Pope on target again

[Ruprect]

Therefore you get the rites and rights - thank you for that expression, it sums up the argument nicely - and gay partnerships should only get the rights, not the rites.

Ah, but Mitch, we are talking about a political decision that was taken to afford gay "marriages" the same equality, not just in law, but in the collective moral outlook of society.

...

Was it really the wish of the people that Sir Elton and Lady David be given the same marital status that the majority of them enjoy?

Looks to me like you are trying (badly) to argue yourself out of a corner - seems to me you are all bluster about what is, essentially, a one-off party

[norrahe]

lets just face it, deano is just trying to keep his cushy gig at the vatican

[Doggy Styles]

NO, I just don't think it's all that easy to judge whether a child who grows up with two same sex parents is going to be any more or less confused than a child with a mother and father; it's too easy to just judge from one's own experience instead of researching and gathering evidence.

OK, so we don't know.

All I know is that I experienced and learned different things from my mum the woman, than from my dad the man, and many other things from both together.

[deano]

lets just face it, deano is just trying to keep his cushy gig at the vatican

Not Catholic. Church of England. Cake or Death anyone?

[Platypus]

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.

I don't give a toss about the other issues, but here you're right. Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Period.

[coultog]

Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Period.

Out of interest, why?

As has previously been discussed, how could two gay professional people bring up children and worse than a cheap council estate slapper with five children to four men?

[Cyberman]

Out of interest, why?

As has previously been discussed, how could two gay professional people bring up children and worse than a cheap council estate slapper with five children to four men?

No situation is perfect and in an ideal world I would take the kids away from the slapper or better still, have her sterilised before she has them.
I still would not place kids with gays, as I believe a stable male and female relationship is necessary to create a balanced adult from a child. Having said that, I have absolutely no problem with gays whatsoever, except that PC has elevated a gay marriage to a par with a heterosexual marriage.

[AZZIK]

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.

Well said!

[Svalbaard]

I can see and agree with the Popes view, and if the church has its own views on who they allow to be married to who under their brand of dogma - then so be it. But I think you need to separate the concept of marriage from the dogmatic view that it is a practice that can ONLY validy be conducted by a religious order.

Sure, people get married in churches, and mosques and other places of religious practice because they want the nice setting, the bells, the minister and some may even get married in churches becasue they believe all that "holy" crap - and that is the image most people have of a marriage as it is enforced onto you from a very early age; and the church will defend that vision to the very end because hey... they get paid for every wedding condicted right?

But it is equally valid, and legal, to be married in a registry office, or on a beach, or up a gum tree if you fancy it - totally divorced from any religious connotations. And this is where the whole argument of who can marry who should really be focussed.

Personally, I don't care who marries who... gay marrying gay ultimately means less people right? Is that a bad thing? And you don't have to be married to be able to breed, so the argument about man marrying woman equalling the future of humanity is a pile of carp.

However, the discussion about gay adoption concerns me deeply and I think the allowance of this practice is flawed. And finally, regarding "gayness" being genetic...

You must be joking right?