Pope urges catholic bishops to fight against Equality Bill

[Dolph]

Yeah but don't insinuate too heavily in the other direction either, look at Africa.

I'm certainly not, but abstinence/limiting the number of sexual pairings within the population is more effective at reducing STD transmission across a population than condom use.

The best solution to preach to people is abstinence/partner limitation with condoms, but that isn't the message that's going out either.

 

[Tummy]

Married couples having more children in countries that can't fully support the current population is counter productive. I know it goes against the "natural law".

I also fully understand that the best way to solve the spread of STDs is to keep sexual partners limited. I however think that condoms would help further. The spread of AIDS / HIV is at epedemic level in some places in Africa, Kenya (iirc) for example.

It is a failing of the people for not doing "as commanded", in that they will be sleeping with more then one sexual partner, telling people not to wear condoms doesn't help, if you know that people in these countries are having unprotected sex, don't preach to them to continue doing so.

There is much more to the spread of STDs in developing countries then just the pope telling people not to wear condoms, but I certainly think it hasn't helped.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I did not mean to offend anyone, your the one who chose to be offended by it.

The fact is Mr Benedict is/was a Nazi and last time i checked, the Nazis weren't fans of gays either.

He was in the Hitler Youth as far as I'm aware, which isn't saying a huge deal about his political leanings considering that probably the majority of boys in Germany of around that age also were. It's not a positive mark for him but I don't necessarily see it as a hugely negative one either unless you've got some evidence that he was actively involved in the Nazi Party beyond joining the youth movement as many did in his generation.

Are you saying that preaching abstinence and monogomy along with no condoms, if all parts were followed, is going to be worse than the message of 'shag what you like, but where a condom'?

Is it a simple approach of diametric opposites? I'm not convinced that it is a case of "shag what you like, but wear a condom" or 'only practice monogomy and avoid those damn condoms'.

A more realistic proposition would surely be "we advise monogomy but we understand that it not a position everyone will hold to so if you are going to have sex then please use a condom to help prevent the spread of STDs". It's not as catchy a soundbite but it's truthful and it accepts the situation contains shades of grey.

 

[Edward78]

Oh god.

 

[RDM]

Surely it's an issue for the Catholic church to resolve for itself? No-one is forced to be a Catholic, no-one is forced to be a priest - who cares what a particular organisation's rules are, don't like it? don't join.

Do you feel the same about all organisations? Should any organisation be able to discriminate due to whatever criteria it chooses?

While I agree with racial, sex, disability discrimination laws in the workplace I don't agree that political parties like the BNP can't be racist. However despicable BNP member's views are, it's not the state's job to ensure these people do not have a voice.

Isn't this about discrimination in the workplace though? As far as I am aware it isn't about priests (they still get dispensation from the legislation) but about all other roles in the organisation. Just because a job is in the Catholic Church does that mean it should be allowed to discriminate?

It's simply far too dangerous a route to go down, as is telling religions which bits of their faith meet with state approval.

But why should religions get special treatment? If every other organisation that employs people has to follow the rules why allow religions a get out clause to discriminate?

Do you want to try again this time actually including the full message as pointed out to you. Or is this now deliberate misrepresentation of the position rather than mere accident?

Are you saying that preaching abstinence and monogomy along with no condoms, if all parts were followed, is going to be worse than the message of 'shag what you like, but where a condom'?

You do realise that condoms are not 100% effective at either pregnancy or STD prevention, right?

While a lot of people do miss the fact that the whole message preached by the Catholic church would actually work quite well if followed there have been instances where the Church and church aided religions have lied about the effectiveness of condoms and also where they would prefer to let people die (sex workers) than support any organisation that promotes condom use.

 

[Adrianr]

I've just read a BBC News article that the Pope is urging members of the catholic community to fight the Equality Bill because it promotes equal rights for gay people.

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

I'm in two minds about this. I'm all for equal rights for gay people (I am one of said people myself), but I'm also for the rights of people to do as they please as long as it isn't harming others. I don't want to impose on the church a ruling that forces them to employ gay support staff.

I would like the church to change. I want the church to realise that gay people aren't crimes, but I want that change to happen from within. To happen through common sense and good nature, not through rules and oppression.

But then, will the church ever change, and where do you draw the line between what are "OK" grounds to refuse employment on, and what are not? If you were refused a job because you were black, and the reason for this was that the employer doesn't like black people, then we would see this as a problem. Why shouldn't we also see refusing employment based on sexuality a problem?

I think overall I'm leaning towards imposing the ruling on the church. Even though it is against my nature to be oppressive, I think the church have caused this by being oppressive towards gays in the first place.

What are other people's thoughts?

My thoughts are that you sound far too well reasoned and sensible for this place. Don't you have better forums to use?

 

[platinum87]

Exactly this.

Don't like it don't be a Catholic, why try and force a religion to fit around your own ideals and beliefs, you either have a mind of your own or you want to be part of a religious organisation with rules.

Because the people who agree with the above would be all up in my grill if i randomly decided to start a nazi religion and ended up recruiting 100,000 members...

Then i would say the exact thing above "dont like it, dont join"

 

[scorza]

Do you feel the same about all organisations? Should any organisation be able to discriminate due to whatever criteria it chooses?

Only where appropriate.

Isn't this about discrimination in the workplace though? As far as I am aware it isn't about priests (they still get dispensation from the legislation) but about all other roles in the organisation. Just because a job is in the Catholic Church does that mean it should be allowed to discriminate?

Depends on what job it is. It would be hypocritical of the Roman Catholic Church to say that practising homosexuality is wrong and then hire Graham Norton as their spokesperson. Come to think of it, why would a practising homosexual like Graham Norton want to be a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church?

But why should religions get special treatment? If every other organisation that employs people has to follow the rules why allow religions a get out clause to discriminate?

The Armed Forces are allowed to discriminate against the disabled. The NHS certainly used to have an opt out against working time legislation. Religions aren't the only ones to want special exemptions. It's foolish to think that the one-size-fits-all approach in Harriet Harman's Equality Bill is appropriate in every single case.

 

[Tefal]

Oh so you, an atheist suddenly understand Christianity better than the Pope??? You think you are the only person who has realised the Bible apparently says to do these things? No... You are just quoting out of context and to be honest, I bet you know perfectly well there are valid arguments against these points but think its fun and clever to just say this out of context.

The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals... It only says they are sinning if they are practising homosexuals, which IS a choice naffa, thank you very much. Why practising homosexuals who openly and, usually, proudly go completely against what the Catholic Church teaches should be given as much right to be a priest/other job as someone who doesn't is beyond me

tbh the pope doesn't seem to know much about Christianity and willingly tells fatal lies to uneducated people.

You'd think that Christ a man who went against the laws of the established church would be perfectly happy to see some minor "law" in a churches dogma if it saves a few lives.

 

[RDM]

Only where appropriate.

But what is appropriate for you may not be the same for everyone.

Depends on what job it is. It would be hypocritical of the Roman Catholic Church to say that practising homosexuality is wrong and then hire Graham Norton as their spokesperson. Come to think of it, why would a practising homosexual like Graham Norton want to be a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church?

He probably wouldn't. But what about someone not getting the job as a secretary or a cleaner or any of a number of roles because of their sexuality? Should the Church be allowed to discriminate that widely? If so, why do they seem so hung up about homosexuals and not the divorced, unmarried couples and the like?

The Armed Forces are allowed to discriminate against the disabled.

Being disabled would make it physically impossible to do the job in a lot of cases. Being gay doesn't automatically make it impossible to do most Church jobs.

If we are going to have these rules then I think they should be applied evenly and across the board. I can see a case for dispensation for actual priests etc but not for much else. Alternatively I would see that all state support is removed including charitable status.

 

[Angst]

This might be an interesting read for some of you, it definately makes sense to me.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/96015/

 

[Vonhelmet]

It's called an abomination in the bible (Leviticus 18,22 iirc)

That's homosexual sex, not homosexuality, and the jury is out on exactly what it all means anyway.

 

[Tummy]

So you can be a homosexual but just not have sex

 

[Indy500]

This kind of regulation only stifles the free market and recruitment. Would you really want to work for someone who hated your colour\race\belief system anyway?

 

[Vonhelmet]

This kind of regulation only stifles the free market and recruitment. Would you really want to work for someone who hated your colour\race\belief system anyway?

Indeed. It does sometimes amuse me how much people advocate free market capitalism until it does something they disagree with. That's the entire point! if they do things you dislike, you don't use their services and the market should adjust.

The free market we allegedly have is so distorted that all these things become meaningless.

 

[WalesOwl]

I want the church to realise that gay people aren't crimes

Lol.

Is that pigs flying I see?

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Well considering all the employment quotas of Catholics and anti discrimination laws to protect Catholics in this part of the UK. The pope has a brass neck, the government should have responded in kind and pointed that out. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones, its a shame our government is spinless.

 

[Indy500]

Indeed. It does sometimes amuse me how much people advocate free market capitalism until it does something they disagree with. That's the entire point! if they do things you dislike, you don't use their services and the market should adjust.

It's also difficult to enforce at best, and does nothing to stop XYZ Store's manager hiring his buddies, which is usually what happens anyway.

The free market we allegedly have is so distorted that all these things become meaningless.

We'd have to go back at least a century to find an example of a free market in the western world.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

The whole gay thing is rather funny in a way, by suppressing them and putting social pressure on them to conform. You are in fact making them breed passing on that which makes them gay in the first place, their DNA. leave them alone, let them be gay and they are not going to pass on their DNA.

 

[Vonhelmet]

We'd have to go back at least a century to find an example of a free market in the western world.

The interesting thing is that the free market, as originally conceived by people like Adam Smith, was assumed to operate in a moral fashion because consumers etc would show some morals in their choices. These days, it's all about lowest cost, and morals go out of the window, so the state attempts to impose morality and everything gets screwed up.