Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Bishop

studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:14:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, in religion class, my classmates and I had a debate over the allowance of homosexuals to become bishops. Since everyone in the class is a Catholic bandwagoner, they were trying to ram down my throat that it is immoral for gays to do anything with the Church, especially in becoming a high position. However, I disagree. I think there is nothing wrong with a gay bishop. How does sexual orientation affect the way a bishop spreads the Word or helps with the Church? If the bishop acts on his thoughts of homosexuality, such as dating another man in public, and that's his prerogative, then fine. Just don't mess with little kids or try to support gay marriage (I know I disagree with gay marriage, while most people on this site support it) throughout the sermons, and I think gay bishops are acceptable. Any comments?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual. I honestly don't know why Catholics get so hung up on Homosexuality. I honestly dont' care what the church does, but I would say Gay Bishops should be allowed. I mean, there are probably closet gays out there who already have high positions.

As for marriage, I believe marriage is a religious thing, but insofar as that, marriages shouldn't be legally binding and a legal course should be taken where everyone has a union. Marriage is just pomp anyway.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:31:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual. I honestly don't know why Catholics get so hung up on Homosexuality. I honestly dont' care what the church does, but I would say Gay Bishops should be allowed. I mean, there are probably closet gays out there who already have high positions.

As for marriage, I believe marriage is a religious thing, but insofar as that, marriages shouldn't be legally binding and a legal course should be taken where everyone has a union. Marriage is just pomp anyway.

Agreed completely, panda.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:55:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:31:46 AM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual. I honestly don't know why Catholics get so hung up on Homosexuality. I honestly dont' care what the church does, but I would say Gay Bishops should be allowed. I mean, there are probably closet gays out there who already have high positions.

As for marriage, I believe marriage is a religious thing, but insofar as that, marriages shouldn't be legally binding and a legal course should be taken where everyone has a union. Marriage is just pomp anyway.

Agreed completely, panda.

http://adagiago.files.wordpress.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:59:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You all know where i stand on this topic, but from a neutral stand point,
I think that it would be mildly hypocritical to have a gay bishop, especially when the religion does not support or condone gays in any way, and instead persecute it.
In that sense, no bishops should not be gay.
Does it effect their sense of judgement? Debateable, but if it is against their religion, then no, they should not be a bishop/
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:26:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:59:47 AM, philosphical wrote:
You all know where i stand on this topic, but from a neutral stand point,
I think that it would be mildly hypocritical to have a gay bishop, especially when the religion does not support or condone gays in any way, and instead persecute it.
In that sense, no bishops should not be gay.
Does it effect their sense of judgement? Debateable, but if it is against their religion, then no, they should not be a bishop/

I would have to agree with philosophical on this one. However, I'd say "mildly hypocritical" is a bit of an understatement.
Don't I take care of them all?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:31:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Would depend on the denomination since Christians have no absolute consensus. In the case of Roman Catholicism however, your bed is made as it were, the only relevant opinion on the matter is whoever the current Pope is.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:42:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:59:47 AM, philosphical wrote:
You all know where i stand on this topic, but from a neutral stand point,
I think that it would be mildly hypocritical to have a gay bishop, especially when the religion does not support or condone gays in any way, and instead persecute it.
In that sense, no bishops should not be gay.
Does it effect their sense of judgement? Debateable, but if it is against their religion, then no, they should not be a bishop/

Wrong. You're probably not Catholic. Catholics don't persecute gays, and their ideology on this issue has always been hate the sin, not the sinner. In other words, it's not wrong to be gay, but it's wrong to act on it (i.e. engage in gay sex). Since bishops aren't having sex anyway via their vows of celibacy, then they're not acting on gay impulses, and therefore not sinning in this way. So, they're doing nothing wrong, and your close-mindedness on this issue shines right on through :)

Additionally, how would being gay affect one's JUDGMENT? Please explain this to me, and how it is at all relevant to this job description. Moreover, in choosing to spread God's word rather than act on what comes biologically and emotionally natural to some (homosexuality), then you should be PRAISING this individual for choosing the moral high ground and God over sin, should you not? No. You're concerned with punishing him. All ignorance and oppression stems from fear. Stop being scared of gay people, Phil, unless you've got something to hide.
President of DDO
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:44:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:31:27 AM, Puck wrote:
Would depend on the denomination since Christians have no absolute consensus. In the case of Roman Catholicism however, your bed is made as it were, the only relevant opinion on the matter is whoever the current Pope is.

True. The Catholics just need a real pope to keep them straight (no pun intended). Can we have Innocent III back?

;)
Don't I take care of them all?
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 8:58:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Catholics don't persecute gays, and their ideology on this issue has always been hate the sin, not the sinner.

Yes, you see, but that is all relevant to what is considered sin, and in most religions, being gay is considered a sin.

In other words, it's not wrong to be gay, but it's wrong to act on it (i.e. engage in gay sex). Since bishops aren't having sex anyway via their vows of celibacy, then they're not acting on gay impulses, and therefore not sinning in this way. So, they're doing nothing wrong, and your close-mindedness on this issue shines right on through :)

Wrong. If an individual is gay, then they obviously support gay rights. And if not, would find that to be extremely odd. The church does not support gay rights, therefor, by the gay individual supporting gay rights, they are going against what they're religion stands for.

Additionally, how would being gay affect one's JUDGMENT?

Judgement in accordance to the church. Like I said, if there views are detrimental to the church, then they should not be a bishop. I am not arguing gay right in any sense at all. I am arguing that gays should not be allowed to put their judgement on others, when their very orientation goes against what they are supposed to be teaching.

Moreover, in choosing to spread God's word rather than act on what comes biologically and emotionally natural to some (homosexuality), then you should be PRAISING this individual for choosing the moral high ground and God over sin, should you not? No. You're concerned with punishing him.

Choosing to spread god's word, should mean that you are choosing to act upon gods word as well. Not allowing a gay individual to be a bishop is not a punishment in any way shape or form. In fact, it is praising him, for having chose the light of christ. The church would only want that person to act on all the doctrines the church would have to offer, thus banning him from bishopric.

All ignorance and oppression stems from fear. Stop being scared of gay people, Phil, unless you've got something to hide.

Oh dang you caught me! theLwerd is right, this whole time I've been against gays being church leaders, I've really been trying to secretly tell you my little secret I have kept in for so long! Every time I have argued against gay rights, has really been me hiding me fear!

Talk about ignorance...
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:06:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:44:37 AM, brittwaller wrote:

True. The Catholics just need a real pope to keep them straight (no pun intended). Can we have Innocent III back?

;)

Recent Popes seem to have lost the desire for such dedicated pogroms. :P John XII was charged with sodomy though this was some 200 odd years before Innocent III.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 9:42:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 8:58:48 AM, philosphical wrote:

Yes, you see, but that is all relevant to what is considered sin, and in most religions, being gay is considered a sin.

Obviously you completely missed the point. We're talking about a CATHOLIC Bishop. Catholics believe that God created you a certain way; it's a sin to act on gay tendencies. Like I said, the Bishop wouldn't be having gay sex, so he wouldn't be sinning in that regard. You've made absolutely no point here.


Wrong. If an individual is gay, then they obviously support gay rights. And if not, would find that to be extremely odd. The church does not support gay rights, therefor, by the gay individual supporting gay rights, they are going against what they're religion stands for.

Ignorant. First of all, what are gay rights? Gays have the same rights as everybody else - human rights. Now, if you're referring to gay marriage and adoption, then again you're wrong. Not every gay supports "gay rights." I have gay, Republican friends who don't believe in gay marriage or gay adoption. You can't prove that the Bishop does either.

Judgement in accordance to the church. Like I said, if there views are detrimental to the church, then they should not be a bishop. I am not arguing gay right in any sense at all. I am arguing that gays should not be allowed to put their judgement on others, when their very orientation goes against what they are supposed to be teaching.

Lol. You've said absolutely nothing of substance here. I asked how being gay affects one's moral judgment. The only issue, it would appear, a straight bishop would have from a gay one is who they found attractive. Since the bishop isn't or doesn't have to give advice on attractiveness, this is a moot point. The bishop can do his job without promoting a gay agenda.

Moreover, there ARE progressive clergy in almost every religion (Christian, Jews, etc.) who accept gays and promote gay rights. In my town, there's a gay deacon. So either you're restricting this discussion to Catholicism, or you're not. Regardless, there are Catholic organizations for gays (such as DignityUSA: http://www.dignityusa.org...). You're ignoring 2 things here.

One - having a gay bishop may promote acceptance and tolerance. After all, religions (especially Catholics) have changed their opinion on many issues over the years. Two - the bishop may never talk about or promote sex. If he does, he can just as easily condemn homosexuality. Three - Some gay Catholics might find him comforting or helpful to talk to. As a Christian, isn't being open and celebrating Christ's love of utmost importance? Something about not casting the first stone, mayhaps? :)


Choosing to spread god's word, should mean that you are choosing to act upon gods word as well. Not allowing a gay individual to be a bishop is not a punishment in any way shape or form. In fact, it is praising him, for having chose the light of christ. The church would only want that person to act on all the doctrines the church would have to offer, thus banning him from bishopric.

Um. Like I said, they ARE acting upon God's word is not having gay sex. The Bible condemns the sex acts themselves, therefore they wouldn't be acting against any doctrine. Fail.


Oh dang you caught me! theLwerd is right, this whole time I've been against gays being church leaders, I've really been trying to secretly tell you my little secret I have kept in for so long! Every time I have argued against gay rights, has really been me hiding me fear!

Talk about ignorance...

Hey I didn't say it, Phil - you did. In fact, that's not even the fear I was thinking of.. so it seems you've got a guilty conscience or something :D Anyway, you cannot prove that your opinion is not rooted in fear. Why don't you want a gay bishop? Because you're scared he will corrupt others? Because you're scared he won't uphold the gospel? Because you're scared he wouldn't be a good representation of the Church? The bottom line is that you're scared, and the only reason you're scared of him than another straight bishop is solely for his sexuality. Why are you scared of homosexuality? I could dissect this further, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you see where I'm going with this.
President of DDO
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:47:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Obviously you completely missed the point. We're talking about a CATHOLIC Bishop.

Okay the what's the Fvcking point? I am referring to religions not allowing gay bishops because it's hypocritical to their beliefs. Why are you bringing up the catholic religion if they obviously don't advcocate guys? I am appalled that someone of your stature would stoop to such, pointless argument.

Ignorant. First of all, what are gay rights? Gays have the same rights as everybody else - human rights. Now, if you're referring to gay marriage and adoption, then again you're wrong. Not every gay supports "gay rights." I have gay, Republican friends who don't believe in gay marriage or gay adoption. You can't prove that the Bishop does either.

Your so called "republican friends who don't believe in gay marriage or adoption" is total non-sense. So they are against gay rights, however they themselves are gay? Not only is the irrelevant the the point, but it is also hypocritical.
That's like saying "I am not a vegetarian, however I think that it is horrible to eat meat, and I myself would never do it!"
Plain and simple though I am arguing that churches who advocate gay marriage, should not allow gays to place judgement over people, when they themselves go against the teachings of their religion.
Giving your statement about your gay friends not believing in gay rights, the benefit of the doubt, would allowing them to be bishop be any different of a scenario at all?
Again refering to churches that dis-agree with gay rights, these religions believe
that all relationships should be between man and woman, and god would have that all would get married.
Thus, being gay, and not believing in gay rights, then wanting to be a bishop, cancels itself out completely.

Lol. You've said absolutely nothing of substance here. I asked how being gay affects one's moral judgment. The only issue, it would appear, a straight bishop would have from a gay one is who they found attractive. Since the bishop isn't or doesn't have to give advice on attractiveness, this is a moot point. The bishop can do his job without promoting a gay agenda.

Okay it's seems you have turned the opinion of the church, to the opinion of me.
Again I am not arguing my opinion of a gays judgement, I am arguing that the churches opinion of a gay's judgement is im-moral. I personally have my own opinions on the subject, however this topic was not made to discuss those. I am merely arguing that placing a gay in a church bishopric is hypocritical to it's religion.

Moreover, there ARE progressive clergy in almost every religion (Christian, Jews, etc.) who accept gays and promote gay rights. In my town, there's a gay deacon. So either you're restricting this discussion to Catholicism, or you're not. Regardless, there are Catholic organizations for gays (such as DignityUSA: http://www.dignityusa.org...).

Again, holds absolutely nothing! What would be the point of me arguing religions that allow gay rights? There is none. I am talking about religions that don't agree with gay rights, having bishops is hypocritical to there religion. It seems as if you want me to argue that 2+2 does not equal 4.


One - having a gay bishop may promote acceptance and tolerance. After all, religions (especially Catholics) have changed their opinion on many issues over the years.

Maybe it could! However that still doesn't touch the point, that currently, gays choices are looked down upon, and that by having one teach the religion when they them selves don't follow it is like your grandmother telling you smoking is bad while she sits on the front porch smoking.

Two - the bishop may never talk about or promote sex. If he does, he can just as easily condemn homosexuality.

What does sex have to do with hypocrisy teachings? Explain this to me before I argue this point.

your ignoring 2 things here
Three -

Epic fail!

Some gay Catholics might find him comforting or helpful to talk to. As a Christian, isn't being open and celebrating Christ's love of utmost importance? Something about not casting the first stone, mayhaps? :)

I never said a gay be cannot be comforting or helpful to talk. Some found hitler to be comforting and helpful to talk to. But there is more to these religions, then believing and praising the lord, and that's what you fail to understand. There's certain things that these religions propose must be followed if an individual is to seek the glory of god. Not allowing a gay to be bishop, isn't a form of attack or discrimination, but simply a natural response. A religion is going to want their relgion to be taught and preached from its foundation. Most religions that dis-agree with gay rights, don't shun gays from their religion as you seem to believe. They try (or at least are told in their religion that they should) to help teach and lead these people to go the other way. They don't shun them. And if certain individuals do, the religion in itself should not be held accountable for its actions.

Um. Like I said, they ARE acting upon God's word is not having gay sex. The Bible condemns the sex acts themselves, therefore they wouldn't be acting against any doctrine. Fail.

Double fail. You seem to be mis-lead to the fact that being gay is okay by these religions, as long as it is not a sexual relation. That doctrine would make no sense. But apparently, you said it was in the bible, so please note the scripture in where i might find that please.

Hey I didn't say it, Phil - you did. In fact, that's not even the fear I was thinking of.. so it seems you've got a guilty conscience or something

OH you are just so smart!

Anyway, you cannot prove that your opinion is not rooted in fear. Why don't you want a gay bishop? Because you're scared he will corrupt others?

Or because it goes against his church doctrines.

Because you're scared he won't uphold the gospel?

Or because the church doesn't believe it will uphold its gospel, due to its beliefs.

Because you're scared he wouldn't be a good representation of the Church?

BINGO! Except, for again this is in the churchs opinion. But good job, you finally got it right!

The bottom line is that you're scared, and the only reason you're scared of him than another straight bishop is solely for his sexuality. Why are you scared of homosexuality? I could dissect this further, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you see where I'm going with this.

My beliefs on homosexuality, are for like the fiftieth time, are irrelevant to the topic of discussion here.
Let me get this straight. If you want to debate with me, homosexuality, and my beliefs of it, then open up a debate, or another forum for it.
THE ONLY THING I AM ARGUING IS THAT it goes against the church beliefs, as far as teaching other individuals.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:03:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Phil, not only is your spelling and grammar that of a 6 year olds, but so is your comprehension. I don't know how you made it passed the 4th grade. Honestly. First of all, since this discussion is about a *Catholic* bishop - then my point about the Catholic faith is absolutely relevant. Second, you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever come across! Your stance on political issues doesn't always represent your morality. For instance, people who are anti-abortion are often pro-choice. Some people who are STRAIGHT are pro gay marriage... so howcome people who are gay can't be anti-gay marriage?! A lot of people, including myself, believe that marriage is a religious instutition and therefore don't advocate for gay marriage. If you were remotely intelligent, this would be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else.

You said, "am arguing that the churches opinion of a gay's judgement is im-moral." Are you really that against spell check? Nevertheless, again you're completely missing the point! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT FIND GAY PEOPLE TO BE IMMORAL. They gind gay *acts* to be immoral. InquireTruth, one of the most known and respected Christians on this site, confirmed being gay is *NOT* considered a sin in Christian orthodoxy. So, again, don't bother wasting your time typing if you're just going to keep repeating the same invalid stuff?

You then said, "having bishops is hypocritical to there religion. It seems as if you want me to argue that 2+2 does not equal 4... gays choices are looked down upon, and that by having one teach the religion when they them selves don't follow it" LOL!!! Once again (I know you're not so great at understanding things but please try) -- It's against their religion to have gay SEX. The Bishop wouldn't be having gay sex! Nor would he be promoting gay sex! Therefore his sexuality is completely irrelevant -- You fail. :)

All of your ignorant, immature and pointless arguments are weak and misguided. What about the clergy who are CLOSETED? (And there's a lot of them) They're doing their job every single day and yet their sexuality does not come into play. The priests can speak of homosexuality just as the Bible/God does in Christian religion -- The act is bad, the person is not. If this is to be upheld, then it would be hypocritical to punish the gay person. You are so off lol. It must be the Utah in you.

Ps. It's hilarious how you note my "epic fail" in saying I had 2 points but made 3... meanwhile, you type like a fvcking 5 year old. The kid on the corner with down syndrome has a better grasp of the English language than you do. And don't be bitter because I have so many better points than you :)
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:20:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 10:47:29 AM, philosphical wrote:

Okay the what's the Fvcking point? I am referring to religions not allowing gay bishops because it's hypocritical to their beliefs. Why are you bringing up the catholic religion if they obviously don't advcocate guys? I am appalled that someone of your stature would stoop to such, pointless argument.


Ad homenim, Phil, calm down.... She already explained to you why it's not hypocritcal to their beliefs: Catholics hate the sin, not the sinner. You can be gay, just not act out being gay. Straight Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry or have sex with women - so, is it hypocritical for a straight man to become a priest because they are attracted to women?

Your so called "republican friends who don't believe in gay marriage or adoption" is total non-sense. So they are against gay rights, however they themselves are gay? Not only is the irrelevant the the point, but it is also hypocritical.
That's like saying "I am not a vegetarian, however I think that it is horrible to eat meat, and I myself would never do it!"
Plain and simple though I am arguing that churches who advocate gay marriage, should not allow gays to place judgement over people, when they themselves go against the teachings of their religion.
Giving your statement about your gay friends not believing in gay rights, the benefit of the doubt, would allowing them to be bishop be any different of a scenario at all?
Again refering to churches that dis-agree with gay rights, these religions believe
that all relationships should be between man and woman, and god would have that all would get married.
Thus, being gay, and not believing in gay rights, then wanting to be a bishop, cancels itself out completely.


"Gay Rights" are human rights. I think you're in the camp of "homosexuality is a choice," so you think that they being homosexual is their chosen sin. People are biologically inclined to behave this way, just like straight red blooded males are biologically inclined to want to have sex with women - and are barred from it as regular priests in Catholicism. Again, they hate the sin, not the sinner. As long as he doesn't act out on it, he's fine. And yes, gays can be against gay marriage just as straights - like Panda!- can think marriage in general is rubbish. Seriously, Phil.... there is nothing 'hypocritical" about not supporting marriage and adoption if you are gay. The proper analogy would be a vegetarian who doesn't eat carrots and beats, but likes all other vegetables.

Okay it's seems you have turned the opinion of the church, to the opinion of me.
Again I am not arguing my opinion of a gays judgement, I am arguing that the churches opinion of a gay's judgement is im-moral. I personally have my own opinions on the subject, however this topic was not made to discuss those. I am merely arguing that placing a gay in a church bishopric is hypocritical to it's religion.


Again, it's not. They hate the ACT of homosexuality, not the homosexual. As long as he hasn't had sex with a man, he hasn't gone against the Chruch's teachings. So, again, you're wrong.


Again, holds absolutely nothing! What would be the point of me arguing religions that allow gay rights? There is none. I am talking about religions that don't agree with gay rights, having bishops is hypocritical to there religion. It seems as if you want me to argue that 2+2 does not equal 4.


Ok.... You seem to not be comprehending anything... A gay bishop is not against the teachings. A gay bishop who has a boyfriend, sure! A gay bishop who doesn't believe in allowing marriage and adoption to gays is not hypocritical (yes, they exist - human rights are different from adoption and marriage, by the way)

I think the equation your advocating has an extra number in there that doesn't belong. The actual problem is 4-2=2, but you're changing the - to a +.

Maybe it could! However that still doesn't touch the point, that currently, gays choices are looked down upon, and that by having one teach the religion when they them selves don't follow it is like your grandmother telling you smoking is bad while she sits on the front porch smoking.


But they are following it. They aren't having sex with men. The religion condemns SEX WITH MEN, not being gay - just like a priest can't HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN. You're not getting the point.


What does sex have to do with hypocrisy teachings? Explain this to me before I argue this point.


OMG.....

your ignoring 2 things here
Three -

Epic fail!


I never said a gay be cannot be comforting or helpful to talk. Some found hitler to be comforting and helpful to talk to. But there is more to these religions, then believing and praising the lord, and that's what you fail to understand. There's certain things that these religions propose must be followed if an individual is to seek the glory of god. Not allowing a gay to be bishop, isn't a form of attack or discrimination, but simply a natural response. A religion is going to want their relgion to be taught and preached from its foundation. Most religions that dis-agree with gay rights, don't shun gays from their religion as you seem to believe. They try (or at least are told in their religion that they should) to help teach and lead these people to go the other way. They don't shun them. And if certain individuals do, the religion in itself should not be held accountable for its actions.


Omg did you just compare gays to HITLER? I think you really don't understand what "hate the sin, not the sinner" means in Catholicism. Until you do, you can't debate this topic properly.



Double fail. You seem to be mis-lead to the fact that being gay is okay by these religions, as long as it is not a sexual relation. That doctrine would make no sense. But apparently, you said it was in the bible, so please note the scripture in where i might find that please.


Um... you have the epic fail here. A man must not lie with another man, but he could still be biologically inclined to lie with another man. As long as he doesn't DO it, he's fine. EPIC, MONSTEROUS FAIL.

OH you are just so smart!:

Wow, the rudness just keeps seeping out of you towards my girlfriend... guess I should be rude in turn : )

Because you're scared he wouldn't be a good representation of the Church?

BINGO! Except, for again this is in the churchs opinion. But good job, you finally got it right!


Oh gosh Philly : )

My beliefs on homosexuality, are for like the fiftieth time, are irrelevant to the topic of discussion here.


Actually, they are very relevent.

Let me get this straight. If you want to debate with me, homosexuality, and my beliefs of it, then open up a debate, or another forum for it.:

Challenge both Lwerd and I. I'd like to epic fail you after she does : ) It would make both our days.

THE ONLY THING I AM ARGUING IS THAT it goes against the church beliefs, as far as teaching other individuals.:

Again, debate us. My wonderful girlfriend first though : ) I'll be waiting after your...what was it you called it again? Epic fail.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:24:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh no, sweetheart. I don't have the patience. You first. I insist :)

Plus you know it turns me on when I see you give a good spanking!

Lol jk.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:26:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ad Hominem* correction.

And here's your bible verses of the day, Phil:

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"(Lev. 18:22)

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)

The bible still makes me giggle... because they are ok with people having babies with their sisters - ok with a man having dozens of whores and wives - ok with raping virgins after you plunder a city.... lol, but a man and another man, oh no!

They never say anything about a woman with a woman though :p

Philosophical: Note that both quotes have "lie with another man" in them. As in the sexual act with them.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:27:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 11:24:23 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Oh no, sweetheart. I don't have the patience. You first. I insist :)

Plus you know it turns me on when I see you give a good spanking!

Lol jk.

GLADLY : ) Thank you, baby. You're so sweet!
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 1:43:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:14:38 AM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Well, in religion class, my classmates and I had a debate over the allowance of homosexuals to become bishops. Since everyone in the class is a Catholic bandwagoner, they were trying to ram down my throat that it is immoral for gays to do anything with the Church, especially in becoming a high position.

Surely the Catholic position is that indulging in homosexuality is a sin, and that Priests should be celibate. So surely 'closet' celibate homosexual priests are okay?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 2:04:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual.

I'd love to hear how being gay impairs you from doing sexual things :P

At 10/24/2009 7:59:47 AM, philosphical wrote:
You all know where i stand on this topic, but from a neutral stand point,
I think that it would be mildly hypocritical to have a gay bishop, especially when the religion does not support or condone gays in any way, and instead persecute it.
In that sense, no bishops should not be gay.
Does it effect their sense of judgement? Debateable, but if it is against their religion, then no, they should not be a bishop/

There are parts of the bible that say polygamy, slaves, whipping, incest, etc. are Ok, but that doesn't mean Christians listen to them. By your logic, churches should be organizing adulterer stoning parties. The fact remains that if the church stayed hung up on every single world in the Bible rather than paying attention to the general teachings, it would never move anywhere and it would become pathetically outdated.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 2:15:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 2:04:47 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual.

I'd love to hear how being gay impairs you from doing sexual things :P


Go have homosexual sex with Perez Hiton. Wait, you don't want to? Heterosexuality has just impaired your ability to do a sexual act ;)
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 2:49:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 2:15:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/24/2009 2:04:47 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual.

I'd love to hear how being gay impairs you from doing sexual things :P


Go have homosexual sex with Perez Hiton. Wait, you don't want to? Heterosexuality has just impaired your ability to do a sexual act ;)

I'm offended that you think I'm straight.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 2:52:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 2:49:17 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/24/2009 2:15:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/24/2009 2:04:47 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/24/2009 7:27:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Being gay doesn't impair you doing anything that's not sexual.

I'd love to hear how being gay impairs you from doing sexual things :P


Go have homosexual sex with Perez Hiton. Wait, you don't want to? Heterosexuality has just impaired your ability to do a sexual act ;)

I'm offended that you think I'm straight.

Oh....

Okay, let's say I tell you to have sex with a dog...Oh wait
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 5:36:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lwerd, Vi, I'd love to sit here and exchange insults with you, however, I don't see the maturity in that. Seeing as you are both grown adults, I find it quite surprising that you would get so mad and defensive from a inferior little 17 year old. LOL what difference does it make what i think? Are you going to suffer and die because I have different beliefs than you?

If you want to debate me go ahead. Insults, and names, don't go very far when trying to get a logical point across.

peace ;-)

(please don't go cut yourself, if you want me to stop proving you wrong, simply tell me and i will ease up)

love
-philosophical
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:31:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 5:36:05 PM, philosphical wrote:
Lwerd, Vi, I'd love to sit here and exchange insults with you, however, I don't see the maturity in that. Seeing as you are both grown adults, I find it quite surprising that you would get so mad and defensive from a inferior little 17 year old. LOL what difference does it make what i think? Are you going to suffer and die because I have different beliefs than you?

If you want to debate me go ahead. Insults, and names, don't go very far when trying to get a logical point across.

peace ;-)

(please don't go cut yourself, if you want me to stop proving you wrong, simply tell me and i will ease up)

love
-philosophical

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what someone without a counter-argument resorts to : )

I'll be challenging you soon, Philosophical. Just because you're a giant hypocrite.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 6:40:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 6:31:25 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 10/24/2009 5:36:05 PM, philosphical wrote:
Lwerd, Vi, I'd love to sit here and exchange insults with you, however, I don't see the maturity in that. Seeing as you are both grown adults, I find it quite surprising that you would get so mad and defensive from a inferior little 17 year old. LOL what difference does it make what i think? Are you going to suffer and die because I have different beliefs than you?

If you want to debate me go ahead. Insults, and names, don't go very far when trying to get a logical point across.

peace ;-)

(please don't go cut yourself, if you want me to stop proving you wrong, simply tell me and i will ease up)

love
-philosophical


Ladies and gentlemen, this is what someone without a counter-argument resorts to : )

I'll be challenging you soon, Philosophical. Just because you're a giant hypocrite.

LOL he's like Euthyphro!

Anyway, being 17 is no excuse for your stupidity :)

Carry on.
President of DDO
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 1:04:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what someone without a counter-argument resorts to : )

Counter-argument? Hmm I did not seem to have seen an argument that I had not already resorted to in the previous posts. Mainly, I just witnessed a barrage of insults instead, of a descent argument, which is not surprising coming from theLwerd. Don't you find it funny how instead of logically approaching an argument she first asserts to attack the person in which she dis-agrees with? Again, not a good way to get a point across.

I'll be challenging you soon, Philosophical. Just because you're a giant hypocrite.

Let's do it :) I can survive being called a giant hypocrite without resoning. I have already grown accustomed to the girlfriends defense heroism thing, as I sure we all have. What a brave mistress, saving your lover like that! Apparently she couldn't have handled me on her own. (just a reminder, please don't commit sucide, over a few simple arguments that are against your opinion. If you wish me to light up on you, I gladly shall)

LOL he's like Euthyphro!
Anyway, being 17 is no excuse for your stupidity :)
Carry on

Seeing as I was using my being seventeen as compared to you being an adult, and specifically using that as an example to your maturity level, I really find this quite laughable. You seek to call me to stupid, when that comment had nothing to do with stupidity, but maturity.
Good job!
You never cease to amaze with your smartness!
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 1:16:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 1:04:21 PM, philosphical wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what someone without a counter-argument resorts to : )


Counter-argument? Hmm I did not seem to have seen an argument that I had not already resorted to in the previous posts. Mainly, I just witnessed a barrage of insults instead, of a descent argument, which is not surprising coming from theLwerd. Don't you find it funny how instead of logically approaching an argument she first asserts to attack the person in which she dis-agrees with? Again, not a good way to get a point across.


I'll be challenging you soon, Philosophical. Just because you're a giant hypocrite.

Let's do it :) I can survive being called a giant hypocrite without resoning. I have already grown accustomed to the girlfriends defense heroism thing, as I sure we all have. What a brave mistress, saving your lover like that! Apparently she couldn't have handled me on her own. (just a reminder, please don't commit sucide, over a few simple arguments that are against your opinion. If you wish me to light up on you, I gladly shall)



LOL he's like Euthyphro!
Anyway, being 17 is no excuse for your stupidity :)
Carry on


Seeing as I was using my being seventeen as compared to you being an adult, and specifically using that as an example to your maturity level, I really find this quite laughable. You seek to call me to stupid, when that comment had nothing to do with stupidity, but maturity.
Good job!
You never cease to amaze with your smartness!

*sighs softly and shakes head* Just wait for my challenge, Phil, and you'll understand...
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.