Gay sex is in the closet, but don't blame the church | Barbara Ellen

Jan 5, 2013 Full story: The Guardian 31

The Church of England has decreed that gay clergy in civil partnerships can become bishops but only if they are celibate.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1 Jan 5, 2013
So now the Church of England is the Orgasm Police
.
What will they think of next?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Jan 5, 2013
ONLY if the heteros do too.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#4 Jan 6, 2013
Helllooo! Most churches have required that their leaders be married or be celibate since the beginning of time. They have also required that of their members, though it is true that many leaders and members have failed in that requirement, hence it is "in the closet." That behavior played out in public would cause leaders to lose their jobs and members to be told that they are not right with God. Gays live in the bubble world where they write their own rules, then they expect to apply those rules to the world with the demand that everybody roll over and play dead for them. They want the rules changed for gays, which will subsequently change them for everybody leading to spiritual chaos and the utter destruction of the church. And THAT is what I think inspires this whole "gay Christian" move in the first place. If gays really cared about churches, they would not be doing this stuff. They are dividing houses, which, of course, leads to the fall of them.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#6 Jan 6, 2013
fr chance:

>...They want the rules changed for gays, which will subsequently change them for everybody leading to spiritual chaos and the utter destruction of the church. And THAT is what I think inspires this whole "gay Christian" move in the first place....<

You can think it all you want, but it's not true. Sorry.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#7 Jan 6, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr chance:
>...They want the rules changed for gays, which will subsequently change them for everybody leading to spiritual chaos and the utter destruction of the church. And THAT is what I think inspires this whole "gay Christian" move in the first place....<
You can think it all you want, but it's not true. Sorry.
Oh yeah? Look at this from The Congressional Record 1963, "Current Communist Goals." Look at numbers 26, 27, & 28. You can't tell me that using homosexuality to undermine and destroy churches isn't a goal.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.ht...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Jan 6, 2013
Chance wrote:
Helllooo! Most churches have required that their leaders be married or be celibate since the beginning of time. They have also required that of their members, though it is true that many leaders and members have failed in that requirement, hence it is "in the closet." That behavior played out in public would cause leaders to lose their jobs and members to be told that they are not right with God. Gays live in the bubble world where they write their own rules, then they expect to apply those rules to the world with the demand that everybody roll over and play dead for them. They want the rules changed for gays, which will subsequently change them for everybody leading to spiritual chaos and the utter destruction of the church. And THAT is what I think inspires this whole "gay Christian" move in the first place. If gays really cared about churches, they would not be doing this stuff. They are dividing houses, which, of course, leads to the fall of them.
Who "they", my paranoiac interlocutor?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Jan 6, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah? Look at this from The Congressional Record 1963, "Current Communist Goals." Look at numbers 26, 27, & 28. You can't tell me that using homosexuality to undermine and destroy churches isn't a goal.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.ht...
I don't know where to start with you, or this post.

You don't have a grasp of the forces at play at the time that produced that pile of crap.
david traversa

Tucuman, Argentina

#10 Jan 6, 2013
Intellectual maturity is definitely the answer.. The whole "church" thing is not only a crutch but the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.. All religions hate rationalization and for a very good reason: it undermines their foundations and imperils the income of a lot of rascals..
Chance

Grove City, PA

#11 Jan 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know where to start with you, or this post.
You don't have a grasp of the forces at play at the time that produced that pile of crap.
Boy, struck a chord with that one. You can't even figure out how to refute it other than to try to paint the messenger (me) as simply ignorant. If you can't figure out where to start, you're better off not starting.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#12 Jan 6, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, struck a chord with that one. You can't even figure out how to refute it other than to try to paint the messenger (me) as simply ignorant. If you can't figure out where to start, you're better off not starting.
Do you practice BDSM in real life?
Robsan5

Oklahoma City, OK

#13 Jan 6, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, struck a chord with that one. You can't even figure out how to refute it other than to try to paint the messenger (me) as simply ignorant. If you can't figure out where to start, you're better off not starting.
You're not simply ignorant, you're complexly ignorant.
But still ignorant. Good luck with that.
Maybe you should google 'red scare' and 'McCarthyism'.

Robert

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Jan 6, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, struck a chord with that one. You can't even figure out how to refute it other than to try to paint the messenger (me) as simply ignorant. If you can't figure out where to start, you're better off not starting.
Not really a "chord", but your statements suggest a lack of understanding of the period, and even of how the Congressional Record works. To "refute" the entries into the Congressional Record is unnecessary. What they imply is another matter; one which is very much dependent upon who put them there.

More difficult to address are the mental snapshots you have in your perspective of the times, and all the factors that you do not consider; perhaps not even know that they are there TO consider.

I'm suggesting that you might not actually know what you think you do.

Raw data is pretty useless without history and context.

Care to get us started by citing WHO put your points into the Congressional Record?
Chance

Grove City, PA

#15 Jan 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really a "chord", but your statements suggest a lack of understanding of the period, and even of how the Congressional Record works. To "refute" the entries into the Congressional Record is unnecessary. What they imply is another matter; one which is very much dependent upon who put them there.
More difficult to address are the mental snapshots you have in your perspective of the times, and all the factors that you do not consider; perhaps not even know that they are there TO consider.
I'm suggesting that you might not actually know what you think you do.
Raw data is pretty useless without history and context.
Care to get us started by citing WHO put your points into the Congressional Record?
That information is at the link. You can suggest all you want. I've lived a long time and watched most of these goals be achieved, watched out country veer more and more toward communism. I'm sure you regard any data useless that doesn't fit the agenda of normalizing homosexuality.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#16 Jan 7, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not simply ignorant, you're complexly ignorant.
But still ignorant. Good luck with that.
Maybe you should google 'red scare' and 'McCarthyism'.
Robert
Maybe you should open your eyes and look around.
Robsan5

Oklahoma City, OK

#17 Jan 7, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should open your eyes and look around.
I see dead people!
I also tons of paranoid delusional people.

Robert
Robsan5

Oklahoma City, OK

#18 Jan 7, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should open your eyes and look around.
Just for fun, take all those 40+ points of the communist goals, rewrite them so they say the exact opposite, and then tell me if you would like live in a country with those goals.

Robert
Robsan5

Oklahoma City, OK

#19 Jan 7, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see dead people!
I also tons of paranoid delusional people.
Robert
Typo-
I also 'see' tons...
Robert
Marx

Reading, PA

#20 Jan 7, 2013
With all of the problems in the world, this is worth arguing about?

Get lives, people.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#21 Jan 7, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just for fun, take all those 40+ points of the communist goals, rewrite them so they say the exact opposite, and then tell me if you would like live in a country with those goals.
Robert
In a heartbeat!
Robsan5

Oklahoma City, OK

#22 Jan 7, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
In a heartbeat!
I'm serious. Try it.
I'll do the first three for you:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
-1. U.S. acceptance that atomic war is the preferred alternative over coexistence.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
-2. U.S. preference for engaging in atomic war over capitulation.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
-3. Develop the illusion that complete domination by the United States would be a demostration of moral strength.

Now you do the others.
Can you see how the world would have ended about 1965?

Robert

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Young, Evangelical, and Pro-GayBy Gene Robinson 1 min Xstain Fumblement... 13
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 2 min Wondering 89
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 min WeTheSheeple 1,407
If You Are Homosexual You need To Read This! 4 min Imprtnrd 3
Support for gay marriage may be ebbing, survey ... 6 min Imprtnrd 4
Louisiana judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional 8 min Yakitori 5
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 8 min PUTIN a NAZI PIG 1,488
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 25 min barry 307
How long before being gay is a fireable offense? 36 min Xstain Fumblement... 45
Biggest Gay Lies 3 hr Lucas 2,093
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••