Right behind gay footballers

Somebody that doesn't know the difference between your* and you're* telling me i'm out of my depth.

I have never denied the existence of bisexuality. My argument was and still is this , How a bisexual arrives at a homosexual choice isn't always pre determined by genetics, Instead social trends , personal choice & experiences through life play a part , Therefore they 'can help it' Ergo, Society, along with the individual should not relinquish responsibility, Klien Fritz agrees that sexuality fluctuates remember .
You keep calling me names and denying me answers to my questions jonny, it all started when you realised i had won the argument. I still haven't heard how you would 'make people' accept homosexuality along with pro homosexual campaigns. 'make them' is your words not mine.

No I havent lost anything I got bored with you when you denied posts I had written existed

Do you always start calling people names when bored?

youre relying on the fact that environmental factors are the major instigators in sexual preference and ergo if you mold the environment to suit societies norms you can drastically change peoples sexual orientation

nothing is further from the truth

I never said it's the major cause, but it is a large cause which we both now agree?

if you believed that every infantry soldier would be a raging homosexual based on the fact that he lives in a male dominated environment

The army is massively heterosexual.

it would mean you have finally found the cure for homosexuality or the cure for heterosexuality depending on which side of the scale you are on

Not a cure but a method to curb bisexuality leading to homosexuality. The cure is allowing groups and societies to regulate themselves and not shouting down traditionalists as 'homophobes. This is whathappened back-in-the-day and bisexuals usually chose heterosexuality without any problems, depression was lower each decade you go back during the last century.

why would I make people do anything?

You said that those who don't agree with homosexuals choices shoul be made to change, How?

all im telling you is despite all the hate fueled nonsense you have spouted people have to accept that homosexuality is real, bisexuality is real

Show me an example if hate? Bisexual is real but it's can be fueled by PC do gooders needlessly.

I do find your comment fence sitter intriguing as a person who does not want to choose one or the other

why do they have to? what are you going to do to make people choose?

They should choose heterosexuality because it's better for society and better for their mentall well being remember .
A Free society would make them choose by subliminally showing a preference for tradition. It's as benign as that, you wouldn't even need nudge -theory. or heaven forbid someone like you 'making them' Just like you tried to makeme accept your argument by calling me names and calling me stupid.

and youve gone right back in a full circle despite all the evidence stacked against you you plow through regardless

What evidence? genuinely where is your evidence?

how do you support living in a free society that forces you down certain routes whats free about that?

you want to force people into heterosexuality whether they are gay or bisexual

Free societies regulate themselves by discouraging certain behaviours, fluidly allowing social groups to regulate morals is the epitomy of freedom from the state and happens all the time across a myriad of moral & ethical issues from speeding in your car to dropping litter. Even nudge theory is quite benign and not infringing on freedom. you still haven't said how you would make people accept homosexuality. your words not mine jonny.

there is no evidence that gay people suffer more mentally because they are gay, you keep saying it doesnt make it, ive answered all these question deny it all you want its all there

rubbish, I'm saying there is a correlation between homosexuals and mental illness and while we don't know the cause, why promote homosexuality?

you starting to look stupid

more name calling

bored now

like ive said before I feel no need to repeat myself

A victory for hetero common sense

That last sentence just proves how much of a disgusting human being you are (call that name calling if you want dont really care)

you hide your bigotry under the guise of careful concern for people where all you really do is subjugate groups of people because they dont think or act like you or live the way you want them to

youve used halt truths and whispers as fact and used facts as half truths and whispers

classic troll like ambitions

your intelligent ill give you that but your ideals are backwards

now you either believe all this or your just stating it for shock and awe and attention seeking

Jesus knock this thread on the head ffs.

Moderating this site is probably your dream job Roathy

Yeah, sure.

Im just making the clear observation this thread has gone nowhere for 5 pages. By all means continue to post but its now mind numbing.

Jesus knock this thread on the head ffs.

Moderating this site is probably your dream job Roathy

Yeah, sure.

Im just making the clear observation this thread has gone nowhere for 5 pages. By all means continue to post but its now mind numbing.

Thanks for allowing the thread to continue moderator Magic.

They are not all born that way. There is a well known Cardiff Club owner who had so many woman that he became bored with them and turned gay. There are Greeks who hate gays, but will still have sex with them and also do not consider themselves gay. And what about the people who are attracted to Ladyboys who don't consider themselves gay?

And not everyone is born with two legs, yet humans are a species with 2 legs irrespective of exceptions.

There are exceptions everywhere.

I dont care what people consider themselves as, you willingly have sex with a man because you want to then you are gay. Ladyboys appear as women. This happens both ways however, so the point is completely irrelevant.

People are born the way they are. People are attracted to who they are, be that ladyboys, straight people or gay people. This thread is discussing whether people should be encourage to be who they want to be rather than restricting their choices on the whip of a squeamish society.

Your argument is not relative to the point anyone is making.

You remind me of an ex-girlfriend, who when she had lost the argument would get personal. You used the word "you..." instead of if someone "willingly...". If your only answer to someone turning gay through an abundance of women is that there are exceptions everywhere, then you have proved own argument to be wrong in the process. People change due to their experiences in life. Jimmy Boyle is a classic example, who through prison changed from an extremely violent gangster to becoming a lecturer at university. Furthermore, while on the subject of prison, what about people who are raped in prison and turn gay?

It's up to the individual what they want to do but homosexuality is not natural and shouldn't be supported in the public eye or shown to children that its ok to be homosexual. Male and Female create life anything else is just wrong

Incorrect as has been proven in this thread. Its like saying ginger hair is un natural and wrong.

Pure idiocy.

Nothing has been proven in this thread you daft b*stard, homosexuality is not natural anyone who says it is really are deluded, Man and Women are natural life is created between them, now I can tolerate homosexuals but don't want my children thinking it is natural because clearly it's wrong

Thank you for this very informative thread, it has really helped me to come to terms with being bisexual.

Through the course of this thread I have learned many valuable lessons. Just to ensure that I have not missed anything, I shall summarise what I have learned with a few questions of my own.

I have learned that:
1. Being gay always means it is sexual and must always involve intercourse, as illustrated by the numerous comments regarding penises being inserted into anusus. Presumably it's not gay if it does not involve sex, but where does kissing and other intimate contact lay on the 'gay-o-meter'?

2. Unless 'the sex' is for reproductive purposes and can result in children is is automatically 'unnatural' and it is deluded to think otherwise. This will be tragic news for anyone who is infertile, regardless of sexual orientation. What about people who use condoms or other forms of birth control, Is that also unnatural?

3. Unless one has children, you are not permitted to have views on education in schools. Presumably, following the same logic, unless someone is gay, they should not have views on matters relating to gay education. Conversely, I don't have any puppies, should I have a say in how puppies are treated? If I see a puppy being raised to be a fighting dog, am I allowed to have an opinion on that?

4. If someone does not like an idea, to learn about it means it is 'forced down ones throat'. I did not like math much in school, damn those teachers for 'forcing it down my throat'.

5. As a bisexual woman, society is to 'encourage' me to be a little less gay by 'encouraging' me to only having sex with men. Unless of course there is no chance of procreation, in which case that would be unnatural (see lesson 2).

6. Anyone who finds the idea acceptable that is not shared with everyone else is part of the 'pc brigade'. I quite like the sound of them, where can I join? Is there also a 'mac brigade'? Was the same group also responsible for the abolition of slavery, acceptance of women's voting rights and the abolition of racial intolerance?

7. It is perfectly acceptable to use 'it's not natural' to attack homosexuality, but when you use 'yes it is natural' as part of a defence to that attack, you then entering the realm of psychopaths and paedophiles. Why is this?

7. It is perfectly acceptable to use 'it's not natural' to attack homosexuality, but when you use 'yes it is natural' as part of a defence to that attack, you then entering the realm of psychopaths and paedophiles. Why is this?

Nobody said it was fine so stop assuming on this point. Its not fine to attack or defend on this basis at all. Hemp is natural and you can both defend and attack it on the premise of it being natural as many are so keen to do but the simple thing is that the reasons for defence or attack go far deeper than that in a civilised society. The argument of something being natural or unnatural to me is beyond absurd unless backed up conclusively by other supporting arguments. Murder is perfectly normal in our species but we don't condone it because of other arguments we have coded within our society such as laws and the rights of others. Cars are unnatural but we use them because we believe the positives outweigh the negatives, unless of course you're a green or environmentalist.

My point was actually in reference to the logical presentation of an argument, nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality. What people do behind closed doors I frankly don't care. Thats up to them as people and adults and there are far more pressing concerns in the world than worrying what people are doing in their private life.

I think you like many others have missed the point I was trying to make in terms of the argument.

I understood exactly what you meant, whether it's 'natural' or not is a straw-man argument generally used by religious folk (or those who still carry religious baggage).

That aside, I did not see you use that stance against those who use the 'it's unnatural' argument to attack homosexuality, only those who defended it (though please correct me if I'm wrong). As such, your view, while logically correct, appears to be founded in bias against homosexuality.

Thank you for this very informative thread, it has really helped me to come to terms with being bisexual.

Through the course of this thread I have learned many valuable lessons. Just to ensure that I have not missed anything, I shall summarise what I have learned with a few questions of my own.

I have learned that:
1. Being gay always means it is sexual and must always involve intercourse, as illustrated by the numerous comments regarding penises being inserted into anusus. Presumably it's not gay if it does not involve sex, but where does kissing and other intimate contact lay on the 'gay-o-meter'?

2. Unless 'the sex' is for reproductive purposes and can result in children is is automatically 'unnatural' and it is deluded to think otherwise. This will be tragic news for anyone who is infertile, regardless of sexual orientation. What about people who use condoms or other forms of birth control, Is that also unnatural?

3. Unless one has children, you are not permitted to have views on education in schools. Presumably, following the same logic, unless someone is gay, they should not have views on matters relating to gay education. Conversely, I don't have any puppies, should I have a say in how puppies are treated? If I see a puppy being raised to be a fighting dog, am I allowed to have an opinion on that?

4. If someone does not like an idea, to learn about it means it is 'forced down ones throat'. I did not like math much in school, damn those teachers for 'forcing it down my throat'.

5. As a bisexual woman, society is to 'encourage' me to be a little less gay by 'encouraging' me to only having sex with men. Unless of course there is no chance of procreation, in which case that would be unnatural (see lesson 2).

6. Anyone who finds the idea acceptable that is not shared with everyone else is part of the 'pc brigade'. I quite like the sound of them, where can I join? Is there also a 'mac brigade'? Was the same group also responsible for the abolition of slavery, acceptance of women's voting rights and the abolition of racial intolerance?

7. It is perfectly acceptable to use 'it's not natural' to attack homosexuality, but when you use 'yes it is natural' as part of a defence to that attack, you then entering the realm of psychopaths and paedophiles. Why is this?

Best post of the thread by a country mile.

I understood exactly what you meant, whether it's 'natural' or not is a straw-man argument generally used by religious folk (or those who still carry religious baggage).

That aside, I did not see you use that stance against those who use the 'it's unnatural' argument to attack homosexuality, only those who defended it (though please correct me if I'm wrong). As such, your view, while logically correct, appears to be founded in bias against homosexuality.

Arguing with people who oppose homosexuality will get you know where. You may as well debate with any animal of your choosing at Bristol Zoo. They are often religious folk who live in their own world of delusion. Whilst I understand that you think I was biased in my arguments, I wasn't. The unnatural argument is as dumb as any as highlighted above.

I highly suspect that plenty of these people using the unnatural argument also often use cars and condoms both of which are entirely unnatural. Funny how they have no objection to such isn't it? As already said, I got no issue what people do in their own time and quite frankly I don't care. I'll get on with what I'm doing quite happily.

I understood exactly what you meant, whether it's 'natural' or not is a straw-man argument generally used by religious folk (or those who still carry religious baggage).

That aside, I did not see you use that stance against those who use the 'it's unnatural' argument to attack homosexuality, only those who defended it (though please correct me if I'm wrong). As such, your view, while logically correct, appears to be founded in bias against homosexuality.

Arguing with people who oppose homosexuality will get you know where. You may as well debate with any animal of your choosing at Bristol Zoo. They are often religious folk who live in their own world of delusion. Whilst I understand that you think I was biased in my arguments, I wasn't. The unnatural argument is as dumb as any as highlighted above.

I highly suspect that plenty of these people using the unnatural argument also often use cars and condoms both of which are entirely unnatural. Funny how they have no objection to such isn't it? As already said, I got no issue what people do in their own time and quite frankly I don't care. I'll get on with what I'm doing quite happily.

you cant label all religions the same or that all religious people live in their own delusions its about as bigoted as stating all gay people are abnormal

the greatest attack on the gay community in recent history is society and science

you cant label all religions the same or that all religious people live in their own delusions its about as bigoted as stating all gay people are abnormal

As an atheist of strong convictions I can. I believe all religions are wrong and are a tool to manipulate the week in society for the greater good of other individuals.

you cant label all religions the same or that all religious people live in their own delusions its about as bigoted as stating all gay people are abnormal

As an atheist of strong convictions I can. I believe all religions are wrong and are a tool to manipulate the week in society for the greater good of other individuals.

no see what you have to do is learn to be respectful.

you may not believe in God or have any religious beliefs but it does not give you the authority to state religious people live in a state of delusion, neither does it give religious people the same authority to to ridicule your belief system.

I do find it funny how people find it worthwhile running to the defence of the gay community because people cant have certain beliefs because they are bigoted and disrespectful and then ride roughshod over the beliefs and practices of another group of people.

So with all due respect you can stick your strong convictions up your backside because it is not a defence to spout hatred towards a section of society that hold religious beliefs just because you dont believe the same thing

Most people don't have any problems with religious people worshipping any deity they like. I completely defend that and will go to great lengths to protect those rights.

That is not the same as respecting that belief.

If someone wants to believe, for example, that 2+2=7 and that the sky is pink, then I fully support them to have that belief. It does not mean I respect the belief itself.

As for supporting the 'gay community' (what ever that is), all that is being supported is that *everyone* has the same opportunities for equality, marriage, pensions etc. (depending on where they are in the world). This is not taking away anyone else's freedom.

By comparison, the 'religious community' (used for simplicity) want's to deny those rights, usually implying (as you seem to be doing Jonny) that equality means discrimination against people who want to have the same rights as everyone else.

Also, stating that religious people live in a state of delusion is an opinion and anyone is entitled to have that opinion, whether you agree with it or not. Just as many religious people are entitled to believe I'm going to some hell or other.

No religion is exempt from ridicule, there is no special bargaining just because some one happens to believe something to be true.

no see what you have to do is learn to be respectful.

I am being respectful. I just said I don't agree with it and that I believe there is a state of delusion amongst religious people. As someone who is working in the field of science where rational and logical thought is key (not a strong point for religious people) that is about as respectful I can be.

you may not believe in God or have any religious beliefs but it does not give you the authority to state religious people live in a state of delusion, neither does it give religious people the same authority to to ridicule your belief system.

I base my life on facts. Facts from science and not on a book that is about as credible as the Harry Potter series. People could try and criticise my belief system but as a non believer who bases his life on scientific fact then I'd find it quite easy to find evidence to defend myself. Not very easy for a Christian to do now is it?

I do find it funny how people find it worthwhile running to the defence of the gay community because people cant have certain beliefs because they are bigoted and disrespectful and then ride roughshod over the beliefs and practices of another group of people.

1. I didn't run to the defence of anyone. Grow up. I said and I'll say it again, maybe it'll sink in this time, I quite frankly couldn't give a crap what people do in their own time. If you want to mail order a blow up doll to get yourself off then go for it. I honestly couldn't care less. I got my own life going on.

2. When the one set of beliefs is backed up by scientific findings and fact (mine) and the other is built up on the foundations of myths and fairytales then yes I can be as critical as I like. If someone cant take criticism then so be it. Why not provide factual evidence to support your belief system? Oh wait you can't.

So with all due respect you can stick your strong convictions up your backside because it is not a defence to spout hatred towards a section of society that hold religious beliefs just because you dont believe the same thing

I never spouted hatred towards nobody so stop whinging FFS. I have never come across such a drama queen. Just because I disagree with a religion does not mean I hate it. I think religion is wrong and Im allowed that opinion as an atheist (non believer) who thinks rationally and logically. I have my reasons for believing religion is bullshit and they are all perfectly logical and fair.

Most people don't have any problems with religious people worshipping any deity they like. I completely defend that and will go to great lengths to protect those rights.

That is not the same as respecting that belief.

If someone wants to believe, for example, that 2+2=7 and that the sky is pink, then I fully support them to have that belief. It does not mean I respect the belief itself.

As for supporting the 'gay community' (what ever that is), all that is being supported is that *everyone* has the same opportunities for equality, marriage, pensions etc. (depending on where they are in the world). This is not taking away anyone else's freedom.

By comparison, the 'religious community' (used for simplicity) want's to deny those rights, usually implying (as you seem to be doing Jonny) that equality means discrimination against people who want to have the same rights as everyone else.

Also, stating that religious people live in a state of delusion is an opinion and anyone is entitled to have that opinion, whether you agree with it or not. Just as many religious people are entitled to believe I'm going to some hell or other.

No religion is exempt from ridicule, there is no special bargaining just because some one happens to believe something to be true.

so taking all that on board

my opinion that all homosexual people are unnatural
all black people should go back to slavery
all women should have their voting rights removed

is all justifiable because thats my opinion and dont say it is because I can get into a lot of trouble for everything ive just said

so why is religion the exemption

you dont have to believe what I believe in as a religious person but stating I live in a delusuional word is on a parallel of the ammount of offence people will take from the statements ive made above

Most people don't have any problems with religious people worshipping any deity they like. I completely defend that and will go to great lengths to protect those rights.

That is not the same as respecting that belief.

If someone wants to believe, for example, that 2+2=7 and that the sky is pink, then I fully support them to have that belief. It does not mean I respect the belief itself.

As for supporting the 'gay community' (what ever that is), all that is being supported is that *everyone* has the same opportunities for equality, marriage, pensions etc. (depending on where they are in the world). This is not taking away anyone else's freedom.

By comparison, the 'religious community' (used for simplicity) want's to deny those rights, usually implying (as you seem to be doing Jonny) that equality means discrimination against people who want to have the same rights as everyone else.

Also, stating that religious people live in a state of delusion is an opinion and anyone is entitled to have that opinion, whether you agree with it or not. Just as many religious people are entitled to believe I'm going to some hell or other.

No religion is exempt from ridicule, there is no special bargaining just because some one happens to believe something to be true.

so taking all that on board

my opinion that all homosexual people are unnatural
all black people should go back to slavery
all women should have their voting rights removed

is all justifiable because thats my opinion and dont say it is because I can get into a lot of trouble for everything ive just said

so why is religion the exemption

you dont have to believe what I believe in as a religious person but stating I live in a delusuional word is on a parallel of the ammount of offence people will take from the statements ive made above

Yes Johnny, you're entitled to have that opinion, as is everyone else entitled to have any opinions they want.

no see what you have to do is learn to be respectful.

I am being respectful. I just said I don't agree with it and that I believe there is a state of delusion amongst religious people. As someone who is working in the field of science where rational and logical thought is key (not a strong point for religious people) that is about as respectful I can be.

no youre not youve just stated that I as religious person live in a state of delusion based on your strong convictions not really sure how thats logical or rational, then you go on to state that religious people are not rational or logical not sure what thats based on or whats respectful about it

you may not believe in God or have any religious beliefs but it does not give you the authority to state religious people live in a state of delusion, neither does it give religious people the same authority to to ridicule your belief system.

I base my life on facts. Facts from science and not on a book that is about as credible as the Harry Potter series. People could try and criticise my belief system but as a non believer who bases his life on scientific fact then I'd find it quite easy to find evidence to defend myself. Not very easy for a Christian to do now is it?

So you base your life on facts? fine an honourable trait where are the facts, cold hard facts that God does not exist, you dont have any, you have a theory thats about it. Also to make things fair religious people base life on a theory which is no stronger or weaker than your theory as neither are proven. So yes its very easy to criticise your belief system however I dont feel the need to criticise you. Thats a fact

I do find it funny how people find it worthwhile running to the defence of the gay community because people cant have certain beliefs because they are bigoted and disrespectful and then ride roughshod over the beliefs and practices of another group of people.

1. I didn't run to the defence of anyone. Grow up. I said and I'll say it again, maybe it'll sink in this time, I quite frankly couldn't give a crap what people do in their own time. If you want to mail order a blow up doll to get yourself off then go for it. I honestly couldn't care less. I got my own life going on.

2. When the one set of beliefs is backed up by scientific findings and fact (mine) and the other is built up on the foundations of myths and fairytales then yes I can be as critical as I like. If someone cant take criticism then so be it. Why not provide factual evidence to support your belief system? Oh wait you can't.

what facts are you basing your beliefs on? come on you must know for a fact that God doesnt exist based on the fact that you only base your beliefs on facts

and if your happy for one group in society to get on with things why openly criticise another group in society I cant find the logic in that (then again I am Catholic maybe im incapable of such logical thought processes after all thats fact isnt it)

So with all due respect you can stick your strong convictions up your backside because it is not a defence to spout hatred towards a section of society that hold religious beliefs just because you dont believe the same thing

I never spouted hatred towards nobody so stop whinging FFS. I have never come across such a drama queen. Just because I disagree with a religion does not mean I hate it. I think religion is wrong and Im allowed that opinion as an atheist (non believer) who thinks rationally and logically. I have my reasons for believing religion is bullshit and they are all perfectly logical and fair.

You can have that opinion thats fine nobody is forcing you think otherwise mocking people because they believe the opposite is bigoted. Sorry but thats a fact.

Most people don't have any problems with religious people worshipping any deity they like. I completely defend that and will go to great lengths to protect those rights.

That is not the same as respecting that belief.

If someone wants to believe, for example, that 2+2=7 and that the sky is pink, then I fully support them to have that belief. It does not mean I respect the belief itself.

As for supporting the 'gay community' (what ever that is), all that is being supported is that *everyone* has the same opportunities for equality, marriage, pensions etc. (depending on where they are in the world). This is not taking away anyone else's freedom.

By comparison, the 'religious community' (used for simplicity) want's to deny those rights, usually implying (as you seem to be doing Jonny) that equality means discrimination against people who want to have the same rights as everyone else.

Also, stating that religious people live in a state of delusion is an opinion and anyone is entitled to have that opinion, whether you agree with it or not. Just as many religious people are entitled to believe I'm going to some hell or other.

No religion is exempt from ridicule, there is no special bargaining just because some one happens to believe something to be true.

so taking all that on board

my opinion that all homosexual people are unnatural
all black people should go back to slavery
all women should have their voting rights removed

is all justifiable because thats my opinion and dont say it is because I can get into a lot of trouble for everything ive just said

so why is religion the exemption

you dont have to believe what I believe in as a religious person but stating I live in a delusuional word is on a parallel of the ammount of offence people will take from the statements ive made above

Yes Johnny, you're entitled to have that opinion, as is everyone else entitled to have any opinions they want.

wow really?

where do you live? sounds like a very chaotic place to live

no youre not youve just stated that I as religious person live in a state of delusion based on your strong convictions not really sure how thats logical or rational, then you go on to state that religious people are not rational or logical not sure what thats based on or whats respectful about it

So you base your life on facts? fine an honourable trait where are the facts, cold hard facts that God does not exist, you dont have any, you have a theory thats about it. Also to make things fair religious people base life on a theory which is no stronger or weaker than your theory as neither are proven. So yes its very easy to criticise your belief system however I dont feel the need to criticise you. Thats a fact

what facts are you basing your beliefs on? come on you must know for a fact that God doesnt exist based on the fact that you only base your beliefs on facts

and if your happy for one group in society to get on with things why openly criticise another group in society I cant find the logic in that (then again I am Catholic maybe im incapable of such logical thought processes after all thats fact isnt it)

You can have that opinion thats fine nobody is forcing you think otherwise mocking people because they believe the opposite is bigoted. Sorry but thats a fact.

1. Science is based on evidence and findings such as those from the fields of physics, biology and chemistry that have all proven that certain things have happened. According to the bible the world is round 7000-8000 years old when its been proven thanks to dinosaur fossils that the world is in fact older than that. So did the world blow up and God rebuild it? I have no evidence to suggest such an event.

2. I believe religious people do. If said book was released today would you believe in it and follow it? No. The book would be classed as a fantasy novel and not a powerful tool that has controlling influence.

3. If religion isn't a tool for control then why was it part of the Christian crusades and even still used to control people through suicide bombings and so on? Does this not suggest its a tool used for influence and power? I think it does quite clearly and its a very powerful tool because the people continue to let it have influence.

Please answer the above. As a believer you have to prove there is a God. Im a non believer. I believe in nothing. The onus is not on me to prove anything because the general consensus logically is that there is no god. Without no evidence you don't get sent to prison. Without no evidence most people don't believe in God.

wow really?

where do you live? sounds like a very chaotic place to live

You're trolling surely? In case you're not, and you're just not sure what an 'opinion' is, I'll try answer:

I'm not sure what I said gave you any indication of where I live, we're talking about opinions not demographics or geolocations.

For example, as a Catholic, your church has the opinion that you’re required to live a Christian life, you must pray daily, you will participate in the sacraments, obey the moral law, and accept the teachings of Christ and his Church.

As a minimum, to be a catholic you must:

Attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation.
Go to confession at least annually (ideally more often) and also when you have sinned.
Receive Holy Communion during Easter, weekly or daily is prefered though.
Observe laws on fasting and abstinence: one full meal on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday; no meat on Fridays during Lent.
Obey the marriage laws of the Church.
Support the Church both financially and in any other way required.

If you fail to live your life to those minimum requirements, than in the churches 'opinion' you are not a Catholic and are just saying you are.

Now then, your opinion might be that you don't need to do any of that stuff, but you're still going to say you're a catholic. This is fine, your opinions are yours to have and you can think anything you want while others in the church might have the opinion you're going to hell.

Where it becomes a becomes a problem is when you or the church or anyone else takes these 'opinions' (still with me?) and tries to impose those on other people, perhaps telling them how to behave or trying to get laws passed so that everyone has to follow the same the religious rules that you do.

The last pope for example decreed that the view of the catholic church is that I (and others like me) am an abomination and a vile creature against God's holy will.

He's entitled to that rather nasty opinion.

And I am perfectly entitled to the opinion he's an obnoxious old tw*t in a funny hat.

no youre not youve just stated that I as religious person live in a state of delusion based on your strong convictions not really sure how thats logical or rational, then you go on to state that religious people are not rational or logical not sure what thats based on or whats respectful about it

So you base your life on facts? fine an honourable trait where are the facts, cold hard facts that God does not exist, you dont have any, you have a theory thats about it. Also to make things fair religious people base life on a theory which is no stronger or weaker than your theory as neither are proven. So yes its very easy to criticise your belief system however I dont feel the need to criticise you. Thats a fact

what facts are you basing your beliefs on? come on you must know for a fact that God doesnt exist based on the fact that you only base your beliefs on facts

and if your happy for one group in society to get on with things why openly criticise another group in society I cant find the logic in that (then again I am Catholic maybe im incapable of such logical thought processes after all thats fact isnt it)

You can have that opinion thats fine nobody is forcing you think otherwise mocking people because they believe the opposite is bigoted. Sorry but thats a fact.

1. Science is based on evidence and findings such as those from the fields of physics, biology and chemistry that have all proven that certain things have happened. According to the bible the world is round 7000-8000 years old when its been proven thanks to dinosaur fossils that the world is in fact older than that. So did the world blow up and God rebuild it? I have no evidence to suggest such an event.

ok so youve proven that the bible is not factually correct, congratulations religious people have known that for a very long time, still doesnt help you with your FACT that God doesnt exist though does it

2. I believe religious people do. If said book was released today would you believe in it and follow it? No. The book would be classed as a fantasy novel and not a powerful tool that has controlling influence.

but its not a fanatsy book is it, its an historical artifact of culture and philosophy so if released today you would find it in the philosophy section. So where are the facts that people live in a state of delusion? come on now you only believe in facts.

3. If religion isn't a tool for control then why was it part of the Christian crusades and even still used to control people through suicide bombings and so on? Does this not suggest its a tool used for influence and power? I think it does quite clearly and its a very powerful tool because the people continue to let it have influence.

its been wrongly used the same way as science has been wrongly used in the past to support peoples views, such as homosexuality is a mental health problem a strong scientific belief or a very long time. I think science is a very powerful tool I dont pretend to understand everything scientists tell me I assume they are correct because they are scientists. However thats dangerous in itself you can and should question everything but mocking things is not correct

Please answer the above. As a believer you have to prove there is a God. Im a non believer. I believe in nothing. The onus is not on me to prove anything because the general consensus logically is that there is no god. Without no evidence you don't get sent to prison. Without no evidence most people don't believe in God.

As a believer I dont have to prove anything, you miss one great parameter FAITH.

If you want to mock my belief system and tell me how wrong I am and how I live in a delusional world you prove why that is correct.

I wasnt aware we were in a court of law? innocent until proven guilty. Why are you innocent and im guilty?

you dont have a very good grasp of science do you? Science is the exploration of everything where anything is possible until you can prove 100% that it is impossible . All top scientists will tell you the same that you do not rule out any possibility until you can prove with full facts and logic that it is not possible. So until you can prove that God does not exist you have to accept the theory at least that God may exist.

wow really?

where do you live? sounds like a very chaotic place to live

You're trolling surely? In case you're not, and you're just not sure what an 'opinion' is, I'll try answer:

I'm not sure what I said gave you any indication of where I live, we're talking about opinions not demographics or geolocations.

For example, as a Catholic, your church has the opinion that you’re required to live a Christian life, you must pray daily, you will participate in the sacraments, obey the moral law, and accept the teachings of Christ and his Church.

As a minimum, to be a catholic you must:

Attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation.
Go to confession at least annually (ideally more often) and also when you have sinned.
Receive Holy Communion during Easter, weekly or daily is prefered though.
Observe laws on fasting and abstinence: one full meal on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday; no meat on Fridays during Lent.
Obey the marriage laws of the Church.
Support the Church both financially and in any other way required.

If you fail to live your life to those minimum requirements, than in the churches 'opinion' you are not a Catholic and are just saying you are.

Now then, your opinion might be that you don't need to do any of that stuff, but you're still going to say you're a catholic. This is fine, your opinions are yours to have and you can think anything you want while others in the church might have the opinion you're going to hell.

Where it becomes a becomes a problem is when you or the church or anyone else takes these 'opinions' (still with me?) and tries to impose those on other people, perhaps telling them how to behave or trying to get laws passed so that everyone has to follow the same the religious rules that you do.

The last pope for example decreed that the view of the catholic church is that I (and others like me) am an abomination and a vile creature against God's holy will.

He's entitled to that rather nasty opinion.

And I am perfectly entitled to the opinion he's an obnoxious old tw*t in a funny hat.

wrong sorry though you are correct on how Catholics lead their lives though you are outdated in a few things but near enough

you are wrong on the Catholic churches views on homosexuals ive done this argument over and over again im not doing it again because i generally get it right so if you want to find previous debates on this subject its all there in the archives of this messageboard.

wrong sorry though you are correct on how Catholics lead their lives though you are outdated in a few things but near enough

you are wrong on the Catholic churches views on homosexuals ive done this argument over and over again im not doing it again because i generally get it right so if you want to find previous debates on this subject its all there in the archives of this messageboard.

Then you might want to let your pope know that he's following the wrong book of holy rules. Also, update the ARCC, the CRTS and UKCCHS, those are the sources of my information and are catholic scripture sites, regarded as canon by your church.

Feel free to give me a canonical source which states that according to Ratzinger, homosexuality is not a an ungodly abomination.

wrong sorry though you are correct on how Catholics lead their lives though you are outdated in a few things but near enough

you are wrong on the Catholic churches views on homosexuals ive done this argument over and over again im not doing it again because i generally get it right so if you want to find previous debates on this subject its all there in the archives of this messageboard.

Then you might want to let your pope know that he's following the wrong book of holy rules. Also, update the ARCC, the CRTS and UKCCHS, those are the sources of my information and are catholic scripture sites, regarded as canon by your church.

Feel free to give me a canonical source which states that according to Ratzinger, homosexuality is not a an ungodly abomination.

bit hard to quote ask him hes not Pope anymore our new Pope Francis is speaking a lot better than Benedict did.

problem with the gay community is you believe everything is aimed at you, its not its aimed at everyone

its not our fault you misinterpret it really

though I understand why when homosexual acts were illegal in this country and you listen to something similar from the Catholic church I understand the link

You cannot criticise the Catholic church for homosexuals as they have been your longest standing defender even when science attacked the Catholic Church for not believing that Homosexuals were mentally ill.

Homosexuality has never been taught as being an abomination. Homosexual acts are the same way as heterosexual acts outside of marriage is considered sinful. I dont expect you to believe me though. A lot of my homosexual friends understand me and they fully respect my beliefs so thats all I really care about.

Nonsense. The Bible is no more believable than Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter. Its full of fantasy novels used to manipulate idiots and as proven by a select few on here its quite clearly working. Some mothers do 'ave em.

We're clearly not going to get anywhere and I understand that you can't bear to think of your church as a source of evil (though I do suggest you simply Google some of what I've said, I'm not making any of it up).

Consider this though, while your opinion is that the catholic church is nice to homosexuals and deny that is is anything other than benevolent, honestly ask yourself whether the catholic views that homosexuals will go to hell (Romans 3:23), should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13) and are vile (Romans 1:26-27) are supposed to give anyone a nice fuzzy feeling.

Sure, *you* might cherry pick which parts of the bible you want to follow like it's some kind of dogmatic buffet, and that's great, I genuinely applaud your seeing past the hatred, but don't fool yourself into believing that your church is not deeply unpleasant organisation that tries to hide it's foundations with false dichotomy.

Nonsense. The Bible is no more believable than Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter. Its full of fantasy novels used to manipulate idiots and as proven by a select few on here its quite clearly working. Some mothers do 'ave em.

hows it proven youve yet to proof anything

so im an idiot now? what facts have you got to back that up

so the fact that our justice system is based on religious teachings does that make everyone idiots

Nonsense. The Bible is no more believable than Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter. Its full of fantasy novels used to manipulate idiots and as proven by a select few on here its quite clearly working. Some mothers do 'ave em.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood my previous post, you'll notice that I referred to Ratzenberger as your previous pope, not the current one. I also did not suggest that you ask him anything.

It's getting a little awkward to continue this discussion as I seem to know more about the catholic church than you do and am backing up my statements with references. Perhaps you might consider doing the same?