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.

 

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

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
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?



Indeed, Jesus was also reported to spent the night with a "naked young man" teaching him "The mysteries of heaven". Incredibly few xtians are aware of this (or choose not to be aware) (picture of deaf monkey here) one has to wonder should it have been taught over the centuries would we now be having this discussion ?




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 





Gays must respect the beliefs of others just as they expect to be permitted their beliefs.


Why should beliefs be respected ? I have no problem with respecting people (and their right to have sex with whichever adult they choose) but why on earth should anyone respect an intangible idea ?

Gay people are not asking that their beliefs be respected their simply asking that their sexuality be recognized as part of who they are and that they be treated equally regardless of their sexual preference.

Christ dude, I personally find the thought of a hairy bloke pumping my butt quite repulsive, but nevertheless I would be the same "human" and not be expected to be treated any less should I one day decide to do so.




All the hatred that some gays throw at Christians really does not change anything.


I've no problem with them hating what christians do but I can't imagine them hating people they've never actually met that is ridiculous.




Just like all the hatred that some people throw at gays does not change anything.


Apparently xtians (according to their scripture) don't hate anyone just the act of anal sex between to men otherwise they love homosexuals the same as anyone else.




Often we have to agree to disagree in life


Unfortunately with chrisitianity you can't disagree, if you disagree they are instructed to put you to death and if they don't their god will and torture you for all eternity.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lilitu
So when the clergy rapes children and the church looks the other way, is that "ideology" too?


Why do you say "clergy" when you could just as easily say "gay men?"

The problem with accusing a gay man of molestation is that he will scream, "Bigot, you just hate gay people!"



edit on 23-11-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Re Mr Beans

You wrote:

"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)."

Thank you. You ARE able to answer straight to a question, which is what I asked for. I am not really interested in your esoteric and homebrewed theories about 'laws and order of nature', which you in any case never have explained.

English is my third language, and I have used it to communicate at academic level, usually without any problems at all. Fanatic opponents though sometimes point out spelling- or punctuationerrors as a last desperate measure of resistance.

I find the actual content, expressed through use of logic, clear definitions, a good syntax, proper semantics and coherency much more important. We seem to disagree about that at a practical level.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Re Sara123123

You're right ofcourse, about the dungthrowing between extremist opponents.

But the problem isn't really that big. Concerning marriage, a non-fascist society would allow marriage between two consenting adults regardless of religion, ethnicity, political or other ideological orientation, gender or whatever.

Disagreements would be relegated to academic debate, which doesn't interfere with peoples' lives to the same extent as legal regulations.

But as long as self-appointed elitists, extremists or -phobes give themselves the privilege of deciding what's best for minorities, under pretext of having sanction and authority from divinity, 'order-of-nature', übermensch/sub-human-ideologies etc., confrontation is unavoidable.

As a very obvious example, the former segregationist South Africa can be mentioned, where the forbidden list ALSO included inter-racial marriages, which were 'against god and nature and being a communist plot'.

Once we go this road, it's open and free for all. Next time the target can be jews (again), political dissidents (again), 'wrong' skin-colour (again) or people just looking funny and /or with red hair and green eyes (again).



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Just having some stray thoughts, which I present, while they are still fresh.

No-one can 'win' a 'red herring' competition. But that's not the intention of it anyway. The real purpose is to troll away central issues, which are inconvenient and can't be met in a meaningful way.

----------

Allusions can be made, without openly stating untenable accusations, through the use of 'floating' definitions;

a "perversion" can be:

a/ A deviation from a sexual norm (social, ideological or 'natural').

b/ A deviation from or a twisting of any norms not specifically sexual (and as above).

c/ An insult.

In the same vein, "fascism" can be

a/ A political system, centering around nationalism and a hierarchial system of an elite ruling 'the masses'.

b/ Any ideological system, which implies a hierarchial elite deciding on 'values' for everybody else.

(as I have used the word 'fascism' on this thread, maybe I should emphasize, that I'm using definition b).

-------------

Nature have norms. But it doesn't manifest any special mechanisms directed against deviations from said norms. In that case no mutations would have much of a chance.

In the context of homosexuality, maybe nature would increase this norm-deviation to the point, where overpopulation is no longer a threat for mankind and the planet as a whole. But I'm no 'Avatar' (=the movie) fan, so this is just an idle hypothesis (wish it would be true though).

------------

A valid point against using the backdoor as entrance is, that it can add to the risk of transferable diseases. And as 'alluded' (see above) the bad guy homosexuals can be stereotyped into a collective group of socially and ethically irresponsible types, who would never dream of using such methods as medical tests, before starting on their promiscuous escapades.

But as they are doing it anyway (using the backdoor, at least some of them, sometimes), a legalized marriage would clearly diminish the risks of such socially destructive behaviour. They would settle down and become 'responsible citizens' (from a homophobic perspective. My perspective is, that most homosexuals already are respectable).

Female homosexuals obviously don't have the equipment making such specific transfer of illness possible, so there should in any case be no objections whatsoever for their marrying each other.

Such crusades for the protection of mankind from diseases are ofcourse praiseworthy. But in a statistical context, the african situation with an already high percentage of HIV and rapes in their thousands being the order of the day, the energy used in saving-mankind-crusades would be ten times better applied, if the african problem, and not homosexuals, would be seen as THE problem.

This would ofcourse in some cases require a reorientation on religious doctrines or some visit to a shrink to get rid of obsessional phobias, but the CAUSE would be worth it. And where would we be without worthwhile causes.
Lost in wishy-washy tolerance and peace.



edit on 23-11-2010 by bogomil because: Because of not having english as my first language



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Lilitu
So when the clergy rapes children and the church looks the other way, is that "ideology" too?


Why do you say "clergy" when you could just as easily say "gay men?"


Because it wouldn't have been accurate. I said "clergy" because I meant clergy. Don't pretend you don't know what I am talking about. Theists of every ilk seem to have a unique aptitude for raping innocent children. Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join