Pope on target again

[PM-Junkie]

The insight of the guy is amazing. We all missed this - here we all are focussing on the fact that the world is falling to bits, and he focusses his attentions on shirt lifters.

Takes "having your priorities right" to a whole new level.

By the same token, I expect the Queen to focus her Christmas Day speach on the woeful standard of parallel parking in seaside towns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7796663.stm

[deano]

The Pope is spot on. Oddball sexuality means no more human beings.

This needs raising now because the gays are getting too many rights which they should not have. Gay "marriage" - go California, go Proposition 8 - is an oxymoron. The right to adopt is facile PC pandering.

I don't mind them followiung their own lifestyle choice, but it should not follow that their lifestyle becomes normative and that they enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals.

[Mich the Tester]

I don't mind them followiung their own lifestyle choice, but it should not follow...that they enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals.

Which particular rights would you like to see removed from gay people?

[deano]

Lets see. Adoption, Civil Union, Ordination.

That'll do for now.

[Mich the Tester]

Lets see. Adoption, Civil Union, Ordination.

That'll do for now.

Yep, but it's the 'for now' bit that would worry a lot of people.

[minestrone]

The right to become Secretary of State for Business.

[deano]

Yep, but it's the 'for now' bit that would worry a lot of people.

Yes. It worries me when the Gay Rights lobby and New Labour say they can adopt, get "married" and become Bishops... that'll do for now.

What will they ask for and get next.

I don't have a problem with a gay person standing for Parliament, nor becoming a member of the cabinet. Even a gay Prime Minister would not bother me. They are all elected and/or answerable to an elected MP, which means they must present their manifesto and be voted in or out on that basis.

[sasguru]

The Pope is spot on. Oddball sexuality means no more human beings.

This needs raising now because the gays are getting too many rights which they should not have. Gay "marriage" - go California, go Proposition 8 - is an oxymoron. The right to adopt is facile PC pandering.

I don't mind them followiung their own lifestyle choice, but it should not follow that their lifestyle becomes normative and that they enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals.

What if "gayness" for some is a biological norm? As plenty of evidence shows e.g. in the animal kingdom

[Platypus]

Yep, but it's the 'for now' bit that would worry a lot of people.

other gay people

[Mich the Tester]

Yes. It worries me when the Gay Rights lobby and New Labour say they can adopt, get "married" and become Bishops... that'll do for now.

What will they ask for and get next.

I don't have a problem with a gay person standing for Parliament, nor becoming a member of the cabinet. Even a gay Prime Minister would not bother me. They are all elected and/or answerable to an elected MP, which means they must present their manifesto and be voted in or out on that basis.

Well I can understand why you feel that a church should be allowed to refuse ordination to gay people, and that doesn’t really bother me. After all, it’s very unlikely that the CofE or the catholic church would ordain me, as I’m an atheist; it would be ridiculous for me to claim that I’m being wrongly discriminated against on the ground of not believing the central reason for the existence of churches. Perhaps they could just start their own church where they can be ordained.

I think civil union’s a different matter; this is essentially a secular institution, set up by a democratically elected government, and therefore subject to the will of an electorate which votes on mostly secular matters. As for adoption, again, this is an arrangement would exist with or without religious influence; it’s up to any society to elect representatives who put this kind of law in place, and not for religious decrees.

If you feel that marriage or any other form of legal union between people should be governed by religious ideals about sexuality, why not ban atheists from marrying or civil union on the grounds that they don’t believe in the god who’s supposedly giving their relationship validity?