See, this is one of the most idiotic comments:

Society is organized around the relationship of the couple that is formed by a man and a woman

No, society is not organized around that relationship.  Society organizes a variety of relationships.  These idiots have never read any kind of sociology, anthropology, or history, and they have no idea of the myriad ways societies have actually organized kinship relationships, child-rearing practices, and sexual activity.

They run the risk of provoking an intellectual confusion, as well as confusion of identity and relationships.

Yeah, they run the risk that the fags may get confused and think they are real people. Can’t have that.

Cue McGreevey’s cut-and-paste nonsense…..

I would like to explore the use of the term “homobigot”. What exactly is the definition of that term?

At first glance, it appears to be someone out of the mainstream who is bigoted toward homosexuals. But upon examining the usage closer, one gets the feeling that anyone who disagrees with same-sex marraige might be labeled with this term by the radical and far, far left.

California voters soundly rejected same-sex marriage. Regardless of who helped fund the campaign, California voters pulled the levers.

Are all of these people….tens and tens of millions of Californians just way, way out there? Are they all hate-filled and all-consumed homobigots? More likely, they too, have a philosophy that disagrees with supporters of same-sex marriage.

I wish those who promote the queer lifestyle would act like adults. You’re not fooling anyone and people are smarter than you think. They see who and what you are.

More likely, they too, have a philosophy that disagrees with supporters of same-sex marriage.

...a philosophy which says that same-sex couples don’t deserve to be as happy as opposite-sex couples.

I wasn’t aware that Liberty gave demands.
Now governments, tyrants, and war clerics on the other hand…

I would like to explore the use of the term “homobigot”. What exactly is the definition of that term?

Cue the mirrors.

At first glance, it appears to be someone out of the mainstream who is bigoted toward homosexuals. But upon examining the usage closer, one gets the feeling that anyone who disagrees with same-sex marraige might be labeled with this term by the radical and far, far left.

Because there are no logical reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, only homophobic ones, then yes, anyone who opposes equal rights for all people is a bigot. Just like anyone who opposes interracial marriage is a racist, even if they are the majority and don’t wear white robes and burn crosses.

Yeah, they run the risk that the fags may get confused and think they are real people. Can’t have that.

But don’t worry, a bunch of male virgins who wear dresses will help them get their sexual confusion sorted out!

Now, if they want to talk about things that may be OK as long as they’re kept within private confines, how about we start with Catholicism?

The Church maintains its preoccupation of welcoming and accompanying homosexual persons

Oh, Cardinals? I think Inigo Montoya would like to have a word with you.

I’ll just start with the first sentence because I can’t bear to read the rest.

“Homosexuality is not a necessary component of society, as is the family.”  Does he mean homosexual sex is not necessary?  Um, I posit that it is.

If my family is a necessary component of society, then the happiness and stability of the members of my family is necessary to society.  I have homosexual family members.  The happiness and stability of my homosexual family members is therefore is necessary to society. Human beings are generally sexual by nature (I’m postmenopausal, so I get to say that).  Sexual acts are natural and necessary to the emotional health of human beings.  The homosexual sex and partnering in which members of my family engage is necessary to their emotional health and, by extension, to the stability of our family. 

Asshat.

Also please consider a simple analogy…

Ahhhhh…..the standard response attempting to tie this issue to race.

Well, it isn’t race.

Homosexuals are not polically powerless
Homosexuals are not financially oppressed
Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.

For those reasons alone, this group doesn’t, and shouldn’t, enjoy any special privileges of being a favored and proteced group. No, they must fight it out in the arena of ideas just like the rest of us. By the looks of most referendums, they’re not winning.

So, I’m guessing His Eminence is okay with “confirmed bachelor” roommates and Boston marriages?

Every person that has difficulties to live their sexuality properly is called to find Christ and obey the every command of some guys who have chosen (successfully or not) to foreswear proper human sexuality.  That makes a bundle of sense.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.

Neither is religion, but the govenrment doesn’t ban marriages between, say, a Christian and a Muslim, or between two atheists.

For those reasons alone, this group doesn’t, and shouldn’t, enjoy any special privileges of being a favored and proteced group.

Heterosexuals aren’t politically powerless or financially oppressed either, and their orientation is no more immutable than that of non-heterosexuals. Yet they enjoy the “special privilege,” according to you, of being able to marry the people they love.

...bigotry is not—so to speak—black and white; that, in other words, one can be just a little bit homobigoted.

Really!!!!

This is news to me and probably to most of the liberals on this board. Sounds like “bigotry” is whatever you want it to be at the time.

Heterosexuals aren’t politically powerless or financially oppressed either, and their orientation is no more immutable than that of non-heterosexuals. Yet they enjoy the “special privilege,” according to you…

First, the two are not equivalent. One is normal and the other is an anomoly. Second, normal people are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. It’s just inconvenient for homosexuals to do the same because or their sexual deviancy.

Getting back to the post, off what value, really, is anything the RCC has to say about human sexuality?  They reject anthropology and history in favor of fairy tales.  Their notions of “natural law” are themselves divorced from nature.  It’s a misanthropic belief system, and a misogynist institution.  Fuck the Vatican.

you want your example of bigotry, papertiger?

“One is normal and the other is an anomoly”

fuck you. that is your prejudice. you cannot back it up, but i’d love to see your sad attempt. you won’t try, though, you’ll behave like a child and expect that your word is proof of anything. it’s not. it’s meaningless. not all opinions are created equal. not all are valid. and you are spouting nothing but a defective opinion, nothing relating to fact.

so, whereas before, homosexuality was a deadly sin, now they’ve relegated it to the status of unfortunate footnote in human development?

oh, that’s so much better.

at this rate, maybe in another hundred or so years they’ll come around to the idea that homosexuality is, indeed, normal and a-ok.

also, papertiger, don’t try to use $100 words if you can’t spell them. thanks.

“These idiots have never read any kind of sociology, anthropology, or history…”

Sociology isn’t worth shit and much of anthropology isn’t worth shit either.

MikeEss,

There’s a conflation going on here between “normal” and “natural.”  In the statistical sense, homosexuality isn’t “normal,” in that it doesn’t adhere to the statistical average or majority.  However, it’s being conflated with a concept of “natural” as in your 10:34 comment above with regard to “occurring in every society in human history,” or even in a hell of a lot of other animal species.  Then there’s also the sense of “normative” in terms of rules for human behavior, in your 10:49 comment, which also gets into lots of difficulties with regard to the multiple ways that same-sex activity has been organized into social life. Yes, it’s been universal, but it’s been organized differently. Some societies have imposed the death penalty for same-sex activity. Hell, South Carolina’s “crime against nature” statute had a death penalty until the 1860s.  Other societies, like the ancient Greeks, institutionalized forms of cross-generational activity. And the contemporary Dutch, Belgians, and Norwegians, for example, have integrated same-sex activity basically as the equivalent of heterosexuality, granting relationship rights to same-sex couples as associations of equal individuals.

The troll ain’t worth it.

(MAJeff, please 2 gay marry?)

*blush*

As long as we can keep separate apartments.

First, the two are not equivalent. One is normal and the other is an anomoly. Second, normal people are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. It’s just inconvenient for homosexuals to do the same because or their sexual deviancy.

“Normal people are limited to marrying someone of their own race, just like everyone else! Why should interracial marriage be legal?”
^ you, forty years ago

also, FAIL x∞

Motion to ban papertiger for being a thread-hijacking asshat

On the other hand, it is contrary to the truth of the human identity and the design of God to live a homosexual experience, a relationship of this type

Says someone who’s never been in love, apparently.  Now, if we can be done with the equivalent of someone who’s never seen a car before describing how to shift gears in a manual transmission, let me make clear how ungodly heartless it is to expect random people to just spend their whole lives without sex or romance because of an abstract distaste for the combination of them and the type of person they’re attracted to.  I am now even more strongly reminded of the bans on interracial marriage in comparison.

and even more to attempt to demand same-sex marriage.

IIRC, the gay community has yet to actually demand marriage rights from the Catholic church.  Instead they have always petitioned for it from other religious bodies or from the state—-that is, they have demanded the right to have marriages that the Catholic church does not consider to be real marriages anyway.

(I have to wonder, if a bisexual person married someone of the same sex, then got divorced, then converted to Catholicism, then wanted to marry an opposite-sex person in a Catholic ceremony, would the Church then consider him/her to be previously married and require an annulment, or would they say that person has never been married?  Wouldn’t the first be a recognition of same-sex marriage as valid?)

Funny, my taxes disagree with papertiger (boy, he’s easy to take down, like a, uh, paper…tiger?).  In that I get charged extra taxes for my relationship, therefore I posit that I am neither politically powerful nor economically advantaged.

Anyhow, even it it could be cured… Would it be appropriate to sequester those who are?  It’s not contagious, it affects no one else, neither socially nor financially, what reason aside from bigotry would you posit to disadvantage such people?

Do you go around telling people with boils or scars shouldn’t be able to marry and vote, because of these afflictions?  Those selfsame things are in the bible, as well.

The homosexual relationship does not enter into this social sphere. It is, as such, a private question.

So homosexuality is A-OK. Just keep it <strike>gay</strike> <strike>lighthearted</strike> private.  I for one am glad for this clarification from The Church.

why-oh-why is a less than 51% majority an “overwhelming” victory, when 8 years ago Gore won the popular vote by a bit more than that and it was an “overwhelming” LOSS

it seems right-wingers cannot do math.

Next headline:  “Cardinal Ennio Antonelli Sent to Vatican Re-Education Camp”

Is it just me, or does anybody else think maybe the Cardinal has a secret little gay crush on one of the Swiss guards, and just made the mistake of rationalizing it in public?

Can someone kindly explain to me why folks like papertiger think that it’s perfectly A-OK to put other people’s rights to a vote?  Just because 51% of the people believe something does not make it right.  More than 51% of the population at one time believed that it was right to own other people as slaves.  More than 51% of the population believed that women shouldn’t vote or even be considered legal people apart from either their fathers or their husbands.  More than 51% of the people believed that interracial marriage was an “abomination.”  More than 51% of people believed that “separate but equal” was just dandy.  Hell, more than 51% of the population believed that invading Iraq was a great idea.

Get my drift, paper tiger asshole?  Just because a majority of people believe something does not make that belief right.

And yes, that means that 51% of Californians are bigots for believing that gay people don’t “deserve” the right to marry.

Motion to ban papertiger for being a thread-hijacking asshat

I killfiled him this morning and never looked back. It feels…so…right.

Now, if we can be done with the equivalent of someone who’s never seen a car before describing how to shift gears in a manual transmission…

Ha!

When it comes to same-sex marriage, it never ceases to amaze me how much smoke people will generate to conceal a little discomfort. I mean, just look at that wall-of-text. “The exercise of homosexuality does not reflect the truth of friendship…Every person that has difficulties to live their sexuality properly is called to find Christ and to live, consequently, in accord with the demands of liberty and responsibility of faith, hope and charity.” Is that supposed to mean anything to the laity? Or to anybody else?

“Just because a majority of people believe something does not make that belief right.”

No shit, sherlock. But we live in a democracy, and my state has ballot initiatives. If you don’t like that, then tough shit. I hear Canada is content to live under a judicial oligarchy; whiners can take their sorry asses there.

“why-oh-why is a less than 51% majority an “overwhelming” victory, when 8 years ago Gore won the popular vote by a bit more than that and it was an “overwhelming” LOSS”

I realize you are lacking in native intelligence, but let me try to explain it to you anyway.

In the US, presidents are elected by the electoral college. In the electoral college, Bush had more votes than Gore, which means he was elected president. The popular vote doesn’t enter into it. So sorry.

No shit, sherlock. But we live in a democracy, and my state has ballot initiatives.

We live in a republic, where courts decide if laws are consistent with the Constitution and overturns them if they are not.

“We live in a republic, where courts decide if laws are consistent with the Constitution and overturns them if they are not.”

The specious reasoning of the four in the majority is no longer of any consequence, hayseed. The constitution of my state has been amended by the people. Deal with it.

The specious reasoning of the four in the majority is no longer of any consequence, hayseed. The constitution of my state has been amended by the people. Deal with it.

O hai there Ostiarius! Got a new IP?

In case you haven’t noticed, the amendment is up to be reviewed by the court. Because it contradicts language already in the state constitution.

Cue the mirrors.

Lymis on 01/18 at 08:50 PM

Better yet, cue the matches - after all it’s a PAPERtiger.

The constitution of my state has been amended by the people. Deal with it.

The constitution of your state has been revised by <strike>the people</strike> 52% of the people.

It says quite clearly that

SEC. 7.  (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws

And after November 4th’s delightful exercise in tyranny of the majority, it now has language which does exactly that.  It is contradictory; the new marriage limitation blatantly overrides and ignores the guarantee of equality, which is, to understate, a kind of important part of that constitution.

(I also like Article 1, Sec. 3, part B, line 2:

”(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access.  A statute, court rule,
or other authority adopted after the effective date of this
subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with
findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and
the need for protecting that interest.”

This clearly indicates which way the contradiction should be resolved.

I am curious, however: what has this “judicial obliarchy” done to you that’s anywhere near as bad as what the voting majority has done to California’s gay and lesbian couples?

In the US, presidents are elected by the electoral college. In the electoral college, Bush had more votes than Gore, which means he was elected president. The popular vote doesn’t enter into it. So sorry.

Gallo-Roman in a time of Salian Franks on 01/19 at 01:17 AM

Ahhhh, sounds like Julius Gallo-Roman talking - go unscrew another bottle - and screw yourself while you’re at it - Hmmmm wonder what Daddy Rat thinks of self sodomy?

“Hell, it only took them 380 years to admit the earth orbits the sun…”

I will have to re-appropriate this.

Also, troll food is poisonous. Don’t go near it.

Also: “I hear Canada is content to live under a judicial oligarchy” Good God you’re an idiot.

If homosexuality was such an anomaly, or so deviant, why does it still exist as a human trait?  You’d think something so incredibly harmful to humanity would have died out by now…unless it’s not really harmful and simply represents one end of the spectrum of human sexuality.

The Catholic Church sees homosexual acts as sinfull. And like any other sinfull acts thay have been with us a long time.  Adultery is bad. Hurts famy and kids. Can lead to all sorts of problems.  I would say its incredibly harmfull to us all and it has not died out.

“Cue McGreevey’s cut-and-paste nonsense…..”
MAJeff, God of Biscuits

Here you go. From the Good folks at Catholic Answers..

The Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

shorter Mcgreevy…blah blah blah blah blah

If homosexuality was such an anomaly, or so deviant, why does it still exist as a human trait?

Why is there schizphrenia?
Why is there autism?

Why is there anomolies of every system of humans from club feet to mental issues and yet, the mere existence of sexual anomalies are simply not possible?

Clearly, these people have issues with their sexuality. I don’t think it’s a big deal and don’t wish to persecute them.

But pretending that what was, just a few years ago, described as a mental illness and then reclassified without any new evidence, without any new research is simply ludicrous.

And changing the whole world’s rules to accomodate this sexual deviancy is not the path voters and the public in general wish to take

Evelyn Hooker never existed apparently.

...why does the RCC see homosexual acts as bad?

I was unaware the RCC has made any statements to that effect.

Please provide us with links, I’m interested in learning more.

Sorry, MikeEss, but no matter how much you try to make it so, it’s not a race issue.

Ask Jesse Jackson if this is just the same as the race issue.

Yours is a poor, poor argument.

Here you go papertiger.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: “Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

of course mcgreevy shows up to parrot the nonsensical doctrines of his hate organization.

Caren,
      The Church of Galileo’s day issued a disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.  Thgat was how Galileo got in hot water. Heck Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically-based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. Did you know he was a Cathoic priest?

“So, yes, the RCC currently teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, but that homosexuals are human beings deserving of love.”  Yes   ” They also claim that they teach sexism is wrong, but women are still second class.” You are not alone in having this opinion. However it is just that an opinion.

“In particular, why is homosexual sex wrong?” I am shure you have read and dissagree with the Churches teaching on this.  “B/c it’s outside of marriage?  Then allow them to marry.” Not going to happen.  ” Forcing celibacy on people is wrong, and further, I posit that the hierarchy is sinning by doing so.”  Those who take a vow of celibacy do so volunteerly. Yes it would be wrong to force it on floks but the Church dos not do so.

‘Someday, gays will marry.  Even in the RCC, it will happen.  It might take another millenium, but if the RCC plans to remain even marginally relevant in a moral sphere, it will happen”  the Church will allways stay faithfull to the teachings of Jesus. You may have folks fall away however the Church gos on.

“You, as a Catholic, cannot simply follow the teachings of the hierarchy blindly.” True. at one time I did not understand the teachings about Mary. However I did a lot of study and now understand why the Church teaches as she does.  “You are required to think about it and follow your conscience.” True yet it must be a conscience formed by the light of the Church. Sould I ever find my conscience telling me one thing and the Church another. As a good Catholic I will side with the Church.
” WHY is homosexual sex bad, other than the hierarchy says so?  Even if it’s the Pope saying so, that’s not enough.  There needs to be a reason.”  I have known many a good person who live the gay life. I have seen how much this hurts them and those who love them.

“It’s not in the Gospels, in fact, you can pull out stories that seem to indicate Jesus was quite all right with homosexuals b/c love was primary for him.” Jesus allways loves the sinner and hatted the sin. This goes for all of us. As Catholics we never claim that everything Jesus ment to teach His Church are in the Gospels. You cant find a statment on drug use from Jesus in the Gospels. However that allso dos not mean Jesus was cool with it.

“of course mcgreevy shows up to parrot the nonsensical doctrines of his hate organization. “

MAJeff, God of Biscuits

LOL MaJeff I am a rabid Catholic. Just dont let me bite you or you may become Catholic too.

I am a rabid Catholic.

At least you realize you are diseased.

Small quibble:” there’s only one god, but he’s in three parts”

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel; it appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine Persons who are one divine being (God).

“At least you realize you are diseased.”
MAJeff

Yes and the the disease is sin. Thankfully I am Catholic. So that I may go too Jesus threw the sacrament of Reconciliation and have my sins forgiven. I wish more folks would see that thay too need Jesus.

Here you go papertiger.

Thanks Michael, but I’m not Catholic and have never argued this issue on religious grounds.

I don’t have to argue that a blind man is not qualified to fly an airplane and I shouldn’t have to argue that homosexuals are not qualified for marriage.

Jesus is dead. Get over it.

I am sorry Papertiger. My post was in response to your

...why does the RCC see homosexual acts as bad?

I was unaware the RCC has made any statements to that effect.

Please provide us with links, I’m interested in learning more.

papertiger on 01/19 at 09:57 AM

As to you not being Catholic. As I said to MAJeff,  just dont let me bite you m8.

Why on earth would you want to bite me, freak? Best that you to stay the fuck away.

Why on earth would you want to bite me, freak? Best that you to stay the fuck away.
MAJeff, God of Biscuits

MAJeff you are safe as long as you stay away from Oswego NY. As to the qwestion of why? Why to make more Catholics in the world.

“Jesus is dead. Get over it.”

No, Jesus Christ is quite alive. Don’t take your angst over being a sodomite (and a sociologist) out on him.

Gallo-Roman in a time of Salian Franks , Papertiger . Its amazing just how threatened some folks here get whin you dissagree with them.

Bigot = Anyone who does not agree with MikeEss.

Long as we are all clear on this.

“Bigot = Anyone who does not agree with MikeEss” Papertiger

In tuth we would have to add a lot more names too that

Three trolls today? Are the trolls sock-puppeting? Or is it troll spawning season?

True yet it must be a conscience formed by the light of the Church. Sould I ever find my conscience telling me one thing and the Church another. As a good Catholic I will side with the Church.

And in saying this, you have completely and succintly encapsulated everything that was wrong with the 20th century. Congratulations, Mcgreevy. Your faith has landed you in the company of fascists.

Also:

As to you not being Catholic. As I said to MAJeff, just dont let me bite you m8. wink

That is not cutesy so much as it is creepy. I suggest that you pray very hard and ask your god if he really wants you “joking” about assaulting people to convert them, especially in light of your church’s own history.

You know, I only had one regret about this thread - that I could only killfile papertiger once. But then he changed his name, and I got to killfile him again, and it was just like going home.

I’m convinced that Mcgreevy is a troll who pretends to be Catholic to make them look bad.

I’ve known many Catholics, good and bad, and none of them would say that they would side with the Church over their conscience. The good ones would say that they would go with the conscience, the bad ones would insist that such a conflict would be impossible.

Combine this with the fact that Mcgreevy spouts pre-Vatican II talking points that come straight out of a Protestant home-school texts about bad, stupid Catholics (don’t ask me how I know this, but I do), and the whole thing smells more than a little fake.

I don’t have to argue that a blind man is not qualified to fly an airplane and I shouldn’t have to argue that homosexuals are not qualified for marriage.

How the fuck do you get this?  A blind man is not qualified to fly because flying requires sight.  There is no such disqualifying mutual exclusion between homosexuality and marriage.

How the hell anyone could think otherwise, let alone think their bigotry is obvious fact on the level of blindness and sight-requiring activities, is completely beyond me.

“Mcgreevy is a troll who pretends to be Catholic ” I cant help it if you dont think I am Catholic.

‘That is not cutesy so much as it is creepy. I suggest that you pray very hard and ask your god if he really wants you “joking” about assaulting people to convert them, especially in light of your church’s own history.”
Sorry once again I was trying to be funny. I would never bite anyone. Well I may nip at my wife if she asks me to.

Homosexuals are not polically powerless
Homosexuals are not financially oppressed
Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.

Ok, instead of race, let’s compare it to religion! Surely you can understand that analogy…

Jews are not polically powerless
Jews are not financially oppressed
Being Jewish is not an immutable characteristic.

One is normal and the other is an anomoly

Ok, as a Jew in this country, I AM AN ANOMOLY. Yet, I’m still allowed to marry who I want, just because who I love has a dick. I’m allowed to marry a non-Jewish person with a dick, even!

AND

You are still an anti-Semite and a BIGOT if you think Jews shouldn’t be allowed to marry, or shouldn’t be allowed to marry non-Jews, which believe me, PLENTY of ppl believed and STILL BELIEVE.

But Kat, aren’t all jews secretly homosexual, or maybe it’s the other way around? (If you leave out the ones who are helping to bring about the rapture, of course)

No, Jesus Christ is quite alive. Don’t take your angst over being a sodomite (and a sociologist) out on him.

Jesus is alive?? lol.

And what the fuck is a sodomite anyway? One who engages in sodomy? So, anyone having good sex? Sorry you’re jealous. If you abandon you’re hateful ways, you, too, can find someone willing to have sex with you!

I have known many a good person who live the gay life. I have seen how much this hurts them and those who love them.

Well, if they’re gay and CATHOLIC, I can see that. But I have known a good many gay folks who are not catholic (or not strict catholic) and they are all just as normal as the straight people I know. I have some gay family friends that are in their 60s and they have lived a happy and pretty normal life. And as someone who loves some gay people, I can say it’s never hurt me… (why would their being gay hurt loved ones? wtf? only if you are a hater, in which case i’d say it’s YOU doing the hurting)

I’m pretty sure that there is really no difference in gay people and straight people except who they are attracted to. After much discussions with my roommate, I think even gay sex is not any different than gay sex. I know some ppl are all obssessed with teh GAY SECKS but really, it’s not any different.

Even straight ppl don’t all have the same standards… some ppl are attracted to fat ppl, some to thin, some like long hair, some like short, some like blonds, some like brunettes… I bet that attraction varies more among individuals than it does between gays and straights.

paul, you’re right - it’s actually all part of our plan to take over the world

After much discussions with my roommate, I think even gay sex is not any different than gay sex.

This should be After much discussions with my roommate, I think even gay sex is not any different than straight sex.

“After much discussions with my roommate, I think even gay sex is not any different than gay sex. “

I can tell you’re a deep thinker. Which cracker jack box did you retrieve your degree from?

“You can find him healing a Roman’s boyfriend.”

He was not the centurion’s “boyfriend,” dipshit.

I can tell you’re a deep thinker. Which cracker jack box did you retrieve your degree from?

Huh? Are you trying to say gay sex IS somehow different? Do you have evidence? (Like an example of a kind of sex gay ppl have that straight don’t?)

He was not the centurion’s “boyfriend,” dipshit.

Wrong! Try again.

“Wrong! Try again.”

I know Greek an I am well versed in NT scholarship, dumb ass. I read articles in scholarly journals; I don’t get shit off the internet.

Then disprove it.

Pais can refer to a child as well as a slave and, in fact, the version in John makes it clear that it was his son.

Also, if you weren’t such an incurable dunce, you’d realize that the bogus interpretation advocated by the site involves a pederastic relationship.

After much discussions with my roommate, I think even gay sex is not any different than gay sex.

Then your you and your friends are taking it up the ass wayyyyy…..too much!

Seriously, the left and the homosexual activists in particular spent lots of time and energy changing the definition of homosexual from what you *do*, to what you *are*.

Now, you’re saying the act, itself, is the defining issue??

Pais can refer to a child as well as a slave and, in fact, the version in John makes it clear that it was his son.

I’m aware of that, yes. But why do you trust the gospel of John over that of Luke or Matthew? Do you just like him better, or is it because one version supports your hate and two do not?

Also, if you weren’t such an incurable dunce, you’d realize that the bogus interpretation advocated by the site involves a pederastic relationship.

Indeed. They were common at the time, just as the marriage of prepubescent girls was common at the time. Your point?

“But why do you trust the gospel of John over that of Luke or Matthew?”

It is obviously more ‘primitive.’

“Indeed. They were common at the time, just as the marriage of prepubescent girls was common at the time. Your point?”

The point is that even if the bs interpretation of that site were correct, it still would not refer to a consensual, same-sex relationship between adults. It is surely a sign of desperation when you are forced to make recourse to an alleged pederastic relationship in a vain attempt to establish an argument.

Quit while you are behind.

Then your you and your friends are taking it up the ass wayyyyy…..too much!

So, you’re saying gays have anal sex more than straights? And if not, I’m having too much anal? Well, the roommate in question is a lesbian, and actually doesn’t like anal AT ALL. So even if i’ve done it once, that’s “wayyyy… too much!”?  who are you to say how much sex is too much? fuck you and the high horse you rode in on.

Seriously, the left and the homosexual activists in particular spent lots of time and energy changing the definition of homosexual from what you *do*, to what you *are*.

Now, you’re saying the act, itself, is the defining issue??

Um, no, i’m saying the opposite… I’m saying that what gays *do* is not any different from what straights do!!  Unless you have evidence otherwise?

Caren and Essie the Elephant you can read the whole thing but the main point is The Council’s teaching on conscience shows us clearly that man’s obligation to follow his conscience in every sphere of activity does not mean that man has a moral right to be wrong. Man is not morally free to follow his conscience while ignoring the truth. Man is, in fact, bound to form his conscience in accord with the objective truth of the divine law of God.

A Conscientious Objection
———————————————————————————————————————-
By Misty Mealey
  There is broad consensus among many Catholics today that since the Second Vatican Council, individuals are morally permitted to follow their consciences even if it means ignoring the objective truths of the law of God as taught by the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church. Dignitatis Humanae, a Vatican II document on religious freedom, seems to support this position:

All are bound to follow their conscience faithfully in every sphere of activity. . . . Therefore, the individual must not be forced to act against conscience nor be prevented from acting according to conscience, especially in religious matters. (DH 3)
If man is bound to follow his conscience at all times and cannot be forced to act contrary to it, the Council seems to be teaching the primacy of conscience over the demands of objective truth and the teachings of the Church. It appears that man has a moral right to be wrong. Is this what the Council meant by freedom from force? Did the Council mean that man’s conscience is autonomous and that man is free from the moral obligation to conform to the authority of the magisterium of the Church? The simple answer is no.

What Is Conscience?

The idea that man should never be forced to act contrary to or in accord with conscience does not mean that conscience is free from the demands of truth but that it is free from external coercion by human authority. In reference to actions in accord with or against conscience in religious matters, the Council continues, “Acts of this kind cannot be commanded or forbidden by any merely human authority.” In reference to civil authority, the document states that “if it [civil authority] presumes to control or restrict religious activity it must be judged to have exceeded the limits of its power.” The Council teaches that civil authorities must never infringe upon the right of every human being to act in accord with his conscience, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed (DH 3).

Lumen Gentium tells us that the one Church of Christ, established and sustained by Christ here on earth, “constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (LG 8).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, lead by Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger), explained the phrase “subsists in” in the document Dominus Iesus:
The Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth,” that is, in those churches and ecclesial communities that are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (DI 16; cf. LG 15–16)
It is to this Church, the Council fathers professed, that the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading his true religion to all the nations when he said: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20).

This command of Christ is at the heart of the Council’s statement that “the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth” (DH 14). Gaudium et Spes tells us that the teaching authority of the Church “is the authentic interpreter of divine law” (GS 50). The Church is the divinely appointed means of communicating the fullness of revealed truth and all the principles of the moral order that spring from nature. Hence, Dignitatis Humanae teaches us that “in forming their consciences the faithful must pay careful attention to the holy and certain teaching of the Church” (DH 14).

Vatican II did not teach that man’s conscience is independent either of the demands of truth or of the teachings of the Church. Man cannot be free from truth. He is compelled by his nature to seek truth, as taught by the Church, and to conform his conscience and his life to it.
 

[BACK][TOP]

ignore the trolls, folks

It is obviously more ‘primitive.’

So do you also believe John over Luke and Matthew when he makes no mention of, say, the ascension of Jesus? Or is it only when it lets you make hateful comments?

The point is that even if the bs interpretation of that site were correct, it still would not refer to a consensual, same-sex relationship between adults. It is surely a sign of desperation when you are forced to make recourse to an alleged pederastic relationship in a vain attempt to establish an argument.

If a relationship where one of the two parties cannot consent (according to our modern understanding) is OK, why would one where both parties were consenting be less OK? Logic, people!

“So do you also believe John over Luke and Matthew when he makes no mention of, say, the ascension of Jesus? Or is it only when it lets you make hateful comments?”

Sometimes John is more ‘primitive’ and other times the Synoptics are.

“If a relationship where one of the two parties cannot consent (according to our modern understanding) is OK, why would one where both parties were consenting be less OK? Logic, people!”

Medice, cura te ipsum!

“So I can be a priest, now, Michael?  I won’t be denied on basis of my gender?  The Church will apologize to St. Theresa, the Little Flower, for denying her the sacrament of ordination?

No?  Then it’s not an opinion.  It’s a fact that the RCC discriminates against women on the basis of gender.” Dont get mad at me Caren. Like you I did not get to make the rulles. In the OT only men from the tribe of Levi go to become priest. It is Gods call. Jesus gets to make the rulles we just follow.

Yes if you’re homosexual you are called to be celibate. As we all are.  Before marrage to my wife sex with her was wrong. Now to have sex with any other woman would be wrong. Now Homosexual can get help and get marred to a woman. Just as long as thay dont have sex with anyone but the husband/wife.

I’ll end with ST.Paul

St. Paul has three favorite metaphors by which he tries to give us some idea of what the Church is and what it ought to mean to us. He is always referring to it either as the bride of Christ, or as the temple of Christ, or as the body of Christ.

You all know how, in the fairy-stories, the prince is never allowed to marry the princess until he has killed at least one dragon and an assortment of giants, and probably fetched a jug of water from the well at the world’s end, or done something energetic like that. He has to work hard, has the prince, to win his princess. And although things aren’t quite like that in real life, they are rather like that in real life. A man can’t reasonably expect a woman to marry him until he has got a job, so as to be able to support her. And, while I shouldn’t advise you to marry anybody for his money, I shouldn’t advise you, either, to get engaged to a man who hopes that if he practices a bit more he may get taken on as a saxophone in a dance-band—you’ll find your father will kick like a mule if you do that, and quite rightly. A man has got to win his bride, and so St. Paul thinks of our Lord as coming to earth to work and to win a bride for himself, and that bride is the Church. So that the love of Christ for his Church, the love of the Church for Christ, is something as strong, as lasting, as unselfish, as consuming, as the love of a man for a woman, of a woman for a man.

He can’t talk about husbands and wives without going off into a long digression about Christ and his Church—that was the way St. Paul saw it. You and I, then, if we want to win the love of Christ, have got to be loyal first and foremost to his Church; it is as part of that Church that he sees your soul and mine, as part of that Church that he wants to win it for himself. And then, suddenly switching off, St. Paul will begin talking about the Church as a great building, about you and me as stones set in that building. “You are fellow-citizens of the saints,” he tells us, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Each of us is fitted in, wedged in, into his proper place in this building, and the whole of it rests, ultimately, on Jesus Christ.” And that is meant to show how important unity is in the Church, and how we all depend on one another. You know how sometimes people tell you that such and such a thing isn’t very edifying. If I were to come in to Mass every morning five minutes late and tying up the strings of the chasuble as I went, people would say it wasn’t very edifying. What does that word mean, edifying? Why, simply building up. You and I are building up one another’s faith all the time, like stones in a building wedged together so that one stone keeps another in place. And that’s what the Church is like; we are all supporting one another, depending on one another; and your faith, however unimportant a Catholic you are, is valuable to Jesus Christ because it is helping, in its small way, to shore up that vast edifice, his Church.

But after all stones are dead things, and buildings are dead things; so St. Paul likes to be even more daring than that. Instead of telling us that we are a building of which Christ is the corner stone, he will tell us that we are a body, of which Christ is the head. If you cut off a person’s head, that person dies; the brain is the center of that nerve-system by which we live. So Christ, as our Head, gives life to his Church; it is from him that the graces which we need flow into every part of the body, flow into you and me. When you have a pain in your big toe, you don’t really feel it in your big toe, you feel it in your brain. So closely is the whole system of the human body knit together; and you and I as members of Christ, as limbs of Christ, are bound together as closely, as really with him as a human body is bound together, and bound up with its head.

Sometimes John is more ‘primitive’ and other times the Synoptics are.

By primitive do you mean written at an earlier date? It’s generally understood that the Gospel of John was written in parts. Do you know when that particular passage was written? Because if not, we’re back where we started, with you choosing which Gospel to believe based on which one best backs up your disgusting bigotry.

Medice, cura te ipsum!

You haven’t answered the question, so I’ll repeat:
If a relationship where one of the two parties cannot consent (according to our modern understanding) is OK, why would one where both parties were consenting be less OK? Logic, people!
Unless, of course, lack of consent is a positive in your worldview, which frankly would not surprise me.

If a relationship where one of the two parties cannot consent (according to our modern understanding) is OK, why would one where both parties were consenting be less OK?

I don’t think most conservatives care about consent. In their minds sex is only ok between husband and wife in missionary position (consent or not) and anything else is a sin…

I don’t subscribe to your religion, nor do I accept its moral precepts. Do you have any other reasons why it’s wrong for me to be married to my wife? Why we should not be afforded equal protection under the law?

kaninchen - obviously, you are having too much anal sex to be worthy of equal rights.

Well, it’s true, we do have a whole lot of the buttsex. Three cheers for Elbow Grease making the thirty pound bucket!

Okay, I’ll stop oversharing now.  :D

“I specifically asked you for your thoughts and you go and cut and paste AGAIN.  I don’t give a shit what Misty Mealy, whoever she is, thinks.” Caren

Who cares what I think. Caren Whin it comes to truth we look to God and His Church. Thats why I qwoted Misty who qwotes Lumen Gentium wich tells us that the one Church of Christ, established and sustained by Christ here on earth, “constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (LG 8).

“Yet you type like a teenager.” Yes tue I spell even worse. If I cut and past as much as I do its because I wish to clearly present what the Catholic Church teaches.

“You cannot condemn homosexuals just b/c someone, even the Pope, said so. ” Yes I can. for I stand with Christ and his Chuch whin I teach what the Church teaches. Homosexual acts are wrong. I can list sin after sin Caren. We here on earth are all sinners. We need Jesus and his Church and to sell folks on the idea that something is not a sin and lie to them is wrong.

Aagh.

Michael McGreevy - according to the Catholic Church itself GOD cares what you think, and it can’t just be because you were told so. You have to formulate your own reasons.

I will note that a big portion of my distaste for Catholic theology is that they’ve created a beautiful structure which looks really nice (from some points of view) -and they’ve forgotten completely that it’s a model of the world, not the world itself. When faced with a reality that fails to match their theology, a conservative Catholic will go with the theology every time.

Thanks, I like reality myself.

The point is that even if the bs interpretation of that site were correct, it still would not refer to a consensual, same-sex relationship between adults. It is surely a sign of desperation when you are forced to make recourse to an alleged pederastic relationship in a vain attempt to establish an argument.

Relevance?

Shorter Troll: “Your argument that Jesus didn’t condemn the homosexual relationship he encountered in two of three Gospels is invalid because there was something else wrong with that relationship.”

So the fuck what?  It being pederastic didn’t make it heterosexual; he still had plenty to go on if he was going to quote Leviticus.  He didn’t.  He healed the guy.  No “God hates fags,” no “Keep it in your toga, buster,” no recommendation of stoning.  Decent guy, Jesus.  Too bad more Christians aren’t like him.

When do the people have the right to shape their own society?

When do they have the right to make the rules?

Is this issue more important than democracy?

Caren, really, no snark, thanks for trying, but I think it is dusty sandals time. His cuts and pastes are getting longer.

When do the people have the right to shape their own society?

When that society treats all its members equally.

When do they have the right to make the rules?

When those rules don’t deprive some citizens of rights that others have.

Is this issue more important than democracy?

What kind of democracy is it, really, that oppresses minorities at the whim of the majority?

<i>When those rules don

Saying NO to same-sex marriage is no different.

Except in the sense that it causes neither harm nor hazard to anyone, and the only reason to ban it is for the sake of enforcing powerful groups’ religious beliefs or bigotry (usually both - in fact, they’re usually one and the same) on the population at large.

1) They are not politically powerless

Who does count as a minority under this criterion?  Is there a single minority group in this country that doesn’t have some powerful lobbying group or representative?  African-Americans (President Obama?  Who?), Jews, Hispanics…all suddenly disqualified. 

2) They are not economically oppressed

No?

2) Homosexuality is not based upon an immutable characteristic.

Neither is religion.  And the number that comes after 2 is 3. 

Voters in every referendum I can think of disagree with you.

*Shrug*

So there’s a lot of bigots out there.  Tell us something we didn’t know.  There’s fewer than there once were, and the number decreases every day. 

Tell me, when the tide turns against you and gay marriage becomes legal - and it will - will you accept the will of the people?

DogBreath
you say: Let’s face it, we regulate behavior all the time. You don’t have the right to steal, kill or even to defame. You can’t put certain substances in your body and you can’t sell sex. Saying NO to same-sex marriage is no different.

we regulate behavior that HARMS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT YOU.
homosexuality does NOT cause harm. further, you evaded the actual fucking question. the POINT was that denying gay people the right to marry their loved one is DENYING THEM A RIGHT THAT OTHERS HAVE.

now, i understand that you are so privileged that you don’t understand that if YOU have a Right, then EVERYONE should have that Right.

try to open your eyes, and actually SEE what we are talking about. if my one sister’s spouse is hurt in a car accident, she can make medical decisions for him. but if my OTHER sister’s spouse is hurt in a car accident, SHE is NOT allowed to medical decisions for her. and since Erin doesn’t HAVE ANY FAMILY but my sister, she could fucking DIE because my sister isn’t allowed to exercise the Right of being married.

homosexuality does NOT cause harm.

I should think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate that those who practice homosexuality are subject to a significantly shorter life expectancy. Which study would you like? Plenty to choose from.

STDs, Immune issues, depression, suicide all contribute to this expectation. I can’t think of anything that is really a positive about encouraging young people to accept the queer lifestyle as equivalent.

Instead, it should be showcased as an anomaly of the libido that, for political reasons, we are unwilling to investigate further.

I note that you haven’t addressed anything I said.  Admittedly, most of it wasn’t in the actual form of a question, but if you were even pretending to argue in good faith, you would have at least tried.

So.  To be more explicit, for both your sake and the education of any remaining lurkers:

1) Who does qualify as a minority under your criterion that they must be completely politically powerless? 

2) How does this square with your assertion that gays are not economically oppressed?

3) Even if we accept your assertion that homosexuality is not based on an immutable characteristic as true (which it isn’t), what difference does it make?  Religion is no less of a conscious choice, no less mutable (far more, I’d say), and we protect people’s rights to practice whatever religion they choose.

4) The margin of victory for referenda against gay marriage shrinks with every election cycle.  When - yes, when - the numbers finally turn against you, will you still consider “voters in every referendum that I can think of disagree with you” to be a valid argument?

I should think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate that those who practice homosexuality are subject to a significantly shorter life expectancy. Which study would you like? Plenty to choose from.

I’m sure there are.  On the other hand, I suspect that if we insisted on recent (i.e. within the last five years) studies from unbiased (i.e. didn’t set out with the intention of proving that a homosexual lifestyle was unhealthy) sources, it would both thin out your list considerably and show a narrowing of the gap.  See below.

And of course, the burden of proof is on you to bridge the gap between correlation and causation.  And I’ll admit that you did give it a try. 

STDs, Immune issues, depression, suicide all contribute to this expectation. I can’t think of anything that is really a positive about encouraging young people to accept the queer lifestyle as equivalent.

Because it might alleviate some of those problems.  People do get depressed when they’re rejected by their families, their friends and their churches.  It certainly doesn’t help that society treats them as second-class citizens, or that they, themselves have been taught from a young age that queers are unnatural, un(wo)manly, child-molesting abominations in the eyes of God.  That sort of thing can lead to self-destructive behavior, or even suicide.

I wonder - those studies of yours…would they show the rates of depression and suicide dropping as the rejection and the oppression fade?  Is that maybe why you want to keep them in place?  After all, if homosexuals are allowed to live like normal people, they might just do so, and then where will you be?

BTW - love the subtle use of the “fags are filthy plague dogs” meme.  Like heterosexuals don’t get STD’s, or most STD’s aren’t easily treatable without shortening your lifespan at all.  And if by “immune issues”, you mean HIV, that counts as an STD.  You’re just padding your list.