Humanity must be saved from homosexuality - Pope

gino85

the pope is trolling lol

Galvasean

Dave! wrote: »

Ah but the female ass is perfectly designed for ease of phallic entry! :cool:

So she lied to me...

allabouteve

veritable wrote: »

it's a fine line to walk saying making love and having sex are not the same;)

Not a fine line at all. A huge big line in fact, the two are only similar in action, worlds apart in experience.

Dragan

veritable wrote: »

Compare like with like here.

you cannot say celibacy and gay sex are the same just because no children get produced in both cases.:rolleyes:

Of course they are not the same thing, but they do not need to be the same thing to both not be "natural heterosexuality".

If priests want more people to listen to them then they should get down to the nitty gritty of life and start ****ing some nuns.

ShooterSF

Dragan wrote: »

Of course they are not the same thing, but they do not need to be the same thing to both not be "natural heterosexuality".

If priests want more people to listen to them then they should get down to the nitty gritty of life and start ****ing some nuns.

And neglect the poor, now attention starved, Alter boy? Won't you think of the children?!

Nodin

veritable wrote: »

anything the pope says is twisted by the secular media.

Which is odd, because the rest of your post confirms what the last ten pages have been about.....

veritable wrote: »

People out there think the pope is an idiot and they talk like they are smarter than him. give him a bit of respect, he is an intelligent human being, definitely smarter than all of us

No, he's an oul git who knows fu/ck all about life. A well read oul git, but a oul git nevertheless.

veritable wrote: »

I have to agree with him on this. If a man has sex with another man it is sick and disgusting.

I can think of a few male/female couplings that qualify as fairly foul too. Add in the risk of breeding and its just a vile thought....

tech77

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If it's a genetic thing it might change. Back in the day a lot of gays would have had a family so no-one would know they're gay & therefore pass on their genes.

Now that more are open they might live a life that doesn't have them raising biological children, thus removing potential gayness from the gene pool

Interesting point, even if it would be a little bleak for gay people.

If homosexuality HAS a significant genetic component though, it certainly refutes the pope's nonsense about it spreading insidiously.

Terry

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm not trolling. Answer the question, what percentage of homosexuality within the state are you happy with??? 10%??? What if in ten years time it is 20%, or 30%???

Couldn't care less.
How about you?

There are parts of the world suffering from overpopulaton.
Perhaps if we send some of the gays to China and India, they could spread the gay and sort out the ever increasing populations there.

There is also the fact that homosexuals, by your deifinition, are a dying breed.
They don't reproduce, so they can't make more gay people.
If there are no gay people, then the gay lifestyle will be gone.

Oh, wait. Some people choose to be gay.
Yeah, we can send them to over populated places too. Let them spread their lifestyle there.

I genuinely feel that the whole topic will be opened up to such a degree in a few years time that it will be a choice that each person will have to make when they get to a certain age, whether they will be with a man or a woman and each person will ultimately weigh up the pro's and con's for themselves, but all stigma's and barriers will have been broken down with respect to being gay. This is the direction we are heading in...

Honestly, I think you are confusing campness with being gay.

galwayrush

Why are some gays worried what the Pope / Church thinks,? Does it really matter if they can't get married in the eyes of the church?
It's a bit like a black man complaining that he's not invited to be a member of the KKK.:D

Wurly

galwayrush wrote: »

Why are some gays worried what the Pope / Church thinks,? Does it really matter if they can't get married in the eyes of the church?
It's a bit like a black man complaining that he's not invited to be a member of the KKK.:D

Eh, its not a bit like that at all...

Why should straight people be allowed to get married and gay people not?

Why should gay people be denied the right to have a public ceremony, legally binding them to their partner? Why can't they proclaim their love to their partner in this ceremony but straight people can?

What similarities does this bear to the KKK?

galwayrush

Tri wrote: »

What similarities does this bear to the KKK?

The Church was always anti gay, the KKK was always anti black. why worry about anient customs / policy, the rights and wrongs are not the issue. Gays should carry on with their lives and stop being concerned about people / groups who don't understand, or don't want to understand them.

Wurly

galwayrush wrote: »

The Church was always anti gay, the KKK was always anti black. why worry about anient customs / policy, the rights and wrongs are not the issue. Gays should carry on with their lives and stop being concerned about people / groups who don't understand, or don't want to understand them.

I see your point above.

And while I agree, the point is that a gay person should be able to get married if they want to. Sure, they can live without it but why should they?

I can't see a black person wanting to join the KKK.

galwayrush

Tri wrote: »

I see your point above.

And while I agree, the point is that a gay person should be able to get married if they want to. Sure, they can live without it but why should they?

I can't see a black person wanting to join the KKK.

Agree, gay people should be allowed to get married / legal union etc. But i don't see why some feel they need a cermony recognised by the church, when the church clearly is anti gay.

mumhaabu

Fair play to the pope, it about time someone came out against this liberal gay agenda. Being Gay is unnatural and no-one can be born naturally homo-sexual, the drive behind humanity is to procreate and to go forth and multiply. It is about time that Heterosexuals were given the protection and treatment that is deserved if Humanity is to survive.

Homosexuality is predominately a western issue where young vunerable men and women are preyed upon by liberal mindsets and with the propaganda of the agenda shown on every TV show, homosexuality is glorified and made to seem normal, when it is not. These people then relate the other issues in their lives such as self esteem and lack of progress down to actually having a sexuality conflict and then "become" gay. Fair play to the pope, he truly is a worker of the lord.

Wurly

galwayrush wrote: »

Agree, gay people should be allowed to get married / legal union etc. But i don't see why some feel they need a cermony recognised by the church, when the church clearly is anti gay.

Yeah, I see your point here also.

Maybe they want church weddings for their parents sake etc? My mother would prob have a heart attack if I didn't have a church wedding. Still not gonna happen though.:pac:

Cunny-Funt

:rolleyes:

Its people like mumhaabu that humanity must be saved from, not the gheys...

I suppose you hate black people too mumhaabu? Whats that? They should all be gassed?

lol @ "liberal agenda". Sorry if not everyone in the world is filled with hate like you. Theres no agenda about it.

Wurly

mumhaabu wrote: »

no-one can be born naturally homo-sexual

Homosexuality is predominately a western issue

These people then relate the other issues in their lives such as self esteem and lack of progress down to actually having a sexuality conflict and then "become" gay.

Hi there - interesting point of view, I must say.

Could you provide the evidence for the above and let me know where you got said evidence from? I would be genuinely interested to know. Thanks.

Cunny-Funt

Tri wrote: »

Could you provide the evidence for the above and let me know where you got said evidence from?

Stormfront probably:rolleyes:

Galvasean

mumhaabu wrote: »

It is about time that Heterosexuals were given the protection and treatment that is deserved if Humanity is to survive.

Protection from what, the gay boogey man?

Nick_oliveri

This thread is gay with homophobia.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dny123456 wrote: »

Catholic church is a multibillion-multinational business.

This is just a marketing ploy, wouldn't get excited about it to be honest. Most sane people will see through it... I hope!

You made a typo mate, I took the liberty of correcting it for you

I guess he is talking about reproduction. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with themselves, hence the destruction of mankind...?

6789

galwayrush wrote: »

The Church was always anti gay, the KKK was always anti black. why worry about anient customs / policy, the rights and wrongs are not the issue. Gays should carry on with their lives and stop being concerned about people / groups who don't understand, or don't want to understand them.

No, the fact is that because same sex couples can't get married they are not entitled to all the tax/legal benefits etc(like being allowed to visit their other half in hospital in some circumstances) that heterosexual married couples are entitled to. Have you not heard of civil ceremonies in registry offices? They really only want the state to recognise their love, not some obsolete church that treats them like sh*t. In my view, there should be as much separation between church and state as possible (history has shown this is extremely important). The state should recognise all civil unions (hetero or homosexual) for issues like tax that have nothing to do with religion.

Fair play to the pope, it about time someone came out against this liberal gay agenda. Being Gay is unnatural and no-one can be born naturally homo-sexual, the drive behind humanity is to procreate and to go forth and multiply. It is about time that Heterosexuals were given the protection and treatment that is deserved if Humanity is to survive.

Homosexuality is predominately a western issue where young vunerable men and women are preyed upon by liberal mindsets and with the propaganda of the agenda shown on every TV show, homosexuality is glorified and made to seem normal, when it is not. These people then relate the other issues in their lives such as self esteem and lack of progress down to actually having a sexuality conflict and then "become" gay. Fair play to the pope, he truly is a worker of the lord.

I find it funny that the people (like you) who would call themselves good Christians are usually the most hateful and small minded people. To me, it is the most un-christian thing to not love and respect other people who were born a certain way
Your logic is totally absurd. You say that homosexuality is predominantly a 'western' issue and this is simply not true. It is merely more evident in western societies because it is not a crime and is gradually becoming more socially acceptable and people feel more comfortable with 'coming out'. However, the fact is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice- you are born gay just like most are born heterosexual. It exists in every single society and, as I said, it is only more evident in western societies because more people are 'out'. In many Islamic countries like Iran, for instance, it is a crime (punishable by death penalty) to be gay so people simply do no 'come out'. There are still just as many gay people though. They are just not openly gay and live a lie instead.

A certain proportion of the population is gay (estimated at 5-10%) and always will be. The argument put forward by Darragh (that if it becomes more accepted soon everyone will be gay and the human race will become extinct) is complete nonsense. Just because it is more accepted does not mean suddenly we all turn gay- sexuality is not a choice but an instinct. When one gets to puberty they know what they are attracted to and just because there's a view that it's 'not that bad to be gay' does not mean they will choose to be gay!
All that will happen is that people who were always homosexual will be more likely to come out of the closet which would still be a tiny % of the population anyway. Would Darragh really prefer those people to lie to themselves/lovers forever by being in the closet- forever acting and not being their true selves?? The vast majority of people will always be heterosexual and homosexuality represents no threat to anyone.

A couple of posters made reference to homosexuality being a fashion and then bringing up examples of people they know who 'turned back straight'. Bull. Those people are merely bisexual and are most likely very confused about who they love.

I would +1 Tri's post on getting Mumhaabu to back up his/her drivel.

mumhaabu

6789 wrote: »

I find it funny that the people (like you) who would call themselves good Christians are usually the most hateful and small minded people. To me, it is the most un-christian thing to not love and respect other people who were born a certain way

I never said I hated gays, I just don't approve of their lifestyle and don't think it needs promoting the way it is. Do we see swingers and wife swapping getting this sort of promoting through the media etc. God loves all people and there is no such thing as a vengeful god.

6789 wrote: »

Your logic is totally absurd. You say that homosexuality is predominantly a 'western' issue and this is simply not true. It is merely more evident in western societies because it is not a crime and is gradually becoming more socially acceptable and people feel more comfortable with 'coming out'. However, the fact is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice- you are born gay just like most are born heterosexual. It exists in every single society and, as I said, it is only more evident in western societies because more people are 'out'. In many Islamic countries like Iran, for instance, it is a crime (punishable by death penalty) to be gay so people simply do no 'come out'. There are still just as many gay people though. They are just not openly gay and live a lie instead.

I think it is a disgrace that something so personal as sexuality should be treated with the death penalty when what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is their business and theres only so long as both parties are ok with it. I do not think people are born gay and it something that comes about during the developmental stages in early childhood and during puberty, a poll here on boards.ie seems to suggest a correlation between a lack of a male authoritative figure in their lives and being gay, obviously it is unscientific but it suggests to me that having less male influence and more female influence tends to skew the developmental patterns.

6789 wrote: »

A certain proportion of the population is gay (estimated at 5-10%) and always will be. The argument put forward by Darragh (that if it becomes more accepted soon everyone will be gay and the human race will become extinct) is complete nonsense. Just because it is more accepted does not mean suddenly we all turn gay- sexuality is not a choice but an instinct. When one gets to puberty they know what they are attracted to and just because there's a view that it's 'not that bad to be gay' does not mean they will choose to be gay!
All that will happen is that people who were always homosexual will be more likely to come out of the closet which would still be a tiny % of the population anyway. Would Darragh really prefer those people to lie to themselves/lovers forever by being in the closet- forever acting and not being their true selves?? The vast majority of people will always be heterosexual and homosexuality represents no threat to anyone.

A couple of posters made reference to homosexuality being a fashion and then bringing up examples of people they know who 'turned back straight'. Bull. Those people are merely bisexual and are most likely very confused about who they love.

I would +1 Tri's post on getting Mumhaabu to back up his/her drivel.

Firstly these are my views and backing them up is pointless (and difficult without as one poster mentioned referencing some lunatic who would prefer we gas all Homosexuals from *that* site) when so many people here are obviously set against them. I keep to myself and as long as they keep to themselves we are all happy, there is however no need to shove it in everyones faces, that so and so is Gay and happy etc. and then they want marriage etc. the disgraceful way the LGBT Community reacted after California banned gay marriage by blaming it primarily on Black people (who make up a small percentage of the electorate there) was terrible and there is hardcore leftwing liberal people who do gay people no favours and only help polarise and stigmatise their community. The treatment of the issue in the TV Show Desperate Housewives being a case in point.

hot2def

the Pope is a small-minded, wealthy, isolated bigot. the sh1t he spouts about homosexuality is some of the only popular sh!t the church says. they couldn't do without it. He can drop dead for all I care, meally-mouthed little d!ck.


thats my word.

Wurly

So, basically all you have to back up your very very severe statement is a poll from boards??

That's not very well informed, is it?

I know this is your opinion. But you've pulled all this information out of the sky really, haven't you?

Like you said, it's none of your business what two consenting adults do. So it's funny then that you state you do not agree with their lifestyle.

I have many gay friends who came from loving homes. With both parents present. What 'happened' to them then?

Just because you don't believe that you are born gay, doesn't mean, it's not the truth.

You have failed miserably at backing up your argument tbh. if you're gonna be so flamboyantly homophobic, at least be able to back up what you're saying!

Galvasean

mumhaabu wrote: »

there is no such thing as a vengeful god.

What about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God destroyed for their behavior?
Or that guy who was killed by God for collecting sticks on the Sabbath day?

Exodus 20:5 wrote:

for I the Lord your God am a jealous God

hot2def

Galvasean wrote: »

What about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God destroyed for their behavior?
Or that guy who was killed by God for collecting sticks on the Sabbath day?

now now, Catholics only pay attention to the old testiment when its *handy* for something....like, say, attacking homosexuality.

No one give a rats arse about not mixing fabrics, avoiding menstruation women or any of the other loony pronouncements contained there in.

K-9

Was it Behan who came up with the line?

In the 1800's Homosexuality was punishable by death.

In the early 1900's it was made punishable by Flogging.

Now it's legal.

I'm getting out before they make it COMPULSORY!

Was going to say it was Wilde, but thought No, then again considering his wit, Maybe?

Seems Darragh and a few others took it too seriously!

Mairt wrote: »

+1.

I remember back when the debate raged for and against legalising homosexuality and the same people mistook making it legal with making it compulsary.

Indeed, see above!

6789 wrote: »

No, the fact is that because same sex couples can't get married they are not entitled to all the tax/legal benefits etc(like being allowed to visit their other half in hospital in some circumstances) that heterosexual married couples are entitled to. Have you not heard of civil ceremonies in registry offices? They really only want the state to recognise their love, not some obsolete church that treats them like sh*t. In my view, there should be as much separation between church and state as possible (history has shown this is extremely important). The state should recognise all civil unions (hetero or homosexual) for issues like tax that have nothing to do with religion.

Agreed, with an opt out for those who don't see it as that important.

Mairt wrote:

I find it funny that the people (like you) who would call themselves good Christians are usually the most hateful and small minded people. To me, it is the most un-christian thing to not love and respect other people who were born a certain way

Have to agree. Often the most religious, whether it be RC, Presbyterian, COI etc. are so brainwashed they don't realise it. I make allowances for the older generations, not the younger ones.

Galvasean

hot2def wrote: »

avoiding menstruation women

Sound advice IMO.

hot2def

basically, the pope's comments are worthless, everyone who agrees with them believed it prior to being told.


and his words will fail to convert anyone, because:


pussy > the pope

and

cock > the pope

Galvasean

You forgot bums...

hot2def

Galvasean wrote: »

You forgot bums...

nothing with out one of the other two, imho

6789

I never said I hated gays, I just don't approve of their lifestyle and don't think it needs promoting the way it is. Do we see swingers and wife swapping getting this sort of promoting through the media etc. God loves all people and there is no such thing as a vengeful god.

Promoting?? If a gay person is shown on tv, how the hell can that be construed as 'promoting' it. Why do you equate swingers and wife swappers with gay people? I find that a lot of the repugnance to homosexuality in society can be traced to stereotypes portrayed in the media etc. Gay people are often portrayed as promiscuous, slutty etc. I know tons of gay people in long term relationships who are nothing of the sort. Unfortunately they are a quiet majority. Could you possibly concede that perhaps your dislike of this so-called 'gay lifestyle' is based on inaccurate stereotypes and generalisations?

I think it is a disgrace that something so personal as sexuality should be treated with the death penalty when what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is their business and theres only so long as both parties are ok with it.

I am glad to see you are not completely unreasonable and at least we can agree on something!

I do not think people are born gay and it something that comes about during the developmental stages in early childhood and during puberty, a poll here on boards.ie seems to suggest a correlation between a lack of a male authoritative figure in their lives and being gay, obviously it is unscientific but it suggests to me that having less male influence and more female influence tends to skew the developmental patterns.

No, that poll is based on how many older brothers you have. As most families have no more than 2/3 kids in it then obviously most people will have less than 2/3 brothers. Read the thread in full and see the criticism of the poll and then read the original article linked in it. If you bothered to read the source material that the thread was based on it's trying to show a link between how the more boys a mother has the greater the chance the next boy born would be gay (due to chemical alterations in the womb). I am gay, have two older brothers( both heterosexual) and a father I have always been close to. I know other gay people from families of all boys- it doesn't matter how much male influence you have in your life, you will be gay regardless. However, it could be true that the more male influence you have in your life the less likely you will be to come out of the closet (but you're still gay, just not being yourself).
Again, I think some people don't get the whole difference between being gay and being gay and out of the closet.

there is however no need to shove it in everyones faces, that so and so is Gay and happy etc. and then they want marriage etc. the disgraceful way the LGBT Community reacted after California banned gay marriage by blaming it primarily on Black people (who make up a small percentage of the electorate there) was terrible and there is hardcore leftwing liberal people who do gay people no favours and only help polarise and stigmatise their community.

Sorry, no! :rolleyes:
'Shoving it in everyones faces'.....give me patience. Let me just give you some context to the prop 8 vote in California. Gay people reacted negatively and publicly with protests because their right to have their love recognised by the (californian) government was suddenly taken away. Surely you can understand their frustration? Suddenly they are second class citizens again. Couples who got married before prop 8 now risk having their marriage nullified. It is rarely a good thing for a majority to decide the basic rights of a minority.[Yes, I do think it should be a right to have the love between 2 adults recognised- why should it be exclusive to heterosexuals??]. For example,not too long ago, if you were to let the redneck south of USA have a referendum on whether blacks should have equal rights to whites they would have rejected it!
I totally disagree with your assertion that the LGBT reaction was disgraceful. The Mormon, Catholic and other churches pumped millions upon millions of dollars into their anti-gay campaign. They 'cold called' millions of Californians with scare mongering tactics and claims that 'the family is under threat' blah blah etc. People are easily swayed by fear and emotive language no matter how unfounded it is. Also, how exactly did they(lgbt movement) treat black people? I hadn't heard of this so I did a quick google and found this. I would never agree with singling out a race in such issues and perhaps, as the article says;
"Perhaps gay rights activists needed to better explain how a No vote wouldn't force churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies. And how a No vote wouldn't affect schools or teach children about gay marriage. Maybe deeper outreach in the black and brown communities could have changed some minds. What about fostering a stronger dialogue beyond the good side of town and in the neighborhoods where some of the unfortunate prejudice takes root?"
As far as I remember it, it was pointed out in the press that a far higher proportion of black people voted to ban gay marriage (70%) than white people simply because black people go to church more (on average, in California). Those very churches went into overdrive in the months leading up to the vote. They often cited Barack Obama's stated belief that marriage 'should be between a man and woman' despite the fact that Obama himself opposed prop 8 and that same-sex marriage should remain in California as the Supreme Court had already decided on the issue years before.

As a typical conservative you also make reference to the 'leftwing liberals' and their 'hardcore agenda'. I don't really understand such dramatic accusations. Such statements have no substance and are probably based on little more than watching 15 minutes of Fox News.

Wurly

Wow 6789, very good post. You have more patience that me. I simply could not find the resolve to respond to someone so ignorant in such detail.

It must, as a gay person, be so tedious to have to justify yourself constantly like that.

FFS! Since when did people have the right to be so judgemental and hateful against people who had no say in their sexuality.

I hope that we have now reached a point in out society whereby ignorant viewpoints such as the likes displayed in this thread are in the minority. And long may it continue.

It's so awful that there is so much judgement in the world. Mind your own business, like.

Galvasean

Yeah you'd think more people would subscribe to the "If they aint hurtin' nobody then leave 'em be" philosophy.

Dudess

The_Minister wrote: »

I will then proceed to broadcast the definiton of fascist over and over again, in as many different ways as possible, to stop everyone labelling every belief that they do not like as fascist.

LOL yeah... some people even refer to communists as fascists...

raah! wrote: »

I don't see why ye're all attacking that poor darragh fellow's "some people are gay because it's fashionable statement", as though it were some filthy absurdity.

When it is infact ambiguous enough to garauntee a few cases (some) where it's true. Saying that it's "the most stupid thing you've ever read" is really only a reflection on your own stupidity, and the general inclination of people to brand everything that isn't politically correct to the last syllable as being the most horrible racism

I'll say it again: you can't "be gay" to be fashionable. You can act in a way that's considered gay but you can't actually be gay. And it's extremely stupid not to be able to tell the difference.

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think that all gay people can be put into one of two categories...

Now, in my humble opinion, the genuinely gay people I know (category A gay people), some of who are my friends, I can have a conversation with just like any of my other friends, we can relate to each other and discuss anything, just like a normal conversation with any other person.

Then we have gay people who I consider fall into category B. These people seem to suffer from some sort of catastrophic identity crisis, they don't know who they are or what they are, they know they are gay, but they have no personality of their own. They act overtly camp, can't have a conversation with you about anything other than their own gayness and gay sex.

They rely on this false sense of identity and an imported personality to get through life, I personally find this false, if they are gay, big deal, be gay, but also be yourself, have your own personality and your own views and share them. Don't just be this camp drama queen that can only talk about being gay... If this is what the pope is saying we need to get away from, well he has my vote. As for genuinely gay people, leave them alone!

Sorry... how are the really camp guys not genuinely gay? You may consider their campness an act (not always - some gay men are simply inherently camp) but how does this lessen the likelihood of them being gay? Are you suggesting these "queens" might actually be straight?

Darragh29 wrote: »

How is it beyond stupid??? It was only a few short years ago that homosexual acts were a criminal offence on the Irish statute book! Now if I see two gays lads wearing each other in a pub, I'd barely notice! You'd be f*cked out of a pub for this only a few years ago! Go back a few more years and you'd be arrested for it.

So an increase in tolerance of homosexuality could lead to more people being gay... to the point that there'll be hardly any heteros. Seriously? Are you for ****ing real? You write well otherwise... how could you buy into such stupidity?

There has been a huge drive to normalise gay culture in the EU and by extension, in Ireland, which I don't have an inherent problem with.

Why mention it so?

I also however see more gay people who are completely lost as people and decide to be gay because it is the one thing that gives them a vehicle through which they can define themselves.

... which means they're gay, therefore they don't "decide" to be gay. Jesus Christ... :rolleyes:

These people, when they are in your company, only want to talk about how gay they are and what they do in the bedroom. These people in my opinion need help. And I mean that seriously, they need genuine help.

Why?

veritable wrote: »

he said homosexuality i.e. a man putting his penis into another man's bum is evil and that acts like this are unnatural.

Why do so many men enjoy it so?

People out there think the pope is an idiot and they talk like they are smarter than him. give him a bit of respect, he is an intelligent human being, definitely smarter than all of us

Definitely? How so?

I have to agree with him on this. If a man has sex with another man it is sick and disgusting.

simple as

... in your opinion.

jill_valentine

You know, whenever the Pope makes some stupid pronouncement like this, I always get the vague but undeniable impression that the church doesn't quite believe in lesbians.

Gay men, yes, they're an evil scourge upon God's lovely non-gay earth. Lesbians though, they're less of a threat. Just spinsters with time on their hands or something.

Uh... so to speak.

K-9

jill_valentine wrote: »

You know, whenever the Pope makes some stupid pronouncement like this, I always get the vague but undeniable impression that the church doesn't quite believe in lesbians.

Gay men, yes, they're an evil scourge upon God's lovely non-gay earth. Lesbians though, they're less of a threat. Just spinsters with time on their hands or something.

Uh... so to speak.

PML. Nope, I'll give the RC one thing. They are consistent on that line. Politically Correct in that respect at least!

K-9

6789 wrote: »

As a typical conservative you also make reference to the 'leftwing liberals' and their 'hardcore agenda'. I don't really understand such dramatic accusations. Such statements have no substance and are probably based on little more than watching 15 minutes of Fox News.

And they may not, but sure why not keep presuming about the ones that are presuming!

Hobart

Dudess wrote: »

LOL yeah... some people even refer to communists as fascists...

LOL yeah....and some people say the pope had to join the Nazi youth, when they forget about all those Jewish boys who refused to. Gas...init?

The fact is that the pope is preaching the same message, that Jews, Islamics, etc...do. It's nothing new, it's in al the texts. He is saying, and I'm paraphrasing him, that being gay, is ok. Bumming, is not.

Be gay and be a RC = OK.

Be gay and bum somebody and be a RC != OK.

The message is fairly clear tbh.

6789

Tri wrote: »

Wow 6789, very good post. You have more patience that me. I simply could not find the resolve to respond to someone so ignorant in such detail.

It must, as a gay person, be so tedious to have to justify yourself constantly like that.

Thanks Tri. Yes, I often have similar debates with people just like Muhaambu (often much worse when it comes to republican americans in my college!). Thankfully, such viewpoints are a dying breed and my generation is growing up to judge people by their character rather than traits like sexuality etc.

Galvasean

jill_valentine wrote: »

You know, whenever the Pope makes some stupid pronouncement like this, I always get the vague but undeniable impression that the church doesn't quite believe in lesbians.

Gay men, yes, they're an evil scourge upon God's lovely non-gay earth. Lesbians though, they're less of a threat. Just spinsters with time on their hands or something.

Uh... so to speak.

Actually I remember hearing the Pope coming out (excuse the choice of words) and basically saying "Lesbians are bad too" a few years ago. Pretty sure he went down the tired old cliché "unnatural" route two.
Don't see what their distaste for the 'unnatural' is all about. After all Jesus being born sans intercourse and rising from the grave seems pretty unnatural to me.

Davidius

I admit it, I'm a homophobe.

Mixing mutually insoluble phases for emulsion, it's just not natural!

EDIT:
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's not funny!

Dudess

Hobart wrote: »

LOL yeah....and some people say the pope had to join the Nazi youth, when they forget about all those Jewish boys who refused to. Gas...init?

Don't see what the obnoxious and totally unjustified random sarcasm is in aid of, but anyway... I actually made the point a couple of times on this thread that the young Ratzinger, as a German christian, had to join the Hitler Youth. As if Jewish boys would even have been allowed to join. Have an auld proper read back.

6789

Seanies32 wrote: »

And they may not, but sure why not keep presuming about the ones that are presuming!

Sorry but when I hear terms like 'liberal nuts' and the 'leftist agenda' it sounds just like watching the O'Reilly Factor on Fox. Conspiracy theories that the media is out to impose its 'gay, liberal agenda' on people seems to thrive in the minds of people who watch that crap. Yes, a generalisation I know but still true

jill_valentine

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually I remember hearing the Pope coming out (excuse the choice of words) and basically saying "Lesbians are bad too" a few years ago. Pretty sure he went down the tired old cliché "unnatural" route two.
Don't see what their distaste for the 'unnatural' is all about. After all Jesus being born sans intercourse and rising from the grave seems pretty unnatural to me.

Yeah, but the lesbians are always just kind of thrown in as a bonus. The main reason all 6.7 billion of us are hurtling so rapidly towards our own inevitable extinction seems to be gay men specifically.

Those damn gay men aren't doing their duty by sexing up the womenfolk. And hey - you chicks cut that out! You're supposed to be babysitting, for Christ's sake!

Galvasean

He didn't HAVE to join. He could have fought back. Not saying it would have been a good idea from a self preservation point of view...

Dudess

Yeah, it never fails to amuse me the way "liberal" is used as such a dirty word...

6789

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, it never fails to amuse me the way "liberal" is used as such a dirty word...

+1

Galvasean

jill_valentine wrote: »

Yeah, but the lesbians are always just kind of thrown in as a bonus. The main reason all 6.7 billion of us are hurtling so rapidly towards our own inevitable extinction seems to be gay men specifically.

Gay women can go to a sperm bank and make kids. Gay men have no means to make kids. That's what it's all really about, making sure there are lots of kids to indoctrinate.