Belgian Bishop Accused of Homophobia

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Meanwhile Sweden is preparing a law, which is expected to be voted next January, to allow homosexual couples to marry in church.
Click to expand...
Huh?:confused:
 
bones_IV said:
The Gay mafia is at it again.

Link
Click to expand...
There is not such thing as a “Gay mafia”, that is a unfair term to use. I read the “abnormal” part of the article and I also think it can have a degrading/condescending tone to it unless the later denial was added to it.

I do not believe it is “abnormal” as it is expected that 2-10% of the population of humans (and other species) show that trait/behavior. It is perfectly normal according to Mother Nature.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
There is not such thing as a “Gay mafia”, that is a unfair term to use. I read the “abnormal” part of the article and I also think it can have a degrading/condescending tone to it unless the later denial was added to it.

I do not believe it is “abnormal” as it is expected that 2-10% of the population of humans (and other species) show that trait/behavior. It is perfectly normal according to Mother Nature.
Click to expand...
So is cancer and heart disease and every other disease. In fact, I think the numbers on cancer is that half of all people alive now will die of cancer. We should declare cancer to be a good and normal thing too.
 
And I do not believe the condition to be any type of disease or cancer as you are inferring.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
And I do not believe the condition to be any type of disease or cancer as you are inferring.
Click to expand...
The Church has declared that homosexual actions are immoral. The Church has declared also that Marriage is a sacrament - and can only be valid between one man and one woman. The goal of the homosexual lobby is to normalize homosexuality - and indeed make it a hate crime not to accept everything they say. Their goals are the goals of man and not of god.

Catholig
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
And I do not believe the condition to be any type of disease or cancer as you are inferring.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between a disease or cancer and homosexuality? You justify homosexuallity based on an inference that it is genetic and therefore it is normal(an examination of history would show that this is not exactly true though). If homosexuality is normal because it is genetic, so is every genetic disorder like mental retardation. The fact is that it is contrary to nature. Mother nature does not say it is normal because the genetics of these homosexuals are not passed on. According to evolutionary theory it is the survival of the fittest(fitness require reproduction). When an individual is attracted to the same sex their genetic code dies. Homosexuality is contrary to mother nature. Even if it is genetic, it is an abnormality. It is a genetic mutation.

You also confuse thoughts with reality.
 
Oh dear, another homosexula thread. I think I’ve heard enough on both sides.:rolleyes:
 
Catholig said:
The Church has declared that homosexual actions are immoral. The Church has declared also that Marriage is a sacrament - and can only be valid between one man and one woman. The goal of the homosexual lobby is to normalize homosexuality - and indeed make it a hate crime not to accept everything they say. Their goals are the goals of man and not of god.
Click to expand...
Let affairs of the Church stay in the churches without spilling over into the State. Catholics are neither the only people in the world, nor a superior ruling class over the rest of us.

Let me make an offer. I will not call Catholic allegations that homosexuality is disordered ‘hate crimes’ – and I have yet to say anything of the sort, ever. You, in return, will grin and bear it just the same if I ever choose to say that faith is a mental disorder, because I consider it entirely beyond the bounds of properly exercised reason and intellect. Satisfied?
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
There is not such thing as a “Gay mafia”, that is a unfair term to use. I read the “abnormal” part of the article and I also think it can have a degrading/condescending tone to it unless the later denial was added to it.

I do not believe it is “abnormal” as it is expected that 2-10% of the population of humans (and other species) show that trait/behavior. It is perfectly normal according to Mother Nature.
Click to expand...
Another poster also recently opined that homosexual behavior is normal and is a “function of nature”.

So, I will ask you the same question I asked him: What “function of nature” does active homosexual behavior behavior fulfill?

Be as specific as you’d like.
 
Mirdath said:
Let affairs of the Church stay in the churches without spilling over into the State. Catholics are neither the only people in the world, nor a superior ruling class over the rest of us.

Let me make an offer. I will not call Catholic allegations that homosexuality is disordered ‘hate crimes’ – and I have yet to say anything of the sort, ever. You, in return, will grin and bear it just the same if I ever choose to say that faith is a mental disorder, because I consider it entirely beyond the bounds of properly exercised reason and intellect. Satisfied?
Click to expand...
Your idea is contrary to the first amendment. What your view says is that the only religions that are acceptable are those which believe in faith alone. The traditional Christian faiths would be absolutely contradictory to your idea because we believe that every time and event in our life is an encounter with God. There is no such thing as the sacred and the profane. Everything is sacred and therefore every time and every place is open for us to live our faith. Any compromise would be a compromise with paganism.

Second, you don’t take your atheistic faith out of public space so why should we take our faith out of the public? You act according to what you believe, why shouldn’t I act according to what I believe? You want the govt. to support stem cell research, abortion, and etc. That is simply you using your faith in public.

Your assertion that faith is a mental dissorder doesn’t really bother me but it is basically like me saying liberalism is a mental disorder because it makes no sense.
 
jimmy said:
Your idea is contrary to the first amendment. What your view says is that the only religions that are acceptable are those which believe in faith alone. The traditional Christian faiths would be absolutely contradictory to your idea because we believe that every time and event in our life is an encounter with God. There is no such thing as the sacred and the profane. Everything is sacred and therefore every time and every place is open for us to live our faith. Any compromise would be a compromise with paganism.
Click to expand...
It in no way contradicts the first amendment. My suggestion is merely a ‘this for that’ arrangement, in which I do not call Catholic allegations of disorder against myself and other queers hate crimes, and Catholics in the same spirit do not call my hypothetical allegations of disorder against them and people of other religions hate crimes. It is not an act of Congress, it is not a law respecting an institution of religion, it does not inhibit the free exercise of religion. First Amendment-wise, it’s just fine: both sides get to lambaste each other without fear of being called on it!
Second, you don’t take your atheistic faith out of public space so why should we take our faith out of the public? You act according to what you believe, why shouldn’t I act according to what I believe? You want the govt. to support stem cell research, abortion, and etc. That is simply you using your faith in public.
Click to expand...
First off, I’m not doing a very good job keeping my ‘faith’ in the public space if you think I’m an atheist (according to my profile, I’m agnostic).

Secondly, the only reason you have any idea what I think about religion is because this particular public space is a board devoted to the discussion of religion. I do not run around in shirts that say ‘Your God Probably Doesn’t Exist’, I do not campaign to have the Humanist Manifesto engraved on the wall of the Capitol; if you ran into me, you’d probably think I’m a little bit of a freak but you’d have no idea what religion or lack thereof I profess.

And as to acting according to what we believe – isn’t that the beauty of my suggestion? You are granted the opportunity to practice Christian patience and charity, and we are granted the opportunity to get on with our lives.

By this suggestion, you get to say I’m sick, disordered, and lost in the seas of moral turpitude, and I get to say you’re stark staring bonkers! Or we could hang the gloves up, shake hands, and go our ways. Your choice: shall we be polite and courteous about it, or not? But let us have no more of this double standard that allows so many people of faith to condemn homosexuality and then be grievously offended when someone condemns religion with almost exactly the same words they just used. You get what you give, this is the proper way of things.
 
Wolseley said:
Another poster also recently opined that homosexual behavior is normal and is a “function of nature”.

So, I will ask you the same question I asked him: What “function of nature” does active homosexual behavior behavior fulfill?

Be as specific as you’d like.
Click to expand...
I view it as some kind of natural population control. Remember in our human history we were once totally wild in nature. This is one more way our species (and other species) are kept within sustainable bounds. Some are ment to mate, some want to mate and are unable to, and some mate but are not destined to have their own offspring. But also having these groups around also leads to having extra people around in case the mother and/or father died in their hunting or other reasons.
 
Mirdath said:
Let affairs of the Church stay in the churches without spilling over into the State. Catholics are neither the only people in the world, nor a superior ruling class over the rest of us.

Let me make an offer. I will not call Catholic allegations that homosexuality is disordered ‘hate crimes’ – and I have yet to say anything of the sort, ever. You, in return, will grin and bear it just the same if I ever choose to say that faith is a mental disorder, because I consider it entirely beyond the bounds of properly exercised reason and intellect. Satisfied?
Click to expand...
Mirdath, that comment was directed at NewUlm1976_2000 - who according to his profile is Catholic.

Anyways, I would like to point out that this entire thread is concerning people outside of the church (i.e. Homosexual activists) interfering with the Church. Indeed persecuting this bishop for supporting the Church position. And for upholding morality. I hope that you will agree that having a priest or bishop arrested and/or prosecuted for his freedom of speech - especially when addressing his congregation is a total miscarriage of justice. After all you did say “Let affairs of the Church stay in the churches”.

Catholig
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
I view it as some kind of natural population control. Remember in our human history we were once totally wild in nature. This is one more way our species (and other species) are kept within sustainable bounds. Some are ment to mate, some want to mate and are unable to, and some mate but are not destined to have their own offspring. But also having these groups around also leads to having extra people around in case the mother and/or father died in their hunting or other reasons.
Click to expand...
That’s nice - but it doesn’t change the fact that homosexual acts are a grave matter and possibly mortal sin if one fulfills the requirements.

Catholig
 
Mirdath said:
It in no way contradicts the first amendment. My suggestion is merely a ‘this for that’ arrangement, in which I do not call Catholic allegations of disorder against myself and other queers hate crimes, and Catholics in the same spirit do not call my hypothetical allegations of disorder against them and people of other religions hate crimes. It is not an act of Congress, it is not a law respecting an institution of religion, it does not inhibit the free exercise of religion. First Amendment-wise, it’s just fine: both sides get to lambaste each other without fear of being called on it!

First off, I’m not doing a very good job keeping my ‘faith’ in the public space if you think I’m an atheist (according to my profile, I’m agnostic).

Secondly, the only reason you have any idea what I think about religion is because this particular public space is a board devoted to the discussion of religion. I do not run around in shirts that say ‘Your God Probably Doesn’t Exist’, I do not campaign to have the Humanist Manifesto engraved on the wall of the Capitol; if you ran into me, you’d probably think I’m a little bit of a freak but you’d have no idea what religion or lack thereof I profess.

And as to acting according to what we believe – isn’t that the beauty of my suggestion? You are granted the opportunity to practice Christian patience and charity, and we are granted the opportunity to get on with our lives.

By this suggestion, you get to say I’m sick, disordered, and lost in the seas of moral turpitude, and I get to say you’re stark staring bonkers! Or we could hang the gloves up, shake hands, and go our ways. Your choice: shall we be polite and courteous about it, or not? But let us have no more of this double standard that allows so many people of faith to condemn homosexuality and then be grievously offended when someone condemns religion with almost exactly the same words they just used. You get what you give, this is the proper way of things.
Click to expand...
I am all for mutual respect but the idea that a person must keep his faith in private and not vote or speak according to his faith is absurd. My faith determines who I am and can not simply make it a hidden thing. If you were to see me you probably wouldn’t know what my faith is because I don’t where shirts or anything that broadcasts it but I can’t make my actions and words one way while my faith says another.

I am sorry that I assumed you were an atheist.

I don’t think the statement of disorder was against any person. It was against their actions. There is a very big difference. All people have disordered actions that they must get rid of. We are not degrading any people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top