Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

[sharkman]

Are you that adamant concerning your twisted sexual analysis that there should be no special benefits available to heterosexual couples that form the cornerstone of society and are directly RESPONSIBLE for the CREATION of society itself?

If you want to claim that hetrosexual couples are responsible for the creation of society, then you should also claim that hetrosexual couples are responsible for all the damage that overpopulation has caused. The fact is many societies go to great extents to encourage birth and population control simply to mitigate the effects of uncontrolled reproduction.

Maybe its the homosexual couples which shoudl be given "special benefits" because they biologically cannot produce children and are thus less likely to deplete the earth's resources.

Uh, no, a lack of education is the reason there is overpopulation in some areas of the world. Anyway, Harper's going to fix this whole problem eventually when he changes back the definition of marriage, and we'll get back in step with the rest of the world.

[Renegade]

Uh, no, a lack of education is the reason there is overpopulation in some areas of the world.

Er, you mean lack of education of those hetrosexual couples which Leafless claimed were responsible for the creation of society? Hmm, quite impressive that a group that while ignorant, can still engineer a society.

Anyway, Harper's going to fix this whole problem eventually when he changes back the definition of marriage, and we'll get back in step with the rest of the world.

I can't wait for the day that Harper uses the notwithstanding clause to overide the SCC. Maybe he'll open the abortion debate the same day. Don't worry, he won't do it quite yet because he still values the PM's residence.

[sharkman]

Uh, no, a lack of education is the reason there is overpopulation in some areas of the world.

Er, you mean lack of education of those hetrosexual couples which Leafless claimed were responsible for the creation of society? Hmm, quite impressive that a group that while ignorant, can still engineer a society.

Anyway, Harper's going to fix this whole problem eventually when he changes back the definition of marriage, and we'll get back in step with the rest of the world.

I can't wait for the day that Harper uses the notwithstanding clause to overide the SCC. Maybe he'll open the abortion debate the same day. Don't worry, he won't do it quite yet because he still values the PM's residence.

No, that's not what I mean. I don't know what your issue with white people is, but they are not the ones who are overpopulating. Think China, India and other regions that have a high birth rate.

[Who's Doing What?]

The pope can blow me.

Nah, lightning strikes are done at a higher level and the Pope has better taste.

Leftists dispise the Pope as he stands for the ethics and morality they shun. Too bad, really, that they cannot diferentiate between being secular and being immoral. Being amoral does not mean you are secular.

I doubt I am a Leftist and I don't like the pope because he is nothing more than a figurehead of a currupt institution, that uses religion as its sheild to further perpetuate it's own wealth and exercise it's will upon the masses.

[Electric Monk]

I agree, Homosexuals should have their own "different but equal" civil union ceremonies, their own "different but equal" washrooms, their own "different but equal" water fountains, their own "different but equal" back seats on busses. I mean really, who doesn't agree?

Are you actually promoting the illusion male and male or female and female or homosexual and lesbian relationships are equally important concerning the importance pertaining to all levels of a functioning society as male and female heterosexual relationships.

Are you that adamant concerning your twisted sexual analysis that there should be no special benefits available to heterosexual couples that form the cornerstone of society and are directly RESPONSIBLE for the CREATION of society itself?

Ok, lets examine this logic, In terms of importance to society the one thing that same sex couples can't do is have children purely biologically. However, lesbian couples can take advantage of modern science in the form of artificial insemination (if they so choose). Homosexual couples cannot "naturally" concieve a child, however they can adopt (again if they choose to do so). But wait, heterosexual couples cannot always bear children naturally either, thus forcing them into the same situations as the aforementioned same-sex unions.

It seems to me that if a same sex couple wants a child, if they are financially able and meet adoption or artificial insemination criteria they are fully able to raise a child and have a family. What about able-bodied heterosexual couples who choose to bear no children? Do we penalize them? Or do we attach the benefits to the children? (I honestly don't know this.) Do we penalize heterosexual couples who cannot have children?

What about the cost to a society that does not allow equality for all of it's members?

[Renegade]

No, that's not what I mean. I don't know what your issue with white people is, but they are not the ones who are overpopulating. Think China, India and other regions that have a high birth rate.

I understand that. The reasons for overpopulation are many, and aren't necessarily race-related. Why would you think I have an issue with white people?

My point was that it is a ridiculous statement to assign credit for the "creation of society" to hetrosexuals simply because they can procreate.

[Charles Anthony]

No reason for him to stick his committee appionted self righteous nose into Canadian affairs.

Hypothetically, if a Canadian archbishop became Pope, would we argue differently?

How has the Catholic religion dictated the role of government in Canada outside of the controversial gay marriage controversy where gays stole the concept of marriage from the church. Christianity in general ( all denominations) were forced to defend that religiously attached traditional concept from being abused by a group not generally recognized with in the confines of most Christian domination's?

Uh..... what was the question......?

And this will help out with the seperation of church and state right?? Oh ffs. Tell the Pope to piss up a rope. I do NOT want to see religion in government and it should stay that way. Once we get Popes and Cardinals telling us how to do things and the government listening to them and then trying to accomodate them sets a bad example for all religions.

What do you fear? The power is in your hands already: do not vote for any Catholic members of Parliament. Problem solved.

I suggest you vote for people who believe that after you die, you can get away with all of the crimes you committed. All you have to do is cover your tracks or never get caught by anybody in your lifetime. People with those beliefs are the ones you want controlling your country and enforcing policy through the barrel of a gun.

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

As the Pope is God's voice on earth, it makes you wonder how well God understands the idea of one law for all.

Maybe God believes we should be devout anarchists. Anarchists dismiss citizenship altogether -- among other laughable statist concepts.

What about the cost to a society that does not allow equality for all of it's members?

That is a loaded question! Considering that nobody is equal, the cost to society would be null.

I am comfortable with the Pope boldly telling foreign politicians what to do and how to govern -- even over non-Catholic populations. First, it is no surprise. Second, politicians will be dictated by the Almighty Dollar anyway. Third, the Vatican does not have an army (for all my fellow smart-alecks: no, the Swiss guards do not count) and they do not invade foreign countries by force. Ultimately, any influence the Pope has will be through free-will.

Hell, if I had the opportunity to speak internationally, not only would I tell everybody in the whole world what to do, I would also tell them how to think. I would probably speak in a very condescending manner and throw out a few heartless insults to my opponents too.

[jbg]

As the Pope is God's voice on earth, it makes you wonder how well God understands the idea of one law for all.

My idea, which I have posted on Rabble under another screen name (link), on April 26, 2004 (thus a different cast of characters) is as follows:

Same sex marriage is a hot issue both in the US and Canada. The proposals are typical watered down Republican/CPC fodder. Bush's toadies like it that way.

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry, regardless of gender, species and age, as long as one is a human over the age of 14. Only the tired, reactionary tories and George Bush want to seem to be fighting gay marriage and would settle for two-male or two-female marriages.

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc. Don't be stampeded by Bush/Harper, Bush/Martin, they're all the same.

[Renegade]

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry

Why stop at four?

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc.

I'm assuming that the reason you would restrict it to persons over 14, is that children under 14 are likely not to understand the ramifications or the commitments which they are signing up for.

How would you assure that the "goat, sheep, etc" actually understands and consents to the obligations of marriage? Are you assuming that consent of all parties are not required?

[M.Dancer]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ope-canada.html

"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario

-what a tool

I find his position on the marriage of religious gays in churches that welcome religious gays to be positively Taliban like.......with the slight difference of enforcement ability.

Lucky for us we can ignore him and still be good Catholics.

[Leafless]

Ok, lets examine this logic, In terms of importance to society the one thing that same sex couples can't do is have children purely biologically. However, lesbian couples can take advantage of modern science in the form of artificial insemination (if they so choose). Homosexual couples cannot "naturally" concieve a child, however they can adopt (again if they choose to do so). But wait, heterosexual couples cannot always bear children naturally either, thus forcing them into the same situations as the aforementioned same-sex unions.

What about the cost to a society that does not allow equality for all of it's members?

Firstly there is no legal patent or form of ownership concerning the word marriage.

But the fact is religions around the world have basically used this word to identify the spiritual union between a man and woman.

Homosexuals have leeched this word especially pertaining to religious ceremonies in bad faith and was done to justify to somehow normalize the union of the same sex as equivalent to a normal heterosexual union especially to obtain heterosexual benefits and in their minds establish a level of normalcy.

Artificial insemination was basically invented for the benefit of childless heterosexual couples...not lesbian couples.

Again artificial insemination or embryo transplant has been leeched by a group intent to use it to justify and normalize this groups inability to function in a normal heterosexual manner.

I am at a loss when you say " What about the cost to a society that does not allow equality for all of it's members?"

This is totally nonsensical as you must be fully aware the same rights are available to homosexuals and lesbians simply if they follow society as a role matter rather than invent their own rules and leech essential components to equalize their diverse lifestyle.

But granted homosexuals are not totally to blame as much as the Liberals are for not standing up for a regulated moralistic society.

[Black Dog]

Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

Time to end the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status.

[Figleaf]

k bye

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Rue]

The Pope has no business scolding anyone other then Catholics. The last time I looked 33% of Canadians identified themselves as Catholics according to Statistics Canada. That would make the other 67% non Catholic although no doubt probably most Muslims and conservative and orthodox Jews and Hindus and Sieks probably agree with this kind of thinking.

That said, I would kindly ask this Pople as I would anyone else to keep their religion to their own followers. It has no place in state institutions. Keep your religious opinions out of my face.

If some gay person wants to marry or someone wants an abortion its none of my business and I do not need some man who spent 3 years shuffling Catholic Priests all about the world so they could not be sued for molesting children, lecturing me on what is right or wrong.

Before this Pope lectures anyone he can confess for his sins and his part in covering up sex scandals.

[bradco]

The Pope has no business scolding anyone other then Catholics. The last time I looked 33% of Canadians identified themselves as Catholics according to Statistics Canada. That would make the other 67% non Catholic although no doubt probably most Muslims and conservative and orthodox Jews and Hindus and Sieks probably agree with this kind of thinking.

That said, I would kindly ask this Pople as I would anyone else to keep their religion to their own followers. It has no place in state institutions. Keep your religious opinions out of my face.

If some gay person wants to marry or someone wants an abortion its none of my business and I do not need some man who spent 3 years shuffling Catholic Priests all about the world so they could not be sued for molesting children, lecturing me on what is right or wrong.

Before this Pope lectures anyone he can confess for his sins and his part in covering up sex scandals.

I dunno..... I have absolutly no problem with religious people expressing their views but at the same time I deserve the right to express mine. As a liberal (small l) I believe in freedom of speech. There is nothing wrong with debating issues in public.... everyone has the right to criticize anything they want if they do it in a responsible manner (ie no hate speech allowed). The pope can go right ahead and scold Canada but I have the same right to point out his intolerance and bigotry and blind following of morals written in a book hundreds of years ago that show him to be an inferior intelligence. People of intelligence don't blindly follow anything, they question the logic of everything and expose it to rational thought.

[Electric Monk]

Firstly there is no legal patent or form of ownership concerning the word marriage.

But the fact is religions around the world have basically used this word to identify the spiritual union between a man and woman.

SSM advocates wanted the legal right to marry their partner, the fact that some churches also endorse that right is an internal religious matter.

Homosexuals have leeched this word especially pertaining to religious ceremonies in bad faith and was done to justify to somehow normalize the union of the same sex as equivalent to a normal heterosexual union especially to obtain heterosexual benefits and in their minds establish a level of normalcy.

They wanted the right to legally marry the person they love.

Artificial insemination was basically invented for the benefit of childless heterosexual couples...not lesbian couples.

Artificial insemination is also routinely used in farming livestock, is this also wrong?

Again artificial insemination or embryo transplant has been leeched by a group intent to use it to justify and normalize this groups inability to function in a normal heterosexual manner.

I'm going to be pragmatic and say that they use AI to get pregnant, and not try to infer motives.

I am at a loss when you say " What about the cost to a society that does not allow equality for all of it's members?"

This is totally nonsensical as you must be fully aware the same rights are available to homosexuals and lesbians simply if they follow society as a role matter rather than invent their own rules and leech essential components to equalize their diverse lifestyle.

I think this is really the core of the debate. If I understand you correctly, homosexuals and lesbians have the same right to legally marry the person they love, as long as they don't marry the person they love? Is this accurate?

But granted homosexuals are not totally to blame as much as the Liberals are for not standing up for a regulated moralistic society.

I would argue that a truly moral society does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

[geoffrey]

Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

Time to end the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status.

Same with every other charity group, or just Churches? At least the Church doesn't get grants, EGALE does.

[Black Dog]

Same with every other charity group, or just Churches? At least the Church doesn't get grants, EGALE does.

I think the church's cheritable work should remain tax free. But the blanket exemption has gotta go.

[Renegade]

Firstly there is no legal patent or form of ownership concerning the word marriage.

But the fact is religions around the world have basically used this word to identify the spiritual union between a man and woman.

Actually the concept of marriage has not been static and has evolved. There was a time where marriage between races was not allowed. There was a time where some religions did not recognize inter-faith marriages. In any case the legal definition of marriage is separate from the religious definition even though both use the same term. For example, the legal definition of marriage has been extended to common-law marriages despite the fact that most religions do not recognize common-law marriages (because they did not undertake the religous ceremony.

Even if the law recognizes gay marriage, religions are free to not recognize them if they so choose.

You complain that gays co-opted the use of the term marriage. You should be complaining that the government co-opted the term and used it as a basis of distinguising persons who had undertaken mutual obligations.

Artificial insemination was basically invented for the benefit of childless heterosexual couples...not lesbian couples.

How exactly do you know the intent of the inventor of artificial insemination?

[jbg]

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry

Why stop at four?

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc.

I'm assuming that the reason you would restrict it to persons over 14, is that children under 14 are likely not to understand the ramifications or the commitments which they are signing up for.

How would you assure that the "goat, sheep, etc" actually understands and consents to the obligations of marriage? Are you assuming that consent of all parties are not required?

The folks at Rabble banned me 5 minutes later. I don't know if they're against bestiality, or thought that maybe I was being a bit sarcastic (which I never am).

[myata]

It's not the fact that he made the comments about Canada's policies that is strange to me (we've freedom of speech here and in his position he's expected to talk about moral and ethical matters) but the essense of the comments themselves which shows:

a. profound misunderstanding of the nature of democratic government (i.e. politicians representing values of the populace, not their own);

b. no less profound lack of touch with the mindstate of the modern Western societies (where huge majority of people are no longer interested in maintaining "dominant morals" as long as behaviours do not cause provable harm - re decision of the Supreme Court on swingers clubs);

c. something what I consider a profound arrogance toward regular citizens like myself - if the Pope has issues with our morals, why would he try to influence it through politicians (i.e., impose them?) as opposed to try to help us accept his position? Unless he sees no hope of ever achieving this.

[daddyhominum]

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

That is an outright lie and you know it.

Homosexuals wanted 'marriage'.

They declined other options or alternatives.

BTW- It's not over yet.

Homosexuals wanted equality and the court found that denying them the benefit of marriage under Canadian law breached their rights as citizens.

Ther is no 'right' to marriage so marriage was not the issue at court.

Please advise me on where I lied.

[daddyhominum]

The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

It IS the issue of marriage itself! THEY wanted to change the DEFINITION!

I have always agreed that THEY should be allowed to have their own definition of a union...with all the protection and benefits of any married couples.

The outrage is not about whether they can openly and legally shack up together in a union.....the outrage is about the changing of the definition of marriage!

The court hadto decide if a benefit was received by married citizens that homosexuals were denied . Then the court had to decide if the denial of the benefit breached the rights of citizens who were denied marriage under the law.

The court did not rule on the definition of marriage.

[daddyhominum]

As the Pope is God's voice on earth, it makes you wonder how well God understands the idea of one law for all.

My idea, which I have posted on Rabble under another screen name (link), on April 26, 2004 (thus a different cast of characters) is as follows:

Same sex marriage is a hot issue both in the US and Canada. The proposals are typical watered down Republican/CPC fodder. Bush's toadies like it that way.

The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry, regardless of gender, species and age, as long as one is a human over the age of 14. Only the tired, reactionary tories and George Bush want to seem to be fighting gay marriage and would settle for two-male or two-female marriages.

The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc. Don't be stampeded by Bush/Harper, Bush/Martin, they're all the same.

I get lost on this frggin invision and only read your post today. It seems particuylarly apropo as I just read a post about a Sudanese man forced to marry a goat.

Are you ready to enact a law and have the RCMP enforce it? LOL ! That would make Canada the envy of even the Dutch and Danes!

[killjoy]

Reminder: Religion is not a democracy

Precisely why the Pope needs to stay out of politics.

The Pope can suck my hockey stick. We'll do as we please.

.