[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< LOL…thanks for the laugh this must be intermission.[/quote]The Google scholars do make me snicker.
[/quote]
Why don’t the two of you unlock from your religious tryst and rebut his points? Or do we just point fingers around here and go “nah nah nan nah nah”?
With the amount of attention the church puts on homosexuality and condemning it, it is no wonder the scandals it produces. You have these people with an irrational fixation on berating a sexuality so what happens when one of them gets a little curious? He probably loses sleep over it for years - preaching one thing but thinking another. That is until he finally erupts(no pun) on a defenseless little boy… This whole thing is fucking disguising. I truly ask you, why do you give a fuck about what gay people are doing with each other?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
Man it’s like a moth to the flame. I see this hateful nonsense and can’t help but respond.
I don’t care if you hate gay guys and want to stone them to death and deny them civil rights. I have a problem with you actually doing it.
I have no problem with churches not recognizing gay marriage, it against your religion. That’s fine. I do have a problem with the attempt to deny gays the right to marry in a civil proceeding. Why? Because of the separation of church and state. Christianity holds, for now, at the moment, that gays can’t marry. This is theology and has no relevance to our laws. The US is a Christian nation only by virtue of most of it’s citizens being Christian. It’s laws are secular.
Moreover the idea behind 1 man, 1 woman, raising babies in love is what 100 years old at MOST. In biblical times most men were polygamous. Women were sold as slaves with no say in who they married. The average marrying age was 14 with some girls being married as early as 9 to men in there 30’s or 40’s. Women were sold as slaves. A raped woman could be sold to her attacker for 50 shekels, assuming she wasn’t killed outright. Let’s face it the Christian religion of yesteryear looked an awful lot like Islam of today. We’ve made so much progress, why move backwards?
Some guys fuck other guys…get over it…it isn’t your business.[/quote]
LOL…thanks for the laugh this must be intermission.[/quote]
actually ticks post was one of the best post in this thread 
The intermission was the post with a “blackadder” clip. I love blackadder, no homo btw LOL
[quote]Kanada wrote:
Is anyone here the child of homosexuals or will anyone admit to homosexual urges? If not, this is a waste of space. [/quote]
Today I was eating at a middle eastern style restaurant and I saw a man with light eyes and a swarthy complexion and a striking profile. For one moment and one moment only I wanted to toss his salad with olive oil
Thread saved.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chris - sorry to have made assumptions about you. [/quote]
Prejudice proves to be useful. But, what is important is allowing change when those prejudices are wrong.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Dre the Hatchet wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]
This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.
Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]
Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]
Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]
Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.
Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?
Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]
They probably downplay the issue because it makes them look bad and propagates the stereotype that all preists are child molesters.[/quote]
I can’t speak on motives of the people that hid the child molesters, I can only repeat what I have heard. I can tell you that reporting on scandal is a no-no. However, not protecting innocent persons is the first of all big no-no’s. And, this double standard…hypocrites thing is an ad hominem. Oh…you are telling someone they did something wrong? Well, you did something wrong, too!
Well, guess what. Everyone does something wrong, so…are we just supposed to let everyone do what they want, even if it is wrong because we have done something wrong. That doesn’t make sense. As well, being silent about someone’s wrong doing makes you as culpable as the person that did something wrong. [/quote]
What do you mean about reporting on it is a no no? Is that reporting from within the Church?
[/quote]
Basically creating scandal. If your mother say…had an affair, stole something from the store, or hit you unjustly would you publicize it and create scandal about your mother. Or, would you confront her about it? And, what if she didn’t listen to you, would you make it public or would you try to have an intervention with a few people that were close to you and your mother so that it was discrete? And, if the intervention was ineffective you would obviously have to go a more public route of using some kind of legal, medical, &c. help to prevent your mother from doing such harmful things to others, herself, and her family. But, would you put it in the newspaper so that your neighbors and her enemies would know about her transgressions? I’d say no, however I can’t answer for you.
Same with the Church, we understand what our image means. So, creating scandal is a no-no. But, I can’t speak on if what these Bishops and others did was preventing scandal, or what. However, they forgot the first principle in these situations, and it was a grievous offense that they did…that no innocent person, especially children should be allowed to be hurt.
They could have corrected the situation and protected the innocent people without creating public scandal. Instead, these persons who thought it better to keep completely quiet instead of protecting innocent children did nothing in some instances, and merely moved priests to another location in some instances. The cases or stories in which priests were found to have sexual tendencies towards those under age that were handled correctly are far and few in between. Not, because they didn’t happen, I am sure there are cases, but the attitude to not go against the Church was also there.
I have heard of one story about a seminarian who was found to have a psycho-sexual (whatever the term is) tendency towards 14-17 year olds. He was denied the priesthood, but he was allowed to enter a monastery and become a monk. Now he spends his days in prayer and penance and following the Rule and doing so fills the hours of his day between study, prayer, and labor, mostly in silence. This is what they could have done for these priests that were found to have to such inclinations. However, they didn’t and a great scandal broke out, not because of those in the Church but those outside the Church. And, as Fr. Corapi says if we do not clean up our own mess, G-d lets those that are against us clean it up for us.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I didn’t get to the “clarification made on your behalf”. Why don’t you explain your post, because you had a curious statement in support of it.[/quote]There cannot be anything moral or immoral about being descended from any certain ethnic group, racial heritage, or geographical area. ALL (stay with me now) ALL of mankind, male and female, are created in the image of the one true and living God regardless of where they are from or what color they are. They are what they are by the design and providence of their creator and are nowhere declared immoral by merely descending from any certain line despite the wholly uninformed proclamations that are likely on the way about Israel and the nations.
Homosexuality is in no way analogous to race because A-, it flies in the face of God’s clearly and unequivocally reported order of creation and B-, He specifically, repeatedly and without leaving the minutest slack for confusion or misunderstanding, pronounces the practice by both men and women an abominable capital crime that He will in no wise leave unpunished. Hence race is entirely amoral, but sexuality is everywhere treated as one of the most morally charged aspects of human reality that there is or ever will be because it either gloriously does or grotesquely does not conform to God’s most highest, most foundational creatures, institutions and covenants.
God created one man and one women to be the prototypical foundation of all human interpersonal relations and societies. Sin entered the picture and we had a few thousand years of deflected and compromised attitudes and practice. The last Adam (1st Cor. 15) restored and greatly elevated the former pre fall glory of the wonderful one flesh intimacy of man and wife that results in joy for both them and God as well as the perfect environment for raising a godly seed. Nowhere does God tolerate homosexuality in any form. God can and does save homosexuals, just like He can and does save every other kind of criminal there is. I view them as no worse than I am if left to myself. (I really do mean that)
Those who try to absorb sexual “orientation” into the discussion of human rights related to race are quite simply very very wrong. I don’t care what any self worshiping, autonomous secular group contrives in their efforts to subvert the law and order of the most high God. His dominion is from everlasting to everlasting and cannot ever be set aside.
[/quote]
Wait, I thought Deuteronomy was only binding for Jews as part the old covenant and that everything changed with Jesus?
Now Jesus does not have one word for or against homosexuality. One would assume that if it was that high up on his agenda he would have mentioned it when he made the all new and revised covenant.
[/quote]
The Bible describes these as serious sins, which can and do exclude people from the Kingdom of God and from Heaven (cf Eph 5:5-7; Gal 5:16-21; Rev 21:5-8; Rev. 22:14-16; Mt. 15:19-20; 1 Cor 6:9-20; Col 3:5-6; 1 Thess 4:1-8; 1 Tim 1:8-11; Heb 13:4).
Here is a letter on it from Msgr. Pope: http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/Dear-Parishioners.pdf
A couple of quotes from his letter:
[quote]s stated above, the Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns homosexual activity. For example:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18: 22)
If a man lies with a male as with a female, both of them have committed an abomination (Lev 20:13).
Likewise, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah depicts, among other things, the sinfulness of homosexual activity. It is too lengthy to reproduce here in its entirety, but you can read about it in Genesis 19.
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 themâ?¦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 foolsâ?¦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 1:18ff)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6-9)
The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, for those who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Timothy 1: 8-11
[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
sky wizard[/quote]
in this[/quote]
That depends on your definition of this.
See I can play this game too.[/quote]
this world = universe.
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
Man it’s like a moth to the flame. I see this hateful nonsense and can’t help but respond.
I don’t care if you hate gay guys and want to stone them to death and deny them civil rights. I have a problem with you actually doing it.[/quote]
I suggest you read this letter by Msgr. Pope (http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/Dear-Parishioners.pdf), it’s short so I’m not asking much and it’s straight forward. I do not hate gays, I have several friends and acquaintances that are homosexuals. Some that go to Mass with me, some that don’t. Some are public about it and some I only know because they have confided to me that they are. To say, because someone condemns homosexual activity that we are condemning those with homosexual orientation is a far reach.
[quote]
I have no problem with churches not recognizing gay marriage, it against your religion. That’s fine. I do have a problem with the attempt to deny gays the right to marry in a civil proceeding. Why? Because of the separation of church and state. Christianity holds, for now, at the moment, that gays can’t marry. This is theology and has no relevance to our laws. The US is a Christian nation only by virtue of most of it’s citizens being Christian. It’s laws are secular.[/quote]
Fine separation of Church and State…that doesn’t mean we separate State and morals. Yes, theology does say that gays can’t marry, but so does morality. However, religion is not morality, but I digress.
[quote]
Moreover the idea behind 1 man, 1 woman, raising babies in love is what 100 years old at MOST. In biblical times most men were polygamous. Women were sold as slaves with no say in who they married. The average marrying age was 14 with some girls being married as early as 9 to men in there 30’s or 40’s. Women were sold as slaves. A raped woman could be sold to her attacker for 50 shekels, assuming she wasn’t killed outright. Let’s face it the Christian religion of yesteryear looked an awful lot like Islam of today. We’ve made so much progress, why move backwards?[/quote]
Because progress isn’t healthy for society.
[quote]
Some guys fuck other guys…get over it…it isn’t your business.[/quote]
Actually it is.
[quote]Kanada wrote:
I love seeing the worthless argument that is religion brought up. It is like you desire a theocracy, and demand that your religious considerations be given primacy to the idea of a liberal democracy[/quote]
Yes, down with democracy. Democracy is a fools game, but I’m not advocating for a theocracy. You’re also playing a fools game called false dichotomy. Either/or, but it’s not. We do not wish for the State to be ruled by the Church, we wish the State to be ruled by tradition and morals. And, this country was founded on Natural Law, so I suppose that it should remain on its foundation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
sky wizard[/quote]
in this[/quote]
That depends on your definition of this.
See I can play this game too.[/quote]
this world = universe.[/quote]
Strike two.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Here is a letter on it from Msgr. Pope: http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/Dear-Parishioners.pdf
[/quote]
That was good stuff. I found the following to be particularly “insightful” and …uh, ironic:
“Attempts by some to reinterpret scripture to mean something else are fanciful, at best, and usually use theories that require twisted logic, and questionable historical views that set aside the very plain meaning of the texts.”
Ironic indeed.
And no wonder every single Catholic woman I ever met had issues:
“Sadly, many people today live in open violation of Biblical teaching. Many engage in
premarital sex (fornicate) and say it is alright because â??everyoneâ??s doing it.â?? Many live together without
benefit of marriage. This, like homosexual activity, is sinful. It is wrong, and should be repented of
immediately. Hence, homosexual activity is not singled out by the Bible or by Christians. Every human
being, without exception, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is called to sexual purity, to chastity, and to
self-control. Any violation of this is a sin. Put more positively, Godâ??s command of chastity means that
sexual purity is possible for everyone with Godâ??s grace.”
Apparently, sticking your cock in some guy’s ass is the equivalent of having sex with a woman “too early” 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because progress isn’t healthy for society.
[/quote]
Wow. I guess we can end the thread right there. Does anyone really care to intelligent debate anything with BC now?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
The rate of divorce has been growing a long time throughout Europe, especially northern europe. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, how could it?[/quote]
Um…what? It definitely correlates, if anyone gets to define marriage, usually the definition of marriage just goes right out the door.[/quote]
The rate of divorce has been rising for a long time, long before there was any open talk about gay marriage, so a wish from gays to legally marry each other can’t have been the cause behind the all more common divorces in heterosexual population. “Hey, if gays can marry then I can divorce! Woohoo!” If there is any causation, it is because of the slackening of morals among heterosexuals that gays dare to put forward their agenda.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because progress isn’t healthy for society.
[/quote]
Wow. I guess we can end the thread right there. Does anyone really care to intelligent debate anything with BC now?[/quote]
the man has just started to read burke, so his stament is not so weird based on
his influences and Burkes makes an excellent case against rapid change or change based on idealism only( he did actually predict the terror regime that came to be after the french revolution, so the guy was not all wrong ). I do how ever disagree with BC, progress( as in change ) can be both negativ and positiv. nuclear arms was a progress in weapon technology and I guess nobody would argue that it is healthy for society. On the other hand, labour laws fought trough by workers in the 1800s and 1900s or the establishment of democracy, or universal suffrage are progress that is healthy for society from my perspective.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because progress isn’t healthy for society.
[/quote]
Wow. I guess we can end the thread right there. Does anyone really care to intelligent debate anything with BC now?[/quote]
the man has just started to read burke, so his stament is not so weird based on
his influences and Burkes makes an excellent case against rapid change or change based on idealism only( he did actually predict the terror regime that came to be after the french revolution, so the guy was not all wrong ). I do how ever disagree with BC, progress( as in change ) can be both negativ and positiv. nuclear arms was a progress in weapon technology and I guess nobody would argue that it is healthy for society. On the other hand, labour laws fought trough by workers in the 1800s and 1900s or the establishment of democracy, or universal suffrage are progress that is healthy for society from my perspective.
[/quote]
Oh, so he just started to read Burke? Well then the following clip might prove instructive:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because progress isn’t healthy for society.
[/quote]
Wow. I guess we can end the thread right there. Does anyone really care to intelligent debate anything with BC now?[/quote]
I said progress, not change. Change is a law in which we can’t fight against. However, in the terms of progress. No, because progress is always quickly followed by revolution.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
The rate of divorce has been growing a long time throughout Europe, especially northern europe. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, how could it?[/quote]
Um…what? It definitely correlates, if anyone gets to define marriage, usually the definition of marriage just goes right out the door.[/quote]
The rate of divorce has been rising for a long time, long before there was any open talk about gay marriage.[/quote]
Yes, and we’re trying to reverse the damage to marriage, not propagate its demise.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Oh, so he just started to read Burke? Well then the following clip might prove instructive:
[/quote]
Just started? No, started going more in depth? Yeah, yeah I am. I’m not sure how the clip is supposed to be instructive. However, please enlighten me to its meaning.