Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

obplayer

The church showing how it values gays.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/pope-blocks-the-nomination-of-new-french-ambassador-to-vatican-who-is-gay-31134148.html

Pope blocks the nomination of new French ambassador to Vatican who is gay.
The apparent rejection calls into question the Pontiff's reputation as holding more liberal views on homosexuality.
Laurent Stefanini (54), a senior diplomat and Mr Hollande's chief of protocol, was nominated in early January but the Vatican had maintained a stony silence over whether it accepts his credentials, officials in Paris said.
The usual time frame for acceptance is a month and a half. After that, a prolonged silence after a nomination is normally interpreted as a rejection.
The élysée said that the choice of Mr Stefanini to represent France at the Vatican resulted from "a wish by the president and a cabinet decision" and that the president regarded him as "one of our best diplomats".
French media widely reported that Mr Stefanini has been rejected because of his homosexuality.
'Le Journal du Dimanche' quoted a Vatican insider as saying that the rejection was "a decision taken by the Pope himself".
'Liberation', the Left-leaning daily, said that "the Vatican's homophobia seriously tarnishes Pope Francis's image as being (slightly) more open-minded than his predecessors on sexuality". In 2007, France nominated a gay ambassador to the Vatican who had a partner recognised under French law but the Holy See never responded to the nomination.
Mr Stefanini is reportedly widely respected by many in the Catholic Church, following his previous stint as number two in the French embassy at the Vatican from 2001 to 2005. Very discreet about his private life, he was "highly thought of in Roman circles", said Antoine-Marie Izoard, a Vatican specialist with the I-Media press agency.
Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois of Paris reportedly interceded personally with the Pope to back the nomination. 'La Croix' newspaper said Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the former Vatican foreign minister who is currently president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, also supported the appointment.
The Pope has to date adopted a considerably softer line on homosexuality than his predecessor. "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" he said two years ago, adding that gay people should not be marginalised but integrated into society.
However, that did not stop him criticising the French government passing a law in 2013 legalising gay marriage and adoption rights for gay couples, leading to mass protests from the country's Catholics.
Observers say the Pope cannot be seen to be adopting an overly gay-friendly approach that would shock the Church's more conservative elements.
Irish Independent

Bobby Jones

The use of the term "equality" is misleading in my view. This isn't about equality of people, like say issues of race. This is about equality of relationships. And in my view, of course homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. However, their relationships are not. One is natural, the other is grossly unnatural.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

The use of the term "equality" is misleading in my view. This isn't about equality of people, like say issues of race. This is about equality of relationships. And in my view, of course homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. However, their relationships are not. One is natural, the other is grossly unnatural.

So unnatural in fact that much of the animal world engages in it. They must have been brought up badly. Or something.

Shrap

obplayer wrote: »

So unnatural in fact that much of the animal world engages in it. They must have been brought up badly. Or something.

According to a thread on AH, it could be

that homosexuality in males at least has a large correlation with testosterone exposure in the womb

.

Those damn independent wimminz at it again with their chainsaws, tractors and wall building. Bah. Unnatural I tells ya. They should be tied to the sink where they belong and we'd have no more of this testosterone in the wimminfolk. Back to the laundries with them! :pac:

Links234

Bobby Jones wrote: »

The use of the term "equality" is misleading in my view. This isn't about equality of people, like say issues of race. This is about equality of relationships. And in my view, of course homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. However, their relationships are not. One is natural, the other is grossly unnatural.

If you dislike things that are unnatural, why don't you get rid of your computer/mobile device and internet, 'cos I'm sure as hell those didn't grow on a tree. The argument that LGBT relationships are 'unnatural' is downright stupid as it is, but when you get down to it, unnatural is far from a negative thing.

alaimacerc

Bobby Jones wrote: »

The use of the term "equality" is misleading in my view. This isn't about equality of people, like say issues of race. This is about equality of relationships. And in my view, of course homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal.

I'm getting that Anatole France vibe...

However, their relationships are not. One is natural, the other is grossly unnatural.

Argument from "ew, ick!" Devastating.

By this "logic", sure, it'd be be fine and dandy to move to the "no civil marriage whatsoever" model (a la Israel, for example). Catholic and want to marry a Protestant? Atheist and want to marry another atheist? No-one said your relationship was equal to anyone else's. No implications for your equal status, of course. Somehow.

lazygal

Bobby Jones wrote: »

The use of the term "equality" is misleading in my view. This isn't about equality of people, like say issues of race. This is about equality of relationships. And in my view, of course homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. However, their relationships are not. One is natural, the other is grossly unnatural.

Is the internet natural?

Bobby Jones

obplayer wrote: »

So unnatural in fact that much of the animal world engages in it. They must have been brought up badly. Or something.

Animals also engage in infanticide so what's your point?

The homosexuality you refer to is dumb animals pleasuring themselves without any coherent thought.

That's hardly supportive of loving relationships between homosexuals which is what this referendum and debate is about.

Are homosexual relationships "equal"? No way.

lazygal

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Animals also engage in infanticide so what's your point?

The homosexuality you refer to is dumb animals pleasuring themselves without any coherent thought.

That's hardly supportive of loving relationships between homosexuals which is what this referendum and debate is about.

Are homosexual relationships "equal"? No way.

What's different between my marriage and that of my gay friends?

Bobby Jones

lazygal wrote: »

Is the internet natural?

No it's progress.

Which in human terms means evolution.

However human evolution hasn't dealt with the physical destruction wrought by male homosexual relationships.

Ask any doctor about the physical well being of an elderly homosexual and you'll have your answer to the 'natural / unnatural" debate.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Animals also engage in infanticide so what's your point?

The homosexuality you refer to is dumb animals pleasuring themselves without any coherent thought.

That's hardly supportive of loving relationships between homosexuals which is what this referendum and debate is about.

Are homosexual relationships "equal"? No way.

So are you equating homosexual relationships to infanticide? Are you saying that two homosexuals cannot have a loving relationship? What is your definition of 'unnatural'? I think we need to clear up these points before proceeding further.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

No it's progress.

Which in human terms means evolution.

However human evolution hasn't dealt with the physical destruction wrought by male homosexual relationships.

Ask any doctor about the physical well being of an elderly homosexual and you'll have your answer to the 'natural / unnatural" debate.

Could you explain what the doctor might say, for our guidance?

Bobby Jones

lazygal wrote: »

What's different between my marriage and that of my gay friends?

Yours is the result of a natural pairing off of male and female.

Theirs is something else that the media brainwashes people into thinking is "okay".

lazygal

Bobby Jones wrote: »

No it's progress.

Which in human terms means evolution.

However human evolution hasn't dealt with the physical destruction wrought by male homosexual relationships.

Ask any doctor about the physical well being of an elderly homosexual and you'll have your answer to the 'natural / unnatural" debate.

Pat Carey is in his 60s and hale and hearty and mymother in law has friends in their 70s happily married even.though they're gay and.nary a health issue.between them. What is your point?

Bobby Jones

obplayer wrote: »

Could yo explain what the doctor might say, for our guidance?

That their bodies are "destroyed"...I don't want to be vulgar.

lazygal

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Yours is the result of a natural pairing off of male and female.

Theirs is something else that the media brainwashes people into thinking is "okay".

But it is okay. If my daughter or son was gay it'd be fine. Why would we think it was unnatural?

lazygal

Bobby Jones wrote: »

That their bodies are "destroyed"...I don't want to be vulgar.

My gay friends bodies are fine. Certainly better than mine which has.endured two pregnancies and caesarian sections and three years of breastfeeding.

swampgas

Bobby Jones wrote: »

That their bodies are "destroyed"...I don't want to be vulgar.

Is that you, Actor?

Shrap

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Theirs is something else that the media brainwashes people into thinking is "okay".

That's daft. How, using this opinion, do you explain people who were gay by nature pre media? Or indeed, in times when men might have been chemically castrated for their sexual orientation? Or killed? How do you explain people being gay now, in countries where it is illegal to be gay? Would you also then say it's down to the media making people think it's ok?

Bobby Jones

lazygal wrote: »

But it is okay. If my daughter or son was gay it'd be fine. Why would we think it was unnatural?

Which is what the homosexual lobby want...tolerance and acceptance. You are being hoodwinked and poor kids at an impressionable stage of their lives are almost being cajoled into being homosexual.

It is neither acceptable nor natural. The Labour Party and their cronies are bit by bit destroying our society. Homosexuality should never have been decriminalised. Instead these people are front and centre and setting the agenda.

But we (i.e. normal folk) will have our say and this joke of a referendum will be defeated.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

That their bodies are "destroyed"...I don't want to be vulgar.

Well if you make a claim you should back it up. Can you phrase your explanation carefully or perhaps give us a link to a site which covers what you are attempting to refer to?

Bobby Jones

Shrap wrote: »

That's daft. How, using this opinion, do you explain people who were gay by nature pre media? Or indeed, in times when men might have been chemically castrated for their sexual orientation? Or killed? How do you explain people being gay now, in countries where it is illegal to be gay? Would you also then say it's down to the media making people think it's ok?

I would say a very small percentage of people with chemical imbalances or who have been molested may actually be homosexual. But I would say that the majority are simply slightly confused and then cajoled into being homosexual by the pervasive agenda I referred to earlier.

lazygal

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Which is what the homosexual lobby want...tolerance and acceptance. You are being hoodwinked and poor kids at an impressionable stage of their lives are almost being cajoled into being homosexual.

It is neither acceptable nor natural. The Labour Party and their cronies are bit by bit destroying our society. Homosexuality should never have been decriminalised. Instead these people are front and centre and setting the agenda.

But we (i.e. normal folk) will have our say and this joke of a referendum will be defeated.

I'm normal and I think being gay is normal. I'm not hoodwinked. My Best friend is gay and deserves the right to marry and.if my children are gay they are.normal and deserve to.get married if they want. Gay marriage is always a good thing.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Which is what the homosexual lobby want...tolerance and acceptance. You are being hoodwinked and poor kids at an impressionable stage of their lives are almost being cajoled into being homosexual.

It is neither acceptable nor natural. The Labour Party and their cronies are bit by bit destroying our society. Homosexuality should never have been decriminalised. Instead these people are front and centre and setting the agenda.

But we (i.e. normal folk) will have our say and this joke of a referendum will be defeated.

I really really hope, and actually confidently believe, that your attitudes are not normal. Not by a long long way.

Shrap

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Which is what the homosexual lobby want...tolerance and acceptance. You are being hoodwinked and poor kids at an impressionable stage of their lives are almost being cajoled into being homosexual.

That's disgusting. My youngest son has never mentioned girls once. He has however behaved like any young teen with a first crush whenever a particular male friend of my eldest has visited, and shows great curiosity about homosexuality by the questions he asks. He has zero curiosity about hetersexuality. In fact, he says boobs are "disgusting". At nearly 14 yrs old.

Now, in your view, should I try to beat down his questions and tell him he is wrong to be asking them? Should I be banging on endlessly about heterosexuality being the only "right" path? Should I maybe tell him he's WRONG to be the boy that he is?

Give over. You insult my intelligence, and my son's intelligence. And his nature. And his future happiness, whatever he decides his sexual preference is.

Shrap

Bobby Jones wrote: »

I would say a very small percentage of people with chemical imbalances or who have been molested may actually be homosexual. But I would say that the majority are simply slightly confused and then cajoled into being homosexual by the pervasive agenda I referred to earlier.

Ah go way outta that. I'm giving you an example of a perfectly normal 13 yr old who may be gay and will be totally accepted as such, and this is what you pin it on? Bollox to that.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

My gay friends bodies are fine. Certainly better than mine which has.endured two pregnancies and caesarian sections and three years of breastfeeding.

Snap, bar the caesarians. However, I wouldn't like to make mention of my pelvic floor as a result of the "natural" births....sigh.

Bobby Jones

As requested:

Google "Gay men anal sex incontinence" (I can't post URLs).

The third link sets out precisely what doctors say about the homosexual lifestyle and its long term effect.

Shrap

Bobby Jones wrote: »

As requested:

Google "Gay men anal sex incontinence" (I can't post URLs).

The third link sets out precisely what doctors say about the homosexual lifestyle and its long term effect.

Mother of two remains unimpressed at side effects of anal sex. Man flu springs to mind actually ;-)

Bobby Jones

Shrap wrote: »

That's disgusting. My youngest son has never mentioned girls once. He has however behaved like any young teen with a first crush whenever a particular male friend of my eldest has visited, and shows great curiosity about homosexuality by the questions he asks. He has zero curiosity about hetersexuality. In fact, he says boobs are "disgusting". At nearly 14 yrs old.

Now, in your view, should I try to beat down his questions and tell him he is wrong to be asking them? Should I be banging on endlessly about heterosexuality being the only "right" path? Should I maybe tell him he's WRONG to be the boy that he is?

Give over. You insult my intelligence, and my son's intelligence. And his nature. And his future happiness, whatever he decides his sexual preference is.

You can believe what you want.

I am entitled to my opinion and in my view you have moulded your son into a homosexual.

I wish him well and I wish you well but that is appalling parenting.

Shrap

Bobby Jones wrote: »

You can believe what you want.

I am entitled to my opinion and in my view you have moulded your son into a homosexual.

I wish him well and I wish you well but that is appalling parenting.

Moulded him how?
Appalling how?

Bobby Jones

Shrap wrote: »

Ah go way outta that. I'm giving you an example of a perfectly normal 13 yr old who may be gay and will be totally accepted as such, and this is what you pin it on? Bollox to that.

A good parent and someone who wasn't hoodwinked into believing this stuff is healthy or normal would ensure that the lad doesn't veer down the wrong path.

Shrap

By stopping him "veering down the wrong path", perhaps you'd be so good as to answer my questions to show me how I should have parented him to ensure that he wasn't going wrong? Thanks.

Shrap wrote: »

Now, in your view, should I try to beat down his questions and tell him he is wrong to be asking them? Should I be banging on endlessly about heterosexuality being the only "right" path? Should I maybe tell him he's WRONG to be the boy that he is?

Bobby Jones

Shrap wrote: »

Moulded him how?
Appalling how?

By not reinforcing normal behaviour...

Simple stuff - "Mammy loves Daddy", "isn't Queen Elsa pretty"

Homosexuality could be culled by parents with a bit of common sense.

Does that answer your question?

Pherekydes

Shrap

Bobby Jones wrote: »

By not reinforcing normal behaviour...

Simple stuff - "Mammy loves Daddy", "isn't Queen Elsa pretty"

Homosexuality could be culled by parents with a bit of common sense.

I like to tell the truth, personally. Mammy does not love Daddy and Queen Elsa is a cartoon. I have no intention of "culling" something that doesn't need any intervention.

You have it so laughably wrong with the "not reinforcing normal behaviour". I have been enforcing nothing except good manners and morals, support and love. I am not an enforcer, I am a parent.

Shrap

Pherekydes wrote: »

Point taken. I shall cease and desist! :cool:

alaimacerc

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Homosexuality should never have been decriminalised.

In the name of equality, of course. Just because we've thrown you in jail for what you might do in the bedroom doesn't mean you're not equal! Because... um, doublethink, really.

But we (i.e. normal folk) will have our say and this joke of a referendum will be defeated.

Snerk. Your hope for the defeat of the referendum is that the "normal" (by any feasible statistical criteria) people stay home in large numbers, while the bead-rattlers get out the vote in force. And it's not an entirely wild hope! I can well imagine a very embarrassed country on 23rd May, and several years of making a show of ourselves in front of the nice countries until it's eventually put right by MEA2. In the historical sweep of things, it'd just be a blip.

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

As requested:

Google "Gay men anal sex incontinence" (I can't post URLs).

The third link sets out precisely what doctors say about the homosexual lifestyle and its long term effect.

Is that the Homosexinfo site? Google produces different lists for people depending on what their previous interests have been. As mine have never been anal sex, though I don't care whether others do it, I'm not sure if my results match yours.

Bobby Jones

Again, the homosexual lobby, despite being a tiny minority, think that they can set the agenda.

It isn't "trolling" to disagree with homosexuality. It's trolling to agree with it.

The vast majority of people in this country abhor homosexuality and this will be proven in May.

Bobby Jones

obplayer wrote: »

Is that the Homosexinfo site? Google produces different lists for people depending on what their previous interests have been. As mine have never been anal sex, though I don't care about others doing it, I'm not sure if my results match yours.

Yeah, that's the one...

obplayer

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Yeah, that's the one...

Interesting site.
http://www.homosexinfo.org/Christianity/HomePage

A quote....

The typical reason behind the unfortunate incidents of violent acts against homosexuals for being homosexual is overpowering disgust at their behavior, not a homophobic environment created by Christianity. Any Christian with half a brain knows that to assault homosexuals is to provide homosexual activists with what they are eagerly looking for...victims that they can use to urge the passage of punitive laws in their favor.
One need also mention another significant reason why a number of Christians seem compelled to oppose various demands of homosexuals. The Bible talks about a lot of sins. Generally speaking, sinners such as adulterers, incest offenders, rapists, muggers, shoplifters, and the greedy do not take out "pride parades" to celebrate their lifestyle or demand that others accept their behavior. In addition, although adulterers do not choose to be attracted to someone other than their spouse, they don't attempt to use this lack of choice over their attractions to justify adultery because they know that they had the choice to not be adulterous. Of the few sinners other than practicing homosexuals who celebrate their lifestyle, none come anywhere close to homosexuals. For instance, even though the number of obese individuals considerably exceeds the number of homosexuals, only a miniscule number of obese individuals celebrate gluttony and insist that others accept it. In fact, it is worth noting that a number of gluttons that insist on the acceptance of obesity are feminists, who are often both obese and practicing homosexuals. Therefore, practicing homosexuals appear to be especially unique sinners from a Christian standpoint.

Make of the whole thing what you will people, the bolded part is particularly informative.

Good night and goodbye.

Brian Shanahan

Bobby Jones wrote: »

One is natural, the other is grossly unnatural.

Which type of relationship is unnatural and what makes it so? And please note that "my favourite book written by stone age old men" is not an acceptable answer when answering these two questions, because I want reasoning and evidence.

Doctor Jimbob

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Again, the homosexual lobby, despite being a tiny minority, think that they can set the agenda.

You're going to need to clarify what this is. A particularly flamboyant hotel entrance?

It isn't "trolling" to disagree with homosexuality. It's trolling to agree with it.

No, it's trolling to post ludicrous claims with the intent of riling people up, which is blatantly what you're doing here.

The vast majority of people in this country abhor homosexuality and this will be proven in May.

Why? Why would any right minded individual abhor something which has no effect on their life whatsoever?

obplayer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Which type of relationship is unnatural and what makes it so? And please note that "my favourite book written by stone age old men" is not an acceptable answer when answering these two questions, because I want reasoning and evidence.

Best of luck!

shruikan2553

obplayer wrote: »

Interesting site.
http://www.homosexinfo.org/Christianity/HomePage

A quote....


Make of the whole thing what you will people, the bolded part is particularly informative.

Good night and goodbye.

I was drawn to

The typical reason behind the unfortunate incidents of violent acts against homosexuals for being homosexual is overpowering disgust at their behavior, not a homophobic environment created by Christianity. Any Christian with half a brain knows that to assault homosexuals is to provide homosexual activists with what they are eagerly looking for...victims that they can use to urge the passage of punitive laws in their favor.

Think ill use the iona website as a reference first. Id say together they might form half a brain.

Hotblack Desiato

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Ask any doctor about the physical well being of an elderly homosexual and you'll have your answer to the 'natural / unnatural" debate.

You appear to have quite the interest in the male anus.

That's okay, we don't judge.

Bobby Jones

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You appear to have quite the interest in the male anus.

That's okay, we don't judge.

Not at all.

It's just strange that doctors are of the view that homosexual males' bodies are "destroyed" in later life, whereas the homosexual lobby (i.e. homosexuals and the liberal media) try to claim that everything's perfectly okay.

It is unnatural - The medical and physical consequences of decades of anal sex are evidence of that. The definition of what's natural is not simply occurring in nature, so two wombats sodomising each other do not legitimise homosexuality in humans.

Homosexual marriage is not the end of the world, but it is a further destruction of objective morality. Insipid stuff like abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals should be opposed by society.

Doctor Jimbob

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Not at all.

It's just strange that doctors are of the view that homosexual males' bodies are "destroyed" in later life, whereas the homosexual lobby (i.e. homosexuals and the liberal media) try to claim that everything's perfectly okay.

It is unnatural - The medical and physical consequences of decades of anal sex are evidence of that. The definition of what's natural is not simply occurring in nature, so two wombats sodomising each other do not legitimise homosexuality in humans.

Homosexual marriage is not the end of the world, but it is a further destruction of objective morality. Insipid stuff like abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals should be opposed by society.

Anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuals, nor is it a requirement of homosexuality.

The Black Oil

I forget if the Gay Agenda is a Marvel or DC project.