Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Pope rebuked for 'stoking' homophobic sentiments

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 December 2008
GAY rights groups and Christian organisations condemned the Pope yesterday for his claim that "saving" humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was of equal importance to saving the world's rainforests.
The Pontiff stood accused of stoking homophobia with his remarks, which were denounced as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form."

Delivering his end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration, Pope Be
nedict XVI suggested that a blurring of the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

The church, he stressed, "should protect man from the destruction of himself". Describing behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work", he called for "a sort of ecology of man", adding: "The tropical forests do deserve our protection; but man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The comments further fuel accusations of homophobia directed at the Roman Catholic Church. In its teachings, homosexuality is not regarded as sinful, but homosexual acts are. In October, one Vatican official dubbed homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

The speech was seized upon by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, whose chief executive, the Rev Sharon Ferguson, dismissed the Pope's remarks as irresponsible and unacceptable. She said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like this that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and that justify gay bashing.

"There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity."

The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, the pro-gay Anglican movement, said: "I thought the Christmas angels said 'Fear not'. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that's just absurd."

Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian environmental group, said the Pope's remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate".

A Vatican spokesman sought to downplay the furore, insisting the Pope had merely been criticising "gender theories".



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Boberto,

24/12/2008 00:14:46
I really can't fathom this obsession with trying to control what consenting adults do with their nether regions. It's not compulsory for you to do it - let other people do what they want.
2

Tracker,

24/12/2008 00:50:11
I agree with what you say, Boberto. It is an obsession, and a harmful one at that. The Pope does not think that same sex couples should be afforded the same human rights that are afforded to other couples.

It would be better if he cracked down on paedophile priests who have abused their positions of trust.
3

2dogs in D.C.,

24/12/2008 01:02:05
#2-Agreed. But I've said before-without an enemy to cause fear and hate,how will the (insert religion of choice here) get their moneys?
4

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 24/12/2008 01:05:32
Boberto wrote:
"I really can't fathom this obsession with trying to control what consenting adults do with their nether regions. It's not compulsory for you to do it - let other people do what they want."

I can agree with this being libertarian minded. However I also think there are other issues here.

There is also a gay political force that goes beyond this'. So for instance there are moves (of a compulsory nature) to bring gay story line books for children of 4yrs+ into state schools. (There is a pilot scheme at the moment in England regarding this) So a prince marries a prince, Little john has two fathers etc. The rational for this is that not to have such stories is 'discriminatory' and would at some point be illegal.

This goes well beyond the concept of personal freedoms into legally enforcing a belief system. Being libertarian minded I reject the latter.

Just as people should be free to follow their reigious beliefs, but shouldn't be allowed to force a religious viewpoint down kids throats, even so a gay lobby that seeks to ram a gay belief system down kids throats is equally unacceptable.

Just as religious people shouldn't be protected from others disagreeing with their beliefs, even so gay people shouldn't be protected from others disagreeing with their beliefs either. But the legal parameters at the moment are moving precisely in that direction.

Let the pope criticise homosexuality. Lets criticise the pope and sing Hokey Cokey. But lets not descend into a PC legal straightjacket.
5

,

24/12/2008 01:10:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

24/12/2008 01:30:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Guga II,

Rockall 24/12/2008 02:00:36
#4.

Totally agree.

In any event, why should we kow-tow to assorted homosexuals and the PC brigade who obviously wish to remove the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of belief.
8

,

24/12/2008 03:58:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Lanna,

24/12/2008 04:01:11
#4 Cauchy Riemann,
nicely said; I agree with you.
10

,

24/12/2008 04:47:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

catgut,

pomona 24/12/2008 05:17:11
hope the people of the rain forest now get some protection from religious zelots trying to save them from their godless lives.
religion is a bigger threat to the amazonian indians than loggers.
As usual the churches preocupation with sex raises its head.

O well back to the song

you put your left leg in
your left leg out.
12

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 24/12/2008 05:21:29
This is why the papacy, in its obsessive desire to micromanage every facet of private and public life, finds favour with oppressive governments, such as the current UK lLbour administration and the SNP. Hokey, Cokey anyone?

Be very afraid.
13

DesertRat,

24/12/2008 05:22:51
Used to be a fag was a cigarette and gay was a good time. I'm not sure whether the Pope has lost his way or if the homosexuals have, but our language has certainly gone astray.
14

,

24/12/2008 06:05:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

billengland,

24/12/2008 08:49:45
It is the people who criticise the pope who are 'stoking' homophobic sentiments, not him.
16

radge dug,

Alba 24/12/2008 09:01:10
Homosexualtiy is not learned and is present in many other life forms - without threat to their survival.

The Pope is a bigot and is simply practising a hate-filled creed. One day, the RCC are complaining about the Hokey Cokey, the next they're condemning the private lives of others. Why are they obsessed with the 'sins of the flesh'? Be it gays, contraception or sex before marriage?

Maybe, though, the Pope is so anti-gay because King Billy was a notorious homosexual?
17

radge dug,

24/12/2008 09:03:22
#16 - i agree. There are many immoral practices and wrongs in the world. Why focus on what others do in their private lives. Now, that's a threat to freedom.

And if the Pope gets away with persecuting gays, what next? Stoning adulteres? Making extra-marital sex illegal? What about oral-sex between heterosexuals?
18

The_Reiver,

24/12/2008 09:10:26
This is rich coming from a man who dresses ins a white frock and sings with a high-pitched voice like a girlie.
19

Unimpressed one,

24/12/2008 09:10:27
I should think a few catholic priests must have been shoveling uneasily at the thought of the pope condemning homosexuality. Still it's good to see the usual religious guff being peddled, especially at Christmas.
20

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 24/12/2008 09:51:53
"There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity."

Yes, there are millions of people dying of AIDS who were infected through homosexual buggery - and millions of others who were then infected by bi-sexual men spreading it into the heterosexual population. In the UK the overwhelming majority of new HIV infections still originate in the homosexual 'community'.
21

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 10:10:15
The Pope can say what he wants, it's entirely up to him. The only time that his Church is a problem for others is if they seek to impose their morality on others. He just seeme to be mouthing off here, so let him. Anyone of any sense knows that there have been homosexuals since the dawn of time, and we haven't died out yet, quite the contrary, so he's obviously talking mince.
22

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 10:30:26
Good point #4 just because I disagree why should I get into trouble with the Rozzers!

If someone wants to do whatever in their private lives so what! just don't try ramming it down my throat and justify it as natural behaviour and if I don't agree with it start calling me all sorts of silly name!

Some facts cutting to close to the bone for some, the name calling has started to try and detract from your own hate and prejudices.....
23

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 10:46:05
It is natural behaviour for some people to be homosexual, and it is unnatural to have a problem with that.
24

Scimitar1,

24/12/2008 10:46:08
Totally agree with the Pope. The "gender identity" nonsense propagated by the gay "attack dogs" should be killed stone dead. How they conduct their lives is their business , just don't push it as natural mainstream behaviour because it profoundly is not.


#22 - In 2007 (Scotland), NHS figures show that 55% of all HIV cases in Scotland were from (straight) immigrants and the rest native born gays (drug users have heeded the warning) ; both are rising. These groups are displaying extraordinary levels of promiscuity.

Source: http://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/ewr/article.aspx

http://news.scotsman.com/hivandaids/Inside-Health-No-excuse-for.4712390.jp

25

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 11:12:03
Why on earth should one set of people be excluded from expressing their love for each other, unless, as the Pope believes, fornication is for procreation.

If you accept that then you can never ever ever have a sh@g unless it is for the purpose of conception, otherwise you'll be committing a sin, by his logic.

26

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 11:12:41
Good point old boy, always easy to dismiss the loons.

However my concern not just about this topic but other issues as well, if we cannot have a rational open debate how can we come to a working solution in which everyone can be happy?

If you always try to dismiss the people who are willing to listening to different opinions and understand that point of view you will only be left with those who will not listen one bit.
27

albanman,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 11:24:32
For once, I agree with Rulesbutnotrulers. The pope was not condemning gay people, but sexual activity outside of marriage (which applies to heterosexuals as well).

The Catholic Catechism states in paragraph 2358 that homosexuals "..must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard is unacceptable." The next paragraph says that homosexuals (like all people) are called to chastity. This is what the Catholic Church officially teaches, and it is the position of the pope. Anti-Catholic bigots take note.

Now, having said this, I'm also a Catholic who disagrees with the Church's attitude that gays should not be allowed to marry. If I could, I would as I believe this civil union arrangement is 2nd class. I may disagree wih my Church's position on same-gender marriage or sexual activity between GLBTs in committed relationships, but I know that Catholicism does NOT condemn folk simply for being in love with someone of the same sex.
28

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 11:28:18
If you are saying that homosexuality is wrong because it is not for the purpose of procreation within marrige than that's fine, as long as you apply your strictures to everyone else. I think you'll find you are very much in the minority with the view that sex is for married couples trying to conceive only.

But by your logic, that is the only circumstance in which sex is not a sin.
29

Douglas,

Bathgate 24/12/2008 11:48:52
I just thank God I don't believe in God or his minions.
30

Calum Crubag,

Alba gu brath 24/12/2008 12:40:18
#30 - Albaman or is it 'amadan'? Dith mhor na ceile co-dhiu.

The Pope can't even stop his own priests from buggering boys or running off with others' wives. What right has he to moralise?

Obsrever is right - homosexuality has been here since humans began. It's present in many animal species - did they learn it at school? If 'god' punished gays with 'aids' (!!!) why hasnt he punished dogs and monkeys? How about seahorses who can change gender? Pure satanic evil, eh?

STDs have also been around for a while and we're still thriving.

Im not gay but i've got no interest in what others do in their own homes. There's much more to worry about than others' genitals. Why is the RCC so obsessed with sex???!!
31

Calum Crubag,

24/12/2008 12:43:03
Albanman - as you're so godly. Does your father say if oral sex within hetero relationships is permitted?!

Why not give up god and think for yourself.
32

danbob,

24/12/2008 13:18:01
This is what Jesus said. Does it not sum the clergy up well.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In that way you also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside YOU are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matthew 23 verse 27)
33

danbob,

24/12/2008 13:23:13
34# The bible indicates that oral sex between hetero relationships is forbidden. Nobody is perfect. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This is the problem with churches who preach from a false alter. The role of the clergy should be to tell the truth and facts of what the religious book says and let the people decide for themselves. The problem is what they teach is a million miles from the truth.
34

Mcsnagpile,

24/12/2008 14:23:24
Of course the Pope is sniping at the vulnerable like most world leaders do. What would happen if a new young energetic Pope Alexander rose to fire the hearts of one billion people and press them into the service of the Lord?? To once again raise the red banners to a new horizon and world history. New Marmalukes for a new world order.
35

,

24/12/2008 14:27:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

Bemused and above it all,

24/12/2008 14:38:56
Does anyone else think that there is an irony that the head of an organisation which has protected & hidden peadophiles & sex offenders for centuries has a go at what consenting adults wish to do?
37

Hugh Roscombe,

24/12/2008 15:01:36
Is oral sex when you talk about it?
38

oder,

Scotland 24/12/2008 15:18:28
I have no problems with what gays indulge in or don't indulge in that's their "choice" as it is the pope`s choice to state his opinion there is something wrong with this type of behavior, while gay people think its normal!if the gay community are vocal in support of it! why should people opposed to it be quite about it,I don't see any "homophobic" conection here
just two different views on a controversial subject!
39

thesmallerhalf,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 15:23:16
The difference between an individual and the Pope expressing their bigoted opinion is that the Pope is head of a vast powerful institution that wields tremendous influence upon millions. And the Pope didn't express his opinion because he could, he did it with the specific intention of wielding that influence.

40

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 15:31:27
There is nothing controversial about being gay. As long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses who cares. To be hung up on gayness is taught, it is not natural.
41

right of center,

Chicago 24/12/2008 15:41:12
I won't be around a computer later as I will be traveling so "Merry Christmas Everyone!!!"
42

Hugh Roscombe,

24/12/2008 15:57:02
Observer

"To be hung up on gayness is taught, it is not natural."

... or well-hung up possibly.
43

radge dug,

24/12/2008 16:40:59
#44 Oder - homosexuality is normal. It's part of the diversity of life. I once heard a gardener say that 'nature abhors a straight line'. A certain percentage of all life will engage in homosexual behaviour. As other posters have noted - the animal kingdom is rife with examples. Are animals sinners too? Are they 'taught'?? The bonobo monkeys are infamous for their 'unnatural' sex lives but are in no danger from it.

Lighten up, leave the bible behind and let others live their lives.
44

Bele's bane,

Scotland 24/12/2008 17:08:46
Post #49 radge dug

you only need possess the slightest fundemantal knowledge of anotomy and phsiological function to know that nature designed male and female genitalia to interact.

Nature makes mistakes, conjoined twins, fetus in fetu, animals born with two heads and extra apendages including limbs.

These however, are clearly not what nature intended, an accident occurred somewher along nature's production line. Homosexuality is such an aberation of nature's design and of course such accidents leave no offspring to pass on the defective design flaw!

Remember, the sphincter muscle for example is nature's intended design for a one-way valve!
45

Faux Cul,

In Brazil with Sarkozy and the ladyboys 24/12/2008 17:24:42
As far as I am concerned the aforesaid does not apply to me because the Pope has no place in my need for spiritual guidance, nor has Buddah, Allah, The Halebob Comet, The Celestial Teapot, A Witchdoctor or any other sect of a religious nature.

Just so long as these people do not try to foist their belief system on me I am minded to let them get on with whatever they want to, within their own privacy.

As for sexual orientation of others, it is none of my or anybody else's business so long as coercion is not employed and animals also.

Off for some pre-Xmas indulgence!!!!????
46

Carolyn 1,

24/12/2008 17:37:09
I don't think much of the world is homophobic any more. It's become an issue between the separation of church and state; the argument of freedom of religion to believe in traditional marriage.

The problem is the gay rights movement exploded with such volume and acerbic intensity that as a minority, gays now enjoy more rights than the non-gay majority.

As a libertarian I think a person should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to do in his own home as long as he causes no injury to others. The truth is, in a gay marriage the couple are in essence deciding to love each other, but they're also deciding to not have children.
But no, evidently that's not fair: (this reproductive issue is the one case where the Gay Movement disagrees with Darwin.)

Personally, I can't believe governments caved in and ordered Catholic Charities to give babies to Gay couples, resulting of course in Catholic Charities closing their adoption services. No good deed goes unnoticed..and now there aren't any. What now? How will these gay marriages raise a family?

What will be the next freedom that the government strips away from the majority to satisfy the few?
47

Faux Cul,

24/12/2008 17:37:33
# 50, Bele's Bane

"Remember, the sphincter muscle for example is nature's intended design for a one-way valve"

By your logic a mouth should only be used for speaking and eating?
javascript:__doPostBack('wctlAddComment1$ctl00$btnPost','')
What about kissing ?
48

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 18:04:53
52 Gays do not have more rights, they have equal rights which is the way it should be. Also gay people have always fathered and mothered children, the ability to raise a child is not dependant on your own personal sexuality. And the Catholic Church no longer run adoption agencies because they refused to comply with the law of the land which forbids discrimination. That was their choice.



49

Carolyn 1,

24/12/2008 18:21:50
So you're agreeable that the government has the right to control your thoughts?
The government can control your religious beliefs?
The government can control your reproductive rights?
The government can control your speech?
The truth is Catholic Adoption Agencies are out of the good deed business because they are stripped of their fundamental right of religious freedom.
Step one to a more socialized state is to get rid of religion.
Stalin said:
"How many divisions has the Pope? I have 300."


Not to go unnoticed is the OhGreatOne of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is giving a little televised alternative holiday cheer to Brits tomorrow.


50

Faux Cul,

24/12/2008 18:26:08
#55
Carolyn 1,
24/12/2008 18:21:50

Carolyn, you have clearly lost the plot.

Are you on the vino, and if not, why not.

Lighten up!

Have a Good Yule!
51

cambeuluk,

UK 24/12/2008 18:26:11
Yet again, the 'scientific' advice being offered to the Catholic Pontiff is flawed and adulterated by bias. As a scientist I deal in facts. Whatever anyone may feel about the Gay lobby, most homosexual behaviour is inherent and is not a lifestyle choice. I am not homosexual, but I have no problem with people who through no choice of their own, are. It strikes me as the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to expect everyone, regardless of how their brain is wired to conform to what they (those who regard themselves as 'normal') think.

It also interests me that most commentators are focusing solely in matters of sexuality (perhaps it is more titillating than the more difficult concept of gender identity?). Transsexualism was also targeted and I suspect that what the Pope's advisors know about this area could be written on the back of a very small postage stamp. Transsexual people have issues with their *gender identity*, not their sexuality. They have no more or less in-common with homosexuality than the rest of the population.

Neither they nor homosexual people are a threat to anyone (and to suggest that the presence of homosexual people in our species poses a threat to the procreation of humanity cannot be taken seriously). However, a leader who has a worldwide audience of millions around the world and who speaks about matters he knows almost nothing about *is* inviting danger to threaten groups of people, who are already targeted by the ignorant and easily led. If people regard a curtailment of the 'right' to use derogatory terms and verbal abuse aimed at gay and trans people as a threat to their liberty by the 'PC brigade' they argue for a freedom (aka a licence) they would deny to others. If we allow a free-for-all on verbal abuse, where do we draw the line .... when is it OK to say whatever we like (including threats) to *any* minority we don't approve of ?

Before anyone leaps to a defence of the Pope's views by arguing that the he is merely reflecting
52

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 18:28:18
55

The government do not control my reproductive rights. I do.

The church think they can control women's reproductive rights, their choice over whether to give birth, they think they can control science, and they think they can control people's sexual behaviour.

The truth is the Catholic church are out of the adoption business because they refuse to give homosexuals equal rights, as is the law of the land.

You are perfectly free to follow whatever religion you like, but the Church is not free to attempt to impose it's own morality on the rest of us. It has done that, and it lost.
53

Carolyn 1,

24/12/2008 18:39:08
The wine does not pour until another seven hours...

Considering that it's almost Christmas Eve, I with a real tree, roots and all, wish that the minority would stop trying to strip the majority of the right to their version of happiness.

Maybe its time we put away the fake trees made in China, the fake ornaments made in China, and instead of opening a cardboard box wrapped in cellophane and yanking out a set of lights to light the fake Christmas tree, gee, why don't we stand outside for a few minutes and realize the lights we string all over the place symbolize the stars, and the tree symbolizes a gift of life. That stars, are in essence the crown that lights the planet and the fake stuff is, well, its fake.

Some of us like the real thing even if it isn't politically popular these days, and some people prefer the materialistic fake one because it's easier, less work and when the holiday is over we can shove it back into the cardboard box it was purchased in.

That said, the Gay Rights Movement is just another manifestation of a culture based on giveme giveme giveme materialism, a culture so self-absorbed it has lost sight of the purpose of marriage.
54

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 18:39:54
Well #58 We should also be free to believe what we want to believe on any topic, just because we don't approve of what fashionable fad happens to be about at this time doesn't give people like you any right to tell people like me I'm missing something mentally just because we disagree.

Alas yes the State has shown very effectively it can control your reproduction, through the major aspect of money, the bribes are certainly there are well known.

Most people will look somewhere for some moral guidance, this is certainly not coming from the State, just look at the utter mess we find ourselves in thanks to modern day moral....
55

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 18:42:16
Well said Carolyn, everyone wants their 'Rights' now but are not willing to accept the 'Responsibilities' which come with these rights
56

Faux Cul,

24/12/2008 18:43:42
#59
Carolyn 1,
24/12/2008 18:39:08

Nice sentiment and then you spoiled it with the last paragraph!

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Says it all?
57

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 18:46:57
59,60 who is talking about materialism ? We are talking about the condemnation by the Pope of other human beings because of an accident of birth. There have been homosexuals since the dawn of time, there has been contraception since people figured out how to do it, and we have historical records of women controlling their fertility since we started recording history. There is nothing materialistic in that, it is natural human behaviour which the Church tries to suppress.

I hope you enjoy your Christmas, just accept that your beliefs do not apply to everyone.
58

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 18:56:58
If you want to see something actually being supressed head out to Saudi and speak about homosexual rights there!
Bear in mind you are trying to shout down people willing to listen, at current rate we will not be here for long if the Government has anything to do with this matter.

Here is an example which flies in the face of your warped logic, a close friend of mine was coming out, the person who actually did the most help and made a big impact in the help and guidance he received was in actual fact a Catholic Priest.
I bet your stonewall etc were to busy trying to push their own political agenda to even be bothered.
59

,

24/12/2008 19:01:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 19:01:35
We're not in Saudi Arabia. and I am quite sure there are individual priests who are very helpful and supportive. It's the institution of the church which makes these statements. I don't know why they do it, they must know the reaction they are going to get.
61

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 19:02:58
Leviticus says lots of things, about seafood and material too for example. Do you follow all those injunctions or just cherry pick what suits you ?
62

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 19:07:31
The rate in which we are going under the Labour Party we will be in a State similar to Saudi.

I'm sure you would agree the best way forward is a open and free debate, as soon as we get to the stage of name calling and as we now see legal situations which suppress certain ideas and opinions we are in no better a state than that of Saudi, or China etc.

Already we see what the Labour Party intends for us, ID cards, banning of membership to certain Political Parties, prime example are we not making things worse when we say you cannot join the BNP, if you do you will be sacked etc, at the end of the day we may not like them but they are elected.
63

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 19:13:41
I don't think you can really support civil liberties by suggesting that people should be viewed differently because of their sexuality. If we are to have liberty, it should apply to all.

And I don't think anyone says you should be sacked for just joining the BNP. It's whether those views are compatible with being a public servant which is the issue.

Are you able to be fair to everyone, or will you let your own personal opinions about people's race or gender, or indeed sexuality influence your judgement.
64

Big Carbon Footprint,

East Lothian 24/12/2008 19:15:44
It's sad to say but it's impossible to be fair to everyone, that would be an ideal world, I doubt we will every have that.
the one failure man kind will always have is Greed.
65

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 19:18:15
It is personally impossible to be fair to everyone, agreed. But the state should at least attempt it.
66

,

24/12/2008 19:23:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

,

24/12/2008 19:25:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 19:31:16
1. It depends on the context whether wrongs can make a right. There is no one answer to a theoretucal question like that.

2. Of course not every crime is equal, but it also depends on the circumstance and the intent. Again no one answer to a theoretical question.

3. AIDS is transmitted because people do not practise safe sex. The church opposes the use of condoms.

4. There is no evidence to support that assertion, none whatsoever.

If you think that men and men and women and women lying down with each other is bad because Leviticus says so, then you must logically think that the other injunctions contained within Leviticus should be obeyed too.

If you think that men and men and women and women shouldn't lie down together because you think it's wrong, then say so.
69

Observer..,

24/12/2008 19:32:23
''Life is not fair, get over it ''

Is that the Pope's alternative Christian message then ?
70

,

24/12/2008 19:57:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

Faux Cul,

24/12/2008 19:59:21
and by the way Vancouver Pony, I am drinking a bottle of your wine right now!
72

Conan the Librarian™,

24/12/2008 20:37:23
Good Evening Observer and Faux Cul, may the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with his Noodley Appendage.
73

Selgovae,

Losing the plot 24/12/2008 20:44:42
It's all a bit off, don't you think. Once upon a time, a chap could stick his wotsit in another chap's bum without fear of being called homosexual, or gay, or whatever they call it. PC gone mad, I tell you. Maggie would never have stood for it. Bring back national service.

74

,

24/12/2008 21:24:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

Conan the Librarian™,

24/12/2008 21:50:03
80
"There may even be some cannibalism."

Are you having a Christmas dinner UKIP?

76

Selgovae,

24/12/2008 22:10:49
Come on UKIP. We're waiting for the conclusion. Just leave the kids in the oven on a low peep.
77

Observer..,

Glasgow 24/12/2008 22:38:40
Do you think he's one of these guys who likes kids, but couldn't eat a whole one ?
78

oder,

Scotland 24/12/2008 22:41:47
49 radge dug,

your post appears to be emotional rather than a well thought out response to my post! suggest you read it again there is no mention in my post to religion or the bible,and where have I suggested that gays should not be allowed to get on with their lives? just because a person (any person)does not agree with one view on sexual morality homosexual or heterosexual or otherwise does not make them homophobic.

The pope as the leader of a religious organisation and as an individual just like any other person or gay leader or head of a gay organisation is entitled to their opinions and very often does express them!

you don't have to agree with him! that`s democracy not "homophobia"


79

,

25/12/2008 02:22:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

St Andrew 01,

johannesburg 25/12/2008 05:45:06
Whitecraps #85
Suggesting that a person should be banned for saying something is a sign that you have dictatorial tendencies - Argue against the words if need be, but looking for a ban is severely dangerous..Please understand that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are very important aspects of human existence, many people have been murdered in their quest for freedom. Infact the very church that now claims to be holier than thou is responsible for the deaths of many who have spoken out over the centuries.
Indeed this very article is highlighting the fact that the church is once again attempting to crush a people who are not similar to their idea of the perfect human being - kind of like a superior race or a Hitler like approach to human life.
If this was 1508 or even closer, there is no doubt the RCC would exterminate each and every homosexual they could find. And please also note that the uttering the words "saving humanity from homosexuality" in 2008 is a sign of what these people would actually do to homosexuals given the chance in the modern age.
Asking for a ban in relation to a persons words, regardless of how bad those words happen to be is an absolute disgrace, please refrain from such behaviour as it is far more dangerous than that of those who dispense insults.
81

Jock's Away,

Africa 25/12/2008 06:03:41
Wonder what Charles Darwin would have made of modern man and woman. By paradox could he have been in sympathy with the sentiments of the Pope. Having studied Medicine in Edinburgh and Theology at Cambridge. Would he have been obliged to re-write "On the origin of species"?
On social rights (a Man conferred convention), are not all entitled to their opinions? right or wrong on what basis can/do we judge. Only on our own opinions, formulated as a total sum of our experiences and learning. Is one more valid than another when social convention is largely a notion of times and fashion? Interesting circle to square.
82

,

25/12/2008 06:28:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

Gdgy,

25/12/2008 07:31:36
"stoking" isn't that gay slang for something???
84

danbob,

25/12/2008 09:54:02
Homosexuality is not practised in the animal world. Some species have been known to show interest in the same sex but this is a long way short of practising homosexuality. Now I knew a man who told me he was gay but openly admitted that a good looking woman walking past would attract his attention. In the same conversation he also said that he often felt dirty sleeping with another man. Now this is not natural behaviour, this is just acting on perverse feelings.
The pope is basicaly correct. If you are gay fine. But what I object to is when the the gays try to infiltrate the church like that bishop in America and that numpty from Stonewall. (He's so irrelevent I cannot remember his name) Root these people out.
85

oder,

Scotland 25/12/2008 11:19:24
St Andrew 01,johannesburg 25

"there is no doubt the RCC would exterminate each and every homosexual they could find."

simply not true! while the RCC roundly condemn such behaviour these people are regarded as "sinners" and is the duty of the church to save such people, the Christian faith states that no one is beyond redemption! there is no valid reason to claim that gays would be exterminated even during the Inquistion as wrong as it was, people where giving the option to save themselves.
86

radge dug,

25/12/2008 11:22:45
danbob - there's lots of examples of homosexual behaviour. I guess what you mean is that animals fail to form loving homosexual relationships. But as some claim, the pope was only criticising 'activity' and not the thoughts. Right? Therefore, bonobo monkeys are the mothers of all sinners. Then again, it could be argued that bonobos do love. According to David Attenborough, their society is a loving one in which violence is rare or non-existent.

Anyway, hands up everyone here who lives a 'natural' life? Can anyone define it? Though, as the RCC is anti-nature... does anyone live a strict biblical life? Remember, the RCC also condemns masturbashyun (proper spelling is banned here, that's freedom for you).

I think you need to learn something about wildlife and nature.

Lets live and let live. Even the RCC should have the freedom to beleive in their fairy stories as long as they don't foist them on the rest of us.
87

oder,

Scotland 25/12/2008 13:29:30
92 radge dug,25

in the interests of being factually correct you should remember that the chimpanzee is an ape (Pan troglodytes)as are bonobos they are not monkeys

you mention 'natural' life?" and homosexuality is normal!

the illness/disease of Aids is directly attributed to this kind of activity! you would then conclude this to be a natural reaction to what you call "normal" behaviour? aids also effects monkeys,apes and other primates with devestaing effects as in the human population,if this is not the case what is it then?
88

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 25/12/2008 15:26:14
I thought it was only little boys the catholic church was "into". I guess they have several problems.
89

should have gone to specsavers,

Thurso 25/12/2008 15:29:07
Normally, I'm a bigoted anti-religionist but I feel compelled to support the popes views just this once because in all fairness the reason the pope, and others, are suspicious of the 'gay political forces' mentioned by #4 is becuase marriage is held to be the child-rearing unit of society and the gay lobby seems intent on suborning this unit to their own agenda.
90

,

25/12/2008 15:46:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
91

,

25/12/2008 16:37:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
92

Calum Crubag,

25/12/2008 18:52:49
#96 - lots of animals enagage in homosexual beahviour. Just like hetero humans engage in 'unnatural' behaviour like various sex-acts that don't lead to procreation.

Homosexuality is natural - how else does it exist? It's like saying that people with red hair are an abberration. Not all animals procreate. Not all plants procreate. Not all homosexuals engage in analsex. Not all heteroes have children. This is all part of nature. And the bottom (npi!) is that no one should moralise or spread hate against it.

As to paedophiles, do you have proof?
93

Calum Crubag,

25/12/2008 18:53:39
bottom line, that is!
94

Calum Crubag,

25/12/2008 18:54:06
Im just relieved that 'bottom' isn't banned by the Hootsmon yet.
95

Calum Crubag,

25/12/2008 18:57:26
Anyway, it exists. Always has, always will. Get over it.

If the pope expects us to ban the Hokey Cokey and accept his church with their hairbrained fairytales - they even have a patron saint of armsdealers - seriously! - then he should display the same tolerance to those who don't share his 'faith'. But, then again, the church and tolerance aren't famous bedfellows.
96

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks Californiacation 25/12/2008 22:42:00
What i see here is the repetative argument that because there are so many other bad things, why pick on homosexuals. The pope and all other religious leaders are continually trying to right the many wrongs that have the potential to destroy society. That there hae always been homosexuals is possibly true But they were not acceptable then, they are not accepted now and they will never be fully accepted in a decent society. That doesn't mean they should be denied any rights but they should go about their private actions and keep them to themselves. In the USA these "couples" want to get "married", not only, they want to adopt/have children, how disgusting, this surely must be child abuse at its basic level, Chilrens rights have to be protected even more than adults, they are entitled to a father and mother anything less is UNACCEPTABLE. While I have issues with the Catholic religion and in particular the Clergy abuse (this, by the way, is not the only religious group suffering from this)I am supportive of the Popes remarks, they were correct and courageous.
97

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 26/12/2008 02:46:39
#50 Bele's bane, and #102 Billy Boy, well said.The homosexual creed, squeal at every juncture and society not only tolerates their rants,but grants them whatsoever they want.Now any heterosexual speaks up,and it is a "HATE CRIME" or homophobic etc ad nauseum!
It is not who you are which offends us, it is the things you do which offends us.
Homosexuals can believe what they want.It won't change the fact that they are a flawed accident of nature.
98

,

26/12/2008 03:15:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
99

Ewan Oosami,

26/12/2008 10:25:23
Homosexuality used to be against the law, then self interested MPs said it was ok between comsenting adults in private, then the minority group lobbyists got it made legal, then the self interested wanted to lower the age of consent. What worries me is the next step....making it compulsory!
It's not the persons sexuality that bothers me it's the act I find abhorrent
100

Kenny A,

26/12/2008 12:31:41
Cant be assed with this subject, but homowhatevering is repulsive.
101

,

26/12/2008 22:00:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
102

,

27/12/2008 13:24:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
103

Bele's bane,

Scotland 27/12/2008 17:34:34
Posts #105 and 106

Well said!
104

,

27/12/2008 18:11:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

applecore91,

Santa Rosa 04/02/2009 09:17:35
I am amazed at so many rash and angry statements coming from these posts regarding 'papism' and unbelieving (pagan) readers. Get some real education, not just from the (godless) media!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.