Religion and LGBT people

[Aegrus]

Now if only I could convince you to embrace and make babies with something else. . .

Respect a lady, and one might find her willing to engage in a number of activities.

She doesn't have a womb though, sorry.

By the way, the link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to be working.

I linked it metaphysically. It was for the demon's sake, not yours.

Leaving aside that you seem to be implying I *don't* respect women and the that I'm very much aware you don't have a womb. . .

Won't the demon be pissed that its sacrificial link led to an error screen?

[Violet]

Leaving aside that you seem to be implying I *don't* respect women and the that I'm very much aware you don't have a womb. . .

If that's true, then how are you figuring me to have babies?

Won't the demon be pissed that its sacrificial link led to an error screen?

Maybe you should look up metaphysics. Sigh

[Gabriel Syme]

[Esquilax]

The Church is not against people having sex. Sex is great, wonderful and safe - but only when sex is responsible and proper.

That's why the church cultivates such amazing guilt over the act, yeah?

Homosexual sex, by its nature, is not proper as it represents the misuse of the body (wrt its physical form).

How much do you actually know about homosexual sex? Not vicious stereotypes, but actual homosexual sex, performed by real homosexuals. I doubt you have any real experience with it, which is why it's so great that you feel justified in making blanket statements about it.

Incidentally, I suppose you're also against heterosexual sex that isn't straight up missionary?

Additionally, the type of sex many gay men prefer - risky sex with others who are strangers (and so whose health status is unknown) - is very irresponsible.

Once again, stereotypes over facts. You clearly know a lot huh? Care to comment on the gay marriage movement, in this case?

It is not in the least surprising that gay communities are ravaged by HIV. It is sad however that so many people will deny the reality of why this is.

Mhmm. That's why the highest rates of HIV infection tend to be in countries where homosexuality is criminalized. And why the US is the only western country where the predominant demographic for infection is gay men.

Who's denying reality again?

It is not very telling that the group whose sexual behaviour is most far removed from Catholic teaching - gay men - is the group worst affected by HIV?

Interesting. Despite clearly having a thing against homosexuals you presume to know everything about their intimate sexual habits. Something doesn't add up here; could it be that you're just full of shit?

Catholic sexual morality only applies to Catholics. We can see that in the worst hit African nations, the people are overwhelmingly not Catholics. Therefore, Catholic sexual morality simply cannot be blamed for the sexual behaviour of these nations.

Gonna go ahead and say the church spreading misinformation about condom use probably did have something to do about that.

The only thing these the groups have in common is that they do not conduct their sex lives in accordance with Catholic teaching.

Ah, there it is again: a blanket statement about a group you have little to now actual knowledge on. At least you're consistent.

None of this is vague, or at all difficult to understand. All that is required is a willingness to accept the truth which is borne out by the statistics.

Swallow down that Kool Aid, peons!

However, many people cannot do this, because it either contradicts their own opinion, or they do not like to concede that the Catholic Church has a point.

The Catholic Church has many points. You, however, do not.

The result of this refusal to accept the truth is that HIV will continue to spread and more lives will be blighted.

The church advocating abstinence over safe sex to the point of lying about the latter probably didn't help there.
[/quote]

[Gabriel Syme]

1. Opinion.

Hi Alternate

It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are.

(This is why homosexuals have to use artificial means -lubricants etc - to overcome the fact that their bodies are not naturally compatible.)

This is biological fact. What you say is downright stupid.

You atheists seem to be of pretty low intelligence. With some notable exceptions, I am very disappointed with the level of intellect I have encountered on this site so far.

I do not take any pleasure in using words like "stupid", but in cases like this, there is nothing else for it.

2. This is true. But most people don't have sex for procreation, so this is also a pointless argument which affects nothing.

People cannot choose to have sex only for pleasure, or only for procreation.

Both aspects are inherent in any incidence of heterosexual sex. You cannot separate them.

What people do is have sex for pleasure, whilst hoping that artificial means will prevent the procreation aspect.

Unfortunately, this does not always work, which is why we encounter so many unwanted pregnancies.

Here you are making the mistake of arguing based on your own point of view, not based on reality.

Cheers
GS

---

@ Festive1

Hi there,

I note your last post goes into discussing clerical celibacy - if you want to talk about that, Id be happy to on another thread. Let us not muddy the waters of HIV etc discussion here.

PS - id expect a better source that "the daily beast". I just had a quick look and at a glance its current headlines are:

- are you in an asteroid danger zone?
- 6 secrets from the new beyonce movie
- weeks best fashion instagrams
- this week in viral videos
- OMG I want this house

Better to use credible news or scientific sources, not "news-entertainment" sources.

Cheers
GS

---

No, it means I'm heartily sick and tired of arguing with arrogant, self righteous arse holes who think they have the right to impose their bigoted hateful ways on others.

Translation -

"argh, the clever Catholic man managed to prove his point using factual data and impartial sources.

Quick - say something erroneous about bigotry or hate."

Hmm, let's look at these two points.....

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
And why should it matter what their gender is.

2) Possibility of procreation

Since there is NO possibility of us EVER having children for medical reasons ( Hysterectomony AND vasestomy) your argument is invalid.

I have already explained this to you badger. Again, briefly:

1) homosexual acts are not unifying like heterosexual sex are - because their bodies are not complimentary in the way heterosexual sex is. A unifying act of physical love is where two partners combine their sexual organs and both experience pleasure for it. Homosexuals cannot combine their sexual organs - they do not combine with each other. (eg this is why gay men have to combine their sex organ with their partners anus). You are denying reality.

2) my point is not invalid because you have undergone medical surgery to destroy the natural function of your sex organs. If you had not done this, (for reasons of health or choice), and your organs still functioned, then there would be a chance of procreation occurring. My point is valid.

And this last bit.... Well, you'd better have some stats to back up your assertion or I'm calling you a fucking liar.

I have already presented detailed statistics to show you this - please go back and read them.

We seem to have arrived at the point where my facts are bouncing off the brick wall of your own personal prejudices / bias.

Knock down that brick wall and consider the facts impartially.

Cheers dude
GS

[Angrboda]

[Esquilax]

It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are.

Ever gotten a surgery? Worn glasses? If you were dying, would you get an organ transplant?

Just how important is the integrity of the human body and what it's used for, to you? And that's even ignoring the fact that what you think other people should do with their bodies means nothing to the rest of the world.

(This is why homosexuals have to use artificial means -lubricants etc - to overcome the fact that their bodies are not naturally compatible.)

Ha! You know that straight people use lube too, right?

This is biological fact. What you say is downright stupid.

I guess the more important question is this: why does your opinion about gay sex matter at all?

You atheists seem to be of pretty low intelligence. With some notable exceptions, I am very disappointed with the level of intellect I have encountered on this site so far.

Insults. Just what I'd expect from a theist, when their arguments run out.

Here you are making the mistake of arguing based on your own point of view, not based on reality.

Speak for yourself, dummy.

Translation -

"argh, the clever Catholic man managed to prove his point using factual data and impartial sources.

Quick - say something erroneous about bigotry or hate."

Yes, you certainly seem less arrogant and self righteous after that.

1) homosexual acts are not unifying like heterosexual sex are - because their bodies are not complimentary in the way heterosexual sex is. A unifying act of physical love is where two partners combine their sexual organs and both experience pleasure for it. Homosexuals cannot combine their sexual organs - they do not combine with each other. (eg this is why gay men have to combine their sex organ with their partners anus). You are denying reality.

You are assigning meaning to reality that's highly subjective. Why does your opinion of "physical love" mean anything in this context? Why should it mean anything to anyone else? This is a total non argument.

2) my point is not invalid because you have undergone medical surgery to destroy the natural function of your sex organs. If you had not done this, (for reasons of health or choice), and your organs still functioned, then there would be a chance of procreation occurring. My point is valid.

So you think that people that are infertile from birth, or become infertile through disease, shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I have already presented detailed statistics to show you this - please go back and read them.

We seem to have arrived at the point where my facts are bouncing off the brick wall of your own personal prejudices / bias.

Knock down that brick wall and consider the facts impartially.

Cheers dude
GS

Why should we, when you so clearly refuse to do likewise?

[Zone]

"It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are."

They're both equally compatible in a certain way so God must have had that in mind when he...evolved humans naturally. I don't think Christians particularly have to be homophobic because it says this in the Bible, there's a whole lot of other stuff in there that you're more than happy to ignore or say Jesus rendered obsolete.

[Angrboda]

[Zone]

I understand the Catholic church is preparing a position paper on whether or not people should live at higher latitudes. It seems that the human body is not well suited to enduring the cold and inclement whether in these colder climates, and is considering declaring living more than 10 degrees north or south of the equator to be an abomination and against the will of God. They will be issuing a list of the technical inventions, like clothing and fire, which are to be avoided by all good Catholics at the very peril of their eternal souls. I thank the Catholic church for bringing this late-breaking issue to our attention.

It does actually say that clothing and technology is a result of original sin in Genesis when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. They were romping around naked before that. There was a time I suppose when our ancestors were romping around naked on the African savannah though it wasn't much of a paradise.