ASA regulator bans advert for mocking Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

It's not a secret, but asserting a right to tell others on my behalf is distasteful.

That seems disingenuous, and trying to balance it against the things you said is, uh, "difficult".

Why? Because this makes no sense: "so that you or anyone else in this thread didn't think I was preaching about being gay to someone without experience of that?"
Would it have been somehow better if you did that to someone with no experience?

But from an outside observer who's a bit late to the party, it was clear that he was speaking in third person about Christians in general.

What he says can certainly be criticised, but also in third person. Asking blitz to explain his opinion when its not really his opinion but rather an observation of a group of people unrelated to him doesnt seem like it'll get very far.

As I did, and once again it didn't.
Statements were made, and then criticized.

But I generally find that people who relate an opinion tend to hold it too, or are at least favorably inclined to it.

You could extrapolate that logic to virtually any topic though. Is he relating or just observing? Big difference.

It's not really an opinion too, it's simply observed trends first and foremost followed by how he perceives it effecting people. Even blitz himself has said that they're observations/explanations and not personal views that he holds.

Nothing really implying that he supports any of it.

I'm bored now - let's play a new game.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

^ That's almost Larsonian.

Gary Larson would've squeezed a cow in there somewhere!

My honesty is that my right to free speech on this forum is limited, as evident by my earlier post being censored, without asking me for clarification. I feel as though words were put in my mouth, which was used as a justification to silence me.



It is not. We all draw lines in the sand on what is sexually deviant and what isn't. Am I permitted to share my understanding of Church teaching here?

Church teaching distinguishes between homosexual feelings and homosexual acts; the former is not problematic but the latter is (feelings are not chosen; actions are). Sexual sin applies to everyone in the Church, regardless of sexual orientation. There are faithful, loving Catholics who struggle with same sex attraction *and also* live lives of joy in their practice of the faith. Individuals with SSA (which is obviously a spectrum), who are otherwise eligible for marriage, can validly marry someone of the opposite sex, as long as the couple is open to children (a requirement for everyone) and their future spouse understands their fiance's sexuality and consents to the marriage. Two individuals with SSA, who are otherwise eligible for marriage, can validly marry someone of the opposite sex, as long as both parties consent and are open to children.

That is not God's loving embrace and acceptance being reserved exclusively for heterosexuals.

No one is required to agree with where Catholicism draws the sexual deviance line. No one is forced to practice Christianity.



That wasn't the original argument. I advocated basic human decency in avoiding mockery or ridicule, regardless of belief. Obviously folks disagree with me.



I second Max's statement here.



Thank you, MaxE.



Again, thank you, Max; your compassion is very much appreciated.



Cultural progressive/liberalism in the past 100 years has negatively affected both the leadership and laity in the Catholic Church. Something like 90%-95% of Catholics in the pews ignore the teachings on artificial birth control, for example. The behavior of practicing Catholics will not change the teaching, and it shouldn't.

I've already discussed the murder of preborn children. The Church is not in error in respecting all human life, regardless of how old a person is or where that person is located. Obviously, folks can disagree with me, which I cannot change.

Many of the conservative/traditional faithful have observed that an increase in the social acceptance (not theological acceptance) of progressive/liberal attitudes has coincided with the child sexual abuse scandal. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the faithful to have concerns -- that perhaps an increase in progressive attitudes may have been harmful to our children.

In light of that understanding, whether you agree with it or not, arguing for the push of further advancing progressive/liberal ideology within the Church -- especially coming from outsiders -- understandably isn't well received among the people who have endured the scandal.



I offered a sincere apology, which you are free to accept or reject. Please, however, do not presume to tell me how I feel.



James, that is amazing! I wish to add my prayers, in thanks and praise for God's infinite mercy and love for you. Your story is important and powerful; it is heartwarming and it encourages the faithful, especially in our current cultural climate. May I request a prayer from you? This very subject impacts my own family, and I would really appreciate a quick prayer from someone who has been there and conquered it. Thank you!

I don't believe for a moment that your apology is sincere, and that is based on the terrible things you have written and on your attitude throughout this thread. My interpretation of how you actually feel is also based on the same and I will presume as I wish. Again, shame on you.

I’m happy to hear that such a high percentage of Catholics are making choices that are right for them instead of following the mandates of an unnecessarily controlling religion.
We will have to agree to disagree here. Based on some of my lived experiences and reading on this topic, I know that abortion is 100% the right choice sometimes. It’s the right choice when a woman decides that it’s right for her. My body, my choice.
This is nonsense. How would liberal values lead to child abuse?

Just because people didn’t talk as much about child abuse in the past doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Thanks to liberal values and the continual fight for human rights, awareness has continued to grow surrounding abuse. People are more likely to come forward, too. In the past, there was more stigma and shame involved, perhaps especially in an organization that’s uptight and backwards when it comes to sex.
Whether it’s well-received or not, we have a right to talk about it and should do so. Raising awareness about abuses the Church has propagated is important, and it could enable some to make an informed choice as to whether an organization is worthy of their membership.

It's been an interesting experience going back and forth with several of you.

I'm not really on social media (does being an infrequent poster on three forums count?), and I have learned quite a bit through my participation in this thread.

Peace to all.

Well, since Cornflake has lamented my lack of reply to his (the following) post, I shall indulge him with my response. Not that he probably appreciates the content of what I am about to say?

Are you conflating love here with sexual attraction? Homosexuality doesn't necessarily include feelings of love by default, in the same way that heterosexuality doesn't include feelings of love, by default. Sure, love can be a part of homosexuality, but that isn't always the case, obviously.

A person who has homosexual feelings or feelings of homosexual love is not frowned upon by the teachings of Christianity in general, as far as I know, which is why I mentioned the distinction between being a practising homosexual and someone who simply has those feelings without acting on them. The latter would be the problem for some Christians, not the feelings themselves.



I think that most Christians would believe that any person who struggles to maintain being approved by God, on this mortal coil, due to characteristics such as being a homosexual, is probably is being tested. That might be a cop-out clause to you, but some people take this sort of thing seriously.

Conceivably, a homosexual who goes through life whilst abstaining from homosexual acts, would be in favour with God, not a failure. If everyone were perfect, then what would be the point of being human at all in terms of being measured as morally worthy, or not?

Some people don't believe there are any morals to abide by or any God to measure a persons morals, and that is okay. In the view of Christianity, these people aren't really invested in God anyway and won't reap any rewards from worship.



Acting upon any sort of sexuality is by definition, a lifestyle choice. A person can go through their whole life without sex. Practising heterosexuality is a lifestyle choice, practising bisexuality is a lifestyle choice, practising strict homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. For Christians, some lifestyle choices regarding sexuality are less desirable than others.



Christianity is indeed a lifestyle choice and for believers, we hope that it comes with spiritual refinement and/or reward, perhaps in an afterlife.



Some people might appreciate the wisdom of Christian teachings on homosexuality, either for the sake of themselves or for others. Of course, some people don't appreciate any belief that restricts homosexual acts, in practice.



Heterosexual women and heterosexual black people, in regards to sexuality, still practice norms of sexuality. Some Christians believe that homosexual deviancy is undesirable, not only in biological terms, but philosophically and theologically, as well.

Many Christians do not believe that the standards of other species should be compared to humans. Humans are, in the view of many Christians, unique and have a soul, whereas lower animals do not, which is why many people have no problem with eating them etc.

I just didn't want you to think I was being any more obnoxious than I needed to be. I had in my mind that you thought I might be doing the mansplaining thing which you seem to be sensitive to - i.e, explaining to you that which you already know. I was trying to be nice in this regard and credit you with knowledge on the topic.

If I was talking to someone without any experience of the topic, I wouldn't have to be as worried with coming across as explaining things that you probably already know and have opinions on.

The latter would be a problem for Christians who have homophobic beliefs. Saying that the feelings are okay but not the actions doesn’t change that. If there are different standards when it comes to gay relationships than straight ones, there’s a problem.
Being gay isn’t a moral issue.
Are you suggesting that being gay or engaging in gay “acts” is less than/less “perfect” than being straight? Any reasonable deity who’s worthy of worship wouldn’t look unfavorably on consenting adults having meaningful relationships that include sex.
The term “lifestyle choice” has often been used to disparage the LGBTQ+ community and should be avoided for that reason. People don’t choose to be gay. Desiring love and fulfilling relationships that include sex is part of being human. It’s in our biology and DNA.

Christ had nothing to say on the topic. There isn’t any value or wisdom in homophobia.
Yes, bigotry is certainly a problem in some communities. The use of the word “deviancy” that has occurred in this thread is offensive.

Here’s a note on some terms from GLAAD on words such as deviancy:
on the word “lifestyle:”

https://glaad.org/reference/terms/

I’m just pointing out why those specific terms should be avoided.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 30 Nov 2024, 11:19 am, edited 4 times in total.

A person who has religious feelings or religious ideas about morality is not frowned upon by me, as an atheist. The distinction between being a practising christian and someone who simply has those feelings without acting on them. The actions would be the problem for some atheists, not the feelings themselves.