Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ming]

Up until last year that was THE definition of marriage in the US. Marriage didn't change in a year, ming. People, perhaps, but not marriage.

Only because bigots like you have been fighting against it. It's been a long fight, but finally the government got it right. Just like slavery, and women's rights.

I always answer it the same way. Marriage is defined as the union of husband and wife. Not the love of husband and wife, the union, man and woman coming together. This is the difference in conjugality.

BS... one of you claims against gay marriages was because they couldn't have children. Now you have fallen back on a quote from the bible... (and again, ignoring all the crap in the bible that only an idiot would agree with... have you been to a good stoning recently?)

And a year ago it did not. Did marriage suddenly change? Nope.

And Christians supported slavery for many, many, many years, and then finally didn't. Did slavery suddenly change?

Morality has nothing to do with majority, Ming.

Yet again, you seem to be claiming that your religion has a lock on morality? Some other religions don't see it as immoral.
Who are you to define morality for all others?

Which explains why the baker is being fined 125k?

What's the last time a homosexual man was fined 125k? For anything?

No, it explains why a bigot got fined for 125K, because he broke the law and discriminated against gays.
Law breakers get fined all the time.

We see religious 'freedom' in a 125k fine. We see religious 'freedom', when people attempt to prevent those such fined from raising the money from the people who disagree with tyranny. Tyranny is not far. That the first impulse of those issuing the fine was to try to shut down public fundraising, makes it very clear. They will attempt to take everything from us. And then claim "you aren't hurting Christians."

Just hurting bigots and other law breakers.

It's of course, hardly a new thing for Catholics in America.

Always playing the "oh, we are treated so bad card"
Frankly, Catholics have had it a lot easier than most minorities. And gays have had it really hard mostly because of Catholics and Christians like you.
If you are so against persecution, why do you support it against others.

I claimed, simply, that Muslims are responsible for 9-11. They claimed to be conducting Jihad on America, in accordance with the teachings of Islam.

Yep... some Muslims were responsible for 9-11. Do you blame all Muslims?
Yep... some Catholic priests were responsible for raping children and covering it up. Do you blame all Catholics?

No, the reason I consider it to be a bad social experiment, is because children are being used as pawns in a social experiment.

The reason there is a problem is because of the way bigots treat the children. You want to deny them a loving home because of how bigots might treat them. Yep... you want to deny them a loving home, yet you claim you are looking after their best interests.

How is shutting down Catholic adoption agencies making it easier to place children?

Straw man, nice try.

It's clear to me that the needs of the children are not being considered.

Yep... keep the children in heartless institutions instead of placing them in loving homes... which would most of us consider meeting the needs of the children.

Why are we deliberately depriving children of a mother or a father if all of them have a mother and a father?

You want to deprive children without parents of a chance to have loving parents.

Who determines that? Does that give social services the right to come into any home they deem as being insufficiently 'loving' and take the children?

Another straw man... nice try.

I believe that children do best with their mother and their father.. together.

Can't argue with that... unless the parents are child abusers.
But unfortunately, life isn't always so kind. There are many children that need a loving home. Let's provide what we can for them.

You're once again arguing that some things that are not so good are less bad than other things that may or may not be worse. Yes, single motherhood is tough. Is it worse than having two mothers? We don't know.

Gee... one loving parent or two... Feel free to choose one, but I'll go with two.

They don't have them, they have a mother and a father. And everyone in this situation asks the question, "Where is my mother? Or Where is my father". What are we to tell them?

What do you tell a child when a parent is taken away from them by God's plan?
What do you tell a child when two people can no longer live together?

Life is not fair. So we should try the best we can to make up for the unfairness of life.
So why deny a child the chance of a loving home.

[rah]

I repeat

I declined your 'gift\bribe' (that is not in dispute)
you said you wouldn't mention it (that is not in dispute)
you have mentioned it multiple times in this thread and you've done it in other threads (this is not in dispute)

Nothing you said dispute any of these facts.
I never called you a heartless douche, just a douche and many other negative terms.
And I never publicly insinuated that it could be viewed as bribery until you brought it up in public after you promised you wouldn't.
You were seeking profit in terms of validation by mentioning it. That starts to sound like a bribe. You gave me something and then tried to profit from it.

I declined.

By bringing it up, you have brought this on yourself. Lesson, don't break your promises.

And again, the lord preaches to not brag about your generosity.

You don't get to defame me because I declined to take your money.

[ZEE]

This is soem pretty heavy stuff, you guise!

[Ben Kenobi]

I never called you a heartless douche, just a douche and many other negative terms.

I could probably dig up the thread in particular where it came up.

And I never publicly insinuated that it could be viewed as bribery until you brought it up in public after you promised you wouldn't.

Then why are you lying about it now? It wasn't bribery ever.

You were seeking profit in terms of validation by mentioning it. That starts to sound like a bribe. You gave me something and then tried to profit from it.

I didn't even know the gift had been *received* until 6 months later and I followed up on it. You didn't even 'decline' the gift, rah. Declining the gift would have meant sending me a PM. Did I get one? No.

Didn't get any notice, whatsoever. All I heard is when I eventually asked around if you'd received the gift. Eventually I got the truth that you'd declined the gift.

You could have had enough respect to tell me that, but you never did.

Why didn't you, rah? You could have said, "thanks for the gift, but we're not really comfortable in taking it from you."

[Ming]

I'm getting my ass handed to me here, time to change the subject as usual

*FIXED*

[Ben Kenobi]

Only because bigots like you have been fighting against it. It's been a long fight, but finally the government got it right. Just like slavery, and women's rights.

So, now that 2000 years of tradition have been swept away, what next? Curbstomping the bigots who refuse to comply?

BS... one of you claims against gay marriages was because they couldn't have children.

Conjugality is not the same as fertility. It's important to marriage given the ability of a partner to get out of a marriage that is unconsummated. No consummation = no marriage. Arguing that marriage is all about 'love' is not the same, and misses this important distinction.

Now you have fallen back on a quote from the bible... (and again, ignoring all the crap in the bible that only an idiot would agree with... have you been to a good stoning recently?)

And you call yourself a Christian?

And Christians supported slavery for many, many, many years, and then finally didn't. Did slavery suddenly change?

The bible is quite clear that slavery is wrong. What does the bible teach about homosexuality?

Yet again, you seem to be claiming that your religion has a lock on morality?

I said that morality is not determined by what a majority vote on. Never has, never will.

Some other religions don't see it as immoral.

And some religions practice clitorectomy. Some religions are evil.

Who are you to define morality for all others?

Who are you to do the same? The argument isn't over, "should morality be determined, but rather "what is morality". You're arguing that homosexuality is no different I am arguing that it is.

What's the last time a homosexual man was fined 125k? For anything?

Answer the question, Ming. What's the last time a homosexual man was fined 125k for practicing his homosexuality in public.

Law breakers get fined all the time.

Indeed. Now answer the question.

Just hurting bigots and other law breakers.

Interesting. So you support shutting down public crowdfunding for Christians. Why is that, Ming?

Always playing the "oh, we are treated so bad card"

It's true. Catholics are generally treated like **** in America.

Frankly, Catholics have had it a lot easier than most minorities. And gays have had it really hard mostly because of Catholics and Christians like you.

When's the last time a man has been fined 125k for his homosexuality? Bueller? Bueller?

If you are so against persecution, why do you support it against others.

You made a claim saying that homosexuals have it worse. Now, please answer my question.

The reason there is a problem is because of the way bigots treat the children. You want to deny them a loving home because of how bigots might treat them. Yep... you want to deny them a loving home, yet you claim you are looking after their best interests.

So why are you supporting Catholic adoption agencies shutting down? They place many, many kids. If it's the welfare of the child that is paramount then surely they should be able to stay open.

How is shutting down Catholic adoption agencies making it easier to place children? Straw man, nice try.

Hmm, so you can't answer that. Funny. And you say that Catholics have it easier in America. I think not.

Yep... keep the children in heartless institutions instead of placing them in loving homes... which would most of us consider meeting the needs of the children.

Catholic families are heartless institutions?

Why are we deliberately depriving children of a mother or a father if all of them have a mother and a father? You want to deprive children without parents of a chance to have loving parents.

Then why am I the one arguing for Catholic agencies to stay open?

Who determines that? Does that give social services the right to come into any home they deem as being insufficiently 'loving' and take the children? Another straw man... nice try.

Answer the question, Ming.

But unfortunately, life isn't always so kind. There are many children that need a loving home. Let's provide what we can for them.

So why then are Catholic adoption agencies being shut down?

We don't know. Gee... one loving parent or two... Feel free to choose one, but I'll go with two.

Do you have any evidence of that?

What do you tell a child when a parent is taken away from them by God's plan?

Gee. Answer the question Ming. You tell them the truth when they are old enough to understand it that their father has passed on. Now, what do you tell the child who asks, "where is my mother/ where is my father?"

What do you tell a child when two people can no longer live together?

I don't know, what do you tell them? I'm not defending that, you are.

Life is not fair. So we should try the best we can to make up for the unfairness of life.

Absolutely, and it starts by putting the welfare of the child above social experiments.

You've dodged every question, Ming. Well done. Would be nice to get a straight answer.

[Proteus_MST]

[Ben Kenobi]

LOL, Ming, butthurt as usual. I don't see how waving your arms around saying 'straw man' constitutes an argument.

[ZEE]

If people don't start answering some questions around here then I am going to get real pissed off.

[Proteus_MST]

...
The bible is quite clear that slavery is wrong.
...

Where?

[Ben Kenobi]

On slavery?

The bible teaches the fundamental equality of persons, slave or free.

On homosexuality?

Find me a biblical quote that says that homosexuality is good.

[Proteus_MST]

On slavery?

The bible teaches the fundamental equality of persons, slave or free.

....

The pauline epistles clearly state that slaves should be obedient to their masters.

For example:

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your ^[a]masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; ⁶ not ^[b]by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the ^[c]heart.

Ephesians 6:5-6


That rather sounds me as support of slavery (as it was already the case in the old testament) and not as condemnation os slavery

I never heard about a single biblical passage that clearly condemns slavery

[Ben Kenobi]

That rather sounds me as support of slavery (as it was already the case in the old testament) and not as condemnation os slavery

Galatians 3:28

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Affirms our fundamental equality in the eyes of God.

[Proteus_MST]

Galatians 3:28

Affirms our fundamental equality in the eyes of God.

But that doesn't say slavery is wrong. It only says that for god all people, no matter whether nobility or peasant, slave or master is equal.

It desn't say however that humans should see themselves as equal in all regards. And considering that the catholic church supported the feudal system for m,any many centuries, neither was the catholic church ever a proponent of a system were all people are treated equally in all regards.

Therefore it seems like a far stretch to me, to see this passage as a criticism of slavery ... especially considering all the passages that didn't speak negatively of slavery (and also considering all the passages in the old testament that clearly esztablish a slavery system with rules and the like)

[Ben Kenobi]

But that doesn't say slavery is wrong.

Yes, it does. If we are all truly equal in the eyes of God, how can one justify owning another person? The master has no right to own the slave as the slave his master.

It only says that for god all people, no matter whether nobility or peasant, slave or master is equal.

And in God's eyes, that is what our true value is, not in the eyes of men. Our true master and not our earthly masters.

It desn't say however that humans should see themselves as equal in all regards.

It confirms that our value is equal.

And considering that the catholic church supported the feudal system for m,any many centuries, neither was the catholic church ever a proponent of a system were all people are treated equally in all regards.

The Catholic church predates the feudal system which it did not invent.

Therefore it seems like a far stzretch to me, to see this passage as a criticism of slavery

Every single church father cites the passage as an affirmation of the true equality among men. So you're alone in this.

... especially considering all the passages that didn't speak negatively of slavery (and also considering all the passages in the old testament that clearly esztablish a slavery system with rules and the like)

Again, this passage confirms our fundamental equality. On the question as to whether slaves should immediately free themselves from their masters, Paul is clear enough to say, "if you can earn your freedom, do so".

I don't see how a fair reading of the bible can come to the conclusion that slavery is justified.