The Pope has again launched into what is becoming a disturbing mantra: gay marriage is threatening the future of mankind. Now that the Mayan apocalypse has passed, it appears the Pope is ready with a substituted menace of loving gay couples marrying. Pope Benedict XVI insisted that gender theories supporting homosexuality are false and that the world must confront “the question of what it means to be a man, and what it is necessary to do to be true men.”
The Pope criticized theories suggesting that homosexuality is natural and insists that “[t]he profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious . . . it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears.”
The statement again relies on this false assumption that gay marriage is a threat to family and procreation. The opposite is clearly true. Many such couples want to have children either by artificial insemination or adoption. Same-sex marriage expands the number of families, not reduce that number.
134 thoughts on “Pope Again Denounces Gay Marriage As Threat To Mankind”
““Even though Catholic. All embraced his partner as meaningful to him.”
And how exactly does an honorable Catholic square this “embracing” with Doctrine?”
In the same way American Catholics use contraceptives, or Mormons drink coffee, or in my family, wine at dinner (three years in Europe, they succumbed, aren’t jack Mormons just horrible people?). S.I. Hayakawa gave a great quote on understanding words: “the word is not the thing”. He used the example of “ball”; try using that example on Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or hell, Mother or Father. Only “True Believers” follow any religion or ideology to the letter.
I do realize though that JFK was a papist puppet. He was a Catholic after all.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor, but too often deserved.
I just learned an interesting fact. I had known, for many years, that the Mormon Church considered all Blacks to have been, basically, “spawn of the devil” with some kind of complex and essentially incomprehensible explanation of how they suffered from the “Mark of Cain” after the famous fatal sibling rivalry between Cain and Abel. The punishments were that they would have black skin and a flat nose and they weren’t allowed to enter the Mormon Temple or become priests. The only way they could enter would be to be “sealed” as a permanent servant to a white Mormon. It was an extremely weird doctrine called the Doctrine of the Curse of Cain. Apparently, in 1978 President Jimmy Carter basically told the Church that so long as they practiced that discriminatory policy, the government was prepared to rescind their tax-free status, which would mean that Church businesses would no longer be tax-free and therefore the Church would lose billions of dollars per year. Suddenly the Church issued a declaration clearing Blacks of all disabilities within the religion, and they kept their tax-free status. They did not, however, explain the move or rescind the stuff they had published before about why it was Church policy. It had been put in place by Brigham Young himself. 😈
Let me help you with this: “Almost all organized religion is predicated on some animals being more equal than others. How can you be in if there is no outside?” by way of “almost all human organizations, whatever the emphasis, are predicated on some animals being more equal than others.”
“Animal Farm” was about an ideology, specifically Communism, but ultimately about the behavior of all human groups. Skewing it to religion misses the point badly.
Really “Is the pope gay? How else can we explain his virulent campaign against homosexuals?” Uh, because he like most Popes before think homosexuality is “unnatural” (that penis-vagina thingie).
By the logic of your argument: given I’m against murder, lying, or thievery, I must be a murderer, a liar, and a thief. I know, sex is different. It’s always different.
As for you list of decisions up-holding same-sex marriage, I’ll go with the legislatures but not the courts. I’ll leave you to discern why, but I’ll give you a hint in that jurists do not represent the people, and often make even dumber decisions than legislatures. Heads are spinning…
If the gay rights advocates had gone first for civil-union, it’d be a done deal.
“That sounds as though you are of the mind, that the length of time a belief is held, validates the belief. I’m guessing you can see the logical flaw in your own observation.” from this ““As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?”
The emphasis wasn’t just years but reasoned years. I’m guessing you can see the logical flaw in your argument. From there, my point wasn’t this Pope, who is just continuing the same reasoning, but all the years preceding.
The easiest way to sum up Catholic doctrine on this subject is likely “what about penis and vagina don’t you understand?” They see the sexes as given by G*d. No genders.
“Ariel, I am sorry for your recent loss. Condolences.”
Thank you, but we had been estranged for years. She and my brother crossed a line I considered unforgivable. I hadn’t spoken to either for over five years. Still, I appreciate the sentiment.
““I’m for civil-union but not same-sex marriage.” That may be the compromise. I am not opposed to that as long equal rights for each. But I am not gay either, and I can understand why any gay person takes offense to a different label.”
I’ve been for some variation of civil union, and against “same-sex marriage”, for almost 40 years, though stupidly I thought it could be done by attorney and contract, which does not address the social restrictions nor SS or other entitlements. However, not all gays take offense to using another label, some actually recognize and accept the category error. It’s why I always throw Elton John into the mix, he does. “Marriage” is a term that has been only heterosexual; polygamy and polyandry are still heterosexual forms of marriage, using them for argument to justify homosexual marriage is making a category error.
I’m an atheist. I’m not a second-class citizen, no matter the terms applied to me, most of which are wrong. I do not need to change the societal meaning of words to validate me.
As for my step-brother’s revelation, yeah I wondered for years. As did my mother and my wife. I was ecstatic that he came out, but still told him I was against same-sex marriage, but whatever his state calls it do it if he really loves the guy. After being together a decade, he likely does.
Now if you meant facetious about this: “As for the Pope, what you want him to throw out almost two millennium of reasoned Catholic doctrine for your sensibilities?” Not one iota. It’s would be the height of hubris to believe that the doctrine isn’t well reasoned, even while disagreeing with the underlying premises. I would leave me with only non-theists are reasoned.
Earlier today I learned there are approximately 1,000 benefits available to officially married couples that are not available to persons who are not married. That includes civil unions which are not recognized in most states. How is it that people like my friend Dave who lived and loved his life partner of 41 years, but was not able to marry him until four years ago in their state of residence. Yet, when they crossed the state line, they were no longer recognized as legally married and could not claim marital benefits such as hospital visitation as next of kin, nor could they get spousal benefits from the IRS. When my wife passed away last year, Social Security sent me a small burial benefit. Dave cannot even get that.
Bigots and homophobes can do all the logical gymnastics they want, but it will not change the fact that bigotry and discrimination is still enshrined in both religious and secular life as it was during the days before the 14th Amendment was passed, just in different form.
Wow. The Pope’s a public relations disaster! Could they have found a worse Pope? Hard to imagine.
Not that there isn’t competition among his predecessors, of course.
He points out that homosexuality is “a manipulation of nature”? Cutting down trees and sawing them into planks and building churches out of them is also a manipulation of nature, genius! Get a life!
Where’s Sinead O’Connor when we need her?
“So, the question once again circles around to, what is wrong with dedicated, committed loving couples getting married with the rights and benefits provided ONLY to married couples by law and insurance companies?”
It is to the “ONLY” portion that is questionable, by what criteria do you hold the identical “Loving & Committed Relationship” co-habit couple separate?
Not by the word “married” that is clearly a separate but equal violation on the face.
What unique rationale or state interest can you apply to the married couple that warrants the differential? “dedicated, committed loving couples” flat out doesn’t work.
Because something is not yet a legal right, does not mean that is should not be a right–a human right. For a long time, interracial marriages were not a right until the courts declared it so. Women voting should have been a right when the Constitution was first ratified, but wives were considered chattel. It took an Amendment to make that human right happen. A little matter of sexual equipment one is born with should not be an obstacle for those whose biological brains are wired up in reverse to be happy. I am optimistic that the courts will correct the oversight in the near future and declare the obscene law DOMA unconstitutional.
Angry Mouse, aka Kaili Joy Gray, has an interesting opinion piece this morning on the Pope and his verbal dribblings.
One has to wonder about someone who has this strange obsession with polygamy. Frustrated at rounding up a threesome perhaps? Some folks cannot seem to wrap their heads around the difference between polygamy or polyandry and gay marriage. That is like comparing coconuts with watermelons. One is a scientific fact of birth and the other is a true lifestyle choice. As a matter of fact, I have no investment in preventing polygamy if it is truly consensual. My problem arises in cults that may encourage incest or child abuse. It is no secret that our highly respected host, Professor Turley, has represented polygamist families on the grounds their constitutional eighths have been trampled.
So, the question once again circles around to, what is wrong with dedicated, committed loving couples getting married with the rights and benefits provided ONLY to married couples by law and insurance companies?
I have no time for homophobes, bigots or the willfully ignorant.
Idiots who talk about “choice” need to stifle themselves or be stifled.
How very democratic and decent of you Smith. I guess we can’t wait to see you introduce a law banning such people and denying them their very REAL right to freedom of speech. We can ALL see YOUR concern for others rights and what it leads to.
As for OS, I see that you are unable to see any point of view other than your own and think that just because YOU say something is a right, then it must be so. That is hubris of the highest order. To say that gay marriage is a “right” is an outright lie since it had NOT even been thought of until a few years ago. In FACT there was no history or legal or moral basis for it at all. My statements about polygamy is simply showing that it is the same as gay marriage in legal terms. The state has the very REAL right to set the terms for marriage consistent with the SCOTUS Loving decision which did NOT make gay marriage a right in any way shape or form. I have no problem with New York passing a gay marriage law, I just think that civil unions would have been quite adequate to address the concerns of gay partners. Of course I am in very good company in this since ALL of the Democratic candidates for President had until recently the SAME position. I guess that you will have to include Obama, Kerry, and others as bigots too. In fact, I seriously doubt that even now that Obama would consider gay marriage to be a RIGHT. If you think it is a right, then you must also use the same measure to judge polygamy since that has some legal history in the US and has been practiced from the beginning of history and been a legal and religious norm. One cannot say that about gay marriage.
If gay marriage is a right, then why did we need to pass the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote? I think that is a FAR more valid and fundamental RIGHT than gay marriage. Instead of following the Constitution and going throught the stupid process of amendments, we should just rely on judges to make new laws. Hell we could save LOTS of money too by eliminating the legislature, and leave it to judges. My main beefs are that gay marriage is NOT a right, and that saying so does NOT mean that one is a bigot. It is too bad you do not think and have to resort to slander and bigotry to try and cow others into accepting YOUR pronouncements.
Monte obviously doesn’t read the science pages…probably because he can’t understand the subject. If he did, or could, he wouldn’t be able to continue spewing his ignorance and foment hate against gays.
William Rice (U California-Santa Barbara) and Urban Friberg (Uppsala University in Sweden) showed in the Quarterly Review of Biology that the cause of homosexuality is epigenetics, environmental factors that alter genes during gestation.
In other words, it has been proven to be genetic, though not inherited. It occurs at random, so any foetus can become gay, no matter who the parents are. It also explains the high incidence of twins both being gay.
Idiots who talk about “choice” need to stifle themselves or be stifled.
“you might just address your thoughts to why a loving and committed gay couple cannot have the same rights, privileges, tax breaks”
Simple “Loving & Committed” is an open ended argument that by the very nature of definition must allow for all similar “Loving and Committed” relationships the same access.
A married couple is subject to criminal prosecution for forming a “Loving Committed” co-habit relationship with another or others. However the unmarried couple is not subject to the same prosecution. Clearly the statutory scheme restricting the behaviour of the married couple is in and of itself an unconstitutional discrimination applied to the term “Loving & Committed” Therefore some other unique compelling rationale is applied to the restriction holding the relationship, AKA marriage as between 1 Man and 1 Woman only.
Straw man argument. If you would stay on topic, you might just address your thoughts to why a loving and committed gay couple cannot have the same rights, privileges, tax breaks and (of course) headaches that heterosexual couples are allowed to have without question.
“Homosexuality is not a choice so the analogy to polygamy is off the mark.”
Your logic dictates that sexuality itself, the expression of, is innate. And still no argument as to why a married couple is subject to criminal prosecution for forming a “Loving Committed” co-habit relationship with another or others.
Homosexuality is not a choice so the analogy to polygamy is off the mark.
And still no argument as to why a married couple is barred from a loving committed co-habit relationship with another or others.
The question remains unanswered.
How does having testamentary rights, visitation rights, etc. inherent in recognizing the relationship for a same sex couple in any way harm a heterosexual couple and what benefit do you get from opposing such rights?
Any person who think depriving others of rights simply because they don’t like how they are is a bigot.
Thanks for showing you can’t read.
Comments are closed.