The row over the appointment of a gay man as Bishop of Reading shows no signs of abating. Canon Jeffrey John has been in a homosexual relationship for 27 years, but says it has been celibate for several years.

So says the headlines on Sky News. The excuse used was that "we should not discriminate over someone made in the image of god" - so this god is a homosexual too eh? Any form of perversion like this is a law against natural order and should not be encouraged.

This is only my personal opinion but I am against such perversions in our lives. People in such a position should be above reproach and whether I am a religious person or not, I do not like to see people like this in positions of decision making nor in the position of being a spiritual guide to ordinary folk.

He should be dismissed. We all know this sort of thing, and a lot worse, has been going on for centuries. It is only natural that sexes "bed" with opposites anything else is a perversion.

Red Devil,

We all know this sort of thing, and a lot worse, has been going on for centuries. It is only natural that sexes "bed" with opposites anything else is a perversion.An appeal to nature is unfounded since homosexuality is commonplace in the animal kingdom, why should man be any different?

The presumption is that homosexual behavior is a perversion, and a uniquely human perversion, engaged in as the result of what is presumed to be a learned attraction to members of the same sex.

There's only one problem with that assumption: None of it is true.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Put simply your opinion labels you as a homophobe and intolerant of the lifestyles of other people. Now we could argue that homophobia and intolerance is natural since most people tend to group together due to common characteristics. To be tolerant and compassionate with others who are different to you often takes a positive mental effort.

But it is intolerance and bigotry that creates violence and war. Shouldn’t it be a sign of a civilized society that tolerance and acceptance of differences is encouraged and embraced? Wouldn’t that reflect the ideals of a loving community?

Thanks for your input Cris - but I stand by my opinions.

Red Devil, what is your position on heterosexual acts of "sodomy" (oral and anal sex) ?

did you know that scientists have WATCHED male dolphins blow other male dolphins?

if someone knows the thread with the artical in it post it PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE:p

I, for one feel that it is a very progressive and positive move by the church. It's good to see that those in power, especialy in such an unlikely sector as that of religion, are abandoning views of homosexuality as some mystic and indefineably immoral thing. More power to him, I say.

Asguard,

Do you mean this article?

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/2001-spinner%20dolphins.html

thanks evil

I, for one feel that it is a very progressive and positive move by the church. It's good to see that those in power, especialy in such an unlikely sector as that of religion, are abandoning views of homosexuality as some mystic and indefineably immoral thing. More power to him, I say.

The homosexual act is a sin. If he does not repent and say that it is a sin, he should not be teaching. Whether it's wrong or not should not matter. A person that highly esteemed in the Anglian Church should have God first before any marriage.

if you simplify humans to the most common denomination, then yes... gays shouldn't be discriminated against... what's the big deal if some guy i donno sticks it to another guy i donno? outta sight, outta mind. and it's none of my bizness anyways.

BUT

we have such thing as society, culture, norms, tradition, establishments, ancient religions, a certain structure of things.

gays have no bizness in religious institutions (such as being priests or to get married)
the 3 big religions have always been against gays saying it's a horrible sin. says so in the holy books.

if some dude decides all of a sudden it's ok for a gay dude to be a bishop, or for 2 gays to marry in a church, than that dude changes the ancient rules of the religion.. he contradicts its laws.

how can a man change the laws that God [supposedly] had given mankind?
==================
this wonderful country where i live, legalized gay marriages a few days ago. it makes me sick. why do they have to call it marriage and ruin the ancient establishment of marriage (which btw started as a religious thing)? they wanna have partner-benifits and inheritance rights, let them have it... but why call it a marriage?

the majority has to suffer because of political correctness? bullshit.

Originally posted by Cris
The presumption is that homosexual behavior is a perversion, and a uniquely human perversion, engaged in as the result of what is presumed to be a learned attraction to members of the same sex.

There's only one problem with that assumption: None of it is true.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Should i give links justifying incest, bestiality, paedophiles, bondage&slavery and other crap..?

Bang the bishop. Never kneel to pray when he is around. When he becomes Pope praise his holy-dubious-arse.

If any christian remain in anglican church and has any self-esteem and fear of God they should feel ashamed.

PS : If that bishop was an ex-gay and repented his act nothing will stand against him to become the bishop except the ex-label.

how are YOU suffering you moron:mad:

Hey Assguard,
i don't interfere in your free thought.. you don't interfere in religious affairs otherthan naturally criticize them. does this make me a non-moron..:D

you can find examples in nature of almost any act

incest for sure (just watch our chickens)

homosexuality, look at that link

besality, has no one ever watched a dog?

basically if 2 adults want to do something that effects no one but themselves GO FOR IT. Even know some girls who like to bleed when they are doing it, if thats the way you like it thats your choice

as for marrage there ARE religions where homsexual marriges are encoraged

so if jews, muslams, christans, wicams can all get married LEGALLY why cant "rainbow wedings" be legal?

you ARE a moron, if you think that homsexuality is the root of all evil

INTOLERANCE like yours is

Okinrus: I agree with your post, but for different reasons - it IS wrong. The other person who mentioned about this bishop becoming pope; he cannot - he's Anglican (Protestant).

Don't make comparisons please between the "animal" kingdom and the rest of us - just because an animal may do it does not make it right but rather places it in its proper context - bestiality, as someone else tried to put it.

Obviously an emotive subject, which I exactly why I posted it - to draw out reaction. Apparently successful in that, I still welcome comment but rteserve my right to think as I do, for my own reasons, nothing to do with religion as such, but drawing comparisons with the "righteous" approach of our clergy to what actually does happen in practise.

Behind closed doors was mentioned in another post - fine; BUT in these so called "liberated times" the blatant public portrayal of this heinous behaviour is insulting to me personally and to many others who have the "balls" to admit it.

To support this behaviour, to my mind, is supporting the whole of the left wing "pc" brigade, another subject I do not like.

Putting the idiocy of the bible laws into perspective.

Dr.Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call her radio show. Recently she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura

Dear DR. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people I can.

When someone tries to defend homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 states it to be an abomination. END OF DEBATE

I need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the alter as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord-Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know I'm allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness-Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking but most women take offense.

4. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though it's an abomination. Lev 11:10 it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the alter of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? Lev. 20:14.

I know you've studied these things extensively, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding me that God's word is eternal and never changing.

Cris: The bible is so full on contradiction its untrue. Well, my word is its all basicvally untrue anyway - a collection of stories wound together, cleverly, into something that people take as THE TRUTH. I digress, it brings to mind a popular saying "One's Mans Meat is Another Man's Poison".

Everyone knew this abomination took place, throughout history, but I think the biggest problem I have is the very blatant public portrayal of being a "shirtlifter" is repulsive.

Talk about contradictions. One moment you acknowledge that the bible is full of contradictions. Then you condemn homosexuality again!

On of the nice things about being an atheist is that there is no reason to think less of gays.

Of course Leviticus is where homosexuality is condemned. But Leviticus also says that disobedient children should be stoned to death. Why take one seriously, and not the other?

Why shouldn't we make comparisons with the animals? We are just another one ourselves.

Repo Man,

I don't think Red Devil is arguing from a religious perspective, if I read the opening post correctly.

Red Devil simply finds homosexuality personally offensive and doesn't want to see gays in positions of authority.

The issue seems to be more a matter of discrimination rather than of religion. I assume he would be equally offended by a gay politician.

But homophobes tend to adopt their bigotry based on religious grounds. Red Devil’s position is essentially one of heterosexual prejudice.

My question would be whether Red Devil’s position is any way justifiable. This is especially difficult to answer since there is no universally agreed standard on which direction human lifestyles should evolve. RD’s perspective suggests a divisive stance, and where I suspect most gays would look to a far more tolerant and enlightened approach. In this light gays clearly have the moral high ground.

Repo Man,

On of the nice things about being an atheist is that there is no reason to think less of gays.I don't think that is true. I suspect that there are many atheists who find homosexuality offensive.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Everyone knew this abomination took place, throughout history, but I think the biggest problem I have is the very blatant public portrayal of being a "shirtlifter" is repulsive.
Just out of curiosity- what is your opinion of female homosexuality? Do you find that repulsive too?

Then they haven't really thought the issue through.
What basis for disliking homosexuality is there, other than the religious one?
I would argue that if they're not Christian, and still have a bias against gays, that they are exhibiting a cultural bias that is ultimately derived from the Bible.

Why reject all of Christianity but that?

Not condemning gays doesn't mean that you have to participate in gay sex, or associate with them. It just means that you don't care, because it is none of your business.

Then they haven't really thought the issue through.
What basis for disliking homosexuality is there, other than the religious one?
I would argue that if they're not Christian, and still have a bias against gays, that they are exhibiting a cultural bias that is ultimately derived from the Bible.

Homosexuality is unnatural and was once considered a pschological disorder. Its an outward sign of lust and not love.


Not condemning gays doesn't mean that you have to participate in gay sex, or associate with them. It just means that you don't care, because it is none of your business.

Every crime gives the forces of evil more power over mankind. Also no should christian condemns gays, but they should condemn the sin.

Wearing clothes and driving cars are "unnatural".

There are plenty of gays in love, and plenty of straights in lust.

Yes, in a more ignorant age homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder. But it isn't now.


"Every crime gives the forces of evil more power over mankind".

As Bertrand Russell once said, "when somone insists that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."

"Every crime gives the forces of evil more power over mankind".
As Bertrand Russell once said, "when somone insists that the Moon is made of green cheese, you don't argue with them; you feel sorry for them."

No. For example look at the WTC bombing that caused the Afgan war. Just one even later influenced many other musilms to hate the US. Another situation would be Palestine Isreal conflict.

There are plenty of gays in love, and plenty of straights in lust. Well yes, but I hold clergy to higher standards.

Those are human conflicts, caused by human stupidity, and adherence to ancient , nonsensical dogma. There is no reason to suspect supernatural forces at work.

You might as well try to blame them on the work of mischievious extra terrestrials. Or maybe Lucky, the Lucky Charms cereal Leprechaun has gone bad, and is using his powers to influence human affairs in a negative way.

Makes just as much sense, and has as much evidence to back it up.

To Red Devil who wrote: "People in such a position should be above reproach and whether I am a religious person or not, I do not like to see people like this in positions of decision making nor in the position of being a spiritual guide to ordinary folk."

How can an ordinary mortal be above reproach? Even you're Jesus was not beyond reproach (Don't believe me? Just ask Rabbi Silver :D)

But seriously a spiritual guide is someone who understands the distortions that keep people from accessing the 'spirit' (whatever that is). Whatever their sexual preferrences are or how they seat themselves on the loo is truly unimportant. If you were in trouble and sort guidance from a stranger who helped you tremendously would you then ask whether the person is gay or not? Would it matter? I care nothing for any religion but it has its place in the lives of many people, so what kind of message does the church send when it is judgemental and intolerant of people based on whether they enjoy sucking on banana's or eating...well...you get the idea.

Anyway who ever came up with the idea that a spiritual guide must be celibate? That is a requirement I find unnatural. Is there some correlation between having an orgasm and losing ones spirit? I mean does a little spiritual wisdom seep out with the sperm or something? What's the story? (smiles) The controversy over this 'gay' appointment is just to cover up all the pedophiles there are hiding in the church. What would you rather have celibate priests playing with alter boys under the pulpit? Or men in committed relationships whether hetero or gay?

Cris: Yes your correct. Hoever, I see that a person who is allegedly upholding the "moral" grounds of this country's "state" religion is indeed "immoral" himself.

Evil: Yes I find all homosexuality repugnant, irrespective of the gender.

And I also find "gay" politicians repugnant - I find ALL "gay" personnel repugnant. It is MY own personal view and does not reflect my lack of religious beliefs, political views. As you are all entitled to argue the case, so am I entitled to my view - reason for posting this thread was to invite such views - not to slag the poster off nor to ridicule other persons opinions, which I hope I have not done.

This particular person, the subject of this thread, as stated earlier, is supposed to be beyond reproach. How can a person expect him to uphold the moral high ground of his religion if he cannot uphold his own?

Originally posted by Lucysnow
If you were in trouble and sort guidance from a stranger who helped you tremendously would you then ask whether the person is gay or not? Would it matter?
No. I don't need to ask whether he is gay or not to get help from a stranger. That is his personal matter. But when a gay tells me what should i do to get into the good books of God, well, that is not his business. Its not just gays. Anyone who finds himself at odds with God is not eligible to guide in spritual matters.

homosexuality is a disability

their brain wiring is all messed up

i really feel sorry for gays. and i have no clue why they call it "pride week". nothing to be proud about

Being gay is about as much of a disability (and about as important) as being left handed.
Their only problem comes from having to deal with narrow minded heterosexuals who are enslaved by a book of ancient mis-translated myths.

The incredible prejudice they still have to deal with is enough for me to be glad I'm not.

Oddly, those who condemn them insist that being gay is a choice. Why on earth would someone choose to have to go through life putting up with the likes of you?
Do you feel that you could have just as easily been gay if you chose to be?

Originally posted by Red Devil
And I also find "gay" politicians repugnant - I find ALL "gay" personnel repugnant.
You have the right to have your personal opinion.
But a gay politician is not going to lead you to heaven. As a politician he has to serve the public who is going to elect him. As for as he is not trying change the laws against his 'prejudice' (hetrosexuality) it does not matter whether he is gay or not while serving public.

Those are human conflicts, caused by human stupidity, and adherence to ancient , nonsensical dogma. There is no reason to suspect supernatural forces at work.

No, Did I say anything supernatural? Did not Bush you the term Axis of Evil? One of the clearest indicators of sin is that it affects others.


No. I don't need to ask whether he is gay or not to get help from a stranger. That is his personal matter. But when a gay tells me what should i do to get into the good books of God, well, that is not his business. Its not just gays. Anyone who finds himself at odds with God is not eligible to guide in spritual matters.

I don't care if he is homosexual or not. However he has to repent of his sin and call it what it is to serve as God's minister. I've found that we are all at odds with God's since all have sinned.

Originally posted by everneo
As for as he is not trying change the laws against his 'prejudice' (hetrosexuality) it does not matter whether he is gay or not while serving public.

That is also one of the problems - these politicians "bending over backwards" (deliberate pun) to be "pc" and all the crap thats floating about now. They do and have changed the law to suit these, and others.

To Everneo who wrote: "Anyone who finds himself at odds with God is not eligible to guide in spritual matters."

Well that is my point I guess. I do not believe that anyone can say for sure or with any clarity what the great creater is at odds with. I assume that your idea of being at odds with the big boss comes from religious doctrine, which we all know has been written (re-written and passages omitted) by men, men who were more interested in controlling the masses through the bible, men who were political like the pope. They had blood on their hands and gold coins in their eyes. Why do you suppose you have the right to cast stones? Didn't the Nazarene have some little story about those without sin throwing stones? If someone disagrees with the active homosexual life then that is fine, but why get in the way of their advancement religious or otherwise? If the church deems him worthy of the post then why does this bother you? I mean it is not as if you would seek him for counsel.

Well that is my point I guess. I do not believe that anyone can say for sure or with any clarity what the great creater is at odds with. I assume that your idea of being at odds with the big boss comes from religious doctrine, which we all know has been written (re-written and passages omitted) by men, men who were more interested in controlling the masses through the bible, men who were political like the pope.

The anglian church is supposed to consider the bible authoritative. The bishop is supposed to have truth in his heart and not be concience of grave sin. So having members it defiance of the word of God shows that they do not have faith. Lack of faith spreads like leprosy.


They had blood on their hands and gold coins in their eyes. Why do you suppose you have the right to cast stones?
[/qoute]
Some stones are necessary to kill Goliath ie. expect to step on some toes, but don't do it maliciously. Christ said that the world will hate you as it did himself.

[quote]
Didn't the Nazarene have some little story about those without sin throwing stones?

Yes however the adultress knew it was a sin. The adultress did not try to make excuses for her behavior when all was in clear sight.


If someone disagrees with the active homosexual life then that is fine, but why get in the way of their advancement religious or otherwise?

The priest holds the body of christ. He is to make himself as pure as Christ is pure.


If the church deems him worthy of the post then why does this bother you? I mean it is not as if you would seek him for counsel.

The church is no longer part of the body of Christ. It is a tool and whim of Satan otherwise known as popular belief. Hopefully this will be a blessing with more conservatives joining the Catholic church.

:rolleyes:

Yes, indeed, the church is the body of Satan.
So are gays.
So is toast.
So is orange juice.
So are males.
So is Muslim.
So are you.

And does no one remember the part on Greek society in their AP Euro classes or is it just me?

Right, like straight people are all saints :rolleyes:

You're such a dork.

Satan does not have a body. He is a pure spiritual being however he will soon take to the flesh and breath his breath into the image of the beast.


And does no one remember the part on Greek society in their AP Euro classes or is it just me?

The Greeks were also in the habit of curbing babies to the hills. If you read Greek mythology many of their gods commited incest and rape.

If you peek hard enough at this chunk of paper known as "the bible" you will see stuff encouraging rape and murder.

No it doesn't. While there are some laws about marrying captives of war these were only because the Isrealites had hard hearts. Also you have to put these laws in light of what was practicing around them. The laws to not bring salvation and you could practice them perfectly and not be in heaven. In other words, they are only to keep order.

Raping women and killing people to "keep order". Right. I'm quite sure that kind of logic is twisted to the core. Like most religions, so don't feel like I'm singling yours out.
:m:

Well you can bring the verse in question. The Canaanites were to be wiped out anyways.

To Okinrus who wrote: "The church is no longer part of the body of Christ. It is a tool and whim of Satan otherwise known as popular belief. Hopefully this will be a blessing with more conservatives joining the Catholic church."

Well now I am really confused :confused:

Why would the church post a homosexual if it is against doctrine and against the popular opinion within the church? Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that there is a spiritual being named satan plotting against the big pill? I mean why would an all powerful being which is everything and created everything be at odds with himself? I mean if he created everything that would also include all we consider bad or evil? Why would an all powerful being allow one of his minions to wage war against him? Why would heaven which is supposed to be perfect have a war? And if there is war and good and bad in heaven why do we expect life on earth to be different? Why ask man to live up to a higher value when the angels don't even know how to behave?

God Through Gay Eyes (http://truluck.com/html/god_through_gay_eyes.html#GODTHROUGHGAYEYES)

Originally posted by Repo Man
Being gay is about as much of a disability (and about as important) as being left handed.


VERY good example when you think about how bigiots like some of the posters on this thread treated people who were left handed

Why would the church post a homosexual if it is against doctrine and against the popular opinion within the church? Just out of curiosity,

I don't know. England has become more secular. Perhaps most of the Anglian Church do not hold the bible authoritative. They have taken weaker stands on such issues as abortion. They have always sided with the secular goverment, ever since their beginnings with King Henry.


do you really believe that there is a spiritual being named satan plotting against the big pill? I mean why would an all powerful being which is everything and created everything be at odds with himself?

The creation of a creature that can love requires that creature to have freewill. Satan was the most powerful angel.


I mean if he created everything that would also include all we consider bad or evil?

Good and evil were created as soon as we have the choice to love him or not. However the forces of evil were not created but fell from heaven.

Why would an all powerful being allow one of his minions to wage war against him?
Satan does do some good. Without the perception that God loves us or can prove to us his love, we might never be able to comprehend his love.

Why would heaven which is supposed to be perfect have a war? There was a "war" in heaven but Satan has been casted down to earth.

Why ask man to live up to a higher value when the angels don't even know how to behave?
The angels who have chosen God have never sinned.

Which leads us to the ultimate question:

Is okinrus here to DISCUSS ...

... or to proselytize?

No. Obviously I'm just correcting mistakes. You said it yourself, "I'm here to crush theist and make them cry". So who is proselytizing?

Okinrus I am not here to make fun of your religion I just want to understand the ideas and the thinking, it is all quite confusing actually. Thanks for the explanation. The freewill thing makes sense but then why would a higher being then become upset and punish those for using their own freewill? I mean it just doesn't seem quite fair :(

I imagine that this has been posted before, but it is one of my favorites, so why not?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

There are logical difficulties in the notion of sin. We are told that sin consists in disobedience to God's commands, but we are also told that God is omnipotent. If He is, nothing contrary to His will can occur; therefore when the sinner disobeys His commands, He must have intended this to happen. St. Augustine boldly accepts this view, and asserts that men are led to sin by a blindness with which God afflicts them. But most theologians, in modern times, have felt that, if God causes men to sin, it is not fair to send them to hell for what they cannot help. We are told that sin consists in acting contrary to God's will. This, however, does not get rid of the difficulty. Those who, like Spinoza, take God's omnipotence seriously, deduce that there can be no such thing as sin. This leads to frightful results. What! said Spinoza's contemporaries, was it not wicked of Nero to murder his mother? Was it not wicked of Adam to eat the apple? Is one action just as good as another? Spinoza wriggles, but does not find any satisfactory answer. If everything happens in accordance with God's will, God must have wanted Nero to murder his mother; therefore, since God is good, the murder must have been a good thing. From this argument there is no escape.

From Bertrand Russell's An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish.

http://www.luminary.us/russell/intellectual_rubbish.html

Sirach 15:11 "Say not: 'It was God's doing that I fell away'; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: 'It was he who set me astray' for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth you hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed. No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies."

Maia: Some of these posts are hard enough to read without them being in RED!! *aaaaaaagh*

Originally posted by Lucysnow
To Everneo who wrote: "Anyone who finds himself at odds with God is not eligible to guide in spritual matters."

Well that is my point I guess. I do not believe that anyone can say for sure or with any clarity what the great creater is at odds with. I assume that your idea of being at odds with the big boss comes from religious doctrine, which we all know has been written (re-written and passages omitted) by men, men who were more interested in controlling the masses through the bible, men who were political like the pope.
I was wondering why hetrosexuality is being considered as a moral forced upon us by religions. If a homosexual, say a gay, get into an island where there are only cave-dwellers with no religion present, and if he tries to make advance towards a cave-man then it would be nice to know what happens to him.. any idea.?

Also i wonder how any man can have a sexual preference to other men when he has all those wonderful sexy creatures called females. ah..? by instinct anyone is a hetrosexual. unless had some psychologically damaged past or corrupted by 'free' thought. what do you think.?

Originally posted by Repo Man
Being gay is about as much of a disability (and about as important) as being left handed.
Their only problem comes from having to deal with narrow minded heterosexuals who are enslaved by a book of ancient mis-translated myths.

The incredible prejudice they still have to deal with is enough for me to be glad I'm not.

Oddly, those who condemn them insist that being gay is a choice. Why on earth would someone choose to have to go through life putting up with the likes of you?
Do you feel that you could have just as easily been gay if you chose to be?

i'm not enslaved by a book of ancient mistranslated myths (i'm an athiest)
i also do not think being gay is a choice. it's one of nature's cruel jokes... or a "defective product".

when a product is made in a factory it is expected that a certain percentage will be defective. (not a "product of different orientation")

i just hate that a small percent of the population (i think there's less than 1% of them, they think there's 10%) ruins it for the rest by changing ancient customs and religious laws believed by billions of religious peeps to have been set by God

i am not completely sure, but interracial marriage was once frowned upon by christianity was it not? if not i apologize for bringing it up, but anyways..

whether from a religious standpoint or just one of opinion, i believe that there is rarely and maybe never a reason to judge someone for decisions they make that truly do not hurt or cause someone else to suffer. homosexuals and heterosexuals do what they do because of what they feel. who is to say that what heterosexuals feel is more "right" than what homosexuals feel? last i heard the world was trying very hard to become tolerant, understanding and compassionate towards all mankind and animal kind. or maybe everyone is tolerant to a certain extent.. but god is not.. i don't know...

on a side note:


cris: your posts are most insightful and i very much enjoy them i agree with just about everything you have to say

okinrus: i am very happy there is a strong supporter of christianity here on these forums too.. or we would never hear their points

i only wish the supporters of christianity would look at some of the strong proof, the real strong evidence that their religion has some flaws.. and would fight back w/ something other than a bible quote.. which we already know could have been altered, re written or heck even misterpreted.

To Everneo: Whether homosexuality is a defect or caused by childhood abuse (doubtful) is finally not the point. It was the church itself that appointed this man to his post. If a gay organization were to lobby on his behalf and force the church to appoint him then I would understand your point. The truth is that the church has always been a haven for homosexuals and has pedophiles, which has recently come to light. I just think there is a lot of hypocrisy over this issue.