It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Homosexuals shouldn't be ordained as priests, Catholic Church says

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I am not attacking you either intrepid, I wish you would read this post in a gental tone and not an agressive tone, as that is the way I meant it, but after rereading it it does tend to come off as agressive, sorry.


Originally posted by intrepid
Where in the world did you think I, in any way, meant this? It is none of those. I agree. Gay people just are, it's their disposition. Again, suggesting that it's a choice, a cognitive decision, just doesn't fly.

Again, third time, I ask you if you could be sexually active with another man if you weren't married. You seem to be avoiding this question. Whose mind is closed here?

As to interracial couples, I have no idea how this applies to your arguement.

Since you asked 3 times it is only fair I respond 3 times,

#1
If I was not married I would be open to a relationship of either way.
I have very close friends of both sexes and its highly possibble if I was not married that i would fall into a relationship with them, be they male or female.

By the way, my wife is aribic and im white.
I chose to be in an interracial relationship.

However you could also say that I had no choice in it because I am geneticly more attracted to aribic chicks eh?

Or possibly (what really happened) I just met this girl this one day and we started talking.
We became friends and hung out alot.
After a while we began to realize we had some deep feelings for each other.
We began dating and 2 years later we got married.

#2
Had she been a man the same thing could have happened, though i doubt it would have gotten past the close friend stage as most people aren't open minded enough.

#3
I would be fine in a gay relationship if I truely loved the person and cared for them, and they did likewise for me.

My personal preferences are not in question here though, what is however, is wether or not gays can choose to be straight, and they can.

When you take away the rights of people you make them into nothings.
When you say a person can not choose to be a certain way then they have no will of their own.

If you are going to complain that gays should be treated fairly then you should treat them fairly.
They are no better or worse than you.
They can choose to be gay or straight just like you or I can choose to be.

If you can choose a mate you can choose to be straight.
Yea, it rhymes but thats besides the point.

The bit about interratial couples is an analogy.
If people can choose a different race, they can also choose a different sex.
There is no underlying genetics behind white men who prefer black women.
Why does there have to be when a white man chooses a black man?

And where do you get off asking me "Whose mind is closed here?" you already admitted to being not able to be gay.

The problem here is that we are on the same team here, all of us are.
We are people uncovering lies and misinformation.
One of the biggest lies right now is that gays are gay because they can not choose to be straight.
It is not something you are born with, it is how you are rased and ultimately, what you choose.

For anyone reading this post that hasn't read my previous posts, go back and read them and you will understand me.

Do not disreguard what you do not understand or believe.
You may find that your previous beliefs were wrong when you study others' beliefs.
Your understand may change when someone explains something from a different angle to you.



[edit on 25-9-2005 by mrjones]




posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones
Just because they molested girls does not make them any less criminals.

Yep. You are right.

They should all be burned alive for their atrocitys.

Pedophiles are hard wired that way. There is nothing we can
do to stop them, except to take them out of society and/or away
from children. I favor life time prison sentences for pedophiles.
During those sentences, I favor deep psychiatric testing as
well as physical testing (on the brain) to see what causes
pedophilia. I also favor never letting them out of jail. Ever.

However, I fully understand your 'burned alive' suggestion.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones
And where do you get off asking me "Whose mind is closed here?" you already admitted to being not able to be gay.


That's right, it's not a choice, it's how I am. Same with Gay people.


The problem here is that we are on the same team here, all of us are
.

Agreed. You maybe thought that I was bashing or stereotyping Gay people, furthest thing from my mind. I hope that's become appearent.


One of the biggest lies right now is that gays are gay because they can not choose to be straight.
It is not something you are born with, it is how you are rased and ultimately, what you choose
.

Sorry, still disagree with this. That isn't someone who's gay, that refers to someone that's bisexual. Big difference.


Do not disreguard what you do not understand or believe.
You may find that your previous beliefs were wrong when you study others' beliefs.
Your understand may change when someone explains something from a different angle to you.


I'm getting what you're saying, consider what I've said here and let me know what you think. Like I said, there's a difference between gay and bi.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

[I]Originally posted by intrepid
I'm getting what you're saying, consider what I've said here and let me know what you think. Like I said, there's a difference between gay and bi.


I went from aggressively straight to hypothetically bi.
I say hypothetically because I have no intention of seeking out other companionship while I am married.
I love my wife and I will never choose to be with another person, no matter what.

I believe I understand you now intrepid.

If straight = man has sex with women, and gay = man has sex with men,
Then straight gay

Straight can lead to bi and gay can lead to bi, but gay can not lead to straight and straight can not lead to gay.

Basically by definition if your straight you can not be gay and if you’re gay you can not be straight because both require not having sex with the other sex in question.
If you have sex with either gender at any given time, gay at 20, straight at 30, then you are bi and will never be straight or gay again.

intrepid,
You can not be gay because you are straight; the closest you could come would be bi because of the straight modifier, but once you become bi you can not choose to become straight or gay.
You will be branded bi for the rest of your eternity.

So my point still stands, albeit somewhat altered in light of this new realization.
Gays can choose to be bi; straights can choose to be bi.
It's still a choice, just because you are one way does not mean you can not change to a new way.

So in theory there are 5 sexual orientations, 3 of which are choices.
1 - Celibate -choice
2 - Straight
3 - Gay
4 - Bi -choice
5 - Eunich -choice

Everyone is born orientation 1 and can choose to stay that way all their life.
After having sex for the first time one is changed to either orientation 2 or 3
Upon having sex a second time, with the opposite gender than the first time, one becomes orientation 4.
At any time one can become orientation 5.

It all seems so clear now.
Thank you intrepid, for making me realize this.

Now back to the question at hand, I believe I have a solution.
Priests should all be euniched.
Any priest found to be straight, gay or bi should be depriested.
Any person found to be molesting or having sex with children should be executed, I don't care if it's how you are, you soon won't be.


[edit on 26-9-2005 by mrjones]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why don't you stop and think about it, huh? We3 aren't talking about a job at Wal-Mart here, you are talking about the Priest hood. It is clearly and abomination according to the Church. Does it make sense that the Church would allow it? Uh, no. What is totally illogical is that anyone would think that the Church would allow it.
The only thing this indicates is that the Vatican is unwilling to let the secularlist dictate curch policy, and I say good for them!


Uhm, it's probably not your fault you have never been to websites like www.godmademegay.com , but please do not act as if the flawed interpretation of the bible that the vatican is displaying is the "correct christian" one because it's just not.

Also, if I understand it correctly, the Vatican is not saying gay people should not become priest, they are saying gay people who engage in sex with people of their own gender should not be priest, because that is the meaning of the word "homosexual" right?

In other words, have a life without relationship and intimacy and you can become priest, regardless of what desires you were born with...

If I am wrong, and they do not allow people who were born gay to become priest, their policy comes down to utter discrimination.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones

My personal preferences are not in question here though, what is however, is wether or not gays can choose to be straight, and they can.


Oh yeah, is that why teenagers actually commit suicide when they find out they are only attracted to people of their own gender?
Get your facts straight, you clearly have no freaking clue what you are talking about.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Okay after seeing the total and utter ignorance displayed by Mr Jones, let's get a few things clear here.

1. First of all human beings are born with certain desires in a certain direction.
Some are born gay, some are born straight and some are born Bi.

Don't agree? Take a look at these links.

www.hedweb.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/12/05/ngay05.xml
www.boston.com...
www.365gay.com...
www.planetout.com.../12/06/4


Researchers at Northwestern University, outside Chicago, are doing this work as a follow-up to their studies of arousal using genital measurement tools. They found that while straight men were aroused by film clips of two women having sex, and gay men were aroused by clips of two men having sex, most of the men who identified themselves as bisexual showed gay arousal patterns. More surprising was just how different the story with women turned out to be. Most women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bisexual, were significantly aroused by straight, gay, and lesbian sex. "I'm not suggesting that most women are bisexual," says Michael Bailey, the psychology professor whose lab conducted the studies. "I'm suggesting that whatever a woman's sexual arousal pattern is, it has little to do with her sexual orientation." That's fundamentally different from men. "In men, arousal is orientation. It's as simple as that. That's how gay men learn they are gay."

These studies mark a return to basics for the 47-year-old Bailey. He says researchers need a far deeper understanding of what sexual orientation is before they can determine where it comes from.

Female sexual orientation is particularly foggy, he says, because there's been so little research done. As for male sexual orientation, he argues that there's now enough evidence to suggest it is "entirely in-born," though not nearly enough to establish how that happens.



2. There is a difference beteen desire and sex.
Someone who only desires women can choose to have sex with men.
This does not change the orientation of this person, it does not turn them bi either.

It's essential that you understand what "being gay" means. It does not have anything to do with sex, it has to do with who someone wants to have sex with.




Now seriously Mr Jones, with all the info directly available to you on the internet, you have no excuse to be this ignorant about the subject.
If you don't know enough about then just do not speak untill you do...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
FYI...
there are several medical studies that assert that sexual desire is a physical hormonal response, and is chemical in nature...

Add a study that was done regarding oral birth control during the 70's that proves that a pregnant mother with a male fetus, who still took birth control during the first and second trimester (from not knowing she was pregnant) would have a massively increased chance of having a female hormonally driven male child...
in essence, a genetically programed twink...
the child would only become sexually excited by male hormonal breeding messages such as pherimones...
in short: they would never become physically capable of breeding with a female due to lack of sexual arousal...

is this a choice? didn't think so...

it also established that hormonal signals are the basis for sexual attraction, and it is indeed a genetic thing...

this does NOT EXCLUDE that many homosexual or bisexual people are "choice" not genetic... only that there is a verifiable genetic predisposition that isn't a choice...

so you get both... as well as the sexually deviant and depraved, that would screw a lightbulb if they could... all thrown into the group of "gay"

so guess what... you are all right, and all wrong... to some degree...
gay is both choice and genetic



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
FYI...
there are several medical studies that assert that sexual desire is a physical hormonal response, and is chemical in nature...


Lol.
The response to the physical hormones you are talking about are just a small part of being gay.
Why do you think we are also attracted and turned on by mere photos and pictures?

You really have to get things straight.
It is not a choice, not even slightly.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Not a choice... for many... and how do you qualify the genetic vs the "choice"
you can't, I can't, they can't... so no one should ever try...

but as far as not being a choice...
then expain bisexual? is there a genetic predisposition to being sexually attracted to BOTH sexes... not so much...
the bisexuals I have known, fell into the "will screw anything" variety (choice)...
or the "are gay, but not accepting it", group (genetic)...

to get back on topic, can anyone really say that non practicing "gay" priests can even be identified... (other than thru confessional)

hummmm... maybe there is a genetic test?
HA!



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
As allready explained in the text I allready pasted, there is a big difference between males and females when it comes to this (quite complex) subject.
Bi males are born bi yes.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Now seriously Mr Jones, with all the info directly available to you on the internet, you have no excuse to be this ignorant about the subject.
If you don't know enough about then just do not speak untill you do...


Because everything on the internet is true right?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones

Because everything on the internet is true right?


If you are unable to recognise reliable sources, and seperate them from unreliable sources, then this inability may explain your ignorance.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
You know what is funny, look to all of the work done regarding sexual and even nonsexual abuse, whether the perpetrator targeted males or females of any age, and what is the primary conclusion?

That the perpetrators are NOT motivated by the actual sexual act, they are motivated by control. Call any of your local rape crisis lines or ask any support group and they will tell you exactly that.

The fact that some moronic, evil men who were priests molested boys, and girls to a lesser extent, should NOT reflect upon homosexuals at all. The overwhelming majority of those who molest children self identify and test as... bum, bum, bum STRAIGHT.

That said, the church is only making these sorts of pronouncements to "prove" to the world that they are doing something, anything to combat the problems of the past. Since many of the flock have departed, or are considering departing, due to the scandal(s), these sorts of things will continue in the hopes to stem the tide of departure.

The fact that homosexuals are being more or less targeted is just sad but someone has to be the scapegoat.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
That the Church will not ordain homosexuals shouldn't be seen as a surprise. For anyone interested in knowing in what the Church teaches, here are the relevant passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


Chastity and homosesuality

2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Gen. 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10), traditional has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." (Persona humana 8) They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359: Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


* note, any typos are my own responsibility.

This is what the church teaches. It doesn't teach hatred of homosexuals. It teachers that we should show them the same Christian love and charity that we should anyone else. However, as all of us are sinners, the homosexual act is also a sin, and a grace one at that. I person who has homosexual proclivities is called upon to remain chaste if they can not maintain a heterosexual relationship.

[edit on 2005/9/29 by ludahai]

[edit on 2005/9/29 by ludahai]

[edit on 2005/9/29 by ludahai]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnserNG

The fact that homosexuals are being more or less targeted is just sad but someone has to be the scapegoat.


WHat are homosexuals being targeted for? The CCC teachs us to show them respect. However, just because they can't become priests doesn't mean our Church is attacking them. If this were the case, the vast majority of the flock who are married would have a big problem.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
If the Catholic Chruch really worried about whom they ordain, they would run a background check to see if any of the "wannabe" priest have a record for child abuse for example.

Or they would turn in all the child rapists they have and not passing them a round form Parish to Parish so they can keep destroying childrens lies...

Sure ...point the finger at the gays but let the rest fall between the cracks.

HYPOCRITS !



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

I reread each post, not one person has said anything about molesters and gays being the same.


Hi. This is my first post here. Nice ta meetcha.

Molesters and 'gays' are most assuredly not the same. I'm guessing that's why you've not read one person as having said such.

Please note: my above comment is, if I understand you and the temperament of your post, me being unabashedly kind to your idiocy.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
"SUPPORT OUR HETEROSEXUAL TROOPS"
We are ALL Americans.
"SAVE OUR MARRIAGE. SAVE OUR NATION"
We are ALL Americans.
"ALL GAY PRIESTS ARE PEDOPHILES"
We are ALL Americans.
"ONE STRAIGHT NATION UNDER GOD"
We are ALL Americans.

We should ASSASSINATE all gays priests. After all, isn't this the Christian way? Is this not the testimony of our Christian leaders?



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
UGH!

I have been holding back on reporting this since this thread is so filled with posts from people not reading the entire thread and misinterpreting most of what is going on here. So I didn't want to be the one to revive it again. But since it just won't die......

As I believe I alluded to earlier in the thread, this entire debate is based on information from anonymous sources regarding an unreleased document, and we should wait till the document is released before making wild claims and assertations about the Church, homosexuals and hate mongering.

Against my better judgement, since this information is still not confirmed by release of the actual document, here you go:

"Vatican Document Stops Short of Gay Ban"

start.earthlink.net.../4345f2c0_3421_1334520051007-1165574365


The document, in the works for at least three years, updates Vatican policy, which had held that gays or men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained, regardless of whether they can remain celibate.

The new document permits candidates who have lived a chaste life for at least three years before their admission to a seminary, said the senior official, who requested anonymity because the document has not yet been released.


Now this also is an unconfirmed report from anonymous sources, however it is a report on the same document that started this thread and this report is a far cry from what half this thread is screaming about. Also, do not assume that people's outrage has caused the document to change since the first report (the Catholic Church is doctrine driven, and could care less how the general public reacts). This is still the same document.

My point is, if you want to deny ignorance, and you really want to debate the issue, we need to KNOW what the issue really is, and until the document is released, all we have are reports from unnamed sources and their interpretations.

Unfortuantely now I expect half the people posting beyond here will still not read all the posts, miss this, and continue to comment in ignorance in a knee jerk reaction to the title of the thread.


[edit on 10/8/2005 by Relentless]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join