your opinions on gays

[KarenNC]

Of course it is. A homosexual rights community as has been deftly Kaunda changed definitions to show them in a kinder light, thus even though over 90% of the molestations in homosexual priests scandal was homosexual rape of postpubescent boys we were told it was a pediophile priest problem. KarenNC s comment about homosexual rape really being heterosexual rape is nonsense.

How in the world is classifying something as “pedophilia” rather than “homosexual” equate to “kinder light”? Could you clarify what Kenneth Kaunda talking about homosexuality in Zambia has to do with the problem of priests sexually assaulting minors?

Rape is a crime of violence and control of the other person. Male on male rape is no more equivalent to a consensual homosexual act than male on female rape is equivalent to a consensual heterosexual act. It is not based on physical attraction. The man who rapes a 4 month old child is not a homosexual if the child is a boy and heterosexual if the child is a girl. He is a rapist.

utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/maleassault/menassault.html

malesurvivor.org/myths.html

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

As to whether homosexual males are more dangerous than heterosexual males in terms of sexual assault, we can look at the following:
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsarp00.pdf

Persons age 12 or older experienced an average annual 140,990 completed rapes, 109,230 attempted rapes, and 152,680 completed and attempted sexual assaults between 1992 and
2000, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (table 1). Most rapes and sexual assaults were
committed against females: Female victims accounted for 94% of all completed rapes, 91% of all attempted rapes, and 89% of all completed and attempted sexual assaults, 1992-2000."

It would seem that men who are, by your standards, obviously heterosexual because their victims are female, are much more dangerous to society.

The molestations by the priests were, purely and simply, matters of abuse. It doesn’t make a difference if the perpetrator is homosexual or heterosexual or if the minor in question is a boy or girl, it is abuse. Frankly, I would hazard a guess that the fact that most of the victims were male has at least something to do with the structure of the Catholic Church and availability. There are, as I understand it, many more situations in which a priest is working closely and alone with boys as altar servers, assistants, acolytes etc than girls because girls are not allowed to so participate.

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9305fea2.asp

 

[iamrefreshed]

The molestations by the priests were, purely and simply, matters of abuse. It doesn’t make a difference if the perpetrator is homosexual or heterosexual or if the minor in question is a boy or girl, it is abuse.

I agree.

Frankly, I would hazard a guess that the fact that most of the victims were male has at least something to do with the structure of the Catholic Church and availability. There are, as I understand it, many more situations in which a priest is working closely and alone with boys as altar servers, assistants, acolytes etc than girls because girls are not allowed to so participate.

I disagree. That is definitely a wild guess you are making. I seriously doubt that access determined the sex of the child the priest sought out to abuse.

 

[agangbern]

Attraction, in this discussion, is desire. A disordered sexual desire, as in the case of the homosexual, is lust. Why could you not accept that fact?
Because it is 100% wrong. Attraction is not lust. If I find a woman attractive, I am not lusting after her. If a homosexually oriented man finds another man attractive, he is not lusting after him. Lust is a disordered desire for sex with another person.
…
Great. Now try to understand the difference between lust and attraction.

And who said that attraction is lust? Please don’t attempt to cram words into my mouth just to confuse the issues… What I said is this: “Disordered sexual desire” is lust! And homosexuality is “disordered sexual desire” hence it is lust!
That is the teachings of the Church, not my own opinion. There is no use attempting to bend or twist that truth.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Neither at the right nor at the left. It is like saying: “neither cold nor hot.” What did the Lord say of those who are neither cold not hot?
:banghead: (I could say some really uncharitable things right here)

No, it’s more like say away from the cafeteria in the first place!

Follow the Church’s teachings whole and entire, without compromise, period.

You want to know what the Church’s position on homosexuality is? How about reading the Catechism for the teaching and then look at her actions: ever heard of Courage?

Not only me, but each of us should read the catechism not as we read a novel but with sincere prayer for guidance from the Holy Spirit. And so let us follow the Church teachings without compromise or attempting to twist them.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Nonetheless, I am very sure you are a man. For the Lord God created only two kinds of human beings: MAN and WOMAN. You could be like Jesus Christ. He was not a homosexual and not a heterosexual either.

:bigyikes: What!?

Yes, unfortunately it is a “what?”.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And who said that attraction is lust? Please don’t attempt to cram words into my mouth just to confuse the issues… What I said is this: “Disordered sexual desire” is lust! And homosexuality is “disordered sexual desire” hence it is lust!
That is the teachings of the Church, not my own opinion. There is no use attempting to bend or twist that truth.

You really don’t get to pick and choose parts of the CCC to meet your pre-defined biases and judge all of humanity with them.

What you state above is incorrect. You are intentionally using different articles and attempting to deduce your own biased conclusions.

What 2351 says is that “Lust is a disordered desire for or an inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure”.

2357 states (Emphasis mine) “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or women who experience an exclusive or predominate sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”.

Now clearly 2357 defines homosexuality as the relations itself in the first part of the sentence and then goes on to define who may perform those relations. They are two definitions.

It goes on to state that “homosexual acts are intristically disordered”

Note the act is disordered.

 

[FishMonger]

Sometimes even I am surprised. A poster recently told us Jesus was not a heterosexual.

Well, I’ve circled the planet many times, lived all over the place, called third world stink holes home, watched dead babies float down Chinese rivers, basked in the lap of luxury, lost it all, made it all back, speak weird languages, dated a hollywood star for a while, and even went to a few county fairs and goat ropings.

But this is new, and that’s a real treat. Who else thinks Jesus was not heterosexual?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

That’s very interesting. Is the use of artificial birth control disordered behavior?

In a word, yes.

Bone up on your Catholic teaching and take a look at Humanae Vitae today.

But appeal to widespread dissent and malformation in the modern western world does not bolster your argument. It only highlights how disordered most all popular and common notions of sexuality, and the function of the sex acts and sex organs have become.

To be sure, sins of the flesh get the best PR and popular endorsement. However widespread they become in the modern western world, the light of 20 centuries of tradition will not be challenged by it. In fact, 20 centuries of tradition will challenge the Catholic, not vice versa.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Sometimes even I am surprised. A poster recently told us Jesus was not a heterosexual.

Well, I’ve circled the planet many times, lived all over the place, called third world stink holes home, watched dead babies float down Chinese rivers, basked in the lap of luxury, lost it all, made it all back, speak weird languages, dated a hollywood star for a while, and even went to a few county fairs and goat ropings.

But this is new, and that’s a real treat. Who else thinks Jesus was not heterosexual?

Let me know if you write an auto-biography. Sounds like a must read!

 

[FishMonger]

In a word, yes.

Bone up on your Catholic teaching and take a look at Humanae Vitae today.

But appeal to widespread dissent and malformation in the modern western world does not bolster your argument. It only highlights how disordered most all popular and common notions of sexuality, and the function of the sex acts and sex organs have become.

To be sure, sins of the flesh get the best PR and popular endorsement. However widespread they become in the modern western world, the light of 20 centuries of tradition will not be challenged by it. In fact, 20 centuries of tradition will challenge the Catholic, not vice versa.

I’m not bolstering my argument; I’m just applying Benny’s. If all those people using ABC are engaged in disordered behavior and are potential serial killers, then we need to be on our guard.

And antics of a few gays are nothing compared to the overwhelming disordered behavior of those people embracing ABC. If danger lurks from disordered behavior and an inability to control sexual impulses, then we better forget about the gays and tackle the far more perilous threat.

So, just how do we explain to children why so many couple have only two kids?

 

[Bennie_P]

I’d say most of the world didn’t know anything about Judeo-Christian standards until recently. Why do you say it was a world standard until recently?

If you call 2000 years ago “until recently.”

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/indians.html
India has a legacy of three distinct Jewish groups: the Bene Israel, the Cochin Jews and the White Jews from Europe. Each group practiced important elements of Judaism and had active synagogues. The Sephardic rites predominate among Indian Jews.
The Bene Israel (“Sons of Israel”) lived primarily in Bombay, Calcutta, Old Delhi and Ahmadabad. The native language of the Bene Israel was Marathi, while the Cochin Jews of southern India spoke Malayalam.
The Bene Israel claim to be descended from Jews who escaped persecution in Galilee in the 2nd century B.C.E. The Bene Israel resemble the non-Jewish Maratha people in appearance and customs, which indicates intermarriage between Jews and Indians. The Bene Israel, however, maintained the practices of Jewish dietary laws, circumcision and observation of Sabbath as a day of rest.

Of course it took until the late 15 century A.D. before Judea-Christianity was introduced into the “New World” and the 16 century before it was first introduced to the Philipines and Japan.

Of course Judea-Christian thought and most likely it’s deas of morality was introduced much earlier to China.
The Church in China

In northern Africa Jewish morality touched other societies at least 2500 years ago and Judea-Christian morality since the beginning of the Church.

IMHO, I would say the known world has known and been influenced by Jewish morality during most of recorded history and Judea-Christianity morality has had if not a major influence, at least a significant influence on **all **of currently known society for the past 500 years.

 

[FishMonger]

If you call 2000 years ago “until recently.”

Of course it took until the late 15 century A.D. before Judea-Christianity was introduced into the “New World” and the 16 century before it was first introduced to the Philipines and Japan.

Of course Judea-Christian thought and most likely it’s deas of morality was introduced much earlier to China.
The Church in China

In northern Africa Jewish morality touched other societies at least 2500 years ago and Judea-Christian morality since the beginning of the Church.

IMHO, I would say the known world has known and been influenced by Jewish morality during most of recorded history and Judea-Christianity morality has had if not a major influence, at least a significant influence on **all **of currently known society for the past 500 years.

You told us, “Most of the world until recently, adopted Judea-Christian morality as it standard.”

Knowledge of an idea by a few people in a population hardly means it is the standard for the population. Christianity was introduced to extended yawns in most of Asia. Hinduism has been introduced to the US, and some people are Hindus. Is it therefore valid to say Hinduism is the standard in the US?

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m not bolstering my argument; I’m just applying Benny’s. If all those people using ABC are engaged in disordered behavior and are potential serial killers, then we need to be on our guard.

And antics of a few gays are nothing compared to the overwhelming disordered behavior of those people embracing ABC. If danger lurks from disordered behavior and an inability to control sexual impulses, then we better forget about the gays and tackle the far more perilous threat.

So, just how do we explain to children why so many couple have only two kids?

Well, yes they are potential serial killers. since a majority of ABC is pro-abortive in nature and function and the number one back up plan is abortion. In fact as a society, just in the United States since 1973, we have committed mass murder at least against 49 million children through legalized abortion, and only our Lord knows how many million through the use of ABC. I would say that makes us Americans all serial killers or mass murders at proportions that make Gacy and Bundy look like angels. I repeat, through the relaxing the standards of sexual morality, as a nation all of us have become mass murders and serial killers.

 

[FishMonger]

Well, yes they are potential serial killers. since a majority of ABC ais pro-abortive in nature and function and the number one back up plan is abortion. As a society just in the United States since 1973 we have committed mass murder at least against 49 million children, and only our Lord knows how many million through the use of ABC. I would say that makes us Americans all serial killers or mass murders at proportions that make Gacy and Bundy look like angels. I repeat, through the relaxing the standards of sexual morality, as a nation all of us have become mass murders and serial killers.

Well, that’s good to know. Ninety-five percent of us are potential serial killers. I guess that makes the gays just like the rest of us.

 

[Mapi]

Tiggeriffic,

As someone who has insight into the gay community, maybe you could clarify what the gay organizations are trying to accomplish by frequently, publicly offending the Church.

Catholics aren’t doing anything to gays, yet these organizations have giant sodomy parties at places holy to us, and when they aren’t doing that they publically display pornographic images of Christ and the Saints at their other celebrations.

Why are they so mean to Christians? Why are they so intolerant of us? Why do these organizations tolerate Islam, which has the death penalty for homosexuality, but won’t tolerate Christianity, which only proposes that they have the choice to not engage in homosexual relations?

Talking about gays constantly doing offensive acts towards the Church, have any of you have idea why the Church didn’t do anything about the gay group that got inside the church in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago dressed as nuns and partaking of the Sacrament?

 

[Bennie_P]

You told us, “Most of the world until recently, adopted Judea-Christian morality as it standard.”

Knowledge of an idea by a few people in a population hardly means it is the standard for the population. Christianity was introduced to extended yawns in most of Asia. Hinduism has been introduced to the US, and some people are Hindus. Is it therefore valid to say Hinduism is the standard in the US?

Oh, but the influence on Hinduism by Judea-Christianity morality goes back to the beginning of the Church, and Hinduism was only been introduced into the US during the last 100 or so years. And yes, Hinduism has corrupted the way we look at things in the west and America. In fact two things you should note, One -Ghanda’s use of non-vilolence in India’s revolt against the British was dependant on the how Christians outside of India would react, and Ghanda based this reaction to be the moving force behind his theory of non-violence as he understood the ideas of Judea-Christian morality. This same type of non-violence would not work within a society without the reaction of societies from outside of Hindu and Buddist societies. For example, that is what the Buddhist monks in Burma are counting on today, not the morality of the Burmese government, but the morality of western society (based on Judea-Christian principles) to put pressure on the Burmese government (not based on Judea-Christian morality) to change their oppressive ways.
Two - the influence of Hindu thought (pagan thought) is deluting our sense of Judea-Christian morality in the west with its relativist philosophy. IMHO

I’m not saying though that many Hindus are not sincerly looking to be honest, good and holy people, but there seems to be is a lack of full truth in their belief system.

 

[Bennie_P]

Well, that’s good to know. Ninety-five percent of us are potential serial killers. I guess that makes the gays just like the rest of us.

Not potential, we are. Not 95 % but 100 %.

It is not a question of who is better, but do we stop and make a stand for a Culture of Life or continue down the road of the Culture of Death?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The City of San Francisco tacitly “blessed” the abomination that took place in the church. The City has no genuine impediment to the homosexual agenda EXCEPT the Church.

The City passes almost all of its ordinances in compliance with the gay agenda. San Francisco is Sodom & Gommorah.

 

[FishMonger]

Oh, but the influence on Hinduism by Judea-Christianity morality goes back to the beginning of the Church, and Hinduism was only been introduced into the US during the last 100 or so years. And yes, Hinduism has corrupted the way we look at things in the west and America. In fact two things you should note, One -Ghanda’s use of non-vilolence in India’s revolt against the British was dependant on the how Christians outside of India would react, and Ghanda based this reaction to be the moving force behind his theory of non-violence as he understood the ideas of Judea-Christian morality. This same type of non-violence would not work within a society without the reaction of societies from outside of Hindu and Buddist societies. For example, that is what the Buddhist monks in Burma are counting on today, not the morality of the Burmese government, but the morality of western society (based on Judea-Christian principles) to put pressure on the Burmese government (not based on Judea-Christian morality) to change their oppressive ways.
Two - the influence of Hindu thought (pagan thought) is deluting our sense of Judea-Christianinity morality in the west with its relativist philosophy. IMHO

Hinduism is older than both Judaism and Christianity. Can you tell us how Judaism influenced Hinduism? Also, Gnosticism was influenced by Hinduism and is evidence of the Hndu influence in the mideast. Can you tell us if Hinduism influenced Judaism and early Christianity?

Keep in mind thet Hinduism had a trinity long before Christians came up with the idea. Hindu influence?

 

[FishMonger]

Not potential, we are. Not 95 % but 100 %.

It is not a question of who is better, but do we stop and make a stand for a Culture of Life or continue down the road of the Culture of Death?

OK. So everybody is a potential serial killer. So, can we forget about any gay connection?