If it happened to them... it can happen to anyone.

12/04/2012 01:55:24 PM · #401

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You'll have to forgive them myqyl. Just admitting you are Christian makes you suspect in their eyes.

Just admitting I'm Christian means I'd have to forgive them :-)

But seriously, there's nothing to forgive. Everyone here is WAY more tolerant of Christians than some forums I've been on...

I do agree with you however that this is a classic First Amendment issue and that the lower court just punted to make it someone elses headache. I'm guessing this'll head to the SCOTUS and that the media will have a field day every step of the way.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

12/04/2012 02:08:50 PM · #402

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Cory:
Strange how widely perceptions can differ. You and I see the church very differently, and we see this topic differently.

I don't find that strange at all :-) You and I are two different people. I would consider it strange if we didn't have a different perspective...

Originally posted by Cory:

You see something that relates to photography, I see something that is related to religious silliness.

Actually I see a THREAD that relates to photography. Specifically the photography business. Perhaps you missed the Original Post?

Originally posted by Cory:

Tell me, do you actually think this could have happened in the absence of religion?

Absolutely... Do you think all homophobes are religious? I mean really!?!

But let's be frank here... You're not asking me about the thread. You're baiting to see if you can get me argue with you so you can ridicule a religion you know little or nothing about. As I said, I'd be glad to chew on some yummie yummie Troll Bait... just not here... This is the wrong place for that bit of mud slinging...

Ask me why I have a Nikon instead of a "real" camera and I'll argue with you here...

Well, let's just get this out of the way.. Calling me a troll was probably a mistake.

Secondly, cutting all the bullshit out of the way, I was actually responding to your deplorably ignorant statement as to what the church is, and is not, and your pathetic attempt to blame the media.

Your involvement with the church qualifies you to tell me about how great you guys are about as much as a heroin addict is to give me medical advice on injections. The sheer cockiness of and hubris of your lot really just pisses me off.

In short sir, the stone age beliefs of your organization bother and threaten me, and have historically and contemporarily been used to halt progress and persecute others.. I see no reason to accommodate your beliefs, nor do I feel any particular desire to forgive your organization for its behaviors, past or current.

I am sick and tired of hearing the same bullshit, "I'm a good person who supports xyz cause and my church is really great too, and supports the cause....". I think you've been forced into this position, and are only conceeding what you must.

I have no faith in the faithful. Give me the rational any day instead.

And yes, I think homophobia was created by the church.

Message edited by author 2012-12-04 14:11:42.

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/04/2012 02:11:15 PM · #403

Originally posted by myqyl:

You're baiting to see if you can get me argue with you so you can ridicule a religion you know little or nothing about.

I know plenty about Christianity and most other religions. Can I now ridicule them?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/04/2012 02:14:04 PM · #404

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by myqyl:
You're baiting to see if you can get me argue with you so you can ridicule a religion you know little or nothing about.

I know plenty about Christianity and most other religions. Can I now ridicule them?

Nope. Only the religious can talk about religion.. the rest of us just "don't get it" because we are simple poor ignorant heathens who can't even begin to comprehend the truth because we don't have a personal relationship with god.

Message edited by author 2012-12-04 14:25:08.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/04/2012 02:42:50 PM · #405

Originally posted by Cory:

Your involvement with the church qualifies you to tell me about how great you guys are about as much as a heroin addict is to give me medical advice on injections.

Perhaps not your best example â�� it is not altogether infrequent for licensed phlebotomists to ask addicts to insert the needle when venipuncture is required of someone with "difficult" veins.

What I think keeps getting overlooked in these discussions is that there are two distinct things each referred-to by the word "marriage" â�� the first a somewhat standardized civil contract between two individuals which the state, in exchange for fulfillment of the contract terms by the signatories, agrees to confer certain legal and economic privileges not available to those not in such a contractual relationship, and the second being a religious contract between individuals and their "church" conferring certain religious privileges on the participants, and the two have nothing to do with each other except that they use the same word to describe the contractual state.

The state cannot "define" the terms of any religion's marriage contract (which vary widely), and likewise no religion can determine or control the terms of the civil contract, which must (by the 14th Amendment) be applied to all like-situated citizens equally and impartially. Whether some particular church recognizes a couple's marriage should have no bearing on whether they can file a joint tax return or inherit from one another â�� in the US those are purely matters of civil law. No church should be able to deny citizens access to such civil benefits.

Church members can apply any restrictions they want within the context of their own congregation's activities, but as soon as someone starts performing services for the public (renting rooms, taking photos, filling prescriptions ...) they must treat all members of the public in a non-discriminatory way.

12/04/2012 02:47:36 PM · #406

Hehe. Cory just got pwned...

(sorry, I'm just throwing fuel on the fire, but that was quite a blow-up).

Message edited by author 2012-12-04 14:51:05.

12/04/2012 02:49:58 PM · #407

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
Your involvement with the church qualifies you to tell me about how great you guys are about as much as a heroin addict is to give me medical advice on injections.

Perhaps not your best example â�� it is not altogether infrequent for licensed phlebotomists to ask addicts to insert the needle when venipuncture is required of someone with "difficult" veins.

ROFL! Ok, totally true, still, I don't think myself likely to be asking a junkie for any sort of advice whatsoever at some point in the future...

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/04/2012 03:06:44 PM · #408

Originally posted by myqyl:

My reaction was to defy my Church and vote (as well as vocally speak out on Catholic.com) in favor of Gay Marriage Rights. I have never supported the Church's efforts to deny the rights of others and have been VERY vocal on forums and at my Church.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Part of the difference is that you're talking about individuals against an institution, and that institution is not known either for its tolerance or willingness to change and progress. When an institution speaks with its collective, it naturally carries more weight than an individual, especially when its members will back it, even at the expense of others' rights and customs. This creates an unfair advantage, and one that's not necessarily in the right.

Originally posted by myqyl:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here (and I certainly disagree with your characterization of the Church). Are you saying that a Church does not have a right to preach what it believes to be right and wrong?

It's not necessarily the way I'm characterizing the church.......remember Vatican II? Even the church has controversy on where they stand, and to "get with the times, acknowledge societal growth and progress" isn't exactly the kind of thing that works well with adherence to the bible. It's anathema to the church to compromise and change as we grow and learn as a society. How can you reconcile the stance of most people who believe the church teachings that homosexuality is a sin with what we know today as to its origins and characteristics? And again, when an institution hands down an opinion, it by nature holds more weight than an individual in most cases.

Originally posted by myqyl:

On a side note, I have to assume that you know very little about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I am taught by the Church that I must be ready to die to defend gays from attack. Literally, not figuratively. I am told, in no uncertain terms that "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". (ccc 2358)

You know what assuming does..... Maybe you should delve further into your church's history and practices.

Originally posted by myqyl:

Perhaps our definitions of tolerance aren't in sync? Or perhaps you see the media image of Catholics and buy into it. Consider the media's depiction of virtually any group that you understand well and you'll likely see how inaccurate that can be.

Yeah......I get all my info from Fox News! LOL!!!

Most of my religious knowledge comes from a more base level......the way I have been treated, and the way I see churches behave as organizations rather than as single caring individuals. As with most organizations that do most of their work with their volunteers, 10% of the people do 90% of the work, so the rest pretty much go/flow with the status quo. And with churches, the default status quo is the bible/Koran/Talmud........whatever 2000 year old rulebook is offered up. Good advice is never a bad thing, but when it starts becoming rules to live by, then someone that falls outside the guidelines will suffer, regardless of how dexcent and good that individual may be otherwise.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/04/2012 03:07:57 PM · #409

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yikes. Someone suddenly starts talking in rant with a tone of reason. What the heck?

I don't find it at all reasonable to withhold previously applied support to an entire minority group based on the legal interpretation of one case, involving one member of that minority group. I don't find it at all Christian (or Catholic) either.

12/04/2012 03:29:20 PM · #410

Originally posted by myqyl:

You're baiting to see if you can get me argue with you so you can ridicule a religion you know little or nothing about. As I said, I'd be glad to chew on some yummie yummie Troll Bait... just not here... This is the wrong place for that bit of mud slinging...

Ask me why I have a Nikon instead of a "real" camera and I'll argue with you here...

Two things.......be careful about your assumptions. Religion is a lively topic here at DPC, especially in the Rant Forum, and we've all learned a great deal both about the religions, and peoples' attitudes and biases about their respective religions. One thing you'll find out is that you'll get one heck of an education if you open your eyes and ears to the people in the real world as to how they live with and apply their faith to their lives outside of church.

Also......you don't have a "real" Nikon yet!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

12/04/2012 03:30:16 PM · #411

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yikes. Someone suddenly starts talking in rant with a tone of reason. What the heck?

I don't find it at all reasonable to withhold previously applied support to an entire minority group based on the legal interpretation of one case, involving one member of that minority group. I don't find it at all Christian (or Catholic) either.

I would (and will) withhold my support for any group, minority or majority, that seeks to impose it's will on others. That is why i supported (and support) Equal marriage Protection, and it's also why I'll withdraw that support if it is used to deny someone else the right to worship / photograph / dance / sing / live / eat / drink / and or be merry as they choose.

I have not withdrawn my support (perhaps you should reread my posts?) from anyone or anything. I have stated that if it came to it I would. One case is a far cry from the line I would (will) draw. I am only pointing to the likelihood that such court cases will alienate moderate and liberal hetrosexuals that gays should be embracing as allies in their quest for equality.

And for my trouble I am subject to hostility... Say La V...

12/04/2012 03:47:37 PM · #412

Originally posted by myqyl:

I would (and will) withhold my support for any group, minority or majority, that seeks to impose it's will on others.

You mean like the Catholic Churches stance on homosexuality? From www.vatican.va

Originally posted by CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Sorry......this is unpalatable at least....reprehensible to many.

12/04/2012 03:55:19 PM · #413

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I hate to see this thread highjacked into a religion thread, but I've already gotten plenty of education and my eyes and ears are wide open... btw ~ People also apply their faith to their lives inside Churches... I've spent several decades on both side of that particular fence and am comfortable on the side I've choosen.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Also......you don't have a "real" Nikon yet!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Ouch! I've been owned! :-)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/04/2012 04:00:05 PM · #414

Originally posted by myqyl:

I've already gotten plenty of education

Did you REALLY just draw a bead on your own foot????

Louis

Nikon D800

12/04/2012 04:00:38 PM · #415

Originally posted by myqyl:

I have not withdrawn my support (perhaps you should reread my posts?)

You made no qualification when you said, "I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter." You appear to be an equivocal supporter, which in my view is no supporter at all.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/04/2012 04:01:54 PM · #416

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Two things.......be careful about your assumptions. Religion is a lively topic here at DPC, especially in the Rant Forum, and we've all learned a great deal both about the religions, and peoples' attitudes and biases about their respective religions. One thing you'll find out is that you'll get one heck of an education if you open your eyes and ears to the people in the real world as to how they live with and apply their faith to their lives outside of church.

I hate to see this thread highjacked into a religion thread..

ROFL, I had that locked up by post #28 here. We're so WAY beyond that point now. ;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/04/2012 04:06:47 PM · #417

Originally posted by myqyl:

I would (and will) withhold my support for any group, minority or majority, that seeks to impose it's will on others.

We'll see what the IRS has to say about that ... :-(

12/04/2012 04:08:35 PM · #418

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by myqyl:
I have not withdrawn my support (perhaps you should reread my posts?)

You made no qualification when you said, "I can say for certain that I for one would no longer be a supporter." You appear to be an equivocal supporter, which in my view is no supporter at all.

But Louis,you must acknowledge that legal opinions sway upon single cases. I think myqyl is doing a very nice job of trying to compromise between two considerations that conflict with each other. He seems to be saying that he is supportive of the right for equal protection for homosexual couples BUT not to the extent that suddenly another group is infringed upon (speaking to the photography case). IF this case's interpretation became widespread then he would be forced to come down on the side of freedom of religious conscience.

That's my interpretation of what he's saying anyway...

EDIT: Holy cow. How could I spell Louis' name wrong?!?

Message edited by author 2012-12-04 16:12:13.

12/04/2012 04:11:34 PM · #419

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by myqyl:
I would (and will) withhold my support for any group, minority or majority, that seeks to impose it's will on others.

You mean like the Catholic Churches stance on homosexuality? From www.vatican.va

Originally posted by CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Sorry......this is unpalatable at least....reprehensible to many.

Being unpalatable or reprehenible does not make it unprotected by the First Amendment. Basically what thius says is the Church believes the homosexual act is a sin and that Catholic homosexuals should be informed that it is. The Church also believes that much that I do is a sin too. Some times I agree, sometimes I don't. But I don't consider it reprehensible when some priest tells me it is. I consider what they say, pray and go about my life as my consience dictates... I certainly don't get bent out of shape about it.

I think you are getting twisted in wording you don't understand. The Catholic Church says that porn sites are not a sin, but they can lead one to intrinsic moral evils... Gossiping is considered every bit as grave a sin and every bit as evil as the homosexual act.

Some religions say it's evil to pick up a stick off the ground on certain days of the week. Others claim that it's evil to see a woman's unclad ankle. And secular humanists are always stating that subscribe to any of these religions is, you guessed it, an intrinic moral evil.

If you don't subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church than Don't Be A Catholic! Why all the fuss? You quoted from the "CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH"... That's our rules. If we don't want to live by them we can leave the Church! I don't whine about the rules you have in whatever club / bar / faternity / or whatever you choose to belong to...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/04/2012 04:14:02 PM · #420

Jeb is a unitarian. They don't have any rules... ;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/04/2012 04:18:28 PM · #421

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jeb is a unitarian. They don't have any rules... ;)

And get to celebrate all the holidays?

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/04/2012 04:20:12 PM · #422

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But Louis,you must acknowledge that legal opinions sway upon single cases.

I do. But there is folly in "withdrawing support" from a class of people one previously supported when a real or imagined agenda is perceived, particularly if that support was predicated on what one has called a right that must be protected. Rights tolerate no equivocation, despite the behaviour of any of the individuals in question. Either people have them, or they don't; either you support rights, or you don't.

12/04/2012 04:37:15 PM · #423

Originally posted by myqyl:

I would (and will) withhold my support for any group, minority or majority, that seeks to impose it's will on others.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You mean like the Catholic Churches stance on homosexuality? From www.vatican.va

Originally posted by CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Sorry......this is unpalatable at least....reprehensible to many.

Originally posted by myqyl:

I never said it wasn't protected by the First Amendment. That wasn't the discussion. YOU stated that you wouldn't support any group that seeks to impose its will on others. (See emboldened above.) You don't feel the Catholic Church does that?????

Originally posted by myqyl:

I think you are getting twisted in wording you don't understand. The Catholic Church says that porn sites are not a sin, but they can lead one to intrinsic moral evils... Gossiping is considered every bit as grave a sin and every bit as evil as the homosexual act.

Somehow I have trouble believing that the catholic Church doesn't view porn sites as evil.

So now you're stating that the homosexual act is evil? So.....it's okay to be homosexual, just don't realize your love for your partner in a physical way. Yeah......that works. NOT!

So who is having trouble with understanding how things truly are relative to the church?

Originally posted by myqyl:

Some religions say it's evil to pick up a stick off the ground on certain days of the week. Others claim that it's evil to see a woman's unclad ankle. And secular humanists are always stating that subscribe to any of these religions is, you guessed it, an intrinic moral evil.

And......we've discovered over time you *can* pick up a stick on a Tuesday, and God will not smite you, and womens' ankles have actually become a common sight in many parts of the world. As far as the secular humanists go, I can't speak for them, but I'd imagine that they view subscribing to some religions as foolish.......they leave the judging of who are sinners to the religions, who in turn, brand them as heathens because they *DON'T* subscribe to their particular way of doing things.

Originally posted by myqyl:

If you don't subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church than Don't Be A Catholic! Why all the fuss? You quoted from the "CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH"... That's our rules. If we don't want to live by them we can leave the Church! I don't whine about the rules you have in whatever club / bar / faternity / or whatever you choose to belong to...

Oh, trust me! NEVER in a million years would I ever join the Catholic Church. Personally, I feel it's the world's largest terrorist organization.....after all, they rule through fear and intimidation. I'm not whining about your rules, I merely feel that for the most part, they're patently absurd, and in some cases, harmful and destructive.

12/04/2012 04:55:24 PM · #424

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But Louis,you must acknowledge that legal opinions sway upon single cases.

I do. But there is folly in "withdrawing support" from a class of people one previously supported when a real or imagined agenda is perceived, particularly if that support was predicated on what one has called a right that must be protected. Rights tolerate no equivocation, despite the behaviour of any of the individuals in question. Either people have them, or they don't; either you support rights, or you don't.

I guess I don't see it quite so black and white. I can be for increased taxes for the wealthy...until. I can be for gun control laws...unless. There is nothing that says one has to be 100% on board if one is going to be supportive. You have a right to swing your arm, correct? That right ends, as famously put, at my nose. You get the point. Rights come and go based on the circumstances and interactions with other rights. Support can be the same.

Like everything else it's reasonable to hold that this right has its limitations.