Your post might be better titled “Jimmy’s Pet Prejudices”.

Jimmy, please show us where towns are passing resolutions for any of your groups and labeling them as “hateful” or insulting” groups.

For example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just this week ruled to let stand a San Francisco resolution calling the Vatican and the Catholic Church ‘“meddl[ing]” and “insult[ing]” for reaffirming its teaching against homosexual adoption.’

Has Birmingham passed a resolution condemning environmentalists.

Has Houston passed a resolution condemning homosexuals?

Did Philadelphia pass a resolution blasting homeschoolers?

No.

Has China passed laws against large families. Ooops.

Yes- but America hasn’t.  Please deal with American mainstreamed, socially acceptable, POLITICALLY CORRECT bigotry.

Are you using us as sounding boards to refine your ideas for this? I hope so, because you’re scaring me. You’re one of the sure-fire people I can go to, along with Steve Ray to get CATHOLIC answers.

I don’t want the National Catholic Reporter and her misguided writers, I want the National Catholic Register and her faithful writers.

- “The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shakily allowed to stand a resolution by the city government of San Francisco that lambasted the Vatican as “meddl[ing]” and “insult[ing]” for reaffirming its teaching against homosexual adoption, and which urged Church officials to disobey the Magisterium.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2006 had issued a statement clarifying that Catholic Church agencies, in line with the Church’s moral teaching on sexuality, should not hand over children to homosexual couples seeking to adopt. The statement was prompted by Catholic Charities branches in Boston and San Francisco choosing to cooperate with homosexual couples seeking adoption.

As a result, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors later that year issued a nonbinding resolution that personally attacked Cardinal William Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and former archbishop of San Francisco, and his directive as “discriminatory and defamatory.”

The board urged San Francisco archbishop George Niederauer and the local Catholic Charities “to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada,” whom they dubbed “a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city.” The resolution also lashed out at the Vatican’s teaching role in the Catholic faith as an instance of “meddling” by a foreign country.

“It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need,” wrote the supervisors.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two San Francisco Catholic citizens, represented by Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit against the city, claiming that the resolution violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in December 2006 dismissed the case, stating that the Vatican had “provoked this debate” by issuing the statement.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102609.html

This is not and would not be done to any of your other “screen” groups. I say cease already.  Dolan is right.

Here’s another example of socially acceptable bigotry:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-most-anti-catholic-political-ad-youll-ever-see/

  ” A Democrat Party supporting independent non profit group has sent out perhaps THE most anti-Catholic political advertisement I’ve ever seen. Sometimes there’s a little subtlety to anti-Catholic political rhetoric but not this time. This is in your face anti-Catholicism. A postcard was sent out to voters with a photo shopped picture of a Catholic priest wearing a campaign button saying: ‘Ignore the Poor.’”

Yea, like they’d do that with Muslims, Jews, environmentalists, or homosexuals.

“2) Prejudice against non-environmentalists: Environmentalists have been so successful in worming their way into American media culture that you can’t watch TV or listen to the radio without a constant, Chinese-water-torture-like series of exhortations to ‘Go green,’ minimize your ‘carbon footprint,’ and promote ‘sustainability.’”

To “watch TV” and “listen to the radio”, you can also too often add “go to Mass”.

We can turn off the TV. We can turn off the radio. No harm done, there, and potentially some good. But some of those proudly showing off this particular prejudice have a captive audience held in place on pain of eternal damnation.

liseux,
It seems to me that you’re assuming that all prejudice must be manifested in legal sanction.

Since you’ve given many examples of legal sanctions, let me illustrate prejudice otherwise manifested.
To contextualize this, let me say that I have brown hair and have light complexion; I favor my northern European ancestry rather than my Mediterranean.
When I was a student in Boston, I was mugged by a gang of white boys in South Boston.  The reason?  Because I had the temerity to be walking down the street with a black friend.
That, my friend, is prejudice, prejudice against those who are not prejudiced.

To exist, prejudice need not be legally enforced.  It merely needs to be practiced by individuals

Please deal with American mainstreamed, socially acceptable, POLITICALLY CORRECT bigotry.

The problem here is what counts as “bigotry” or a “prejudice.”  The word “bigot” has become so overused in American political discourse that I am not confident it has any legitimate meaning any more.  Furthermore, we describe as “prejudice” a lot of social and personal sentiments that are entirely normal and acceptable.  Prejudices exist in a society for good reason: it would be undesirable, for different reasons, to live in a culture dominated by Muslims, militant homosexuals, axe murderers, people who curse in front of grandma, or those who spit on sidewalks.  Individuals and groups discourage those behaviors—-and protect everyone’s interest in remaining free from their domination—-by maintaining and acting on negative attitudes towards them.  But society has gone so insane that we call almost any negative attitude about human behavior a “prejudice,” which we automatically infer is bad. 

That said, Jimmy is correct that society in general tends to accept negative attitudes towards the groups he names.  If you have negative attitudes towards large families, you’re normal.  If you have negative attitudes towards welfare recipients, you’re a racist.  The problem, of course, is that having a large family is generally morally good, while being a welfare recipient is often morally neutral and engaging in lots of politically correct behavior is invariably evil.

Sorry about your case, Lou.

Good point about the legal sanction.

I do believe that the fact that the 9th Circuit Court upheld the anti-Catholic resolution goes far to demonstrate the socially acceptability of anti-Catholicism.

It’s officially on the books- again.

I does seem that Anti-Catholicism is one the last LEGAL prejudices here in America. Since our government tends to MOLD minds, I find this fairly disturbing. What could be next?

liseux,
Thanks.  It’s 31 years ago, and just an illustration. I’m past it.

I have warned friends for a few years now that the militant homosexualist activists are mistaken in thinking that they can keep sticking their thumb in the eye of the majority.  Their intolerance might have spawned reciprocal intolerance in people who are sick of being demonized, marginalized, and having rigid dogma shoved down their throats in the name of tolerance and diversity.  Not that two wrongs make a right.

I don’t have kids, but if I did and someone asked me if I had ever heard of birth control, I’d break his nose!

liseux,
Wow I am blown away to learn about what has happened in San Fran.  I did not know that something like that could even happen legally.  Shows how ignorant I am about these things.  You said though that it is a “non-binding resolution” so what sort of real power does it have?  What effects does it have or what can it do?  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by anything anymore nowadays, but there are still things that surprise me and I wonder what can be done about them.  Anyone have ideas what the average person can do to counter the tide?

Yeah, I bet a few other people take offense to your insinuation that anti-catholicism is the last socially acceptable prejudice. Gays and lesbians are being discharged from the military for the simple reason that they are gay. they are denied numerous civil rights including the right to form families and care for their loved ones. They are 8 times more likely to be beaten or killed on the street because they are gay than a black person for his race. They are over 385 times more likely to be beaten for being gay than a catholic would be for being catholic. They are regularly bullied at school and as a result, are 4 time more likely to commit suicide as teens. When Catholic papers print self-serving articles like this, when other Americans are actually suffering prejudice and discrimination, it really serves as a poor example of our faith.

Well, Jimmy, looks like the hornet nest has woken up.  How about the Prejudice against the Catholic Church that the New York Times is doing?  I had to throw that one in for Fr. Benedict Groschel.

When the Republican candidate for governor of New York told a Hasidic group that, while he didn’t intend to pass any laws about it, he agreed with them that homosdsexual acts are sinful, the New York Post, “New York’s conservative paper,” blasted him with a front-page headline as a “homophobe.”
I could just imagine how the “liberal” papers attacked him.

Hahaha.  The can of worms has been opened.  I can already see the mile-long string of comments that will soon appear here.  Whatever you do, Jimmy, hold that thought, and don’t let the reaction to this post affect the freshness of the working out of your thoughts.

Some seem to equate prejudice with discrimination.

Thus, I get told things like “My hated of Christians can’t be prejudiced, because I don’t have the POWER to throw you to the lions.”

Prejudice is prejudice, whether enforced or not, whether state-backed or not.

I’m not prejudiced against sodomites. As long as they stay in their closets, don’t flaunt their filth in public, don’t molest children, don’t infect people with HIV, they don’t have to worry about me. However, if they do cross the line, they don’t have to worry abot me leading a lynch mob. They’re entitled to a fair trial, and appeals to the appellate to overturn their death sentence just like any other accsed criminal!

Funny how people have to pose as hate-filled bigots and pretend to be one of those they disagree with.  It’s almost a tacit admission that there is no actual hatred and bigotry going on.

I find it hilarious that Skip chose to emphasize “MOLD.” I am now picturing the government’s politically correct teachings spreading across our brains like fuzzy fungus over formerly fresh fruits. (Yes, I have an alliteration problem. Someone help me!)
...
You know, it’s like Jimmy said in part 1 of this post. It all depends on what you mean by “socially acceptable.” In addition to determining the size of our social circle, we must ask: Does it just mean “widespread” (in which case I can see Paul’s point as well as Jimmy’s #s 3 AND 4) or does it mean it occupies mainstream media attention, or that it’s enshrined in our laws?
   
I wonder, instead of “Last,” would it be better to say that anti-Catholicism is the “MOST socially acceptable prejudice”? (Assuming we defined what we meant by “socially acceptable” and “prejudice” of course.)

Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination in the United States.  There are approximately 68 million Catholics amongst our approximately 310 million people, about one in five.  Six of the nine justices of the U. S. Supreme Court are Catholic.  Each of the six was nominated by a non-Catholic president.  Each was conformed by a predominately non-Catholic senate.  Perhaps anti-Catholicism is socially acceptable in a radical mosque in Tehran.  Such ignorance gets no traction here.  Criticizing catholicism does not make someone prejudicially anti-Catholic anymore than criticizing the president makes someone a racist.

Stories about of people with large families encountering those who sneeringly ask them (even in front of the children), “Haven’t you heard of birth control?”

Actually, what a lot of people ask the parents, when they bring another child into the world is, “haven’t you figured out what causes that yet?”

On the issue of the San Francisco resolution, while I agree with the Vatican, I also believe that, under U.S. law, each side is free to make its position known, and that Ninth Circuit was correct not to interfere.

To Joseph Condon:

You are correct in noting that 6 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Catholic.  Unless flip-flopping Clarence Thomas has jumped back to the Episcopalians since I checked last, there is no Protestant Justice on the Court.  That is absolutely amazing, considering that Protestantism is the majority religious view in the United States.  So much for “diversity” on the Court!  The other three Justices are Jewish.

Catholics generally have been a disaster on the Court.  Roger Taney, the first Catholic to serve, declared that blacks have no rights that a white man is bound to respect (Dred Scott case).  William Brennan, another Catholic, almost singlehandly, destroyed the morals of the country by engineering the opinion in Roe v. Wade and other cases.  But wait, Brennan was an Irish Catholic, and after the recent revelations of child abuse from Dublin, we know what perverts the Irish Catholics are!

Another example of it being ok to be anti-catholic is last night a Trick or Treator showed up at the house dressed as a Dead Pregnant Catholic Nun. Would I show up as a Dead Muslim Sucide bomber, AIDS Victim, Gay Televangilist?

Paul said: “Yeah, I bet a few other people take offense to your insinuation that anti-catholicism is the last socially acceptable prejudice. Gays and lesbians are being discharged from the military for the simple reason that they are gay. they are denied numerous civil rights including the right to form families and care for their loved ones. “
...

Paul, your point is valid and well taken by me, however there is prejudice and growing animosity toward Catholics as well as all traditional Christians in this country, mostly coming from the more densely populated centers of culture so while it may not represent a majority of Americans there is a vocal minority that opines in the press on a daily basis its hatred for the Christian world view and religion in general- hence the campaign to drive religion from the public square…and that’s a shame….and will have long term consequences that will not be pleasant for all of us, not just Catholics, but everyone both religious and non religious…

I am gay, and the concept that any animosity towards the Catholic church as an institution would not be justified seems utterly ridiculous. To be referred to as “militant homosexual activists” or called a “sodomite” and for it to be suggested that we are worthy of being put to death only illustrates the reason that societies attitude to the Catholic church is changing. And to call gay people disgusting and immoral, whilst concealing child rape, and protecting the disgusting and immoral priests behind it seems completely hypocritical.I would wish to deny anybody their freedom of speech, but it must be recognised that if you condemn people for their sexuality, then you cannot complain when people condemn you for spreading hatred and intolerance.

The personal faith of individuals is to be celebrated, and the vast majority of Catholics have done no wrong, many disagreeing vehemently with the views of extremists such as the current Pope. I am completely against labelling all Catholics as bigoted, and would agree that faith can sometimes be marginalised. But my view is also that in an increasingly liberal world, there is increasingly little space for organisations that protest a woman’s right to abortion, the rights to contraception, gay rights, and have caused such damage as a result of their beliefs.

Jake,
I would encourage you to support your implicit assertion that the Catholic church suggests that homosexuals are “worthy of being put to death”, or that the Church calls homosexuals “disgusting or immoral”. 
Now, the Church may refer to homosexual BEHAVIOR as immoral, but I think would agree that, as defined by Christian teaching, such BEHAVIOR is immoral. 

As for your apparent support of the right to abortion, I find it curious that you oppose child abuse of the born, but fully support the murder of those who’ve never had the chance to be born.  It seems to me that dismemberment is a tad sight worse than rape.

The church has referred to it as “intrinsically disordered” and although I have no particular wish to drag up the distant past, has PUT gay people to death before. I was not however quoting the Vatican at this point, merely some of the previous postings.

And as for arguing that it is only the behaviour that is condoned, what distinction is there between being gay, meaning that you are attracted to the same sex in exactly the same way that straight people are to the opposite sex, and falling in love with someone of the same sex.It goes beyond all Christian teaching to suggest that love should be persecuted. To reiterate my earlier point, is it not convoluted and hypocritical to condone a loving relationship, whilst hiding child rapists in and among the organisation. Even if it were merely physical acts that the Church condones, that would still be denying a part of a loving relationship. It is all very well for priests to choose to deny themselves a loving relationship with another human, in favour of one with their God, but quite another for them to condone the love of others.

I agree with early abortion, before the point where the baby feels, or is consciously aware, on the basis that it is irresponsible to bring a child into the world if it will not be loved. But I also believe that it is the prerogative of the mother to decide what is best for the child. I would not support it if I thought it in any way equated to murder, and do not support it in all instances. This is one of my issues with the institution of the Catholic Church, that I am not certain it always has the best interests of children at heart. Such as its refusal of same sex adoption, which seems to deny children a loving home and family, and rather obviously the issue of child rape.

I think that organised religion can be a real force for good to the world, and the Catholic Church certainly has the means to become one, but I do not think it is doing its part in a modern and equal society.

1) Your making the logical fallacy of confusing the various types of love - perhaps because English is often imprecise in the matter.  In Latin (and Greek), there are a number of words which are translated into English as love.  “It goes beyond all Christian teaching to suggest that love should be persecuted.”  If you were to mean love in the sense of the Greek word ?????, you would be correct.  However, I believe that you are referring to ????, and in doing so, you display your absolute ignorance of Christian thought.

2) In attempting to equate the attraction with the behavior, you betray yourself as irrational - or, at best, muddled in your thinking.  As a parallel, consider that an alcoholic is not predestined to perpetual drunkenness, but, rather, if he (or she) recognizes it as disordered behavior, steps can be taken to avoid the situation.

3) You’re denying the self-evident primary purpose of sexual activity, which is reproduction.  This is, unfortunately, a fulfillment of the prophetic nature of Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical, Humanae Vitae.  I think you would agree that homosexual activity precludes reproduction.

4) In your championing early abortion, you’re denying the self-evident fact that human life begins at the point of fertilization, or showing yourself barabaric in a callous disregard for human life.

First off, no I am not a Greek scholar, I understand the words for love, but not the physical language. I am assuming (correct me if wrong), that ????? means agape (I am a Christian of sorts myself) which is exactly what I meant. Agape meaning the highest and purest form of love, as oppose to ????,which I presume to be eros roughly translating as physical love. The only difference between the love of two men, and that of a man and woman is a physical one, and to suggest otherwise is both ignorant and closed minded. I do not for a second believe that you are a good ambassador of Christian thought.
This marks the fundamental flaw in your second point, that gay people are inherently disordered, which is not the case at all. To equate it to alcoholism, which happens when people lose control, and is based on conscious thought, is ridiculous. I am not confused at all, I would have thought that was evident.
Being gay is not a choice, if it were, who would choose to be? Not a month goes by without stories of gay people, in particular teenagers committing suicide because they either find it hard to accept themselves, or others find it hard to accept them. Why would they choose this? Not only are your arguments closed minded, but they are completely contradictory to modern psychology, which is almost unanimous that being gay is not a choice.
Moving on to your third point, no we cannot conceive naturally, but would you call a heterosexual couple unable to conceive immoral? And do you truly believe that the only reason we exist is to breed? There are already thousands of children in need of homes and loving families, I personally plan to adopt someday.
Finally, I would not say that human life at conception is any greater than the life of individual skin cells, and believe that people are better off with people who love and can support them, and if a child is the result of a careless mistake, they are more likely to be raised in resentment.
The main crux of your argument seems to be that being gay is unnatural. Yet it seems that being gay occurs naturally, and it is even seen to appear in other mammals. I would suggest that you consider both sides of the argument, without arguing blindly the views of one side, with no consideration for the other. My original point was to whether the institution of the Catholic Church is currently a force for good in the world. Your argument seems to support mine by showing that Catholicism’s attitude to gay people is in need of a radical rethinking.

You apparently are not able to comprehend the difference between alcoholism, which is the genetic predisposition to alcohol dependency, and drunkenness, which is giving into that predisposition.  Without that comprehension on your part, it is somewhat moronic for you to claim that my comparison is ridiculous.
“Being gay is not a choice”.
Neither is being an alcoholic.
Giving into the unnatural passions - whether it be sexual or substance - is a a choice.
As for your reliance of modern psychology, you are aware, aren’t you, that the psychological associations only changed their position under pressure from groups of homosexuals?  That would seem to indicate that it wasn’t a scientific decision, but a societal and political one.

As for your ignorant assertion that my positions are Catholic based, nothing could be further from the truth.  It’s actually biblically based - and it has been since long before I entered the Catholic Church.  To divorce the Catholic Church from the biblical view of sexuality is to divorce it from Christianity, which is precisely what has happened to neo-pagan organizations like the Episcopal “Church”.  Once one begins to pick and choose which parts of scripture that one wishes to believe, one no longer believes scripture, but oneself.

As for your reference to an infertile couple, allow me to offer a non-sexual comparison.
Is a diabetic eating a donut (which his body, through imperfection, cannot properly use) the same as a normal person eating latex (which the body, by design, can never properly utilize)?  Of course not. Neither is the infertile couple, who through imperfection cannot conceive, an apt comparison with a homosexual couple, who by nature cannot conceive.

I am, however, glad to see that you admit that

Given that you have little understanding of Christian thought, it matters little to me that you don’t consider me a good ambassador of it.

Perhaps if you were less interested in justifying your own perversions and more interested in seeking truth, you would be more successful in your argumentation.

Being gay causes no harm to the world. Alcoholics can forego alcohol, as gay people can remain celibate. The difference being that giving up alcohol leads to a fuller life, as any recovered alcoholic will say. By comparison denying your sexuality only leads to depression.
Perverted? That says it all, and there is no arguing with such bigotry. Before the analogies get any weirder, I will get to the point. You argue that being gay is a sin, and against God. Which of the two of us does the more damage to the world, the gay person happily living his life, or the judgemental bigot spreading his prejudice and hatred on to a perfectly innocent book. I find it amazing that anybodies interpretation of the Bible could be so warped as to condone love itself. And no, I do not mean lust.
It is easy to patronise and say that I have little understanding of Christian thought, but I have met no more than a handful of Christians that think like you, and you have little or no concept that the world has moved on.
If we are to obey all the scriptures, may I ask you how many slaves you have? And how many wives? Have you ever eaten shellfish? And I also assume that you have cut your hair in the past.
Sorry I assumed you were Catholic, it did seem rather logical given that you were the religious one on the site called “national Catholic register”. All I can say is that had I not come out of the closet I would be a considerably less happy or fulfilled person. And in response to the recent news, what would you say to those gay teenagers struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, many of whom attempt suicide?
You appear to be struggling to justify yourself with religious scriptures, but it seems to me that you are using these scriptures to condone what you have a personal problem with, rather than adjusting your personal views to the text in front of you.

I spent a considerable amount of time “seeking truth”, and came to the conclusion that people should use their own moral compasses. I will hopefully go on to have happy, successful relationships, in a liberal society. And I highly doubt I will go to hell for it. And if I do I will likely see you down there, possibly with the company of the Pope.

Pity that you don’t have the intelligence to parse a sentence.
I said, “It’s actually biblically based - and it has been since long before I entered the Catholic Church”, which, to any willing to understand English, is an indication that I am no Catholic.

Why do you assume that living a biblical ethic requires a Christian to live according to the Mosaic Law. 
The ruling of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:20) says, “Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”
You will notice the abstaining from sexual immorality there. 

Now, have I suggested that homosexuals should be punished, or that that should be the object of scorn, ridicule, or discrimination.  Of course not.  Did I use the word perversion? Yes, and it is logically consistent with homosexuality being intrinsically disordered.

Before casting charges of bigotry, perhaps you should examine yourself.  You’re the one asserting that the Catholic Church needs to conform itself to your beliefs.  You’re the one asserting that Christianity must adapt to your warped sense of reality. 
You’re the one displaying intolerance of those who refuse to adhere to your warped senses.

Were you as truly tolerant as you like to think you are, you would allow the Catholic Church to remain the Catholic Church, and not try to remold it in the image of the failure that is the Episcopal “Church” and other formerly Christian bodies that form the bulk of mainline protestantism today, all of which are hemorrhaging members because they have fallen for the rhetoric and silliness put forth by those with your views.

As for following your own moral compass, a poorly formed compass will certainly never lead you where you wish to go.
Try reading Paul’s letters and find justification for your choice to live as you do.
(And, please, don’t be stupid and ask where Jesus spoke of homosexuality. I’ll answer it when you show me where he condemned bestiality. Sexual sin in his society was, by all indications, confined to adultery, and hence, he didn’t directly deal with it.  He followed the Law, including Leviticus 18:22)

As I said right at the start, I agree completely with their freedom of speech to say whatever they like. That does not take them above all reproach for these opinions. All of the above are mentioned in the bible, but are not followed. And don’t be stupid, I can almost guarantee that you have eaten strangled animals at some point. Continually calling gay people intrinsically disordered and/or perverted is VERY bigoted. I do not have a warped sense of reality at all, I seem to still be living in the correct century. I would never want to deny people the right to be who they are. I consider myself to be very liberal. The so called “faithful” Christians have not always been in the forefront of progressive equal rights, women’s rights, the rights of black and white people and now gay rights have been issues within Catholicism.

You argue that I am ignorant of Christianity, how ignorant are you of what it actually means to be gay? Before suggesting that it is possible to live a heterosexual life, or abstain, how easy would you find it to become gay? Putting your opinions of homosexuality aside, how easy would you find it to put aside a happy, fulfilled life for the sake of a dubious condemnation in the bible?

It seems obvious to me that you think that I am a bigot, and I can assure you that I think the same of you. We are not likely to resolve our differences. Being gay is no more evil or immoral than being straight. This is the fundamental difference in opinions here. Doubtless you would argue that I would see the world differently if I had your values. I know for a fact that you would see the world, and the bible differently if you were gay. I strongly suggest that you try to see both sides of the argument. Try and imagine how you would feel if the positions were switched, and it were straight relationships that the Bible condemned, gay relationships being the norm. I can think of no better argument other than the fact that it is so much more fulfilling not to live in denial, and make the best of what you are.

Matthew 19:4-5:
Jesus said: “Haven’t you read the Scripture that says that in the begining God made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and join with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’”?
I suppose that Gays are going to reply “You can’t prove that Jesus said that [to my satisfaction]!”
And as for the argument that being homosexual causes mental problems such as depression, they say the same thing about pedophilia, and I don’t see anyone saying that that’s why we should promote “tolerance” of pedophiles.

No we are not actually. And no, being gay does not cause depression, it is the people like you that cause depression. Are you really so ignorant that you cannot see the difference between the raping of a child, and the consensual sex of two people of the same gender? In paedophilia there is no love, and it is a disgusting form of hate. I reiterate that the love of same sex couples is no less worthy than that of straight couples. I am not going to defend against each and every biblical quote that people can think up, my personal view is that I do not believe much of the bible in any case. All one needs to do is look at the thousands of happy couples to see that it causes no harm. I would say that the current decline of Christianity, particularly in western Europe (I am British) is intrinsically linked to the minority of it who spout prejudiced venom to minority groups. Your argument is poorly constructed and extremely ignorant. I would encourage you to stop hiding your personal prejudices behind the Bible.

Jake,
Having shown a consistent ignorance of Christianity, specifically Catholicism, while attacking same, you’re not in much of position to accuse others of ignorance :-)

It is, however, good that you choose not to defend against each and every Bible verse, given that you have no defense against them.

As for the current decline in Christianity, you may want to check your facts (you are familiar with those little things, aren’t you?).  The forms of Christianity which are declining are those which have given into the liberal theological agenda and like to make nice with revisionists such as yourself.  Those which have maintained fidelity to Christ and to the faith (whether Protestant or Catholic) are doing quite well.

But I won’t bother casting any more pearls before you.  Enjoy your wallowing in ignorance, perversion, and hatred of any who would have the temerity to tell you that you’re mistaken.  The Church will be ready and willing to help you when you choose to come to the truth.

Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularisation of British society in line with other European countries such as France. And even the Pope agrees that there is a rise in secularism. I know little about the situation in the USA, but say it would be pretty similar. If you insist on the facts. “Enjoy your wallowing in ignorance, perversion, and hatred of any who would have the temerity to tell you that you’re mistaken.” Likewise. I am not a biblical scholar, I do not really care about tracking endless biblical texts that you feel support your own beliefs. And also, you avoided a question earlier. What would you say to those gay teenagers struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, many of whom attempt suicide?” And also to the families of those teenagers that are are successful?

I would tell them that all of us have a cross to bear, and that having that cross to bear is not a license to give into their passions.

And all of us have crosses to bear which tempt us to sin.

I’d tell them to stop their whining and learn to be an adult, not a self-indulgent twit. 

Learning to deal with our crosses is part of the maturing process.  Not dealing with those crosses, and giving into the passions, is a refusal to mature.

Dealing with them is difficult, I agree, but dealing is part of the maturing process, just as it is for teens who attempt suicide for other reasons.

Do those statistics show specifically which Christian bodies are losing members?  Is it all of them? Or is it the theologically liberal bodies, which are secular in all but name already?  If the latter, then your statistics become meaningless because they support a part of my contention.  Likewise, if the specific movements are not shown, then the statistics become meaningless.

Jake,
You realize, of course, that you’re inconsistent.
You started off by saying that the personal faith of individuals is to be celebrated, but then, like a selfish little brat who can’t abide criticism, you attack the personal faith of the vast majority of Catholics.

Why ARE you on this site, any way?  Just trying to whine and stir the pot, garnering sympathy for sodomy? (I’m sorry if you’re offended by technical terms, but that’s what it is, and a sodomite is one who engages in sodomy)

Self indulgent twit? That really takes things a little too far. You profess to be a loving Christian, who condemns loving relationships, calls people who have attempted suicide as a result of the disapproving discriminatory attitudes “self indulgent twits” I am not going to sink to your level of petty name calling, but I would remind you that good Christians should love their neighbour. You are not one of these. The decline in Catholicism is faster than that of the Church of England, which is very liberal indeed. Catholicism has gone from 1.4 million in 1991, to approx 900,000 in 2008. CofE has declined from approximately 1.1 million to about 800,000. Whilst Catholicism is consistently higher, the gap between the two is closing, and Catholicism’s losses are greater. If that is factual enough for you.
For the last time. Being gay is not a sin. Neither is passion, both in agape, and eros. It seems that those of us who “give into the passions” by which I assume you mean come out of the closet are in fact the more mature.

I don’t condemn loving relationships, I condemn sodomite, inherently disordered relationships.

I never said being gay was a sin.
I said, as scripture consistently says, that homosexual activity is sinful.  There is no sin in any chaste relationship. 

And you wouldn’t say that basing one’s identity on one’s sexual attraction as being self-indulgent? 

If by coming out of the closet, one is giving into one’s passions, living a life which is centered on actions which scriptures an abomination, how can it be said to be more mature.

Grow up and stop being a self-indulgent sodomite.

Of course, I use the terms “self-indulgent” and “sodomite” as I previously framed them.

Can’t you see how utterly silly it is to basing one’s personal identity on one’s sexual activity and preferences?

“Hi, I’m a procreational heterosexual”
“Hi, I’m a swinger”

Silly.
And shallow.

Questions of morality aside, why should anybody respect such a childishly shallow perspective?

Being gay is part of who you are, not a part of your personality, but a part of what you identify with. Sexual identity is an important part of growing up. You seem to be clutching at straws a little. At least I find being called silly a little better than being a self indulgent sodomite. We are not swingers either! Or any more promiscuous than straight people. I am certain that my relationships will be a lot less disordered than whatever poor person is in a relationship with you, if any. And to be honest, it is not all about the actions. Any more than a straight relationship is. You are getting a little ludicrous Lou. Try and structure your argument a little more, and hate a little less. I find it hard to take anyone seriously whose only argument is that they hate the sodomites. You might want to tone it down a little bit.

I don’t hate sodomites, just stupidity, a trait which you’ve manifested in thinking that I was asserting that being gay somehow implied being a swinger.  I don’t hate you, just the behavior.  In fact, if I didn’t love you, I wouldn’t be trying to tell you that your self-indulgence was damning you.

It’s not about action, but to base one’s self identity in any way on one’s sexual activity is shallow, silly, AND self-indulgent.

Everyone has a sexual identity, it is not part of personality, and is only as important to gay people as a straight persons sexuality is to them. I define sexuality as who you fall in love with, as well as physical relationship, so my argument is that who you love is an integral part of who you are. Which I think I have already explained. Possibly more than once. Now you love me? Rather hypocritical, like much of your arguments. If you are not trying to condone love, you are trying to deny its very existence between same sex couples. You are delusional to think so. The vast majority of society has moved on from such views. I suggest you do the same. The world is moving towards acceptance, gay marriage is now a possibility in many places, as are civil partnerships. The days when being gay was a crime, or seen as wrong are almost gone. You vehemently protest the suggestion that you hate “sodomites”, but as I explained right at the start, if you hate the act of falling in love, you hate an intrinsic part of the person, and therefore hate the person. It might be a bit to get your head round, but I am sure you will make it.

Like I said, I hate stupidity, and I hate self-indulgence.

If my child is about to put their hand in a fire, and I grab the child away from the fire, perhaps slapping the hand, the child will not at that point regard the action as love.
Now, were I to call myself a Catholic and be as accepting of sodomy as you wish, then you would have the right to call me a hypocrite.  Rather, you stand in judgment of me, judgment based on your disordered, warped view of morality.

The fact that the world is moving towards the acceptance of gay relationships is no indication that it is right.  It’s only an indication that the world is moving in that direction.
100 years ago, Russia was moving towards the October Revolution.  That was not an indication that the Soviet System was right.

Fortunately, I’m not a lemming that I feel that I MUST follow the crowd.

And, honestly, I don’t hate the act of falling in love.  I hate disordered love, because disordered love cannot truly be love.  Love is wanting what is right for the other, and, if what one wishes for the other is itself disordered, it cannot be love.

Again, I ask you, why are you on this site, in a place where you must know empirically that you will not find a sympathetic ear to your disordered whining.

A pedophile has a sexual identity.
A person enslaved to bestiality has a sexual identity.
A necrophiliac has a sexual identity.
An adulterer has a sexual identity.
A fornicator has a sexual identity.
A polygamist has a sexual identity.

They would all argue that they have right to be accepted as they are, and each one is engaged in acts as immoral as homosexual acts.

Maybe one should start a polygamy pride group.
Or A bestiality pride group.
Or fight for adulterers’ rights.

You seemed to cross a line of unacceptable bigotry a long time ago. Your argument is going in circles. All that you need to accept is that gay people are in loving relationships. This is a proven and evident fact. And that is not a twisted or disordered love. None of the above were loving relationships. Which is the point I made when you said as much about paedophilia. I am on this site because I am a student if you must know. And a Christian of sorts. You will not be able to challenge your prejudice until you accept that being gay is not a disorder, or do any harm. It only seems strange from a heterosexual point of view, if you were to be in a gay relationship it would seem as strange to you as if I were in a straight one. I am fed up with you overusing the same old weak and tired arguments. I am judgemental of your warped ignorant perception of love. I can tell you first hand what it means to be gay, and to have faith. Much of what you argue against, such as us being incapable of love, I can tell you first hand are wrong. I have more faith in humanity than to think the majority of this site shares your views that are completely outspoken and unacceptable in civilised societies. Please feel free to continue if you have any fresh arguments that do not centre around saying the sodomites are damned, or going into petty name calling. “Self indulgent sodomite”? You are going to have to do better than that. I was more offended when you called me a twit.

“I am a Christian of sorts”. Baloney.
As St. Augustine says, if we believe only what we want of the Gospel and discard the rest, it is not the Gospel we believe, but ourselves.

Scripture is absolutely clear about homosexuality.  It is a sin.  You can sugar-coat it as much as you wish, you can apply all the sophistry you want to the question and try to deny that that’s what scripture says, but, when you come right down to it, it is a sin.  In Leviticus, it is listed with the other sexual sins I mentioned.  Paul says that “no effeminate” will inherit the kingdom of God.  One needn’t accept it as sin, but with even a gram of intellectual honesty, one has to admit that that is the clear teaching of Scripture.

Now, you say I am a bigot.  Why? Because I consider it a sin?  Then you are an inconsistent twit, praising individual religious faith, but condemning me for adhering to the faith which has been passed down for 2000 years.
I say that you are a bigot, requiring everybody to accept your position, criticizing those have the temerity to disagree with you.

You are absolutely intolerant of ANY who would say you’re wrong.

I personally don’t care how you live your life - I am not the judge, God is.  I can warn you of what He says, but if you choose to ignore it, that is, of course, your prerogative. 
It’s when you criticize the Church, when you criticize Christ and His Body, when you show ignorance and arrogance towards her that will cause me to debate.

But I won’t argue with you any more.  You’re too ignorant of truth, too wrapped up in your sin to be able to see truth, and too immature to accept those who disagree with you, yet expect those who do in fact disagree to be “tolerant” of your aberration. 
Grow up, little boy.

Argue as much as you want. Your motivation is not the adherence to scripture, rather your deep intolerance. Which is in itself a sin. I believe in an all powerful God, but I refuse to believe that he is the God full of hatred that you seem to follow. So yours is not the same as mine. You follow dubious passages blindly because of your own prejudice. I base my faith on the concept “judge not that ye be not judged”. You call me a sinful sodomite, say that I have a “warped view of reality” and make remarks about my intelligence.
I do not think that there is a judgemental God damning people to hell. And that is the issue I have with churches and political forces who base their views on judgement. Peaceful faith, whether on a small or large scale is the only way forward to stop the decline of religion.
I am intolerant of the amount you seem to hate. I do not think there is any call or need for it. You argue that you do in fact love people, yet you have used countless personal insults, extreme bigotry and a world view that can never make the world a better place, or lead to any sort of fulfilment or happiness. Evidently there is no hope for you to change, therefore this argument has reached a point where no side can convince the other. You need to challenge your hatred. This argument seems to be over.

I’m glad to see that you think that you can see inside my head and know my motivation.  Just another indication of your ignorance.

“I don’t think there is a judgmental God damning people to hell”.  Then you’ve neglected to read the entirety of the chapter from which you quote. “Judge not ...” is Matthew 7:1. Matthew 25:46 says, “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Again, as Augustine said, if you believe what you want of the Gospel and discard the rest, it’s not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.
I’m sorry if you believe my reporting what the bible teaches, and what the Church teaches, to be hatred.  It’s not.  It’s following the truth where it leads.

Not all Christians think so. I can’t see inside your head, but it does not sound like a nice place. Righteous people will. And I am glad that you think that you are one of them. I do not deny that I do not believe all of the gospel. I see it as guidance, that often appears to contradict itself, but can help people to decide how to live their lives. Truth is only found when you can set your own prejudices aside and look at the picture as a whole. You can deny all you like that you calling me a “self indulgent sodomite”,“ignorant of truth”, “too wrapped up in your sin to be able to see truth” and many more, is not a form of bigotry or hatred, but I would have to disagree with you. It seems self evident. Stop reworking the same old prejudiced argument to fight against love, the main message of the Bible. I ask you again, do not reply until you have thought of something intelligent and non prejudiced to say. You have even managed to twist a scripture about not judging people, to call me a a sinner.

I feel it is wrong to base important opinions solely on religious scripture without any form of logical thought. I can see no ethical system that can reasonably condemn homosexuality.

Well, “Asa,” I agree with you that “it is wrong to base important opinions…without any form of logical thought.”  So why didn’t you offer any logical arguments, instead of simply asserting that it is unreasonable to condemn homosexual acts, despite all the logical arguments based on the purpose of sex, the fact that the !@#$% wasn’t designed to resist infection by STDs in the same way that the vagina was, etc.?

How on earth have you come to the conclusion, that since a demographic is at a higher risk of STIs, that constitutes a logical reason to condemn them? The purpose of relationships (I detest the assumption that being gay is entirely about sex) is to be in love, and to deny that is illogical.

firstly you dont have to qote my name. Secondly i didn’t make any argument to pretect the rights of homosexuals because i could see no ressonable argument to the contry to disprove, and as the imorality of an action is based on the harm it courses and the rights of others it falls to those opossing the persons freedom of sexuality to make there argument first.

in reference to your argument “the purpose of sex” is relative to the people having sex as purpose is a matter of motivation. the virgina can’t resist STDs hence HIV.

there are also the more general problems associated with natural moral law, why should we look at the the natural world for moral gidence when it’s based on servival of the fitist.

Jake,

Are you incapable of understanding the English language?
Don SPECIFIED homosexual acts in his sentence, silly.

And he’s not saying that the demographic is at a higher risk, he’s saying that the ACTION ITSELF is inherently unsafe.

other than the demographic it’s self being at high risk how is “the ACTION ITSELF is inherently unsafe.” and why do you think being unsafe is the same as being unethical.

Yes, he specifies gay acts, and gay sex is at a higher risk of infection than straight. That said, straight sex is also unsafe to a certain degree, and the risk of infection is almost completely eradicated by the use of a condom. Morality and practicality are two very different things; would you argue that the dangers and practicalities of childbirth make the action immoral? I pointed out that your arguments are prejudiced, and without intelligent thought behind them. You do not seem to have taken that on board.

Jake,
You’re making assumptions that I’m making the argument.  I’m merely clarifying his point.

I’ve given up trying to argue with you.  We approach the question from different perspectives.  I argue as one informed by scripture and the tradition of the Church.  You argue as one who wishes to justify himself.  There can be no common ground in such an argument, and therefore engaging you is a waste of time.

Your approach, though, does validate the original point of this article.

To quote Mr. Akin, “The way the trend is going, expect anyone with traditional sexual values to be regarded as the equivalent of a Klansman within a generation.”

Simple because something becomes socially execptable does not meam it will become socially amandatory. if you fear people will become hostile to you because of your sexual orientation dont you think it would be better to support freedom insaposed to critisising others for there sexual orientation.

My original point was that the scripture and Church are prejudiced. You say that I try and justify myself, have you evaluated your own comments? I think that you been constantly trying to defend your own prejudices, and to say “The way the trend is going, expect anyone with traditional sexual values to be regarded as the equivalent of a Klansman within a generation.” is patently ridiculous. Gay people are biologically less likely to occur than heterosexuals, and therefore they will always be in a minority. The only difference in sexual values, is the acceptance of other sexualities, and the understanding that one sexuality does not devalue the other. It is to be desired that those who hold a conservative viewpoint, and who incite hatred and prejudice to gay people are viewed negatively by liberal, accepting societies. Anyone who views the acceptance of all sexualities as a threat to their own, is certainly very confused. And another point. I have not met that many people who have as strong a prejudice, that do not have something to hide! Get over yourself!

Asa,
Do you realize that pastors have been jailed for preaching that homosexual practice is a sin?

If a landlord honestly believes that homosexual practice is sinful, should the government prosecute him for refusing to rent to a homosexual couple?  If he believes that sex outside marriage is sinful, should the government prosecute him for refusing to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple?
Ought he not have the FREEDOM to say that, on premises that he owns, as far as he is able, there will be no sexual immorality (according as his faith informs him)?

I personally don’t give a damn what people do in private - but I WILL NOT have others dictate to me that I should change my understanding of morality to suit their own practices.

So Jake, you admit that your perspective is that of an anti-Christian bigot.

Then what are you doing here? 

“I have not met that many people who have as strong a prejudice, that do not have something to hide!”  Again, you’re assuming.  You have no idea how many times I’ve heard this from self-serving sodomites.  But, interestingly, I never hear it from anybody else.

Try being original.

No. I am a Christian. I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, but I do not think that being gay is a sin, and I have very strong reservations with the institution of the Church. And it upsets me that Christians, who are meant to be loving, accepting people have become so right wing. Which I have now explained about 100 times. Self serving sodomites? No wonder they do not like you. And to be fair, we do know a little bit more about it. But I do seem to have struck a nerve.

You call me a bigot. Stop being a self deprecating hypocrite.

Lou,
ofcorse bussness men (including landlords) should abide by antidisgrimination laws, im sure you’d object to deing refuced a probuct/service on the grounds of your sexuality, and yes i’d apply the same principle to unmarried couples. I’m not telling you to change your moral understanding to suit anyones practices im trying to persuade you that your views are wrong because they have no reason supporting them. if you dont want to be challenged on your views why did you post them for comment, you have also challenged other peoples moral prinsables without replying to there critisms of yours and you must respond to these critisms insted of refusing to disgus there moral grounding.

And I’ve explained 100 times that Scripture is absolutely explicit - except to those who try to excuse sin.  Homosexual behavior is sin.  The Old Testament uses the word abomination.

And, as I’ve quote before from St. Augustine, “If we believe only what we want of the Gospel, it’s not the Gospel we believe, it’s ourselves”.

Sorry to burst your bubble.  Holding to traditional moral values isn’t “right-wing”, it’s Christian.
Rom 1:26-32
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

I’m done with you.

Asa,

Learn to spell.  Proper grammar and sentence structure might help, too. You come across as an illiterate idiot.

I do not gossip, my mind is not depraved. I am not full of envy, murder, strife, deceit or malice. I do not disobey my parents (or at least no more than anyone else!). I seem to have more understanding than you and I love my God. The rest seems subjective, but when logic tells you that something cannot be true, it is generally a good idea to accept it, to suggest that gay people fall into the above categories is ignorant, closed minded, and incitement to hatred, which is illegal in most places.

Christians do not judge, Christians love their neighbour, they accept that they themselves are sinners, and do not point out the supposed sins of others. You are not a true Christian, you are a fundamentalist, bigoted, hateful person. You will doubtless go through life ignorant to the true message of the scriptures you wave about. Equal rights is a work in progress, and equality for all is becoming closer to reality.

And please do not bully others on the forum. If you looked at what he was actually saying, I am sure you would find him far more intelligent than yourself. I would rather have a few spelling mistakes, then everything I say be right wing, oppressive and evil.

I am glad to hear that your venomous rant is over. I wish you good luck.

lets not get personal, making comments like “You come across as an illiterate idiot” insted of proper arguments only shows your inability to justify your own views. perhaps if you pade more attention to content and reason you wouldn’t be so diluded. You have not given a shred of evidence as to why i should bielve these scriptures.

That is probably because he has none. And there is no need to be insulted by him, I think I would feel more insulted if he APPROVED of me. Thanks Asa, it is always fun to stand up to people like that. ;)

Jake i think you are right. lou please think about your belief and either replie with some sort of justification(not just extracts or other peoples work) or except you are wrong. Dont waste my time with meaningless(in the logical positivist sense) quotes.

Anyone who claims that the Catholic Church is in decline is somewhat disconnected from reality.  Here are the details from the National Council of Churches

http://www.nccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html

The “gay-friendly” denominations are still in decline: the United Church of Christ, down 2.83% to 1,080,199; the Presbyterian Church(USA), down 2.61% to 2,770,730; the Episcopal Church, down 2.48% to 2,006,343; and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, down 1.96% to 2,542,868.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered the fastest growing, up 4.37% to 1,162,686. 
The Catholic Church “only” grew by .57%—t0 68,503,456 members.  In raw numbers, that’s about 390 thousand.

These might be figures from America, if you look at the European figures I showed you will see this is not the case. Also, I would check to see if this is a poll indicating the faith people say they belong to, or a poll of people who regularly attend Church, as my figures were. I think you will agree there is a big difference. And as I have said several times, there is a massive difference between mainstream Catholicism, and hateful preaching. Although there are a few corrupt members at the top, the vast majority of Catholics are in fact very normal, and do not hold hateful views that go against an ever improving society. The number of gay people who now feel that they can come out the closet is always growing, as society becomes more liberal, and they do not feel the need to hide it. This is possible because of a decline in people who hold your oppressive and damaging views.

The Catholic Church is one of the richest religious organisations in Western Europe. How much of that money goes to supporting the poor, and third world countries? Not nearly as much as other religious organisations do. It has helped the spread of AIDS across the world, both through its damning attitude to gay people, and its view on condoms, which causes a particular problem in the third world. To argue that this Church is doing its part in modern society is ridiculous. Here lies a definite case of an organisation who are unwilling to practise what they preach, who condemn loving relationships by labelling them as sexual immorality, whilst hiding paedophiles inside their organisation. There can be little more evident and conclusive proof that the Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world, than the disgusting rape (and covering up of that rape) of children. All moral high ground of sexual ethics was lost at this point. You can continue to try and convince yourself that the Church’s voice is not in decline, but I equate the decline of Christianity entirely down to people like YOU. And by that I mean you personally, with your discriminatory pious views that cause such damage.

As for your claiming that all the medical and psychological evidence offered to prove that Gay sex is harmful—STDs including AIDS, the suicide rate among “Gay teens,” etc.—is actually “religious,” who’s ignoring the facts here?

Psychological evidence is unanimous that being gay is not a disorder, and that any attempts to change or deny sexual orientation is psychologically damaging. The current spate of gay teen suicide can be equated entirely to social attitudes, such as your own, the suicides are largely people who are either people having difficulty coming to terms with their sexuality for fear of rejection, or people who have encountered rejection after coming out.

As far as medical evidence, yes, being gay does put you at an increased risk of STD’s. Most, if not all of these can be caught by straight people. Being black puts you at an increased risk of sickle cell anaemia, that does not make being black any more immoral. In both cases, it is the way a person is born, being born gay does not make your morals any worse than being straight.

You seem to have a very warped perception of the facts. Anyone who can look at gay suicide as a reasonable excuse to condemn gay relationships, needs to examine their prejudices. Please examine ALL the facts before spouting them off as part of a hateful, prejudiced attack on gay people.

just because something has risks doesn’t make it wrong, having relatives with depression makes you more likely to have it, that doesn’t mean those with a familly histry of depression should be regected by society. Homeosexuality has been removed from the diagnostic manuals and is not considerd a mental illness. Majer life events and sress are inportant triggers for depression and it seems likely disgovering your gay and coming out as gay is both a majer and stressfull event.

Yes, but Asa, you forget, these facts are not factual enough. The scriptures are far more verifiable. And whilst we are at it, are there any other minorities to discriminate against?

Before the “Gay activists” took over, the universal psychological evidence was that homosexuality was a fetish, something that you pick up as your sexuality matures, like sadism or masochism.  And the fact remains that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex when it comes to infections and so on, and homosexuals are still complaining that “teenage Gays” tend to have mental problems, such as suicidal tendencies.
So to claim that the almost universal objection to homosexual acts throughout history is merely a religious prejudice, and that there are no objective facts that indicate that homosexual acts are harmful, is to deny the facts.  For instance, look at another sexual act that is almost universally condemned—pedophilia, which is the abuse of pre-pubescent younsters.  (Not to be confused with the homosexual seduction of teens, which anti-Catholics call “pedophilia” when it is done by Catholic priests, in order to protect homosexuals in the priesthood.)  The effects of pedophhilia are similar to the effects of the homosexual seduction of teenagers.

Get your facts write there have been many cases of pedophilia and sexual abuse in the catholic church involving children under 10 and teenagers, i am talking about rape in these cases not “seduction of teens”, your indanger of sounding like your denying or condoning this. Once homeosexuality was regarded as a psychological disorder know it isn’t why do you find the older diagnostic manual more valid? what evedence do you have that homeosexuality is psychopathological? You still haven’t explainned why you think being in a demograthic at risk of STD ect is a reason to be persacuted. Saying homeosexuals have been persacuted throught most of history isn’t an reason to continue. How is homeosexuality similar to pedophilia?

My facts are right, if not “write”: According to a book by Episcopalian Penn State professor Phillip Jenkins, “Pedophiles and Priests” (Oxford University Press), Catholic priests are no more accused of sexual abuse than Protestant ministers. And the John Jay study that the bishops ordered indicated that only about 4% of the priests accused were accused of pedophilia, while 4/5th of the accused were accused of the homosexual seduction of a teenager.  (The other priests?  There are teenage girls.)

And how are homosexual predators similar to pedophiles?  They were both almost universally despised at one time, even if you insist the first group should now be protected.

Seducing teenagers is something that is done far more commonly by heterosexuals, across the world. The fact that the Catholic Church forces priests to hide their sexuality, is what causes the problem. The heterosexual seduction is not commonly seen as such a crime, and is therefore not as reported.
The fact is that unlike the Catholic Church, the protestant Churches have made an effort to get rid of ministers who rape children, rather than try to cover them up. I find the current Pope as guilty as those who raped the children, by his heinous attempt to cover up their crimes, which enabled them to attack again.
The Catholic Church, like it or not, is obsessed with sex. In the same way that the only people obsessed with food are anorexics and obese people, the priests of the Catholic Church are obsessed through their abstinence, which they feel allows them to criticise the sexuality of others. Their argument that homosexuality is against nature is somewhat hypocritical in the light of their abstinence.
The difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is massive. For a start one of them is rape, and the other is not. One of them is a loving relationship, and the other is a form of hatred, and the need to exercise control over people weaker than you. As I have now explained so many times that I have lost count. It is a travesty that in some places across the world it is a more socially acceptable sight to see two men holding guns, than holding hands.
The argument that gay people were once universally despised is a little bit like arguing that because Jewish people were once hated, it is a good reason to continue that prejudice. The comparison holds greater weight when you realise that both demographics were persecuted in the holocaust under Hitler. The reason that homophobia in the Catholic Church is currently a problem may have something to do with the fact that its current leader was once part of the Hitler youth program.
It seems that nothing can get through your strange assertions that because gay sex puts you at a greater risk of STD’s, that it is somehow immoral, and that because we were once hated, it is a good idea to carry that hatred on into the 21st century. Your warped sense of morality does little to defend the Catholic Church as an institution of moral teaching.

So, “Jake,” still refuse to accept objective facts?
I quoted the John Jay study, which pointed out that of the priests who were accused 4% were accused of pedophilia, about 80% were accused of the homosexual seduction of a teenage boy, and the rest were accused of seducing a teeenage girl.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
The Vatican did well to rule, back in 1962 that, since priests live together, homosexuals are unfit candidates for the priesthood.
The culture at large complained avbout this—remember the 1984 movie “Mass Appeal,” starring Jack Lemmon?—and the bishops who gave in to the culture caused all sorts of scandal against the Church.

Once again, you fail to understand the science behind the dubious “facts” that you quote, facts that are also not likely to be subjective and unbiased. There are a large number of paedophiles who target young boys. This is indeed a fact. However, the majority of those paedophiles seek heterosexual relationships. In drawing the distinction between homosexuals, who seek adult relationships, and paedophiles, who seek dominance over children, it becomes evident that there is no statistics that suggest that people who seek homosexual adult relationships are any more likely to abuse children than people who seek heterosexual adult relationships. The mistake lies in labelling male abusers who attack male children, as homosexuality, when in fact it is paedophilia, and not at all related. Surveys have identified almost no paedophiles among homosexuals, Westwood (1960) found less than 3% claiming to be interested in young people sexually, which is not the same as actual sexual offenders. There is a similar statistic for heterosexuals. About 12% of Westwood’s sample had had contact after 18 years of age with boys of 16 or younger, Seventy-six per cent of the men said they would not engage in homosexual activities with anybody under 17, and 6% said that they felt free to engage in sexual activities with a boy of any age. Also, another study showed that nearly half of the men convicted of sexually molesting boys were actually married at the time (Gebhard 1965), less than a third preferred children sexually to older people. Using measures of sexual arousal to different sets of pictures, it was discovered that although heterosexual men were sexually aroused by pictures of girls rather than by those of landscapes, homosexual men were no more aroused by pictures of boys than landscapes (Freund, 1963). Therefore, just knowing the nature of an adult’s sexual involvement with children says little or nothing about their orientation to adult men or women. It is also important to note, that these are famous psychologists, rather than dubious religious leaders. To argue that the facts indicate that gay people are paedophiles is extremely ignorant to psychology.

“And how are homosexual predators similar to pedophiles?  They were both almost universally despised at one time”
Well this is a similarity but for it to have any relevence to an ethical debate it would have to be ment to pass judgement with the implications of; 1) Opinions that have been held in the past are true withot supporting reason (this prevents all chance of development and means we’d all be stuck for alternaty with the mistakes of those who came beffore us). 2) That all things that have been hated can be judged together 3) Being hated means you deserve to be hated more and therefore being hated is unethical. Do you realy defend this?
Also you haven’t responded to criticisms of your natural moral law and the claim that an activity having risks makes it unethical.

You cling to whatever evidence supports your twisted prejudice, and ignore all criticism that does not hold to your belief system. You cite religious and scientific reasoning, neither of which hold true. You brand homosexuals as paedophiles, using “facts” that you think support you, but ignore the very blatant fact that most gay people are not. I can personally tell you, that I am gay, and seek loving adult relationships, and am disgusted by the rape of children at the hands of the Church that you defend. It is through a mixture of ignorance, arrogance and intolerance that you attack a perfectly harmless group of people, whilst ignoring the crimes of an organisation that causes immeasurable strife to thousands of people across the world, through its prejudice and judgemental attitudes.
I urge you to rethink your moral position, instead of using twisted faith and flawed science to support your claims. You seem unwilling to explain your opinions under criticism, perhaps because you have not thought them through sufficiently. I ask you, as I asked the last pious bigot, to argue rationally, and not to spout homophobic mantra under the vague disguise of science, and which does not hold under any scrutiny.

Who has a “twisted” bias here, “Jake”?
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the “pedophile” priests are actually the homosexual predators of teenage boys.  If the truth hurts your feelings, that doesn’t mean that the truth is “twisted…religious and scientific reasoning.”  and if the Catholic Church is guilty of “crimes,” those crimes are of being too tolerant of the majority of the accused priests, those priests who were accused of the homosexual seduction of teenagers.

Please for goodness sakes read the previous postings, that plainly highlight the facts. You betray your complete ignorance. You do not understand the widely acknowledged difference between homosexuality and paedophilia, and as I explained, facts are something that you do not seem to have grasped. Being open and free on the subject of homosexual adult relationships does not mean that one is accepting to paedophilia, which as I explained earlier, and cited references from leading psychologists, is as different to homosexuality, as it is from heterosexuality. In fact, as Freud’s study showed, heterosexual males showed higher signs of arousal from young children than homosexuals did. Therefore the so called “homosexual” seduction of teenagers was arguably paedophilia, which is in itself, as I appear doomed to continually repeat, an entirely different thing to actual homosexuality. And as you will no doubt remember, another fact I cited, was that only 3% of homosexuals said that they had an interest in young people sexually, a number which was again reduced massively by the number of sex offences within the gay community. In short, and in words that you might be able to understand, gay people are not paedophiles! For Gods sake, try and UNDERSTAND the facts before you try and use them to support you. You seem to completely ignore any evidence that does not fit your rather narrow minded theories. I want you to be able to explain the facts that I just told you, so that I am absolutely certain you understood them, as you seem to be talking on a subject you have little understanding of. Your argument seems to be, that your views are just the truth, and any criticism of them is automatically wrong. And yet when it comes to supporting these views with verifiable evidence, you seem completely inadequate.

And as Asa said, you STILL have not responded to the criticism of your assertion that because an action carries a risk of STI’s, that it is as a result unethical.

Well,  “Asa” and “Jake,” you’re the ones who claim that disapproval of homosexual acts has nothing to do with the objective facts, only religious prejudice—and when I bring up the objective facts you respond that reality has nothing to do with morality.

No. We gave you objective facts. We explained the facts behind your figures. You do not understand what you are talking about. And when did we argue that reality had nothing to do with morality? You really need to research both sides of your argument. Try and demonstrate some understanding of the facts that I gave you, and then you can at the very least have an INFORMED prejudice. And for goodness sakes face up to our criticism or admit you are wrong. Please learn what you are talking about.

Jake has responded to your supporting evidence by presenting his own evidence “Surveys have identified almost no paedophiles among homosexuals, Westwood (1960) found less than 3% claiming to be interested in young people sexually, which is not the same as actual sexual offenders. There is a similar statistic for heterosexuals. About 12% of Westwood’s sample had had contact after 18 years of age with boys of 16 or younger, Seventy-six per cent of the men said they would not engage in homosexual activities with anybody under 17, and 6% said that they felt free to engage in sexual activities with a boy of any age. Also, another study showed that nearly half of the men convicted of sexually molesting boys were actually married at the time (Gebhard 1965), less than a third preferred children sexually to older people. Using measures of sexual arousal to different sets of pictures, it was discovered that although heterosexual men were sexually aroused by pictures of girls rather than by those of landscapes, homosexual men were no more aroused by pictures of boys than landscapes (Freund, 1963). Therefore, just knowing the nature of an adult’s sexual involvement with children says little or nothing about their orientation to adult men or women. It is also important to note, that these are famous psychologists, rather than dubious religious leaders.” To argue effectively with this you have to explain why you think your refrences are more valid than Jakes and/or give more of your own. I think you may misunderstand me, i’m not arguing “that reality has nothing to do with morality” i’m saying you haven’t explainned why you think homeosexuality is unnatural and why this would make it unethical. Neither have you explained why you think the incresed risk of STD and the correlation between homeosexuality and suicide makes it unethical (i’m not questionning wether there are higher rates of STD and suicides in homoesexuasl, i’m asking why you think this makes homoesexuals evil).
Also you haven’t replied to my last comment;
“And how are homosexual predators similar to pedophiles?  They were both almost universally despised at one time”
Well this is a similarity but for it to have any relevence to an ethical debate it would have to be ment to pass judgement with the implications of; 1) Opinions that have been held in the past are true withot supporting reason (this prevents all chance of development and means we’d all be stuck for alternaty with the mistakes of those who came beffore us). 2) That all things that have been hated can be judged together 3) Being hated means you deserve to be hated more and therefore being hated is unethical. Do you realy defend this?
Also you haven’t responded to criticisms of your natural moral law and the claim that an activity having risks makes it unethical.

And to judge others is a very unchristian thing to do in any case, especially when it is blindingly obvious to anyone with sense that you are absolutely wrong. And the same goes to some of the other people on this site, and especially this “Lou” person. Some of you are so hateful, it is a wonder that you think that your prejudices make you a more moral person than the person that you are discriminating against. And to then try and back up your religious prejudice with science, even though science clearly does not back up your claims, seems rather stupid. There are a lot of people, the writer of the above article for one, who need to evaluate their prejudices.

“all the logical arguments based on the purpose of sex, the fact that the !@#$% wasn’t designed to resist infection by STDs in the same way that the vagina was, etc.?”  I have given a counter argument to this that you never responded to “in reference to your argument “the purpose of sex” is relative to the people having sex as purpose is a matter of motivation. The virgin can’t resist STDs hence HIV. There are also the more general problems associated with natural moral law, why should we look at the natural world for moral guidance when it’s based on survival of the fittest.” My main points here are: to what purpose are you referring if not that of the people having sex. You implied you think something having risks makes it unethical why is this? And if you are referring to natural moral law here i will debate what you mean by nature and why you think nature is a good guide for morality.   
“Before the “Gay activists” took over, the universal psychological evidence was that homosexuality was a fetish” Again I’ve answered this and you haven’t replied to my criticism “Once homosexuality was regarded as a psychological disorder now it isn’t why do you find the older diagnostic manual more valid? What evidence do you have that homosexuality is psychopathological?” homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973 and it’s true some psychiatrists opposed this and called for a vote of the associations members on whether homosexuality should be returned to the DSM, the vote was taken in 1974 and it ratified the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.  I will also add some studies that have found contrary to your view of homosexuality as psychopathology; Hooker (1957) found that homosexuality is not inherently linked to psychopathology,  Gonsiorek (1982) found that that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” 
“almost universal objection to homosexual acts throughout history” are you sure about this?  Homosexuals were widely present in ancient Greece and homosexuality was integrated into the culture.  At times in ancient Rome homosexuality was an excepted practice.  The Bedamini people of new Guinea believe sharing semen between men promotes growth.  Ford and Beach (1951) found that homosexuality behaviour of some sort was considered normal and socially acceptable in 64% of their 76 society study. If you don’t think your arguments i quoted aren’t worth defending please could you clarify why you think homosexuality is unethical.

After reading back my last coment i would like to clarify some points: when critsicing your point “almost universal objection to homosexual acts throughout history” i focused on proving it inacurate, however even if it were acurate i don’t see why this would make homosexuality unethical as i explainned in an earlyer comment. I would also like you to explain why you think that because homosexuals are at highter risk than heterosexuals of some medical problems homosexualit is unethical.

Come on Asa, you do not think for a moment that he actually has an answer to any of the above? He has absolutely none, the reason being that there are none, aside from blind hatred. He will probably spout off a load of crap again. Oh well….

I would like to say I agree with Jake and Asa. Hating somebody because of their sexual orientation is just as shallow and ridiculous as hating someone because of their eye colour or height, because sexual orientation is as innate to someone as their physical appearance. Also, could the way you defend yourselves so mercilessly be a tell-tale sign of your own self-denial?

...And hating somone just because they love Christ is religious bigotry.
Stop screaming that you hate my religion, and that you refuse to listen to the objective facts.

Oh dear. Have you not learnt that there ARE no objective facts that support you, and that the facts point the other way? We have explained it an awful lot of times now. I do not think you understand it, but there is not much any of us can do about that. We do not hate the love of Christ, and like I say, I am Christian myself. We disapprove of prejudice in all forms. There is nothing wrong with your religion at all. What is wrong is your interpretation of it. Your argument could equally be used to support terrorism. People who hate terrorists are not religious bigots. Religion has been the excuse of extremists for years, and has been used as an excuse for mindless slaughter countless times. Just because we advocate peaceful religion, does not make us bigots. You seem to be a very confused individual. Perhaps in more than one way. All I can say, is that we have countered your every argument, and used facts and figures as evidence. You have not responded to any criticism of your beliefs. Just because they are your beliefs does not make them right, and in voicing them, you open them to other opinions.

No, I haven’t heard that there are no objective facts supporting the Church’s position on homosexual acts, and for the simple reason that they do indeed exist—for instance, the fact that the !@#$% is less resistant to communicable diseases than the vagina, and the fact that all the surveys which try to claim that children raised by homosexuals have no mental problems are generated by advertising in “Gay” magazines that homosexual activists want to survey Gay parents (but not their children).

Why doe’s any of that make being gay unethical?

Well, the first we have definitely answered many, many times. So many times, it seems a wonder you are still bringing it up. You try and find ANY verifiable facts that indicate that they DO have mental problems, before trying to refute the widely held scientific belief! Have you been reading these gay magazines? You seem to know a lot about the contents, maybe you have read a few? If I thought you would listen, I would be quite capable of getting all the scientific evidence to prove that there is no difference. But you do not seem to have listened to any of our evidence so far, and are using the same old tired arguments we have already proved wrong. Get a grip.

You keep arguing that homosexuals are at highter risk than heterosexuals of some medical problems and now you have started arguing gay adoption is bad but you haven’t explainned what this has to do with the ethics of being gay.

In regard to Don’s argument about the !@#$% being more susceptible to STI’s.. The majority of gay people hae the common sense to use condoms (unlike most Catholics!), as, believe it or not, they also have the function of preventing communicable disease.

And if he starts going off into the science of gay adoption, I think he will run into some more brick walls. He is running out of arguments to lose with! It is a wonder he does not give up, he obviously has no idea WHAT he is talking about. It is always the ones that protest the loudest, that have the most to hide!

Have any of you read what radio talk show host Michael Medved’s wife Diane has to say about the subject?  She’s a family psychiatrist, not a Gay activist, so you may not like what she has to say.
Covering your ears and shouting “I don’t believe you!” doesn’t mean that I ran out of objective facts, just that you refuse to accept them.

what does radio talk show host Michael Medved’s wife Diane know about it?.The oxford little english dictionary defines moral as “*adjective concerned with goodness or badness of character or behaviour, or with difference between right and wrong; virtuous in conduct. *noun moral lesson of story etc.; (in plural) moral principles or behaviour.” perhaps this will help you understand what I mean when I ask you about the moral relevens of your comments.

am sorry, who here is not listening to the facts?! I have given you countless respected psychologists, and you have given me a minister, and the wife of a talk show host. You have not responded to ANY of our criticisms or questions, no matter how much we tell you to. I think the only person here covering their ears is you. And incidentally, no, I have not heard of either of them! And I might like to add, that the American Psychological Association (APA) are unanimous that being gay is not a disorder, and that attempts to change your orientation do not work, and are psychologically damaging. But I have a strange feeling you will “refuse to accept” these objective facts. You are starting to get a little bit annoying now. Get a decent argument.

And no i don’t know what radio talk show host Michael Medved’s wife Diane said. “Covering your ears and shouting “I don’t believe you!” doesn’t mean that I ran out of objective facts, just that you refuse to accept them.” all of your arguments have been replied to but you haven’t replied to many of are critiscims of your argument. If you have some facts why don’t you use them insted of ignoring question?

Just admit you are wrong, and have no idea what you are talking about. And do not attack demographics that have done nothing to you. I think you have a lot of issues, and I seriously hope that you are not raising children with your twisted values. Stop being so hateful, and hiding it under your religion.

The writer of the above article seems to have contradicted himself on the subject of homosexuality “3) Prejudice against traditional values concerning homosexuality: ...objectively disordered behavior is commonly treated as normal, and anyone who disagrees with this is treated as a pariah.

The way the trend is going, expect anyone with traditional sexual values to be regarded as the equivalent of a Klansman within a generation.

On the other hand, there is also:

4) Prejudice against homosexuals: ...unjust discrimination against homosexuals…

While conscientious Catholics studiously avoid such prejudice, not everybody is a conscientious Catholic, and all one has to do is look at the bullying behavior of teenage boys toward those they even suspect of homosexual tendencies to see the malice that is out there.”

We seem to have silenced somebody. Perhaps they feel a little embarrassed. Or perhaps they have realised that there are no arguments out there to justify themselves with. Don’t leave us hanging Don, please enlighten us with some insightful, thought provoking comment. Or you could talk a load of rubbish like normal. You seem to have less and less to say with each posting, perhaps because you have run out of dogma to throw at us.

Still silence… Well done guys, it looks like we MIGHT got rid of him. Then again, he might be back…

So can any of you homosexual activists come up with any reply to the facts that I cite other than to scream that I’m “prejudiced”?
And if you’re really that disturbed that the Church doesn’t approve of your favorite sins, maybe you might consider becoming Episcopalians.  God knows that with all the adherents that denomination is losing each year, it could use new members.
(And if you don’t know that as a matter of fact the National Council of Churches reported that the Catholic Church grew by .57% to 68 million last year—making it still the largest denomination in the USA—and that the Vatican yearbook reported that the Church grew by 1.3% last year, at a time when the general population grew by 1.1%, that might say something about your grip on reality.)

What on earth are you talking about? We have replied to every single one of them. Give us some facts that you feel we have not explained sufficiently, and we will explain them more fully if you want us to. And at least the Episcopal Church is doing some good in the world, spreading Gods love, rather than man’s hate. The amount of “Catholics” who regularly attend Church has dropped immensely (if you dispute this, I will be happy to look up the figures) and the profits are down. Not only that, but its voice is paid attention to less and less in modern society. One of our recent prime ministers, Tony Blair was a Catholic, and yet had his own opinions, in support of abortion, and pro gay rights. Under a Labour government, civil partnerships were introduced. Not all Catholics feel the same way as you. The Catholic Church may not approve of Gays, but there are a whole load more people than gays, who do not approve of the Catholic Church. Celebrities such as Stephen Fry have even started speaking out against the Church. The world is becoming more liberal, and old fashioned, prejudiced Catholicism is losing touch with it.

Take this site as evidence. As you can see, there are a lot more people with the common sense to speak up for equal rights, than there are defending prejudice.

In 1994 a local Episcoplian priest-turned-“youth minister” was sentenced to 35 years for all the “love” he spread to young boys about 5 miles from where I live. 
So if you support he Episcopalian Church for all the “love” it spreads, go ahead; but why are you wasn’t your time on a Catholic website, hoping to wear Catholics down with your postings?

You are now trying to condemn OTHER churches for being a bunch of paedophiles? Get a grip, and I will say it again, you see many other people here agreeing with you? You have had one supporter, I have several. There are less people than you think who support you, and more who want equal rights and liberties to all demographics. I am not arguing with most Catholics, just people like you, and the writer of this article. It is ridiculous to complain you are being discriminated against for your faith, whilst discriminating others.

I’m getting tired of saying this but all your points have been answered (if you disagree please tell me witch ones need more critisicim) and you have answered hardly any points against you, the only one who is denying facts is Don Schenk.

We asked you to replie with reasoned argument but all you have given is the claim that were ignoring your arguments, the claim the catholic church is growing and insults to the Episcoplian church.

We have asked him to respond to our criticism loads as well. He has not done so. And yet he says that we are not answering his points, will not clarify which points we have not answered, whilst at the SAME TIME refusing to answer OUR points. To be honest, I think he might be a bit of a closet case himself…

Okay, you wore me down with your insisting that you won’t admit to any facts that I cite and that all your posturings are the truth.
I hope that you’re happy in the Episcopalian Church.  If you deny that (according to the National Council of Churches) nationally “Gay-friendly” denominations like the Episcopal Church are shrinking while the Catholic Churchc is growing, or that worldwide the Catholic Church grew 1.3% while the general population grew 1.1%, you’re welcome to your own little make-believe world, and I hope you’re happy in the Episcopalian Church.
But leave us Catholics alone.

We wore you down?! We were right, and the only thing wearing you down is trying to find facts that we do not understand a lot better than you. Numbers of people ATTENDING those churches are falling at the same rate, there are just less people who proclaim to be them. And I am not in any Church. You do not seem to have educated yourself on the matter you are trying, and failing to debate. We have explained every single one of your points, please point out to us the parts that you think are “make believe” and we will be happy to provide you with references. Leave you Catholics alone? Only when you leave us gays alone. Which the vast majority of you are. It is a travesty that any Church trying to preach love has people such as you among its congregations. Grow up, into the correct century.

I’m glad to hear you have given into reason. Howerver your comment “you wore me down with your insisting that you won’t admit to any facts that I cite and that all your posturings are the truth” is missleading, non of your arguments where supported by science and reason whilst we gave much reason and quoted study’s to support are arguments. As for your figures of grouth in different churches why should i care how many other people belong to what religion. But at least you seam to be facing up to it know, good luck.

What started as a rational argument has descended into religious dogma, as you have run out of arguments, and we are running out of patience. It is the duty of everybody to fight prejudice in all its forms. You have to admit that you are wrong sometimes, and refine your views to fit the evidence around you. People will think better of you for it. And yes, good luck.

So doe’s everyone reading this now agree homosexuality isn’t unethical or psychopathological?

Well, the majority certainly do. I hope that we have explained it well enough to break through your prejudice. Please see sense, and stop condemning people for being who they are. Your faith does not mean you have to act like this.