New Pope condems gays

[jun_erh]

the new pope should condemn the gastineau girls, meet the barkers, and lizzie grubman

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

cjurakpt:

and that crap from TC Boob about the human body not designed for it - gimmie a break! how can you possibly substantiate that claim? what basis is that coming from?

Okay, what were you doing in basic biology class.. what i suggest, and supported by clear science and simple observation, is that male and female are designed and function to procreate.. that there are "entrances and exits" on the human body and to violate those natural conditions should have some natural consequences.. that's just a natural observation.. Male genitalia and female genitalia fit and function with purpose and design.. Yang/Yang "unions" have no biological purpose.. Yin/Yin unions, however titilating, achieve no biological result.. i make no claim as to mental health and the satisfying of inherent imperatives due to preference, those are issues we can't quantify or even judge.. my sole point is that there are naturally occurring conditions of biological functions, and there are deviations from those conditions.. the results or consequences of such deviations should be considered in life choices.. but, not judged when no harm is issued beyond the consenting parties.. harm may be also cost to the public for certain consequences.. and, yes, that applies to much more than alternative lifestyles..

and gay adoption as bad: also a load of hooey - so, if gay couples raising kids will prodce only gay adults, shouldn't that mean "straight" (dumb term) couples will only produce hetero kids? and is it better to have a man/woman who are both alcoholics abusing their kid (my wife) than a stable, loving gay couple (people I know) raising someone with compassion and tolerance? as for recruitment, I've known gays who are not interested in it, and I've also know those who have tried to recruit others, including me - and rather agressively at that, and when I was still a teenager; and guess what? it didn't work; why not? I don't know, but it seems to have something to do with the fact that I just happen to like t*ts and p*ssy and that I don't like d#ck (already got one anyway, so don't need another) or taking it up the Hershey Highway - it just doesn't interest me;

First, i only asked questions, hoping for intelligent dialogue.. second, you obviously missed both those points as evidenced by the rest of the quote cited above.. your colorful descriptions show your own disguised phobias.. in no way do i advocate abusive or neglectful parenting from any lifestyle.. the concern i raise is that the same potential for abuse exists in either lifestyle, and the gay lifestyle has an unavoidable situation of the child being faced with explaining the unique parenting situation.. whether society should or shouldn't accept it is not the issue, it is what it is..

so again - why is h o mo sexsuality a bad thing, ntrinsically? and again, what is the criteria for something being "natural"? quite frankly it varies greatly in definition depending on who/when you look at it

I do not judge the gay lifestyle to be "bad", in so much as it is confined to consenting adults and advances no harmful consequences to others.. "natural" is pretty dang easy to define, its not a matter of opinion or preference, it is how the body works.. if you can't accept that, no further dialogue is useful..

lada:

Two opposing sides conforming to the laws of physics so that the human body can function as it does. Many ****sexual people will show signs of having only one strong side to their body. The other side has atrophied and become weakened.

Please stop whatever it is that contrives such nonsense.. My assertion of design and function has nothing to do with such unsupported nonsense.. If the "God" you believe in has any sense it will call you to the kingdom of glory before you can do more harm.. it is the unfounded rhetoric you spew that turns people against any good you may have to offer.. it is, in fact, you that have been "brainwashed"..

Please do not assume that i have a prejudice against those that choose the gay lifestyle.. only against whatever unsolicited harm that choice may bring to others.. we each have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters and the world we live in, to make it better for the next generation.. i ask questions and hope for good responsible dialogue to consider the many consequences and help form a consensus to move toward a better future.. our childern are the future..

Be well..

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Further clarification: I have raised both of my children (18 & 21) to be respectful and tolerant of everyone's right to choose their lifestyles.. i have explained that nature offers us a model for the most beneficial life experience.. i have explained that there are deviations in every aspect of nature as there are in every aspect of life.. and, that deviations are not, of themselves, harmful.. that only when harm is caused toward others is there cause for corrective action or corrective philosophy.. My children are a great joy to me, my best contribution to our future..

[cerebus]

Hello Bob. I can see your point, but to believe that gays should not be allowed to adopt children because of "such and such" potential problems would mean that we should also not allow straight people to adopt because of the problems which occasionally happen when they do so.

It's simply my assertion that gays should have the same rights as non-gays. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as well as "liberty and justice for all". Though I don't like to bring up the parallells between sexual preference discrimination and racial or religious discrimination, it can easily be seen that those parallells are strikingly close.

People who say (and I'm not referring to you Bob, just saying this in general) "I have no problem with people BEING gay, as long as they don't have gay sex, get married or raise children" are basically saying they don't mind people being gay as long as they remain second-class citizens.

[unkokusai]

Unkokusai, my point (which you again seem to have missed... or ignored, as the case may be) in bringing up the negative things which are all too common with straight parents, is simply that the hypothetical concerns which T.C. Bob has about "possible" problems which children of gay parents "may" encounter is nothing compared to the very REAL and prevalent problems which DO really happen with "straight" adoptive parents (of course, both sides of the equation are generalizing, neither sets of these problems are guaranteed to happen, they are simply things which may and/ or do happen from time to time) . So Bob can bring up his "hypothetical" concerns about problems with gay parenting, but when I contrast it with the very real problems seen in "straight" parenting, you say I'm comparing apples to racecars (to use my own analogy)? You're not making any sense. .

And you are missing my point. If you cannot make your case without referring to straight parents, you aren't going to get anywhere. Straight folks are the great majority and ****sexual couples are seen as offering a deviant and questionable home environment to the majority of people. Unless and until you can overcome that impression you are not going to make your case. Pointing the finger at straight parents and saying "you're not so perfect yourself!" is not going to achieve your goal. That's all I'm saying.

[cerebus]

*Sigh* And I keep asking (but not receiving any response), other than religious reasons, WHAT makes gay parents unfit to adopt? Will they neglect the child? Will they mistreat the child? Will they not be making enough money to properly care for the child?

The problem you have, Unkokusai, is in trying to completely separate gay people from straight people as if they are not even included as "people". One could easily replace the word "gay" with the word "black" (as in, black & white mixed marriages and them having/ adopting children) and this would be a near exact copy (minus the death threats and foul language) of arguments that took place in the 50s.

You trying to tell me that, if I can't make my case about one group of people without referring to the way another group of people is treated, that this invalidates what I'm saying altogether is disgusting. Such could only even be "considered" to be so if we were speaking of something other than human beings and I were trying to relate it to human beings. We're talking about people here, so YES the way one group of people is treated IS directly related to the way another group is.

To say that because they (gay people) are a minority and so, cannot receive the same treatment as non-gay people is.... well, I'll stop there. So far this has been a nice, civil, heated discussion and I'm not going to make it otherwise. But discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against race, religion, sex OR sexual preference, and refusing to accept that will not change the fact.

[David Jamieson]

cerb-

you are correct, it is simply discrimination built upon reasons that are unknown or unfounded.

no one will ever be able to give you a solid and data proven reason why gay people wouldn't make good parents. Mostly, it is one's own fear and intolerance and inability to accept that which is different from their small perception and world view.

they will raise roadblocks by making comparisons that are so far of the mark but suitably outrageous and the dialogue will end more often than not.

simple fact is that we are all human beings and no matter what we do, everything we do falls into the bounds of human behaviour. If no harm is done, there is no foul in my eyes. Gay people make loving parents and nurturing parents and they also make crappy parents who couldn't nurture a turd into the ground, more or less the same as any other parent model.

What I find interesting is the whole angle of protecting family values that I hear about. I don't see a lot of those family values in the so called majority population. there are so many kids up from adoption from, so many people who are medicating themselves to deal with the world, so many children that live with emotionally distant parents and an incredible number of children who live in abject poverty even in fully developed nations such as our own.

The demons(and I call them that because they are achetypal ideas) that plague us all really do plague us all, straight, gay, or otherwise.

People have great difficulty in accepting those things which they fear whether rationally or irrationally. Such is life, but in terms of the laws of the land, then it's a matter of a vote really and that vote in a democratic model should be untarnished by fear and look towards the truth of whether there is or is not going to be harm in the passing of it.

Once the law passes, people will come and go and get over it.

Children today and like every other generation before rarely hold onto the same views as their parents or the same values with the exception of rigidly closed communities where they are unexposed to the differences in the way people live.

Black+white=grey. Or, there really is no black and white except in the individuals mind. Also, we as humans for the most part incapable of definig anything without comparing it to something else. That's part of being human.

[Judge Pen]

I don't see where he condemned gays. He condemned gay marriages. And good on him, too. I'm opposed to them as marriages as a default position.

IRT: mantis108- Being gay is not. Gay sex, otoh, is a sin. Its not a forever-****ing sort of thing, though.

Seculars have the view that being gay is a permanent, inborn thing [not arguing that] and that if one is, the of course one will go out & have gay sex [not necessarily so. There's straights who are celibate by inclination, just as there are gays who are. But at this point we get into the "is it an act or a gender?" thing].

To the church, its a sin. All of us are sinners, and all of us have our own peculiar temptations, and thats what Confession is for - to gain forgiveness. My point is- no, it isn't easy being a gay catholic, but neither is it to be a straight catholic.

Last- all of you who're moaning- are you catholics? Why does what he says matter to you?

I'm not catholic, but I appreciate this reasoning.

Anyway, if you are gay, and not catholic, why would you care what the pope says anyway? It shouldn't bother you nor should it come as a surprise.

As for adoption etc., in this day and time you should look at the content and character of a person and the stability of their life and not their sexual orientation. Maybe, at some point in time, heterosexual marriages were more stable than ****sexual relationships, but all you have to do is watch a little talk t.v. to see that isn't the case anymore. Maybe it never was.

[cerebus]

Yes, you're right David. It gets a bit infuriating though. I've actually heard similar arguments from racists about why people of different races shouldn't marry or have kids ("It's not natural, if God wanted them to be together he woulda made 'em the same color..." "Think about the effect it'll have on the children, they'll be ridiculed their whole lives..." etc, etc). I'm quite familiar with the race issue since many of my friends (and several girlfriends) have been African-American (and African-Italian when I was in Europe) and discrimination of any kind pizzes me off..

I just can't figure out how Unkokusai and Tai Chi Bob don't see that discrimination against gays isn't as different as they would like to believe it is. It's discrimination against a minority for something which is part of their nature and which does not intrinsically harm anyone else. Oppression of that minority is NOT going to help anyone.

[cerebus]

Why does what the Pope says affect non-Catholic gays? Uuummm, how about because it influences religious lawmakers and politicians (kinda like our president) and helps to deny them the same rights to marriage and (in some cases) adoption as non-gay people. That's kind of what several of my posts have "subtly hinted" at....

[unkokusai]

*Sigh* And I keep asking (but not receiving any response), other than religious reasons, WHAT makes gay parents unfit to adopt? Will they neglect the child? Will they mistreat the child? Will they not be making enough money to properly care for the child?.

The problem is that people will see them as 'teaching' or perpetuating the ****sexual lifestyle. For all the PC protestations of those too cowed to say what they really think, most folks see that lifestyle as something that can be tolerated by the small minority of ****sexuals in society but that will not (and if push comes to shove I reckon it would get ugly) be accepted as anything to be promoted for the majority of people (and certainly not children). This is the reality. I'm not saying any particular position is right or wrong. I'm just telling it like it is.

*The problem you have, Unkokusai, is in trying to completely separate gay people from straight people as if they are not even included as "people". One could easily replace the word "gay" with the word "black" (as in, black & white mixed marriages and them having/ adopting children) and this would be a near exact copy (minus the death threats and foul language) of arguments that took place in the 50s. .

The problem you have is in assuming any position for me personally in this matter. I'm trying to point out the flaw in the way you are presenting the case for your people. And just as I knew you would, you raise the false comparison with anti-black racism. Folks who are black, are black. It is, when you come right down to it, a matter of physical condition. Folks who are ****sexual are ****sexual, but what defines them is not a function of what they are but what they do. It is a behavior, not a color. Say what you want about how unfair it is to deny the expression of human sexual desire for only certain people, but the way most people see it is as a matter of what they do, not what they are.

*You trying to tell me that, if I can't make my case about one group of people without referring to the way another group of people is treated, that this invalidates what I'm saying altogether is disgusting. Such could only even be "considered" to be so if we were speaking of something other than human beings and I were trying to relate it to human beings. We're talking about people here, so YES the way one group of people is treated IS directly related to the way another group is..

This kind of hyperbole doesn't further your cause at all, and ignores the simple logic that you don't justify one behavior by pointing to another.

I'm not imposing my own value judgements, I'm just trying to look at the situation realistically, not idealistically.

[unkokusai]

Yes, you're right David. It gets a bit infuriating though. I've actually heard similar arguments from racists about why people of different races shouldn't marry or have kids ("It's not natural, if God wanted them to be together he woulda made 'em the same color..." "Think about the effect it'll have on the children, they'll be ridiculed their whole lives..." etc, etc). I'm quite familiar with the race issue .

Then you should be able to distinguish between a condition (such as race) and a behavior (which is the aspect of ****sexuality that sets normal folks off)

[cerebus]

Ah. Well here's one of the problems right away (other than you seeming to think that I'm gay just because I'm against discrimination. Why do you need to say I'm sticking up for "my" people? I don't own them). You seem to believe that h.omosexuality is simply an "action" or "decision" and not something people are born with. Life would be so simple if that was true. I guess you've never heard about the various situations publicized over the years where gay teenagers have committed suicide because they could not change the fact that they were gay (despite actually TRYING to do so) and couldn't stand the thought of facing the future in a world which they knew would dicriminate terribly against them. No, being gay isn't an "action" or a decision, it's just the way some people are.

The whole "****sexuals will never be accepted so just realize that and stop fighting for their equal rights" argument sounds an awful lot like a similar argument, once popular in the U.S. (oh, that's right, I'm forbidden by you from mentioning that. Guess I need to realize that I don't have any rights either, eh? ).

"the simple logic that you don't justify one behaviour by pointing at another"
how is this "simple logic"? Straight people are allowed to get married and have kids. Therefore.... gay people shouldn't be allowed to? How about this for simple logic: PEOPLE (not "straight", not "gay", not "black, white, Hispanic, Oriental", etc. Just "PEOPLE") should be given the same consideration, the same rights as each other. You obviously do not agree. I honestly feel sorry for you because of this.

[unkokusai]

You seem to believe that h.omosexuality is simply an "action" or "decision" and not something people are born with. .

I didn't say that, did I?

[cerebus]

Not in those exact words, which is why I didn't put it as a quote. It does seem to be one of the points you are making though. So, are you saying then that you DO realize that h.omosexuality is something people are born with, and not just a "behavior"?