Pope: GOD made people gay

[Byblos]

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

Do we agree that according to scripture ( and therefore according to God ) that homosexuality is wrong? ( the acts ).

If so, then we know God's position on the matter, YET...

YET God allows humans to act how they will. ( that's not to say there is no consequence )

Does God then "advocate" for same sex civil unions and therefore is He a hypocrite?
.
.

Bav, I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about (assuming this was meant for me, since you're quoting me).

I'm simply asking if you think God is a hypocrite for allowing that which He says is wrong?
.
.

My post was in response to Ed's and has a specific purpose. Apologies but I am not opening the door for rabbit-trailing. Maybe at a later time.

[BavarianWheels]

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

Do we agree that according to scripture ( and therefore according to God ) that homosexuality is wrong? ( the acts ).

If so, then we know God's position on the matter, YET...

YET God allows humans to act how they will. ( that's not to say there is no consequence )

Does God then "advocate" for same sex civil unions and therefore is He a hypocrite?
.
.

Bav, I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about (assuming this was meant for me, since you're quoting me).

I'm simply asking if you think God is a hypocrite for allowing that which He says is wrong?
.
.

My post was in response to Ed's and has a specific purpose. Apologies but I am not opening the door for rabbit-trailing. Maybe at a later time.

Well, I think it fits to ask...

Do you think God was ready to accept the ramifications of allowing sin?

I'm simply trying to understand your point of "hypocrisy" and "ramifications" and "advocate"...
.
.

[Byblos]

Do we agree that according to scripture ( and therefore according to God ) that homosexuality is wrong? ( the acts ).

If so, then we know God's position on the matter, YET...

YET God allows humans to act how they will. ( that's not to say there is no consequence )

Does God then "advocate" for same sex civil unions and therefore is He a hypocrite?
.
.

Bav, I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about (assuming this was meant for me, since you're quoting me).

I'm simply asking if you think God is a hypocrite for allowing that which He says is wrong?
.
.

My post was in response to Ed's and has a specific purpose. Apologies but I am not opening the door for rabbit-trailing. Maybe at a later time.

Well, I think it fits to ask...

Do you think God was ready to accept the ramifications of allowing sin?

I'm simply trying to understand your point of "hypocrisy" and "ramifications" and "advocate"...
.
.

Then you completely misunderstood my post. I suggest you go back and re-read it.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav, I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about (assuming this was meant for me, since you're quoting me).

I'm simply asking if you think God is a hypocrite for allowing that which He says is wrong?
.
.

My post was in response to Ed's and has a specific purpose. Apologies but I am not opening the door for rabbit-trailing. Maybe at a later time.

Well, I think it fits to ask...

Do you think God was ready to accept the ramifications of allowing sin?

I'm simply trying to understand your point of "hypocrisy" and "ramifications" and "advocate"...
.
.

Then you completely misunderstood my post. I suggest you go back and re-read it.

I did...I still come up with the same.

Help me.
.
.

[RickD]

I'd be content at this point, if the U.S. government stayed completely out of the marriage game.

That way people can have their own beliefs, and their own marriages, without the govt. getting involved in the process.

Freedom to do what you want as long as you're not bothering anyone. And that way the govt. can't force certain groups to perform "legal marriages", that go against one's conscience.

[edwardmurphy]

I'm assuming by 'marriage' Ed means a civil union as a 'religious' marriage wouldn't mean much to him.

On that basis, let me ask you a question, Ed, are you (and by you I mean society in general) really prepared to accept the ramifications of same sex civil unions? And before you ask, here are but a few:

- Institutionally enforced genderless identities (already started at the federal level in Canada)
- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

This will will inevitably lead to a complete rewrite of family and estate law (wills, living trusts, health proxies, and so on), income and taxation, marital law, etc. etc. etc.

You might call that progress, I don't know. I call it the complete annihilation of any semblance of family and with it civilization as we know it. It is a new dawn of the planet of the lost.

If it was up to me the government would stay out of marriage and civil unions would be open to anybody who wanted one. Apparently in France it's permissible for a mother and daughter who live together and plan to continue doing so to enter into a civil union and enjoy the tax and legal benefits. It has nothing to do with sex, romance, covenants, or any of that. It's simply a way of streamlining the household finances and simplifying legal conundrums. I think that's a good way to go about it.

The religious aspect doesn't concern me. I don't think any member of the clergy should be forced to preform any sort of hocus pocus in circumstances that they believe their deity would oppose, but that shouldn't be a problem. If you're gay and you want a church wedding there are plenty of churches and clergy that will say the words. The churches that won't say the words won't approve of those that will, and vice versa, but that's hardly my concern. I'm content to take anyone who self-identifies as a Christian at their word and leave it at that. I have opinions about Christians who go about claiming that they're the only ones doing it right, but I don't lose sleep over it. That's Christianity's problem, not mine.

Since I'm not in charge and I'm stuck with what is, rather than what I think ought to be, I support marriage equality. It's not as good as my way, but it's better than Stu's.

With regard to your slippery slope arguments -

- Institutionally enforced genderless identities (already started at the federal level in Canada)

I don't see what this has to do with marriage equality, but it's not something that concerns me. As an atheist, I live in a world where billions of crazy people constantly fight about which interpretations of their preferred vague and self-contradictory holy books are the best. They're constantly trying to use politics to give their beliefs the force of law. Sometimes they even kill each other over it. With that as the backdrop, a world where Cheryl in accounting insists that her pronoun is "they" seems downright petty.

- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

I don't really care, truth be told. People who are inclined to be in polygamous relationships are going to do it regardless of what the tax codes say, and those who aren't - which is almost everyone - aren't going to start just because the IRS lets them file their taxes jointly.

[Byblos]

I'm simply asking if you think God is a hypocrite for allowing that which He says is wrong?
.
.

My post was in response to Ed's and has a specific purpose. Apologies but I am not opening the door for rabbit-trailing. Maybe at a later time.

Well, I think it fits to ask...

Do you think God was ready to accept the ramifications of allowing sin?

I'm simply trying to understand your point of "hypocrisy" and "ramifications" and "advocate"...
.
.

Then you completely misunderstood my post. I suggest you go back and re-read it.

I did...I still come up with the same.

Help me.
.
.

If you want me to help you understand my post then I need you to tell me what you think I'm saying. And if you think I'm saying God is a hypocrite you'd be wrong. Nowhere in my post that was said or even implied. So I have no idea why you would even ask such a question. Hence, why I think you still midunderstand my post.

[BavarianWheels]

I'm assuming by 'marriage' Ed means a civil union as a 'religious' marriage wouldn't mean much to him.

On that basis, let me ask you a question, Ed, are you (and by you I mean society in general) really prepared to accept the ramifications of same sex civil unions? And before you ask, here are but a few:

- Institutionally enforced genderless identities (already started at the federal level in Canada)
- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

This will will inevitably lead to a complete rewrite of family and estate law (wills, living trusts, health proxies, and so on), income and taxation, marital law, etc. etc. etc.

You might call that progress, I don't know. I call it the complete annihilation of any semblance of family and with it civilization as we know it. It is a new dawn of the planet of the lost.

My question remains; Does God 'advocate' homosexuality by allowing homosexuality to run rampant in humanity...especially in western society? It seems the same thing when you say, "...if you advocate for civil unions, you must also advocate for...otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite."

The reason I seem to be getting this is because prior to that you ask about whether "you" are prepared to accept the ramifications of X.

It seems to me that God WAS/IS prepared to accept the ramifications of sin...and if so, by your logic, also advocate homosexuality ( a ramification...and only one of a multitude that includes death, incidentally ) and therefore God is just a hypocrite.

Now, instead of simply saying I misunderstand you, I'm confused enough by your wording that I'd like to hear what it is you actually mean if it is not how I read it. You're not "helping me" if you just say, "That's not what I said, go back and re-read it". I've done that and I've explained why it is I'm confused.
.
.

[Byblos]

I'm assuming by 'marriage' Ed means a civil union as a 'religious' marriage wouldn't mean much to him.

On that basis, let me ask you a question, Ed, are you (and by you I mean society in general) really prepared to accept the ramifications of same sex civil unions? And before you ask, here are but a few:

- Institutionally enforced genderless identities (already started at the federal level in Canada)
- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

This will will inevitably lead to a complete rewrite of family and estate law (wills, living trusts, health proxies, and so on), income and taxation, marital law, etc. etc. etc.

You might call that progress, I don't know. I call it the complete annihilation of any semblance of family and with it civilization as we know it. It is a new dawn of the planet of the lost.

My question remains; Does God 'advocate' homosexuality by allowing homosexuality to run rampant in humanity...especially in western society? It seems the same thing when you say, "...if you advocate for civil unions, you must also advocate for...otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite."

The reason I seem to be getting this is because prior to that you ask about whether "you" are prepared to accept the ramifications of X.

It seems to me that God WAS/IS prepared to accept the ramifications of sin...and if so, by your logic, also advocate homosexuality ( a ramification...and only one of a multitude that includes death, incidentally ) and therefore God is just a hypocrite.

Now, instead of simply saying I misunderstand you, I'm confused enough by your wording that I'd like to hear what it is you actually mean if it is not how I read it. You're not "helping me" if you just say, "That's not what I said, go back and re-read it". I've done that and I've explained why it is I'm confused.
.
.

I think it is very clear that the ramifications I was referring to are related to social degeneration, not God. You only need to read the last paragraph to surmise that. You understood what you wanted to mis-understand.

[BavarianWheels]

I'm assuming by 'marriage' Ed means a civil union as a 'religious' marriage wouldn't mean much to him.

On that basis, let me ask you a question, Ed, are you (and by you I mean society in general) really prepared to accept the ramifications of same sex civil unions? And before you ask, here are but a few:

- Institutionally enforced genderless identities (already started at the federal level in Canada)
- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

This will will inevitably lead to a complete rewrite of family and estate law (wills, living trusts, health proxies, and so on), income and taxation, marital law, etc. etc. etc.

You might call that progress, I don't know. I call it the complete annihilation of any semblance of family and with it civilization as we know it. It is a new dawn of the planet of the lost.

My question remains; Does God 'advocate' homosexuality by allowing homosexuality to run rampant in humanity...especially in western society? It seems the same thing when you say, "...if you advocate for civil unions, you must also advocate for...otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite."

The reason I seem to be getting this is because prior to that you ask about whether "you" are prepared to accept the ramifications of X.

It seems to me that God WAS/IS prepared to accept the ramifications of sin...and if so, by your logic, also advocate homosexuality ( a ramification...and only one of a multitude that includes death, incidentally ) and therefore God is just a hypocrite.

Now, instead of simply saying I misunderstand you, I'm confused enough by your wording that I'd like to hear what it is you actually mean if it is not how I read it. You're not "helping me" if you just say, "That's not what I said, go back and re-read it". I've done that and I've explained why it is I'm confused.
.
.

I think it is very clear that the ramifications I was referring to are related to social degeneration, not God. You only need to read the last paragraph to surmise that. You understood what you wanted to mis-understand.

Didn't sin also degenerate God's social intentions?
.
.

[Byblos]

Didn't sin also degenerate God's social intentions?

Yes. I did not say or imply otherwise so what is your point (he asks relunctantly)?

[BavarianWheels]

Didn't sin also degenerate God's social intentions?

Yes. I did not say or imply otherwise so what is your point (he asks relunctantly)?

It seems to me the point you're making could just as easily fit to speak against God's action or inaction in His creation.
.
.

[Byblos]

- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

I don't really care, truth be told. People who are inclined to be in polygamous relationships are going to do it regardless of what the tax codes say, and those who aren't - which is almost everyone - aren't going to start just because the IRS lets them file their taxes jointly.

Let's just stick with this one for now. You don't care? Really? We're not simply talking about polygamous relationships here. We're talking about affording polygamous relationships the same rights under the law you are advocating for same sex unions (if one is not be a hypocrite). And the only way to do so is to either rewrite most laws currently on the books or to abolish them altogether, laws put in place to protect the most basic social structure, i.e. the family unit. That's the inevitable consequence of redefining marriage (or union or whatever you want to call it) as other than between a man and a woman.

I don't think you have fully considered the ramifications (or it's possible you have and you still don't care, I don't know).

[Byblos]

Didn't sin also degenerate God's social intentions?

Yes. I did not say or imply otherwise so what is your point (he asks relunctantly)?

It seems to me the point you're making could just as easily fit to speak against God's action or inaction in His creation.
.
.

I don't see how since that's nowhere remotely near my focal point, i.e. the most basic social structure: family.

[BavarianWheels]

Didn't sin also degenerate God's social intentions?

Yes. I did not say or imply otherwise so what is your point (he asks relunctantly)?

It seems to me the point you're making could just as easily fit to speak against God's action or inaction in His creation.
.
.

I don't see how since that's nowhere remotely near my focal point, i.e. the most basic social structure: family.

I don't think the focal point matters as much as what the point says overall...and additionally I would also argue that God's focal point IS Family!.
.
.