Why if the catholic church is against homosexual unions does it not only condone but protect priest that have violated young boys? This does not seem very well thought out.

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 23, 2003

Answers

The Church as a whole has never protected priests who have harmed children. Period. Some very stupid humans did.

The Church can not condone sinful behavior.

Marriage is a sacrament and should be accorded the dignity and steadfast respect it deserves.

Homosexual "unions" CAN NOT be SACREMENTAL MARRIAGES.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), September 23, 2003.

Is the church not made up of humans that make the "laws" for us to live by. If we cannot trust those in power how can we trust the "church" run by these people with less than saintly behavior. I have read some articles here that place little regard to non- christians and especially non-catholics that act in saintly ways, like Ghandi. If the humans in the catholic church could behave in these "non-christian" yet saintly ways then maybe the church would have more clout in todays society. Actions do count, the catholic church cannot expect us to follow a "do what I say not what I do" doctrine.

-- jerry (jperales@crespoinc.com), September 23, 2003.

What the Church "does" is lead souls to Christ, and through Him to eternal salvation. The fact that some of the Church's members, including some of its leaders, do things that are directly opposed to the Church's teaching and the Church's mission is not a reflection on the Church, but on the individuals. You determine the value of a medicine by observing its effect on those who take it according to directions, not by its effect on those who pour it down the sink. All of the great saints, including modern men and women of great holiness like Mother Teresa and John Paul II are products of the Catholic Church. They didn't attain holiness in spite of the Church, but through the Church; and anyone who fully participates in the Church, remaining faithful to all of its teachings as Christ intended, will achieve the same holiness.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 23, 2003.

Then how is it that all of these people that are throwing their medicine down the sink get into power?

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 23, 2003.

And furthermore, if saints arrive at sainthood because of the teachings of the Catholic church, then what do call all of those condemned souls that are not catholic but are saintly, sol?

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 23, 2003.

I do feel you have hate to some people , why ??

You're saying , they do exist , but they can act like they want ?? __ What if one of your or more kids of you are gay ?? __ If you force them to be different , that makes you happy ??

Who the hell are you , to say what other peoples wants/has to do , as long there is no crime committed ??

BTW , I'm not gay , but , if you're not intrested in their lifes , just let them lead their life , gay people are not sick , only the one who hates them !! __ OK , there are also gay-criminals , just as hetero-criminals , to say it "in a better GENERAL way" , a criminal is criminal !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 24, 2003.

People who are actively engaged (or married) to the gay subculture (pardon the pun) are hurting themselves and others - as both the CDC and their own publications admit - to the tune of some 470,000 cases of homosexuals dying of AIDS in 2001 can show.

That's 470,000 men who didn't have to die, who could have avoided such an awful disease had they simply refrained from the actions which sooner or later exposed them to the virus.

How it can possibly be considered "hate" or fear for us to simply say "stop hurting yourselves" is beyond me!

It's not like we are saying "don't have friends" or "don't love anyone" or "you're all completely incompetant". Not at all. People need friends and love and fellowship. But not everything friends do is good for them.

We're just saying do good and avoid hurting yourselves and others.

Just because you want to do something (because it feels good) doesn't automatically mean you have a right to have it - and it doesn't automatically mean that this thing is in fact, good for you.

Diabetics may love pizza, but they have to be careful because of their blood problem... their "feeling good" about certain foods and their desire for them doesn't change the facts of biology. Ditto with respect to alcoholics, and homosexuals. Just because you might be attracted to something - doesn't make it automatically healthy and wonderful and good for you!

It's not like sexually transmitted diseases were fictions! They're real, and they're totally avoidable - all you have to do is not be promiscuous - as well as refrain from some sexual practices - oral and anal sex being the top two.

It's really not more complex that this. How can you claim to "tolerate" their self-destruction and still consider yourself someone who is a nice guy?

Do nice people stand by and watch kids drown in pools just because they jumped in "because they thought it would be cool to sink to the bottom"?

Do nice people stand by and watch little kids play with matches and gasoline?

I think the problem is you think "sin" is some completely arbitrary measure of what we FEEL about others, or just some personal opinion of taste - with no objective, biological and psychological content to it. But sin - presumes moral responsibility; free choice. It also presumes that alternative actions or thoughts exist. You have many trees in the Garden of Eden - Adam and Eve could eat from EVERY OTHER tree in the garden, except the one in the middle - because that one was poison.

OK, then they had options, all of which were OK, minus 1. Alcoholics can drink lots of things... just not alcohol. Diabetics can eat lots of food, just being careful with what and how much... and homosexuals can have lots of friends and really love lots of people... just not sexually.

Sin is doing something which is harmful to yourself and others. And it really doesn't MATTER very much what you think about it. Sin involves actions, thoughts or omissions which hurt you - and others - so even if your moral culpability goes up or down, you're still hurt.

The proof is in the pudding: hundreds of thousands of gays are dying of AIDS and other STDs. They are also statistically more likely to be suffering from other mental illnesses and problems such as depression, substance abuse, and interpersonal trauma such as child abuse and obsessive/compulsive behavior.

In the past they blamed "society" or their parents for all these mental illnesses...but again, if that were the real cause of their problems, they'd be thriving in San Francisco and elsewhere where people either don't know they're gay, (so don't say anything) or do and approve totally... and yet the stats and numbers proving a non- societal cause for their issues continues to flood in.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk. And friends don't let friends kill themselves - through drugs or sex.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

I am encouraged by how articulate most of the reponses have been. I was raised a catholic, was an alter boy, and have never been abused. In fact, the priest I served with was in my opinion a saint.

I just have a hard time trying to accept some of the abuses of power that I have seen in my lifetime within the catholic church.

I personally do not have an opinion when it comes to gay marriages. I just don't understand how a community that has shown such deep corruption can still try to make moral judgements of others. I believe the church needs to do some healing to better understand itself in context with the modern world before imposing rules that are becoming even more strict and judgemental.

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

People who are actively engaged (or married) to the gay subculture (pardon the pun) are hurting themselves and others - as both the CDC and their own publications admit - to the tune of some 470,000 cases of homosexuals dying of AIDS in 2001 can show.

Not only gay people could get aids , also hetero-peoples !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 24, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Jerry. I want to respond to your last message.

You wrote: "I personally do not have an opinion when it comes to gay marriages."

This is not a matter of "opinion," but fact. You need to be a real man. Take a stand, and fight for the truth. Are you unaware of these facts? ...
1. That God condemns homosexual acts? [Read about it in the Bible, etc..]
2. That God created marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- and no other combo can be called "marriage"?
3. That the only Church that Jesus founded (the Catholic Church) has always maintained the truth about homosexual acts, as given to her by her founder?

You continued: "I just don't understand how a community that has shown such deep corruption can still try to make moral judgements of others."

What you need to do is stop thinking of the Catholic Church as a mere "community," stop accusing "the Church" of "corruption," and stop thinking that the Church "makes moral judgments of others."
(1) The Church is not just some manmade conglomeration. It was established by a GOD-man, Jesus. From the Blessed Trinity, the Church has the fullness of the truth, both in the area of faith [what we are to believe] and morality [who we are to behave].
(2) The Church is the "Body of Christ," our "Holy Mother," and the spotless "Bride of Christ." As such, the Church is incapable of "show[ing] ... deep corruption." You have to separate things in your mind. The Church is good and pure, but all members of the Church are sinners, some worse than others. The fact that churchmen are sinners does not cause the Church's teachings to be wrong in the slightest.
(3) The Church does not invent doctrines -- neither of faith nor morality -- but instead passes down the same doctrines received from the time of the Apostles. Just as she does not invent rules against homosexual acts, she does not judge others as worthy of hell. She only condemns actions, not persons.

You concluded: "I believe the church needs to do some healing to better understand itself in context with the modern world before imposing rules that are becoming even more strict and judgemental."

Please do not apply to "the church" [i.e., the entire, worldwide Catholic Church] your advice that is applicable to a minority of her clergy. The Church very well "understand[s] itself in context with the modern world." (I think that you are the one who needs to "understand" a lot more than you do.)

Jerry, you are completely wrong to say that the Church "impos[es] rules." Rather, she only PROposes God's rules, and each person is free to accept or reject them. There is no IMposition. God's rules are not "becoming even more strict and judgmental." They are just remaining the same as they always have been, since they come from God himself, and he never changes. They only seem stricter to you, because you have perhaps "bought into" the ever-more-shabby, relaxed, and decrepit (im)morality of the secular world.

Jerry, God brought you here to the forum for a reason -- to help you get re-established in the Church of your youth. He wants you to be like that priest you admired -- a saint.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), September 24, 2003.

I do feel you have hate to some people , why ??

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 24, 2003.

You need to be a real man. Take a stand, and fight for the truth. Are you unaware of these facts? ...

Facts according to the one book that you read. Other holy books have been written, the Koran and Bhagavad Gita are just two examples. All written by a "creator", what makes you absolutely sure that the one you believe in contains the "Facts". Even the aboriginal people of Australia have a creation story through to modern times that they believe 100%, just as you seem to believe the bible 100%. Most Christians would simply say they are wrong with no supportive evidence other than the one book.

All these stories have an underlying meaning that try to teach its subjects how to live a good life. Religions used to act as our governing body and in many other countries still do. Most of the rules are for our own protection and are good. For that matter, moderate Islamic views of our rampant sexuality would probably have a helpful spin on the teens of today. For example, in Iran men and women cannot make public displays of affection. But in this country two female pop stars can make out on T.V. I believe the middle road is clearly the path. I would not want my children to view this but then they would never be allowed into the real world.

In my day to day decisions, I try to pull from all of my spiritual studies. We can learn from all teachings globally. I belive if my actions come from goodness and love then I am giving the greatest lesson I can everyday. Buda teaches to love as though you have never been hurt. Jesus teaches us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You may believe I am wrong and that is your right as a free thinking individual living in a free society. I will not try to change you, only love you.

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

Jerry, good question. In a nut shell you are asking the basic "criteria of credibility" question, which is essential for a mature believer. I salute you.

So we see that other religions exist and other "scriptures" exist: the Koran, the Hindu Uphanishads, the Buddist scriptures... yet Christians believe that only the Jewish scriptures and prophecies (Old Testament) and Gospel and epistles (New Testament) are true revelations of God.

Why?

Primary criteria of credibility: Theophanies of God. In the ancient world there were thousands of religions, the vast majority of which were poly and pantheistic (lots of gods). They all pretty much had similar cultic elements; temples, priests, rituals... and they all had scriptures and legends. But none of these religions had historical theophanic events and miracles which the Jewish faith had.

They were all ethnic and national religions too - they died with their people or political regime. None survived persecution. We see this in the Illiad of Homer - the Trojans prayed to their gods...and got killed anyway.

The Hebrews prayed to their God...and He apppeared not just once in a legend, but many times over centuries, and each time it was a public and supendous event which shook up the surrounding peoples - believers and non-believers. Their scriptures then all attest to God's reality, unity, will and love for the Jewish people and all people.

Their prophets too worked wonders that are not found in any pagan histories...

The criteria of credibility for Christians then presumes that the Jewish scripture is true, and that God really did appear to them and give them their law and prophets. But Christ goes further: his miracles were also public manifestations of divinity: healing and raising the dead, total control of nature: calming the wind and seas, thus showing graphically that he was in control of the air (the realm of Zeus) and the sea (the realm of Posidon).

By multiplying the loaves and fish - which no one denies, and by raising from the dead - which no one can DIS-PROVE, he proved by his works that he was trustworthy.

Mohammed wrote the Koran...but never did a miracle. Buddha wrote his philosophy...but never performed a miracle. Many sages wrote the Hindu scriptures...3000-4000 years ago, but what wonders do we see in India? The Greco-Romans and Celtics also had their scriptures of sorts and temples and belief in gods...but what has happened to these gods?

Thus, for a Catholic to conclude that the Christian bible is qualitatively different than say, the Book of Mormon or Koran, is entirely reasonable.

If you have a person or book claiming to be "of God", defining what this God is, and this person and his writing is accompanied with supernatural theophanies and events (which are to be expected), then you can conclude that it's not just his opinion or invention.

There are other criteria to be met for credibility:

History for one reason: the Old and New Testaments pre-date the Koran by 1200 and 600 years respectively. No one knows who wrote the Hindu scriptures... if they really came from 800 million gods one would expect to know what man or men received the primary revelation, and if 800 million gods really existed, one would expect further revelations...

Internal consistency: the Koran contradicts the Gospel, so if the Gospel is true, the Koran can not be true.

There are many man-made religions and groups. One sign of this mundane origin is the concessions to human weakness found in these man-made legends and religions. Wicca is a prime example. You can have your cake and eat it too - it's easy to be Muslim and easy to be a wiccan. But wait, would God make things easy? If so, what's the point of religion? (unless to perfect and mature his creatures why would he bother revealing himself to them? If they were supposed to just do their own thing...that seems like we're doing it ANYWAY, so what point is there to revealed truth?)

You also have to take into consideration historical facts of Catholicism: miracles continue even today. Cures and exorcisms happen all the time - as do sudden conversions. Since such things are unaccountable according to the laws of nature and society, there must be some super-natural causation going on here, which any reasonable person would attribute to God.

Truth is one: thus nothing in the true religion would contradict the truth known to reason and logic. Logical conclusions are NOT faith, but they do point towards what is believable and what is NOT.

So for example: you claim that 1 billion people and a doctrine which included morality has no moral authority because 500 men and 23 bishops did immoral things within the past 40 years. Hmmmmmmmmmmm why does the 1 billion people and this 2000 year old system of morality suddenly loose all moral credibility because 523 members fail to live up to its standards?

Jerry, that just doesn't make any sense. It's not as though the Church taught officially and promulgated from the highest authority to the lowest priest that abuse of children and coverups are OK and wonderful and good and should be done as much as possible!

Yet we DO have religions and churches which HAVE taught as official doctrine and promoted as official morality all sorts of horrible things. The US Supreme Court for example thought Blacks could legitimately be owned as property, and they now also think that so can pre-born children - even though reason and biology both prove that blacks and all pre-born children are individuals of the species homo sapiens and thus by ALL definition are human beings.

Note to reader; ancient slavery in Israel was qualitatively different that that practiced elsewhere; the Jews didn't consider slaves to be non-human or sub-human. Slaves could be freed or buy their freedom - showing that it was an economical position, not an ontological distinction.

But modern slavery has first considered these persons to be "non- persons", sub-humans, in order to strip them of all rights.)

Finally Jerry, the criteria for credibility has to do with reasons - not feelings. You can't "judge" based on feelings (it's a definition thing; feelings are not factual...they don't deal with intelligible data at all, but only on subjective states and emotions which are not objective (public) or even moral (having to do with choice).

Judgements deal with public, objective conclusions of fact. So I disbelieve in the supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon, not because I feel bad about Mormons or their practices, politics, or looks! I disbelieve in it's supernatural origin because: a) We only have Joe Smith's word for it: there are no golden tablets, no magical reading glasses, no reason to think that "lost tribes" would write their story in "ancient hiroglyphics" (especially since Jews wouldn't create "graven images" and already had a written language). Then there is the problem of contrast: the Book of Mormon contradicts the Christian and Jewish Scripture in many key places. Their theology also has some basic PHILOSOPHICAL problems.

You have to suspend belief to accept that two lost tribes of Israel sailed to the New World without any one else knowing about it...that they had such sea-faring technology that the rest of the world didn't...and somehow lost it... You also have to wonder where the immense 1 million casualty battlefield went to in upstate New York... too many loose ends, which are NOT the case with respect to the Jewish scriptures as we know that they WERE in Goshen, and did leave and did drive out peoples in the chosen land and did have a kingdom...

Islam too is based on one man's word for it: Mohammed. No miracles, no consistency, no reason (other than fear of death) to accept his word that he's the last prophet of God...and reason to wonder why his theology is so abysmally more primitive than and even contradictory with earlier revelations which he supposedly agreed with...then you add the human-ease factor: beyond certain rituals, men have it pretty easy going in Islam... you're a slave to God...but pretty much in control of everyone else! You can kill them, enslave them, have sex with them (up to 4 wives, and as many "temporary" wives as you want)...in short, it's an external religion.

My feelings don't lead me to conclude that these two religions are man-made. My reason does.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

Joe,

Thank you for your insight. I do appreciate the time and effort you put into your response.

I also appreciate how you refered back to the original query.

I do feel that those 523 men have made a significant blight on the catholic church as a whole. Talk to non-catholics and see if this is not the case. I don't believe that the church has lost all moral credibility but I would really like to see some solution to the problem so we never have to see this abuse of power ever again.

I do not think enough has been done to eliminate this problem. It seems as though it is too easy for immoral men to hide in the system.

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

Maybe there are attempts to make children more aware of abusers in CCD. This would be a great start. Don't let our children become victims in the first place. Empower them to be strong.

-- jerry (inazone33@yahoo.com), September 24, 2003.

Since this year , in my country they could get a civil marriage , I don't see any problem with that !! __ You know , you can't force people to be happy !! __ So , what if one of your kids was gay , and some day he/she tells you , mom , dad , I wanna marry my boy/girlfriend ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 28, 2003.

So what if your beloved childred choose to spend enternity in Hell? Is that what you are asking?

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

Eternity in hell ?? __ Explaine , please ??

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 28, 2003.

Eternity in hell ?? __ Explaine , please ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 28, 2003.

I would ask where I had been all their lives that I did not provide a proper role model. Then, I would find ways to bring them to God. It would be tough to bring them to God, if they denied God in the first place. What could I do? Let them be? This would be wrong. I would want them in Heaven with God.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.

Simple , you can't force people !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 28, 2003.

WRONG! We CAN "force" people, and sometimes we MUST "force" them.

People who are in prison are FORCED to be there.
People in military service are FORCED to obey orders.
People who have children are FORCED to care for them.

The list could go on and on, ending with ...

People must be FORCED not to attempt a perverted, sham marriage with others of the same sex.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

People must be FORCED not to attempt a perverted, sham marriage with others of the same sex.

An arranged marriage is forced !!

btw , Who say gay people are perverts ??

Please , explain to me , what is a pervert ??

People who are in prison are FORCED to be there.

Agree !!

People in military service are FORCED to obey orders.

If they don't , they know the consequences , they will be punished !!

People who have children are FORCED to care for them.

It's not forced , it's something you just do , but some don't (want to) unfortunely !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 29, 2003.

Laurent wrote:

Who say gay people are perverts ??

Well, I could give you a quasi-scientific answer (I'm no scientist). Nature says it is perverted. The statistics showing heterosexual behavior out weighs your implication of homosexuallality being normal. The fact that every living thing reproduces also gives evidence to my conclusions. But, most of all, the Bible does make it rather clear. God says it is perverted. It is a sin. I know that you do not wish to subcribe to the Scriptures, so subscribe to nature itself. I know some will bring up those oddities of nature that show evidence of hermaphroditism and such. God still loves them, the parts may be there, but the reproductive system must conform to one or the other, not both sexes (at least I haven't learned of it existing).

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.huh), September 29, 2003.

Frontal lobe thinking is a real problem for some. We constantly have to battle with it to some degree. That's why we need to keep in God's teachings.We can avoid sinning to some degree.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.lobe), September 29, 2003.

If you say 'so what if my kids want to be homosexuals and get married to another homosexual?' What you are saying is that you don't care if your beloved children sin so grieviously that they would spend the rest of eternity in hell. You say 'so long as they are happy', but a little satifaction of lust in this life will lead to eternal separation from God. Why? Because homosexual behavior is an objective grave evil. As long as they have been told that by the authority of the Church, they have been informed of what is right and wrong. If they still choose to behave in this way and to separate themselves from God's Law, they will go to hell. That is what Christ taught. So what you are saying is: 'So what if my beloved children choose to spend eternity in hell'.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Who in the hell are you all to play the judge to other people without a reason ??

I also notice a strange contradiction:

You say gay people do exist , but they cannot be ??

Actually you're saying , they don't exist , even you do know they exist !!

You show a kind of unnecessary blind hate to them !! __ You say , you must open your heart to the people , but what you do is just close it for them , because "the rules" are telling you to do that ?? __ Who created those rules ?? __ So , tell me , What have they ever done wrong to you ??

-------------------------------------------------------------

A pervert is for example: a pedophile , a raper , that are perverts , also sadistic inhumans , like dictators !!

-------------------------------------------------------------

About getting kids , a person who lives alone / on his own , can this person get kids or adopt kids ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 29, 2003.

Laurent, you are not willing to look at it from a different perspective and, therefore, your are calling us haters and wrong doers. NO one here has said anything about hating anyone, especially gays. You are putting that on us. I'm sure that we socialize and work with all kinds of people, including homosexuals. We interact in positive ways, because whe have compassion for each other. That compassion is what brings us to learning, understanding, and teaching each other in God's will. If God judges a man, it is God's will to judge and not man's. It is our responsibility to bring the Gospel. You have interpreted our beliefs as being "hate", this cannot be true of what I have observed in this forum/discussion.

If we were talking with a rapists, I do believe that it would be his sin that we detest and not the person: that is if the person truly seeks help and not trying to continually justify their actions. Why? Such a person is habitually hurting others and has lost his compassion for the common man or woman. There is a line to be drawn and when that line is crossed there might not be any truning back. That's the time to let go and have evil doers fend for themselves.

Even nature allows for oddities to either survive or perish. A killer will be destroyed, eventually.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

Are you going to the bedroom of a gay or a not married hetero couple , and tell them they cannot have sex and why ??

Salut & Cheers of a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 29, 2003.

>Are you going to the bedroom of a gay or a not married hetero >couple , and tell them they cannot have sex and why ?? >Salut & Cheers of a NON BELIEVER

Your missing a key point here. Homosexual sexual behavior is an objective grave act. It isn't a personal opinion of anyone. God sees all, and He has told us it is a sin (something that takes us away from Him, forever). It isn't us who is playing with the eternal life of anyone. If you sin, and not repent, you will be separated from God forever: you will end up in Hell.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

What is humanity ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 29, 2003.

Oh forgotten , and what would you do if you see 2 gays tonguelicking eachother ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 29, 2003.

There is a difference between legality and morality (lots of things were legal but still immoral in Nazi Germany). It is illegal to have independent political parties in North Korea... but not immoral.

In the US, while it may be legal for gays to do whatever they wish, it doesn't automatically make it moral.

So where do laws come from? In the USA they come from a vote in Congress. And morality? It either comes from reasoned conclusions about what is good for a person, or it comes from nowhere at all apart from the whim of whomever has power.

Now it may seem safe for short-sighted people to claim there is no ultimate basis for morality apart from the will of those in power. But if so, the instant the ruling party is removed via coup, they also instantly loose all rights and their murder would suddenly be "moral".

For the Atheist it would seem irrational to be angry at any Church that burned people at the stake: after all, if might is what makes right, then it was "moral" for them. Atheists can only express moral outrage if some non-human basis for deciding what is good for men exists...but then, such a "basis" would be non-corporeal, immaterial, and hence, not materialistic!

So with respect to the whole gay-rights issue: if you are going to say that what ever is legal is also morally OK, you haven't proven anything. It'd be a tautology: what is legal is lawful. What is legal is moral what is moral is legal...

Only if you refer the content of law and morality to objective norms (such as human health) could law and morality have real authority and give your moral outrage content rather than reduce it to feelings of taste.

If you say, "it's moral" then you should either prove why it's good for the people involved, or you have to admit "this is my uninformed opinion, based on my feelings and not my thoughts."

Non-Believer, on this issue the flippant "yeah well so-what?" attitude is not a substitute for reason. Asking the rhetorical "so what?" is not an argument but a refusal to argue.

So you still have to show us that you have actually thought it through and have reasons to think (rather than feel) that whatever gays do with each other is moral (healthy for them) and thus should be legal too.

If instead, in the face of overwhelming biological, toxicological, psychological and physiological evidence and studies showing a direct link between certain sexual practices and deadly incurrable disease...you just sniff and change the subject, you're not doing yourself or your cause any favor.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt - provided you show yourself capable of giving reasons for your opinions. If you can't show us reasons (rather than feelings) for your moral opinions then we can only conclude that you don't have any reason for them!

It sounds SO NICE to say "so what if two guys want to do whatever they want in their bedroom?"

But the question doesn't prove your assertion that "they can do whatever they want" and still be morally good!

If you could prove that anal, oral and masturbatory sex is in NO way harmful to anyone involved, then that biological proof would be a slam-dunk basis for claiming moral neutrality of their actions!

It'd be no more immoral than a handshake or hug - which to date haven't been proven to be harmful either.

But the gay-rights people can't argue that their exclusive sex acts (the only way they CAN have sex is anally, orally, and masturbatorily) are harmless biologically...so they avoid the topic and change the subject.

So they change the subject... so what? Well, for one it's intellectually dishonest. So what? well, dishonestly can kill you. It's like taking off in an airplane knowing that you are on empty - and will definiately crash only a couple miles from the runway... so what? If killing yourself or others isn't a problem, then nothing is.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

Hi Joe.

I thought your comment was interesting:

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt - provided you show yourself capable of giving reasons for your opinions. If you can't show us reasons (rather than feelings) for your moral opinions then we can only conclude that you don't have any reason for them!

That's like saying if your horse isn't blue, then you don't have a blue horse, right?

Sometimes people don't have a reason or even a good reason for wanting something. It is ok to just have it without any reason. If enough people get together, they can have whatever they want. It is the consequences of those choices that will begin to provide the reasons for continuing or discontinuing a belief or behavior. Some already may know the consequences. Some are even in the Bible.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.cm), September 29, 2003.

There is a difference between legality and morality

Agree !!

If you could prove that anal, oral and masturbatory sex is in NO way harmful to anyone involved, then that biological proof would be a slam-dunk basis for claiming moral neutrality of their actions!

To be honest , I don't even wanna try to have sex with another guy , I really don't want to experience it , simple , I'm hetero !! __ So , I don't know the answer !! __ But if they wanna have sex , it's not my/our business , as long no crime is involved !!

So for me , sex with a woman , it depends on what we both wanna do , but I won't tell ya what we will do or have done , 'coz it's a private matter , as long no crime is involved !!

But one thing is for sure , to get kids , a woman still needs a man !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), September 29, 2003.

I'm pressed for time, so I'll make some comments on your post above at a later time. In the meantime, I saw this documentary awhile back about the Spartans. Here's my comment:

In ancient history, there is on record the accounts of a military nation known as the Spartans. This society condoned--what we today consider immoral or criminal--particular practices, which they considered needed for their nation to survive. Those practices were infanticide, pediphilia, and homosexuality.

The birth of a baby was not a guarantee of survival or acceptance in this Spartan society. If the infant was determined to be less than idea, the infant would be disposed of throne into a deep ravene and left for dead. Those infants that were accepted were later enrolled into military schools. These young children would be taught the rudiments of war by their older male mentors, but they weren't limited to only combat tactics. The mentors made tremendous influences in the young child's development including sexuality. The only affection through physical experience was through a homosexual act. When society decided that it was time to continue the race, the young soldier of age would then be prepared for copulation with a female. The problem, of course, was that indoctrination into homosexuality made for an undesirable union between the young Spartan and his female match. Sometimes the female would have to dress like a male in order to intize a sexual arousal in the male. I have seen Spartan artwork showing the clumsy union as the male shows interest in the more familiar anatomy.

What I find interesting is how a person can claim that pediphilia is wrong, yet not include homosexuality in the same group. The major problem, among many others, with the ancient Spartan culture was that it did not believe in the one true God. Had they believed in the real God, the society would have had compassion for the weak or misunderstood. They were a war nation. They believed that they had the power to be gods. They believed that they had full control of their fate, because their gods were on their side.

The Spartans were decimated by the Romans (or Turks, not sure of which one). This was also around the time that the old mythological gods and goddess were losing their credibility. Things were not true anymore. The Spartan warriors were losing their honor and strength. It was time for a c

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.cmm), September 29, 2003.

It was time for a change.

My stuff keeps getting chopped!

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.ccm), September 29, 2003.

Sorry!

Make that "pedophilia" instead of "pedi...". Feet have nothing to do with this discussion and let's not bring those behaviors into this discussion either.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.nofeet), September 29, 2003.

It is a misconception that the Spartan society was homosexual or indulged in widespread pederasty. No contemporary source and no archaeological evidence support this assumption. The best ancient source on Sparta, Xenophon, explicitly denies the already common rumors about widespread pederasty. Aristotle noted that the power of women in Sparta was typical of all militaristic and warlike societies without a strong emphasis on male homosexuality. There is no Spartan/Laconian pottery with explicitly homosexual motifs, as there is from Athens and Corinth and other cities. The first recorded heterosexual love-poem was written by a Spartan poet for Spartan maidens. The very fact that Spartan men tended to marry young by ancient Greek standards (in their early to mid-twenties) suggests they had less time for the homosexual love-affairs that characterized early manhood in the rest of Greece. Certainly the state considered bachelorhood a disgrace and a citizen who did not marry and produce future citizens enjoyed less status than a man who had fathered children. In no other ancient Greek city were women so well integrated into society. This speaks against a society in which homosexuality was exceptionally common. In fact, throughout Greece, what we today know as homosexuality was condemned. What was accepted in Athens and other cities was sex with teenage boys until they grew beards. Once they had beards they were to marry and if they continued to act the female sexual part with any man, they were banished.

Sparta was concured by Macedonia.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

addition: It is said that boys did have homosexual experiences when they were in training (until they were 18), not with adults, but with each other.

They were concurred by Macedonia.

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

Well, there you go. Two conflicting historical records, that's what bugs me about historians. They can write what they wish. Are you familiar with the documentary I mentioned. The historian is this really actractive woman from England (somewhere)?

So, who is accurate in the details of the Spartan culture/history?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.ccc), September 29, 2003.

Bettany Hughes is the historian (or would that be "herstorian", kidding).

Here is the link to the Spartan Documentary PBS write-up.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

Bill wrote:

It is a misconception that the Spartan society was homosexual or indulged in widespread pederasty.

Of course. But, I didn't say or imply that the society was homosexual. I said that the Spartan society condoned it. A mother who would throw away an infant, enlist a child, and observe the transformation of the child and consider it part of life is basically either in denial or in submission to those practices. I don't believe that society would be so blind to realize exactly what was going on. Look at our society. We know what is going on; we sometimes become complacent and do nothing, later to become a society that condones it.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.huh), September 29, 2003.

"I think I ought to say something also about intimacy with boys, since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other Greek states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together, like married people; elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example, consent is won by means of favours. Some, on the other hand, entirely forbid suitors to talk with boys. The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other. I am not surprised, however, that people refuse to believe this. For in many states the laws are not opposed to the indulgence of these appetites." - Xenophon, Minor Works, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg% 2C0032%2C010&query=2%3A13

On Spartan homosexuality. The whole of Const.Sparta 2 is about the education of Spartan youths is of interest. I am afraid people imagine too much when it comes to Sparta.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

My previous post should have had "...so blind not to realize exactly what was going on." One of these days I'm gonna compose something with perfect everything, in the meantime we are gonna have to suffer with my lousy writings. That's if anyone is reading them at all.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.mmm), September 29, 2003.

Rod said: "Look at our society. We know what is going on; we sometimes become complacent and do nothing, later to become a society that condones it."

We need to remember, our society knows about the Good News of Jesus Christ and a lot of people reject it and embrace sin. That is not the same as what was going on in Sparta.

take care, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.