The Pope to exclude gay priests

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

... didn't read that link didja...

yes, I read the link. And I still stand behind what said.

If you are going to say the Bible is true. And the Bible is the Word, then the rules you make about religion and religious personal should be ABSOLUTE. It is either God's will or it isn't. There is no wishy-washy about.

Its an overstep of authority.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

pls read what the diff is b/t a discipline and a doctrine. at work now, no time to state it for ya.

follow mjk? no thanks...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I do not know many people who are gay that have not had sex do you? How do you know you are gay if you have not had sex?

I promise you that many priests have had sex sometime in their life. There are quite a few people that were active in their dating life while we were in college...some hetro, some homosexual. So, what is really the issue here? The fact that someone has had sex or something else? If they are celebate now what does it matter? I will also tell you that many priests are homosexual (prob even some you already know) - but have not been active in their sexlife since they became a deacon. There is a significant size of the priest population that was gay at one point.

Scared of what they will teach your kids? If they are a good priest they will teach understanding, not to judge (that is left for God), compassion, faith, strong humanistic beliefs, the Golden Rule, and so forth. Would you have an issue with a secular homosexual instructor teaching your kids? That person could be far more active in their personal beliefs than a priest.

People tend to forget there isn't much of a difference between you and a priest. They do not have a stronger faith, they are not less of a sinner, they make mistakes, they get things wrong, and they are just as human as you. These are people that chose to spend eight years of education on the church to help preach the Word of God; to dedicate their lives to living by those words. Each has their own interpretation of what that means just like you. No matter what you will eventually have a conflict with what a priest will preach/teach due to your own personal beliefs - will you let ignorance and lack of understanding be one of those reasons? If so, maybe they do need that priest's influence in their life.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[sinker 0]

wow - good post!

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

pls read what the diff is b/t a discipline and a doctrine. at work now, no time to state it for ya.

follow mjk? no thanks...

I know what the difference is. I just see the application of one to be contrary to what should be done.

Ya know what, this is a fundamental difference of opinions and it is not worth the time anymore. Gots me some work to do anyway.

But what is mjk?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Ya know what, this is a fundamental difference of opinions and it is not worth the time anymore. Gots me some work to do anyway. ***

i agree... we're obviously not communicating our ideas well, sorry...

mjk is maynard! c'mon man! your sig line! mjk! one of the larger inconsistencies in my life is that while I am a devout catholic, tool is my favorite band, w/ APC a close second... go figure...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Ya know what, this is a fundamental difference of opinions and it is not worth the time anymore. Gots me some work to do anyway. ***

i agree... we're obviously not communicating our ideas well, sorry...

mjk is maynard! c'mon man! your sig line! mjk! one of the larger inconsistencies in my life is that while I am a devout catholic, tool is my favorite band, w/ APC a close second... go figure...

Ha. I never heard him called mjk.

I wonder how you deal with that? I mean, plenty of APC and Tool lyrics are not what I would call "Christian Friendly"

But that is another topic I guess.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

Ya know what, this is a fundamental difference of opinions and it is not worth the time anymore. Gots me some work to do anyway. ***

i agree... we're obviously not communicating our ideas well, sorry...

mjk is maynard! c'mon man! your sig line! mjk! one of the larger inconsistencies in my life is that while I am a devout catholic, tool is my favorite band, w/ APC a close second... go figure...

Ha. I never heard him called mjk.

I wonder how you deal with that? I mean, plenty of APC and Tool lyrics are not what I would call "Christian Friendly"

But that is another topic I guess.

no, not christian friendly at all... but I don't know man, it brings me back to my pagan days... not that I revel in them, but it reminds me of the torment, the questions, the struggle. in a weird way, it confirms where I am. also, the obvious struggles with addictions his lyrics talk about resonate w/ me... sober, thirteenth step, etc etc. And besides the fact that his philosophy isn't in step w/ christianity, I can certainly appreciate his musical genious, just as I can see value in kevorkian's art. his lyrics and the music is often very poignant.

my wife on the other hand, hates him and his music. ah well... her loss. I once read her the words of Parabola from Tools Lateralus, not telling her where they were from... of course, she thought they were beautiful, which there are... then I played the song and she was shocked they came from "him." you can find beauty anywhere, can't you...

Parabola

We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment,
We are choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside
This holy reality, this holy experience.
Choosing to be here in

This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Alive, I

In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in

This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal
All this pain is an illusion.

Twirling round with this familiar parable.
Spinning, weaving round each new experience.
Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing.

This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal.
All this pain is an illusion.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Give time, time. Especially when society is still grappling with issues of racism and civil rights. Don't count on any acceptance from the Catholic Church. The Episcopalians are wide open to it though.

Good post. It took the Church over 400 years to pardon Galileo, so who knows what might happen a few hundred years from now. The Catholic Church is a bit behind the times so be patient.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

Give time, time. Especially when society is still grappling with issues of racism and civil rights. Don't count on any acceptance from the Catholic Church. The Episcopalians are wide open to it though.

Good post I took the Church over 400 years to pardon Galileo, so who knows what might happen a few hundred years from now. The Catholic Church is a bit behind the times so be patient.

when one weds itself to "the times" it quickly finds itself divorced when times change. "The times" are fickle, as are the hearts of man.

And the Episcopalians are NOT "wide open" to homosexuality... unless you've been living under a rock, there is a hugh chasm in that denomination over that issue right now. It would be more correct to say that a faction of Episcopalians are open to it while another faction is catagorically against it.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Oh well... Homosexuals or women, or anyone else who the Catholic Church discriminates against, are free to disassociate themselves from the Church if they don't like being considered inferior. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

There are several layers to this issue. For one thing, Josef Ratzinger, aka "the Rat", aka Pope Benedict, might have a personal anti-gay bias himself. I don't know for sure, but it's a definite possibility, the guy's a total hard liner. and I'm NOT defending him either, after all I'm an EX-Catholic.

There are some serious questions raised now about whether the Catholic Church is revising its teaching that homosexual orientation is not a sin in and of itself.

But outside of the gay issue, American seminaries and the American priesthood have a serious problem with a predatory sexual subculture. NPR ran a story last week about a man who entered a seminary near the Bay Area back in 1989 and he was so bombarded with propositions, porn, and invitations from priests to go out to gay clubs with them that he quit the seminary and sued the Jesuits for sexual harrassment. And this guy was gay himself ! The point being that he didn't enter the seminary to meet guys, he could've done that anywhere. He wanted to be a priest.

The Vatican realizes that there is a serious problem with predatory practices, combined with a system that excels in stonewalling, moving people around, and fighting tooth & nail to protect their own. It just so happens that this subculture in the priesthood & seminaries is also a male gay culture, due mostly to the supposed celibacy of Catholic priests.

Celibacy has never worked, it didn't work in the Middle Ages, when the churches ran their own brothels in the basements of local churches. But agin, in these modern times, the church now has a really serious problem that's been festering for too long. For better or worse, this Pope is too traditional a hardliner to ever admit that celibacy may be a root cause of the problem. But something has to be done.

Whether this alienates gays from the Catholic church is another real problem, both for the church and for its faithful gays.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[AlexCrowley 0]

I was sure i'd posted a response to this thread....

The very short version:

The Bible justifies slavery in the old testament and Jesus accepted it as part of every day society.

The bible also commands women to remain silent in Church and cover their heads. The majority of fundamentalist churches that hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not hold their women to this any longer.

There are many other changes that we accept because as a society we have learned that the old ways are not always the best or most enlightened ways. Any church that refuses to adapt to the social mores of it's followers is doomed to obsolescence in the long term.

William James covered some interesting ground in his essays in 'The Will to Believe', which covers the concepts of living and dead choices with regard to religion and belief, a live choice has some emotive appeal to the chooser. This is an internal and subjective appeal, not a rational or forced appeal.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh well... Homosexuals or women, or anyone else who the Catholic Church discriminates against, are free to disassociate themselves from the Church if they don't like being considered inferior. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.

There are several layers to this issue. For one thing, Josef Ratzinger, aka "the Rat", aka Pope Benedict, might have a personal anti-gay bias himself. I don't know for sure, but it's a definite possibility, the guy's a total hard liner. and I'm NOT defending him either, after all I'm an EX-Catholic.

Quote

yeah, so NO bias here, right? being an EX-catholic and all....

There are some serious questions raised now about whether the Catholic Church is revising its teaching that homosexual orientation is not a sin in and of itself.

Quote

WRONG! There is no revision. Hasn't been nor is there any current revision. A homosexual orientation is not a sin. Homosexual acts are sinful, so sayeth mother church. I don't know where you get your source, but I'd LOVE to see it...

But outside of the gay issue, American seminaries and the American priesthood have a serious problem with a predatory sexual subculture. NPR ran a story last week about a man who entered a seminary near the Bay Area back in 1989 and he was so bombarded with propositions, porn, and invitations from priests to go out to gay clubs with them that he quit the seminary and sued the Jesuits for sexual harrassment. And this guy was gay himself ! The point being that he didn't enter the seminary to meet guys, he could've done that anywhere. He wanted to be a priest.

Quote

And NPR is known for being such a bastion of objective news reporting! Not to say this doesn't happen, esp. considering what order is being talked about, the Jesuits! They've long been out of favor w/ the Vatican. They've long been seen as on the fringe as far as orthodoxy to catholic teaching is concerned.

The Vatican realizes that there is a serious problem with predatory practices, combined with a system that excels in stonewalling, moving people around, and fighting tooth & nail to protect their own. It just so happens that this subculture in the priesthood & seminaries is also a male gay culture, due mostly to the supposed celibacy of Catholic priests.

Quote

Your first statement is partially correct, but your second statement is patently false. This subculture is not "due to" celibacy. Celibacy doesn't cause these things.

Celibacy has never worked, it didn't work in the Middle Ages, when the churches ran their own brothels in the basements of local churches. But agin, in these modern times, the church now has a really serious problem that's been festering for too long. For better or worse, this Pope is too traditional a hardliner to ever admit that celibacy may be a root cause of the problem. But something has to be done.

Quote

Again, this is so patently false as to be laughable. Celibacy is not a pathological condition. Celibacy does not cause these sexual problems. The problem comes, fundamentally, when someone has sexual problems BEFORE they enter the priesthood and these aren't dealt with before or during the formation process in the seminary. That is the time for young men to come to terms w/ what is required of them re: celibacy and to deal w/ what that will entail. Unfortunately, it is at THAT level, in the seminaries, that the failures are occuring. And that is what Pope Benedict is going to clean up. Most priests are good, moral, upstanding men. Most live celibate lives and are not predators. Most are not gay. Some are, and even then, that is not an exclusion from the priesthood, as long as the priest is celibate and strives to live a gospel life.

Whether this alienates gays from the Catholic church is another real problem, both for the church and for its faithful gays.

The church's faithful gays will not be alienated by any of this but will only see it as a positive step... ask the members of Courage what they think of this... I bet their answers will surprise you.

And Pope Benedict is no more a hardliner than JPII. I've met them both. I've read the writings of both. They were very, very close friends, going back to the Second Vatican Council and even before. Ratzinger was JPII's closest advisor. Their view of the church and theology are one in the same.

sorry for the bold, I didn't know how else to differential your responses from mine.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

I agree about celibacy. It is not the cause of pedophelia or homosexuality. When one is celibate, ther eis no logical reason to asume that they are going to suddenly turn that repressed feeling to children or the same sex. If they do, that desire is already there.

But yeah, Courage:

Hey, sorry you were born the way you are. But since you were, we have to deny you the happiness of a partner and/or lifelong companionship that us "normal" humans enjoy.

oh..and if you want to try to change, we will support that.

I posted this a little while back and I would really like to hear your thoughts:

http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

I was sure i'd posted a response to this thread....

The very short version:

The Bible justifies slavery in the old testament and Jesus accepted it as part of every day society.

The bible also commands women to remain silent in Church and cover their heads. The majority of fundamentalist churches that hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not hold their women to this any longer.

There are many other changes that we accept because as a society we have learned that the old ways are not always the best or most enlightened ways. Any church that refuses to adapt to the social mores of it's followers is doomed to obsolescence in the long term.

William James covered some interesting ground in his essays in 'The Will to Believe', which covers the concepts of living and dead choices with regard to religion and belief, a live choice has some emotive appeal to the chooser. This is an internal and subjective appeal, not a rational or forced appeal.

there are some things that are changeable and some that are not... like the covering of a woman's head... necessary for salvation? hardly. does that go fundamentally to the nature of what it means to be a human being, created in the likeness of God? No. So take off the covering...

As for slavery, I'd have to re-read some of the passages from the NT, but I don't recall Jesus giving his imprimatur on it... there may appear to be tacit approval of it, but from other parts of the text it's pretty clear that slavery, the ownership of of a person is indefensible... but that's another topic... what's at root is whether a church should change and adapt itself to the spirit of the times, n'est-ce pas?

true, there should be some sort of adaptation, to fit into the social milieux, but not at the expense of it's fundamental doctrine. Incidentals of practice, such as music, style, covering of heads of women, these don't affect the central message of salvation. However, it's the church's view that the acceptance of homosexuality WOULD compromise that salvific message.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

I agree about celibacy. It is not the cause of pedophelia or homosexuality. When one is celibate, ther eis no logical reason to asume that they are going to suddenly turn that repressed feeling to children or the same sex. If they do, that desire is already there.

But yeah, Courage:

Hey, sorry you were born the way you are. But since you were, we have to deny you the happiness of a partner and/or lifelong companionship that us "normal" humans enjoy.

oh..and if you want to try to change, we will support that.

I posted this a little while back and I would really like to hear your thoughts:

http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

I have quickly looked through it and disagree w/ almost everything on it. For example, the change in the pyschiatric/medical/scientific community in 1973 (first paragraph of "sex. orientation not mentioned in bible" link), in "recognizing" that homosexuality is not a choice, illness or crime, came about by stormtrooper tactics of homosexual activists at the 1973 American Psychiatric Association annual convention in DC. It was practically a militaristic coup wherein these activists secured a change in the diagnostic nomenclature of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) by shere force of will... before that, homosexuality WAS considered an illness... but w/o any studies being done, w/o any stats, w/o any scientific analysis at all, but due to political pressure, almost overnight a mental disorder was POOF eradicated. This fact is completely misrepresented on this website.

I also disagree w/ the translation information, such as about sodomy, etc... but I don't have all my research in order about that...

but a note about "being born that way." Ever met someone who's orientation has changed? I have. In fact I've met several. "But wait, isnt' that... IMPOSSIBLE???" No it isn't, but the homosexual lobby will do everything to suppress that information. Too much of their lives depend on that suppression. Read the studies on "the gay gene." Sample sizes are small. The main researcher himself (whose name escapes me presently, a gay man as I recall) even says this, that more research is warranted given the small number of twin men's brains, hetero vs homo -post mortem obviously- that he was able to use)... sorry, but the jury IS still out about being "born" that way...

but let's assume gays ARE born that way... with, shall we say, a proclivity towards same sex attraction. This certainly flies against most developmental psych theories wherein sexual identification/gender identity and all that cathects later. But still, let's assume it's genetic... some people are born crack addicts and alcoholics too... should we just have them embrace that too? A genetic proclivity does not licitness make...

let's look at biology... what is the purpose of sex... pleasure? only secondarily. eating is pleasurable too, but only secondarily to providing nutrition. sex is pleasurable only secondarily to procreation, as far as animals go. However, as humans go, there is stamped into our being, a second purpose of sex, namely, bonding. The sexual organs are fundamentally ordained for heterosexual union. Do you get electricity from taking two electrical cords and touching them? How about two outlets? No.
Look at the psychology... what is complimentary about two men or two women uniting? The symbolism is all wrong... yin and yin? yang and yang? look at the complimentarity of the man and the woman. not just physically, but psychologically... and the field of psychiatry and psychology in the past 5-10 years is finally starting to bear this out...

we could go on and on... i don't necessarily think all homosexual orientation is changeable. i think it partly depends on how long and how deep the behavior has gone. there is often a level of compulsion/sexual addiction in it. the church recognizes this too, as does Courage. but orientation is changeable. it does happen. if you're ever in nashville, i'll introduce you to several people who have experienced it...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[AlexCrowley 0]

The NT mentions slavery 96 times, never in condemnation. It was simply part of life.

Where is the difference between acceptance of homosexuality and women being silent? It can't be due to the amount that it's discussed in the Bible as the scripture is very clear about a woman's place in worship, whereas the scriptural defence of homophobia is far less explicit and often contradicted elsewhere, as mentioned earlier - there is at least one biblical hero who is quite obviously gay, yet God does not damn or judge him. (Sam 1:18 ->, David and Jonathan).

Could it be that you dont see anything wrong with a woman's head being uncovered but you do find something morally repugnant about a man gaining sexual gratification from another man?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I have quickly looked through it and disagree w/ almost everything on it. For example, the change in the pyschiatric/medical/scientific community in 1973 (first paragraph of "sex. orientation not mentioned in bible" link), in "recognizing" that homosexuality is not a choice, illness or crime, came about by stormtrooper tactics of homosexual activists at the 1973 American Psychiatric Association annual convention in DC. It was practically a militaristic coup wherein these activists secured a change in the diagnostic nomenclature of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) by shere force of will... before that, homosexuality WAS considered an illness... but w/o any studies being done, w/o any stats, w/o any scientific analysis at all, but due to political pressure, almost overnight a mental disorder was POOF eradicated. This fact is completely misrepresented on this website.

I am not really sure how you got that the site is stating it was NOT considered an illness. Look at this sentence right here:

" Only in 1973 did the American medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize that homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime."

That last bit "and not a choice, illness, or crime" indicates that before 73, it WAS considered one (or all) of those three.

Me thinks thou doth read too fast.

As for the translations but, I too have too little knowledge of languages to guage it. I did want more opinions on it. But with errors that often occur in translation, I am inclined to believe some of it. I better brush up on my Greek and Yiddish.

But if Hebrew and Greek do not indeed have words for homosexuality or romatic love of the same sexes, it could indeed be seen that the EARLY translators applied personal beliefs to the Word.

The word arsenokoites for instance:

The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 that is translated "homosexual" is arsenokoites, which is formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed." The word is not found anywhere else in the New Testament and has not been found anywhere in contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We are not sure what it means. It only appears in these two lists. The word is of obscure origin and uncertain meaning. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Could it be that you dont see anything wrong with a woman's head being uncovered but you do find something morally repugnant about a man gaining sexual gratification from another man? ***

this has nothing to do w/ my personal views. you assume I find man on man repugnant. do you also assume I've never kissed a man romantically? you also assume I have no problem w/ uncovered heads of women in church... what if I was a stark raving sex addict and the site of red headed women made me lustfully crazy... I'd sure wish their heads were covered then... assuming I wanted to maintain sanity that is...

as far as the slavery question goes... from catholic.com re: some scriptural references to slavery...

First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31).

Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave's master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother" (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that "there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28).

Fourth, the Christian principles of charity ("love your neighbor as yourself") and the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would them to do unto you") espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[GTAVercetti 0]

[reply

Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

[sinker 0]

I am not really sure how you got that the site is stating it was NOT considered an illness. Look at this sentence right here:

" Only in 1973 did the American medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize that homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime."

That last bit "and not a choice, illness, or crime" indicates that before 73, it WAS considered one (or all) of those three.

Me thinks thou doth read too fast. ***

?? confused... that is what I was saying... it WAS considered an illness up to 73... now it's just an "orientation." What I was saying was that statement on the website is misleading... it posits that after 1973, the scientific community realized it was no longer an illness... well, that's not true... it was strong armed into changing the diagnosis from homosexuality being an illness to it being a diagnosis ONLY if you were uncomfortable with being gay, to NOT being a problem at all.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,085]

>why did you bring blacks into the argument?

Because discriminating against blacks, gays, women, short people etc is equally silly to me. It's somewhat hypocritical, in my view, to claim one is OK but the other is certainly evil and vile. But again, the church can do whatever it wants. (Note that I am not saying the church is currently discriminating against blacks, if that was your concern.)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I am not really sure how you got that the site is stating it was NOT considered an illness. Look at this sentence right here:

" Only in 1973 did the American medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize that homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime."

That last bit "and not a choice, illness, or crime" indicates that before 73, it WAS considered one (or all) of those three.

Me thinks thou doth read too fast. ***

?? confused... that is what I was saying... it WAS considered an illness up to 73... now it's just an "orientation." What I was saying was that statement on the website is misleading... it posits that after 1973, the scientific community realized it was no longer an illness... well, that's not true... it was strong armed into changing the diagnosis from homosexuality being an illness to it being a diagnosis ONLY if you were uncomfortable with being gay, to NOT being a problem at all.

I would like some sources please. And not from anti-gay websites. if you will. Unbiased, independent information that this was part of the "gay agenda"

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sinker 0]

Quote

[reply

Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

And yet, if this is the only DIRECT reference, it does not CONDEMN slavery, but tells the masters to treat the slaves well. A slave that is treated fairly and kindly is STILL A SLAVE.

The other rationales are all interpretations by apologists.

[billvon 3,085]

> it was strong armed into changing the diagnosis from homosexuality
> being an illness to it being a diagnosis ONLY if you were
> uncomfortable with being gay, to NOT being a problem at all.

As it needed to be. Sometimes it takes some strong-arming. It took a lot of strong-arming to get women the vote. Heck, it took a civil war to finally end slavery. We often pay heavily for our rights; let's hope it doesn't take the same amount of strife/bloodshed to get to equality this time.