Catholic Group Refuses to Take Part in Panel Discussion on LGBT Issues

In their defense, it is hard to be on a panel for an event where you know that everybody is going to hate you for your opinions. Aside from the fact that I think the LGBT groups are right, it would be fairly equivalent to having a gay couple speak at mass about why it’s ok. It would be pretty nerve-wracking either way, and I’m not sure I can really blame any group for wanting to avoid that anger. Maybe that is still necessary to get over that for any real discussion, but that doesn’t make it easy to do it.

As for the ten percent thing, I haven’t looked into it at all so I don’t really know. If it was only based on that one study, and it was a flawed study, then of course we should stop quoting it as fact. I really have no idea if that’s true, though, without any research on it. And in any case, from the perspective opposing homosexual activity and the perspective encouraging it, either way it doesn’t really matter whether it’s 2% or 10%. The point for either side stands: it’s natural, even if less natural than 10%, but if you also assume other sins are natural, then whether it’s natural or not isn’t the point anyway. I don’t think anything there is new to the debate.

As for the Kinsey study. Yes, it’s flawed considering what we’ve learned since then about sexuality in general. But where the CC completely fails is in not acknowledging that the Kinsey scale is a continuum. A lot more people are bisexual than strictly gay. Of course those morons would rather have them ignore those feelings and pretend to be entirely straight.

replace the word homosexuality with catholic or priest in that paragraph and it makes more sense

“Our imaginary god says it’s bad.” Why would we expect logical thought from delusional people? When one chooses to be ignorant, I believe that’s called stupid. Being arrogant about it makes them a douchebag.

Discounting the appeal to divine law, which has no place in a discussion with a group that doesn’t share your religion, we’re left with a natural law argument which presumes that homosexuality is a sin without any supporting arguments (and indeed ignores the fact that some groups of people are genetically alcoholic), and a few straw men. Not only is it logically juvenile, it doesn’t really touch on the meat of the Catholic Church’s stance that homosexual acts are not and can never be procreative, making them a misuse of human sexuality and therefore immoral. If this is what they are working with, it’s probably for the best that this particular Catholic group isn’t participating. Regardless of the arguments for the immorality of homosexuality, there’s nothing in Catholic theology with would make it any worse then missing Mass on Sunday (A mortal sin, but not generally a major issue for public discussion). It becomes more complex when you bring same sex marriage into the equation, but really, the theology of sacramental verses legal marriage should be applied to homosexual marriages, just like it’s applied to any other non-sacramental marriage (i.e. non-baptized couples aren’t married in the eyes of the church, but it doesn’t really matter because they aren’t Catholic anyways, and fall under the civil laws, not the moral law of the Church), unless someone seriously wants to argue that anyone not Catholic shouldn’t get married.
Once again, the human tendency towards abandon all logic when dealing with religion almost makes me ashamed to be religious myself. Is it really that hard to say ” I think this action is wrong, but I do a bunch of stuff I think is wrong, plus I can’t prove any of what I believe, so I’m just going to shut up and worry about myself.”?

Ron in Houston is right. It would be strange indeed if a doctrinal organisation such as the catholic church didn’t have a ‘position paper’.

The doctrine of original sin is fundamental to the catholic faith; the 10% quota appears to be fundamental to the LGBT faith. Both faiths have got it wrong.

There have been a large number of surveys since Kinsey giving a range of numbers. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_in_the_United_States Based on those data, I’d guess anywhere between 2% and 8% of people are gay, depending on how you define it and ask the question.

It doesn’t matter how many people are gay. Whether it’s 10%, or 1%, or even just one person in the whole country.

The number is irrelevant.

Why? Because this is a free f-ing country and people can be gay if they want to. Or if, as seems much more likely, that’s how they’re born.

Catholics can either stamp their feet and pout and whine and fume and bluster about this reality — which they cannot change, barring amending the Constitution — or they can accept it, like mature adults, and move on with their lives.

The choice is theirs. That they’ve chosen the juvenile path of taking their ball and going home ’cause they’re afraid they’ll lose the game, shows what sort of character they have.

Which is to say, they haven’t any. Not a speck.

Do we remember when they attempted deflecting the accusations of child rape by saying that the problem wasn’t pedophilia but, rather, homosexuality? I think they even quoted the overrepresentation of priest/young boy among incidents as some sort of evidence.

The church has been “ready to go” on this issue for thousands of years.

The church has been ready to go on this for, at most, 2000 years. I get that 2 meets the strict definition of “plural of thousand” but come on.

First, good for you for adding your voice to the dangerous distortions the rightwing pumps out about sex.

Now onward to their endlessly cited “10%” figure. I’ve read an enormous number of articles where the anti-Kinsey yahoos first claim Kinsey said it and then attack him for dishonesty; I can’t recall, however, reading a single citation they ever gave in Kinsey for their claim.

So, based on our recent studies, herewith Kinsey’s real figures, taken from page 651 of “Sexual Behavior In the Human Male:”

10% of all white males had at least one three-year period between the ages of 16 and 55 where they were “more or less exclusively homosexual” which Kinsey defined as either a 5 or 6 on his scale.

8% of the group, under the above conditions, were exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) for a three-year period.

4% of the group were “exclusively homosexual throughout their lives.”

So be armed with the facts: the next time somebody claims Kinsey faked the 10% figure you can point out that on page 651 Kinsey provided the figure of 4% and the only people with fake 10% figures are the people who attack Kinsey.

Hi Stephen P,
NO and NO.
Cheers – Lion (IRC)
PS. See how easy it is to overcome a straw argument method! This blog has quite a good discussion forum if you want to “verbal” me some more and debate the bible/slavery/LGBT
Think of Hemmants blog as the courtyard.
Come on in.

One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin

[citation needed]

If their views on homosexuality were so reasonable, they should be able to stand up on the stage and justify them. The fact that they chose not to, speaks volumes about their inability to defend said beliefs.

Perhaps these views can only be aired in Kent Hovind-style lectures where dissent is not allowed and all questions are asked and answered by the speaker.

I went to U of I. The Newmann Center is ultra conservative and put the final nails in the coffin of my then wavering Catholic faith.

“original sin”

LOL. Yes, being born is a sin. Living your life is a sin. Jerking off is a sin. Eating too much is a sin. Working on Sunday is a sin. Being gay is a sin. Not worshipping the same imaginary friend is a sin. Educating one’s self or questioning the word of “gawd” is a sin. Every little fucking thing we do is a sin according to resident witch doctors and cult leaders.

The only things that aren’t sins are molesting children, controlling people through fear, passing judgement on people with different beliefs, condemning people to hell, beating your wife/daughter/woman, mutilating infants genitals, raping the Earth and abusing animals, slavery, genocide, etc., etc..

These fucktards don’t deserve an invitation or respect or tax exempt status for their house of superstition. They deserve ridicule, shunning and maybe some water boarding. Gah.

Have a great weekend everyone. I’m done. Oh, and don’t work too hard this Sunday, you’ll just end up in hell. Bwaaahahaaha.

Was this downstate or Chicago? I know the Chaplain at Chicago (he actually married my husband and I, before I realized I was atheist), and would be surprised if he would be that dismissive.

The bigotry here never ceases to astound me.

I was watching Richard Dawkins on youtube earlier today explain why he wouldn’t debate a Creationist. (Answer: Because even acknowledging them legitimizes their argument.) The catholic church is simply using the same logic. And it’s working.

I Richard Dawkins, but I feel in this regard he is wrong. It’s the Creationists he *needs* to debate. Otherwise, he’s just preaching to the choir. Same goes for the catholic church: If your argument can’t stand up to scrutiny and questioning, then it’s not much of an argument.

GSS data for variables SEXSEX18 and SEX suggest about 1% gay, and another 1-2% some degree of bisexual. Incidentally, there’s also interesting jinks in the age curves – it looks like females are (slightly) more likely to “experiment” these days, while gay males seem to hold off until later in life. Sample size is too small for confidence; however, the effects seem plausible normative shifts given internet porn and AIDS.

Contrariwise, the Church’s argument can be turned back on them: merely because the behavior is rare does not necessarily mean it is unacceptable.

Actually, according to the Psychology of Women class I’m currently taking, the actual percentages for homosexuality are between 5%-10%, with 5% being approximated for women and 10% being approximated for men. Bisexuality, transgenderism, genderqueer, and intersexuality percentages were not given.