That idiot, the pope

Ickle Magoo

Why are you suggesting I posted the links flippantly?

I think that's the trouble with assuming animals can or cannot be "gay" or even being determined to garner to what extent they are only gay or bi or lesbian or whatever. It's not really possible to give the same labels and boxes used to define people and human traits to the animal kingdom...and why using the word "unnatural" to describe any kind of behaviour is a bit silly. You can almost guarantee that any "unnatural" act you care to mention has been observed in nature in some form or another.

liamw

Animals are probably gay for the same reason the homo sapien species are. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. There are several theories behind the evolution of homosexuality, the most convincing one for me being this.

tootired

Hi dvpower - yes I'm new, so new that I misread your post(v tired moment on my part) sorry!!!!
Anyway agreed on the made up rules etc etc. Luckily for me not from a Catholic/ Christian background, just recently made up my mind that there is indeed no god. Mainly because of all the recent reports about child abuse. Never really had to think about all that much before but couldn't not think about it in the past year.
Never believed in hell anyway.

robindch

Ultravid wrote: »

God's mercy is great; all sins can be forgiven, if they are repented.

We await, with some interest, an apology from the Vatican.

When do you think it will appear?

aidan24326

strobe wrote: »

I just presumed Aidan meant exclusive homosexuality in the wild, as in a non human alternative to what I usually take homosexuality in humans to mean, i.e someone that is only attracted to members of thier own gender, bi-sexual, heterosexual and a-sexual being the other options, I take it that wasn't the case, my misinterpretation I guess. I wasn't dismissing the links you posted flipantly, I just misconstrued what Aidan and your links were suggesting evidence of.

I meant same-sex sexual behaviour whether exclusive or not.

There's lots of articles about it online. Check out the wikipedia ones for a start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

There's lots of other stuff aswell if you want to look it up.

Various species exhibit homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, group sex free-for-alls, you name it, and for all kinds of reasons.

Ultravid wrote: »

This is going round in circles and it is obvious we will not agree any time soon. So I just leave you with this:
http://www.chastitysf.com/outside_the_box.htm

I actually read some of that. Needless to say it's nonsense. And I was amused to see that Jacques Lacan is quoted favourably.

Yes the same Jacques Lacan outed by Socal and Bricmont in their book 'Fashionable Nonsense' as a pseudo-intellectual postmodernist waffler of the highest order.

(He's the guy that devised that infamous piece of mathematical reasoning where he equated the erect penis with the square root of minus one or something to that efect).

eoin5

If the pope steps down would that make him eligible for trial again? I wouldn't mind seeing him get some comeuppance.

Xluna

Just to go off on a slight tangent what is the current evidence for the cause of homosexuality,and bisexuality, in humans? I've heard it's purely inherent but I also heard it's a mix of nature and nurture. What does the objective evidence say?

Blackhorse Slim

robindch wrote: »

We await, with some interest, an apology from the Vatican.

When do you think it will appear?

God told me we will have the apology by 9:40am on Thursday 18 Feb 2010.

strobe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why are you suggesting I posted the links flippantly?

lol I wasn't. I was saying I wasn't flippantly dismissing the links you posted, which seemed to be what you thought, and apparently still do.

I've read the wiki articles and others on homosexual behaviour in animals before, but the idea of a prevalence of animals being strickly homosexual, which as I said was what I thought was being discussed was something I'd never heard of before. So I was obviously curious as a lot could potentially be infered from that phenomenom.

I never metioned the term "unnatural" so I can only presume you keep bringing that up in relation to something someone else said.

Blackhorse Slim

Oh well, so much for faith

robindch

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

God told me we will have the apology by 9:40am on Thursday 18 Feb 2010.

Joe, is that you?

axer

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Oh well, so much for faith

I think the problem is that you didn't pray enough.

Chris williams

iUseVi wrote: »

Interesting theory but it has no more evidence than the theory that god is a class A jackass.

Wow this thread has really gone OT.

"Be excellent to one another" is a quote from Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure
and the other is just the jist of a line from Dostoyevsky
I thought it would be funny to combine the two in the same statement


Aren't we all jackass'es and are'nt we all made in Gods image
So why would you be surprised, we just do the best we can as does God I'm sure.

Galvasean

eoin5 wrote: »

If the pope steps down would that make him eligible for trial again? I wouldn't mind seeing him get some comeuppance.

If your aunt had ball's she'd be your uncle. There is no way the Pope is stepping down.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote: »

lol I wasn't. I was saying I wasn't flippantly dismissing the links you posted, which seemed to be what you thought, and apparently still do.

Ah, I get you. I read that sentence as dismissing the links you "posted flippantly"... :pac:

strobe wrote: »

I never metioned the term "unnatural" so I can only presume you keep bringing that up in relation to something someone else said.

Yeah, the whole animal homosexuality point was only made in relation to Ultravid's "unnatural" comment.

vibe666

eoin5 wrote: »

If the pope steps down would that make him eligible for trial again? I wouldn't mind seeing him get some comeuppance.

I'd settle for seeing him step out from behind the bulletproof glass for long enough to let someone get a good shot at him.

robindch

vibe666 wrote: »

long enough to let someone get a good shot at him.

Carded for inflammatory language.

Keep it clean folks, please.

fontanalis

Ultravid wrote: »

I knew this would be misinterpreted.

The weakening of the faith refers firstly, imho, to the Bishops: when bishops lose faith they act like managers, not shepherds. Managers protect the company, shepherds guard the flock. Secondly, the lay people failed in their obligations too - did they pray for their priests and bishops? There is a saying that the people get the priests they deserve.

Give me a break, if ever there was somehting to prove religouness does not equal morality there it is on the interents tubes. So it's not the priests fault for raping a child, it's the people that didn't pray for him. For f*** sake they can reach to everyone else about their sins but when it's within their own corporation to hell with personal repsonsibility.Oh yeah and the divil done it.

The Mad Hatter

fontanalis wrote: »

Give me a break, if ever there was somehting to prove religouness does not equal morality there it is on the interents tubes. So it's not the priests fault for raping a child, it's the people that didn't pray for him. For f*** sake they can reach to everyone else about their sins but when it's within their own corporation to hell with personal repsonsibility.Oh yeah and the divil done it.

In fairness, he said that fifteen pages ago, and he's been taking slack for it ever since. Most of the last fifteen pages have been responses to him...

fontanalis

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In fairness, he said that fifteen pages ago, and he's been taking slack for it ever since. Most of the last fifteen pages have been responses to him...

In fairness it deserves to be held against him/her for the rest of their life.

deman

To be honest, I haven't read all 18 pages of this thread so please forgive me if somebody has already said this..

What I really think the Dope, sorry Poop, oops again... POPE was trying to say was the it's because of the diminishing faith that people are making complaints when being sexually abused by these sickos and they're getting caught.

How dare he pass the blame!! Remember, this is the same guy that was responsible for planning the cover-ups for guilty priests.

:mad::mad::mad:

fontanalis

deman wrote: »

To be honest, I haven't read all 18 pages of this thread so please forgive me if somebody has already said this..

What I really think the Dope, sorry Poop, oops again... POPE was trying to say was the it's because of the diminishing faith that people are making complaints when being sexually abused by these sickos and they're getting caught.

How dare he pass the blame!! Remember, this is the same guy that was responsible for planning the cover-ups for guilty priests.

:mad::mad::mad:

It's the evasion of responsibility that's sickening (there's alot to shared by
the society of the time aswell), when you consider teenage girls were flung into institutions for getting pregnant which was obviously due to them being weak and sinners but these crimes are the fault of everyone!

Dades

fontanalis wrote: »

when you consider teenage girls were flung into institutions for getting pregnant which was obviously due to them being weak and sinners but these crimes are the fault of everyone!

Society certainly has to take some of the blame for that one.
Yes, the church bred the culture of shame and guilt, but parents still had to send their children away.

Blackhorse Slim

Dades wrote: »

Society certainly has to take some of the blame for that one.
Yes, the church bred the culture of shame and guilt, but parents still had to send their children away.

True, but it was a society shaped by religion

Dades

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

True, but it was a society shaped by religion

Which is what I was getting at when I said "the church bred the culture of shame and guilt".

Owen

Religion doesn't equal morality - I know the argument has been done to death, but a study revealed this week shows that Dogs actually abide by a code of ethics too. Course, the christians will immediately say that God has given rover these ethics, and without God, he's just sit there all day licking his testicles.

smokingman

Getting back to the pope himself, his main purpose is to keep the world church together and increase it's numbers. If he was to apologise and acknowledge the cover up to begin with, he'd be doing something against this.

So effectively, and ironically, his purpose in this matter needs to be contrary to his own christian doctorine in order to continue his congregations survival.

It's not really that surprising when you think about it - sure didn't they take 359 years to acknowledge they were wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe (1992 to be precise).

robindch

smokingman wrote: »

Getting back to the pope himself, his main purpose is to keep the world church together and increase it's numbers. If he was to apologise and acknowledge the cover up to begin with, he'd be doing something against this.

You're assuming that a man who apologizes for something he did is behaving against his own interests.

While one can debate whether or not he was actively involved in the cover-up, it's almost certain that he was aware of the problem. If he were either to state categorically that he was not aware of the problem, or if he were to apologize for being aware of it, but not doing anything about it, then I'd imagine that some of the anger currently directed at him would evaporate. If he was actively involved in the cover-up, then his only option is to do a Willie O'Dea and resign immediately, but that seems highly unlikely.

Either way, I believe that his long-term refusal to state what he knew, and when he knew it is damaging his credibility much more than a short sharp admission of whatever truth he chooses to reveal.

fontanalis

Dades wrote: »

Society certainly has to take some of the blame for that one.
Yes, the church bred the culture of shame and guilt, but parents still had to send their children away.

Certainly, enough blame to be shared, but you have to admit it seems one law for the sinners and another for the men in funny hats.

vibe666

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Course, the christians will immediately say that God has given rover these ethics, and without God, he's just sit there all day licking his testicles.

they certainly have a point there, i don't know about you, but if i could lick my own plums i'd never make it out of the house.