Pope on target again

[deano]

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

That would indicate that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. After all adaptation and evolution relies on genetic changes being carried forward between successive generations. That implies a definite reproductive mechanism, which further implies that homosexuality is not compatible with Evolution.

Taking it to its logical conclusion, it is a genetic variation that is self-limiting and will be naturally de-selected.

Give it another millenia or so of natural selection and there wont be any gay people. We're still evolving.

[Mich the Tester]

That would indicate that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

Erm, not really. There’s a lot of bisexuality among animals. If anything, that’s a trait that would continue through evolution.

[deano]

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?

Okay, let us put the issue of ordination aside as I accept that it does really only affect those of us involved with or who have an interest in the Church.

Now, gay marriage is different. It has been set up not merely as a secular process by which pension rights, insurance rights, right of domicile etc have been enshrined in law. I would not have a problem if this were the case. To do that involves a simple form that can be completed and sent to the post office. After all, it seems that it need be no more onerous that applying for a passport.

However we don't have this. The Gay "marriages" have been elevated to appear equal in ceremony to marriage between a man and a woman. It is this I object to. They were not happy to make the union legally equivalent, but demanded it be socially equivalent! That is why they can be "married" in a registry office, with all of the ceremony and protocol of a heterosexual marriage. It is the attempt to equate homosexuality as a societal norm that I object to. Every gay "marriage" diminishes marriage between a man and a woman a little bit.

Adoption should reflect - for the good of the child - the natural unit of family. A mother and father. Sorry, but if you think that a gay couple can reproduce, I've got news for you. They can't. Therefore it is not a normal situation to place a child with them, to bring them up in that environment.

[sasguru]

That would indicate that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. After all adaptation and evolution relies on genetic changes being carried forward between successive generations. That implies a definite reproductive mechanism, which further implies that homosexuality is not compatible with Evolution.

Taking it to its logical conclusion, it is a genetic variation that is self-limiting and will be naturally de-selected.

Give it another millenia or so of natural selection and there wont be any gay people. We're still evolving.

Not terribly bright are you?
Like atw you should realise that a little intelligence is a dangerous thing.

[deano]

I've told you before sasgru, I agree with evolution. You and I see eye-to-eye on that (or whatever the botanists call the collection of photo-sensitive cells on your particular branch of the evolutionary tree).

I don't need to be bright. Just brighter than you is enough.

[Cheshire Cat]

If homosexuality was incompatible with evolution it would have been "selected" out of existence long before 2008.

[deano]

If homosexuality was incompatible with evolution it would have been "selected" out of existence long before 2008.

Do you have any firm evidence for that? Doesn't your argument rest on the theory that evolution has finished? What will the situation be in another 500,000 years from now?

[Mich the Tester]

What will the situation be in another 500,000 years from now?

People on state benefits will outnumber everyone else by ten to one.

[foritisme]

Okay, let us put the issue of ordination aside as I accept that it does really only affect those of us involved with or who have an interest in the Church.

Strange how the people with interest in the church and continually go on about so called christian values, but seem to have much less tolerance than us non-believers

[deano]

Strange how the people with interest in the church and continually go on about so called christian values, but seem to have much less tolerance than us non-believers

Intolerance over making gay "marriage" equal in social terms to real marriage, or in making gay people Bishops?

Yep. Fine, I'll admit to that.

Intolerance over people being gay per se and allowing them an equal right to stay in a council house when their partner dies? Nope. Not guilty.

By the way, can you justify your claim that atheists are less intolerant with statistical evidence? How many atheists are in the BNP or NF? How many members of the Labour party are homophobic? We need the numbers.