Some thread. Long winded, humour me I've not posted since RG.
The longer leaders are in office the worse they get, it should be the other way round. Calls for Britain to boycott seems strange to me, all four UK nations competed at the 1998 commonwealth games in Malaysia. That beacon of hope for the lgbt posse whose censorship board in 2010 announced it would only allow depiction of gay characters as long as they repent or die. <'Progress?' made in twelve years.
I would agree with this if all people were included, few things are worse than seeing two teenagers necking when 'you've' just had a blazing row with 'your loved one.' Sorry for the incorrect English, I refuse to refer to myself as 'on*.'
Propaganda? Two men/women kissing will not encourage homosexuality within any population. <I hope people aren't that easily led. I've long thought Christy Turlington was the most beautiful woman; since the TMNT figures were released originally. She will have to cope living her remaining years without me as I'd be no use to her whatsoever. And if Christy can't 'turn' me...
It's both. What's your definition of controversial? My opinion is the polar opposite of Echoes' (& not for the fifteen time) - via Punky's #80 post. G = P - It defines controversial, it's also inaccurate. Educated to degree level too, sad.
'It's' the same god, as both religions are monotheistic, the new Euro God would be missing a third though. 'Good luck' to the religious attempting to bring Britain back to the fold.
They'd be ignoring God's commandment in doing so. Now I'm no expert but surely tearing fellow human-beings apart is a big no no!
I've only seen two threads - what religion are you? & what is your opinion of the catholic church?
i)Many in those two threads seem to be catholics, lapsed catholics or have catholic family members. Echoes isn't gay. How would he know what gay equates to?
ii)The catholic church rarely holds back it's opinions on humanity, however hurtful they may be. Surely they can be treated as they treat others?
iii)Too easy a target. Just a couple of many available -
Phil 4:13 - There is nothing I cannot master with the help of the one who gives me strength.
'The bishop of Christ on earth Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI, former prefect/head of the renamed inquistion - retires due to lack of strength. This is light years past a face palm! What hope for the working class catholics who hand over their hard earned money to a church who's assets are in the billions, if the pope can't find the strength?
Homosexualitatis problema -
'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...'
Same document - '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.'
If he refers to a homosexual behaviour as 'intrinsic moral EVIL', he shouldn't cry crocodile tears when catholic adherents beat up a gayer. They should start taking responsibility for the bile spewed. Celibate men preaching about what's natural? Whose beliefs come ready made in a book which contains a talking snake. <Authority on what's natural? I know my nature, no-one else is attached to m......
Yeah I agree in terms of fundamental human needs, though religious identity is a choice. The (hopefully) only choice regarding sexual identity is whether or not to be active. Poor knowledge regarding asexuality. Frankly it's my worst nightmare.
If so many people actually hold that belief - then not for the first time I have vastly overestimated people's intelligence.
Homosexual - person sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
Paedophile - person who is sexually attracted to children.
There is a distinction between the two. Homosexuality's definition could include an age range (I'd highly doubt an accurate one), but then so could heterosexuality's!
I would think it much more likely millions, doubt billions would have the opinion homosexuals chose their sexuality. Which if the case has long confused me. Straight people commenting on homosexuality being a choice, always struck me as ludicrous; it's as absurd as me stating my opinion on abortion. I'm not female, I've never impregnated a woman, no experience in 'this area' and so keep it firmly shut as my opinion is void. Also manage to not set fire to buildings or kill doctors - how novel of me.
Reproduction is just a (possible) product of sex, it's only the main goal for women/couples wanting children.
If a world population of 7 billion & counting is the result of some thinking practically then my biggest hope has changed from Rafa winning USO'13 to everybody starting/continuing to think impractically.
People can 'feel' what they like. It works for plenty.
I was waiting for this nugget. Healthy or extravagant are two types of lifestyle. Unsurprisingly both are based on choices, a gay lifestyle - seems like an 1980s moral majority coined phrase. Why do gays have lifestyles & straight people live lives? The lives of Star & MariaV for example are I would imagine varied and quite different in how each lives from day to day. I would never comment on either's 'straight lifestyle.' The media attempts to sell lifestyles, a gay one being - an abundance of sex, divas, fashion, musicals... A house in wretched suburbia with kids & a pet in tow is the media's straight equivalent I'd guess. It obviously doesn't mean all straight people aspire to this 'ideal' of how to live their lives as everyone wants/needs different things, regardless of sexuality. Live lives >>>>>>(x infinity) > the other one.
I should go to sleep, and I think I should have posted this somewhere else
Make no mistake, I'm no fan of the RCC but I recognize that if it makes compromises in order to appease secularists without, and liberals within, then a Pandora's box may be opened with a redefinition of what "discrimination," or "hate speech" is.
I was reading about biology and choice recently where investigators have apparently identified a gene that increases the risk of alcoholism (or the desire for alcohol). The non-abuse of alcohol is a universal moral absolute (perhaps not in Russia
). We recognize that it's best for the alcoholic to refrain from his impulse to drink. He will get no sympathy at AA, from his family, or society when he indulges. Being true to his biological impulses in this instance, is an affront to the person he should be. We see that biology does not automatically equal truth. In fact, in this case it is a lie. My 2 cents.