Gay Priests

MrSinn

The Vatican has published long-awaited guidelines which reaffirm that active homosexuals may not become priests, but why not ?,does it matter if they are hetrosexual or homosexual ? they still cant have sex anyway so what difference does it make.

Excelsior

Broadly speaking, you are totally right. There is a proud history of great Roman Catholic priests who are homosexuals contributing massively to that church and to Christianity in general. Cardinal John Henry Newman, it seems, was gay. He was one of the most influential Catholics of the 1800s and the prime mover behind the founding of UCD.

Henri Nouwen is the most recent example of a gay priest who saw God as more important than his sex life and although it was a hard struggle, lived as a beacon to many on the Christian walk.

It is a very regrettable position taken by the Vatican that will be viewed very darkly through the lens of history. It is, I fear, utterly unChristian.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Excelsior wrote:

Broadly speaking, you are totally right. There is a proud history of great Roman Catholic priests who are homosexuals contributing massively to that church and to Christianity in general. Cardinal John Henry Newman, it seems, was gay. He was one of the most influential Catholics of the 1800s and the prime mover behind the founding of UCD.

Henri Nouwen is the most recent example of a gay priest who saw God as more important than his sex life and although it was a hard struggle, lived as a beacon to many on the Christian walk.

It is a very regrettable position taken by the Vatican that will be viewed very darkly through the lens of history. It is, I fear, utterly unChristian.

I don't understand, if they believe in the christian God, or if they are roman catholic, then wouldn't they also by definition believe that homosexuality is a sin? Or is it just a case of them having only to abstain from actual acts of homosexuality?

Asiaprod

scouser.tommy wrote:

then wouldn't they also by definition believe that homosexuality is a sin? Or is it just a case of them having only to abstain from actual acts of homosexuality?

You are back to the same old question, who decided that it is a sin, God or the Church?

Excelsior

Well God decided it was a sin. It certainly isn't a Catholic doctrine like Mariology, invented by the human institution without reference to the Bible.

The problem is not that one is gay or straight but how one expresses that sexual inclination. A celibate homosexual man is just as qualified to lead a church as an celibate heterosexual man. Interestingly, the New Testament teaches that to be a leader in the wide church, it is a good idea to pick people who have kids- since their faith and character has really been tested.

pbsuxok1znja4r

So are we basing this on the belief that the priests have no choice as to whether they are homosexual? I mean, if they could choose, they (the priests) would, presumably, choose to be heterosexual? I know the whole question becomes a bit rendundant once you are celibate anyway...

Excelsior

Exactly. If they are all celibate, what difference does it make?

Very few of my gay friends think that their sexuality is fluid enough to "turn straight". I think that homosexuality is no fatal challenge to the full Christian life and to the leadership of churches. It is harder, but often that gives birth to even richer leadership.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Well God decided it was a sin. It certainly isn't a Catholic doctrine like Mariology, invented by the human institution without reference to the Bible.

And according to other passages in the bible, eating shellfish and getting a haircut are also abominations. I rarely see those comdemned as wholeheartedly as homosexuality though .. wonder why that might be?

Excelsior

Because they are part of the Levitical Law that is explicitly anulled in the Acts of Jesus Christ. The Law was not designed to lead people to righteousness but to show up how they can't attain righteousness and so send them to Christ. Christ fulfills the Law and so many of the requirements are no longer binding at all and none of the requirements are binding in the same way.

Homosexual behaviour however, is listed repeatedly in the New Testament as something that is still a mistake and Jesus' teaching on sexual ethics also implicitly warn against it.

robindch

> Because they are part of the Levitical Law that is explicitly
> anulled in the Acts of Jesus Christ.

I haven't seen this explanation before -- can you show the relevant quote?

> Homosexual behaviour however, is listed repeatedly in the New
> Testament as something that is still a mistake

And unpleasantly mysogenistic behaviour is exhorted, time after time after time:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2tim/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/tit/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2pet/wom_list.html
(etc...)

So, why is it ok to condemn homosexuality, as required by the bible, while it's not ok any longer (in most civilized circles) to treat women as the bible commands?

Excelsior

Acts 10, specifically verses 9-23.

I will deal with the rest of your post after dinner Robin.

Vangelis

Excelsior wrote:

Interestingly, the New Testament teaches that to be a leader in the wide church, it is a good idea to pick people who have kids- since their faith and character has really been tested.

Who said this?
Did the person who said this state that it was an advise from God or his own opinion? The New Testament can be a bit tricky that way. Paul is a good example of that. He keeps mixing his own opinions in his letters(nothing negative about that, just be watchful!).

Vangelis

hairyheretic wrote:

And according to other passages in the bible, eating shellfish and getting a haircut are also abominations. I rarely see those comdemned as wholeheartedly as homosexuality though .. wonder why that might be?

Perfect examples of personal opinions written in Biblical texts. It's kind of annoying. But where does it say that eating shellfish is abominable? Never heard o' that.

Excelsior

Vangelis wrote:

Perfect examples of personal opinions written in Biblical texts. It's kind of annoying. But where does it say that eating shellfish is abominable? Never heard o' that.

It is part of the Levitical Law which is about as far from "personal opinion" as you can go.

The 1st Letter to Timothy advises about "overseers" (the term that leads to our modern word "bishop") in these terms: (3:2-7)

2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

So verse 5 is the key to support my argument about the New Testament advising Bishops to be married fathers:

If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?

This is not Paul's opinion. He is speaking here as an apostle of Christ Jesus.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?
.

I have always believed that if the Catholic Church had followed this advise it would not be in the mess it is in now. So if this is written so, how come the Church ignored it. Who decided to change the rules?

hairyheretic

If you mean priests having families, I think it was during the middle ages (or maybe a bit after). The sheer ammount of nepotism going on meant that the church had to do something, so they stopped the priests having families.

I believe originally they were only supposed to abstain from sex the day/night before saying mass. Maybe if that had been left alone it might have helped out the current clergy as well.

Excelsior

I don't know the ins and outs of the Catholic teaching on enforced celibacy but the 1300s stick in my mind for some reason. If Manach or any other user knew the full story, that would be great.

I think that verse 7 applies equally well as an explanation to many of the problems in the Western Christian church, including Roman Catholicism. It is rare that you would hear a church leader state that while they are hungrily searching for new leadership to rise up, it must consist of men (and women) who relate to the world at large well without losing what it means to be Christian, either by watering it down (what many Catholic priests do in my experience) or stiffening it up (what many Northern evangelical leaders do in my experience).

Excelsior

Robindch wrote:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2tim/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/tit/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/wom_list.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2pet/wom_list.html
(etc...)

So, why is it ok to condemn homosexuality, as required by the bible, while it's not ok any longer (in most civilized circles) to treat women as the bible commands?

The first page of the New Testament is Matthew 1. It consists of a genealogy of Jesus. Look at who is included. Women! Even though they had no status in society and the Jewish genealogy was meant to include the highlights of lineage to state your authority. Even though Matthew was writing to convince Jews. So the context of the New Testament, contrary to what Robin proposes, is of a quite radical approach to gender- which is that they are equal. Prostitutes and traitors and incestuous lovers are the women Matthew cites with pride as Jesus' ancestors. He is declaring that in this new Kingdom, women and men are equal and our mistakes are not to keep us from God.

I could ramble on for hours but I don't think any of you are interested in a run-down of Jesus' deeply subversive and revolutionary feminism so instead I'll try and deal with Robin's suggestion that the New Testament outside of Jesus perpetuates the Jewish and Roman values of the day with regards women.

The first list of complaints raised are out of context references to passages in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 2. Timmy is in Ephesus where many of the Christians would once have worshipped in the pagan temple and participated in the sex religion practices there. Paul is guiding him on how to deal with invasion into the church from Gnostic false-teachers.

It is important to point out that taking a passage in its context is the first step to any authentic Biblical interpretation. Quoting verses without reference to their setting is the act of the fundamentalist- whether theistic or atheistic.

1 Timothy
By referencing out of context, the producers of the website that Robin linked to are able to disregard one vital point that puts the whole thing into a lot more focus. When advice is given to women in the New Testament, it is more often than not given in conjunction with advice to men and so it is here. Women aren't being picked on. Men and women make up the church and men and women are being advised on issues relevant to them because of gender. So men are advised about purity of heart in prayer in the early part of the chapter. They are not to bring their aggressive prejudices with them into worship. Prayer is not a political weapon but is sincere communication with the One God.

Then women are advised in a culturally relevant way to dress appropriately in church. They are to distinguish themselves from the ladies they once were and who still surround them who serve as temple prostitutes at the Pagan orgies.

Now from verse 11 on Paul is dealing with an issue that arises from the equality found in uniquely in the Christian church. Nowhere else in their culture were women listened to and respected. The false teaching that was disrupting the Ephesian church is being perpetrated by women who have gone astray from Jesus' teachings. They are not astray because they are women. They just happen to be women who have gone astray. And so Paul advises them to step down, be quiet and leave it to the other teachers. Verse 12 can be legitimately translated from the Greek as "teach a man in a domineering way".

So as we move from local advice about clothing to local advice about dealing with false teaching and disunity in the church worship. Paul ends with a reference that doesn't mean much to us now today because we never read the Bible and if we do, we just trawl it for proof texts for our assumptions (not look at you JC ) but would of had them stroking their chins appreciately at Ephesus. Eve (metaphorically, literally, please Lord protect this post from Creation Science) went astray and because of the stupidity of man, took Adam with her. In Ephesus, women were going astray and they were taking everyone else with them. Verse 15 is a wicked smart reference back to Gen 3:15 where Eve's son is prophesied to be the one who kills Satan- ie Paul is saying that as these women have gone astray, they still are saved by Christ Jesus.

If it says a Bishop must have one wife, that in no way suggests that others can have more. It is a reference to the culture outside the church that was at time polygamous.

The passages cited later on about widows in Chapter 5 all need contextualisation too. Widows had no standing in society so the Christian church would take financial and social responsibility for the widow. Paul is just advising them to live in gratitude for this. They should put their backs into making a contribution to the community life in appreciation of the community providing for them. Again, it is not a case of disgusting sexism so much as counter-cultural care for people society felt were worthless. In that sense, Robin's criticism is kind of right- it is no longer appropriate within our society to treat widows as untouchables. Therefore, churches don't need to provide financially for them anymore.

Excelsior

2 Timothy
If you wanted to deal with this charge you would have to look at the passage from 2 Timothy 2:14-3:17. It is not suggesting that women are weak minded and stupid but that false teachers (the history of the early Christian church (and all time since then now that I think of it) is rife with people who reinterpret Jesus to teach karma instead of Grace) will actively manipulate people to gain power. He doesn't say that women are weak minded. It is to warp the text to claim that. It says that some women are gullible. It says that there are some gullible women who are constantly circling truth without ever landing and through them, the false teaching can get a foothold.

There is nothing at odds with modern society in this teaching. Christianity, whether you are an adherent or not, stands for somethings and is against others. If someone comes to alter the content of Christianity, they are teaching falsely what Christianity is and has been. They will target the gullible and Paul is particulalry suggesting that gullible women will be targeted. That means that the woman will be the victim of fraudsters. If I say that some farmers were the victim of a REPS fraud, do you take me to mean that all farmers are stupid and weaker minded than us robust computer programmers? Hell no! This is foolish, fundamentalist interpretation.

Titus

The same old empty argument is trotted out about Bishops "only marrying once". I have dealt with that point above.

Then it picks on Titus 2:4-5. Set within a passage about how to live the Christian life well, Paul advises the leaders to teach young brides to take care of their families, to be disciplined and industious, to be kind and so that no one in the society can malign the Gospel, be (within the terms of the culture) loyal and yielding to your husband.

While initially it seems like "being subject to your husband" is a sexist comment, it actually all reaches back to Ephesians 5 where women are told to submit to their husbands and then the teaching appropriate for the men comes along (as they are often paired together) and they are told to submit to their wives as Christ submitted for the church. Within New Testament teaching, the submission between spouses is heavily biased against the husband. He is to submit to a greater degree than she. Once again, it is not through strength of argument but method of argument that the Skeptics Annotated Bible makes its point- its point only exists if you read Scripture verse by verse like a fundamentalist.

1 Peter

All these points raised in chapter 3 of the 1st Letter by Peter are touched on elsewhere. The wives are subject to husbands who don't believe so that they will come to believe through your good example. Most pressingly and most concealed on the website Robin linked to, wives are to submit "in the same way" as Christ did for the church.

It does not teach that women shouldn't wear jewellery or get nice haircuts. Instead it teaches that true beauty rises up from the inside. That time is wasted on outward adornment if you are a horrible person. Surely you can't object to this? Peter speaks of the "unfading beauty" of the inner self being developed such that you will guide and inspire others into the light.

The 2nd objection on the website Robin linked to references 1 Peter 3:2-6 but chooses to disregard the following paragraph, verse 7, which begins, "husbands, in the same way be considerate..." This is not sexist teaching at all. It is a badly needed voice feminist voice that says the objectification of women within relationships or outside is wrong. That women are valuable not because of how they look but who they are and it is all predicated on their equality with men.

The contextualisation issue again rears its head when instead of publicising the meaning of verse 7 they warp it to represent women as "the weaker partner". What Peter is referring to here is that socially and politically and economically, the man has position but the woman has none. The phrase "weaker vessel" means not that in Christian marriage one is strong and the other weak but that in Roman society (Peter is writing to a major city churches across Rome) there is one strong and one weak. Women are forbidden from inheriting anything in this society but they are co-heirs with their husbands of Christ's promises. Husbands are to treat them with respect as weaker partners, meaning that they are to perpetuate the subversive, upside down values of the church by respecting their wives when they wives are objectively within the eyes of the Land, weaker.

2 Peter

I am not entirely sure what Lot has to do with the alleged sexism of the Bible. The fact that Lot didn't respect women doesn't say a whole lot about Christianity respecting women. To deal with the objection lodged, righteousness is not something earned by a Christian but a free gift potentially given to all humans and made active by faith. Righteousness is not about what we do but about how God views us. What Peter is saying here is that Lot is counted righteous even though he did deplorable things. That makes Lot the same as every Christian in history, including me. We all do deplorable things but we "can be made righteous through Christ."

All of the passages quoted are taken out of context. They pose a paper thin argument for anyone approaching the subject with their mind open. The God who reveals his divinity first to a woman of the enemy race (John 4) is not a God of misogyny.

wiseones2cents

It is unfortunate that I could not start this thread from the beginning. There are many things I would like to respond to.

First if a priest is gay he should not be a priest. You are trusting this man with kids? Look at all the Abuse going on?

Its like if you know a man is a murder(and still thinks about Murdering) Or a thief(that still thinks about thievery). Would you want him to lead your congregation? Of coarse not.

As far as not cutting your hair. You should read Judges.
In 1Corinthians 11:14 Paul states that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair.

Eating shellfish was against the law in the OT. I'm not sure if it was for health reasons or to maintain healthy Oceanic forage(food base for the fish) or both.

Although Jesus made all food pure.(ask for Verse and I will supply it.)

Matthew 1 has women included in Lineage?Can you point out these women? I find that highly unlikely.

Conclusion?A priest should NOT be gay. As far as abstenence? It should not be mandatory for priests. Although the Bible does claim their abstinence/celibacy is beneficial but if you cannot handle it, you should be allowed to marry.

Hagar

MrSinn wrote:

The Vatican has published long-awaited guidelines which reaffirm that active homosexuals may not become priests

I think everyone has missed the word "active" here.
If you are not active then you are celibate, just like a celibate heterosexual. So there is no difference is there?
It doesn't look like a ban on homsexuality to me, just a ban on sexual activity.

wiseones2cents

Hagar wrote:

I think everyone has missed the word "active" here.
If you are not active then you are celibate, just like a celibate heterosexual. So there is no difference is there?
It doesn't look like a ban on homsexuality to me, just a ban on sexual activity.

I think you missed the meaning of my post also. If a man was a murderer and still has thoughts to murder(sin). Does his inactivity make him eligable to become a priest, he may act upon those impulses, simply because they are there.

If a man was a thief and still has thoughts of stealing(sinning). Does that make him eligable?

How do we know that a gay man still has thoughts of sinning? He is gay. What else is he thinking. He's not thinking of procreating. Thats for sure.

We have already seen the disastrous results of gays in religion. I would say pedophiles but notice most are little boys.

Homosexuality is not something natural but is a sickness of mind. These people are confused and manipulated by other pedophiles and gays. Do you want them teaching you religion?

Most homosexuals and pedophiles were victims of or manipulated by pedophiles and gays.

Hagar

It's not fair to question the thoughts of a gay person without putting them in the perspective a heterosexual person. How many people have looked at someone and thought "mmm nice I wouldn't mind slipping one in there"? Nobody can help those thoughts popping into their heads from time to time. It's what we do not what we think that defines us.

I think it would be rash to assume that all the sexual assaults carried out by priests were all carried out by gays.
I think that celibacy is a totally unnatural state and the suppression of man's most basic urge to procreate will cause priests to find some outlet. I would say a lot of the assaults were carried out by totally frustrated heterosexuals. The sense of frustration must be overpowering. It's not just a case of not getting laid today, it's the prospect of never ever getting laid. They aren't even allowed the release of masturbation. Never being able to pass on their genes to another generation. This is totally unnatural and has to blow up somewhere sometime.

Celibacy is the cause. How many of the original apostles were celibate? Why was the rule ever brought in?

If there is a God someone is going to have to answer for that one.

wiseones2cents

Hagar wrote:

It's not fair to question the thoughts of a gay person without putting them in the perspective a heterosexual person. How many people have looked at some and thought "mmm nice I wouldn't mind slipping one in there"? Nobody can help those thoughts popping into their heads from time to time. It's what we do not what we think that defines us.

I think it would be rash to assume that all the sexual assaults carried out by priests were all carried out by gays.
I think that celibacy is a totally unnatural state and the suppression of man's most basic urge to procreate will cause priests to find some outlet. I would say a lot of the assaults were carried out by totally frustrated heterosexuals. The sense of frustration must be overpowering. It's not just a case of not getting laid today, it's the prospect of never ever getting laid. They aren't even allowed the release of mastubation. Never being able to pass on their genes to another generation. This is totally unnatural and has to blow up somewhere sometime.

Celibacy is the cause. How many of the original apostles were celibate? Why was the rule ever brought in?

If there is a God someone is going to have to answer for that one.

I dont think most priests think of slipping it anywhere. They should be disciplined. Being attracted to an attractive women on the other hand is not a sin. Being attracted to a man or lusting for a woman is.

Rational or not priests only molest little boys and not girls. Is it a question of access?Do priests have access to little girls? That I dont know. If so then they are clearly gay.

Celibacy means 2 things 1)to remain unmarried or 2) to absain from sex.

Celibacy(to be unmarried) is natural. To supress celibacy(your desire to procreate) is unnatural.Although unnatural,it is possible(especially once you are a little older). After a few years your Libido becomes dormant.

Now I dont know about refraining from masterbation, but the Bible on Celibacy is clear.

Jesus on marriage.Matthew 19:8-12 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have made themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."(used another Bible interpritation for verse 12)

He is clearly stating that it is better not to marry. But to devote yourself to GOD.

her's another one supporting the Unmarried. 1Corinthians 7:25-29. Verse 28 Clearly states marriage will bring you problems. In verse 29 is Jesus saying that soon Immorality and Infidelity will spread like wildfire.

Here is More supporting the benefit of being Unmarried.
1Corinthians 7:32-34 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.

Verse 35 confirms my claim that although it is better to stay unmarried.There should not be any restraints to deny priests or anyone for that matter to marry. Marriage is not a sin.

Jesus says after the reserection, people would not marry anylonger.
Mat 22: 24-30

There is a reason for this which I cannot say without stirring the pot.

I do not know about sustaining from sex completely for the most part. Since disciplined sexual activity is fine in my opinion. But once you are married you must be faithful to your mate. It also says to marry people that observe your religious faith.And of coarse refraining from having sex with close relatives is forbiden in the Bible. Leviticus 18:1-18

Homosexuality and beastiality are clearly forbidden Leviticus 18:22-23

How many of the Aposteles were Celibate? We dont know the answer to that. Do we? We know some had children though.

There is no rule in the Bible that says you must be celebate. The Bible says you have a right to the choice. Its all about Discipline.

Stark

wiseones2cents wrote:

Being attracted to an attractive women on the other hand is not a sin. Being attracted to a man or lusting for a woman is.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church has said for some time that homosexuality itself is not a sin, rather homosexual acts are a sin. Therefore simply being attracted to a man is not a sin in the eyes of the Church.

wiseones2cents wrote:

Rational or not priests only molest little boys and not girls. Is it a question of access?Do priests have access to little girls? That I dont know. If so then they are clearly gay.

This is a complete fallacy. A paedophile's gender preference when it comes to children is a total different matter to their gender preference when it comes to adults. A "gay paedophile" may molest young girls and a "straight paedophile" may molest young boys and vica versa. You can't infer anything from reports that most children abused by the Church were male.

wiseones2cents

Stark wrote:

The doctrine of the Catholic Church has said for some time that homosexuality itself is not a sin, rather homosexual acts are a sin. Therefore simply being attracted to a man is not a sin in the eyes of the Church.

They may have mis-interprited the Bible. The Bible says that even though someone only thinks of sinning. It is already sinning.
Matthew 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Therefore if he has homosexual thoughts. He is already sinning.

And as I stated before, if he does have homosexual thoughts, his mind is coruptted and therefore unfit to be a priest.

This is a complete fallacy. A paedophile's gender preference when it comes to children is a total different matter to their gender preference when it comes to adults. A "gay paedophile" may molest young girls and a "straight paedophile" may molest young boys and vica versa. You can't infer anything from reports that most children abused by the Church were male.

Fallacy? Gay pedophiles do not molest little girls. If they did they would just be considered pedophiles. Not gay pedophiles. There are pedophiles that molest little girls only. There are pedophiles that molest little boys only(gay pedophiles) and their are pedophiles that molest both.

Most kids I have heard of molested by preists were boys. Now if this is due to the fact that the priest had more access to boys is one thing. If they have also access to girls and choose boys? That would make them gay. The only reason they are targetting children is they are too insecure to target adult gays.

wiseones2cents

Let me ask you a question mod of the gay. And be honest.
We will see if homosexuality is natural.

When did you first discover you were gay? Did another gay person make you aware?Was it triggered by name calling? People accusing you of being gay so much that you actually started believing it.

We know that many pedophiles today are that way because they were molested when they were younger by other pedophiles.We know that many gays became gay by being manipulated by other gay people into believeing they were gay. They prey on confused children. Then there is the straight male that is riddiculed and called gay until he actually starts to believe it.

Which case are you? I'm sure you will tell me you were born gay, but I highly doubt it, unless you confused admiration for your fellow man for sexual attraction.

Biologically you were born a man, which means your hormones are geared to be attracted to females. An unhealthy thought process can later change this, but you are NOT born gay.

Stark

This is totally off-topic and a question for another thread entirely, but fair enough.

I realised I was gay when I hit puberty. I grew up with other straight people but didn't actually meet a openly gay person for years. Noone ever knew I was gay until my late teens so there was no name calling.

That's as much as you get, anything further is for another thread.

wiseones2cents

Stark wrote:

This is totally off-topic and a question for another thread entirely, but fair enough.

I realised I was gay when I hit puberty. I grew up with other straight people but didn't actually meet a openly gay person for years. Noone ever knew I was gay until my late teens so there was no name calling.

That's as much as you get, anything further is for another thread.

Yes we'll leave it at that. I'm still not convinced you were born gay but certain experiences may have led you to believe you were gay. But your right,we are getting off topic.

Sapien

wiseones2cents wrote:

Yes we'll leave it at that. I'm still not convinced you were born gay but certain experiences may have led you to believe you were gay. But your right,we are getting off topic.

What would convince you that a person was born gay?

wiseones2cents

Sapien wrote:

What would convince you that a person was born gay?

It would probably be close to impossible. I cant see a guy naturally seeing another man and getting an erection. Unless he somehow convinces himself that he is gay. Ex: Confuses admiration for males with homosexuality. And later that admiration develops into a sexual attraction. Through either sexual male contact or masterbating while thinking of males. Thus reprogramming his hormones. But Naturally? There is a reason you are born with a penis. Its due to your hormones. Therefore naturally, you should be attracted to females.

UU

wiseones2cents wrote:

Let me ask you a question mod of the gay. And be honest.
We will see if homosexuality is natural.

When did you first discover you were gay? Did another gay person make you aware?Was it triggered by name calling? People accusing you of being gay so much that you actually started believing it.

We know that many pedophiles today are that way because they were molested when they were younger by other pedophiles.We know that many gays became gay by being manipulated by other gay people into believing they were gay. They prey on confused children. Then there is the straight male that is ridiculed and called gay until he actually starts to believe it.

Which case are you? I'm sure you will tell me you were born gay, but I highly doubt it, unless you confused admiration for your fellow man for sexual attraction.

Biologically you were born a man, which means your hormones are geared to be attracted to females. An unhealthy thought process can later change this, but you are NOT born gay.

wiseones2cents, you obviously don't know enough about homosexuality. I discovered I was gay last year and I'm 18 now but always sort of knew I was gay as I never had sexual feelings for females but totally for males. You CAN be born gay which is got to do with genetics and hormones. For example, my uncle is gay and I am too. A family I know, 2/4 female offspring were lesbian.

Although, some people are not born gay but can become gay but not by choice. That is got to do with hormone change particularly during puberty. They can find they used to like the opposite sex in the past but now like the same sex. Homosexuality is a genetic fault where a male may be born with certain female sexual desires(for men) or visa versa. Those who pretend that they're gay are fooling themselves.

Although, during adolescence, some teens are confused about their sexuality which is got to do with hormones. Some people can be bisexual though.

As for priests, the RC Church should just allow them to be uncelibate but they are too conservative to allow that. I wouldn't mind but it is causing them more problems - money and reputation, than it is worth.

Sapien

wiseones2cents wrote:

It would probably be close to impossible.

As I suspected. Then there really is no point in people entering into a discussion with you, is there?

wiseones2cents

UU wrote:

wiseones2cents, you obviously don't know enough about homosexuality. I discovered I was gay last year and I'm 18 now but always sort of knew I was gay as I never had sexual feelings for females but totally for males. You CAN be born gay which is got to do with genetics and hormones. For example, my uncle is gay and I am too. A family I know, 2/4 female offspring were lesbian.

Really? Did you get an erection when you looked at males(This is before sexual contact or masterbation using male images). I've heard of males that were so shy they could not get aroused at first around females but that does not make them gay.It has to do with thier experiences and upbringing.

As far as lesbians? I believe woman are lesbians for different reasons than males are gay. Its because they have been hurt one too many times by men.
They begin to loathe men. Also because they aren't satisfied by their male partners.

Most bisexual females I know, do it to attract men. Most men want threesomes with 2 females around here.

Although, some people are not born gay but can become gay but not by choice. That is got to do with hormone change particularly during puberty. They can find they used to like the opposite sex in the past but now like the same sex. Homosexuality is a genetic fault where a male may be born with certain female sexual desires(for men) or visa versa. Those who pretend that they're gay are fooling themselves.

Since I believe a man cannot be born gay? It throws your whole concept out the window. If a male was rigged with female hormones. It would have a vagina.

Although, during adolescence, some teens are confused about their sexuality which is got to do with hormones. Some people can be bisexual though.

Confusion has nothing to do with hormones. Hormones are not confused.lol Its the mind due to traumatic experiences that confuses the brain. Example: name calling, molestation, erection problems with females due to nervousness, homosexual influences, ect... This is not the first time I have had this conversation and have researched it pretty thoroughly.

As for priests, the RC Church should just allow them to be uncelibate but they are too conservative to allow that. I wouldn't mind but it is causing them more problems - money and reputation, than it is worth.

As far as priests? Yes they should be allowed to marry. The Bible also says this. It speaks of benefits of being unmarried but if you cant handle it? It clearly gives you permission to marry. Though even unmarried a priest should have a female companion. If you know what I mean.;)

They are also experiencing a Priest shortage. Not too many Christian ministers want to sacrifice sex these days. Sooner or later they are going to have to change.

MrJoeSoap

I have read the whole thread now and the first question that comes to my mind is...

Why would a gay person want to become a priest in the first place?

In a religion that is quite clearly hostile towards homosexuality, both in its hierarchy and in many of its followers, it still baffles me that many gay people declare themselves as Catholics and indeed Christians.

The other thing that stuck out to me was this utterly ridiculous line that I am amazed has not been picked up on yet:

wiseones2cents wrote:

First if a priest is gay he should not be a priest. You are trusting this man with kids? Look at all the Abuse going on?

I really had to read it three or four times to make sure I was seeing it correctly. You are saying gay men (as a whole) should not be allowed into the priesthood because "this man", as you say, has questionable intentions towards children. How completely and utterly nonsensical. Thats like saying we should bomb a whole country so we catch the criminals. Please elaborate on this if you get a chance.

I'm going to look into my crystal ball and predict that your response has something to do with the fact that the majority of abuse cases were against young boys. Although true, it proves nothing. If, however, you can provide me with information proving that a larger percentage of gay men than straight men abuse children, I will entertain your argument.

Dades

wiseones2cents wrote:

Confusion has nothing to do with hormones. Hormones are not confused.lol Its the mind due to traumatic experiences that confuses the brain. Example: name calling, molestation, erection problems with females due to nervousness, homosexual influences, ect... This is not the first time I have had this conversation and have researched it pretty thoroughly.

So your research now allows you to tell gay people why they are in fact gay. Marvelous. I suppose you'll be insisting now they undergo hypnosis to uncover forgotton childhood traumas.

You've really set your stall out on this issue - and nobody's buying.

wiseones2cents

MrJoeSoap wrote:

The other thing that stuck out to me was this utterly ridiculous line that I am amazed has not been picked up on yet:

Originally Posted by wiseones2cents
First if a priest is gay he should not be a priest. You are trusting this man with kids? Look at all the Abuse going on?


I really had to read it three or four times to make sure I was seeing it correctly. You are saying gay men (as a whole) should not be allowed into the priesthood because "this man", as you say, has questionable intentions towards children. How completely and utterly nonsensical. Thats like saying we should bomb a whole country so we catch the criminals. Please elaborate on this if you get a chance.

Of coarse I'll elaborate and make it simple. If you knew a man was gay, would you trust him or her to baby sit your children? I'm sure you would say yes, but I guarantee you the majority of Christians would say ABSOLUTELY NOT!
They are gay because their minds are confused.

I'm going to look into my crystal ball and predict that your response has something to do with the fact that the majority of abuse cases were against young boys. Although true, it proves nothing. If, however, you can provide me with information proving that a larger percentage of gay men than straight men abuse children, I will entertain your argument.

No need to look into your crystal ball. I already stated that.

As far as percentages? I am sure many abused, raped children do not report their abuses. Therefore percentages can be misleading.

I believe that a gay man is more likely to molest a child than a straight man.
And I'll also say this. If the majority were Gays and the minorities straight?
Child molestation would be rampant.

Just think of Ancient Greece. How homosexuality ran rampant. Do you think those kids were given a chance to chose their sexual preference? The majority were raised gay(that is to say Bisexual).

wiseones2cents

The Atheist wrote:

So your research now allows you to tell gay people why they are in fact gay. Marvelous. I suppose you'll be insisting now they undergo hypnosis to uncover forgotton childhood traumas.

You've really set your stall out on this issue - and nobody's buying.

I'm sure many are buying. Maybe not in Britainn where Elton John has alot of political influence.

They should have recieved therapy from day one. It is obvious they were confused and in need of guidence.

They have convinced themselves now that it is acceptable behaviour. Which is common behaviour for most practicing sinners. It doesn't make it so.

I dont think most gays can be reconverted. Bad habits are the hardest to break.

MrJoeSoap

wiseones2cents wrote:

Of coarse I'll elaborate and make it simple. If you knew a man was gay, would you trust him or her to baby sit your children?

Thats a priceless quote right there. One of the many many reasons I have completely given up any hope of a "God" actually existing.

Being gay is not a "bad habit". Get a grip.

Hagar

wiseones2cents wrote:

If you knew a man was gay, would you trust him or her to baby sit your children?

If you knew a woman was a lesbian would you let her mind your kids?

Whats the difference?

It's people with ignorant & intolerant attitudes that cause needless grief to people that wouldn't hurt a fly in my experience.

RobEire

wiseones2cents wrote:

I'm sure many are buying. Maybe not in Britainn where Elton John has alot of political influence.

They should have recieved therapy from day one. It is obvious they were confused and in need of guidence.

They have convinced themselves now that it is acceptable behaviour. Which is common behaviour for most practicing sinners. It doesn't make it so.

I dont think most gays can be reconverted. Bad habits are the hardest to break.

I think most heterosexuals need therapy. They seem so insecure about their sexuality that they see anything that differs from the norm as a threat.

Mind you, Christians seem to have the same problem. Perhaps it comes from growing up in a religion that rules by fear. It creates an insiduous insecurity in its followers that can have a negative affect on many other aspects of their lives.

Boston

wiseones2cents wrote:

If a man was a thief and still has thoughts of stealing(sinning). Does that make him eligable?

How do we know that a gay man still has thoughts of sinning? He is gay. What else is he thinking. He's not thinking of procreating. Thats for sure.

We have already seen the disastrous results of gays in religion. I would say pedophiles but notice most are little boys.

Homosexuality is not something natural but is a sickness of mind. These people are confused and manipulated by other pedophiles and gays. Do you want them teaching you religion?

Most homosexuals and pedophiles were victims of or manipulated by pedophiles and gays.[/quote]

We have already seen the disastrous results of gays in religion. I would say pedophiles but notice most are little boys.

Ignoring that boys where left in the care of men and girls in the care of women of course.

wiseones2cents

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Thats a priceless quote right there. One of the many many reasons I have completely given up any hope of a "God" actually existing.

Being gay is not a "bad habit". Get a grip.

To you its a priceless quote. To me its the truth. I see homosexuality as a mental sickness that devolps into a bad habit/lifestyle, what ever you want to call it.

Just as I would not make any mentally ill person watch after my kids, I would not make gays watch my kids.

If that notion completely makes you give up any hope you have in GOD,
you are entitled to your opinion. I see it as sound thought.

The gays have only themselves to blame. All the stories we have been hearing.If gays wanted more trust they should turn in any gays that are participating in illegal activity like rapping people, molesting children or spreading gay child porn. I'm sure many gays are familiar with these people.

wiseones2cents

RobEire wrote:

I think most heterosexuals need therapy. They seem so insecure about their sexuality that they see anything that differs from the norm as a threat.

Mind you, Christians seem to have the same problem. Perhaps it comes from growing up in a religion that rules by fear. It creates an insiduous insecurity in its followers that can have a negative affect on many other aspects of their lives.

If you have ever seen 2 gays have a spat you will know they are seriously insecure and mentally unstable. You can also clearly see their shame written all over their face. I'm sure deep down inside they know they are sinning.

And I agree. Most humans these days need therapy. Though a different kind of therapy. The governments/Legal systems are to blame thanks to them allowing Immoral Influences to be plastered everywhere. They promote Infidelity, "playing " each other, Immorality, lying and decieving your mate has become the cool thing to do, thanks to Media's. So of coarse there is mis-trust everywhere. Though the legal system profits heavily from these spats, divorces, domestic disputes. So you wont see them changing anything anytimes soon. They should be pressured by the public to stop these immoral influences.

Christians?Can you elaborate on Christian insecurities?

wiseones2cents

LiouVille wrote:

How do we know that a gay man still has thoughts of sinning? He is gay. What else is he thinking. He's not thinking of procreating. Thats for sure.

We have already seen the disastrous results of gays in religion. I would say pedophiles but notice most are little boys.

Homosexuality is not something natural but is a sickness of mind. These people are confused and manipulated by other pedophiles and gays. Do you want them teaching you religion?

Most homosexuals and pedophiles were victims of or manipulated by pedophiles and gays.

Ignoring that boys where left in the care of men and girls in the care of women of course.

I dont know what you meant by this post, but as I have stated before. I do not know if the target of boys was due to accesibility or not. If the priest only had access to little boys. Though it is clear, the mind of these individuals is mentally ill in either case.

UU

wiseones2cents you are such a bigot! You act as though you are a total know-it-all about homosexuality but you aren't. "It is a sickness of the mind" = uther nonsense; paedophilia is an illness! I do get erections around other fellas, I do wish I could could kiss some and do much more if you wish to know and I know deep down that I am not sinning. Is love and sexual desires a sin? No it isn't. I have never been molested or raped by anyone as a child. I'm just 'programmed' the way I am - if I'm to have sexual desires for males I can't do anything about it and can't force myself to suddenly like females.

You are making hardcore statements without even backing them up and without sufficient proof. I am going to walk through life on my own two feet and be who I am not someone I'm not. Religions and bigots will always find someone to condemn as they are using someone else's "differences" to reflect their own problems on and can't see their own faults.

Therapists tried doing therapy on homosexuals in the past but it caused much emotional and mental strain upon them that they confused who they were. Just like somebody is born a girl, dark-skinned, etc. I'm born gay and if that is what nature intended me to be born like, then be it so as I shall act upon it and live a a life in full bloom.

I'm sorry if I seem aggressive but I'm just so sick of people making out as though homosexuality is a mental disease of something. Those who say it are extremelly narrow-minded and prejudice. I wonder if they'd say that a Black person has a skin disease?! (I very much doubt they would!)

robindch

> Can you elaborate on Christian insecurities?

What about your offensive comments above? Seems to me that you feel insecure about homosexuals for some reason.

Have you ever discussed with a homosexual person, what it's like to be gay in a society where vitriol and prejudice like what you've written here is common?

Sapien

wiseones2cents wrote:

The gays have only themselves to blame. All the stories we have been hearing.If gays wanted more trust they should turn in any gays that are participating in illegal activity like rapping people, molesting children or spreading gay child porn. I'm sure many gays are familiar with these people.

Delicious.

As a gay man, and an active advocate of gay rights, I thank the heavens for your existence, oh sagest one, oh wiseones2cents. You are an effigy burning in its own idiocy, a blazing edifice to the stupidity of its own beliefs. May your terrifyingly cretinous pronouncements forever light up the dark side of the liberal debate, thou pasquinade, thou pantomime, thou prat.

Excelsior

I can talk about insecure Christians. I am one when I read intolerant and offensive nonsense like this passed off as doctrine.

For what it is worth to whoever may have been personally offended by "WiseOne's" comments, no other Christians on this board are running to defend him or her because s/he is not advocating anything close to a Biblical position.

I am surprised that no one has requested moderation on this thread but if people do feel as if prejudicial comments have been made, feel free to pm me to discuss what can be done.

RobEire

Excelsior wrote:

I can talk about insecure Christians. I am one when I read intolerant and offensive nonsense like this passed off as doctrine.

For what it is worth to whoever may have been personally offended by "WiseOne's" comments, no other Christians on this board are running to defend him or her because s/he is not advocating anything close to a Biblical position.

I am surprised that no one has requested moderation on this thread but if people do feel as if prejudicial comments have been made, feel free to pm me to discuss what can be done.

I was an active Christian until just recently. Increasingly I have been disatisfied with the bigotry and exclusivity and the downright denial of facts to support outdated beliefs and doctrines that is so evident within the various denominations of Christianity, including my own.

I voluntarily rescinded my membership and walked away from it all.

Apparently I am damned to hell for doing so (especially as I was ordained an Elder) but am prepared to take the risk...

Asiaprod

Sapien wrote:

Delicious.
May your terrifyingly cretinous pronouncements forever light up the dark side of the liberal debate, thou pasquinade, thou pantomime, thou prat.

Sapien, there is nothing in this world that brightens my day more than delighting in your incredible eloquence and mastery of the British language.
"thou pantomime, thou prat", that just about sums it up.
Thank you for those enlightening words.:)