Pope Benedict XVI..

He's "against same-sex marriages, women in the church, and contraception".  He apparently also plans to declare that the world is flat and that we should once again burn witches.

The main problem with Catholicism right now is that it's old fashioned and doesn't really fit in with the modern world where genders are equals and condoms are plenty.  It seems like this new Pope isn't going to help that image any. :/

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109158#msg109158 date=1114015745]
He's "against same-sex marriages, women in the church, and contraception".
[/quote]

Wait...the new pope is CATHOLIC!? REALLY!?

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109158#msg109158 date=1114015745]
Pope Benedict XVI..

He's "against same-sex marriages, women in the church, and contraception".  He apparently also plans to declare that the world is flat and that we should once again burn witches.
[/quote]

That is lame..

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11336.msg109159#msg109159 date=1114015878]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109158#msg109158 date=1114015745]
He's "against same-sex marriages, women in the church, and contraception".
[/quote]

Wait...the new pope is CATHOLIC!? REALLY!?
[/quote]

Yes, and the Catholics need to get with the times.  Seriously.  They stopped burning witches and declaring the earth was flat hundreds of years ago.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109158#msg109158 date=1114015745]
Pope Benedict XVI..

He's "against same-sex marriages, women in the church, and contraception".  He apparently also plans to declare that the world is flat and that we should once again burn witches.

The main problem with Catholicism right now is that it's old fashioned and doesn't really fit in with the modern world where genders are equals and condoms are plenty.  It seems like this new Pope isn't going to help that image any. :/

[/quote]

I'm not a Catholic, but I'm in a Catholic school, so I'll respond:

I'm against same-sex marriages, that doesn't mean I think the world is flat. People like you just say these things because they have an underlying problem with religion.

Christianity doesn't seem to fit in with the modern world in your eyes does it? At August National, the golf course in Alabama, women are not allowed to apply for membership. Do you argue that they are living in the 13th century as well? What, exactly, is wrong with the Catholic stance against 1) sex before marriage is a sin and that 2) sex for purposes other than procreation isn't morally right?

I'm sick of everyone coming out and slamming the new Pope when they are people like you. First, people who don't know anything about him whatsoever. Second, people who don't like religions/Catholicism in the first place.

The old pope died at age 84.

The new pope recently turned 78.

I think they're going to have to pick again soon.

Good job Hazard. I don't see how people can make accusations without evidence. Was is true Catholics who burned witches or false Catholics? A true Catholic wouldn't kill anyone, even back in those centures when witches were put to death. (Didn't Puritans kill them?) Also, I havn't heard of a case since I've been born that involved a Catholic killing a witch in our day in age. The Catholic church isn't supposed to become modernized. I suggest next time you try talking against something that you don't know anything about, look up the correct information.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109166#msg109166 date=1114021396]
2) sex for purposes other than procreation isn't morally right?
[/quote]

That's a strong stance. Do catholics actually stick to that? If you have sex only for the purpose of procreation, that would mean only once per month, at the right date calculated from the female's periods. And no sex while pregnant.

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=11336.msg109173#msg109173 date=1114023072]
The old pope died at age 84.

The new pope recently turned 78.

I think they're going to have to pick again soon.
[/quote]
Thats what I was wondering about... I also hear that this pope was in the Hitler Youth...

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=11336.msg109173#msg109173 date=1114023072]
The old pope died at age 84.

The new pope recently turned 78.

I think they're going to have to pick again soon.
[/quote]

I was thinking that!  No wonder they've had 285 popes, if they keep picking ones who are this old :)

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 

EIN VOLK, EIN REICH, EIN POPE

He was in the Hitler youth when he was younger.

I'm sure he'll be fine though.

I wonder how long he'll live. I'm currently taking bets.

[quote author=Vicious link=topic=11336.msg109187#msg109187 date=1114031383]
EIN VOLK, EIN REICH, EIN POPE

He was in the Hitler youth when he was younger.

I'm sure he'll be fine though.

I wonder how long he'll live. I'm currently taking bets.
[/quote]

All boys were forced into that Youth group, but later on he was in a Nazi organization. People are still talking about his past though.

[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109190#msg109190 date=1114032783]
[quote author=Vicious link=topic=11336.msg109187#msg109187 date=1114031383]
EIN VOLK, EIN REICH, EIN POPE

He was in the Hitler youth when he was younger.

I'm sure he'll be fine though.

I wonder how long he'll live. I'm currently taking bets.
[/quote]

All boys were forced into that Youth group, but later on he was in a Nazi organization. People are still talking about his past though.
[/quote]
Exactly. People shouldn't be judged by what they did or by what happened to them in the past.

His father, obeying Hitler's laws, joined him in the Hitler Youth. He quit all Nazi-related things as soon as Hitler was overthrown/captured/sentenced/whatever. Also, his father resented the Hiter Youth, although never protested because he felt his life was more valuable than his opinion.

I heard he was going to be named Pope John Paul the 24th, but it apears I'm wrong.

He was a damn Nazi, no way to excuse that from his past.
The Catholic Church is way behind times. I agree with everything Iago said.
Catholic priests molest little boys. If I was a Catholic I would be embarrassed to belong to such a group.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109200#msg109200 date=1114036134]
He was a damn Nazi, no way to excuse that from his past.
The Catholic Church is way behind times. I agree with everything iago said.
Catholic priests molest little boys. If I was a Catholic I would be embarrassed to belong to such a group.
[/quote]

He formally renounced his Naziness. Saying "Cathloic priests molest little boys" is like saying "Blacks steal televisions" - while the statement may be true, it's not true of all, and should be said in a less implying way.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11336.msg109203#msg109203 date=1114036651]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109200#msg109200 date=1114036134]
He was a damn Nazi, no way to excuse that from his past.
The Catholic Church is way behind times. I agree with everything iago said.
Catholic priests molest little boys. If I was a Catholic I would be embarrassed to belong to such a group.
[/quote]

He formally renounced his Naziness. Saying "Cathloic priests molest little boys" is like saying "Blacks steal televisions" - while the statement may be true, it's not true of all, and should be said in a less implying way.
[/quote]

I understand, to some point, where the Catholic priests are coming from.  If you don't allow somebody to have sex or masturbate, that's bound to mess up your mind.  You're totally going against what nature intended for you. 

And hmm, Invert agrees with me; I change my mind, I disagree with me now.  Can't be sharing an opinion with _invert_! ;)

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg109174#msg109174 date=1114024391]
Good job Hazard. I don't see how people can make accusations without evidence. Was is true Catholics who burned witches or false Catholics? A true Catholic wouldn't kill anyone, even back in those centures when witches were put to death. (Didn't Puritans kill them?) Also, I havn't heard of a case since I've been born that involved a Catholic killing a witch in our day in age. The Catholic church isn't supposed to become modernized. I suggest next time you try talking against something that you don't know anything about, look up the correct information.
[/quote]

I should point out that the part about burning witches (and flat earth) was a joke. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109205#msg109205 date=1114037664]
I understand, to some point, where the Catholic priests are coming from. If you don't allow somebody to have sex or masturbate, that's bound to mess up your mind. You're totally going against what nature intended for you.
[/quote]

What did that have to do with my post? :o

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11336.msg109211#msg109211 date=1114039150]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109205#msg109205 date=1114037664]
I understand, to some point, where the Catholic priests are coming from. If you don't allow somebody to have sex or masturbate, that's bound to mess up your mind. You're totally going against what nature intended for you.
[/quote]

What did that have to do with my post? :o
[/quote]

It had to do with the topic of Catholic priests being generalized, somewhat.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109200#msg109200 date=1114036134]
He was a damn Nazi, no way to excuse that from his past.
The Catholic Church is way behind times. I agree with everything iago said.
Catholic priests molest little boys. If I was a Catholic I would be embarrassed to belong to such a group.
[/quote]
Invert, you have no clue what you are talking about. If you (I hope this doesn't happen) were to rape a relative of yours (let's say your about 32 years old now and you did this 12 years ago), would you want to be charged with rape after those 12 years have gone by? I hope you understand this. Why should someone be judged on what !HAPPENED! in their youth!? He didn't choose to become a Nazi Youth. He was FORCED, look up the word FORCED on dictionary.com, I think you'll find it very interesting. When someone is FORCED to do something, it IS NOT their choice to do so. I hope your brain can process something this "complicated".
Iago, I was wondering if it was a joke or not. But you kind of souned serious with it. :/

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg109216#msg109216 date=1114039803]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109200#msg109200 date=1114036134]
He was a damn Nazi, no way to excuse that from his past.
The Catholic Church is way behind times. I agree with everything iago said.
Catholic priests molest little boys. If I was a Catholic I would be embarrassed to belong to such a group.
[/quote]
Invert, you have no clue what you are talking about. If you (I hope this doesn't happen) were to rape a relative of yours (let's say your about 32 years old now and you did this 12 years ago), would you want to be charged with rape after those 12 years have gone by? I hope you understand this. Why should someone be judged on what !HAPPENED! in their youth!? He didn't choose to become a Nazi Youth. He was FORCED, look up the word FORCED on dictionary.com, I think you'll find it very interesting. When someone is FORCED to do something, it IS NOT their choice to do so. I hope your brain can process something this "complicated".
iago, I was wondering if it was a joke or not. But you kind of souned serious with it. :/

[/quote]

People don't change.  That's a fact of life.  It can be argued over and over, but people don't change.  If somebody consistantly breaks the law as a kid, they'll do it as an adult.  If somebody is capable of rape when they're young, they are when they're old.  If somebody's capable of murder when they're young, they'll do it when they're old.  I think it's perfectly fine to judge people on choices they made in their youth.  It shows what type of person they are.  That's why if I was ever in charge of hiring, I wouldn't hire anybody with a criminal record.  If they did it before, they're capable of doing it again.

That being said, I don't hold the "Nazi" thing against him.  From all the sources I've heard, it wasn't a choice he made. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109225#msg109225 date=1114043166]
People don't change.  That's a fact of life.
[/quote]

I don't agree with that at all. People can change. It's just that most people don't.

People don't change? That's one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard! Are you saying that if someone killed someone earlier in their life, they can NEVER become a better person and be sorry for what they've done? This is exactly what you just said.

Just because he feels sorry doesnt mean he changed

People can change, if they chose to. However I can tell you this. If I had children and had them around someone who murdered somebody in their past, I would never let them around them again. People can feel sorry for them, but you must have some intense physchological problems to be able to kill. I could never live my life knowing that I killed someone. It's just me, I couldn't steal from anyone either.

I would like someone here to point out any other major religion that had a problem with any religious leaders molesting little boys.

Catholics believe that homosexuality is wrong but they have had priests molest little boys! There MUST be something wrong here.

I think people can change but most people are to stubborn to change so they never will, I keep telling myself people can change like ex gfs turns out they never do and I always just keep getting hurt

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg109229#msg109229 date=1114045137]
People don't change? That's one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard! Are you saying that if someone killed someone earlier in their life, they can NEVER become a better person and be sorry for what they've done? This is exactly what you just said.
[/quote]

If you're 20, and you kill somebody (on purpose), it means you're the type of person who'd kill somebody.  When you're 30 or 40, you're still the type of person who'd kill somebody.  Sure you might feel sorry about it, but that doesn't change the fact that you're the type of person who would do it.

Perhaps Arta is correct that people just don't WANT to change.  But I stick with my view that if somebody steals when they're young, they'll likely steal when they're old.  If somebody doesn't respect authority when they're young, they won't when they grow up.  MAYBE it's possible for people to change, but I don't see any evidence of it. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109233#msg109233 date=1114045893]
I would like someone here to point out any other major religion that had a problem with any religious leaders molesting little boys.

Catholics believe that homosexuality is wrong but they have had priests molest little boys! There MUST be something wrong here.
[/quote]
I'm Catholic. I believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost. I like never go to Church. I don't follow their rules, hell in English class I say the exact thing you say. My teacher goes on about how we shouldn't be homophobic, but yet listen to the Church. I honestly said in class, "why listen to the priests when they are molesting Alter Boys?". Her jaw just dropped and then she sent me out into the hall for, "harsh comments". How is that harsh? I'm not trying to bash religions but it is the truth about some Catholic Priests. Hell, last year in my Catholic school, my teachers wifes cousin was an Alter Boy...He was fondled by a Priest and has never step foot in a Church every again. Could you blame him? Yet my teather last year kept going on about bonds with God. You can still prey in your own home.

[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109237#msg109237 date=1114046649]
You can still prey in your own home.
[/quote]

I suppose. Just don't invite any priests over or you may become prey again.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109175#msg109175 date=1114025599]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109166#msg109166 date=1114021396]
2) sex for purposes other than procreation isn't morally right?
[/quote]

That's a strong stance. Do catholics actually stick to that? If you have sex only for the purpose of procreation, that would mean only once per month, at the right date calculated from the female's periods. And no sex while pregnant.
[/quote]

Adron, I must enlighten you because you are so obviuosly ignorant on this topic, I think we can agree on that.

The Catholic Church is against hindering the will of God. Family planning is acceptable in the Chruch's view because it in no way artifically hampers the process. True Catholics are faith bound to stick to it.

As I said, I'm not a Catholic. Its not my view, its theirs.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109186#msg109186 date=1114030696]

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 
[/quote]

No, they shouldn't drive cards.

Did I say it was my view? Its their position. I'm so sick of this stupid shit, it shows up everywhere here and in society. We should go out of our way so everybody can do anything that they want. The church chooses that men should be in the position, its tradition. Its a tradition, its that simple.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109200#msg109200 date=1114036134]
He was a damn Nazi, no way to excuse that from his past.
[/quote]

No...

He was a Hitler Youth as a child, but so was every single youth male living in Germany, it wasn't optional.
If you knew anything about him you'd have to kill yourself for such a stupid statment. His father was a policeman in Germany and quit when the Nazis rose to power. His father, his entire family, and in fact himself, were and still are fircely anti-Nazi. Do your homework.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109242#msg109242 date=1114047855]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109186#msg109186 date=1114030696]

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 
[/quote]

No, they shouldn't drive cards.

Did I say it was my view? Its their position. I'm so sick of this stupid shit, it shows up everywhere here and in society. We should go out of our way so everybody can do anything that they want. The church chooses that men should be in the position, its tradition. Its a tradition, its that simple.
[/quote]

Driving cards might be painful :/

My point was (I think.. it's been awhile now) that the church should re-evaluate some of its traditions and be a bit more modern.

Personally, I think the catholic church is nothing but one big stinking pile of pure, spoon-fed bullshit.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109240#msg109240 date=1114047734]
The Catholic Church is against hindering the will of God. Family planning is acceptable in the Chruch's view because it in no way artifically hampers the process. True Catholics are faith bound to stick to it.
[/quote]

Comment #1: There is no real difference between using a condom when having sex and not having sex at all.

Comment #2: Is the Catholic God so weak that a couple micron of rubber are enough to ruin his plans? Do you honestly think a condom is going to make a difference to God? If God wants you to have a child, he'll make the condom break.

Comment #3: Again, catholic couples must have sex very rigorously well-planned, if all sex is to result in conception.

This guy wouldn't last more than 5 years, alot of catholics disagree with the decision because they believe he is too desicive and doesn't take the time to think everything out. Is it really true they picked someone old so the pope wouldn't reign as long as Pope John Paul 2nd?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109244#msg109244 date=1114047952]
No...

He was a Hitler Youth as a child, but so was every single youth male living in Germany, it wasn't optional.
If you knew anything about him you'd have to kill yourself for such a stupid statment. His father was a policeman in Germany and quit when the Nazis rose to power. His father, his entire family, and in fact himself, were and still are fircely anti-Nazi. Do your homework.
[/quote]

Wrong, everyone has a choice. There is no such thing as no choice or no option.
He was not a small little boy that did not understand anything when he was part of the Hitler Youth, he understood it all well and he made a choice to be a Hitler Youth.

He is a damn Nazi!  Die Nazi, die!

You hate Catholic priests because a few of them mollested boys? Pathetic...

Stereotypes and prejudice are still quite alive in today's day and age, Yegg.

Kind of sad :(

Yes, it is sad.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109256#msg109256 date=1114054497]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109244#msg109244 date=1114047952]
No...

He was a Hitler Youth as a child, but so was every single youth male living in Germany, it wasn't optional.
If you knew anything about him you'd have to kill yourself for such a stupid statment. His father was a policeman in Germany and quit when the Nazis rose to power. His father, his entire family, and in fact himself, were and still are fircely anti-Nazi. Do your homework.
[/quote]

Wrong, everyone has a choice. There is no such thing as no choice or no option.
He was not a small little boy that did not understand anything when he was part of the Hitler Youth, he understood it all well and he made a choice to be a Hitler Youth.

He is a damn Nazi!  Die Nazi, die!
[/quote]

You're wrong.

He was put into the Hitler youth just as every German youth was. He was assigned to reserve duty as an artillery crew member. When he got to his post, he deserted and became a priest.

Edit: Don't be rude please.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109245#msg109245 date=1114048673]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109242#msg109242 date=1114047855]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109186#msg109186 date=1114030696]

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 
[/quote]

No, they shouldn't drive cards.

Did I say it was my view? Its their position. I'm so sick of this stupid shit, it shows up everywhere here and in society. We should go out of our way so everybody can do anything that they want. The church chooses that men should be in the position, its tradition. Its a tradition, its that simple.
[/quote]

Driving cards might be painful :/

My point was (I think.. it's been awhile now) that the church should re-evaluate some of its traditions and be a bit more modern.
[/quote]

So you're saying that, since premarital sex is popular in our society, the church should accept it?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109249#msg109249 date=1114050290]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109240#msg109240 date=1114047734]
The Catholic Church is against hindering the will of God. Family planning is acceptable in the Chruch's view because it in no way artifically hampers the process. True Catholics are faith bound to stick to it.
[/quote]

Comment #1: There is no real difference between using a condom when having sex and not having sex at all.

Comment #2: Is the Catholic God so weak that a couple micron of rubber are enough to ruin his plans? Do you honestly think a condom is going to make a difference to God? If God wants you to have a child, he'll make the condom break.

Comment #3: Again, catholic couples must have sex very rigorously well-planned, if all sex is to result in conception.
[/quote]

The point is that to show God that you are trying to misuse what he has given you is wrong. Your argument was bullshit, and if you weren't a logical android you'd know that.

Hazard: Please stop making personal attacks. I don't understand why you feel that it's necessary to be so aggressive all the time.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109297#msg109297 date=1114117488]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109245#msg109245 date=1114048673]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109242#msg109242 date=1114047855]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109186#msg109186 date=1114030696]

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 
[/quote]

No, they shouldn't drive cards.

Did I say it was my view? Its their position. I'm so sick of this stupid shit, it shows up everywhere here and in society. We should go out of our way so everybody can do anything that they want. The church chooses that men should be in the position, its tradition. Its a tradition, its that simple.
[/quote]

Driving cards might be painful :/

My point was (I think.. it's been awhile now) that the church should re-evaluate some of its traditions and be a bit more modern.
[/quote]

So you're saying that, since premarital sex is popular in our society, the church should accept it?
[/quote]

Yes.  "You don't win friends with salad".  I forget the other saying.. "You attract more ants with sugar than ____"..

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109298#msg109298 date=1114117529]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109249#msg109249 date=1114050290]
Comment #1: There is no real difference between using a condom when having sex and not having sex at all.

Comment #2: Is the Catholic God so weak that a couple micron of rubber are enough to ruin his plans? Do you honestly think a condom is going to make a difference to God? If God wants you to have a child, he'll make the condom break.

Comment #3: Again, catholic couples must have sex very rigorously well-planned, if all sex is to result in conception.
[/quote]

The point is that to show God that you are trying to misuse what he has given you is wrong. Your argument was bullshit, and if you weren't a logical android you'd know that.
[/quote]

All three points are good enough to want a response. Conception is not guaranteed just because you're not using a condom. And non-conception is not guaranteed just because you are using a condom. If there's a higher power controlling things, then non-conception while not using a condom would be that power's will? But the same thing applies to non-conception while using a condom.

You now speak of misusing what you have been given. If God has given you the ability to feel pleasure having sex, then not having sex for pleasure would obviously be misusing what God has given you. Unless you want to claim that what man has was created by evolution, and not given to you by God?

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109303#msg109303 date=1114118887]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109297#msg109297 date=1114117488]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109245#msg109245 date=1114048673]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109242#msg109242 date=1114047855]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109186#msg109186 date=1114030696]

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 
[/quote]

No, they shouldn't drive cards.

Did I say it was my view? Its their position. I'm so sick of this stupid shit, it shows up everywhere here and in society. We should go out of our way so everybody can do anything that they want. The church chooses that men should be in the position, its tradition. Its a tradition, its that simple.
[/quote]

Driving cards might be painful :/

My point was (I think.. it's been awhile now) that the church should re-evaluate some of its traditions and be a bit more modern.
[/quote]

So you're saying that, since premarital sex is popular in our society, the church should accept it?
[/quote]

Yes.  "You don't win friends with salad".  I forget the other saying.. "You attract more ants with sugar than ____"..
[/quote]

So if raping little girls became the cultural norm, the church should accept it? The fact that the Lord God HIMSELF declared adultry to be a sin cannot be changed. Premarital sex is just as much a sin now as it was in the 1st century and that won't change just because its normal.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109308#msg109308 date=1114121236]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109298#msg109298 date=1114117529]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109249#msg109249 date=1114050290]
Comment #1: There is no real difference between using a condom when having sex and not having sex at all.

Comment #2: Is the Catholic God so weak that a couple micron of rubber are enough to ruin his plans? Do you honestly think a condom is going to make a difference to God? If God wants you to have a child, he'll make the condom break.

Comment #3: Again, catholic couples must have sex very rigorously well-planned, if all sex is to result in conception.
[/quote]

The point is that to show God that you are trying to misuse what he has given you is wrong. Your argument was bullshit, and if you weren't a logical android you'd know that.
[/quote]

All three points are good enough to want a response. Conception is not guaranteed just because you're not using a condom. And non-conception is not guaranteed just because you are using a condom. If there's a higher power controlling things, then non-conception while not using a condom would be that power's will? But the same thing applies to non-conception while using a condom.

You now speak of misusing what you have been given. If God has given you the ability to feel pleasure having sex, then not having sex for pleasure would obviously be misusing what God has given you. Unless you want to claim that what man has was created by evolution, and not given to you by God?
[/quote]

I'll have a talk with a faith and beliefs teacher at my school to get a response to your specific arguments because they are much more qualified to speak to the issue.

The position of the church is quite simply that the will of God cannot and should not attempt to be impeded by birth control.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109313#msg109313 date=1114123598]
The position of the church is quite simply that the will of God cannot and should not attempt to be impeded by birth control.
[/quote]

OK. I suppose the most important part is that of how family planning can be acceptable but not birth control, since they're essentially the same thing. If God doesn't mind you not having children, why does God mind you not having children? :)

The remainder is more like:

Since the will of God cannot be impeded by birth control, a thin rubber layer is nothing to the power of God Almighty, what difference does it make?

And following from that, if having sex that's not likely to generate children (i.e. with condoms) is a sin then having sex that's not likely to generate children is always a sin, as in, sex while pregnant, or sex other than the two-four days in the period where the egg is available and conception possible. A faithful catholic can only have sex a few specific days per month?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109335#msg109335 date=1114131782]
OK. I suppose the most important part is that of how family planning can be acceptable but not birth control, since they're essentially the same thing. If God doesn't mind you not having children, why does God mind you not having children? :)[/quote]

Thats the point! God WANTS you to have children! What the church says you should not to is try to get in the way of God's will!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109335#msg109335 date=1114131782]
Since the will of God cannot be impeded by birth control, a thin rubber layer is nothing to the power of God Almighty, what difference does it make?[/quote]

Adron, you're missing the point. The point is that you are attempting to play God when using birth control. You are conciously attempting to avoid the NATURAL process of things. Its not that He can't do it, its a question of why you would dare to stop His will!

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109335#msg109335 date=1114131782]
And following from that, if having sex that's not likely to generate children (i.e. with condoms) is a sin then having sex that's not likely to generate children is always a sin, as in, sex while pregnant, or sex other than the two-four days in the period where the egg is available and conception possible. A faithful catholic can only have sex a few specific days per month?
[/quote]

No, the church in no way tries to tell you when you can and cannot have sex. The Church stands by the fact that the purpose of sex is conception, and that when you impede that you impede the will of God. Using outside sources in an attempt to block God's will is sinful in the Church's view. They aren't dictating when and where or how. I don't know the Church's policy on sex during pregnancy.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109312#msg109312 date=1114123525]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109303#msg109303 date=1114118887]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109297#msg109297 date=1114117488]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109245#msg109245 date=1114048673]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109242#msg109242 date=1114047855]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109186#msg109186 date=1114030696]

Hazard -- you're absolutely right, women are different creatures who aren't as smart as us men.  They shouldn't be allowed to drive cards or vote. 
[/quote]

No, they shouldn't drive cards.

Did I say it was my view? Its their position. I'm so sick of this stupid shit, it shows up everywhere here and in society. We should go out of our way so everybody can do anything that they want. The church chooses that men should be in the position, its tradition. Its a tradition, its that simple.
[/quote]

Driving cards might be painful :/

My point was (I think.. it's been awhile now) that the church should re-evaluate some of its traditions and be a bit more modern.
[/quote]

So you're saying that, since premarital sex is popular in our society, the church should accept it?
[/quote]

Yes.  "You don't win friends with salad".  I forget the other saying.. "You attract more ants with sugar than ____"..
[/quote]

So if raping little girls became the cultural norm, the church should accept it? The fact that the Lord God HIMSELF declared adultry to be a sin cannot be changed. Premarital sex is just as much a sin now as it was in the 1st century and that won't change just because its normal.
[/quote]

I doubt that would ever become accepted, but if it was accepted by the general population (you, me, and everybody else), then yes, it should be accepted by the church.

Where exactly did God declare premarital sex a sin? 

It's in the Bible somewhere, you can't have sex until you are married.

In the Bible somewhere? It is against the 10 Commandments written by God to commit adultery. Keep up the good work Hazard, :).

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109348#msg109348 date=1114137329]
Thats the point! God WANTS you to have children! What the church says you should not to is try to get in the way of God's will!
[/quote]

You said family planning was ok....




[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109348#msg109348 date=1114137329]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109335#msg109335 date=1114131782]
And following from that, if having sex that's not likely to generate children (i.e. with condoms) is a sin then having sex that's not likely to generate children is always a sin, as in, sex while pregnant, or sex other than the two-four days in the period where the egg is available and conception possible. A faithful catholic can only have sex a few specific days per month?
[/quote]

No, the church in no way tries to tell you when you can and cannot have sex. The Church stands by the fact that the purpose of sex is conception, and that when you impede that you impede the will of God. Using outside sources in an attempt to block God's will is sinful in the Church's view. They aren't dictating when and where or how. I don't know the Church's policy on sex during pregnancy.
[/quote]

You'll have to try to straighten out some things here. Is family planning ok (you said earlier that it was)?

If family planning is OK, and you plan not to have a child right now, then why can't you have sex using condoms?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg109301#msg109301 date=1114117963]
Hazard: Please stop making personal attacks. I don't understand why you feel that it's necessary to be so aggressive all the time.
[/quote]

Hazard, you should also avoid the TRIPLE POSTING.

[quote author=Ban link=topic=11336.msg109403#msg109403 date=1114180526]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg109301#msg109301 date=1114117963]
Hazard: Please stop making personal attacks. I don't understand why you feel that it's necessary to be so aggressive all the time.
[/quote]

Hazard, you should also avoid the TRIPLE POSTING.
[/quote]

I think that's ok, as a way to separate responses to multiple people. Reading through one monolithic post is harder than reading several smaller ones.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg109388#msg109388 date=1114176796]
In the Bible somewhere? It is against the 10 Commandments written by God to commit adultery. Keep up the good work Hazard, :).
[/quote]

According to dictionary.com, "Aldultery" is "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse."  I'm aware that that's a commandment (although I believe they were written by Moses, NOT God, but that's a technicallity).  Where in the bible does it say anything about pre-marital sex?  Or do you just believe everything you're told without checking?

There's a lot of stuff that I was told was in the bible (back when I went to Sunday School) which, upon further checking, isn't. 

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109240#msg109240 date=1114047734]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109175#msg109175 date=1114025599]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109166#msg109166 date=1114021396]
2) sex for purposes other than procreation isn't morally right?
[/quote]

That's a strong stance. Do catholics actually stick to that? If you have sex only for the purpose of procreation, that would mean only once per month, at the right date calculated from the female's periods. And no sex while pregnant.
[/quote]

Adron, I must enlighten you because you are so obviuosly ignorant on this topic, I think we can agree on that.

The Catholic Church is against hindering the will of God. Family planning is acceptable in the Chruch's view because it in no way artifically hampers the process. True Catholics are faith bound to stick to it.

As I said, I'm not a Catholic. Its not my view, its theirs.
[/quote]

It has little to do with artificially hindering the process.  The catholics condemn birth control and contraception because it promotes objectificaion.  That is, you can use women for pleasure and women can use you for pleasure without consequence.  I believe it is human nature to take advantage of anything.  Clearly, we can see that in any case, it is wrong to use anyone.

I have no opinion regarding "marriage" of gays.  In fact, all I can say is that I believe that it is all a semantic war.  The Christians define marriage in a specific way and will not change it by their beliefs.  Regardless of what the government does, no church will grant marriage to gays and people in general will still shack up with each other married or not.  I can say that by our anatomy, homosexuality is abnormal,  there is no other way to look at it.  Now, you might say that it is normal for abnormalities to occurr, but the pure and simple fact founded by our anatomy strongly proves that homosexuality is abnormal.

Don't judge the church on the actions of a few.  Think of it as a country...you can't judge the country by the actions of a handful of its citizens or officials. 

This Pope is an intellectual, I think he will do a great job no matter how long he lives.  The mind is a very important tool and with a burden like that, it is necessary to be very thoughtful.  This man was the right hand of John Paul II.  Regarding his past (I don't know much about him), if he was apart of the nazis in one way or another, you have to remember that there was a lot of propoganda.  In fact, everything you hear on the news now could be propoganda and you might not even know it.

People do change, its fallacy to suggest that because of ones past crime, that he/she alone is always capable of committing that crime.  If you don't believe in determinism, then you affirm that we are all given freedom of choice.  By this reasoning, anyone is capable of anything, especially when you factor in circumstance.  We've already seen that our personality changes as we grow older and make mistakes.  This is not only true for us, but for animals as well.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109488#msg109488 date=1114206834]
It has little to do with artificially hindering the process.  The catholics condemn birth control and contraception because it promotes objectificaion.  That is, you can use women for pleasure and women can use you for pleasure without consequence.  I believe it is human nature to take advantage of anything.  Clearly, we can see that in any case, it is wrong to use anyone.
[/quote]

Then why don't do they that procedure (female circumcision, I think?) where they remove that thingy from the woman so they no longer get pleasure from Sex.  Wouldn't it make sense to make sure it's not pleasurable?  And to do the same thing to the male, somehow..

The should probably cut off the penis and use artificial insemination to ensure producing children is done cleanly, without any pleasure.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109492#msg109492 date=1114208187]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109488#msg109488 date=1114206834]
It has little to do with artificially hindering the process.  The catholics condemn birth control and contraception because it promotes objectificaion.  That is, you can use women for pleasure and women can use you for pleasure without consequence.  I believe it is human nature to take advantage of anything.  Clearly, we can see that in any case, it is wrong to use anyone.
[/quote]

Then why don't do they that procedure (female circumcision, I think?) where they remove that thingy from the woman so they no longer get pleasure from Sex.  Wouldn't it make sense to make sure it's not pleasurable?  And to do the same thing to the male, somehow..
[/quote]

From what I understand circumcision is not a necessary practice in Christianity.  You can see this in the first few verses of chapter 5 of Galations.  I understand that in other religions such as Judaism and Islam, circumcision is practiced.  Circumcision is also a regional thing, from what I understand, males are usually circumcised in Western Culture.  In some areas of Africa females are circumcised...more appropriately this is female genital mutilation.  I am pretty sure this is not an official Catholic practice (in fact, according to CIRP Catholics oppose self mutilation)...I have yet to look it up in the Catechism.  I'll let you know.

The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109421#msg109421 date=1114186064]
[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg109388#msg109388 date=1114176796]
In the Bible somewhere? It is against the 10 Commandments written by God to commit adultery. Keep up the good work Hazard, :).
[/quote]

According to dictionary.com, "Aldultery" is "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse."  I'm aware that that's a commandment (although I believe they were written by Moses, NOT God, but that's a technicallity).  Where in the bible does it say anything about pre-marital sex?  Or do you just believe everything you're told without checking?

There's a lot of stuff that I was told was in the bible (back when I went to Sunday School) which, upon further checking, isn't. 
[/quote]

Iago, is it possible that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the Church defines it differently? Or are you asserting that the dictionary.com definition is the ONLY POSSIBLE definition?

Adron, once again you're blowing the Church's teachings way out of proportion, just like you always do. Cut the overexaggeration and over-deduction out and take it for what it is. The Church doesn't think that using anything artificial to hinder God's process is wrong. God designed human beings, women in particular, to have their cycles. Its a natural occurance. Putting on a condom is not. Taking a pill or a shot is not.

[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109518#msg109518 date=1114219255]
The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.
[/quote]

Neither should, though. 

Hazard -- I've never heard it defined in another way, before.  I believe the word in question is "fornication", which is "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other".  Is the bible actually against that? I don't really know.  I'm kind wondering if people actually know where it's said, or if they just assume it's in there because they're told it is. 

nslay -- Female circumcision is a little different.  To use dictionary.com again, "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the U.S. —abbreviation FGM called also female circumcision."  It basically takes the sexual pleasure out of sex, which seems like something logical to do if sex is for nothing more than procreation.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109531#msg109531 date=1114226643]
[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109518#msg109518 date=1114219255]
The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.
[/quote]

Neither should, though. 

Hazard -- I've never heard it defined in another way, before.  I believe the word in question is "fornication", which is "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other".  Is the bible actually against that? I don't really know.  I'm kind wondering if people actually know where it's said, or if they just assume it's in there because they're told it is. 

nslay -- Female circumcision is a little different.  To use dictionary.com again, "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the U.S. —abbreviation FGM called also female circumcision."  It basically takes the sexual pleasure out of sex, which seems like something logical to do if sex is for nothing more than procreation.
[/quote]

Just because sex is for procreation doesn't mean it should be pleasureless.  You seem to be implying that because sex is pleasurable, that it should be misused.  This doesn't go both ways.

People like Hazard give Catholics a bad reputation. His stubbornness and unwillingness to admit that there is anything wrong with what is going on in today’s Catholic Church is a prime example of why there IS something wrong with the Catholic Church today.

Saying something like "The fact that the Lord God HIMSELF declared adultry to be a sin cannot be changed."

This narrow minded fool knows for a FACT that there is God and he knows for a FACT that "God HIMSELF" said that adultery is bad.

If this is all a fact why do we call it religion or a belief?

Here is a fact: Hazard does not know if God exists or not.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109531#msg109531 date=1114226643]
[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109518#msg109518 date=1114219255]
The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.
[/quote]

Neither should, though. 

Hazard -- I've never heard it defined in another way, before.  I believe the word in question is "fornication", which is "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other".  Is the bible actually against that? I don't really know.  I'm kind wondering if people actually know where it's said, or if they just assume it's in there because they're told it is. 

nslay -- Female circumcision is a little different.  To use dictionary.com again, "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the U.S. —abbreviation FGM called also female circumcision."  It basically takes the sexual pleasure out of sex, which seems like something logical to do if sex is for nothing more than procreation.
[/quote]

Regarding Fornication
dictionary.com defines it as sexual intercourse
furthermore
dictionary.com defines adultery as the voluntary intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the spouse
You can see that among the 10 commandments, adultery is mentioned
You can find this in the bible in Exodus 20:14

As a followup
The Catholic Church defines Adultery:
2380 of the Catechism
Adultery refers to marital infedility.  When two partners of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.  Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.  The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.  The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109559#msg109559 date=1114236151]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109531#msg109531 date=1114226643]
[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109518#msg109518 date=1114219255]
The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.
[/quote]

Neither should, though. 

Hazard -- I've never heard it defined in another way, before.  I believe the word in question is "fornication", which is "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other".  Is the bible actually against that? I don't really know.  I'm kind wondering if people actually know where it's said, or if they just assume it's in there because they're told it is. 

nslay -- Female circumcision is a little different.  To use dictionary.com again, "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the U.S. —abbreviation FGM called also female circumcision."  It basically takes the sexual pleasure out of sex, which seems like something logical to do if sex is for nothing more than procreation.
[/quote]

Regarding Fornication
dictionary.com defines it as sexual intercourse
furthermore
dictionary.com defines adultery as the voluntary intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the spouse
You can see that among the 10 commandments, adultery is mentioned
You can find this in the bible in Exodus 20:14

As a followup
The Catholic Church defines Adultery:
2380 of the Catechism
Adultery refers to marital infedility.  When two partners of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.  Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.  The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.  The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.
[/quote]

Ok, I don't CARE about adultery!  I know it's in the 10 commandments, so it was, in a sense, given by God.  I want somebody to tell me where in the Bible Fornication (which is pre-marital sex!) is condemned. 

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fornication -- Sex between unmarried people (pre-marital sex)
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=adultery -- Sex between somebody who's married and somebody who isn't his wife (NOT the issue here)

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109542#msg109542 date=1114229715]
People like Hazard give Catholics a bad reputation. His stubbornness and unwillingness to admit that there is anything wrong with what is going on in today’s Catholic Church is a prime example of why there IS something wrong with the Catholic Church today.[/quote]

I'm not a Catholic. Read the whole thing before you post. My stubborness is showing the CHURCH'S position, not mine. People like you are the ones that give anti-Catholics so much scorn. You don't understand why the church says what it says, you just assume that it either a) can't be correct or b) just take it out of context and hate on it. Everybody knows there are problems with the church, but saying that the church has to change its moral values to accept things that God says is wrong is idiotic.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109542#msg109542 date=1114229715]Saying something like "The fact that the Lord God HIMSELF declared adultry to be a sin cannot be changed."[/quote]

He did.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109542#msg109542 date=1114229715]This narrow minded fool knows for a FACT that there is God and he knows for a FACT that "God HIMSELF" said that adultery is bad.[/quote]

I have faith in the word. Is that a problem? You don't accept things that you can't see from numbers or with your eyes?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109542#msg109542 date=1114229715]
Here is a fact: Hazard does not know if God exists or not.
[/quote]

Yes I do, because I believe. I have undying faith in his existence.


I'd like to re-state that none of you have a problem with religious people, but its very obvious that you have a problem with religion. Quite simply, its because you are blind, stupid, and lack heart. I truly do pray that one day you change your ways and accept God because if you don't, I have faith that you will face the consequences. Is it worth the risk to you? Some of you have said that I argue for the sake of arguing, I think that you all argue against religion just for the sake of seeming to be a higher being yourselves, and its very, very sad.

All of you need to realize that you're being futile in your arguments against the religious to reject God. All of us who have accepted religion know just how stupid all of your arguments against God sound. You're huge arguments are "he can't logically exist" or "science has proven" or whatever, but all true religious people know that you can't logically or scientifically explain the existence of something that is beyond time, beyond space, and beyond human understanding. Give up your fight to tell us how stupid religion and the churches are, because everyone who is religious knows better.

Iago:

Must I remind  you that the Bible was translated from its original language, to Latin, then to all its other languages? Don't you think that its possible that fornication and adultery were interpreted differently? Or is this simply impossible? Things get "lost in the translation" or so they say.

I spent my whole childhood in a Catholic school, we were always told that it is a sin to have sex before marrage. I will look in my Bible to find out where it is stated.

[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109583#msg109583 date=1114265866]
I spent my whole childhood in a Catholic school, we were always told that it is a sin to have sex before marrage. I will look in my Bible to find out where it is stated.
[/quote]

"The Church" and "The Bible" are quite different.  That's why I like to know if "The Bible" says things like that, or if The Church just pulled it out of their ass.

Hazard -- If you want to take up that argument, then you have to accept that argument that anything in the bible is a potential mistranslation and therefore can't be accepted.  I can interpret any passage in any way I want by claiming "well, maybe the word was translated wrong". 

Again, find me proof.  It's not that I don't believe it, I don't care enough to believe or disbelieve, it's that it seems to me that others believe what they're told without proof.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109576#msg109576 date=1114260694]
All of you need to realize that you're being futile in your arguments against the religious to reject God. All of us who have accepted religion know just how stupid all of your arguments against God sound. You're huge arguments are "he can't logically exist" or "science has proven" or whatever, but all true religious people know that you can't logically or scientifically explain the existence of something that is beyond time, beyond space, and beyond human understanding. Give up your fight to tell us how stupid religion and the churches are, because everyone who is religious knows better.
[/quote]

Well, assuming that theoretically, I were to become religious... What god should I believe in, and why that god and not any of the others?

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109560#msg109560 date=1114243333]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109559#msg109559 date=1114236151]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109531#msg109531 date=1114226643]
[quote author=Mitosis link=topic=11336.msg109518#msg109518 date=1114219255]
The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.
[/quote]

Neither should, though. 

Hazard -- I've never heard it defined in another way, before.  I believe the word in question is "fornication", which is "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other".  Is the bible actually against that? I don't really know.  I'm kind wondering if people actually know where it's said, or if they just assume it's in there because they're told it is. 

nslay -- Female circumcision is a little different.  To use dictionary.com again, "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the U.S. —abbreviation FGM called also female circumcision."  It basically takes the sexual pleasure out of sex, which seems like something logical to do if sex is for nothing more than procreation.
[/quote]

Regarding Fornication
dictionary.com defines it as sexual intercourse
furthermore
dictionary.com defines adultery as the voluntary intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the spouse
You can see that among the 10 commandments, adultery is mentioned
You can find this in the bible in Exodus 20:14

As a followup
The Catholic Church defines Adultery:
2380 of the Catechism
Adultery refers to marital infedility.  When two partners of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.  Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.  The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.  The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.
[/quote]

Ok, I don't CARE about adultery!  I know it's in the 10 commandments, so it was, in a sense, given by God.  I want somebody to tell me where in the Bible Fornication (which is pre-marital sex!) is condemned. 

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fornication -- Sex between unmarried people (pre-marital sex)
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=adultery -- Sex between somebody who's married and somebody who isn't his wife (NOT the issue here)
[/quote]

So, the Catechism (2353) defines fornication as:
Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.  It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.  Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

On a small note, fornication can be seen as dishonorable since usually it is soley meant for pleasure using oneself and the other's body to fulfill this pleasure.  If you really loved this woman, then why not marry her?  There is a risk involved with fornication also.  Its quite a common scene that when a man impregnates his girlfriend, that he runs away and avoids her.  In a marriage, it is slightly more difficult to run away from problems.  Besides, a marriage assures you and your partners devotion and commitment to each other.

So, the bible never specifically uses the word fornication (at least in english, check the greek and hebrew versions for more information).  However, it does use some examples in which the definition presented above apply.

Deut 22:20-21,23

Of course, I am aware that the bible is usually sexist.  It was written by people of a different era in history (I know people tell you that it is infallible, that is was written by God etc...  1) The bible is not infallible 2) Even the prophets who were the hand of God were imperfect and fallible  => The authors of the bible were imperfect and fallible => the bible is fallible ... This is just a byproduct of freedom of choice, if it were to be perfect, God would have to write it himself or puppet us to write it ... The point of the church is to clear these controversies (ie. sexism), continue to add to the moral laws as we advance in technology and history, and teach its people  consistently ... I am most impressed by the Catholics because they are very analytical when reading the bible and history, they will not conclude a meaning of a passage in the bible without some evidence. ).

Historically, as the Israelites were moving into the "promised land."  They had to rid themselves of the Canaanites because of their beliefs.  In short, the Canaanites believed in fertility, they had a number of gods: Baal, Mot and so forth who all represented the seasons.  Baal is god of fertility and Mot god of death (and there are others).  In short, every winter Mot had killed Baal as they follow a cyclical storyline and every spring Baal was brought back to life by his sister/wife.  Because they valued fertility so much, they even had temples and women who hung out at the temple who were called temple prostitutes (this is where the concept prostitution came from).  Every spring, the priest would have intercourse with the temple prostitutes as a symbol of fertility.
Because of these beliefs (and mostly the prostitution part), the Israelites attempted to kill them off.  So, as you can see not only from the bible, but historically they valued virginity before marriage.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109594#msg109594 date=1114275668]
On a small note, fornication can be seen as dishonorable since usually it is soley meant for pleasure using oneself and the other's body to fulfill this pleasure.  If you really loved this woman, then why not marry her? 
[/quote]

That's archaic, simplistic and silly. If two people want to have sex for fun, and that's all either of them want, why shouldn't they? You seem to be assuming that men use women for sex. Sometimes they do, and sometimes, women use men for sex! Yes. Welcome to the 21st century. It's not all about men anymore. What's wrong with pleasure anyway? If no one gets hurt, what's the harm? Even more important than all that: why the hell are other people's sex lives any of your, or the Church's, business?

The church has some pretty stupid positions on all this stuff, if you ask me. Given a choice between using condoms or having an AIDS epidemic, what kind of spiteful god would choose the latter?

In my psychoanalytic conclusion Hazard was molested by priests when he was younger.
He thinks if he believes in something that it must be true! (Wow what a dumb ass).

He is not a Catholic but he still gives them a bad name with his ludicrous posts. If there are Catholics reading this thread you should tell Hazard to shut the fuck up.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg109624#msg109624 date=1114292630]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109594#msg109594 date=1114275668]
On a small note, fornication can be seen as dishonorable since usually it is soley meant for pleasure using oneself and the other's body to fulfill this pleasure.  If you really loved this woman, then why not marry her? 
[/quote]

That's archaic, simplistic and silly. If two people want to have sex for fun, and that's all either of them want, why shouldn't they? You seem to be assuming that men use women for sex. Sometimes they do, and sometimes, women use men for sex! Yes. Welcome to the 21st century. It's not all about men anymore. What's wrong with pleasure anyway? If no one gets hurt, what's the harm? Even more important than all that: why the hell are other people's sex lives any of your, or the Church's, business?

The church has some pretty stupid positions on all this stuff, if you ask me. Given a choice between using condoms or having an AIDS epidemic, what kind of spiteful god would choose the latter?

[/quote]

So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 
If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.

No one's life is the church's business, and it is your choice if you follow the church's teachings or not.

God chose the latter?  I thought people chose to have sex.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109625#msg109625 date=1114292638]
In my psychoanalytic conclusion Hazard was molested by priests when he was younger.
He thinks if he believes in something that it must be true! (Wow what a dumb ass).

He is not a Catholic but he still gives them a bad name with his ludicrous posts. If there are Catholics reading this thread you should tell Hazard to shut the fuck up.
[/quote]

Invert has a problem with religion and it blinds him. He blindly hates something he doesn't understand, and its very unfortunate.

[img]http://www.francesco.biz/papa.jpg[/img]

Lmao.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 
[/quote]

This is all such nonsense that I can't be bothered to respond to it. None of that has anything to do with this conversation.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.
[/quote]

Howso? People have sex for fun all the time. What do you think a one night stand is? Having no-strings sex is something plenty of people do mutually, and just for fun. It doesn't have to be love just because one person isn't using the other.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109658#msg109658 date=1114311572]
Invert has a problem with religion and it blinds him. He blindly hates something he doesn't understand, and its very unfortunate.
[/quote]

Are you a total ignorant fool? How can you say that when YOU are the one that thinks that if you believe is something that it MUST be true?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=11336.msg109682#msg109682 date=1114332487]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109658#msg109658 date=1114311572]
Invert has a problem with religion and it blinds him. He blindly hates something he doesn't understand, and its very unfortunate.
[/quote]

Are you a total ignorant fool? How can you say that when YOU are the one that thinks that if you believe is something that it MUST be true?
[/quote]

Faith. I have faith in God, I have faith that in this case I'm wrong and you're right. How can you say that YOU are right?

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
[/quote]

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109687#msg109687 date=1114346940]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
[/quote]

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.
[/quote] What about the other animals that also have sex for fun? Dolphins and I think dogs and apes do too.

I think Invert and Hazard should get married. Or at least stop being douches and argueing over the internet.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=11336.msg109689#msg109689 date=1114349834]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109687#msg109687 date=1114346940]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
[/quote]

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.
[/quote] What about the other animals that also have sex for fun? Dolphins and I think dogs and apes do too.
[/quote]

Actually you can add humans to that list.

Regarding women and the Church: if they don't want to be part of the Church, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. The Church is not a government. If the Catholic Church doesn't want women to be part of the clergy, who cares? No one (at least in any civilized country) is forcing people to be in the Catholic Church (the Church itself only 'strongly suggests' it :)) If you disagree with it, then deal with it, and don't be part of the Catholic Church. You can go off and form your own denomination of Christianity, just like the myriad of other people who, throughout history, have disagreed with the Catholic Church. History has shown that this works fine, and you can go off and do that.

Obviously everyone here is having a difficult time understanding this concept, but the Catholic Church is defined by its beliefs. Again, if I may reiterate, if you don't agree with these beliefs, then don't be a part of the Catholic Church. The Church itself is governed by its interpretation of the world of God; it's defined by its beliefs. By significantly altering these beliefs, the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church.

Arta, Adron, iago, and the rest of the left: you can bash your opposition for using "stupid" arguments, but when your side suggested that the Catholic Church _supported_ the molestation of altar boys, you just lost all credibility with me.

Guess what, I'm a non-practicing Protestant. I believe in God, but I don't make a big deal about it, nor do I go to church every sunday. Why am I defending the Catholic Church? I think that leftist assholes like the ones demonstrated on these forums have these huge, inflated egos and take cheap shots at a generally legitimate and decent organization just to further their own ideology.

I can't say that both sides of all of these arguments use logic 100% of the time. The difference is, the anti-Catholic camp is condescendingly claiming that they are the infallible, logical ones, while their opposition is merely claiming they are infallible. The anti-Catholic camp claims that the Catholics are hypocrites, yet they are prime examples of hypocrisy.

I believe the only animals that have sex for pleasure are dolphins and humans.  Although I'm not really sure who figured that out or how.  It's probably another of those urban legends like "duck quacks don't echo".

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11336.msg109710#msg109710 date=1114359961]
Regarding women and the Church: if they don't want to be part of the Church, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. The Church is not a government. If the Catholic Church doesn't want women to be part of the clergy, who cares? No one (at least in any civilized country) is forcing people to be in the Catholic Church (the Church itself only 'strongly suggests' it :)) If you disagree with it, then deal with it, and don't be part of the Catholic Church. You can go off and form your own denomination of Christianity, just like the myriad of other people who, throughout history, have disagreed with the Catholic Church. History has shown that this works fine, and you can go off and do that.
[/quote]

The Church has, in the past, been a governing body, and it's possible they'll be a governing body again at some point in the future.  I'm not entirely sure on the definition of "government", but I think you might even be able to apply it to what the Church does right now.  They govern the Catholic religion and the Catholic people, don't they?

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109717#msg109717 date=1114363144]
They govern the Catholic religion and the Catholic people, don't they?
[/quote]

Yes. They govern a people who voluntarily agree to be governed by them...as opposited to a geographical, regional government, at which one is often at the whims of where they were born.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg109669#msg109669 date=1114316800]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 
[/quote]

This is all such nonsense that I can't be bothered to respond to it. None of that has anything to do with this conversation.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.
[/quote]

Howso? People have sex for fun all the time. What do you think a one night stand is? Having no-strings sex is something plenty of people do mutually, and just for fun. It doesn't have to be love just because one person isn't using the other.
[/quote]

Hehe, just because people have sex for fun doesn't mean thats its purpose.  By our anatomy the real purpose is procreation, however it is true that it is enjoyable.  Some people wear pants too big for them (for style), does that mean that the purpose of large size pants is to be worn by people to whom it doesn't fit correctly?

Sex after marriage, pffft
Dude, sex is fun,
the church aproves this conduct just when you are married and have a little nice family, i mean if u have 3 kids, why you cant have some extra fun?

[quote author=Archangel link=topic=11336.msg109753#msg109753 date=1114377004]
Sex after marriage, pffft
Dude, sex is fun,
the church aproves this conduct just when you are married and have a little nice family, i mean if u have 3 kids, why you cant have some extra fun?
[/quote]

You're right, they do approve the conduct.  However, presently, the church condemns contraception so having fun can be a little risky.  There is a little loop hole though, you can have sex when the woman cannot concieve.  There are programs like Natural Family Planning that show you how to do this naturally.  I don't know how accurate their methods are though.
And funny, I seem to have led myself into a loop hole myself.  I previously stated that the original purpose of sex is procreation.  Perhaps this isn't completely true since our anatomy also makes it fun.  I suppose there is no harm so long as you don't objectify.  Allow me to ponder some reasons independant of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong.

[quote author=Archangel link=topic=11336.msg109753#msg109753 date=1114377004]
Sex after marriage, pffft
Dude, sex is fun,
the church aproves this conduct just when you are married and have a little nice family, i mean if u have 3 kids, why you cant have some extra fun?
[/quote]

Thats a typical response.

[quote author=Archangel link=topic=11336.msg109698#msg109698 date=1114354139]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=11336.msg109689#msg109689 date=1114349834]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109687#msg109687 date=1114346940]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
[/quote]

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.
[/quote] What about the other animals that also have sex for fun? Dolphins and I think dogs and apes do too.
[/quote]

Actually you can add humans to that list.
[/quote] ... he was acting like humans were the only animals that do the way I read it.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109742#msg109742 date=1114373463]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg109669#msg109669 date=1114316800]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 
[/quote]

This is all such nonsense that I can't be bothered to respond to it. None of that has anything to do with this conversation.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.
[/quote]

Howso? People have sex for fun all the time. What do you think a one night stand is? Having no-strings sex is something plenty of people do mutually, and just for fun. It doesn't have to be love just because one person isn't using the other.
[/quote]

Hehe, just because people have sex for fun doesn't mean thats its purpose.  By our anatomy the real purpose is procreation, however it is true that it is enjoyable.  Some people wear pants too big for them (for style), does that mean that the purpose of large size pants is to be worn by people to whom it doesn't fit correctly?
[/quote]

Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?

Perhaps he made sex so enjoyable to offer you the freedom of choice. God's greatest gift is the freedom to choose between good and evil. Maybe he made it so enticing to seperate the righteous from the wicked.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109807#msg109807 date=1114396117]
Perhaps he made sex so enjoyable to offer you the freedom of choice. God's greatest gift is the freedom to choose between good and evil. Maybe he made it so enticing to seperate the righteous from the wicked.
[/quote]

Haha, I like that view.  That's something I can totally agree with :)

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109806#msg109806 date=1114393901]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109742#msg109742 date=1114373463]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg109669#msg109669 date=1114316800]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 
[/quote]

This is all such nonsense that I can't be bothered to respond to it. None of that has anything to do with this conversation.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109626#msg109626 date=1114293101]
If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.
[/quote]

Howso? People have sex for fun all the time. What do you think a one night stand is? Having no-strings sex is something plenty of people do mutually, and just for fun. It doesn't have to be love just because one person isn't using the other.
[/quote]

Hehe, just because people have sex for fun doesn't mean thats its purpose.  By our anatomy the real purpose is procreation, however it is true that it is enjoyable.  Some people wear pants too big for them (for style), does that mean that the purpose of large size pants is to be worn by people to whom it doesn't fit correctly?
[/quote]

Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?
[/quote]

No one said it shouldn't be

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109686#msg109686 date=1114346680]
Faith. I have faith in God, I have faith that in this case I'm wrong and you're right. How can you say that YOU are right?
[/quote]

Never for a moment in any of my post have I argued with you about the existence or nonexistence of God.
But on that topic I am neither right nor wrong, I do not know.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109810#msg109810 date=1114399210]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109806#msg109806 date=1114393901]
Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?
[/quote]

No one said it shouldn't be
[/quote]

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11336.msg109710#msg109710 date=1114359961]
the Catholic Church _supported_ the molestation of altar boys
[/quote]

You're the first one I saw saying _that_...


And about the logic, well, some of you are a bit logical, others are not. I wouldn't say either _side_ is more logical, but I'd say that I point out any illogic in certain other people's arguments more than some others do. And that I'm a bit more careful making sure that I'm not trying logically flawed arguments than some others.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109807#msg109807 date=1114396117]
Perhaps he made sex so enjoyable to offer you the freedom of choice. God's greatest gift is the freedom to choose between good and evil. Maybe he made it so enticing to seperate the righteous from the wicked.
[/quote]

Perhaps God actually had the bible written as a trick to see how many people would be fooled into not enjoying? A way of separating the lap dogs from the clever?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg109818#msg109818 date=1114401379]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg109807#msg109807 date=1114396117]
Perhaps he made sex so enjoyable to offer you the freedom of choice. God's greatest gift is the freedom to choose between good and evil. Maybe he made it so enticing to seperate the righteous from the wicked.
[/quote]

Perhaps God actually had the bible written as a trick to see how many people would be fooled into not enjoying? A way of separating the lap dogs from the clever?
[/quote]

Perhaps Life itself is a great deception.  You're in a testtube somewhere, and your senses are being artificially stimulated by The Great Deceiver.  Your entire life is fake.  The only thing that really exists is you, which you can be sure about because you think.  The ability to think proves your own existance because if you weren't there, you wouldn't be able to think.

And no, that's not from The Matrix (originally) -- it's from Descartes.  "Cognito Ergo Sum" -> "I think equals I exist"

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109816#msg109816 date=1114400965]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109810#msg109810 date=1114399210]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109806#msg109806 date=1114393901]
Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?
[/quote]

No one said it shouldn't be
[/quote]

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.
[/quote]

Again, no one said it shouldn't be fun.
It shouldn't be done solely because its fun since that would be objectifying your partner.  Obviously married couples do it for intimate reasons.  I still have no answer independent of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong...that I am still pondering.
Read one of my previous posts...I debunked my own argument of sex for procreation only...it was a terrible mistake, however, its not easy defending what you believe rationally.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109825#msg109825 date=1114402873]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109816#msg109816 date=1114400965]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109810#msg109810 date=1114399210]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109806#msg109806 date=1114393901]
Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?
[/quote]

No one said it shouldn't be
[/quote]

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.
[/quote]

Again, no one said it shouldn't be fun.
It shouldn't be done solely because its fun since that would be objectifying your partner.  Obviously married couples do it for intimate reasons.  I still have no answer independent of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong...that I am still pondering.
Read one of my previous posts...I debunked my own argument of sex for procreation only...it was a terrible mistake, however, its not easy defending what you believe rationally.
[/quote]

It should be easy if your beliefs are actually rational and not dogma.

And of course it's not done solely for fun, it's also done for procreation.  It's not like using a condom stops you from procreating forever.  And usually, the things that do occur AFTER procreating.  But why can't people have the choice?

[img]http://lejemorder.dk/billeder/pope-emperor-3.jpg[/img]

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109833#msg109833 date=1114407446]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109825#msg109825 date=1114402873]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109816#msg109816 date=1114400965]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109810#msg109810 date=1114399210]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109806#msg109806 date=1114393901]
Why would God make sex fun if it shouldn't be?  Did he just fuck it up?
[/quote]

No one said it shouldn't be
[/quote]

Let me restate it: if it shouldn't be done for fun, why would He have made it fun?

But Hazard already gave me a satisfactory answer to that.
[/quote]

Again, no one said it shouldn't be fun.
It shouldn't be done solely because its fun since that would be objectifying your partner.  Obviously married couples do it for intimate reasons.  I still have no answer independent of the church as to why premarital sex is wrong...that I am still pondering.
Read one of my previous posts...I debunked my own argument of sex for procreation only...it was a terrible mistake, however, its not easy defending what you believe rationally.
[/quote]

It should be easy if your beliefs are actually rational and not dogma.

And of course it's not done solely for fun, it's also done for procreation.  It's not like using a condom stops you from procreating forever.  And usually, the things that do occur AFTER procreating.  But why can't people have the choice?
[/quote]

You misunderstood my response.
When I say it shouldn't be done soley for fun, I mean that your intentions to have sex shouldn't be because of the fact that it is fun alone.  You should have other reasons... If your intentions are only because its fun, then you'd be using your partner.  Besides, it seems people usually only have sex because they have very intimate relations.
And I beg to differ, beliefs should be self-explanatory to you.  You know, there are some things you can't prove, an example independent of the church are the axioms of mathematics.  Beliefs are difficult to argue rationally since they are...beliefs!  Argue whether or whether not there is a cardinal number between aleph0 and c and you'll see that at that point it boils down to what you believe (this problem has been proven to be undecided, it requires another axiom).  Argue whether or whether not that infinite sets exist without using the axioms even.
Furthermore, I'm having to argue what the church believes is true in the domain of the world, so while it might be consistent with the church's doctrine, it doesn't seem to fit very well with the world.
On another note, in mathematics, if you accept that the axioms are consistent, you can think all of them are false and still be a successful mathematician...you  might think all your work is completely wrong, but because you believe the axioms are consistent (Godel said that axioms can't be proven consistent, you can show another set of axioms is consistent using your axioms though...ie. ZF => ZFC ), then you believe that there is no contradiction to any proofs whether you believe they are true or false.  Just a neat little fact :)

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg109854#msg109854 date=1114443521]
When I say it shouldn't be done soley for fun, I mean that your intentions to have sex shouldn't be because of the fact that it is fun alone.  You should have other reasons... If your intentions are only because its fun, then you'd be using your partner.
[/quote]

You're clearly thinking about this, and making points. That makes for productive discussions, so I'll jump in.

If your intention is to have sex because it's fun for yourself, and you force your partner into doing this, against his/her will, then yes, you'd be using your partner, and that is bad. I don't think that's the situation though.

What if you want to have sex because you want to give joy to your partner, and in the process getting joy yourself as well? Isn't that a very generous and admirable thing to do?

And what if your partner only wants fun, as well? How can you be using someone if their motivation is the same as yours? Why would you be using them, and not the other way round? Perhaps they'd be using each other. I think that's ok, because it's mutual.

Dolphins have sex for pleasure & they aren't married!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11336.msg109870#msg109870 date=1114452125]
Dolphins have sex for pleasure & they aren't married!
[/quote]

Dolphins are sinners and will go to Hell.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109873#msg109873 date=1114454841]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11336.msg109870#msg109870 date=1114452125]
Dolphins have sex for pleasure & they aren't married!
[/quote]

Dolphins are sinners and will go to Hell.
[/quote]

Dolphins lack the mindset to differentiate right from wrong.

Here's some Bible references I found (Thanks to Penn & Teller: Bullshit, on Showtime):

[quote]Exodus 35:2 says "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

I suppose this means I should die because I work on Monday's newspaper all day long on Sunday. I would really like to see this rule enforced, in fact. With the hypocrisy that Catholicism has created, I'm sure they'd create some rule trumping Exodus 35:2 as soon as they realized they couldn't receive medical attention or police assistance on Sundays. What sweet irony it would be to see a church burning down on a Sunday - if only the firefighters would be working on the Sabbath instead of fearing death, it might be saved.

1 Corinthians 11:14 says "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

I'm pretty sure this is the most hypocritical rule in history. Jesus had long hair.

1 Samuel 17:50 and 17:51 contradict each other. In verse 50, it says David killed Goliath without a sword; in the very next verse it says he killed him with the Philistine's sword.

1 Samuel 17:50 says "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him." Verse 51 says "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."

Before you try to refute this, ask yourself if my inevitable response of "so he killed him twice?" will really be answered.

Leviticus 15:19 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

As Penn & Teller put it, try asking the female traffic court judge if she's on her period before approaching the bench. See how far that gets you.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Roughly translated, that means homeless people should die. God must be a Republican.

1 Timothy 3:11 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."

It should be noted that 1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul. I've seen a flood of letters to the editor come in after some of the things Andrew Sickinger has written in the past year, and some of them have been backed by the Bible. If Paul were to write "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission" in the Western Courier, the letters would come flying in - but this was printed in the Bible, the "word of God."

1 Timothy, chapter 3 goes on to say that women should not be allowed to teach. In that case, my mom would not have a job, therefore she would not be allowed to EAT, therefore she would have died and I wouldn't be here.

Yeah. Homosexuality is a sin and all gays are going to Hell. It's right there in the Bible, next to all the above completely sane, un-hateful things.

If he's your God and you take the Bible literally, you have to abide by all his rules - ALL of them. You can't pick and choose. If you don't have a job and you are not tolerant of homosexuality, I hope to God you starve.
[/quote]

So if any Catholics are working on Sundays or giving money to homeless people, then they are following parts of the bible.  The parts, as it turns out, that suits them.  Is that really a religion? Picking and choosing what to follow? I don't think so.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg109998#msg109998 date=1114534263]
Here's some Bible references I found (Thanks to Penn & Teller: Bullshit, on Showtime):

[quote]Exodus 35:2 says "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

I suppose this means I should die because I work on Monday's newspaper all day long on Sunday. I would really like to see this rule enforced, in fact. With the hypocrisy that Catholicism has created, I'm sure they'd create some rule trumping Exodus 35:2 as soon as they realized they couldn't receive medical attention or police assistance on Sundays. What sweet irony it would be to see a church burning down on a Sunday - if only the firefighters would be working on the Sabbath instead of fearing death, it might be saved.

1 Corinthians 11:14 says "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

I'm pretty sure this is the most hypocritical rule in history. Jesus had long hair.

1 Samuel 17:50 and 17:51 contradict each other. In verse 50, it says David killed Goliath without a sword; in the very next verse it says he killed him with the Philistine's sword.

1 Samuel 17:50 says "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him." Verse 51 says "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."

Before you try to refute this, ask yourself if my inevitable response of "so he killed him twice?" will really be answered.

Leviticus 15:19 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

As Penn & Teller put it, try asking the female traffic court judge if she's on her period before approaching the bench. See how far that gets you.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Roughly translated, that means homeless people should die. God must be a Republican.

1 Timothy 3:11 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."

It should be noted that 1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul. I've seen a flood of letters to the editor come in after some of the things Andrew Sickinger has written in the past year, and some of them have been backed by the Bible. If Paul were to write "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission" in the Western Courier, the letters would come flying in - but this was printed in the Bible, the "word of God."

1 Timothy, chapter 3 goes on to say that women should not be allowed to teach. In that case, my mom would not have a job, therefore she would not be allowed to EAT, therefore she would have died and I wouldn't be here.

Yeah. Homosexuality is a sin and all gays are going to Hell. It's right there in the Bible, next to all the above completely sane, un-hateful things.

If he's your God and you take the Bible literally, you have to abide by all his rules - ALL of them. You can't pick and choose. If you don't have a job and you are not tolerant of homosexuality, I hope to God you starve.
[/quote]

So if any Catholics are working on Sundays or giving money to homeless people, then they are following parts of the bible.  The parts, as it turns out, that suits them.  Is that really a religion? Picking and choosing what to follow? I don't think so.

[/quote]

regarding: 1 Corinthians 11-14
The bible isn't infallible.  Oh, go and read in one of Paul's letters about women and hair coverings.  In fact, read all of Paul's letters, you'll find some things are inconsistent with much of his writings.  Marcion, a gnostic who formed the very first canon even concluded that Timothy and Titus weren't written by Paul.  It even doesn't sound like Paul in English.  Remember, scribes copied and recopied these writings.

1 Samuel 17-50
This is normal throughout the old testament.  Go read Genesis, God made the world "twice".

Leviticus 15:19
The old testament laws are pretty much excused because Jesus was not only the last sacrifice but in many places he even said things contra to the old testament laws (he told us we could eat pig for example).  As christians, we don't need to follow the 600 or so laws mentioned in Leviticus (Paul even says this).  Remember, that was the old covenant.  When God abandoned Judah and it was destroyed, that was the mark of the end of the old covenant.

2 Thessalonians 3-10
That doesn't mean they should die and how do you know they don't work?  I've taken some homeless out to eat at Subway and in conversations with them, they tell me they work down the street at some labor company that coordinates and provides hard labor to other companies.

1 Timothy 3:11
Go read Romans chapter 16 (sorry originally had 18)
Paul's theological model puts man and woman at even length.  Timothy and Titus put women below men.  Again, scholars believe Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul for good reason.

Iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110023#msg110023 date=1114539815]
iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.
[/quote]

It's irrelevant that they follow some parts of the Bible (that are convenient) but not others?

All right, though.  I can't argue against anybody who's going to take that stand.  How could I? 

"Prove that fornication is bad" -- The bible says so, so it must be true; it's the word of God.. 

"Prove that you should be killed for working on Sunday" -- The bible says it, but we don't believe THAT part. 

"Prove that people who don't work should die" -- The bible says it, but again, THAT part doesn't matter.  It doesn't suit our beliefs, so we ignore it.

I don't really see any way to argue against blind faith in the Church.

Incidentally, I should say, my point here isn't that the Church is bad or that Religion is wrong.  My point, as I said like 10 pages ago, is that the Church should change to suit the customs of the day.  I won't go on with that argument here -- look back to the first couple pages.

I think that what you're also pointing out is that you can't follow rules just because they're in the bible, or just because someone at church said so.

You'll have to find rational reasons for following them. Which is what we've been discussing here in this thread.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110038#msg110038 date=1114545166]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110023#msg110023 date=1114539815]
iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.
[/quote]

It's irrelevant that they follow some parts of the Bible (that are convenient) but not others?

All right, though.  I can't argue against anybody who's going to take that stand.  How could I? 

"Prove that fornication is bad" -- The bible says so, so it must be true; it's the word of God.. 

"Prove that you should be killed for working on Sunday" -- The bible says it, but we don't believe THAT part. 

"Prove that people who don't work should die" -- The bible says it, but again, THAT part doesn't matter.  It doesn't suit our beliefs, so we ignore it.

I don't really see any way to argue against blind faith in the Church.

[/quote]

Have you ever considered that the word of the Bible is not to be taken literally? All you people that argue against the Bible talk about how impossible so much of it is, when in fact Catholics and most Christians accept the symbolism of the Bible.

I base my belief that fornication is wrong off of what the Bible says, yes. Does the Bible make sense on the issue? Of course it does. Should the Catholic church just say "Okay, marijuana is fine" just because millions use it? Do you know how stupid you sound?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110049#msg110049 date=1114551236]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110038#msg110038 date=1114545166]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110023#msg110023 date=1114539815]
iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.
[/quote]

It's irrelevant that they follow some parts of the Bible (that are convenient) but not others?

All right, though.  I can't argue against anybody who's going to take that stand.  How could I? 

"Prove that fornication is bad" -- The bible says so, so it must be true; it's the word of God.. 

"Prove that you should be killed for working on Sunday" -- The bible says it, but we don't believe THAT part. 

"Prove that people who don't work should die" -- The bible says it, but again, THAT part doesn't matter.  It doesn't suit our beliefs, so we ignore it.

I don't really see any way to argue against blind faith in the Church.

[/quote]

Have you ever considered that the word of the Bible is not to be taken literally? All you people that argue against the Bible talk about how impossible so much of it is, when in fact Catholics and most Christians accept the symbolism of the Bible.

I base my belief that fornication is wrong off of what the Bible says, yes. Does the Bible make sense on the issue? Of course it does. Should the Catholic church just say "Okay, marijuana is fine" just because millions use it? Do you know how stupid you sound?
[/quote]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110052#msg110052 date=1114551665]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?
[/quote]

I'd like to start by saying I did not intend to call you stupid, I said that what you were saying sounds stupid. I've said stupid things, but it doesn't make me a stupid person.

I decide what I believe based on a mixture of things. I consider what the Church teaches but I believe that ultimate authority to interpret scripture for individuals is up to the reader. I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery. Have I sinned against that idea? Hell yes. Am I sorry that I wasn't able to resist it? Hell yes. Have I apologized? You bet your ass. The work on Sunday thing, I think is another form of symbolism. It was meant to be that you have a day of rest, that its not just work work work work work work and to take time out for personal reflection and prayer.

Its not about parts of the Bible you should believe and the parts you should not believe, its all about the interpretation. Quite simply, the Bible is not to be taken strictly literally. The New Testament Book of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written almost 60 years after Christ's death, and this was well after the apostles had past on. The parables are just that, parables. Stories meant to relay the teaching of Jesus. In fact it is believed that very few of the stories about Jesus actually happend, they are more symbolic than anything else. Did Jesus work miracles, walk on water, cure the sick and the blind? Of course. Did it happen just as it is written? Probably not. Thats not the point, you miss the idea when you look at it as a textbook instead of an objective work. Its not like reading a book on the Battle of Bull Run where at 8:23 am on the morning of such and such this General attacked with so many men the right flank of the Union Army - thats not the way it works.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110042#msg110042 date=1114548875]

You'll have to find rational reasons for following them. Which is what we've been discussing here in this thread.
[/quote]

Who says you have to be able to explain them rationally? You can't logically explain something that is a) beyond human understanding and b) is beyond time and space.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110058#msg110058 date=1114552753]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110042#msg110042 date=1114548875]

You'll have to find rational reasons for following them. Which is what we've been discussing here in this thread.
[/quote]

Who says you have to be able to explain them rationally? You can't logically explain something that is a) beyond human understanding and b) is beyond time and space.
[/quote]

I said to find rational reasons for following them. If the rules are beyond human understanding and beyond time and space, we won't be following them anyway. I was speaking of rules that apply to daily life, not beyond time and space at all.

Such as being tolerant and not judging homosexuals.

Or such as giving joy through lovemaking, even if having a child right now wouldn't work, through the use of contraceptives.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110057#msg110057 date=1114552700]
I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery.
[/quote]

Having sex without marriage isn't natural? To use your phrase, do you realize how stupid that sounds?  When the Earth was created, there were rocks and trees and fruit and wedding ceremonies?  It seems to me that weddings are pretty unnatural. 

Homosexuality, as I understand it, isn't something that people choose; either somebody is gay, or they aren't, it's beyond their choice.  Does that mean that God is intentionally torturing homosexuals by forcing them to not enjoy their lives in the way Nature intended?  It seems like a pretty nasty God if he's willing to make people Gay so they could suffer. 

Also, if you don't believe me that they're born gay, I'll ask a friend of mine how old he was when he decided to be an outcast and a sinner.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110057#msg110057 date=1114552700]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110052#msg110052 date=1114551665]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?
[/quote]

I'd like to start by saying I did not intend to call you stupid, I said that what you were saying sounds stupid. I've said stupid things, but it doesn't make me a stupid person.

I decide what I believe based on a mixture of things. I consider what the Church teaches but I believe that ultimate authority to interpret scripture for individuals is up to the reader. I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery. Have I sinned against that idea? Hell yes. Am I sorry that I wasn't able to resist it? Hell yes. Have I apologized? You bet your ass. The work on Sunday thing, I think is another form of symbolism. It was meant to be that you have a day of rest, that its not just work work work work work work and to take time out for personal reflection and prayer.

Its not about parts of the Bible you should believe and the parts you should not believe, its all about the interpretation. Quite simply, the Bible is not to be taken strictly literally. The New Testament Book of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written almost 60 years after Christ's death, and this was well after the apostles had past on. The parables are just that, parables. Stories meant to relay the teaching of Jesus. In fact it is believed that very few of the stories about Jesus actually happend, they are more symbolic than anything else. Did Jesus work miracles, walk on water, cure the sick and the blind? Of course. Did it happen just as it is written? Probably not. Thats not the point, you miss the idea when you look at it as a textbook instead of an objective work. Its not like reading a book on the Battle of Bull Run where at 8:23 am on the morning of such and such this General attacked with so many men the right flank of the Union Army - thats not the way it works.
[/quote]

Doesn't that boil down to: read the bible, interpret it how you see fit, and believe what you choose?

nslay: If the old testament is the old covenant, which we don't follow anymore, why do the majority of christians think that homosexuality is bad on the basis of Leviticus?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=11336.msg110112#msg110112 date=1114606713]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110057#msg110057 date=1114552700]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110052#msg110052 date=1114551665]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?
[/quote]

I'd like to start by saying I did not intend to call you stupid, I said that what you were saying sounds stupid. I've said stupid things, but it doesn't make me a stupid person.

I decide what I believe based on a mixture of things. I consider what the Church teaches but I believe that ultimate authority to interpret scripture for individuals is up to the reader. I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery. Have I sinned against that idea? Hell yes. Am I sorry that I wasn't able to resist it? Hell yes. Have I apologized? You bet your ass. The work on Sunday thing, I think is another form of symbolism. It was meant to be that you have a day of rest, that its not just work work work work work work and to take time out for personal reflection and prayer.

Its not about parts of the Bible you should believe and the parts you should not believe, its all about the interpretation. Quite simply, the Bible is not to be taken strictly literally. The New Testament Book of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written almost 60 years after Christ's death, and this was well after the apostles had past on. The parables are just that, parables. Stories meant to relay the teaching of Jesus. In fact it is believed that very few of the stories about Jesus actually happend, they are more symbolic than anything else. Did Jesus work miracles, walk on water, cure the sick and the blind? Of course. Did it happen just as it is written? Probably not. Thats not the point, you miss the idea when you look at it as a textbook instead of an objective work. Its not like reading a book on the Battle of Bull Run where at 8:23 am on the morning of such and such this General attacked with so many men the right flank of the Union Army - thats not the way it works.
[/quote]

Doesn't that boil down to: read the bible, interpret it how you see fit, and believe what you choose?

nslay: If the old testament is the old covenant, which we don't follow anymore, why do the majority of christians think that homosexuality is bad on the basis of Leviticus?
[/quote]
The Church is responsable for doctrine, that is why there is an elaborate heirarchy in the Catholic Church for example.  The Pope is the absolute authority over doctrine.  The Church uses history to understand the context in which the bible was written in order to understand precisely why an author wrote a particular passage or text.

It turns out that it isn't only mentioned in the old testament.
Check 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 there are a few others but in the old testament.  Since the laws of leviticus are obsolete, had it not been discussed anywhere else it would have been difficult to argue.  Besides, I don't see any Christians following the law in leviticus against homosexuals anyways.

Regarding fornication, read a previous post of mine...

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg110127#msg110127 date=1114622681]
The Church is responsable for doctrine, that is why there is an elaborate heirarchy in the Catholic Church for example.  The Pope is the absolute authority over doctrine.  The Church uses history to understand the context in which the bible was written in order to understand precisely why an author wrote a particular passage or text.

It turns out that it isn't only mentioned in the old testament.
Check 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 there are a few others but in the old testament.  Since the laws of leviticus are obsolete, had it not been discussed anywhere else it would have been difficult to argue.  Besides, I don't see any Christians following the law in leviticus against homosexuals anyways.

Regarding fornication, read a previous post of mine...
[/quote]

I think we're all in agreement with the point I was trying to make: the Bible and precident don't have absolute power, the church can change.

Now, back to the original point: they should get a pope that is looking for reform.  Anti-homosexuality, problems with women working in the church, and anti-birth control are all very old fashioned ideas and should be carefully examined, not blindly accepted.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110131#msg110131 date=1114625505]
[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg110127#msg110127 date=1114622681]
The Church is responsable for doctrine, that is why there is an elaborate heirarchy in the Catholic Church for example.  The Pope is the absolute authority over doctrine.  The Church uses history to understand the context in which the bible was written in order to understand precisely why an author wrote a particular passage or text.

It turns out that it isn't only mentioned in the old testament.
Check 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 there are a few others but in the old testament.  Since the laws of leviticus are obsolete, had it not been discussed anywhere else it would have been difficult to argue.  Besides, I don't see any Christians following the law in leviticus against homosexuals anyways.

Regarding fornication, read a previous post of mine...
[/quote]

I think we're all in agreement with the point I was trying to make: the Bible and precident don't have absolute power, the church can change.

Now, back to the original point: they should get a pope that is looking for reform.  Anti-homosexuality, problems with women working in the church, and anti-birth control are all very old fashioned ideas and should be carefully examined, not blindly accepted.


[/quote]
Indeed, it is absolutely necessary for the church to regulate doctrine in fact since we now have technology and worldly problems that didn't exist in biblical times.
However, someone made a point that the church should conform to modern trends.  That is something I cannot agree with.  The church is not an object of change because of the majority, it is an institution of moral and ethical doctrine and it is their responsability to uphold morality which cannot and will not be dictated by what the majority does.  The bible is a guide since much of it still applies to us, however, this does not mean it is infallible! 

Homosexuality is abnormal by our anatomy and a lot is said throughout the bible about it, the church will never grant homosexuals marriage.

The only cause of problems with women in the church I can see is the entire Old Testament and Timothy and Titus(which scholars believe are not written by Paul).  Already Women have more of a role in the church, there are now lady alter servers and there is sisterhood.  This I could see being reformed.

Regarding contraception, read a previous post of mine.

Trust me, none of this is blindly accepted ... it is literally a hot seat to be the Pope and with every review or piece of doctrine I assure you there is at least a few hundred pages of reasoning behind his decision.

Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.

In either case, let God himself be the judge. As was said about the bible and interpretation, it can be read to say many different things. Unless you consider the context in which various parts were written, you can't hope to interpret them correctly. It's not God's literal writing that you're reading, just what people have written down long ago, colored by their prejudices and personal ideas.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110143#msg110143 date=1114631620]
Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.
[/quote]
??? How can homosexuality be natural? Would it be completely normal if you wanted to have sex with Hazard (assuming he's a guy)? Marriage was meant for people of the opposite sex to reproduce together. Can two guys naturally create a child? I hope not!Can two women naturally create a child? I hope not! They can only have a child with special operations (etc. etc.). This is in no way natural, that is like saying breast implants are natural when they become enlarged 2 sizes. Homosexual marriage's is in no way natural.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg110145#msg110145 date=1114631966]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110143#msg110143 date=1114631620]
Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.
[/quote]
??? How can homosexuality be natural? Would it be completely normal if you wanted to have sex with Hazard (assuming he's a guy)? Marriage was meant for people of the opposite sex to reproduce together. Can two guys naturally create a child? I hope not!Can two women naturally create a child? I hope not! They can only have a child with special operations (etc. etc.). This is in no way natural, that is like saying breast implants are natural when they become enlarged 2 sizes. Homosexual marriage's is in no way natural.
[/quote]

Homosexuality is a natural way to form relationships and enjoy the benefits of them when the population is either big enough or has an imbalanced male-female ratio. Relationships between people can be beneficial even without children being born. If creating children was the primary purpose of all human beings, why would the church want its servants to live in chastity? There are other religions, different from christianity, where fertility and producing children is a priority above anything else. I would understand those not wanting homosexual relationships more than the christian church.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg110145#msg110145 date=1114631966]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110143#msg110143 date=1114631620]
Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.
[/quote]
??? How can homosexuality be natural? Would it be completely normal if you wanted to have sex with Hazard (assuming he's a guy)? Marriage was meant for people of the opposite sex to reproduce together. Can two guys naturally create a child? I hope not!Can two women naturally create a child? I hope not! They can only have a child with special operations (etc. etc.). This is in no way natural, that is like saying breast implants are natural when they become enlarged 2 sizes. Homosexual marriage's is in no way natural.
[/quote]

As I said, people don't choose to be gay.  I can help to prove that, but my friend isn't online. 

People don't choose to be gay implies that being Gay is natural. 

Maybe it's some kind of genetic mutation, or a sickness, or a mental disorder; but any of those are still natural. 

You look at a hot girl, and you get horny.  You can't control that.  They look at a hot guy and get horny.  It seems pretty obvious to me that they can't control that any more than you can control looking at girls.  Should you hate somebody for something they can't control?

On a sidenote, you and Hazard should get together.  You'd make a pretty couple.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110157#msg110157 date=1114633293]
As I said, people don't choose to be gay.  I can help to prove that, but my friend isn't online. 

People don't choose to be gay implies that being Gay is natural. 

Maybe it's some kind of genetic mutation, or a sickness, or a mental disorder; but any of those are still natural. 

You look at a hot girl, and you get horny.  You can't control that.  They look at a hot guy and get horny.  It seems pretty obvious to me that they can't control that any more than you can control looking at girls.  Should you hate somebody for something they can't control?
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110157#msg110157 date=1114633293]
On a sidenote, you and Hazard should get together.  You'd make a pretty couple.
[/quote]
Hehe...
[quote]
Homosexuality is a natural way to form relationships and enjoy the benefits of them when the population is either big enough or has an imbalanced male-female ratio. Relationships between people can be beneficial even without children being born. If creating children was the primary purpose of all human beings, why would the church want its servants to live in chastity? There are other religions, different from christianity, where fertility and producing children is a priority above anything else. I would understand those not wanting homosexual relationships more than the christian church.
[/quote]
I see your point. But this against religious teachings of the Catholic church, this is why I continue to believe that it is wrong.

Interestingly enough, Christianity has actually sponsored groups living in homo relationships for a long time. I'm talking of nuns and monks. There are relationships where a man and a woman live together without having sex. That is a hetero relationship. And then there are Church-invented places where a large number of males live together or where a large number of females live together. They may not have sex, but they do live together. Does Christianity approve of men moving together, to spend their lives together?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110172#msg110172 date=1114634982]
Does Christianity approve of men moving together, to spend their lives together?
[/quote]
I'm not sure of the correct answer. They would probably disagree. But I would allow it if the country allows it. Not that I approve of homosexuality. But if that's how they're going to live, then you can't change that.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110143#msg110143 date=1114631620]
Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.

In either case, let God himself be the judge. As was said about the bible and interpretation, it can be read to say many different things. Unless you consider the context in which various parts were written, you can't hope to interpret them correctly. It's not God's literal writing that you're reading, just what people have written down long ago, colored by their prejudices and personal ideas.
[/quote]

It might be normal for abnormalities to occurr, but that doesn't make homosexuality normal.  I have nothing against homosexuals, they are just people like you and I, but I can't classify their sexuality as legitimate.

The Catholic Church as well as scholars interpret the bible by using historical evidence.  That is, they they use history to understand why an author might have written a particular passage or text.  Indeed it isn't infallible, that's why there is a Church ...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110172#msg110172 date=1114634982]
Interestingly enough, Christianity has actually sponsored groups living in homo relationships for a long time. I'm talking of nuns and monks. There are relationships where a man and a woman live together without having sex. That is a hetero relationship. And then there are Church-invented places where a large number of males live together or where a large number of females live together. They may not have sex, but they do live together. Does Christianity approve of men moving together, to spend their lives together?
[/quote]

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their sexuality.  What about the men in the military during WWII who had girlfriends/wives waiting back home?

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg110164#msg110164 date=1114633990]
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110157#msg110157 date=1114633293]
As I said, people don't choose to be gay.  I can help to prove that, but my friend isn't online. 

People don't choose to be gay implies that being Gay is natural. 

Maybe it's some kind of genetic mutation, or a sickness, or a mental disorder; but any of those are still natural. 

You look at a hot girl, and you get horny.  You can't control that.  They look at a hot guy and get horny.  It seems pretty obvious to me that they can't control that any more than you can control looking at girls.  Should you hate somebody for something they can't control?
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110157#msg110157 date=1114633293]
On a sidenote, you and Hazard should get together.  You'd make a pretty couple.
[/quote]
Hehe...
[quote]
Homosexuality is a natural way to form relationships and enjoy the benefits of them when the population is either big enough or has an imbalanced male-female ratio. Relationships between people can be beneficial even without children being born. If creating children was the primary purpose of all human beings, why would the church want its servants to live in chastity? There are other religions, different from christianity, where fertility and producing children is a priority above anything else. I would understand those not wanting homosexual relationships more than the christian church.
[/quote]
I see your point. But this against religious teachings of the Catholic church, this is why I continue to believe that it is wrong.

[/quote]

That's not a reason to believe something.  Go back to the "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"  If the Church declared that you had to start sacrificing puppies, would you do that just because the Church told you to?

Thats not an issue, because the Church would never promote such a thing.

No, it just promotes killing people who work on Sundays, and not allowing people to express their natural feelings for each other. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110185#msg110185 date=1114640399]
If the Church declared that you had to start sacrificing puppies, would you do that just because the Church told you to?
[/quote]
Yes.

No. That is immoral. Therefore, the church would not force that upon us or even suggest it.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110191#msg110191 date=1114643675]
No, it just promotes killing people who work on Sundays, and not allowing people to express their natural feelings for each other. 
[/quote]

First of all, the Church does not kill people who work on Sundays. Thats a damn ignorant thing to say.

Second, the Church says that one man fucking another man in the ass is not natural.

I think he was being sarcastic about the killing people who work on Sundays. As was he about saying how Catholics killed witches. But the Church doesn't mind if you work on Sunday.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg110204#msg110204 date=1114646081]
I think he was being sarcastic about the killing people who work on Sundays. As was he about saying how Catholics killed witches. But the Church doesn't mind if you work on Sunday.
[/quote]

The Bible says to.  I posted the excerpt from it. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110237#msg110237 date=1114655704]
[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11336.msg110204#msg110204 date=1114646081]
I think he was being sarcastic about the killing people who work on Sundays. As was he about saying how Catholics killed witches. But the Church doesn't mind if you work on Sunday.
[/quote]

The Bible says to.  I posted the excerpt from it. 
[/quote]

Because Jesus was the last and ultimate sacrifice, all sins have been forgiven (perhaps better "paid for" since to be forgiven you must be sincere).  Even if that's what God intended, it wouldn't apply in Christianity because of Jesus.

Wasn't the human race designed to reproduce? Gay relationships don't reproduce. Thus, I don't think it's natural, either

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11336.msg110241#msg110241 date=1114656392]
Wasn't the human race designed to reproduce? Gay relationships don't reproduce. Thus, I don't think it's natural, either
[/quote]

Wasn't the human race meant to reproduce? Having fun doesn't reproduce.  Thus, I don't think anybody should ever have fun, because it doesn't lead to reproduction.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11336.msg110241#msg110241 date=1114656392]
Wasn't the human race designed to reproduce? Gay relationships don't reproduce. Thus, I don't think it's natural, either
[/quote]

No, the human race (as well as other species) weren't designed to reproduce boundlessly. A colony that grows too quickly can lose its supportability and be unable to maintain itself. Gay relationships is one of natures measures against overpopulation.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110244#msg110244 date=1114657851]
[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11336.msg110241#msg110241 date=1114656392]
Wasn't the human race designed to reproduce? Gay relationships don't reproduce. Thus, I don't think it's natural, either
[/quote]

Wasn't the human race meant to reproduce? Having fun doesn't reproduce.  Thus, I don't think anybody should ever have fun, because it doesn't lead to reproduction.

[/quote]

Way to take something completely literally and then blow it out of proportion. The purpose of sex is reproduction in nature, and how do gay relationships fit that definition? How does cock in ass lead to a child being conceived?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110288#msg110288 date=1114716544]
Way to take something completely literally and then blow it out of proportion. The purpose of sex is reproduction in nature, and how do gay relationships fit that definition? How does cock in ass lead to a child being conceived?
[/quote]

The purpose of sex in humans and dolphins is actually two-fold: To reproduce, and to enjoy. This is different from many other species, where the purpose of sex is reproduction only. Those inhuman beasts actually only have sex to produce offspring.

In a sense I believe humans should be that way too, but for pleasure and reproduction. Homosexuals are for pleasure only, they can't reproduce which is why it is not natural and immoral.

So you only have to meet one requirement in order to be worth it? Its 'pleasureable" means that its okay? People have sex with animals and find it pleasurable so does that make it okay?

Well, God obviously screwed up when he made homosexuals, then.  It seems like such a great God wouldn't make a stupid mistake like homosexuals.  Or is there some other reason that people are born Gay?

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110314#msg110314 date=1114727500]
Well, God obviously screwed up when he made homosexuals, then.  It seems like such a great God wouldn't make a stupid mistake like homosexuals.  Or is there some other reason that people are born Gay?

[/quote]

Oh so people are born gay now? Your incontraverable evidence please? Where exactly is the fag gene located? Is it a mistaken bond in one of the helicies?

God doesn't make mistakes, quite simply. All powerful and all good, beyond time and space. One explaination for homosexuals is they choose to stray from God, they choose to be gay. I don't think you are born attracted to someone of your same sex, its not hard wired just like violent tendencies aren't hard wired, its a product of your upbringing and you ALWAYS have a choice. Homosexuals screw up when they become homosexuals, God doesn't make mistakes.

It's not even the reproduction stuff. The human race is designed to reproduce, and thus males start out wired to be attracted to females and (I think) vice versa.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110327#msg110327 date=1114733209]
Oh so people are born gay now? Your incontraverable evidence please? Where exactly is the fag gene located? Is it a mistaken bond in one of the helicies?
[/quote]

Hmm, do you have incontrovertible evidence that being homosexual ISN'T genetic?  I only ask because you are so quick to dismiss ANY possibility of it being true, so you MUST know something that we don't.

It's both.

Who here masterbates? If you do then STOP IMMEDIATLY! You are not reproducing and therefore should not be doing it. Condoms are also a no-no, along with all other forms of birth control. And by the way, computers are'nt natrual either, so don't use them. No cars, houses, or even clothing! Come to think of it, every day I do at least 300 things that are NOT natural. Oh damn. I guess the mighty all-powerful, all-knowing lord fucked up again.

If god was perfect, I think he would be able to change these poor, unknowing folks from just happening to love the same sex. Aww, hell.

This is a pointless thread, and I think it should be locked. There is nothing useful about this, just the same parties arguing the same point over and over again.

[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=11336.msg110334#msg110334 date=1114735562]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110327#msg110327 date=1114733209]
Oh so people are born gay now? Your incontraverable evidence please? Where exactly is the fag gene located? Is it a mistaken bond in one of the helicies?
[/quote]

Hmm, do you have incontrovertible evidence that being homosexual ISN'T genetic?  I only ask because you are so quick to dismiss ANY possibility of it being true, so you MUST know something that we don't.
[/quote]

There is a total lack of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Doctors and scientists have been unable to show a link and they have tried, thats my evidence.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110340#msg110340 date=1114737342]
There is a total lack of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Doctors and scientists have been unable to show a link and they have tried, thats my evidence.
[/quote]

Doctors and scientists haven't been able to prove that a god exists, but you have an absolute belief that such a being exists.  Some scientists can also argue that most (all?) aspects of the universe (galaxy may be better, I don't know, I'm most certainly not a scientist) can be explained scientifically, without factoring in any sort of god.

If lack of evidence supporting one theory is evidence for the opposing theory, shouldn't that mean that you have some doubt as to whether or not a god exists?  Or at the very least, couldn't you agree that lack of evidence is NOT indisputable evidence?

[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=11336.msg110353#msg110353 date=1114741741]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110340#msg110340 date=1114737342]
There is a total lack of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Doctors and scientists have been unable to show a link and they have tried, thats my evidence.
[/quote]

Doctors and scientists haven't been able to prove that a god exists, but you have an absolute belief that such a being exists.  Some scientists can also argue that most (all?) aspects of the universe (galaxy may be better, I don't know, I'm most certainly not a scientist) can be explained scientifically, without factoring in any sort of god.

If lack of evidence supporting one theory is evidence for the opposing theory, shouldn't that mean that you have some doubt as to whether or not a god exists?  Or at the very least, couldn't you agree that lack of evidence is NOT indisputable evidence?
[/quote]

God is independent of the universe in Christianity.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110340#msg110340 date=1114737342]
[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=11336.msg110334#msg110334 date=1114735562]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110327#msg110327 date=1114733209]
Oh so people are born gay now? Your incontraverable evidence please? Where exactly is the fag gene located? Is it a mistaken bond in one of the helicies?
[/quote]

Hmm, do you have incontrovertible evidence that being homosexual ISN'T genetic?  I only ask because you are so quick to dismiss ANY possibility of it being true, so you MUST know something that we don't.
[/quote]

There is a total lack of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Doctors and scientists have been unable to show a link and they have tried, thats my evidence.
[/quote]

How, how about talk to ANY GAY PERSON?  Go find a gay guy and ask him when he chose to be gay.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110363#msg110363 date=1114746081]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110340#msg110340 date=1114737342]
[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=11336.msg110334#msg110334 date=1114735562]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110327#msg110327 date=1114733209]
Oh so people are born gay now? Your incontraverable evidence please? Where exactly is the fag gene located? Is it a mistaken bond in one of the helicies?
[/quote]

Hmm, do you have incontrovertible evidence that being homosexual ISN'T genetic?  I only ask because you are so quick to dismiss ANY possibility of it being true, so you MUST know something that we don't.
[/quote]

There is a total lack of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Doctors and scientists have been unable to show a link and they have tried, thats my evidence.
[/quote]

How, how about talk to ANY GAY PERSON?  Go find a gay guy and ask him when he chose to be gay.
[/quote]

It's probably psychological, maybe in the upbringing or various other factors... Perhaps he/she would not have been gay otherwise.

I agree with that nslay. Though there may pertain certain physical factors in your personality that would more so lean you towards being gay, ultimately it has to be a mental decision, which may or may not be influenced by how you were raised.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110363#msg110363 date=1114746081]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110340#msg110340 date=1114737342]
[quote author=EpicOfTimeWasted link=topic=11336.msg110334#msg110334 date=1114735562]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=11336.msg110327#msg110327 date=1114733209]
Oh so people are born gay now? Your incontraverable evidence please? Where exactly is the fag gene located? Is it a mistaken bond in one of the helicies?
[/quote]

Hmm, do you have incontrovertible evidence that being homosexual ISN'T genetic?  I only ask because you are so quick to dismiss ANY possibility of it being true, so you MUST know something that we don't.
[/quote]

There is a total lack of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Doctors and scientists have been unable to show a link and they have tried, thats my evidence.
[/quote]

How, how about talk to ANY GAY PERSON?  Go find a gay guy and ask him when he chose to be gay.
[/quote]

Go find a rapist and ask when he chose to be a rapist. Go find a serial killer and ask him when he chose to be a serial killer. You'll get a similar answer to the one you get from the gay.

[quote author=Hostile link=topic=11336.msg110374#msg110374 date=1114755159]
I agree with that nslay. Though there may pertain certain physical factors in your personality that would more so lean you towards being gay, ultimately it has to be a mental decision, which may or may not be influenced by how you were raised.
[/quote]

It doesn't have to be a mental decision. Some people don't feel pain. Do you feel pain? When did you decide to feel pain?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11336.msg110392#msg110392 date=1114773411]
[quote author=Hostile link=topic=11336.msg110374#msg110374 date=1114755159]
I agree with that nslay. Though there may pertain certain physical factors in your personality that would more so lean you towards being gay, ultimately it has to be a mental decision, which may or may not be influenced by how you were raised.
[/quote]

It doesn't have to be a mental decision. Some people don't feel pain. Do you feel pain? When did you decide to feel pain?


[/quote]

I still see no link between genetics and sexuality.  As far as I know, sexuality is purely a product of the mind whether or not you decided it.  In fact there are many fetishes and kinks associated with sexuality, believed by psychologists to be the product of childhood experiences or trama ... who says homosexuality isn't a type of kink?  Some people have rage because of their childhood, however, they didn't choose to have rage.

Regardless.  A coworker of mine is bisexual.  She likes male body because of that "thing".  However, she likes the female body because it is a more beautiful form and usually cleaner.  This doesn't sound genetic to me, it sounds like a preference.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=11336.msg110416#msg110416 date=1114792984]
As far as I know, sexuality is purely a product of the mind whether or not you decided it.
[/quote]

Well, what I meant to argue for was that sexuality isn't a decision you make yourself and can change around as you like. I.e. that someone who is homosexual can not just decide not to be homosexual anymore, and never came to a point where he had to make the choice to become homosexual.

So the issue here is that we don't know if homosexuality is a choice.  Some people seem to think that it is a choice people make, but there's no proof either way.  It seems odd that so many homosexuals would be afraid to admit it (enough to create a new phrase, 'in the closet') if they chose it.  But anyway, we can't assume that.

That gives us 2 choices:
1) Follow the bible, hate people for something that they might not have control over.
2) Be accepting of people who are different.

In other words, it comes down to:

1) Believing a book that obviously isn't meant to be taken at face value
2) Believing in freedom (either to choose the life they chose, or to live the way they were born, which ever)

I am, like any American ought to be, in favour of giving people freedom.  Clearly, some of you think that only people who think the same way as them should have freedom.  Considering they aren't hurting anybody or anything, what's the problem, exactly?

Finally, back to religion.  I wish that religion would be accepting of change, but that isn't looking too likely.  For example, John Paul I was in favour of change, and died shortly after becoming Pope. 

If anybody would like to respond, please clarify what exactly you want to argue.  I'll concede that we can't know for sure whether homosexuality is a choice, but the uncertainty shouldn't be a reason to doubt it.

[quote author=iago link=topic=11336.msg110458#msg110458 date=1114814612]
So the issue here is that we don't know if homosexuality is a choice.  Some people seem to think that it is a choice people make, but there's no proof either way.  It seems odd that so many homosexuals would be afraid to admit it (enough to create a new phrase, 'in the closet') if they chose it.  But anyway, we can't assume that.

That gives us 2 choices:
1) Follow the bible, hate people for something that they might not have control over.
2) Be accepting of people who are different.

In other words, it comes down to:

1) Believing a book that obviously isn't meant to be taken at face value
2) Believing in freedom (either to choose the life they chose, or to live the way they were born, which ever)

I am, like any American ought to be, in favour of giving people freedom.  Clearly, some of you think that only people who think the same way as them should have freedom.  Considering they aren't hurting anybody or anything, what's the problem, exactly?

Finally, back to religion.  I wish that religion would be accepting of change, but that isn't looking too likely.  For example, John Paul I was in favour of change, and died shortly after becoming Pope. 

If anybody would like to respond, please clarify what exactly you want to argue.  I'll concede that we can't know for sure whether homosexuality is a choice, but the uncertainty shouldn't be a reason to doubt it.
[/quote]

1) Hate people?  Where did it say to hate anyone?

Hey, it's up to the US/State govt on who should marry.  I doubt the Catholic Church will ever grant gay marriage but what do you care?  As Adron said before, perhaps some churches will grant it (I think Anglican), but then again, there are a lot of churches that probably never will.

Again, regardless of whether or not one chooses to be homosexual doesn't merit it normal.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't marry or not, but I can't see that as being legitimate.