Previous   Next

Should the Vatican ban gay men from becoming priests?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on September 23, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Michael Morley

“Like any other institution, the Vatican shouldn’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.”

Photo of Tiffany Gammon

“No, because they take a vow of celibacy. If they stay true to that, then it shouldn’t matter. They would basically be classifying all homosexual men as pedophiles.”

Photo of Patrick Roberts

“No. The Vatican has much more pressing issues to address than the sexuality of their priests.”

Photo of Kristina Biggs

“I don’t think so. A person’s sexual orientation shouldn’t have anything to do with their status in the church.”

Related story


enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

There would be no need for a "witch hunt", for it is only the physical act of immorality or the public or private expression of views contrary to the Bible that would cause their case to be brought to the attention of the hierarchy. Men accused of such things would need to appear before a church court to determine whether they are repentant or defiant. The church would then make the decision of what to do from there.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

Celibacy is a very old misunderstanding of some of the writings of Paul and/or a misremembering of traditions of the early Church. The Lord has not ever required this of any man and it is contrary to his designs for all men and should be done away with. However, the Lord has made strict demands that sexual relations are to be only between a husband and wife.

lunacydetector 12 years, 5 months ago

clarification....i think they (the Church) should be allowed to do whatever they please.

it was the Catholic Church that built the first hospitals, started the first universities, preserved ancient books and transcribed knowledge, and cared for the poor.

if the Pope says no homosexuals can be priests, it is a decision that Catholics can live with. after all, the stricter a church the larger the congregation. it will bring more people into the flock because pop-culture morals don't work. since the united states has been in a moral decline since the 1960's, i don't think the Pope gives a rip what americans think of his decisions.

GreenEyedBlues 12 years, 5 months ago

Posted by LunacyDetector: it needs to be said that while most gay priests are not molesters [it remains true that most of the molesters are gay.] this is a fact that cannot be ignored.

^^^Cite examples, please.^^^

Those opposed to homosexuality use this as their #1 excuse.

IF priests are celibate anyway, what difference does it make?

And if they were to restrict gays from the clergy, how would they weed them out? Sounds like a witch hunt.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

neopolss: Although I have tried off and on to learn Hebrew, I have not successfully done so, yet. Could you share the passages you are referring to?

KsjKC 12 years, 5 months ago


Yeah. Hats. Most of what I do is motivated by the hat choice.

Hats. Yeah. ;)

hawkrew 12 years, 5 months ago

It's a church, it should be able to do what it wants to. Although it's been said, they are supposed to be celebate, so it shouldn't matter.

...but in the case of sexual abuse, priests or anyone should not be held above the law and protected by the church. They can repent just as well serving their time for their crime. It's bad enough when it's attempted to be covered up.

neopolss 12 years, 5 months ago

How about addressing the issue. Banning gays has nothing to do with banning pedophiles! They are two different things! Maybe I am missing something, but perfectly straight men have been abusing boys - that's not gay - it's a pedophile.

How about instead of keeping these priests above the law, and relocating them, that they begin to be prosecuted for their crimes. How about telling the church to stop protecting and hiding offenders. Isn't that a crime as well?

enochville, if you are accusing homosexuality of being a sin against God, I suggest a rereading of some of those passages, only, try them in hebrew. The english translation is mostly to blame for all of the confusion.

hawkrew 12 years, 5 months ago


Hmmm...I'm going to take the over on this for numbers: 182 posts.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

We're lookin' at 200+ posts today TOB. Easily.

nlf78 12 years, 5 months ago

I'm NOT Catholic but considering how out of hand the cover-up that the Church did with child thought - Do it at your own risk!

KsjKC 12 years, 5 months ago

Really important things first:

I wanted to say there'd be 230 posts on this topic, but I'll go with 185-190...

NOW: Poll Topic... One of these days enough of the old and immovable fossilized conservatives in the Catholic Church will...well, die--and at that point someone will realize that if priests were not held to a vow of celibacy (and the overwhelming supporting THAT was a huge mistake and does little to no good as far as keeping sex off the minds of the clerics) then maybe the priests could focus more on God and less than getting their f-f-f-f-f-f-freak on...

By the way, I am not Catholic. However, I DO have sex, making me eminently qualified to discuss this--;)

christie 12 years, 5 months ago

In all fairness, they should ban Heterosexuals as well.

That should do the trick don't you think?

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

This doesn't surprise me...

...isn't the Catholic Church in dire need of finding those willing to serve for the Catholic Church? Perhaps it is their radical views that are isolating those away?!!?


Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

Darn you OTB!!!!!

You beat me to the post again!!!!

lunacydetector 12 years, 5 months ago

i think they should be allowed to do whatever they please.

the majority of priests involved in the sexual scandal were abusing post-pubescent males. the priests were also homosexuals. it needs to be said that while most gay priests are not molesters it remains true that most of the molesters are gay. this is a fact that cannot be ignored.

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

I guess they will have to have some type of loop hole, grandfather clause then.

My money is on over 150.

Richard Heckler 12 years, 5 months ago

No to discrimination.

Have heterosexuals ever molested children? Heterosexual males do participate in rape I do believe.

cliff 12 years, 5 months ago

After so many millions of dollars spent on law suits regarding sexual relations with altar boys by their priests, there must be some corrective action taken. Who can afford to continue things the way they have been? Men took vows and did not keep them. Others took vows and did keep them. There are very few cases of priests having sex with women, therefore, the problem is centered on the homosexual activities, being sex with the altar boys.

Of course the church must look at banning homosexual behavior and homosexual people from the ranks of the priesthood. Too many lives have been affected and too much money is paid out.

Psychology has all but admitted it cannot change sexual behavior through counseling, whatever form that behavior might take. That is why we keep sexual predators locked up long after they serve their sentences. Therapy does not change the person whether addicted to pornography, having sexual affairs, engaging in prostitution, or any other form of sexual behavior -- which includes homosexuality.

If homosexual activity between the mentor/priest and the young boys is a problem, that priest must go. Preventative action must also be considered, that being the refusal to admit a homosexual person into the ranks of the royal priesthood.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

I am not Catholic, but I do know that they claim to be the Church of Christ, and any church claiming to be the Church of Christ should not allow men into the priesthood who are either actively practicing homosexuality, preach an acceptance of homosexual relations, or have not repented of any immorality (hetero- or homo-) in their past. Men who are struggling with lustful thoughts of any kind, need to purify themselves and be actively trying to overcome that before being considered for the clergy.

Priests are supposed to represent Christ and do the things that Christ would do if He were in their place. They need to be Christ-like, and show by example how to follow Christ and become one with Him in thoughts, words, and deeds. Now, no man is perfect, but no priest should be struggling with immorality or publicly express views that are in defiance of the teachings of the New Testament.

minority_view 12 years, 5 months ago

cliff: I am a psychologist and psychologists have successfully treated people with homosexual desires. We used to include it in our Diagnostical Manual as a disorder. We, as a field have moved away from that and there is huge pressure to accept that homosexuality is hard wired and cannot be changed. I am familiar with all the literature that has been produced with the agenda to show that homosexuals are biologically made to ever remain as homosexuals. My belief is a minority among psychologists, but I believe that the research does not support that claim. I am going to awaken the ire of the whole homosexual community in stating that, but that is my belief.

I am not saying people choose homosexuality, but I am saying it is possible through choices and behaviors to get out. It will always remain a temptation, especially in times of stress, but you can move far, far away from it and enjoy a rich, satisfying life as a heterosexual.

People learn their sexual attractions, but for the most part don't choose them. They are learned and people can learn new orientations. There is a genetic component, but it is likely to be a vulnerablity to develop homosexual desires rather than a strict determination. After all, we have cases of identical twins where one becomes homosexual and the other does not. Some people are attracted to no one, but children; others to no one but those who are bound. People develop fetishes for high heels or underwear. These are all learned and can be unlearned if there is motivation to do it. The reason psychologists have failed to "cure" pedophiles is that they see no reason to change. The torturous techniques that we have used fail to address the real issues.

Manson 12 years, 5 months ago

Catholic's can require whatever they want of it's priests. Wehter it's "fair" or not is not a non-Catholic's concern. Second the Catholic's believe homosexuality is a sin therefore making leading by example ( a priority of a priest) kinda difficult to do. Not only is this a Cathloic position but the majority of christion denominations feel that homosexuality is a sin. As for me... I could care less what goes on behind closed doors but if you are planning to be a priest dont be gay. It will only cause problems for you and your congregation. Choose another denomination that serves your sexual orientation. We can't force the Catholics to conform to OUR personal beliefs no more than Bush should force the citizens to abide by his personal beliefs. Let them be.

bankboy119 12 years, 5 months ago

Yes the Vatican should ban gay men from becoming priests, it is completely against Church teachings. I'm not Catholic but agree w/enoch. Oh and by the way Neo read in the Old Testament as well about Sodom and Gamorrah....the Lord destoryed them because of homosexuality along with a multitude of other sins.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

Slinging around slurs like "homophobic" does not help the discussion. Up until that point no one was demeaning people who held either view. It is possible to have sincere appreciation and interest in the welfare of someone who has homosexual tendencies or engages in homosexual behaviors and still believe that their actions are a sin and their attractions need to redirected.

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

minority_view: So you think gays can learn to be non-gay. Brilliant. That is similar to the old way of teaching left handed people to write with their right hand. Oh sure, in times of stress (?) the urge to switch back to a lefty would be there, but they can learn to have perfectly fulfilling lives as righties.

Or is it you just don't like homos. Personally, I think thou protests too much.

I had to post twice by the way, because I already put my money on the over line. (I'm guessing around 213 today, 'cause people love to hate gays.)

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

Homosexuality refers to your sexual orientation whether you act on it or not. As far as the policy goes with the Catholic church, and I differ from it somewhat as stated earlier, is that if you are a homosexual, you cannot be a priest.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

I would have to agree with bankboy and enoch. The Catholic church as well as any other church that holds the bible as their authoritative scriptures should ban homosexuals from being clergy. You can't be a man of the cloth and teach from the authoritative word and have your lifestyle fly in the face of it. That would be the ultimate definition of a hypocrite.

On the celebate topic with the priests, I would agree with Enoch again on saying that this is completely not in line with what the word of God says. The word says if a man can't withstand his temptation with a woman, then it would be better to marry her. However, if he can withstand any temptation then he should remain single, because a single man can focus purely on the Lord's work, but a married man has to take care of his wife as well.

meggers 12 years, 5 months ago

Minority view: "It will always remain a temptation, especially in times of stress, but you can move far, far away from it and enjoy a rich, satisfying life as a heterosexual."

Are you implying that one cannot enjoy a rich, satisfying life as a homosexual?

It appears as though you are advocating nothing short of brainwashing. I hope you tell your homosexual clients that up front. Perhaps you should just put a pride flag with a slash through it on your office door.

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

enochville: I believe you intend well and are sincere in your post, so I would like to address your comment seriously. First off, as a non-Christian I don't believe in your idea of "sin." That isn't to say I am without ethics or a personal sense of morality. Sins are not universally held -- for example, I can imagine that you probably don't agree in all things Muslims call "sins." I know from past posts, especially this past Sunday, that you are a Christian. Now, if I were to say to you (and I never would say this, by the way) that Christianity can be cured and that I have known several people raised in the church who have learned to "redirect their attractions" to a healthier lifestyle away from the church, wouldn't you feel as if I were attempting to demean you personally? Isn't this the same logic that you applied to homosexuals? If I said to you, love the church but hate the church goer, wouldn't you be offended?

So, I feel justified in using a term like homophobia in a discussion about banning (the dreaded BAN word!!!) gay people from doing anything straight people are allowed to do. I truly feel that homophobia is at the very heart of the issue. Plus, I find the word play of "homophobia is queer" to be quite fun.

I now have to stay off here for a while, otherwise people will think I'm just trying to drive up the numbers to collect the money from TOB. (TOB: You are the one holding the markers on the over/under line, correct?)

baptista 12 years, 5 months ago

What should be "banned" is the Church itself.

The major tenet of Christ's teaching is "love thy neighbor as thyself." Unfortunately, humans since have amended this simple instruction with all kinds of exceptions for views and behaviors they don't understand. These exceptions are then implemented to divide us, discriminate against others -- mainly to facilitate the glorification of ourselves -- and to cement the very caste-like hierarchy that Christ was working to destroy.

The bastardization of Christ's intentions should disgust the religious among us. However, it instead fuels their fire and makes them feel more important, more holy, and more deserving of God's love.

This disgusts me.

I have no doubt that if Christ were to return today that he would run screaming from any modern church. Not because homosexuals, single mothers or any other group hated by the Christian right are allowed within its walls, but because of the "righteous" discriminators at its head.

sunflower_sue 12 years, 5 months ago

jonas, you left us hanging yesterday. Was it "Blazing Saddles?"

OMB, how goes Rita?

Gay priests...well, I'm not Catholic, BUT....

We are all sinners. Would it be right for us to ban all priests because they sin? Could we tell our Pastors they couldn't preach because they sin in other ways? I think the important thing is that they spread the word of Christ. Granted, you wouldn't want your priest to flaunt his/her sin. Very tricky. Good luck with that one!

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

I think to go along with baptista so eloquently wrote is, it isn't up to us to judge. It is our job as human beings to live, love and be happy...not exclude, discriminate and hate.

Well said baptista...I couldn't have put it better myself.

muffaletta 12 years, 5 months ago

I'm sure that plymouth congregation church was glad to have weeded out the hypocrites among them.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

baptista: the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is the second great commandment; the first was to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength". And if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. These two commandments, if truly understood, never come in conflict with each other, because God loves all of His children so very much. But, we should not confuse loving our neighbor as accepting their evil behaviors as good. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Christ came to save men from their sins, not to save men in their sins.

Now, we sin and are not justified if we hate our neighbor. God will reject all those that do. We also cannot judge our neighbor, but we can and should judge between good and bad behaviors. And there are consequences for those behaviors in regards to church participation. Those consequences are dictated by God not man, at least that is the case in His true Church.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

It isn't our job to judge enochville...I don't get what you don't get about that. It isn't our job to provide those consequences for "sinners"...especially when those "sins" are buzz words.

Back in 'da' day, when black 'folks' were highly controversial...and in some areas still are...MANY churches did not open their doors to them and still don't. How do you justify that? In 15 years are we going to be shaking our heads at ourselves for not opening the door to people that have different sexual orientation?

Discrimination is wrong, no matter what religious judgement or spin you put on it...period.

muffaletta 12 years, 5 months ago

Thank you, enochville, for a perfect example of twisted religious thinking and basically meaningless rhetoric.

It is not your job to judge.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 5 months ago

I don't know what number this is!

Gootsie better today.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

Should the Vatican ban gay men from becoming priests? Yes, of course. Why? My question is, why would a gay man want to become a part of an institution that preaches that homosexual behavior is a sin? Whether we want to admit it or not, God's Word, the Bible in no uncertain terms states that homosexual activity is a sin against God. neoplss - I would be interested if you could give us the passages that have been changed from the original hebrew. Also my understanding is that the N. Test. was written in Greek. Am I wrong? People who do not believe that the Bible is God's Word, have no problem with homosexuality, I think. beatrice says she has ethics and a moral code. Where did that come from, beatrice? Who guided you to that code? I am not being critical, bea, just wondering how you came to believe what you do. enochville, once again you shine through with some well chosen words. All churches, not just the Catholic, should not admit gay men or women to the clergy. On what grounds? How can a practicing 'sinner' be expected to preach or teach on a Bible passage that strictly contradictes their chosen lifestyle. Yes, chosen, I say. Everyone chooses their lifestyle. I could choose to commit adultery but I believe that is wrong and against the teachings of the God I dearly love.
This is a monster of a subject and as posters we will certainly not solve anything. We just express our humble opinions, right? These are my opinions, for what they are worth.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

beatrice: It would be "love the church-goer, hate the church" for your analogy to work. I understand how it can be painful for people to strongly disapproval of your behavior, especially if you have tied up your identity in what you do, or partially define who you are by what you do, and that is the thing that is being judged. I am moved by that suffering. I belong to a church that historically has not been well accepted by my fellow Christians, and I have borne much hatred for my beliefs, and yet, I understand where they are coming from.

We cannot shield men from the demands of God. We cannot soften the expectations he has for us. He requires obedience to His commandments from us. And it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor. To be obedient to our God we must preach repentance to all the world. Those who are not living the commandments will take the message to be hard. I make no apologies for the truth, but only for my own errors or unkindnesses. People need to be warned of the judgments that will befall them if they don't repent.

Now, since homosexuality is a sin and God requires us to repent, then it must be possible to change, and the idea that it is impossible is a falsehood. I think the most damnable philosophy taught today is that homosexuals can't change because when someone believes that several logical conclusions follow that completely prevent a person from ever entertaining the thought that this is something they should change and it stands in the way of them ever even trying to repent. The death of agency precludes change, and where there is no change, there is no repentance, and where there is no repentance, there is no salvation.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

The Bible really is gay-friendly and affirming. Here, in direct language, we find an alternative reading of what the Bible says regarding homosexuality and gay relationships.

For instance, Jonathan, the Old Testament Israelite, was probably not only gay but in love with the same man (David) as his sister. Both had a marriage ceremony of life commitment to King David, in the Biblical account. But David declared he loved Jonathan the most. Ruth proclaimed undying love and commitment to her dear Naomi, and the words were so powerful that people have repeated the same vows at the alter of heterosexual weddings ever since. Other same-sex commitments were known in the early Church as well.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

megorama and muffaletta: Did you not see that I said it is not our place to judge people? It is the place for all of us to come to know what behaviors are right or wrong; this is judging the behavior. If someone can't tell what is right or wrong, they will never be able to follow God in doing what is right.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

megorama: to twist those stories into gay stories...It is as if you don't believe in close friendships between people of the same gender. You are not justified in interpreting those passages that way.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

So, enochville, you have taken it upon yourself to condemn and descriminate in the name of Christ. How very bold yet frighteningly arrogant. Get over yourself and your misguided interpretations of what is and what should be. You are a disgrace to Christians at best.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

AND just so you are not justified in telling me I am not justified. Again, GET OVER YOURSELF.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

It is simply IGNORANT to suggest that homosexuality was not acceptable and "normal" in early Church times....both Christian and non-Christian doctrines explicitly express these behaviors as ordinary.

Let's examine who Jesus' friends were...a prostitute, a thief, a liar (the list goes on)...yet you (those who condemn gay people) feel like you do so in righteousness. Essentially, you are saying you are better than Christ. I can't imagine how someone could look in the mirror, state they are a Christian and then declare themselves better than Christ.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

Megorama, the love you are referring to is the love of Christ that should be in us. Don't try to prevert the Word of God by twisting it. That is exactly what Gene Robinson did with Exodus, completely interpreted that out of the context.

Christ say go and sin no more after he had healed and forgiven those he touched on his earthly ministry. He didn't say you are forgiven so you can sin some more. Paul addressed this way of thinking in Galatians as well as other books. Christ's love and the church's love is unconditional but it isn't a license to live however you want. The main problem with homosexuality as a sin and those who continue to live it, is their lifestyle. When you accept a sin and consider it to be morally correct, then you don't repent and ask for forgiveness and try to change. This is the same for adulteresses that commit adultery and continue to without ever trying to live a Christ like life of being sin free. If you let Christ rule in your life then you won't have this problem because Christ/Holy Spirit is your spiritual man and can't sin, only the natural man can sin. This is the man which most of the world is living by today. If the church doesn't prohibit homosexual priests, then they will not consider it wrong and never want to repent because they will interpret the scriptures in a more figurative way and lead a whole congregation astray. The penalty for teachers is much higher than for students in the kingdom of God, because they are responsible for those they teach. The church should step up and do what is right here. The catholic church has some unbiblical rituals they go through, but I have a feeling that this decision will break them and the communion with God if they endorse the homosexual behavior.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

Christ came to save the world not to let it continue its course. Enochville is not telling you that you are not justified, but that you are taking liberties to interpret the scriptures to twist it into a homosexual interpretation. Jesus' friends were as you listed, but the theif recognized his deity and that his life was no good and sinful and that he wanted to be in Christ's grace, that is why Christ told him he would be in paradise with him. Christ extends His grace to those who desire it and God's approval. The prostitute changed her ways as well as the others that you listed.

hawkrew 12 years, 5 months ago

valid points, enoch & craigers, valid points.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 5 months ago

Alright! Someone finally CAPITALIZED THEIR WORDS! I may have to say 250 posts now.

My thinking is that even though a mechanic may prefer a Toyota, they could still service a Saab.

And that's all I have to say about that, except to agree that they are supposed to be celibate. Why does it matter?

GreenEyedBlues 12 years, 5 months ago

Why aren't people hosting crusades against divorcees or nonvirgin brides?

I guess homosexuals are just the moral scapegoats of the moment...

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

Yes, gays are the hate-trend of the moment. Give it time, nonvirgin brides will have their 5 minutes of fame too.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

I'm surprised habanero's comments have gone this long, uncensored.

Congrats habanero! Perhaps David Ryan is on an extended coffeebreak.

(P.S. The name David Ryan is a perfect "big brother" name, isn't it?!!?)

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

hawkrew 12 years, 5 months ago

TOB- Throw some more movie quotes out there, that was fun.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

The irony of habanero's comment(s) and today's On the Street question.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

TOB--definitely not at the wheel!!!

Hey, no bible verses today. Yet.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

megorama - you talk a lot of nonsense. Gays are not the hate-trend of the moment. There is more tolerance for gays now than at any other time in history. The bashing that some of them receive in this day and age is nothing compared to ages past. You may be young, and not too much of a student of history, but believe me, gays are much safer than they were. Your story of David and Jonathan has been used before by those wishing to defend homo/behavior and is old hat. To say that all love between people of the same sex is homosexual is nonsense. I have a sister whom I dearly love, is that sexual, I think not. I also have lady friends who are very dear to me and I am in no way gay. Do you not have a friend of your own sex whom you dearly love. Sorry if you don't. It is to be treasured. You would do well to read and heed the words of craigers and enochville. They speak words of wisdom.

David Ryan 12 years, 5 months ago

As it states in the Terms of Use: "More than likely, you will read a posting on Reader Reaction or On the Street before anyone on the staff does."

Watching whether or not people hold themselves to the rules of behavior and decorum they willingly agreed to abide by is only one of the things everyone at World Online does.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

You are ignorant if you think there is common acceptance for gay people. Have you not read the posts?

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

Perhaps not common "acceptance," but thankfully, at least, common tolerance.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 5 months ago

It must have been removed. It needed to be. And you are right TOB. Quantity, not quality, when it comes to filiblogbusters.

And if all else fails, CAPITALIZE THE WORDS!!!

Topside 12 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

Tolerance is reserved for those too scared to accept. Who might be contagious!!?!?!?!

hawkrew 12 years, 5 months ago

Right on Ms_Canada

Where is avjiamboredatworkandwanttosomethingfunmlk?

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

But only if they are smoking in establishments afterhours and/or talking on cell phones while driving, right?!!?

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

That would be another interesting On the Street question:

If you saw Jesus driving and talking on a cell phone, with whom was he having a phone conversation?

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

I missed the Habanero posts. Would somebody please give me a hint at what was missed? How about a sounds like ...

David R: What other things do people at World Online do, besides drinking the blood kittens, of course?

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

habanero posts were sexually explicit and basically told you where it feels good to put 'it'

GreenEyedBlues 12 years, 5 months ago

MS_Canada, Just because someone shares/supports what you believe in doesn't necessarily make them WISE.

Any idiot can sit around all day and regurgitate passages from the bible and Billy Graham.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

OK Jayhawk226 - here is a Bible verse from Roman 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." There is more but that satisfies the need for a Bible quote today, does it not? :o) Someone used the word biggot up above. Am I or anyone else a biggot because I choose to believe every word of what I believe to be the Word of God. If I were to pick and choose different passages of the Bible to believe or disbelieve then I would be a hypocrite. Now then does anyone know the true meaning of hypocrite? Look it up. Also look up biggot. There are laws in your country and in mine, we are to follow them all. We are not to pick and choose. Just so with the laws of God. Jesus commanded us to obedience to His Word if we truly love Him. And because Chritians attempt to do this, we are scorned and reviled and silly things are said about us. Do you know what it is called when "everyone does what is right in his own eyes" Anarchy. Do we want that? I think not.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

Thank you for the verse ms_canada! We made it through 1/2 a day without one.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

You are right, when cities/states implemented rules for black people to drink at separate fountains, they were right. You are so smart!!!! :)

Just because something is a RULE or you interpreted a bible passage in a certain way to probably justify something in your life, it doesn't make it right. In fact, when something absolutely "makes sense" that is when you should question it.

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

enochville: "love the church-goer, hate the church" If that works better for you, fine. You also state "your behavior ... your identity in what you do ... who you are ... what you do." FYI: I am straight, and married nearly 20 years now.

ms_c: Hello, how are you dear? To respond to your question, I came to have my view point after many years of living, including many years spent in the Southern Baptist church. I now embrace life, not myths. Homosexuality has always been around, has been observed in other species of animals, and someone deciding it is sinful isn't going to make it go away. That is where I come from.

TOB: "pretend they are morally superior to anyone that disagrees with them." I'm sorry, but I don't pretend.

Topside 12 years, 5 months ago

I'd like to thank the LJW and others who removed my post from this morning. They just don't want to hear the truth.

fundamental 12 years, 5 months ago

well, well, well. What a great topic. While, legally, the Catholic Church, being a private (if worldwide) organization, can do whatever they want according to the wishes of the members who make up the leadership of the church, the question is not can they, but should they? If the leadership of the church feels that gay men should not become priests, they have every right to deny outwardly or (and this is sure to ruffle some feathers) suspected homosexual men the right to be priests. But, again, should they? The answer lies in the church's interpretation of the Bible, not your interpretation, and not my interpretation. Because the Catholic Church purports to follow the teachings of the Bible, they are, by their own admission, bound to its teachings. Of course, there are conflicting opinions on what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, but clearly the Catholic church has chosen to interpret those passages in a way not favorable to gays and lesbians.

As almost everyone has said at some point on this post today, I am not Catholic. I cannot speak for them (not that I would want to speak for a billion people). But how a church that doesn't even allow women to have significant leadership roles surprises anybody by not allowing gay priests is beyond me.

The bottom line here is an issue of consistency. There is little doubt that the Catholic church has done a (understatement alert) poor job of policing its priests when it comes to child molestation and other acts of perversion. My wish is that they pursued those monsters with the same intensity and vigor they seem to possess toward denying gays a place in the leadership of the church. I know it's a lot to ask, but shouldn't we expect more?

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

megorama: thanks for the feedback. I'm familiar with those spots.

(Just padding the numbers TOB, because I got in early when the over/under was still at 150!)

Topside 12 years, 5 months ago

BTW- I didn't even talk about the days topic. I got 10 on the over. Nothin' angries up the blood around Larryville like the pro-anti gay debate.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

I believe I am the 100th post of the day!! Yes!!!

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

beatrice: I am sorry. I should have used the word "one" instead of "you". That is how I intended it. I wasn't trying to say anything about you in particular.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

megorama - what you say about man made laws is correct. There have been many bad man made laws and most of them have been changed over the course of time and thank goodness the one you spoke of was changed. Man is fallible, not so with God. But listen, this whole discussion is really quite pointless, you have a set mind and you will not be persuaded otherwise, so there you have it. beatrice - thanks for the answer, I guess I will just go happily on believing in those "myths" :o) and I will defend your right to believe as you do while still trying to change your mind dear. :o) And I feel somewhat confident that you will not mind too much.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

Man is still fallible with God. Jesus help bridge that...but without or without God/Jesus/Holy Toast, whatever, we suck...why make it worse by making people feel bad?

neopolss 12 years, 5 months ago

ms_canada, you are right in that the new testament is greek, the old testament is hebrew. For reasons unknown, homosexuality is one of the few passages of Bible that people take to heart, yet the passages that often referred to other actions (such as the role of women), are largely ignored. I tend to disagree with picking and choosing which parts of the Bible one will follow. It seems more appropriate that times do change, and society has changed in the past 2000 years. Anyway, here's the explanation:

The Bible, the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the original Greek of the New Testemant, does not, when correctly translated with the appropriate historical footnotes, condemn homosexuality. Far from it, it actual only ever mentions homosexuality in reference to pagan rituals, prostitution, and pedastry.

The Greek word from the new testament which has been translated, as of late, into 'homosexual' is arsenokoitai. It appears in both I Timothy and I Corinthians. It is dervied from the Greek words arsen, which means 'man' and koitai, which means 'beds'.

However, in the Septuagint, an ancient, pre-Christ translation of the Old Testament into Greek, the Hebrew word 'quadesh' (I Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46) was translated into the Greek, arsenokoitai. In this, they were refering to male, temple prostitutes who engage in ritual, pagan sex. Likewise, other Greek literature of the time and some leaders in the early Christian church validate this as the correct translation.

Still, arsenokoitai has proven to be a word whose definitition is hard to pin down. During the time of Martin Luther, arsenokoitai was almost universially translated as masturbators. But by the begining of the 20th century, as masturbation became more acceptable, such definition was dropped in favor of defining the term as homosexuals. The last known religious teaching to translate arsenokoitai in I Corinthians 6:9 as masturbator, was the Catholic Encylopedia of 1967. It is now almost universially translated as sodomite or homosexual. This, despite the fact that the Greek word arsen, means man, and the term homosexual specifically includes women. This translation is most often used in evangleical teaching. Through the years though, the word arsenokoitai has had numerous meanings in various translations besides those mentioned. It should be noted, the word arsenokoitai was not the Greek word at the time used to mean 'a man who has sex with other men'. That word was 'paiderasste'.

neopolss 12 years, 5 months ago


Romans 1:24-27 is yet another passage often used to assail homosexuals. As translated today, without any historical knowledge, it does seem to be a strong indictment against homosexduality:

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Yet again, it is not. What it is, is a strong indictment against pagan sex rituals. Baal was the Canaanite diety that was worshipped through sex orgies on Mount Peor in Moab. He was often symbolized by a bull. He was said to be the God of the sky and influenced the weather and thus, agriculture. While he was the chief Canaanite diety, Baal worship was also particularly popular among Hebrews in general. It was believed that Baal was blood-thirsty and highly sexual. The erotic aspect was of particular importance, for it was said, Baal had to be tempted to mate with with his lover, Asherah, to bring rain and fertility to the land. Thus, the Canaanites would go up to Mt. Peor and have massive sex orgies themselves in an effort to tempt Baal into mating.

Now, read Romans 1:24-27 again. Is is more likely Paul is speaking about modern day homosexuality or Baal worship?

Which brings us to Leviticus 18-22: Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a women; it is an abomination.

It is the least relevant to Christians, for as Paul stated in Romans 7:4-6, we are discharged from ancient Hebrew law. And more so, that loving is the ultimate fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:10) Also, it is hard to take seriously a book that outlaws shaving the edges of men's beards (Lev 19:27), orders woman not to have sex during menstruation (Lev 18:19) and not to harvest different crops in the same field (Lev 19:19), as well as calling the touching of a dead pig's skin (Lev 11:6-8) an abomination.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

Wow, neopolss thanks for the greek/hebrew lesson of the day. That stuff is really interesting.

Topside 12 years, 5 months ago

Jayhawk226-Not if you don't count all the deleted ones. How does that figure into the over/under?

snoozey 12 years, 5 months ago

You gotta be kidding...That would be like banning fat people from buffet lines!

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

neopolss: I have heard many of those arguments before; some were new to me. I will grant you that most of the verses you cited are open to several interpretations. I would add that just because the Apostles made reference to pagan sex orgies (hetero- and homo- activities were involved) does not mean that they intended only to condemn homo- relations in the context of pagan ritual. In fact, I feel that they condemned all illicit sex outside the bonds of marriage between men and women. Polygyny seems to be condoned at least in the Old Testament.

The Leviticus scripture is pretty clear. Now we can debate about whether that verse applies to us. The bottom line for me is that these words were written under the direction of the Spirit and are to be understood by the Spirit, and the Spirit has testified to be that homosexual relations are an abomination before God. I feel that your lesson on words has failed to demonstrate that the followers of God did not preach against homosexual relations, because my interpretation is still possible and for me, the Spirit testifies of it. Futhermore, I have the witness of other scriptures and modern prophets who all confirm this commandment.

nomorebobsplease 12 years, 5 months ago

Neopolss-I echo craiger's comment.
I am a Roman Catholic, although admittedly probably not a very good one. My personal assumption was that the Roman Catholic Church was a haven for gay men and lesbian women for centuries. Think about it-a doctrine that requires such segregation of it's leaders?

neopolss 12 years, 5 months ago

One of my main problems is that only homosexuality is given such a direct biblical criticism. Yet for some reason many biblical condemnations are completely ignored. For example, other "abominations" include eating water creatures without fins or scales, divers weights and false balance (the charging of interest and debt), to be with a women while she is menstruating, or a woman to wear men's clothing (pants). Let's not forget the many passages that SUPPORT slavery (or indentured servitude) that many of us so vehemently oppose.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

neopolss: Thank you for stating point exactly. We pick and choose which bible verses we wish to exploit...and then we call people heathens for not obeying. Nice work.

enochville 12 years, 5 months ago

neopolss: That has been a question to some as to which parts of the Old Testament practices carry over to the New Testament and which ones are not necessary to follow anymore. Of course, orthodox Jews continue to try to live all of the Mosaic law, minus the Temple ordinances because they don't have a Temple, and there aren't many Levites around that can prove who they are.

We keep the ten commandments, for Christ reiterated them in his ministry. There are even New Testament practices such as women not being allowed to speak in church, which are no longer practiced today in most churches. There are hints as to which practices should continue, but the Bible could be more clear as to which practices were cultural and which are a part of the gospel and are to be followed no matter what land or age it is found in. For me, the answer is simple because the Bible is not my only source of information. Modern prophets and additional scripture make things quite clear for me. But, I can see how the matter would not be as clear for others.

megorama 12 years, 5 months ago

Now enochville can tell us what the Bible lacks. If we all could be so intelligent and informed!!!

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

neoplss - I thank you very much for your very clear lesson. I have studied a lot of what you wrote before and some is new to me. I knew about the temple prostitutes, etc. I will have to re-read Romans and see if it makes better sense to me now in light of your explanation. I will let you know.

GreenEyedBlues 12 years, 5 months ago

Almost 1am and I'm trying to keep the dream alive! 200 posts! Anyone?

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

Well, things seems to have ground to a halt. Come on people, I have money riding on this! We need more posts! (megorama and enochville, thanks for doing your part.) -- and people think I can be long winded. :)

So new topic -- should the Pope be allowed to talk on a cell phone while in the Popemobile? Batman while in Batmobile? (or, if you prefer, Are Batman and Robin gay?) Who else has a (insert name)-mobile?

captain_poindexter 12 years, 5 months ago

TOB is cracking me up today. We done fine sir, you rock

avhjmlk 12 years, 5 months ago

Well, I am a Catholic, and this concerns me. I was discussing the issue with my husband yesterday after it was announced. Yes, the Church teaches that homosexual activity is wrong, because, just like pre-marital heterosexual activity, any sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. Homosexuals cannot marry in the Church = homosexual sexual activity is wrong.

HOWEVER, I think they Church is completely refusing to accept the fact that there are gay men in this world (and, likely, gay women) who choose a religious life BECAUSE they know that there is not a place for married life for them in the Church, and they believe they are called by God to lead this religious life. It really bothers me that the Church, which teaches that each of us is called to a vocation (married life, single life, or religious life) would tell someone who believes he has a calling to the priesthood that God was wrong. Isn't that what they are saying if they say that a homosexual, called by God to be a priest, can't actually become a priest?

What I also don't know is if they are entirely closing off ordained religious life. Are homosexuals only going to be excluded from the priesthood, or can they also not become monks or brothers? Is the issue that they will be leading a congregation, or that they will be living for 4 years (or the rest of their life, if they choose to be in a monastary) with other men. Does the church not trust the 99% of priests who AREN'T pedophiles to keep their vow of celibacy just because there is a small group who has committed crimes agains young children? Are they afraid that no homosexual priest would be able to "control his urges"?

I'm really bothered by this.

avhjmlk 12 years, 5 months ago

Remember, the issue here is not about punishing priests who commit homosexual activity. It's preventing homosexual men who want to be priests, knowing full and well that they will have to take a vow of celibacy, from becoming priests. I have no argument with the fact that the Catholic church says that homosexual sexual activity is wrong. That is what the Church teaches. But, how can they say that a boy/man who believes he is gay, but has never followed through with any homosexual sexual activity, is not good enough to become a priest?

neopolss 12 years, 5 months ago

You'd have to prove first that committing an act against a young boy is fulfilling hopmosexual desire instead of fulfilling sick pedophile desires.

Homosexuality ain't got nothin' to do wit it.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 5 months ago

hey prospector, the answer to your question is no.

Liberty 12 years, 5 months ago

Enochville has well said. A further check up on translation can be found if you reference the Geneva 1560 or 1599 Bible with the footnotes. The Geneva was the first english translation from the greek and hebrew texts. It was widely used by those who started this country until the King James Bible forced it out. It is still a good and perhaps better translation because of the footnotes, but they are both very close, just different word choices. A clearer understanding can be achieved by the use of the footnotes in the Geneva Bible. King James had the footnotes removed because it also warned governments on their behavior before God to do what is correct in God's sight.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

I am going to do my bit to bring the numbers up. neoplss - the scripture reference you gave of I Cor. 6:9 is quite clear. I will quote it here for those who don't have a Bible handy. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God.

BunE 12 years, 5 months ago

All biblical silliness aside, the Catholic Church is a private organization that has the right to restrict membership. After all, a mormon can't take the host can they?

That being said, I think that it is a very shortsighted view by the church. It would seem to me that people of faith are people of faith no matter what. If one is called to holy orders, follow the rules, etc, what is the problem.

Per the Vatican's preliminary reports (this is not official policy yet) the decision is a subjective one from the bishop. I wonder what the descision is based on? Does the man sashay down the aisle? Does he skip the host to cut carbs? Does he prefer tight vestments? Does he linger at the sight of a nearly naked jesus on the cross?

Its all very sad. A "universal" church deciding to actively stop people of faith from following a vocation.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

Ok here is another to bring the count up. I suppose the question is this, you either believe that these words come from God or not. If one does not believe this, fine. Then perhaps they do not believe in the existance of the Kingdom of God. Maybe they just don't care. Maybe they don't care if they will inherit this kingdom. That is up to the individual, I suppose. But concerning the question of the day. Suppose a parishoner comes to the priest who is "in the closet" and asks about this particular New Testament passage and the question of homosexual activity. What in the world would a homosexual priest in all honesty tell his parishoner? How would he interpret this passage? How would he counsel?

John1945 12 years, 5 months ago

Asking a question about faith and religion in a community where only 10% of the populations attends any type church, synagogue or mosque is like asking someone from the white section of a 1950s Mississippi town to advise people of color on race relations, or someone from Nazi Germany to advise Jews on how to properly celebrate the traditions of Judaism.

Lawrence is simply an ignorant, bigoted, hateful bump in the road where a small minority of effete snobs feel they can force their sick lifestyles on everyone else.

The people on a Lawrence street haven't a clue what the beliefs of the Catholic Church are, or why the Pope would make such a decision. You might just as well have asked them to recite the Koran from memory or give you the instructions for building an atomic bomb for all they'd know about it.

Not one of these featured people had a clue. Lawrence should be embarrassed by such a complete display of ignorance, but sadly, it's too ignorant as a collectivity to even realize how badly its ignorance has been displayed.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 5 months ago

I am converting to catholicism in a couple of months, or at least beginning to. look forward to these debates once I know what the h-e-double hockey sticks I am talking about. ...and I went to a catholic high school. heh.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

captain_poindexter 12 years, 5 months ago

I love lawrence, and I'm a conservative white male - not exactly on the "lawrence's favorite person list"

but this place is great. much fun.

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

John666: "Lawrence is simply an ignorant, bigoted, hateful bump in the road where a small minority of effete snobs feel they can force their sick lifestyles on everyone else."

effete? sick lifestyles? I'm curious, do you find it difficult typing while wearing your pointy hood?

I suspect you are just some pimply faced kid who is pulling our collective leg, because nobody can truly be as big a bigoted idiot as you suggest yourself to be. Unless you are Mr. Fred P. himself, and then we know how big of a bigoted idiot you truly are. If you aren't yanking our collective chain, might I suggest the first plane to Iran. I'm sure they live according to a strict lifestyle you will appreciate. (But thanks for helping drive up the numbers, you big old closeted homo you.)

acg 12 years, 5 months ago

Right on Beatrice, girl! Right on!!

John1945 12 years, 5 months ago

Mr. 45 to you Bubba.

I've fought racial bigotry and now religious bigotry seems to be the continuing bigotry du jour of our self proclaimed intellectual community. I am also a student of the holocaust and am disturbed when I see the same mentality rear its head so close to home.

Even more shameful is the intolerance and narrow-mindedness that dominates what should be a center of exploration and inquiry.

It would be hilarious if it was in some third world dump, but it's rather frightening when it's right next door. Sort of the same sense I had when they discovered the head of a neo-Nazi group in Kansas City. If he'd just moved to Lawrence..................

Lepanto1571 12 years, 5 months ago

Should the Vatican ban gay men from becoming priests?

Interesting question.

Perhaps if the Catholic Church were a democracy, it would be relevant. Since it is not, nor last time I checked even remotely self-defined as such, I fail to see the relevance or value of the question but to indulge a popluace that has become enamored with expressing it's opinion, thinking it the prime determinant of truth.

The Church is free (for the present) to determine it's own course, entry criteria and the make-up of it's hierarchy. She is right in doing so. All criticisms of said criteria remain as they have always been: individual determinations of whether to be a part of her or not!

Love her or hate her, she is still here and one is free to not be counted in her numbers.

The Church has not stood for 2 millenia bowing low before the feet of public opinion; especially opinions, as it seems a few here hold, of those seeking her eradication. Regarding the limitations of said "opinions," and lest I be labelled a partisan I offer:

A Catholic: "Truth is not determined by a majority vote"-- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI)

The Bible: "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."-- Proverbs 18:2

A Pagan: "The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject."-- Marcus Aurelius

A Protestant: "It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their tyranny."-- James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat.

This may pad a few posts for you odds-makers out there.

hawkrew 12 years, 5 months ago

How can anyone hate Lawrence?

Columbia, now there's a town to hate...

captain_poindexter 12 years, 5 months ago


I agree hawkrew!

and Manhattan (KS that is)

Linda Aikins 12 years, 5 months ago

Why did you remove my anagrams for bigot? Nothing there was tasteless - they didn't even make sense...

There's much worse things posted here. STOP IT!!!!


captain_poindexter 12 years, 5 months ago

mmmm, I love cripes, cream filled cripes....oh wait. damn.

Linda Aikins 12 years, 5 months ago

Looking back through the posts, there are lots of times people use the word bigot. I don't name-call or attack or call people idiots. I do it to lighten up things on the board.

I deserve an explanation, please.

John1945 12 years, 5 months ago

Actually, I don't hate Lawrence, only its absence of an intellectual environment. Out of four people,one would expect some diversity of opinion even in the most Babbitt-minded, gene pool restricted outpost of humanity, but not in Lawrence.

Take a look at the responses to my critique of the community. See any arguments there? Any appeal to facts? Any attempt to provide an alternative source of data on community behavior (incidentally, the 10% figure came from the JW article on Jerry Johnston a week or so ago)?

One thoughtful post on the topic from Lepanto1571. One! And I don't count it as thoughtful because he opposes the braindead responses from the street, but because it formulates an argument and follows it through.

Beatrice? Please, and yet that's what acg finds to applaud. Truly sad, guys. A question like todays should be an inspiration much like the debate yesterday between Wendt and a couple of ID folks. Great stuff.

Where's the diversity of opinion in Lawrence guys? I just don't see it.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

Man, when even the anagrams are banned in Lawrence... know things have gone too far!!!

Confrontation 12 years, 5 months ago

Way off subject--My neighbor just asked if I heard about the gas pumps being shut off. She works in the KC area and she said the word was going around that the pumps will be shut down to conserve fuel. She said people were lining up to get fuel. Sounds like the 9-11 scare to me (which I did fall for). Anyone else hear this stuff? My tanks full, so ha-ha, I won't fall for it again!

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

J_5: "I've fought racial bigotry" Um, were you on the side that was holding the fire hoses?

TOB: As we pass 150 I have a movie quote for ya: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!"

linux_chick 12 years, 5 months ago

OK. I typically ignore John1945's (and other posters that seem to post banterings of a non-intellectual nature for shock value purposes only) postings, but I find your accusations for posters running from pointed discussion highly ironic.

To put it lightly, your 'radical' utterings on the board whenever spoken to with any degree of insightful criticism, I've noticed your convenient disappearing act.


John1945========================= To flange:

I guarantee you, I am better educated than you and also more intelligent. However, I must admit that when confronted with tyranny and facism I am not terribly tactful.

I also question your elitist notion that people need a certain level of education to make intelligent decisions.

That's simply the kind of arrogant pap that requires liberals to impose their sick and corrupt agenda through unelected and unrepresentative judges.

Linux_chick======================== Umm... are you aware that you haven't spelled Fascism correctly yet?

John1945========================= "Umm... are you aware that you haven't spelled Fascism correctly yet?"

I always wonder, but I don't get hung up about it. It's not a word I use a bunch except when talking about liberals. Why, didn't you understand the point?

Linux_chick======================== I'm just saying, maybe if you were educated more, or read books at all. Maybe then you would know how the word is spelled.

I've given your posts and links some thought. I wonder if you'll answer any of our follow up questions...

So, do you wish the South would have won the Civil War? Are you racist? And if you are, how do you justify that line of reasoning?

Oh, and I followed your website, too, that discussed the "rubbish" our high school children are subjected to. Among the "profane" list are Pulitzer Prize winners and notable classics like "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and "Catch 22."

What was particularly interesting was the "acceptable" list which included Douglass's autobiography. This is particularly interesting since it discusses topics like slave-women being raped by their masters to produce more slaves, descriptive intentional physical marrings, the n-word, etc.

Can you explain why Kate Chopin's allusion to an orgasm places her on the vulgar list while the systematic physical torture of an entire race of people is "acceptable" and safe? Have you even read these books?

I'm all ears.

Where did John1945 go after that one? No one knows

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

I just filled up about an hour ago....there weren't any lines in the Shawnee area. Gas was at $2.65/gallon there.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

Are you in the Lawrence area Confrontation, or elsewhere in the country?

linux_chick 12 years, 5 months ago

Hi all!

Sorry to post such a long one... I wonder if John1945 will conveniently disappear again only to resurface tomorrow spouting judgements about the lack of intellectual debate on the board.

Bye TOB!

linux_chick 12 years, 5 months ago

OMB: funny you should ask, because I just failed a test I think :)

On a good note, I earned an interview for an internship with IBM today. The irony never ceases...

Thanks for asking

linux_chick 12 years, 5 months ago

lol- agreed, TOB.

(especially that last sentence)

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago


There's a story on the oil refineries and gas situation on CNN right now.

Confrontation 12 years, 5 months ago

I'm in Lawrence. My neighbor heard these stories in the KC area.

linux_chick 12 years, 5 months ago

I heard about the gas tanks on 6ths surfacing through the concrete. Water is great.

Maybe OMB is willing to give me a job now, so I don't have to graduate? Because school is getting really hard... and I don't want to go anymore.

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

When John_5 said he was a student of ..., I think he meant it. I'll bet he is only allowed to post in the time between when he gets home from school and when mom comes home and makes him turn off the computer. I had a chip on my shoulder about a lot of things when I was in the 10th grade too.

David R: If you purchased the markers from TOB, I want my money! (And going back now to delete messages doesn't count.)

John1945 12 years, 5 months ago

I disappear when I get tired of waiting for rational debate. I now have 6:00. My last post was at 4:35. Any intelligent argument here, or just the usual collection of ad hominem insults.

Hmmm............ 19 posts just chock full of wisdom, but no real argument except for one leennnnnngggthy ad hominem posing as an argument.

How silly of me to suggest that Lawrence was absent an intellectual environment. Night, night guys. I guess I was just off way off base with my "radical" theories again.

See you tomorrow. Hang on to that old post where I didn't spell a word properly. You never know when you might need to pull that one out.

Jayhawk226 12 years, 5 months ago

I don't exactly frequent this site for an engaging, intellectual debate. And I would also hope this isn't the premier location of intellectual curiousity for the Lawrence community. I'd hate for David Ryan to assume this site is more worthy than it really is.

I come here to be entertained and read comments--some insightful, some thought-provoking, but many just plain and ignorant statements. Regardless of the mentally-stimulating sensations you may or may not gain...I at least get a good laugh.

From you included. Thanks for contributing!

Kookamooka 12 years, 5 months ago

OOOOh maybe I'll get the last word!!! I had a really wonderful boyfriend, once, that was really fastidious and liked to gossip like a girl, was smart and sexy and told really great stories. He was a little preoccupied with his hair, though. He and I broke up and he went into the priesthood. Later a friend told me she always thought he was gay. Now, I'm beginning to wonder too. I guess he squeaked by under the Vatican GAYDAR. He is an excellent priest!! Just thought I'd stick that in to let people know, Gay Priests can be very good Priests.

Evolve_Kansas 12 years, 5 months ago

I just found this paper today after a friend sent me the comments about the Kansas quarter. Reading and adding my two cents worth (maybe a quarters worth) about the quarter was fun and refreshing. However, this is HEAVY stuff! I think I will stay out of the "Gay Debate" and go back and see if anyone has had anything new to say about my comments on the quarter! LONG LIVE THE BISON!!!

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 5 months ago

Why toss tradition. Keep letting gay men be preists!

lunacydetector 12 years, 5 months ago

were the apostles married? were they celibate?

GreenEyedBlues 12 years, 5 months ago

Probably not Lunacy! And you never answered my question from earlier today!

Keep 'em comin' guys! We can hit 200 before midnite easily.

ms_canada 12 years, 5 months ago

Well, I will add one more just to say good night. I guess it is midnight in Lawrence. 11pm here and I am off to beddy bye. I do not recall any mention of wives of the apostles.

lunacydetector 12 years, 5 months ago

here's a link GreenEyedBlues to answer your question from earlier. you'll have to read the article.


Lepanto1571 12 years, 5 months ago

LD, thanks for the link. I actually hadn't seen the John Jay report yet.

For additional info and perspective, here is the report from the Catholic League.

Chrometuna 12 years, 5 months ago

I think that the Vatican should ban EVERYONE from being priests

Bushie 12 years, 5 months ago

I think you lot are a bunch of blatantly bigoted hypocrites. Of course, gay men can do no wrong so the evil Catholics shouldn't go picking on them. Get it right for a change - the priestly molestors were gay long before they were priests. It's a fact that gays have a voracious sexual appetite and celibacy is not a choice most of them are able to make (short of surrendering their balls). You've got blinkers on your eyes. It's really a case of you lot saying to the Vatican: "Hey guys - don't solve the paedophile problem. It aids our Catholic bashing." Dickheads!

lunacydetector 12 years, 5 months ago

thanks Lepanto. the Catholic League is the BEST! as i'm sure you know i know :)

beatrice 12 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.