Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[Cybermat47]

^^^

+1

Except I'm agnostic.

Still, great Pope

Awwww, how very nice and kind of this hypocrite to "not judge gay priests". We should all be happy and grateful...

The hell is wrong with your memory guys?
That guy is quite known for his anti-gay talks after his election and before.

One example: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new...the-father-of/

Also, he did not say "Who am I to judge" regarding gay people in general, he actually said: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” - and that was related to gay priests, not gays in general.
An interesting read on this

What the pope thinks about gays and gay marriage, he said clearly in the past, before and after his election, like calling homosexuality a "disease".

He is just as conservative as the guy before him,maybe even worse.

[Mittelwaechter]

I was not aware of his former statements about homosexuality until the recent news.

Maybe he learned from this gay clerical circle in Rome that this attribute is not a disease but a very human nature like being blue eyed or left handed.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” reads to me "If someone is gay..." not "if some priest is gay...".

I'm sure the Pope will have a second chance to clear this statement.

[Armistead]

Let's see, you can be gay, but if you have gay sex, then you're sinful. I'm sure that's a comfort for gay people..

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

I was not aware of his former statements about homosexuality until the recent news.

Maybe he learned from this gay clerical circle in Rome that this attribute is not a disease but a very human nature like being blue eyed or left handed.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” reads to me "If someone is gay..." not "if some priest is gay...".

I'm sure the Pope will have a second chance to clear this statement.

He did not mention priests in that sentence - but gay priests were the topic when he said that, if I am not mistaken. Also, if he does make a difference between a gay christian or gay non-christian person (and he does, not every human being is the same to him) then everything he says or does is irrelevant to me anyways. Why would I look up to someone who thinks in such stupid extremes? Cause someone declared him the holy friggin pope and covered him in clothes that could feed a starving village somewhere for half a year? This "system" and religion (religion in general) is so flawed, so wrong, so fake and stupid, it makes me sick.

And now I see some people state "Oh, looks like hes OK after all" just because of this one silly line, that was also taken out of context.
I know, charisma can be a powerful weapon, mankind experienced this very often. Yet, I wish people would not be so naive sometimes and think things through more often.

[CaptainHaplo]

This Pope was offering one of the truism of faith:

Love the sinner but hate the sin.

He said they needed to be integrated into society. OK nothing wrong with that. He said it isn't his job to judge them - and he is right on that score as well - judgment belongs to the Almighty.

Yep, he still says homosexual acts are a sin - and they still are. Note he qualifies - if they search for the Lord - because faith says that the Lord can give you the strength to overcome sin - thus a homosexual who comes to the Lord with a "good will" - a desirous heart to follow - will be given the ability to overcome their homosexuality - in whatever way the Lord sees fit (perhaps having them choose celibacy).

He has his faith in the Almighty and His power, not that of man. Rake him over the coals if you want, but he condemned the sin - not the sinner. There is a difference - one that many can not or will not (by choice) accept.

And I am not even Catholic.....

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This Pope was offering one of the truism of faith:

Love the sinner but hate the sin.

He said they needed to be integrated into society. OK nothing wrong with that. He said it isn't his job to judge them - and he is right on that score as well - judgment belongs to the Almighty.

Yep, he still says homosexual acts are a sin - and they still are. Note he qualifies - if they search for the Lord - because faith says that the Lord can give you the strength to overcome sin - thus a homosexual who comes to the Lord with a "good will" - a desirous heart to follow - will be given the ability to overcome their homosexuality - in whatever way the Lord sees fit (perhaps having them choose celibacy).

He has his faith in the Almighty and His power, not that of man. Rake him over the coals if you want, but he condemned the sin - not the sinner. There is a difference - one that many can not or will not (by choice) accept.

And I am not even Catholic.....

This is ridiculous.
"Overcome their homosexuality"? Are you trolling me, or are you serious?
It is BS like that I was referring to earlier.
By declaring homosexuality a sin, he absolutely condemned "the sinner".

How can homosexuality be a sin or even a "disease"?! It is a part of nature, always has been. Last time I checked, nature existed before someone wrote a funny book of fairy tales. Oh, yes, sure... God created earth and us...and everything...

[Cybermat47]

^^^

You're right, Nipplespanner. We must help these Christians overcome their Christianity.

Just to clarify, being a Christian isn't evil, but reading the Bible is.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

"Overcome their homosexuality"? Are you trolling me, or are you serious?

I am being serious.

By declaring homosexuality a sin, he absolutely condemned "the sinner".

No - it isn't. You see, having homosexual desires may very well be a part of a person's nature. That does not mean they must partake in the ACTIONS. It is no different than a heterosexual man who lusts after a married woman - aka "his neighbor's wife". The desire may be natural - but it becomes a sin if the person does not put it away - because ultimately failing to do so may lead them to engage in action to fulfill that desire. This is a common attempt by those that want an action to be declared morally "ok" to try and do - equate the act with nature. Sorry, not going to fly.

Remember - this isn't about your standards - its about the religious standards that predate you by more than a millennia.... So trying to use your judgment to make something "ok" is whistling in the wind.

How can homosexuality be a sin or even a "disease"?!

Because their theology - whether you like it or not - says so.
Your problem is that you don't like the stand the theology takes, so your trying to castigate its position - even though it has said this for far longer than you have been alive.

It is a part of nature, always has been.

So has sin.

Last time I checked, nature existed before someone wrote a funny book of fairy tales. Oh, yes, sure... God created earth and us...and everything...

And in the end you simply denigrate the entire theology because you don't agree. Well, there you have your answer - you don't agree. Don't expect a logical debate when your position entails nothing other than "that religious idea is a stupid fairy tale". That isn't how debates work - not to mention that while religion can not prove itself true, you can not disprove it - therefore it remains an unknown - and your position of it being "a fairy tale" amounts to a belief, nothing more. Your beliefs are no more sacred or accurate to anyone else as theirs are to you.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Maybe he learned from this gay clerical circle in Rome that this attribute is not a disease but a very human nature like being blue eyed or left handed.

It surprises me time and again how desperately people try to declare homosexuality a wanted feature and genetic design, and compare it to any other genetic feature. It is that NOT, and the latest report on so-.called epigenes does not show this statement of mine to be wrong, but supports it (it got tremendously misinterpreted in the media since it was published earlier this year):

Let'S have a closer look on epigenes. Scientists are relatively sure that for most people, their homosexual orientation has been put into their cradle genetically. We have striong reasons to assume this since longer time now. This does however not mean that it is an option of naturally wanted genetic variation in individual traits, like eye colour. Because homosexual orientation is not transported to a person by naturally evolving genetic informaton in the existing genes, but by an accidental mishap in the regulation of the process of splitting/reproducing genes: this is what the latest finding about epigenes mean.

Epigenes are temporarily existing informations that in themselves bear no information used for deciding the future individual's physical and psychological status. They get activated when a genetic reproduction of the genes have started, and they regulate the way, the manner, the fashion in which this process takes place. After the reproduction cycle of a given gene is completed, epigenes disappear again, and their regulating information with them. At least that is how it should be. Homosexuality does not appear when this indeed the case, there are no genetic informations or markers for homosexuality. At least nobody has ever discovered any so far.

But sometimes, an accident happens, and the epigenes do not disappear, dissolve again, but maintain to be there - and then their information could get embedded in the regular genes as well, although this should not, and is not meant to be, and is not needed at all. If this happens, then this defective completion of the epigene's function - temporary regulation of a temporary process - leads to the forming of an homosexual identity, which turns out to be the result of this temporary epigenetic information being turned into a lasting piece of the lasting overall genetic code. The existence of the homosexual identity is revealing that there went something wrong and that epigenes misfunctioned: they should have gone again, but have not.

Let'S try to illustrate it in a metaphoric picture. Assume genes to be transport trucks and the informaiton being the cargo they carry, and the traffic process of these trucks being the genetic reproduction process. Epigenes would compare to traffic cops regulating the traffic when the traffic hits a crossroad, for example, or there is a problem on the street: normally, you have no traffic cops on the streets regulating traffic by hand, when you see them, then there is a problem, a car accident maybe, or a broken traffic light or whatever. The cop is not meant to transport the goods the trucks carry. The cop only tells them whether to move left or right at a crossroad, for example. After the trucks have passed the hotspot, the cop is no longer needed, and is left behind.

Homosexuality then would emerge when the cop for reasons of miscommunicating with his HQ or being a confused mind starts to board trucks and drive on with them, or using his police car to share some goods and participate in the transport business. Nothing dangerous there, nothing serious or alarming - still something that should not be, and is not normal in that the situation - traffic cop cars being used for regular transports along with regular transport trucks - is not what it should be like. Traffic cops should regulate traffic when needed, and where not needed, they are not there. The transport business should be run by the transport trucks. And the genetic splitting and reproduction should copy the information aboard the genes, not the temporarily existing information that regulates how this process should be running. Epigenes are not part of ordinary genes. They only get formed when needed, then should stop being there again.

This is the latest findings of science on genetic basis for homosexuality. It has a genetic basis, yes, yet it is not the result of a natural or normal process going well, but it indicates that something has gone wrong, it is an accidental, naturally not wanted and not needed result: epigenes not dissolving again after the real vital genetic information got reproduced in gene splitting, but prevailing and embedding their process-regulating information into the regular genom. And that end results represents, in all politeness, a deformation of the gene. This is what is meant when refusing to label homosexual as "natural". It is realp in that the phenomenon exists, but it is not natural in representing a naturally wanted end state of things, nor does it represent a natural variation in traits and characteristics like eye colour.

Homosexuality is "normal" in that it can happen to exist. It is not normal in the meaning of representing a wanted genetic design transported by genetic information in the splitting gene. There are no known genetic markers for homosexuality. It is an accidental result of a process going wrong, and temporarily existing information that should just regulate the splitting process itself becomes lasting and gets included in the gene's code - while it should not do that at all. It is an accident, no wanted natural genetic evolution. Car accidents happen. They are real and a part of reality. Nevertheless nobody would label them as "naturally" representing what car traffic is about, and that cars are driven to crash them. You do not start your carwith the inention to crash it. The accident is a reality, but it is neither a wanted part of reality, nor is it what car design and driving effort in any way aims for. Car design and driving effort aim for car traffic without accidents. And if any of this fails - then you get an accident.

Eye colour, on the other hand, is genetically encoded in the normal gene, it is not just temporarily existing, and is existing for the sake if itself, not as an interim agent for other gene's functions.

All this is no excuse to discriminate homosexuals, of course, even more so since the results of this accident do not pose a thread or risk at all. It happens. However we should really stop trying for reasons of being politically correct and socially oh so sensible to give the impression that homosexuality is a human trait with its own genetic encoding in the genes like any other physical or psychological trait encoded in the genes. It simply is not, and any ideologically motivated protest will not change that. There is no gene discovered that carries the information for becoming homosexual. It is not a natural result of genetic splitting, like skin colour, height, sex, eye colour. Live with it.

[Mittelwaechter]

Very interesting and thanks for the eloquent information.

So eye colour is a bad example, true. But what about to be left handed? Could this be caused by the same circumstances? Or did they find a genetic marker for this feature?

And don't be 'surprised'.
I never stated homosexuality to be a 'wanted feature' by nature but a natural state. I guess the feature - if wanted - would be the end of our species.

Not that this would be a problem for the planet. Maybe your explanation is a security feature? The unwanted police behaviour may be triggered by overpopulation?

The mother may live in very cramped surroundings, in a climate of war and fight for resources and she breeds a child uninterested in reproduction to regulate the overpopulation?

In any case it is nothing to blame the gay persons for and we should accept and consider their sexual orientation as completely equaly righted - including marriage and child adoption.

[Skybird]

As far as I know science still has not made a finalverdict on whether left or right hand being dominant is egnetically marked or not. I tend to think that it is a consequence from other factors, and thus an implication:

It is known that the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right side of the brain the left side of the body. The brain centre for speech is located in the left brain hemispheree for the huge majority of people, with very small groups only having that centre in the right side of their brain, or having speech functionality distributed over both brain hemispheres. This is no causal link between speech and hand dominance of course, but there is a strong correlation between this socalled lateralisation, and hand dominance. So while there maybe indeed are no genetic markers deciding whether your left or right hand is dominant, this nevertheless could be indirectly genetically determined by the genetic code deciding on the lateralisation inside the brain: where you have you speech centre in your brain (and then assuming that there is some kind of a link between speech and finemotoric action with hands, which necessarily includes cognition, neuroscience and psychology into the overall assessment). Complex stuff - we still do not know for sure, it seems. If there is such a link as the correlation seems to indicate, it probably hints at an advantage in the history of evolution if the species has one hand dominant and more capable than the other, and having the neural control for that located in the same brain hemisphere like that for verbal communication. Speech and tool-using, both with strong references to this other phenomenon: practical intelligence. I cannot nail it down precisely, but maybe you have the same association here like I have when putting these qualities together. To me, in a way it makes sense. But I would not want to write a paper about it.

On the marriage and child adoption equality that you mention, I of course strongly object, due to the vital importance of families for any human society, and the psychological differentiation I make between a mother and a father, also, I want the family status being given spoecial protection and appreciation by society, and I see no merits being scored fro two women or two men being homosexual and living together. They are free to do so, already now, but it deserves no special recognition or appreciation, it is no service to society to live together as they are, or to be gay/lesbian. While some children become orphants, or loose one parent to death of divorce or other factors, this nevertheless is no desirable nor a natural(in the meaning of normal) circumstance). And a female mother is not the same like a homosexual man and a male father is not the same like a lesbian women. Mother and father serve different role models, and women and man tick differently anyway. I consider it wanted by nature that children get educated by both, and that this - or the absence of this - influences emotional, cognitive and intellectual development. We know for exmaple that childrne beign risen by one parent only have a significantly higher,a much higher probability to develope a personality disorder or a neurosis later in their lives, from their 30th year on. A mother and a gay man are two very different things, and the latter cannot compensate the absence of the first. That is not an issue of wanting or not wanting, loving or not loving, but an issue of traits people carry - or carry not.

The epigene issue is saying that homosexuality is an accident, not a natural genetic design option, and that goes queer with many people, who now aggressively imply that homosexuals should be lowered by calling them the result of an accident. Well, maybe all life on earth is the result of a cosmic accident, an event with extremely low probability to happen. I do not think of gays as the incarnation of a biological accident, but I insist on not normalising what is not normal. Being an albino or siamese twin does not strip the effected individual its human rights and dignity, but still what happened to them are genetic defects, and it has as a result that they are not human people represnrting a nhaturl normality oh human species. They are exceptions. Homosexuals also are exceptions, of a different kind. Transgenderism is an exception, and probably is not a wanted design option by nature, since it makes no sense: it is an accident, something went wrong at some point. Let's recognise the fact as fact, and accept it as a reality without distorting that reality for emotional or ideological reasons. when you are born with three instead of four fingers, that also is an accident, something went wrong. It makes you different. It does not negatively hinder you in your abilities, most likely, accept certain things having to do with the way you can grab things, that is all.

Normality is to recognise these things as they are, without trying to censor their perception or lobbying for them to gain priviliges. There is no merit won by having three instead of four fingers. A three-fingered person deserve no special recognition or appreciation for it. He also do not deserve being discriminated for it.

[Mittelwaechter]

@ skybird

Your arguments against gay families are not persuasive to me. All this 'behavioural abnormality' you describe is not only with gay people but with most of the people considered to be normal.
Parents who have been violently abused by their parents tend to do the same to their childeren sooner or later.
Our kids are exposured to all stupid life experience and bad behaviour, all mental chaos and all social malformation, all prejudices and all brain f from their 'normal' parents.
Any crazy sociopath is entitled to grow some kids if only he or she is straight.
It makes no sense at all to tell gay people they shall not marry and have children. Not to live their lives the way they want to.

My personal experience with homosexuals is, they are nonviolent and very social, creative and funny. They rarely take extreme positions and are very open minded. They are nice, cultivated couples and unimportunate individuals.
I think they are at least as ideal to raise kids as any other parents. They live an example of diversity, proving that 'difference' is no reason for social exclusion. A good lesson to learn for all of us, including their kids.
I know enough heterosexual couples and singles way more absurd and socially incompetent to be justifiable parents. No one would ever hinder them to marry or breed children.
Our society should grant the freedom for both sexual orientations to express their personality and to found a family.
And for the sake of the children these families should be cared for by the law as usual.
A special treatment for gay families is only necessary right now, because we make them special. Let them live as every other couple and let them have kids to care for.
We will lern there is no difference before long. I guess we may even learn the gay parents may be more caring. Who knows?

And accidents happen. That's normal. Diversity is normal, mutation is normal, individuality is normal...
That's life.


Edit:
Even you and me could be 'accidents'. A little hole in our fathers rubber sock you know...
Our whole existence may be based on an accident, not just our sexual orientation. Should we be treated special in that case?