Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Gays Denied Communion
Posted by: REBOOT May 31 2004, 12:22 PM
They need to create a Gay church with Gay doctrines.
Roman catholic religion is obviously not flexible and gays are definitely here to stay. Existing Gay priests could probably kick this process off, if it hasn't been done already... there's definitely a need here. Anybody know of actions taken in this matter ?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5104687/
Posted by: Heavenly Deceit May 31 2004, 12:28 PM
If you're Gay, Christianity is not your friend.
Seriously though, I find it hard to believe they stay with a religion that promotes hate and intolerance against oneself. Sounds like a recipe for self-torture.
Posted by: REBOOT May 31 2004, 01:00 PM
QUOTE
Seriously though, I find it hard to believe they stay with a religion that promotes hate and intolerance against oneself. Sounds like a recipe for self-torture.
It defies reason !!. But what they're looking for is acceptance in existing institutions, they want to integrate in existing communities and be recognized as legal and moral citizens. They got partial civil recognition in some states but will never get religious recognition from catholics.
When genetic proof comes out explaining their state I wonder what the Pope will stay
Posted by: Doug2 May 31 2004, 02:15 PM
More on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/05/31/gays.communion.ap/index.html
Posted by: AzAtheist May 31 2004, 02:20 PM
QUOTE (REBOOT @ May 31 2004, 02:00 PM)
When genetic proof comes out explaining their state I wonder what the Pope will stay
I'll bet a dollar it will have something to do with:
Satan somehow changed their DNA, or...
It doesn't matter, it's wrong wrong wrong to love someone.
A few will say that the 'true xtians' hate the sin, a few will say that 'true xtians' don't worry about the bedrooms of others and then they will whine about being lumped in with the 'not true xtians.'
Then they will all whine and argue about who they should hate next. (hate in the name of love, of course!) One thing is for sure, instead of reading their one and only good book from cover to cover they will all sit and judge every bloody person around them like a 'true xtian.' If they aren't judging the gays they are judging their fellow xtians regarding whether or not they are 'true xtians' or not.
Oye... it all gives me a headache.
Posted by: TruthWarrior May 31 2004, 03:18 PM
Eh? Big deal. I was denied communion for merely being one of the few protestant kids in a Catholic youth convention. I was born protestant I tell ya! Oh such persecution!
They really aren't missing anything. It's just a cookie.
Posted by: Shadfox May 31 2004, 03:25 PM
QUOTE
Seriously though, I find it hard to believe they stay with a religion that promotes hate and intolerance against oneself. Sounds like a recipe for self-torture.
I agree with that. I'm not saying Christians are in the right for denying gays, but it doesn't make any sense to seek validation from a belief system whose sole foundation is hating those who are different. I ain't looking for acceptace from these people There comes a time in your life when you realize you can't make everyone happy and hating the haters is justified.
Posted by: Madame M May 31 2004, 03:32 PM
QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ May 31 2004, 06:18 PM)
Eh? Big deal. I was denied communion for merely being one of the few protestant kids in a Catholic youth convention. I was born protestant I tell ya! Oh such persecution!
They really aren't missing anything. It's just a cookie.
I was denied communion when I attended Catholic church with a friend because I was protestant. It is just a cookie, and worse than the cookie is the community goblet of wine. Makes me want to hurl just thiking about it.
Posted by: Cerise May 31 2004, 03:38 PM
I tried communion while I was in France. Notre Dame is too poor for cookies 'cause I'll I got was a round piece of cardboard. And some skunky wine.
They really didn't seem to care if I was Catholic or not, but maybe I faked them out because I knew which direction to cross from first and where and when to do it.
Posted by: I Broke Free May 31 2004, 03:39 PM
QUOTE (Shadfox @ May 31 2004, 07:25 PM)
but it doesn't make any sense to seek validation from a belief system whose sole foundation is hating those who are different.
I was going to respond by saying that there are times when it is appropriate to throw out the baby with bath water, but in this case I think a better analogy would be that it worth "throwing out the turds with chamber pot."
Noting annoys me more than gays seeking inclusion in such an evil institution as Christianity.
Posted by: Reach May 31 2004, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (Shadfox @ May 31 2004, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Heavenly Deceit @ May 31 2004, 03:28 PM)
Seriously though, I find it hard to believe they stay with a religion that promotes hate and intolerance against oneself. Sounds like a recipe for self-torture.
I agree with that. I'm not saying Christians are in the right for denying gays, but it doesn't make any sense to seek validation from a belief system whose sole foundation is hating those who are different.
It seems to me that ignorance often breeds attitudes of intolerance and animosity towards any persons who are different in the slightest of ways. Christianity, historically, seems to use this same platform of ignorance from which it promotes even deeper hatreds (Gays, women, etc...) along with its other insidious evils to control the masses and its attempt to sustain itself indefinitely. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by: Reach May 31 2004, 03:53 PM
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ May 31 2004, 06:39 PM)
Nothing annoys me more than gays seeking inclusion in such an evil institution as Christianity.
It's heartbreaking too and stirs both anger and compassion in us at the same time. It's like the battered woman who keeps returning to the man who beats her, belittles her and tells her she is nothing.
Our sense of fair play demands justice.
Posted by: Shadfox May 31 2004, 04:01 PM
QUOTE
It is just a cookie, and worse than the cookie is the community goblet of wine. Makes me want to hurl just thiking about it.
That is quite gross. All I got as a Baptist was a stale Styrofoam tasting disk and a tiny cup of cheap grape juice. At least your Jesus blood was fermented ;)
Posted by: PseudoGod May 31 2004, 04:34 PM
Gays shouldn't be too upset over this, since isn't communion simulated cannabilism? Ritualistic human cannabilism is a disgusting practice typically limited to only the most savage and primitive of cultures. Jesus or not, don't people realize this means eating a person and drinking human blood?
I see being denied this is a good thing, no?
Posted by: I Broke Free May 31 2004, 04:45 PM
QUOTE (Shadfox @ May 31 2004, 08:01 PM)
QUOTE
It is just a cookie, and worse than the cookie is the community goblet of wine. Makes me want to hurl just thiking about it.
That is quite gross. All I got as a Baptist was a stale Styrofoam tasting disk and a tiny cup of cheap grape juice. At least your Jesus blood was fermented ;)
Still better than the Mormons. Water and Wonder Bread! YUK!
Posted by: I Broke Free May 31 2004, 04:47 PM
QUOTE (reach @ May 31 2004, 07:53 PM)
It's like the battered woman who keeps returning to the man who beats her, belittles her and tells her she is nothing.
That's it in a nutshell. Thank you Reach!!
Posted by: Reach May 31 2004, 07:45 PM
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ May 31 2004, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE (reach @ May 31 2004, 07:53 PM)
It's like the battered woman who keeps returning to the man who beats her, belittles her and tells her she is nothing.
That's it in a nutshell. Thank you Reach!!
Thank you IBF. I did not come to that conclusion overnight, nor without cost, but it seems that it is the only just and honest realization that one can hope to arrive at.
Posted by: JimmyDtD May 31 2004, 09:00 PM
These gays could easily go to the Metropolitan church and be accepted as practicing homosexuals. What they are trying to do is change the very nature of the institution of the Catholic church by redefining what "sin" means. They also want to paint the church as bigoted and unaccepting.
From the time of Christ, the message has been "repent and be saved." The church (ideally) should welcome all that do so. These people have no interest in repenting. They are making their political statement. In reality, aren't they trying to destroy the church?
Posted by: _Kevin May 31 2004, 09:05 PM
Gays and the church?
I will probably get crucified for this but here goes.
I have never been exposed to homosexuality, apart from seeing scantily clad men kissing each other at Gay Pride marches on TV.
I will admit I don't like it. It doesn't seem right. Call me a prude or whatever, but at least I'm honest. Some of you think that christians are disgusting. Well I think two men kissing each other is yukky.
As a father, I have a duty to protect my kids from all kinds of sexual predators, regardless of their sexual preference.
I suspect a few men in our church are gay. I would not be comfortable letting them babysit for me, but I love them all the same. I really do, and not just because they are christians.
Kevin:
Posted by: PseudoGod May 31 2004, 09:10 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ May 31 2004, 09:05 PM)
As a father, I have a duty to protect my kids from all kinds of sexual predators, regardless of their sexual preference.
I suspect a few men in our church are gay. I would not be comfortable letting them babysit for me
Why do you assume all gay people are sexual predators? I assume this is why you wouldn't want somone gay to babysit your kids?
Posted by: Killswitch May 31 2004, 09:11 PM
For a long time, i was pretty closed minded about gay people.. but after a while, I dont know. live and let live, right? do your own thing. I think they deserve to be in the church as much as the next person.
I think in the next 10 years or so, there will be some concrete evidence that shows theres a genetic link that will make someone be more prone to being gay. I dont think theres anything wrong with it, rather i would like that to be the case, to put to rest all the christians that go on and on about them being so evil.
Posted by: Kaiser Soze Jun 1 2004, 02:17 AM
Kevin, you're an idiot.
As a bi-sexual man,k I find your ill-educated comments regarding gay men, homosexuality and our "place" in the rest of society appalling. Do you truly believe that all gay men are practicing paedophiles whose entire personality and actions revolves around their sexuality?
As for gay expressions of love, I think you'll find the only reason you find it "disgusting" or distasteful or whatever is ebcause of the moral and cultural ideologies of society, ideologies which, with a degree of open-mindendess and intellect is possible to question. Why the fuck should we have to hide our emotions, our feelings towards one another as if we are prey to some form of fucking disease?
I have plenty more to say, but I'm too upset at the moment to reply.
Posted by: _Kevin Jun 1 2004, 05:12 AM
Me
QUOTE
As a father, I have a duty to protect my kids from all kinds of sexual predators, regardless of their sexual preference.
Pseudo:
QUOTE
Why do you assume all gay people are sexual predators? I assume this is why you wouldn't want somone gay to babysit your kids?
Pseudo:
Please indicate where I assumed "all gay people are sexual predators"?
If I can minimize any possible risk when searching for a babysitter, I will.
Kevin:
Posted by: Kevin: Jun 1 2004, 05:31 AM
KS
QUOTE
Kevin, you're an idiot.
As a bi-sexual man,k I find your ill-educated comments regarding gay men, homosexuality and our "place" in the rest of society appalling. Do you truly believe that all gay men are practicing paedophiles whose entire personality and actions revolves around their sexuality?
As for gay expressions of love, I think you'll find the only reason you find it "disgusting" or distasteful or whatever is ebcause of the moral and cultural ideologies of society, ideologies which, with a degree of open-mindendess and intellect is possible to question. Why the fuck should we have to hide our emotions, our feelings towards one another as if we are prey to some form of fucking disease?
I have plenty more to say, but I'm too upset at the moment to reply.
KS
I think we can all behave like idiots sometimes. Please don't think I am one of those gay bashers. Your anger is justified but some of the gay community do not help their cause by their overt behaviour.
Kevin:
Posted by: mandylibra1979 Jun 1 2004, 05:42 AM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 01:05 AM)
Gays and the church?
I will probably get crucified for this but here goes.
I have never been exposed to homosexuality, apart from seeing scantily clad men kissing each other at Gay Pride marches on TV.
I will admit I don't like it. It doesn't seem right. Call me a prude or whatever, but at least I'm honest. Some of you think that christians are disgusting. Well I think two men kissing each other is yukky.
As a father, I have a duty to protect my kids from all kinds of sexual predators, regardless of their sexual preference.
I suspect a few men in our church are gay. I would not be comfortable letting them babysit for me, but I love them all the same. I really do, and not just because they are christians.
Kevin:
I don't find Christians to be disgusting. My entire family and all of my friends (with the exception of the people here) are all Christians and I love them dearly. The only time I have a problem with Christians is when they are attempting to force feed me their religion.
If someone happens to be a Christian and I have a problem with them it most likely isn't because they are a Christian. It is probably just because I don't like the person due to other reasons.
Anyhow, Kevin, you say that 2 men kissing each other is "yukky" or better yet it disgusts you.
I have a question for you, do you find to women kissing each other appealing and if so what is the difference?
Posted by: REBOOT Jun 1 2004, 06:00 AM
QUOTE
From the time of Christ, the message has been "repent and be saved." The church (ideally) should welcome all that do so. These people have no interest in repenting. They are making their political statement. In reality, aren't they trying to destroy the church?
That's possible... unless they think the catholics will change the rules for them. Don't forget Sodom and Gonorea . Its clearly identified as an abomination. I think you're right, its a really destruction effort since the caths are and always will be inflexible towards gays. As I said before they should start their own religion, elect their own Pope and have a WWF wrestling match with the cath Pope
fear leads to hate... hate leads to the dark side
Posted by: R.C. Jun 1 2004, 06:05 AM
QUOTE
I suspect a few men in our church are gay. I would not be comfortable letting them babysit for me, but I love them all the same. I really do, and not just because they are christians.
Kevin,
Maybe it's just my perception, and correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems as though you are saying that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.
Following your logic, A heterosexual male should have tendencies to molest young girls; since afterall, he is attacted to the opposite sex.
RC
Posted by: _Kevin Jun 1 2004, 06:13 AM
Mandy:
QUOTE
Anyhow, Kevin, you say that 2 men kissing each other is "yukky" or better yet it disgusts you.
I have a question for you, do you find to women kissing each other appealing and if so what is the difference?
Mandy:
Since I am a man, I relate to how I would feel kissing another man. It does NOT disgust me, but I do find it yukky. Two woman kissing each other does not bother me very much, because as a man I could in theory kiss both of them without a problem. I relate to them as females because that's how I am wired up.
Kevin:
Posted by: mandylibra1979 Jun 1 2004, 06:17 AM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 10:13 AM)
Mandy:
QUOTE
Anyhow, Kevin, you say that 2 men kissing each other is "yukky" or better yet it disgusts you. '
I have a question for you, do you find to women kissing each other appealing and if so what is the difference?
Mandy:
Since I am a man, I relate to how I would feel kissing another man. It does NOT disgust me, but I do find it yukky. Two woman kissing each other does not bother me very much, because as a man I could in theory kiss both of them without a problem. I relate to them as females because that's how I am wired up.
Kevin:
My husband has explained this to me in much the same way you just did. Like I told him though, I still think that it is based on homophobia.
Posted by: TruthWarrior Jun 1 2004, 06:38 AM
I think it's all like going to a synagogue or mosque and saying everyone has to accept pork eaters. Then to make them teach that eating pork is fine with their god.
It's like ramming your head into a brick wall, expecting it to fall, or magically change into jello. Afterwards you wonder why you're bleeding and have a bump on your head.
It is better to let the wall erode away, collapsing under it's own wieght, from lack of support. Although I suppose all this is good to show how pigheaded and uncompassionate the church is.
Posted by: Kevin: Jun 1 2004, 06:50 AM
Mandy:
QUOTE
My husband has explained this to me in much the same way you just did. Like I told him though, I still think that it is based on homophobia
Mandy:
There are many levels to this. A male feels threatened seeing another male *act* like a female. It threatens his own sexuality since he does not want to appear that way. The gay man is displaying this in a very obvious way, and the male finds this uncomfortable, since his own manly-hood comes into question. The gay male has somehow "let the side down" and the *normal* male is annoyed at having to experience this *deviant* behaviour.
Kevin:
Posted by: Madame M Jun 1 2004, 07:06 AM
QUOTE (Shadfox @ May 31 2004, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE
It is just a cookie, and worse than the cookie is the community goblet of wine. Makes me want to hurl just thiking about it.
That is quite gross. All I got as a Baptist was a stale Styrofoam tasting disk and a tiny cup of cheap grape juice. At least your Jesus blood was fermented ;)
I was raised protestant, so all we got was broken up unsalted crackers- matzo and little plastic cups of grape juice. Sometimes we got grape koolaide. The kids would try to grab the biggest pieces of cracker because they wanted to nibble. (would that be taking communion in an unworthy manner?) Our church was pretty poor. We used to wash out the little disposable communion cups for the next week.
Posted by: Madame M Jun 1 2004, 07:15 AM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 08:12 AM)
Me
QUOTE
As a father, I have a duty to protect my kids from all kinds of sexual predators, regardless of their sexual preference.
Pseudo:
QUOTE
Why do you assume all gay people are sexual predators? I assume this is why you wouldn't want somone gay to babysit your kids?
Pseudo:
Please indicate where I assumed "all gay people are sexual predators"?
If I can minimize any possible risk when searching for a babysitter, I will.
Kevin:
I think it is because you were talking specifically about homosexuals, and then went on to say that you have a duty to protect your children from sexual predators, then went on to comment that you wouldn't allow someone you suspect to be gay to babysit your children. Therefore, the assumption can be made- and was on my part- that you equate homosexuality with sexual predatory behavior towards children (ie: pedophilia). I despise pedophiles and I don't even want to get into it here what things I think should be done to pedophiles. Let's suffice it to say that I think cruel and unusual punishment should be used in the cases of people who abuse children. BUT, homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. Two different things. Just as heterosexuality does not equal pedophilia. Plenty of normal looking hetero fathers are pedophiles who molest their own children. In fact, and I would have to re-find the article- the number one group for pedophilia is married heteros. Do you see the general fear, misconceptions and paranoia directed at married hetero men that you do at homosexual men?
Posted by: I Broke Free Jun 1 2004, 07:16 AM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 01:05 AM)
I suspect a few men in our church are gay. I would not be comfortable letting them babysit for me, but I love them all the same. I really do, and not just because they are christians.
Kevin:
Kevin:
Your comments make me question the Christian philosophy of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I do believe that you are civil to the men you suspect are gay in your church, and I believe you when you say that you "love" them in the Christian since of the word. But I would like you for a moment to try and put yourselves in their shoes.
Even if a gay man does everything to please the Christian God, by giving up the idea of having a life-partner and remaining celibate, his fellow church members WILL still see him as an object of fear and pity!
Posted by: Reach Jun 1 2004, 07:36 AM
QUOTE (Kevin: @ Jun 1 2004, 09:50 AM)
There are many levels to this. A male feels threatened seeing another male *act* like a female. It threatens his own sexuality since he does not want to appear that way. The gay man is displaying this in a very obvious way, and the male finds this uncomfortable, since his own manly-hood comes into question. The gay male has somehow "let the side down" and the *normal* male is annoyed at having to experience this *deviant* behaviour.
To the extent that a person is *comfortable* or *secure* in his or her own skin and with one's own sexuality, to the same extent one will not feel threatened or intimidated by what another person might do in his or her skin, unless the "different" one is actually threatening or endangering the lives of others. It's interesting to note that this fear seems to be so common among American men while women of the same culture are so less bothered by the whole thing. It seems to be more of an insecurity issue. When you know who *you* are, you quit being so intimidated.
Posted by: Lokmer Jun 1 2004, 08:07 AM
QUOTE (reach @ Jun 1 2004, 08:36 AM)
It's interesting to note that this fear seems to be so common among American men while women of the same culture are so less bothered by the whole thing. It seems to be more of an insecurity issue. When you know who *you* are, you quit being so intimidated.
Well said, Reach!
From top to bottom, American men have accepted a definition of masculinity that is a portrait of selfishness, cruelty, exploitation, ownership, and what they call "power." A "real man" wraps these things up inside a seductive exterior of marginal civility. Gone are the days of men who understood honor, thought, dicipline, sacrifice, and poetry. The men who understood what it meant to honor a woman, who were man enough to let other men find their own way and suffer their own trials. They have been replaced by overgown boys who are stuck in the schoolyard trying to prove that they're the biggest and the best. The costume changes, but the heart remains the same, whether that costume is a vicker's collar, or a business suit, or a cop's uniform, or a valentine's day card.
This terminal insecurity and spiteful malice manifests itself in the desire to keep one's neighbor from doing, thinking, or being anything that frightens oneself - and then has the audacity to drape itself in the langage of "decency" and "freedom" and "morality." Kevin is right - at the root, the people who are going nuts about the "gay adgenda", the "hollywood adgenda", or this or that adgenda, are really so desperately insecure in their own minds that they cannot tolerate the spectre of someone different. The protectionist demagougery serves one end: To protect the fragile egos of overgrown boys who need power to secure their masculinity. They opposed women's sufferage and lost. They opposed women's equal rights under the law and won. And we won't even get in to the question of race.
I have kept myself from mentioning specific individuals or groups, because this sort of baseness cuts across all political, religious, orientational, and subcultural lines. In my not-so-humble opinion, it is the true cancer at the heart of America.
-Lokmer the disgusted
Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jun 1 2004, 08:18 AM
QUOTE (reach @ Jun 1 2004, 07:36 AM)
QUOTE (Kevin: @ Jun 1 2004, 09:50 AM)
There are many levels to this. A male feels threatened seeing another male *act* like a female. It threatens his own sexuality since he does not want to appear that way. The gay man is displaying this in a very obvious way, and the male finds this uncomfortable, since his own manly-hood comes into question. The gay male has somehow "let the side down" and the *normal* male is annoyed at having to experience this *deviant* behaviour.
To the extent that a person is *comfortable* or *secure* in his or her own skin and with one's own sexuality, to the same extent one will not feel threatened or intimidated by what another person might do in his or her skin, unless the "different" one is actually threatening or endangering the lives of others. It's interesting to note that this fear seems to be so common among American men while women of the same culture are so less bothered by the whole thing. It seems to be more of an insecurity issue. When you know who *you* are, you quit being so intimidated.
Yes, but they sure don't mind homosexual or bi-sexual women!
I'm sorry, I had to add a little humor. My bad....
Posted by: Reach Jun 1 2004, 08:51 AM
QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jun 1 2004, 11:18 AM)
Yes, but they sure don't mind homosexual or bi-sexual women!
I'm sorry, I had to add a little humor. My bad....
Notblindedbytheblight,
The double standard is appalling even though I can definitely see the humor in it. I was going to restrain myself on the humor angle but you would have to go there, girl.
Yes, while some men will be intimidated by the potential activity of two gay men, the very same men will go rent a porn movie about lesbians, etc... and fantasize about it. Sometimes they are even able to talk their female partner into adding a second female to their sexual activities. The hypocrisy. Sheesh!
It's good to have you on the board, Nbbtb! Do you think your name is long enough?
Reach
Thanks Lok.
Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jun 1 2004, 09:03 AM
I know Reach, I shouldn't have gone there. But the two women are no threat to their 'manlihood'. I believe it empowers them more and feeds their conceived idea of manlihood to watch or participate with 2 or more women.
Apologies for the intrusion.
Reach, the name came from being called blinded by a certain preacher (behind my back of course), and I like the song Blinded by the Light, and I see the fundamentalist's judgemental and intrusive actions as a blight on humanity...so there you have it.
p.s. I have no idea how to spell manlihood.
Posted by: Lokmer Jun 1 2004, 09:20 AM
QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jun 1 2004, 10:03 AM)
p.s. I have no idea how to spell manlihood.
Sounds like a cross between "manliness" and "manhood"....
-Lokmer
Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Jun 1 2004, 09:53 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jun 1 2004, 09:20 AM)
QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight @ Jun 1 2004, 10:03 AM)
p.s. I have no idea how to spell manlihood.
Sounds like a cross between "manliness" and "manhood"....
-Lokmer
No wonder I couldn't spell it..thanks.
Posted by: chefranden Jun 1 2004, 03:29 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ May 31 2004, 11:05 PM)
Gays and the church?
I will probably get crucified for this but here goes.
I have never been exposed to homosexuality, apart from seeing scantily clad men kissing each other at Gay Pride marches on TV.
I will admit I don't like it. It doesn't seem right. Call me a prude or whatever, but at least I'm honest. Some of you think that christians are disgusting. Well I think two men kissing each other is yukky.
As a father, I have a duty to protect my kids from all kinds of sexual predators, regardless of their sexual preference.
I suspect a few men in our church are gay. I would not be comfortable letting them babysit for me, but I love them all the same. I really do, and not just because they are christians.
Kevin:
Most sexual predators are heterosexual, so you are about shit out of luck when it comes to baby sitters.
Posted by: _Kevin Jun 1 2004, 05:10 PM
Chef:
QUOTE
Most sexual predators are heterosexual, so you are about shit out of luck when it comes to baby sitters.
Chef:
And most sexual predators are also male, so we never have a problem finding a female babysitter thankyou!
IBF:
QUOTE
Even if a gay man does everything to please the Christian God, by giving up the idea of having a life-partner and remaining celibate, his fellow church members WILL still see him as an object of fear and pity!
No more than the man/woman who commits adultery. I would not say they will be seen as objects of fear and pity, more like disappointment, because of the devastation caused to their family.
Kevin:
Posted by: mandylibra1979 Jun 1 2004, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 09:10 PM)
QUOTE (IBF)
Even if a gay man does everything to please the Christian God, by giving up the idea of having a life-partner and remaining celibate, his fellow church members WILL still see him as an object of fear and pity!
No more than the man/woman who commits adultery. I would not say they will be seen as objects of fear and pity, more like disappointment, because of the devastation caused to their family.
That is just rude Kevin. A disappointment? puh-leaze . . . The only people who consider homosexuals a disappointment are self-righteous, holier than thou, arrogant pricks like yourself.
Posted by: Lokmer Jun 1 2004, 05:40 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 06:10 PM)
IBF:
QUOTE
Even if a gay man does everything to please the Christian God, by giving up the idea of having a life-partner and remaining celibate, his fellow church members WILL still see him as an object of fear and pity!
No more than the man/woman who commits adultery. I would not say they will be seen as objects of fear and pity, more like disappointment, because of the devastation caused to their family.
And since when is a person committing adultery an object of fear in the church. Certainly, it may get you kicked out of some churches, but you can always go to another church and experience the forgiveness of the renewed sinner. With adultery, you're bad for a while, but you're not dirty because of something you feel in your bones.
The equation of adultery with homosexuality is utterly, completely, thorougly false - it is a crock of shit that neo-evangelicals feed themselves so they don't have to deal with the real ideas they are operating with. Observe:
Multiple choice questions - - - -
Adultery is immoral because:
1) it is motivated by lust
2) it involves multiple loyalties
3) it's sex outside of marriage
4) it is dishonest
Homosexuality is immoral because
1) it is motivated by lust
2) it is unnatural
3) it is sex outside of marriage
4) this is a trick question - there's nothing immoral about it in and of itself.
Correct answers: 4, 4.
Adultery is a particular form of heterosexual behavior. It is heterosexual behavior conducted in breach of a promise of sexual fidelity (marriage or no marriage) - to engage in it requires deceit and (at least) a lie of ommission. The reason it is considered "sinful" in the Bible isn't even for that moral reason, but because of something altogether more base: the woman is the property of the man, and by taking another man's wife one commits an act of theft.
Now lest you protest that it's a sin because it's lustful or because it's sex outside of marriage, I must remind you that in the Bible there wasn't a single patriarch or king (aside from Isaac) and precious few judges and other biblical heroes who are documented as having only one sexual partner. Moreover, on numerous occasions Yahweh deems extramarital sex "lawful" and "righteous" for a variety of reasons, and he blesses those he loves with more cattle, sheep, and women (notice the order of the list).
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a sexual flavor all its own, and not a subspecies of heterosexuality. Gay men and women can conduct themselves in the same manner or variety of power games, deceits, and perversions as can a heterosexual person - they can also (and more normally do, in my experience) conduct themselves with good ethics and responsibility both to themselves and their partner(s), just as can a heterosexual person. Such an equation is illigitimate and fraudulent, since the real way a gay person is treated in most evangelical and neo-con congregations is like a leper. He gets the delicate treatment, handled as one would a dirty diaper in polite company.
THAT is the ugliness and indignity that your mindset forces upon your fellow human beings. It's forcing others to go through life as though there's something wrong with them. Something they have no power over, but are expected to change simply in order to be accorded basic human dignity. In the world I come from, human dignity is inherent in the human, and the treatment of humans with dignity is due them by nature of their breath - and you only make an exception rarely, for the person who treats others as beneath contempt.
-Lokmer
Posted by: I Broke Free Jun 1 2004, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 09:10 PM)
IBF:
QUOTE
Even if a gay man does everything to please the Christian God, by giving up the idea of having a life-partner and remaining celibate, his fellow church members WILL still see him as an object of fear and pity!
No more than the man/woman who commits adultery. I would not say they will be seen as objects of fear and pity, more like disappointment, because of the devastation caused to their family.
Kevin:
Sorry Kevin I am not buying that line at all. It may be true for you personally, but the average person sitting in church does not fear or pity the remarried person (adulterer) sitting next to them. But the suspected homosexual across the room living a celibate (godly) life is another story entirely.
Posted by: Kevin: Jun 1 2004, 06:05 PM
Mandy:
QUOTE
That is just rude Kevin. A disappointment? puh-leaze . . . The only people who consider homosexuals a disappointment are self-righteous, holier than thou, arrogant pricks like yourself.
You know Mandy, you should really read my posts more carefully before you start ranting and raving! I am referring to the ADULTERER as the disappointment!!
Kevin:
Posted by: Kevin: Jun 1 2004, 06:19 PM
IBF:
QUOTE
Sorry Kevin I am not buying that line at all. It may be true for you personally, but the average person sitting in church does not fear or pity the remarried person (adulterer) sitting next to them. But the suspected homosexual across the room living a celibate (godly) life is another story entirely.
IBF:
I do hope that you have not misunderstood my comments, which Mandy in her haste has obviously done?
I think you are right, although this has not arisen in our church, there is a good possibility that person would feel ostracized in some way.
Kevin:
Posted by: I Broke Free Jun 1 2004, 06:23 PM
QUOTE (Kevin: @ Jun 1 2004, 10:19 PM)
IBF:
QUOTE
Sorry Kevin I am not buying that line at all. It may be true for you personally, but the average person sitting in church does not fear or pity the remarried person (adulterer) sitting next to them. But the suspected homosexual across the room living a celibate (godly) life is another story entirely.
IBF:
I do hope that you have not misunderstood my comments, which Mandy in her haste has obviously done?
I think you are right, although this has not arisen in our church, there is a good possibility that person would feel ostracized in some way.
Kevin:
Kevin
One good turn deserves another.
What I described is NOT a Christian phenomenon. It is a pervasive feeling throughout our culture and I should have said that.
Posted by: mandylibra1979 Jun 1 2004, 06:27 PM
Read through this everyone, if you will. Doesn't it appear that Kevin is calling homosexuals a disappointment?
If he's not I still think that he is a self-righteous, holier than thou, arrogant prick . . .
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 09:10 PM)
QUOTE (IBF)
QUOTE (mandylibra1979)
QUOTE (Kevin: @ Jun 1 2004, 10:05 PM)
Even if a gay man does everything to please the Christian God, by giving up the idea of having a life-partner and remaining celibate, his fellow church members WILL still see him as an object of fear and pity!
No more than the man/woman who commits adultery. I would not say they will be seen as objects of fear and pity, more like disappointment, because of the devastation caused to their family.
That is just rude Kevin. A disappointment? puh-leaze . . . The only people who consider homosexuals a disappointment are self-righteous, holier than thou, arrogant pricks like yourself.
You know Mandy, you should really read my posts more carefully before you start ranting and raving! I am referring to the ADULTERER as the disappointment!!
You are so full of it, Kevin. I don't believe you. Try to cover your ass all you want, okay? I think you are truly stupid.
Even if you are telling the truth (which I seriously doubt) who are you to say that an adulterer is a disappointment?
Who the fuck are you to judge people for their "sins"?
I have done many things in my life that lots of people would not agree with including but not limited to committing adultery (I did this while I was married to my ex) and my family or friends never regarded me as a disappointment.
Posted by: Shadfox Jun 1 2004, 06:42 PM
QUOTE
Read through this everyone, if you will. Doesn't it appear that Kevin is calling homosexuals a disappointment?
He certainly wouldn't be the first.
Posted by: PseudoGod Jun 1 2004, 06:45 PM
My interpretation of what Kevin wrote is that both the gay person and the adulterer are disappointments, since both were being referred to in the singular sense, but the word "they" was used to make the association with "disappointment. But what do I know, I am just a drunk
Posted by: mandylibra1979 Jun 1 2004, 06:48 PM
QUOTE (PseudoGod @ Jun 1 2004, 10:45 PM)
My interpretation of what Kevin wrote is that both the gay person and the adulterer are disappointments, since both were being referred to in the singular sense, but the word "they" was used to make the association with "disappointment.
That makes sense but either way I am tired of his fucking games.
QUOTE
But what do I know, I am just a drunk
cheers, me too . . .
Posted by: PseudoGod Jun 1 2004, 06:55 PM
Hehe. This kinda reminds me of the good old days when 4 Christians are in a room arguing over 4 different interpretations of same 1 line sentence in the Bible ;-)
Cheers
Posted by: Shadfox Jun 1 2004, 07:22 PM
QUOTE
I have never been exposed to homosexuality, apart from seeing scantily clad men kissing each other at Gay Pride marches on TV.
I would say that's the problem right there. If you knew of any outside the media stereotypes you would have more balanced perspective. "Pride" parades offer as much insight into gays as Marti Gras celebrations offer about heteros.
QUOTE
Your anger is justified but some of the gay community do not help their cause by their overt behavior.
I find the very same conduct you've mentioned offensive, too, but not because being gay is a sin. Like most heterosexual sex scenes, I feel gay sex scenes are tacky and shallow. I admit to hating the stereotype gays at times myself, for no matter who I am or what I do I will be judged by their actions by people like you.
But, that's selfish. I can't expect others to change because human perception is distorted. The only thing I can do is stand as an example.
Posted by: _Kevin Jun 1 2004, 07:46 PM
Mandy:
QUOTE
Read through this everyone, if you will. Doesn't it appear that Kevin is calling homosexuals a disappointment?
I think the phrase you are looking for Mandy is.
"I'm sorry, I made a mistake"
Kevin:
Posted by: Cerise Jun 1 2004, 07:56 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble Kev, but it certainly DID appear as though you were calling homosexuals a disappointment.
Like I've said before, people aren't mind readers. If a guy walks into a bar and says "black people are morons" when he meant to say "some black people are morons" someone at the bar is going to get a few punches in before what was MEANT is finally expressed as opposed to what was SAID.
Maybe you meant that adulterers were disappointments (although I don't see as how that's any better) but what you said did not adequately express that.
And it's rather silly to be indignant at others for getting your meaning wrong when you are being unclear in the first place.
Posted by: TruthWarrior Jun 1 2004, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 09:10 PM)
No more than the man/woman who commits adultery. I would not say they will be seen as objects of fear and pity, more like disappointment, because of the devastation caused to their family.
But don't you fear and pity those that are disapointments?
You're forgetting, according to Jesus, merely looking at a person lustfully is equal to adultery. Then there was this odd little story of a woman who was caught in adultery:
QUOTE
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her,
"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." - John 8:1-11 (NIV)
What do you suppose that was all about?
Posted by: _Kevin Jun 1 2004, 08:03 PM
Shad:
QUOTE
I would say that's the problem right there. If you knew of any outside the media stereotypes you would have more balanced perspective. "Pride" parades offer as much insight into gays as Marti Gras celebrations offer about heteros.
Shad:
The only thing these two parades have in common is lewd behaviour. The Mardi Gras is not a bunch of heteros marching for their rights or making a statement like a gay parade is. I see what you are saying though. It's not a subject I intend to study too much in depth.
QUOTE
I find the very same conduct you've mentioned offensive, too, but not because being gay is a sin
I never said I find it offensive because it's a sin either.
QUOTE
I admit to hating the stereotype gays at times myself, for no matter who I am or what I do I will be judged by their actions by people like you.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Am I judging you for their actions?
Kevin:
Posted by: _Kevin Jun 1 2004, 08:42 PM
TW:
QUOTE
But don't you fear and pity those that are disapointments?
No. The word disappointment was used in connection with the devastation to the family by someone commiting adultery.
(Sorry I did not make this clear as some people would have liked Cerise)
QUOTE
You're forgetting, according to Jesus, merely looking at a person lustfully is equal to adultery. Then there was this odd little story of a woman who was caught in adultery:
Yes that is true, although I can't see many christian marriages ending in divorce just because of a few lustful thoughts.
The incident when Jesus intervened for the adulteress was forgiveness of her sins. Only He could forgive her since all sin is a trangression against Him. Once again, I am disappointed with the adulterer because of the impact it has on the lives of those around them. Our close friends are currently going through this and the ripple effect is very damaging
Kevin:
Posted by: PseudoGod Jun 1 2004, 08:46 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ May 31 2004, 09:05 PM)
Gays and the church?
I will probably get crucified for this but here goes.
I have never been exposed to homosexuality, apart from seeing scantily clad men kissing each other at Gay Pride marches on TV.
Christianity and reality?
I will probably get crucified for saying this but here goes.
I have never been exposed to Christianity, apart from seeing unfashionably clad fundies wailing and crying on the sidewalk in front of courthouses during 10-commandment monument removals on TV.
Sorry I couldn't resist. This is more or less what an atheist friend of mine (never a Christian) had to say to me about Christianity one day. Lesson learned: Don't judge a whole group by the admittedly embarrasing public displays made by a few.
Posted by: mandylibra1979 Jun 1 2004, 08:53 PM
QUOTE (_Kevin @ Jun 1 2004, 11:46 PM)
Mandy:
QUOTE
Read through this everyone, if you will. Doesn't it appear that Kevin is calling homosexuals a disappointment?
I think the phrase you are looking for Mandy is.
"I'm sorry, I made a mistake"
Kevin:
No, Kevin, you dumbass . . . the phrase I would like to use now is, "Piss off" if you must know.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)