Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[josh987654321]

You’re not mathematically inclined, are you? My point was, by convention, people agree with the decimal system, so we can agree on how to count and measure, so money and ships don’t get lost!

We could’ve agreed with a base 8 system in which after 7 comes 10, but we didn’t. We have ten fingers, not eight legs like an octopus…

Actually, the computer you’re on uses a base 2 system, just 1s and 0s. Did you know that? And instead of 1111, we use a base 16 system and abbreviate that as F (after 9 comes A-F).

Yes, but either way it has to add up, you can’t have 4 + 4 = 10, unless the number 4 is recognised as 5, in which case you would have to qualify with 5 + 5 = 8, thus making it add up, in which case would strongly indicate to me that objective truth does exist.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers [and Mathematicians] as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy [and Mathematics] - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rau]

Why would God give me such strong sexual feelings, and then forbid me to use them outside of this system called marriage?

Questions such as that lead nowhere and provide no illumination whatsoever. The poor and destitute, starving to death might also ask “why does God allow droughts when we his people need to eat regularly”? And note that one really “needs” food, whereas one (only) desires sex.

 

[Rau]

What is the “intrinsic potential”? [of the sexual faculty]

1. You admit the cause is unknown and it might not be removable. Could it be that SSM is natural, and it was Christians that wrongly advocated for SSM to be a disease?
2. But the term “civil union” is a separate legal term with a separate definition, that requires litigation in the highest courts to define what it is, and that takes generations! Calling gay unions “marriage” is the only way to ensure that gay couples get the same civic benefits as straight ones. This is something that some of you have agreed that we should support!!
3. How do we know that there is an absolute standard of morality? What’s wrong for you is not wrong for me.
4. I’ve already explained this in my previous posts.
5. Ask Catholics who have converted to Evangelical Protestantism. Visit an Evangelical church sometime. Be blown away by the zeal and the energy, the dynamic sermons, and the strong community.
6. It is very relevant. Catholics are too caught up in the political issue. The church, in general, should stay away from politics much like Jesus did. Besides, why does the Church need the support of a secular government? If everyone really tithed 10% of their income to the Church, the Church could singlehandedly have the power to cure hunger and homelessness, provide free Catholic education in line with its values (we see this in Wichita, Kansas), and perform the rest of Jesus’ mission, without the need to worry about secularist forces!
7. So what Bible verse is on point regarding this issue?
8. Science has shown that SSM is natural in some of the population. Therefore it defeats yesterday’s dogma that SSM is a disease, and that it is evil and must be politically defeated. Therefore, to continue to support gay marriage bans, while thinking that SSM is sinful and evil, despite what we know scientifically today, is nothing less than hate.

The intrinsic potential of the sexual faculty is to bring about new life. The sexual faculty is necessary for that, and impossible without it. Gay sexual relations utilise this faculty for mutual pleasure, ONLY and ALWAYS, and REGARDLESS of intent and regardless of the health of the participants.

1). Marriage is a unique institution, inherently sexual, that builds the society. SSA happens, and no one is called to pretend that it does not. I understand that the premise with which you come to this debate, ie. morality is up to “me” to decide, may not allow you to recognise any problem with homosexual relations.

2). I understand, but institutions are different. I tend to believe the rejection of civil unions has little to do with civil benefits. I understand the “need” for gay couples to feel that their union is just the same as “marriage”.

3). That approach would certainly provide all the freedom that anyone could possibly want. We can each write our own code! Are you truly ok with that?

4).

5). Some churches have exceptionally entertaining services. Fact. I just can’t see that that is compelling evidence of anything relevant to this discussion.

6). Do you sense you are talking to politicians on this thread? I think you know we are reasoning from a base of moral beliefs. I have no issue with a civil institution that addresses the practical care and comfort needs of same sex couples. Clearly, such an institution is not intrinsically sexual, and thus it is not marriage.

7). Sorry, I can’t follow the thread back far enough to answer, due to using mobile device.

8). Whether SSA is akin to the “thorn in my flesh” that St Paul spoke of, or a “disease”, or something else, I do not know, but it matters nought. The SSA is not itself a sinful thing, or a source of shame. Only the homosexual acts are that. Many gay persons struggle with their desires and seek to remain chaste.

You have no basis for levelling the “hate” accusation here. And every time you do, you diminish those who have truly experienced it.

 

[Rau]

To correct a typo in my previous post…

The intrinsic potential of the sexual faculty that I referred to is to bring about new life. The sexual faculty is necessary for that, and new life is impossible without it. Gay sexual relations utilise this faculty for mutual pleasure, ONLY and ALWAYS, and REGARDLESS of intent and regardless of the health of the participants.

 

[CaliLobo]

In case people doubted me when I said Francis is calling for bold change:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/pope-calls-for-big-changes-in-the-church/

Officially known in Latin as “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page statement released on Tuesday is the first official document written entirely by Pope Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)

Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.

“In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated,” the Pope said.

“Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives.”

Such statements mark a sharp break from Benedict XVI, a more tradition-bound pope who focused on cleaning up cobwebs of unorthodoxy in the church.
**
By contrast, in “Evangelii” Francis repeats his calls for Catholics to stop “obsessing” about culture war issues and to focus more on spreading the Gospel, especially to the poor and marginalized.**

Sounds like he’s emulating what Evangelicals have already known for decades now?

Of course, there will be a backlash from traditionalists. And Protestants will come swooping in, saying “Aha! This proves that we were the original church all along.”

 

[PRmerger]

In case people doubted me when I said Francis is calling for bold change:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/pope-calls-for-big-changes-in-the-church/

Officially known in Latin as “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page statement released on Tuesday is the first official document written entirely by Pope Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)

Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.

“In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated,” the Pope said.

Amen!

Long live Pope Francis!! :clapping:

 

[Lochias]

In case people doubted me when I said Francis is calling for bold change:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/pope-calls-for-big-changes-in-the-church/

Officially known in Latin as “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page statement released on Tuesday is the first official document written entirely by Pope Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)

Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.

“In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated,” the Pope said.

“Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives.”

Such statements mark a sharp break from Benedict XVI, a more tradition-bound pope who focused on cleaning up cobwebs of unorthodoxy in the church.
**
By contrast, in “Evangelii” Francis repeats his calls for Catholics to stop “obsessing” about culture war issues and to focus more on spreading the Gospel, especially to the poor and marginalized.**

Sounds like he’s emulating what Evangelicals have already known for decades now?

Of course, there will be a backlash from traditionalists. And Protestants will come swooping in, saying “Aha! This proves that we were the original church all along.”

Francis has also said that he is a loyal son of the Church, and that the teachings on things like gay marriage and abortion and contraception will never change.

I’m not surprised you’re ignoring that, though. Like many others, you are choosing what you want to hear instead of what is actually being said.

If you think Papa Francis is going to change these things about the Church, you’re in for a rude awakening. He can’t. He doesn’t have the authority to undo what Jesus set down.

 

[Hobbes42]

Francis has also said that he is a loyal son of the Church, and that the teachings on things like gay marriage and abortion and contraception will never change.

I’m not surprised you’re ignoring that, though. Like many others, you are choosing what you want to hear instead of what is actually being said.

If you think Papa Francis is going to change these things about the Church, you’re in for a rude awakening. He can’t. He doesn’t have the authority to undo what Jesus set down.

Too true. Also, His Holiness has also expressed that same sex adoptions shock, that abortion is protected murder, and that same sex ‘marriage’ comes from the father of lies.

I can’t see His Holiness ever even wanting to change anything regarding doctrine, it’s all there.

 

[EasterJoy]

In case people doubted me when I said Francis is calling for bold change:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/pope-calls-for-big-changes-in-the-church/

Officially known in Latin as “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), the 85-page statement released on Tuesday is the first official document written entirely by Pope Francis. (An earlier document was co-written by Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)

Although Francis sprinkles the statement with citations of previous popes and Catholic luminaries like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, the new pontiff makes a bold call for the church to rethink even long-held traditions.

“In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated,” the Pope said.

“Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them. At the same time, the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives.”

Such statements mark a sharp break from Benedict XVI, a more tradition-bound pope who focused on cleaning up cobwebs of unorthodoxy in the church.
**
By contrast, in “Evangelii” Francis repeats his calls for Catholics to stop “obsessing” about culture war issues and to focus more on spreading the Gospel, especially to the poor and marginalized.**

Sounds like he’s emulating what Evangelicals have already known for decades now?

Of course, there will be a backlash from traditionalists. And Protestants will come swooping in, saying “Aha! This proves that we were the original church all along.”

Ahem. When it comes to gay marriage, our current Holy Father is “tradition-bound”, only he wouldn’t put it that way. He would call it being “bound” to the truth. With regards to the truth, he departs in no way from his predecessors.

Let us look at what he says in Evangelii gaudium (boldface mine):

*It is important to draw out the pastoral consequences of the Council’s teaching, which reflects an ancient conviction of the Church. First, it needs to be said that in preaching the Gospel a fitting sense of proportion has to be maintained. This would be seen in the frequency with which certain themes are brought up and in the emphasis given to them in preaching. For example, if in the course of the liturgical year a parish priest speaks about temperance ten times but only mentions charity or justice two or three times, an imbalance results, and precisely those virtues which ought to be most present in preaching and catechesis are overlooked. The same thing happens when we speak more about law than about grace, more about the Church than about Christ, more about the Pope than about God’s word.

Just as the organic unity existing among the virtues means that no one of them can be excluded from the Christian ideal, so no truth may be denied. The integrity of the Gospel message must not be deformed. What is more, each truth is better understood when related to the harmonious totality of the Christian message; in this context all of the truths are important and illumine one another…*

Is it not very obvious from this that he in no way believes that the preaching of the Church’s moral doctrines ought to be abandoned? By no means! What he is saying is that one area of the Gospel must not be emphasized at the expense of the others. Just as issues surrounding sexuality are not to be emphasized at the expense of issues surrounding the care of the poor, just so is it disproportionate if our evangelization goes in the entire other direction! This is why the LCWR was called to task: not for all the truths they were living so well, but for the truths some of their number were either denying or shoving under a rug in public pronouncements being passed off as the teachings of Christ.

The truth about the effect of offering civil matrimony between persons of the same sex is not one that our Holy Father has said ought to be shoved under a rug. While Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he referred to bills introducing legal marriage between persons of the same sex in this way: Let us not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is an intention [which is] destructive of the plan of God. It is not a mere legislative project (this is a mere instrument), but rather a “move” of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God. (Letter to Carmelite sisters, June 22, 2010)

IOW, he has never said the Church should not strenuously oppose gay marriage. *He has strenuously opposed it himself!!! *He is saying that this opposition must not be taken up without an attitude of mercy and it must not be taken up at the expense of other truths which complete the Gospel. That is as it should be, but it does not change the truth about the acceptability of civil marriages between persons of the same sex one iota.

 

[EasterJoy]

In answer to the OPs question, I’m going to assume that the question is* meant *to ask fellow believers directly whether or not matrimony between persons of the same sex can be part of God’s plan, with those who don’t even believe in God being asked not to guess what the God they don’t even believe exists might think.

I believe that it is in the plain meaning of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament that homosexual acts are morally unacceptable. The Church confirms this interpretation of moral law, and so that much is clear. None of the pretexts for changing this moral law hold a drop of water, and the warnings against teachers who come later to change the teachings of the Church are equally clear in Holy Scriptures. The idea that the acts are immoral and yet it could be moral to ratify a union with such acts as a fundamental part of the union’s raison d’être is absurd. It takes mental gymnastics of a particularly intricate sort to even try to argue differently.

While the Church teaches that God’s plan and even civil matrimony between persons of the same sex are mutually exclusive, it has to be obvious that it is not impossible to accept gay marriage without abandoning religion. People do it all of the time. That does not mean much in our times and especially in the US, because people often feel free to go through the rituals of their religion even though they don’t believe even what the ritual itself is purported to mean. Ritual and reality are divorced on a routine basis. A shared understanding of ritual can never be presumed any more.

People receive Holy Communion when they don’t believe in the True Presence; why is it hard to believe that they self-identify as Catholics even though they hold beliefs that are opposed to what the Church teaches? Why would beliefs having to do with sexuality be any different than any others? If anything, a willingness to suspend the rules for others “having a hard time” with some teaching or other is a self-satisfactory way to give yourself carte blanche to suspend whatever you are “having a hard time with,” as well. The measure you measure out to others can easily be used to measure out to yourself, and if you have been indulgent with the scales in your own life it is simply far more comfortable to do the same for others, rather than to add hypocrisy to your tab.

It is good to see others violating moral law and to say, “I can’t read hearts, so I can’t judge.” It is quite another to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, to believe that by being willing to formulate your own morality “your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5) Convincing yourself that a sin is not “really” as sin is the oldest temptation on the books!! Convincing others to do the same also sells them short, because it says that you don’t believe they are really capable of becoming saints, that God’s law is unreasonable, unhealthy, and backward. To say that God’s law is not true, after all, is the most devastating way to say that it is not holy, that it is not even God’s.

There is a pack of lies under this gay marriage movement, a very active set of lies with wide application that goes well beyond sexual mores, a set of lies that are determined to win converts and crush resisters into submission, silence, irrelevance or even oblivion, a pack of lies that aims to make conversion and repentance as close to impossible as possible. That is what concerns me the most. I do not mean that the gay marriage movement is particularly given over to these lies, but that these lies have become ubiquitous, used by the conservative and liberal alike, used by anyone who really wants their own pet falsehood written into the foundational stones of society.

 

[NeedsMercy]

People receive Holy Communion when they don’t believe in the True Presence; why is it hard to believe that they self-identify as Catholics even though they hold beliefs that are opposed to what the Church teaches? Why would beliefs having to do with sexuality be any different than any others? If anything, a willingness to suspend the rules for others “having a hard time” with some teaching or other is a self-satisfactory way to give yourself carte blanche to suspend whatever you are “having a hard time with,” as well. The measure you measure out to others can easily be used to measure out to yourself, and if you have been indulgent with the scales in your own life it is simply far more comfortable to do the same for others, rather than to add hypocrisy to your tab.

To equate non-agreement with Church teaching on homosexuality with a non-belief in the Real Presence is severely simplistic and patently unfair. This is not a slippery slope argument.

There is a pack of lies under this gay marriage movement, a very active set of lies with wide application that goes well beyond sexual mores, a set of lies that are determined to win converts and crush resisters into submission, silence, irrelevance or even oblivion, a pack of lies that aims to make conversion and repentance as close to impossible as possible. That is what concerns me the most. I do not mean that the gay marriage movement is particularly given over to these lies, but that these lies have become ubiquitous, used by the conservative and liberal alike, used by anyone who really wants their own pet falsehood written into the foundational stones of society.

Is this the “gay agenda” that everyone talks about? Surprise! THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY! Maybe I’ll understand this more if I go and get my tin foil hat…

 

[Rau]

To equate non-agreement with Church teaching on homosexuality with a non-belief in the Real Presence is severely simplistic and patently unfair. This is not a slippery slope argument.

Is this the “gay agenda” that everyone talks about? Surprise! THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY! Maybe I’ll understand this more if I go and get my tin foil hat…

You make statements, but with no reasoning in support. You seek to ridicule. Why not share your thinking?

 

[NeedsMercy]

You make statements, but with no reasoning in support. You seek to ridicule. Why not share your thinking?

I believe that I have already told you what I think, but maybe I was too subtle: This whole gay conspiracy nonsense deserves ridicule. And speaking of support, let’s see someone give me proof for the basis of this paranoia. I don’t want to see speculation, I want to see proof.

 

[Rau]

I believe that I have already told you what I think, but maybe I was too subtle: This whole gay conspiracy nonsense deserves ridicule. And speaking of support, let’s see someone give me proof for the basis of this paranoia. I don’t want to see speculation, I want to see proof.

I saw no mention of conspiracy in the comments by EasterJoy. You’ve read that in I think.

You’ve not exposed your thinking, only beliefs. But may I ask you about another belief? Do you believe that “gay marriage” is a civil right?

 

[EasterJoy]

–Sigh–

To equate non-agreement with Church teaching on homosexuality with a non-belief in the Real Presence is severely simplistic and patently unfair. This is not a slippery slope argument.

I am not talking about a “slippery slope” issue. I’m talking about a willingness to disconnect what is done in a well-defined and explicitly-understood ritual with what the faithful actually expect themselves to believe, parallel to a willingness to count oneself as a member of a Church that teaches that it has an authoritative Magesterium even though one believes that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of moral truth. It is in no way “severely simplistic” to see a parallel, because a parallel implies an analogy, not an exactly equal case. The pews of Catholic churches are not free of de facto schismatics, people in our time see no duplicity in that, so of course there are people even among frequent Mass-goers who count themselves as faithful to Rome even though they speak and write as if they think Rome doesn’t know the Truth with a capital “T” from a hole in the ground.

Is this the “gay agenda” that everyone talks about? Surprise! THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY! Maybe I’ll understand this more if I go and get my tin foil hat…

Maybe you should take a deep breath and find out what others mean before you jump to conclusions? It will save you a lot of money on tin foil, not to mention some embarrassing photographs.

No, I am not talking about a gay conspiracy, nor a political conspiracy, nor a religious conspiracy. On the topic of lies being passed off as the truth by well-meaning people, I am talking about what the Holy Father talks about frequently: that is, the work of the Devil, a conspiracy among the spirits who serve the Father of Lies, those who prowl tirelessly seeking the ruin of souls.

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe that I have already told you what I think, but maybe I was too subtle: This whole gay conspiracy nonsense deserves ridicule. And speaking of support, let’s see someone give me proof for the basis of this paranoia. I don’t want to see speculation, I want to see proof.

I think I posted this already, but let me repeat the relevant passage from Archbishop Bergoglio’s June 2010 letter to the Carmelite nuns of Buenos Aires on the subject of legal maneuvers seeking to expand the definition of civil matrimony in Argentina to include commitments between persons of the same sex:

• Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan. It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ‘‘movement’’ of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth. *

Do you see what he is saying? He is not saying that the people behind these political bids are evil, he is not saying they are in a conspiracy, and he is not saying they are enemies of God. He is saying, however, that those who seek to “redefine” marriage in such a way are much deceived by spirits who are the enemies of God.

 

[NeedsMercy]

–Sigh–

I am not talking about a “slippery slope” issue. I’m talking about a willingness to disconnect what is done in a well-defined and explicitly-understood ritual with what the faithful actually expect themselves to believe, parallel to a willingness to count oneself as a member of a Church that teaches that it has an authoritative Magesterium even though one believes that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of moral truth. It is in no way “severely simplistic” to see a parallel, because a parallel implies an analogy, not an exactly equal case. The pews of Catholic churches are not free of de facto schismatics, people in our time see no duplicity in that, so of course there are people even among frequent Mass-goers who count themselves as faithful to Rome even though they speak and write as if they think Rome doesn’t know the Truth with a capital “T” from a hole in the ground.

Your second sentence is run-on. Please break it down if you want to be properly understood.

Are you or are you not comparing acceptance of homosexuality with acceptance of the Real Presence? If you’re not comparing them, then it’s apples and oranges and doesn’t apply.

“De facto schismatics”? “Duplicity”? Wow, just wow. Well, they should just stop going to Mass altogether, is that it? If you don’t believe 100%, hit the road, Jack! Just how full will the Churches be on Sundays if they only allow the one-hundred percenters through the doors? (facepalm) Or maybe the one-hundred percenters want it that way? Hmmm

Maybe you should take a deep breath and find out what others mean before you jump to conclusions? It will save you a lot of money on tin foil, not to mention some embarrassing photographs.

It wasn’t much of jump.

No, I am not talking about a gay conspiracy, nor a political conspiracy, nor a religious conspiracy. On the topic of lies being passed off as the truth by well-meaning people, I am talking about what the Holy Father talks about frequently: that is, the work of the Devil, a conspiracy among the spirits who serve the Father of Lies, those who prowl tirelessly seeking the ruin of souls.

Are you now speaking of demons? Because, in your sentence, you are clearly speaking of humans, unless, of course, demons are now categorizing themselves as “conservatives” and “liberals”…

I do not mean that the gay marriage movement is particularly given over to these lies, but that these lies have become ubiquitous, used by the conservative and liberal alike, used by anyone who really wants their own pet falsehood written into the foundational stones of society.

You just can’t go around, making stuff up about a supposed gay conspiracy. It doesn’t exist.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I think I posted this already, but let me repeat the relevant passage from Archbishop Bergoglio’s June 2010 letter to the Carmelite nuns of Buenos Aires on the subject of legal maneuvers seeking to expand the definition of civil matrimony in Argentina to include commitments between persons of the same sex:

• Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan. It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ‘‘movement’’ of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth. *

Do you see what he is saying? He is not saying that the people behind these political bids are evil, he is not saying they are in a conspiracy, and he is not saying they are enemies of God. He is saying, however, that those who seek to “redefine” marriage in such a way are much deceived by spirits who are the enemies of God.

First of all, Francis was not Pope in 2010 so I can take his statement or leave it. I choose not to accept your interpretation of his statement. The Archbishop did not single out “those who seek to ‘redefine’ marriage”. Perhaps the Evil One has also put falsehoods into the ears of those who staunchly assert that they follow the word of the Lord and then, arrogantly, speak with prejudice against homosexuals, while puffing up their own chests with pride. The Prince of Lies also tells the one-hundred percenters that they are superior to all others.

 

[Monkey1976]

I believe that I have already told you what I think, but maybe I was too subtle: This whole gay conspiracy nonsense deserves ridicule. And speaking of support, let’s see someone give me proof for the basis of this paranoia. I don’t want to see speculation, I want to see proof.

You can start with this - the account of how and why the APA removed homosexuality as a diagnosis from the grandson of one of the conspirators in that effort.

 

[Rau]

First of all, Francis was not Pope in 2010 so I can take his statement or leave it. I choose not to accept your interpretation of his statement. The Archbishop did not single out “those who seek to ‘redefine’ marriage”. Perhaps the Evil One has also put falsehoods into the ears of those who staunchly assert that they follow the word of the Lord and then, arrogantly, speak with prejudice against homosexuals, while puffing up their own chests with pride. The Prince of Lies also tells the one-hundred percenters that they are superior to all others.

“Speak with prejudice against homosexuals”? What does this mean?