Pope Benedict on Saturday condemned genetic engineering and other scientific practices that allow people to select so-called designer babies by screening them for defects.
In a speech to the Pontifical Academy for Life, a Church body of experts, the Pope also attacked artificial insemination and the widespread use of medical tests that can detect diseases and inherited disorders in embryos.
He also spoke out against civil unions as an alternative to marriage, his latest criticism of a bill approved this month by the Italian government granting rights to unwed and gay couples.
In other words, no surprising leap beyond the Dark Ages, this weekend.
So far off topic, JimR? Same old story, I guess — the mirage of an oasis lures the thirsty traveler further into the desert đ
Cheers.
#28, Andrew,
C’mon, stop with the idiotic arguments. My parents are both in their eighties. Would you dissolve their marriage because they are no longer able to bear children? While to me they are and always be special, what makes their relationship so much more important then Adam and Steve’s?
Since when is homosexuality a sexual disorder? Without looking up the actual date, homosexuality has been removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders around 1976. Although there has been a push to reverse that, it has only been a cry for help from the sexually dysfunctional crowd inhabiting the religious leadership.
Sterile people have a procreation disorder
So glad sex isn’t involved.
Homosexuals are entitled to happiness like every other American citizen, they can even heterosexually marry.
Which isn’t what makes them happy. YOU might be happy, but I’m sure they would much prefer to have the same protections and rights afforded heterosexual couples.
Deal with the reality that Homosexuality is a sexual disorder and none of your illogical comments are going to change that.
That is illogical. There is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality excepting in minds like yours.
Actually I am completely secure, apparently more than you.
Then why are you so afraid of homosexuals. Are you afraid that someday YOU will be found out? Bullies are usually the most insecure people.
Reproduction requires a man and a woman. Thus having sex with the same sex or animals for instance is sexually abnormal because there is no underlying reproduction intent, thus a disorder. This isnât complicated.
Geeze, my wife and I got it on last night. After her miscarriage, she is now functionally sterile. Since there is no chance we could conceive, nor at any time did that cross my mind, does that mean our sex was the equivalent of BEASTIALITY ???
Shoot Andrew, you are one sick puppy. Either come out of the closet or join one of those monasteries where silence is the word.
Mr. Fusion, you’re welcome to join us at the “Oasis Bar & Grill.” The first round of shots is on me đ
The bar napkins read…..
“Too far off topic to turn back now!”
Ah, I thought it was getting a little warm đ
It could be the lure of the desert, it could be Mr Fusion creating elements of discussion, or it could be that glass of wine I had tonight …and I rarely drink any hooch.
I’m zonked … as in sleepy.
…G’night y’all .
A sterile heterosexual union is somehow ârightâ because the possibility of a cure exists at some point in the future?
It is not right it, it is sexually normal. Marriage exists for the possibility of having children and raising a family wether you choose to do this or not is your choice.
Andrew, why donât you pray that the sterile will be healed (given eggs or sperm as appropriate), and Iâll concentrate on praying that the logic-impaired be healed. We both have our work cut out for us.
First you have to understand logic which has nothing to do with praying.
Now I understand your last comment âanyone who is not heterosexually married should not be entitled to their spouses job related benefitsâ By that you mean âŚanyone who doesnât have the ability to help make a baby because they canât get aroused with the opposite sex should NOT benefit from their alternative partnerâs job related health care.
Correct Homosexuals should not be entitled to benefits such as health care or pensions simply due to being associated with someone. If they are heterosexually married than that would be fine.
In keeping with my Druidic New Year’s resolution to stay on-topic [ho!], I offer the following, which I feel should be near the top of any list of Contradictions Of Religion To Which You’ll Never Get A Straight Answer From A Believer:
Since the Pope is God’s chosen representative on Earth, why was he born with testes?
Anyone? Pedro? No? Andrew? You’re always chock-full of answers, how about it?
“Câmon, stop with the idiotic arguments. My parents are both in their eighties. Would you dissolve their marriage because they are no longer able to bear children? While to me they are and always be special, what makes their relationship so much more important then Adam and Steveâs?”
You are the only one making idiotic arguments. Why are you implying things I never stated? Did you parents have the potential to have children? Then why would there marriage be dissolved? Oh that is right to try to take things out of context.
“Since when is homosexuality a sexual disorder? Without looking up the actual date, homosexuality has been removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders around 1976. Although there has been a push to reverse that, it has only been a cry for help from the sexually dysfunctional crowd inhabiting the religious leadership.”
Since when? It always has been. Homosexuality is not normal sexual behavior thus a sexual disorder. I did not say mental I said sexual. Yes it implies there is something sexually wrong with Homosexuals and this has nothing to do with religion but biology.
“Sterile people have a procreation disorder
So glad sex isnât involved.”
It is but you can have sex and not procreate.
“Homosexuals are entitled to happiness like every other American citizen, they can even heterosexually marry.
Which isnât what makes them happy. YOU might be happy, but Iâm sure they would much prefer to have the same protections and rights afforded heterosexual couples.”
So are every American, homosexuals are not entitled to redefine marriage because they want to push their agenda. Heterosexuals have additional protections and rights because many have families to raise due to natural procreation. The only thing homosexuals need is acceptance of their sexual disorder.
“That is illogical. There is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality excepting in minds like yours.”
See why can you not read? Where did I say WRONG or IMMORAL? Please quote this. You are as bad as the PC Nazis, you imply things that are not there. I said SEXUAL DISORDER. Now yes there is something sexually “wrong” in the context that they are not sexually normal not wrong as in Bad and evil.
“Then why are you so afraid of homosexuals. Are you afraid that someday YOU will be found out? Bullies are usually the most insecure people.”
Afraid? Are you kidding me? Why do weak minded illogical people such as yourself always try to make these absurd statements in these discussions? Now I am a bully for speaking the truth? You are the typical liberal puppet. I mean you are not even original.
“Geeze, my wife and I got it on last night. After her miscarriage, she is now functionally sterile. Since there is no chance we could conceive, nor at any time did that cross my mind, does that mean our sex was the equivalent of BEASTIALITY ???”
Since you did not have sex with an animal then no. Logically what you stated, even implied made no sense.
“Shoot Andrew, you are one sick puppy. Either come out of the closet or join one of those monasteries where silence is the word.”
Oh ok so now I am “sick” for stating what you do not want to hear. The reality is homosexuality is a sexual disorder and having a sexual disorder does not entitle them to marriage rights.
This blog is pretty cool… but it is something of a magnet for bigots.
The science fiction movie titled “Gattaca” is worth watching, if you’re interested in the topic of genetic screening.
Link to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
#40 related to #24 and #13
Pedro, I suppose your point is that every potential life is precious, so let’s not take the easy way out and bring’em on… just because there might be a Beethoven or a Stephen Hawking. Well my friend, ever wondered why these extraordinary people are called Extraordinary? Do you think the sheer amount of misery, despair and ruined opportunities you’d put on those individuals that are not Beethovens? And the cost to the society? And how’s the rate of Beethovens these days? one in every million?
Ultimately I think that it’s the parents decision. If they are willing to raise those childs with love, I applaud. And I’m not also an advocate of the “frivolous” genetic screening: “Oh, my baby will be a slightly “tanned” girl, so we better pull it out because she will have less chances in life” (or not so frivolous, since today more and more couples are choosing to have just one son).
I think that the Pope’s views on the subject are perfectly logical conclusions. He wouldn’t have said it any other way, because he’s being coherent with Catholic views and beliefs. Religion is not a matter of trend or fashion.
That’s why I’m not religious. Because there’s too much uncertainty in life to eat dogma with your breakfast cereal…
So, short answer:
Genetic screening – Good thing. It will prevent so much misery being brought to the world. Potential of being abbused: tremendous.
Artificial insemination – Good thing too, might even be essential as the population starts to have children later in life.
PS:
#41
Gattaca is a fabulous movie. I think everyone should see it, as it brings perspective to all this discussion.
#44
Upper middle classes are today’s Royalty.
You haven’t been checking the “pink press” like those “hello” magazines…
And like wise they will procreate out of existance and into consaguinity trouble. Imagine Spears’s offpring being crossed with Hilton’s offspring, many generarions away…
đ
Andrew,
The reality is homosexuality is a sexual disorder and having a sexual disorder does not entitle them to marriage rights.
So sayeth Andrew. The only people who claim homosexuality is a disorder seem to be those with issues about homosexuality. No evidence, just their word that it isn’t ârightâ. The lumping of homosexual acts with bestiality demonstrates how much thought, and / or hatred was used to come up with this equating.
When you make the claim that a group of people may be happy IF they follow your proscriptions, you show your bigotry. What if it was said that all Libertarians can be happy as long as they vote Communist? Or wear lampshades on their heads? Or are celibate? Sure that would be stupid; can you imagine all those Libertarians trying to coordinate their shoes with their lampshades?
There is no reality that homosexuality is a disorder. It is an orientation, sexual drive, or attraction, depending upon who you ask. There is no problem medically that is in need of a âcureâ.
The idea that homosexuals should be second class citizens is wrong. It took a couple of hundred years to have slavery banned. It took even longer to have all races understood to be equal. It took a century of convincing that women are not inferior to men. I hope it doesn’t take as long for everyone to accept that homosexuals should be equals too.
#33 – Fusion
[ psst! It’s bestiality, not beastiality ]
Otherwise, very good; carry on! -but I don’t expect you’ll make much headway; people like Andrew only believe what they’re told to believe, independent logical thought is the Devil’s tool…
#41 – pedro
“No, I donât think the Pope is God.”
pedro, who said anything about the Pope being God? I asked you, if – as Catholic dogma asserts – the Pope was destined before birth by God to be His rep on Earth, why was he born with a pair of cojones that he won’t ever use? Hmm?
At least you answered, whereas Andrew, like all religious ideologues who have not one original thought in their heads, suddenly develops laryngitis when confronted with questions he hasn’t already been given the answer sheet to by his all-knowing leaders.
“He is the leader of a bunch of people that are supposed to have some kind of common values.”
In the timeless words of Paul Rodriguez, “Could you be a little more vague?”
Your description could apply to anyone from the head of your bowling team to the King of England.
Lauren, your logic conundrum seems like an extension of another one that I love to pose, concerning the contradiction between free will and foreknowledge. In its most basic form, it emphasizes how mutually exclusive the two notions are without the faith that God completely trancends all logic.
If God knows the future, can you possibly exercise your free will in such a way that his foreknowledge of your actions turns out to be incorrect? If God knows in advance that you’re going to have a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch, is it possible for you to choose bologna instead? Do you really have free will?
Talking about the Pope’s balls reminds me of this post Uncle Dave made this morning đ
Reproduction requires a man and a woman. Thus having sex with the same sex or animals for instance is sexually abnormal because there is no underlying reproduction intent, thus a disorder.
Since we’re about logical consistency, by that logic masturbation is sexually abnormal. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” or however that goes. You know, said by Jesus, the guy most Western right-wingers profess to admire but few try to emulate.
As for extending rights and privileges to partnered homosexual couples, seems to me if the rights and privileges are supported by any form of taxes, and they pay taxes, they should be eligible.
The sex act is one of pleasurable friction and that’s usually why people do it. To say it has a reproductive “purpose” you have to ascribe purpose to an abstract concept (evolution, creation, take your pick). While we’re on the subject of logic, it is illogical to reify abstract concepts to the point where we assign a “purpose” to them. Most people have sex because it feels good. Some people also want to fertilize an egg, but the lengths to which infertile couples will go toward that end make news because they’re unusual, not because they represent a norm.
If you want to believe God, or FSM, or X purposefully designed sex to be pleasurable so people (and dogs and whatever) would reproduce, that’s fine too. Just don’t confuse that with allowing people equal protection under the law. For example, if only a spouse or genetic family member can see someone in a hospital, either that law needs to be changed to include “partners” irrespective of sexual orientation or close partners need to be redefined as spouses. That’s just a matter of common decency.
What the hell is right, moral or logical about withdrawing rights from one portion of a population, so long as they’re not hurting anyone?
The bar napkins readâŚ..
âToo far off topic to turn back now!â
Thanks, Gary Marks.
This sex thing is Oh so much hyped, when, in fact, the truth lies in front of you.
If sex were only to produce offspring, we wouldn’t have desire or lust. Females wouldn’t be very much different from males (as happens in the animal world…) and there wouldn’t be homosexuality, just honest mistakes…
Can’t you people just feel it in the depths of your “cojones” that sex serves a much higher purpose than just procreate? Duhhh! It’s so plain evident.
Andrew: A few questions.
1) “A hererosexual marriage always has the possibility of natural reproduction it just might not be today.”
What if that is not true. What if prior to marriage there are no ovaries for some reason, the man was castrated in an accident, etc, so that the possibility doesn’t exist, ever. Would you deny that person or that couple the ability to ever marry? By your definition, they cannot procreate, and therefore, are not sexually “normal.” If you would allow them to marry, why allow that “sexually abnormal” person to marry, but not another such as a homosexual?
2) What if they can’t have children, ever, but want to adopt? Would it be OK for them to marry then? If the answer is yes, why restrict it to heterosexual couples who wish to adopt? What makes them different from homosexual couples (in this specific context — inability to procreate) who want to adopt?
3) What about in vitro fertilization so the female can have a child? Does that technology change a person from being “sexually abnormal” to “normal?”
4) It seems to me a logical extension to your argument that if the only reason for marriage is procreation, then sex within a heterosexual marriage is only for procreation. Does this imply a couple can only have sex for procreation (ie, not just for pleasure)? Vaginal sex is the only method (ie, no oral)? If the answer is no, then you’ve opened up the reason for having sex to other forms and the reason for marriage to something other than procreation if, for example, a couple wants to have sex but no children. This includes homosexual sex which is also not for the reason of procreation.
5) What exactly do you mean by the sentence, “Anyone who is not heterosexually married should not be entitled to their spouses job related benefits.”? Does “heterosexually married” imply they have to be able and having sex to procreate? If a couple doesn’t want to or can’t — ever — have children, they should be denied marriage and benefits? Overall, it sounds like you have mixed up the two aspects of marriage — children and partnership. You have ignored the partnership aspect which is the basis for laws related to marriage which have nothing to do with children such as inheritance laws related to spouses without children, to name one of many. Since those don’t relate to children, why should there be discrimination of gay couples vs straight couples?
—
While it may be true that marriage was designed to provide a stable, legally protected structure for children, the reality is that having children — as a result of birth control, extended lifespans and other modern developments — is not the only reason anymore for people to marry. The laws (and attitudes) just haven’t kept up with these irreversible changes.