Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

AtomicHorror · 23-12-2008 01:03AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate your honesty on incest. You see no immorality in a now-infertile mother having sex with her adult son, or an infertile adult daughter having sex with her father.

I'd feel revulsion at such actions, but I must recognise that this may not be rational, that both parties have moral agency and that harm is not done. However there are of course wider issues to consider. Whilst the revulsion of the random stranger is probably irrelevant.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can see why you would logically have no problem with homosexuality.

The harm done, if any, is considerably less than in the case of incest.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christian view such harmless activity as vile. Because God says so. No matter how sexually attractive or caring the relationship.

The incest taboo is almost universal, so hardly surprising that pretty much everyone agrees with God on that issue. I very much doubt God's word is the primary basis of the rejection of incest, though I'm sure it is used as "rationale". Although it may not be so in your case, I suspect the same is true of the rejection of homosexuality. The revulsion is the cause, the Word a justification.

It seems most likely it was written as such for that very reason, though not necessarily in the first edition.

robindch · 23-12-2008 02:26AM

In his end-of-year speech, Ratzinger noted that the threat from homosexuals is so dangerous, that the very existence of mankind itself is threatened:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0806399.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7796663.stm

anonymous_joe · 23-12-2008 03:37AM

I've no recollection of God ever saying gays were evil.

Given that the major tenet of Christianity is forgiveness of all, and the concept of loving your neighbour, it's quite sad to see people get so aggressive over such an issue.

Quite frankly, I couldn't see the Jesus whom we're told hung out with prostitutes and their ilk condemning two consenting adults from being together. In fact, I would say that flies in the face of Christianity as a concept.

Rabidlamb · 23-12-2008 09:49AM

robindch wrote: »

In his end-of-year speech, Ratzinger noted that the threat from homosexuals is so dangerous, that the very existence of mankind itself is threatened:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0806399.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7796663.stm

So the Pope has likened the destruction of the rainforest to the threat to humanity posed by homesexual practices. The anology department went all out there

.

Do the church not realise the amount of rolled eyes statements like this create. Finger on the pulse there Benny.

Fanny Cradock · 23-12-2008 01:18PM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I've no recollection of God ever saying gays were evil.

Given that the major tenet of Christianity is forgiveness of all, and the concept of loving your neighbour, it's quite sad to see people get so aggressive over such an issue.

Quite frankly, I couldn't see the Jesus whom we're told hung out with prostitutes and their ilk condemning two consenting adults from being together. In fact, I would say that flies in the face of Christianity as a concept.

Very true!

Rabidlamb wrote: »

So the Pope has likened the destruction of the rainforest to the threat to humanity posed by homesexual practices. The anology department went all out there .

Do the church not realise the amount of rolled eyes statements like this create. Finger on the pulse there Benny.

He seems like a very intelligent chap, but that doesn't stop him coming out with some real clangers.

PDN · 23-12-2008 01:44PM

kiffer wrote: »

I may have been mistaken, perhaps confusing this discussion with another, (I've been dipping in and out of this one for a while), I presumed that PND and AtomicHorror were talking about Ruth and Leviticus...

Indeed we were (but I think it was Amadeus rather than Atmoic Horror). However, my use of Leviticus was in the context of what Jews believed thousands of years ago and how that meant that Amadeus' novel interpretation of Ruth was one that would never have been accepted by Jews.

Christians base their view of the morality of homosexual acts on the New testament.

PDN · 23-12-2008 01:53PM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I've no recollection of God ever saying gays were evil.

Only in the sense that all men are morally evil. That is why Christians do not say that homosexuals are any more evil than anyone else.

Given that the major tenet of Christianity is forgiveness of all, and the concept of loving your neighbour, it's quite sad to see people get so aggressive over such an issue.

Indeed, but that is not a major tenet of atheism - and the aggression in this thread is predominantly coming from atheists. I see Christians calmly, when challenged, restating the biblical belief that they don't see homosexual acts as being morally good. And that, unforunately, is like a red rag to a bull for those who want to force us to change our beliefs.

Quite frankly, I couldn't see the Jesus whom we're told hung out with prostitutes and their ilk condemning two consenting adults from being together. In fact, I would say that flies in the face of Christianity as a concept.

Jesus did indeed hang out with prostitutes - but that does not mean he saw prostitution as morally acceptable. He also specifically condemned adultery, which is two consenting adults being together - so I'm afraid your imagined concept of Jesus and of Christianity is wrong.

Nodin · 23-12-2008 02:19PM

robindch wrote: »

In his end-of-year speech, Ratzinger noted that the threat from homosexuals is so dangerous, that the very existence of mankind itself is threatened:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0806399.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7796663.stm

Considering the education these people have, it really does beggar belief when they come out with something that stupid. I have to confess I've no real idea of what the 'gender theory' part is about though. Probably for the best.

He's probably won brownie points with the Polish president though. 20 more and he'll be forgiven for being German.

Zombrex · 23-12-2008 03:00PM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Quite frankly, I couldn't see the Jesus whom we're told hung out with prostitutes and their ilk condemning two consenting adults from being together. In fact, I would say that flies in the face of Christianity as a concept.

*DISCLAIMER* Atheist speaking

Er, not really, since the entire purpose of Christianity (Christ coming to Earth to so that people would believe in him) is to save us from punishment of God for being inherently evil.

The central concept of Christianity, the justification for its existence, is that we are so evil as a species that God judges us all (in general) as deserving not only punishment but eternal punishment in a lake of fire (could be a metaphor but either way eternal punishment in a horrible, painful, place). We can be saved from that punishment by accepting Jesus, but that is not the same as saying those who accept Jesus do not deserve the punishment.

So you can't really say Christianity is not about condemning people. The entire purpose of Christianity, its justification for existing, is that we are all condemned.

It is certainly a tenant of Christianity that we are all as bad as each other, and that no human has the authority to judge another human as more wicked or evil than them. But God certainly does, and Jesus was God. Jesus regularly condemned unrepentant sinners.

wolfsbane · 23-12-2008 05:10PM

Wicknight wrote: »

*DISCLAIMER* Atheist speaking

Er, not really, since the entire purpose of Christianity (Christ coming to Earth to so that people would believe in him) is to save us from punishment of God for being inherently evil.

The central concept of Christianity, the justification for its existence, is that we are so evil as a species that God judges us all (in general) as deserving not only punishment but eternal punishment in a lake of fire (could be a metaphor but either way eternal punishment in a horrible, painful, place). We can be saved from that punishment by accepting Jesus, but that is not the same as saying those who accept Jesus do not deserve the punishment.

So you can't really say Christianity is not about condemning people. The entire purpose of Christianity, its justification for existing, is that we are all condemned.

It is certainly a tenant of Christianity that we are all as bad as each other, and that no human has the authority to judge another human as more wicked or evil than them. But God certainly does, and Jesus was God. Jesus regularly condemned unrepentant sinners.

I commend you again on an accurate account of the Christian position.

Just one slight divergence:It is certainly a tenant of Christianity that we are all as bad as each other, and that no human has the authority to judge another human as more wicked or evil than them.
Not quite. We are all condemned, all sinners. But some sin more grievously than others, and receive greater judgment.

It is often not evident who is the greater sinner, for it depends on how wilful the sin was. Same sin carries different penalties, depending on the light the offender had. God knows the difference.

wolfsbane · 23-12-2008 05:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

Considering the education these people have, it really does beggar belief when they come out with something that stupid. I have to confess I've no real idea of what the 'gender theory' part is about though. Probably for the best.

He's probably won brownie points with the Polish president though. 20 more and he'll be forgiven for being German.

As you may know, I'm no fan of the papacy, but I've read what Benedict said and certainly can't see how it is stupid.

He makes the point that rebellion against God's law will lead to destruction. I imagine he means just like ignoring the Manufacturer's Manual leads to a wrecked engine.

We see a wrecked society growing up around us, because they have not been grounded in basic Christian morality.

wolfsbane · 23-12-2008 05:38PM

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I appreciate your honesty on incest. You see no immorality in a now-infertile mother having sex with her adult son, or an infertile adult daughter having sex with her father.
I'd feel revulsion at such actions, but I must recognise that this may not be rational, that both parties have moral agency and that harm is not done. However there are of course wider issues to consider. Whilst the revulsion of the random stranger is probably irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I can see why you would logically have no problem with homosexuality.
The harm done, if any, is considerably less than in the case of incest.

You've just said above that harm is not done in adult incest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christian view such harmless activity as vile. Because God says so. No matter how sexually attractive or caring the relationship.
The incest taboo is almost universal, so hardly surprising that pretty much everyone agrees with God on that issue.

True - but that does not establish it as immoral, if God's word is ignored.

You establish homsexuality as moral on your criteria, you do the same for incest.

I very much doubt God's word is the primary basis of the rejection of incest, though I'm sure it is used as "rationale". Although it may not be so in your case, I suspect the same is true of the rejection of homosexuality. The revulsion is the cause, the Word a justification.

For many that is indeed true - I'm sure Mugabe does not base his objection on the Bible. I'm sure he will have as much difficulty justifying it as immoral as you have in making it moral.

It seems most likely it was written as such for that very reason, though not necessarily in the first edition.

You will find homosexuality is not the only or even main sin condemned in the Bible. Hard to see that homosexuality would be its raison d'etre.

wolfsbane · 23-12-2008 05:53PM

robindch wrote: »

No, I'm making it up based upon probabilities.

You've said that you're informed by god. I know plenty of other people -- catholics, protestants, muslims, jews -- who also believe that their opinions are accurately informed by their deity. While each of them sincerely believes this to be true, unfortunately, their opinions are as varied and as contradictory as the people themselves are.

I conclude that either there's either one deity (or lots of deities) out there, giving completely contradictory messages to lots of people (skewering the idea of a rational or honest god), or else there are just a lot of people who incorrectly believe that they're speaking with a deity. The second explanation is much simpler.

So, the chances that you are the one person -- if there even is one -- who's receiving god's one real opinion amongst so many different ones, is vanishingly small. So I think I'm on fairly safe ground by saying that while you may sincerely believe you're speaking with god, in fact, the chances that you are are negligible.

Now that makes much more sense. You think I am mistaken, are pretty confident about it in fact. But that does not equal know.

You stack up the various religions that are incompatible with my claim, and think that the odds on me being right are vanishingly small. You would be right if it applied to all I believe, but I did not claim that. My claim is held by every true believer - and there are millions of them, likely hundreds of millions. So the odds are back in the ball-park of credibility.

You are partly right in your description of the options. There is indeed one God and many gods telling different stories to people. God tells His one story and Satan and his angels tell their many stories.

And of course many people also imagine things, with or without Satan's help.

None of which proves that me and my fellow Christians have not been informed by God, something you claimed to know.

Zombrex · 23-12-2008 05:55PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I commend you again on an accurate account of the Christian position.

Well I hang around here enough, if I don't have it by now there is no hope is there (don't answer that :P)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Same sin carries different penalties, depending on the light the offender had. God knows the difference.

Apologies that is of course what I was trying to say, that we are all as bad as each other as far as each of us is concerned, not obviously as far as God is.

Zombrex · 23-12-2008 06:02PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

My claim is held by every true believer - and there are millions of them, likely hundreds of millions. So the odds are back in the ball-park of credibility.

How do you figure? The amount of people who hold a belief really has no effect on the credibility of the belief. And this highlighted in religion more than most things, since there are hundreds of millions who have held a belief that is in direct conflict with your own and you can't all be right.

wolfsbane wrote: »

None of which proves that me and my fellow Christians have not been informed by God, something you claimed to know.

Yes but since no one can prove anything (or know anything) for certain that is never going to happen (as I'm sure you are aware)

So saying that no one has yet proved to you this position is a misnomer. What Robin should have demonstrated to you and your fellow Christians is that it is far more likely that you haven't been informed by God and are simply experiencing the effects that others experience, than that you are actually informed by God.

wolfsbane · 23-12-2008 06:08PM

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A man could cure AIDS for no financial gain, save 15 million lives and yet be damned to hell for being an unrepentant practising fornicator, or thief, or -any other sin.

Justification before God is not a matter of scales, goods works weighed against bad ones. Any unforgiven sin makes us guilty and certain of hell.
Yes, I get that. I'm just stating it as plain as possible to highlight something. It's possible to do no harm at all in this life, to accept Christ as the saviour and to do great and far-reaching good, and yet still burn in hell. Homosexuality is unique amongst the sins in that respect, as far as I can tell.

Sorry, I've run out of time for tonight, so I'll just deal with this part of your post for now.

No, one cannot truly accept Christ as the saviour and end up in hell. Many Christians believe that, but not Reformed ones like me.

Nor is homosexuality the worse of sins, let alone unique. The person who goes through life sexually pure but an unrepentant thief or idolator, for example, will be in hell.

jaffa20 · 23-12-2008 06:51PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry, I've run out of time for tonight, so I'll just deal with this part of your post for now.

What about my question?

Refer to post 264. I'd love to hear your opinion and the opinions of other Christians on this thread.

PDN · 23-12-2008 07:43PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

What about my question?

Refer to post 264. I'd love to hear your opinion and the opinions of other Christians on this thread.

You mean this one?

i don't believe something natural such as sexual orientation is a sin. Of course, you believe acting on that natural sexual orientation is the sin but i would say it is a sin to deny yourself your inner truth and abstaining from sex because of this.

So, if i was not to act on this sexual orientation that is natural to me, what do you suggest i should do?

I'd love to hear your opinion on this seeing as God is not available to talk to me at the moment.

Since you're not a Christian I don't really care what you do in the bedroom or with who (so long as they are a consenting adult). Why are you getting bent out of shape about whether Christian see your action as sin or not? I don't worry about how Muslims or Jews view the morality of me eating bacon sandwiches.

BTW, something being 'natural' has no bearing on whether something is moral or immoral.

Of course, you believe acting on that natural sexual orientation is the sin but i would say it is a sin to deny yourself your inner truth and abstaining from sex because of this.

Now, before I answer, let me stress that I am not equating paedophilia & homosexuality (lest some illiterate bozo try to misrepresent me).

But try using your same argument in respect to a paedophile. He feels his inclination is natural. He also feels it would be more of a sin to deny himself his 'inner truth' and to abstain from sex. Of course his argument would be logically inept - but then so is yours. And in that respect, though not in others, you are comparable.

jaffa20 · 23-12-2008 08:10PM

PDN wrote: »

You mean this one?

Since you're not a Christian I don't really care what you do in the bedroom or with who (so long as they are a consenting adult). Why are you getting bent out of shape about whether Christian see your action as sin or not? I don't worry about how Muslims or Jews view the morality of me eating bacon sandwiches.

BTW, something being 'natural' has no bearing on whether something is moral or immoral.

Now, before I answer, let me stress that I am not equating paedophilia & homosexuality (lest some illiterate bozo try to misrepresent me).

But try using your same argument in respect to a paedophile. He feels his inclination is natural. He also feels it would be more of a sin to deny himself his 'inner truth' and to abstain from sex. Of course his argument would be logically inept - but then so is yours. And in that respect, though not in others, you are comparable.

But yet you bring pedophilia into a conversation about sex between consenting adults of the same gender.

I get what your argument is with regards to "inner truth" but you cannot compare something you know and perhaps a paedophile knows is wrong with something that goes on between consenting adults.

With regards to my question, what should i do?

I am asking for an opinion on what should i do if i wanted to convert to christianity and yet carry out sexual acts with people of the same gender.

I'm assuming this would be an intentional sin so i would need to abstain from sex for life in order to gain entry to heaven. Would you, as a christian and if you were gay allow the Bible to take over your sexual life completely?

Don't you think that is sinful in itself. Maybe not a sin in the eyes of God, but sinful do deny yourself a human pleasure because of the way you were born.

So what would you do?

Live a life of loneliness throughout your life without partnership in order to be happy in your afterlife.

PDN · 23-12-2008 08:20PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

But yet you bring pedophilia into a conversation about sex between consenting adults of the same gender.

I get what your argument is with regards to "inner truth" but you cannot compare something you know and perhaps a paedophile knows is wrong with something that goes on between consenting adults.

With regards to my question, what should i do?

I am asking for an opinion on what should i do if i wanted to convert to christianity and yet carry out sexual acts with people of the same gender.

I'm assuming this would be an intentional sin so i would need to abstain from sex for life in order to gain entry to heaven. Would you, as a christian and if you were gay allow the Bible to take over your sexual life completely?

Don't you think that is sinful in itself. Maybe not a sin in the eyes of God, but sinful do deny yourself a human pleasure because of the way you were born.

So what would you do?

Live a life of loneliness throughout your life without partnership in order to be happy in your afterlife.

My advice would be to accept Christ as Saviour first, then we can start dealing with the various sin issues.

There were lots of things I thought I couldn't live without before I became a Christian. If I had tried to give them up first, then get saved, it would never have happened.

Of course if you actually have no desire to become a Christian then you're just blowing smoke here.

jaffa20 · 23-12-2008 08:41PM

PDN wrote: »

There were lots of things I thought I couldn't live without before I became a Christian.

Yes, but this isn't lots of little things, this is one helluva (excuse the pun) thing. Anyway, you answered my question and it's pretty much what i expected to hear.

BrianCalgary · 23-12-2008 08:48PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Would you, as a christian and if you were gay allow the Bible to take over your sexual life completely?

Don't you think that is sinful in itself. Maybe not a sin in the eyes of God, but sinful do deny yourself a human pleasure because of the way you were born.

So what would you do?

As a Christian God has taken over my life completely.

Am I denied human pleasures as I am only allowed to lie with one woman, who is my wife?

I would have argued 25 years ago that God had created me in a way that I demanded sex from as many as I could get it from.

The pleasures that I get from all the relationships that God has put in my life far outweigh the empty momental pleasures of sex.

Life is not about sex, as marketers would have us believe, life is about relationship, first with God and then with fellow man.

jaffa20 · 23-12-2008 08:55PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As a Christian God has taken over my life completely.

Am I denied human pleasures as I am only allowed to lie with one woman gay partner?

The pleasures that I get from all the relationships that God has put in my life far outweigh the empty momental pleasures of sex.

Life is not about sex, as marketers would have us believe, life is about relationship, first with God and then with fellow man.

Fixed that for you. In my case, yes i am denied. You would choose the love of God over the love of your life partner?:eek:

Nodin · 23-12-2008 09:09PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

As you may know, I'm no fan of the papacy, but I've read what Benedict said and certainly can't see how it is stupid. .

Only a certain number of persons have homosexual tendencies. It seems to be a constant. To imply that this could lead to destruction is rather "stupid"

wolfsbane wrote: »

He makes the point that rebellion against God's law will lead to destruction. I imagine he means just like ignoring the Manufacturer's Manual leads to a wrecked engine..

Seeing as nobody can agree precisely what the manual says, or on which manual is the right one, I'd say we were better off winging it anyway.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We see a wrecked society growing up around us, because they have not been grounded in basic Christian morality.

The usual nonsense. When "basic christian morality" was far more intrinsic to society, the world was a far harsher place. I don't excusively blame christianity for that, however its fact that "basic christian morality" didn't provide a better or healthier socety.

BrianCalgary · 23-12-2008 09:38PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Fixed that for you. In my case, yes i am denied. You would choose the love of God over the love of your life partner?:eek:

God has the ability to change ones heart from their desires to His desires for you.

So, yes at the beginning I was denied my sexual desires and now I am in tune with God's desire for me, which is far better than the ones I had for myself.

So you didn't fix it for me, it has nothing to do with sex but all about teh heart. You can love without sex. I love many , many people and have very healthy relationships with male and female alike, none of them sexual.

PDN · 23-12-2008 10:51PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God has the ability to change ones heart from their desires to His desires for you.

So, yes at the beginning I was denied my sexual desires and now I am in tune with God's desire for me, which is far better than the ones I had for myself.

So you didn't fix it for me, it has nothing to do with sex but all about teh heart. You can love without sex. I love many , many people and have very healthy relationships with male and female alike, none of them sexual.

Yes, Brian, but we live in an age where sex is the most important thing in the world. And to suggest otherwise is deemed heresy.

I have a Christian friend whose wife was severely injured in a car crash. This makes it physically impossible for them to have sexual relations. He didn't use this as an excuse for him to have affairs. He didn't divorce her so he could exercise his 'inalienable' right to a sex life. He cares for his wife and tells me that he thanks God every day for giving him such a wonderful life partner.

jaffa20 · 23-12-2008 11:14PM

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Brian, but we live in an age where sex is the most important thing in the world. And to suggest otherwise is deemed heresy.

I have a Christian friend whose wife was severely injured in a car crash. This makes it physically impossible for them to have sexual relations. He didn't use this as an excuse for him to have affairs. He didn't divorce her so he could exercise his 'inalienable' right to a sex life. He cares for his wife and tells me that he thanks God every day for giving him such a wonderful life partner.

I would feel the same if it was to happen to my partner (god forbid), i am NOT talking about sex sex sex here. I am talking about the relationship as an whole; spending your life with someone you cherish. From the example above, the man stayed with his wife because of the power of love for his wife. The power of love for my partner cannot be broken just to follow the bible and let God into my heart. Do you get my point here? Replace the people in your story above with two men and yet they would be sinners in God's eyes. Yet what can we do, that's God's word and that's how it stands.

murfie · 24-12-2008 12:13AM

The popes comments were a disgrace and all catholics should hang their heads in shame. Makes me sick to my stomach that I was brought up catholic. Does the church like driving people away from itself!

condra · 24-12-2008 02:58AM

Ratzingers comments delighted me for two reasons.

Firstly, I think he is further alienating young people from the church, especially educated, liberal, decent folk, and that fills me with joy.

Secondly, it strengthened my resolve. I am in no doubt that when I stand against the RCC, I am standing against one of the most powerful forces of evil, oppression and intolerance in existence.

Ratzinger is showing his true colours as an out of touch, fascist, bigot, and his true colours are not washing with people. Most just see red.

I hope this story runs and runs.

PDN · 24-12-2008 10:39AM

murfie wrote: »

The popes comments were a disgrace and all catholics should hang their heads in shame. Makes me sick to my stomach that I was brought up catholic. Does the church like driving people away from itself!

The Pope is a smart guy, and I believe he knows exactly what he is doing with statements like this.

The vast majority of growth in the Catholic Church is occurring in the Global South, not in the western world. The Pope knows that behaving all conciliatory and liberal will not stem the decline in numbers in places like Ireland, so why bother? The most popular Pope in centuries was the ultraconservative John Paul II. By playing the conservative card Pope Benedict keeps on board his core constituency in Asia, Africa & Latin America.

Even in the US the driving force in Catholicism is no longer the John Kerryish liberals on the East Coast but the millions of Hispanics who are extremely conservative in their Catholicism.

Pope Benedict has also, I imagine, learned a lesson from what is happening in Anglicanism. There the liberal approach of the hierarchy towards homosexuality is splitting the denomination in two - with the growing (conservative) constituencies increasingly alienated from Canterbury.

I have gone on record on a number of occasions as saying that I abhor homophobia in all forms. I think it is perfectly possible for a Church to take the biblical stance that homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian faith and practice, and yet show love and tolerance to homosexuals. Therefore I regret the Pope's apparent obsession with homosexuality and his needless conflating of the issues of homosexuality and environmentalism.

Nevertheless, the fact is that denominations which try to ignore or change the biblical teaching on homosexuality inevitably suffer numerical decline. Church growth depends upon the vitality of the Bible - and if the Church starts saying that it doesn't really believe the Bible then people vote with their feet and go somewhere else. The Catholic Church is much more worried about the millions of Hispanics (both in South America and the US) who are defecting to biblically conservative evangelical churches than about further alienating a few disgruntled westerners who don't go to church anymore anyway.

Therefore I expect the Pope to continue to bang the conservative drum.

Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Comments