Some may see it as a service.

Funny, I hadn't noticed the headlong increase in the world's population suddenly going into reverse since Stonewall.

I'm just pointing out one of the more rational arguments i've heard in the past. Like you say, there hasn't been anything like that. My point was more toward the fact that at the most basic level, no good comes of homosexuality and in religions where sex is for the most part viewed as sacred and for the sole purpose of procreation, I can understand why that argument may be made. I'm not saying i agree with homosexuality being seen as a sin, i most certainly don't.

Ah, Stonewall, I find it hilarious that a bar which catered to large extent to Drag Queens, Transsexual/ladyboy style prostitutes rather than non- transgendered homosexuals and was owned by the mafia, if reports are to believed, is the starting point for gay rights, when LGB(T) oganisations often forget about or active discrimate, attack the T part of it.

Totally effing hilarious.. laugh me tits of when gays and lesbians attack t people for being different. Oh hahahahahahaha, the irony.
I know too many t people... I'll get out more


Sorry, back on point, how is homosexulaity explicitly considered a sin and why?


EDIT: Due to appauling spelling/grammar. Its still not right, but at least its readable now

Because of Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That's one of those OT passages that some people (most, traditionally) think *should* be taken literally, even though many of those same people have been happy to say "not literal" to passages in the same book, such as "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27), "Do not <snip> put tattoo marks on yourselves" (Leviticus 19:28) and so forth.

I recall a very frustrating argument with my fiancée (then girlfriend) a few years ago on just that subject.

She had stated that killing people is a sin and must never be carried out. I threw her the example of a police marksman having a sniper in his sights, when that sniper was indiscriminately shooting people at a petrol station. She stuck by her guns (pun unintended), saying that the police should not shoot him.

To be fair, she did make a point that it was her own mindset (killing is never right, and she'd rather be killed herself than be forced to kill), rather than a purely Catholic one. She suggested that that example might be considered a venial sin, though I'm not sure, since it would still be a grave offence (murder) committed in full knowledge.

If you kill someone because it's the only way to save the lives of others - like a police sniper killing a hostage taker, for example - then it's probably something he should still confess, but it probably wouldn't be considered a grave sin. It would only be so if he had killed the guy when he had other options - shooting to disable or working on a rescue, maybe.

Homosexuality is a tricky issue. The Church does not condemn gay people. It defines homosexual acts as sinful primarily because, as with sex outside marriage and a variety of other sexual acts, it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. The Catechism will tell you most of what you want to know - sections 2357-2359 discuss homosexuality.

I was always led to believe that homosexual thoughts, the mere concepts of arousal by some one of the same gender, was considered a sin in a fair few religions for one reason or another.

I may have been mis lead on this mind

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination

Okay, so its a big green dude?

If you were to take it literally, based on the etymology of the word Mankind... (basically child of man) and that of Womankind (child of women) it would mean you shouldnt lie with a man baby ( obviously all the rage at the time ) but if its from a women then all is good.

Anyway, whats so abominable about it? The next verse is about shagging animals right? There is all kinds of academic discussion about the the way in which the hebrew has been translated as to what it means from the few sources I've read. However, to say its an abomination and leave it at that is a bit like listing something and glossing over points you cant be arsed to discussed.

'Oh, the gay thing? Say its an abomination, and move on.'

'Are we going to say why?'

'Nah, there is no space! People who read it will understand what we mean. If we say its an abomination , the'll go 'ooh, shant be doing that cos its sinful'. We've only got a set number of pages to write this thing, and the Editor would be pissed if we didnt include all this other stuff.'

'Okay so whats next, we gotta sort out them sheep shaggers causing real problems in the locality'

and so on.


I understand the principles of Blind faith in something. However, if I had a blind faith in the teachings of Noddy for example, and started a church based around that people would think quite rightly that I was nuts. So why does this work, carry more weight as a tome and therefore be something that should be followed?

Religion rose out of a lack of knowledge. It gave easy answers that worked for simpler, tribal times. It then grew by force. Religion persists today because people don't want to upset their parents so they pretend to believe stuff that they know is nonsense. It's the ones who try and defend it with huge heapings of hypocrisy regarding the validity of the Bible who make me laugh most. The Leviticus examples on this page being a prime example. What criteria does one use for deciding what's the infallible, always-relevant Word of God and what's just a load of old codswallop written solely for people in the old days?

See, the problem when you generalise and use absolutes is you can end up invalidating your entire argument.

It's clearly not the case that there's an entire generation of closet atheists who are eagerly waiting for their parents to meet their maker (or not) so that they can have a lie-in on Sundays.

Although *I* (and likely you) can't see how a literate, intelligent person with any grasp of history can believe in any particular branch of superstition or millennia-old fairy tale, it doesn't change the fact that people legitimately do. And, to be honest, I rather envy the peace and reassurance which the majority of believers whom I know have when they go about their lives.

some people turn to religion for an answer, in that alot of people do find it easier to cope with life if they have the blind belief theres something after it.

Death is always a good one, now i don't know what happens after you die and i don't care (I'll find out soon enough), but when some one i know dies there dead and there not coming back, its sad and its tough but its how it is, face it and move on.
However some people will cope with that much better through the blind unquestioning faith that they are in some other world with every other dead person having a whale of a time. Regardless of how hard that is for me to comprehend thinking that (it may be true but I don't assume it) that belief system does help generate peace and more stability in their life.

Some people need the concept of religion because without it life is futile and meaningless from their perspective. I'm not saying thats how every one thinks but its my understanding on some. Religion gives some meaning to meaningless

You're right that people do. Whether they're literate, intelligent and have any grasp of history is a bit more hazy. And their understanding of geography is often appalling.

Though I was being rather facetious about religion only existing because of keeping up appearances, in real life I really have only ever met a handful of people of my generation who've said they do believe in Big G. And I've known dozens who go through the motions in church but have more sense than to think it's real. Considering that legitimate and genuine religious belief is totally dependent on either outright stupidity or intellectual dishonesty, it's (at best) indicative of a partial lack of intelligence in an otherwise intelligent person. And I don't think many intelligent people can really shut their critical mind off to the extent that religion requires. I don't think too many thickos can anymore, either. This might sound mental, and it's rather ironic if so, but I reckon genuine religious belief will - as it continues to shrink - eventually be diagnosed as some kind of mental disorder. Not within our lifetimes, of course.

Sorry Kenny, but if anyone else said homosexual acts were acts of "grave depravity" and "intrinsically disordered", we would call it homophobia. The reason why homosexuality is such a tricky issue for the Catholic Church is that it still believes that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and are contrary to the natural law, which is at odds with modern science.

And you'd be wrong. I think mixing your mashed potato up with all the other food on your plate so that it forms one big unidentifiable lump is depraved and disordered. I don't have a phobia I just think it's wrong.

The pupose of our species to further itself and the most basic way in which that happens is by breeding. Homosexuality, by it's very nature, is opposed to that purpose. It's therefore reasonable, if you are so inclined, to conclude that it's not natural and if you make that conclusion within the moral framework of a religion it's also logical to consider it to be against God's will and therefore assign an ethical judgement to the activity.

While the above may be difficult to accept in our PC times I still don't think you can automatically conclude that anyone who holds it is homophobic. Thinking that something is wrong does not automatically mean you are scared of it and if your views are based on teachings you believe come direct from God you should not have to change them or be affraid to express them just because the rest of society has adjusted it's moral compass. Offending people is not a bad thing in itself.

What he said.

Thanks, JTL. You're saving me a lot of typing.

I was under the assumption that Homosexuality isnt a sin but rather the act of Anal/Oral intercourse is?

That's pretty weak when you consider that the Church's "disapproval" of homosexuality has been the validation for millenia of homophobia. You can't just put stuff out there without any regard for the consequences of those teachings, though that's basically the justification for most of the Church's most heinous crimes.

This is an organisation whose teachings and exhortations led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Purgings of Jews, the burning of Witches, an organisation who ignored, indeed in some regards tacitly helped the Nazis and the Holocause, and most recently whose stance on condoms has undoubtedly contributed (and continues to contribute to) to the deaths of millions of Africans due to AIDS. But it's absolved of all those sins because the consequences of its teachings are beyond its control.

The Church has an absolute regard for the consequences of its teachings. If you disobey them, your soul is damned.



Arguable. The Crusades were a largely political war against an advancing Islamic encroachment on European territory. Papal authority helped unite Europe to drive them back. It's not a pretty period in history, but it's not like it was religious war.



Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII both explicitly criticised the Spanish Inquisition, which had only been given any papal authority by the Spanish monarchy's blackmail of Rome. The Inquisition was under the direct control of the monarchy and while Innocent VIII insisted that those found guilty should be able to appeal to Rome, the Inquisition threatened summary execution to anyone who made such an appeal without royal permission.



Where? When? Are you blaming the Catholic Church for the pogroms in Russia? The Holocaust? I'll need a bit more detail to answer this one.



Again, I'll need some specifics on this one.



Wow. There's a whole shitload wrong with this one. Recent research has shown that Pope Pius XII, contrary to his reputation (based largely on a failure to do more to help Poland) was actually a pretty impressive opponent of the Nazis. He made something like 10,000 Jews in Rome, under threat from the Nazis and the Italian fascists, "disappear overnight" by ordering priests, religious and the lay faithful to conceal them, even suspending rules on cloistered life to enable men to hide in convents and women to hide in monasteries. He gave posts in the Vatican to Jewish academics who had been suspended from their posts in Italy. He was also allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. The current pope, known for his brief spell in the Hitler Youth (along with, y'know, every other boy his age at the time) hid Jews in his own home and his father helped get some Jews out of the country. The Church as a whole was persecuted and roundly condemned by Hitler and his sidekicks on numerous occasions. The "pro-Nazi" slurs against Pius XII and the Church as a whole are just wrong.



I've asked this question before and I've still never heard a good answer. Is there a better solution to the AIDS epidemic than insisting that people are chaste until marriage and faithful within it?

Yes. Realistic solutions involving education and contraception are much more likely to be effective. "Just don't do it" is not useful advice. Surely you can see that whilst it's the only 100% effective method it's actually counter-productive to insist on it? It's a massively unrealistic expectation.

Homosexuality happens in hundreds, maybe even thousands, of animal species, so how can it be not natural if it is indeed common in the natural world? That argument has never made sense to me.
Plus if the point of our species is to further itself and our natural resources are dwindling while population sizes are increasing then surely people removing themselves from the act of propergation are indeed helping our species, or at least a good argument could be put forward to say so.

The moral argument within religion is an intersting one though, being as it is from the same bit of the Bible that forbids trimming your beard, wearing clothes made form 2 different materials and all kinds of other crap, so why is this bit still seen as being a sin when they arent? especially when the above arguments can be brought to the fore.
Or worse, if sex is only for procreation then should I stop sleeping with my wife as she cant have kids? And if thats OK for us, why cant 2 sterile men be gay lovers?

Chesty - given the preponderance of cheap condoms in the third world (not to mention the worryingly high failure rate of condoms generally), surely telling men that fucking hookers bareback will not only kill them and their families but send them to hell too is a pretty fucking strong incentive to do things right? I agree that education is vital, but the biggest part of that surely has to be saying that ANY sex with someone you can't be 100% sure about is a risk that's just not worth taking, physically or spiritually?

Darkstar - first of all, we're not "other species." We're special in that a. we're self-conscious and b. we have immortal souls that need to be protected. Arguing that by taking themselves out of the reproductive cycle, they're actually doing us a favour is nonsense. The world does indeed have limited resources, but the problem has nothing to do with over-population and everything to do with irresponsible management of those resources. The Church has some of the oldest and best teachings on our responsbilities to the planet and to other people within the capitalist system. Besides, no-one chooses to be gay, do they? So it's hardly something we can praise anyone for.

And actually, while there are Old Testament passages about homosexuality, there's also a fair bit in the Epistles, indicating that the Early Church had pretty clear teachings on the subject and given that those letters are mostly by Saint Paul, it suggests that the teaching was not specifically a continuation of Mosaic law but a specifically Christian idea.

(As a side note, would you care to expand on the other species that have homosexual relationships? 99.9% of other mammals don't even have sex for pleasure - it's purely reproductive. What's the incidence of homosexuality in the others?)

Finally, just because it's something that really gets my goat: According to Pinchas Lapide, Pope Pius and the Catholic Church were responsible for saving more Jews from Nazi persecution than any other person or institution. Some Israeli scholars estimate that as many as 860,000 European Jews were saved from death through concealment in Church facilities, issuance of fake Baptismal certificates, public appeals and other methods.

Surely the same real-world approach as applies with parenting would work here: "We would prefer that you not sleep around and ask that you obey us, but if you are going to do it anyway, please be careful and use a blob."

Righty, apparently we are not the only self-conscious species. Dolphins, Elephants and even Magpies show signs of being self aware

And Immortal Soul, how does that work? Alot of religions have reincarnation or similar. Is that so that the fear of death can be allayed, and as a result people will not go around, groing 'Crap, I'am gunna die! May as well do nothing?' and be productive

With regards to the Churches teachings on resources, are these tied in with Malthusian theory?


As far as I know, Homosexuality is definitely present in Ducks....

A quick check shows plenty of examples for other species too, although not the most reliable of sources, Wiki has a whole section on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Are you stating this as a fact?

I agree with you but also think that the criticism of the Catholic Church on this issue kind of gets messed up. On one hand their teaching that you chouldn't use condoms can't possibly be ignored because it comes from such a beacon of authority. On the other hand their teaching that you shouldn't fuck around gets ignored because people like screwing. You can't blame their all powerful influence for one aspect of peoples behaviour while at the same time ridiculing the fact that they think they can use that same influence to affect the other aspect.

They show some signs. They're clearly not at our level. I advocate just and humane treatment of animals, but I doubt there are many magpie-rights activists around, you know?



It means that your soul survives bodily death. You can believe what you choose about it. My beliefs are pretty well documented here.



I'm not exactly sure what you mean. On a very basic level, at present the figures are something like 20% of the world using 70% of its resources. That can't work indefinitely and is utterly unjust when the other 80% is starving. The Church teaches that we must strive towards a much more equitable distribution of resources.



Fair enough. It's not really relevant, although it is quite interesting.

Yes. It's what I believe.

And again, thanks to JTL. The Church's teaching, if followed, would wipe out AIDS in a generation. You can't knock them for trying.

The same way if everyone only used the green man system to cross the road we wouldn't have as many folk getting run over?

A good idea, i'm sure you'll agree.

One that simply wouldn't work in practice though.

I've read some bollocks on these forums before but really, this is just the biggest load of bollocks of all. You cannot present 'faith' as scientific fact.
Kenny, you are truly deluded. I suggest leaving the Catholic Church and getting a life !!!

Firstly, belief never equals fact without proof. Before that can of worms gets opened, my second point is that most people - not just today, but for a very long time - don't want to find out until marriage to find out if sex is or isn't going to be good. If most people did, then ether divorce rates would explode (another thing against the Church's teachings) or adultery (again) would increase... along with the AIDS rate.

Yes, we are self-conscious creatures, that is why our sexual practices are discriminatory not just toward who would be the best mother to produce the strongest young, but also in helping to choose a strong, intimate relationship that works with two people making choices of their own free of peer, state or religious influence.

Thomas Malthus, was an Anglican Reverend, who came up with some major population/resource control theories during 18th and 19th century


His dialemma, was concerning distributions of wealth and resources





Effectively he argued that at some point thatis a point where by lives and resources can be reached and then can go no higher without drastic loss of life. In other words. those who are starving now, would possibly be starving anyway due to the amount of population the world has to sustain.

Extracting that to the AIDS/ condom thing. Saying not use condoms etc would equate to keeping population down, hence resources more managable through the resultant deaths, making resources and wealth easier to redistribute.

However, A church that effective has its own country that is steep in wealth and affulence, yet preaches distribution is a bit of dichotomy.

Iam sorry if this all seems a bit jumpy, I know what i want to say, but my concentration is a bit shot to day.

What iam trying to say is. Could the RC Church, be using the principles of Malthus to help spread its word, by enshrining it in religious doctorines? (i think)

You need to read up on your Catholic history a bit more, Kenny!

The Crusades - Council of Clermont 1095, Pope Urban II called on all good Christians to join a crusade to the Holy Land and explicitly promised that those who dies would automatically receive remission of all sins. Saying the Crusades weren't Holy Wars is utterly preposterous and a gross misrepresentation of history.


the Spanish Inquisition - Pope Sixtus IV gave official Curch blessing to a Spanish inquisition with the Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus in 1478. As I said, it's typical of the Church to say that what followed wasn't "their fault".


The Purgings of Jews - I mean I just don't know where to begin with this one. The Catholic Church repeatedly proclaimed against the Jews through usury laws and other political devices. Just as an example close to home, in 1278 nearly 300 Jews were executed in London by a Catholic king citing the usury laws set out in the 2nd Council of Lyon 1274.

The burning of Witches - oh please! Just go and do your own recearch starting with the Pactus Legis Alamannorum.

Nazis - never heard of Paul Touvier?




Yes, condoms you idiot. It's a solution based on the reality of life rather than idealistic crap.


And you've entirely supported my point that the Church's argument on these issues is always to hold up their hands and pretend it's got nothing to do with them. Who, us? Nobody listens to us!

We're not other species, well noticed. At what point did you realise that the guys down the pub weren't hamsters?

But seriously mate, the self concious thing is debateable, hugely so in fact. But if you take humanity out of nature then how can you (the people making the claims, not you specificly) that something is against nature?

And of course the resources are being used up, how long do you think we can keep growing as a species before e outstrip the ability to grow/produce enough food? Or run out of gas? Or oil? Or have to send our excess population to virtually uninhabited places such as deserts just so they can live somewhere?





Certainly


Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, stated:


http://borngay.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=162


His list is on that link, I'm not going to clock up the forum wih a list of 450 different animal species.

Kenny, going back to this:



And then you go on to say how the church's advice is to stay chaste until married and faithful in regards to AIDS. Doesn't that go against where you talked about your sexual antics with an ex plus how you have two birds on the go now?

Does that mean your soul is damned?

People actually using protection during sex would do much more to decrease cases of AIDS then listening to the "teachings" of the Church.

Millions have AIDS (and I believe in many cases Children are even born with the disease) and it would take longer then a generation to wipe it out if it can even be wiped out at all.

Come to think of it what happens to a babys "immortal soul" if he or she dies during birth?

Do Animals other then Humans go to heaven or hell? and if not then why not?

What became of the people who worshiped other gods (Pagan's for example) before they became aware of the so called "true" god after they died?, I mean it's hardly fair if they went to hell because they simply didn't know that a certain god even "existed"

Is a wet dream a sin?

Did they have any involvement in the Clifford's Tower massacre of 1190 as well?

Any study of the crusades shows that describing it as a Holy War anything more than superficially is incredibly niave. Was it wrong to push a political agenda through religious channels? Absolutely, but a political agenda is what it was

I'd love to know what you consider a Holy War is then, by those criteria.

p.s if you're going to use the word naïve, I'd get the spelling right

And if religious institutions have thusly proved themselves to be corruptible by political agendas what use is making a distinction anyway?

I'm interested...do people actually believe in heaven and hell? If someone call tell me why they think heaven and hell exist without sounding foolish then maybe I'll consider the possibility. Not gonna happen though.

Man, This "God" fellow must be a real twat to leave us all so upset and confused over him.

Is that the best you've got? One collaborationist who was hidden by an excommunicated Catholic sect?

I'll get round to the rest when I've got a bit more time, but that's seriously fucking pathetic.

True, and if they just said "Ya know what african types, in your case, if you do get laid before marriage that's bad, but wearing a condom won't make it any worse, and you won't get sent to hell for it," millions less people would die of aids.
But of course, it's far more important to stick rigidly to dogma than to worry about saving millions of lives, that's the Catholic way! And really kenny, the rampant discrimination against gays championed by the church is fucking abhorrent to anyone with a half working brain. You can't just say "You can make a reasonable argument that it's against god will," cos you can make an equally compelling argument that it's clearly not as god made gays gay, it's outdated shite - and the longer they stick to it the more unpleasant they look to the outside world - and rightly so.

Don't get me wrong, they are some reasonable Catholics out there (generally one's who consider the pope to be a senile old cunt who shouldn't be allowed opinions on anything) but the nuts and bolts morals and hierarchy of the catholic faith contain some fucking foul elements.
Now you might point out that so are lots of other faiths, but then they're fucking foul as well. It's up there with being an occasional paedophile in terms of a defence.

There's a theory that God sent down various different profits, all with the express instruction to tell everyone to be nice to each other - and God's scratching his head thinking we must be complete twats for managing to turn that into gay hating, condom banning, tower exploded war Mongering abortion clinic bombing anne widdecombe allowing unpleasantness.

Just a theory mind.

There's plenty more Kenny, as I know you know I really hope you answer the point rather than nitpicking on the details though - unless you're saying that the Catholic Church has no blood on their hands over the years.

So have most things though, there's no point attacking Catholicism for being a morally bankrupt whoremongering murdering crime family just cos the borgia family ran it as such. Of course catholicism has blood on it's hands over the years, but really you need to judge it on the here and now.
And there's more than enough to do that with.

So you point is that if no one had sex befor marriage AIDS would just end in one generation?

Despite the face I could have aids, pass it on to the wife and kids and any one who i donate blood to, share heroin with or indeed any one gets my blood near them at any level where it can be absorbed through the capillaries or open sours or cuts.

So how would the church sort that, you know the other ways to pass HIV and Aids without sexual intercourse.
There is an air of slight fatuousness within that post, but to claim the church could solve Aids in so few years with such flimsy ideals is laughable and ignorant of you and any member of a religion who believes in such a thing


On a different note I find it hard to get behind Christianity when its spent years with one group of Christians killing another group and it goes back and forth because they have some disagreement on how flash the church should look and what language you read it in and what bits of the bible you actually follow and all the other little things rather than getting on at the fact you both support the same big man

Dead right, only the 'churches' aren't really supporting anything or anyone other than there own 'company'.
The point is, ALL organized churches were and are put together to sell you the ULTIMATE LIFE INSURANCE. If you do what 'we' say 'we' can GUARANTEE a place for you in the afterlife, because only we have an actual hotline to God. It doesn't stop at Christianity, it is a business model that extends to all aggressive, power obsessed groups and doctrines.

Millions of people are led by the nose into following these gangs because they need a release for a spiritual side that they possess. However, the spiritual side that we as human beings harbor is exploited by these dog collar wearing, incense burning, insurance selling weasels, and channeled into deluded, blinkered and retarded thinking as demonstrated by some of the utterly ridiculous posts from Mr. McBride concerning the 'easy fix' method for Aids !!

If you feel you are a spiritual person, you will find a perfectly healthy release for those feelings without having to resort to joining any one of these arrogant, controlling and socially retarded covens.

Organized religion is designed for the weak and vulnerable, the sheep.
Spirituality is a solitary path to enlightenment and is not really supposed to be used as a tool to control, invade, destroy and subjugate.

You think he might do something a little more impressive like send a big fuck off flood down, or a big plague or a massive storm or something rather than this slow shit he's been sending down recently.