Pat Robertson declares Benedict XVI the Anti-pope in 5, 4, 3, 2...
wow. Vatican in doing something sensible shocker.
Maybe they've watched Prof Richard Dawkins The Root of all Evil on Channel 4 this week
(Speaking of Robertson and his views of the Vatican) I remember watching the 700 club in the '80s where Robertson was outlining Revelations. If I remember correctly, according to him the woman who rode on the back of the beast (Rev 17) represented the the Vatican. So, hey, it seems Robertson is nearly already there.
Intelligent design is not science: This opinion brought to you by the Vatican. Great opinions also available on contraception, exorcism and miracles. Potential side effects include nausea and shortness of breath.
Their opinion is noted.
I'm torn on this one. I really wish that what a religious organization had to say about science didn't matter one way or the other. Tentatively supporting evolution or outright not supporting it, the fact that religious institutions get to weigh in on what constitutes physical reality, is part of the problem. If I accept this from them, do I then have to give a damn about their opinion on stem cells?
Note that the article's author didn't say he disagreed with Intelligent Design, just that he thought it was a philosophical subject rather than a scientific one.
the fact that religious institutions get to weigh in on what constitutes physical reality, is part of the problem.
Eveybody gets to weigh in...how is that a problem?
If I accept this from them, do I then have to give a damn about their opinion on stem cells?
No.
/re-reads Genesis, Chapter 1. Yup, they said that before.
The opinions of any institution intimately involved with belief in the supernatural should take a number. And then be prepared to sit for a great long while. Because the Vatican denies the validity of 'intelligent design' does not excuse it from lots of other batshit ideas. Starting with the Adam and Eve myth, progressing though certainly not ending with immaculate conception.
Lets go Star Trek for a second: would Kirk go for this? Nooo. He'd respect it only as long as it took Scottie to beam his posse off the planet.
This message brought to by the same folks who sponsored the Spanish Inquisition.
Sure, they have a right to their opinion. Just as I can say "who gives a damn what those idiots think" but in terms of weighing in, that means we let them influence our decision making.
Lets see, vatican and aids, vatican and birth control, vatican and heliocentrism, vatican and abortion, etc... Vatican and evolution? Well, great, the vatican still has a horrible track record, we shouldn't listen to them.
Our decisions should be based purely on "does it work as policy for the benefit of the people as a whole, in the long view, or doesn't it." Sure, we can argue about the long view, but the man in the sky never shows up for the meeting, he should get no say if he can only act by proxy.
I think it's wonderful that the Vatican is showing such good sense about the issue. And I think it's scary that there are a good many people out there who will let it influence their thoughts on public school curriculum.
American evangelical Christians and conservative Christians have very little in common with the Catholic Church. Many do not consider Catholics to even be true Christians. The two groups agree on very, very little. As such, this does not surprise me at all. In fact, I would be much more surprised to hear of any issue that the Catholic Church and the American conservative Christians are in agreement on.
They both hate fags?
99.999% of their DNA is identical
Both claim to disapprove of homosexuals, they both claim you have to keep the brain-dead alive interminably, they both claim belief in an afterlife, they both claim that you need saving from some lack of grace you inherited, they both claim virgin birth happened, the claim that resurrection from the dead has and will happen again, they both proselytize to the unconverted ... I could go on ...
but ultimately they both claim a belief in a omnipotent father figure who loves each and every one of us but will punish us with eternal damnation if we aren't contrite, and, both have many members of each who fail to act like this is indeed the case.
So, ze difference.... I am not zeeing zo much of eet.
Since when is the Vatican qualified to make judgements on what constitutes valid science? If we're accepting a church's opinion on the matter, then why not the church's who have already chimed in saying it is a valid science?
Inconsistancy makes baby Darwin cry.
They both hate fags?
No we don't. Please stop saying we do.
Sorry half read and half discarded i guess commenting without collation of facts but .... Science cannot explain everything - unquestioning belief in religion and/or science will bring humans as an animal undone! Evolution - reproduce for success - religion - don't control your reproduction - the modern world - work control your reproduction based on gain. Figure it out
Hey - we must control numbers - ( vague and general comment and argue with facts please - i would appreciate it - ) women work - socioeconomic factors
Poor country still obeying (and i might add religious rules in some cases) reproduce - your children will die before they reach adulthood anyway - (or you will trying to bear them) is there any one else bitter and twisted enough out there to see the disparity or am i peculiarly twisted tonight?
Result overpopulation in non first world country terms but hey has anyone noticed all the womens magazines in the Western world who were screaming ten years ago - you can have everything to maybe you shouldnt leave it too late???????????? Ok I guess the males haven;t but I find it ironic anyone else?
They don't hate gays. They just want them to stay at the back of the bus.
I'm not sure the article is good news.
On one hand, we have Vatican-affiliated officials stating that ID is hogwash, but at the same time they state that Darwin doesn't explain everything - true, but misleading: Natural selection as Darwin postulated it isn't the be-all and end-all, but we've expanded on the original idea to the point that we really have a very good idea as to what exactly is going on in the world.
In addition, the second page of the article explains that the pope unofficially retorted that life and the universe were created on purpose and that the development of life was not undirected - so even though ID is bunk (according to the underlings) the Man In Charge insists that the world is the way it is because god made it this way. That, of course, is the basic driving idea behind Creationism Intelligent Design. Major disconnect between management and the employees here, I think. Not at all the good news it appears to be based on the article title - which is ironic, considering the fact that spreading the Good News is supposed to be the pope's job.
(And why two pages, to add one more sentence? It's the internet, you morons, not print, no need for a second page! Fire your designer!)
f8x: You're right, and I apologize for the generalization. Both groups have significant numbers of members who hate homosexuals, and a larger number who support the legislated denial of many of their rights, and the criminalization of their private sexual activities.
fly: Not speaking English - not understanding - confused - why hyphens? - what kind of drugs - slow down, buddy - room spinning - or is it just me?
Since when is the Vatican qualified to make judgements on what constitutes valid science?
Ummmm...since Galileo?
I don't like the inherent bias in this thread! I think we need another opinion, say, from the Raelians.
Many evangelical Christians believe that one achieves eternal salvation through faith alone, and that deeds are not important. The Catholic Church puts much more emphasis on deeds being important to achieve salvation. That difference alone is enormous. Read some Jack Chick to get some extreme examples.
It is rare to see leaders of conservative or evangelical Christianity appearing in any sort of union with Catholic leaders.
The two groups agree on very, very little.
I would be interested to see a listing of what they disagree about.
It's not you rocket, fly is . . umm . . funny
You're right, and I apologize for the generalization.
Followed up by another generalization of the same stripe. Sorry, but where is your proof that "significant numbers of members" of the Christian faith hate gays? Seriously. I'd like to see a poll or a chart or some kind of inquiry that reveals this to be so.
And wanting to legislate against same-sex activities or marriage != hate. I personally am against gay marriage, though I am not necessarily in favour of legislation against it. So does that make me a gay hater?
That is a difference that THEY consider important. I however do not. They both believe in something called "eternal salvation"... so they disagree about the means to get it; considering that eternal salvation makes no logical sense, they disagree about the answer to a rediculous question.
I also think that wanting to legislate what sorts of relationships people can have == hate / discrimination / bigotry. Take your pick.
wanting to legislate what sorts of relationships people can have == hate / discrimination / bigotry.
We legislate relationships for minors. We legislate against relationships with animals (in some states). We even have laws concerning adultery (again, in some states). This is not hate.
I could have phrased that better. Read "rediculous" as "poorly framed" and "makes no logical sense" as "is not defined without relying on other poorly defined terms (like soul)"
I really hate this stuff. "We disagree about the properties of the invisible all powerful pink unicorn"
To an outsider, they are nearly identical.
Yeah, f8xmulder, consent has no moral imperative for the unreligious. How did I know you would fall back on that tired retort.
As for adultery, its the same as breach of contract.
So essentially, you're really arguing that either gays are breaking a legal contract with someone, or gays are unable / too immature to consent in order to justify laws denying them the rights accorded to everyone else.
Right?
> I would be interested to see a listing of what they disagree about.
there's a list here.
in my (non-north american) experience, i've found unitarianism to be the most tolerant and progressive of the christian sects, followed by anglicanism (high church protestantism), catholicism, and various protestant sects in declining order.
I'm preemptively bowing out of this thread. The topics are things that I think its important to get properly outraged about and I can't do that here.
Thanks roryk, that was perfect.
Thou shalt have no other underpants monsters before me.
Note: overuse of "they" makes a comment sound like a conspiracy theory. :)
Umm . . . meh, okay. Sure, whynot.
Sorry, but where is your proof that "significant numbers of members" of the Christian faith hate gays?
When it comes to hatred and bigotry, one is a significant number. Did you have some other number in mind for what you consider significant?
I'm not sure what membership Focus On The Family claims, but I consider them to be haters.
Seriously. I'd like to see a poll or a chart or some kind of inquiry that reveals this to be so.
It's not my place to question your convictions, but for someone who professes a blind faith so strongly, you seem to require an awful lot of hard proof in other matters.
And wanting to legislate against same-sex activities or marriage != hate. I personally am against gay marriage, though I am not necessarily in favour of legislation against it. So does that make me a gay hater?
I think in many cases the attitudes are based in hate. In others it may be based on a genuine concern for the person's soul in light of what you believe to be a sin. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not a hater - mainly based on my previous interactions with you, which have been mostly positive.
Too many of your fellow believers, however, take it too far and actively campaign to curtail the rights of people in matters that don't impact or concern them personally. That, I believe, can only come from hate. Voice your opinion against homosexual marriage if you want; pray for them if you feel it will help; but ultimately let them live the way they choose with the same rights afforded to us all, and let them suffer whatever judgement you believe they've brought upon themselves.
Just to throw in my non sequitur, an old philosophy prof of mine came back from India with a giant mandala, painted by Tibetan monks. It was really neat, because the monks threw in a bunch of monkeys walking out of the sea, representing the evolution of man. Neat stuff.
Continue.
marriage == a civil/societal recognition of status == caesar's and should be rendered unto him.
Did you have some other number in mind for what you consider significant?
First of all, we should make a distinction between those who profess to be Christians and those who actually are Christians. Today, it's easy enough to water things down and acknowledge Christ as a divine figure to whom you more often refer as deity of choice, without actually living a "Christian lifestyle". Though I'm quite sure no true Christian is perfect, I'm willing to bet a significant portion of my future earnings in the film industry that true Christian men and women of faith do not hate homosexuals. This is my experience. I have met people, on the other hand, who both claim to be Christian and yet their lives reflect something other than that. These individuals have displayed everything ranging from apathy to outright dislike of gays. By the way, Fred Phelps and his ilk are good examples of people who profess Christianity but live according to ways of hatred and true intolerance. Comparing someone like Phelps to myself or my dad or anyone that I can think of in my church is about as ridiculous as eating an apple and saying it tastes like an orange.
So, back to what we both consider significant numbers; when it comes to bigotry and hatred, even one is a terrible thing. So is it safe to assume that "a significant number" of people in the world are bigoted against Christians? I know of at least one person on this board who claims to hate Christians. That's pretty bigoted. But I would hesitate to implicate Christians or Christianity as a whole for the bigotry you accuse us of, just as I would hesitate to paint all liberals with a broad stroke.
When so-called representatives of Christians and Christianity say and do things that make us "look bad", it's quite easy to point it out and say, see, they're all like that. It's one of the major problems I have with guys like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I can't count the number of times I've heard Christians maligned on this site b/c of the actions of those two guys alone. The ironic thing is, most of you would probably acknowledge that those two guys ARE NOT representative of Christ and his teaching. So why would you assume everyone in Christendom is just like them? Talk about painting with a broad brush. But they've got large followings, you say. Yes, but compared to overall statistics, they're a fraction of the total number of people who claim Christianity. And my personal belief is that a fraction of all of so-called Christendom is actually and truly Christian, but that's only a guess on my part. So what we're talking about is a small group of people who take up all the press because of their very public stance on homosexuality.
The truth is, most Christians DO remain quiet about their beliefs. Most Christians DO pray and leave things up to God.
Too many of your fellow believers, however, take it too far and actively campaign to curtail the rights of people in matters that don't impact or concern them personally. That, I believe, can only come from hate.
This is pure speculation. I could say that the motive of lobbyists and activist groups in pushing laws that go against Christian traditions in this country is hatred, but my guess is they think they're doing what's best for their group and for the country as a whole. Christian motives are first and foremost always held in suspicion. And non-Christians always call it hate.
It's not my place to question your convictions, but for someone who professes a blind faith so strongly, you seem to require an awful lot of hard proof in other matters.
Sorry, but when a blanket statement maligns my particular religious convictions and fellow practitioners with little to no basis in fact, I tend to want to see some of that hard proof you talk about. Which, by the way, I haven't seen yet.
Seriously, just for the sake of argument, give me some numbers.
So essentially, you're really arguing that either gays are breaking a legal contract with someone, or gays are unable / too immature to consent in order to justify laws denying them the rights accorded to everyone else.
Actually, I was JUST pointing out that we do legislate relationships. That's it. Make no other assumptions. I wasn't making an argument, merely pointing out a fact. My feelings on the legislation of relationships would probably surprise many people here.
It was quite clear what you were doing, and it wasn't just pointing out that "we legislate relationships". You were justifying wanting to legislate against gay relationships using a false analogy.
What your actual feelings on the matter are are irrelevant.
Unless of course you care to spell out what you really do think.
Look, I really get mad about this sort of thing. I'm doing my best to stay civil. But when people start defending other people behaving reprehensibly, it really irks me. And we don't need stupid distractions.
Is there a good reason society is going to crumble if gays get to marry? No? Then why do church goers vote against it.
This would be much more productive than poking at the fact that I said people instead of consenting adult. Most people would have gotten that part. Two gay men is nothing at all like pedophilia, or bestiality, simply on the issue of can the participants legally consent.
So why is wanting to restrict what consenting adults can or cannot do to each other not bigotry. All I need is a good reason that has nothing to do with GOD and what anyone thinks GOD wants.
And believe me, I've heard most of the reasons people think are good, namely, marriage is a benefit you get for raising children (except for all those hetero childless couples) and gay marriages ruin the sanctity of marriage (worse than hetero ones). I could go on.
Show me how this causes harm to someone else that we need a law against it. Because if it doesn't, we don't, and its simple bigotry. Just like the prohibitions on interracial marriage not so long ago.
wanting to legislate what sorts of relationships people can have == hate / discrimination / bigotry.
We legislate relationships for minors. We legislate against relationships with animals (in some states). We even have laws concerning adultery (again, in some states). This is not hate.
We legislate relationships for minors because of a hate for adults who have sex with minors. We legislate against relationships with animals because of a hate of those who have sex with animals. The laws of of some states that concern adultery exist because of a hate, in those states, of those who have adulterous sex.
I'm not trying to say you are a hater, f8x. But I think your examples help make a case that those who support legislation against same-sex relationships do so because of a hate for those who have sex with the same sex.
If you're going to afford rights to children, who we understand to be unable to consent, you have to legislate against sex with minors.
If you're going to afford rights to animals, who we understand are unable to consent, you have to legislate against sex with animals.
These rationales don't require hate to understand their impetus.
And I do think that bigotry is a better word than hate, except in the case of the likes of Fred Phelps.
But I have a feeling we'ld be having the same argument if someone called a plurality of Christians bigots.
First of all, we should make a distinction between those who profess to be Christians and those who actually are Christians.
And we slide immediately into territory that is impossible to navigate. I feel you on this, as I don't consider Phelps or Robertson to know the first damn thing about Christ, but you've done two things with this sentence that need to be pointed out:
1) You've essentially turned the word "Christian" into a value judgment without clarifying precisely who is the authority to make that call. Yeah, I know the answer, but He ain't exactly speaking in that indisputable "booming voice from the heavens" way, so for our purposes, there isn't one. The best we can go by for a statistical study on this matter is who professes the faith, and who doesn't.
2) You've neatly removed anyone who fits rocket88's description from the category "Christians" by declaring they're not "really" Christians because they hate. You've shifted the definition to be such that no "real" Christian could ever possibly fit rocket's description. While I agree with the sentiment behind this, I have to call bullshit. There are lots of bigoted Christians. I'm related to more than a few. And I am ashamed of and enraged by every last one.
I've known plenty of Christians who hated gays. I've known many more who would unconsciously adjust their WWJD bracelets and swear up and down that they didn't, but would then turn around minutes or hours later and use words like "fag" and "queer," mock them, even sneer at them. Dismiss it as purely anecdotal evidence if you will, but my experience is more than enough to confirm rocket88's use of the word "significant."
I've tried to track down numbers, but I have yet to see a poll that specifically asks people if they "hate" homosexuals, which is what you'll have to have if you don't think Christians who want to curtail the civil rights of non-heteros.
s/b "if you don't think Christians who want to curtail the civil rights of non-heteros hate them."
Thanks for the numbers Mord.
a "Christian lifestyle"
I wonder what that is?
a "Christian lifestyle"
I wonder what that is?
one in which you practice forgiveness and tolerance for those with whose lifestyle(s) you disagree; in which you treat them as you would yourself like to be treated.
er, i think.
I can still deny people the right to marry? What's the thinking on plans for collateral damage? Does that count as a lifestyle or is it more like - hard choices?
the movie collateral damage or the side effects of war? i think jesus christ's view on war was close to culture club's. i've no idea whether he's even aware of the movie.
you can deny people the right to marry if you accept that they deny you the right to marry. so if you're totally against marriage, cool.
i was really into the whole "do unto others" routine until i started dating a masochist. then, ouch.
Well, I suppose I don't find the idea of being opposed to something automagically a sign of bigotry and hatred and discrimination.
Note that 48% of Democrats also oppose gay marriage. That means 48% of Democrats are bigots as well, if simple opposition is enough to make one a bigot. 25% strongly oppose it. They have extra bigotry, I guess.
Not that I find issue with the numbers, but the polling items are themselves rather vague. What does "acceptance of homosexuals" mean? I accept homosexuals as people, as fellow citizens. Does that mean I'd poll in the affirmative? I don't accept the idea that a homosexual lifestyle is "okay". So maybe I'd poll in the negative.
Again, I don't believe opposition to the lifestyle implies hatred. Quite the opposite, I would bet that most Christians feel they have a responsibility to love homosexuals at the same time as being opposed to the lifestyle.
Dismiss it as purely anecdotal evidence if you will, but my experience is more than enough to confirm rocket88's use of the word "significant."
I don't deny you've had those experiences. Perhaps I've led a sheltered and/or tolerant life, and have thus been exposed to friendly, non-confrontational Christians who are unlike your acquaintances except in name only. Whatever. It seems like the real issue, is, after all, a value judgment of who is truly a Christian. I mean, if you have a farmer who claims 20 sheep but one of them is really a wolf dressed up in sheepskin, it means his perception of the flock is incorrect. And all I'm saying is that I think much of the non-Christian world has their eyes on the wolves when they claim another wound by the infamous Christian Right.
Unless of course you care to spell out what you really do think.
As a social experiment, I am interested in seeing what happens. From that basis alone, I am at the very least not in opposition to it if it is arrived at via a democratic process. From a religious and moral viewpoint, I don't support it, but I dont deny that it's improper to dictate national policy based on religious grounds. So when it comes to the national debate, I've slowly moved from being opposed to it to simply acquiescent of whatever is decided upon by the people and our lawmakers. I'm Burkean in this regard.
Is there a good reason society is going to crumble if gays get to marry?
Well, society does not crumble overnight. I doubt we'd see major disruptions to our society in our lifetime. What would the longterm outlook be? Who the hell knows? To answer with anything can easily be shouted down or ridiculed by anyone with half a brain.
So why is wanting to restrict what consenting adults can or cannot do to each other not bigotry.
Well for one, how about disease? Or how about decreased lifespan? Gay men have a high disease rate and decreased lifespans compared to heterosexual men. How will gay marriage improve those statistics?
If this is about sex, we are all free to engage in it with another consenting adult, whether gay or straight. Which helps explain why we are seeing the numbers of sexually transmitted diseases we are today. It's rampant "consent" that has allowed our population to be subject to such diseases in the first place.
>I would bet that most Christians feel they have a responsibility to love homosexuals at the same time as being opposed to the lifestyle.
What do those things mean, exactly? In what ways do you express your responsibility to love homosexuals? In what ways do you express your responsibility to oppose 'the lifestyle'?
>It's rampant "consent" that has allowed our population to be subject to such diseases in the first place.
What's the point of putting 'consent' in quotes? Do you regard the idea of consent as a euphemism for something malign and terrible? What word would you prefer?
Maybe what's 'allowed our population to be subject to such diseases' are Puritanical codes about sexual behavior that make it unacceptable to speak openly about sexual health and safe behavior. If everybody practiced safe sex, nobody got sexually transmitted diseases, and everybody got their thang on with whomever they chose, would that be okay? Or is your real objection to the free sexual practices, and not to the diseases that sometimes result from them? If it's the behavior, then why throw out these red herrings about diseases?
>Gay men have a high disease rate and decreased lifespans compared to heterosexual men. How will gay marriage improve those statistics?
Smokers have a high disease rate and decreased lifespans, too- how will smoker marriage improve those statistics? Does the question even make sense? Maybe we shouldn't let smokers get married. Or smoke, or something.
True, Stan. What is love? What is the responsibility of love? I'd say it is revealed through several things:
1). Conscious and deliberate efforts to serve others
2). It is kindness and consideration for others
3). It is humility in the face of others
4). It is the attempt to draw others to the truth, as preached in the Gospel.
Ultimately, most of that probably won't make sense to non-believers, since the things of God are foolishness to man. So as a Christian, I am beholden to love everyone around me by doing the aforementioned things.
As far as a Christian's responsibility to oppose the lifestyle, my personal belief is that our purview is on the individual level, not the political level. Obviously, not every Christian feels that way, but at least at my church, it's pretty much a given that we minister to people one on one. Whatever that might mean, whether keeping the homeless in our neighbourhood fed or allowing them to sleep inside the church during the week, doing things for the local area needy like food and clothing drives, etc. etc. But we don't get politically involved. We are not activists.
Sorry if the "consent" thing was confusing. Too often I use quotes to emphasise a word, and it's interpreted as sarcastic. Not my entention.
Maybe what's 'allowed our population to be subject to such diseases' are Puritanical codes about sexual behavior that make it unacceptable to speak openly about sexual health and safe behavior.
Actually, no. Puritanical codes may not be the most emotionally healthy, but they certainly don't force people to go out and sleep around with everything and everyone around them. Puritanical codes do not govern people's actions--obviously, or we'd be a lot more Puritanical! We are all capable of choosing which actions we will and will not take.
If everybody practiced safe sex, nobody got sexually transmitted diseases, and everybody got their thang on with whomever they chose, would that be okay?
Ultimately, the issue isn't safety concerns; those are byproducts of a wanton lifestyle (and this concerns anyone who is sexually promiscuous, not just homosexuals). But they are symptomatic of the real problem, which is lack of control. People have no sense of control. They mistake sexual freedom and sexual responsibility. The result is a society with one of the highest rates of disease-by-sexual-contact, sex crimes, broken homes, divorce, and pedophilia in history.
Incidentally, this is an issue that isn't about just homosexuals, though I do find it interesting that a homosexual culture cannot exist in a society without the society first becoming stable and in which most or all of the major kinks have been worked out. Homosexuals complain about lack of freedom and rights, and blame society for the discrimination, when it is the society that has given them the ability to form a collective union in the first place. When you're worried about whether you're going to be able to find enough food to eat, it's more of a stretch to put on your cultural pity party and worry about whether you're being discriminated against. Our oppressive society is the only thing that enables homosexuals to even have a voice or a mass marketing campaign. It is only after the real obstacles to a stable society have been hurdled that luxuries like a homosexual society can even exist. I'd say that the gains homosexuals have made in the last thirty years alone reveals that our society is in its zenith. A culture that moves that quickly isn't being slowed down by anything substantial, and what resistance there is is almost token in its appearance. With great gains, with great power, comes great responsibility. And it's my humble observation of a twenty-five year lifespan that we have not been responsible with the luxuries we've allowed ourselves. We have all the best toys, all the best sex, and all the money, but we have a hell of a lot to answer for too.
how will smoker marriage improve those statistics?
Now that's funny! Here in California, you can't smoke in restaurants or any public facilities. Smoker's rights have gone to the toilet in this state (and others, as well as overseas) in the last ten years. I'd almost be willing to set my watch and warrant on the speculation that in ten more years it will be illegal to smoke here. Good for thee but not for me.
One of the defense points for gay marriage I've heard is that it will help stabilize disease rates for homosexuals, and in particular it will advocate more committed, monogomous relationships, thus reducing the total number of gallons of sex fluids exchanged between multiple people. My question is: how? It's presented as self-evident, but I find it highly improbable. Sexual proclivities for heterosexuals show that few of us seem willing to keep our various body parts out other people not our spouse. If homosexual philandering is happening in even greater proportional numbers, marriage will do nothing to stop it. The idea of a committed monogamous relationship has lost its luster since no-fault divorce makes marriage simply a "binding contract". Is that REALLY all marriage is supposed to be? If that's the case, the homosexuals should be welcomed to take it and make it their own, because if it's nothing more than a scrap of paper signed by two people, then it's no more valuable or sanctified than the distance between it and an open flame.
Whewww! Sorry for that longwinded response. I'm off to bed.
a homosexual culture cannot exist in a society without the society first becoming stable and in which most or all of the major kinks have been worked out. Homosexuals complain about lack of freedom and rights, and blame society for the discrimination, when it is the society that has given them the ability to form a collective union in the first place.
This just strikes me as completely wrong f8x. The construction of sexuality that divides people into categories like homo- and hetero- sexual is a purely social phenomenon. Societies which denied rights to groups they had so defined, or denigrated certain sexual behaviours, had to arise first. It seems wrong to blame people for a time lag between becoming the objects of discrimination and forming a response to it.
>4). It is the attempt to draw others to the truth, as preached in the Gospel.
Heh. Well, I was with you through the first three. That fourth one, though- don't love me by trying to get me to think as you do, okay? I would prefer that you love me by accepting me, and to do that you have to accept that I've already given some thought to Christianity, and I've decided it's not for me. If God is going to judge me for that, let him(/her?) do it, but don't you do it.
Now, possibly your belief system says that there's no way you can love me and not try to convert me, because if I don't adopt your belief system I'm going in the frying pan. But according to my belief system, God does not burn his/her children- not for believing the wrong thing, nor for choosing a partner of the wrong gender. According to my belief system, a God who did that would be no better than some of the pettier humans we get to deal with down here, and that surely can't be right. And if your response to that, in your heart, is 'yeah, but your belief system is wrong, and mine is right', then... that may not be bigotry, exactly, but it seems to me it's a failure to really allow other people their 'otherness' and still give them your full respect.
My suspicion is that a lot of gay people would appreciate the acceptance kind of love, without the get-them-to-see-the-Gospel-as-truth kind of love, too.
> The result is a society with one of the highest
> rates of disease-by-sexual-contact, sex crimes,
> broken homes, divorce, and pedophilia in history.
sorry f8x, but saying "one of the highest ... in history" is simply bollocks. i've no idea where you got this from, but the data that we have indicate three or four of those categories are very significantly better in the u.s. in the 2000s than for the vast majority of "history". have you any idea how much disease-by-sexual-contact was going round in the 19th century? how rampant pedophilia was in the 18th century? how many sex crimes were committed per member of population in the 1950s?
1) marriage takes different form in different religions
2) "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is interpreted to grant religious freedom in the u.s. and to prevent discrimination by the federality/state on the basis of religion
3) marriage as recognized by the federality/state must therefore be seen as part of the civic realm
4) if marriage as recognized by the federality/state is part of the civic realm, there is no need to distinguish between marriage and civil unions.
end.of.story
That fourth one, though- don't love me by trying to get me to think as you do, okay?...If God is going to judge me for that, let him(/her?) do it, but don't you do it.
I never said I judged you for whatever choices you make. And this can be accomplished through different means. Sometimes it's just being a friend and praying for them. God has a funny way of bringing people around who think they've got a belief system down pat.
sorry f8x, but saying "one of the highest ... in history" is simply bollocks
The death incidence rate for std's may be higher in other times, since treatment was rare if it existed at all. Maybe you're referring to that?
I think F8x is fearmongering about gays. Gays will cause disease if they are allowed to get married. Gays will cause a rise in pedophilia if they are allowed to get married. Gays will cause all sorts of things that are bad if they are allowed to get married. These sorts of arguments could be used to justify outright quarantining people. I mean, its just another right that doesn't have to be extended to a social group, and if you're correct, society will get better because of it.
Largely bullshit. Promicuity to rise because of gay marriage? Right, here we get to the sacredness of marriage issue. State marriage == not sacred. You agree with me on this. Gays should make it their own. Yay! I agree completely. Your church can offer a sacrament thats sacred. The rest of us heathens get to do what we want without interference from you.
Anyway, yes, 48% of democrats are bigots.
[i]People have no sense of control. They mistake sexual freedom and sexual responsibility. The result is a society with one of the highest rates of disease-by-sexual-contact, sex crimes, broken homes, divorce, and pedophilia in history.[/i]
Right, here it is. This is where we get that people aren't mature enough for freedom to make their own mistakes.
Many of the things you listed ARE illegal and none of them have any connection to the gays getting married. Why gay sex is considered any more wanton then hetero sex is completely beyond me. You have evidenced your bias, and if there is any justice, you will someday get to live in a society that this kind of thinking creates for itself.
And gosh, don't even think about how many people likely died from syphilis in the 1700s. Of course there's more disease now... there's a lot more people.
I think F8x is fearmongering about gays.
Yeah, you got me. I'm a closet gay-hater. Man, and I thought I could get away with it forever! Might as well become absorbed into the collective. Tell you what, Mord. Send me your group's pamphlets. I'll try to attend the meetings, though my schedule's full up right now with Gay Basher's Anonymous on Mondays, Xtians Against the World Night on Tuesday and Thursday, and, oh yeah, Tools For Bush on Fridays.
But don't blame me, man. It's my upbringing. It's not my fault! And please, don't give up on me! I need all your prayers and activist support.
You moved from blamer to distractor. -1 for style.
Argument over. Declare victory and move on.
I WIN!!!
Now, moving on, who likes men who fuck men? ME, THAT'S WHO! And girls who fuck girls? ME AGAIN! And who likes boys who do girls who do boys like they're girls, who do girls like they're boys who do boys who like girls? ME ENCORE (and "Blur")!
f8x - If you truely wish to keep people from the protection of the law, then yes, I'm afraid it does move into the realm of hate. No matter what you think about them or their lifestyle, simple compassion would mean that you would not force them to go through things like this man has.
Which one is unholy - the love or the law?
Yeah, I know.
Wait -- he's not dead yet?
That wasn't the deal...
I hate it when popes get all religious and shit...
Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so."
Just because they say so? It has nothing to do with the fact that they can back up their statements?
God made the fossils, ya know. To fuck with our heads.
OH... with our HEADS. THAT'S what I've been doing wrong!
*asks TUM on a date*
*Considers the papal implications of a TUM/kitfisto date*
Enter THE AWFUL EVENING.
Remember, kids, no birth control!
Music for Catholics gettin' it on
-I got
Rhythm,
-I got
Music,
-I got
My TUM
Who could ask for anything more?
Yowza! Yowza! Yowza!
If this be rhythm, there is method in it.
kowabunga
So, what's gonna be the name of the result of this (un)holy union? Quick, you have only 9 months to choose one!
It's like the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny arguing over existential doctrine.
Can somebody tell me why the Vatican has astronomers?
Is there supposed to be an astronomical sign of the Second Coming or something?
I think they meant Vatican Astrologer, TUM.
*cuts open live chicken and reads entrails*
Yep. That's what they meant. Says it right here.
Seems as though you can leave messages of thanks and support for Fr. Coyne, although the present circumstances aren't likely what they had in mind.
Didn't the Vatican earlier indicate they didn't support Intelligent Design as a science? I thought they now thought Darwin was compatible with the Creation story, which was not to be taken literally. Seems a bit of an about face.
*points jb to original post*
Yes, that's correct. However, IDers insist that belief in ID doesn't necessarily abandoning the science of evolution. So while it is an about-face in that JPII rejected it and Herr Pope accepts it (so much for papal infallibility) there are those who believe in ID and yet accept evolutionary theory as valid.
I think he's only infallible in the issuance of a papal bull, or when he throws +15 or greater against a +3 wizard.
CreationismIntelligent Design. Major disconnect between management and the employees here, I think. Not at all the good news it appears to be based on the article title - which is ironic, considering the fact that spreading the Good News is supposed to be the pope's job. (And why two pages, to add one more sentence? It's the internet, you morons, not print, no need for a second page! Fire your designer!)