Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

Comments (152)
zeroth wrote:

The churches’ greatest threat to humanity is the churches’ inflexibility to an evolving world,i.e., birth control, the dwindling priesthood- and, especially it’s own blindness to in-house abuses.

Jan 09, 2012 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rdinTempe wrote:

“The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue,” Benedict told the diplomats

Shouldn’t this concept also be applied to celibacy?

How can priest counsel a young could with a family when they’ve never exprienced the same challenges?

The Catholic Church needs to change it’s own culture before changing the rest of the world.

Jan 09, 2012 2:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wrpa wrote:

…a miniscule threat compared to pedophile priests !

Jan 09, 2012 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Markeen wrote:

‘…which has some 1.3 billion members worldwide’.

A disingenuous figure given that most children are born into this religion and find it almost impossible to remove themselves (officially) from it.

The rise of same-sex marriage in so called Catholic countries such as Spain and the widespread use of contraceptives etc clearly illustrate that these frustrated old man and their ‘teachings’ represent very few people.

Jan 09, 2012 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ebarbee13 wrote:

And how is a gay couple not a “family unit”?

Jan 09, 2012 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DaMav wrote:

Wonderful message from the Pope. Thank you!

Jan 09, 2012 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
renecito wrote:

“The Roman Catholic Church, which has some 1.3 billion members worldwide”
Many are for Marriage Equality. Many are LGBT themselves. (Im a Gay Catholic)

“children should grow up in a traditional family with a mother and a father”
Marriage Equality wont stop this. It will help pick up Orphan kids into homes.

The Earth was Flat

Jan 09, 2012 4:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jonnlove wrote:

This is absolutely ridiculous! Firstly, people are not gay because of their up bringing or some traumatic event, people are gay because we were born that way. I proudly accept the love of my man and give all my love to him. Love- no matter what kind of love, is pure and should not be touched.
I have no respect for the pope, arch bishop, are any so called religion that is souly based on money and quit frankly a stolen religion. On top of this, who the hell is he to be mixed up in politics anyway?
Its because of proud same sex couples that children are being adopted and saved from the system while so many women are just popping them out for the governments money. This just pisses me off so much, i only have one thing to say to the pope, you are a servant of god, not God, therefore you have no place to pass judgement on anyone or stand in the way of a persons free will, therefore by doing so, you are going to hell!!!

People need to realize that being homosexual is not a choice, we wouldn’t choose to be made fun of or be put in harms way, we are excepting the way we were born into this would, we are loving honestly, and we deserve to be married, have children, and take care of the people we love.

Jan 09, 2012 4:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
e.pons wrote:

How ironic, considering that the biggest, most real and present threat to the harmonious survival of humanity is RELIGION!

Jan 09, 2012 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
boarderthom wrote:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written on these issues, from his latest book -
“This is a matter of ordinary justice. We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about – our very skin. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups.” (page 54)
and -
“Equally, I cannot keep quiet while people are being penalized for something about which they can do nothing – their sexuality. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as apartheid ever was.” (page 55)
Strong words from a great man who has fought against apartheid.

Jan 09, 2012 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
1342tom wrote:

I totally agree with the Pope’s statement, “policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself”, however it is the Pope and Churches ideological policies which are the threat not same-sex marriage.

Jan 09, 2012 5:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

“….precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions”?!

Umm except for the fact that we have a separation of church and state in this country. They cannot conflict with one another because they cannot interact (or at least, they’re not supposed to).

Besides, the church may have bishops and cardinals, but the state has F-18′s and nuclear warheads. If a holy war broke out between the two (which it wouldn’t), I think it’s fairly obvious who would emerge victorious.

Oh and one other minor thing: How, exactly, is allowing gays to marry a threat to humanity itself? Do gay weddings involve some sort of ritualistic genocide that I don’t know about? Or perhaps the Dope is worried that God, in all His infinite wisdom and mercy, will get super-pissed and exterminate the human race in some sort of divine temper tantrum.

And finally, if I’ve said this once, I’ve said it a thousand times: If you really don’t want gay people having sex, you should be all for letting them get married!

Jan 09, 2012 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wingloss wrote:

The pope should worry about his priests!!

Jan 09, 2012 5:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RobinGitte wrote:

“threaten … the future of humanity”

Dangerous exaggeration.

Overpopulation, driven in so small part by power hungry religious zealots, will create immense human suffering and put an end to any chance of humanity terra forming Kepler 22b in some thousands of years’ time as we’ll be too busy fighting over the depleted resources left on our desert planet.

Jan 09, 2012 5:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
k.lee wrote:

Of all the more poignant issues threatening humanity such as climate change, terrorism, poverty, communicable disease (the vatican prohibits contraception which would help control the sptread of STIs) and overpopulation it’s odd and a wasted opportunity that the Pope chooses to highlight gay marriage as a threat to humanity’s future. Perhaps his efforts would be better spent on more serious issues such as those listed or for more domestic topics address teenage pregnancies, parental absenteeism, child abuse and access to education. Gay marriage does not always result in raising children but focuses on the rights and recognition of loving and stable relationship. However, if two such people choose to raise a child within this environment there are far more threatening issues facing that child in today’s world than the distribution of gender amongst their guardians.

Jan 09, 2012 5:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EvertonB wrote:

I thought that any church, no matter whether catholic, baptist, etc., was supposed to “UNITE” us all as “GOD’s CHILDREN”. The one thing Pope Benedict is doing is telling homophobic people all over the world that it’s OK to “HATE ALL GAY PEOPLE”!! He should take a good close look in the mirror and recall all the innocent children that were molested by catholic priests and how the “CATHOLIC CHURCH” has covered it up for decades, if not centuries!! Also, no one was put on this earth to “JUDGE” anyone whatsoever, only GOD HAS THAT RIGHT and POWER!! Pope Benedict, you should be ashamed of yourself!!

Jan 09, 2012 5:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oroboros wrote:

This is the same pope who was pimping out seminarians and choristers, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/06/earlyshow/saturday/main6272743.shtml

Jan 09, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

That’s rich. The Bishop of Los Angeles just quit after it was discovered he had secretly fathered 2 children as a lifelong ‘celibate.’

Maybe the kids were clones made from his hair. Or maybe the Catholic clergy is so infected with Child molestors, head-cases and liars…. their word means nothing anymore. Whether or not any Catholic clergy live like they say they live is becoming less clear:

http://news.yahoo.com/california-bishop-resigns-says-2-kids-131958416.html

Jan 09, 2012 5:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KGB1213 wrote:

If the vatican sold off all it’s wealth evry mouth in the world would be fed and then some. Talk about a threat…the richest entity on planet Earth is the biggest threat there could ever be. Jesus would be disgusted by the church & the dope.

Jan 09, 2012 5:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
vjohn82 wrote:

Pretty ridiculous comments to be honest. Humanity has always been good at adapting to it’s surroundings or manipulating them for survival. It’s no longer a question of a man and woman being the “best” family model. We simply do not have statistics either way.

If gays are such a threat to humanity, perhaps straight people should stop giving birth to them?

Jan 09, 2012 5:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
HROD wrote:

there was a time it was a Catholic rite.
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html
Maybe we should remind them they could coin it again. Usually money helps.

Jan 09, 2012 6:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

It is beyond me, why a support for marriage between a man and a woman is considered to be ‘against’ gay people. If this is against gay people, than why is not redefining marriage is not considered to be an attack on heterosexual people.

Jan 09, 2012 6:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
John_Bannon wrote:

Hyperbole and hysteria, much?

This is just the RCC’s war on the gays.

Jan 09, 2012 6:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bruceplante wrote:

I don’t want to hate, but I can’t help myself when it comes to this rotting carcass of an institution. People, wake up! I didn’t know is no longer an acceptable excuse (if it ever was). Stop enabling this oppressor.

Jan 09, 2012 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveD3000 wrote:

KrisCraig – you said “we have a separation of church and state in this country. They cannot conflict with one another because they cannot interact” I’m not religious, but they can and should. The Constitution, in this area, only prohibits the government from interfering with religious expression and from establishing a national religion. Long before and long after the constitution, statehouses doubled as churches and often by more than one religion. The conflict of which the pope spoke pertains to government establishing a right for gays to marry that the church explicitly opposes but then could be forced to comply. Not likely to happen in the US, but not because of church/state separation, in my opinion, but rather free expression of religion.

Jan 09, 2012 7:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheQuestioner wrote:

“He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper “settings” and that “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.”

The homophobia is bad enough, but I love how Benedict assumes that all human societies have the same family structure and marriage traditions. Newsflash Benedict—the majority of humans are neither Christian nor Catholic. And the nuclear family structure that you deem “proper” for all seven billion humans on this planet is specific to Western (post-)industrial societies. But even in the West, divorced and single parent families are becoming the norm, with no help from gay and lesbian folk.

And like other commenters have stated, the RCC/Vatican would do well to clean up their own house before worrying about other folks’ households. That child abuse scandal of yours won’t fix itself, Pope.

Jan 09, 2012 7:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
heron2 wrote:

The Poop has spoken, once again so wisely and with such omnipotent compassion. Catholicism represents the single most vile cult and unrelenting scam against humanity that has ever existed outside of Nazism. I don’t need a unmarried moron wearing woven golden underwear warning the world about the terrifying results that conveying a bit of dignity to our brethren would bring. I say turn the Vatican into a museum, melt down the chalices and give the proceeds to the legions who have been physically and spiritually harmed by this farcical hoax.

Jan 09, 2012 7:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JPopowicz wrote:

Ignorance is the threat to humanity’s future.

Jan 09, 2012 7:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nomadic1 wrote:

You know…he has a lot of gaul to point out what -HE- thinks are problems when his wrinkley arse is sitting on a gold throne. Sounds like, to me, that he’s the one causing problems…not correcting them.

Jan 09, 2012 7:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pflagmom wrote:

Perhaps it is Catholics who most realize that asking gays to remain alone and celibate their whole life is a recipe for trouble. We can hardly encourage celibacy for gays when even religious leaders who have taken vows have trouble living up to them. There are still people who believe being gay is a choice, but for those of us who know it isn’t, we want gays to be able to know, growing up, that society supports them in the pursuit of loving, committed family life. Isn’t that healthier overall for society? Doesn’t excluding them from marriage just add more couples to the heterosexuals already cohabiting? At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, why encourage more love, romance and sex to flourish entirely outside the institution of marriage? Is that the example we want our straight and gay teens to view? Marriage equality is what social conservatives should be supporting.

Jan 09, 2012 7:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cindyg2012 wrote:

Oh please. Clean your own house first.

Jan 09, 2012 8:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DSkoll wrote:

Religion is a far greater threat to humanity than gay
marriage.

Jan 09, 2012 8:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@SteveD3000 Actually, you have your facts wrong. Here’s what the First Amendment actually says (I had to memorize it back in college):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In other words, government may not pass any laws that pertain to the religious establishment or prohibit the free excpression of religion. It was Thomas Jefferson who first elaborated on this, saying their intent was to create a “wall” between church and state. Basically, exactly as I described in my last post.

Unfortunately, this isn’t always what happens in practice, but that’s whte way it’s supposed to be at least.

@newsreader60 If it’s beyond you, then you should pay closer attention to the issue rather than merely listening to what Fox News tells you to think.

First of all, there is no such thing as “traditional marriage.” In fact, marriage has evolved considerably over the centuries. Marriage was originally little more than a business transaction between two fathers. Over time, polygamous marriage came and went and came and went many times over. About a century ago, a marriage was an institution in which the woman stayed home and ran the house while the man worked. In more recent years, women have gone from being subservient to generally being equal partners in a marriage, often times even having jobs themselves, which even just a few decades ago was unheard of.

Marriage has evolved and will continue to evolve over time. You can’t just pick one recent snapshot of marriage, label it the “traditional” one, then decree that it must never change again.

Now to your actual question: Why does saying a marriage is a union between a man and a woman anti-gay?

Answer: Because the sole purpose of that statement is to exclude gay couples. Remember how I said that there’s no such thing as “traditional” marriage? Well, a little over a century ago, there were laws on the books that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman of the same race. Opponents of interracial marriage used that euphemism ad nauseum. They would basically say something to the effect of, “This has nothing to do with race! We’re just saying that you shouldn’t redefine marriage.”

Sound familiar?

It had everything to do with race, just like it has everything to do with homosexuality today. You’re just hiding behind the pink, fluffy slogan of “defending traditional marriage” when you and I both know that what this is really about is you not wanting to see two dudes kissing as you walk down the street.

It’s bigotry. You can dress it up in an angel costume with a shiny cross necklass, but it’s still bigotry. There’s no such thing as defending traditional marriage because there’s no such thing as traditional marriage. What you’re doing in actuality is fighting on the wrong side of this generation’s Civil Rights movement.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land within a few years’ time. When your grandkids are in school being taught about the civil rights movement of the early 21st century, they’ll be just as ashamed of your comments as you’d be of your ancestors who supported segregation (assuming you’re caucasian; if not, we can use my racist idiot ancestors instead).

Does that answer your question?

Jan 09, 2012 8:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tgflux wrote:

The Anglican churches which affirm LGBT people/relationships, have gained WAY MORE members, than they have lost to the RCC!

Jan 09, 2012 8:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

I dont support gay marriage.I also dont support the pope.

Jan 09, 2012 9:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dolupduk wrote:

Children need their parents to be examples!

Jan 09, 2012 10:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whatthehell21 wrote:

In that letter Dolan, who holds the powerful post of president of the U.S. Bishops Conference, said such a policy could “precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions.”

Sounds like he is threatening a war.

Jan 09, 2012 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Popsiq wrote:

Gay marriage – legalized disorder. Many ‘pedophile priests’ also struggle unsuccessfully ‘gay’ behviour in a Church that forbids that, too.

Jan 09, 2012 10:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobbyp30 wrote:

@KrisCraig

Simply brilliant.

If there was something I could add, I would, but you took the words out of my brain and wrote them better than I could.

If only those who initially disagreed would take this argument and logically evaluate it. However, as is standard, they will either conspicuously disappear from the conversation, or yell louder, presuming that will somehow elicit a counterpoint.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Jan 09, 2012 10:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rbcyes wrote:

The Pope and the entire leadership of the Catholic Church should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity to an international tribunal.
Why hasn’t this happened yet??
This church continues to commit genocide in the name of spirituality.
Their poisonous homophobia kills thousands of gay people everyday as their strict policies on contraception destroys lives in Africa and other 3rd-world regions.
This hateful religion along with Islam and other conservative homophobic, sexist and racist groups should be compared to Hitler’s regime and treated as hostile to all mankind.

Jan 09, 2012 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RandomName2nd wrote:

Not having sex for your whole life can really make you cranky it seems.

Jan 09, 2012 11:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xytan wrote:

Homosexuals aren’t the greatest threat to humanity. The greatest threat to humanity is religion.

Jan 10, 2012 1:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
Marut6bine wrote:

If we (non religious people) can have no say on what the religion should be like, then the religion should have no say on how everybody should live. A.k.a. RELIGION Y U so hypocritical?

Jan 10, 2012 2:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
robertjs wrote:

Good for the Pope. Glad someone is still able to recognize and state the truth, even if it’s unpopular in our increasingly blind and propagandized society.

Jan 10, 2012 2:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
JeffMarks wrote:

Personally, I would have called Nazism a greater threat to humanity, but this Pope didn’t seem to mind them. I’m always happy when I’m on opposite sides of an issue from a former Nazi.

Jan 10, 2012 6:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

I guess the age of reason is over … this is the age of the mayhem of stupidity.

The pope is not speaking against anyone. He is simply saying that a redefinition of marriage (the oldest human institution of all) from a child centred union of man and woman into an adult centered friendship is a radical redefinition of the foundation of human society. And about this, he is perfectly right.

It is hard to believe the amount of bigoted garbage that is being spewed here by many of the comments. Is this the enlightened conversation that awaits us in the future? This is truly pathetic.

Jan 10, 2012 6:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
jerrybreen wrote:

If Benedict is such a big believer in traditional marriage, why does he forbid his priests to marry (except for those lucky few in the Church’s Ukrainian Rite)? Because he’s a hypocrite, that’s why! – Jerry Breen

Jan 10, 2012 7:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
markmorton wrote:

I think the Pope needs to try a gay marriage before he has any authority to criticize them. And with his fabulous wardrobe (that hat!) and his sexy accent, he shouldn’t have any trouble finding an eligible prospect.

Jan 10, 2012 7:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
dacite wrote:

If anything, gay marriage might add to help save humanity. Is the Catholic Church the only group that doesn’t see that overpopulation is destroying the world.I guess, like Islam, they are trying to out populate the other groups.

Jan 10, 2012 8:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@ KrisCraig

You write: “First of all, there is no such thing as ‘traditional marriage’.”

First, I never talked about ‘traditional marriage’.

Second, in essence you are wrong.
The oldest human institution is that of the union of man and woman for the procreation and rearing of children, and for the mutual support of spouses. In other words, by definition, it is a fundamentally child-centred institution, and as such it defines the future of humanity. This institution precedes (and as such it is the source of) all other human institutions including state and religion. This basic profile of the institution of this union (called marriage) has never changed throughout the history of humanity, except for the past few years.

In the past few years, because of the relentless pressure of the gay lobby, in some countries marriage has been re-qualified as a fundamental human right (the International Human Rights code does not think so), and as a result it has been redefined as primarily and adult-centred institution, where the procreating and upbringing of children has been excluded as an essential part of marriage (by definition – and not by exception as in the case of infertile couples – it cannot be done without the involvement of a third person).

Removing the procreation and upbringing of children from the foundations of marriage redefined this institution and the long term effect is going to be felt by the children. In this sense the pope is right: the introduced changes endanger the future of humanity as we know it.

Please note, nowhere did I say anything negative about same-sex relationships. I was simply trying to speak for certain foundational human values that are about to disappear from society.

Jan 10, 2012 8:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
VeroniqueD wrote:

What on earth does the Pope think he is on about? Gays of both genders constitute such a small proportion of the human population that their marriage will have no impact whatsoever on humanity’s future.

As has been noted in the comments, paedophile priests do more damage to humanity than gay marriage could ever hope to emulate. The psychological damage done by thousands of sex-starved priests with psychological issues of their own was and continues to be horrendous.

Celibate popes who have no real understanding of humanity except that it is flawed and must plead its way into a spurious afterlife should actually stop pontificating on anything at all. His ignorance just further confounds his flock.

Jan 10, 2012 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
conserfolife wrote:

This coming from the same man who allows pedophile priests to practice throughout the entire world, and if they get caught he pardons them and sends them to an even more remote part of the world where he will never get caught again.
The real problem is the divorce rate among heterosexual marriages. Solve that problem and then the institution of marriage will be resolved.

Jan 10, 2012 9:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@ Veronique

Please read what the pope said. He does not talk about gays. Only this article and people commenting here are saying that the pope is talking about gays.

The pope is talking about the oldest insitution in human history: the union between man and woman for the procreation and upbringing of children and mutual support of spuses. The participation in this insitituiton is not a right, it is a privilage, based on aptitude.

What the pope is saying is that this institution is the foundation of human society.

Jan 10, 2012 9:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
jroliver wrote:

The Church itself is a greater to man than gay marriage

Jan 10, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
Canuckistan69 wrote:

@newsreader:

Your alarmist posts might be relevant if heterosexual people were being denied the right to get married.

They are not.

You fail.

Jan 10, 2012 11:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@newsreader60, I would bet prostitution has been around just as long as marriage, so your assertion that marriage is the ‘oldest institution in human history’ is invalid. Unless of course you feel as if it should be legal too, I do, but I seriously doubt a religious fundamentalist as you self would think so.

On another point it figures the Catholic church would stand for one of the last bastions of institutionalized discrimination we still have as a society.

Jan 10, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@USAPragmatis

“prostitution has been around just as long as marriage”
So, prostitution is an institution? :) According to this ‘logic’ murder is also an institution (another very old practice). Please, look up first ‘institution’ in a dictionary, educate yourself. You rae making a complete fool of yourself.

Jan 10, 2012 11:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@newsreader60 It looks like you completely missed the point that USAPragmatist was making. He wasn’t arguing that prostitution should be legalized because it’s an institution. He was saying that marriage, like prostitution, murder, journalism, etc; is an institution, and that, therefore, that in and of itself does not make it sacred and untouchable.

Jan 10, 2012 1:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ES1 wrote:

The Episcopal Church welcomes all Catholics and their families – including GLBT families. There is hope!

Jan 10, 2012 1:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@Canuckistan69

Heterosexual people are denied marriage when the dont have the aptitude to fulfill the goals of the institution of marriage, such as:
- being close relatives
- unable to care for children (mental/emotional inaptitude)
- because of age

According to the international Human Rights Code, marriage is not a basic human right, and it is defined as a union between man and woman.

So, you don’t have your facts straight, plus you cannot reason properly. So, who has failed ?:)

Jan 10, 2012 1:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@newsreader60 Do you really want to base your argument entirely on semantics? You didn’t use the word “traditional,” but by saying we’re, “redefining” the “oldest institution in human history,” I think the word “traditional” is reasonably implied. Or do you agree that there is no such thing as “traditional marriage,” after all?

YOU may see marriage as an institution designed solely for child-bearing, but the facts do not support that assertion. Would it be your stance, for example, that heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children (or simply unwilling) should not be allowed to marry? After all, if marriage is in place for the purpose of having children, then why should infertile heterosexual couples be allowed to marry while gay couples cannot? They’re both in loving relationships and both incapable of having children.

You see, THAT is why your comments are anti-gay. You don’t have to use the word “gay” or “homosexual” in order for your statements to be directed towards them. Like I said earlier, the same arguments were used by opponents of interracial marriage. They argued, “Hey, why are you bringing race into this?! I never even mentioned the color of a person’s skin. I’m just saying that marriage shouldn’t be redefined.”

In other words, we’re calling BS on you and the Dope. You’re not fooling anyone. This is about you not wanting gay people to get married; nothing more, nothing less. Unless, of course, you’d be willing to say that infertile heterosexual couple shouldn’t be allowed to marry, either.

Besides, you’ve also got your facts wrong. Specifically:

“The oldest human institution is that of the union of man and woman for the procreation and rearing of children….”

That’s actually not correct, anyway. Gay marriage has existed since ancient times. You may find this article of some interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

As you can see, the institution of marriage has included same-sex couples since the Ming dynasty in ancient China. Or perhaps you only think western cultures are relevant? Ok, look at the ancient Romans. They, too, had gay marriage, though they had conflicting laws on the subject. It wasn’t until Rome had a Christian emperor that gay weddings were stopped (and those who had engaged in them were subsequently executed).

Your argument completely falls apart. Whether you prefer to call your argument “traditional marriage” or “the oldest institution” of marriage, either way what you’re referencing doesn’t actually exist. Marriage has evolved over time and will continue to evolve whether ignorant bigots like yourself choose to accept it or not.

Jan 10, 2012 1:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@newsreader60 Ok, I have to say this: What, exactly, is this “international Human Rights Code” you keep referring to?! As far as I can tell, such a thing does not actually exist.

Canada does have a “Human Rights Code,” but it doesn’t have any international jurisdiction.

Are you referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If so, then you’re still wrong, because it actually DOES state that marriage is a fundamental human right (see Article 16).

Jan 10, 2012 1:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Quoting wrote:

Go read the entire speech. See if it anywhere he specifically talks about gay marriage. He does not. See what he lists after the statement

“This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.”

They are

1. patenting processess relative to human embryonic stem cells
2. prenatal selction on the basis of sex
3. permiting or promoting abortion for convenievence or questionable medical motives.

Notice he doesn’t even say all abortion, not that he isn’t against all abortion. The point is his words are chosen carefully, which this article does not reflect at all.

My question is how can some claim that “The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage”, when there is not indication that he had gay marriage in mind in this particular speech? He might not want gay marriage, and you may disagree. Fine. But where is it in this speech?

Jan 10, 2012 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tcpa wrote:

If a church wants to have such a big say in the government, they should have to give up their tax exempt status.

Jan 10, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@KrisCraig

“Do you really want to base your argument entirely on semantics?”
Winning and losing is perhaps your paradigm, not mine (the good old adversarial system). I am interested in what is right.

“YOU may see marriage as an institution designed solely for child-bearing”
I do not. Please read what I wrote and quote me accurately. It goes to honesty.

It is one thing to have people who cannot have children because of medical conditions and another to have people who cannot by definition (without the involvement of a third party). The first one refers to an exception, the second sets a new rule.

Your attempt to draw a parallel with ‘interracial marriage’, while enthusiastically employed by the gay lobby, is inane. The objection to interracial marriage is wrong because people are disallowed to marry based no their race, color of skin. Gay people can still marry, and always have been, as long as they fulfilled the aptitude requirements for marriage (child-bearing and mutual support of spouses). You are comparing apples and oranges.

The point I was making is that excluding child-bearing by definition from marriage, changes its nature: it turns (by definition) a fundamentally child-centred institution into an adult-centred one. You conveniently ignored this point. Again, goes to honesty in your reasoning (or rather, the lack of it).

Your reference to a Wikipedia argument is as flimsy as it gets. No, there was never a “gay marriage” that would have been equated with heterosexual marriage. There were recognized friendships, some even governed and similar relationships, but that was never considered the same as marriage.

If you had read the universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 carefully, you would have seen that while every single Article starts out with the word “Everyone”, Article starts out with “Men and women of full age”. These are two restrictions that positively discriminate, hence render marriage not a universal human right. Your problem is that you don’t know how to read a legal document.

All in all, while you would like to be seen as a ‘thinker’, you are not. You cannot read properly, you are dishonest in your arguments, and you come to preconceived (hence stupid) conclusions. In other words, you are not a thinker, you are someone pretending to know how to think.

Jan 10, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@ Quoting

Very good point.

The way his speach has been presented (interpreted) is called disinformation. That this is being done across the board my so many media outlets shows how much one can rely on the accuracy of the media.

Jan 10, 2012 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
American213 wrote:

The people of Prophet Lot have been mentioned as an example in both Koran and Bible when gay relationships become common among a group of people. Their sins also included highway robbery, other social injustices etc. All a product of what their lifestyle led them to do.

A child’s developing mind needs both mother and father to nurture them properly. If we tip the balance away from a normal family in the society’s equation, consider for a second what kind of society we will be left with? What kind of behavior people as a whole would have then?

That is what the Koran and Bible have warned us against. The Pope is repeating the warnings sent by God’s prophets including Jesus, Mohammad (PBUH) and others. Criticizing the Pope does not help understanding how this danger affects humanity if it becomes prevalent.

Jan 10, 2012 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

And this from an institution that employed one of the most famous homosexuals in history, Michelangelo, whose stupendous, heartrendingly beautiful works of art, made the Vatican the biggest money earning attraction of Vatican City, and that will continue to be venerated by billions of admirers long after Pope B has been expunged from living memory.

And this from an institution that burned the visionary Giordano Bruno at the stake after driving an iron spike through his tongue and marching him through the streets in disgrace for the ‘heresy’ of daring to suggest that Planet Earth is not a flat piece of dirt with lakes on it.

And this from an institution that imprisoned Galileo Gallilei for suggesting the very same thing.

And this from an institution that by its silence during WWII, perpetuated anti-Semitism and effectively condoned the mass murder of more than 6 million Jews and tens of thousands of homosexuals in the Nazi Holocaust.

And this from an institution that excommunicated Martin Luther for his exposure of the sale of Indulgences and other contemporary corruptions.

And this from a former Nazi, a man wearing a dress, with oversight of the largest conglomeration of clerical pedophiles in history.

And this, from an out-of-touch cleric who is patently unaware that out of all the 34,000+ Christian denominations in the wide world, by far the greatest support for gay rights and same sex marriage comes from the Catholic faithful.

I am what I am. I am not a threat to traditional marriage. Heterosexuals will continue to marry and procreate as they always have, no matter whether I have a same sex marriage or not.

I was well educated in a Catholic high school but I have two words to say to Pope B+XV, and it is politeness alone that forbids my uttering them here.

Jan 10, 2012 5:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tjchase wrote:

The only thing the church is doing is spreading hate and second class citizenry. Faith in God is the answer not faith in the church

Jan 10, 2012 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@DerekWilliams
“I was well educated in a Catholic high school”
Reading your diatribe (the usual stupid laundry list) mascarading as arguments, they might have tried to educate you, but the reults are pathetic.

Jan 10, 2012 5:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

Oh yes … and you comment is soooo loving :) Got a mirror?

Jan 10, 2012 5:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

@newsreader60

World population currently is at 7 billion, almost 5 billion of which has been added since I was born. World population is estimated to at least double by the end of this century.

In the light of these statistics, please demonstrate how homosexuality has been threatening the future of humanity, as claimed by the Pontiff, and in particular how adding 5% (estimated percentage of openly gay, based on US Census 2004 and 2008 exit polls) to the current breeding stock by converting all homosexuals into heterosexuals will assist in bringing the population down to a sustainable size.

Kindly bear in mind that the Catholic Church acknowledges homosexuals are born gay, “in God’s image and likeness”, and cannot be changed into heterosexuals.

All they ask is that you never express your love sexually for another human being, not even once.

Needless to say, homosexuals should and do remove themselves at high speed from such hocus pocus, the same as most Catholics ignore the Church’s prohibition of artificial birth control.

My “usual stupid laundry” list of wrongdoing by the Church is absolutely relevant, because it shows that it is not infallible, and therefore is in no position to judge homosexuals.

One day the Catholic Church will apologise for the grievous suffering its erroneous teachings has inflicted upon homosexuals.

So far as your sarcastic comment “soooo loving” is concerned, I point out that we homosexuals have just been accused by the world’s leading cleric of being a “threat to humanity’s future”. This hardly calls for a “loving” response. While we’re on the subject, have a read of your own abusive comment to see if you can find any love there.

Jan 10, 2012 6:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sport6 wrote:

As a life-long, practicing ‘cradle Catholic’, I can also say that The Catholic Church ALSO downplays the exodus of members over the years because of ITS’ irrelevant policies and practices. In the late 1960′s as a high school student, our parish had “14″ Sunday Masses (no Saturday ‘replacement’ Mass). Today, we have just THREE, + a Saturday (punch-your-ticket) Mass. Where have all THOSE Catholics gone?

And speaking of Anglicans…While the Church has strongly resisted the ordination of Married Men and Women to the Priesthood as being unacceptable, they HAVE welcomed ‘MARRIED’ Anglican Priests that choose to ‘convert’ to the Roman Church. The paradox is that if you are a ‘cradle Catholic’, you cannot become a married Priest. However, you CAN come in the ‘back door’ from the Anglican Church.

The litany of policies and actions that the Catholic Leadership is wrong about is far too great to go into here. However, as far as its’ stand against Gays & Lesbians is concerned, it continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence that this is NOT a ‘choice’ status. If God saw it acceptable to create people with various gender orientations, then the Leadership of the Catholic Church is shamefully, and actually rejecting SOME of God’s Children, rather than embracing them as we are expected to do. After all… ‘What would Jesus Do?’ If HE were here, would HE cast them out? I don’t think so.

Jan 10, 2012 6:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EdinPS wrote:

“The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue,” Benedict told the diplomats.

Exactly. Same sex families do just that. Policies should be in place to promote all families, not just the pope approves of.

Jan 10, 2012 8:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
millthorn wrote:

It is not only gay marriage threatens the traditional family. The Vatican & Catholic church, are great threats to family and family values. An inquisition or celibacy or priestly abuses could really mess things up for any family.

Jan 10, 2012 8:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ddrc1234 wrote:

I have started a petition at change.org calling on the President and Secretary of State Clinton to make good on the declaration made on behalf of the US Government last month in front of the UN in support of LGBT right, by withdrawing the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See as a diplomatic protest.

The change.org petition is entitled “Withdraw U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See”. If you agree, please sign and share. An email is automatically sent to the press office of the Department of State whenever a signature is added.

Jan 10, 2012 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

Oh, just the usual gay histeria: nobody mentioned gay marriage, nowhere can you find it in the pope’s speach, yet the whole gay lobby is running around screaming that tyhey have been ‘hurt’. Get a life and stop the whining!

And of course the bigotts also come out of the woodwork these kinds of occasions and hurl all kinds of abscene, hate-filled, out-of-context accusations at the Catholic Church. Interestingly, all these are printed and they are fine by the censors of blogs and newspapers (including this one). However, none of this would be printed, if it would address gay paople. Catholics are fair game. This shows who has the power, and who is oppressed (certainly not the gays and the gay lobby).

Jan 10, 2012 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

Oh, just the usual gay histeria: nobody mentioned gay marriage, nowhere can you find it in the pope’s speach, yet the whole gay lobby is running around screaming that tyhey have been ‘hurt’. Get a life and stop the whining!

And of course the bigotts also come out of the woodwork these kinds of occasions and hurl all kinds of abscene, hate-filled, out-of-context accusations at the Catholic Church. Interestingly, all these are printed and they are fine by the censors of blogs and newspapers (including this one). However, none of this would be printed, if it would address gay paople. Catholics are fair game. This shows who has the power, and who is oppressed (certainly not the gays and the gay lobby).

Jan 10, 2012 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

@newsreader60

The Pontiff made the first move, and with what the Vatican teaches against homosexuality, you can’t expect us not to defend ourselves. The day you catch us still “whining” after we have full equality, will be the day I acknowledge you have made a valid point. As for now, homosexuals are still illegal in 76 countries of the world, bullied at school, imprisoned, executed, tortured, shut out of many religions, bashed, brutally murdered – usually by complete strangers to whom we meant and did no harm. While that continues, aided and abetted by anti-homosexual dogma from the pulpit, be it Catholic, Islamic, Jewish or otherwise, I will continue to ‘whine’ on behalf of my LGBT kin who are less well off than I am.

The counter-intuitive fact is, the greatest support for LGBT rights from any religion comes from the Catholic faithful, right under the Pope’s nose in effect. By a huge margin, more Catholics support marriage equality and equal rights for gay and lesbian people than any other religion on Earth.

In fact, it may surprise you to know that it is a Catholic priest, no less, who has recently launched a petition http://www.change.org/petitions/eliminate-the-gay-panic-defence-from-queensland-law-gaypanic to repeal the Gay Panic Defence law in Queensland, Australia. This Defence allows violent offenders to claim they were panicked into killing a gay man whom they invariably allege made a pass at them.

Jan 10, 2012 11:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Johnboy1957 wrote:

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner

Jan 11, 2012 7:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@Derek Williams
Yes, you are whining, because you distort the truth and make everything, every issue, be about you.

The simple fact is thast the pope DID not speak against, or about gays. He spoke about the importance of marriage as the foundation of society, where a man and a woman oguth to give birth to a child and raise it in a loving relationship. When every study shows that such (child centred) environment is the best for a child’s healthy development, and hence to the healthy future of humanity, how can you dispute in good conscience this point? No, you are so rapped up in your selfish obsession that the only way you can feel equal with others is if you redefine, hence destroy marriage. Guess what, that will not make you feel equal. You either believe that you are equal or you don’t. Your inferiority complex is a sorry reason to reingeneer society.

A lie is a lie. You can lie about issues (that the pope spoke against gays) to promote your politcal agenda, but that does not make it right. You lie and decive to achieve your political goals.

As usual in these discussins, in essence you did not address a single importnat point I raised, in an honest manner. You simply resort to ad hominem arguments, take historical events out of context, and and hurle bigotted accusations and generalizations at everyone who has differenbt views than you do.

Jan 11, 2012 8:03am EST  --  Report as abuse

I agree with the Pope. The Catholic bashers are having a heyday over this but sin is sin is sin.

Jan 11, 2012 11:48am EST  --  Report as abuse

Thank you newsreader. You are so right about gays having selfish obsessions….in fact your entire posting is right.

Jan 11, 2012 11:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

@newsreader60
I’ve had a quick re-read through my postings, and can’t find any ad hominem argument I made against you, although I confess the one about the Pope in a dress clearly was.

Unless you are a completely obtuse, you cannot fail to see that by excluding all by male+female marriage the Pontiff is condemning all other relationships and is a clear allusion to same sex marriages, which he is already on the record as having strongly condemned. Even without that speech, I am already entitled to express my opinion, as are you. Moreover, the headlines on every publication I have read so far show that the editors of all these papers, including this one, have reached the same conclusion. Check it out.

Now to the points you raised (littered with spelling errors):
1. the results of my Catholic education are “pathetic”
2. “stupid laundry list” masquerading (misspelt by you) “as arguments”
3. “the usual gay histeria:” (another misspelling, this time of “hysteria”)
4. “the whole gay lobby is running around screaming”
5. “the bigotts also come out of the woodwork”
6. “Your inferiority complex is a sorry reason to reingeneer society.”
7. “you are so rapped up in your selfish obsession”
8. “hurl all kinds of abscene, hate-filled, out-of-context accusations”

There is much more, but any reasonable person can see straight away that you language is neither moderate nor empirical.

The one point you made that is not Argumentum Ad Hominem, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam or Straw Man, is where you claim, without evidence, that “every study” shows that a man and a woman “ought to give birth to a child”, and that child should be raised in a “child centred environment”. You don’t however mention that every study of children raised by same sex parents shows they fare no worse than those raised in opposite sex families.

Kindly show me any statement I made that heterosexuals should not have children and raise them in loving homes. I was raised in such an environment, and despite your insults and evident opinion to the contrary, thank my heterosexual parents, opposite-sex for doing a good job.

Finally you have accused me of telling lies. Unless you list my alleged lies, then I have no choice but to accuse you in return, of the very mendacity of which you accuse me.

Jan 11, 2012 12:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

newsreader60 – You and your bigoted ilk can attempt to obfuscate the subject all you want. The simple fact is this: extending the right of marriage to one group of people and denying it to another is discriminitory. Period. It has nothing to do with families, it has nothing to do with having children, it has everything to do with the fact that you believe that one pair of loving, consenting adults should be permitted to marry while another set of equally loving, equally consenting adults should be denied that right.

Jan 11, 2012 12:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

@DerekWilliams
You write: “I’ve had a quick re-read through my postings, and can’t find any ad hominem argument I made against you, although I confess the one about the Pope in a dress clearly was.”

Utter nonsense. You have no clue about logic, and certainly no clue what ad hominem arguments are. But before I get there, I have tom pint out that I never specified against who you made ad hominem arguments.

As far as ad hominem arguments go, most of your “Jan 10, 2012 5:03pm EST” posting is one single ad hominem argument. In a subsequent posting you sum it up as follows: “My ‘usual stupid laundry’ list of wrongdoing by the Church is absolutely relevant, because it shows that it is not infallible, and therefore is in no position to judge homosexuals.” In other words, you claim that the Church should be ignored because of past “wrongdoings”. How much they were or were not wrongdoings is one thing. The other thing is that you dismiss the Church’s standpoint on certain things because of these. If you would kindly care to check out a few sources on logic (Irving Cpoi’s book “Logic” is a good intro), it would greatly improve your ability to make an argument of any kind.
You write: “Unless you are a completely obtuse, you cannot fail to see that by excluding all by male+female marriage the Pontiff is condemning all other relationships and is a clear allusion to same sex marriages, which he is already on the record as having strongly condemned.”

Utter rubbish. Yes, the Pope did speak in favour of the family “based on the marriage of a man and woman”. And yes, he did say that “policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself”. But there was no suggestion that gay marriage was THE most important threat, and he never actually referred to it. He did specifically refer to policies regarding patenting of stem cells and abortion, but he never mentioned gays and lesbians or gay marriage. Oh, I see, you are criticizing his current comments based on previouse comments … please do some more reading of Copi’s book.

Please, kindly, first take the time to read the text you are trying to criticize. It goes to honesty.

You write: “Moreover, the headlines on every publication I have read so far show that the editors of all these papers, including this one, have reached the same conclusion. Check it out.”

Yes, Reuters started out with this headline and the rest of the news outlets slavishly copied it (end much of the article’s content) as usual. Check it out. BTW, this is called ad populum argument. Some more reason to read up on Copi.

You write: “Now to the points you raised (littered with spelling errors):
1. the results of my Catholic education are “pathetic”
2. “stupid laundry list” masquerading (misspelt by you) “as arguments”
3. “the usual gay histeria:” (another misspelling, this time of “hysteria”)
4. “the whole gay lobby is running around screaming”
5. “the bigotts also come out of the woodwork”
6. “Your inferiority complex is a sorry reason to reingeneer society.””
7. “you are so rapped up in your selfish obsession”
8. “hurl all kinds of abscene, hate-filled, out-of-context accusations””

Hmmm … If these are the ‘essential points’ I raised, than you have a real problem with comprehension of written texts.

Since you claim that there is only one point I raise that is not ad hominem argument and that is not one of these, I conclude that according to you all the above remarks are ad hominem arguments. I think you really have a problem with logic (btw, this is not an ad hominem argument, this is an observation, a conclusion).

Also, none of these eight points are ad hominem arguments. They are simply conclusions, based on the observations of your writing. They would be ad hominem arguments if I would claim that I am right because of your pathetic education, or your stupid laundry list, etc. I did not make such claim. My claims were made in those points which you simply did not care to read or address. Again, it goes to honesty.

You write: “You don’t however mention that every study of children raised by same sex parents shows they fare no worse than those raised in opposite sex families.”

Every study shows that children fair best when they are raised by their biological parents, in a loving, stable relationship. Obviously, in some cases exceptions must be made to this norm. But, to redefine the norm, by redefining marriage, and saying that it is just the same if children are not raised by their biological parents in a loving, stable relationship, is simply an outrageous lie.

From the above I conclude that you have real difficulties with logic and honesty. Therefore it is hopeless to come to any kind of agreement with you. (I am certainly not interested in dishonest sniping and ignoring the real issues.)

Jan 11, 2012 2:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ManOfMettle wrote:

Hello 4ngry4merican

It is unfortunate that your moniker ’4ngry4merican’ conveys hostility. Perhaps a civil dialog might lessen this tendency.
Now the Catholic church has always held the same position about marriage since Christ our Lord clarified the ‘one man, one woman’ as God’s standard. Plural marriages (polygamy, polyandry) are not in keeping with this sacrament and any sexual act outside of marriage is also contrary to the sixth commandment (thou shall not commit adultery).

Jan 11, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GripeBoy wrote:

This guy is a complete tool. Go away, Popey.

Jan 11, 2012 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@newsreader60 Yes, it says “men and women.” Last time I checked, gays still qualify as “men” and lesbians still qualify as “women.”

Jan 11, 2012 4:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@newsreader60 Also, if you doubt the accuracy of the Wikipedia article, look up the sources cited and verify the information for yourself. Yes, Wikipedia can sometimes have inaccurate information, but that can easily be determined simply by checking the sources and not being lazy.

Jan 11, 2012 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jimmy6p wrote:

Marriage in a Church can be controled by the Church. If they don’t want same sex marriage, that’s their business. Civil union is quite another matter, and has nothing to do with any religion.

The Church, any Church, has no business going after the Government, demanding that they outlaw marriage, in a civil ceremony, between two people of the same sex, or even two people of a different (man/woman) sex. It’s none of their business.

Jan 11, 2012 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@newsreader60 Your argument can basically be summed-up as, “The Dope didn’t specifically mention gays in his speech. Therefore, what he said didn’t pertain to gays.”

Opponents of interracial marriage often used the same “logic” in their arguments; i.e. that their opposition to interracial marriage had nothing to do with race because they didn’t specifically mention the word “African” in their arguments. Nobody bought it then, and nobody’s buying it now.

The Dope was referring to gay marriage. The fact that he didn’t use the word “gay” itself is irrelevant and does not alter the clear and unmistakable anti-gay meaning and intent of his words. To think otherwise would be disingenuous, or at best utterly naive.

Jan 11, 2012 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

@ GripBoy – you mean “Popeye”

or was that your freudian slip for “poop in your eye” ?

Jan 11, 2012 4:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

@ KrisCraig – last time you checked what? you mean men who like to be women and women who like to be men – or some some other reproductive permutation?

Jan 11, 2012 4:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@scythe Apparently you’re not aware, but sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different and separate things. We’re discussing marriage as it relates to sexual orientation, not gender identity. I’d be happy to discuss the latter with you, but right now is not the time to change the subject.

So yes, gay men are still men and gay women are still women. @newsreader60′s comments that Article 16 doesn’t apply to gays because they don’t qualify as “men” and “women” is just further evidence of the bigotry that permeates the anti- gay civil rights movement.

Jan 11, 2012 4:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

Has anyone in this thread pointed out that marriage in a church of any denomination is not legally binding? The pretty certificate with the flowers and cross, or the Jewish Ketubah is not recognized outside religious institutions and does not actually indicate that a couple is legally married. It is only the state marriage license (from civil court)that bestows the legal rights of marriage. If churches don’t want to offer a religious ceremony to anyone from the LGBT community, that’s their choice. However, the right to a civil marriage should be open to everyone providing they marry within their species.

Jan 11, 2012 5:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ManOfMettle wrote:

Hello KrisCraig

Regarding your post with the following quotes:

“Opponents of interracial marriage often used the same “logic” in their arguments; i.e. that their opposition to interracial marriage had nothing to do with race because they didn’t specifically mention the word “African” in their arguments. Nobody bought it then, and nobody’s buying it now.”

- The Catholic church does not take a position with social constructs such as race or culture as a qualifier/disqualifier for marriage. To become married in the Catholic church, a man and woman must be able to give their consent freely — without coercion — and must be prepared spiritually to receive this sacrament.

“The Dope was referring to gay marriage. The fact that he didn’t use the word “gay” itself is irrelevant and does not alter the clear and unmistakable anti-gay meaning and intent of his words. To think otherwise would be disingenuous, or at best utterly naive”

- Now if you are referring to the Catholic pontiff and successor to St. Peter as a “Dope”, you might consider how this reflects on you. Not a good debate stratagem. Besides, the Pope only maintains church doctrine as established by Christ’s teachings in sacred scripture; he cannot alter the sacrament of marriage to follow public opinion willy-nilly…

Jan 11, 2012 5:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Shadow1329 wrote:

With seperation of church and state this dudes opposition SHOULDN’T mean much anyway (not implying that it won’t). A marriage license grant’s two people certain benefits that any two people that are in love should be able to have. Once the government got invloved than part’s of the marriage process really shouldn’t be up to the church anymore.

Jan 11, 2012 6:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gordo365 wrote:

1/2 of marriages in US end in divorce. There is something like 1 gay marriage for every 10,000 divorces. So lobby to make divorce illegal globally if preserving the family unit is so important.

Jan 11, 2012 6:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

@newsreader60:

Your paternalistic lecture on Logic only proves that while you understand the terms you use, you fail completely to understand my argument.

My ‘laundry list’ which you dismiss, is entirely relevant whether it is ad hominem as you accuse, or not.

The Church deals in representations of the origin and development of man, which have not been proven. It is ‘Ad Hominem’ only in the same sense that a criminal record is Ad Hominem.

Moreover, the Catholic Church in certain circumstances claims infallibility for the Pope when he makes pronouncements ‘ex cathedra’. While to the best of my knowledge, the anti-homosexual teachings of the Church have not been made as such, they come nevertheless from an institution that wants the public to believe its catechism ahead of Science whenever the two conflict. The fact that it has a long history of doing this, and is doing it now with homosexuality means that my examples are therefore completely relevant. If this track record of historically uncontested ecclesiastical error is ad hominem by your ‘logic’, then so be it.

The very nature of religion is to spruik claims which cannot be proven, to induce fear of eternal punishment from an invisible loving/vengeful creator to which it represents itself as the sole channel of communication for divine forgiveness, and thus inculcate desired forms of behaviour, generally to the financial advantage of the church. The sale of Indulgences was one such example of egregious wrongdoing. The paradigm is that man being born intrinsically evil, cannot be redeemed from original sin but for the intervention of the mother church.

The Catholic Church teaches that my sexual orientation is ‘disordered’. An organisation of such spectacular wealth and influence is often believed by the ingenuous ahead even of the most cogently presented disproof, such as offered by the 154,000 strong American Psychological Association. This is especially true in countries like Nigeria and Uganda that are poor, where homophobic violence and disfranchisement are rife.

For one who pretends an expertise in Logic, you could do a lot better in your vocabulary. Your language is peppered with emotive words (“pathetic”, “stupid”, “hysteria”, “screaming”, ” obscene”) that are designed to be provocative without serving in any way to advance whatever argument it is you are trying to present. Stating that my “inferiority complex” which you have not proven I have, is a “sorry reason to re-engineer society” is but one example of gross exaggeration, and is unquestionably ad hominem. “What would a person with an inferiority complex know about the proper engineering of society” is your undercurrent, ad hominem rationale.

You make extravagant claims about what “every study” shows, without ever citing even one. In the absence of any from you, let me now cite one by the APA:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

Clearly no two families are the same, and I never once repudiated the model of the heterosexual union with children born into that union, into which I was born as a matter of fact. Heterosexual monogamous marriage will unquestionably continue to be the primary vehicle into which the vast majority of children are born. The fact that so many children are not, is not the fault of homosexuals. The children we adopt are there because they were all too often effectively discarded by their heterosexual parents. Bringing up children is an expensive business, almost entirely consuming the lives of the adults who devote themselves to the task, and you’re not always thanked for your trouble. When homosexuals take care of children abandoned by their heterosexual parents, you should be thanking us instead of heaping abuse upon us.

At the very heart of your mantra runs your manifest fear that without admonition to the contrary, people will depart from your idealised hetero-normative model of society into the competing model of a homosexual marriage, bringing up children under somehow false pretences. In other words, you believe sexual orientation is a choice, and somehow the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ will be seen as more attractive than the heterosexual ‘option’.

Heterosexuals I know, never needed any convincing by the Pope to mate with the opposite sex – it is the strongest drive Nature has already given them. People won’t freely enter into homosexual relationships unless they are homosexual. They won’t have children unless they want to be parents. The Pope, with you as his acolyte, thus disparages children who are for various reasons, in other types of family, through no choice of their own.

I have not the slightest interest in undermining heterosexual marriage as you constantly imply. It is you who have a manifest desire to dismantle the self respect of homosexuals who seek to solemnise their relationships, and to provide the best environment for children they have either conceived through previous failed attempts at heterosexual marriage forced upon them by societal norms, or whom they have adopted through a selflessness and public duty.

Jan 11, 2012 6:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

@newsreader60: (correction to above, sentence out of sequence )

My ‘laundry list’ which you dismiss, is entirely relevant whether it is ad hominem as you accuse, or not. It is ‘Ad Hominem’ only in the same sense that a criminal record is Ad Hominem.

The Church deals in representations of the origin and development of man, which have not been proven.

….the rest as is…

Jan 11, 2012 6:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
citizen56 wrote:

Hmm thats pretty much what we all thing about the Catholic Church too. Imagine that.

Jan 11, 2012 6:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ManOfMettle wrote:

Hello DerekWilliams:

These quotes from your posting:

“The Catholic Church teaches that my sexual orientation is ‘disordered’. An organisation of such spectacular wealth and influence is often believed by the ingenuous ahead even of the most cogently presented disproof, such as offered by the 154,000 strong American Psychological Association…”

-You do realize that the APA convention in 1974 was subjected to mob-like protests and acts of violence by homosexual organizations (Act-up, et al) which, in effect, influenced/coerced these scientists to unlist homosexuality as a disorder from the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)…

“Heterosexuals I know, never needed any convincing by the Pope to mate with the opposite sex – it is the strongest drive Nature has already given them…”

- It is noted that you chose to capitalize “Nature”. And you infer that “Nature gives”. Interesting how the concept of a higher power and the deference rendered to it by its acolyte are all too familiar…

Jan 11, 2012 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rseer wrote:

Well, let’s see, according to Religion, gays are “bad” in part because they don’t have kids. (It escapes me how on a plant overpopulated several times by humans, why we need more kids, but let’s set that aside for a minute.) So if they get married how will that change? Well, maybe they would adopt, as many gay married couples do. So there would be less uncared-for orphans in the world. I guess that might spell the end of humanity, right?

But seriously, while these zealots are worrying about what others do in the bedroom, why aren’t they worried about the end of oil, or global warming, or the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few? These trends are already killing millions each year from famine, floods, and starvation, and they will potentially kill billions in the next few decades. Prominent researchers are saying that without oil – which is running out – the planet can only support 1-2 billion people. So why, again is the church worried about what people do in their bedrooms?

Jan 11, 2012 7:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

ManOfMettle – What the Catholic church believes is completely irrelevant in this argument. “Humanity” encompasses far more than the Catholic church, much as they would like to pretend otherwise. Furthermore, the validity of polygamy is also irrelevant. Gay marriage is the union of one consenting adult and another consenting adult and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

Jan 11, 2012 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GeeHerman wrote:

WOW –

The Pope must know a LOT more gay people than I do to think that they are a threat to our continued existence. I am of the devout conviction that there are ALREADY an unsustainable number of human beings, and our number just keeps getting depressingly larger. BUT – the Popester and I have something in common – even though we are both “seniors”, neither of us has yet procreated (to my knowledge (I’m pretty sure about myself – less so about him.)). I’m kinda proud of that fact. If His Holiness is concerned about lack of procreation, then I’ll leave it up to him to do something about the problem. I am happy to remain childless.

Of course if he is REALLY concerned about the problem, then He could order the clergy to give up celibacy. But, then again, I think they’ve already done that. I guess if the Pope can’t come up with a solution to the underpopulation problem, then we are doomed, DOOMED!

Dang! I hate it when I’m wrong.

=G=

Jan 11, 2012 7:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DerekWilliams wrote:

@ManOfMettle:

You mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association

“In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year. A category of “sexual orientation disturbance” was introduced in its place in 1974, and then replaced in the 1980 DSM-III with Ego-dystonic sexual orientation. That was removed in 1987.”

Where are your reports of “Mobs of violent homosexuals” terrorising the over 100,000 strong APA? Proof please. Homosexuals are a mere 4-6% of the population. Mob violence of the kind you’re alleging would be put down in a heartbeat. Kindly provide proof of these violent anti-APA gay riots that you claim weighted more heavily on the APA than years of scientific research, the results of which are published at:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

The main violence by any order of magnitude connected with homosexuality, is not violence BY us, but inflicted UPON us.

After centuries of relentless entrapment, bashings and harassment by New York Police, we did eventually have the Stonewall riots, because homosexuals by then had nothing to lose and so we took to the streets, just as revolutions have happened as a last resort the world over in response to oppression and injustice.

You do realise that the race riots of the 1960′s helped President Johnson move the 1964 Civil Rights act, finally mandating racial equality? Does this street violence invalidate the 1964 Civil Rights Act, according to you and the logic you used re the APA?

Does the same apply to the Arab Spring uprisings? To the American War of Independence? To the American Civil War, that ended slavery?

All these were massively violent uprisings. Are they all invalid?

Now actual proof please, of how we terrorised the APA.

Jan 11, 2012 7:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ManOfMettle wrote:

Hello 4ngry4merican:

Thank you for your response. When you say “What the Catholic church believes is completely irrelevant in this argument.” given that the article is about what the Catholic Pope states about the sacrament of marriage is a bit confounding (wouldn’t you agree?)…

And this quote from your post:

“Gay marriage is the union of one consenting adult and another consenting adult and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.”

- Evidently it is. But this “civil union” would never be in accordance with the sacrament of marriage as held by the Catholic church. And my reference to polygamy only serves to referece another type of civil union(s) that is also not in keeping with this sacrament…

Jan 11, 2012 8:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Nefarious wrote:

Why do we even entertain the idea of the Vatican having any actual power? It should be sold, it’s artefacts placed in museums, all the secrets it’s holding onto made public and it’s assets used to help charity.

Jan 11, 2012 8:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

ManOfMettle – The fact that this article is about what the Catholic Pope states about marriage doesn’t make his opinions any more relevant. As I stated earlier, “humanity” encompasses far more than just the Catholic Church and to state that it is somehow threatened by gay marriage is ridiculous from any perspective. Furthermore, the great debate in this country is not whether or not gays should be allowed to marry in Catholic Churches but whether or not their marriages should be recognized by our government, which in this day and age should be free of the bigotry and discrimination of the Catholic Church.

Jan 11, 2012 11:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveMD2 wrote:

BTW Dolan is being promoted to Cardinal. He along with another Cardinal are leading the effort to prevent extension of the statue of limitations re the endless hidden molestation of children by the church.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/time-now-childhood-sexual-abuse-and-statutes-limitation?page=1#comment-284144

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/112878494.html

Also, Dolans former (2002-2009) Diocese of Milwaukee went bankrupt early in 2011, due to lawsuits

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/112878494.html

I’m sure most people know why that happened.

Jan 12, 2012 5:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveMD2 wrote:

quote anotehr commentator………

“In that letter Dolan, who holds the powerful post of president of the U.S. Bishops Conference, said such a policy could “precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions.”

Sounds like he is threatening a war.

the only question in my mind is whether they will torture and burn us at the stake for supporting our gay friends and Neigbors.

I hate to bring regular politics into this, but eg with Santorum, Perry (and his N-word ranch) still around, is it any wonder that we could have one.

Much of our politics (I’m usually independent and split my vote by the people i like) is being driven by the gay marriage issue and some of hte repubs are

the new Generals in the popes new holy INquisition army.

Jan 12, 2012 5:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

everyone has the right to be happy and gaily rejoicing in their marriage. Gay marriages are not just for homosexuals.

And what about the poor Mormons – they have rights too
Multiple marriages in fact – why not be twice as gay in your marriage?!! Yeah, let’s campaign for the Mormon rights to polygamy

marriage isn’t a right, it’s a social convention
it has been fashionable and unfashionable
like the 1990′s and homosexual comedians

if homosexuals want equality in state-run marriage, stop being gay about it and read up on domestic violence, cheating, alimony, sinead oconnor ….. state-run social conventions are not about normality

Marriage consecrated by the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God? – well, membership rules are more strict and less gay

Jan 12, 2012 6:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
rh2404 wrote:

fam·i·ly (fm-l, fml)
n. pl. fam·i·lies
1.
a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
2. All the members of a household under one roof.
3. A group of persons sharing common ancestry.

No mention here or anywhere of the ‘ordained’ necessity of both sexes

Jan 12, 2012 10:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Wyocowboy wrote:

how can a man in a dress..never married….say what marriage is like or what would make a marriage fall apart…he is pathetic….

Jan 12, 2012 10:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
KrisCraig wrote:

@ManOfMettle Yes, I call him the Dope, because that’s what he is. A dope. An ignorant bigot who wears a funny hat because a bunch of other ignorant bigots decided he was the most godly. An ignorant bigot who purports to embody moral virtue while helping to cover the tracks of pedophile priests working under him (literally or otherwise).

The Catholic Church’s record on racism is not something you should be proud of. Yes, when it became clear that interracial marriage bans were about to be overturned, the church jumped on the bandwagon and said they were all for it. But they also stood by and refused to intervene or even condemn and countless millions of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and other minorities were exterminated in death camps. They have also frequently worked to oppose various civil rights movements in this country.

So yes, he is the Dope. The silly hat is also a dead giveaway.

Jan 12, 2012 1:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BurnerJack wrote:

I guess I just don’t understand how a homosexual household endangers the heterosexual household down the street. If Homosexual marriages are allowed, that stops heterosexuals from procreating? If that’s the case, maybe the Church should endorse it, at least until the world’s population drops below, say, one billion. Wouldn’t that ease the enviromental load placed on the Earth? Make hunger extinct? Room for all? Just a thought. The Church seems to have a history of exclusionary practice. Funny thing is, As I imagine God to be The Father, I imagine Him including us all. Without strife. NEVER wanting one child of his to harm another in any way. Just like MY father was.

Jan 12, 2012 4:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UpNorthGirl wrote:

I had to laugh – about 1/3 of my Episcopal congregation formerly attended the Roman Church and voted with their feet. So I suppose it’s only fitting that Benedict try to get some back from us.

Jan 12, 2012 5:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeaWa wrote:

Gay Marriage will destroy the Universe! Higgs Boson is nothing compared to the destructive power of the love and commitment of homosexuals. Nuclear bombs? Can’t make a dent.

If I were to stoop to their religious rhetoric, I’d have to ask, if their god hated gays so much, why did he make us? He made you, therefore he must hate you also. Oops. I stooped.

Jan 12, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
conserfolife wrote:

Why are we even debating this? There is more than enough evidence that the Bible and religion are entirely man-made in order to suit the needs of the institution. Policy and dogma change throughout the centuries in order to keep the faithful in fear and submissive to the “holy”. This institution has been dying out for decades now and it’s time that we just stop caring what they think, or have to say. What the pope says is, and should be, irrelevant to what our secular country does and practices. The sooner we ignore this seriously out-dated, medieval institution the better off society will be. They claim intelligence and a right to be heard, but it is all bigorty and we are allowing it to happen.

Jan 13, 2012 1:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

I love it :) You just have to mention “Pope” and/or Catholic and all the bigots rush screeming and cursing out of the woodwork. And these are the ones who supposedly are sooo enlightened :)

One advice: Start thinking with your proper organs, the one between your ears and not the one between youer legs.

Jan 13, 2012 7:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
conserfolife wrote:

newsreader60 – Are you not one of those bigots? From reading some of your posts you sure seem like it. Trust me, us heretics are all able to use both our heads appropriately when we need to. Don’t be bitter because the church made you cut part of your smaller head off.

Jan 13, 2012 8:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

@ KrisCraig – why stop at Dope? (sarcasm off) Let’s have some real queer-bashing slang thrown around the room – or simply realise that you demand your rights to be protected, while trying to pervert the rights of others.

and marriage isn’t a human right, it’s a convention decided by society

Jan 13, 2012 9:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

In 1973 an ‘orchestrated criminal act’ was committed which released homosexuals from the mental health act. In the group of psychiatrists who voted to have the ‘disorder’ of homosexuality removed from the mental health act were a group of closeted homosexuals. In 1973 homosexuals were not ALLOWED BY LAW to be psychiatrists so they kept their homosexuality quiet / closeted homosexuals. These closeted homosexuals had the disorder of homosexuality removed from the DSM. The vote was against the law DUE TO the FACT they were not ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE. The disorder of homosexuality MUST again be placed into the DSM because **the vote was illegal**. There MUST be a full investigation of this situation and it can be remedied when the DSM is reworked in two years. This ‘reworking’ MUST be undertaken by ALL doctors and EVERY doctor to have a ‘vote’. One doctors’ license one vote. The reworking of the DSM is NOT to be undertaken by those in the ‘tainted’ groups such as the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973 it was subverted by a group of closeted homosexuals who reworked the DSM to remove THEMSELVES from the mental health act.

“Fryer was not alone in the APA. Because homosexuals were not allowed to practice psychiatry, Fryer and others like him had to hide their sexual preference, but they began to meet informally at APA conventions, calling themselves the Gay PA.”

“81 Words ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81_Words

“Everything about this picture is screwy. The very notion of putting such an issue to a vote taints all of psychiatry with an air of quackery. Did all the pre-existing evidence suddenly vanish? Worse yet, three quarters of the APA members who received the questionnaire threw it in the wastebasket; only 25% of the ballots were returned. As every professional statistician will tell you, a return that low renders the whole exercise worthless. We can reasonably assume that closeted homosexuals within the APA membership had a greater incentive to return their ballots; prior to this bogus ballot no APA member would admit to being a homosexual.When the true nature of the balloting was revealed, some APA members said they would not have voted to drop homosexuality from the list of disorders had they known that gay activists had composed and bankrolled the questionnaire. Others said they still believed that gays were disordered, but had voted to delete homosexuality to spare gays from reproach. Members said they never imagined that homosexuals would become a political force. So the decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of disorders was a completely self-serving and a completely political decision. The mail-vote balloting that gave the decision a veneer of legitimacy was, in truth, statistically worthless. Psychiatrists continued to believe that homosexuals are screwed up.So the American Psychiatric Association’s gutless capitulation to queer extremists was touted by gays as a clean bill of health for homosexuals when it was, in fact, only junk-science nonsense from APA careerists who desperately wanted gay hecklers to leave them in peace.”

Jan 13, 2012 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
mosaicvic wrote:

It is the spirit of the family that is relevant. Straight or gay. Black or white. The Pope represents a tired aged institution that has suffocated truth in the name of Christ. The ongoing obscenity that is destroying the lives of young men by the hands of pedophile priests and Cardinals will be a huge contribution to the decline of humanity. The Pope is lost amongst the decadence of his faith. My golden road is that of hay.

Jan 13, 2012 2:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
allananddanny wrote:

I was created by God and God does not make anything that is evil. He would not want me to go though life suffering by not do the tings he created me for. I am a homosexual and was created to do homosexual actions. The Catholic Church cannot talk about human dignity and deny homosexuals their dignity.

Jan 13, 2012 4:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cleaninglady wrote:

popey is such a quack.

Jan 13, 2012 6:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“I was created by God and God does not make anything that is evil.”

What do you say about Down’s syndrome patients who cannot be controlled ? THEY too , according to you , “were created by God” ?
What happened to them that they cannot stop themselves from attacking and killing ? You believe BECAUSE you were ‘born that way’ makes it alright ? You need a better argument than that. It is well known nutbars are BORN that way . IE: lunatic Down’s patient.

Jan 13, 2012 8:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
conserfolife wrote:

People with Down syndrome are not lunatics…

Jan 14, 2012 1:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“People with Down syndrome are not lunatics”

There are lunatic Down syndrome patients. They are BORN that way. No different than a homosexual who is BORN that way or a scoliosis patient who is BORN that way. People in the LBGTQ community believe JUST BECAUSE many are BORN defective MEANS they are NORMAL. One could argue , in the same vein , being a lunatic Down’s syndrome patient is also normal because they are BORN that way. Whereas , anyone , can tell he is not normal. The argument of being BORN defective is rather a strange argument.

Jan 14, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
newsreader60 wrote:

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) reads as follows:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Comments:
First: Except for Article 16, every other article of the UDHR starts with “everyone” or “no one”, only Article 16 dealing with marriage starts with “men and women.” Anybody with a minimal knowledge of how to read a legal document can see that the writers of the UDHR wanted to indicate special, discriminatory circumstances regarding marriage:
- Marriage is an institution for men and women. Otherwise, they could have simply said “everyone of full age”.

Second: The fact that “full age” is mentioned means that everyone who is not of full age should be discriminated against, which further underlines the fact that marriage is not a universal human right (it is not like freedom of expression, religion, etc., which has no age restriction).

Third: Only race, nationality and religion are listed as unjust causes for discrimination of who has the right to marry. The reason for this can be easily derived from the text: these factors have absolutely no baring on the aptitude of men and women to procreate and raise children and provide mutual support for each other (while age and gender obviously do).

Forth: The fact that marriage is only possible with the full and free consent of spouses further discriminates against everyone who for whatever reason (mental, emotional or due to other unfreedoms) cannot provide such free consent.

Fifth: Family, as the natural fundamental unit of society, is entitled to protection by society and the state. This is also a uniquely strong wording:
- The UDHR demands protection for the institution of marriage both from society in general and the state in particular.
- No other institution is demanded such comprehensive and sustained protection and care.

Conclusion:
Given that in our days there is a sustained attack on marriage (for its fundamental revision and restructuring as an institution) by different special interest groups on grounds that are contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it the DUTY of the whole society in general and of the state in particular to protect it, and the values it institutionalizes. Therefore, the pope is doing what everyone else should be doing: Upholding the Universal declaration of Human Rights.

Jan 14, 2012 12:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
allananddanny wrote:

What is normal?? Was being born with a black skin, or red skin or yellow skin or white skin normal? There were times many of the above were NOT considered normal. Also what is normal for God (and nobody knows this) may not be normal fora group of individuals. Also remember that everyone is prejudice thereby has their own normals. There is a reason everyone is born with the talents they have. There is a reason that I was born homosexual. God knows this reason. Men have no cause to God creations imperfect!!

Jan 14, 2012 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pritimanek wrote:

the pope is the last person who should be criticizing gays that want to get married. how many priests would marry each other if allowed instead of molesting underage defenseless children?

Jan 14, 2012 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“Also what is normal for God (and nobody knows this) may not be normal fora group of individuals”

Actually “nobody knows this” is not quite true. Science , biology shows us there is a male and female of a species and those males and females mate. They have organs which differentiate a male from a female. So you may THINK that God figures a lunatic Down syndrome patient is NORMAL but you are wrong. It is OBVIOUS to anyone , let alone a biology major , that a lunatic Down syndrome patient is ABNORMAL , just like it is OBVIOUS to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of Biology that trying to procreate with someone of the SAME sex is ABNORMAL.

Jan 14, 2012 6:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cranberries wrote:

Maybe being gay is nature’s way for thinning the massive population. Not all of us need to reproduce. Let the gays be gay. More choices for us that are straight.

Jan 14, 2012 9:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eagle0542 wrote:

Sorry I guess I just cannot understand the desire of having relations in a sewage disposal orifice and being aroused by the smell of fecal matter. I guess that makes me abnormal. Silly me!

Jan 14, 2012 10:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“Maybe being gay is nature’s way for thinning the massive population”

THAT is precisely the theory. Man eating meat. The theory is this. Man is a herbivore eating meat. The Biology is changed in humans BECAUSE there is OBVIOUSLY not enough plant matter on Earth because a herbivore is NOW eating meat. You NOW have genetic change to homosexuality to lower the population in order to allow for enough animals per plant matter ratio.

Jan 14, 2012 10:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LuisEs wrote:

Putting Words in the Pope’s Mouth http://www.zenit.org/article-34106?l=english #Reuters

Jan 14, 2012 11:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sueque wrote:

First of all the Romans accepted homosexuality and mankind seems to have survived, in fact too successfully as far as population numbers are concerned.

Secondly, this is a surprising opinion from someone who not only condoned child abuse in the catholic church but covered it up, punishing anyone who discussed it with any outside authorities by expelling them from the church.

Jan 14, 2012 11:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“First of all the Romans accepted homosexuality and mankind seems to have survived”

Romans had become homosexuals too. Coincidentally Rome didn’t survive. Decline of the Roman empire and all that.

Jan 15, 2012 12:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
peterpun wrote:

It’s only a threat to the future of humanity if everybody becomes gay, and that just ain’t gonna happen. As it stands now, it’s just unwanted competition for the Church’s international pedophilia trade.

Jan 15, 2012 1:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“It’s only a threat to the future of humanity if everybody becomes gay”

America is already making threats against other countries BECAUSE they won’t allow transexuals with three day old beards wearing miniskirts into their churches. Next will be a declaration of war against these countries who don’t allow these mentally disturbed people run daycares.

Jan 15, 2012 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

@Sueque
“First of all the Romans accepted homosexuality and mankind seems to have survived, in fact too successfully as far as population numbers are concerned.

Secondly, this is a surprising opinion from someone who not only condoned child abuse in the catholic church but covered it up, punishing anyone who discussed it with any outside authorities by expelling them from the church.”

Homosexuality became prevelant during the decline and fall of the Roman empire. Many would say the same about America present day. Sins of the Catholic priests aside the Bible is semi-clear about the act of homosexuality between men, it is much less clear or pronounced about women. Of course the bible is pretty clear about lying and stealing and killing etc.

The destruction of the family unit does affect children. However I would think that it is much harder on children of broken homes that are missing a mother/father figure than it would be on an adopted chilc of a loving homosexual couple. If the Roman Catholic church doesn’t like it, fine, don’t force them to perform those ceremonies, and they don’t have to accept homosexual members. The Roman Catholic Church no longer runs our governments. Time for a little seperation of church and state. If you are a homosexual catholic, perhaps you need to rethink being one or the other, it doesn’t mix.

Jan 15, 2012 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gordon2352 wrote:

It is the churches themselves — and especially the Catholic Church — that are, and always have been, one of the major threats to humanity’s future.

Jan 15, 2012 4:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kevin5069 wrote:

The catholic church is the biggest threat to humanity. No other order has been responsible for starting more wars in history, defended priests who molest and destroy children’s lives, the crusades, the list goes on. Please tell the pope to save his prayers for himself.

Jan 15, 2012 5:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
geminish wrote:

Did the pope forget that there is a separation of church and state here in the U.S.? Seems he has.

Jan 15, 2012 6:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jimmy6p wrote:

Churches don’t allow gay marriage. That’s fine, they can make their own rules, but civil ceremonies can and do take place, and they’re nobody else’s business, including thr Church. Any church!

Gay people are going to live together whether or not they are married. Allowing them to marry isn’t going to increase the number of gay people there are in the world. It gets more gays to come out on the open. Is that what the church is afraid of?

Is the church afraid that by allowing gays to marry, it will shine a light on them? Afraid that it will more openly show all that God is fallible? Being born gay is a mistake of nature, afterall, A birth defect, if you will. So, why the discrimination?

The Pope is giving Christians a bad name. Christians are supposed to love, tolerate, forgive, accept, etc.. This is a pretty poor way of trying to prove your point!

Hey Pope, mind your own business. Gays haven’t the intent or capacity to destroy humanity.

Jan 15, 2012 6:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mossadkillers wrote:

Hitchens is up there talking some sense into the big fella and telling him to sort out these nutjobs that are in power (papal and political).

Jan 15, 2012 8:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ironjustice wrote:

“Being born gay is a mistake of nature, afterall, A birth defect, if you will. So, why the discrimination?”

The reason for the discrimination is this defect affects the brain. This defect affects the brain in the area of sex. THAT is why you see so much ‘strange sex’ happening in homosexuals. Blanket forced acceptance of someone with brain defects which affects certain areas of the brain leads those homosexuals to abuse children at a very high rate. In fact , when one DOES go rogue , there are HUNDREDS of children attacked. THAT is why the Boy Scouts refuse to allow those of the same-sex perswuasion no where near Boy Scout troops. The danger is obvious to them and they err on the side of caution.

Jan 15, 2012 9:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustSayinSo wrote:

“In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue.” – taken from the actual text of Pope Benedict’s speech to the diplomats, from the Vatican website.

As noted by many other posters – no, the Pope does not mention same-sex marriage but, we can infer that every reference to family, every reference to promoting family, refers only to families and marriages involving a man and a woman, so it is not necessary for him to even lower himself to mention same-sex marriages since they do not constitute ‘family’ anyway. And it is this message that we can take away. There are policies that NEED to be implemented to support ‘families’ and policies that undermine ‘family’ undermines human dignity.

He is speaking to diplomats, he uses diplomatic language. Does he need to say…. “watch out for those policies that promote same-sex marriage and their families”? No, they and he are not stupid. They and he know what he is referring to when he says ‘family’. Why step into the maelstrom that would ensue if he even made mention. As it is, he can claim not to have said anything about same-sex marriage.

Marriages have evolved. Contracts between families, for wealth and for children. It is only lately that ‘love’ and relationship became a major part of the equation. Kings married for political reasons and progeny while keeping their ‘relationships’, whether male or female, separate. Peasants didn’t legally marry at all, sometimes holding religious ceremonies to show a commitment before God.

So, why can there not be legal marriages for all those who qualify, and church/religious ceremonies for those who, in following a specific religious tradition, wish to have that religious recognition.

Nowhere do any legislative bodies that have approved same-sex marriages require religious institutions to perform marriages that do not conform to their rites. And if, at some point, it is deemed that anyone legally appointed to conduct marriage ceremonies must accept any person who can legally marry (including same-sex couples) then it is the right of any religious institution to give up the legal obligation of conducting legal marriage ceremonies. Couples wishing to marry in the Catholic Church can have a legal marriage followed by a religious ceremony. This is how many other countries register marriages. Legal/civil first, followed by religious ceremony. It is a matter of convenience that churches conduct the legal and religious ceremonies at the same time, not a requirement.

Jan 16, 2012 12:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
mpower830 wrote:

In the dictionary, next to the word ‘anachronism’ should be a picture of St. Peter’s Basilica. Once they take a reasonable view on responsible family planning, then we can talk.

Oh, also. When selecting the next Pope who is to suddently be considered “holy”, best not to select an ex-hitler youth, let alone one that is 84. To a lot of people, that doesn’t look good. Just sayin’.

Jan 16, 2012 1:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Realaskan wrote:

Seems to me that going into the priesthood is a threat by that logic, what with the celibacy(?) and the lack of child raising. Destroys the common cell of every society.

Jan 16, 2012 1:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.