SudsyFist 0 #51 November 30, 2005 Quote>Why is it, then, that I can consistently knock it down from around 60 > to 37-ish just to screw with whoever's taking my pulse? Cause you're a freak! (j/k) Well, that's where you're right. QuoteBut if someone's friend died, and they cried about it, "I can't help it" seems reasonable to me. Their crying about it seems reasonable to me. Their feeling hurt seems reasonable to me. Their saying that they can't help it does not. Perhaps, "I don't feel strong enough to choose differently," would groove better. QuoteUsing the same excuse to pound the daylights out of someone isn't reasonable. That goes back to the easier-to-determine situation: resulting action. Most won't question that one. But a few will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #52 November 30, 2005 >Cause you're a freak! (j/k) you're in rare form for an engineer, bill! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #53 November 30, 2005 Are priests allowed to eat pork or shellfish? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #54 November 30, 2005 QuoteIt is categorically, morally WRONG of you to accuse the catholic church of being a power/money grabbing institution. Really? Then why is it that with every official interaction with a priest I am reminded to give generously? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #55 November 30, 2005 I totally agree with your point. The bible contradicts itself - we are all equal yet homosexuals aren't supposedly in their eyes? Gay priests, providing they force it on others who are unwilling, should be allowed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #56 December 1, 2005 QuoteHow is my statement Bullshit? As far as I can tell falling in love in NOT conscious action but a sub-conscious emotional one.... You can suppress the physical acts but not the nature of them.....Some clarification is needed about the statement since you both sides have points about control over falling in love. There are times that someone can fall in love with someone, and have no control over that. First date, love at first sight. An emotional bonding can happen unintentionally. Even whether or not the person is appropriate to you, and before you get to know the person. There are times that you know someone as friends, or date them, and you fall in love with them later while regularly dating them, because you want to fall in love with them but need to get to know them better before you do. Often, this does not always work but sometimes it does. An emotional bonding can gradually happen when encouraged by regular intentional friendly contact. There's no guarantee. It may stay kaput, no emotional attraction, and you two just are friends, but sometimes you can gradually bond. Dating because you think each other are interesting (you want to see if you can fall in love with this person, so you're willing to date) and gradually falling in love as you get to know each other better and still feel comfortable with each other, trust each other more, and gradually get more attracted to each other. You do NOT have complete control over your falling in love, but you CAN have partial control by consciously encouraging it to happen by regular contact rather than avoiding the person, etc. Obviously, not reliable, but I don't call it as "absolutely no control over falling in love". For some people, this kind of falling in love is better; because you know the person better rather than falling in love with somebody that might be inappropriate for you. For others, love on first sight works wonderfully since they miraculously seem to fall in love with the right person. Lifelong loyal marriages clearly exist that were started in either of the above cases. Both scenarios of "falling in love" have happened to me before. And many others. Not to everyone, but many people have experienced this situation. Some people only go by love at first sight, while others are willing to continue dating or be friends, even if they don't feel any attraction at first (and end up later falling in love with each other). All perfectly legitimate... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
artistcalledian 0 #57 December 1, 2005 QuoteI totally agree with your point. The bible contradicts itself - we are all equal yet homosexuals aren't supposedly in their eyes? Gay priests, providing they force it on others who are unwilling, should be allowed you might want to correct that ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #58 December 1, 2005 I think the ban on gay priests is a direct, if incorrect, reaction to the sex abuse scandals the Catholic Church finds itself involved in, not just in America but around the world. The great majority of these cases, at least the ones getting the publicity, are cases of abusing same sex children. Add to that the ultra conservative leanings of this new Pope, whose last job was running the Office of the Inquisition (which is still in business, by the way) and it's not surprising there's a backlash against gays in the clergy. I didn't say correct, just not surprising. Celeibacy wasn't required until sometime in the Middle Ages. In the Bible, Paul said something like " a bishop should be married only once", which to me anyway strongly implies a married clergy in Paul's time. The obvious solution would be to allow priests to marry, but again the hardliners insist that it's a matter of discipline rather than facing reality. What the Church needs to be more concerned with is its institutional obsession with secrecy and power and the way it knowingly hid and protected known abusers for decades. I'm honestly baffled as to why the authorities don't bring a RICOH prosecution against some of these dioceses, like Boston or Los Angleles, for the systematic way they protected KNOWN FELONS who were ruining children's lives. This mix of a same sex unmarried clergy, with an almost bulletproof protective organization has unfortunately created a huge attraction to same sex pedophiles, it's like Club Med for life. And there have been some dioceses and seminaries that are quite infamous for their blatant gay cultures, which like it or not have no place in Catholic doctrine - any church has a right to formulate and profess its own doctrine, if you don't like it, go to another church or start your own. But the Church is only willing to blame that part of the problem that can be blamed on individuals. It will never accept the blame for its own role in creating a real monster. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #59 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote from the catechism of the catholic church... 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. yet another example where the Church proves it has no fucking clue what actually happens "naturally" in nature... wrong again honey. the natural law and laws of nature are not the same thing. try again. dont call me "honey". You havent the right and your far to hideous to flirt with for amusement purposes.. but i keep forgetting.. your Church defines "Natural Law" for you too... even though it got basic physics completely wrong and is still trying to catch up, DESPITE a 'direct line to God' in it's elected spiritual leader.... perhaps the Pope should ask God to switch him over to Verizon??____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #60 December 1, 2005 Quotedont call me "honey". No, it's, "Don't call me, Shirley." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #61 December 1, 2005 Quotedont call me "honey". You havent the right and your far to hideous to flirt with for amusement purposes.. but i keep forgetting.. your Church defines "Natural Law" for you too... even though it got basic physics completely wrong and is still trying to catch up, DESPITE a 'direct line to God' in it's elected spiritual leader.... perhaps the Pope should ask God to switch him over to Verizon?? ok, honey. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #62 December 1, 2005 Hey, sugar... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #63 December 1, 2005 Quotedont call me "honey". You havent the right and your far to hideous to flirt with for amusement purposes.. but i keep forgetting.. your Church defines "Natural Law" for you too... even though it got basic physics completely wrong and is still trying to catch up, DESPITE a 'direct line to God' in it's elected spiritual leader.... perhaps the Pope should ask God to switch him over to Verizon?? point 1... you obviously know nothing of natural law. the church doesn't define it, the metaphysically of a thing defines it. The "stuff", what makes some thing what it is, defines it. Nature defines it. The church simply recognizes it and follows it as all men logically should. point 2... calling me hideous is a PA. didn't you once accuse me of hypocrisy b/c I called you a name? can't obey forum rules? point 3... the church is not in the business of physics, which it wisely concluded, although much of western civilization, including the university system, much of what we know of astronomy, etc., etc. came from catholic scholars. look it up. point 4... your rudimentary knowledge of papal infallibility is pathetic, honey. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #64 December 1, 2005 Hey, there, sweetcheeks... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #65 December 1, 2005 QuoteHey, there, sweetcheeks... hi there punkin... love you. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #66 December 1, 2005 QuoteHey, there, sweetcheeks... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hi there punkin... love you. Oh jeez, first gay priests, now gay skydivers. What's next, gay waiters? Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #67 December 1, 2005 >What's next, gay waiters? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me some actors are gay. And that would be going too far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #68 December 1, 2005 Quote>What's next, gay waiters? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me some actors are gay. And that would be going too far I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't want to damage Tom Cruise's career. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #69 December 1, 2005 Sorry - is there anyone who can answer my earlier question? Are priests allowed to eat pork or shellfish? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tenshi 0 #70 December 1, 2005 Why would you want to be a priest anyway when you can have fun at the gay bar all night looooong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #71 December 1, 2005 QuoteNature defines it. The church simply recognizes it ... ...the church is not in the business of physics Aren't these contradictory? Please explain further, especially on how natural law relates to matters of morality. CheersDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #72 December 1, 2005 QuoteIn the Bible, Paul said something like " a bishop should be married only once", which to me anyway strongly implies a married clergy in Paul's time. The obvious solution would be to allow priests to marry, but again the hardliners insist that it's a matter of discipline rather than facing reality. Unless off course you are Gid himself...cause he is married to all the nuns in the world. I wonder what would happen to the RC if it turns out God is a woman? All of a sudden they would have to support gay marriage.... So, why is God allowed to be a polygamist, but a priest can't even have one wife? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #73 December 1, 2005 QuoteWhy would you want to be a priest anyway when you can have fun at the gay bar all night looooong? http://www.crocuta.net/AtTheGayBar.mov Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #74 December 1, 2005 QuoteUnless off course you are Gid himself...cause he is married to all the nuns in the world. I wonder what would happen to the RC if it turns out God is a woman? All of a sudden they would have to support gay marriage.... So, why is God allowed to be a polygamist, but a priest can't even have one wife? God transcends gender. He is neither, however, he chose to reveal himself in the person of Jesus as a man. He is always referred to as "the Father." Also, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #75 December 1, 2005 I prefer this version: http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/ Only cause it makes absolutely no sense. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
