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.
...it would just not be acceptable to kiss and grope each other in public, which is a fair law in my opinion
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...
Originally Posted by Time Violation
Gays = pedophiles is not controversial as you claim it, it's discriminatory and for that he was banned (one month). There's no big mystery or conspiracy.
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.
they evict christian god from their lands, they'll get a muslim one.
'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.
Wasn't there an attack on a youth gay club a couple of years back? Several dead, I think. Without police on the streets, the religious would tear them apart.
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!
The fact that Echoes was banned clearly demonstrates that there are double standards here, several threads exist which sanction attacking the very identity of a group of individuals (ie the catholic church). From what I gather, his words were not any more hateful than the comments found in those threads. Spiritual or religious identity is not any less real, or less valuable, than sexual identity.
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.
I must repeat, as controversial as that comment is for some, it's actually an unapologetically natural belief for billions of people around the world.
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.
...but tend to view human sexuality in a kind of utilitarian fashion (while it's fun, the main goal is reproduction).
Some think in practical terms.
There are billions of people who feel that it "just doesn't work," because it deviates from what they feel is the natural order.
I sure as heck wouldn't be horrified every time someone said something about my lifestyle.
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.