Pope Endorses Homosexual Behavior?

[strappinglad]

There is an elephant in the room. Anyone want to address it ?

 

Jay Report[edit]

In the United States the 2004 John Jay Report, commissioned from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and funded by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), was based on volunteer surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.^[130]

The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002:

• Around 81% of these victims were male.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

I am aware the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God created an angel (Lucifer) but that this angel is the origin of evil.

The logical problem in RC faith is that anything or anyone created by the Uncaused Cause can only act in accord with the parameters laid down by his Creator.  All evil and good must come only from the Creator.  His creatures have no independent will, and that is why Calvinists insist that no one can do anything righteous or unrighteous unless it is the will of God -- God chooses whom he will save and whom he will not.  We can make no choice.  The choice is made for us.

Since LDS theology takes the exactly opposite position (that all people are coeternal with God, that he did not create our spark of life), which allows us to exercise genuine free will, there is no contradiction of terms, and that is authentic biblical religion, i.e., no creation from nothing, with all of us of the genus and species of God.

6 hours ago, theplains said:

  From what I know of LDS theology, God required (originated) disobedience as the means
for Adam and Eve to procreate.  As this Old Testament study manual teaches, the sons of God shouted for
joy when they heard of God's plan of progression - that Adam and Eve would come to earth, they would need
to disobey Him, and then they would be blessed with joy and procreation....

It is debatable whether there was disobedience in the Garden, since it is actually a ritual with a set liturgy -- which all Mormons can perform as "Adam" and "Eve."  As non-Momron scholars point out, the Garden is God's temple, and the Garden Story is a "temple story."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Being gay is a birth defect? 

Possibly, yes.  Science makes it clear that homosexuality develops largely in two major ways, (1) genetically, or (2) via problems in utero.  There also some etiologies which involve habituation or acculturation, as was the case in Classical Greece, or in modern jails and prisons.  However, congenital defects are the largest source in modern times.  It should seem obvious that the human male and female are designed for opposite gender attraction and reproduction, and that is true of mammals generally..  Only about 4% of the human population is homosexual in orientation.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Exiled said:

Abominablize:  When a Pope makes mormons quietly review "the great and abominable church" rhetoric in their hearts.

I never bought McConkie's idea that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable.

I do suspect you might be a card carrying member though.

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Possibly, yes.  Science makes it clear that homosexuality develops largely in two major ways, (1) genetically, or (2) via problems in utero.  There also some etiologies which involve habituation or acculturation, as was the case in Classical Greece, or in modern jails and prisons.  However, congenital defects are the largest source in modern times.  It should seem obvious that the human male and female are designed for opposite gender attraction and reproduction, and that is true of mammals generally..  Only about 4% of the human population is homosexual in orientation.

Less than 2% of the worlds population has red hair.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24331615

Red hair is also a deterrent to attraction and reproduction.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/nobody-wants-ginger-children/337831/

So is being ginger a birth defect?

 

Can you cite your sources for: 

“Science makes it clear that homosexuality develops largely in two major ways, (1) genetically, or (2) via problems in utero.“

And also your source for:

“Only about 4% of the human population is homosexual in orientation.”

 

Meanwhile...

Quote

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Possibly, yes.  Science makes it clear that homosexuality develops largely in two major ways, (1) genetically, or (2) via problems in utero.  There also some etiologies which involve habituation or acculturation, as was the case in Classical Greece, or in modern jails and prisons. 

I realize that sex between men increases in prisons.  But just because someone engages in sex with the same gender does not mean they are gay.  There is an old saying that "Just because you are in the garage does not make you a car."  Being homosexual is not defined by who you have sex with.  It is defined by who you are attracted to romantically and who you emotionally connect to.  I was married to a woman for a number of years.  I had children by my wife.  But I was never straight.  

Do you have any studies that actually show an increase in becoming gay through prison experience?  Or do you just have studies showing increase in sexual activity between the same gender.  Two very different subjects.  I hope you can see the difference.

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, congenital defects are the largest source in modern times.  It should seem obvious that the human male and female are designed for opposite gender attraction and reproduction, and that is true of mammals generally..  Only about 4% of the human population is homosexual in orientation.

Homosexual activity has been identified in over 1000 different mammals.  Is that a birth defect as well?  Or is it a naturally occurring variation such as in hair color.  

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Those are completely spurious analogies. Being gay is the equivalent to being straight. Not to kleptomania. Nor is someone seeking to act upon their attraction to be in a loving relationship any different to the same desire in a heterosexual. It’s not the equivalent of rampantly sleeping around.

If a heterosexual man gives in to his desire to marry a woman, is that the equivalent of kleptomania or rampant fornication? Of course not.

I've written out a very long response to this post, but every time I submit it I get the dreaded 403 Forbidden (fortunately I took the precaution of saving the text offline).  I've even changed browsers, used a VPN to disguise my IP address and location, and I still get this error.  So perhaps this is not my day, or God doesn't want me to post it. I think the latter is unlikely, since I've noticed that God doesn't seem to make a habit of preventing me from doing things I want to do.

So perhaps I will just say: No, they're not spurious; being gay is not the equivalent of being straight, and the rest of your comments partake rather heartily in some straw man argumentation.

Have a nice day!

[Marginal Gains]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I certainly don't. And this has been discussed/argued to death, but we all have unrighteous impulses and temptations. That we're expected to resist.  Even though God presumably put us here with those impulses and temptations.  Should a person born with klepto impulses just go with the flow and steal, or should he resist the impulses?  Some men seem to have overdeveloped desires to bed every woman in sight. Should such a man resist the desire or impulse, or should he give it free reign?

 

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Those are completely spurious analogies. Being gay is the equivalent to being straight. Not to kleptomania. Nor is someone seeking to act upon their attraction to be in a loving relationship any different to the same desire in a heterosexual. It’s not the equivalent of rampantly sleeping around.

If a heterosexual man gives in to his desire to marry a woman, is that the equivalent of kleptomania or rampant fornication? Of course not.

 

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I've written out a very long response to this post, but every time I submit it I get the dreaded 403 Forbidden (fortunately I took the precaution of saving the text offline).  I've even changed browsers, used a VPN to disguise my IP address and location, and I still get this error.  So perhaps this is not my day, or God doesn't want me to post it. I think the latter is unlikely, since I've noticed that God doesn't seem to make a habit of preventing me from doing things I want to do.

So perhaps I will just say: No, they're not spurious; being gay is not the equivalent of being straight, and the rest of your comments partake rather heartily in some straw man argumentation.

Have a nice day!

So one God-given sexual attraction is not the equivalent of another God-given sexual attraction. Because God. 

Have I summarised your position correctly?

 

Stargazer would have you consider that this:

Quote

Kleptomania is a complex disorder characterized by repeated, failed attempts to stop stealing. It is often seen in patients who are chemically dependent or who have a coexisting mood, anxiety, or eating disorder. Other coexisting mental disorders may include major depression, panic attacks, social phobia , anorexia nervosa , bulimia nervosa , substance abuse, and obsessive-compulsive disorder . People with this disorder have an overwhelming urge to steal and get a thrill from doing so. The recurrent act of stealing may be restricted to specific objects and settings, but the affected person may or may not describe these special preferences. People with this disorder usually exhibit guilt after the theft.

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Kleptomania.html#ixzz5GEFlwxWw

Is the equivalent of one person being naturally romantically attracted to another person of the same gender. I would love to see the data points that Stargazer has used to reach that specific conclusion. But I guess I’m going to be left wanting...

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Stargazer]

47 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So one God-given sexual attraction is not the equivalent of another God-given sexual attraction. Because God. 

There's a striking difference between the intention of God as demonstrated in heterosexual attraction, and the less-than-perfect conditions in the world, which God permits to occur and sometimes produces people with not only same-sex attraction, but other aberrations that are not optimal.

And you have a very obvious way of restating what people say, not with intent to understand them, but with intent to put words in their mouths.  Words that don't mean what they said, and then ask them to defend them.  It's very irritating, and highly disingenuous. And is classic Straw Man argumentation.

Quote

Have I summarised your position correctly?

Hell no.  

Quote

Stargazer would have you consider that this:

No he wouldn't.  This is what he meant by straw men. He said that kleptos should try to resist stealing stuff, even if it is hard and even if God apparently gave the condition to them.  He didn't say that kleptomania was the equivalent of homosexuality. He meant that homosexuals should try to resist acting on their homosexual impulses, even if it is hard and even if God apparently gave the condition to them.  Or at least didn't prevent it.

You are clearly a devotee of the Cathy Newman school of Straw Man Argumentation.  Have you watched that very entertaining interview she conducted with Jordan Peterson? 

Since you seem to want to read what I was trying to post earlier, but was having trouble getting past the board software, I'm going to try again in my next post, this time with different formatting. Perhaps that was what was hosing things up.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I tried again and got the 403.  Perhaps the post was too long.  Let me try breaking it up.

OK, it worked!  This is part 1. Part 2 follows in my next post.  Your statements are in BLUE.

=============================================

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Those are completely spurious analogies. 

No, they aren't.  And your attempts to demonstrate the spuriousness of them show this.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Being gay is the equivalent to being straight.

No, it's not.

Although from a certain perspective, perhaps it is.  In Orwell's famous book, 1984, Freedom is slavery, War is peace, and Ignorance is strength. At least according to the Party.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Not to kleptomania. 

Straw man.  I wasn't comparing sexuality with stealing stuff.  I was suggesting that it was desirable to resist an involuntary impulse when it was not permitted by law.  Either man's or God's, whatever nature the impulse has.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Nor is someone seeking to act upon their attraction to be in a loving relationship any different to the same desire in a heterosexual. It’s not the equivalent of rampantly sleeping around.

Straw man again.  I never said a thing about the desire to be in a loving relationship.  Everyone except psychopaths, and possibly even them, has that.  That has nothing to do with what I said.

Although now I suppose you'll claim I'm saying gay people are psychopaths.  Go ahead, I can handle straw men, especially when they're so obvious.  Or am I reasoning in advance of my data?  Only time will tell, although the warning may clue you in that I'm not buying it.
 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

My first attempt at Part 2 got the 403. So I'll try again but cut back the amount of text I post this time:

==============================

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
If a heterosexual man gives in to his desire to marry a woman, is that the equivalent of kleptomania or rampant fornication? Of course not.

Wow!  You're quite good at raising the straw man argument, aren't you?  Or at least persistent.  A good straw man argument should be hard to detect as such, however.  These were glaringly obvious.

Of course a heterosexual man giving in to his desire to marry a woman is not the same as a kleptomaniac stealing a candy bar, or Don Juan bedding every woman in sight.  I never asserted it was, so why are you setting the argument up for disproof?

Have you ever considered the idea that if a person must resort to straw men to support their position, their position might not be as strong as they think?

In another thread, you indicated that you tried to look at the Church from the perspective as an outsider, and found that, for you, it didn't hold water.  Well, MG, I've looked at all the arguments for the wonderfulness of homosexuality and the justifications for that most oxymoronic of terms, "gay marriage", from the perspective of an outsider, and I've found that none of it holds water.  This does not mean that I am going to be agitating for a return to laws persecuting homosexuals or that I'm going to start protesting gay marriages.  I've always been a "live and let live" kind of guy.  But tolerating it is not the same as approving of it -- and I don't approve.  Now, I know that every gay person out there who reads this is probably saying to him or herself, "I don't need your approval" or "I don't care about your disapproval".  And that's fair.  I don't demand that they justify themselves to me.  But I tell them, as I would tell anyone, that if they have an urge to violate God's laws, resist it.

God gave me a desire to have sex with women, and commanded me to exercise it, within the bounds He set.  This is the "multiply and replenish the earth" commandment -- one of the first two commandments, and the only one from that original set that remains in force.  That desire to have sex with women, particularly the desire to have sex with women who are, by the evidence of the eyes, fertile and able to bear and nurture children, is extremely valuable and important (not to mention powerful), and for both survival of the species and fulfillment of the purposes of God absolutely essential.  Any other sexual impulse is not conducive either to the survival of the species, or the purposes of God, and He has forbidden it.  I'm sure He has good reasons for forbidding it -- I can easily see one of them, which consists of the limitations of a man's individual ability to support a woman in food, shelter and raiment as her children are being raised to adulthood.  A man who sows wild oats everywhere, with children being thrust into the world lacking a committed father to protect and provide for it and its mother, will not, by and large, successfully raise those children to adulthood, or success in that will be in doubt, at least.  I will concede that in these modern times, at least in Western civilization, there are more than adequate resources for the raising of children who are deprived of either or both parents -- but for the emotional stability of such children it is nevertheless best for both parents to be present.  In former times, however, there was a reason why ancient civilizations placed so much emphasis upon "legitimacy" and gave so much social disapproval to "illegitimacy" -- it was a matter of survival.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Stargazer

[Marginal Gains]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I tried again and got the 403.  Perhaps the post was too long.  Let me try breaking it up.

OK, it worked!  This is part 1. Part 2 follows in my next post.  Your statements are in BLUE.

=============================================

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Those are completely spurious analogies. 

No, they aren't.  And your attempts to demonstrate the spuriousness of them show this.

Well that’s a comprehensive rebuttal.

Quote

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Being gay is the equivalent to being straight.

No, it's not.

Although from a certain perspective, perhaps it is.  In Orwell's famous book, 1984, Freedom is slavery, War is peace, and Ignorance is strength. At least according to the Party.

Orwell. Fantastic rebuttal.

Quote

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Not to kleptomania. 

Straw man.  I wasn't comparing sexuality with stealing stuff.  I was suggesting that it was desirable to resist an involuntary impulse when it was not permitted by law.  Either man's or God's, whatever nature the impulse has.

Homosexuality is permitted, by law. It’s also permitted by God’s law, just not by your version of God. Same sex attraction is not the equivalent of a kleptomaniacs involuntary desire to steal. That you drew such an analogy is laughable. 

Quote

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:
Nor is someone seeking to act upon their attraction to be in a loving relationship any different to the same desire in a heterosexual. It’s not the equivalent of rampantly sleeping around.

Straw man again.  I never said a thing about the desire to be in a loving relationship.  Everyone except psychopaths, and possibly even them, has that.  That has nothing to do with what I said.

Although now I suppose you'll claim I'm saying gay people are psychopaths.  Go ahead, I can handle straw men, especially when they're so obvious.  Or am I reasoning in advance of my data?  Only time will tell, although the warning may clue you in that I'm not buying it.
 

No, you didn’t say a thing about the desire to be in a loving relationship. Which kind of makes my point about your argument.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

God gave me a desire to have sex with women, and commanded me to exercise it, within the bounds He set.  This is the "multiply and replenish the earth" commandment -- one of the first two commandments, and the only one from that original set that remains in force.  That desire to have sex with women, particularly the desire to have sex with women who are, by the evidence of the eyes, fertile and able to bear and nurture children, is extremely valuable and important (not to mention powerful), and for both survival of the species and fulfillment of the purposes of God absolutely essential.  Any other sexual impulse is not conducive either to the survival of the species, or the purposes of God, and He has forbidden it.  I'm sure He has good reasons for forbidding it -- I can easily see one of them, which consists of the limitations of a man's individual ability to support a woman in food, shelter and raiment as her children are being raised to adulthood.  A man who sows wild oats everywhere, with children being thrust into the world lacking a committed father to protect and provide for it and its mother, will not, by and large, successfully raise those children to adulthood, or success in that will be in doubt, at least.  I will concede that in these modern times, at least in Western civilization, there are more than adequate resources for the raising of children who are deprived of either or both parents -- but for the emotional stability of such children it is nevertheless best for both parents to be present.  In former times, however, there was a reason why ancient civilizations placed so much emphasis upon "legitimacy" and gave so much social disapproval to "illegitimacy" -- it was a matter of survival.

So if a man desires to have sex with a woman for purposes other than making her pregnant, that’s forbidden by God?

Was it President Nelson who recently counselled against couples worrying about their ability to afford to provide for children? I can’t find the quote I was thinking about, one where he says that he wouldn’t have had his children if he’d have considered wether he could afford them or not (I’ll keep looking).

I did find this Pres Monson quote though:

Quote

I realize there are many reasons why you may be hesitating to take that step of getting married. If you are concerned about providing financially for a wife and family, may I assure you that there is no shame in a couple having to scrimp and save.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng

Edited May 22, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

There's a striking difference between the intention of God as demonstrated in heterosexual attraction, and the less-than-perfect conditions in the world, which God permits to occur and sometimes produces people with not only same-sex attraction, but other aberrations that are not optimal.

And you have a very obvious way of restating what people say, not with intent to understand them, but with intent to put words in their mouths.  Words that don't mean what they said, and then ask them to defend them.  It's very irritating, and highly disingenuous. And is classic Straw Man argumentation.

Hell no.  

No he wouldn't.  This is what he meant by straw men. He said that kleptos should try to resist stealing stuff, even if it is hard and even if God apparently gave the condition to them.  He didn't say that kleptomania was the equivalent of homosexuality. He meant that homosexuals should try to resist acting on their homosexual impulses, even if it is hard and even if God apparently gave the condition to them.  Or at least didn't prevent it.

You are clearly a devotee of the Cathy Newman school of Straw Man Argumentation.  Have you watched that very entertaining interview she conducted with Jordan Peterson? 

Since you seem to want to read what I was trying to post earlier, but was having trouble getting past the board software, I'm going to try again in my next post, this time with different formatting. Perhaps that was what was hosing things up.

You do realize that you have to claim to know the mind and will of God to make such a statement..  Are you willing to make that assertion?

Edited May 22, 2018 by california boy

[stemelbow]

One of these days, religions will come around.  These words from the Pope indicate to me we're still on the move.  The LDS Church will follow suit if the Catholic Church starts to have eyes to see.  

I'm not saying this is anything other than what it was--the Pope bringing comfort and encouragement to an individual.  But what he said was just another step in the right direction.  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

..............So is being ginger a birth defect?

Some people do have a hard time distinguishing between normal genetic variation, on the one hand, and congenital defects on the other.  Doctors and most reasonable people have no problem distinguishing one from the other.

"A birth defect, also known as a congenital disorder, is a condition present at birth regardless of its cause. ... Birth defects may result from genetic or chromosomal disorders, exposure to certain medications or chemicals, or certain infections during pregnancy."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_defect .

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Can you cite your sources for: 

“Science makes it clear that homosexuality develops largely in two major ways, (1) genetically, or (2) via problems in utero.“

"scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation.  Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by experts and involve a complex interplay of genetic factors, the early uterine environment and brain structure." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation .

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

And also your source for:

“Only about 4% of the human population is homosexual in orientation.”

"Latest estimate shows that 3.8% actually identify as LGBT" -- http://news.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx .

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

A mealy-mouthed assessment at best, and not dependent in any way upon science, as I have shown above.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I realize that sex between men increases in prisons.  But just because someone engages in sex with the same gender does not mean they are gay.  There is an old saying that "Just because you are in the garage does not make you a car."  Being homosexual is not defined by who you have sex with.  It is defined by who you are attracted to romantically and who you emotionally connect to.  I was married to a woman for a number of years.  I had children by my wife.  But I was never straight.  

Do you have any studies that actually show an increase in becoming gay through prison experience?  Or do you just have studies showing increase in sexual activity between the same gender.  Two very different subjects.  I hope you can see the difference.

Use of the terms gay or straight really has little to do with the fact that life in a particular environment can lead to acculturation and habituation of a new normal (as in ancient Classical Greece)  Humans are very malleable, and the general public does not realize the overwhelming extent of homosexual activity in jails and prisons, not all of it willing (rape is quite common).

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Homosexual activity has been identified in over 1000 different mammals.  Is that a birth defect as well?  Or is it a naturally occurring variation such as in hair color. 

See my response on birth defects, etc., to Marginal Gains.  Meantime, there is certainly room for debate on the question, but I myself find the argument from design very convincing.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Use of the terms gay or straight really has little to do with the fact that life in a particular environment can lead to acculturation and habituation of a new normal (as in ancient Classical Greece)  Humans are very malleable, and the general public does not realize the overwhelming extent of homosexual activity in jails and prisons, not all of it willing (rape is quite common).

Which all falls under criminal behavior and acts (or specifically choosing to have consensual sex).  That has nothing to do with a person being born gay.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which all falls under criminal behavior and acts (or specifically choosing to have consensual sex).  That has nothing to do with a person being born gay.

Of course not, but then no one has made that silly assertion.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not, but then no one has made that silly assertion.

Then why even bring it up?  It's a completely separate issue than what the opening post is speaking to.

Edited May 22, 2018 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Then why even bring it up?  It's a completely separate issue than what the opening post is speaking to.

False.  The opening post deals with "homosexual behavior," which is a very broad subject.  I was dealing with the etiology of homosexual behavior.  Such an approach tells us a great deal about whether we can legitimately blame people for their homosexual behavior.  Where do you stand on that issue, Larson?

[ALarson]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  The opening post deals with "homosexual behavior," which is a very broad subject.  

A man raping another man in prison is not homosexual behavior anymore than a man raping a woman is heterosexual behavior.  

It's insulting to those who are born gay (or born heterosexual) to refer to it as such.  It's criminal behavior.  They are acts of violence.  They cause harm and suffering to another individual.

This is the loving message that this man, who was a victim of child rape,  reports he was told by the Pope:

Quote

 

Speaking to Spanish newspaper El País, Cruz said: “He [the Pope] told me, ‘Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter.

“God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care.

“The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are.”

 

How do you get to discussing violence between men in prison from that?  They are two very different topics and is not at all what the Pope was "endorsing".

Edited May 22, 2018 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

A man raping another man in prison is not homosexual behavior anymore than a man raping a woman is heterosexual behavior.  

It's insulting to those who are born gay (or born heterosexual) to refer to it as such.  It's criminal behavior.  They are acts of violence.  They cause harm and suffering to another individual.

This is the loving message that this man, who was a victim of child rape,  reports he was told by the Pope:

How do you get to discussing violence between men in prison from that?  They are two very different topics and is not at all what the Pope was "endorsing".

For one, you might try to understand what has been written, which you clearly do not.  Second, it helps to read the context, which as to do with the causal relationships leading to homosexual behavior -- often beginning with homosexual rape, followed by long habituation to homosexual molestation.  It becomes a learned behavior.  But that is only one way that one can become homosexual.  One can also be born homosexual, via genetic predisposition, as well as accidence in utero.  In none of those cases, can the victim be blamed, which may be the source of much of the reasoning of the Pope, and I largely agree with what he said.

Telling me that rape is a criminal act of violence doesn't tell me anything I do not already understand.  However, if you are really concerned with that fact, what have you done to prevent that frequent violation in jails and prisons?  That's right, Larson.  Empty words will not make it go away.

[Exiled]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I never bought McConkie's idea that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable.

I do suspect you might be a card carrying member though.

I don't believe it either, however, many did. A fair reading 2 Nephi gives the impression that McConkie's conclusion had something to it. I think there were many in JS's time who held the same view.

[Marginal Gains]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For one, you might try to understand what has been written, which you clearly do not. 

Sneering condescension, amiright?