FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote





wumingsden
Quote:
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church's position several times.

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.

Last year, Italy's powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.

The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state's constitution. Continued...


Source

Why do some people never learn?

Are there lives so pathetic that they have to bring someone else or another group down?

Morally wrong for two people of the same sex to be in love and wish to marry to have the same rights that heterosexual couples easily obtain?

Lets talk about morally wrong, shall we. In my opinion its morally wrong to discriminate, against anyone. Any race & colour, any religion & spirituality, any gender & sex, any age, any sexuality.

So that makes me ask myself, who's more morally correct?

Me (a tranny on my fabulous days, on my off days a female-looking gay guy), or the Pope. The answer actually scares me because this shouldn't be so.

He may use the Bible to say I live my life wrong. And unsurprising I don't care about other peoples opinions. The Bible doesn't agree with my lifestyle. Fine, I'm not a religious person anyway. But is the Pope a Sinner.

Has he never ate shellfish?
Never worn two types of textiles for clothing?

(others include it being a Sin if you pick up sticks on Saturdays, to cross-breeding lifestock, to eat a bird of Prey, to planting different types of seeds in fields)

First the repression of women, then black people, and now the LGBT community.

And God loves all of his Creations.

I hope he can accept those that discriminate against his Creations too. That includes the Pope.

(and clearly the Pope will soon be denouncing those that do eat shellfish, that do wear two types of textiles as clothing at the same time, and people that dare to pick up a stick on a saturday).

With all the problems the World faces in modern day (climate change, terrorism, extinction, starvation, etc, etc), shouldn't the clearly very good, moral people, be focusing on something else? People interpret things in different ways, and theres hardly ever one meaning for something. This includes the Bible.
If the Pope is to accept the Bible for all its worth, I think he should stop his hatred on the things he doesn't agree with. Its called gay-bushing darling, and quite frankly its rather pathetic you hold such a view.

hate GLBT's? then hate God. After all, he created us.

Go see what He has to say about it.

(phew. my rant is over. yet I'm still rather annoyed).

Note: This thread holds my opinions which could offend some, If you have a problem, feel free to take it up with someone other than me.

Update. (quick list)
In the next week or so I hope to cover the topic of homosexuality completely, but I of course need time. (format in text and video/audio). The following things will be discussed (and is not limited to):
Old and New Testament,
overview of Leviticus 18:22 and what meanings it could have (through the meanings of the English Standard Version, King James Version, Living Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, Revised Standard Version)
the fact that Jesus brought an end to the Old laws,
and (as far as I'm aware) mentioned nothing about homosexuality.
the repression of ones sexual preference in psychology (which I study) - couragerc.net
the Darwinian perspective and Freud's theory on homosexuality
"homosexual" acts - what they are exactly
ocalhoun
wumingsden wrote:

the fact that Jesus brought an end to the Old laws,


I think I'll go steal something and take the Lord's name in vain while I do so, okay?
liljp617
Believe you said basically everything there is to say :O The church is nothing more than a 15th century scare tactic/joke. Hopefully we can eventually rid ourselves of the ignorant oppression religion is.
coolclay
Yes, that horrible religion what have they ever done to help the World.
liljp617
coolclay wrote:
Yes, that horrible religion what have they ever done to help the World.

Wrong thread to try and defend religion. What they have done to help, they have easily covered with hate, prejudice, murder, etc.
PMK-Bear
Does anyone even care about what that dude says anymore?
liljp617
PMK-Bear wrote:
Does anyone even care about what that dude says anymore?

The entire Catholic church?
PMK-Bear
Not really; here in Latin America most of the recent crap he said got ignored by most bishops, so it seems that even inside the structure it's kind of an opt-in thing.
liljp617
PMK-Bear wrote:
Not really; here in Latin America most of the recent crap he said got ignored by most bishops, so it seems that even inside the structure it's kind of an opt-in thing.

Razz This is the US though....you have to understand religion here to really take hold of the situation (it's not a pretty picture to be honest).
HalfBloodPrince
Seems that this old fart's getting his medications mixed up. Laughing
ganesh
Basically, one needs to be aware of the meaning of the term that they want to use.

If homosexuals are in need of the same rights as married couples, I think a better way to term it would be to call it as a 'domestic partner'. It is just that the word 'marriage' is sanctimonious to many people like the Pope, and they do not want it to be abused.

I think such a solution would be amicable to all parties concerned. Also, in no way, I hope, is this posting or airing of opinion against the rights and feelings of people with differing sexual orientations.
wumingsden
ganesh wrote:
Basically, one needs to be aware of the meaning of the term that they want to use.

If homosexuals are in need of the same rights as married couples, I think a better way to term it would be to call it as a 'domestic partner'. It is just that the word 'marriage' is sanctimonious to many people like the Pope, and they do not want it to be abused.

I think such a solution would be amicable to all parties concerned. Also, in no way, I hope, is this posting or airing of opinion against the rights and feelings of people with differing sexual orientations.


Hmm. I agree and disagree.

That term is commonly used here in the UK for any couple that have been together for a long period of time but are unmarried.

The Pope isn't saying that he doesn't want the term "marriage" used. He's saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married. And thats discrimination. Ones sexual orientation should have nothing to do with being able to show their love for one another in the Eyes of God through marriage, and nor should it mean that they shouldn't have the same rights, legal or otherwise.
(examples: because marriage is not allowed in some places, simple things like joint medical care. being able to see your partner in hospital when ill. etc. are denied).

I read somewhere about a same sex couple. Two lesbians who have been together over 50 years (they are over 80 years old), who due to the changes of the law in Cali, US are getting married. And the Pope wishes to deny them the ability to show their love for one another through marriage.

And I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this, but in todays straight society (at least here) marriage is just seen as having nice gifts, honeymoon, and a "good old knees up". I know of 6 people that have been engaged more than 4 times, and all are under the age of 23. I think that says a lot. The GLBT community appreciate marriage much more, simply because we know it is a privilege to have the ability to marry someone.

And we do not take it for granted.

It should be allowed. Its discriminative and against our human rights if we are not allowed to do so.
shenyl
I do hope that this homosexual topic be confined to religious forum, which is already so filled with very aggressive opinions by the pro-homosexual.

I do hope to find a forum area where is aggression will not enters in.

So I do not even want to try even to argue on this moral issue here.

Do go to the homosexual forum, and read for yourself how aggressive it has been.

Wrong place! Wrong Place!

With regards.
achowles
I fully support state weddings of same sex couples. But equally I have to accept the Church's right to adhere to its own principals. However antiquated, bigoted and generally irelevant those principals may be.

It doesn't make sense to become 'joined in Holy matrimony before God' when that same god is condemning you to a fiery and eternal damnation. What's the point? If someone's imaginary friend doesn't like you then don't attend parties held in his celebration. Simple really.
liljp617
shenyl wrote:
I do hope that this homosexual topic be confined to religious forum, which is already so filled with very aggressive opinions by the pro-homosexual.

I do hope to find a forum area where is aggression will not enters in.

So I do not even want to try even to argue on this moral issue here.

Do go to the homosexual forum, and read for yourself how aggressive it has been.

Wrong place! Wrong Place!

With regards.

Why post?
Bikerman
shenyl wrote:
Do go to the homosexual forum, and read for yourself how aggressive it has been.
Homosexual forum? I didn't see one. If you are implying that the religion and philosophy forum is a 'homosexual' forum then I find that view rather strange, since it would suggest that those interested in religion and philosophy are predominantly homosexual. Have you any evidence for this?
What exactly do you mean by 'pro-homosexual'? I presume you refer to people who believe in basic human rights, and believe that people should not be discriminated against because of their sexuality? If that is the case then, yes, I'm happy to be counted in that group.
shenyl
I realised that there was wisdom from liljp617, that why post?

I have ignited the "homosexual" issue here, which I hope will be confined to the "religion" forum.

Sorry, can we skip this and have it discussed elsewhere?

This thread is on the Pope.

With apology.
liljp617
shenyl wrote:
I realised that there was wisdom from liljp617, that why post?

I have ignited the "homosexual" issue here, which I hope will be confined to the "religion" forum.

Sorry, can we skip this and have it discussed elsewhere?

This thread is on the Pope.

With apology.


This thread is not on the Pope. This thread is on the Pope reinstating an official, discriminatory ban against homosexuals in a US state, after that US state officially passed legislation "okaying" same sex marriages.
TomGrey
This thread seems to be mostly pro-homosexual marriage Christianity/Pope/Catholic - bashing.

The Pope claims that a natural family is the basic social unit for civilization.
Man+Woman creating children.

The "sanctity of marriage" should be understood as humans, copying God, creating more humans.
Being fruitful, and multiplying.

It is only Man-Woman coupling that creates life. Any organization that is in favor of the creation of more human life would, naturally, be in favor of man-woman couples.
It's pretty reasonable to have a different term for fruitful coupling from merely promiscuous, pleasure oriented coupling and hooking up.

If one believes that children being raised by their own parents is the ideal, it's also reasonable to want to identify this ideal with a term, and for society to support this ideal.

That ideal term is 'marriage', and I'm favor of keeping it for Man-Woman couples, only.

On the other hand, it's also reasonable to allow two same-sex people who do love and care for each other all the Legal privileges currently allowed by default between man-woman married couples: inheritance, visits in hospital, caring for each other.
Civil Unions, domestic partnerships, some other term. I fully favor some legal arrangement to allow two people to gain such benefits, under legal contract, as marriage does for men & women -- even when the married couple doesn't even know all their new rights.


It seems to me that much of the anti-gay marriage energy comes from the fact that it is still a political, legislative issue, unlike abortion. And most pro-life anti-abortion folk, frustrated by an inability to be against abortion in laws, are partially substituting their abortion opposition to gay marriage opposition.

And it also seems that one objective of some gay advocates is to create an anti-Christian legal climate so that calling gay sex 'sinful' becomes a legal hate crime. At least one Swedish priest has already been prosecuted for such a sermon, so this is not merely theoretical.
Bikerman
Firstly marriage is a civil act, not a religious one. It has nothing to do with humans copying God. The notion that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation (a central tenet of Catholic dogma) is actually not that old - dating to the Council of Trent in the 1500s. Before that time marriage was often a political/economic arrangement organised by the parents, with the primary purpose being to cement alliances, secure land and property and ensure an heir (often in that order). In modern times marriage is in fairly steep decline with many couples choosing not to marry at all and many married couples (like myself and my wife) choosing not to have children.

The Catholic church has a particular stance which it naturally likes to push. It goes well beyond defining marriage as an 'ideal' - defining homosexual acts as immoral and gay unions as invalid. Most people in my country are not Catholics and the idea that morality should be defined in this manner is not satisfactory to the majority. The notion that the family is an 'ideal' is an interesting one. There have been a few experiments in communal living but probably not enough to draw any sensible conclusions.

Secondly, the objective of some gay activists might be as you say, but the objective of the ones I am familiar with is quite different. Their aim is to stop the Catholic church influencing civil laws and imposing its view of morality on the vast majority who do not belong to that faith. The Catholic church frequently lobbies politically on a variety of issues, including gay rights, abortion, adoption and genetic research. Without a strong counter-lobby it is entirely possible that the Church could have a greater influence in these matters, which would be both anti-democratic and, I believe, undesirable.
Related topics
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage
12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (Lol...)
Don't believe in Gay Marriage? Then Read this.
Gay marriage and the church
Coming out and the people that come with it
New Zealand legalizes Gay Marriage
Divorce, anullment and gay marriage.
If you had to kill a random person to live an extra year...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.