Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, condemned same-sex unions as a fake and said they were expressions of 'anarchic freedom' that threatened the future of the family.
The Pope showed there would be no softening of the hard line taken by his predecessor by going on to condemn divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions.
Irish Independent News.
Pope condemns gay nuptials
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Pope condemns gay nuptials
capt_buzzard wrote: Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, condemned same-sex unions as a fake and said they were expressions of 'anarchic freedom' that threatened the future of the family.
The Pope showed there would be no softening of the hard line taken by his predecessor by going on to condemn divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions.
Irish Independent News.
Surprise-Surprise!
And i think it goes without saying that same sex unions threatened the future of the family.
I know they can work wonders in the old science dept these days, but i doubt if they'll ever get round to impregnating a man!
The Pope showed there would be no softening of the hard line taken by his predecessor by going on to condemn divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions.
Irish Independent News.
Surprise-Surprise!
And i think it goes without saying that same sex unions threatened the future of the family.
I know they can work wonders in the old science dept these days, but i doubt if they'll ever get round to impregnating a man!
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Pope condemns gay nuptials
abbey wrote: Surprise-Surprise!
And i think it goes without saying that same sex unions threatened the future of the family.
I know they can work wonders in the old science dept these days, but i doubt if they'll ever get round to impregnating a man!The Roman Catholic Church would not allow that:D
And i think it goes without saying that same sex unions threatened the future of the family.
I know they can work wonders in the old science dept these days, but i doubt if they'll ever get round to impregnating a man!The Roman Catholic Church would not allow that:D
Pope condemns gay nuptials
capt_buzzard wrote: Pope Benedict, in his first clear pronouncement on gay marriages since his election, condemned same-sex unions as a fake and said they were expressions of 'anarchic freedom' that threatened the future of the family.
The Pope showed there would be no softening of the hard line taken by his predecessor by going on to condemn divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions.
Irish Independent News.
only the pope would know right? :wah: popes are usually old so they don;t know any better. you can love anyone you want nowadays? :wah: i prefer the traditional position.
The Pope showed there would be no softening of the hard line taken by his predecessor by going on to condemn divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions.
Irish Independent News.
only the pope would know right? :wah: popes are usually old so they don;t know any better. you can love anyone you want nowadays? :wah: i prefer the traditional position.
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it. :yh_beatup
Pope condemns gay nuptials
The real joke is that the Pope thinks that all Roman Catholics accept and practise what he pronounces. Some do live in their own world.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Pope condemns gay nuptials
i don't think it's entirely fair to call it a 'joke'. it's the structure of their faith, for better or worse. sure, millions don't follow the papal word to the letter. i'd bet millions in virtually all faiths don't follow the 'law' to the letter either.
i think this pronouncement was certainly unsurprising, no question about that. how many centuries did it take for them to reverse the heresy judgement against galileo? five or so? change comes slowly to the catholic faith. that's perhaps a blessing, perhaps a curse. either way, it is what it is.
i think this pronouncement was certainly unsurprising, no question about that. how many centuries did it take for them to reverse the heresy judgement against galileo? five or so? change comes slowly to the catholic faith. that's perhaps a blessing, perhaps a curse. either way, it is what it is.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Pope condemns gay nuptials
And His priests can abuse our children. But this is ok in the eyes of his church.
Pope condemns gay nuptials
They can believe and practice what they want, what I object to is when they start to impose their views on everybody else and dictate how people shpuld live. If you don't want to use contraceptivs fine, don't, But that doiesn't mean you can campaign to have the provision banned for everybody else. I feel the same way about protestants, go to church on sunday if you want just don't try and make me come as well.
Pope condemns gay nuptials
Hershesy, now where did that come from? :-6
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it. :yh_beatup
Pope condemns gay nuptials
BOY I HEAR THAT!!! .........Jackie said...Self-righteousness makes me sick! :yh_sick
Pope condemns gay nuptials
lady cop wrote: Jackie said...Self-righteousness makes me sick! :yh_sick
Oh....Me too. Soooo much......
Oh....Me too. Soooo much......
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Pope condemns gay nuptials
I couldn't agree more.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Pope condemns gay nuptials
gmc wrote: They can believe and practice what they want, what I object to is when they start to impose their views on everybody else and dictate how people shpuld live. If you don't want to use contraceptivs fine, don't, But that doiesn't mean you can campaign to have the provision banned for everybody else. I feel the same way about protestants, go to church on sunday if you want just don't try and make me come as well.Aye, well spoken gmc
Pope condemns gay nuptials
When I hear a significant religious leader take the stance to proclaim gay marriages and relationships as wrong. I have to stand and applaud that effort.
Having said that. I will have to say that the Pope is not the first significant religious leader to publicly take such a stance. I came across an article stating that the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormons, have proclaimed similar words. He said; "same sex marriages and relationships is wrong and is an abomination in the sight of God."
These are not words set in stone for all to either accept of perish. It is a proclamation to the human consiousness of what God accept and will not accept. It is still up to the individual to determine what he will choose to accept. Take it or leave it. But the duty of the servants of God is to proclaim Gods will on earth.
For that, I will applaud the efforts of both the Pope and the Prophet of the Mormon church.
Having said that. I will have to say that the Pope is not the first significant religious leader to publicly take such a stance. I came across an article stating that the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormons, have proclaimed similar words. He said; "same sex marriages and relationships is wrong and is an abomination in the sight of God."
These are not words set in stone for all to either accept of perish. It is a proclamation to the human consiousness of what God accept and will not accept. It is still up to the individual to determine what he will choose to accept. Take it or leave it. But the duty of the servants of God is to proclaim Gods will on earth.
For that, I will applaud the efforts of both the Pope and the Prophet of the Mormon church.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Pope condemns gay nuptials
i've written at length and with perhaps a bit of depth on this issue previously on forumgarden, but i figure i'll voice my opinion again.
"Marriage" is not simply one 'thing'. Marriage means different things in different cultures, sometimes wildly different things. If, for the sake of argument, we restrict what we're talking about to modern times (within the last few hundred years), and to western, developed nations, then marriage is really in fact two things: it is a spiritual union of two people, *and it is a legal union of two people*. The distinction between the two is what mucks things up quite badly.
The spiritual union is one traditionally delegated to the churches to consecrate and legitimize. that's certainly fine by me. within the realm of spirituality, if one choosed to ally oneself with a particular faith and a particular church, and chooses to conform within the boundaries set by that church, then by all means, if that church and those parishioners don't wish to consecrate the marriage of two people of the same sex, that's certainly their prerogative, and their right. Likewise, if a particular church and its congregants choose to sanctify the marriage of two people of the same sex, and their belief is that that union is legitimate and can be consecrated, then by all means, they may do so as well. there is freedom in this respect for various religions to express their spirituality as they choose. in particular, that freedom - that right - is codified here in the United States in our Bill of Rights.
However, marriage, in the modern world, is also a *legal* concept. in the united states, and most western developed nations, people don't merely get married in church. they must also have their marriage legitimized in law. an officer within our judicial system acknowledges the union and legitimizes it with a marriage certificate, and upon being thus legitimized, a great many rights, privileges, and responsibilities are thus conferred upon the two people joined.
I'll get back to that in a moment. but first, i'll point out - though it is obvious surely to most - that the *foundation* of marriage is more often than not, Love. two people wish to join together because they love each other. from that arises the desire to have their coming together recognized and legitimized either spiritually, legally, or both. while there are indeed marriages of convenience or expedience, most people come together because they love each other, i think most people would agree.
regardless of what any given individual may think of homosexuality, what another person does with their life, i think most will also agree, is their business, not yours or mine - so long as they are consenting adults and are not harming others by their actions. some make the argument that they're harmed by the mere idea of two people of the same gender having sex. these are also the same sort of people who sue mcdonalds because they got fat, in my opinion - unwilling to take responsibility for their own choices and readily willing to blame others. but i digress.
because a marriage is a legal union separately from its being a spiritual union, an argument can be made under the Equal Protection concept. Because rights and privileges are conferred via legal marriage, then denying a person the opportunity to marry, because both partners are the same gender, is an unfair discrimination. "you can have these rights and privileges if you marry this person, based strictly on their gender, but you cannot have these rights and privileges if you marry that person, based strictly on their gender" is not good gender neutral law, to say the least.
i'm not terribly fond of the Equal Protection concept as a basis for the argument however. I'm more fond of simple common sense. If two people love each other, they are consenting adults, they are competent to enter into a legally binding contract, and they are not harming anyone by their choices, then who the hell am i or anyone else to impose ourselves in their lives and say 'no'?
if homosexuality disgusts you - then by all means, don't be a homosexual, don't attend homosexual marriage ceremonies, and certainly don't marry someone of the same gender as yourself. if you are a homosexual, and you love your partner, then by all means, get married, and enjoy your life together (and you too can experience the joy of having your partner gripe at you for not keeping your home office neat and tidy)(hi val, smooch!).
life's too damned short. if your church won't marry gays, rock on. if your church will marry gays, rock on. but when it comes to the legal side of marriage, nobody has any business dictating to gay people that they can't get married.
"Marriage" is not simply one 'thing'. Marriage means different things in different cultures, sometimes wildly different things. If, for the sake of argument, we restrict what we're talking about to modern times (within the last few hundred years), and to western, developed nations, then marriage is really in fact two things: it is a spiritual union of two people, *and it is a legal union of two people*. The distinction between the two is what mucks things up quite badly.
The spiritual union is one traditionally delegated to the churches to consecrate and legitimize. that's certainly fine by me. within the realm of spirituality, if one choosed to ally oneself with a particular faith and a particular church, and chooses to conform within the boundaries set by that church, then by all means, if that church and those parishioners don't wish to consecrate the marriage of two people of the same sex, that's certainly their prerogative, and their right. Likewise, if a particular church and its congregants choose to sanctify the marriage of two people of the same sex, and their belief is that that union is legitimate and can be consecrated, then by all means, they may do so as well. there is freedom in this respect for various religions to express their spirituality as they choose. in particular, that freedom - that right - is codified here in the United States in our Bill of Rights.
However, marriage, in the modern world, is also a *legal* concept. in the united states, and most western developed nations, people don't merely get married in church. they must also have their marriage legitimized in law. an officer within our judicial system acknowledges the union and legitimizes it with a marriage certificate, and upon being thus legitimized, a great many rights, privileges, and responsibilities are thus conferred upon the two people joined.
I'll get back to that in a moment. but first, i'll point out - though it is obvious surely to most - that the *foundation* of marriage is more often than not, Love. two people wish to join together because they love each other. from that arises the desire to have their coming together recognized and legitimized either spiritually, legally, or both. while there are indeed marriages of convenience or expedience, most people come together because they love each other, i think most people would agree.
regardless of what any given individual may think of homosexuality, what another person does with their life, i think most will also agree, is their business, not yours or mine - so long as they are consenting adults and are not harming others by their actions. some make the argument that they're harmed by the mere idea of two people of the same gender having sex. these are also the same sort of people who sue mcdonalds because they got fat, in my opinion - unwilling to take responsibility for their own choices and readily willing to blame others. but i digress.
because a marriage is a legal union separately from its being a spiritual union, an argument can be made under the Equal Protection concept. Because rights and privileges are conferred via legal marriage, then denying a person the opportunity to marry, because both partners are the same gender, is an unfair discrimination. "you can have these rights and privileges if you marry this person, based strictly on their gender, but you cannot have these rights and privileges if you marry that person, based strictly on their gender" is not good gender neutral law, to say the least.
i'm not terribly fond of the Equal Protection concept as a basis for the argument however. I'm more fond of simple common sense. If two people love each other, they are consenting adults, they are competent to enter into a legally binding contract, and they are not harming anyone by their choices, then who the hell am i or anyone else to impose ourselves in their lives and say 'no'?
if homosexuality disgusts you - then by all means, don't be a homosexual, don't attend homosexual marriage ceremonies, and certainly don't marry someone of the same gender as yourself. if you are a homosexual, and you love your partner, then by all means, get married, and enjoy your life together (and you too can experience the joy of having your partner gripe at you for not keeping your home office neat and tidy)(hi val, smooch!).
life's too damned short. if your church won't marry gays, rock on. if your church will marry gays, rock on. but when it comes to the legal side of marriage, nobody has any business dictating to gay people that they can't get married.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Pope condemns gay nuptials
anastrophe :-6
Well put. I couldn't have said it any better. 100% agreement here.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Well put. I couldn't have said it any better. 100% agreement here.
Shalom
Ted :-6