Pope slams gay marriage

[Wingates_Hellsing]

He doesn't have to. That's not the point in question.

The pope is claiming that homosexuality is a threat to the species and that the only natural state of sexuality is heterosexuality. Neither of which are areas in which the pope is an expert, though it's pretty freaking obvious that the first is BS without any expertise whatsoever.

[Nyoibo]

You mean kind of like the Pope commenting on human sexuality... a man who is a sworn lifelong celibate does not sound like an expert by any stretch of the imagination... that sword can cut both ways.

Since when does celibacy have anything to do with knowledge about sexuality?

[Ghel]

Since when does celibacy have anything to do with knowledge about sexuality?

I agree that you can have knowledge about something without actually experiencing it. However, I can't imagine the pope reading medical journals about sexuality. At least he could be honest about his view by saying that homosexuality is prohibited by his holy book, rather than making appeals to environmental issues.

[smileyeagle1021]

Since when does celibacy have anything to do with knowledge about sexuality?

To paraphrase grandma, "I wouldn't ask a mute for advice for selling and I won't ask a celibate for advice on sex"

And as Ghel mentioned, if the Pope is reading medical journals, he is not doing his job... his job is spiritual guidance based on the bible, not medical journals.

[crashhelmet]

He doesn't have to. That's not the point in question.

The pope is claiming that homosexuality is a threat to the species and that the only natural state of sexuality is heterosexuality. Neither of which are areas in which the pope is an expert, though it's pretty freaking obvious that the first is BS without any expertise whatsoever.

You're confusing sexuality with sex.

The biological purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce an offspring. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're attracted to the same gender, a different race, or blondes with brown eyes and freckles. So once again, prove that homosexual intercourse can produce a child, and I'll accept the argument.

As it has been stated earlier in this thread, the Church believes that only married couples are allowed to have sex, therefore only married couples are allowed to reproduce. If married couples aren't reproducing they're threatening the continued existence of the species.

Yes, it's a stretch. I'll admit that. But it's NOT homophobia. If the Pope was asked about contraception, he'd give you the same answer.

You don't have to be an expert, only educated.

CH

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's more than a stretch, it's more or less outright crazy. The species isn't in a lick of danger because of homosexual couples, much less homosexual marriage (since it's a moot point anyway). That's where he's wrong. It isn't the point he's starting with, rather where he takes it. Homosexual couples don't need to produce offspring to be viable couples. While the biological (evolutionary) purpose of sex is offspring, sex also serves a number of psychological, sociological and assorted other purposes. All of which the pope is dismissing as pointless.

If he's deluded enough to think that only married couples actually have children, he's off the reservation entirely. Even more so if he thinks that legalizing same sex marriage somehow effects opposite-sex marriage. He's confusing what's religiously wrong to him as either non-existent or invalid on every level, trampling on all other thought models as he does so.

An educated person knows that the population is increasing over the generations, getting bigger. Since the possibility of childbirth without sexual intercourse with the opposite sex allows homosexual couples to have children via alternate methods, they are now contributing where once they hadn't. This is to say nothing of adopting otherwise parent-less children. There, homosexual couples can produce children, just not with sex.

The pope's point boils down to: Homosexuals are destroying the population!

It isn't fucking true, they posed little threat before less now, and that figure is only going to go down as technology advances. He is stepping outside the bounds of religious belief and attempting to become a biologist, statistician, sociologist, and politician all in one all-knowing super-figure.

[fireheart17]

I think I also did read somewhere (I can't remember who quoted it) that said something about a technology that may be able to allow lesbian couples to procreate using the other partner's sperm instead of using a sperm donor or adopting. The same theoretically could happen for a male, however, they would still need a surrogate.

Don't think it'd kick off in the US though.

[crashhelmet]

It's more than a stretch, it's more or less outright crazy. The species isn't in a lick of danger because of homosexual couples, much less homosexual marriage (since it's a moot point anyway). That's where he's wrong. It isn't the point he's starting with, rather where he takes it. Homosexual couples don't need to produce offspring to be viable couples. While the biological (evolutionary) purpose of sex is offspring, sex also serves a number of psychological, sociological and assorted other purposes. All of which the pope is dismissing as pointless.

If he's deluded enough to think that only married couples actually have children, he's off the reservation entirely. Even more so if he thinks that legalizing same sex marriage somehow effects opposite-sex marriage. He's confusing what's religiously wrong to him as either non-existent or invalid on every level, trampling on all other thought models as he does so.

An educated person knows that the population is increasing over the generations, getting bigger. Since the possibility of childbirth without sexual intercourse with the opposite sex allows homosexual couples to have children via alternate methods, they are now contributing where once they hadn't. This is to say nothing of adopting otherwise parent-less children. There, homosexual couples can produce children, just not with sex.

The pope's point boils down to: Homosexuals are destroying the population!

It isn't fucking true, they posed little threat before less now, and that figure is only going to go down as technology advances. He is stepping outside the bounds of religious belief and attempting to become a biologist, statistician, sociologist, and politician all in one all-knowing super-figure.

Yes, it's scientifically possible to produce children without having sex. That just happens to also be something the Church looks down upon. It's "Playing God" in their eyes. Some argue that God has given Scientists this knowledge to perform it. All semantics. Different debate.

Look, I'm tired of arguing about this. Personally, I have no problem with gays or allowing them to get married. The problem I have is people playing the "Gay Card" every time religion is brought up or a religious leader says anything. It's no different than people playing the "Race Card" that gets openly bashed on here and CS.

As I said earlier in this thread, keep your mind open while you demand the rest of us to open ours.

CH

[crashhelmet]

I think I also did read somewhere (I can't remember who quoted it) that said something about a technology that may be able to allow lesbian couples to procreate using the other partner's sperm instead of using a sperm donor or adopting. The same theoretically could happen for a male, however, they would still need a surrogate.

Don't think it'd kick off in the US though.

I didn't know women were capable of producing sperm and men eggs.

CH

[Nyoibo]

I think fireheart meant the partners egg, which is possiblethey are also looking at using an egg that's been stripped of all genetic information and using the information from two different sperm.

[Ghel]

Look, I'm tired of arguing about this. Personally, I have no problem with gays or allowing them to get married. The problem I have is people playing the "Gay Card" every time religion is brought up or a religious leader says anything. It's no different than people playing the "Race Card" that gets openly bashed on here and CS.

It's only the "Race Card" if the person using it isn't actually being discriminated against. Likewise, it's only the "Gay Card" if there isn't any discrimination going on. But for homosexual couples wishing to get married, there is. I have yet to hear one rational reason why heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry and homosexual couples shouldn't.

[jackfaire]

I have yet to hear one rational reason why heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry and homosexual couples shouldn't.

Because we like gay couples and don't want them to be miserable

[HYHYBT]

The problem I have is people playing the "Gay Card" every time religion is brought up or a religious leader says anything.

Every time a religious leader says anything, no. Every time he says something anti-gay, yes.

we like gay couples and don't want them to be miserable

Wait, I thought you were in *favor* of us marrying?

[Kheldarson]

So I tracked down his full speech if anybody cares to read it: http://www.rcdow.org.uk/diocese/defa...ntent_ref=2636

What he's talking about is the Culture of Death. The "self-centered and materialistic" view of the world. Now while, yes, according to the Church, homosexuality is part of this Culture (as from a biological basis it does not promote creation in and of itself), the whole point of the speech was to point out that we need to stop focusing on just ourselves and focus on life itself and is preservation.

As for the "freedom is not absolute" bit, this is from the idea that you cannot say "yes" fully until you can say "no". So until you have the ability and freedom to say "no" to anything, including yourself, you cannot really say "yes".

[jackfaire]

And how much do you have to say no to yourself before he considers you to not be Self centered and materialistic? Do I have to live my entire life according to others wishes and not my own?

I don't buy into a culture of death. I don't believe wanting to be happy means your ignoring life. I don't believe choosing to not have kids means your part of some culture of death.

My life benefits others but it also benefits me. My life should benefit me first and others second. If you live your entire life for others and let yourself be miserable then that is a wasted life.