Benedict condemns gay marriages.
-
There are such things as gay sheep around. Strange but true.Originally posted by mach10:Even animals know wat it means by looking for an opp gender for pleasure.
Anyway, whether an animal mates with a member of the same family or otherwise, it still makes no difference. -
Ha! Making the classic mistake of confusing natural with being "good". That is clearly not so. Eg. Small Pox was natural. We eradicated small pox where nature did not.Originally posted by mach10:Marriage is for Straight man and woman to be together legally, lovingly, and make babies creating family.
Gay marriage? which of the gay got womb in the anus?
Naturally, morally and logically already it shouldn't be like that.
Even animals know wat it means by looking for an opp gender for pleasure.
Like it was said, sometimes humans are worse den spiders.
Next argument please. -
As usual, the pope is crapping.
-
Alright. Maybe because I was too rushing and too impulsive, I wrote something with much tactlessness and with too much disrespect as well. I admit my mistake and I apologize.
I'd like to clarify some things though:
1. I think most people would know by now that I prefer to do things, whether in politics or everyday life in a more secular manner. Why? Because I prefer to show respect to other religions.
If I'd be so fanatic about christianity and talk abt God and Jesus Christ everyday, I'll be bound to be viewed as a religious fundmentalist by the muslims over here. So by removing any religious angles from my posts, I show respect to all because people can read it comfortably without viewing me as a religious zealot.
2. The Pope is a theology lord. I'm a secular person. He said gay marriages are illegial because the Bible said so. I said that legality of a gay marriage is in the grey area because it has both good and bad points.
Still that doesn't mean we should discriminate gays just because they are gays. They are also human beings and they breathe, eat, talk like anyone of us. It's sad to see a Holy lord talking about open discrimination and then using the Holy book as an excuse for his obvious discrimination.
That is sad- and because he thinks homesexuality is a disease. The fact is that homesexuals and their feelings don't switch on and switch off like a switch. A straight man doesn't become a gay with a flick of a switch. Often when gays are asked when did they get those feelings towards other gays, they would state that since childhood, they had prefer boys than to girls.
So being gay isn't manufactured, it's something gays were born into the world with dormant feelings buried inside. It's natural if you like. I'm not talking some crap either because it would concern the issue of hormones.
The fact remains that whether a person, male and female, gay or straight, deserve the same respect as any person on the street. No-one should be subjected to open discrimination and then be given the reason of tradition in order to do so.
That's sad and that's why I believe the Pope is being sad in proclaiming such discrimination against gays in general and gay priests in other churches. It's disappoining, it's sad and it's downright disappointing.
And now you ask why I don't like the current Pope. -
The current Pope is just being frank.
And for us, we just want him to listen us instead -
Ben 16th isn't the only religious leader to condemn gay marriages. Muslim leaders are even harsher on this. I remember that sodomy was a capital offence in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and wouldn't be surprised if it is the same in much of the Middle East.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:Alright. Maybe because I was too rushing and too impulsive, I wrote something with much tactlessness and with too much disrespect as well. I admit my mistake and I apologize.
I'd like to clarify some things though:
1. I think most people would know by now that I prefer to do things, whether in politics or everyday life in a more secular manner. Why? Because I prefer to show respect to other religions.
If I'd be so fanatic about christianity and talk abt God and Jesus Christ everyday, I'll be bound to be viewed as a religious fundmentalist by the muslims over here. So by removing any religious angles from my posts, I show respect to all because people can read it comfortably without viewing me as a religious zealot.
2. The Pope is a theology lord. I'm a secular person. He said gay marriages are illegial because the Bible said so. I said that legality of a gay marriage is in the grey area because it has both good and bad points.
Still that doesn't mean we should discriminate gays just because they are gays. They are also human beings and they breathe, eat, talk like anyone of us. It's sad to see a Holy lord talking about open discrimination and then using the Holy book as an excuse for his obvious discrimination.
That is sad- and because he thinks homesexuality is a disease. The fact is that homesexuals and their feelings don't switch on and switch off like a switch. A straight man doesn't become a gay with a flick of a switch. Often when gays are asked when did they get those feelings towards other gays, they would state that since childhood, they had prefer boys than to girls.
So being gay isn't manufactured, it's something gays were born into the world with dormant feelings buried inside. It's natural if you like. I'm not talking some crap either because it would concern the issue of hormones.
The fact remains that whether a person, male and female, gay or straight, deserve the same respect as any person on the street. No-one should be subjected to open discrimination and then be given the reason of tradition in order to do so.
That's sad and that's why I believe the Pope is being sad in proclaiming such discrimination against gays in general and gay priests in other churches. It's disappoining, it's sad and it's downright disappointing.
And now you ask why I don't like the current Pope. -
Ya i am sure you are right. In fact, some of those leaders can be found just north of the causeway, in malaysia. But, those guys do not get as much press coverage as ben gets.Originally posted by iveco:Ben 16th isn't the only religious leader to condemn gay marriages. Muslim leaders are even harsher on this. I remember that sodomy was a capital offence in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and wouldn't be surprised if it is the same in much of the Middle East.
Ben could have easily avoided the issue but he did not. It was a deliberate act, and for that, Screw him. -
I think everyone has the right to voice his opinions, even the pope. I am not his biggest fan but well he has the right to believe in what he believes and voice it out. And you have the right to voice it out if you do not agree with him but it doesnt have to be a personal attack on the person. It should be on the issue. If you attack the person, then any debates or discussions become pointless.
Freedom of choice and free will. He can speak all he wants. Whoever agrees with him will follow him. Whoever doesnt agree will not. But who can say he is right or wrong? It just happen your beliefs and values different from his. -
The more we shdn't infuse religion wif politics. ME and the Crusades in Europe during middle ages only reinforce my view tat politics shd remain secular as much as possible.Originally posted by iveco:Ben 16th isn't the only religious leader to condemn gay marriages. Muslim leaders are even harsher on this. I remember that sodomy was a capital offence in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and wouldn't be surprised if it is the same in much of the Middle East.
Not devoid of normal moral codes of coz...but of no religious references..just the norm moral codes tat anyone and everyone can see, agree upon and adapt to their own religious and personal lives. -
Well said!Originally posted by gasband:I think everyone has the right to voice his opinions, even the pope. I am not his biggest fan but well he has the right to believe in what he believes and voice it out. And you have the right to voice it out if you do not agree with him but it doesnt have to be a personal attack on the person. It should be on the issue. If you attack the person, then any debates or discussions become pointless.
Freedom of choice and free will. He can speak all he wants. Whoever agrees with him will follow him. Whoever doesnt agree will not. But who can say he is right or wrong? It just happen your beliefs and values different from his. -
I agree with the above opinion.Originally posted by SilverPal:Well then, I guess that since its the 21st century, orgies, beastality and all things once thought unnatural should not only be condoned, but encouraged!!! After all its the 21st century!
we can do anything, commit any immoral acts, after all, its the 21st century! Dun be a bigot and condemn rape and murder just because you're living in the past, embrace it in the new century!!!
Is that what you mean timothy??? -
Like I said, my post on Friday has recified everything. I was impulsive, tactless and disrespectful and I apologized for everything.Originally posted by PRP:I agree with the above opinion.
My long article which I posted last fri on why I disagree with the Pope clarifies my stand btw. It explains everything. -
Absolutely. I am of the opinion that he is morally corrupt. In this case, he is knowingly trying to incite hatred towards gays for no reason whatsoever. He is condemning gays, he is trying to sabotage their bid more equality.Originally posted by gasband:I think everyone has the right to voice his opinions, even the pope. I am not his biggest fan but well he has the right to believe in what he believes and voice it out. And you have the right to voice it out if you do not agree with him but it doesnt have to be a personal attack on the person. It should be on the issue. If you attack the person, then any debates or discussions become pointless.
Freedom of choice and free will. He can speak all he wants. Whoever agrees with him will follow him. Whoever doesnt agree will not. But who can say he is right or wrong? It just happen your beliefs and values different from his.
Some argue that he is not condeming gays, just their practices. I say that is absurd. It is like saying i love straights as long as they do not behave like straights; Gays are called gays because of their sexual preferences. Surely any right thinking man can follow my logic. -
You agree with this?Originally posted by PRP:I agree with the above opinion.
You agree that homosexuality can be equated to rape and murder?!?!
Well then, I guess that since its the 21st century, orgies, beastality and all things once thought unnatural should not only be condoned, but encouraged!!! After all its the 21st century!
we can do anything, commit any immoral acts, after all, its the 21st century! Dun be a bigot and condemn rape and murder just because you're living in the past, embrace it in the new century!!!
WOW.
I won't even try to enlighten you.
-
Hi, just to clarify certain points that might have been deduced wrongly.
The Catholic Church acknowledges that homosexuality is not a choice or diesese although this point is still under research. The Church will never tell anyone to go for therapy or take any other corrective recourse to change their sexual preferences.
Homosexuals are not turned away from churches, nor are they said to be evil or the such. As someone has posted in this thread, homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual sex is. My wording may be inaccurate but the Catholic Church have the same stance on this as the Muslims (the response being different).
Gay marriages are seen to the condoning gay sex, thus the Pope is indirectly reiterating the previous Pope's stand, that is, gays should try their best to remain celibate and know that the Church does not condone such acts.
The rationale for ensuring that the Catholic population knows that gay sex is immoral is so that their devotees will confess that act during confession rather than assume that it is fine with the Church.
Finally, I totally agree with Timothy that politics and religion cannot, must not, and should never ever mix. The old Catholic institution made a mistake in mixing it and somany problems ensued. Now the Catholic Church has, to a greater extend, pulled out of politics. Of course there are always the black sheep Cardinals... -
I am not saying that homosexual acts are equal to rape and murder, but today being the 21st century is really a very very sad excuse for becoming a more permissive society. I have heard better arguments in favour of promiscuousity...
So what if its the 21st century, so what if its the 20th? Try to come up with a better excuse nxt time. -
I would urge the participants of this discussion to take note that no one is lynching gays. No one is trying to turn popular opinion against gays.
Equality for gays has never been an issue, why? Because they are humans, the same as you and I. Why should their equality be an issue?
There are certain acts done in the animal kingdom, even in human society that should not be condoned.
Eg. We are all aware of office politics. We all know throwing away a colleague's proposal is immoral. We all know spreading rumours, carrying tales and bad mouthing others is wrong. Yet it is being carried out everyday, everywhere. We are all guilty of it at some point or another. Does it make it ok? Does being in the 21st century make office politics ok? Should we encourage it instead?
Therefore, just because it is the new century, just because it is being done all the time, doesn't mean it is good and wonderful and that we all should rush to do it.
Disclaimer: I am not equating gay sex to office politics. Indulging in office politics is not the same as carrying out gay sex. -
Aiyah, don't expect anything good to come from the mouth of anyone who hates fantasy novels by a certain rich woman author in Edinburgh.
Anyway, Ben 16th is also falling into the trap of Bu$hitism, that of "either you are for us or against us". He wants the faithful to agree with him in entirety or not agree with him at all. No surprise that attendances at Sunday masses have been going down. -
On the face of things, you did. How about you accept that and move on? I can't take anyone who says those things seriously. I'm sorry.Originally posted by SilverPal:I am not saying that homosexual acts are equal to rape and murder, but today being the 21st century is really a very very sad excuse for becoming a more permissive society. I have heard better arguments in favour of promiscuousity...
So what if its the 21st century, so what if its the 20th? Try to come up with a better excuse nxt time. -
That's expected. Again it sounds like Anakin Skywalker and George W. Bush...no wonder not many pple like Bush very much.Originally posted by iveco:Aiyah, don't expect anything good to come from the mouth of anyone who hates fantasy novels by a certain rich woman author in Edinburgh.
Anyway, Ben 16th is also falling into the trap of Bu$hitism, that of "either you are for us or against us". He wants the faithful to agree with him in entirety or not agree with him at all. No surprise that attendances at Sunday masses have been going down. -
Anakin later turned evil. I don't expect Ben 16th to turn dark and pledge his soul to the Devil anytime soon.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:That's expected. Again it sounds like Anakin Skywalker and George W. Bush...no wonder not many pple like Bush very much.
-
Seriously, I wun comment on the homosexual issue, but I am a firm believer of condemn the act but love the person. Its possible. its just like what my mother tells me that whatever I do, whether she thinks is right or not, I will always be her son. I have friends who cheated on their girlfriends and wives, of course I do not agree with what they do and I make it known to them that I will not help them cover up their deeds, but they are still my friends. We hang out, we chill out, we share our thoughts and woes.... Seriously does no one here have the - love the person, condemn the act - thinking? Its absolutely fine with me and I think I do it very well.Originally posted by lwflee:Absolutely. I am of the opinion that he is morally corrupt. In this case, he is knowingly trying to incite hatred towards gays for no reason whatsoever. He is condemning gays, he is trying to sabotage their bid more equality.
Some argue that he is not condeming gays, just their practices. I say that is absurd. It is like saying i love straights as long as they do not behave like straights; Gays are called gays because of their sexual preferences. Surely any right thinking man can follow my logic. -
An elegant example. I am of course in agreement with you on this point.Originally posted by gasband:Seriously, I wun comment on the homosexual issue, but I am a firm believer of condemn the act but love the person. Its possible. its just like what my mother tells me that whatever I do, whether she thinks is right or not, I will always be her son. I have friends who cheated on their girlfriends and wives, of course I do not agree with what they do and I make it known to them that I will not help them cover up their deeds, but they are still my friends. We hang out, we chill out, we share our thoughts and woes.... Seriously does no one here have the - love the person, condemn the act - thinking? Its absolutely fine with me and I think I do it very well.
To digress somewhat, perhaps the failure of the "condemn the act but love the person" philosophy might be a contributin reason why we need the yellow ribbon campaign.
I used to be a horrid bigot. I feared ex cons, hated gays... But after getting to know a few of them, gays and ex cons, I realised that they are the same as us. There is no reason why we should marginalise or outcast them. -
The Pope does not preach a for us against us.
How would a for us against us approach sound in a religion?
-If you dun join us, you will go to hell no matter how good you are
-If you do join us, you cannot hitch up with anyone who is not with us
-You will definitely go to heaven no matter how bad you are
-Being one of us, you must dress like us, failing which you will be outcast
-you must eat our approved food. There will be a label to differentiate
This is a for us against us, darth vader, pres bush approach.
Perhaps many have forgotten how vocal the church was in promoting interreligion talks on an international level. In Sg, the catholic church has held dialogues and talks with muslim leaders, many of which i have attended. Is this how the way a for us against us approach is? -
No. But honestly, he was elected by the Cardinals, not by the ordinary Catholic Church followers.Originally posted by iveco:Anakin later turned evil. I don't expect Ben 16th to turn dark and pledge his soul to the Devil anytime soon.
In any case, he has had already a reputation for being dogmatically conservative. I didn't expect very much from him and I was right. At least Pope John Paul II was friendly- both personally and in a big crowd, even if he was also conservative.
This guy isn't very friendly in a massive sort of way. His speeches have always have a habit of stepping on people's toes in one way or another. And he doesn't hv the chrisma of Pope John Paul II.