a religion of hate?

[Art]

Originally posted by Destino

That Dr. Money debacle showed the world that the gender you are born with is not able to be changed. It is not learned or the good dr.'s study would have been a success. It wasn't.

BTW - good guess as to what a liberal would do, save your bull**** stereotyping for someone else.

Destino,

From your closing sentence I take it you've seen the error of your ways and will never offer a stupid debating point with me on this issue again. Otherwise, my stereotyping may be a better fit than you realize despite your protestations.

[@DCGoldPants]

doesn't the bible say many things that aren't followed today?

How do they decide which ones aren't cool anymore?

Are the members of the church who are involved in sex scandels...especially with males, allowed to get communion?

[Ancalagon the Black]

despite one minor indiscretion...

How did you know about that? Oh my Lord--was that YOU in the chicken suit??

[Art]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

doesn't the bible say many things that aren't followed today?

How do they decide which ones aren't cool anymore?

Are the members of the church who are involved in sex scandels...especially with males, allowed to get communion?

You know what, Bufford? Probably so. Confession is part of the religion. If the men involved in some of these scandals have gone to confession and paid whatever religious penance ordered them, then, in the eyes of the church and the God of the church, these men are absolved of stain from their sin. They are absolutely allowed to get communion.

So, too, would a gay man who'd had sex the night before with another man, but who that morning confessed his sin and sought absolution. However, the people who are wearing sashes to show their identification as supporters of gay rights -- sin -- they have freshly sinned themselves and by not confessing and seeking to redeem their sins, they are not allowed.

We have friends in Minnesota who went off to the Caribbean 16 years ago to marry. All the family and friends went and they were married and started living together. However, her parents were Catholic and required a Catholic wedding. So, they all got dressed up and went to church for a wedding. The priest wouldn't marry them until she confessed her sins. What were her sins? That she slept with a man out of wedlock. When did she do it? The night before, several months into her marriage, because the church did not recognize the union.

If my wife and I converted and became Catholic tomorrow and sought a Catholic wedding, we'd also have to confess our sins the last five years before they would recognize our right to marry before the eyes of their God. I wouldn't expect them to marry us if I don't abide by the rules of the church.

[Lone Star Skin Fan]

I'm glad I'm a tolerant person. No one chooses to be gay. You don't have to be a "liberal" to realize that. It is also wrong to compare it to pedophilia, rapists, etc. No one gets assaulted against their will in homosexuality. It is not a crime. Just because science has not found an earthshattering discovery that explains it does not mean people are not born gay. Homosexuality is only a "crime" or "perverse" because of intolerant people. Live your own life as you see fit, and let others do the same and be happy.

Children and this society will not be destroyed if married gay people are walking around. I am the most heterosexual man in the world; I can't imagine being gay, but why even worry about it? We are responsible for our families. All we should do is teach our children the way we see fit and teach them to be TOLERANT and RESPECTFUL of ALL people, no matter their race, sexuality, religion,etc. It's a famous cliche but it is true. That is what is important.

Two more points: 1) The "sanctity of marriage"= crap. People use this term just to hide their intolerance. Marriage is a crapshoot. Works for some, for others it does not. Over half end in divorce. And that's not counting seperations and those who are miserable and just stay together. Spouses cheat in record numbers. Heck, gay marriages would probably be more successful.

2) The religious- faith is a covenant between you and your God. Live your life the way you believe your God wants YOU to and don't worry about others. You won't be judged on what OTHER people do. Maybe you are right and gays will go to hell. That is THEIR decision. Live YOUR life, be tolerant and let others be happy.

Gay people are not going to crawl into a hole and go away. Allowing them to be married will not destroy marriage as we know it. There will not be an explosion in gay population. Even if they adopt, odds are the child they raise will be heterosexual (and most definitely more tolerant of others).

[fmorris]

Good post lonestar. I think tolerance is very important. I could care less about gay marriage, but i would much rather see a young kid being raised by a loving gay couple, than an abusive hetero couple. Thats the dad and husband in me talking. Good post.

[GSF]

It seem to me there is some sort of strange dynamic between Catholitism and Homo-sexuality. After reading that article and this thread, I'm just left with questions.

Why is it that priests caught with young boys are almost always Catholic? Why is the Catholic Church so vocally opposed to homo-sexuality when it struggles with it amongst its leaders? Why would any gay person want to be an active member of the Catholic Church knowing how they are looked upon by the leaders of the Church? Come to think of it, why is it that out of the handful of gays I have known, almost all of them grew up Catholic? Hmmm...maybe that one is just a coincedence.

Also, if being gay is a decision, how and when do people make that decision? I, like every other straight person I know, have never even considered trying out homo-sexuality. The thought just seems absurd to me. And along those same lines, if being gay isn't genetic, at least for some people, why do animals have gay sex? Do they decide to be deviant, or do some of them instictually participate in this behavior?

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by Destino

So because I happen to oppose the discrimination gays encounter in this country I should be denied communion with my God? That's stupidity of the highest order and I find it to be completely against the teachings of Jesus.

In fact the Catholic church, of which I am a member, has taken a rigthward trun in the political realm that is going to cost them a great many followers. You see I make up my own damn mind when it comes to politics and take a lot more into account then stances on a handful of issues. If that means I can't take communion, then not only won't I, but the church and it's brigade of large hat weilding hypocrites can kiss my @ss.

Organized religion has become a sham, perhaps it always was and I just didn't see it but at least I can thank this latest generation of Cardinals and Bishops for opening my eyes. When I read the letter from that fraud in Arizona telling Catholics that if they support abortion, gay rights, etc etc listing liberal issues AND LEAVING OUT THE DEATH PENALTY which is a long time CATHOLIC issue I knew the church had sold itself like a cheap whore to political partisanship. When a church leader leaves out a central issue to the church in order to align himself with a poltical party he loses all influence in my eyes.

So to answer Sarge's post, if the church stood up for it's issues then this would be a no brainer. Sadly they aren't, they are ignoring their own issues in order to favor a political party. How pathetic.

Destino, you are correct about organized religion it is exactly that, a sham, not just the catholic church, but all organized churches, I personally believe the bible teaches that the church age has come to an end, [ but that's another subject ] so I can understand your fustration with the hypocricy you see, and your right [church speaking], but the catholic church [i was raised believing in] which seldom get's thing's right, is right on this issue, although your assesment on homosexual priest's and so on, is right on, and yes they tolerate that sin for thier own higharchy, yet not from the average joe or joann:D the problem is the bible is the final authority, not the church, and when that ceases to be, then that church is considered a dead church, for they have become an authority unto themselves, I don't hate homosexuel's but I hate the sin, as I do all sin, and I wish just like any sinner that they would come to know the truth in their hearts, but it is a sin, and it is a choice.

This is what GOD has to say about it,

Leviticus 18:22---- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is an abominatin.

Roman's 1:26----- For this cause God gave them up unto vile affection's for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Roman's 1:27----- and like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust's one toward's another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and recieving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

As for taking part in the holy sacrement?

1 corinthian's 11:27---- Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the lord.

1corinthian's 11:28---- But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

1Corithian's 1:29---- For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the lord's body.

The churches if they are trying to be faithful to the word of God, have throughtout the year's did their best to warn people to abstain from the lord's cup, if they weren't absolutly sure they were saved, many churches would not allow you to partake until you became a member of that church, after they had a chance to question you, and make a discernment on whether or not you are a believer, so theoretically a member should only be a true believer, and thus will not heap more condonation upon themselves.

:point2sky

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Art

You know what, Bufford? Probably so. Confession is part of the religion. If the men involved in some of these scandals have gone to confession and paid whatever religious penance ordered them, then, in the eyes of the church and the God of the church, these men are absolved of stain from their sin. They are absolutely allowed to get communion.

So, too, would a gay man who'd had sex the night before with another man, but who that morning confessed his sin and sought absolution. However, the people who are wearing sashes to show their identification as supporters of gay rights -- sin -- they have freshly sinned themselves and by not confessing and seeking to redeem their sins, they are not allowed.

We have friends in Minnesota who went off to the Caribbean 16 years ago to marry. All the family and friends went and they were married and started living together. However, her parents were Catholic and required a Catholic wedding. So, they all got dressed up and went to church for a wedding. The priest wouldn't marry them until she confessed her sins. What were her sins? That she slept with a man out of wedlock. When did she do it? The night before, several months into her marriage, because the church did not recognize the union.

If my wife and I converted and became Catholic tomorrow and sought a Catholic wedding, we'd also have to confess our sins the last five years before they would recognize our right to marry before the eyes of their God. I wouldn't expect them to marry us if I don't abide by the rules of the church.

I ask because I think there might be something in there giving a Father the right to basically sell his Daughter into Slavery......which if the Church said was cool......I'd hope you would think is just about awful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I just could swear I heard that in one of a million debates.

So...................... which one would affect you more? Your Neighbor selling his daughters into Slavery or your Neighbor being gay and trying to go Church?

[Thiebear]

Raise your hand if your a homosexual but are intolerant towards:

Mormans Mulitple wives after 18+ years of age

Father Son after 18+ years of age

Brother Sister after 18+ years of age

18+ years of age, why not 10/11/12/13 what make you the moral authority on what is good for society?

Then if 10/11/12/13 why not 8/9?

Animals, as long as its in the bedroom who cares... OHHH it's ok to kill and eat them but to have sex with them is bad? Again, its in their bedroom you cant hear the bleatings...

The same people that argue to just let them do it would say no to most of the above? Its not about equality for ALL. It's about equality for what I believe in. The rest of it is just sick or against the law...

Oh yeah, don't forget to say those are seperate issues and should not be associated with homosexuality...

[Art]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

I ask because I think there might be something in there giving a Father the right to basically sell his Daughter into Slavery......which if the Church said was cool......I'd hope you would think is just about awful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I just could swear I heard that in one of a million debates.

So...................... which one would affect you more? Your Neighbor selling his daughters into Slavery or your Neighbor being gay and trying to go Church?

If you need a reason to mock religion, go to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com and have fun, Bufford. But, the effort is largely pointless when confronting the question we're speaking about here. I don't believe in organized religion any more than you do, or than Destino does.

But, along with the pathetic nature of those who know homosexuality is socially wrong in this country and attempt to assign homosexuals status as a distinct race of people born into their sexual deviancy, there's another group of people that seem to be doing what you wish to do which is to somehow make homosexuality more acceptable because organized religion has some wacky things in it if you've read some of the words attributed to "God".

The fact of the matter is I would rather my son be religious than be gay because as much of a joke as I find religion, I find people of faith to be among the finest people in society. And I find gay people to lack that kind of quality on the whole, though, obviously, you'll find some very fine people in the gay community and some horrible ones in the religious one.

[Glenn X]

A friend of mine recently told me that he personally knew several homosexuals who publicly "came out" and were subsequently disinherited by their families. He told me that he was surprised by this because these families weren't filled with "Bible thumpers." I told him that I wasn't surprised by that lack of "Bible thumpers."

Why?

In my experience, the only Christians who practice such intolerance aren't real Christians anyway, as Christianity is supposed to be about compassion and tolerance for others, even those whom find you, as a Christian, to be intolerable. Having said that, I don't think that means Christians should be expected to embrace homosexuality, as Christians are entitled to have their religious objections to it. However, Christians who would effectively "cast stones" at homosexuals -- especially those within their own families -- simply for being homosexual clearly aren't following Jesus's merciful model. In fact, some of the worst homophobes around are those loud-mouthed, self-aggrandizing, "hyper-masculine" athletes and frat-boys who view it as their personal mission to pummel some "sense" into any and all "fudge packers" they come across. And these are some of the most strikingly irreligious individuals imaginable, gleefully employing profanity and engaging in inebriation and promiscuity whenever they can.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm an agnostic and the idea that individuals are "born gay," that "Mother Nature" or their "genes" made them that way has always struck me as being just as simplistic as the idea that "God" has some "master plan" for everything and that we should all just chill out and go with the flow because it's all "God's will" anyway. I remember having a conversation with a lesbian friend a mine a few years ago about this issue, and she was so excited about the Human Genome Project because she couldn't wait for the scientists to find the "gay gene" that proved she was born homosexual. With due respect to her, I had to chuckle at such a notion. You're gonna tell me that something as complex and complicated as a person's sexuality can be reduced to something as simple as a particle of genetic material? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Fundamentally, sexual behavior is just that: behavior. And behavior is not a genetically conferred trait. Whether one's skin is light or dark or whether one develops leukemia or sickle cell anemia is demonstrably driven by genetics. But who one sleeps with? Yes, behavior can be affected to a degree by biology, as advances in neuroscience have proved that the brains of psychopaths function somewhat differently than those of non-psychopaths. However, not all psychopaths become violent criminals; some, for example, go on to become ruthless yet law-abiding executives. And it's reasonable to presume that environment plays a role in that.

Similarly, I believe that one's sexual orientation (which, for some, can be a quite shifty thing to nail down) is affected by a wide-ranging set of influences, from the environmental to the biological. However, I seriously doubt that biology is the overriding or most significant factor.

For example, homosexuality was quite commonplace in the Graeco-Roman world, where emperors were known to have wives and male paramours, and where Sparta, which assembled one of the finest and most effective armies the world had ever seen, encouraged its soldiers to have sexual relations with one another because it was felt that such activity would lead to better inter-soldier bonding and overall unit cohesion -- a far cry from the contemporary military model, which is defined by purely platonic, professional relations between its servicemen.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on reported rates of homosexuality in modern-day Greece and Italy, but I'd be greatly surprised if they are significantly different from those of the United States, where the rate -- depending upon which source one consults -- tends to fluctuate between 8 and 10 percent. Why is that? Why the shift from then to now? (I mean, if there really was a gay gene, it would follow that there should be a proportional amount of homosexuality in Greece and Italy today as there was back during the Graeco-Roman period, right?) I'm sure there are myriad salient factors involved in this, but probably the most important one would be the fall of old-time Graeco-Roman polytheism, which was greatly defined by hedonism, and the subsequent ascendancy of Christianity, which, like its Judaic forebear, has been greatly defined by a strict moral (one could even argue "prudish") code of conduct in all matters, especially sexual matters.

Moreover, the argument -- while well-intentioned -- that goes, "Why would someone choose to become homosexual? Why would someone choose such a difficult path, a path fraught with so much antipathy and rejection? That makes no sense. Therefore, homosexuals must be born that way," has never passed muster with me. It's an emotionally effective argument, yes, but not intellectually so in my opinion. If simply doing things that were "ill-advised" or likely to bring about angst and difficultly constituted the bar for determining whether or not certain behaviors were genetically-driven, then one could argue that pedophiles, bank robbers, and Chicago Cubs fans were "born that way." Also, it's silly to think that anybody sits down and consciously says to him/herself about a matter as deep as one's sexuality, "Hey, I think I'm gonna try out hetero-" or "homo-" or "bi-sexuality." It simply doesn't work that way. It's like trying to ask a writer where his/her stories and characters come from. Most writers will tell you, "Heck, I don't know. I just sit down at the typewriter or computer and these things just come to me. But I couldn't tell you from where exactly they originate." Just the same, writers do make decisions when they write, about what kind of story they want to tell, with what kinds of characters, etc.

Think of your favorite color. How did you arrive at that decision? Did you one day sit down and say, "Hey, I think I'll become a red lover" or "a blue lover" or "a green lover"? I certainly don't remember doing that. Red just seemed to "speak" to me for some reason. Does that mean I was "born" a red lover? Riiiiight.

Why do some people prefer sci-fi movies to historical period pieces, or Coke to Pepsi, or the Yankees to the Red Sox?

Me? I'm a Yankees fan. I fell in love with them when I was in elementary school back in the late '80s, back when they stunk and were always finishing last in the AL East. I remember my buddies making fun of me for rooting for a team so bad. So why did I pick them? I have no idea. (Although it's certainly paid off handsomely for me ever since Joe Torre was hired as manager in the mid '90s, hasn't it? ) I think I liked their uniforms and logo, something about those pinstripes and that interlocking "NY." But, c'mon, that's no reason to a pick a team, especially one as terrible as they were at that time. If I'd had any sense, I'd have picked the Oakland Athletics or some other team that was winning big back then. Simply put, I really can't explain it. But does that mean I was "born" a Yankees fan? Hell no! I wasn't even born in New York, for goodness sake! No, it was a decision that I made. And just because I can't explain it doesn't make it any less of a decision.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm not going to march for gay rights anytime soon because its really none of my business. But, I think you'd be shocked to find many people who you already find to be among the finest people in society, to also be gay.

and if that's not enough.....just look at it this way.

More Chicks for Us.

[Art]

Originally posted by Lone Star Skin Fan

I'm glad I'm a tolerant person. No one chooses to be gay. You don't have to be a "liberal" to realize that. It is also wrong to compare it to pedophilia, rapists, etc. No one gets assaulted against their will in homosexuality. It is not a crime. Just because science has not found an earthshattering discovery that explains it does not mean people are not born gay. Homosexuality is only a "crime" or "perverse" because of intolerant people. Live your own life as you see fit, and let others do the same and be happy.

Children and this society will not be destroyed if married gay people are walking around. I am the most heterosexual man in the world; I can't imagine being gay, but why even worry about it? We are responsible for our families. All we should do is teach our children the way we see fit and teach them to be TOLERANT and RESPECTFUL of ALL people, no matter their race, sexuality, religion,etc. It's a famous cliche but it is true. That is what is important.

Two more points: 1) The "sanctity of marriage"= crap. People use this term just to hide their intolerance. Marriage is a crapshoot. Works for some, for others it does not. Over half end in divorce. And that's not counting seperations and those who are miserable and just stay together. Spouses cheat in record numbers. Heck, gay marriages would probably be more successful.

2) The religious- faith is a covenant between you and your God. Live your life the way you believe your God wants YOU to and don't worry about others. You won't be judged on what OTHER people do. Maybe you are right and gays will go to hell. That is THEIR decision. Live YOUR life, be tolerant and let others be happy.

Gay people are not going to crawl into a hole and go away. Allowing them to be married will not destroy marriage as we know it. There will not be an explosion in gay population. Even if they adopt, odds are the child they raise will be heterosexual (and most definitely more tolerant of others).

Lone Star,

Tolerance has absolutely nothing to do with your approval of homosexuality. Brain washing might, but, as tolerant as you think you are, you probably aren't to people who know allowing gay couples to wed does diminish the sanctity of marriage as our society knows it.

You can't even pretend it doesn't. Our society knows marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That's what it is. Changing it alters the very fabric of what it is, destroying what it's been. This is a factual point that you can't scrub away by pretending to be tolerant of gay people while showing yourself to be intolerant of people who want to maintain some bit of social order by appreciating what marriage is and should be.

This is not all that different than the abortion thing though. I think you'd find a good majority of people willing to allow gays something other than marriage. Something like civil unions. I personally don't like it, but I could easily see that as something I would support because the institution of marriage should not be diminished to suit the needs of this group.

Yet, that's not good enough. As with the abortion conversation, where the conversation is owned by the extremes who want all or nothing, the gay marriage debate is likewise owned. Moving on though, you bring up a comment here that you find something wrong.

You find it wrong to associate being gay with being a rapist or being a pedophile. In the case of a pedophile your reasoning is someone being assaulted against their will. Of course, this is because as a society we've decided young people do not have the knowledge or experience to exercise their free will. Even if a child could be said to WANT a sexual experience, we would say it is improper.

Such is our desire as a society to protect children. This is what we, as a society, value. We believe in it.

Yet, being gay is a sexual deviancy just as pedophilia and incest and rape and the rest. Therefore you need to associate the behavior with similar behavior. You seem to have no problem allowing people to associate being gay with being a race of people, but, you find it wrong to associate sexual behavior with other sexual behavior. Do you realize how much of a struggle the effort is for you to plausibly make?

What's happening now is a group of people in this country has decided they don't like societal values any longer and want to allow gays normalcy. In 25 years when that invariably happens, where does the attention turn? Can we know in two or three generations that we won't be adopting pedophiles for special protection.

Afterall, they must be born to their desires, and if the children want it, and in many other countries it's not illegal, shouldn't we start lowering the age where we believe a person can make those decisions on their own? Why is it the night before a person turns 18 she can have sex with a 50-year-old man and he'd go to jail, but, the next day, he wouldn't?

Shouldn't we begin to lower this age? How about a 10-year-old who's heard about sex and wants to understand it. You know how they can be. Shouldn't we want parents going out and finding suitable adult teachers to give this crucial, necessary experience to their children?

When you alter the social norms to adopt one brand of perversion, you open the door for the next one to step into the fold and apply for adoption. And people will take the case and the arguments will be largely the same as those given today. I mean, how would marriage between a man and a child really impact marriage then anyhow.

[webnarc]

Originally posted by luckydevil

It's amazing how leftists will attack Christianity lack of tolerance of homosexuality, but will go out of their way to defend Islam.

Let me quote Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America

"homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption… No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."

A mainstream Muslim attacking homosexuality………

Is webnarc ready to call Islam a religion of hate?

Somehow, I doubt it

I would be willing to ask the question lucky, but Sarge has beaten me to it on a number occasions.

This leftist doesn't see the merit of excluding NON-sinner (the people who are tolerant of others) from participating in religions services. If you think it's cool lucky, that's fine, you're probably not gay or supportive of gays so you'll be able to eat the host any time, any place. You're lucky indeed to not see the injustice / hypocrisy of this type of discrimination.

Religion is hate, all religion is hate. When one group KNOWS that they are going to be with God when they die and every other group is going elsewhere, there's something screwy going on. When humans make the call that group x cannot partake in their religious practices, they are not leaving the final call up to God, they are making it themselves. A human being is deciding that these tolerant people will not go to heaven when they did because they are not allowed to practice the appropriate religious activities. See, it's a human making the call, not God, a human.

It is, in my opinion, hateful, because those tolerant of others are being treated as sinners.

GSF - there are many gay Catholic priests. They mistake their lack of attraction to women as their calling to priesthood. These people do to little boys what they do because they are homesexuals.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Art

Destino,

From your closing sentence I take it you've seen the error of your ways and will never offer a stupid debating point with me on this issue again. Otherwise, my stereotyping may be a better fit than you realize despite your protestations.

1 -- avoid the points I made

2 -- succeed in making no sense at all

3 -- irony of calling someone elses debating points stupid while admitting the use of stereotypes.

gg

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Glenn X, that's a great post and you've made some great points. I too agree that a "real Christian" is one who treats others (no matter what they stand for) the way they'd like to be treated.

HOWEVER, the whole point to this thread (at least my interpretation of it) was that people were attending a Catholic mass while outwardly supporting a stated sin. It's pretty cut and dry to me.

If I started a club and there were 10 rules and you were a member of my club and knowingly broke (or supported the breaking of) one of my rules, then you are in violation. End of story.

Why would someone who disagrees with the views of the church even want to be a part of said church??

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

Why would someone who disagrees with the views of the church even want to be a part of said church??

Because they want to change the Catholic Church. And I disagree with that. For all the happy-talk that some openly gay Christians like to voice in their comments about anti-homosexual passages from the Bible, arguing that such passages "really aren't anti-homosexual" or are merely "open to interpretation," the clear fact is that Christian dogma not only doesn't endorse homosexual behavior, it enjoins it.

Like you, I believe that if homosexuals want to follow the word of the Bible (with the notable exception of those portions forbidding homosexual activity), they should start their own church where they can do just that instead of trying to remake the Catholic Church over in "their own image."

My point about "casting stones" was in regards to those who go around calling homosexuals "fags" and "dykes" and acting as if they're a lower form of life. When Jesus met Mary Magdalene, he didn't say, "Get outta my face, you uncouth whore!" He extended to her a hand of friendship and got her to change her ways through his sermonizing. Similarly, Christians should approach homosexuals in the same way, trying to win them over through words of religious faith, rather than push them away with insults and epithets. And if homosexuals don't want to listen to those words, it's their right to walk away.

[GoSkins561]

Originally posted by luckydevil

It's amazing how leftists will attack Christianity lack of tolerance of homosexuality, but will go out of their way to defend Islam.

Let me quote Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America

"homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption… No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."

A mainstream Muslim attacking homosexuality………

Is webnarc ready to call Islam a religion of hate?

Somehow, I doubt it

I find that people that are considered "Agnostic" and that do not have any religous beliefs tend to favor any religion as long as it is not Christianity. I guess it is also okay to strap bombs on your chest and not allow women to show thier faces in public or get educated. Christians and other religions have the right to believe as they wish and as the history of the religion asks them to. If they do not want gay people in church why shoud they allow it, talk about the seperation of church and state.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Similarly, Christians should approach homosexuals in the same way, trying to win them over through words of religious faith, rather than push them away with insults and epithets.

I totally agree...well-said!

:notworthy

[GoSkins561]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

Similarly, Christians should approach homosexuals in the same way, trying to win them over through words of religious faith, rather than push them away with insults and epithets.

I totally agree...well-said!

:notworthy

Why cant Christians disagree with homosexuality? It is a right and a belief.

[Thiebear]

Didnt they offer them a blessing? Just not the wine and bread . "whatever"...

They didnt grab them by their pants and kick them out the door, they just didnt allow them the offering. I guess if the person said: I give up this lifestyle and I ask the lords forgivness they would have given them a gallon and half a loaf ..

It's about abiding by the rules...

I am agnostic, but I take my children to sunday school and spend 2 hours listening to it and try to be open minded.. It's just hard...

(Baptist church).... The kids are learning very good lessons, cept the little one, she just plays with the other children and drinks from a bottle .

If I didnt believe most of the stuff the spout *GASP* I wouldnt take them there, duh! I'd go to a different church or even just down the street to Chucky Cheese's where a kid can be a kid....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Why cant Christians disagree with homosexuality? It is a right and a belief.

If you look at my post from above, I totally agree with you. However, I was just pointing out that I agreed with GlennX. My earlier post pretty much stated that if someone disagrees with the "rules" of the Catholic church, then they don't have to attend it.

[Commander PK]

Equal treatment under the LAW, Destino. To ask the government to intervene and force a church to allow homosexuals, or their supporters to receive the Eucharist is an infringement on the rights of the church, is it not? In the church's eyes, homosexuality is a sin. What are they supposed to to do, throw that out and say, "well, guess we were wrong." Maybe what these supporters should do is stop trying to change the Catholic Church, and find a a church that supports their own believes, if they so strongly believe.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

Why cant Christians disagree with homosexuality? It is a right and a belief.

If you look at my post from above, I totally agree with you. However, I was just pointing out that I agreed with GlennX. My earlier post pretty much stated that if someone disagrees with the "rules" of the Catholic church, then they don't have to attend it.

My point exactly.