What a Biblical Marriage Really Looks Like

[웃 910]

[PantomimeGoose 59]

The NT word that is assumed to mean homosexual is arsenokoite, which actually means something like 'male bed'.

Paul didn't say anything about the sofa or the kitchen table....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't believe your a Catholic for the fact you don't seem to the slightest clue about the Catholic Church. Homoism is considered a sin with the Catholic Church and the closest Church to the Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church which also considers **'s as sinners. The next closest church to the Catholic Church is the Lutheran Church...the one that kicked the Catholics ####### all across Germany...yay, and the also consider **'s as sinners.

You might want to do your homework first before you go posting about the Catholic Church.

Catholic Bishops rule homosexuality not a sin

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Catholic Bishops rule homosexuality not a sin

Fail should be your moniker on here. That link isn't the Vatican, it's some US Bishops...big difference. Also they said **'s having sex with each other is a sin. Try reading your own link next time. Celibate **'s aren't sinners, **'s that have sex with each other are sinners...according to the US Bishops...not the Vatican. You do know what the Vatican is don't you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701844.html

New Rules Affirm Pope Benedict's Stance Against Gays

By Daniel Williams

Washington Post Foreign Service

Saturday, October 8, 2005

ROME, Oct. 8 -- In the first five months of Pope Benedict XVI's reign, stern opposition to homosexuality in and outside the Roman Catholic Church has quickly become a prime public message for the Vatican.

The new pontiff plans to issue guidelines that attempt to inhibit homosexuals from entering seminaries to train for the priesthood. Church inspectors have embarked on a tour of U.S. seminaries and, according to their working papers, are tasked to ask: "Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? (This question must be answered.)"

Benedict also has energetically fought legal recognition of homosexual couples.

For the church and for Benedict, taking a public stance on homosexuality is not unusual. Church observers have noted that for the quarter-century before becoming pope, Benedict, then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, served as the Vatican's chief enforcer of orthodoxy, drafting official positions regarding homosexuality.

"No doctrinal chief has ever written and spoken about homosexuality as extensively as Ratzinger has, because homosexuals have never had the freedom to organize and demand recognition they enjoy today," wrote author John L. Allen Jr. in a biography of Benedict, published before he became pope.

His papacy's early focus on homosexuality is a reaction to outside events, some analysts have said: the spread of so-called civil unions or marriage rights to same-sex couples, and the disclosure of sexual abuse by priests. Vatican officials have largely blamed the abuse on homosexuality.

"Given that the church is in the world, action in political life to increase public recognition of homosexual relations is bound to mean more church activity in response," said Rome-based theologian Robert A. Gahl. "Such liberalizing trends in the outside world have also intruded in the seminary, and the church must respond as well."

Critics, on the other hand, have said the pope is simply preoccupied with sex. "It's an obsession," said Alessio de Giorgi, who founded an Italian gay Web site and supports legal recognition of same-sex couples.

New rules to inhibit the participation of homosexuals in the priesthood have been in the works for several years. The rules may endorse psychological testing for aspiring seminarians, and also include assurances that homosexuals who have already become priests will not be made targets of a witch hunt, Vatican officials have said.

On Friday, the Corriere della Sera newspaper reported that the new rules will permit homosexuals to enter the priesthood so long as they have been celibate for three years and don't keep in touch with homosexual society via the Internet or movies. One Vatican official confirmed the basics of the article, but added that the document would also insist that aspiring priests not participate in gay solidarity events, such as parades and seminars that treat homosexuality in a "positive way."

"No matter how the document comes out, it will still be a judgment call" for church officials who select seminarians, the official said, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

As early as 1961, the Vatican told church officials that "advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

Edited September 22, 2011 by Why_Me

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Please don't use that term. For those of us who have loved ones and close friends who are gay, it's as offensive as any of the big no-no slurs on here. Feel free to express whatever sentiments you like, but you can do it easily without using a demeaning epithet like that.

[Danno 1,228]

Catholic Bishops rule homosexuality not a sin

Did you read the link you posted?

It says:

The U-S Conference of Catholic Bishops has approved guidelines on ministering to gays who uphold the church teaching that homosexual inclinations are 'disordered.' The document says it's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same gender - only to act on those feelings. It also prohibits same-sex marriage and adoption by gay or lesbian couples.

Perhaps we don't disagree after all.

Please don't use that term. For those of us who have loved ones and close friends who are gay, it's as offensive as any of the big no-no slurs on here. Feel free to express whatever sentiments you like, but you can do it easily without using a demeaning epithet like that.

If it is such an offensive word.... why do they endlessly use it to label people?

**-phobic?

[Danno 1,228]

There you go again - thinking it's a battle of 'words' instead of the truth and inspiration behind those words. You are a modern day Pharisee - more concerned about the letter of the Law than the heart of it.

Since you look for truth and inspiration and you like to "contextualize" scripture.

Put this New testiment passage in context, explain what it "really" means.

Romans 1

18For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s[l] invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people[m] are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless things,[n] and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22Though claiming to be wise, they became fools 23and ex­changed the glory of the immortal God for images that looked like mortal human beings, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

24For this reason, God delivered them to sexual impurity as they followed the lusts[o] of their hearts and dishonored their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged God's truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural. 27In the same way, their males also aban­doned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion.[p]

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Actually for those of us who know English as well as its origins, "**" means "the same". As in homogenous, homophone, homonym, homolog, homogametic, and of course homosexual. To use the term "**" on its own would more accurately imply that the speaker was referring to one of the genera "**" such as "** sapiens", "** ergaster", "** floresiensis", "** habilis". Or it's a slur, and Why_me is on the same evolutionary trajectory as one of the latter species.

[Danno 1,228]

Actually for those of us who know English as well as its origins, "**" means "the same". As in homogenous, homophone, homonym, homolog, homogametic, and of course homosexual. To use the term "**" on its own would more accurately imply that the speaker was referring to one of the genera "**" such as "** sapiens", "** ergaster", "** floresiensis", "** habilis". Or it's a slur, and Why_me is on the same evolutionary trajectory as one of the latter species.

Is "#######" also a slur?

Gays use both of those terms quite freely, pick yp your local Gay newspaper and you will see what I mean.

We have one in my town (I guess it's still around) called "####### Notes" Or Q-notes.

We also have a lesbian bike club called "Dykes on bikes".

Go figure.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did you read the link you posted?

It says:

The U-S Conference of Catholic Bishops has approved guidelines on ministering to gays who uphold the church teaching that homosexual inclinations are 'disordered.' The document says it's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same gender - only to act on those feelings. It also prohibits same-sex marriage and adoption by gay or lesbian couples.

Perhaps we don't disagree after all.

If it is such an offensive word.... why do they endlessly use it to label people?

**-phobic?

You don't understand the difference between a complete word with one meaning and part of a word which means something else.

[Danno 1,228]

You don't understand the difference between a complete word with one meaning and part of a word which means something else.

What exactly does "Dykes on bikes" mean to you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What are you talking about? You're saying you see no difference between calling someone a ** and the words homosexual or homophobia. Three different words Danno.

That's not even a question of definition, it's understanding the different components of words.

[slim 1,530]

Wow. Is this what we're really debating?

Instead of going the Bible route, why not go the legal route? Define marriage in each state. What is a marriage?

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Is "#######" also a slur?

Gays use both of those terms quite freely....

Go figure.

Slurs are a matter of colloquial usage, context, and intent. I'm a little ambivalent on the subject myself: we keep coming up with new words to neuter the negative connotations that the old ones have developed over time. If being fat, or having Down's syndrome, or being transgendered is perceived as a negative thing by much of the population, then no matter what new term is developed, it too will take on hurtful connotations as the new word is rubbed in the faces of those who identify with it.

I think the argument I commented on was an example of this: someone purposefully using a more loaded expression than necessary to highlight his/her disdain for a group of people, rather than bothering to think a real argument.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Your back to dodging again, if all these terms are so darn offensive why do Homosexuals use them and even invent new words containing them?

A jerk is a tug. A tug is a boat. A boat sails on water. Water is nature, and nature is beautiful?