http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080101/twl-pope-benedict-new-year-message-prote-3fd0ae9_2.html

Are there any 'traditional' couples/families out there who echo Pope Benedict's sentiments and are feeling particularly threatened by unwed/gay families? If so, why so?

I suppose he has to express what the scriptures say, but a more tolerant attitude might serve the church better in a modern society. But that's my opinion... I am in unwed family, being non Catholic and married in a civil ceremony!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080101/twl-pope-benedict-new-year-message-prote-3fd0ae9_2.html

Are there any 'traditional' couples/families out there who echo Pope Benedict's sentiments and are feeling particularly threatened by unwed/gay families? If so, why so?

Good question!

I'm married (Catholic ceremony, though I'm lapsed C of E), with two boys brought up as Catholics.

I don't feel threatened by gay partnerships, but I still think a loving home, with both a father and mother present, is the best way to bring up children. Marriage itself is a matter of choice, sexual orientation usually is not, so I wouldn't say anything against Civil Partnerships, as at least it shows a form of commitment (though I do dislike the expression "gay marriage").

Unwed families? Fine - if you are not particularly religious, then a church wedding would be just for show. A secure loving home is all children need, and being from an "unmarried" family has no stigma at all these days. No mention of single parents as far as I could see though - I would have thought that might have been in there.

I don't feel threatened by gay partnerships, but I still think a loving home, with both a father and mother present, is the best way to bring up children.

Markymark, thank you for your reply. I'm glad you do not feel threatened by gay couple and actually would have no idea why you should.

But I am curious about the above statement. Is the implication that a "loving home" cannot be had by any coupling save for that of a man and a woman?

stephaniealexis8

In an ideal world, I believe children would be best brought up in a loving home, consisting of a man and a woman, as I think this provides the best balance.

Do I think a gay couple cannot provide a loving home? No, certainly not. Many children are stuck in abusive, violent, or otherwise unhappy heterosexual homes who would doubtless be far better off in a safe, loving environment regardless of the sexual persuasion, colour , race or creed of the "parents".

It is unfortunate that sometimes those who can most easily produce children, are not necessarily the best parents.

( Sorry for repeating the Title - it is for Google traffic ) -

However - I just wanted to say that I too agree with MarkyMark comment. Well expressed ( better than what I can do with my english ).

Thank you Markymark and Paolo for your opinions; the collision of free thought is always a good thing. I am glad to hear that at least you don't feel the threat that the Pope implied in his speech exists to your respective families by having neighboring untraditional neighbors.

And yet, while I respect your opinions regarding gender 'balance' in the homes,I personally disagree. Numerous empirical studies from many countries
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070928215535.htm
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgprevspec.html
http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr/2002Backgrounders/Gay_Parenting_0879.htm
show that not only do children reared in gay households fare equally to those raised in traditional families, but seem to suggest those noteable differences that are found are not due to the sexual orientation or gender of the parents but in fact a lack of legal rights normally afforded 'traditionally' married couples.

Of course, studies that bolster opposing views can also be found as well. Many papers for both sides are politically biased and objectivity regarding this charged subject matter is both warranted and begged for.

I agree with Markey and Paolo.

The Pope really has to say what is in the Scriptures and practising homosexuality is disobeying the rules of Catholicism. I really don't see how he can be criticised for making these clear.

My fiance and I are having a Civil Wedding, but I am religious and it's certainly not what I want! I am not opposed to them if people are not religious, however.

Best,
Lisa

Congratulations Lisa! As most of the members here seem to be in the US, UK or Italy, I guess our wedding invitations (which I'm sure you're about to send!) would not be taken up, unless you're paying for the flights! :)

I hope you have a wonderful day, and Civil Wedding or not, I'm sure your God will be watching over you both with approval.

Ciao a tutti!

Great thread! I wanted to toss my two cents (or, knowing me, my two dollars) into the discussion.

I find it fascinating and very sad in many ways that our beliefs about some transcendant concept become the basis for anger, arguments, hatred and sometimes (often in the history of the world, and certainly today in some parts) murder.

I believe, as many of you also do, that a loving home - absolutely without reference to whether that home consists of two men, two women, a man and a woman, or a community of people - is the key to raising healthy, well-adjusted children.

Children model what they see and hear in the home, particularly, and if what they see is people who love each other, treat each other with respect, care for and help each other through the day and through the years, that is what kind of adults those children will be.

I think of children brought up in traditional heterosexual familes who are taught to respect their elders and be honest... who are also taught to hate others who are not like them. This is the epitome of many of the things going wrong in the world today.

I'm not of course saying - nor do I believe - that traditaional families all teach this kind of intolerance or hatred. I AM saying that when seemingly 'normal' families are themselves the source of hatred or suspicion of others who are different, this teaches and perpetuates the problems in the world that cause such horrendous wars like the ones we are seeing today in the Middle East, Africa, and not so long ago in Eastern Europe. So a loving heterosexual family that teaches hatred... ? Give me two mommies or two daddies any day, if they teach love.

I also know that same-sex couples can have just as many problems in their relationships, their homes, their lives.

People will be people. Gay or straight or anything in between, they will do what all people do - live their lives according to what they learned is the right way to live. This takes as many forms as there are people... and a loving home rises above all the rest as the ultimate and final source of good in the world.

Bringing it more down to earth... I think "live and let live" is probably the smartest way to approach the world.

(But... well... don't even get me started on the concept of cultural relativism, and how we are also, regardless of the above statement, obligated on some level to right wrongs in countries/societies that oppress their people for the very reasons we're discussing. So, while 'live and let live' works for me, it also has its limits.)

Teresa

However good or bad, Straight/Gay/Whatever "parents" happen to be, many thousands of years of evolution/Mother Nature/God, have/has still decreed that the only way to produce a child is through the sexual union of a man and a woman (excepting human intervention). Whilst this is not always the best result in humans, it invariably is in the rest of the animal kingdom. Maybe that says more about us than anything else?

However good or bad, Straight/Gay/Whatever "parents" happen to be, many thousands of years of evolution/Mother Nature/God, have/has still decreed that the only way to produce a child is through the sexual union of a man and a woman (excepting human intervention). Whilst this is not always the best result in humans, it invariably is in the rest of the animal kingdom. Maybe that says more about us than anything else?

what you write is obviously true, the only way to have a child is through the sexual union of a man and a woman... but it's also true that homosexuality exists within the animal world, and moreover, among human beings having children is not the only reason to feel a sexual attraction... and surely is not the only reason to have a sexual union, also for straight people who are often so careful to avoid any undesired child
So maybe is better not speculating to much about what is "natural" or not...

However good or bad, Straight/Gay/Whatever "parents" happen to be, many thousands of years of evolution/Mother Nature/God, have/has still decreed that the only way to produce a child is through the sexual union of a man and a woman (excepting human intervention). Whilst this is not always the best result in humans, it invariably is in the rest of the animal kingdom. Maybe that says more about us than anything else?

Speaking for myself, I certainly wasn't arguing the necessity of a sperm and an egg to procreate. Nor was I questioning the need for The Pope to be a proponent for The Scriptures. I am questioning the Pope's speech which suggested that gay/unwed couples somehow pose a 'threat' to the traditional family unit.

Do we think he means 'traditional' in the sense of having children in a conventional manner? If so, how would artificial insemination pose a danger to the male-female family unit?

(By the way, gay and lesbian couples have been known to procreate by traditional standards, and straight couples have been known to employ artificial insemnination.)

Pope Benedict is a throwback to an older style of Pope - he sees everything not explicitly favorable to the church as against it. He has made his living seeing threats where there are none and is just as polarizing within the church as he is outside it. His New Year's speech is a perfect example of this.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, he was Prefect of the Holy Office, the institution that once ran the Inquisition. He was and still is a man to be feared, especially on any matters concerning church doctrine - they don't call him "God's Rotweiler" for nothing.

The last few major popes (living long enough to do something) John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II seemed concerned with how the Catholic Church fits within the larger world. Benedict XVI is only concerned with preserving his charge, the apostolic succession of Peter. The reason this Pope seems so strict with the rules is because he believes them and has no room in his heart or his personal faith for compromise, unlike the worldly John Paul.

The previous Pope was no saint (regardless of how they vote) but he did much to foster good relations with other faiths. I feel Benedict will do more harm than good and the fact he is so uncompromising in his views shows that he thinks he is right.

For the record, I was hoping for Angelo Scola to be elected Pope - He's well respected and not so polarizing as Benedict is (besides being a very, very distant relative).

stephaniealexis8 & MG66

Apologies to both of you - I did drag (stephaniealexis8) your original post rather off topic, and certainly do not wish to offend anyone's beliefs or point of view.

To answer straight (no pun intended by that) the original question, the Pope's comments ; whilst strictly interpreting the Bible, were certainly unhelpful, and I would doubt that any but a very few would feel threatened by gay or unwed couples.

Whilst I agree with many of the teachings of the Bible (even if I don't stick to them myself), strict implementation of all of them is contradictory to both proven scientific facts and modern day life, so some element of discretion is required.

I agree that this pope is a dangerous man in some ways, and I agree that Pope John Paul was better at public relations.

I have a question, though... it seemed to me (and I'm here in the U.S. so I don't get a lot of information about this all the time) that Pope Benedict was at least trying to if not mend relations, at least acknowledge them with other religions when he want to a synagogue and a mosque last year. It felt to us here as though he was making an effort not to be polarizing.

However, I know his writings have been, and his job before being pope were, based on the 'our way is the only right way' doctrine, so I am not surprised he is continuing that line of thought into the office of the most powerful man in Christianity.

I find it distressing that people are willing to believe so strongly in their own IDEAS (an abstract concept), that they are willing to go to war over them. This has happened in the past and through today. What else are wars fought over, really?

It seems distinctly contradictory to me (and totally insane, if I'm being honest) that any person professing to be part of a religion where their god is supposed to be about love and redemption, could sanction killing those with different ideas. Ideas. It has always been a conundrum for me to understand this.

That's off topic, though.
I agree with Justin.

Teresa

I am extremely traditional but not in the Catholic sense, but not in the so-called "Christian" sense either, though I am a believer in the resurrection of Christ, etc. Therefore I do think children should have a mother and a father. Period. Statistics provide solid proof that children flourish under these circumstances. It's not a question of normal. That's just the way it is. Look at stats on crime, rape, murder, crimes in general and you will find that the background(s) of most of these individuals were without one parent, usually the father.

I am extremely traditional but not in the Catholic sense, but not in the so-called "Christian" sense either, though I am a believer in the resurrection of Christ, etc. Therefore I do think children should have a mother and a father. Period. Statistics provide solid proof that children flourish under these circumstances. It's not a question of normal. That's just the way it is. Look at stats on crime, rape, murder, crimes in general and you will find that the background(s) of most of these individuals were without one parent, usually the father.

Are you implying that lesbian couples raise criminals? Or that single moms raise them? :eek: I can think of many women who would disagree. "Statistics provide solid proof...?" Please provide links.

There are plenty of studies that show children raised by same-sex couples fare equally well, if not better, than children raised by a woman and a man. (I have previously listed some here). Of course, in this highly politicized age, surveys can reflect more about those asking the questions than the answers themselves.

IMHO, whether children grow up to be well-rounded individuals (whatever that means) often depends on the love and attention and respect they are given,as opposed to the gender of their guardians.

It's obvious that you are misunderstanding what I am trying to convey on this message board and implying something I did not say.
Are you wanting to argue or discuss? Find your stats and I'll find mine, ok?

Originally I had started this post to discuss if The Pope's speech (see OP), which implied gay/unwed couples posed a threat to "traditional" families. I wanted to know if those who were in said 'traditional' families, felt threatened by those families not deemed 'traditional', and if so, how so.

Somehow the conversation keeps turning to parenting abilities. While this is in of itself a topic worthy for discussion, I think it veers off from my original post.

[QUOTE=stephaniealexis8;5935] I wanted to know if those who were in said 'traditional' families, felt threatened by those families not deemed 'traditional', and if so, how so.
QUOTE]

I have a traditional family : Well (small family ) Me + wife + one 8 year old child. No of course I do not feel threatened at all !
One of my son's best friend has two moms. He moved to Florida 2 years ago and we will be visiting him and the two moms next week-end.
I will bring back a picture if you like !

Hello all,

It's so easy to get off-track here... this is a highly emotional issue.

Stephanie, I also find it odd - one of those things I can't get my mind around, like racism - that people find others with different lifestyles threatening.

I believe that a loving home has the best chance to raise a loving, healthy well-rounded person. That loving home can be one parent, a heterosexual couple, two men, two women, or a group. In fact, if we go into statistics (which is dangerous given your point that (and I agree) stats will/can reflect any view one wants), there are many studies out there that say that a child rasied in a community where they have lots of parental/adult people who care for them outside and along with their actual parents, are just as well adjusted as any other kids.

Anyhow, so... the pope. Yeah, I don't get it either. And back to your original question: why would anyone feel threatened by non-traditional families? I'm curious about the emotional reasons why this is... not the reasons for the belief that it's wrong. That's where we keep getting off track here. People are talking about the reasons behind their feelings of being threatened... let's talk about the feeling itself, and see if we can figure out why.

Teresa

My sister's next door neighbors are a same-sex women couple. They have 3 children. The other day I met them for the first time at their house. (My sister is very liberal and has always told me positive things about them.) The whole family including the kids seem to be very happy. The mother of one of the ladies lives with them too. As I was looking at them with their children, being so happy and normal I had a feeling of sorrow thinking that people could be prejuice against them. I don't think this so called unconventional family threatens anybody. On the contrary, it's the other way around.

Yes!

I find it very sad that there are people out there who feel so threatened by something outside their own realm of understanding or experience that they would, with laws and strictures, tear apart loving families like that one.

Many people don't look beyond their own beliefs and actions to the effect they have in the world. Those who think same-sex couples shouldn't be together, and certainly shouldn't have children, would in effect destroy any number of happy, healthy homes and send children into... where? Foster care? Orphanages? We all know how well those things work....

Teresa

The most disturbing part of this article which I am presenting in part--(the whole article is too cumbersome and there are many statistics) is that homosexual partners who define themselves as being in committed relationships have elevated levels of promiscuity as well as characteristically low levels of commitment across the board, and violence. This appears, to me, to be justification from my point of view that these types of relationships are harmful to children over all.:eek:


NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEING RAISED IN HOMOSEXUAL HOUSEHOLDS
Inflated Statistics for Homosexual Households in the United States

Claims regarding the numbers of children being raised in homosexual and lesbian households vary widely and are often unsubstantiated. According to a study on homosexual parenting in the American Sociological Review, researchers have given figures "of uncertain origin, depicting a range of...6 to 14 million children of gay or lesbian parents in the United States."[30]



However, even the lower figure of one million children being raised in gay and lesbian households does not stand up to statistical analysis.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 594,391 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States (301,026 male homosexual households and 293,365 lesbian households).[33] This indicates that only one percent of the total of 59,969,000 households contain same-sex partners. Assuming the Stacey/Biblarz estimate that one million children have a homosexual or lesbian parent, this would mean that, on average, every homosexual household has at least one child.[34]

However, the 2000 Census figures show.......92 percent of the estimated adult population of homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S. do not live with children. By comparison, the 2000 Census showed that 46 percent of married couple households have at least one child living in the household.[36] However, this figure underestimates the total number of married couples who have had children, as many older couples have grown children who are no longer living at home.



*Sources:Black, "Demographics," 141; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4.

The Stacey/Biblarz estimates ....... are concerning the number of children being raised by homosexuals. Far from being the proven success that some claim, homosexual parenting remains very much the exception rather than the rule.
Implications for Homosexual Parenting

Gay activists attempt to minimize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual households in order to make homosexuality look as normal as possible. However, as already shown, only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children. Beyond that, the evidence also indicates that comparatively few homosexuals choose to establish households together--the type of setting that is normally prerequisite for the rearing of children.


The above indicates that only a small minority of gays and lesbians choose to live in partnered relationships, and furthermore, only a small percentage of partnered homosexual households actually have children. The evidence thus does not support the claim that significant numbers of homosexuals desire to provide a stable home for children.

HEALTH RISKS
Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. The evidence indicates that homosexual and lesbian relationships are at far greater risk for contracting life-threatening disease compared with married couples:


· The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[40]


"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk

The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false:


INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships
Research indicates very high levels of violence in homosexual and lesbian relationships:

· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[46]

· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[47]


· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[49]

Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships

Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.
· The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]



Source: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, 30.

Marriage vs. Other Types of Intimate Partner Relationships

· A Bureau of Justice Statistics (an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice) report found that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[51] Women who were not married to their "intimate partner" (i.e., were cohabiting), experienced a rate of violence four times higher than that of married women (11.3 per thousand vs. 2.6 per thousand). [52]



Source: "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 31, 2002: 4.

Homosexual and Lesbian Couples vs. Married Couples

When homosexual and lesbian relationships are directly compared with married couples, the difference in the domestic partner violence is pronounced:



Sources: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.


· Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]

· Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:

For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
· The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]

Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., is senior fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. Dr. Dailey and Peter Sprigg recently co-authored Getting It Straight: What the Research Says About Homosexuality.
(New York: Bantam Books, 1972): 208.

Stayed with a family in Belguim in 2004. My friend of this family said Belguim had approved gay marriage a few years before 2004. He was laughing at the U.S. on this matter. Said we were totally behind the times.;)

Also said that when the Belguim people wanted abortion the King of Belgium would not allow it. The people then removed the King from power and approved abortion. Then after abortion was approved they put him back in.:D:D

Thank you Paolo for your post. I hope your visit was a good time for all!

Thank you Villa for this Belgium perspective. What a refreshing attitude they have! I can't help but wonder how we Americans could import their clever strategies, especially during this current Presidential cycle. :D

Micio, thank you for your reply. I always think the more voices heard from, the more well-rounded the discussion. May I ask if you are a parent and if so, if you could remark upon why you may feel gay/unwed couples pose a threat to your family. Or, if you're not a parent, speculate what this threat might be.

stephaniealexis8, You seem like a nice understanding caring person. Too bad there aren't more people like you. At any rate just last night was watching a TV documentary on this very subject. Che causualita! It went a lot like this thread with PHD's saying that the traditional family was the best for bringing up kids blah, blah blah. But there were other PHD's that said just al contrario and had statictics to prove it.

For me personally this whole thing is a non issue. People are gay from birth and that's just a fact of life. So it's only natural that they would or could have families. Let's live and try to let live. Nobody should lose any sleep over gay families. I know I'm not. Non fa niente! We have so many real problems to worry about!

A proposito. Sei molta bella. Sei sposata?

I'm not clear how gay relationships can be equated to married ones (referring to the article quoted by Micio) at least here in the US.
We don't have any history of "allowing" gay people to marry - Until we do, I think it's like comparing apples to oranges. Any statistical information is skewed by the lack of data. Until we have studies of gay marriage and it's longevity, success or falure rates etc. any hypothesis is ludicrous.

As to the original question about being threatened by it? I'm not - Gay relationships and the potential for marriage should be considered a blessing - When 2 people love each other, it's a joy no matter what the package looks like.
I have many gay friends in committed relationships - They might get married if they could legally. I also have a lot of hetero friends in relationships who might get married. But they can if they choose to. I am threatened by neither of them and have raised my children to be accepting too.

I don't think you understand or really looked at these statistics, yet you respond to them by asking if I feel threatened.
My answer: why would i?

I don't think you understand or really looked at these statistics, yet you respond to them by asking if I feel threatened.
My answer: why would i?

Thank you for the post, Micio. Actually, I wasn't responding to you but repeating the OP, which asks if those in 'traditional' (Vaticanspeak for heterosexual) families feel they or their world are threatened by unconventional (gay/unwed) couples and families, as The Pope insinuated in his New Year's speech. (e.g. - "The family is the primary agent of peace and the negation or even the restriction of rights of the family ... threatens the very foundations of peace.")

As for statistics, I did read them. They seem to focus on children and gay parenting, which isn't what this thread is about. I also read the organization that supplied them: Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council(www.frc.org) and would call into question their impartiality. (Of course, to be fair, the impartiality of the sites I provided in earlier posts could and should also be challenged. I'm a believer in "questioning the answer.")

If you're trying to say that gay parenting somehow undermines the stability of heterosexual-centric families, may I ask why you'd believe so?

The Pope one time was going on an on about how sex out of marriage was wrong and so on and so forth. Somebody in Italy told him: You-ah don't-ah play-ah dah game, you-ah don't-ah make-ah dah rules!

A little comedy relief.

Stephanie,

Wow... yes indeed you are quite understanding and patient, as an earlier post stated. Your responses are quite measured and calm, to some sort of not-so-measured and calm questions and thoughts.

I love Belgium's attitude, and it's similar to many other countries' as well. I also believe that the U.S. is behind the times. Part of what makes all of this such an issue is that it's turned into such an issue by society.

In other words, if no one said anything one way or the other, and children grew up without being told "this is the right way to love, and this is the wrong way," they would love without reservation, men or women, and that would mean a much healthier, much less repressed world.

While I can't state statistics as others can, I can state from personal experience and many years' observation that much of the violence in society toward gays, lesbians and transgendered people is due to either repression or misunderstanding - or both. Just as other violence in the world (wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide, hate crimes) takes place in large part for the same reasons. We can trace the kind of statement the pope made in his speech, and others he has made in the past, to the root of misunderstanding and intolerance of anything other than what he, and his version of God, believe is the ONLY RIGHT WAY.

How does one come to that place, where he/she believes his or her view is the only right one? With some odd billion number of people on the planet, how can one perspective be the only right one???

Anyhow, so there's my point of view for the morning. :)

Teresa

Bravo Marky Mark.
'Nuff said.

It seems it's not just the Pope that's having a go:-

"A poster claiming that gay people want to "abolish the family" has been criticised by the advertising watchdog.

The Christian Congress for Traditional Values (CCTV) advert showed a man, woman, boy and girl with the statement "Gay aim: abolish the family".
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the organisation could not stand up the claim that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. CCTV defended its concerns about a perceived threat to Christian values."

This was on the BBC News website today, and relates to the UK, where I would have thought there are far greater threats to Christian values than the Gay community.

The basis for the "threat" was apparently "gay organisations' manifesto documents from the 1970s which described the traditional family unit as working against homosexuality." :confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7229595.stm

This kind of thing makes me truly feel sick to my stomach. It's all about ignorance and fear, and unfortunately it results in hatred and violence.

Ultimately this is the problem with the world - when people don't understand something and they create a belief system around it, and then act on that, there really is no other outcome than something negative.

:(

Teresa