Pope makes eejits of the Church again.

[Storm]

Yeah, but I don't see you raving about the divorce rate. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, but you obviously don't have qualms about distorting your own "holy" book.

 

[emiliano]

I’ve seen dogs doing it, but dogs are irrational, I also seen them ******* on everything to marked, should we go around marking our territory as well, after all it is natural. Isn’t it?

 

[the-flatlander]

SO when a man has anal with a woman it's not harmful, but when two man do it it is.....how does that make sense. It's the same thing going in the some hole. Plus last time a read(which is awhile ago so don't quote me), men can take more up there then women, it's different.....:run:

I was kidding. Of course anal sex between a man and a woman poses similar risks.

Here’s some info about anal sex and homosexuality found on the I-net:

Mechanical damage to the rectum will happen regardless of safe sex measures. -
(ethicsforschools.org) (gay sex the health risks)

No replicated scientific studies in the world have found a genetic or biological origin for homosexuality.

In a study of 6,574 obituary notices for homosexual persons taken from 18 U. S. gay publications, the average age at death was 42, but it was 39 for those who died of AIDS. Only 9% of homosexual males reached age 65, but just 2% if they died of AIDS. This compares with 80% of married, heterosexual males reaching age 65. (Cameron, Playfair, and Wallum, The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic, Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, Vol. 29, #3, 1994,p. 252.)

Some homosexual men purposely seek HIV positive men for sex -“bug chasing“ in hope of becoming HIV positive. (…orato.com/current-events/2006/07/25/bug-chasing…)

A Kinsey Institute study found that 78% of male homosexual "partnerships" lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. (Bell and Weinberg, Homosexuali- ties: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978, p.314).

The same Kinsey study found that 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime, while 28% of homosexual males surveyed claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners!

Gay authors, Island and Letellier, find much more violence exists in homosexual relationships than in male-female coupling. David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, (New York, Haworth Press, 1991)

Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men. (Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, Table 21.12).

Studies find that between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics while abuse of drugs, smoking and other high risk activities frequently accompany homosexuality. (R. Kus, Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men, Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, No.2 (1987), p.254).

A British study found that 60% of homosexual men engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partner-ships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). As a result, a large number of diseases are associated with anal intercourse, many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population.

Even if a condom is used without breakage, inherent flaws in latex condoms are up to fifty times larger than the AIDS virus (which is 450 times smaller than the human sperm). Therefore the effectiveness of condoms for AIDS prevention is much worse than for contraception.-Rowland C (ed). Rubber Chemistry and Technology.

Condoms, even when used 100% of the time, fail to give adequate levels of protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, Herpes, Genital Warts and others. (Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know. Medical Institute for Sexual Health. 2002).

In a survey reported in an American Public Health Association publication, 78% of the gay respondents reported that they had been affected by a sexually transmitted disease at least one time. (Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p.53).

 

[Smoke]

Here’s some info about anal sex and homosexuality found on the I-net

I don't even have the patience to respond to all that. For a start, you might see:

Dispelling Myths of Homosexuality

Wayne R. Besen, Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth

Cynthia Burack, Sin, Sex, and Democracy: Anti-gay Rhetoric and the Religious Right

 

[Magic Man]

You are not following, the discussion here are about what the Pope instructed his people to do, to prioritise, what is in the first order of thing, if you care to read the discourse you’ll see that the issue of divorce is addressed to in the most firm terms “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate”
Christians must not divorce, and when selecting a life’s companion they must seek God’s guidance. Is there any denomination that does opposes divorce more than the RCC?

Is this supposed to have something to do with homosexuality? Or are you purposely going off topic?

 

[Magic Man]

I’ve seen dogs doing it, but dogs are irrational, I also seen them ******* on everything to marked, should we go around marking our territory as well, after all it is natural. Isn’t it?

A classic answer to the question that has been debunked probably millions of times. Homosexuality is natural because it's found in nature (including in humans). All that means is that it's not unnatural as many like you claim it is. It is not a "reason to do it", it's merely a refutation of a perceived "reason not to do it". No one is saying that humans should do everything animals do (that's why it's a strawman). There's just no reason not to engage in homosexual behavior if that's what suits your fancy.

 

[emiliano]

Is this supposed to have something to do with homosexuality? Or are you purposely going off topic?

Are you barging in into some one else’s interactions?

 

[emiliano]

A classic answer to the question that has been debunked probably millions of times. Homosexuality is natural because it's found in nature (including in humans). All that means is that it's not unnatural as many like you claim it is. It is not a "reason to do it", it's merely a refutation of a perceived "reason not to do it". No one is saying that humans should do everything animals do (that's why it's a strawman). There's just no reason not to engage in homosexual behavior if that's what suits your fancy.

Ah, not everything? Good, now humans as rational beings that they are can do this reasoning, but brutes cannot. So sodomising women is pretty irrational, don’t you think? Now homosexuality or better said what is taken for homosexuality in the animal kingdom does not involve penetration, in dogs it is a way of establishing superiority/dominance of one male over another, do you know what our jolywakers are called? Reproductive organ are they? So why on earth should anybody would want to dip it in excreta? How rational is that? Now as I said thrdr are instruction from the Pope to his Church.
I visited a friend one that got a little female dog of a very expensive breed for free, we sat down for a chat and the little brute came and started to jump my leg, he said she like you! In a serious mode he said that he tried everything to stop this annoying behaviour and now knew the reason for it been a free gift, at the end he had to have it destroyed. What is the rationale for homosexuality behaviours? Why should any rational being see it as natural? What sort of appetite is it?

 

[Storm]

Are you barging in into some one else’s interactions?

If you post on the open forum, don't whine when people respond. If you want a private conversation, use PM.

 

[sandandfoam]

Ah, not everything? Good, now humans as rational beings that they are can do this reasoning, but brutes cannot. So sodomising women is pretty irrational, don’t you think? Now homosexuality or better said what is taken for homosexuality in the animal kingdom does not involve penetration, in dogs it is a way of establishing superiority/dominance of one male over another, do you know what our jolywakers are called? Reproductive organ are they? So why on earth should anybody would want to dip it in excreta? How rational is that? Now as I said thrdr are instruction from the Pope to his Church.
I visited a friend one that got a little female dog of a very expensive breed for free, we sat down for a chat and the little brute came and started to jump my leg, he said she like you! In a serious mode he said that he tried everything to stop this annoying behaviour and now knew the reason for it been a free gift, at the end he had to have it destroyed. What is the rationale for homosexuality behaviours? Why should any rational being see it as natural? What sort of appetite is it?

First I think homosexuality as involuntary as heterosexuality. Regarding rationality, from a certain perspective is it rational to trap another soul in this vale of tears? As an involuntary heterosexual I think non-procreative sex can be considered morally superior to reproductive sex. Didn't the idea that reproductive sex was superior to non-procreative sex lead the church in the middle ages to conclude that masturabation was a greater crime than rape?

 

[Magic Man]

Are you barging in into some one else’s interactions?

No, I'm commenting on posts in a debate thread open to everyone. If you don't want people "barging" into your conversations, I suggest you do it through PMs, or a one-on-one debate.

 

[Magic Man]

Ah, not everything? Good, now humans as rational beings that they are can do this reasoning, but brutes cannot.

Sure, then all you have to do is come up with a good, rational reason. I'm still waiting for that.

So sodomising women is pretty irrational, don’t you think?

Nope.

Now homosexuality or better said what is taken for homosexuality in the animal kingdom does not involve penetration, in dogs it is a way of establishing superiority/dominance of one male over another, do you know what our jolywakers are called? Reproductive organ are they?So why on earth should anybody would want to dip it in excreta? How rational is that?

Does it give both people pleasure? Yes. Then, it's quite rational. You can get off the whole animal tangent now. We've established that homosexual acts are quite natural, which as all that was meant to do.

Now as I said thrdr are instruction from the Pope to his Church.

Can you translate this into English, please?

I visited a friend one that got a little female dog of a very expensive breed for free, we sat down for a chat and the little brute came and started to jump my leg, he said she like you! In a serious mode he said that he tried everything to stop this annoying behaviour and now knew the reason for it been a free gift, at the end he had to have it destroyed.

Well, first that's really sad that someone would have a dog put down for an annoying behavior like that that was probably just the result of not being spayed, or at the very least a behavior that could be trained out of the dog fairly easily. It seems pretty irrational to me to put a dog to sleep for something like that.

Next, are you implying that this has some connection to homosexuality? I'll agree that if a man (or a woman to be fair) is coming over to you and humping your leg without your consent, that that behavior should be stopped. However, that has nothing to do with homosexuality.

What is the rationale for homosexuality behaviours?

It's actually very simple. Both participants enjoy it. Basically, the same rationale for heterosexual behavior.

Why should any rational being see it as natural?

Another simple answer. Because it is natural. Now, why should any irrational being (such as youself) see it as unnatural?

What sort of appetite is it?

A healthy sexual one, just like heterosexuals.

 

[Mister Emu]

We've established that homosexual acts are quite natural, which as all that was meant to do.

Did you happen to read my post?

 

[FyreBrigidIce]

I do not believe in the Christian God. I believe that love between 2 humans should be allowed no matter what their sexual preference. Unnatural sex acts to me would be forcing one's preference onto another (unconsentual sex of any kind). IMO, beastiality is unnatural, homosexuality is not.

FBI

 

[challupa]

It's leaders like that that keep the world in the dark ages. It's disgusting, irresponsible and keeps people in hate mode. He has just promoted something that many people will take as justification to continue their aggressive, bigoted violence against gay people. That is criminal imo.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Challupa, maybe you should read what the Pope actually said in his 11 page address to the Roman curia, of which the topic of gender was only several paragraphs. Benedict did not even mention the word homosexuality and was talking about what he regards to be problematic and dangerous theories of gender. He said nothing about homosexuals themselves being dangerous. The media has been determined to misunderstand this.

It is this kind of reaction on the part of the media and other posters here which aim to silence the opinions of others, not by actually disproving what they are saying is wrong or misguided, but surrounding their opinions with such a cloud of buzz-words and stigma that the content of their message is never sufficiently analyzed. Its coming to be the death of intelligent debate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something magical ‘suddenly’ happens when a man and a woman do it that renders the act harmless.

Furthermore, if you’re not having sex the Navy way, “ten toes up and ten toes down” you're wrong.

Heh... judging by the famous quip (see the third one down), I don't think you and Winston Churchill are in agreement about what "having sex the Navy way" means.

For what it is worth the Catholic Church is consistant on that issue... any sexual act that is not open to procreation is a no-no

Point of clarification: I thought that the Church was okay with Natural Family Planning, no? While I don't think it's a particularily effective method of birth control, I do think that the intent is present in it to have a sexual act that is not open to procreation.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Penguin,

You are correct about natural family planning, which others will defend as being consistent with Church's ages old tradition, but which I personally think fails to be so. This is a small, but nevertheless significant crack in this stance and I personally think it does call the Church to a conservative re-assessment of its total prohibition on artificial birth control.

 

[emiliano]

It's leaders like that that keep the world in the dark ages. It's disgusting, irresponsible and keeps people in hate mode. He has just promoted something that many people will take as justification to continue their aggressive, bigoted violence against gay people. That is criminal imo.

Hello! You’re in another dimension, this is not a call to violence against anybody, the Pope is the leader of billions of soul (those in the Christian faith), he has the highest of call, to call his people (God’s flock) out of the corruptible world, to live in a spiritual world, to obey God, and to keep His Church clean, we must withdraw from abominable corruptions, such as homosexuality and murders of the unborn, to seek the Kingdom of God, again I must point out to you that these are instructions to his flock.
Did you read the article?
He explained that defending God's creation was not limited to saving the environment, but also about protecting man from self-destruction.
Is this a call to violence?
To me the way to defend is to stay away from what corrupts/destroys utterly, these are indeed two of the major ones, unnatural lust, and murder, that destroy body and soul.
When the Roman Catholic Church defends God's Creation, "it does not only defend the earth, water and the air... but (it) also protects man from his own destruction," he said.
Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. But rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
The Pope is a Christian and preaches Jesus warning to His people, defend, oppose, rebuke, no call to violence that I can see, where do you see this man calling to violence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin,

You are correct about natural family planning, which others will defend as being consistent with Church's ages old tradition, but which I personally think fails to be so. This is a small, but nevertheless significant crack in this stance and I personally think it does call the Church to a conservative re-assessment of its total prohibition on artificial birth control.

I think so too. I remember being surprised when I read Humanae Vitae (in English, not Latin ) and saw that the bulk of the Catholic Church's stance against birth control was based on perceived "natural law" and not scripture. Effectively, it's largely an argument from design rather than argument from authority.

Frankly, I think it's rather arbitrary to say that deliberating separating sperm from an egg with a span of time is acceptable, but separating them with a physical barrier is not.

... but I think I'm getting pretty far off the original topic.