Reply to: Pope on target again

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[norrahe]

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

[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

[Mich the Tester]

Not at all. Atheist minisisters are called "modernists", or "liberals".

Well even I'd say that it's bloody silly to ordain an atheist, just as it;s bloody silly for an atheist to want to be ordained.

Mind you if the rate's right...

[sasguru]

Not at all. Atheist minisisters are called "modernists", or "liberals".

Perhaps the CofE is evolving into a reasonable "religion".

[original PM]

Ok lets say my wife died (god forbid) and my brother moved in to help me raise the kids - you could in essence have 2 'dads' (or two male influences) no major female ones - so what the kids will turn out all freaky.

The argument seems to be that 2 men (or two women) could not raise a well balanced child

Does this argument hold water - does it also mean that single mums and dads cannot raise children properly as there is no balanced influence.

Admittedly single mums do get a lot of stick but then when you look at the pointless slappers who have managed to have 5 kids from 4 different fathers you need to understand that they have kids for the money involved and not becuase they want children to love and bring up

I think as long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted they will always get a balanced upbringing as this is what caring parents give.

[NotAllThere]

... After all, it’s very unlikely that the CofE... would ordain me, as I’m an atheist; ...

Not at all. Atheist minisisters are called "modernists", or "liberals".

[Mich the Tester]

Are you saying you cannot know what is good for anybody whose life you have not experienced?

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.

[Doggy Styles]

You're glad because that's your experience. I too find it difficul to imagine having two parents of the same sex, but that doesn't mean I can pretend to know what's good for someone else because I haven't had their experience.

Are you saying you cannot know what is good for anybody whose life you have not experienced?