Pope urges Bishops to fight UK equal rights legislation with missionary zeal

One can't help thinking if the Catholic Church in this and other countries had put the same effort into stopping their own clergy being child abusers (rather than just coverign it up when they found out about it) they might get more sympathy…

Are you trying to suggest that a gay person is de facto, a paedophile?

Chris Hitchens: "I am perfectly happy (and proud) to have my good friend and my children's "godfather" Stephen Fry, babysit my children if my wife and I wanted to go out of an evening.

If a priest or bishop in full regalia turned up to do the job, first I'd call a taxi, then I'd call the police."

Mr Woppit – No I don't think he was 🙄

I think the Pope's going to do a great job on his visit in ensuring people are put off the Catholic church. Top work that man!

One person sat in a room talking to themselves is normally labelled as mad.

A few hundred sat in a room together talking to themselves are normally called a congregation. Go figure…

The Mash is on fine form this morning on the subject:

Allow me to explain natural law says celibate voodoo witch doctor

Are you trying to suggest that a gay person is de facto, a paedophile?

Errr. Eh? How the hell did you draw that conclusion from the original post? Unless it's been edited of course.

clubber – Member

Mr Woppit – No I don't think he was

That's what it reads like, to me…

What has the idiot Ratzinger wanting to deny gay people the opportunity to be priests, got to do with priests who are paedophiles? Why imply a connection. And why would a greater effort to prevent paedophilia inside the Catholic Church garner sympathy for Ratzinger's homophobia?

However, a visit from a silly old man in a stupid hat who spouts drivel shouldn't be anything to get too worked up about, I suppose. 8)

"Are you trying to suggest that a gay person is de facto, a paedophile?"

Absolutely not, I don't think I said that at all.

My point is that the Catholic Church has tolerated (if not connived in) so much abuse over the years with no apparent effort to do anythign but cover it up when complaints are made that to then turn around and decry what they consider to be the 'deviancy' of being gay and ask Bishops to attack UK law with such zeal feels like dual standards are being observed.

They should stop him from entering the country on the basis of causing religious unrest. 😉

Mr Woppit – I think you made a connection that wasn't there – as wwaswas has explained.

Anyway, the Church, dual standards? NEVER! 😉

hainey – now that would be brilliant 🙂

Hmmm this 'natural law' – given that in nature there are gay dogs, donkeys, penguins etc… doesn't that mean that for some people being gay is natural?

To me the Catholic view of gay people has no more moral weight than the BNP's view of black people. Why should they have special permission to discriminate?

Hmmm this 'natural law' – given that in nature there are gay dogs, donkeys, penguins etc… doesn't that mean that for some people being gay is natural?

While I'm in no way agreeing with the Pope on this…I'm not sure how close that comes to the Human version of gay though, I mean to have a gay animal it'd have to select only same-sex partners for its acts and decide that the other sex is no longer attractive. This, from what I can see, is never the case in nature – dogs will hump anything thats bent over and vaguely animal shaped, in an almost instinctual fashion, rather than as a primary choice. In contrast gay humans are not just randomly humping anything human shaped that's near them, they actively choose same-sex partners over opposite sex, with informed reasoning etc. To liken dogs to gay humans like that would suggest either the animals have far more going on with respect to mating instincts, or that gay people are somehow bordering on mentally deficient.

Coffeeking – I'm pretty sure that exactly the same sort of homosexuality has now been observed in nature.

Not that it's really that important. The Catholic Church's view is clearly a load of rubbish. Discrimination isn't right.

Coffeeking – I'm pretty sure that exactly the same sort of homosexuality has now been observed in nature.

Really? I've not hunted for it but I must say I've never seen any evidence of it presented (Used to have long discussions on the subject with my (gay) mate). Any links?

Really? I've not hunted for it but I must say I've never seen any evidence of it presented (Used to have long discussions on the subject with my (gay) mate). Any link

Look at any field of cows – they're always trying to hump one another!!

I think we should all dress up as the Elizabethan soldiery and go to Heathrow to 'welcome' his arrival. He could then go hide in a priest hole for a while and folk might forget about him and his stupid views.

Look at any field of cows – they're always trying to hump one another!!

I'm not sure that's really the case though is it, I mean cows (being female) don't "mount" in normal mating, unless I missed some important biology lessons! I suspect that's more of a dominance thing, or possibly something comepletely unrelated.

I've been watching a lot of religious history on TV at the moment, find it all pretty interesting but depressing too.

…and reading Richard Hawkins "The God Delusion"……he doesnt take any prisoners does he.

I'm an athiest. All religion is bunk.

There, I've said it, I'm out of the closet.

One example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8081829.stm

Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but there are many journal references there…

Wiki one is a bit lame but clubbers is more interesting. Still not convinced that, in a female-deficient false environment, a few penguins getting frustrated and making use of each other and acting out normal family routines quite reaches the same level as gay humans?

With regards to the Pope I think Henry VIII had the right idea.

Thanks to the internet:

Erwin and Maple (1976) describe two male rhesus monkeys who lived together for 19 months and engaged in "reciprocal mounting with anal penetration."

People have also observed other gay animals in the wild (monkeys, birds, various other animals).

If you watch ducks, they are pretty filthy – gang rape (male on female and male on male) is one of their favourite activities (I'm guessing that's a sin!), and they aren't very monogamous to say the least. Oh penguins too – March of the Penguins apparently isn't very accurate.

Oh and you'll be happy to know monkeys engage in oral sex (sinful) and use dildos / masturbate (sinful).

Also, another interesting argument I've heard, is that if god really did exist, and did intend homosexuality to be sin, why the hell did he design male humans in such a way that having stuff stuck up their arse is quite so pleasurable?

Another random interesting fact, I understand rates of anal sex are pretty similar amongst hetero and homosexual couples, so the whole gay = bum sex thing is a bit of a red herring maybe.

Joe

coffeeking i think you are missing the point that sex in us and other animals is not just about breeding, its a social activity used to assert dominance, reinforce bonds etc

an awful lot of gay and straight people have experimented one way or the other before settling on what they liked, not to mention the people that live in denial of their sexuality raising kids with a wife/husband etc before comming out and then youve got boarding school…..

its all fun and games these days but before contraception hetero sex would more than likely have meant babies whether you were planning on marrying the girl or just using her to get to her brother

the church has spent the last 2000+ years indoctrinating people to believe otherwise they wont change now and the devout are too dim too see it

more to the point 20million uk taxpayers money for this visit, imagine if that much was being spent on a visiting muslim cleric!

Also, another interesting argument I've heard, is that if god really did exist,

In mortal peril of repeating myself…. 😉

Joe – I know people claim to have observed gay animals, but I'm just questioning how they define gay really, plenty of the examples used to qualify this argument are simply not what you would consider legitimate "gay" activity, simply interactions in false environments etc etc. I'm by no way doubting the idea presented, just never found what I considered conclusive proof. Either people select animals/insects that are totally indiscriminate in their advances or present exceptional curious behaviour as proof of things. I'm just curious as to how people perceive the "proofs" and how they relate to peoples accepted understanding of the animals intelligence, environment etc. If you saw a monkey masturbating in the zoo you wouldn't react the same way as if there was an old man on the next bench doing it etc.

I'm personally not a god person, or a gay person, so I struggle to see either point of view, but I'm happy to let people get on with whatever they like providing they don't thrust it in my face, as it were!

Wiki one is a bit lame but clubbers is more interesting.

Really? You clearly didn't read my post then. Look at some of the references, or if you have access to the scientific abstracting services such as Web of Knowledge…

One recent review article…

": Bailey NW (Bailey, Nathan W.)1, Zuk M (Zuk, Marlene)1
Source: TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION Volume: 24 Issue: 8 Pages: 439-446 Published: AUG 2009

Abstract: Same-sex sexual behavior has been extensively documented in non-human animals. Here we review the contexts in which it has been studied, focusing on case studies that have tested both adaptive and non-adaptive explanations for the persistence of same-sex sexual behavior. Researchers have begun to make headway unraveling possible evolutionary origins of these behaviors and reasons for their maintenance in populations, and we advocate expanding these approaches to examine their role as agents of evolutionary change. Future research employing theoretical, comparative and experimental approaches could provide a greater understanding not only of how selection might have driven the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviors but also ways in which such behaviors act as selective forces that shape social, morphological and behavioral evolution."

I'm by no way doubting the idea presented, just never found what I considered conclusive proof.

(Coffeeking's view that the science is wrong because he doesn't believe it)

compare and contrast with:

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."
(The Pope's view that homosexuality is wrong because he thinks it's a sin)

To me the Catholic view of gay people has no more moral weight than the BNP's view of black people. Why should they have special permission to discriminate?

This.

But also, people trying to view human behavioral patterns in animals: surely the very fact that we are able to view animals engaging in a variety of sexual roles goes more towards eroding the idea of sexuality being a binary concept. That animals don't behave just like people is hardly surprising.
I would argue that the fact that animals seem so happy to engage in sexual activity with any available gender is more telling regarding the 'naturalness' of the concepts of both heterosexuality and homosexuality. IMO both are largely cultural constructs.

I would argue that the fact that animals seem so happy to engage in sexual activity with any available gender is more telling regarding the 'naturalness' of the concepts of both heterosexuality and homosexuality. IMO both are largely cultural constructs.

I think the bottom line is that all species like to shag, and aren't always choosy about getting the 'correct' sexed partner….

I think the "gayness isn't natural" argument is a terribly weak one. It seems to be fairly natural, actually. That doesn't and needn't mean that God doesn't hate it. He is thought to hate a number of perfectly natural things, including murder and cannibalism. But whether what God is said to hate has any bearing on how you behave depends on whether or not you take His existence, His churches' account of His preferences and the threat of Hell very seriously. People increasingly don't, which is why committed religious doctrine gives way to laughable pseudo-biology. 🙂

I would argue that the fact that animals seem so happy to engage in sexual activity with any available gender is more telling regarding the 'naturalness' of the concepts of both heterosexuality and homosexuality. IMO both are largely cultural constructs.

exactly
constructs created by the catholic church and all the monotheistic dessert religions (christianity, islam, judaism) and they have been reinforcing them in our culture for thousands of years

id say its their fault that homophobia even exists

Do any other animals choose NOT to have sex like priests then? I dont mean ones that try and fail due to a dominant male, failure to find a partner but just never try to reproduce? I am assuming that this behaviour is unliely to flourish in a gene pool.

Isn't the pope a nazi anyway? 😆

(Coffeeking's view that the science is wrong because he doesn't believe it)

Zokes' misunderstanding and lack of comprehension of the sentence. I simply stated that I haven't found what I would consider conclusive proof, not that conclusive proof does not exist. Stop jumping to conclusions. I don't believe some of the science as I believe it is based on false assumption, that doesn't mean I don't subscribe to the argument that it is natural, or that I think science is wholely wrong.

He is thought to hate a number of perfectly natural things, including murder

Not in the old testament.

i'm with hainey on this one.

Doesn't anyone else have a problem with a guy in a dress dictating to us what we should or shouldn't do based on what a fictional character told him?

😉