Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Libs]

That's a quibble at best: Unless you can demonstrate by citing a string of cases where courts upheld free exercise over personal liberty/etc when they came into conflict, you are avoiding the issue and hurt your credibility.

Why? That's not the issue to begin with. This thread drifted off into "slippery slope" land and at the bottom of that hill, sunk into anti-discrimination laws against businesses. All of which, has nothing to do with ss marriage. It has to do with discrimination against minority groups, of which ss attracted are only a small part. Those lawsuits would prevail (and have, in many cases) whether or not ss marriage was/is legalized.

[CASteinman]

Aren't eunuchs individuals who have been castrated? If so, then how does that accord with the reasoning that homosexuality is inborn?

He is referring to a quote from Jesus which talks about people who are "eunuchs from birth". He is saying that he believes this is Jesus talking about homosexuals. Which is to my eye... nonsense.

Long before I ever thought about homosexuals and membership in the Church I had looked at that verse and wondered if he was possibly talking about birth defects that are functionally some form of castration. I never took the time to really investigate it. But I don't think that it is right to identify castrates with homosexuals.

[Somebodyz]

He is referring to a quote from Jesus which talks about people who are "eunuchs from birth". He is saying that he believes this is Jesus talking about homosexuals. Which is to my eye... nonsense.

Long before I ever thought about homosexuals and membership in the Church I had looked at that verse and wondered if he was possibly talking about birth defects that are functionally some form of castration. I never took the time to really investigate it. But I don't think that it is right to identify castrates with homosexuals.

I wonder how many times circumcision went wrong in those days, slip of the knife, infections ect.

Thought this was interesting..

hijras, or eunuchs in India,some seem to be ssa or transgender. They bless weddings etc, to not give them money, many believe will mean a curse instead.

http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/eunuchs-of-india-deprived-of-human-rights.html

"An article by Times Of India quotes that out of the one million (approx) population of Eunuchs in Delhi, only 1% are born that way. The others are forcefully converted."

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2008/12/the-eunuch-reality/

[Damien the Leper]

You are unwilling/unable to address the presentism in his, therefore your, argument re Saul/Paul?

I question where you stopped reading in the article I excerpted . . . where he points out that "homosexual" as a genus was invented in the late XIXth Century, and that, prior to that taxonomic choice, people either did things or they did not: we did not tend to define them as a subgroup of a society based upon a shared behavior-based syndrome.

Which was my initial response to what you said.

Silly presentism thoroughly debunked.

Have you seriously looked at the argument that you are proposing via this author? It would be ignorant to suggest that committing a homosexual act 2700 years ago would be based on the choice made by a heterosexual person. Absolutely ridiculous! Am I saying that it isn't possible? No. But it would be so much more fallacious to suggest that such is the likely conclusion.

What your authors tend to neglect to deal with, whether ignorantly or implicitly, is that religion, especially 'monotheistic' authoritarian religions, has deemed what is 'normal' or 'appropriate' human conduct. While science has developed and advanced religion has been hesitant to embrace certain ideas and hypotheses simply based on the fact that it may challenge religious authority. Religion is not and nor should it have been nor should it be the authority concerning matters of science, sociology, and anthropology.

Let me propose a hypothetical narrative authored by a dear friend that will address several issues:

Catherine MacKenzie had been pondering what the selection of the new pope meant for teaching at Catholic colleges and universities like St. Francis. It was galling to her, even though she taught in a comparatively "safe" department, literature, as contrasted with the theology department, that the bright, inquisitive students with whom the teaching staff was surrounded every day might have their curiosity and eagerness to learn curtailed in any way by being told that some subjects just couldn't be discussed. It infuriated her, in fact, and she made no secret of it at faculty and administrative meetings, as she had done for years. The Jesuits, who now ran the place after the Franciscans had turned it over to them two decades previous, were walking a fine line in the church and in academia thus far in the 21st century when it came to discussible issues. The local archbishop had only infrequently exercised his prerogative of withdrawing the license needed by every theology professor to teach in any Roman Catholic school of higher learning within his jurisdiction, but the threat was always there. Professors in other fields did not require such a license.

Because she was not a teacher of theology, it was a complete surprise to Catherine when Father John Reilly, S.J., the university president, called her one day to inform her that one of the local archbishop's assistants, Father Raddley, a young, Rome-educated priest, wished to speak to her at the archbishop's office downtown in San Francisco.

"Are you sure he wants to talk to me, Father?" Catherine asked. "I don't teach theology. What's this about, do you think?"

"I don't have a clue, Catherine," the priest said. "I do know that St. Francis has been getting some special scrutiny from downtown since our Law School gave Senator Clauson an honorary degree last year. As you know, she's a Catholic who has refused to vote to criminalize abortion, so the archbishop declined to attend our commencement and made a public announcement of his reason. I don't think it should be any surprise to you that your views on academic freedom have gotten around. So I'd go expecting to hear some tough talk from the powers-that-be."

"Supporting academic freedom is a whole different subject from the abortion issue. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up, Father," Catherine said. "I may accept their 'invitation,' and I may not. I'll communicate directly with Father Raddley on the matter, as he should have done with me."

"All right, Catherine," Father Reilly said. "If you do go, stay in touch, and let me know what they say, if you wouldn't mind."

"I'll call you," Catherine promised, hanging up the phone.

She did decide to go, as much out of curiosity as anything else, and set a mutually agreeable date and time with Father Raddley. She didn't question him on the telephone about the subject of their meeting, knowing that she was going to go out of curiosity, regardless. On the appointed day she drove downtown and parked at the chancellery. At 10 a.m., precisely on time to the minute, the priest came out of his office into the waiting room and greeted her. The man was tall, thin, young and good looking, with a prematurely receding hairline, wearing a plain, black cassock. They shook hands.

"Mrs. MacKenzie, thank you for agreeing to meet with me."

"I'm happy to do so. But I'd prefer to be addressed as 'Doctor MacKenzie' for the purposes of our meeting, if you don't mind, Father."

The man smiled suavely, and nodded his head. He was a cool number, indeed.

"Of course, Dr. MacKenzie. Why don't we meet in the conference room?" he suggested, pointing toward a half open door. As they went by the receptionist's desk, he took a file from it and brought it with him.

They entered and seated themselves at one end on either side of a large table. The priest folded his hands on the table top and looked over at her.

"How is academic life these days at St. Francis?" he asked, again smiling.

"Stimulating and interesting," Catherine said. "And all of us on the faculty are working very hard to keep it that way."

"I know you are," Father Raddley said. He looked down at the file folder in front of him and opened it.

"Is that your dossier on me?" Catherine asked, expressionless.

"We prefer to call it your bio and record of achievement."

Before Catherine could respond, the door to the conference room opened, and the archbishop himself, dressed in a black cassock with a purple band cincture and purple skullcap, came in. A large pectoral cross dangled from a chain around his neck. Father Raddley and Catherine stood up from the table.

"Your excellency," Father Raddley said. "I believe you've previously met Dr. MacKenzie from St. Francis University."

The older man, tall with silver hair, nodded amiably and offered his hand, ring side up, as if inviting his guest to kiss the episcopal ring. Catherine slipped her hand underneath his and merely shook his hand.

"Of course I know Dr. MacKenzie," Archbishop John Michaels said in a smooth bass voice. "I've long admired your work on Algernon Charles Swinburne," he told her.

"Good morning, your excellency," Catherine responded. "Thank you for your kind words."

The prelate gestured toward the chairs, and the three of them sat down.

"I suppose you may be wondering why we asked you down here for a visit," Michaels said to Catherine, getting right down to it.

"Yes."

"We asked you here to discuss your views on the relationship between academic life and the life of the church," the archbishop said. "Some of your statements on that relationship at St. Francis have raised questions among the less mature and more impressionable members of the household of faith."

"Have they really? I'm honored that any statements made by an obscure professor of literature such as myself would have come to your attention. On the matter of maturity and impressionability, I would hope that all of us maintain the ability to be impressed by the sheer magnificence and complexity of the life God has given us, and the humility to know that we are all striving to mature as children of God."

"Of course," Michaels said. "But the fact of the matter is that some members of the church are better equipped to understand the important issues of life and faith than others. Our young people, young Catholics who are on the doorstep of exploring the meaning of life and faith, are so easily led astray, don't you agree?"

"And they will never explore the meaning of life and faith fully and completely unless they are confronted with the choices--the questions--that lie out there for them," Catherine said.

"But don't you think that the church has the obligation to offer divine guidance as these questions are broached and grappled with? There is such a plethora of ideas out there that our young people, in particular, may become confused about the timeless values we stand for."

"The process of enlightenment is certainly divine in origin," Catherine said, "but learning and growing in faith and knowledge is frequently coupled with confusion and uncertainty. You can't force feed true faith and knowledge."

"Do you believe in papal infallibility, Dr. MacKenzie?"

"As a lifelong Catholic, I accept it when dogma is properly taught and understood in terms of the process which produces infallible pronouncements. But it's always been amazing to me that God would have left His church bereft of infallible guidance for 1869 years, until the Vatican I council in 1870 declared the pope infallible. Until then, Catholics were pretty much left to personal prayer and looking to their own priests and bishops for guidance on matters of faith, poor things."

"We don't pick the moments when God sees fit to enlighten us. At any rate, the pronouncement of infallibility was a natural evolution in doctrine and discipline," the archbishop said smoothly.

"It was certainly an evolution from the days when St. Paul said in his letter to the Galations that he withstood St. Peter to his face over the issue of whether Christians had to follow Jewish law before they could be Christians. Paul won. That confrontation would never happen today, would it?"

"No, we've pretty much put squabbles of that nature to rest, praise God," the archbishop said, avoiding the issue.

"The church can't arrive at good decisions on doctrine, and perhaps even on discipline, without full and complete discussion. And full discussion can't be achieved in that closed little enclave that constitutes Vatican City. Bishops around the world like yourself need to be participating fully in discussions before pronouncements are made which bind Catholics. But the decision-making process is so centralized now that you bishops appear to have only modest input, if that. The American Conference of Catholic Bishops is afraid to raise anything controversial with the Vatican. You're like beaten, silenced puppies on most matter of doctrine as promulgated by Rome. What a sad outcome for a once proud and intellectually vigorous church in this country.

"Of course, when it comes to social issues," Catherine continued, "you're very selective about which ones you do speak out on. Gays are always an easy target, and you've gone out of your way to make life as miserable as possible for them when it comes to their human rights. And I've never heard the Catholic bishops as a whole, or you in particular, issue any pastoral letters condemning the war in Iraq, which fails every test for a "just war" as defined by the church. Pope John Paul II said as much. But those in power continue this war based on lies, fueled by a personal vendetta and our tax dollars, by sending young men and women from our poor and lower middle class families to kill and be killed over there, telling them and their families it's patriotic. Meanwhile, you focus almost exclusively on safer subjects like the absolute humanity of stem cells and embryos so as to discourage research. For purposes of this discussion, I won't even bring up the issue of fair treatment for women both in the church and out of it, because it would be an exercise in futility. I hear a lot of pious moaning on the deplorable condition of health care in this country, but have you bishops as a whole taken any practical steps to get the titans of industry to sit down face to face with elected officials to press for a national health care system? None whatsoever. You baffle me."

"There's no need to be insulting, Dr. MacKenzie," the archbishop said, raising his voice.

"Unfortunately, facts often don't speak for themselves," Catherine said. "They need someone to do it for them. Despite the church's efforts to shut down discussions on controversial matters, not only in our own church but in our country at large, the Spirit of God still moves among us, encouraging us to do better. And God's Spirit also tells us that human beings made in God's image who do not believe as we do, still have rights, most certainly including the right to speak out."

"Do you have any startling insights on the issue of abortion to share with us?" Michaels asked.

"Not really. I hate abortion. It's a tragedy for all concerned. I don't think anyone likes it. Errors in thinking may not have any rights, as the Vatican insists, but people in error most certainly do have rights. You recently insulted Senator Clausen and St. Francis University by refusing to attend our commencement at which she received an honorary doctorate. That was because she refuses to vote to criminalize abortion. That was your right not to attend, ungracious though it was. But it isn't our right as Christians to shove our beliefs on matters of faith down the throats of those who don't believe as we do, and then get the government to do our dirty work for us. You know very well that abortions were carried out by Christians for almost two millenniums, particularly by the nobility, with little comment by the church at all before it was eventually forbidden."

"That doesn't mean it was right, any more than torture and cruel and unusual punishment back in those days was right."

"Don't get me started on torture," Catherine said. "What do you think is going on in our military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo?"

"You know we don't condone that."

"You don't publicly condemn it, either."

"Your views are a perfect example of what happens when academia runs wild, without proper guidance or respect for authority," the archbishop said sadly.

"Tell it to Galileo, your excellency. The subject matter may change, but the scenario of repression remains the same. What we need to see from you bishops in your pronouncements to our Christian brothers and sisters in the pews and to the public at large is a lot more persuasion and a lot less coercion. That's particularly appropriate in a pluralistic society such as ours. But you do have to speak to all the important issues, not just the ones that you feel comfortable with."

"I can see that we're not going to get anywhere in our discussion, Dr. MacKenzie," Michaels said. "I have no authority over your credentials to teach, so I can't remove you from your position as I would like to do. But I intend to inform Father Reilly at St. Francis of our discussion, and how unsatisfactory it was."

"I guess George Bernard Shaw was right when he said that a Catholic university is a contradiction in terms," Catherine chuckled.

"I believe you need to examine your conscience as to whether you are a good and obedient Catholic or not. If the answer is 'no,' you need to refrain from receiving Holy Communion."

"You're excommunicating me?" Catherine asked.

"No, I am not. I'm leaving that decision up to you."

"Fair enough," Catherine said, "as long as you realize that your view and my view of what constitutes Christian teaching in the Western Catholic Church may not be the same. Vincent of Lerins said that "Catholic" constitutes that which is believed by all Christians at all times and in all places. I think you gentlemen of the cloth are currently getting yourselves out on a limb in several areas of teaching. I'll think about what Vincent said when I examine my Catholic conscience, as you suggested I should."

Catherine stood up first, effectively ending the meeting, followed by the two clergymen. They all shook hands.

"Thank you for your time today, your excellency. And yours, Father Raddley."

"God bless you, Dr. MacKenzie," the archbishop said.

"And you also, your excellency."

They walked out of the conference room together as Catherine gave the young priest, file in hand, a last shot.

"I hope I've given you some good material for your dossier, Father," she said, smiling, and walked out.

The archbishop went back to his office shaking his head, and Father Raddley went into his own office. Catherine would have been surprised to know that the young priest was reflecting with admiration on her knowledge of the church, her courage, and her intelligence. Rather than being cowed and intimidated, Catherine MacKenzie had turned the tables on them.

[Damien the Leper]

Well, my question would be, why does he need to? Let us look at one of the verses in question:

Boswell interprets that to mean heterosexual men shouldn't act like homosexual men.

I interpret that to mean that no men should perform homosexual acts.

Can you see how both interpretations can fit? Which would you judge to be more likely to be correct, and why?

I suppose a book could be found, but, I mean, sources will just be sources, and I think that doesn't get past the ultimate point of things; an interpretation needs to be decided upon for this conversation.

I can understand both arguments but of course I will choose the argument that I believe best fits and other side will choose theirs.

[Damien the Leper]

That is false.

Really? You cited the Koran, Gnostic writings and other religious texts in a previous post to support your position. Now, I demand a reference that any of these writings are in any way authoritative according to the LDS church. And if you attempt to be coy by saying that you included the Bible then you fail again in your argument because I addressed it by saying in a previous post of mine "with the exception of the Bible".

[Damien the Leper]

Unbiased? Really?

Yes. Really.

[Damien the Leper]

I have never banned anyone from a thread, nor would I, nor could I.

And, regardless how you may characterize the web page I created in a single evening back at the turn of the century (in part as a spoof on the term "gay") and intentionally did little or nothing beyond that, and regardless of how well you may imagine you addressed my critical thinking in that other thread, were you actually familiar with the conventions of critical thought you would have realized that what was said there has no real bearing on what I rationally said in this thread in regards to your say-so. Instead, you would have realized that my rationale should be judged on its own merit.

In short, if you presume to dismiss people's critical thinking skills (illegitimately as the case may be), it would be wise not to do so ignorantly and uncritically--particularly topped off with a false accusation followed by a self-serving speculation regarding something you wildly misunderstood. Such blatant irony tends be quite self-discrediting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay, Wade.

[USU78]

Have you seriously looked at the argument that you are proposing via this author? It would be ignorant to suggest that committing a homosexual act 2700 years ago would be based on the choice made by a heterosexual person. Absolutely ridiculous! Am I saying that it isn't possible? No. But it would be so much more fallacious to suggest that such is the likely conclusion.

What your authors tend to neglect to deal with, whether ignorantly or implicitly, is that religion, especially 'monotheistic' authoritarian religions, has deemed what is 'normal' or 'appropriate' human conduct. While science has developed and advanced religion has been hesitant to embrace certain ideas and hypotheses simply based on the fact that it may challenge religious authority. Religion is not and nor should it have been nor should it be the authority concerning matters of science, sociology, and anthropology.

Let me propose a hypothetical narrative authored by a dear friend that will address several issues:

I understand that an article of your faith is and must be that what has been from beyond recorded time the rule in human societies -- that homosexual behavior is an abherration and must remain on the outer bounds of civilization -- must necessarily be wrong and must be blotted out because you believe we're smarter social scientists today than everybody who ever lived before. It is comforting and useful and gives a reason to get up in the morning: What a great day! I'm the king of the world! I'm the smartest guy I know!

You don't get to re-write history, though. Whether you reject G-d of Abraham is quite your business. If you want to assume that Horeb is just another hill and the Decalog just another good suggestion, that's fine too. But you cannot make the people who lived the Torah be something they were not, believing something they did not. Saul/Paul was a Torah believer. You cannot make him otherwise through unsupportable magisterial declarations.

And arguing that Julia Roberts dressed up, in your hypothetical, as oh-so-righteous judge of Roman Catholicism, makes a bit of difference to the principal argument is not going to make the dreck placed in her mouth so.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm still waiting for Selek to address the CFRs I issued in both of these posts:

Post 1

Post 2

He can either address the CFRs or retract his statements. Or we can go to the extreme and mutually agree to not respond to each other's posts.

[CASteinman]

Really? You cited the Koran, Gnostic writings and other religious texts in a previous post to support your position. Now, I demand a reference that any of these writings are in any way authoritative according to the LDS church. And if you attempt to be coy by saying that you included the Bible then you fail again in your argument because I addressed it by saying in a previous post of mine "with the exception of the Bible".

Yes. Really. As an LDS Person none of those sources supported the statement. But I was not posting as an LDS Person. Just as a person.

You seem to think I am justifying something other than what I am focused on. I am simply saying that his views are unsupported by reference to historical documents. When you ask which documents -- my reply is ALL of them. Because NONE support him.

Would you like a specific Scripture Reference? Just one?

Here is one: "Jesus Wept". That is a passage of scripture that does not support his view. By the way, I could have quoted any number of other passages from all kinds of works all over the world and they would not support that quote.

That's the kind of silliness you will get when you ask for a reference about things that do not exist.

Its called "Proving a negative".

[CASteinman]

Yes. Really.

So you are absolutely devoid of emotion, personal feeling and have zero interest in your own thoughts and existence. Rare.

But despite this utter lack of interest you want to write about it.

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

I understand that an article of your faith is and must be that what has been from beyond recorded time the rule in human societies -- that homosexual behavior is an abherration and must remain on the outer bounds of civilization -- must necessarily be wrong and must be blotted out because you believe we're smarter social scientists today than everybody who ever lived before. It is comforting and useful and gives a reason to get up in the morning: What a great day! I'm the king of the world! I'm the smartest guy I know!

You don't get to re-write history, though. Whether you reject G-d of Abraham is quite your business. If you want to assume that Horeb is just another hill and the Decalog just another good suggestion, that's fine too. But you cannot make the people who lived the Torah be something they were not, believing something they did not. Saul/Paul was a Torah believer. You cannot make him otherwise through unsupportable magisterial declarations.

And arguing that Julia Roberts dressed up, in your hypothetical, as oh-so-righteous judge of Roman Catholicism, makes a bit of difference to the principal argument is not going to make the dreck placed in her mouth so.

I really like the operative word you provided and that I was kind enough to bold and underline. His change of heart is especially evidenced in Romans, Galatians, Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians.

[CASteinman]

I'm still waiting for Selek to address the CFRs I issued in both of these posts:

Post 1

Post 2

He can either address the CFRs or retract his statements. Or we can go to the extreme and mutually agree to not respond to each other's posts.

You can choose how you conduct yourself but I don't think you have authority to tell others how to behave. Besides -- how do you know he will even read this?

[Libs]

I'm still waiting for Selek to address the CFRs I issued in both of these posts:

Post 1

Post 2

He can either address the CFRs or retract his statements. Or we can go to the extreme and mutually agree to not respond to each other's posts.

Selek has made a lot of those kinds of insulting statements, about "liberals" and those posting in favor of ss marriage. After reading portions of a couple of his posts, I stopped reading.

[Damien the Leper]

So you are absolutely devoid of emotion, personal feeling and have zero interest in your own thoughts and existence. Rare.

But despite this utter lack of interest you want to write about it.

Ouch again!

[Damien the Leper]

You can choose how you conduct yourself but I don't think you have authority to tell others how to behave. Besides -- how do you know he will even read this?

Are there not board rules concerning answering CFRs? Did Selek post in this thread in the last 24 hours?

[Damien the Leper]

Yes. Really. As an LDS Person none of those sources supported the statement. But I was not posting as an LDS Person. Just as a person.

You seem to think I am justifying something other than what I am focused on. I am simply saying that his views are unsupported by reference to historical documents. When you ask which documents -- my reply is ALL of them. Because NONE support him.

Would you like a specific Scripture Reference? Just one?

Here is one: "Jesus Wept". That is a passage of scripture that does not support his view. By the way, I could have quoted any number of other passages from all kinds of works all over the world and they would not support that quote.

That's the kind of silliness you will get when you ask for a reference about things that do not exist.

Its called "Proving a negative".

I was really hoping for a sincere response. I suggest that you and I stop discussing this. We do not agree and I don't care to get stuck in a life sucking blackhole of circular arguments with you.

[CASteinman]

Ouch again!

Well... the point is that bias is part of the human condition -- its too big a challenge to put that on people -- including yourself.

[CASteinman]

Are there not board rules concerning answering CFRs? Did Selek post in this thread in the last 24 hours?

I think I read that board rules also mention how we are not allowed to seek to enforce board rules. Something about nannying.

[CASteinman]

I was really hoping for a sincere response. I suggest that you and I stop discussing this. We do not agree and I don't care to get stuck in a life sucking blackhole of circular arguments with you.

You got a very very sincere response -- which you immediately treated with a frivolous, useless impossible CFR. (Not only that but you insisted that I use sources other than the sources I originally talked about! Ridiculous!)

I then specifically asked you how such a CFR could be fulfilled... which you did not answer but merely reissued it.

So... you want sincere responses but when you get them you abuse the conversation. Its like "Go find a Rock". "No.. not that rock go find another". You are playing games with me instead of being sincere yourself.

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[USU78]

I really like the operative word you provided and that I was kind enough to bold and underline. His change of heart is especially evidenced in Romans, Galatians, Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians.

And yet he expressly decries homosexual lusts in his letters . . . presumably written post-conversion . . . replete with Levitical implications.

You overstate methinks, as one would expect from a bibliolatrous evangelical, the nature of Saul/Paul's Christianity. And certainly of the Master's.

[wenglund]

Much of the "common culture" you are defending (if not celebrating) is predicated on the recruitment, sexual conquest, and domination of underage men.

And before you shriek "Godwins" and beg the moderators to shut down the conversation- NO- I'm not talking about the NAMBLA wackos.

In addition to what I said in my previous post, here is a statement made in 1987 by Michael Swift, a gay revolutionary, in a popular gay newspaper, Gay Community News (GNC):

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

"Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

"All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I think I read that board rules also mention how we are not allowed to seek to enforce board rules. Something about nannying.

Let's not make silly assumptions, CA. I in no way intended to enforce a rule. I simply requested that another rule be followed and that is to answer a CFR.

Also, I simply provided an ultimate solution in which Selek and I no longer have to engage each other so as to avoid such messy situations.

I have done nothing wrong.

[Damien the Leper]

And yet he expressly decries homosexual lusts in his letters . . . presumably written post-conversion . . . replete with Levitical implications.

You overstate methinks, as one would expect from a bibliolatrous evangelical, the nature of Saul/Paul's Christianity. And certainly of the Master's.

If you are referencing Romans 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 you would be correct but not necessarily in the way that you believe he is.

ETA: Malakoi and Arsenokoitai are frivolous rabbit holes.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Valentinus