Homosexuality: A Survey

[Kor]

You're also not allowed to mix between milk and meat.

Btw, remember how back in the old testament we had polygamy? What was up with that?

Also, throughout the bible, God is constantly being "humanized" (for the worse)

I can bring tons of other contradictions from the bible, especially from Genesis.

[IHKF]

Bacon wrong country. xD Football and Hotdogs/Hamburgers and a bad beer like Budlight or Coors light!

Anything greasy we have a reputation of eating. XD

[Akonyl]

I'm personally against. It's not any moral belief, nor is the reason based on the Bible. It's just that something about homosexuality just gives me a bad feeling.

I'm personally against deep-sea diving. It's not any moral belief, nor is the reason based on the United States Aquatic Diving Regulations Guideline. It's just that something about deep-sea diving just gives me a bad feeling.

(...But I would never tell anyone else not to deep-sea dive just because I don't like it.)

I really honestly don't know. It's just that something about homosexuality just isn't right. And that's the best answer I can give.

I really honestly don't know. It's just that something about deep-sea diving just isn't right. And that's the best answer I can give.

(See how personal opinions really don't matter unless you're personally invested in something? Would anyone involved in deep-sea diving honestly care about what I have to say? Nope, because they have the right to do it as they please. One day, we'll make it the same for homosexual couples. And yes, this post is meant to be a little facetious, but that's the whole point of this debate--to draw attention to how silly the whole "let's ban it!" movement is)

I'm not really sure why you're responding to moho in this way, nowhere was he saying it should be banned or that his belief should be enforced on anybody, he was just giving his opinion on the matter for the survey, which was the original point of the topic.

If this thread was a survey on deep-sea diving, your facetious post about it would be just as valid. Would it sway anybody into thinking deep-sea diving is bad? No, but it wasn't meant to in the first place.

[Jd-]

I'm not really sure why you're responding to moho in this way, nowhere was he saying it should be banned or that his belief should be enforced on anybody, he was just giving his opinion on the matter for the survey, which was the original point of the topic.

If this thread was a survey on deep-sea diving, your facetious post about it would be just as valid. Would it sway anybody into thinking deep-sea diving is bad? No, but it wasn't meant to in the first place.

And nowhere did I say that Moho himself intended to push his belief on anyone or intended for it to be banned. The reason I posted it was quite clear, I thought: to point out that saying something is completely wrong and not having a reason doesn't actually mean anything at all--it's not about the side he's taking. The reply is a continuation from my last post (which I can guarantee you didn't read; we go through this song and dance very, very often): the reason he and everyone else against it don't have a reason is because, unless it is based in religion, there is no valid reason to be against it, such the point of the post. No attempt was made to make an example out of Moho, and I'm pretty sure he (and others?) can tell that pretty easily. He's already stated his opinion and I've stated mine--not sure where else there was to go from there, because he literally came out and said he didn't know why. That's why I didn't have occasion to take him up on it but instead used it to expand on my earlier point.

Maybe re-reading this part will help:

that's the whole point of this debate--to draw attention to how silly the whole "let's ban it!" movement is

This topic has become about whether or not gay marriage should be legal and whether homosexuality is acceptable. As a result, I see absolutely no problem in stating:

See how personal opinions really don't matter unless you're personally invested in something? Would anyone involved in deep-sea diving honestly care about what I have to say? Nope, because they have the right to do it as they please. One day, we'll make it the same for homosexual couples.

Homosexual couples shouldn't have to worry so much about what everyone else thinks much like how many others don't have to worry over their own beliefs, hobbies, what have you, and yet gay people have no choice due to the constant persecution. I hope that, in my lifetime, this is no longer the case.

That should help clarify some, but if not, not much else I can say other than to recommend reading the previous post.

[Mohorovicic]

I'll be honest. I don't like homosexuality, I typically don't like homosexual people, but if that's what they are, I have no right to enforce my own beliefs on them.

Perhaps it's just because homosexuals are different that we hate them, no?

[Akonyl]

fair enough, but generally when someone makes a facetious version of someone else's argument, they do it to point out why the original's point doesn't make sense, rather than using it to apply the farcical version to an argument the original wasn't even a part of, hence the confusion.

and, RM'd.

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

Spoiler:

Sex isn't only about pro-creation, it’s also about bringing a man and a woman closer to one another. That's why sex is both unitive and procreative. Bottom-line is, all sexual acts must be open to life.  When a couple intentionally takes action to block their natural fertility in order to gain the pleasure of sex while nullifying the outcome (contraceptives), they change the nature of what they are doing. As opposed to being both unitive and procreative, the act becomes something that is not open to life and is considered, an offense against God. Homosexual sex is not procreative at all, as under no circumstances is it possible for two men to conceive a child, while an infertile couple, in a way, can - it's not impossible. Moreover, while such an act between two infertile persons may most certainly not create life, their actions are open to the idea of it. In scenarios like these, the circumstances prevent the creation of new life but not the couple. Contraception on the other hand is wrong because it is a conscious choice made in order to  seperate the act of sex from procreation. The reason why NFP and post-menopausal sex is accepted is because there is no blocking of natural fertility and the act is open to life, thus, the bonds between sex, love and life are maintained. 

People on this forum may find our views too conservative and wrong but you have to realize that we hold marriage in very high regard.  Both are considered sacred and holy and play an important role Catholic life.

When I wrote that sentence, I never intended for you or anyone to take it in my manner. I apologize for that. By writing that sentence I was trying to convey how a man and a woman were truly meant for each other. Taking a man and a woman individually, all the parts of our body have a purpose, except our reproductive organs. However, when man and woman join together, it gains purpose and through it we are able to bear new life.

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their chilen. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Good night.

I have a background in a different Christian tradition and I question whether the assumption that "be fruitful and multiply" can currently be assumed good. Back in the day when Judaism and Christianity were minorities there were lots of deadly wars and disease, so the best way of maintaining and expanding one's religious base was to have kids which became part of the tradition. A lot has changed since then.

The world is overpopulated and utilizing resources unsustainably pretty much whichever way you look at it, and these externalities are creating serious social and environmental burdens for future generations. It is already a given that future generations will be unable to enjoy the same benefits as previous generations and will have sacrifice significantly more in order to comply with sustainable management of the remaining resources. Also, excess birth in local regions creates greater local poverty with very severe social problems. China's one child policy prevented severe local poverty by concentrating resources and inheritance accumulated by parents on fewer children which made each individual child "richer". Technology can ameliorate the problem a little, but the simplest and most humane way to fix overpopulation is to reduce the number of children born to less-than-replacement levels. This doesn't require China-like policies either: family planning is dropping the population of several 1st world countries unprompted. This is a good thing because the children of the richest consume disproportionally more resources.

Also, some of the practices associated with the belief that one should "be fruitful and multiply", specifically the promotion of abstinence over contraception, create greater public health and morality problems than more progressive policies.
Public health wise, in Africa, a lot of nasty sexually transmitted diseases can and have dropped dramatically in regions where condom use is routine. (a very big gov report) Furthermore, abstinence only education does not work. (Ott, MA; Santelli, JS (2007 Oct). "Abstinence and abstinence-only education". Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology 19 (5): 446–52. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282efdc0b. PMID 17885460.  Underhill, K; Operario, D, Montgomery, P (2007 Oct 17). Operario, Don. ed. "Abstinence-only programs for HIV infection prevention in high-income countries". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (4): CD005421. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005421.pub2. PMID 17943855.) Sad, but true: people will screw each other even if they are told real world and religious hells loom. STD related mortalities in Africa cause severe social problems like HIV orphans, major disruption of social structures resulting in increased crime of all kinds while diminishing regional stability and economic achievement. Getting rid of the STIs goes a long way towards fixing those problems. The numbers-proven way to do it is with a lot of latex, education, and family planning. I believe that reducing human suffering is the most worthy earthly goal of a religious organization, so I think it is hypocritical to see organizations choose idealism over techniques that are proven to work and reduce suffering.
This problem isn't limited to third world countries either. As expected, abstinence only education does not decrease the rate of unplanned pregnancy in the developed world either. (Ott, MA; Santelli, JS (2007 Oct). "Abstinence and abstinence-only education". Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology 19 (5): 446–52. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282efdc0b. PMID 17885460) In developed countries, unplanned pregnancy rates are directly related to abortion rates. Comprehensive sex education programs drop teen pregnancy in places were they are used. They also reduce STIs. While it would be nice if people had enough willpower and planning sense to be abstinent, it just doesn't happen. In that case, it would be better to have those people know about and have easy access to several forms of birth control to prevent the greater social ills of teen pregnancy and STIs, as well as reduce the number of abortions which aren't pleasant either.

[IdentityUnknown]

@IHKF and Abs: I get that. I do. But the fact that anyone thinks homosexuals should be feeling bad for who they are because they don't conform to normal standards really bothers me. Why should they feel like they should change to fit someone's idea of normal? Why should they apologize for who they are?

The thing is, IU may not personally believe that, but they are people that genuinely think that homosexuals should be feeling bad and wanting to change because they're different.

That is absolutely wrong. Every single person should embrace who they are and feel free to live their lives in that way, provided they are not hurting someone else with their actions, whether they're gay, straight, bisexual, left-handed, red-haired, or whatever.

To be fair: I'm not offended at IU personally. It's the sentiment that bothers me, not her.

*shrugs* I don't think that homosexuals should feel bad for being who they are. I'm just saying that it's more than likely that at one point in their life, they've wondered, "Why can't I just be straight? Why does everyone pick on me for being the way I am? Why can't I change?" That's the one point I wanted to point out. It's natural and it applies to a lot of different things, whether it be hair color, skin color, ethnicity, wealth, etc. It's not easy for everyone to accept who they are right off the bat and not be ashamed of it. I know that I struggle with it.

[Kleene Onigiri]

(it's late, so bear with me for grammar errors and stuff XD)

Yo yo yo, Jd- \o/ Let's get stoned *shares some drugs with Jd* XD
Wait... *plans a evil scheme so that Jd- visits her* >:D


Somehow, the bible texts and stuff seem off-topic :V

Anyway, first I wanna know, if we also talk about church marriage to be allowed for gay couples, or just state marriage, or marriage in general O_o
For me, like already, said, it should be allowed state wise, but shouldn't be allowed/stay as it is for church marriage.
Now you'll ask: "Is there a reason not to allow it?".
I'm not sure if it's really a reason, or if you can give any reasons at all for either yes or no, since it's all about peoples feelings an happiness and such stuff. And finding "logical" reasons for something "illogical" is hard.
So, here is my view:
Whether you'll go with "no" or with "yes" for allowing gay couples to have a church marriage, some peoples feelings and their happiness will be hurt.
With "no", you'll hurt the gay couples feelings and happiness, because they want a church marriage (Because everyone wants to wear a fancy white dress \o/)
With "yes", you'll hurt the people that cherish the marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. It's holy for them and they don't want to have it changed.
Both sides argument with just their feelings for it and that it makes them happy or unhappy if the one or the other option is used.
Now the question: Who's happiness is more important? Who's the better human? Who has the right to be happy over the other?
Answer: Both are equal! Both should have a right to be happy.(for me at least)
So, why do I say "no" for church marriage? Because in this situation, I would choose the status quo. Leaving it like it is. But, since the church split so much already anyway, there should be a church branch that allows it. Or a new ceremony, that's similar, but isn't the same as the "normal" wedding.
I think that way both parties can be happy that way and hopefully accept it. (but I doubt that will happen :x)

Also, as much as people can't choose who they'll fall in love with, people can't do anything against disliking people too. Because both are feelings and not something rational. The important thing is to be able to still respect the other one and not to loose yourself in your own feelings. Disliking something or someone is as normal as falling in love. IMO, it's possible to dislike someone but still respect that person.

I think there is a possible explanation as to why people don't like homosexuals.
As a girls, when I get stared or leered at by a man and I don't want anything from that man, I'll get an uneasy feeling and maybe even disgust. That man could be a real sweetheart and be nice, but at that moment I don't like it.
Maybe the males don't encounter that as much, but I bet a lot of females here know such a situation XD
Now, if a straight man or woman get checked out by a homosexual, they could also get that feeling, simply because they don't want anything from that person. And the probability that a straight person doesn't want anything sexual from the same gender is high XD
It doesn't really have to do something with the gender or homosexuality in itself. It's a simple "I don't want anything from that person and be checked out by that person".
But because people like to generalize everything, they project that "disgust" they maybe felt once on all homosexuals.
Doesn't mean that it's right to do that, but like said, it's hard to control feelings.

Another thing is, that nature gave us the instinct to avoid and shun people, that are "abnormal". And abnormal is usually, when that individual is too different from the general mass. That instinct is a protect mechanism, so that a group doesn't get infected with a sickness.
But since it's a instinct, it can't distinguish between a real, contagious sickness, and just something different and harmless.
That's the uneasy feeling people sometimes get when encountering something unusual.

I encountered that myself, especially when I was little
In kindergarden and school, when my classmates were told that I'm sic (diabetes), they were first shocked, confused and there was always the question (when they didn't know about that sickness): "Is it contagious or dangerous?"
After the teacher explained (luckily), the children were relived. And started to feel sorry for me and pity me (aww yea... so much better )

Anyway, since were humans we can go over those instincts, especially once people get to know that it's not dangerous and know more about it.
What was my point again? Ah yea... nature is a b***h. Wait... nvm :x

[GinRei]

Anyway, first I wanna know, if we also talk about church marriage to be allowed for gay couples, or just state marriage, or marriage in general O_o

In America, it's marriage in general.  The religious nuts lobby and bitch about it, regardless of whether it's done in a church or a statehouse.  They feel "their holy word" would be tarnished.  Because obviously it isn't tarnished by trashy celebrities getting married and then divorced less than a week later.

[PhoenixTears]

*shrugs* I don't think that homosexuals should feel bad for being who they are. I'm just saying that it's more than likely that at one point in their life, they've wondered, "Why can't I just be straight? Why does everyone pick on me for being the way I am? Why can't I change?" That's the one point I wanted to point out. It's natural and it applies to a lot of different things, whether it be hair color, skin color, ethnicity, wealth, etc. It's not easy for everyone to accept who they are right off the bat and not be ashamed of it. I know that I struggle with it.

Like I said, it's not you I take issue with, just the line of thought.

And I want to comment on it further, but my brain just isn't letting me explain myself properly, so I might come back to it later.

I think there is a possible explanation as to why people don't like homosexuals.
As a girls, when I get stared or leered at by a man and I don't want anything from that man, I'll get an uneasy feeling and maybe even disgust. That man could be a real sweetheart and be nice, but at that moment I don't like it.
Maybe the males don't encounter that as much, but I bet a lot of females here know such a situation XD
Now, if a straight man or woman get checked out by a homosexual, they could also get that feeling, simply because they don't want anything from that person. And the probability that a straight person doesn't want anything sexual from the same gender is high XD
It doesn't really have to do something with the gender or homosexuality in itself. It's a simple "I don't want anything from that person and be checked out by that person".
But because people like to generalize everything, they project that "disgust" they maybe felt once on all homosexuals.
Doesn't mean that it's right to do that, but like said, it's hard to control feelings.

The problem with this thinking (not with you, just this line of thought), is that for a lot of straight people, it tends to translate into "That person is attracted my people of my gender, therefore they must be attracted to me!"

And then, even worse, people from there start to think "What if they make advances on me? What if they try to rape me or something!?"

Sounds extreme, but it is incredibly common. A lot of homophobic people have it in their heads that all gay people must be attracted to everyone of their preferred gender without discriminating - which makes absolutely no sense when you apply logic, because straight people aren't attracted to everyone of the opposite gender, right? And the vast majority of straight people don't go out and rape/assault people they're attracted to. And yet that stereotype get attached to gay people all the time.

Also, as much as people can't choose who they'll fall in love with, people can't do anything against disliking people too. Because both are feelings and not something rational. The important thing is to be able to still respect the other one and not to loose yourself in your own feelings. Disliking something or someone is as normal as falling in love. IMO, it's possible to dislike someone but still respect that person.

Hatred is normal, yes. But it's not natural. A baby, with no preconceptions of the world, does not automatically hate someone. He has to learn that ability. And I absolutely disagree that there's nothing people can do about it. People change all the time. Saying that they can't change their dislikes is flat out wrong.

And I would just like to point out one thing in general: I simply do not understand why people are against homosexuality. They're not hurting you, are they? They're not forcing themselves on you (and if they do, you should have problems with that particular person, not homosexuals in general). Homosexuals are people just like anybody else and deserve to be treated with the same respect and have the same rights as anyone else.

And since it was brought up earlier that homosexuality causes someone to have a bad life (or something to that effect) thought I'd share this:

phpBB [video]

[Tawi]

He's saying you misread what "yes" and "no" meant.  Yes means you're okay with it, no means you aren't.  It's why everyone was confused by your statement that basically read "they" aren't okay, but "their sex" is.

Oh alright, sorry Abs!

Wow and I thought my post was charitable enough to trigger a charitable response..."bang young boys" isn't exactly a pleasant thing to hear, then again, there's no other way to say it right? Anyway, with the number of posters against me, I can only concede, since, I do not have the time or the willpower to reply to all of you (The last post was an ass to write). However, I will end my stay here by answering and listing down a few points.

Given that you're the one claiming it to be harmful, I think it'd be better for you to post sources that support your claim.  Scientific sources.  Not random jibber-jabber from holier than thou church-folk who follow Cardinals that bang young boys.

While it's true that the church has a pedophilia problem, it's been obviously blown out of proportion by mass media (who are very anti-religion). Of course, I'm not saying that there is no problem. There is one, but it's no where as close as the media paints it to be. And please, don't brush the source off just because it's a Catholic link. There's a lot of truth behind it.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... m0011.html

Hey Tanner, since this is an overused atheistic claim, I'll give you an overused Christian response. There are no contradictions in the bible but there are what appear to be contradictions. It may be easy for atheists to come up with a list of things that confuse them but that's beside the point. One has to have knowledge of the bible, take the text as a whole and most importantly, deal with the translation by itself. Believe me, it isn't as easy as flipping through your printed version of the bible. Really, the contradictions in the Bible shouldn't bother Christians unless they are catechized on the manner. I'll agree that atheism has a good number of arguments but this is not one of them.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

Given that you're the one claiming it to be harmful, I think it'd be better for you to post sources that support your claim.

Just as religious clergy are painted for child molestation, a homosexual lifestyle is usually associated with something unhealthy. Why? Because there is truth behind it. If one would do a quick google search, he would find a lot of information backing my stance (that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy). The link I will post is a tad outdated, but it's comphrensive and well-researched, I believe it's a good read. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... -marriage/[/quote]

Hey Jd-
Here's a Catholic response to your post - http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_f ... gs_of.html.
However, Scott Hahn's book, "A father who keeps his promises", is credited for explaining this issue the best in the Catholic community.

There are a lot of atheistic arguments that can stump protestant Christians, be it about creationism or what-not. Catholics however, are a very different case. Now this is the part where I get a bit cocky, but this is an issue I really want to land-on here so please excuse me on this part. I've been getting the idea that skeptics sweep Catholicism and Protestantism under one umbrella. While we are both Christians, there is a big difference between us. Now of course, this is the Catholic view on things, if another Protestant Christian would want to speak up against this part, go ahead.

"While the church will never accept the validity of gay marriage"
Wrong, there are a lot of churches that are accepting of it. A few weeks ago some members of this PFLAG group came to my school during a GSA meeting and talked about a few of the churches here starting to accept homosexuality, and the preacher(or w/e he's called) even stood up and apologized to everyone because he used to have those beliefs about homosexuality being wrong. They also mentioned someone who memorized every passage in the bible and could out argue anyone about why homosexuality is ok. Plag also had a few publications such as this you might want to read.

Tanner, true, there are a few churches that are beginning to accept gay marriage. But these churches are protestant, not Catholic. See unlike Protestants, we actually stand firm on our doctrines, we don't change. Once upon a time, in the early 1900s, all protestant churches were in line with the Catholic Church in regards to contraception. With the progression of time, Protestants groups began to accept contraception and BAM - fast foraward several decades later, Contraception is known as a solely Catholic teaching. Now, I"m not surprised that more protestant denominations are beginning to accept marriage because unfortunately, Protestant sects have a reputation of "change and multiply". Based on the latest statistics, Protestanism is on decline with all but three denominations shrinking in number (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Assemblies of God and Mormons). The Catholic Church on the other hand is America's leading denomination and is experiencing robust growth. Why is this happening? Because people lean towards originality.

We are the worlds first and largest Christian body. We are the only Christian Church that can claim Apostolic Succession. We are not adherents to "Faith Alone, Bible Alone", we go by Faith and Reason and stand on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We are the only religious body with countless authentic miracles that underwent scientific scrutiny. The bible is a Catholic Book and was complied by Catholic councils. We are not against evolution. We do not take the bible literally word-for-word. We don't believe in "OSAS - Once Saved Always Saved", the belief that once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior you earn Salvation. Funny, you see skepticss trolling around on Christian boards but actually see them debating at CAF. It's further proof that unlike Protetsanism, Catholicism appeals to the intellect. That's why atheists have a higher chance of becoming Catholic as opposed to being Protestant.

America is a Protestant country and atheists have a strong right hand of dealing with Protestant Apologetics. Since Catholicism isn't as prevalent as Protestantism, athiests have a weak left hand of dealing with Catholic apologetics.  SAD THING IS, Catholics have earned a title for being lukewarm and knowing little about their faith.This is why Catholics are also easy targets for skeptics. It's sad you know, Brazil is the country with the most number of Catholics, at the same time, they have the most number of lapsed Catholics. Sometimes I wished Catholics had the zeal of your Protestatant brothers and sisters. We don't.  :(

[PhoenixTears]

While it its true that the church has a pedophilia problem, it's been obviously blown out of proportion by mass media (who are very anti-religion).

I would just like to point out that the mass media isn't necessarily anti-religion so much as they're anti-whatever-it's-cool-to-be-against-today.

There are not contradictions in the bible but there are what appear to be contradictions. It may be easy for atheists to come up with a list of things that confuse them but that's beside the point. One has to have knowledge of the bible, take the text as a whole and most importantly, deal with the translation by itself. Believe me, it isn't as easy as flipping through your printed version of the bible.

I grew up in church, so I've heard this argument many times. In fact, it is as easy as flipping through the Bible. Apparently Christians (both Catholic and Protestant), pick and choose which ideals they want to follow (see Tanner's previous post, my previous post, Jd-'s previous post and Kor's previous post for references there), so pretty much sounds like they're just flipping around going "Yep, I think I'll follow this one." or "Nope, I don't like that one, therefore it's not applicable."

See unlike Protestants, we actually stand firm on our doctrines, we don't change.

Catholicism has been around for quite some time and would not have survived to this day if they didn't change when they needed to.

The rest of it I don't even want to touch on because I'll end up starting a fight that doesn't need to be started.

[ConansSideWalk]

In the end it's stupid issue for anyone with common sense & working moral compass won't see it as a problem but the matter has been construed by religion. Just let people be who they are while also having all the rights that come with marriage of state, religion will always oppose marriage in church because the book tells them so.

[GinRei]

"bang young boys" isn't exactly a pleasant thing to hear, then again, there's no other way to say it right?

Pretty much.  What they did was despicable.

Just as religious clergy are painted for child molestation, a homosexual lifestyle is usually associated to something unhealthy. Why? Because there is truth behind it. If one would do a quick google search, he would find a lot of information backing my stance (that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy). The link I will post is a tad outdated, but it's comphrensive and well-researched, I believe it's a good read. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... -marriage/

I'm sorry, but its first "fact" is that homosexual marriages are short-lived.  That's obvious bullshit.  Not only is the majority of their data 30+ years old (as their most recent data point is from "the 1980's"), but it has nothing to do with actual marriage.  I'm not even going to dignify it with any further reading, especially if they consider that to be "unhealthy".  What about all the celebrity marriages, or even just drunken Vegas marriages, that are undone within a week?

See unlike Protestants, we actually stand firm on our doctrines, we don't change.

So, how's that no meat on friday thing working out for you?

We are the worlds first and largest Christian body.

Largest, sure, but I believe the Orthodox Church is the first.

we go by Faith and Reason

Bullhockey.

We are the only religious body with countless authentic miracles that underwent scientific scrutiny.

It's not authenticated by science if they don't prove it one way or another.

We are not against evolution. We do not take the bible literally word-for-word.

Could've fooled me.