The Obssession with Homosexuality

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis, your quote from the "Symposium" is badly taken, Socrates advocated non-sexual love as the ultimate form in the dialogue and resisted the homosexual advances of Alcibidies. While Plato may himself have been a homosexual, and was certainly enamoured of Socrates; "Platonic love" is explicitiely non-sexual.

As far as Greek texts, you will have to cite a Patriarch from before 300 AD or similar aurthority if you wish to argue for "legitimate" homosexuality in Christianity. Nicaea banned homosexuality, I believe. Certainly John's Gospel was edited before then in order to remove an ambidious massage used by Greeks to argue for homosexuality. Personally I think the editing was unnecessary, the passage was vety tame.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For the Catholic Church, marriage in one of the holly sacement, confirmed by the Concil of Trente, along side the baptism (followed by the confirmation), confession, the last rites, forget the last one.

Baptism (once), Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation (once), Matrimony, Holy Orders, & Annointing of the Sick.

Most Priests and Catholics only receive 6 of these sacraments. Only members of the deaconate typically receive all 7.

[Samurai Waki]

I have mixed feelings on homosexual clergy (though generally I advocate a don't ask don't tell policy - a Catholic priest shouldn't be having sexual relations with anyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Celibacy was a poor decision made by a string of Popes who were more concerned about money, taxation, and inheritance, than allowing the clergy to properly conduct religious services. 'twas a different time then, and it should be considered null and void by today's standards. Alas, it takes a long time for the Catholic Church to change it's mind, considering Galileo was only recently relieved of his excommunication. Besides exclusivity and spirituality has never jived with me.

[Fragony]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion. There can be no such unity between same sexes, they should be instinctively aware of that, they simply can't do that. There are some things you can't have no matter how much you want it. Pas possible, shouldn't want it.

[Fixiwee]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion. There can be no such unity between same sexes, they should be instinctively aware of that, they simply can't do that. There are some things you can't have no matter how much you want it. Pas possible, shouldn't want it.

So 5 states in the US have already passed legal gay marriage. And gay people will come together, marry and have a life together. It's a symbol of love and dedication, that you are willing to commit to another person, even if he is of the same sex.
You are on the other hand just ignorant to the fact that marriage is not just a unity for reproduction. You are just stating that this symbol is for the heterosexuals. And you know people can go crazy when you take away those kind of symbols.

I say let's try to be a bit more tollerant and accept certain weird facts that sometimes people love someone of the same sex. So maybe marriage is a unity of love. So why not let them marry. The world will not explode, there will be enough heterosexual babies around to prevent the human race to become extinct.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Celibacy was a poor decision made by a string of Popes who were more concerned about money, taxation, and inheritance, than allowing the clergy to properly conduct religious services. 'twas a different time then, and it should be considered null and void by today's standards. Alas, it takes a long time for the Catholic Church to change it's mind, considering Galileo was only recently relieved of his excommunication. Besides exclusivity and spirituality has never jived with me.

Two things:

1. The celibacy of the clergy was a way to deal with the endemic corruption of Church benifices, and should be seen in that light.

2. Loving God "with your whole heart" means loving him first, before all others. This raises the question of whether a priest, who should definately love God with his whole heart, should marry anyway. Your wife would always come second to your God. One wonders if that makes for a happy marriage, unless she feels the same way.

Though, it must be said, such a union, where both love God first and each other second, would seem to litterally conform to the definition of "Holy Matrimony", because the marriage itself would be an active act of worship.

[Fragony]

So 5 states in the US have already passed legal gay marriage. And gay people will come together, marry and have a life together. It's a symbol of love and dedication, that you are willing to commit to another person, even if he is of the same sex.
You are on the other hand just ignorant to the fact that marriage is not just a unity for reproduction. You are just stating that this symbol is for the heterosexuals. And you know people can go crazy when you take away those kind of symbols.

I say let's try to be a bit more tollerant and accept certain weird facts that sometimes people love someone of the same sex. So maybe marriage is a unity of love. So why not let them marry. The world will not explode, there will be enough heterosexual babies around to prevent the human race to become extinct.

What is the idea behind marriage, 2 people and a future. No future for gays. Pretend all you want you know it isn't the real thing.

[LittleGrizzly]

What is the idea behind marriage, 2 people and a future. No future for gays.

Someone needs to tell the infertile that thier marriages have no future either... why the hell do they get married then ?

Plus with adoption and all new funky sciences gay people can have thier own childrenor of course they could adopt, or regardless of that they could marry and enjoy thier lives together as many married couples do without children...

[Fragony]

[
Plus with adoption and all new funky sciences gay people can have thier own childrenor of course they could adopt,.

And that doesn't sound absolutely twisted in any way

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And that doesn't sound absolutely twisted in any way

Nope. Grizz' could have given a bit more time to the spelling/grammar to make it read better, but I had no trouble understanding his point.

Should we be able to create a child by splicing the genetic material of two men together in some kind of pseudo-ova, using in vitro fertilization, and then implanting the resultant blastos in a (appropriately compensated and voluntary) host mother, what would be less unnatural about that than, say, using focused gamma radiation to destroy brain tumors insinde a living brain?

[Fragony]

Nope. Grizz' could have given a bit more time to the spelling/grammar to make it read better, but I had no trouble understanding his point.

Should we be able to create a child by splicing the genetic material of two men together in some kind of pseudo-ova, using in vitro fertilization, and then implanting the resultant blastos in a (appropriately compensated and voluntary) host mother, what would be less unnatural about that than, say, using focused gamma radiation to destroy brain tumors insinde a living brain?

Can I be me? It isn't really gay if it's your clone.

[Fixiwee]

What is the idea behind marriage, 2 people and a future. No future for gays. Pretend all you want you know it isn't the real thing.

To say that my statement is pretentious is prepostreous. Who says that the idea behind marriage is having children? You?
Like I said befor. I don't need marriage to have a future and children. I do need love for to marry a women.
So if gay people love each other, why not let them have their marriage and we can all just get a long peacefully and with dignity and respect.

Equal rights for everyone please, not just for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMHisTmIfyM

[Fragony]

To say that my statement is pretentious is prepostreous. Who says that the idea behind marriage is having children? You?
Like I said befor. I don't need marriage to have a future and children. I do need love for to marry a women.
So if gay people love each other, why not let them have their marriage and we can all just get a long peacefully and with dignity and respect.

Equal rights for everyone please, not just for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMHisTmIfyM

They can have it, but I don't understand why they want it. It's never going to be a real marriage it will always be a gay marriage, enjoy.

[Fixiwee]

They can have it, but I don't understand why they want it. It's never going to be a real marriage it will always be a gay marriage, enjoy.

Fair enough.
I personally don't understand how one can be homosexual since I am straight as the national borders in Africa. But I respect their sexuallity and the need to be treated equal as a symbol of love and passion.

[Andres]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion.

Oh, what a nice and sensitive statement, Fragony.

So a straight couple that can't have children of their own should not marry/should divorce?

[Fragony]

So a straight couple that can't have children of their own should not marry/should divorce?

Those are few out of many, so are homosexuals, why consider a "should".

[Andres]

Those are few out of many, so are homosexuals, why consider a "should".

Ehm, I'm not sure if I understand your cryptic post correct.

Are you saying infertile couples must not be allowed to marry?

[Fragony]

Are you saying infertile couples must not be allowed to marry?

I really have no idea why this is an argument, just because they are an exception?

[Andres]

I really have no idea why this is an argument, just because they are an exception?

Well, you say marriage is for reproduction. So, by that same logic, infertile straight couples must not be allowed to marry either.

Or do you think straight infertile couples should be allowed to marry?

If so, then why should they be allowed to marry and gays not, since both can't have children.

[Fragony]

Well, you say marriage is for reproduction. So, by that same logic, infertile straight couples must not be allowed to marry either.

Or do you think straight infertile couples should be allowed to marry?

If so, then why should they be allowed to marry and gays not, since both can't have children.

Sure, so do gays. They can marry their pc if they want to. They don't need my aproval do they.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Cool, Fred Phelps and the team are coming over to Scotland for the meeting of our Kirk's General Assembly. I think I should go to get his autograph, just for the lulz.

In any case, hopefully my minister will give some insight into the matter tomorrow, I know some of the congregation will not be pleased with what is being proposed.

[seireikhaan]

I have just a few comments on this whole marriage thing-a-ma-bobber.

1) Marriage isn't all that sacred. If it was a sacred act, then half of american marriages wouldn't end in a divorce. That crosses all spectrums of religion and ethnicity. If people were so concerned about marriage's sanctity, they should be doing more about the divorce issue leaving hundreds of thousands(millions? ) of kids growing up in environments where their otherwise loving parents treat them as a piece of property while hurling swear words at their counterpart. Go try and fix that first, then complain about the gays ruining marriage.

2) Why do people care so much theologically? Its not as though Judaism created the idea. Its a universal concept designed to promote harmony, safe childbirth, and minimize inbreeding. Pagan Romans did. Chinse have done it. Native Americans have done it. Indians have done it. Africans have done it. Trobriand Islanders have done. Etc....And....? Yes, Christianity adopted it. Of course it did, its a pretty darned good thing for society. That said, its not like Jesus ever married. As far as we can tell Biblically, Jesus didn't have a whole lot to say about the matter, and apparently didn't care for creating a demi-deity while on earth. Ya, there's old testament stuff on homosexuality being a bestial act and all that, but really, come on. You gotta try harder than that. There's all sorts of old testament stuff that a lot of Jews today don't even follow(like stoning women for touching a guys crotch during a dispute). Heck, how many christians follow the dietary laws, or the other 500 some odd laws that were laid down? Its a weak, insincere argument coming from mostly theological hypocrites.

3) How does it actually affect people? Doesn't affect me if gays start gettting married in the courthouse. Lots of people do it. Last I checked, I was afflicted with boils the last time a straight couple was allowed to marry. My state legalized gay marriage a bit ago, and guess what? STILL NO BOILS! If they are going to hell, then guess what? Their decision, between them and god, and I frankly can't see how I'm going to do a whole lot about it. If God does exist, then he'll pass judgement on them, not me. I just don't see how anyone can be getting themselves so worked up over other people's private lives.

[rasoforos]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion.

Another Fragonyism

So many times you have equated your own personal opinion with 'all cultures' 'always' 'the whole world' etc etc...

Your statement is obviously not thought through.

Monotheism is too dogmatic and too recent to patronize people over what they believe or not. The homosexual couple are not getting married in churches or mosques or synagogues (no-one forces priests imams or rabbis to perform such marriages) and that is the end of the story really.

[HoreTore]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion.

Irrelevant. We change everything to better suit the way we want to live our lives now. Everything changes, including marriage. If we think the definition of marriage is insufficient for what we want it to represent in this age, we simply change it.

Today, we want marriage to represent a close and strong bond between two people who love each other. So we've changed the meaning of marriage to represent that.

[Vuk]

Irrelevant. We change everything to better suit the way we want to live our lives now. Everything changes, including marriage. If we think the definition of marriage is insufficient for what we want it to represent in this age, we simply change it.

Today, we want marriage to represent a close and strong bond between two people who love each other. So we've changed the meaning of marriage to represent that.

ooo, let's change the definition of everything while we are at it! After all, words have no real meaning and can be changed on a whim! Finally! My dream of being a legal Rabbi will be fufilled! Jews if they do not like it, they have no rights to descriminating against us and excluding us from the legal Rabbi status. In fact, no one has a right to exclude me from being President! I want to be President of the United States, NOW! If you do not like it, to bad! You are just trying to oppress me!

[Tribesman]

Someone doesn't know what a Rabbi is .

[Meneldil]

ooo, let's change the definition of everything while we are at it! After all, words have no real meaning and can be changed on a whim! Finally! My dream of being a legal Rabbi will be fufilled! Jews if they do not like it, they have no rights to descriminating against us and excluding us from the legal Rabbi status. In fact, no one has a right to exclude me from being President! I want to be President of the United States, NOW! If you do not like it, to bad! You are just trying to oppress me!

Given that most europeans and north-american don't give a damn about religion and christianity, why should marriage keep its (relatively recent, in any case) christian meaning ?

[Samurai Waki]

Well, I wouldn't say most North Americans, considering that a very healthy percentage of Americans are a breath away from Fundamentalism. Of course, many aren't either.

[HoreTore]

ooo, let's change the definition of everything while we are at it! After all, words have no real meaning and can be changed on a whim! Finally! My dream of being a legal Rabbi will be fufilled! Jews if they do not like it, they have no rights to descriminating against us and excluding us from the legal Rabbi status. In fact, no one has a right to exclude me from being President! I want to be President of the United States, NOW! If you do not like it, to bad! You are just trying to oppress me!

If we as a society wants to change the meaning of the word Rabbi, then of course we will do that.

As for your President example, well, we've already given that word several meanings. As for President of the United States, simply start a company called The United States, and voila, you can be the President of the United States

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As for your President example, well, we've already given that word several meanings. As for President of the United States, simply start a company called The United States, and voila, you can be the President of the United States

I'm sure that violates some sort of copyright law.