Why so many "gay marriage" posts?

[Lisa_N]

Libero:

I am a brand new member so i please peresrvere,

I think that there are a number of different views to be taken on this matter, my personal view is one that would state that homosexuality is a natural feeling for some, done in no way to spite the church or God,

Faulty logic libero. Not all of the desires and urges, the ‘natural’ feelings of mankind are positive nor do they invariably have positive consequences. You can look at the results of the desires to help you determine what is or is not a destructive/self destructive feeling. It may well be natural for some, such as that horrible Mr Duncan who kidnapped and abused Shasta Groene (after killing her family) to molest or kill. Do you think it’s ok because it’s ‘natural’ or the feeling wells up in someone and they decide to act on their desires?

Tell me the benefits or positive aspects of homosexual activity libero and you can see there is a reason that this activity should not be supported or encouraged.

Libero:

thus it has no effect on your understanding of religion and of God’s message. So therfore it is not something that should cause a problem to a pries.

Huh? I have no problem understanding the scripture or God’s message regarding homosexuality. It says this behavior is an abomination which relatively clear don’t you think?

Libero:

However i do understand why people say homosexuality is wrong, due to the fact it goes against the creation of life -

It’s also dangerous, unhealthy, passes STDs more easily and is associated with a very destructive lifestyle that includes promiscuity, anonymous sexual encounters, not cooperating with public health departments and pedophelia.

Libero:

Having said this i think that i would hold the status of many more liberal clergy members in saying that homosexuality is objectively wrong, however there are no grounds for harsh treatmet against people based on sexual orientation.

And who is suggesting harsh treatment? Unless you interpret not wanting to have people’s private lives made public a ‘harsh’ treatment I don’t know where you get the idea that our opposition to homosexuality means it should be a hangin’ offense.

Libero:

I also find the evidence and scriptures condemming homoseuxality to be very poor evidence in a modern day argument.

The truth does not change. Homosexuality is not a positive, life affirming, or healthy activity. They knew this long before they knew about AIDS. There is nothing in modern thought that makes homosexuality any more positive than it was 2000 years ago.

Libero:

I Personally i think that there should be a more progressive attitude towards homosexuality

And what would that entail?

Libero:

as i think some clergy members views are just purely discriminative. I hope God allows Benedict XVI to hold a less stern view towards homosexuality.

God Bless

Why? Is there any evidence that the Catholic teaching on homosexuality is wrong? Is there some new discovery that homosexuality is now a healthy and life affirming activity? God wants the best for His people and homosexuality is clearly not something a loving father would want for any of his children.

Lisa N

 

[Adonis33]

ega:

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

Your reasoning is faulty. In any civilization their is a percentage of murderers, rapists, theives, etc…
By your logic - we should condone these because they are natural?

I’m still waitning for the documentation showing homosexual marriage was sanctioned by the civililizations you listed in a previous post.

 

[sweetchuck]

ega:

Your energies would be better spent learning your history. Speak from knowledge, not fear, my friend.

And yours would be better spent learning Scripture and Church history. Learn temperance and fear of the Lord, my friend.

scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html

Jesus himself implicity condemns gay sex. Jesus said that “pornea,” or sexual sins, are unlawful. At the time Jesus spoke these words, his audience would have known that to mean Levitical law. Jesus himself does not say in Scriptures that homosexual sex is OK, rather, he affirms the sexual law already on the books.

Sorry my friend, the New Covenant does not mean a sexual free-for-all. I suggest you repent, pray for forgiveness, head to confession, and seek the nearest Courage group near you.

couragerc.net/

 

[Genesis315]

ega:

The vatican says the pope is infallible…but do you know where that doctrine comes from?

It comes from the general infallibility of each aspect of the Magesterium (ordinary, council, and pope) which comes from Jesus and the Holy Spirit as we see in divinely inspired Scripture. It was officially defined as dogma in the First Vatican Council in the late 1800s.

 

[Genesis315]

ega:

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

Yeah, homosexuality is natural, just like any other mental disorder. Unfortunately for you, same sex attraction doesn’t make you spasm into sodomy. A homosexual can choose not to engage in sodomy and should remain chaste just like any heterosexual is expected to do.

 

[Genesis315]

ega:

The key quality is love, all else comes from that. You deny love, you deny God. You deny the greatest of gifts. The hate so many so-called christians espouse in direct contradiction of the message of the new testament.

Leading people away from Hell is true love. Leading them into Hell is not love at all.

Tolerance of evil is also not love. Homosexual people should be loved and told the truth, not lies. You obviously don’t wnat what’s best for homosexuals.

 

[Genesis315]

ega:

Some history of the church and sexuality and reproduction.

Before the framing of the natural Law arguments (which appeared around the 600ad but were properly codified in the 1100s) it was simply assumed we were all sinners, and no differentiation was made between any one sinner and any other.

Our job was simple, to contemplate JCs death, and to seek redemption through his suffering. Everything else was considered secondary. Having children was not part of gods plan, and at that stage marriage was not celebrated as a sacrement, but as a blessing. The second coming was considered to be imminent and all activity was bent to that end.

But the second coming didnt happen, so the church turned its attention to the possibility that god had another plan. Thus observations were made and the church came to the conclusion that gods plan could be divined through observation. After fierce internal battles it was concluded that God wanted people to have babies. But this left the theological problem that sex was considered to be sinful.

The circle was squared by changing the churches teachings. The church started teaching that sex was no longer a sin if it occurred in marriage, and to reflect this new teaching the church made marriage one of the Sacrements. Actually, this was very cheeky, because the church decreed marriage had always been a sacrement…they simply had forgotten to mention it.

This introduced an anomoly.

Whereas before we were all sinners and it didnt matter how, the church introduced a doctrine that implied sex within marriage and kids was gods plan.

Suddenly children, pure evidence of peoples sin (that is, they were thinking of sex, not Jesus sffering on the cross) became pure evidence they were saved.

And behind that was the obvious counterpoint that people who had sex (and so were not contemplating redemption) but could not have children were actually violating gods plan and were the very worst sorts of sinners.

Those of you who like to think about marriage, sex and children as evidence you are fulfilling gods plan, or think the sterility of same-sex relationships shows its sinful nature need to remember this. You are considered to be fulfilling gods plan because there was no second coming.

Please cite sources. I think you are thinking of the Albegensians, one of the early groups of heretics who taught sex was sinful (the old passage Protestants rail on us about, people forbidding to marry, was actually about the Albegensians). Sex wasn’t considered sinful. If it was, St. Paul would not speak of Bishops being married.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Libero:

I also find the evidence and scriptures condemming homoseuxality to be very poor evidence in a modern day argument.

Are you saying this due to the specific nature of the references, or are you dismissing that the scriptures still apply?

Personally i think that there should be a more progressive attitude towards homosexuality as i think some clergy members views are just purely discriminative.

Discriminating between right and wrong is their business, so it’s not evil. Perhaps you mean that they selectively nurture anger toward homosexuals based on observation of their identifying characteristics? (fancy words for putting them down)

I hope God allows Benedict XVI to hold a less stern view towards homosexuality.

God Bless

I’m not familiar with his views, but when you say “less stern” do you think the Church teachings need to be changed to declassify it as a sin, or do you think he goes beyond the call of duty in inciting anger and hatred in the hearts of Catholics for their gay or SSA brethren?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

To answer the original question, why are there so many gay marriage posts?

I assume the answer is that gay marriage is a big issue, but why?

I suspect one reason is that so many people have a warped view of “diversity.”

These days the roles of men and women are so confused, and what constitutes a good family is no longer defined or even hoped for, as there are no widespread standards. We teach diversity backwards, by trying to make people think their own family situation is as “valid” as others so they don’t feel bad.

The result of all this is that hardly anybody has an image of stable marriage, and with so many family configurations it’s hard to find more than one person in one place who has a good view to discuss it with.

Ultimately, people run toward what they know and away from what they don’t know, unless they have a guide. Relationships between men and women at work and other places are governed by law, so honesty suffers. Women and men compete for leadership positions, blinding them to the beautiful realities of the other sex except as just another obstacle in the way of success. Having no concept of good old-fashioned chivalry, men have no idea how to behave toward women and guess what? Women and men are different, and they think differently.

As a result, men fear any kind of dealings with women and fall back to something that takes care of their biological urges but doesn’t require the mental anguish that goes with trying to become compatible with a “modern woman.”

In other words, there is zero diversity in a gay marriage. Diversity celebrates variety, not oddness. The ultimate denial of true diversity is gay marriage. Feminists should hate it, as they do not believe corporations should be run by monosexual board of directors, but they’re willing to turn over operations of a family to non-diverse gay men. Ah, that’s the key – if they are gay then that’s OK because we hate men unless they are contracted as sperm donors.

Being in a gay marriage, then, I suppose would be like wedding of two left shoes. Uncomfortable, but it saves the fear of either one having to deal with a right shoe, which twists a different way. It just doesn’t make a complete pair that properly fits any given human being.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

ega:

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

“Natural” is overrated. Arsenic is natural. It is natural for a small dog to jump on my leg. It is natural to give into temptations. It is also natural for a small percentage people to be born deformed or with mental retardation. It is also natural that in a random sampling from a population there are outliers from the norm. Tsunamis and tornadoes are natural. People killing each other are natural.

Not everything natural is good and constructive.

Perhaps next time you hear the word “unnatural” you can know they are really trying to say, “outside of design parameters.” Human beings are designed to have heterosexual activity to allow us to reproduce. They are driven to reproduce by the Freudian libido, some think, which can be satisfied in the way it was designed, or by other innovative means such as homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation.

Oh yeah, if homosexuality is “natural” because it seems to exist in all populations, then so is bestiality, suicide and murder. Not something I want to give a license for.

Alan

 

[fix]

ega:

Your energies would be better spent learning your history. Speak from knowledge, not fear, my friend.

That is all for tonight.

Peace be with you.

I will not take the time and effort to reply to all your half- truths and errors seriatim. Please provide us with citations for all your propaganda and educate us.

 

[fix]

ega:

It is possible, but then nor is anyone infalliblme.

The vatican says the pope is infallible…but do you know where that doctrine comes from?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[fix]

ega:

You cant have it both ways. if you argue that same-sex activity in ‘unnatural’, you must accept evidence from the natural world that shows it is.

You accept this. Good.

In any population of people there is a small but always present minority of people who prefer their own sex. It is about 2% of that population (essentially 1 in 50) of being public. If being gay is a choice you do not expect such universal consistencey.

So it clearly is natural for people.

You keep insinuating your definition of natural law which is opposite of the Church’s understanding of natural law.

 

[Libero]

sorry for late reply, different time zone,

When using the terms stren and discriminative, i mean that i think there are far too contradictory oppinions held by cardinals and bishops. Some completely oppse, some avoid the situation and some aggree. Some on the other hand have far too rouge and hateful opinions such as Caridnal Arinze, who claims that homosexuaity is “the summit of all evil … one of the worst sins” (or something very similar). I would like to see senior clergy members reaching a fair attitude towards homosexuality that all the officials agree on, and one that is more proggressive than the current stance held by many.

I am stating that the scriptural argumments in the bible against homosexuality are easily discredited.

I also would like to state that gay marriage dos not necessarily mean gay activity, a key example here is that gay anglican clergy members are allowed to marry, but have to make a promise to their diocesean bishop to stay celibate.

One more thing i would like to add is my hope that there will be more outspeaking liberal cardinals such as Cardinal Daneels, there are far too many outspoken conservative cardinals, and very few who take the side of the people commonly condemmed by the church for reasons on fading beliefs (homosexuals, Women preists, clergy marriage etc.) Having said that it is also more fun to see how the Cardinals respond and what they say about others point of view. I think there are far too many senior members of the church scared of taking a viewpoint ad sticking to it.

To Lisa N i am not stating that catholic teaching is incorrect (i can see the point of view, i am a catholic) i belive far to great a deal is made from the homosexuality argument as it is not directly linked to the ten most improtant instructions of the bible - commandments - and is very rarely mentioned by Jesus. I think that if God truly did not want homosexuality around, and was so disgrced by it as you seem to make it sound, he would not even have made it physically possible. This does not go against free will as some would say, as if homosexuality is not possible it would not ever have entered ones mind. My argummnet is not really supposed to be focused at the idea of homosexuality, Lisa N, but rather at the over reaction to the subject that some of the members of the church have taken. There rae far more importat christian techings to concern ones self with.

‘It’s also dangerous, unhealthy, passes STDs more easily and is associated with a very destructive lifestyle that includes promiscuity, anonymous sexual encounters, not cooperating with public health departments and pedophelia.’

The emphasis on asscocited would be good here, as all of these are ASSOCIATED with heterosexuality.

‘God wants the best for His people and homosexuality is clearly not something a loving father would want for any of his children.’

I see no factual evidence here Lisa N.

I would like to reitarte to Lisa N that my argumment is agianst the over reaction to homosexuality, not to the churchs teaching

Hope this clears things up

God Bless

 

[fix]

1. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.
2. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls”. In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

1. Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

[Lisa_N]

Libero:

sorry for late reply, different time zone,

I see you are in the UK. I am so sorry that your country was attacked by terrorists. Many in the US are praying for you all.

Libero:

When using the terms stren and discriminative, i mean that i think there are far too contradictory oppinions held by cardinals and bishops. Some completely oppse, some avoid the situation and some aggree. ,

People are people. There is authority and there are opinions. That’s life and no way to change it obviously.

Libero:

Some on the other hand have far too rouge and hateful opinions such as Caridnal Arinze,
… and one that is more proggressive than the current stance held by many.,

Again please define what you mean by a ‘progressive’ stance. Do you mean acceptance of homosexual activity? That will never happen. There is simply NO support in scripture, tradition or natural law. I think the Catholic church’s stance on homosexuality is very compassionate but does not water down the truth. No one is saying homosexuals should be identified and publically humilated or persecuted or tortured or denied basic human rights. That doesn’t mean we hold up homosexual activity as a positive or a beneficial, life giving way to live.

Libero:

I am stating that the scriptural argumments in the bible against homosexuality are easily discredited.

OK please do so.

Libero:

I also would like to state that gay marriage dos not necessarily mean gay activity, a key example here is that gay anglican clergy members are allowed to marry, but have to make a promise to their diocesean bishop to stay celibate.

What then would be the point of getting married? I think the idea that two homosexuals who are ‘married’ are to remain chaste is pretty unrealistic.

Libero:

One more thing i would like to add is my hope that there will be more outspeaking liberal… there are far too many outspoken conservati commonly condemmed by the church for reasons on fading beliefs (homosexuals, Women preists, clergy marriage etc.)

Fading beliefs? Do you really think that majority of Catholics are pro homosexual, pro female priests and pro clerical marriage? On what basis?

cont…

 

[Lisa_N]

cont…

Libero:

To Lisa N i am not stating that catholic teaching is incorrect (i can see the point of view, i am a catholic) i belive far to great a deal is made from the homosexuality argument as it is not directly linked to the ten most improtant instructions of the bible - commandments - and is very rarely mentioned by Jesus.

The most important commandment in the Hewbrew Bible, thou shalt have no other gods before me. Homosexuals worship a false god, that of themselves, their physical satisfaction, their impulsive desires. That is what they want above all.

Libero:

I think that if God truly did not want homosexuality around, and was so disgrced by it as you seem to make it sound, he would not even have made it physically possible. This does not go against free will as some would say, as if homosexuality is not possible it would not ever have entered ones mind…

Faulty logic libero. You would thus have to make the same excuse for murder, rape, child abuse, or torture. If God didn’t ‘want’ such actions He wouldn’t have allowed them to enter one’s mind. So you think God ‘wanted’ homosexuality since he obviously ‘wanted’ us to kill each other?

Libero:

My argummnet is not really supposed to be focused at the idea of homosexuality, Lisa N, but rather at the over reaction to the subject that some of the members of the church have taken. There rae far more importat christian techings to concern ones self with.

Overreaction? Do tell. I think the Church UNDER REACTED to homosexuality as it infested our seminaries, our parishes and our Church hierarchy. The blase approach to homosexuals preying upon parishioners is the reason my diocese is bankrupt and as I understand the awards are reaching a BILLION dollars.

‘It’s also dangerous, unhealthy, passes STDs more easily and is associated with a very destructive lifestyle that includes promiscuity, anonymous sexual encounters, not cooperating with public health departments and pedophelia.’

The emphasis on asscocited would be good here, as all of these are ASSOCIATED with heterosexuality.

Yes but the proportion of heterosexuals is far lower vis a vis their percentage in society. Murder is associated with being human because humans commit murder. The POINT is that homosexuality never results in life giving, creative action. It is simply a hedonistic pleasure that is associated with unfortunate results.

’‘God wants the best for His people and homosexuality is clearly not something a loving father would want for any of his children.’

I see no factual evidence here Lisa N.

So you believe that God doesn’t want his children to have the best?

Libero:

I would like to reitarte to Lisa N that my argumment is agianst the over reaction to homosexuality, not to the churchs teaching

Again WHAT over reaction?

Libero:

Hope this clears things up

God Bless

Well God Bless you too but you need to provide more than your opinions if you want anyone to be convinced.
Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Libero:

sorry for late reply, different time zone,

When using the terms stren and discriminative, i mean that i think there are far too contradictory oppinions held by cardinals and bishops. Some completely oppse, some avoid the situation and some aggree. Some on the other hand have far too rouge and hateful opinions such as Caridnal Arinze, who claims that homosexuaity is “the summit of all evil … one of the worst sins” (or something very similar). I would like to see senior clergy members reaching a fair attitude towards homosexuality that all the officials agree on, and one that is more proggressive than the current stance held by many.

The truth is not determined by consensus. Has any Cardinal openly disagreed with Cardinal Arinze on these topics? Cardinal Arinze is anything but hateful. He is a very loving man of the Church.

Libero:

I am stating that the scriptural argumments in the bible against homosexuality are easily discredited.

For those not interested in the Bible as God’s Word. However, if you belong to the Catholic Church, you take the entire Bible as truth in the sense that it was written and there are passages that undeniably speak of homosexual acts as gravely evil and wrong.

Libero:

I also would like to state that gay marriage dos not necessarily mean gay activity, a key example here is that gay anglican clergy members are allowed to marry, but have to make a promise to their diocesean bishop to stay celibate.

So why “marry” and why live together?

Libero:

One more thing i would like to add is my hope that there will be more outspeaking liberal cardinals such as Cardinal Daneels, there are far too many outspoken conservative cardinals, and very few who take the side of the people commonly condemmed by the church for reasons on fading beliefs (homosexuals, Women preists, clergy marriage etc.) Having said that it is also more fun to see how the Cardinals respond and what they say about others point of view. I think there are far too many senior members of the church scared of taking a viewpoint ad sticking to it.

Perhaps it is because the orthodox (true) teachings of the Church have spoken infallibly and definitively on the topics of marriage, homosexual activity, and women priests and there can be no beneficial discussion of change in these areas.

Libero:

To Lisa N i am not stating that catholic teaching is incorrect (i can see the point of view, i am a catholic)

Then why are you seeking Cardinals to openly dissent from that teaching?

Libero:

i belive far to great a deal is made from the homosexuality argument as it is not directly linked to the ten most improtant instructions of the bible - commandments -

Try the one against false gods and the one against adultery. Not to mention the undermining of God’s first and most fundamental covenant and building block of society, marriage.

Libero:

and is very rarely mentioned by Jesus.

In Scripture, Jesus rarely mentioned rape, incest, and beastiality but they are still wrong.

Further, Jesus clearly brought the definition of marriage back to
the one man one woman definition in Genesis.

Libero:

I think that if God truly did not want homosexuality around, and was so disgrced by it as you seem to make it sound, he would not even have made it physically possible.

God gave us free will. Murder is possible. Stealing is possible. All kinds of vile and disgusting things are possible. It is up to us to conform our free will and intellect to moral truth. It is not up to us to do what feels good just because we can.

continued…

 

[Brad]

Libero:

This does not go against free will as some would say, as if homosexuality is not possible it would not ever have entered ones mind.

So God preventing something from entering someone’s mind is NOT violating free will of that person? I suggest you read up on
the Church fathers to understand what free will really is.

Libero:

My argummnet is not really supposed to be focused at the idea of homosexuality, Lisa N, but rather at the over reaction to the subject that some of the members of the church have taken. There rae far more importat christian techings to concern ones self with.

Overreaction from the Church to homosexual activists that are attempting to undermine all moral teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Church, including marriage, sin, heaven and hell?
Hardly.

Libero:

The emphasis on asscocited would be good here, as all of these are ASSOCIATED with heterosexuality.

Concentration of STDs and promiscuity is vastly higher in homosexuals, which is why active homosexuals have significantly shorter life spans than heterosexuals.

Libero:

I would like to reitarte to Lisa N that my argumment is agianst the over reaction to homosexuality, not to the churchs teaching

If you want Cardinals to openly dissent, then you are arguing against Church teaching.

 

[Libero]

I am not openly disagreeing with chruch teaching, i am merely stating that some cardinals offer a very angry argument against homosexuality other than that of their religious belief. I think that posts by others are quite frankly nothing other than wrong when you read the generalisation from their comments.

I think that you will find that it is perhaps people like you Lisa N and Brad who so strongly defend only some parts of their religious teaching, to the point of an unhealthy obsession that is
the cause for catholicsim having the fastest reducing church attendndance figures than virtually any other religion. You fail to accept what has changed in the world today, changing the churches teaching into on of your own hatred, letting it take over the true teaching of love for all, and replacing it with one of anger, rather than showing your opininons in a polite manner you decide only to completely tear apart any comments that i have made. I did not expect to find such people on this forum with an over agression for their beliefs to the point of using the bible to excuse their homophobia. I hope that what i have heard is only a minorpart of your beliefs and you are not really so angry.

To continue with the DEBATE (please remember what it is) i shall paste an address that is of a very informing web site showing the argument put forward by the baptist Bishop John Shelby Spong.

I hope that you can put into action the most important teaching of christianity for the next time that i hear from you.