Ratzinger on homosexuality

Yoda

From 1986: On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder....

It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent....

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

damien

Oh no, I shouldn't have voted for him then !

Gurgle

Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Dogma dogma dogma....

"when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right"
So this guy's idea of leadership is to allow specific rights, rather than to outlaw specific wrongs ?

Yet another ultra-conservative Catholic emporer, with one foot in the grave and the other in his mouth.

Though at least he's not condoning burning them at the stake. Plus he's 78 so he's not likely to be around quite so long as the last one. Maybe the next pope will be aware that the 20th century has happened.

Zulu

He's a pope FFS. What do you want him to say? Did you expect him to say it was alright? Did you expect his blessing?

damien

One thing about this guy as compared to JPII is he is very black and white. He actually will be less with the dogma and more with the theology. Less of the wishy washy stuff. You'll definitely know where you stand with him.

bopper

I think he looks like a child molester

damien

bopper wrote:

I think he looks like a child molester

That really contributes to the debate.

uberwolf

back in 1986 it was eveil, but it's cool in the gang now. At least thats my understanding of the scenario.

Homosexuality does run contrary to R.C teaching. Maybe it's not an all or nothing concept (R.C) but because I use contraception I'm also running the gauntlet. Just ignore an irrelevant, unresponsive relic TBH

bopper

damien.m wrote:

That really contributes to the debate.

Sorry. I agree he's an asshole. There.

Hmm_Messiah

He's a pope FFS. What do you want him to say? Did you expect him to say it was alright? Did you expect his blessing?


There is no rational reason not to hope a pontiff would say it was alright.

the Pontiff is the representative of Christ on Earth , there to preach and protect and serve christs church

Where in the bible does Christ himself make a single reference to homosexuality ?

There is no intrinsic reason for it to be wrong, Benedict's teachng is flawed.


References in the Old Testament refer to cultural norms, rules held by a community at a particular time. And it refers to a deliberate peversion of one's sexuality, which to me would seem immoral even outside of a xian context.

Benedict speaks of the dignity of humanity; it is his/ jp2's saving grace; they truly did hate the sin/offence as they saw it yet could embrace to personhood of every individual.

Both popes teaching is flawed as it is contradictary.

If you accept people are born with a sexual orientation (the Church is obliged to embrace the truth of science ) then to talk of any disorder or perversion is to say "the image of god" is disordered or perverted, it is infact a heresy and insult to the Divinity.

If you argue that orientation is learned /choosen then the argument gets more difficult but allowing humans have free will and informed minds then NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable. However, other than in circumstances when a persons sexuality and identity is disordered in a pyschiatric context, sexuality is not choosen.

What I find difficult about all this dogma bull**** from the Church hierarchy is the motivation. WHy emphasis an area of morally so removed from christs message : that each human is precious, your neighbour is equal to urself , and that men are redeeemed and united with their creator. Outside of that Chtrists message , where it can be agreed the words are most likely accurately his was one of social justice, of prayer, and compassion. He never chastised any ersosn sexual behaviour; seems to me the guy had a better understanding of sexuality's place in the overall picture.

I do find it very sad that the vicar of christ, a man who endured pain and death and betrayal for his love of man , that the vicar of the barefoot nazarene can remove himself so far from the Gospel as to condemn ny of Gods people, and not to condemn their actions but to condemn somethign intrinisc to their personality and identity as human.

Pax

passive

You're all homos

10 points for originality -_-

(and excellent post, messiah)

utopian

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

If you argue that orientation is learned /choosen then the argument gets more difficult but allowing humans have free will and informed minds then NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable.

You really believe that no action can be inherently evil?

Zillah

There is no rational reason not to hope a pontiff would say it was alright.

Two words: Papal Infallibility

By definition no pope can ever say homosexuality is alright, because other popes have said otherwise. They have a entourage of people making sure no pope contradicts another, as that would make a mockery of papal infallibilty.

utopian wrote:

You really believe that no action can be inherently evil?

Do you really believe that morals and concepts such as good and evil have anything other than an utterly subjective basis?

Today Christians say homosexual acts are inherently evil.
In ancient Greece homosexuality as a healthy and normal activity.

Modern Christians say suicide is a direct ticket to hell.
Medieval Japanese people saw suicide as a completely viable, reasonable and honourable recourse.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
Dozens of societies throughout the ages have practiced massive amounts of human sacrifice in the name of their communities.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
Christians once burned thousands of innocent women at the stake.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
In many american states Christians regularily kill people in a chair with electricity.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
The man in charge of the assault on Fallujah said that in there was "the devil", refering to the "insurgents". His men then killed hundreds of them.

Need I go on? Morality is as fickle the wind, it just takes longer to change.

FranknFurter

Dogma / amgod

Typical xtian ranting, what else is he going to say?
The church is was and always will be homophobic.
Its as black an white as the bible, the church does not acknowledge "grey".

Yes im gay, no i'm not christian, I was made pretend I was as a child.

The church never has accecpted me or my beliefs, but I, however, accecpt them and their right to believe what they will.

I simply stick to the Rede, which states, "those of the craft be free to do what ever they want to, as long as it does not harm themselves or anyone else. Harm is normally considered to include manipulation, domination, attempts to control, physically injure, emotionally harm, or hurt another person or group in any way."

"The Pentateuch -- the first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures -- lists 613 behaviors that the ancient Hebrews were expected to either adopt because they are not sinful, or avoid because they are wicked. These laws are referred to as the Mosaic Law. About two dozen of these behaviors are grouped into the "10 Commandments".

In contrast to the 613 specific injunctions, the Rede consists of only one general rule which is intended to govern all behaviors." Including homosexuality. "The Eight words of the Rede fulfill, A'in it harm none, do what ye will."

[EDIT] Zillah basically said all else i was going to [/EDIT]


"A'in it harm none, do what thou wilt"

shoegirl

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

This is the bit that I actually have the biggest problem with. What Benedict seems to be implying here is that violence and irrationality is the "natural" reaction to higher visibility (as its the visibility that increases, not the practice, which was always there) of homosexuality. This to me does suggest that the church is not so much condoning violence and hatred of homosexuals, but seeing it as following as a matter of course.

The simplest way to knock down this argument is with an analogy. For example, immigration (in general). It is broadly argued that increased levels of immigration lead to increased levels of racism and a sense of resentment towards immigrants. However as, the British Tory party are slowly and painfully discovering, that this is not at all the natural response to higher levels of "different" people around you. A minority may indeed react in such a way, but since it is only a minority it can hardly be called a "natural" reaction. The irony is, as was recently noticed in Ireland with the notorious Nigerian deportations, that a significant number of people do see diversity as enriching enough to strongly deplore the apparent victimisation of minority groups such as Nigerian asylum seekers. Likewise homosexuality.

I do think Ratzingers entire pamphlet is deeply flawed, largely because it depends so heavily on the concept of natural law. Natural Law has tended to be discredited in recent years, partially because many of its tenents are based on old taboos rather than rational arguments. Most societies in recent times have had taboos against homosexuality, especially orthodox Judaism, the mother of Christianity. Naturally the Christian churches on the whole will maintain that taboo. Catholic thought tends to impose rational arguments on these taboos, and as a result some are deeply flawed.

Having said that I think it will be at least 40 or 50 years before the church starts to revisit its approach to homosexuality, and I think the trigger will be growing numbers of gay clerics who invariably will find themselves in positions of power. (Even now it was suggested in the Guardian last week that as many as half of all US seminarians are gay). See http://us.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-11/essay.html

"But the Kansas City Star series mentioned above notes that, of 26 novices who entered the Missouri Province of the Jesuit order in 1967 and 1968, only seven were eventually ordained priests. Of these seven, three have (to date) died of AIDS, and a fourth is an openly gay priest now working as an artist in New York."

utopian

Zillah wrote:

Do you really believe that morals and concepts such as good and evil have anything other than an utterly subjective basis?

I'm not sure.

However, you originally said

Zillah wrote:

NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable.

Which, I would characterise as an extreme relativistic argument.

The examples you have given, however, illustrate that different societies have different morals (which is not the same thing).

In fairness, all of the examples about murder are question-begging - no society equates killing of people with murder. All societies accept certain justifiable killings. That does not mean that all societies accept murder as right.

Your statement about suicide is not correct. The Cathecism of the Catholic Church says "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives." .

sarahn11

Zillah wrote:

Two words: Papal Infallibility

By definition no pope can ever say homosexuality is alright, because other popes have said otherwise. They have a entourage of people making sure no pope contradicts another, as that would make a mockery of papal infallibilty.

Yeah i get what your saying, but was'nt eating meat on a friday once a mortal sin which u were doomed to hell for?? and im sure the popes in those days had something to say about that....

but now everyone eats meat on fridays, and nothing is said about it

i know its not the same, however i think that eventually people will just start accpeting other people for who they are......Well i hope so anyway.

Hmm_Messiah

One thing that annoys me about some posts in this forum is the amount of presumption. People seem to make presumptions about other indivdual posters, let alone about specific roles such as priest, pope etc .

I thought I gave an alternative argument, and maybe even a hope, regarding the ability of the head of the largest xian institution to say something positive about homosexuality.

QUOTE: "Typical xtian ranting, what else is he going to say?
The church is was and always will be homophobic.
Its as black an white as the bible, the church does not acknowledge "grey"."

RESPONSE:
The Pilgrim Church the Pastoral Church, the Church as local community is VERY grey, there are whole communities of married catholic priests and bishops for example.

The Church as an institution centralised in a ROman Hierachy is a different thing, and is just that, an institution. THe true, simple meaning of christ, as Christs Body, is every individual, so is not so much black/white or grey but every variant of every colour.

QUOTE:
"I simply stick to the Rede, which states, "those of the craft be free to do what ever they want to, as long as it does not harm themselves or anyone else. Harm is normally considered to include manipulation, domination, attempts to control, physically injure, emotionally harm, or hurt another person or group in any way"

RESPONSE:
I like the Rede too, though short as it is it is still open to interpretation itself, because of the use of the word "will".

Any declaration of a Truth is flawed by language. The Rede originates from a less charitble declaration of "Do as thou Will" with no tag ons. This could mean do as you wish (which I believe WAS the original meaning) or Do as your WIll dictates (suggesting rationale and conscience and so making it a very suitable Guide to live a "good life"


However Xianity can be reduced to "Love your neighbor as yourself", not too far removed, and not all that sophisticated or dogmatic.

QUOTE:
From Zillah "Two words: Papal Infallibility
By definition no pope can ever say homosexuality is alright, because other popes have said otherwise. They have a entourage of people making sure no pope contradicts another, as that would make a mockery of papal infallibilty."

RESPONSE:
No pope has EVER spoke "infalliably" about homosexuality or anything else! To speak infallibly, or claim to, there are a who set of conditions set down, he mush for example speak Ex Cathedra, from the Chair , and declare what he says to be an ex cathedra, infallible statement.

I understand there is a suggestion the Pope may have wished to speak infalliably , but ONLY about the incarnate ascension of Mary to Heaven, but most theologians/Canon Lawyers reject that this ever happened. Many Lay People and illadvised priests also thought Human Vitea (where abortion/contraception is deemed evil) was an infallible statement but it wasn't.

No pope will EVER make a claim to infallibly declaring any truth on sexual morality because it would cause a schism by the many many many enlighened prisest, and bishops. It can further be argued that truths can only be declared by the Collegaite, the body of Bishops of the Church. Pope's constantly contradict eachother. John Paul also reversed many of John the 23rd wishes regarding opening and renewing the Church.

I don't think the pope still considers Gallileo a heretic for example.

QUOTE: UTOPIAN asked if I really thought nothign was inherently evil.

RESPONSE:
Yes I do. Its my opinion. But it is also the Xian one as all things were created by God, so how could they in theselves contain evil, or God would. Its a contra diction in terms. The difficulty here is language and subjective v. objective morality.

EG Killing some one is Evil . Is it ? Murder is? freely choosing to end anothers life without consent is. But is allowing some one to die who wishes it , without mdical intervention etc etc. I don't beleive Actions are evil, I believe Motives /Causes are. THere was a Four Font principle where a deed was immoral if it was an evil action with evil intent and evil consequence etc etc
I believe each human has the capacity to divinity; and so nothing is inherently evil; how we use things, why we do things, there lies evil (if you believe in it)..


All the examples given are flawed, though I get your point. For Example to say Christians believe homosexuality is inherently evil is , well that is just tooooo broad a statement; it would imply every gay christian person sees themselves as evil . etc etc.

Evil in the context of sexuality can only have real significantce in if it harms some one. Other than that it's just societal norms, or needs to maintain stability.
So the evil in sexual activity would include if it was not consentual,
or with a person not able to make real choices, or even if it subtle affected your mental health etc.
A "possible" evil in sleeping around etc would be that it lessens YOUR OWN full dignity as a human etc


So endeth the lesson

Pax Vobiscum
Blessed Be
Namaste

damien

Hmmmm_messiah, use the Quote button to quote people will ya ?

or suround the quotes with [ quote ] [/ quote ] (minus the spaces)

I find it really difficult to differentiate what you are saying and what you are quoting.

Hmm_Messiah

I tried using them fancy buttons once and it went all crazy.
will do my best
(or just respond less maybe )

Hmmmm_messiah, use the Quote button to quote people will ya ?

fozzle

Re Papal infallibility, in case ye don't realise, that wasn't a stipluation of Christ's doing, that was a modern day pope deciding that it was the easiest way to stave off arguments. Afaik popes have only been considered infallible for a couple of hundred years, maybe less.

And being as the pope is God's agent on Earth, and taken to be the highest authority on theology and understanding the bible available to us, then he can turn around anyday he likes and say, "actually, homosexuals/contraception/divorce/woman priests are perfectly acceptable after all, silly us" anytime he likes, and the Church will just have to deal with it.

But I can't see anything of the kind happening with Benedict XVI unfortuneatly, he's seriously old-fashioned.

In short, we're screwed for another while yet, so no returning to the Church for me, and I guess I'll have to tell the parents now, since another 10 years of pretending to my Catholic family will probably kill me. :rolleyes:

Zillah

Utopian please try to stay awake. The following...

NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable.

...was said by hmm messiah, not me. Please do not assume that everyone that disagrees with you are all one entity. I would never make any sort of argument with the word God in it.

Also

Your statement about suicide is not correct. The Cathecism of the Catholic Church says "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives."

Why is it that Catholic suicides cannot be buried on church grounds or is that a myth?

Hmm_Messiah

Previously peopl who committed suicide could not be buried in tne graverd proper, or consecrated ground, as murder is a moratl sin and they were taken to be "in mortalsin" so would nogt be in communion with god and an offence to god/ sacred soil to be buried there. the compromise was to bury them in the hedgerow etc.

AllPAST tense; the church has moved on, and at very least realised that no human can decide another people's sanctity, leaving judgement to God, who me thinks would be more judging of the societies that make many people feel so isolated and useless etc.

utopian

Zillah wrote:

Utopian please try to stay awake. The following...

...was said by hmm messiah, not me. Please do not assume that everyone that disagrees with you are all one entity. I would never make any sort of argument with the word God in it.

My apologies. I don't feel anyone disagrees with me on this, as I'm not sure what I believe.

I do think your examples were a bit specious though.

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

Why is it that Catholic suicides cannot be buried on church grounds or is that a myth?

It used be the case but not any more.

As regards Rat zinger,pay only as much attention to him as you want to.
His homily or speech the other day mentioned that the church must stay the same and not be governed by societies changes,otherwise it would die out,just like society or words to that effect.
Seriously he's in zingerland and well I wouldnt begrudge the old man staying there, it doesnt mean everyone else must go there too.

I know loads of people who are very sucessfull and havent an ounce of religion in them.Some of them believe in God alright others don't but it hasnt affected their sucess.
Discussing that with someone recently, they simply said, thats because they are good people.
And you know what they are dead right,if you are a good person,that good will eventually come back to you.
Call that kharma if you don't believe in a higher power or if you do believe in a higher power, then take it as read that following dogma from a church some of which you find objectionable isnt necessary.

And given what happened in Spain today it's highly irrelevant and increasingly ignored dogma anyway

De Rebel

One persons view, something of a counterpoint to much of what's been said in this thread, and a lot more hopeful.

By Joan Chittister, OSB
NCR Rome 20 April 2005

We’ve been living in an ecclesiastical tsunami this week. The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the position of Pope Benedict XVI has had all the force of a universal avalanche. The questions never end.

Journalists are rushing from source to source trying to determine the future of a church led by a theologian considered by many to be both doctrinaire and dogmatic. The apparent answers to their questions leave many in more darkness than light, in search of some kind of spiritual security that their church still includes them, too.

The questions may be difficult but the answers are even more unsettling. They read like an inquisition–and a conviction-- of their own. Is there any possible hope to be had here?

Did anyone really think such an election could happen at a time when the church is apparently more in need of openness than intransigent resistance in the face of so much new information and emerging new questions? Answer: No.

Does anyone know why the Cardinals of the church elected as Pope one of its most polarizing personalities? Answer: No.

Is anyone sure what will happen to church unity now if the oppression of thinkers and the suppression of questions becomes a papal norm? Answer: No.

Is it possible for a disciplinarian of the church to become its universal pastor? Answer: God willing.

And therein lies my hope.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI is said to have taken the name ‘Benedict’ to indicate that the model of his papacy would be the great Patron of Europe, Benedict of Nursia. If that’s really the case, I can’t think of anything more hopeful for the church.

As a Benedictine, I state my case for hope in any leader who sees Benedict of Nursia as the measure of his leadership.

The Rule of Benedict, a document now over 1500 years old and the basis for the lifestyle of monastics around the world, is based on four major concepts that are totally incompatible with authoritarianism or suppression of the human spirit.

Listening is at the center of this Rule for those who live in community. “Listen...with the ear of the heart,” its Prologue counsels. Listen, in other words, not so much for what is canonically right but for what is spiritually true, for what speaks to the deepest part of the human being. Listening to the Word of God, to the tradition, to one another, to the circumstances of life becomes the cornerstone of spiritual growth. It is questions, not answers, that guide this life.

Humility, the second major concept of Benedictine monasticism, requires that each of us come to realize how limited is our own understanding of the universe. It demands that we let God be God. It’s not for any of us, Benedict teaches, abbot or monk, to think we can bend the world to our own designs. After precisely defining the mode of community in twelve separate chapters, Benedict ends the chapters dealing with the most important aspect of monastic life by saying, “If any brother knows a better way, let him arrange things differently.” We cannot look to the Rule of Benedict to legitimate authoritarianism in the name of God.

Community, the third dimension of Benedictine spirituality, brings us to realize how bright and good and essential to our own growth is everyone else around us. We learn from the community. We serve the community. Benedict is clear: “Whenever weighty matters are to be discussed,” the Rule requires, “let the abbot call the community together and, starting with the youngest, ask each their advice.” No thought suppression here. No smothering of fresh thought here. The abbot does not come to the community with answers. The abbot comes with questions and finds his answers there.

Hospitality, the fourth dimension of Benedictine spirituality, takes everyone in. No one is excluded from the Christian community. No one is too bad, too poor, too useless, too unimportant to be part of the community. “Let the Guest be treated as Christ,” the Rule says. Treating one another as Christ becomes the norm.

Finally, St. Benedict had a sister, St. Scholastica, whom he treated as an equal. They came together yearly ‘to speak of holy things together.’ She learned from him, yes, but he learned from her as well and her monastery was independent of his. In Benedictinism lies a holy model of male-female relationships and the authority of women.

Each of us has a piece of the truth, Benedict shows us; no one has all the truth. We need to learn from one another.

Believe me, if this pope really takes Benedict of Nursia for a model, this will be a very healthy church.

Hmm_Messiah

I know loads of people who are very sucessfull and havent an ounce of religion in them.Some of them believe in God alright others don't but it hasnt affected their sucess.
Discussing that with someone recently, they simply said, thats because they are good people.
And you know what they are dead right,if you are a good person,that good will eventually come back to you.
Call that kharma if you don't believe in a higher power or if you do believe in a higher power, then take it as read that following dogma from a church some of which you find objectionable isnt necessary.

Sure, the easiest solution is just to dismiss the man, the position, the dogma or the institution.

I thought though the real concern was

1. those gay people WHO want to stay within and contribute to THEIR church but face a terrible and painful conflict from it's hierarchy.

2. You have a leader of a billion people nominally, but at least many many thousand swho feel obliged to follow him, to accept his word as true. And this man says gay = disordered!!! so even non xian gay people might fear his word, as it encourages the many to feel justified in anti gay sentiment, and may feel frustrated that a man outside their own belief system can thwart their hope for acceptance. .


THE benedictine nun does suggest hope, but I don't see how that runs counterpoint to much said here (as my posts seem unnaturally long!!!)

AS some one who had the "luxury" of some knowledge of catholic dogma/law/nuance/theology/thinking, my only wish would be to assure any gay person, especially perhaps younger visitors here, that its completely fine to embrace ur sexuality, and christ as your god. He doesnt hate u, or frown on you; he loves u; and like everything he made to be; you are good.

I'll stop nattering on now

Zillah

utopian wrote:

My apologies. I don't feel anyone disagrees with me on this, as I'm not sure what I believe.

I do think your examples were a bit specious though.

An example can't be specious, only an argument can, and my argument is flawless. There is no moral absolute, as shown by my examples of how humans through different ages and in different parts of the world had completely different moral values each based on their own culture. Unless of course you'd maintain they were all wrong, that we've only gotten it correct this time...

I may have taken the opportunity to land a few hits on Christianity but thats just my own bias kicking in.


Now, the rest of you, please continue your non bitchy discussion.

damien

De Rebel wrote:

One persons view, something of a counterpoint to much of what's been said in this thread, and a lot more hopeful.

This is the bit from the piece I like:

Each of us has a piece of the truth, Benedict shows us; no one has all the truth. We need to learn from one another.

We'll see how this will progress in the next few years but the fact that he didn't take the name John Paul III means he will not be continuing on the same policies of JPII. With Ratz's strict and almost ruthless attitude he might have the authority to bring about change and clarity. I'd much rather clarity from this regime. At least you'll know where you'll stand then.

uberwolf

according to a comment piece in todays times, teachings are that it is only homosexual acts which are evil, not homosexuals themselves.

So I suppose homosexual acts are covered under the same principles as contraceptive covered sex, etc. Wasting that precious seed you know :rolleyes:

Yoda

"Every sperm is sacred...."