By Resistting our Bigotry Gays Are Persecuting The Church says Italian Cardinal

Originally posted by bogomil
Apparently you are unaware of the difference between 'needs' and 'drives', and you mistake 'atypical' for 'perversion'.

I'm perfectly aware of the differences between these things, and I absolutely do not mistake atypical for perversion, I have thoroughly explained the difference.

Originally posted by bogomil
And from there you continue with, that sex needs procreation as a justification. As this weird postulate is in sharp contrast with practically all pragmatic experience (most mentally healthy people can enjoy sex for its own sake), and you describe yourself as agnostic (thus not using any doctrine as your source, there's no frowning divinity lurking), you must have some esoteric knowledge of 'natural order' (what is 'natural') with which to explain your extraordinary ideas on sex to us uninformed.

I've said very clearly that having sex simply for pleasure is perfectly normal (I do it all the time), I'd suggest that you actually read my posts before replying next time.

Originally posted by bogomil
You also present some health-aspects of sex, which are rather out of proportion to the reality outside your tunnel-vision.

Such as?

Originally posted by bogomil

There are ofcourse situations involving more than 'consenting adults' in much context with minority groups. But the 'rigths' of such groups are countered by an equal amount of obligations.... the limits of individual freedom set up by liberal society. So for a start to legalize homosexual relationships can only be a problem for phobics and control freaks.

Homosexual relationships are already perfectly legal...

Originally posted by SevenBeans
It isn't anti-gay, it's just a fact.

It is different because an opposite gender relationship is a fundamentally different circumstance than a same gender relationship (not so with the race example). The government didn't attach legalities to traditional marraige for fun, they did it primarily to protect offspring from destitution in the case of divorce or the death of Mother or Father.

Wrong. You don't have to have children to get married. If they changed the law to make legal marriage by government involve children then this would be correct. Infertile couples and persons with no plans for children get married all the time. I would have no problem with the whole thing if that was the case.

Once again, the dynamic doesn't just effect the church it effects everyone (including kids). The problem is that anyone who doesn't believe homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy is called anti-gay, or hateful, or ignorant or a bigot - this is a dishonest propoganda tactic designed to crush all expressions of dissent. Your comments and many others on this thread are a perfect example of what the Cardinal was referring to.

The Church calling something sinful is not bigotry... the Church says that we are all sinners, but it's only gay people screaming bigotry.

Semantics. Just because the Church is calling it a different word doesn't mean jack. It's the Church insisting that a large part of societies moral beliefs are wrong. Lets pretend the debate is now about flat earthers. Now imagine the earth is flat. The Cardinal comes out and says flat Earthers are calling people ignorant and anti-flat earth as a dishonest debating technique ... Well of course they're going to say it's ignorance! They're not just going to sit there and say 'oh well he's entitled to his opinion that we're all nuts.'

Hell they are entitled to their opinion, but they're not being any more persecuted against than those they are targeting in the first place.

Fact is the Church spends a large amount of time targeting gays as part of the downfall of humanity and the family unit. That's just how it is. Just because they're dressing their argument up in a dress and pig tails doesn't make it suddenly not an argument and transform it into a hugging session where everyone's input is deeply valued.

Take my argument as if I completely didn't care about the subject matter ... The Cardinal's announcement pretty much comes down to ... There was some people. We told them they were wrong. Those people disagree with us, and now I'm a sad panda because I want people to listen to my argument. It's the equiv of going to a soccer game and telling everyone there was a ball there.

What does the Cardinal really expect from people who think he is wrong??? He would clearly like homosexuality removed from humanity. I suppose some gay people should invite him around for bagels? Of course gay and non-religious people are going to call him ignorant - he doesn't exactly have a stellar opinion of them in the first place.

Side note: The Church really should lay off the homosexuals and start on the BDSM crowd ... it would be so much more entertaining.

Re SevenBeans

If you have been aware of the difference between needs and drives, why have you consequently used the wrong word through all your posts?

A sexual need is closely connected to primitive, instinctive pleasure/pain circuits, and for various reasons and in various situations this will often override other considerations, not harming anyone more than other human activities. You have, with considerable semantic liberty, called such sexual atypicality for 'perversion', a word which has strong derogatory implications. And as you insist, that you really can distinguish between 'atypical' and 'perversion', I can only take your use of the word as an intentional and studied insult to homosexuals.

As I said in my last post, you would probably be repeating yourself, and you haven't disappointed me. You 'have already explained' your attitude on homosexuality as 'perversion', because it's dysfuntional in your opinion.

In that case individuals who masturbate are also 'perverts', as there is no different-gender person present in their sexual act, which is dysfunctional.

Or people who 'pervert' (change to dysfunction) another pleasure/pain need: Eating. Those who overeat or eat junkfood have obviously also broken your defintion of functionality as the correct thing to do, so they are also 'perverts', who don't deserve the same civil rights as others. They harm their own health, cost society money and don't forget their poor children, who run a much bigger risk of becoming obese also.

And obesity is REALLY one of the killers, dwarfing STD statistically. And then we have smokers, people who drink more than a glass or two a day, coffedrinkers, TV narcomans, who never get any exercise, and all the other individuals, who don't live up to YOUR ideal of the 'functional'.

Some may object, that this is not the same, sorting their own little sexual pre-occupation out as 'special', not to be compared to other dysfunctional needs. And ofcourse these dysfunctionalists would have their democratic and civil rights to live on raw carrots, herbtea, alcohol-free beverages, no TV and two hours of compulsary jogging, according to what kind of fascism is in fashion for the time being.

Your posts are reeking of hidden moralism based on your own phobic shortcomings, and you disguise that by pretending to 'understand' and 'explain' the sex-pleasure connection in a higher context.You have the meaning of life and everything.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by The Djin
So by your book sexual attraction and love are two completely different things ?

By definition they are different things.

Okey dokey so's we know where we are.

As we know, (according to the majority of xtians) your god yahweh/jesus created everything,that is, was or will ever be.
He created the heavens and earth and the animals, and as the story goes he saw that what he created was "good".

As we know, many of the creatures your god yahwhe/jesus created, engage in homosexual activity, one particular animal the Bonobo is known to engage in all manner of sexual activity homosexual being but one item on of its' sexual repertoire.

So, the Bonobo (which is good ) that is created by your god has homosexual sex, clearly this is not in order to pass on its genes and it would be fair to classify the action as sexual attraction.

Here we have a primate engaging in homosexuality and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that as your god yahwhe/jesus created "everything" and saw "that it is good" then your god created homosexuality which some species engage in, so logically and by your bibles resoning homosexuality is good.


Yes. we know that your god created both good and bad and it is your god that actually defines bad(or evi/sin) , nevertheless your god created homosexuality, the sexual attraction that you speak of and (in the animal kingdom at least) your god saw it was good.


When it comes to human beings they also display "sexual attraction" but in this case should they act upon elements of this, your god deigns the action "bad" so much so that the perpetrator of such an action should be put to death !!

In summary -

Your god creates something good but in certain instances calls it bad, such are the moral leanings of your god
The sexual attraction toward children is not considered bad by your god but is totally repugnant to humans, this would indicate two things 1 The morals of the (alleged) created are far higher than that of your god 2 your god appears to somewhat insane and totally devoid of reason.

Hi Djin,

Dude, I almost believed, that this thread would go to the final resting place where all good threads go, when they have outlived the average public attentionspan of 2-3 days.

And THEN I thought, that I could manifest my compulsion of always wanting to have the last word, by posting my standard sermon on the blessings of liberal society...

and THEN you gave the thread a resur-erection (sorry, from South Park, but it will at least be new to those christians, who only 'research' material confirming their confirmations)...

and THEN I thought, "aha-ha-HA", something which lately has come into vogue with fundies, who have become tired of logic and explaining that soup-kitchens are less important than faith...LOL.... (should anybody have missed the haha)....

...kind of lost it here, so I'll go back to the aha-ha-HA...

.....and found it kind of funny and relevant with resur-erection, ofcourse on the condition that the resur-erected thingumajig goes into the proper reproductive slot.

But all this hilarity lead me into a halfdepressed introspective mood, for which googling usually is a good medicin, and there I (re)found some concepts on the subject of 'reality' (thinking about 'reality' always makes my life brighter), where I apart from rhetoric, general semantics and epistemology (which I already knew about) also added 'syntax' to my collection of impressive-sounding academically expressions I can throw at people, who hopefully don't know, what it means.

Trying to understand these concepts myself (such can look convincing), I constructed a few speculations and arrived at the following: For those, who on general holy principles just like to make life miserable for their surroundings, or just think homosexuality is unsanitary and doesn't add to the overpopulation, godless individuals such as me are terrorists.

Because I suffer from lack of divine guidance, I on my part, consider myself a freedom fighter.

Well, I almost knew that already, but the new insight I got is, that the outcome, ...what you appear to be... is not decided by by any rational argument, but by the amount of rhetoric noise you make (quantity counts more than quality here) and combined with really, really bad semantics and lousy syntax you have a winner. At least you can effectively stop any debate on subjects, which can be embarrasing or inconvenient for you.

Thanks for the word. I will now spend a cosy evening, rejoicing in my newfound wisdom.

Because I suffer from lack of divine guidance, I on my part, consider myself a freedom fighter.

reply to post by bogomil



Ahh, but how do you know you were not divinely guided to this thread in order to be educated by those that have a direct line to the allmighty ?

We have to look at the bigger picture here my friend,

Asssuming you are not gay, both you and I benefit emensly from homsexuality in that, the more men that accept they are gay the more women there are for the rest of us.
Needless to say the more available women, the more fornication and sining we are likely to get up, to so while we may defend the right to have sex with same sex we may be pandering to our own selfish desires.

So, the fundies know this and come here in order to save us from going to hell for having to much of the fornication, having a sideswipe at gays could well be a bonus to their selfish aspects.

Indeed their god may well be moving in mysterious ways lol.

Hi Dude,

it's late night here, but as I'm getting increasingly nerdish in my habits; I'm still awake, though I can feel my intellect closing down.

But your post did send me down a line of thoughts on the intricacies of how to understand and explain christian doctrine.

Now I haven't ofcourse heard ALL their 34.000 interpretations, but it's my impression, that a major part of christianity vaguely agrees somewhat on a few fundamental points, at least theoretically. (Whereas they can start heated ideological debates on things like leavened or unleavened bread).

And from this unusual agreement, I in my uninformed way gather, that the whole thing with the unfortunate incident around the fruit and the talking snake with legs, in a way IS taken care of. That guy with the cosmic plastic-card has given us unlimited existential credit on the condition, that we believe in him and that we regurlarly say: "Sorry"; either to one of his local representatives in a special house build for that purpose or do it privately by repenting something which happened 6.000 years ago and which we, as present-time individuals, not are part of or responsible for.

But that's life for you.

And I've heard, that one of the sects of 'real' christians believe, that we are so deeply steeped in that 6.000 year old situation, that we are practically helpless and totally unable to do anything but repent. Our actions etc count for very little or nothing.

So as I see it, the more I sin, the more I have a legitimate reasons to repent (you can't cheat an omniscient god by pretending reasons for repenting). And the more I repent, the closer I get to Massa in the sky.

So maybe by being helped to a righteous and pure life, I'm really not better off. Theology can be a pain in the posterior.

It's a little funny that they are claiming this.

You know in the past if you were for homosexuality you were ostracized by the community, now it seems the tables have turned and these religious extremists don't like being on the receiving end of their own medicine.

What goes around comes around I suppose, but you can't expect to not receive a bit of crap when you've spent the last god knowns how many decades harrassing and demonizing a whole sect of society based on who they like to sleep with.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Pinke
Wrong. You don't have to have children to get married. If they changed the law to make legal marriage by government involve children then this would be correct. Infertile couples and persons with no plans for children get married all the time. I would have no problem with the whole thing if that was the case.

Nothing about what I said is wrong. The state can't check people's fertility etc. etc. before recognizing marraige obviously, the legalities were attached to traditional marraige because those situations represent relationships that are prone to producing offspring.

Originally posted by Pinke
Semantics. Just because the Church is calling it a different word doesn't mean jack. It's the Church insisting that a large part of societies moral beliefs are wrong.

It isn't semantics. I do things that they call sinful too, OMG bigotry! Complete and utter nonsense.

Originally posted by Pinke
Hell they are entitled to their opinion, but they're not being any more persecuted against than those they are targeting in the first place.

They don't "target" gay people anymore than they "target" me. I'm agnostic and face the same thing that the Cardinal spoke about, anyone who doesn't agree that homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy is called ignorant, a bigot, hateful, afraid of gays, a closet gay etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Pinke
Fact is the Church spends a large amount of time targeting gays as part of the downfall of humanity and the family unit.

Really? How much money have they spent? I bet it's a heck of a lot less than the various gay groups, on their futile mission to convince the world that homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy.

Originally posted by Pinke
There was some people. We told them they were wrong. Those people disagree with us, and now I'm a sad panda because I want people to listen to my argument. It's the equiv of going to a soccer game and telling everyone there was a ball there.

No, it isn't. He is not simply talking about disagreement, he is talking about the anyone who disagrees with the idea that homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy, is dishonestly called a bigot, hateful, afraid of gay people etc. etc. etc. It's a classic method of propoganda designed to silence all dissent.

Originally posted by The Djin
As we know, (according to the majority of xtians) your god yahweh/jesus created everything,that is, was or will ever be.
He created the heavens and earth and the animals, and as the story goes he saw that what he created was "good".

I am AGNOSTIC... how many times do I have to say that?

Originally posted by bogomil
You have, with considerable semantic liberty, called such sexual atypicality for 'perversion', a word which has strong derogatory implications. And as you insist, that you really can distinguish between 'atypical' and 'perversion', I can only take your use of the word as an intentional and studied insult to homosexuals.

Homosexuality is both atypical (most perversions are) and a perversion.

Originally posted by bogomil
As I said in my last post, you would probably be repeating yourself, and you haven't disappointed me. You 'have already explained' your attitude on homosexuality as 'perversion', because it's dysfuntional in your opinion.

In that case individuals who masturbate are also 'perverts', as there is no different-gender person present in their sexual act, which is dysfunctional.

My view has nothing to do with sexual acts, but attraction itself. Masturbation is an act.

The primary reason that we have a sexual drive to start with is to encourage sexual relations with adult human beings of the opposite gender. A person whose sexual drive encourages sexual relations with little kids, or monkeys, or the same gender, has had their sexual drive perverted/misdirected away from the reason that we have a sexual drive to start with.

Originally posted by bogomil
Or people who 'pervert' (change to dysfunction) another pleasure/pain need: Eating. Those who overeat or eat junkfood have obviously also broken your defintion of functionality as the correct thing to do, so they are also 'perverts', who don't deserve the same civil rights as others. They harm their own health, cost society money and don't forget their poor children, who run a much bigger risk of becoming obese also.

The primary purpose that we have an appetite is to encourage the consumption of food that provides calories, fat, protein etc. etc. (not tar, glass etc. etc.).

Someone who overeats is akin to someone who has sex a lot. Their appeptite is still encouraging the consumption of food (rather than tar or glass). Their appetite hasn't been misdirected/perverted to encourage the consumption of tar, their appetite encourages the concumption of food.

I think homosexuals should have every right that I have (and they do).

Originally posted by bogomil
And obesity is REALLY one of the killers, dwarfing STD statistically. And then we have smokers, people who drink more than a glass or two a day, coffedrinkers, TV narcomans, who never get any exercise, and all the other individuals, who don't live up to YOUR ideal of the 'functional'.

No one else can make us obese, sodomizing someone on a regular basis or spreading an STD should be considered assault because you're doing it to someone else.

I don't approve of obesity of course, but your analogy isn't analogous.

Re SevenBeans

As most other people who have some extremist attitudes to push, you use a lot of words, but practically without any coherent meaning as a result.

You contradict yourself; change your definitions on the way, as it suits your purpose best; you postulate some knowledge of a purpose in 'natural order' nobody else have heard of; when your opinions are threatened you twist words and meanings into some unrecognizable, and you use the steamroller technique of just repeating the same unevidenced postulate again and again and again.

So just another demagogue. And to avoid more of your miserable semantics and syntax, I'll give you one example, which should be enough.

You wrote:

"I think homosexuals should have every right that I have (and they do)."

Yes, and what has that to do with anything at all on this thread? The original question was, if homosexuals could marry homosexually. And you twisted that question into a completely irrelevant discussion about something else.

The question is and was: "Where is the problem with same-sex marriages". If your twisted logic, and your homophobia allows it, try to answer directly for once instead of running around in rhetoric circles.

Just to give you a hint of, what a direct answer is...There's no talk of adoption implied in my question.....there'll be no change of sexual status quo........and if you know of any higher principles in nature, creation or elsewhere, which has anything to do with a same-sex marriage, it needs some explanation.

Quite honestly, your homophobia is so extreme, that it's atypical compared to average sane persons, and following your own latest definition (únless you have changed it once more) you are a pervert with your obsessive need of oppression of a harmless minority group. An your perversion is dangerous, because it suggests attitudes which basically are fascistic.

But let's see, if you can produce one single paragraph without twisting anything or turning 180 degrees.

reply to post by SevenBeans

I am AGNOSTIC... how many times do I have to say that?

So, are you trying to say your homophobia doesn't have stem from christianity ? As a child did you once wake up in the morning and suddenly decide "hey being gay is sicko and not normal, humans that do this shoud be persecuted and denied equal opportunity " ?

reply to post by bogomil

So as I see it, the more I sin, the more I have a legitimate reasons to repent (you can't cheat an omniscient god by pretending reasons for repenting). And the more I repent, the closer I get to Massa in the sky.

And the good news is you can do what the hell you like and get away with it as long as you give homage to the jesus godman.

Think of it dude, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot could well be sitting next to jesus watching as we speak , they could watch you rape murder molest and pillage bugger and curse all your life, but just before you die you say "Hey I believe in jesus" and you will be all forgiven and spend an eternity in a cloudy happy place grovelling to him.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
And here is part of the problem, lack of respect... when it comes to homosexuality you either think it's perfectly normal and healthy or you get compared to racists and it's suggested that you must hate gay people (or be afraid of them). This is intellectually dishonest but it's a very effective way of silencing opinions that you would rather not hear/discuss.

This is unfortunately SO true. *They* do it against those who don't feel the same way as they do, they do it towards political enemies and everyone else under the sun.

A great example that some of the Pro-Gay's might relate to: Israel VS Gaza. How many times haven't you been called a racist Nazi for *not* supporting Israel? Same way with those who don't support the Gay community. You don't hate the persons but cannot agree with what they're doing, natural or not.

Originally posted by bogomil
As most other people who have some extremist attitudes to push, you use a lot of words, but practically without any coherent meaning as a result.

Ironically that describes your responses more than what I've written.

I've described my view very specifically and coherently, if you have a problem with some part of it please address that part and explain why you disagree.

Originally posted by bogomil
You contradict yourself; change your definitions on the way, as it suits your purpose best; you postulate some knowledge of a purpose in 'natural order' nobody else have heard of; when your opinions are threatened you twist words and meanings into some unrecognizable, and you use the steamroller technique of just repeating the same unevidenced postulate again and again and again.

I have not contradicted myself or changed any definitions, if you think I have please provide an example.

Let's try this, I'll ask you a question and you answer it, okay?

Do you think the primary purpose that humans developed a sexual drive to start with was to encourage sexual relations with adult human beings of the opposite gender? If not please explain what you think the primary purpose was and why.

Originally posted by bogomil
And to avoid more of your miserable semantics and syntax, I'll give you one example, which should be enough.

You wrote:

"I think homosexuals should have every right that I have (and they do)."

Yes, and what has that to do with anything at all on this thread? The original question was, if homosexuals could marry homosexually.

You implied that I didn't think they should have equal rights, and I simply said that I think they should (and that they already do).

Originally posted by bogomil
The question is and was: "Where is the problem with same-sex marriages". If your twisted logic, and your homophobia allows it, try to answer directly for once instead of running around in rhetoric circles.

Just to give you a hint of, what a direct answer is...There's no talk of adoption implied in my question.....there'll be no change of sexual status quo........and if you know of any higher principles in nature, creation or elsewhere, which has anything to do with a same-sex marriage, it needs some explanation.

Honestly I have a lot of trouble understanding your writing, I don't ask this to be insulting, but is English your first language?

I don't think same-gender marraige should be legally recognized as the same sort of situation as opposite gender marraige (because they are different). The legalities attached to traditional marraige were proposed, debated and voted upon with the understanding that the term "marraige" applied to a particular circumstance (two adult human beings of the opposite gender in a committed romantic relationship).

Originally posted by bogomil
Quite honestly, your homophobia is so extreme, that it's atypical compared to average sane persons, and following your own latest definition (únless you have changed it once more) you are a pervert with your obsessive need of oppression of a harmless minority group.

Quite honestly... I'm not afraid of homosexuals and I haven't changed any definitions and I'm against the oppression of anyone (where on earth do you get the idea that I want anyone oppressed)?

Originally posted by The Djin
So, are you trying to say your homophobia doesn't have stem from christianity ? As a child did you once wake up in the morning and suddenly decide "hey being gay is sicko and not normal, humans that do this shoud be persecuted and denied equal opportunity " ?

I'm not afraid of gay people, what gives you such an idea?

It's obvious that a sexual attraction only for little kids, or sheep, or the same gender is a misdirection/perversion of the sexual drive (seeing as the primary reason for having that drive in the first place is to encourage sexual relations with adult human beings of the opposite gender).

I'm opposed to all persecution and believe everyone should be treated by the law equally (I've said this many times). I'm STILL waiting for someone to list some of the things that I can do that gays can't (how many pages in are we now... still waiting).

reply to post by The Djin


"The ideology of homosexuality"

So when the clergy rapes children and the church looks the other way, is that "ideology" too? It must be. After all, Jesus himself supposedly said "Allow the children to come to me". I wonder what "ideology" he had in mind?

Eh ... hypersexuality is a trait that helps a species reproduce ... a side effect is that it makes the species more innovative when it comes to sexuality.

Look at Pandas ... Not enough urge to mate to the point they're almost extinct.

Then look up monkey vs frog on youtube.

The very same trait that likely brought us through these 125, 000 years of development is probably the same trait the Cardinal is having problems with. Just my IMO, but this stuff will never end.

reply to post by NoArmsJames

Gays must respect the beliefs of others just as they expect to be permitted their beliefs. All the hatred that some gays throw at Christians really does not change anything. Just like all the hatred that some people throw at gays does not change anything. Often we have to agree to disagree in life.