The Pope is coming to UK to campaign against equality: Does this make him a respectable leader of faith or a bigot?

[Strix]

What do you think?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

Rhubarb - I think that thing about the pope comparing homosexuality to global warming etc... was extremeley media fuelled, I remember reading his actual words and they were not at all how it was reported.

Snorbs - I would say the mouth was meant for kissing, not just for eating , two mouths fit very nicely together after all! I've read somewhere that the whole kissing thing began with parents chewing up their food to pass onto their babies (earliest form of weaning!), and it's obviously not always a sexual thing. The catholic church teaches that such physical forms of affection are good and right between a husband and wife, their function is to make the main sexual act easier and more enjoyable - contrary to popular belief Catholics do believe it's fine to enjoy sex (in the right context!)

Pogles Sorry not to give specifics but I was short on time. AIDS would be the example that most people would quote, it would have spread far less quickly and argueably to far fewer people without homosexuality. And many things that are not 'right' are pleasureable at the time (drinking too much, drugs, spending too much money...) that's why we do them! It's the repurcussions that are not so nice.

grimma the church would argue that celibacy is indeed 'natural' for some people, there are in fact some priests (and nuns)who are very honorable people devoting their whole lives to trying to do good.

limburg you are definitely wrong in saying the Pope or the church says sex is only to produce babies. Look up natural family planning - the churches approved way for married couples to avoid conception.

PHEW

Celibacy IS natural for some people - in exactly the same way that homosexuality is for others and heterosexuality is for most.

The only vaguely logical basis for decrying homosexuality is procreation, which as you've just said is pretty much irrelevant.

The church can argue many things, doesn't mean they make much sense if not viewed through the distorting prism of belief.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/02/catholic-voices-church-pope-benedict

I wonder if the pope will receive this training?

Rhubarb - do you really think JPII was any more liberal than the current Pope? I'm not so sure. His views on things like homosexuality would have been exactly the same. Personally, I just think he was more of a natural people person than the current Pope and it was generally just more fashionable to like him. The media in this country particularly have had it in for benedict right from the beginning, I think mainly because he's German and was around at the time of the war!

Freddy, I am still waiting.

On what basis does the church argue that celibacy is 'natural'?

Why is it okay for straight people to kiss but not for gay people to?

There is no scientific evidence that men transmit the HIV virus more effectively to a man than to a woman (and if that argument really held water then we should all be lesbians because they have much lower rates of HIV and STDs).

Why is gay sex unnatural because it cannot result in babies but straight sex is even if it cannot?

grimma - celibacy can be seen as natural because it does not involve any sexual acts which obviously are not natural!

I like to think of Daftpunk as Dr Jacobs in this clip from the West Wing.

President Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality ?an abomination.'

Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination Mr. President. The Bible does.

Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus-

Jacobs: 18:22.

Bartlet: "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that can I ask another? My chief-of-staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you.

Sorry gocha, cross threads. We'll probably cross again now... it's not OK for gay people to kiss purely because they are 'leading each other into temptation'. The church would have no problem with love between two men or two women, it's the sexual act that is wrong.

It is promiscuous sex which causes the spread of STDs and as you know the church says that's always wrong, gay or straight. Promiscuity is more common among the gay community and more gay people than straight people have AIDS.

celibacy can be seen as natural because it does not involve any sexual acts which obviously are not natural!

Obvious to you. Not obvious to homosexuals. Not obvious to scientists who observe homosexual behaviour is quite commonplace in animals.

Eleanorrigby I was personaly very offended by your comments about 'Priests eyeing up the frocks of alter boys'. The VAST majority of Preists are nothing like this and I don't see why people think it's ok to make sick comments like that.

I'm also sure that for anyone it happened to it's really not a silly little joke.

People who think Catholicism is just one big Nazi joke followed by an abuse one need to grow up IMO. Do people think those things are really funny in normal life or are they just funny when put with Catholicism or the Pope?

Sorry again Gocha, was interrupted. To answer your question, straight sex is what our bodies were designed for, in fact 'sex' between two people of the same gender is a physical impossibility. Oral/ anal sex are ways of coming as close as possible to it and they have significant health risks.

I'm an atheist and while I don't think promiscuous sex is wrong, I think that unprotected promiscuous sex (of any kind) is bloody stupid.

However - the church won't allow faithful monogomous homosexual unions either. So the above is a red herring in this context - the argument isn't a pragmatic public health issue, the church is saying its wrong because its wrong because we say its wrong.

I'm a practising Catholic and I am REALLY struggling with this.

As Morning Paper says, it is depressing.

I don't understand why the Church continues to place so much emphasis on the love between two people when there is so much violence, injustice, corruption and downright greed in the world to rail against.

For me personally, this is an important issue of social justice and I can't support the Pope's position.

BadgerPaws though - if you don't mind me saying so - I take issue with your post below:

However those same Catholic Schools are stuffed with Catholic families who are quite clearly using birth control. And using it not to avoid dying but to avoid overcrowding their 4x4s and being able to afford Caribbean holidays.

Would it be OK if you said similar things about Muslim or Jewish families on here? You cannot possibly know or judge how each individual Catholic lives and interprets their faith.

The church will not allow gay 'marriage' as according to its teaching marriage is a union between man and women with an openess to creating new life. Gay unions obviously do not fit this definition.

StillCounting, I don't think the church places nearly so much emphasis on it as the media reports! It really is a very minor issue in the great scheme of things.

Does the church allow the marriage of women who have had hysterectomies? Well, of course they do. It would be inhumane to deny marriage to a loving couple just because they couldn't have kids. So this 'openess to creating new life' thing doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Don't you just love the overtly religous! So the Bible says a man must not lie with a man so no gays in the Church. The bible also says that a man can beat his wife if she disobeys him so if the Church can ignore that one why are they so wound up about gay people. Seems to me you either follow what is written in the bible to the letter or you do not. If you are going to pick n choose you lose all credibility and moral authority. To listen to popey you would think the church is going to be forced to employ gay priests, which they are not, and who would believe that a priest could be gay? Unless of course you are one of the thousands who have been buggered and abused by..... gay priests. MMmm think I may be living in a Kafka novel coz this shit makes no sense to me at all.

Grimma, the point is these people (who are infertile) are not doing anything deliberately to prevent a new life from forming. And it is marriage between a man and a woman with an openess to creating new life that the church allows. I think our opinions differ in that you see gay 'sex' as a natural thing whereas I (and the church) do not for the reasons I've explained. I think we'll just have to agree to differ there or we'll be going around in circles forever!
I can quite understand that people do not want homosexuals to be penalised or persecuted (neither do I, neither does the Pope!!) And I really don't think you need to worry about the Pope coming to England and suddenly causing an anti-gay uprising, it just aint gonna happen!

FreddoBaggyMac

So getting my dick sucked or enjoying a prolonged bout of cunnilingus with my wife is a health risk is it?
Methinks you need to get out more and as for
" 'sex' between two people of the same gender is a physical impossibility"
you are very wrong on one simple point. Gender is not the same as SEX, I am male, a physical fact, but I could consider myself to be of the female GENDER, should I so desire. Your points sound almost intelligent but that is shattered completly by your inability to get the facts straight. Going to go and have dirty sex now, you should try it!!! xx

Topher - catholics do not follow the bible exactly, we are guided by church and bible teaching. A lot of the old testament for instance is no longer considered applicable to our lives as many of its rules were purely made for health reasons at the time. The catholic church really does not condone wife beating...

To answer your question, straight sex is what our bodies were designed for

Sure, our sexual organs primarily evolved for the purpose of procreation. However, that is very simplistic, and nature isn't that simple; natural selection can explain the prevalence of homosexual behaviour. Short intro here

Topher

Yes, it is more of a health risk than normal straight sex - google it if you don't believe me.
To me, gender and sex are the same, perhaps not to other people such as yourself but I am happy to respect that.
I am sorry that my points are not intelligent to you, I am simply trying to put my point and religious beliefs across as part of this arguement.
I wonder if you would be so rude and condescending if i was a jew or a Muslim trying to explain my beliefs?

Anyway, thanks for reminding me to stay clear of these threads Topher, I had forgotten about a lot of people's inability to stick to having a civil arguement and having to resort to personal attacks and abuse...

You know, I think the church should stop using the word 'natural'. The pope says 'natural law' when all he can really speak for is Catholic Church law - which he may see as Gods law.

Naturalists find homosexual widespread in nature, therefore it is natural. Religious people may declare it to be ungodly, but they simply have no authority to decide what is natural.