Ah, but the difference is this:

If everyone in the world were suddenly left-handed, life would continue with relative ease and few complications.

If everyone in the world were suddenly homosexual, life would eventually cease to exist.

The only point I'm making here is that it's clearly not "normal" by any means; it blocks one of the KEY functions of all living creatures: reproduction.

@ bimmylee - If everyone in the world were suddenly homosexual, fertilization clinics and sperm bank business would boom and the world would keep on chugging just fine.

Homosexuality means you prefer the physical and emotional relations of the same sex. It doesn't mean your physically incapable of breeding.

Yes, I do think it is less offensive. Tombi is a respected poster and merely responded to Tyrannicals asshat phrase, by making him see how retarded his answer was. Even though Tombi is known to be a pretty die-hard atheïst he still knows better then to deliver such a phrase right out of the blue. His "Catholism is a disease" response was merely that - a response to one person and not an attack on catholics.

In a lot of ways... the world would be better actually.

Virtually no unwanted preganancies, population growth would probably be much more controlled etc...

Bascially, you'd only have a kid if you wanted a kid at some point. 

Though honestly by the same standard, the stances you put about the Catholic Church and condoms aren't completly untrue.  They're just exaggerated.  Using condoms IS a russian roulette vs celabacy.

Afterall condoms do have failure rates... and they can also be misused.  I'm sure people who've used condoms have ended up with aids afterall.  The same with needles.

That doctors push condoms and needles because they think people with aids can't be celebate is actually true.

The Church believes it's possible for people to be celebate in general.  They don't promote aids.  They just think peoples wills are stronger then their sexual desires and if supported correctly will choose abstinance.

If a catholic bishop tells an assembly of teenagers that Sex is immoral and dangerous, and condoms are immoral and dangerous. And because of the religious convictions of those teenagers they actually believe him, You'll have a significant portion of those people commit the first act and then feel guilty but don't commit the second act at all.

The church can think whatever they want about people's will, But peoples will falters (and the multitude of catholic church child rape cases would suggest that will faulters even amongst the most dedicated). People are going to have sex.

So why would an institution abuse their authority and not equip those people with the knowledge to conduct the act safely? You think premarital sex is wrong? Fine! But what does that have to do with lying to people about condoms? especially when you know it WILL and DOES result in the transference of A.I.D.S, unwanted pregnancy and unwanted pregnancy of children with A.I.D.S.

This really is the Catholic Churches great shame of this century (along with the other ones)

@bimmylee

and some people are sterile to begin with. I said homosexuality was a variation of human sexuality. Everyone in the world is not homosexual, and will never be. So you're basically condemning a group of people based upon a hypothetical scenerio?

None of what you posted was actual lieing.

It's all true in the context of vs "not having sex" which is clearly the context the church means it in.

When you do tell people "Don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom."  You are in some way implicintly giving people more of a go ahead to have sex more then a simple "Don't have sex."

The later is a crime, but so is prematrital sex to the Catholic Church.

To use a bit of an outrageous example it would be like saying "Don't rob someones house unless nobody is home, otherwise someone might get hurt."

The later is a crime, but so is premaritial sex to the vatican.

Kasz, I've long since learned not to debate you, as we'll just go round in round in many a circle. I'll just leave it at this:

"When you do tell people "Don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom." You are in some way implicintly giving people more of a go ahead to have sex more then a simple "Don't have sex."

Unless you think we should be more concerned about peoples sex lives than whether they die of aids, that stance is bullshit and you, me and everyone else knows it (except for the pope, bishops and those who believe them)

I agree with you, but then again I don't see premarital sex as an immortal stain on ones soul that could not only ruin their life but their afterlife as well if not properly repentant about it.

When you view it in context of confession, sin and the afterlife, if what the Catholics believe about premarital sex is true... it's MUCH more dangerous then aids.

Your accusing catholics of being intellectually dishonest when in reality they are being completly logical... based on their set of beliefs, which we may or may not find logical.

Think about it this way.  Put yourself in the place of a Catholic bishop, and for every 1 million people who die of aids because of your non-support of condoms.   One person would be eternally damned to hell if you did support condoms.

1 million people suffer for 70 years... for 70 million years of suffering... those that would anyway, confess about their premarital sex and ascend to heaven. 

One person thinks "the church can't mean that sex is bad since they tell me the right way to do it!"  They suffer... for eternity.    No matter how many people die of aids... it would never add up to the damnation of one soul.  The numbers are likely MUCH closer together then this. 

So yes, to you and me... and people not of the Catholic Faith (and a few other chritsian demoninations) people getting aids is worse.

However, when viewed within the context of the Catholic Church, their stance is completly logical.  You just need to take time and understanding to look outside of yourself. 

For the Catholic Church, the impurties of the soul are more important then the impurities of the body... because the soul lives on past the body.

I'm perfectly aware that it makes sense within their beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that it's killing people. And I don't give a damn what your beliefs are if innocent people are suffering because of it.

The Church, according to their own logic and that of their beliefs, have been perfectly logical about a lot of things throughout history that has killed, tortured and subjugated innocent people, that has stained the credibility and morality of the institution, and has later been reversed, dropped and possibly apologized for but more likely swept under the rug.

I'm just saying that since this current stance is one of those abominable things resulting in suffering, poverty and death, why don't they just jump ahead 50 years and get to the stage where they tweak their beliefs enough to admit that it was another one of those great moments of shame?

Damn it I'm still arguing with you...