Do We Even Know What We’re Talking about When We Talk about the Catholic Church?
Good Q&A. Especially like the section on SSM.
(excerpted from 7 Big Myths about the Catholic Church)
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
The Homosexually Oriented Person and the Church
The Homosexually Oriented Person and the Church
Don't know much about theology....but I know the difference between condemning people vs. what they do.
I wish the proponents of SSM would get this distinction. Apparently, ad hominems are OK (condemning people) if they come from the right (left?) POV.
Don't know much about theology....but I know the difference between condemning people vs. what they do.
I wish the proponents of SSM would get this distinction. Apparently, ad hominems are OK (condemning people) if they come from the right (left?) POV.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
'Sugarbabe' favors negotiated infidelity - CNN.com
'Sugarbabe' favors negotiated infidelity - CNN.com
And we wonder why we have trouble with our kids today...
What is most astounding is the not-even-implied sexist assumptions that:
1. Men are "dogs" incapable of controlling sexual (or any urges) integral to their "nature."
2. They need to be kept "on a leash" by permitting a "stroll in the park" now and then; however,
since marriage is an antiquated and meaningless institution, this is no 'biggie,' with no consequence.
3. Relationships, sexual and otherwise, are useful when gratifying, and discarded when not.
4. That such "free" relationships are somehow "healthy."
Note that should similar assumptions about women made by men - that women are controlling in relationships via insistence on serial monogamy, and who 'holds' the leash, (i.e., judges the relationship worthwhile,) or sets the ground rules constitutes a form of oppression, would meet with howls of "patriarchy!" Apparently it's OK for women to make such generalizations about men- and set the ground rules.
And we wonder why we have trouble with our kids today...
What is most astounding is the not-even-implied sexist assumptions that:
1. Men are "dogs" incapable of controlling sexual (or any urges) integral to their "nature."
2. They need to be kept "on a leash" by permitting a "stroll in the park" now and then; however,
since marriage is an antiquated and meaningless institution, this is no 'biggie,' with no consequence.
3. Relationships, sexual and otherwise, are useful when gratifying, and discarded when not.
4. That such "free" relationships are somehow "healthy."
Note that should similar assumptions about women made by men - that women are controlling in relationships via insistence on serial monogamy, and who 'holds' the leash, (i.e., judges the relationship worthwhile,) or sets the ground rules constitutes a form of oppression, would meet with howls of "patriarchy!" Apparently it's OK for women to make such generalizations about men- and set the ground rules.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)