Discrimination

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

For those who can't be arsed reading the link, it seems that a Catholic has been booted off a state transport committee for making an offensive statement about gays.

Key phrase from this linked article:

So good riddance.

The only thing he said that could be construed as offensive, it seems, is referring to "sexual deviancy". While perhaps not the most PC term, it's not that bad; we just had two supporters of homosexuality use the same term in the GLB thread.

I thought marriage was a sacrament. Who knew?

Only for Papists and Orthodox, as far as I know. The Anglicans recognize only two sacraments: baptism and Eucharist. Some Lutherans agree, but some add confession. Either way, I know of no church aside from Catholicism and the Eastern churches that teaches that marriage is a sacrament.

Originally Posted by IR

Actually weve become a society where 'conservative christians' get to pretty much dictate to non conservative christians how they are to live.

Yup, that's what happens. I bet you get your orders from the local Baptist preacher every week in the mail, huh?

If they can marry.

Nope, only whom they can marry.

What they can teach their kids.

Nope. In no way is what parents teach their children subject to 'conservative Christian' whims.

What they can do in their bedroom.

As far as I know, the (very) few remaining laws in the West regarding sodomy are effectively dead, never enforced in the slightest; it's only a matter of time before their death toll is officially rung.

That they must pay for expressions of their religious beliefs etc. etc.

I don't see how.

You have a sitting president who is devoutly christian

I doubt it.

and seeks to push the 'conservative christian' agenda at all costs

Mmm-hmm. That's why he protested when South Dakota banned abortion, and why he even officially supports it in cases of rape and incest. Totally the conservative Christian agenda.

You have several new 'conservative christian' initiates on the bench of the supreme court to further push your agenda.

Fair enough. Now, we do, but it was hardly a 'CC' supreme court before.

You have both the other two branches of the government dominated by republicans most of whom also favor a 'conservative' agenda.

Conservative, perhaps, but not Christian.

And so, we see that this post was about 98% style, and 2% substance.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yup, that's what happens. I bet you get your orders from the local Baptist preacher every week in the mail, huh?

Tell it to the people of Alabama who no longer have the right to buy any “sexually stimulating” paraphernalia for their own use. Tell it to the parents of non Christian (or non fundamentalist) kids who have had Christian parents try to force schools to teach creationism and/or intelligent design to their children despite their objections. Tell it also to those parents of kids who have had Christian parents try to force schools to teach celibacy ONLY in place of sexual education. Something which George Bush supports by the way. Which is why the Bush administration strong armed the Health Department from releasing research data that would have hurt their position on this. And instead kept it hidden despite the fact that the data said teaching celibacy only would actually hurt more kids then teaching BOTH. Real Christian…

Nope, only whom they can marry.

Heteros can marry who they want to marry. Gays cannot. How convenient for heterosexual Christians to make the rules on this eh?

Nope. In no way is what parents teach their children subject to 'conservative Christian' whims.

See above. Got many more examples too.

As far as I know, the (very) few remaining laws in the West regarding sodomy are effectively dead, never enforced in the slightest; it's only a matter of time before their death toll is officially rung.

See RECENTLY upheld Alabama law above if that’s what you think. Note also that George Bush backed the Texas State Sodomy Laws when he was governor there even going as far as to say he would veto any attempt to over turn them.

I don't see how.

You’ve missed all the court cases the past few years regarding the Ten Commandment monuments and religious displays on public (tax supported) property? And don’t even get me started on tax exemptions for churches that spend it on pushing a radical religious agenda among the populace. You see signs of that each and every day.

I doubt it.

Then hes just being a close minded intolerant ass for the fun of it? Or are you saying hes simply a liar?

Mmm-hmm. That's why he protested when South Dakota banned abortion, and why he even officially supports it in cases of rape and incest. Totally the conservative Christian agenda.

Bush (Rove) is fully aware that a small fraction of even self identifying Christians favor a total ban on abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He has nothing to fear politically from saying hes with em except in cases of rape and incest and where the mother is dieing. If you think that makes him some kind of radical liberal you would be vastly mistaken.

And so, we see that this post was about 98% style, and 2% substance.

Sorry Ive always got substance to back up my ‘style’ when I post. You should know that about me by now Gwaimir. Just saying ‘it isn’t so’ doesn’t counter the facts.

[Lizra]

"And so, we see that this post was about 98% style, and 2% substance"

Ha! That's highly amusing Gwai .....I'm afraid you'll need to do a little more than say "nope" and "yup" to be even 2% convincing.....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Tell it to the people of Alabama who no longer have the right to buy any “sexually stimulating” paraphernalia for their own use.

All right, fair enough. I thought you were referring to laws against homosexuality. Though I don't understand why you responded to what I wrote with "Tell it to..."

[quote]
Tell it to the parents of non Christian (or non fundamentalist) kids who have had Christian parents try to force schools to teach creationism and/or intelligent design to their children despite their objections.[quote]

In very limited areas, assuming you are referring to public schools. And (at least theoretically), even that is supposed to be teaching both as theories, and neither as absolute.

Tell it also to those parents of kids who have had Christian parents try to force schools to teach celibacy ONLY in place of sexual education.

Personally, I don't think the schools should be teaching either. Teaching children about sex is the place of the parents, not the State-god.

Something which George Bush supports by the way. Which is why the Bush administration strong armed the Health Department from releasing research data that would have hurt their position on this. And instead kept it hidden despite the fact that the data said teaching celibacy only would actually hurt more kids then teaching BOTH. Real Christian…

Just so you know, I am not a fan of Bush; painting him as a bad guy won't get much of a rise out of me...

Heteros can marry who they want to marry. Gays cannot. How convenient for heterosexual Christians to make the rules on this eh?

Will you please quit with the assumptions that everyone who disapproves of same-sex unions is straight? I am getting awfully tired of being marginalized, dismissed, and ignored like that.

See above. Got many more examples too.

What you posted above had nothing to do with what parents teach their children, but with what schools teach children. I doubt strongly that there is any sort of stricture on what parents are allowed to teach their children.

Note also that George Bush backed the Texas State Sodomy Laws when he was governor there even going as far as to say he would veto any attempt to over turn them.

1) See above statement about Bush.
2) Note also that same Sodomy Law has been overruled by the Supreme Court.

You’ve missed all the court cases the past few years regarding the Ten Commandment monuments and religious displays on public (tax supported) property? And don’t even get me started on tax exemptions for churches that spend it on pushing a radical religious agenda among the populace. You see signs of that each and every day.

What do either of those have to do with paying for expression of religious beliefs? I fail to see the connection.

Then hes just being a close minded intolerant ass for the fun of it? Or are you saying hes simply a liar?

I supposes closer to the second; I don't believe he's as devout as he makes himself out to be. I think he plays the religion card because religious folk (or folk who consider themselves religious) are such a large part of America.

Bush (Rove) is fully aware that a small fraction of even self identifying Christians favor a total ban on abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He has nothing to fear politically from saying hes with em except in cases of rape and incest and where the mother is dieing. If you think that makes him some kind of radical liberal you would be vastly mistaken.

Second, I'm sure that you are quite aware that there is a vast difference between self-identifying Christians and self-identifying conservative Christians. We were discussing the conservative Christian hypocritical theocracy, were we not? Nothing was said about fearing anything (and in fact your words indicate that he tries to win people's approval, thus implying that his convictions are superficial at best, and supporting my statements); I merely noted that, since the 'conservative Christian' agenda works from the idea that life begins at conception, abortion in any case is irreconcilably at odds with it.

Sorry Ive always got substance to back up my ‘style’ when I post. You should know that about me by now Gwaimir. Just saying ‘it isn’t so’ doesn’t counter the facts.

I did not 'just say "it isn't so". Your complaints about 'if they can marry' and 'what parents can teach their kids', I think you'll agree, were flat out wrong. What you used to backup that people must pay for their religious beliefs doesn't seem to me to be connected (I look forward to my upcoming enlightenment). And I'm dubious about the "devout Christian" president (which as we all know, is already in and of itself something which is quite terrible, and ought not to happen in these Modern and Progessive days. As BJ says, any one with any positive religious belief should not be allowed to serve any public office) who is so wild-eyed about pushing the 'conservative Christian' agenda, and what you yourself have written seems to support me. I stand by what I say, as a whole.

I'm glad you were amused, Lizra. I hope you realize (but get the feeling you don't), that particular comment was not meant to be taken seriously. I wrote that tongue-in-cheek.

[Lizra]

I don't know what to think of you anymore Gwai.

[afro-elf]

Gwai wrote " Will you please quit with the assumptions that everyone who disapproves of same-sex unions is straight? I am getting awfully tired of being marginalized, dismissed, and ignored like that."

Are you a homosexual who disapproves of same sex marriages?

AE

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Personally, I don't think the schools should be teaching either. Teaching children about sex is the place of the parents, not the State-god.

A lot of things should be the responsibility of the parents. Do you think it would happen knowing what you know about parents and society today? If we are to ban sex education in school then you would see abortion and out of wedlock child birth sky rocket because so many parents DON’T take their responsibilities seriously. And please note this isn’t a knock on the religious home schooling parent at all here. Its more on the apathetic harried parent who doesn’t want to deal with those issues or just doesn’t have time or motivation.

Just so you know, I am not a fan of Bush; painting him as a bad guy won't get much of a rise out of me...

Yeah but he IS the face of the current administration of course. An administration that, it is widely held, is one of the most conservative AND Christian in recent memory if ever.

Will you please quit with the assumptions that everyone who disapproves of same-sex unions is straight? I am getting awfully tired of being marginalized, dismissed, and ignored like that.

Now Gwaimir, read what I wrote. I wasn’t talking about YOU in particular. Simply stating a fact. That heterosexual Christians (the vast majority of Christians are heterosexual wouldn’t you agree?) are trying to tell non heterosexuals what they can and cant do. Im well aware of your homosexual leanings. Ive known about them since you were brave enough to discuss them here years ago. But that doesn’t take away from the facts of what I said. Nor does it give you some special right to tell other homosexuals how they can live their life either.

What you posted above had nothing to do with what parents teach their children, but with what schools teach children.

Now come on. You know very well the original statement I said was referring to kids being taught in school (I didn’t say ‘what parents can teach their kids’). Not what they were being taught at home. The vast majority of kids are taught in public schools. That’s where the tug of war is. Don’t play word games.

2) Note also that same Sodomy Law has been overruled by the Supreme Court.

This doesn’t take away from the fact that he actually had the audacity to veto it.

What do either of those have to do with paying for expression of religious beliefs? I fail to see the connection.

What does the fact that my tax dollars pay for public land and buildings where the religious right wants to place Christian symbols because they feel it’s a Christian country? That right wing political campaigns are being waged by Christian churches using money that they may otherwise have had to put into taxes if they were taxed? That Bush has opened up unprecedented access for religious organizations to public funds (my tax dollars…) in the name of ‘faith based charities’, a catch all that doesn’t begin to describe some of the programs (see Pat Roberston…) to the tune of many BILLIONS of dollars? Government funded vouchers for religious schools? Nevermind that my tax dollars are used to pay for facilities used by an organization that is rigidly against homosexuals even belonging to their group on religious grounds which is pretty offensive. And you still fail to see the connection?

I supposes closer to the second; I don't believe he's as devout as he makes himself out to be. I think he plays the religion card because religious folk (or folk who consider themselves religious) are such a large part of America.

I actually think hes quite religious. At least in his own mind. In a typical American ‘live wild and have tons of money then get born again when its convenient’ kind of way. I don’t think its an act or anything. In fact that’s what I think makes him such a dangerous president. The fact that he lets his extremist religious notions about the world and his cronyism with big business exist in harmony. Scares me like religious regimes in places like Iran scare me. But at least the theocratic regime in Iran is out in the open about it.

Your complaints about 'if they can marry' and 'what parents can teach their kids', I think you'll agree, were flat out wrong.

What? If they can marry? Come on get real. Do you really expect gays to marry the opposite sex when nothing could be more revolting and disturbing to them? When they are NOT allowed to marry the very people who they love and who they are attracted to? THAT is the inequality here. And you think playing that technicality really is useful at all to your cause in this? It’s a joke. We both know that. Just because I can gnaw off my own arm doesn’t mean I should feel good about the fact you put hand cuffs on me.

And as far as the 'what parents can teach their kids' well yer all about the technicalities today aren’t you. See above for a response to that.

any one with any positive religious belief should not be allowed to serve any public office

The worry is not Christians in office. The worry is a religious state. Or like we have now a pseudo-religious/business state. That’s basically the essence of America if you think about it. God and money.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by afro-elf

Gwai wrote " Will you please quit with the assumptions that everyone who disapproves of same-sex unions is straight? I am getting awfully tired of being marginalized, dismissed, and ignored like that."

Are you a homosexual who disapproves of same sex marriages?

AE

as i understand it .... for Gwai that is basically yes ??

best BB

[Lizra]

Nothing worse than a gay guy in denial (most likely because of religion) ....living a lie and marrying a nice girl....and breaking her heart and life 10/20 years later when he meets the REAL love of his life.....a MAN. Everything seems controllable...till he falls head over heels in love/lust with another gay man. Oh...and what do you tell the kids!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

A lot of things should be the responsibility of the parents. Do you think it would happen knowing what you know about parents and society today? If we are to ban sex education in school then you would see abortion and out of wedlock child birth sky rocket because so many parents DON’T take their responsibilities seriously. And please note this isn’t a knock on the religious home schooling parent at all here. Its more on the apathetic harried parent who doesn’t want to deal with those issues or just doesn’t have time or motivation.

I agree about the apathetic parents etc...

Yeah but he IS the face of the current administration of course. An administration that, it is widely held, is one of the most conservative AND Christian in recent memory if ever.

I still like him. ...can you believe it?!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I don't know what to think of you anymore Gwai.

What do you mean by that, Lizra? Have I done something to offend you? I'm very sorry if I have.

Originally Posted by AE

Are you a homosexual who disapproves of same sex marriages?

Oui, oui, monsieur.

Originally Posted by IR

A lot of things should be the responsibility of the parents. Do you think it would happen knowing what you know about parents and society today? If we are to ban sex education in school then you would see abortion and out of wedlock child birth sky rocket because so many parents DON’T take their responsibilities seriously. And please note this isn’t a knock on the religious home schooling parent at all here. Its more on the apathetic harried parent who doesn’t want to deal with those issues or just doesn’t have time or motivation.

I imagine that there would be negative results if we dropped sex education. While, as I said, I don't think the schools should be teaching about sex, given that the American parents have dropped the ball so badly on this, it is best for the schools to pick it back up. However, some of the sex-ed courses go too far, in my opinion; children in high-school don't need to know very much.

Yeah but he IS the face of the current administration of course. An administration that, it is widely held, is one of the most conservative AND Christian in recent memory if ever.

I don't consider myself a conservative either, though I imagine most people here do! It's held to be the most Christian, I would say, because people don't know what Christian means anymore.

"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."

Now Gwaimir, read what I wrote. I wasn’t talking about YOU in particular. Simply stating a fact. That heterosexual Christians (the vast majority of Christians are heterosexual wouldn’t you agree?) are trying to tell non heterosexuals what they can and cant do. Im well aware of your homosexual leanings. Ive known about them since you were brave enough to discuss them here years ago. But that doesn’t take away from the facts of what I said. Nor does it give you some special right to tell other homosexuals how they can live their life either.

True, you didn't specifically speak of me. But the general tone of your posts is that of "straight Christians think gays are icky, and thus say homosexuality is bad." Now, I will certainly that there are many people who are this way. I have a friend who is quick to support Church teaching on homosexuality and anal sex, but hesitant when it comes to oral and pre-marital sex. Why is this? Because it is, truly, easy to take a moral stand when it doesn't affect you, and hard when it does. I definitely grant that many people are like that.

But when you generalize as you tend to, speaking of "straight Christians making the rules", it tends to minimize the fact that there are people such as myself, who have homosexual inclinations and believe that to act upon them would be wrong.

Now come on. You know very well the original statement I said was referring to kids being taught in school (I didn’t say ‘what parents can teach their kids’). Not what they were being taught at home. The vast majority of kids are taught in public schools. That’s where the tug of war is. Don’t play word games.

You're original words, if I may crypto-quote () were:

What they can teach their kids.

I assumed "they" refers to the parents; if not, I apologise.

This doesn’t take away from the fact that he actually had the audacity to veto it.

Certainly, I'll grant that. But when you wrote that, you quoted me when I said, "As far as I know, the few remaining ant-sodomy laws are effectively dead, and are not enforced." I assumed you were responding to me by pointing out something to the contrary; was I in error?

What does the fact that my tax dollars pay for public land and buildings where the religious right wants to place Christian symbols because they feel it’s a Christian country? That right wing political campaigns are being waged by Christian churches using money that they may otherwise have had to put into taxes if they were taxed? That Bush has opened up unprecedented access for religious organizations to public funds (my tax dollars…) in the name of ‘faith based charities’, a catch all that doesn’t begin to describe some of the programs (see Pat Roberston…) to the tune of many BILLIONS of dollars? Government funded vouchers for religious schools? Nevermind that my tax dollars are used to pay for facilities used by an organization that is rigidly against homosexuals even belonging to their group on religious grounds which is pretty offensive. And you still fail to see the connection?

I see some connection between faith and money, yes, but I don't see what this has to do with paying for your religious beliefs. How exactly do you pay for your religious beliefs, or lack thereof?

I actually think hes quite religious. At least in his own mind. In a typical American ‘live wild and have tons of money then get born again when its convenient’ kind of way. I don’t think its an act or anything. In fact that’s what I think makes him such a dangerous president. The fact that he lets his extremist religious notions about the world and his cronyism with big business exist in harmony. Scares me like religious regimes in places like Iran scare me. But at least the theocratic regime in Iran is out in the open about it.

Yes, you believe he is religious, but then, you are opposed both to him, and to religion.

I don't know, I just get the feeling that he's playing religion as a card; I definitely got the feeling that he has often been playing for Catholic support, which makes me suspicious of exactly how devout he is.

What? If they can marry? Come on get real. Do you really expect gays to marry the opposite sex when nothing could be more revolting and disturbing to them?

In the first place, I don't know that "nothing could be more revolting and disturbing to them". 1) See lavender marriages. 2) I might end up marrying.

When they are NOT allowed to marry the very people who they love and who they are attracted to?

I really don't think 'love' is attached to sexual attraction. A straight man can love a man, and a gay man a woman. In fact, there were a man and a woman who were openly gay, and gay activists, who ended up marrying one another because of a love that had developed through everything they lived through.

And as far as the 'what parents can teach their kids' well yer all about the technicalities today aren’t you. See above for a response to that.

Those were your original words; if it was not what you meant, I apologise.

The worry is not Christians in office. The worry is a religious state. Or like we have now a pseudo-religious/business state. That’s basically the essence of America if you think about it. God and money.

I don't think so. America is definitely very materialist, and definitely has at least a religious facade, but I don't know that I would say that is the essence of it. But that's a different topic.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Nothing worse than a gay guy in denial (most likely because of religion) ....living a lie and marrying a nice girl....and breaking her heart and life 10/20 years later when he meets the REAL love of his life.....a MAN. Everything seems controllable...till he falls head over heels in love/lust with another gay man. Oh...and what do you tell the kids!

I'm sorry you think there's nothing worse than me, Liz.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

True, you didn't specifically speak of me. But the general tone of your posts is that of "straight Christians think gays are icky, and thus say homosexuality is bad." Now, I will certainly that there are many people who are this way. I have a friend who is quick to support Church teaching on homosexuality and anal sex, but hesitant when it comes to oral and pre-marital sex. Why is this? Because it is, truly, easy to take a moral stand when it doesn't affect you, and hard when it does. I definitely grant that many people are like that.

But when you generalize as you tend to, speaking of "straight Christians making the rules", it tends to minimize the fact that there are people such as myself, who have homosexual inclinations and believe that to act upon them would be wrong.

Gwai, I am proud that you wrote that! seriously you are the only Catholic/ Christian I know who acknowledges his orientation but realizes that to act on it is wrong. (although I semi-know how you feel being bi myself)

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm sorry you think there's nothing worse than me, Liz.

Gee Gwai....has the thought ever occured to you that sometime in your large future you will met another gay man and (even though you don't want to) fall in love? Sexuality is very strong stuff. I wouldn't set myself up for heartbreak and failure.
I sure hope you tell any girl you become involved with the truth....before she fall in love with you. Imo, you (a really nice guy) have been brainwashed by religion, and are setting yourself up for personal disaster. You deserve better than a lifetime of supression.



BUT......there is a light at the end of the tunnel!



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html


Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect total accuracy from the Bible.

We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision, they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwins theory of evolution in schools, believing intelligent design to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this countrys Catholic bishops insist cannot be historical. At most, they say, they may contain historical traces.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is Gods word expressed in human language and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its intransigent intolerance and to warn of significant dangers involved in a fundamentalist approach.

Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, His blood be on us and on our children, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had tragic consequences in encouraging hatred and persecution. The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: His blood be on us and on our children.

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.
_________________

[Elfhelm]

Omygosh, a monkey just flew out my ...

[afro-elf]

Gwai thanks for the response. I was outta the loop for a few years so I was unaware.

AE

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Gee Gwai....has the thought ever occured to you that sometime in your large future you will met another gay man and (even though you don't want to) fall in love? Sexuality is very strong stuff. I wouldn't set myself up for heartbreak and failure.
I sure hope you tell any girl you become involved with the truth....before she fall in love with you. Imo, you (a really nice guy) have been brainwashed by religion, and are setting yourself up for personal disaster. You deserve better than a lifetime of supression.

is it wrong then to choose your God and beliefs over your own wants? I must also be brainwashed

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

Gwai, I am proud that you wrote that! seriously you are the only Catholic/ Christian I know who acknowledges his orientation but realizes that to act on it is wrong. (although I semi-know how you feel being bi myself)

See, that's exactly where we disagree. There is nothing wrong with love. It may be a mistake to become so absorbed in sensuality that you are not able to make good decisions, but that is entirely different and can happen to people of all persuasions.

Gwai, I assume you are considering a life of celibacy. I know the Catholic Church teaches that it isn't wrong to be gay, only to have gay sex.

I wish you the best outcome for your choices. It is your choice.

I do agree with Liz that it would be immoral to marry a girl and not tell her that she's your beard, so to speak.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I do agree with Liz that it would be immoral to marry a girl and not tell her that she's your beard, so to speak.

Is THAT where all the Entwives went, you think?

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

is it wrong then to choose your God and beliefs over your own wants? I must also be brainwashed

Pah! There is no god.......