Catholic homosexuals

This is a discussion on Catholic homosexuals within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Memloop If they are so concerned about the sanctity of the marriage, why are they not working ...

  1. #31
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Memloop View Post
    If they are so concerned about the sanctity of the marriage, why are they not working on getting divorces banned ...
    If anything threatens the institution of marriage it's a 50% divorce rate. My father, for reasons I don't understand, transitioned from a Reagan-hating Democrat to a raging born-again Fundamentalist over the last decade. He had some choice things to say during the 2004 elections, at which time Oregon had a gay marriage ban on the ballot. I asked him how exactly he and my mother didn't make a mockery of marriage themselves when they divorced in 1993. He was unable to answer my question.

    I love my mother and father very much, and bear no ill will toward them for the divorce, but I would rather put a bullet in my own head than divorce my wife, if it ever came to that.

    Here in the USA we have idiots (typically those living in megacities) who, without sarcasm, say things like "I'm so excited that my first marriage will be in two weeks!" (real quote from some idiot I know)
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  2. #32
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,157
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    I already told you that if the belief of the catholic church is against homosexuals being a catholic homosexula is contradictive by definition.
    However, the Catholic Church is not against homosexuals, but against homosexual acts and same sex marriage. Consequently, it possible to be a Catholic homosexual and disagree with the Catholic Church's teaching that there is no such thing as same sex marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    There sure thing is that christianity officially says nothing about the matter. Everything said is the sole opinion of the individual, based on their own interpretation, understanding and inner desires.
    If you want to put it in that way, then Christianity officially says nothing at all, not even that to be "Christian" is to "believe in Christ". To some extent, considering the fragmentation into denominations, this is actually true.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    Meaning that even if the Pope says something about homosexuals, the church as a whole shouldn't be held responsible.
    But any leader represents his/her group, so if he/she says something official concerning the group's policies, then the group should be held accountable.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  3. #33
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    If you want to put it in that way, then Christianity officially says nothing at all, not even that to be "Christian" is to "believe in Christ". To some extent, considering the fragmentation into denominations, this is actually true.

    But any leader represents his/her group, so if he/she says something official concerning the group's policies, then the group should be held accountable.
    Christianity is based on some specific things though. Written documents on what Christ taught. Not written by himself, but from people that are believed that there work holds his teachings. You can also consider into the teachings of christianity some widely approved interpretations from the "fathers" of christianity. You can also include the decisions and teachings from the universal gatherings of the church, if you trust them, which don't exist anymore since the church is not united. You can also maybe exclude some other widely accepted documents. But that is about it. Those documents hold the "official" truth about christianity. Everything else is just personal opinions. Meaning that christianity is based on Jesus Christ, thus is not something that evolves. It is what it was. Neither it is based on humans.

    Yes, but the only "leader" of christianity is God. It was his truth. He revealed it. Now the church can be considered christianity. The head of church is its former, Jesus Christ. Which has spoken once in time. So even if 99.9% of the christians on earth say something, that doesn't make it valid if their own leader hasn't agreed upon it. Especially if their leader is a god.

    In other words, if you are a christian you should believe in specific things, revealed by god. The others are just philosophies and opinions based on your believes and you treat them like those.

    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    However, the Catholic Church is not against homosexuals, but against homosexual acts and same sex marriage. Consequently, it possible to be a Catholic homosexual and disagree with the Catholic Church's teaching that there is no such thing as same sex marriage.
    The reason some of the catholic church is against same sex marriage is because they believe homosexuality is a sin. The Scripture say absolutely nothing about same sex marriage. I don't get what is the "not against homosexuals" but "against homosexual acts". I mean, if you are homosexual, won't you perform homosexual acts?

  4. #34
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    It's not about the ability to understand the desire polygamy versus same-sex marriage. The fact is that it is unlikely that there is some biological difference that separates a polygamist from a monogamist.
    Why does there need to be a biological difference? The difference we're talking about is opportunity. The biology of polygamy might be there in all humans. It doesn't mean we're all going to want to marry more than one person because not everyone meets more than one person in their life that they want to marry. By your stance, you might as well suggest that there would have to be a biological difference between married people and those who go through their life never getting married. Perhaps some people find that special someone... some people don't... and maybe there are a select few that find more than one special someone. Really, I don't see how biological necessity plays a factor.
    Sent from my iPad®

  5. #35
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,157
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    Christianity is based on some specific things though. (...) But that is about it. Those documents hold the "official" truth about christianity. Everything else is just personal opinions. Meaning that christianity is based on Jesus Christ, thus is not something that evolves. It is what it was. Neither it is based on humans.
    Perhaps you miss the irony: what you are so definitively stating is just your own personal opinion, even though many Christians may agree with many parts of it

    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    The reason some of the catholic church is against same sex marriage is because they believe homosexuality is a sin. The Scripture say absolutely nothing about same sex marriage.
    Frankly, this is not the place to go into theological and scriptural discussion, but since you insist, read Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. The Catholic Church uses these verses as a scriptural foundation for its teaching in this area, but it is possible to dispute the interpretation as applied. If you wish to take up this matter, do your research then challenge your nearest prominent Catholic theologian for a (public) debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    I don't get what is the "not against homosexuals" but "against homosexual acts".
    The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". As this thread demonstrates, what exactly constitutes "unjust discrimination in their regard" is debatable, but the point here is to "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua
    I mean, if you are homosexual, won't you perform homosexual acts?
    I consider homosexual persons as those with such a disposition, whether or not they actually perform such acts. A different definition is possible, of course.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  6. #36
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". As this thread demonstrates, what exactly constitutes "unjust discrimination in their regard" is debatable, but the point here is to "hate the sin, but love the sinner".
    And this is exactly where the problem is.

    To be clear about my point (which I admit eventually derrailed) the segregation happens not in the position of the church against homosexuality. In fact not even in the fact the church forbids gay marriages. These are deplorable positions as I stand, but it's part of what we eventually accepted for religious institutions behavior.

    Where the segregation happens is in the way this stance is conducted, the arguments used for it and the public speeches done against it. When one of the highest representatives of the catholic church, who sits on the same room as other cardinals and gets voted for pope, condemns the government decision to legalize gay marriages and speaks publicly about gay marriages destroying the values of the traditional marriage and leading our societies to an immoral end, they are in effect condemning the gay community to the sidelines of society as inferior or immoral beings who should not be treated like everyone else, even by the democratic institutions which were founded on principles of equality and tolerance.

    This type of behavior is racist and intolerant. By speaking to the hearts and souls of their fellow church members in national TV against an whole community of citizens and condemning a political decision in their favor, the catholic church acts as any other racist leader urging his hordes against the subhumans in their society.

    And when the Pope himself speaks the next day about the exact same events and with the same arguments on Saint Peter's Square, the message is being passed down to the whole world who cares to listen that homosexuals are not to be treated as any other human being, even by the democratic institutions.

    Edit:
    And yet, our country Constitution clearly forbids any discrimination based on sexual orientation. An argument that was used by the gay community over here for decades and finally was heard. It is my view that our democratic institutions were founded on much more humane principles that can indeed lead to love and respect between all human beings without fear of persecution, without the enticement on an intangible reward other than a better society to live in.

    And its my strong belief that has these societies start to prosper in their humane component, the church will keep loosing its power because as it can no longer offer the spiritual comfort that has been the trademark of its success over the years. Its immoral and inhuman true nature will keep being revealed in layers and the faithful will keep leaving it in search for a better life. What the Catholic Church calls the end of the world, is probably the end of the Church, as they themselves will be judged by a better society than them.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 01-24-2010 at 05:30 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scranton, Pa
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Memloop View Post
    If they are so concerned about the sanctity of the marriage, why are they not working on getting divorces banned ...
    I've been advocating that marriage licenses be renewable like driver licenses (every five years would be nice). If both parties don't agree to renew the marriage, you walk away!

    Gay Marriages. I'm against it personally, the way I see it is that there's a reason for men and women to get together; the parts fit! Church stance on the issue means nothing to me, I'm not religious in any sense of the word. Bottom line for me is whatever the majority decides upon, I can live with it. Although, I wish they'd stop kissing and making out in public, it makes me cringe. Hell, I don't even like heterosexual couples mauling each other in public for that matter - get a room, you crazy kids.

  8. #38
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldman47 View Post
    Gay Marriages. I'm against it personally, the way I see it is that there's a reason for men and women to get together; the parts fit!
    And this is why you are against it? Are you sure you ever gave this some thought?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #39
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    I'm saying that if homosexuality is not a choice, then there should be no debate about whether gay marriage is allowed, as it would clearly be discrimination against a class of people to not allow them to marry.
    This is just a soft way of saying you agree with the fundamentalists, because what is essential to the debate is whether or not homosexuality is "natural". That is totally tangential -- a red herrring. In what sense would this "get into a much murkier area about what is allowed and what isn't according to our Constitution"? Malarky. Absolute BS. Religion itself is a choice, but we include it as a possible class of people to discriminate against. If it were not this way, I could hang a sign on my resturant, "No Jews allowed -- that's your choice!"

    It is none of your business why someone is or isn't a homosexual and I am sure the Constitution will support that. It also will never satisfy Christians, who are against sin and sin can include any number of irrefutable "natural" acts (such as adultery). You saying that we should rule a country based on the opinion of witchdoctors and supernatural cultisits.

    By saying the debate is about nature vs. illness (or whatever), you are just saying "until the homosexuals can prove they deserve our respect" and -- short of Christ returning to Earth with the message "being gay is okay" -- the bar for the evidence here will simply always remain out of reach. You've already made up your mind, but you want to appear as if you are a reasonable person. Sad sack disguise IMO.
    Last edited by MK27; 01-24-2010 at 08:57 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  10. #40
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    22,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F.
    Where the segregation happens is in the way this stance is conducted, the arguments used for it and the public speeches done against it.
    Maybe from your observation, but in my observation there is the more personal segregation in how individual Christians react to homosexual persons. Some take the stance that homosexuals must be able to change sexual orientation, and thus pressure them to do so, even if for some it may really be a natural (as in biological) disposition. Homosexuals are then lumped in the same category as pedophiles, sex addicts, etc, "guilty unless proven innocent".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F.
    When one of the highest representatives of the catholic church, who sits on the same room as other cardinals and gets voted for pope, condemns the government decision to legalize gay marriages and speaks publicly about gay marriages destroying the values of the traditional marriage and leading our societies to an immoral end, they are in effect condemning the gay community to the sidelines of society as inferior or immoral beings who should not be treated like everyone else, even by the democratic institutions which were founded on principles of equality and tolerance.
    If I were a Catholic bishop in your country, I would speak out to the media as well. As I noted earlier, the problem with not speaking out against a law to permit homosexual acts and same sex marriage is that it can then be construed as tacit approval of homosexuality. I would want to send a clear message to my flock, and such an occasion is a good opportunity to do so.

    The "problem" really is in the stance itself, not (just) the way it is conducted. The Catholic Church regards homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered", whether or not homosexual orientation is a matter of biology. So, while this representative you are complaining about probably does not believe that homosexual persons are inferior (and if he does he is on his own), he probably does believe that homosexual persons who practice homosexual acts are immoral, insofar as they persist in doing so.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  11. #41
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    If I were a Catholic bishop in your country, I would speak out to the media as well. As I noted earlier, the problem with not speaking out against a law to permit homosexual acts and same sex marriage is that it can then be construed as tacit approval of homosexuality. I would want to send a clear message to my flock, and such an occasion is a good opportunity to do so.
    But then if you are a Catholic bishop and wish to participate in the political spectrum of the society against or for political decisions taken by the government, you have to agree your church should pay its taxes.

    The "problem" really is in the stance itself, not (just) the way it is conducted. The Catholic Church regards homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered", whether or not homosexual orientation is a matter of biology. So, while this representative you are complaining about probably does not believe that homosexual persons are inferior (and if he does he is on his own), he probably does believe that homosexual persons who practice homosexual acts are immoral, insofar as they persist in doing so.
    We partially agree. However where we differ is on the necessity to dissect the Bishop or the Pope words. They do not speak in metaphor. This is dogma.

    And this dogma is being transmitted to the classes in a clear language. I didn't hear any "but this is how I think, you are free to think otherwise". Instead the doctrine is spread as an inalienable truth in the words chosen by these individuals. And the words are homosexuals are immoral and they destroy the morality of the society. For the masses there's nothing to interpret on the Pope's words. There's no "but" or "except for". There is simply their word which is dogma. And the result which is intolerance.

    When an extremist right-wing party speaks against immigrants, we urge ourselves against this hateful speech. Even when they say "we have nothing against these people, but instead against them being here". It just so happens that in our societies collective mind, homosexuals are still pariahs who still are "tolerantly accepted as victims of intolerance". And this is why the Church can still keep this speech of intolerance relatively unscathed.

    And if its true there's equally a speech of tolerance and acceptance (as you well put it before), it comes at a hefty cost to the gay community, which cannot naturally accept to "stop acting gay". To stop physically loving another human being. And this is completely unacceptable in my democratic mind. It's the stance of the dictator, of the zealot.

    Intolerance is intolerance no matter how it is painted. We are jjst quicker to judge political parties or other institutions for it and still have trouble accepting the church own intolerance.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #42
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I didn't hear any "but this is how I think, you are free to think otherwise". Instead the doctrine is spread as an inalienable truth in the words chosen by these individuals. [...] There is simply their word which is dogma. And the result which is intolerance.

    Of course. That is a defining element of religion. It creates the fundamental possibility of faith. It is the rock on which you can build your belief in a divine being who created the earth in 7 days. No one in their right mind would do that if they could just pick and choose or debate the elements of the faith.

    Churches ARE NOT democratic institutions. And no one claims that either, which is why there is no point in discussing them that way. A political party in a democracy could be religiously oriented, but a church cannot be a political party and pretend they intend to uphold democracy if elected. Like the Nazi's, they could only promise the opposite: elect us and we will abolish democracy for a higher purpose.

    So, at the same time as they need not be held up to the philosophical scrutiny you might apply to a political party, they should never be taken seriously in that arena either. You are attempting to lend them a kind of credibility they neither deserve nor require.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  13. #43
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    You are attempting to lend them a kind of credibility they neither deserve nor require.
    I'm afraid I am. We agree.
    It worries me however their cancer-like doctrine and how easily some people (a large number of people still) accepts their view of the world. Even when at the same time it is becoming evident they are in fact just scheduling their own demise with their ever shrinking numbers, their influence is not to be denied. They still influence the minds of a large number of individuals and what you hear and see being done against homosexuals.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Why does there need to be a biological difference? The difference we're talking about is opportunity. The biology of polygamy might be there in all humans. It doesn't mean we're all going to want to marry more than one person because not everyone meets more than one person in their life that they want to marry. By your stance, you might as well suggest that there would have to be a biological difference between married people and those who go through their life never getting married. Perhaps some people find that special someone... some people don't... and maybe there are a select few that find more than one special someone. Really, I don't see how biological necessity plays a factor.
    I don't understand what you're saying here. For a gay man to marry a person he loves, he must marry another man. If two men marrying is against the law, then you are necessarily discriminating against the person who has no choice but to marry a man if they choose to get married for love. It's denying equal rights to a class of people.

    If it is a choice as it is presumably with polygamists, then you aren't discriminating against a class of people, you are merely legislating behavior. If you're only legislating behavior and not discriminating against a class of people, then it is a much harder argument to overturn state laws and constitutional amendments as being in violation of the federal constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    This is just a soft way of saying you agree with the fundamentalists, because what is essential to the debate is whether or not homosexuality is "natural". That is totally tangential -- a red herrring. In what sense would this "get into a much murkier area about what is allowed and what isn't according to our Constitution"? Malarky. Absolute BS. Religion itself is a choice, but we include it as a possible class of people to discriminate against. If it were not this way, I could hang a sign on my resturant, "No Jews allowed -- that's your choice!"

    It is none of your business why someone is or isn't a homosexual and I am sure the Constitution will support that. It also will never satisfy Christians, who are against sin and sin can include any number of irrefutable "natural" acts (such as adultery). You saying that we should rule a country based on the opinion of witchdoctors and supernatural cultisits.

    By saying the debate is about nature vs. illness (or whatever), you are just saying "until the homosexuals can prove they deserve our respect" and -- short of Christ returning to Earth with the message "being gay is okay" -- the bar for the evidence here will simply always remain out of reach. You've already made up your mind, but you want to appear as if you are a reasonable person. Sad sack disguise IMO.
    I'm not sure if you're reading my posts correctly. It should be obvious that I think gay marriage should be allowed whether it is choice or not, (and it should be obvious in my posts that I think it is natural and not a choice). Your response to me doesn't really make sense given those facts.

    My comments are related to the feasibility of getting gay marriage bans overturned, and an argument for why the polygamy and incest analogies do not apply. Some gay marriage opponents use the slippery slope argument to ask whether we should allow polygamy and incestuous marriages if we allow homosexual marriage. I'm explaining why those don't naturally follow (without making any kind of comment about whether they should be allowed).

    I hope that clears things up for you.

  15. #45
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    I'm not sure if you're reading my posts correctly. It should be obvious that I think gay marriage should be allowed whether it is choice or not, (and it should be obvious in my posts that I think it is natural and not a choice). Your response to me doesn't really make sense given those facts.

    My comments are related to the feasibility of getting gay marriage bans overturned,
    I wasn't try to argue about what you believe. I was taking issue with what you literally wrote:
    my comments are very much related to the battle of banning gay marriage and whether that it constitutional in the U.S. I just wanted to make that clear for anybody reading this.

    I'm saying that if homosexuality is not a choice, then there should be no debate about whether gay marriage is allowed, as it would clearly be discrimination against a class of people to not allow them to marry.

    If homosexuality is a choice, then you get into a much murkier area about what is allowed and what isn't according to our Constitution. There would be less basis for overturning laws voted on and passed by the people of individual states. I would still feel it should be allowed (no question), but I don't know if laws banning it should be overturned.

    However, I think the idea that homosexuality is not biological is only controversial amongst gay marriage opponents. The science backs it up, and it doesn't make sense any other way, which means that there isn't much doubt in my mind.
    The part in bold is false. Biologism is not a factor in constitutional debates. It is not relevant to the debate at all -- as you point out, it is only of interest to people who are predisposed to consider homosexuality wrong or immoral or potentially illegal. They are looking for evidence that it is not biological.* That may/may not mean there is "less basis" in terms of meandering public support, but not at all that it has "less basis" in the constitution. The constitution protects all kinds of individual rights and freedoms that have nothing at all to do with whether those freedoms are genetically inherited or can be justified as "biological". I doubt there are ANY (right, left, center) judges or politicians that will want to make "scientific biologism" of this sort an element of the constitution -- you might as well throw the whole thing away.

    I hope this clears things up for you

    *which is not something that could be currently proven anyway. The most you could do is prove that it is genetic, you cannot prove that it is not.
    Last edited by MK27; 01-24-2010 at 01:15 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. The pope
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-06-2005, 03:06 AM
  2. Religion
    By gnu-ehacks in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 239
    Last Post: 01-26-2002, 10:44 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21