Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The majority of heretics were burned at the stake by secular authorities because they threatened the secular establishment, not because they threatened the church. I see no theological reason for the church to burn heretics at the stake.

1. The state has a right to execute those who imperil the lives of others if prison is either not possible or if they might do it even in prison
2. Believing heresy imperils the soul
3. Killing the soul is just as bad if not worse than murder
4. Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder.

No murdering people for holding different beliefs is act of savagery.

It wasn’t holding different beliefs that could get you killed, it was preaching heresy.

 

[kolya111]

Since these parades occur in public areas, what is their purpose? I have seen some video of such parades and am not sure what to make of them. Thoughts? What is their intention?

Best,
Ed

I went to Pride last summer, as a conservatively-dressed observer. For some people it is a hedonistic festival, for others it is a chance to see, very publicly, that there are other people of their persuasion and that they are not alone, and originally and most significantly, it is a public demonstration of political will. I expect that Pride marches will be common until such time as gay rights are no longer a controversial issue.

Many gay people, including myself, feel that the marches are overly flamboyant and in some ways damaging to the political mission; there is a celebration of the “weird” when many of us are indistinguishable from our heterosexual counterparts in everything but our dating choices. At the same time, we are, or at least I am, conscious of the fact that it was the militant weirdos who led the struggle over the last two decades that has procured the rights and privileges I freely enjoy, so I am grateful and do not complain about their antics.

Meanwhile, back to the topic. Where is the pride in being gay? Honest question.

Ed

I suppose it isn’t something one should necessarily take pride in, but when one is part of a persecuted minority the absence of pride feels like shame. Pride rejects both shame and those who expect one to feel ashamed. I think that’s how it is for me at least.

 

[Bradski]

Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder.

The state has the right to execute those who…express different opinions and beliefs.

Any suggestions as to the music we should listen to as the noose tightens? ‘Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life’ perhaps? That would put everyone in a party mood.

I think you should change your name to something more applicable. Joie de mort seems more suitable.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The state has the right to execute those who…express different opinions and beliefs.

Any suggestions as to the music we should listen to as the noose tightens? ‘Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life’ perhaps? That would put everyone in a party mood.

That the state has the right to it does not mean it should do it.

I would not have music for we must understand the immense gravity of putting someone to death.

I think you should change your name to something more applicable. Joie de mort seems more suitable.

I take no pleasure in the death of people.

Joie de Vivre means the joy of living, not the joy of life (that is joie de vie).

 

[Bradski]

That the state has the right to it does not mean it should do it.

Not much point in bringing it up, then…

 

[ricmat]

1. The state has a right to execute those who imperil the lives of others if prison is either not possible or if they might do it even in prison
2. Believing heresy imperils the soul
3. Killing the soul is just as bad if not worse than murder
4. Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder.

Your item 1 is a summary of the church’s position on capital punishment (I believe).

But I have not seen this entire line of reasoning before. Is this something you developed or is there an official church document which explicitly mentions item 4?

 

[PRmerger]

This is where the problem starts to emerge. What you consider morally repugnant may or may NOT coincide what other people consider as such. Nevertheless, I consider it fine to voice your reservations and your wish to help someone whom you “believe” is in error. However, as soon as you get a rejection, you should stop.

I am curious–if you saw a man raping a woman, would you voice your “reservations” to this man?

And when he told you to go away would you shrug and say, “I guess you and I don’t have the same moral values. And who am I to tell you that your actions are morally repugnant”?

I would speak out against it - publicly and forcefully.

Excellent.

But I would not attempt to restrict the freedom of the people to voice their ideas, even if I would recommend to stop their efforts to act upon it

Very Catholic, this.

To use a reverse example: if some people believe that abortion is murder, their freedom to voice their concern should not ne restricted, however, they should be prevented from blocking access to those clinics that provide abortion services.

Do you think there should be laws against beating one’s domestic partner?

I hope we can continue our agreement.

Indeed.

 

[epan]

The reason I ask is because I worked with LGBT people in the 1970s and early 1980s. Privacy was everyone’s concern, especially “stay out of my bedroom.” Which was respected by all. When an employee decided to undergo “sexual reassignment surgery,” no one made a fuss. Now, privacy has been abandoned. The Advocate posts photos of the first LGBT person in some prominent position. What’s the point? We knew, back then, that there were gay people but there was not the slightest thought in my mind regarding what they did in private, and that they were entitled to their privacy.

Ed

In the 70’s and 80’s, people didn’t talk about it because they were either ashamed or uncomfortable with the topic. In many jurisdictions many common sexual practices (gay or straight) were still illegal.

My take on it is that the gay pride parades were a reaction against the shame and secrecy.

We are reaching the point that the entire topic will become a non-issue. If the current trend continues with “marriage equality”, then it will only take a couple of generations before most people don’t pay any heed to a person’s sexual orientation.

I wonder if gay pride parades will continue to exist. My guess is yes, because they are commercial events now. There is profit for the promoters.

 

[epan]

The majority of heretics were burned at the stake by secular authorities because they threatened the secular establishment, not because they threatened the church. I see no theological reason for the church to burn heretics at the stake.

This history professor makes the claim that “heretics” were often those who threatened the Roman Church’s authority: historyextra.com/feature/your-60-second-guide-heresy

 

[unstoppable_II]

Errr…Citizens have the right to work and to vote, and the duty to pay taxes and abide by the law.

That doesn’t include 18-month-old girls does it? …

I don’t know what the law is in Spain, but in the U.S., 18-month-olds do not have the right to vote; 18-year-olds do.

I’ve posted it before, and I am posting it again in the likely event you missed it: the government is obligated to treat people as similarly as possible those who are in substantially similar circumstances. Generally speaking, 18-month-old girls are not in substantially similar circumstances as 18-year-old men.

You insult non-Texans just because we don’t hear of your little local news items.

You insult all your fellow citizens who didn’t vote how you want.

You insult all gay and lesbian citizens.

And finally you insult another poster.

You manufacture a faux issue because you have no reasoned response to my post.

You can easily find a number of polls, here’s the first 5 hits when I googled:

freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling
pewresearch.org/topics/gay-marriage-and-homosexuality/
reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-gay-survey-idUSBREA1P07020140226
quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1961
huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/catholics-gay-marriage-support_n_2835847.html

I thought I made it clear that opinion polls are not determiners of truth.

 

[Winterwolf00]

1. The state has a right to execute those who imperil the lives of others if prison is either not possible or if they might do it even in prison
2. Believing heresy imperils the soul
3. Killing the soul is just as bad if not worse than murder
4. Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder.

It wasn’t holding different beliefs that could get you killed, it was preaching heresy.

And you actually think there’s a meaningful difference?

 

[Winterwolf00]

1. The state has a right to execute those who imperil the lives of others if prison is either not possible or if they might do it even in prison
2. Believing heresy imperils the soul
3. Killing the soul is just as bad if not worse than murder
4. Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder.QUOTE]

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

 

[ricmat]

This history professor makes the claim that “heretics” were often those who threatened the Roman Church’s authority: historyextra.com/feature/your-60-second-guide-heresy

My claim is not that it never happened, but that it was grossly overblown, and in fact, when accused of heresy (by the state, not the church), many heretics preferred the church tribunals to the secular ones because the church was more merciful.

I’ll try to find the actual source, but I believe it was an article or book by Thomas Woods.

catholic.com/profiles/thomas-e-woods-jr

I’m at work now so I can’t easily look it up. It might have been in Woods’ book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Not much point in bringing it up, then…

I was addressing ricmat.

Your item 1 is a summary of the church’s position on capital punishment (I believe).

But I have not seen this entire line of reasoning before. Is this something you developed or is there an official church document which explicitly mentions item 4?

1-3 are from Church teaching, 4 is a logical outcome of it and is justification for the Church relaxing heretics to the state. It has been floating around reactionary Catholic circles and is unlikely to have been seen before by people who have such modern views as you. In case you didn’t know things like the nuclear family are modern abominations that are corrosive to society. As is the absurd overvaluing of marriage prevalent in “conservative” Catholic circles.

And you actually think there’s a meaningful difference?

Yes, yes there is, a moral right to do something is not a moral duty to do something, for example in the Spanish inquisition very few people who were referred to them were executed.

1) The state has a right to execute those who imperil the lives of others if prison is either not possible or if they might do it even in prison
2) Believing heresy imperils the soul
3) Killing the soul is just as bad if not worse than murder
4) Therefore the state has the right to execute those who spread heresy as it is tantamount to murder

.

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

What?

My claim is not that it never happened, but that it was grossly overblown, and in fact, when accused of heresy (by the state, not the church), many heretics preferred the church tribunals to the secular ones because the church was more merciful.

I’ll try to find the actual source, but I believe it was an article or book by Thomas Woods.

catholic.com/profiles/thomas-e-woods-jr

I’m at work now so I can’t easily look it up. It might have been in Woods’ book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.”

Indeed, people tried by the Church had much better rights than when tried by the secular system.

 

[ricmat]

1-3 are from Church teaching, 4 is a logical outcome of it and is justification for the Church relaxing heretics to the state. It has been floating around reactionary Catholic circles and is unlikely to have been seen before by people who have such modern views as you.

Well, that’s probably the first time I’ve been described as a modernist. Most of the time, people think I’m from the dark ages.

In case you didn’t know things like the nuclear family are modern abominations that are corrosive to society. As is the absurd overvaluing of marriage prevalent in “conservative” Catholic circles.

So you’re for burning heretics, and against the nuclear family, and against the overvaluing of marriage . I haven’t seen that particular combination before. Probably never will again…

Am I misreading something in your post?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, that’s probably the first time I’ve been described as a modernist. Most of the time, people think I’m from the dark ages.

So you’re for burning heretics, and against the nuclear family, and against the overvaluing of marriage . I haven’t seen that particular combination before. Probably never will again…

Am I misreading something in your post?

I’m having the same problem with Joie’s posts myself. Unless there is some sarcasm involved.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Well, that’s probably the first time I’ve been described as a modernist. Most of the time, people think I’m from the dark ages.

People vacillate between calling me an anarchist, a statist, a communist, a fascist, a monarchist, liberal, conservative, reactionary, vanguard.

So you’re for burning heretics, and against the nuclear family, and against the overvaluing of marriage . I haven’t seen that particular combination before. Probably never will again…

Am I for burning heretics? No, I merely believe the state has moral recourse to execution when all else fails though I’m perfectly happy if the state bans the death penalty period.

Am I against the nuclear family? The proper family (and the one that reigned supreme prior to the 20th century) is the extended family that is not just the parents, their one boy and one girl, but rather the parents, their children, grandparents are living with their family instead of sent to the concentration camps called retirement homes. Friendships become deep again (modern friendships in Western men tend to be very shallow with the exception of the bonds forged by war). Yes, I am against the degrade form of family life called the “nuclear family”

Do I think marriage is overvalued? Yes, I think the belief that everyone should marry is absolutely absurd, it degrades the celibate life which according to the Bible, Church Fathers and Church teaching (including council pronouncements) is at least as good as marriage, if not higher for the married person keeps their thoughts on their family whereas the celibate person can more fully devote themself to God. This overvaluing of marriage has contributed to the priest shortage and in some ways has damaged marriage as once people are married they gradually become dissatisfied for they find the fantastic life they imaged is fantasy not reality.

Am I misreading something in your post?

Yes.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

People vacillate between calling me an anarchist, a statist, a communist, a fascist, a monarchist, liberal, conservative, reactionary, vanguard.

Am I for burning heretics? No, I merely believe the state has moral recourse to execution when all else fails though I’m perfectly happy if the state bans the death penalty period.

Am I against the nuclear family? The proper family (and the one that reigned supreme prior to the 20th century) is the extended family that is not just the parents, their one boy and one girl, but rather the parents, their children, grandparents are living with their family instead of sent to the concentration camps called retirement homes. Friendships become deep again (modern friendships in Western men tend to be very shallow with the exception of the bonds forged by war). Yes, I am against the degrade form of family life called the “nuclear family”

Do I think marriage is overvalued? Yes, I think the belief that everyone should marry is absolutely absurd, it degrades the celibate life which according to the Bible, Church Fathers and Church teaching (including council pronouncements) is at least as good as marriage, if not higher for the married person keeps their thoughts on their family whereas the celibate person can more fully devote themself to God. This overvaluing of marriage has contributed to the priest shortage and in some ways has damaged marriage as once people are married they gradually become dissatisfied for they find the fantastic life they imaged is fantasy not reality.

Yes.

I agree with everything you have written here.

 

[Bradski]

I am curious–if you saw a man raping a woman, would you voice your “reservations” to this man?

And when he told you to go away would you shrug and say, "I guess you and I don’t have the same moral values. And who am I to tell you that your actions are morally repugnant.

That is a very weak argument for saying that there is only one moral value in all circumstances. Which is the point Zee was arguing against. It’s waaaay to easy to come up with a rape example or beating puppies to death or beating up old ladies because we all, generally, agree that they are wrong.

If you want to argue that it is impossible to have different moral values, then you’ll need to use something less black and white to see if it holds. For example, eating meat or hunting or sex education or gun control etc. if you can show me that all Catholics do or should hold to one particular moral stance on these and other similar matters, then you’ll have a valid point.

 

[Winterwolf00]

That is a very weak argument for saying that there is only one moral value in all circumstances. Which is the point Zee was arguing against. It’s waaaay to easy to come up with a rape example or beating puppies to death or beating up old ladies because we all, generally, agree that they are wrong.

If you want to argue that it is impossible to have different moral values, then you’ll need to use something less black and white to see if it holds. For example, eating meat or hunting or sex education or gun control etc. if you can show me that all Catholics do or should hold to one particular moral stance on these and other similar matters, then you’ll have a valid point.

Not even all Catholics share the same moral stance.
There tends to be a big cultural difference between European Catholics and South American Catholics with the latter tending to be far more liberal, the current Pope being a good example.