No need for Catholics to “breed like rabbits” — Pope Francis

[JoeB131]

What you are saying is, "A pox on all who urge you to live a moral life, because they too are imperfect." Where does that leave you Susan? It leaves you alone in a world full of sinners with no one to turn to...no one at all.

I don't think it's immoral to have sex as long as the other person is a consenting adult. I don't think it's immoral to use condoms or other contraception to prevent the spread of disease or pregnancy.

ANd I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church, which gave us sexual abuse of altar boys, inquistions, crusades, the suppression of science, homophobia, misogyny, wars, burning of witches has any ******* business telling me about "moral" because their perverted clergy has hangups about sex.

Francis is the same shit in a new package.

 

[Meriweather]

I think the Catholic church saw that they were losing members left and right and they needed to bring a lot of liberal christians back. The Conservative Catholics weren't/aren't going anywhere. They'll be in church tomorrow. What the Catholic Church needs is new members. Or they need the members who left to come back.

In the future openly gay people will be members of the catholic church. They might even marry them in the church someday.

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

 

[deltex1]

What you are saying is, "A pox on all who urge you to live a moral life, because they too are imperfect." Where does that leave you Susan? It leaves you alone in a world full of sinners with no one to turn to...no one at all.

I don't think it's immoral to have sex as long as the other person is a consenting adult. I don't think it's immoral to use condoms or other contraception to prevent the spread of disease or pregnancy.

ANd I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church, which gave us sexual abuse of altar boys, inquistions, crusades, the suppression of science, homophobia, misogyny, wars, burning of witches has any ******* business telling me about "moral" because their perverted clergy has hangups about sex.

Francis is the same shit in a new package.

Yeah that's what we want...Joe the dumber as arbiter of what is moral. GFY , Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

Oh, Bullshit. The Catholic church has been openly homophobic for centuries, ironic because most of it's clergy is gay. The best thing the gay liberation movement did was deprive this evil, stupid church of a labor pool. Future generations have been spared abuse from psychotic lesbians in habits.

 

[Meriweather]

The Catholic church has been openly homophobic for centuries, ironic because most of it's clergy is gay. The best thing the gay liberation movement did was deprive this evil, stupid church of a labor pool. Future generations have been spared abuse from psychotic lesbians in habits.

I understand you have your anecdotal story, and I don't doubt it. But, as we have discussed before, my own experiences (in several different states) has been quite different from yours.

How many years has it been since you have been in Church?

 

[JoeB131]

I understand you have your anecdotal story, and I don't doubt it. But, as we have discussed before, my own experiences (in several different states) has been quite different from yours.

How many years has it been since you have been in Church?

I don't plan to go to a church unless I'm in a box being carried by my six closest friends.

 

[sealybobo]

I think the Catholic church saw that they were losing members left and right and they needed to bring a lot of liberal christians back. The Conservative Catholics weren't/aren't going anywhere. They'll be in church tomorrow. What the Catholic Church needs is new members. Or they need the members who left to come back.

In the future openly gay people will be members of the catholic church. They might even marry them in the church someday.

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

 

[Meriweather]

I think the Catholic church saw that they were losing members left and right and they needed to bring a lot of liberal christians back. The Conservative Catholics weren't/aren't going anywhere. They'll be in church tomorrow. What the Catholic Church needs is new members. Or they need the members who left to come back.

In the future openly gay people will be members of the catholic church. They might even marry them in the church someday.

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

 

[sealybobo]

I think the Catholic church saw that they were losing members left and right and they needed to bring a lot of liberal christians back. The Conservative Catholics weren't/aren't going anywhere. They'll be in church tomorrow. What the Catholic Church needs is new members. Or they need the members who left to come back.

In the future openly gay people will be members of the catholic church. They might even marry them in the church someday.

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

 

[Meriweather]

I think the Catholic church saw that they were losing members left and right and they needed to bring a lot of liberal christians back. The Conservative Catholics weren't/aren't going anywhere. They'll be in church tomorrow. What the Catholic Church needs is new members. Or they need the members who left to come back.

In the future openly gay people will be members of the catholic church. They might even marry them in the church someday.

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

 

[sealybobo]

I think the Catholic church saw that they were losing members left and right and they needed to bring a lot of liberal christians back. The Conservative Catholics weren't/aren't going anywhere. They'll be in church tomorrow. What the Catholic Church needs is new members. Or they need the members who left to come back.

In the future openly gay people will be members of the catholic church. They might even marry them in the church someday.

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

Notice they say marriage is "typically defined" as a union between a man and a woman? Eventually it'll be a union between 2 ppl.

 

[Steinlight]

What non-Catholics seem unaware of is that while there is no gay (Catholic) marriage (and unlikely to ever happen), gays have always been welcome in the Catholic Church, couples or singly. Pope Francis hasn't been saying a thing (about anything) that well informed Catholics haven't known for decades. For some reason, the news media is finally catching up on Catholic practices that have been in play for decades. Unfortunately the news media spins it as if it were something new. It may be new to the news media, but none of what the pope has been saying is new (or news) to Catholics.

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

Notice they say marriage is "typically defined" as a union between a man and a woman? Eventually it'll be a union between 2 ppl.

Oh, so marriage is between "two people", is it? You bigoted shitlord. How about polyamorous relations and those between human beings and otherkin? Your comments are bigoted, sexist, and speciest.

 

[sealybobo]

It wasn't the media that gave me my bad impression of Catholics. It was Catholics. They told me being gay was a sin. Did they say mortal sin? "In Roman Catholicism, the act of actually being a homosexual is not a sin. But, committing homosexual acts like intercourse etc. is a sin. And it is most definitely a mortal sin because it goes against the commandment, Thou shalt not committ adultery. The Bible says a marriage should be a bond between a man and woman so any same-sex marriage isn't condoned or accepted by the Church and therefore sexual acts within a same-sex marriage are adultery as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church"

So one day the Catholic Church will marry gay people so they aren't committing adultry. Mark my words.

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

Notice they say marriage is "typically defined" as a union between a man and a woman? Eventually it'll be a union between 2 ppl.

Oh, so marriage is between "two people", is it? You bigoted shitlord. How about polyamorous relations and those between human beings and otherkin? Your comments are bigoted, sexist, and speciest.

Ask our secular constitution about those other things. In America marriage is between two people. What 30 states now? Soon it'll be the law of the land.

Can you explain how my opinion is bigoted or sexist?

 

[Steinlight]

Giving into weakness is not a mortal sin.

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

Notice they say marriage is "typically defined" as a union between a man and a woman? Eventually it'll be a union between 2 ppl.

Oh, so marriage is between "two people", is it? You bigoted shitlord. How about polyamorous relations and those between human beings and otherkin? Your comments are bigoted, sexist, and speciest.

Ask our secular constitution about those other things. In America marriage is between two people. What 30 states now? Soon it'll be the law of the land.

Can you explain how my opinion is bigoted or sexist?

The Constitution also said blacks are 3/5ths of a person. Do you support that as well you reactionary douchecanoe?

By your narrow definition of marriage as between two individuals, much less two "people", you are perpetuating discrimination against otherkin, pansexuals, those who engage in open relationships, among others, so "marriage" can fit your nice and neat cookie cutter definition of the word.

 

[Steinlight]

**** your bigoted and conventional notions of "marriage" and morality.

 

[sealybobo]

So as long as it isn't a mortal sin then there is wiggle room. In the future the church will give gays a pass as long as they are

a. Married
b. Both Catholic

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

Notice they say marriage is "typically defined" as a union between a man and a woman? Eventually it'll be a union between 2 ppl.

Oh, so marriage is between "two people", is it? You bigoted shitlord. How about polyamorous relations and those between human beings and otherkin? Your comments are bigoted, sexist, and speciest.

Ask our secular constitution about those other things. In America marriage is between two people. What 30 states now? Soon it'll be the law of the land.

Can you explain how my opinion is bigoted or sexist?

The Constitution also said blacks are 3/5ths of a person. Do you support that as well you reactionary douchecanoe?

By your narrow definition of marriage as between two individuals, much less two "people", you are perpetuating discrimination against otherkin, pansexuals, those who engage in open relationships, among others, so "marriage" can fit your nice and neat cookie cutter definition of the word.

Each of those categories can petition their secular government and it will decide if they should have equal protection under the law. I don't even know what those things are. Open relationships are legal but you can't marry more than one person. I'm open to letting Mormons and Muslims do it.

But gays should have same rights straights have.

And don't bring up blacks because same people who didn't want blacks and whites marrying now are the anti gay assholes

 

[sealybobo]

**** your bigoted and conventional notions of "marriage" and morality.

Don't you mean unconventional? You don't even know what your talking about

 

[Steinlight]

I doubt it. In Catholic theology marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is quite a hurdle to overcome.

Notice they say marriage is "typically defined" as a union between a man and a woman? Eventually it'll be a union between 2 ppl.

Oh, so marriage is between "two people", is it? You bigoted shitlord. How about polyamorous relations and those between human beings and otherkin? Your comments are bigoted, sexist, and speciest.

Ask our secular constitution about those other things. In America marriage is between two people. What 30 states now? Soon it'll be the law of the land.

Can you explain how my opinion is bigoted or sexist?

The Constitution also said blacks are 3/5ths of a person. Do you support that as well you reactionary douchecanoe?

By your narrow definition of marriage as between two individuals, much less two "people", you are perpetuating discrimination against otherkin, pansexuals, those who engage in open relationships, among others, so "marriage" can fit your nice and neat cookie cutter definition of the word.

Each of those categories can petition their secular government and it will decide if they should have equal protection under the law. I don't even know what those things are. Open relationships are legal but you can't marry more than one person. I'm open to letting Mormons and Muslims do it.

But gays should have same rights straights have.

And don't bring up blacks because same people who didn't want blacks and whites marrying now are the anti gay assholes

Just because you don't know what those things are doesn't excuse your bigotry and discrimination towards them.

Just because a polyamorous woman can't legally marry more than one partner doesn't make it right. There was a time when blacks couldn't marry whites and gays couldn't marry one another, but the tide is turning against you bigots. What you are really engaging in is "slut shaming" and homophobia as well, because often polyamorous relationships are sexually fluid and involve multiple genders not just cisgendered normies. Well, maybe your puritanical conception of marriage and relationships can't conceive that more than two individuals may want to share a life together. Sorry if that offends you, but you have no right to dictate people's personal lives you monster.

Also, you don't realize how bigoted your remarks are about two consenting "people" getting married(implying only humans), implying animals can't consent. Otherkin, individuals who are animals trapped in human bodies can consent, and thus your remarks are speciest. By denying them their protected designation as otherkin under the law, you are discriminating against them, and dehumanizing them by suggesting they lack agency or capacity to be in loving relationships with other otherkin and pansexuals.

 

[Steinlight]

**** your bigoted and conventional notions of "marriage" and morality.

Don't you mean unconventional? You don't even know what your talking about

Yea, because cisgendered white male queers getting married is so "unconventional"! It is only promoted in Hollywood at every avenue, while women and transwomen, particularly those of color, and continually marginalized. And apparently by others in the LGBT community and "allies" like you.

 

[PostmodernProph]

But gays should have same rights straights have.

they did....they all had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.......