. Well, I provided some background(and misused 'you' by shifting between singular and plural uses unclearly). Also, the rules also seem to be, with hate speech laws and all, that the 1st Amendment is not universal. Bigotry is not covered.

Which is what Beth's question is: If bigotry is not protected speech according to the diversity crowd why is it okay to show bigotry toward Catholics? That's where we started. LEt's go back to the beginning and try again.

Trias, you should ask John about some of the exchanges between Sanger and I. I think the man's my friend, but he can savage me something fierce and leave me in a funk for days. It happens. Friends disagree. Friends get mad at each other.

And you'd be surprised what the Denizens do for each other when you actually ask. Distance is an issue for a lot of us too, but we find ways to help each other anyway. Trust in us. We are your friends.

Onto the doctrinal question. Dude, I don't know who has been trying to teach you what Chuch Doctrine is, but they're not giving it to you straight. Here's a link from the Papal website. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM This is official Church doctrine. Nowhere in there is 'kill the gays.' Gibson's dad is a loon and a heretic. He doesn't tell you what the Church's real positions are---just his own whacked out interpretation is. From this, coupled with other sections, it is obvious that the stance is 'love the sinner but hate the sin.'

"I’m not sure what you are saying here. Did some gays attack you?" Yup. Punched in the face. Tripped and kicked in the gut. Chased me down a street. Only escaped because I could still run then, got into my car, and drove off--which in San Francisco is a lot harder than it sounds because traffic is a solid wall half the time, and an only semi-permiable wall the rest.

Look at the history of groups like ACT-UP. As militant and agressive as they are gay. They don't do the gay community any favours. But they exist, and when stuff like this shows up they go nuts---just like Nazis or Catholic supremacists do when inflammatory stuff makes headlines.

BUt I don't hold that against you. I don't use that, or talk of brain dead breeders, to hold a grudge against the gay community. I could. The breeder talk is such a part of the community, ime, that they don't even realize they're doing it. The venom in it is as bad as using the N word. But such is life. Where the problem comes in is when you call them on it. When you say, "You know, that's hateful and mean and bigoted. Why are you doing that?" Then they get pissed and rationalize and make excuses(as we've seen here and at newsvine).

But yeah. We're buds, Trias. And I don't think you un-diplomatic. Just touchy on this particular topic given what's on the line. Understandable. Everyone's personal hurt is more important to them than someone else's to some degree. No problem.

Just remember that we're saying that if bigotry is a no-no then it should be a no-no for everyone. There's a Grand Canyon of area in which to critcize the Catholic Church legitimately in. BUt bigotry, as expressed at newsvine, lays outside of it. It's exactly that kind 'well, Catholics don't like me so I can say whatever I want about them' kind of thing that makes a mockery of the hate speech laws that criminalize US speaking our own theology on Sundays in Mass. Which is why I say (plural) you pick the rules and so long as they're fair we'll play along, but they better apply to you(plural) too.
Take care. And get that thesis done, wouldya?;)

I have no idea what the people in Castle Arghhh think on the matter. My main interaction is via the site and the gay issue is not brought up...

Actually, IIRC, the issue came up rather early after you first made an appearance (and started blogging). And as I recall it was basically a non-event, which should've spoken volumes about what the regulars at the Castle thought. And if you are going to think it's possible the regulars are bigoted about gays, you're going to have to assume they're hypocrites, too. And they have given you no reason (as far as I know) to assume the worst about them on that subject.

nor do I know what degree of difference there is between what one would write compared to what one thinks. Ry it’s not even reasonable or wise for me to play guessing games at it.

Oh, but you have played guessing games. You've assumed there is a "degree of difference" (extent unknown) between what they write and what they think. And that assumption is based entirely on none of us being gay (as far as I know). Frankly, I find that bigoted.

I also remember homosexuality being mentioned at times in the context of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Um, FUzzy, are you mad or something? Or am I just reading this wrong? You sound mad. My own mood fluctuations could be making me see things screwy, but why are you mad?

Trias, as you proll'y suspect, I am conflicted. But I've always been this way and that's the way I was taught Cathecism by a very straight laced Jesuit priest, Monsiegnor Scanal(who if he knew I lived with my wife before marrying her would drag me by the ear to Confessional). In Davis I was accused of trying to date a lesbian---even though i was known to be a pretty straight laced Catholic. Turns out she was bi. Chris and I were pretty good friends anyways. When she had a major fight that later lead to the break up of her relationship with Sarah I was the person she called to talk to and be consoled by.

I find some oddball, misfit kinship with you dude. We're friends. I thought you were making a mistake or showing some bigotry and called you on it. You called me on my ego wrt Arkin. It's what friends do. It wasn't an attack, or wasn't intended as an attack. I thought I was being restrained but apparently I failed. Sorry. See, you aren't the only failed individual around here.

It sounds like a big ol' misunderstanding. Sorry.

And dude, open up a bit. you'd be surprised at what you find here. I've got Denizens helping me figure out how to fix my car when they're half way across the country. yeah, it isn't like sitting acrossed a table. But it is real friendship. Like real friendship there will be times when we don't have time. That's not rejection. That's life. So, you know, if you want to just talk or complain about life or anything give us a try dude. It's scary at first to open up like that, but you'd be surprised how these people can be behind you. Ask John, he and I don't see eye-to-eye on religion with it relating to a matter close to his heart(honoring The Fallen) and the guy is the best big brother I've ever had despite that rather major difference. Try us dude. you'd be surprised. It isn't like I can go to any of the other Denizens homes easily. Even when I helped out AFSis it was a pretty major undertaking and she's only the next state over(Indiana and Ohio share a border). BUt we're still there for each other. And you can be part of it too. If you want. We're in the book.

Ok Ry the difference is this;

Now bigotry has different meanings but if we go with the consensus ‘intolerance of ideas differing to one’s own’ bigotry in of itself is quite legal as far as I know and it’s certainly widely practiced. Legally what matters is how such intolerance manifests.

Slamming is ok. The Catholic church and gays are slammed quite a bit by each other.

When slamming is based on falsehoods it’s not OK in my book. It may well be legal as the Pope does frequently and I know many others including gays do in many different areas. Now I accept and practice patience because falsehoods can come from faith in incorrect beliefs and can come from mistakes of one kind or another. However that website does so deliberately with a confession to such. That to me is not OK. It’s even worse than the Pope standing up and saying his piece because he is not doing so in deliberate falsehood.

A funk? I thought that was a 70s word of something good.

Ry I’ve already shown how the love the sinner but hate the sin relates to support the troops but not the war. I’m trying to show you how false a view it can be. The bottom line is that that is not support and not how friendship works.

Even taking the sanitised modern version you have provided it’s clear you are required to disapprove not just of the sin but the sinner as well given by the words ‘Under no circumstances can they be approved.’ And there is no doubt in context ‘they’ refers to homosexuals.

I guess that happens too. Vigilantism seems to spring up in everything. It doesn’t make it ok and I have to say your mate is an idiot. I’m sure you had plenty of incentive to enter traffic.

Lol Ry if you want a ruleset you’re looking in the wrong place. Miles away. You are not going to get such a set agreed upon obeyed or enforced by anyone.

FBL;
Yes I brought it up on my blog early and certainly very little was said of it. That is precisely the opposite to ‘spoken volumes’. It’s not speaking at all.

No FBL I don’t have to assume anything of the sort.

FBL deeming me bigoted about assumptions you’ve made about what I think is a terrible farce.

Yes it has been brought up in that context, that’s true.

Ry part 2;
Ry gays really aren’t liked that much. That is not paranoia btw. Opening up by commenting on a public and fairly widely read blog would be foolish. It would also be off topic.

Trias, I have gay friends and co-workers. Some of them are even Catholic. I am not a homophobe. Hell, I didn't even write my post because I was concerned about gays. I wrote it because I am annoyed that it is politically correct to say very hateful things about the Catholic Church and the Virgin Mary and God the Father and the Pope. It matters not to me who the hatespeech is coming from. It matters to me that it is completely groundless in this day and age.

The Catholic Church has done of lot of things in past centuries that were not good. However, the Catholic Church has also done all kinds of good things.

I'm 53 years old. I have never, in my life, even heard a nun or a priest or a bishop say one word about homosexuality. Yes, the Church believes it is a sin, but we are everyone of us sinners. That's the human condition.

When I look around at other religions, in particular, Islam, I am completely confounded that homosexual people prefer to gripe about Catholics rather than Islamasists. The Koran decrees that homosexuals should be killed. Homosexuality is against the law in Arab lands. But if I feel like Islam is not the religion of peace, and mention that, then liberals from all over the place call me a bigot.

I have 15 hours of theology and 12 hours of philosophy from college. Nowhere, in any of my classes, was homosexuality an issue. The Church does not tell us to go out and kill gay people - how on earth do people get that idea? That's why I think a lot of hatred is due to pure ignorance and bigotry - for no reason.

I have experienced bigotry. When I was in high school, I worked for a large amusement park, now called 6 Flags over St. Louis. About 200 of us took buses down to Dallas as guests of the kids who worked at 6 Flags over Texas. We were all assigned different families to stay with.

The family I was assigned to was headed by a Baptist minister. When he heard my obviously Irish last name (Healy) he asked if I was Catholic. I said yes, of course, and he would not allow me to stay in his house because I was a dirty Catholic. Ignorance.

Anyway, I do not care if anyone is gay or straight. I do care when people of whatever stripe just mindlessly pound the Catholic church into the dirt because of transgressions of years and years ago, that have never been a part of Church doctrine, and that have been rectified for many, many years.

Well, *this* has been an interesting thread.

Can you imagine trying this at any of the really big sites? What a morass it would have sunk to?

My turn!

[group hug]

Trias - "speaking volumes" vice not speaking at all... I'm with the others here, "gay" pro or con, isn't an issue at the Castle. Not because it isn't important, or there isn't legitimate grievance, or room for discussion, but because of what the Castle *is* as a community, as a blog, and the people who choose to comment regularly.

So, not surprisingly, when it has come up at the Castle it has done so in regards to the US military policy. And we had a civil chat about it, and moved on to other things. If the policy comes back into public discussion again, it will probably resurface at the Castle.

What it means is that for most of us, it isn't a crusading issue. Your mileage obviously varies, and for good reason - gay issues are a centrality in your life.

Veteran's issues and bad war planning and the recovery therefrom are the ones in my life that I can talk about, anyway.

Fuzzy is all about helping warriors and their families. AFSis is focused on single motherhood, long distance relationships and taking on the role of Family Coordinator for 1SG Keith's reserve unit. Sanger is all about several layers of public policy relating to his degree program.

Ry is an anklebiter on everything trying to figure out how he's going to get his car fixed.

You can be the Castle's Gay Correspondent if you want to. Just expect robust response (and me hitting people over the head with the Rulez when required) and not neccessarily hand-holding and singing kum-by-ya.

And I'll squash anybody who gets stupid and forgets the rules.

We've had some rough debates in this crowd, you weren't here for the Terry Schiavo Slugfest. That was the first time I had to shut a thread down for a while because we, as a group, were pretty polarized and it got very emotional.

And guess what - we're still a group.

From my perspective, you're a valued contributor - and when SWWBO and I get the money to go down under, we're gonna find you, and Geoff, and nip over to Kiwi-ville, too, and bother Murray.

Ry, I probably am, but on re-reading what I wrote I see how it could sound more irritable than I actually was.

Trias - "speaking volumes" vice not speaking at all... I'm with the others here, "gay" pro or con, isn't an issue at the Castle. Not because it isn't important, or there isn't legitimate grievance, or room for discussion, but because of what the Castle *is* as a community, as a blog, and the people who choose to comment regularly.

...What it means is that for most of us, it isn't a crusading issue. Your mileage obviously varies, and for good reason - gay issues are a centrality in your life.

John pretty much says what I wanted to say on that area. If people had a "problem" with you being gay, it would've been a big deal when you mentioned it. Since it wasn't, that's what I meant about "speaking volumes."

Those of us who are not anti-gay don't go around seeing everyone through the lens of his/her sexuality. Good grief, most of the time I forget that you're gay unless you specifically mention a sex-related issue (and ditto for ANYBODY'S sexual orientation)! It's just not THE defining issue in my relationships with people (and isn't for most of my friends).

And considering the hands I held and the tears I wiped off others' cheeks in bars in college, I deeply resent any suggestion that I'm some kind of closet bigot. My heart still hurts when I think of the fellow church organists in my degree program who were torn between their religion and their desires (and no, I don't mean those who tried to deny their orientation, I mean those for whom religion was simultaneously their solace and their personal condemnation). And then there is my joy when I remember the expression of one dear friend's face when he came back a year after graduation for a concert and wordlessly beamed as he showed me the ring on his left hand; he had found another man to love, and the tortured soul I had known was now more peaceful and joyous that at any time I had ever seen him.

So, we all have our battles, we all have our hangups, and we all have our sore spots (my God, you probably wouldn't even believe my own history--email me if you really want to know). But assumptions and nasty and obnoxious condemnations of the deeply held beliefs or drives of any group is not productive, especially in a community setting. Just because others elsewhere have certain opinions you doesn't mean people here necessarily do--even if they share backgrounds, beliefs or lifestyles similar to those who came before. We are individuals firstly and members of groups secondly.

And btw, what Ry alludes to is merely scratching the surface of the "community" aspect. I know I only know a small part, but there is so much done behind the scenes for people in this circle, including those who have made terrible mistakes, or those who struggle under heavy burdens of birth or circumstance. There is much love and acceptance if only you are willing to trust it.

And yeah, that probably IS preaching, but I AM irritable and don't feel like trying to soften and clarify it. Trias, please believe me that this all I have said not to distance you, but to try to convince you to not pull back, to not assume you are not accepted. Were I trying to abuse or reject you, I would simply call you some vile name and then ignore you. I have no "ulterior motive" other than to maintain a harmonious relationship with someone I find interesting and worthwhile to know. What you are willing to share and how much you are willing to trust in the truth of that is (as always) up to you...

Ry is an anklebiter on everything trying to figure out how he's going to get his car fixed.

Yum, ankle. Needs ketchup.

YOu know, Trias, the "Support the Troops" angle is all fine and dandy until you really look at it. The problem with it is the lack of sincerity by the majority of those who say it(except for real pacifists, like QUakers, it don't really fly.). It's a calculated pose. This isn't. Richard the Lionheart and Saladin could be REAL friends despite each knowing the other was going to hell. Sincerity. That's the key, dude. YOu and I are never going to see eye to eye on certain things. So what. That doesn't get in the way unless you make it. Unless you take a 'take all of me or none of me' type stance. There's stuff about me you absolutely hate, but you can still be my friend, if you wish. Because it's sincere. It's real.

There's certain topics and ways of talking about things John can't do with me. We're still friends. The more raunchy stuff Maggs and AFSis, and FbL every once in a blue moon, pull is something I can't really be a part of. It's rather central to their personas, they do it without thinking, and something I can't be part of. Yet we're friends. I accept all of them, even if I stand in great disapproval of some parts. I love them just the same. God. My flesh and blood older brother tried to kill me, I carry a scar on my left arm from the attack which could've seperated my arm at the elbow, and I still love him. Love's a complicated thing, dude. I will never love what you do, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to be your friend. I can never forgive my older brother for what he did, nor his continued indulgence in what brought the attack on, but I still love the bastiche. IF you think I can't seperate that which I don't like and still see the real you, having lived through that and eventually going back(having gone to the college the furthest from home and cutting off all ties for three years) to my family anyway, I think you're selling me, and everyone else, short.

It's ultimately your choice though, Trias. Do you want to let this remain a barrier between us or not? We don't have to approve or accept evey little detail of those we love--otherwise we'd wind up loving nobody, not even ourselves. I'm a pretty think skinned guy. I take rejection and criticism real bad. Other's opinion of me can wound me real easy and real deep(ask Sanger, he's proll'y often asked himself 'WTF did I do to get this?'). And I say that you're disapproval of me over Catholicism, while it hurts, doesn't stop me from wanting to be your friend.

I know the rather harsh treatment by society at large can and will torque your nose and cause you to lash out at times. It's cool. It's what friends do---forgive each other for the poke in the eyes we didn't think we earned. It isn't a problem for us. There's stuff we won't or can't get. It happens. You and I are Normals while John and Bill are Vets. There's bonds between them, a culture that they share, that we'll never understand or be part of. Yet they're our friends---and good ones. It doesn't have to be a problem.

SWWBO;

I know. I brought up the gay issue in relation to the Catholic issue you brought up.

You might have not payed attention to what the church says on the matter. After all it’s relative importance to you may not be very high. They do talk about it though. For example the Pope has been talking about gay marriage lately in some of his addresses which should be fairly easy for you to find.

I assure you I bag Islam. Like Catholicism I have better things to do than employ hate speech but that doesn’t mean I don’t express my opinion on it even though it’s negative. In my scale of things Islam is deadly worse than Catholicism on the gay issue. Some other religions eg Baptists are also worse on the scale. One thing that highly ticks me off are that some gay groups are aligning with the very radical Muslims that would return gays to hell on earth had they the power. The common ground is of course antiBush or antiwar. You know I sometimes think that’s part of the problem. Bush *is* the war too much. It should have been broadly grounded. I’m off topic. Again.

‘Anyway, I do not care if anyone is gay or straight.’
I can think of one person it might matter for.

How have they been rectified?

John;

Hug? Ok what have you done with the real John? Can we leave him there and keep the new one?

I have no doubt the gays in the military will resurface as an issue frequently enough, especially with such a wobbly policy on it.

I suppose that’s true. If it were green footballs I’d know more clearly.

Actually I think of Ry as the spanner in the works. In between bits of arguments I find silly little flashes of brilliance shine through.

Pass on the correspondent. Apart from the very fundamental ‘gays in the military’ there isn’t anything else all that military related to gay issues. I will pipe up on the gay aspect if it comes up but often there is little I can say that would bring about any real contribution or change. I may be gay but am I am not in the military so it’s not like I’m a leading expert on the matter.

Besides we get correspondents in our media. They are usually called that because they lack any real title or knowledge of what’s going on. They *do* talk a lot though.

You’re welcome. Don’t expect any air conditioning.

FBL;

FBL it’s been over 40 here for 3 days and I’ve had no sleep. Don’t feel bad about being irritable.

OK OK I get it about the speaking volumes thing. Sheesh.

I have no idea what else there is beyond the blog. I know I’m not the only one with’issues’. If you want to share your problems with me feel free. You do touch on a core thing with me ie trust. Given who you are I’m not surprised you homed in on it.

Ry… again;

Damn you killed my neat argument by dumping the basis. It is a point tho. In reality you can support the troops but not the war but it does cause dissonance which you have to deal with one way or the other. Well the ‘love me for who I am’ is an argument of itself. You can take that on tho I’m not touching it.

I’ll discuss love with you sometime but I know it’s a big topic. Hell how many songs have babbled on about it so far? Ry, I am who I am the parts you like and the parts you don’t. Separating bits out and you are not seeing the real me.

Ok fine we can all be friends there I said it in public too.

It’s dual Ry. There is society’s action and there’s the reaction it causes in us. We’re human, we’re very social beings. That causes kinds of damage that can be very difficult to cure. That applies to any kind of person rejected by society. Sadly it happened to Vietnam Vets as well.

Wait till you see military guys with ones they fought with. The bond is stronger than you might think.