Great! Now I can disagree with everybody!

HB, shoving your member up another person's anus is not an exclusively homosexual act. Nor, before you bring that in, is oral sex.

Notmyself, freedom of belief is not freedom to act on that belief.

Presumably, member Humpty Bear would accept same sex marriage if they were both eunuchs?

Cohabiting is one thing - marriage is another.

Two eunuchs sharing accommodation would not disturb me, but for me marriage is a holy sacrament designed for the comfort of the two partners AND for the conceiving and raising of children, so there would be no point in the eunuchs getting married.

This is only one of many things in life these days where minorities within society want to enjoy all the things that the majority have by law, without giving up their minority preferences/rights/community ideas/so on.

Will gypsies/travellers give up their perceived rights to camp where they wish, or on designated camp sites, for their perceived rights to benefits, education, etc.? The many contested evictions from non-approved sites show that they want their cake and eat it.

Similarly, tree-hugging greenies want to close down fracking and gas-fired power stations, but they still want electricity to power their computers, so that they can print their pamphlets and warm their baths.

This is not the place for a nature/nurture argument! All I will say is that increasingly the evidence seems to be that it is genetic. Many of us have never had any inclination towards the opposite sex, and feel, for what that's worth, that that is how we were made. I would go so far as to say that, if God made me that way, or even allowed me to become that way through nurture, He would not penalise me as a result. Only Man has done that.

Just a quickie on nature -v- nurture -

If it was 'in the genes' would it not have been bred-out thousands of years ago?

Nature is constantly ensuring that species can reproduce and improve. Homosexuality precludes natural reproduction and is therefore against nature.

Cohabiting is one thing - marriage is another.

Two eunuchs sharing accommodation would not disturb me, but for me marriage is a holy sacrament designed for the comfort of the two partners AND for the conceiving and raising of children, so there would be no point in the eunuchs getting married.

Ergo no marriage for infertile mixed sex couples either.

This is not the place for a nature/nurture argument! All I will say is that increasingly the evidence seems to be that it is genetic. Many of us have never had any inclination towards the opposite sex, and feel, for what that's worth, that that is how we were made. I would go so far as to say that, if God made me that way, or even allowed me to become that way through nurture, He would not penalise me as a result. Only Man has done that.

Just a quickie on nature -v- nurture -

If it was 'in the genes' would it not have been bred-out thousands of years ago?

Nature is constantly ensuring that species can reproduce and improve. Homosexuality precludes natural reproduction and is therefore against nature.

On the contrary, HB. The fact that it occurs in numerous species as well as man suggests that it is a natural device to curb excessive population growth. It has been somewhat overwhelmed by the medical revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries, though.

Great! Now I can disagree with everybody!

HB, shoving your member up another person's anus is not an exclusively homosexual act. Nor, before you bring that in, is oral sex.

Notmyself, freedom of belief is not freedom to act on that belief.

Presumably, member Humpty Bear would accept same sex marriage if they were both eunuchs?

Cohabiting is one thing - marriage is another.

Two eunuchs sharing accommodation would not disturb me, but for me marriage is a holy sacrament designed for the comfort of the two partners AND for the conceiving and raising of children, so there would be no point in the eunuchs getting married.

This is only one of many things in life these days where minorities within society want to enjoy all the things that the majority have by law, without giving up their minority preferences/rights/community ideas/so on.

Will gypsies/travellers give up their perceived rights to camp where they wish, or on designated camp sites, for their perceived rights to benefits, education, etc.? The many contested evictions from non-approved sites show that they want their cake and eat it.

Similarly, tree-hugging greenies want to close down fracking and gas-fired power stations, but they still want electricity to power their computers, so that they can print their pamphlets and warm their baths.

I think, HB, that you are trying to distract us by examples off the point.

I made it clear earlier that I at least am not enamoured of using the word marriage for same sex relationships, though I think it is inevitable that people will do this. We are only asking for the same rights as a couple of opposite sexes have.... e.g. shared pension rights, hospital visiting rights, and so on. What you call it is important to some people, but not to me. I would be quite happy to be civilly united, or civilly partnered.... but inevitably it will be called married.

Since this thread is about the Pope (!)

Of your mercy pray for His Holiness Pope Francis when he has to deal with the entrenched homophobes of the Catholic Church.

Since this thread is about the Pope (!)

Of your mercy pray for His Holiness Pope Francis when he has to deal with the entrenched homophobes of the Catholic Church.

I dunno IB. The Catholic Church doesn't see a difference between same sex marriage and bestiality. Consent is a difficult concept which could explain why they can't stop their Priests from raping little boys.

Since this thread is about the Pope (!)

Of your mercy pray for His Holiness Pope Francis when he has to deal with the entrenched homophobes of the Catholic Church.

I dunno IB. The Catholic Church doesn't see a difference between same sex marriage and bestiality. Consent is a difficult concept which could explain why they can't stop their Priests from raping little boys.

Precisely, notmyself. You dunno.

Your amusing graphic is wrong. The US government does in fact recognize same sex marriages.

Some links for your information:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-14/obamacare-insurers-to-cover-same-sex-spouses-u-s-says.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/more-federal-privileges-to-extend-to-same-sex-couples.html?_r=0

From the NY Times article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s said.

The changes were set in motion last year when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to refuse federal benefits to married same-sex couples, a ruling that Mr. Holder supported."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a total of 34 states that do not recognize same sex marriages, but the Federal government does, in all 50 states.

I'm not an American, chuck, but all I've read suggests that Mr Holder's words are honoured more in the breach than the observance.

Your amusing graphic is wrong. The US government does in fact recognize same sex marriages.

I posted my 'amusing graphic' to point out the absurdity of the 'they'll be asking to marry their dogs' next argument rather than the actual state of same-sex marriage in the USA whatever that may be this week.

Sustento:

That's OK. I wouldn't admit I was wrong if I posted something that absurd either.

IB:

Check out the changes to the military and the federal government handling of this situation since this administration has issued the royal decrees. I think you will be surprised how much things have changed in the past five years...not all of it for the better.

Since this thread is about the Pope (!)

Of your mercy pray for His Holiness Pope Francis when he has to deal with the entrenched homophobes of the Catholic Church.

I dunno IB. The Catholic Church doesn't see a difference between same sex marriage and bestiality. Consent is a difficult concept which could explain why they can't stop their Priests from raping little boys.

Precisely, notmyself. You dunno.

The Pope is going to do nothing about the entrenched? (institutionalised would be far more accurate) homophobia within the Catholic Church any more than he will do anything about the institutionalised child rape. You mentioned earlier in the thread that his first year has been....

Some people have said, I think quite fairly, that the Pope's first year has been more about style than substance. But you have to make people look in the right direction before you can make them do the right things.... and I think that is what Pope Francis has done.

Nothing he has done can be considered making people look in the right direction but rather making people look in the wrong direction. In the real world, his actions have shown that he wishes to 'divert attention away from' issues which need to be addressed.

He could make a real start by handing over fugitive Cardinal Bernhard Law.

And less than half an hour after posting...

The Vatican breaks its silence at UN gender equality conference

This week, the Holy See weighed into the discussions with demands to remove from the CSW outcome document references to sex workers, lesbian, gay, transsexual and bisexual rights, and some of the wording around sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) specifically those related to abortion and sex education. It is also understood to want the document to include explicit references to the importance of the family and when the Vatican talks about family, it means in the traditional, nuclear sense: a man, woman and their children.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/mar/20/vatican-un-gender-equality-conference-csw-women

Not happy being free to play with their toys they demand that others have to play with them while also demanding that others cannot play with their own toys.

So much of what you write, notmyself, is simply abusive, and I won't bother with that!

A few points, though.

Cardinal Law, as far as I know, is not a fugitive. If anybody wants to arrest him, let them go ahead. Cardinal O' Brien too!

You love talking as if all Catholic priests were rampant paedophiles. Nonsense! In this worldwide scandal (and I agree it is a scandal), the worst countries are Ireland, the US, Italy and Australia. The only place for which I have seen any figures is the US, where my source said that 4% of priests were involved. That's 4% too many, but it is still a small minority. (Another source, which gave 1.6% for the number of paedophile priests in the US, said that 10% of Protestant ministers were paedophiles; BTW, the author was a Jew).. I have not used any Catholic sources. Can you come up with any better figures?

The Vatican is quite right to emphasise the value of the traditional family. While other family types will work in many cases, I would still argue that it is best for the children if they have both male and female parents to relate to, not because this is the Catholic position, but simply because the man and woman have different things to offer in the child's upbringing.

You love talking as if all Catholic priests were rampant paedophiles. Nonsense! In this worldwide scandal (and I agree it is a scandal), the worst countries are Ireland, the US, Italy and Australia. The only place for which I have seen any figures is the US, where my source said that 4% of priests were involved. That's 4% too many, but it is still a small minority. (Another source, which gave 1.6% for the number of paedophile priests in the US, said that 10% of Protestant ministers were paedophiles; BTW, the author was a Jew).. I have not used any Catholic sources. Can you come up with any better figures?

I've never said nor inferred that all Catholic priests are kiddie fiddlers IB.

You love talking as if all Catholic priests were rampant paedophiles. Nonsense! In this worldwide scandal (and I agree it is a scandal), the worst countries are Ireland, the US, Italy and Australia. The only place for which I have seen any figures is the US, where my source said that 4% of priests were involved. That's 4% too many, but it is still a small minority. (Another source, which gave 1.6% for the number of paedophile priests in the US, said that 10% of Protestant ministers were paedophiles; BTW, the author was a Jew).. I have not used any Catholic sources. Can you come up with any better figures?

I've never said nor inferred that all Catholic priests are kiddie fiddlers IB.

No? You simply talk about things like "institutionalized child rape" (only a couple of posts back), which at least implies that the paedophilia is on a massive scale.

You love talking as if all Catholic priests were rampant paedophiles. Nonsense! In this worldwide scandal (and I agree it is a scandal), the worst countries are Ireland, the US, Italy and Australia. The only place for which I have seen any figures is the US, where my source said that 4% of priests were involved. That's 4% too many, but it is still a small minority. (Another source, which gave 1.6% for the number of paedophile priests in the US, said that 10% of Protestant ministers were paedophiles; BTW, the author was a Jew).. I have not used any Catholic sources. Can you come up with any better figures?

I've never said nor inferred that all Catholic priests are kiddie fiddlers IB.

No? You simply talk about things like "institutionalized child rape" (only a couple of posts back), which at least implies that the paedophilia is on a massive scale.

Au contraire my very dear fellow member. The word 'institutionalized' does not carry with it any sense of numbers or indeed mass. There could theoretically be no kiddie fiddlers at all within the Catholic Church but by its own admission it is implicated in the covering up child rapists so I don't see where you are going with this.

to cause (a custom, practice, law, etc.) to become accepted and used by many people : to establish (something) as an institution.

[..]

1: to make into an institution : give character of an institution to <institutionalized housing>; especially : to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system <institutionalized values>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/institutionalize

The CC has admitted numerous times that it has dealt with child rapists within its 'own' law system rather than hand them over to justice. Herr Ratzinger certainly helped child rapists evade legal justice because he signed his name on various documents but that does not mean he was a kiddie fiddler himself.

I was merely trying to make the point that the pedophile priests in the Catholic Church are a very small minority.

I was merely trying to make the point that the pedophile priests in the Catholic Church are a very small minority.

I don't know if the figures you gave are accurate but they certainly seem reasonable.

One thing certainly doesn't add up and that is why, now the cat is out of the bag, the CC doesn't hand over all it knows about kiddie fiddlers within its ranks to relevant authorities. By all accounts, the actions regarding covering up abuse was intended to keep clean the name of the church. Disgusting but ok, there is a level of logic in their actions. Now it is all in the open, it is in the best interests of the church to hand over the information to protect the name of the church but they refuse to do so. That certainly puts into question the supposed reason for not handing them over in the first place (protecting the name of the church).

On a lighter note....

Just days after publicly criticising the Mafia, Pope Francis has hailed Gods intervention with the miraculous appearance of a horses head in his bedroom.

The Pope awoke on Tuesday morning just hours after telling the Mafia they were going to Hell unless they mended their blood stained ways to find a severed horses head on the pillow next to him.

[..]

A Mafia spokesperson sent a messenger to tell us that the church should read into the horses head whatever it feels is appropriate.

The message read, Who would have guessed it, the church completely misunderstanding whats happening in the world around them. How very unusual.

http://newsthump.com/2014/03/25/pope-hails-miracle-of-horses-head-appearing-in-vatican-bedroom/

Satire is a funny thing as is someone saying they have been offended. When someone says they are offended I sit and wait to see what point they are making.

Pope accepts resignation of Germany's 'bling bishop'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jFtmDf7AL4XJ3IvT3nNlDJl4c0Uw?docId=2795c8a6-910f-4d85-b660-679d790d9fe5&hl=en

Pope accepts resignation of Germany's 'bling bishop'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jFtmDf7AL4XJ3IvT3nNlDJl4c0Uw?docId=2795c8a6-910f-4d85-b660-679d790d9fe5&hl=en

He'd already been 'relieved of his duties' by Pope Francis.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/402037/australian-cardinal-apologises-to-child-sex-abuse-victim

I think this is a significant case. Cardinal Pell, a member of the Pope's think-tank for Vatican reform, has said that the Church defending itself against a charge of child abuse, was legally correct but morally wrong.

Not going to quote because it's Bangkok post so not allowed.

On what grounds are their actions morally wrong?

Oh the irony.

Italian cardinal: 'If you teach kids not to bully gays, youll corrupt them'

An Italian cardinal wants parents to fight schools' efforts to prevent anti-gay bullying, saying they are 'brainwashing' kids into being LGBTI friendly.

Archbishop of Genoa Angelo Bagnasco likened anti-homophobia state education in Italy to a totalitarian dictatorship.

He also said the efforts were turning schools into indoctrination and re-education camps.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/italian-cardinal-if-you-teach-kids-not-bully-gays-youll-corrupt-them270314

Pope could start by sacking him.

Men held over Vatican Bank 'three trillion euro bond fraud'

Italian police have arrested two men who were allegedly trying to deposit trillions of euros in fake bonds in the Vatican bank.

Officials say the pair, an American and a Dutch national, claimed they had an appointment with bank officials to gain entry but were handed over to police.

Fake bonds with a face value of 3tr euros ($4.1tr; £2.5tr) were found in their briefcase, the officials say.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26811528

Oh c'mon, no thinking person can believe this to be anything other than manufactured. This is the problem with the CC and their ilk. They have already shown that they are willing to believe practically anything for no reason and believe that everyone else is willing and able to do so as well. Three million... yep could be true. Three billion... yep could be true. Three trillion... no way. The CC has tried to put on a bit of make-up but doesn't know how to do it and ends up looking like Aunt Sally.

Men held over Vatican Bank 'three trillion euro bond fraud'

Italian police have arrested two men who were allegedly trying to deposit trillions of euros in fake bonds in the Vatican bank.

Officials say the pair, an American and a Dutch national, claimed they had an appointment with bank officials to gain entry but were handed over to police.

Fake bonds with a face value of 3tr euros ($4.1tr; £2.5tr) were found in their briefcase, the officials say.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26811528

Oh c'mon, no thinking person can believe this to be anything other than manufactured. This is the problem with the CC and their ilk.

The 'CC and their ilk' are not the same as people who happen to be Catholics. You appear to be pursuing something of a rather widespread vendetta against those who don't agree with you. How about 'let those who are without sin cast the first stone'?

The 'CC and their ilk' are not the same as people who happen to be Catholics. You appear to be pursuing something of a rather widespread vendetta against those who don't agree with you. How about 'let those who are without sin cast the first stone'?

Shall we trade verses?

1 Peter 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-15.htm

No let's not. I'm not a religious person but I don't feel it's a good use of my time to ridicule those people who find comfort in their beliefs. If that's what makes you happy fill your boots. I'd rather not antagonise people I have no argument with.