BS: All changed, changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:28 PM

Just an idea Joe O.

The mods clearly made their point and maybe, "edgy folks" got the message. Couldn't it be time to ease up (though remaing vigilant) -as the fight message may have resonated and the combat subsided. If it were, would the mods get the message and intervene in an appropriate manner. Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:44 PM

Well, I think the mods have backed off a bit. Only the nastiest messages have been deleted in this thread - a total of four or five.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:57 PM

Good news, Joe O:
maybe a more "civil union of minds and posts" will result-outside an occasional dust up?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:20 PM

well joe, I can see that it is possible to say that when Jesus defines marriage in matt 19, mark 10 [ note to steve, the context is marriage and divorce ] you could infer that as he did not mention homosexuality he might have approved of it. however , homosexual acts were condemned in the OT , and I should have thought that much was understood by his audience.[ maybe your professional training told you different ?] . it does seem a bit of an understatement to say the bible says little on the subject, as it is mentioned a number of times, and quite definitely in romans 1.    a single mention might be perhaps a reason for indefiniteness, but it is far from that. I should add, that I do not think that it is the only, or the worst sin, but it is still according to the bible, sinful behaviour, and like other sins is forgivable. btw, joe, I was not expecting you to agree with my plain, grammatical understanding of the bible, as I know you have more liberal interpretations, but I hoped you might at least acknowledge that a plain reading of the text presents marriage as man and woman. but your answer was at least constructive, largely, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:23 PM

Joe - I think your words are very reasonable.

I don't get involved in debates about religion here because, having read through many Mudcat threads in which religion is discussed, it seems that there never has been, and never will be, any change of opinion on either of the pro- or anti- religion factions. No chance of any constructive debate or give and take, as far as I can see. So it nearly always descends into insult, anger and mud-slinging.

There used to be a tradition in the British Army that "politics, religion and the memsahibs" were not suitable topics for discussion in the Officers' Mess - and you can see why, with the discord these topics (at least politics and religion) usually sow.

I'm a case in point. I became a convinced atheist when I was about 13 or 14 - and I remain the same 55 years later. I genuinely believe religion to be a waste of space but (apart from this one statement), I'm certainly not going to debate that here on Mudcat. It would go nowhere, so I don't bother - and I'm damned sure that the religious-minded people here are just as adamant as me. So what point is there in any debate?

My perhaps simplistic advice would be: if you can't debate the topic in a civilised manner, don't bother raising it in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:25 PM

I see that Thompson appears to have demonstrated that Keith was either ignorant or mendacious.

Why should we be nice to people like that?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:39 PM

Well I've just read Matthew 19 and Mark 10 (I can work out the context for myself, thank you, pete). There is no mention of marriage having to be between a man and a woman. It's just a bit of banter about divorce. Is that supposed to be your evidence that Jesus spoke against gay marriage, pete, or have you got a special edition that no-one else gets to see?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:50 PM

It was very badly drafted then.
It would have been much easier to just correct that.
You would not have needed a referendum.

Thanks for the advice ;)

Joe Offer, of course I don't want all discussion on the Bible suppressed; I love nothing better than a rousing debate on the meaning of Strait Is the Gate. What I want is for every thread not to be dragged into the single obsession of Bible-lovers. Have a separate thread for us.

Otherwise every thread becomes like the 46A bus, when you're liable to find someone buttonholing you to talk about the true meaning of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or the canons of the Elders of Zion. While I'm happy to talk about the former, at times, though not really about the latter - a step too far in loopiness for me - if a thread is started that's intended to talk about, say, the referendum on marriage equality, or, say, the vote for Scottish independence, or, say, the real meaning of the lyrics in The Maid of Aughrim, then that's what I want to talk about. Not the Bible. To have to talk about the Bible on these other threads, or page down, sighing, through the other strange obsessives' maunderings about it, annoys me.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:01 PM

Meanwhile in other news the Vatican declares the referendum result a defeat for humanity

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:08 PM

Well I'm very suspicious of the Bible, but I do want to know what makes believers tick. I appear to have hit on one of those Keith/Guardian/Geoffrey Wheatcroft moments, but with pete this time. He seems to be a bit of a Bible literalist, yet he takes apparently simple and transparent language and fashions it into words that were neither said nor, as far as I can glean, intended. That's quite interesting. One hopes it's not typical. I suspect it isn't. Anyway, I conclude that neither Jesus, if he existed, nor the gospel writers claiming to be quoting him, mentioned anything about marriage having to be between a man and a woman. And far be it from me to remind pete, a far greater Bible aficionado than myself, but one shouldn't really have to stretch beyond all reason the words of a man who enjoined that speech should be yea yea and nay nay.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 07:30 PM

Just watched a debate in the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and it seems the people who fought for the Yes vote are now turning their attention to changing the law on pregnancy termination in Ireland - the Pope will NOT be a happy man - god love 'im
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 May 15 - 12:01 AM

The Pope will take it in stride, Jim, as will most Catholics. But yeah, when Ireland and Poland legalize abortion, some Vatican diplomat will use his bully pulpit to decry a "defeat for humanity."

And I won't pay much attention to him.

I have to say that I can't be a supporter of abortion. I would much rather see population controlled by contraception. But as with gay marriage, this is a personal decision that should be made by the people involved - not by anybody else. I'm not really ready to concede many rights to the father in this situation, although it is good if he can be included in the decision.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:00 AM

It might be useful to differentiate between being "religious" and views / influence of a church and what they think they can tell people to set their moral compass by.

As Peter has just pointed out, the Vatican has called this a defeat for humanity. It I s possible to heap scorn and contempt on that corrupt festering criminal cess pit of a club without questioning someone's take on superstition.

This isn't about religion at all but it is certainly about those people and organisations who bastardise the faith of their believers to promote hatred, discrimination and bigotry.

Isn't it amazing that those who promote discrimination here seem to use a God concept to justify their shameful stance whilst those who rejoice common sense and decency make it clear they see medieval nonsense as irrelevant. Kind of confusing when the marketing for Jesus usually shows happy smiling people hugging each other.

Poor Joe. I really do see that you don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but it isn't half leaving a scummy tidemark these days..

"Defeat for humanity..." Jesus wept, as the ironic saying goes.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:15 AM

"I have to say that I can't be a supporter of abortion."
Not even in these circumstances?
Abortion is not just to control population - there are many reasons why it is both necessary and preferable
Your church, up to now, has denied access to any reliable form of women controlling their lives, using the crudest and most frightening threats to preventing them doing so - the end result has been over-population among the poorest, misery, illness and even the death of the mother on many occasions.
After careful consideration, most civilised nations have reached a humane and practical solution, yet the church remains adamant on the subject.
As far as the church is concerned, a woman's role is to produce babies, and the arguments used are not un-similar to those used to demonise homosexuality.
Hopefully, that will end in the foreseeable future in "Holy Ireland" - I certainly hope that it happens in my lifetime.
]t really isn't the business of a self-appointed sect of celibate male mystics to decide what takes place in the bedrooms of the world.
As with many of the arguments against same-sex marriage, the decision of the father is yet another red-herring fathers have as little say in producing a family as do mothers - decisions of whether to have children should be a matter for both without the intervention of the man in the collar.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 May 15 - 05:55 AM

Morality, religion, and politics can be great topics of fruitful conversation and discussion, provided all participants are really interested in learning something.

The word "debate" is used when the participants have chosen sides (usually by vested interests such as a party mandate) and merely want to convince readers or listeners who are still undecided. This seems to be the case with most Mudcat threads. In such a context, the best tactics is not to shout at each other, but to imagine those readers: will I make an impression of superior argumentation? --

The Old Testament, to be sure, leaves no doubt that sex between men is an "abomination". So is sex with animals (where women are also mentioned, in the third person - "thou" is always a man). As for same-sex marriage, David and Jonathan formed a highly praised "covenant" - whatever that meant.

The very notion of sexuality changes drastically with the times. The idea of a "sexual identity" would have been completely incomprehensible 300 years ago, let alone in Biblical times. Sex between men was (and is, in other cultures) often viewed as a form of onanism, sex between women as simply nonexistent by definition.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 15 - 06:47 AM

Quick Keith, Quick Terry, quick Ake, someone else to rant about. Shame none of them appear to be BME or adherents of a foreign religion, innit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32413502

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:33 AM

those who rejoice common sense and decency make it clear they see medieval nonsense as irrelevant. Kind of confusing when the marketing for Jesus usually shows happy smiling people hugging each other.

Some other forum presumably Musket.
Two of the three here posting from a Christian viewpoint, Joe and I, are both celebrating the result.

Only two here opposed gay marriage and only one of those on religious grounds.

You are just using this issue to continue your usual attacks on Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:35 AM

I see that Thompson appears to have demonstrated that Keith was either ignorant or mendacious.

Perhaps you could explain that statement Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:40 AM

Richard, your link is to a report on a group that raped very young children and babies.
Shame none of them appear to be BME or adherents of a foreign religion, innit?

I am disgusted that you assumed they would be BME.
And, what is a foreign religion Richard?

Why do you never just question or challenge what people actually say?
Because you can't presumably.
Some lawyer you are.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:45 AM

I don't think anyone supports abortion. It's not whether you support it, it's whether you acknowledge the right of all women to make unfettered decisions about their own bodies. Unfettered being the operative word. I should like to see abortion reduced to almost nil, by education, free contraception (along with non-moralising advice about it) and a striving for equality. In the meantime, whether a woman wants to keep her foetus is entirely a matter for her. The biggest champions of abortion are the big religions who preach that ignorance and sexual abstinence are desirable, and who counsel against contraception. They know exactly how to keep abortion rates high, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:49 AM

The Old Testament, to be sure, leaves no doubt that sex between men is an "abomination".

Chapter and verse, please. Incidentally, no-one in biblical times ever said "thou". That's someone's translation.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:58 AM

I fail to see what Richard's link has to do with the discussion?

These men are paedophiles, very ill and very dangerous.

They exist in all strata's of society. thankfully their crimes are exceedingly rare.

They are an aberration if I controlled the justice ministry, these people would be locked up in a secure psychiatric ward for life, or perhaps put out of their misery.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:00 AM

Quick Keith, Quick Terry, quick Ake, someone else to rant about. Shame none of them appear to be BME or adherents of a foreign religion, innit?

Now there is an example of your classic troll post. Thirty days in jail for you for that offense Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:03 AM

Incidentally, no-one in biblical times ever said "thou". That's someone's translation.

You are correct English was not spoken in Biblical times....how astute of you.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:12 AM

The thread title is ridiculous, a tiny proportion of 1.5% of Irish people who are homosexual, will take advantage of the new legislation, just like every other country which has adopted homosexual "marriage"......how has this changed things utterly?
The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, they have much more important things to contend with, like getting a job, bringing up a family and providing a proper standard of living.

All it has done is weaken the church, but the church brought much of its problems upon itself. by encouraging homosexuals into the priesthood through the celibacy rule.

If the church is to regain any credibility, the celibacy rule must be scrapped and married priests with young children taken on.
how can they say they protect family values when their priests are supposed to be celibate and a very large percentage are homosexual?

it looks hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:25 AM

""The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other,""

I suspect not so on the vote in Ireland, where the vote rate was healthy, and from reports, the folks on either side seemed really "tuned in" to the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:29 AM

"Westboro Baptist Church gets Ireland's flag wrong and declares it hates the Ivory Coast"

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/westboro-baptist-church-gets-irelands-flag-wrong-declares-it-hates-ivory-coast-1502854

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:47 AM

"Incidentally, no-one in biblical times ever said "thou". That's someone's translation."

You are correct English was not spoken in Biblical times....how astute of you.

If you had read the post that prompted my intervention you would have understood the point behind it. Instead, whoever you are, you choose to troll. As you have nothing to say, I suggest you say it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:51 AM

"how has this changed things utterly?"
You reall don't get it do you - or you choose to ignore it!
This vote has broken the stranglehold of the church - hopefully it will no longer have the controlling say on fundamental questions on which it has no expertise and no consensus of support.
It is true that homosexuals still have a long way to overcome bigotry such as that expressed in virtually all your postings on the subject, in order to win full recognition as human beings, but the removal of the church from the equation is a major step.
By the way, the link between celibacy and homosexuality has long been dismissed and that of clerical abuse and homosexuality has never been an issue (just as same-gender sex in prisons has never been regarded as homosexuality)
"Joe and I, are both celebrating the result."
Apparently, little more than lip service, particularly in your case.
Joe equated homosexuality with Neo-Nazism, and you with paedophelia and incest.
Despite your claims to the contrary, on the discussions both of the bakery being found guilty of bigotry and on the referendum result, you have shown your opposition to gay marriage and to homosexuality in general.
Sorry - go read what you have written in full.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:16 AM

I never at any time said that there was a link between "celibacy" and "homosexuality".....exactly the opposite IMO

It is a well documented fact that there are large numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood, studies range from 15% to 50%...a figure of around 30% is generally recognised as being accurate.

It has been explained to me here that this situation had been allowed to continue for purely economic reasons, as it is cheaper to employ a single man than a married man with a wife and family.

What you have written regarding the weakening of the church, bears out all I have been saying about the real agenda of you "liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:20 AM

My understanding is the King James version of the Bible, which many use, was translated in the early 17th century - to an archaic form of modern English that was used in that period. In the last 400 years, the English language has changed significantly. But, I suspect most everyone here has that knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith, don't be faux-naif. You know perfectly well that IF those convicted had been BME or Muslim you would have been ranting away about the evils of those sorts of people. And you Ake. And you Terribilis.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:27 AM

Note: the use of the terms "well documented fact" and "generally recognized" are "most often" not what they "seem so be". IMO, they frequently fall under the same catagory as the often-used term "of coursetit is true, it's based on common knowledge".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:28 AM

"The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, they have much more important things to contend with, like getting a job, bringing up a family and providing a proper standard of living.

All it has done is weaken the church, but the church brought much of its problems upon itself. by encouraging homosexuals into the priesthood through the celibacy rule.

If the church is to regain any credibility, the celibacy rule must be scrapped and married priests with young children taken on.
how can they say they protect family values when their priests are supposed to be celibate and a very large percentage are homosexual?"   
    there is some sense in this statement, although I am not sure about the term vast majority[ without statistical evidence]I would have used the term a sizeable proportion.
jim if someone has homosexual sex they have had homosexual sex, to say that they did not have gay sex because they were in a single sex prison is nonsense, it could be argued that they are bisexual, bisexual means being both homosexual and hetrosexual, it does not mean they do not enjoy homosexual sex.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:44 AM

It seems that many people are inordinately concerned with the sex lives of others. Gayness--if there is such a word--is determined long before we are born. See "We Are Our Brains" by DF Swaab.

Stating an opinion about gays or hereros or bis is one thing. Stating that opinion while ignoring or perverting the facts is another. But then we all know that opinions are like arseholes: everybody's got one.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 27 May 15 - 10:15 AM

Re Ake's comment,"The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other,"
Click here

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 May 15 - 10:35 AM

We've now been denounced by the Vatican and the Westboros. Happiness!

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 10:48 AM

"by encouraging homosexuals into the priesthood through the celibacy rule."
THere is no evidence to suggest that the priesthood encourages homosexuality, or that there is a greater or lesser percentage of homosexuals inside the church as there are outside.
"it does not mean they do not enjoy homosexual sex."
Nor does it mean they are either gay or straight - it means they took advantage of what was at hand to fulfill a basic need
The same applies to sailors (or even sheep-farmers on isolated farms, if you wish ro reduce it to its most basic)
If you ever feel like going to Wormwood Scrubs and telling all those who indulge in same-sex gratification, that they are gay, please let me know well in advance so I can get tickets - wouldn't miss it for the world!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:08 AM

There's no evidence because no one's going to answer such a survey truthfully.

I have been told that there's a high level of homosexuality among priests and nuns because you're not looked at funny for not being married; in most professions, lack of a spouse isn't an advantage if you want promotion, but for obvious reasons it's not a disadvantage if you're a priest or nun.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:20 AM

jim,
Joe equated homosexuality with Neo-Nazism, and you with paedophelia and incest.
Neither statement is true.

Despite your claims to the contrary, on the discussions both of the bakery being found guilty of bigotry and on the referendum result, you have shown your opposition to gay marriage and to homosexuality in general.

No I have not.
I have always supported gay marriage going back years and have no issues with homosexuality.

Richard,
IF those convicted had been BME or Muslim you would have been ranting away about the evils of those sorts of people

Not true Richard.
Over the last few years there have been a number of gangs of mostly BP heritage men convicted of child grooming and rape, none of which I have posted a word about.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:30 AM

"I have been told...."
Which sums up the situation perfectly
Whatever we "know" about homosexuality in the church is based on non-information and assumption
Thanks to prejudice and persecution, we don't know how many homosexuals there are - full stop.
If that is the situation in "real life" how on earth can we rely on sweeping statements such ad Dick's and Ake's
Once you start t indulge in such flights of fancy, you ivevitably end up claiming all homosexuals are, priests are... potential rapists, paedophiles.... whatever (all these suggestions have been made at one time or another - dangerous ground)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:43 AM

The latest book by Kristen Powers, well known for her liberal views... Name of the book, 'How the Left is Killing Free Speech'...look it up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:45 AM

" 'How the Left is Killing Free Speech'."
As liberal as you can get, as far as I can judge!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:51 AM

or.... "How the Right is Freeing Killer Speech" ... 😶

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:55 AM

"You can't talk about fucking, people say you're dirty. But if you talk about killing somebody, that's cool."― Richard Pryor

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 12:38 PM

Note: the use of the terms "well documented fact" and "generally recognized" are "most often" not what they "seem so be". IMO, they frequently fall under the same catagory as the often-used term "of coursetit is true, it's based on common knowledge".

They are weasel words. Look it up!

I can't say that I get worked up about what kind of sex (if any) prisoners, priests and nuns get up to among themselves. My only criterion for getting worked up would be if I suspected that the sex was non-consensual or exploitative in some way. Otherwise, it's none of my business and I don't find it very interesting. It doesn't seem to inform our discussion in any meaningful way.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 May 15 - 01:04 PM

My words were
"there is some sense in this statement, although I am not sure about the term vast majority[ without statistical evidence]I would have used the term a sizeable proportion.
jim if someone has homosexual sex they have had homosexual sex, to say that they did not have gay sex because they were in a single sex prison is nonsense, it could be argued that they are bisexual, bisexual means being both homosexual and hetrosexual, it does not mean they do not enjoy homosexual sex"
I fail to see what sweeping statement i have made, I have stated facts, if someone has had homosexual sex, they have had homosexual sex, but could be bisxual, that is enjoy both heterosexual and homosexual sex. if they enjoyed homosexual sex because heterosexual was not available they still enjoyed it.
I must make it clear that i am in favour of gay equality.
however that does not alter my opinion that Jims analysis is inaccurate

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 01:46 PM

From WIKI.

"

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who identify as gay priests,[12][not in citation given] although the John Jay Report reported that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s",[13] and available figures for homosexual priests in the United States range from 15–58%.[12][14] A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that 9 percent of priests identified themselves as homosexual, and 6 percent as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side." Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order, 17 percent of the priests said "definitely," and 27 percent said "probably." 53 percent of priests who were ordained in the last 20 years (1982-2002) affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[14]

Anonymous studies have also suggested a prevalence of homosexual leanings in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Studies by Wolf and Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the United States of America.[15] Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, "It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."[16]

Anecdotal press reports from anonymous sources suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population.[17][18] It is[vague] theorized part of the over-representation might be caused by heterosexual priests leaving in order to marry. But it may also have much to do with the Church offering a perceived 'sanctuary' for many men living in societies where homosexuality is criminalised or shunned, especially reducing the pressure by families to marry and have children.[citation needed]

One report suggested that since the mid-1980s Roman Catholic priests in the United States were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population; with most of the cases contracted through same-sex relations, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates. A followup study done the next year by the Kansas City Star found AIDS-related death rate among priests was "more than six times" the rate among the general population in the 14 states studied.[19]

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: BigDaddy
Date: 27 May 15 - 01:55 PM

It's always iffy and unfortunate when basic civil rights are put to popular vote. For that matter, it's ridiculous that courts have to weigh in at all in what is basically a contract agreed upon by two consenting adults. I'm glad this went the way it did, but if we had voted on interracial marriage here in the States fifty years ago, it would likely still be illegal. There are far too many cases throughout history where majority rule has been a bad thing. Think Reagan, Bushes, Nixon, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 02:18 PM

Good post.