Sheesh, if teh homersecksuals are prevented from speaking at Catholic graduations how long until kiddie buggering priests are prevented from addressing the buggerees?

It's a slippery slope, made even slipperier by holy personal lubricants.

ghostwind: Mock26:
Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

So your argument is that athiesism is the biggest source of hate, but it isn't, since true Athiests would leave people alone? But since true Athiests are the only Athiests, then Athiests and Athieism really are not a source of hate, are they?

My head asplode.

Paris1127: It's a private school. They don't have to let Christians speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let conservatives speak.

It's a valid point, but you know if a private school said something like what I added, the shiat would hit the fan...

Surely someone's started an atheist school by now...

giftedmadness: Magic_Button: giftedmadness: gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

Then i suggest you wear a condom

lmao

I'm married

I'm not gay

Gays spread STDs.

You're a moron.

======================

Then why are YOU , a married straight man who would never never troll public bathrooms for gay sex , be so concerned about possibly catching a STD from the encounter

Actually looking at the raw numbers for STDs seems that Hetro-Women have the highest rates.

So much for "love the sinner, hate the sin".

tinfoil-hat maggie: AverageAmericanGuy: wedun: I'm gonna farking convert you to homosexuality for that statement, straight boy.

The homosexual agenda laid bare!

Dammit wedun you wern't supposed to tell and here I was trying to sex up MrsAverageAmericanGuy.

Not really wouldn't want anything that touched that willingly : )

I'm actually very attractive. On the outside.

I guess the Catholics haven't heard yet that gay folks, in general, have more disposable income..
Money seems to always get their attention..


/superstitious prat..

Magic_Button: giftedmadness: Magic_Button: giftedmadness: gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

Then i suggest you wear a condom

lmao

I'm married

I'm not gay

Gays spread STDs.

You're a moron.

======================

Then why are YOU , a married straight man who would never never troll public bathrooms for gay sex , be so concerned about possibly catching a STD from the encounter

Actually looking at the raw numbers for STDs seems that Hetro-Women have the highest rates.

wrong. gay men have the highest rate of aids.

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?

Genevieve Marie: Mock26: YELLOL: Mock26: YELLOL: Farking Canuck: Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

When was the last time you saw on the news a story about an atheist going out and murdering a priest for preaching religion?

When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

It was not a priest, but did you ever hear of George Tiller? He was an abortion doctor who was murdered by a christian for performing abortions.

Yea, and for that matter, when was the last time you saw a story on the news about an atheist going out and murdering a priest?

That is the question I asked YELLY when he said that atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. I am not surprised that he did not answer the question.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

ghostwind: Mock26:
Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

So your argument is that athiesism is the biggest source of hate, but it isn't, since true Athiests would leave people alone? But since true Athiests are the only Athiests, then Athiests and Athieism really are not a source of hate, are they?

Misquote. That was NOT me that said that. That was YELLY.

tinfoil-hat maggie: when you come on over to the other side there will be a toaster oven for you : )

Homosexuality. It's like opening a bank account.

Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against homosexuality, he'd have snapped his fingers and fixed that little "defect" long ago. In fact, if he cared about us at all he wouldn't have deliberately put the one thing that would make him so angry with us that he would curse the entire universe just to teach us a lesson right smack dab in the middle of the Garden with reach of two people who had no concept of right and wrong.

2,000-year-old fairy tales are not the best foundation to build a modern world on.

theKeizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against homosexuality, he'd have snapped hi ...

lmao
If you're against using God as an agrument, why are you using God as an argument?

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

Somehow I doubt the "MUCH higher" part. The fact is that STDs spread through any unprotected sexual acts, no matter the orientation.

And who knows? Maybe if gays and lesbians weren't being forced to be straight in order to conform to the bigots' demands, they wouldn't spread diseases among the straights or be infected by straights' diseases. Then we'd be better overall.

Of course, if disease is what you're basing your dislike of homosexuals on, do you also loathe those who don't get vaccinated, or wash their hands after using the restroom?

giftedmadness: theKeizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against homosexuality, ...

You don't have very good reasoning skills, do you.

rynthetyn: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

Except that those verses aren't actually even talking about being gay. The Romans verse makes a lot more sense if it's understood to be talking about temple prostitution rituals and the word translated "homosexuality" in Timothy doesn't actually mean that, it's probably referring to pederasty and the whole Greek practice of teachers farking their young students.

The Bible is silent on anything remotely resembling modern same-sex relationships. The Catholics and other fundies are just bigots who don't really care as much as they pretend they do about following the Bible.

I am not defending the church, but it seems to be that there is not much difference between ritual homosexual prostitution in temples and two guys living together and sharing the same bed. It is both homosexual.

And as for the ancient Greek custom of pederasty, it is a custom that many scholars believe originated in the 6th century and whether or not it involved actual sexual relationships is open to debate. While it believed that some did, it is also believed that many did not. It is a common misconception most likely derived from the word, which has a different meaning in our modern language than it did in ancient Greece. (Much like how people think that vomitoriums in ancient Rome were places where people went to throw up!)

SilentStrider: How very Christian of them.

Well... yes. Christianity explicitly condemns homosexuality in both the old and new testament.

I mean, sure, the general tone is "everyone's a sinner", but if you sin openly with no remorse you're, well, pretty much disqualified. You should, at minimum, feel bad about doing things your religious text explicitly bans-- if you don't you really can't be called a member of the religion. And if you're not a member of the religion, (1) good for you, Christianity is even more retarded than polytheism and (2) it's fairly legitimate for a private Catholic school to not put you in a position where you represent the school in some capacity.

Basically, this isn't really something worth getting outraged about, even if you're the guy that got snubbed. It makes complete sense from both a Christian and an Atheist perspective.

I mean, Christianity is wrong in thinking of homosexuality as being particularly harmful, but they've been consistently wrong about it for 1500 years and in modern society their wrongness doesn't alter your quality of life or civil rights in any way. Basically, this is well below the "someone should do something" level of issues and more at the "deal with it, son" level.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Somehow I doubt...

He's also leaving lesbians out of the equation. Lesbians spread STDs and HIV at far lower than the average rate. That suggests - to me, anyway, that there are more factors involved than simply "gay vs. straight" including, but not limited to, "male vs. female" and "exchange of bodily fluids is involved vs. is not involved".

giftedmadness:
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

LincolnLogolas: Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't actually condemn anyone for being gay. It's a little detail a lot of Catholics, including this school are lost on. They think the church condemns it, but it doesn't. Indeed the actual church policy is such a wishy washy mess that you get the feeling it was rather hastily cobbled together. Which is only natural, since it was.

Jim_Callahan: Well... yes. Christianity explicitly condemns homosexuality in both the old and new testament.

It actually doesn't. It's why there are entire denominations that have absolutely no problem with it.

Jim_Callahan: SilentStrider: How very Christian of them.

Well... yes. Christianity explicitly condemns homosexuality in both the old and new testament.

I mean, sure, the general tone is "everyone's a sinner", but if you sin openly with no remorse you're, well, pretty much disqualified. You should, at minimum, feel bad about doing things your religious text explicitly bans-- if you don't you really can't be called a member of the religion. And if you're not a member of the religion, (1) good for you, Christianity is even more retarded than polytheism and (2) it's fairly legitimate for a private Catholic school to not put you in a position where you represent the school in some capacity.

Basically, this isn't really something worth getting outraged about, even if you're the guy that got snubbed. It makes complete sense from both a Christian and an Atheist perspective.

I mean, Christianity is wrong in thinking of homosexuality as being particularly harmful, but they've been consistently wrong about it for 1500 years and in modern society their wrongness doesn't alter your quality of life or civil rights in any way. Basically, this is well below the "someone should do something" level of issues and more at the "deal with it, son" level.

I'm sorry, but it DOES interfere with people's quality of life and civil rights, especially when they're trying to pass more and more laws that restrict quality of life and civil rights for homosexuals. When your dipshiat views demonize others and demand you treat them as less than human, that's when your views are forfeit.

rynthetyn: The point is that ritual temple prostitution isn't about sex, per se, it's about sex as part of the rituals involved in the worship of a Roman deity instead of the God of the Bible. In other words, it's not about sex, it's about idolatry.

Ritual homosexual sex is still homosexual sex.

PonceAlyosha: LincolnLogolas: Was it not nice? Certainly. However, this is a private Catholic school. Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality, thus it would be rather silly to invite an openly gay speaker to speak at a Catholic school's grad ceremony.

Similarly, you're not going to get someone openly gay speaking at the grad ceremony for a Baptist school, a Muslim school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, because none are keen on teh gheys.

So only closeted Bishops should be allowed to speak? Despite the fact that the catholic church, from it's actions, loves the tight boy ass?

Being gay isn't a sin, according to Catholic doctrine, it's when you act on it. So if a Bishop is speaking, and is flaming gay, but doesn't have sex with other guys (or anyone, for that matter, since we're talking about the Catholic Church) and doesn't promote homosexual sex, then it's fine and dandy.

Child molestation is completely irrelevant here, though, and I think everyone except child molestors will agree that it's a horrible and monstrous thing.

Besides, I'm talking about the rights of a private institution to do something perfectly legal that adheres to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Institutions risk losing recognition and funding from the Catholic Church for doing things like that. Where I grew up, there was a church that was the oldest church in the city, it was a Catholic church. When Vatican II was issued, they refused to recognize it and continued to do mass in Latin. So the Church cut them off.

It's mentioned in some sort of best-selling book, a few times, that homosexual acts are generally frowned upon, thus the Church is keeping with that, and the school is keeping with that by uninviting this guy.

Is it nice? Nope. Is it fair? Nope. Does the guy have every right to be butthurt? Sure, they shouldn't have invited him in the first place, although the issue of his sexuality probably came up after he was invited.

But hey, if you're going to bring up kiddie diddlers every time a Catholic institution is under fire for something completely unrelated, then kindly go fark yourself.

Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: If God was so against homosexuality, he'd have snapped his fingers and fixed that little "defect" long ago. In fact, if he cared about us at all he wouldn't have deliberately put the one thing that would make him so angry with us that he would curse the entire universe just to teach us a lesson right smack dab in the middle of the Garden with reach of two people who had no concept of right and wrong.

2,000-year-old fairy tales are not the best foundation to build a modern world on.

Oh, I'm hardly disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that the Christians and the Catholics--especially the Catholics--aren't only using the Leviticus line as their sole excuse for condemning teh ghey. The thing from Romans has much more weight among Catholics than Leviticus (for obvious reasons), and the thing from Timothy was probably cobbled up in the 4th Century as an EXCUSE for persecuting homosexuals, not a precursor, at least so I've read from scholarly articles.

But even if you are an ardent believer (which I am not) three lines are hardly a basis for condemning an entire lifeway nearly 3000 years later. And it's striking how many other things forbidden in all three books that everyone conveniently ignores, while focusing on the "homosexual" nonsense.

Indeed. No one seems to care about the shellfish, mixed fabrics, or menstruating women parts these days, which were punishable by death back in Paul's time. But it's always sex that seems to frighten people the most, and sex that allows the greatest control of others.

Jim_Callahan: in modern society their wrongness doesn't alter your quality of life or civil rights in any way.

The hell it doesn't.

LincolnLogolas: PonceAlyosha: LincolnLogolas: Was it not nice? Certainly. However, this is a private Catholic school. Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality, thus it would be rather silly to invite an openly gay speaker to speak at a Catholic school's grad ceremony.

Similarly, you're not going to get someone openly gay speaking at the grad ceremony for a Baptist school, a Muslim school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, because none are keen on teh gheys.

So only closeted Bishops should be allowed to speak? Despite the fact that the catholic church, from it's actions, loves the tight boy ass?

Being gay isn't a sin, according to Catholic doctrine, it's when you act on it. So if a Bishop is speaking, and is flaming gay, but doesn't have sex with other guys (or anyone, for that matter, since we're talking about the Catholic Church) and doesn't promote homosexual sex, then it's fine and dandy.

Child molestation is completely irrelevant here, though, and I think everyone except child molestors will agree that it's a horrible and monstrous thing.

Besides, I'm talking about the rights of a private institution to do something perfectly legal that adheres to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Institutions risk losing recognition and funding from the Catholic Church for doing things like that. Where I grew up, there was a church that was the oldest church in the city, it was a Catholic church. When Vatican II was issued, they refused to recognize it and continued to do mass in Latin. So the Church cut them off.

It's mentioned in some sort of best-selling book, a few times, that homosexual acts are generally frowned upon, thus the Church is keeping with that, and the school is keeping with that by uninviting this guy.

Is it nice? Nope. Is it fair? Nope. Does the guy have every right to be butthurt? Sure, they shouldn't have invited him in the first place, although the issue of his sexuality probably came up after he was invited.

But hey, if you're going to bring up kiddie diddlers eve ...

It's funny how the Catholic Church picks and chooses what is sinful and what is not, especially when it can control the most people. Eating shrimp? The Bible demands you stone people to death for it, Catholics ignore it. Wearing mixed fabric? Again, death, but the Catholics ignore that too. Menstruating women? Well, women can't really do anything anyway in Catholicism.

And we will continue to bring that up, because it shows the Catholic Church's inherent hypocrisy. Two consenting adults in love is an abomination unto God that must be mocked and demonized, but an adult taking advantage of a child is vigorously defended and shielded.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

Somehow I doubt the "MUCH higher" part. The fact is that STDs spread through any unprotected sexual acts, no matter the orientation.

And who knows? Maybe if gays and lesbians weren't being forced to be straight in order to conform to the bigots' demands, they wouldn't spread diseases among the straights or be infected by straights' diseases. Then we'd be better overall.

Of course, if disease is what ...

are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

We know, they don't even have to stop their priests from touching little boys.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: theKeizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against ...

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

WhyteRaven74: LincolnLogolas: Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't actually condemn anyone for being gay. It's a little detail a lot of Catholics, including this school are lost on. They think the church condemns it, but it doesn't. Indeed the actual church policy is such a wishy washy mess that you get the feeling it was rather hastily cobbled together. Which is only natural, since it was.

Under Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357-2359. As I mentioned earlier, being gay isn't condemned itself, it's the actions that are considered the sin. The CCC "calls homosexuals to chastity".

rynthetyn: Mock26: rynthetyn: The point is that ritual temple prostitution isn't about sex, per se, it's about sex as part of the rituals involved in the worship of a Roman deity instead of the God of the Bible. In other words, it's not about sex, it's about idolatry.

Ritual homosexual sex is still homosexual sex.

Are you being deliberately dense here? If it was ritual heterosexual sex, it would have been equally condemned. The point is that it's part of the worshiping of an idol, and that's why it's being condemned.

Then why was ritual heterosexual sex not condemned? Ritual heterosexual sex was practiced in the temples of several Roman Gods and Goddesses, yet Paul did not condemn it. Sorry, but your argument that it was only really condemning the worship of false gods does not hold much weight.

Mock26: giftedmadness:
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

The thing that boggles my mind is how he managed to go to Catholic school without ever once bringing up his sexual orientation or even questioning anyone there about how, you know, the bigots who organized this religion have no tolerance whatsoever for people just like him. If I were in his position, I wouldn't be able to tolerate their idiocy any longer or even just let it slide without totally losing my shiat.

/I've amassed years and years of hatred towards the Catholic religion
//reformed, but not feeling entirely guilt-free

giftedmadness: are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

We're not supposed to notice you moved the goalpost from "homosexuals" to "gay men"?

simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

The Why Not Guy: giftedmadness: are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

We're not supposed to notice you moved the goalpost from "homosexuals" to "gay men"?

wtf

giftedmadness: are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

Diseases have spread just from being near someone.

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

Maybe if the site didn't cut off the latter half of long quoted posts, you'd see that I did nothing of the sort. And you're the one trying to turn this political with the tired cry of "LIBERAL!" toward someone on neither side. Try to stay focused, please.

Now, perhaps you could provide citations for your claim that homosexuals spread diseases at the astounding rates you claim they do.