Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

[ImQuiet]

This thread got depressing quickly.

 

[Polak]

They are still laughable.

Not in the mainstream like they were before.

 

[Freddy]

I’m simply saying that I don’t believe the elites, the people who runs things, ever want to give the people what they want.

I got to that point in your post and then switched off. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Polak]

What a shame. You were so close. You only had one more sentence to read.

Of course it’s also entirely possible you don’t have a good argument in response, so you’ve picked on one sentence I wrote and used it as an excuse not to have to reply. Just my opinion though.

 

[Freddy]

What a shame. You were so close. You only had one more sentence to read.

Of course it’s also entirely possible you don’t have a good argument in response, so you’ve picked on one sentence I wrote and used it as an excuse not to have to reply. Just my opinion though.

Yes. You’re right. It’s just your opinion…

 

[Polak]

It would be interesting if you could respond to the other point I made. You don’t have to reply to the ‘elites’ point at the end, if you don’t like it.

 

[Freddy]

It would be interesting if you could respond to the other point I made. You don’t have to reply to the ‘elites’ point at the end, if you don’t like it.

You only made one point. The risible one about ‘the elites’ somehow not wanting to give the people what they want because that gives them too much power. Which is kinda funny as we’re talking about gay marriage and that’s just what the people want. It’s you that doesn’t want it, so ‘the elites’ don’t want you to have what you want and keep power away from you.

Oh, wait! Maybe it’s that you’re saying that the majority of people actually don’t want gay marriage and the elites have somehow convinced us that we do which means that we really now have less power even though we think we’ve got what we want (even though we really don’t want it). Which is in direct oposition to what you want. But that means that having gay marriage has given you more power. One in the eye for those ‘elites’, eh.

And darn it, now I remembered why I didn’t respond in the first place. The point you made made no sense at all.

 

[Fill1sHeart]

Is Pope Francis not the elected head of our Church on Earth ?

Speaking about gay people in 2013, he said, “the key is for the church to welcome, not exclude, and show mercy, not condemnation.”
He said, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” “The problem,” he continued, "is not having this orientation. We must be brothers…

 

[EndTimes]

Should a Catholic president or head of government make gay marriages illegal?

If it’s within their power to do so? Sure…

 

[Polak]

You only made one point. The risible one about ‘the elites’ somehow not wanting to give the people what they want because that gives them too much power. Which is kinda funny as we’re talking about gay marriage and that’s just what the people want. It’s you that doesn’t want it, so ‘the elites’ don’t want you to have what you want and keep power away from you .

Oh, wait! Maybe it’s that you’re saying that the majority of people actually don’t want gay marriage and the elites have somehow convinced us that we do which means that we really now have less power even though we think we’ve got what we want (even though we really don’t want it). Which is in direct oposition to what you want. But that means that having gay marriage has given you more power. One in the eye for those ‘elites’, eh.

And darn it, now I remembered why I didn’t respond in the first place. The point you made made no sense at all.

Trying to look witty when actually what you wrote makes you look the exact opposite.

What I wrote is so simple, yet you don’t comprehend.

I will write one sentence for you, that explains everything. Perhaps you’ll manage.

The elites set the narrative that people buy into and then vote the way the elites want them to.

Got it? Most people are for gay marriage because the people who run the show have convinced them it’s a good thing. Those people then vote for it because they’ve been convinced it’s good. Really simple. Honestly don’t understand why it confuses you so much.

 

[Freddy]

I will write one sentence for you, that explains everything.

The elites set the narrative that people buy into and then vote the way the elites want them to.

Got it?

Yeah, didn’t you read what I posted?

‘Maybe it’s that you’re saying that the majority of people actually don’t want gay marriage and the elites have somehow convinced us that we do which means that we really now have less power even though we think we’ve got what we want (even though we really don’t want it). Which is in direct oposition to what you want. But that means that having gay marriage has given you more power. One in the eye for those ‘elites’, eh.’

There you go. I nailed it. Those pesky ‘elites’ have given us what apparently we didn’t want but which we’re very happy with and they’ve made sure that you didn’t get what you wanted. Even though you wanted it! Positively Machiavelian…

Do you want to end here or is there more elite subterfuge that you know of?

 

[Polak]

Yeah, didn’t you read what I posted?

I did, but it is difficult to tell if you understood my point or not, because in one area, you seem to get it.

you’re saying that the majority of people actually don’t want gay marriage and the elites have somehow convinced us that we do

But then later you write

The point you made made no sense at all.

So then I’m thinking, if it’s making no sense to you, perhaps you don’t understand it fully, so I’ll explain again.

My post does make sense, you just don’t think it’s true. There’s a difference. Saying the government wants to ultimately phase out cash and only allow card and other online payments so it can track when are where you make payments, makes sense, but you can think that is an absurd theory. It isn’t the same as saying this red ball is yellow (unless it has more than one colour). Now that wouldn’t make sense.

Then there’s the issue of you trying to make a mockery of what I wrote, but that’s up to you, you’re free to mock, rather than simply disagree, I just think is has an ora of superiority about it.

 

[Freddy]

Then there’s the issue of you trying to make a mockery of what I wrote, but that’s up to you, you’re free to mock, rather than simply disagree, I just think is has an ora of superiority about it.

I’ll admit that I do tend to use mockery on times. Call it a character fault. If I was Catholic I’d probably confess to it. My apologies if it offended you.

 

[neophyte]

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human rights guarantees the right of assembly,

No, it doesn’t. That declaration specifically says that none of the rights enumerated can be exercised apart from the aims of the UN, which means that none of them really exist under the Declaration at all.

Off topic, really, but the UDHR is a pet peeve of mine so I felt compelled to respond.

 

[neophyte]

All we’ve received so far are arguments based on semantics…

You say that as if it’s a bad thing, or as if ensuring that terms are properly defined is merely a silly game, or as if not treating things as if they are what they are not has no far-reaching consequence.

Either someone puts forward some concrete examples…

People have. You seem to prefer to not deal with them because they don’t fit into the narrowly defined pet category that you unreasonably insist on having filled.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

All we’ve received so far are arguments based on semantics…

You say that as if it’s a bad thing, or as if ensuring that terms are properly defined is merely a silly game, or as if not treating things as if they are what they are not has no far-reaching consequence.

Either someone puts forward some concrete examples…

People have. You seem to prefer to not deal with them because they don’t fit into the narrowly defined pet category that you unreasonably insist on having filled.

You need to include more of the post to which you are referring. Especially if it’s older than 5 days. I don’t want to spend the evening checking what I wrote a week ago.

 

[Elf01]

You need to include more of the post to which you are referring. Especially if it’s older than 5 days. I don’t want to spend the evening checking what I wrote a week ago.

Click the v and it will reveal the whole post.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You need to include more of the post to which you are referring. Especially if it’s older than 5 days. I don’t want to spend the evening checking what I wrote a week ago.

Click the v and it will reveal the whole post.

Ah, many thanks for that. That’s a handy tip.

But no, no examples have been given. Just comments that ‘it affects my marriage’. Well, it didn’t affect mine in any way. In what way did it affect yours that didn’t somehow affect mine?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You say that as if it’s a bad thing, or as if ensuring that terms are properly defined is merely a silly game, or as if not treating things as if they are what they are not has no far-reaching consequence.

It’s because they are talking about too different concepts, but are using the same word and trying to make a distinction isn’t productive.

 

[neophyte]

It’s because they are talking about too different concepts, but are using the same word and trying to make a distinction isn’t productive.

Insisting on proper semantics is always productive, they just don’t like it because it undercuts their argument (which relies on semantic game-playing).