By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Catholic Church: We'll Stob Being Charitable if Gay Marriage is Passed

Kasz216 on 17 November 2009
Rath said:
Alterego-X said:
highwaystar101 said:
Alterego-X said:

I don't that the two being mentioned in the same chapter means anything, the Leviticus was written over a long timespan, not in chronological order. You can often find totally random laws written after each other.  

 

BTW, now that I'm thinking about it, why not? How is either bestiality, or homosexuality morally worse than the other one? 

Humans can understand and give consent, Show me how an animal can both understand what you are doing to it and give consent, and I will repeal that argument...

To be honest that is one reason out of dozens.

Animals aren't required to give consent for being butchered, and eaten by you, either. How is sex worse?

Because sex is cruelty to animals. Butchering them (if done right) shouldn't be cruel at all. If you want to have sex with a dead animal be my guest (though I will think you most odd) - however a live one is out of bounds for good reason.

 

@starcraft. Its hypocritical due to the fact that christian scripture is meant to be all about loving thy neighbour even if they sin and all that. When you think about it, what would Jesus do?

 

Of course the irony there is that most animals are not butchered right... in general the living conditions of animals grown for food are well... horrible.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 17 November 2009
Alterego-X said:
highwaystar101 said:
Alterego-X said:
highwaystar101 said:

So because the Bible says that gay sex and bestiality are the same, then that is the reason to not be gay?

How about if I say that homosexuality and bestiality are *not* morally the same and that the Bible is wrong on this one? I'm sorry, but this is 2000 year old reasoning, and it shows I'm afraid.

I don't that the two being mentioned in the same chapter means anything, the Leviticus was written over a long timespan, not in chronological order. You can often find totally random laws written after each other.  

 

BTW, now that I'm thinking about it, why not? How is either bestiality, or homosexuality morally worse than the other one? 

Humans can understand and give consent, Show me how an animal can both understand what you are doing to it and give consent, and I will repeal that argument...

To be honest that is one reason out of dozens.

Animals aren't required to give consent for being butchered, and eaten by you, either. How is sex worse?

Killing other animals is a very natural thing, if you look anywhere in the wild, animals kill other animals for food. Humans are just extending this in a commercial sense by raising and butchering them. However, it is not common in the animal kingdom for one animal to have sex with another species, and while it does happen rarely, it is not something that happens in a natural way like hunting.

Whereas homosexuality in animals is pretty much as common in humans (Despite how many anti-gay groups try to suppress that fact).



Alterego-X on 17 November 2009
Chairman-Mao said:
Alterego-X said:
highwaystar101 said:
Alterego-X said:
highwaystar101 said:
CommunistHater said:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13). "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24). Notice that the latter Bible verses lump in homosexuality with bestiality.

OBEY!

So because the Bible says that gay sex and bestiality are the same, then that is the reason to not be gay?

How about if I say that homosexuality and bestiality are *not* morally the same and that the Bible is wrong on this one? I'm sorry, but this is 2000 year old reasoning, and it shows I'm afraid.

I don't that the two being mentioned in the same chapter means anything, the Leviticus was written over a long timespan, not in chronological order. You can often find totally random laws written after each other.  

 

BTW, now that I'm thinking about it, why not? How is either bestiality, or homosexuality morally worse than the other one? 

Humans can understand and give consent, Show me how an animal can both understand what you are doing to it and give consent, and I will repeal that argument...

To be honest that is one reason out of dozens.

Animals aren't required to give consent for being butchered, and eaten by you, either. How is sex worse?

lol are you saying your okay with beastiality? I'd rather eat a cow then fuck it.

No, I wouldn't eat or fuck any animal, but I'm trying to make an analogy.  

Some people who replied me basically seem to think that bestiality is bad just because it is considered disgusting. But what stops me from saying the same about homosexuality? 

 

highwaystar 101- Video gaming is also unnatural, does that mean that it is morally wrong? 

What you just did is an "appeal to nature" fallacy - that is wrong,  first, because you assume that anything that doesn't happen in nature is undesirable, second because you use "nature" as synonymous with "normal", therefore you are also suggesting that it is bad just because it is weird.

 

Rath - As highwaystar already pointed out, animals are unable to give consent. Non-consensual sex between the same species is often the normal way of reproduction. I can't see how different genitals would automatically cause horribly worse pain than naturally.  Well, I can see certain cases, but I don't want to think about it too hard, and anyways, it would be nitpicking, like saying that gay sex is bad because sometimes it can involve torturing. 

 



Thatmax on 17 November 2009

Wow, why does religion turn people into twats?



dunno001 on 17 November 2009
outlawauron said:
Moongoddess256 said:
Dumping heaps of money into campaigning against gay rights?

I suppose.

Well, it is correct. Part of their charter for being non-profit involves using their money to help others. If, now, instead of helping like they've been doing, they say that you have to do X political thing to keep getting the money, it becomes a political contribution. Going by the article's price of $10 million, that is WELL over the limit for a non-profit group to contribute and keep its tax-free status. Personally I think DC should do something like this:

"Fine. You don't want to keep giving us money; instead now you use said money to further your political agenda. Okay, then this year's money is a political contribution. Since you have donated more than the maximum (I believe it is $500K), we're going to have to tax your entire organization. Now, let us see the records of income..."

After all, this wouldn't be the first time that churches have used money politically. And we have a precedent set- in California. Churches there are being audited and losing tax-exempt status for giving too much money to the no on prop 8 people. And I'm sure that DC wouldn't mind the extra tax revenue. (And besides, the lawmakers have their heads screwed on correctly, and see through this ploy; good for them!)



-dunno001

-On a quest for the truly perfect game; I don't think it exists...

Around the Network
O-D-C on 17 November 2009

dosent this go against the very heart of Jesus's teaching and the Catholic Church? Of course the church lost its way long ago...



lolita on 17 November 2009

Isn't it unfair to stop giving to the poor because of that? There are worse things in the world than same sex people, who really love each other, wanting to marry. Things like pedophiles, wars and poverty. Maybe everyone should shift their energy into doing better things for the world instead on focusing to hate gay marriage.

I don't understand why it's such a big issue because even if you believe it's a sin, it DOESN'T affect you, it's their own choice and you're not a judge, you shouldn't chose for them. God is the only judge, if you believe in such a thing as a God.



appolose on 17 November 2009
Rath said:
Alterego-X said:
highwaystar101 said:
Alterego-X said:

I don't that the two being mentioned in the same chapter means anything, the Leviticus was written over a long timespan, not in chronological order. You can often find totally random laws written after each other.  

 

BTW, now that I'm thinking about it, why not? How is either bestiality, or homosexuality morally worse than the other one? 

Humans can understand and give consent, Show me how an animal can both understand what you are doing to it and give consent, and I will repeal that argument...

To be honest that is one reason out of dozens.

Animals aren't required to give consent for being butchered, and eaten by you, either. How is sex worse?

Because sex is cruelty to animals. Butchering them (if done right) shouldn't be cruel at all. If you want to have sex with a dead animal be my guest (though I will think you most odd) - however a live one is out of bounds for good reason.

 

@starcraft. Its hypocritical due to the fact that christian scripture is meant to be all about loving thy neighbour even if they sin and all that. When you think about it, what would Jesus do?

 

Christians are commanded to love others, yes; they're also commanded not to do the things this law would require them to do during their charity work.  They're not being hypocritical, they're just not left with any options.

Actually, if I were in their position, I would continue doing charity while breaking that law.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
outlawauron on 17 November 2009
dunno001 said:
outlawauron said:
Moongoddess256 said:
Dumping heaps of money into campaigning against gay rights?

I suppose.

Well, it is correct. Part of their charter for being non-profit involves using their money to help others. If, now, instead of helping like they've been doing, they say that you have to do X political thing to keep getting the money, it becomes a political contribution. Going by the article's price of $10 million, that is WELL over the limit for a non-profit group to contribute and keep its tax-free status. Personally I think DC should do something like this:

"Fine. You don't want to keep giving us money; instead now you use said money to further your political agenda. Okay, then this year's money is a political contribution. Since you have donated more than the maximum (I believe it is $500K), we're going to have to tax your entire organization. Now, let us see the records of income..."

After all, this wouldn't be the first time that churches have used money politically. And we have a precedent set- in California. Churches there are being audited and losing tax-exempt status for giving too much money to the no on prop 8 people. And I'm sure that DC wouldn't mind the extra tax revenue. (And besides, the lawmakers have their heads screwed on correctly, and see through this ploy; good for them!)

This is the UK, not the US. DC isn't going to do anything about this.

The situation here isn't at all similar as the Church has the backing of the government.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

SnesTea on 18 November 2009

So they stop being charitable and start making knock off videogames?

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=92729&page=1