Reply to: Backlash starting?

[EternalOptimist]

But if a heterosexual wants to become a RC Priest they dont have to do a 3 year cooling off period.

This is discrimination against homo's

.

[Fungus]

So what does the panel think about the catholic church restating that perverts, whoops, excuse me, practising homosexuals will not become priests, until they've proved they can control their vile inclinations for a period of 3 years?
In conjunction with the growing split in the anglican churches reported last week on this issue, is it time for the backlash?
I ask specifically because NL seem to think it's a good idea to let the degenerates marry, and if NL think it's a good idea.........

I always thought that most priests/vicars were homosexual. That is apart from the ones who abuse children in church schools. George Bush Jr. is a Christian. That tells me something.

Fungus.

[Not So Wise]

Ok i am one for each to their own and really wish the catolic church would "grow up" and come into the modern world...but

practising homosexuals will not become priests, until they've proved they can control their vile inclinations for a period of 3 years?

If thats what it said (, the bolded part, not read properly any articles on it yet) then i agree with it. Catolic preists take vows of celibacy , while that is an outdated and stupid policy that only leads to them attracting far to many of the wrong types while putting off many people the church could benefit from having, while that rule is still in place it most definatly should cover homosexuals as well as hetrosexuals

In the Catholic Church Priests and the like give all their Love to God and Christ, therefore leaving nothing for any relationship here on earth so to speak

Thats the Church's line, the reality though was church got tired of the upper clergy giveing away church lands and posessions to their children.

[xoggoth]

Rereading, it seems that there are two entirely separate points here. The last point is about secular marriage and I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

What goes on in the Church is entirely different. By which I mean the "one true" Catholic church, I do not count the C of E as a church or even any sort of religion at all. Think I agree with Z on that. There is no point in being a minister of a religion unless you are prepared to make major sacrifices for your beliefs. Surely the whole ruddy point of the Christian religion is that this life is just a preparation for the real one that is to come. If priests cannot keep their willies in their trousers there is nothing to set them apart as priests.

[bfg]

In the Catholic Church Priests and the like give all their Love to God and Christ, therefore leaving nothing for any relationship here on earth so to speak. For that reason Priests in the Catholic Church are unmarried and not sexually active - officially, either Hetroxesual or Homosexual.

What about the married popes then?

[hyperD]

Ah, the trick would be to get two rutting dogs on each legwarmer and walk around town as though nothing unusual is going on.

[datestamp]

Good point, dogs like to roger people's legs, and I suspect they know it's not another dog.

Whattt !!! You mean that pair of "Sexy Fiffi The French Poodle" legwarmers I bought for my Aunty Mary's Christmas pressie is not going to fool her dog Fido?

I'm disappointed. I want my money back.

[zathras]

So what does the panel think about the catholic church restating that perverts, whoops, excuse me, practising homosexuals will not become priests, until they've proved they can control their vile inclinations for a period of 3 years?
In conjunction with the growing split in the anglican churches reported last week on this issue, is it time for the backlash?
I ask specifically because NL seem to think it's a good idea to let the degenerates marry, and if NL think it's a good idea.........

In the Catholic Church Priests and the like give all their Love to God and Christ, therefore leaving nothing for any relationship here on earth so to speak. For that reason Priests in the Catholic Church are unmarried and not sexually active - officially, either Hetroxesual or Homosexual.

[stackpole]

I have no doubt that my dog would too but the thick tw@t forgot to evolve hands - this stands for most animals.

Good point, dogs like to roger people's legs, and I suspect they know it's not another dog.

Is it unnatural though? Animals might also do it but does it have advantages in evolutionary terms?

Was sexual gratification designed only for procreating?

[hyperD]

Francko, you will find , if you look long enough, that Bonobo monkeys do enjoy a bit of a hand shandy.

I have no doubt that my dog would too but the thick tw@t forgot to evolve hands - this stands for most animals.

Yes, I heard that on QI as well. However dogs have managed to get past the old hands problem by grabbing hold of anything - trees, blankets, auntie Mary's leg - and rutting it senseless in a mad dog sexcrazed frenzy.

[PRC1964]

Francko, you will find , if you look long enough, that Bonobo monkeys do enjoy a bit of a hand shandy.

I have no doubt that my dog would too but the thick tw@t forgot to evolve hands - this stands for most animals.

[DodgyAgent]

Ladies and gentlemen we have a Portilloesque confession!!!

Xoggoth is Luke Gayporker and I claim my £5.00

[Francko]

Is masterbation unnatural?

Has anybody on here never done it?

We should observe that in animals. I would guess that they do not masturbate, therefore it's a perversion against nature.

[stackpole]

Is masterbation unnatural?

Has anybody on here never done it?

[Clownio]

Too many intellectual lightweights here.

I don't bother much with CUK these days, instead I read the Sun.

Oh no there isn't