Lesbian sex is better than straight sexI speak from experience

Eating is involved, but it is not disorderedtoys are optional

Anorexia is when you can eat, but refuse to eatSo the proper syllogism would equate anorexia with celibacy.
Oh, wait….

LMAOOh that was goooood.

Stephen Fry won a debate in Britain with this point“It’s the strange thing about this church: it is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed. Now they will say, we with our permissive society and our rude jokes are obsessed — no, we have a healthy attitude: we like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly. Because it’s a primary impulse, it can be dangerous and dark and difficult. It’s a bit like food in that respect, only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the Catholic church in a nutshell.”
And the Pope and his morbidly obese friend have actualy tried to annex the point from the normal people.
WHY can they not see that homosexuality, sexuality is MORE than sex, more than just APPETITES? Is that all they see in human life: appetites? Beasts sating themselves and their desires? Don’t they understand how sex and love interact? What’s WRONG with these people?

Civil Rights – FAIL!

Should we as a Nation decide that fat people have a civil right to be fat?

You mean, we don’t? Is some government official going to stop by and take all my Jell-O pudding cups (actually, they’re the sugar-free variety; I’m still managing to meet my annaul New Year’s weight reduction resolution)? Am I going to be legally barred from enjoying my co-worker’s birthday cake (I swear I’ll walk the three miles home from work in penance)?
Apparently someone needs to understand what a “civil right” is, and that includes the right to eat what I want, love who I want, and reject completely the theology of the Roman Catholic Church (forgive me Ma, I know you wanted me to be a good Catholic).  

So are HETEROSEXUAL appetites to Catholic Priests… SEX is SIN…Didn't ya know.. just askl St. Paul.

Actually, if it turned out that we’re disordered rather than genetically disposedwe’d be able to get rid of a lot of the discrimination through Americans with Disabilities Act.
The last thing I need is some sexual deviant (and yes, denying your own sexuality is a deviance in my eyes) telling me how to run my sex life.

HmmmDoes that mean that I can make a similar allegory?
Being a devout Catholic is like having a mental illness.

Because Christianity is fundamentally flawedI am not speaking about what is written in the Greek Scriptures, but how Christianity evolved.
Christianity was very heavily influenced by Manichaeism, a dualistic, Gnostic religion that for centuries was Christianity’s chief rival.
Manichaeism was itself influenced by both Zoroasterism and Buddhism. It held that only the spirit was pure; all material things were the work of the evil Demiurge. The focus of the religion was to transcend the world and return to the world of light. The pleasures of the world — food, sex, music, etc — were snares that the Demiurge used to keep us under his power. Sex, in particular, was suspect: not only is it very pleasurable (and therefore morally dangerous) but it “ensnares” pure souls and forces their imprisonment in the material world. Lay adherents were allowed these pleasures with limitations, but the Elect (basically, the clergy) had to live celibate lives and live with strict restrictions.
Christianity adopted much of this dualism in its efforts to attract adherents and therefore power. Works by Manichaean converts to Christianity, such as Augustine of Hippo, helped to establish Christianity’s anti-sex and anti-pleasure theology. The teachings of the Desert Fathers in the third and fourth centuries also took the position that it was holy to turn away from the pleasures of the material world and therefore sinful to embrace them. This dualist doctrine — spiritual good, physical bad — became so firmly embedded in Christian theology and doctrine that the Protestant Reformers emphasized a much stricter adherence, finding the positions of the Catholic Church as too liberal, too material, too sinful.

MeanwhileI’m reading the Perry v.Schwarzenegger transcripts and it has now been amply demonstrated that religious animus was behind Prop 8. It’s fascinating stuff, to see what I’ve known for some time all laid out in the open like that.
Then we have the Catholic Church, she’s not doing too well in the U.S. to be honest. I look at my own little microcosm and see that the ARIS study found RI to be 62% Catholic on the last survey, and only 49% now.  

Anorexia is a DSM classified Disorder (in US)… Whereas, we all know that Homosexuality is NOT.here from WIKI:

A definition of anorexia nervosa was established by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) and the World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD).
DSM-IV-TR criteria are:
Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (e.g. weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected; or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected).
Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight.
Disturbance in the way in which one’s body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.

 
This has carefully been brought out in the Prop H8 trial. Denial of accepting of homosexuality as NORMAL, is defined as Prejudice! By Experts.

I likened it to bulimiaYou shove a bunch of crap down your throat only to regurgitate it out in order  to maintain the image you project to others, but in reality you are left malnourished.

Here is description of HOOKER study, which found Homosexuals ‘normal and well adjusted.’

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.
Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.
A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.
Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.
Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods.

That was a thing of beauty, Stephen Fry’s speechFor those that haven’t watched it, here it is:

That is the world view of people like himThat people do NOT have right to their own lives, to their own bodies. That people do NOT have a right to be fat. That other people have a right to enforce behaviour. That is the view of the Church, not just the Catholic church. Although to be fair, it isn’t just Christians or religious believers who believe that they have the right to enforce behaviour on other people, for the own good of those other people.

Very good analysis.I would also note, on a related subject, that any number of Roman philosophers tried to “mainstream” Christianity by incorporating it into the dominant religious strains in the empire. (Robert Wilken, in his marvelous book The Christians As the Roman Saw Them, discusses this in some depth.)  The Christians would have none of it.  Even at that early date they insisted on being separate and “superior” and having an exclusive lock on religious “truth.”  And so they helped bring down a much more open, tolerant society (philosophically, not socially, of course).  And, as exemplified by the good archbishop, the trend continues to this day.

It’s likewatching fruit wither on the vine–but a lot more fun.

LMAO!

Very good analysis but add the Apostle Paul to it

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 1 Corithians 7:1-7

And Paul is believed to be the author of the letter to the Corithians (unlike quite a few other letters.

Archbishop Léonard has a reputation for being a hardlinerHis selection as primate drew a rebuke from Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx.
The Belgian government’s Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight Against Racism has received several complaints regarding the archbishop’s comparison of homosexuality and anorexia. However, in the view of one observer, no action is expected:

…because of the privileged position of Catholicism in Belgian society: the royal family is fiercely Catholic, a majority of the population is Catholic, the government actually pays the salaries of the Catholic clergy and Father Jozef De Witte [head of the Centre for Equal Opportunities] is a Catholic himself.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/…

But Taste, as opposed to Appetite, is not a moral questionAt least that’s what Lawrence Olivier said in the famous deleted scene from Spartacus (when Tony Curtis fulfills his duty as the “body servant”). Olivier’s character happened to like “both snails and oysters” (e.g., he swung both ways).  

The evolution of Christianity fascinates me, especially very early ChristianitySo much of the religion is utterly incomprehensible without an understaning of neo-Platonist philosophy, Manichaean theology and the doctrinal differences of competing Christian ideologies such as Trinitarianism and Arianism.
You are indeed right. There were a number of dominant philosophies during the mid Roman Empire. By and large, the early Christian apologists and theologians rejected most of the positions held by most of them, retaining only those few elements (such as the neo-Platonic difference between forma and substantia) that supported the developing dualist doctrines.

Paul rejected sex, but for a different doctrinal reasonMost of Paul’s theology is based on the idea that the Second Coming was going to happen any second now; he lived and wrote during “this generation:”
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things (of the End Times) have happened. — Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32
His rationale for rejecting intimate relationships derived from his belief that there simply was no more time: Would you encourage families if the Doom Day Clock is sitting at 10 seconds to midnight? This is a very different position from the doctrine that the material world and its pleasures are inherently evil.

Doctrinally, yesPractically, it’s believed that he was widowed at the time.
Also (unlike the Apostles) Paul did have a lot of exposure to Greek culture where there was a very small, though somewhat developed tradition of ascetcism [Socrates, the Cynics (who had also undergone a revival at the beginning of the Roman Empire etc.)] Also, you point out the religions further East in Persia and India, where ther were also well developed traditions of ascetcism and withdrawl. One of these days, I’m going to go back through Paul’s letters and seek out some of those.
You are right, though, very early Christianity is completely fascinating (I date “very early Christianity” from the death of Jesus to the aftermath of the Fire in Rome)

You beat me to it!I was thinking the same thing.  Religious bigotry makes me want to puke.

Personally, I think he was divorced, and not happilyHe takes a distinctly anti-female stand in many places, and an ex-wife with a good attorney is the only rationale I’ve ever been able to come up with.
You really do not need to go very far to look for the influences on early Christianity. Judea was not the provincial backwater commonly portrayed: it’s importance to trade along the eastern Mediterranean made it one of the key cross-roads of the Empire. Temples to many different gods — the standard Roman ones like Jove and Mercury, and to popular foreign ones like Mithras, Isis and Cybele — stood throughout the province. These temples and the people who worshipped at them were a large reason why religious militarism held such a central place to the Judean psyche, and it was within this milieu that Christianity first appeared.
Also, it would be very difficult to tease out different threads from different traditions. The maelstrom that was Roman religious thougth at the time was notoriously ecclectic; I am convinced that the expression “salad bar” was invented by a Roman commentator of the first or second century. On top of that, very few religions were exclusive, and it was very common for a person to be an active initiate in five or six different groups at once. Scholars who have made ancient Christianity their life-work have vigorous debates over whether a particular doctrine is derived directly from Zoroasterism or Buddhism, from a secondary channel such as Manichaeism, or from an unrelated source such as the Essenes or Ptolimaic Egyptian or even British.
Lastly, keep in mind that during Christianity’s formational years, the vast majority was completely illiterate. The doctrinal texts of Ambrose, Augustine, Tertullian, Clement, Justin Martyr and the rest were written by men educated in the time-honored Roman fashion: by studying classical and contemporary pagan philosophers. All of these men would have been quite familiar with the many different religions and philosphies that were current in their day, and writing for men with very similar educational backgrounds.
If you are interested, a good start would be Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. Excellent book.

how about self-flagellation?Apparently it was good enough for JP2.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan…

Let us pray with Aphrodite
She is always kind of flighty
When she wears that see-through nightie,
She’s good enough for me!
Gimme that old-time religion …

Even more eclectic…Greco-Roman culture is not necessaryThanks to the Jewish captivity in Babylonia. Zoroastrianism changed Judaism as well (the Book of Job and the appearence of “Satan” being evidence of that).

NopeThe Americans with Disabilities Act specifically excludes homosexuality as being a disability.

Ambrose Bierceonce commented that the Christians had to offer eternal life, because it would take that long to make sense of their doctrines.
There were a large number of heroic figures in the ancient world who were worshiped as gods after their deaths.  Hercules and Pythagoras were two of the best known.  Several philosophers, including Porphyry and the emperor Julian (‘the Apostate”), proposed regarding Jesus Christ as one more of these.  This would have quite effectively absorbed Christianity into the religious life of the empire.  The Christians wanted none of it.  Everybody else’s myths were just myths; theirs, of course, were “true.”  This is a good part of the reason they were regarded as antisocial by long generations of good Hellenists.

UhExample fail.
Indulging an “unhealthy”* appetite wouldn’t be called anorexia. Anorexia is deliberately denying one’s inherent natural appetite, starving oneself of what the body craves and needs often to destructive purpose, which pretty well sums up the Catholic Church and its doctrine of mandatory celibacy.
I mean, that’s like the ultimate in own goals right there. It reminds people of the comparison of appetite to sexuality and thus that the denial of sexuality is akin to a very unfortunate tragic way of living one’s life.
Seeing how the entire religious anti-sex campaign relies on the illusion that sexuality is an external corruption of the “natural” purity of the god spirit within us, admitting its inherentness and necessity in comparing it to appetite kind of proves them to be knowingly evil charlatans manipulating forced religious upbringings to cling to illusions of relevancy.
That’s fairly impressive.
* We all know it isn’t, but I phrased it that way to illustrate his dumbassitude

Though I will addJust in case, that this example doesn’t cover asexuals who are like a hypothetical human sub-race that didn’t actually need food to survive and never got hungry or suffered ill effect from not eating.
Not at all the same as trying to deny something within oneself to meet some self-destructive purity test and becoming obsessed with that which you are denying yourself.
I will also note how humorous it will always be that asexuals are probably the only people to live the “religious ideal” without destroying their own psyches, but end up having more in common with all the freaks and queers. Love it.

Civil rightsStrange thinking. Other commenters have covered the key faults; he can’t even get the simplest concept right.
Not even this one, which isn’t minor. People are discriminated against based upon their weight and appearance, and that does violate their civil rights. So when he asks “should we as a nation decide that fat people have a civil right to be fat” the obviously correct answer is yes.

Classic projectionA group of sex-starved men accusing gay men and lesbians of sexual anorexia? Hilarious. Come to think of it, it’s almost as hilarious as religious conservatives accusing homosexuals of indoctrinating children, when they themselves are guilty of preying on and brainwashing their own children for the purpose of boosting the membership of their “faith”.