Apparently a nearby school allowed two cats to graduate with their senior class...they crawled across the stage on all fours to get their diplomas. Is it bigoted (catist?) to say that that seems a bit weird. If so, then I'll just ask, why would a high school bestow diplomas on cats? Why not just announce that they educate humans, not cats?
Are we really getting to the point that people who think they are cats will be awarded with diplomas instead of with medical treatment at a mental hospital? Is this the world the Democrats are trying to make? WTF?
I heard about the story from a colleague, and tonight I googled for details, and I couldn't find the local story, but there were a dozen search results from Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, and several other states, of either (1) students identifying as cats, or (2) school districts having to address whether or not they have litter boxes in their bathrooms for students who identify as cats.
Democrats, a question for you: What the fuck is going on? I know Republicans think this is insane, but what say you?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
nothing"...so I just played along...carry on with whatever has you all riled up...I"ve got Fantasy picks to make.
You are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
1) If a man says he is a female, is he a female in reality...and we all have to use female pronouns for him? Or is he still a man?...a man who just doesn't perceive reality correctly, and who needs mental health treatment?
2) If a man says he is a cat, is he a cat in reality, and we have to pretend he is a cat? Or, is he still a man?...a man who just doesn't perceive reality correctly, and who needs mental health treatment?
Two simple questions.
My answers: In both cases, he is a man who needs mental health assistance, and I say we should give it to him.
Your answers: In case 1, you would deny him medical treatment, and pretend his mental illness is normal. Would you do the same in case 2?
These answers should be easy. Are you going to run away from them because you can't answer and still support the Left? Is the Left more important to you than facts and reality?
He won't go near fellow Catholics telling him he's dead wrong on the gays.
The dude is just flat wrong on most issues.
(no message)
occurrences?...can't tell from what you've written. What is it we all need to be concerned about?...so far I have no idea what I need to 'run away' from...help me out here about "CatGate".
As for your shift to more general questions...I'll lump both into one response...
I agree with Fr. Jenkins' letter on ND's perspective wrt the university's LGBTQ community...i.e. their self awareness is NOT A CHOICE...they need to be accepted for who they "ARE"....you and I have at least touched on this before, and you acknowledged that 'Psychiatrists' are sometimes necessary in treating such patients because there can be a 'Medical' cause for their malady and not just a psychological or behavioral course of action...I realize that you don't accept that reasoning, but thus far you haven't been able to provide compelling evidence that 'Medical' causes are not involved, while the Medical/Psychological community has.
You need to do more objective research on LGBTQ studies, maybe even speak with members of that community before making a judgement...not unlike what Notre Dame has done before releasing their letter mentioned above. If the issue is that important to you, you have an obligation to take such steps...if you don't, you're turning your back on the pursuit of truth.
Any polls or links from Belgium you can refer to here?
Link: You're in a real pickle Tyrone.
Not only are Belgian Catholics very accepting of SSM, the majority of U.S. Catholics agree as well (see link)
Your link is actually flawed...since "Intent" is vital to making a moral decision and the Catholic Church allows for intercourse WITHOUT INTENT to procreate, it's ban on contraception makes no sense...btw, if a poll were taken of this board, I'd guess that the percentage of members who use some form of contraception would be very close to 100%.
Unfortunately, the RCC has twisted itself on this issue...back when Vatican II was taking place there was a commission formed to address Family Planning (Contraception) and in spite of it being overwhelmingly accepted by that commission (see link below...go to the "Birth Control" section) Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ottaviani (head of the Curia) ignored the recommendation, thus creating the problem we have today...i.e. not allowing the most effective means of avoiding Unwanted Pregnancies...the singular reason for Abortions.
https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/issues/
The fact is that the Catholic Church does not require every sex act to have procreation as a goal...and it is also OK to engage in those acts for pleasure only and definitely not intending to have children...therefore, the use of artificial means to achieve both ends (marital joy and family planning) makes perfect sense...so said the Vatican II commission.
Now, as to the relationship of this issue to Same Sex Marriage....a union of two people can be an expression of LOVE ONLY between them...btw, the Catholic Church blesses marriages between couples who are well beyond any possibility of procreation...i.e. LOVE IS LOVE.
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/
Who said you were an arrogant prick? What a false charge that turned out to be!
Just face it. YOUR church says you and the Good Father have it wrong on gays. You didn't read the article, or simply don't care because of your own personal leanings. Or failings. You're simply trying to justify your own immoral behavior. The article is not flawed. You just want it to be.
This is wrong - "The fact is that the Catholic Church does not require every sex act to have procreation as a goal...and it is also OK to engage in those acts for pleasure only and definitely not intending to have children...therefore, the use of artificial means to achieve both ends (marital joy and family planning) makes perfect sense...so said the Vatican II commission.
Now, as to the relationship of this issue to Same Sex Marriage....a union of two people can be an expression of LOVE ONLY between them...btw, the Catholic Church blesses marriages between couples who are well beyond any possibility of procreation...i.e. LOVE IS LOVE."
Western, developed world is just fine with Same Sex Marriage...
I also addressed your link with proof that the Vatican II commission of Catholic Theologians, Bishops and Lay People overwhelmingly supported a resolution to allow for the use of artificial means of contraception...thus demonstrating that link's claim is erroneous. btw, there are several books that support what I said about the Vatican II commission...plus I've personally spoken with a participant on that commission regarding the whole issue...so it's not just my opinion.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how the Catholic Church can bless marriages of senior citizens who will never be able to have children, yet ban the marriages of other same sex couples because they too can't procreate.
According you YOUR CHURCH..."whereas a same-sex couple’s inability to generate children in their sexual activity involves no natural ability." Clearly you did not read the link so you cannot adjudge if it's logic is flawed. You clearly have a problem. Some in YOUR CHURCH disagree with you and Fr. Jenkins. And the Vatican Commission II - whatever the hell that means. Sounds like you're just making stuff up as you go along.
"On the other hand, male-female couples that, due to age, a medical condition, or even the woman’s natural cycle, cannot conceive a child do engage in a procreative act. The genital union that they achieve is the kind of activity that nature ordains to produce children. And if not for age, or the accidental physical defect, or the natural time of the woman’s cycle, the natural end of procreation would be achieved. So, the inability of a male-female couple to generate children in their sexual act, where the inability is nonvoluntary, involves an impeded natural ability; whereas a same-sex couple’s inability to generate children in their sexual activity involves no natural ability."
I would encourage you to read it again. Or more accurately read it once. You and Fr. Jenkins are in some deep doo doo! "Sadly, many today have set aside these teachings on homosexual activity. Not only do they declare that it is not sinful, but they even celebrate it as though it were good. It is bad enough when non-believers do this, but it is even more tragic when people who call themselves Catholics and Christians do such things."
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them … in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse; they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools … For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct (Romans 1:18)
SURRENDER ACCEPTED.
Link: Here's another link for you...another Catholic publication.
no way, no how...yet, it bans other marriages among loving couples in the same circumstances only because they are of the same sex...there is no logic to support that stance.
btw, you haven't replied to my statements regarding the Vatican II commission's overwhelming support for artificial contraception...that's hugely important to the Abortion issue.
As taught by people of your own faith? I very clearly stated from the attached link why your Church blesses those unions and why they don't bless other unions. If you read it, you are completely ignoring it to make a false argument. The "Vatican II commission's overwhelming support for artificial contraception...that's hugely important to the Abortion issue" has absolutely no bearing on the matter that's being discussed! Namely, that LBGQT nonsense is outside Church doctrine. As instructed by a lot in your Church. (What are you even talking about abortion? Totally moving goal posts)
Seems like you guys need to get on the same page. From NCR & Catholic.com - you and the Good Father Jenkins are on the outside looking in.
celebrate the union of two LOVING and COMMITTED persons...it should make zero difference whether they are of the same or different sexes....makes sense that a majority...often large majority...of Catholics around the world have no problem with Same Sex Marriages.
Any attempt to justify a ban on Same Sex Marriage lacks logic.
btw, your 8:26am post/link brought up the issue of contraception...have you forgotten?...maybe failed to read it all?...further on that issue, do you agree the the vast majority of Catholics...and non-Catholics, too...including members of this board...utilize artificial contraception?...and shouldn't that practice be encouraged to dramatically reduce the unwanted pregnancies that become the source of abortions?
And makes the KEY difference between a man-woman relationship and a same sex relationship! Exactly why your Church blesses one and NOT the other.
Be that as it may the topic was NOT about contraception. It's about gay union. You're attempting to muddy the waters. You and Fr. Jenkins are OUTSIDE YOUR Church doctrine on this issue. Outside of what Scripture CLEARLY teaches. Full stop.
marriage that cannot possibly result in procreation?
"On the other hand, male-female couples that, due to age, a medical condition, or even the woman’s natural cycle, CANNOT conceive a child do ENGAGE in a PROCREATIVE ACT. The genital union that they achieve is the kind of activity that nature ordains to produce children. And IF NOT for age, or the accidental physical defect, or the natural time of the woman’s cycle, the natural end of procreation would be achieved. So, the inability of a male-female couple to generate children in their sexual act, where the INABILITY is NONVOLUNTARY involves an impeded natural ability; whereas a SAME-SEX couple’s INABILITY to generate children in their sexual activity INVOLVES NO NATURAL ABILITY."
Catholic.com. No me. Not my church. YOURS.
beyond the shadow of a doubt...in the case of a Male/Female marriage it is nothing more than a fantasy to "Justify" the union as one where the couple's inability to procreate is just "INVOLUNTARY"...the proper word is "IMPOSSIBLE"...which puts that marriage on "EQUAL FOOTING" with a Same Sex marriage.
Again, if both marriages involve the "IMPOSSIBILITY" of procreation, why is one allowed and the other not?...there will NEVER be a child forthcoming from either...just a union of two LOVING persons to be celebrated.
So according to them... you and Fr Jenkins are WRONGO! The Church blesses a marriage between a man and a woman. Not a same sex marriage. For the reasons so stated. Disagree? Take it up with them. Oh and the Bible which explicitly condemns the act of same sex relations. Let me know what Jesus thinks when you meet him. Sure He'll be thrilled with your interpretation and your the latest pew polling.
Anyway, this has been beaten to death. Like Chis, you'll never admit you're wrong. Must be an ND thing. Assuming you went there. Suspicions abound to that end.
Don't worry....the first few years will only feel like an eternity. Bring sunscreen and hydrate! Good luck, boyo!
Due to their political bent, they formed a conclusion that transgender people are not mentally ill and then came up with reasons to support their conclusions.
But let's use some common sense and basic reasoning and use Occam's Razor, elements sorely lacking among the left. I'm 60. If I insisted I was 26 and really believed it, I'm mentally ill. If I insisted I'm a cat and really believed it, I'm mentally ill. If I'm a man and say I'm a woman, I'm mentally ill.
This is really simple to figure out. You're welcome.
Gender Dysphoria..i.e. a mental illness...furthermore, the Mayo Clinic's treatment plan starts with a psychological evaluation and counseling (see link)...
Misinformation like yours is not helpful...just stop it.
Link: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20475262
You have bigger issues to concern yourself with.
Link: Read & learn. It's not too late....
He prefers canines but any species will do! Love is love, right?
(no message)
A couple of religious fellas disagree though, it seems. Guess these weirdo churchy nut jobs aren't part of the vaunted 70%. Buncha Jesus freak fundamentalists!
Link: Love ain't love.
How awful of you! Tsk tsk tsk...
(no message)
All that hard work for nothing.
(no message)
(no message)
Did I do it right?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
And if they bring human food to eat at lunch, call them out on their delusion, and make them walk on two legs at the graduation ceremony, or they don't get a diploma (because cats don't get diplomas).
(no message)
And of course the way to treat that, according to professionals, is to use surgery and meds to make them look as much like cats as possible. and require that everybody pretend that they are cats.
Thanks Democrats!!