Gay marriage is a threat to humanity, claims Pope

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Ok, two things:

1) There is no conspiracy in the OP. Why is this thread in CiR?

2) I decided to actually read a transcript of the Pope's address instead of just the linked article (which I also read). The writer for the article is the one that put the emphasis on gay marriage. Neither the word 'gay' nor 'homosexual' even appeared in the address.

And in spite of the concern of the OP that gay marriage was the only instance cited by the Pope, not only was it not mentioned, but other items considered to a be a threat to traditional families were. Other concerns such as prenatal identification of the sex of a child, abortion, education and other areas were not only mentioned, but specifically mentioned, unlike gay marriage which was only alluded to. So, in actuality, the the exact opposite of what the OP was concerned about occurred. This would have been clear upon reading the source material.

Eric




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




no, I wasn't, your criteria was as long as something didn't hurt you then it was ok- so you have decided against that view, great.

I also don't care if homosexuals get married or not




Someone crapping on the floor does affect me negatively. Do you like the smell of # and watching naked people in the streets?

Let me ask you again: Are you equaling crapping on the floor with gay people kissing in public?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Some interesting and important points. They can't be simply brushed aside. But please note that we're getting into slightly different subjects.

I believe the Pope's point was that a gay family was a less than optimal family, and that society needed the best and strongest families it can get. I have heard of arguments that gay marriages hurt (straights? If gay is the short word for homosexual, what is the short word for heterosexual?) but I've never looked at them.

You are right that "DIVORCE" is a bigger threat than gay marriages, but I would ask, is there any Christian religion that is more opposed to divorce than Catholicism? They're the strongest defenders of your point of view.

On the question of civil rights, you point out something interesting just in the use of the term. In most, if not all Christian countries, there is some degree of separation between Church and State. All the Pope can do is talk to people, but the citizens of each country will pass the laws they want.

I think the comparisons between "Black" civil rights and "Gay" civil rights miss the point a little. In the "Black" movement the demand was for the right to do whatever "White" had the already existing right to do. The difficulty with the gay right is that it is asking for a new right. "Straights" never had the right to marry someone of the same sex. Even if they wanted to for some reason, that right didn't exist. Now it's being called for.

And the right itself is a little fuzzy. "If you want to marry the one you love..." I loved my dog, and had a huge crush on my first cousin. See where I'm going? I know it's ridiculous and nobody is calling for that, but what logical argument is there to prevent it, if you accept that people can marry who they want? My marrying three people, or my dog, or my cousin, won't hurt heterosexuals. If you can marry who you want, doesn't the golden rule mean I can marry who I want?

There's no logical reason to stop anywhere. If you say, people can't marry their dogs, there's a law against it, well, once there were laws against sodomy. Laws can be changed in a blink.

I've tried to get to the points you've made. Please respond if I've missed something.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


well, you got me beat, i only have 'useless peon' under my handle.


and of course who really knows what the pope has to say if one considers the mainstream media and how they pick and choose what they put in their articles.
it's a good point, and i'll see if i can find a youtube or something that shows the entire speech.
even if i do yell at the computer screen we all should keep things in context.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





You are right that "DIVORCE" is a bigger threat than gay marriages, but I would ask, is there any Christian religion that is more opposed to divorce than Catholicism? They're the strongest defenders of your point of view.


The alternative to divorce is living with a person you despise FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. How one earth is that even an alternative??



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 


i was just about to look for a video of the speech. could you link us to the transcript?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Someone crapping on the floor does affect me negatively. Do you like the smell of # and watching naked people in the streets?



I don't but it doesn't hurt you, which was your definition, unless you mean "emotional hurt", which is quite a new boundary to set as people could get emotionally hurt by a lot of things.


I don't like the smell of # and watching naked people in the streets, wherever did you think I did silly sausage





Let me ask you again:


oh get you Paxman



Are you equaling crapping on the floor with gay people kissing in public?


No, I'm pointing out that there will be some things which do not hurt you (which was your benchmark) that shouldn't happen in the streets- though you seem to be moving towards emotional hurt


How about that!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

The alternative to divorce is living with a person you despise FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. How one earth is that even an alternative??


so that is it is it, the black and white of human nature, it is either despise someone for the rest of your life or divorce- get some shades of grey into your life there yeah



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by EricD
 


i was just about to look for a video of the speech. could you link us to the transcript?



Here is an English translation:

www.zenit.org...

Eric



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by charles1952
 





You are right that "DIVORCE" is a bigger threat than gay marriages, but I would ask, is there any Christian religion that is more opposed to divorce than Catholicism? They're the strongest defenders of your point of view.


The alternative to divorce is living with a person you despise FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. How one earth is that even an alternative??


You could try not marrying someone you'll end up despising FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. If that doesn't work, adultery (which is a sin), murder (which is a sin) or counselling (...) are other alternatives.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
It is funny how the catholic church advocated FOR prostitution in medieval Europe when homosexuality was "rampant" then demonized it when things went back to "normal". Now new avenues for legitimate services in the eyes of community and government are established and their authority in establishing a marriage or not is circumvented and they must take a dogmatic approach once again, but this time in an effort to maintain their more radical following .The real money

the whole church is being revamped or "purified" back to its pre-Vatican counsel theology and practices with the establishment of Latin once again as the ceremonial language as well as the churches internal language as it was through its rise to power...this along with the new preference for the traditional Latin mass in its original form as well as the bibles un-editing to once again set itself apart from the protestant, since in reality the two faiths were starting sharing more than just a common origin. They were focusing more on humanism and individuality and its "rights" ,whereas the catholic church was always more traditionally aligned with the focus on the salvation of souls and not of worldly affairs like for example the Jesuits.

In the end I think the Catholic church will just shy away from taking one stance or the other, but momentarily it must solidify a weakening base. They are competing with new age-ism, Christian groups popping up like weeds, etc. They need to re-asses their identity in order to survive. Strict Dogmatic approach is usually taken in times of new or uncertain dangers. You do what you know when in doubt.
edit on 10-1-2012 by casenately because: fix



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I haven't kept up with the latest surveys personally, but I think you should admit there is real controversy on the subject.


-- Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

-- Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.

-- Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples. Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.


Those aren't ideal conditions for raising a child.

And I can understand disagreeing with the Pope, but to call him uneducated doesn't add to your reputation for thoughtful comments.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by charles1952
 





You are right that "DIVORCE" is a bigger threat than gay marriages, but I would ask, is there any Christian religion that is more opposed to divorce than Catholicism? They're the strongest defenders of your point of view.


The alternative to divorce is living with a person you despise FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. How one earth is that even an alternative??


You could try not marrying someone you'll end up despising FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. If that doesn't work, adultery (which is a sin), murder (which is a sin) or counselling (...) are other alternatives.


Yes, because clearly you always know beforehand if you can live with someone for the rest of your life


Judging from the divorce rates, you clearly can't know beforehand.

And from your post you make it sound as if the alternative to marriage is adultery (nothing wrong with that unless you follow some ancient irrational belief), counselling (which doesn't always work...like, if your husband cheats on you, do you think counseling will make it right?), and murder (WTF????).

Fact is, a lot of people against gays (and/or divorce) base their opinions on a book that also tells you not to eat shrimp or work on weekends


It's really laughable



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I haven't kept up with the latest surveys personally, but I think you should admit there is real controversy on the subject.


-- Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

-- Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.

-- Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples. Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.


Those aren't ideal conditions for raising a child.

And I can understand disagreeing with the Pope, but to call him uneducated doesn't add to your reputation for thoughtful comments.



If you quote the Family Research Council, at least quote them


As for their first point, it's a ridiculous argument. Marriage isn't a measure of good parenthood. A happy marriage certainly helps, but a marriage where both parents can't get along is at least as bad as no marriage at all. And keep in mind, the amount of people living together without marriage is increasing too. Also, not all homosexuals chose to adopt a child, in fact, most don't. Which makes the entire point about the duration irrelevant. It might be interesting to know how long gay couples stay together once they adopted, and then to compare that figure to the married couples. But of course a laughable source like FRC wouldn't do real research


Having an open sexual relationship doesn't mean you're a bad parent either. Plenty of couples have that and do just fine. Again, FRC obviously omits from pointing that out


And of course they don't even bother to cite any credible sources for their last point. If you bothered to look up the sources they quote, it leads you straight to more anti-gay websites


Not surprised your information is flawed if you get it from such clown sites as FRC



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

As I said, there is controversy on the subject. I haven't studied this thoroughly and I'm sure there are studies on either side of the issue. Arguing those back and forth doesn't seem to profitable to me.

On another topic, I noticed that EricD found the transcript of the speech. I should have gone looking for it earlier. Good work EricD.

MrXYZ, if you have the time, would you consider looking at that speech and letting me know if you have objections to it? EricD indicated that it was very different from what the reporter presented.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I thought the pope's point was that gay marriage was a threat to humanity. A heterosexual/ "traditional" family does not guarantee the best and strongest family - a family with love and stability does guarantee the best and strongest family. I've known and heard of plenty of gay partnerships that have lasted many years. These are usually the types of people who want families.

It seems to me (I'm not Catholic, so this is just an observation) that the Catholic church has been a little lax on the subject of divorce. Do catholics really still get excommunicated these days if they get a divorce? That has not been what I have observed.

I think you may be missing my point of civil rights. You're using semantics to twist things around. Gays want to be able to legally marry the person they love, just like straights do. To deny them of this takes away a basic civil right. My point was that people who are prejudiced against someone or something are quick to use the Bible to justify it. This annoys me to no end when I see so much in the Bible that is ignored, because it's not convenient for us to believe anymore.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people marrying whomever - or whatever they want - it doesn't affect my marriage in the least. But I think we can agree that consenting adults should be involved, and we know the sad science of incestual breeding. This argument does nothing to convince me that gays shouldn't be able to marry who they love (within reason) while straights are able to marry who they love (within reason).



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


it was and it wasn't, at first he came off as martin luther king, all humans deserve right.....
then it goes on to, under certain stuations some get more than others.
sorry, but it's all a basic religous rhetoric.
i'll read it again, but it seems he came off as basically saying only married people should teach our children.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
do I have it right? Being gay is worse than all those priests abusing kids???



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
And this, coming from an organisation that ignored their own priest who were
abusing children. Instead they just moved them around from place to place. And
here is the pope saying that gay marraige is a threat to mankind.

We live in a sick world!
edit on 10-1-2012 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The Pope is right to a point. Promiscuous behavior leads you down the wrong path.
It can be alcohol, drugs, sexual indescretions(sic)...It is all the same.pick your poison. Why is it a surprise that the Pope spoke out about it? Don't be Catholic...also do not be Muslim, they might cut your head off for it.





 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join