The fools keep strolling on in.

Then there's kozlosap. My memories of reading his posts makes me think, "This poster is a real piece of work." He has been in discussions where his faulty logic and condescension have been thoroughly dismantled and noted yet he still functions the way he does.

Just admit you run on relativism. It'll save me the time.

I mostly observe (aka lurk) on CAF (Catholic Answer Forum) and I remember when I fist joined spotting the 'questionable' members. These can range from Catholics who disagree with Church teachings and non-religious being annoying and practicing horrid arguments. This is not to say I don't like opposite views; for from it. It's when such people act indignant and their tone is "I and others are SO fed up with the Church and its oppression and injustice! Change or forever be slowly forgotten by society as we progress towards the shining sun of progress!" See below.

And then there's posters like "epan" who, after years of posting and acting like a complete arrogant douche, finally lets the beans spill depending on the subject at hand.

Why the fuck would I have to apologize? That's like me going up the a Japanese and saying to them "Apologize for killing my Filipino ancestors during WWII! Apologize!" or walking up to a random Wall Street banker/trader and asking an apology for the 2008 financial recession.

The poster doesn't specify what religions when he says "role of religion in the persecution of homosexuals" so I'm not sure if he meant Christianity or, say, Islam. If Islam then my question still stands: Why the fuck would I have to apologize? Then again epan is the type of that came across as someone who held a grudge against religion in the first place, so it's no big surprise that he'd want this type of repentance by Christians.

It's not a complete mystery on the things people are angry at the RCC. Let us count.

1. Homosexuality is not 'normal.' It's considered a disorder. Acting on same-sex temptations is considered a sin.
2. RCC is seen as oppressive & sexist towards women. (Most of the morally strong women I have known have been Catholics).
3. RCC has stances on sex that is deemed strict and archaic.
4. Crusades.

That's basically it. If you don't see a theme between most of these I'll say it now: Many of the things modernists despise the Church for is about its stances on sex. Who's obsessed with sex again? The social conservatives when they object to explicit sex scenes and unwarranted nudity on screen or print, or straight-out porn? I don't think so. My finger is pointing to all the butt hurt "BUT IT'S MY BODY AND I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT! IT'S SEX IT'S NATURAL THEREFOR IT'S BEAUTIFUL WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?" people. They want their cake and eat it too: They want people to be indifferent or support their sex, but when met with criticism they cry foul. And let's not pretend that such a group aren't aware of what they're won't cause strong disagreement - they aren't innocent lambs stupidly walking across the street only to be stuck by a Chevy pickup. They are fully aware of how certain groups are going to react or else they wouldn't say things like this:

"American's are afraid of sex"
"Good art is provocative and controversial."

What I like about non progressive/lefties/liberals?

The humor. It is one of the surprises that I have come to cherish - when it does happen, that is.

CAF

Temporarily banned for three days. Infraction was 100 points for insulting another poster. Since I received a previous citation for the same thing (which cost a measly five points) I was said I "did not learn from the last time." Heck, I didn't even remember the previous one - checking my inbox my memory was refreshed: The citation was dated May 2014! I barely visited the site last year so that would explain my forgetfulness. 

What did I say? I questioned the legitimacy of a question being asked and said I wasn't going to answer it because I thought it was ridiculous.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I should have been more "charitable."

This also happened to another poster who was quite opinionated, but was banned for several days - not sure what infraction she broke - and after that ban her posts slowly dried up where she didn't post for months. She was one of the better posters on CAF when it came to dealing with secular and post-modern thinking. The other posters, well, most? Horrid at dealing with them. A bunch of doormats if the SS Army invaded their house they'd just pray in a corner and not fight back. A pathetic bunch to say the least.

I'll be back within three days.

And I'll still "insult" - but I'll do it more insidiously. I know, I know, I don't learn from my mistakes. What can I say, I'm human. Human makes mistakes, so "just deal with it." (Well, I do have to be "nice" because I'll forever be banned, so f_ck you moderators Michael Francis and Robert Bay, I wouldn't want you guys in the same foxhole as me. You'd offer the enemy tea and crumpets, be either shot or captured and wonder what went wrong.)

Here's a new tactic to gain SS"M" supporters ...

Just say you're a homosexual or bisexual (even if you're neither one) to your family members and friends, and BOOM, a handful of converts to the cause of "equality." It works even better if you're a Catholic because then the LGBT activists will say "See! Even Catholics stand against the Church on this teaching!"

It worked with an Ohio state senator when his son came out to him.

The inspiration of this post comes from this thread. I generally like Catholic Answers Forum (CAF); there's some very knowledgeable posters. but sometimes it's eye roll worth inducing.

Some gems (just from the first two pages) from the thread:

 The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it's not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs' teaching on this. At least I know that I'm far from alone in this struggle!

and

They [gays] can only be married in the Church by denying who they are and marrying someone of the opposite sex. Life is too short to go down this road.

the funny one (I thought so)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I bet there's more.

I'm aware that practicing Catholics will disagree on several of teachings - that is to be expected - but what gets me is that some of the posters within the thread who do support SS"M" really never proposed an argument on why such an extreme view of marriage (to traditionalists) is a sound & "right" way view of marriage. Why letting two people of the same sex is considered a "right"? Why they [supporters], besides emotive reasons, shrug their shoulders in a "What's the big deal?" way when they can't wrap their heads around the RCC position on marriage?

One of the main things that distinguishes the RCC from, say, progressive Protestant sects is that it never budges on its stances. If the RCC said "Okay, we were wrong on marriage being between one man & one woman. Letting two consenting adults, regardless of sex, wed each other is totally fine and the world will continue to spin and one day we'll just laugh at this silliness," then it wouldn't really  be the RCC.

Same sex "marriage" would be the bullet hole in a plane. The plane would lose its cabin pressure, lose altitude and crash. I'm astounded by modern day/liberal Catholics who support same-sex "marriage" and say "But we're still Catholic!" Sure you are, but you're helping make an otherwise stigmatized religion into a stigmatized religion that's eating itself from the inside. *slow clap*

Please, return your BA & MA degrees. Your education has failed you.

*I use to be a same-sex "marriage" advocate, so it's not like I'm coming at this from a "homophobic, bigoted and ignorant" stance. I've been there, I've done that (that being a has-been advocate).