Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[kentonio]

Sure. It's just not compatible with atheism. That's my point. You can't make a statement like that and then turn around and say, "I'm an atheist". No, you're a cultist.

As we suspected, you're too simpleminded to understand quite a basic idea. Well done.

[molly bloom]

See Alexander the Great.

The famous 'friend' of Hephaestion ? Oscar Wilde was married too, and fathered children. What you seem blind too is that 'homosexuality' as a concept, has changed.

It was for the Romans and the Greeks a very different thing from what is to me or the majority of modern gay men and lesbians.


That you are either unaware of this or choose to ignore it is no surprise.

[Ben Kenobi]

again i reject your assertion and repost what i said earlier.

Again - it means you are not an atheist if you argue that men can become God.

here's the oxford english dictionary's definition.

If Oxford were to redefine "man" to include "woman", would that mean that men and women are exactly the same?

You're arguing that marriage is a social construct and can simply mean whatever we want it to and I am arguing that marriage has an ontological existence that extends beyond a particular culture.

[Marriage is] not a societal construct. of course it is. it is your rejection of this obvious truth, which leads you to write guff like this.

No, it's not, and this is the fundamental dispute. I'm arguing marriage has an ontological existence which explains why it is found in every culture.

It doesn't change the reality of marriage. hopefully once you accept that marriage is a social construct, which varies and has varied according to time, place and context, you'll writing this intellectually dishonest rubbish and using terrible analogies*.

It's not a social construct. That is why you find it in 1st century Rome and why you see it today.

then you are simply wrong, and blind to the world that you inhabit.

Again, the bible is well aware of homosexuality and rejects it. The arguments against homosexuality in general haven't changed today. It's not like it just magically changed it's nature.

it matters not the reasons for christianity rejecting homosexuality; the point is that society no longer rejects it/them and the legal, cultural and social position of homosexuals reflects this.

This doesn't change the fact that society relies upon marriage between one man and one woman for it's effective propagation. Societies that abandon this get crushed.

thus christianity (though of course many christians have come to accept homosexuals, reflecting wider social trends - one of christianity's great strengths is its adaptability) is out of step with society. this should not be difficult to understand.

You're removing one of the blocks that makes western society what it is. There are consequences for this. Society isn't malleable play-dough that can be moulded into whatever you like. There are consequences.

how is the fact that two men, or two women for that matter, can't produce children an example of prejudice against homosexuals? oh that's right, it isn't; it's just you trying, and failing, to deflect.

The point being is that there's an ontological difference between the union of a man and a woman and between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

The famous 'friend' of Hephaestion ?

And your point? Rah argued that interracial marriage was a 20th century novelty. Are you really going to defend this point too Molly?

[Sava]

Again. "He Made them male and female".

Wrong. Try again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong. Try again.

It's right there in Matthew 19.

[Sava]

It's right there in Matthew 19.

Matthew 19 exists. Yes.

It doesn't say what you say it does.

[rah]

Again. "He Made them male and female".

And you have to follow that with an I.E. with YOUR explanation of what you THINK god meant.

I asked you to find a specific quote from Jesus which you have yet to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn't say what you say it does.

It's right there.

[Sava]

It's right there.

No. It's not. Learn what words mean.

[Ben Kenobi]

And you have to follow that with an I.E. with YOUR explanation of what you THINK god meant.

If I can prove to you that I didn't invent this argument, will you concede that gay marriage is contrary to Christ?

I asked you to find a specific quote from Jesus which you have yet to do.

Matthew 19 says it clear as a bell.

[rah]

No it's not. You just think it's there.

Again where does it say marriage can only be between one man and one woman?

[Ben Kenobi]

No. It's not. Learn what words mean.

Are you arguing, "He made them male and female" Is not there in Matthew 19?

[rah]

No one disputes that what it says, just what it specifically means.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rah:

If I can prove to you that I didn't invent this argument, will you concede that gay marriage is contrary to Christ?

You keep saying its 'my argument'. It's not. It's in the catechism. If I provide this citation will you concede the point?