Disowned gay prince now wants to adopt

[hippie_cyndi]

so M...could you explain 2 us what's 'natural' vs. 'un-natural'?.....& how are you in authority of what 300+ americans really think :shrug:

is it natural...for men 2 be celibate for life...in the case of priests...or budhist/hindu hierarchy monk? is it natural 2 have multiple wives/husband? what exactly is "Normal"...& who is in authority over it?

There's no point in arguing, really, as we've been down this road before.

since you opened this discussion with sweeping judgements...&... homophobic comments 2 say the least...i would love for us 2 discuss it in a 'civilized...logical' way...if that's possible   ;)

[cookie_monster]

Well it's gonna be a lifelong battle and this is just the beginning.  :gaah: I just want people to live...I mean why do people like this edit spend their time doing this...and by the way that title bugs me because ifpeople believe that God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Adam why would he hate someone. God didn't create hate he created love, hence Adam and Eve. So to carry on the human race they couldn't hate each other :rolleyes: People get so caught up in being humans and not being children of God because hate was created by the devil and humans picked up on it and now we have wars because of hate :gaah: I don't hate, I don't even use the word hate <_<

edit: i kno u werent trying to b discriminatory urself but please dont post links to such websites here.  thanx!

[cookie_monster]

since you opened this discussion with sweeping judgements...&... homophobic comments 2 say the least...i would love for us 2 discuss it in a 'civilized...logical' way...if that's possible ;)

this is a civilized conversation and one cannot help but to be passionate in what they're trying to prove or say.  :thumbsup:

[M]

so M...could you explain 2 us what's 'natural' vs. 'un-natural'?.....& how are you in authority of what 300+ americans really think :shrug:

is it natural...for men 2 be celibate for life...in the case of priests...or budhist/hindu hierarchy monk? is it natural 2 have multiple wives/husband? what exactly is "Normal"...& who is in authority over it?

since you opened this discussion with sweeping judgements...&... homophobic comments 2 say the least...i would love for us 2 discuss it in a 'civilized...logical' way...if that's possible   ;)

The natural law defines for all mankind what is natural.

God is the judge/authority over what is natural and what is unnatural.

Celibacy is perfectly natural.

I never said what 300,000,000 people think.  However, if you look at what polls say, as well as election results in states where their were gay marriage propositions on the ballots, you will see that there is a mandate against things like gay marriage, etc.  In most states, the mandate against it was well over 50%.

As for calling my comments "homophobic", that implies that I fear homosexuals.  I don't.  I just don't approve of homosexual activity, shouldn't have to, and shouldn't be accused of not being a good peson because I won't abandon my values.

You and those who are progressive and approve of such things have a right to your opinions and I have a right to mine.

I've stated mine many times and don't want to go on and on about it again here.  If people want to talk about it further with me, thy can PM me, but I will expect courtesy, and I promise it in return.   :)

I don't have time to get in a lengthy, drawn out debate right now, though.

So people can look at m old posts on the subject by doing searches.  :shrug:

[aroyalfan]

Gay prince?  That's not new...I betcha there have been many gay princes in the past.

I wonder if this prince is cute.   :hmm:    He's 40, though.   :teehee:

[M]

I wonder if this prince is cute.   :hmm:    He's 40, though.   :teehee:

:lmao:

[cookie_monster]

 :lol:

[hippie_cyndi]

I just want people to live...I mean why do people like thisedit spend their time doing this...and by the way that title bugs me because ifpeople believe that God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Adam why would he hate someone. God didn't create hate he created love, hence Adam and Eve

:huh?: i didn' even know such a disgusting website existed...did you know the word edit comes from latin...as in 'on fire/burning...where the catholic church in the middle ages...used 2 set woods on fire...then burn anyone they considered 'sacreligeous'...mostly so-called witches...&...gay men.

anyway, i  wish the best for the prince  :thumbsup:

[Lila the Flirt]

 :blink: Wow.. :blink:

[M]

:huh?: i didn' even know such a disgusting website existed...did you know the word edit comes from latin...as in 'on fire/burning...where the catholic church in the middle ages...used 2 set woods on fire...then burn anyone they considered 'sacreligeous'...mostly so-called witches...&...gay men.

Could you please cite reputable sources to back up that claim?  :)

[heather]

Celibacy is perfectly natural.

If you don't use it, you lose it! 8)

[M]

Even though it is wrong to think that there is something wrong with celibacy, I have to chuckle at how you said it.  :teehee:

:)

[heather]

 There is nothing wrong with celibacy.........to each,  their own! :teehee:

[M]

 :thumbsup:

[Jenee]

Could you please cite reputable sources to back up that claim? :)

You've never heard of Salem, M?... although that was not done by the Catholic church :unsure:

[polo_pony]

I always wonder if gay men ( Im not against them) look at me, and point, and say, Thats the reason I'm gay, because of her.

[WOW]

^  :blink: why would you think that? You don't have to answer that.

In my opinion being gay is a choice.

[brokenxhearts.]

Alright i could give you a whole lesson on why i think homosexuality is genetical or at least biological, i actually did a research paper on it.
But basically, i think it's biological because you were born thinking guys were attractive, you didn't just pick it up, or hear someone talking about it. Boys are the reason your lower half gets um....  :hmm: .... excited. But that's just me, i'm not trying to like proove anyone wrong or anything.

But i think it's wrong that they disowned him and sad, it just shows what type of society we live it. I think homophobia is right up there with racism.  :gaah: anyways, what a shame. I also think it's a shame that people expected him to keep it a secret, like it's something to be ashamed of, it isn't and it shouldn't be taught like that. I don't get why it's any differnt then Harry and Chelsy kissing in a polo box, or something like that. Call it unnatural, but w/e  :hide:

[polo_pony]

it's actually a  saying, but no one pick up from it!         :shrug:         

[hippie_cyndi]

Could you please cite reputable sources to back up that claim?  :)

sure thang :thumbsup:

-Oxford Dictionary...Origin of words
-Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition; Historical Dictionary of American Slang
-WR Encyclopedia
-Etymologies of religion
-just google the word @ the com in your nearest library...you'll get plenty of literature on it
-wikipedia

most of the materials on the net are pure crap...but few are good...anyway....the origin of the words has 2 historical sources...all these qoutes by the way come from the books @ dad's library...not cus i'm smart   ;) you can find them @ any uni lib

1st one

meaning of the word

origin of faggot, the word means a bundle of sticks. The English word comes from the French fagot. There is an apparent cognate in the Italian fagotto, so there may be some common Latin root. But if so, it has been lost. From Cursor Mundi, a Northumbrian poem from before 1300:

    Gong ysaac a fagett broght.

so basically...it was a deragotory word for women

In the late 16th century, faggot became an epithet for a woman, especially a shrewish one. The sense probably comes from the idea of a faggot being a burden or baggage (not unlike the modern ball and chain). From Thomas Lodge's 1591 Catharos Diogenes in his Singularity:

    A filbert is better than a faggot, except it be an Athenian she handfull.

how the words came 2 be linked 2 gay men

The derogatory term for a gay man comes from this sense meaning a woman. In this way it parallels other slang terms like queen and fairy, words connoting feminine qualities and applied to gay men. This application to gay men is relatively recent and American in origin, not appearing until the 20th century. From Jackson & Hellyer's Vocabulary of Criminal Slang from 1914:

    Drag, Example: "All the fagots (sissies) will be dressed in drag at the ball tonight."

The clipped form fag appears as early as 1921. From Lind's Impersonators of that year:

    Androgynes known as "fairies", "fags", or "brownies".

There are also several false etymologies for this slang sense of faggot.

The first known published use of the word faggot or fag to refer to a male homosexual appeared in 1914 in the U.S. It referred to a homosexual ball where the men were dressed in drag and called them "fagots (sissies)." Ernest Hemingway, in The Sun Also Rises (1926), included the line, "You're a hell of a good guy, and I'm fonder of you than anybody on earth. I couldn't tell you that in New York. It'd mean I was a faggot." A 1921 cite says, "Androgynes [are] known as 'fairies,' 'fags,' or 'brownies.'"

2nd explanation

faggot has a history of being used to refer to the executions of heretics at the stake, although this does not date quite as far back as medieval times. Phrases like fire and faggot and fry a faggot were used to refer to such executions, although the word faggot was never applied to the heretic himself.

did the word apply 2 executing gay men?

the word was not applied to gay men until much, much later. We can see this reference to the burning of heretics in Hugh Latimer's Sermons and Remains, written before 1555:

    Running out of Germany for fear of the fagot.

And in the Bishop Richard Montagu's 1621 Diatribæ on the First Part of the Late History of Tithes:

    You deserued to fry a fagot.

last qoute

In the inquisition of Europe, when witches were being burned, among those sought out for burning were gay people. They were required to gather the very "bundles of sticks" (the real
meaning of a faggot) with which they would be burnt. When the faggots (sticks) were running
out, gay men were thrown on the fire to keep it going for the witches. Faggot came to mean gay
man to force them into the closet for fear of death.

hope that's nuf...later  :hiya:

[M]

In the inquisition of Europe, when witches were being burned, among those sought out for burning were gay people. They were required to gather the very "bundles of sticks" (the real meaning of a faggot) with which they would be burnt. When the faggots (sticks) were running out, gay men were thrown on the fire to keep it going for the witches. Faggot came to mean gay man to force them into the closet for fear of death.

My primary concern with the earlier post was that it contained undocumented fabrications about the Catholic faith.  I never disputed that the word has been associated with persons with homosexual tendencies.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I knew of and agreed with every citation you gave but the last one (which I quote above).  That last citation is a load of  :censored:.

:teehee:

The other, more reputable sources you cited contradict the idea that the word faggot was applied to persons with homosexual tendencies as far back as the Inquisition.  In fact, they make clear that faggots were the bundles of wood and not the persons being burned.

-_-

Moreover, it is unclear which "Inquisition" is being referenced, as there was more than one, for example: the Spanish Inquisition, which sought to root out the Moors, who were Islamic people, many of whom had infiltrated the Catholic Church, even becoming priests, brothers, and nuns, in an effort to undermine the Church in Spain.  During those times, Church and State were so intertwined that an attack on the Church was rightly understood to be a danger to the State.

The various Inquisitions were confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire.

For more on the Inquisition read this: The Inquisition.

First, I am not familiar with witches being the special target of any Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise.  Neither were homosexuals a primary focus.  Heretics were the focus, and heretics were a danger to the State in those times, because heretics were essentially lawless.  The State was seen to have its power and authority from God (through the Church).  That's why monarchs were often crowned by the Pope.  A heretic rejected Church authority, and therefore rejected the authority that was understood to be the source of State authority.  Heretics were seen to be something like anarchists or insurrectionists, and society sough to root them out because when they spread their errors the State would be in real danger, as would the souls of those led into heresy and away from the Catholic faith.

It is against the law to advocate that the U.S. Government be overthrown by violence today, and treason is a capital crime, punishable by death in the U.S. Constitution.  The Inquisition sought to root out individuals who were seen to be a threat to the State in the same way U.S. laws against treason are designed to protect the State (and civil order) today.

Modern people often view the past through modern eyes and ignore the conditions of the times, and therefore unfairly judge the people of those times.  Monarchies were constantly threatened in those days and people often sought to execute heads of State in an effort to amass land, etc.  They were dangerous times and civil authorities took no chances.

I explain those things only to show how ridiculous it is for modern day homosexual activists to claim that homosexuals were specifically or widely targeted.  It is a self-serving myth, pure propaganda, actually, that is designed to engender sympathy for homosexuals and to make heterosexuals believe homosexuals deserve special protection and attention beyond that which is due to any human being, simply because they are homosexual.

Furthermore, even those who did engage in acts of sodomy back in those days would never have seen themselves as "gay" in the modern sense of the word.  they would have viewed themselves as people who periodically succumbed to the vice of sodomy and seen their individual acts of sodomy as individual incidents, not the summation of the totality of their human individuality.

In those times, sodomy was universally condemned, by both Church and State.  The idea of "coming out of the closet" or a "homosexual lifestyle" was completely alien to the mind of the peoples of that time.  Homosexuality was not culturally widespread anyway, certainly not like it is today.  The 10% myth that n in ten people are "gay" was proven false long ago and current statistics (one even being from the U.S. Federal Government) state that homosexuals account for (depending on your source) between 1% and 6% of the U.S. population (the U.S. Government statistics place the number at 4%, as I recall).  Even if we pretend that there were, at the time of the Inquisition, the same proportion of homosexuals among the general population (which I would contend is highly unlikely, as I believe that homosexuality is due to at least as much nurture as nature, if not more) the population of Europe at the time f the Inquisition was nothing like it is today and there were no "gay communities' or "openly gay" people who everyone would know to be homosexual and therefore drag out to gather stick bundles for the fires and then toss into the fires as the sticks ran low (as if that wold stoke a dying fire).

:rolleyes:

I like Wikipedia (anyone who has read my posts long enough can tell you that) however, I would never cite it as the primary source for anything so controversial and when I read things like that in Wikipedia, I always look for other sources to back it up, because, as you know, anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry.

So if "truthiness" is all you are going for, then by all means consider that load of  :censored: accurate, but otherwise, I again ask you to cite a reputable source for the claim that the Catholic Church specifically targeted homosexuals in the various European Inquisitions and burned them.

While it may be possible that some persons with homosexual tendencies were executed during the various European Inquisitions, they weren't singled out and their sins of sodomy weren't viewed as a threat to the State.  They certainly weren't advocating "gay rights" (and therefore seen as dangerous heretics) as such a concept was so alien to the mindset of those times as to be almost incomprehensible to the people who lived in them.

People who committed other sins, lie adultery and fornication also likely experienced public punishments.  Public penances for sins were also commonplace, which reminds m to mention that only those who refused to recant or repent of their heresies were executed.  Even if someone had been caught in the act of sodomy, they would have been allowed to repent, although they may have had to serve a punishment.

[M]

You've never heard of Salem, M?... although that was not done by the Catholic Church :unsure:

Exactly.  My beef was with the claim against the Church, nothing more.

However, I'm fairly certain that the Protestants who burned "witches" at Salem didn't throw persons with homosexual tendencies onto the fire as kindling wood, either.

:shrug:

[M]

Alright i could give you a whole lesson on why i think homosexuality is genetical or at least biological, i actually did a research paper on it.

There is no solid evidence accepted by the scientific community that homosexual inclinations are genetically based in any way, much less solely due to one's genetic make-up.

I do believe there may be some genetic component to homosexual inclinations, however, I also believe that such inclinations (as with all sexual attractions) are also developed.

However, even if homosexual inclinations were strictly genetic in nature, it wouldn't alter the morality of homosexual activity from a Christian perspective (or the perspective of any other religion that does not condone homosexual activity, including the religion of the family of the prince who is the subject of this thread).

There appears to be evidence that alcoholism and drug addiction have a genetic component, but that doesn't make those behaviors acceptable alternative lifestyles.   :shrug:

I don't believe it is good to deny that people have the power to choose their behavior and that they are completely helpless in the face of their genetic make-up.  In order to become an alcoholic, a gene may help facilitate things, but a person also has to choose to start drinking, and despite their genetic make-up, alcoholics can choose to stop drinking.

People have all sorts of temperaments and genetic dispositions, but they also have free will, and unless they are insane and literally don't know right from wrong, they are responsible for their choices.

All of that aside, here is an interesting article written by someone with homosexual inclinations about the realities of the lifestyle, as well as the nature of the "attraction" and inclination:  The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement

[hippie_cyndi]

The other, more reputable sources you cited contradict the idea that the word faggot was applied to persons with homosexual tendencies as far back as the Inquisition.  In fact, they make clear that faggots were the bundles of wood and not the persons being burned.

-_- 

correct me if i'm wrong...but the issue was: whether or NOT gay men were burned with 'faggot'....which is the deragotory word used on them in modern time. Thus, the issue was NOT whether the name was applied 2 gay plp during middle ages or prior to the 20th century...but rather the murderous meaning/connotation it carries...for anyone ignorant of its historical impact :shrug:

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I knew of and agreed with every citation you gave but the last one (which I quote above).  That last citation is a load of  :censored:.

:teehee:

Moreover, it is unclear which "Inquisition" is being referenced, as there was more than one, for example: the Spanish Inquisition, which sought to root out the Moors, who were Islamic people, many of whom had infiltrated the Catholic Church, even becoming priests, brothers, and nuns, in an effort to undermine the Church in Spain.  During those times, Church and State were so intertwined that an attack on the Church was rightly understood to be a danger to the State.

The various Inquisitions were confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire.

For more on the Inquisition read this: The Inquisition.

:blink: i'm sorry...but being an apologist for the homicidal/genocidal tendacy of the catholic church...does not omit the historical foot-prints left behind in the past 2 thousand yrs  -_- now...back on the 3 issue you brought up:

what's "inquisition/who started it?

The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal for discovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused.

While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.

so basically....only place the 'inquisition' was absent from are england & holland...atlease until the 15th century

Initially a tribunal would open at a location and an edict of grace would be published calling upon those who are conscious of heresy to confess; after a period of grace, the tribunal officers could make accusations. Those accused of heresy were sentenced at an auto-da-fe, Act of Faith. Clergyman would sit at the proceedings and would deliver the punishments. Punishments included confinement to dungeons, physical abuse and torture. Those who reconciled with the church were still punished and many had their property confiscated, as well as were banished from public life. Those who never confessed were burned at the stake without strangulation; those who did confess were strangled first. During the 16th and 17th centuries, attendance at auto da-fe' reached as high as the attendance at bullfights.

In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides' books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

was it justifiable 2 burn/execute Mors/Jewish converts during the spanish inquisition...as you claim?

Sources: "Inquisition." Encyclopedia Judaica + Harvard library

In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain  and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

so, the SI did not target muslims...rather those not believed 2 be 'legitimate converts'.

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492..

The next phase of the Inquisition began around 1531, when Pope Leo X extended the Inquisition to Portugal. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto-da-fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance.

The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto-da-fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved.

did the RC torture/burn gay men in the middle ages?

"Saint" John Chrysostom, who was the first church father who can clearly be shown to object to homosexuality based on the gender of its participants, not based just on procreative intent, or based on the ages of those involved, or whether the participants were pagans.

Peter Cantor (d. 1197) was the first to argue that Romans 1:26-27 referred specifically to gay people. The term "sodomy" came, for the first time and against all theological precedent, to refer exclusively to homosexual sex.

At Cantor's urging, the Lateran III Council of 1179 became the first to rule specifically on homosexual acts, along with moneylending, heresy, as well as the arch-heresies of Judaism and Islam. Even though the wording of the regulations on sex meant to punish all non-procreative sex, it was eventually construed, particularly in later centuries, as referring to homosexual sex specifically. It passed into the permanent collections of canon law in the following century, and became the basis of the Catholic ban on homosexuality.

lastly...the practice of the law

source: Homosexuality and Civilization by Louis Crompton (Harvard Uni Press )

    * 2004 Independent Publisher Book Awards Finalist in the Gay/Lesbian Category

the presence of Church-inspired mutilation, torture, and burning of "sodomites" in sixth-century Byzantium, medieval France, Renaissance Italy, and in Spain under the Inquisition.

RC wasn't alone in this

also, Protestant authorities were equally committed to the execution of homosexuals in the Netherlands, Calvin's Geneva, and Georgian England. The root cause was religious superstition, abetted by political ambition and sheer greed

...despite the fear...

homoerotic themes surfaced in the art of the Renaissance masters--Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Sodoma, Cellini, and Caravaggio--often intertwined with Christian motifs. Homosexuality also flourished in the court intrigues of Henry III of France, Queen Christina of Sweden, James I and William III of England, Queen Anne, and Frederick the Great.

another good book 2 check is Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell....arguing in his  introduction that homophobia in the west is not the fault of the church, blaming the onset of officially sanctioned Christianity. This book is well researched (many pages are more than half consumed by footnotes).

man...i'm so done with this debate...i got a headach just reading/typing this whole thang  :faint:  :laugh:

[cookie_monster]

^ :blink: why would you think that? You don't have to answer that.

In my opinion being gay is a choice.

Why would someone choose to live that type of life?!?!?! :unsure: I'm sure that there are plenty of gay people who don't want to be gay and just want to fit in. It just seems crazy that someone would choose to go through life being teased, persecuted, rejected,...the list goes on. I also believe that only a gay person is fit to say whether or not it is a choice for them because they are the ones living it. :(

Just my opinion :)  :consolation: