Pope Denounces Gay Marriage in Canada

[Sharp]

Sep 4, 11:08 AM (ET)

(AP) Pope John Paul II meets with American bishops from the New England region at his summer residence...

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope John Paul II kept up his campaign against gay marriage Saturday, telling the ambassador from Canada - where some provinces allow same-sex couples to wed - that such unions create a "false understanding" of marriage.

In past months, the pope urged authorities to stop approving gay marriages, saying that they degrade the true sense of marriage.

"Any attempts to change the meaning of the word 'spouse' contradict right reason: legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84STKLG0.html

 

[Sharp]

I am not sure if this post violates a rule. I don't think so, but in case it does, I'll cut off the last paragraph if needed.

I post this not to discuss the particulars of homosexuality as sin or whatever, but as an international news item involving two countries - Vatican City and Canada.

 

[BobbieDog]

I am not sure if this post violates a rule. I don't think so, but in case it does, I'll cut off the last paragraph if needed.

I post this not to discuss the particulars of homosexuality as sin or whatever, but as an international news item involving two countries - Vatican City and Canada.

Disengenuous this appears to be.
Pope Denounces Gay Marriage in Canada: has three words which refer to Vatican and Canada, and the other is in.
"Denounces Gay marriage" would seem to be the overwhelming gist of the thread title, on the basis of whatever model you use to wieght the component parts of the sentence.
Yet, we are to understand, the poster wishes only to refer to the Vatican and Canada, and specifically rules out any controversial reference to homsexuality as a "sin or whatever".
Okay. But: I would reccomend to the poster, that the widely recognised method of achieving this aim of framing topic, would be; "Pope in Canada".
I suppose the addition of "Denounces Gay marriage" was just some spasm over the keyboard: which while plausible and acceptable as an honest admission of error; should be avoided in future.
Unless of course, silly me, the intention was in fact to flag up that the Pope, while in Candada, did denounce gay marriage.

 

[gop_ryan]

I see it as the Pope sending a message to all the nations of the world by making an example out of Canada.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I think religious leaders need to be more active like this! Yay Pope

 

[BobbieDog]

I think religious leaders need to be more active like this! Yay Pope

I agree, I've always liked the guy.
He's wrong on many issues, but he strives to engage.
What annoys me a little, is the tactics often chosen in the politics of the anti-gay-inclusion movement: where the slam of prejudice is laid down; then there's a bit of procedural jiggery pokery, to supress any honest commentary on the prejudice.

 

[SallyNow]

The topic title reminds me of the highway signs I've seen here in Canada:

NO HITCHHIKING PICKUP IS ILLEGAL
When it should read:
NO HITCHIKING AS PICKUP IS ILLEGAL or
PICKUP IS ILLEGAL. NO HITCHIKING.

Anyways...

 

[jgarden]

Personally, I respect the Pope, but I find it strange that he appears to show more concern about the rights of the unborn, than the responsibility of the Church for protecting the rights of children from some of its own priests. I believe that the archbishop in Boston was actually more guilty than the actual "abusers" because he was in a position of authority and did nothing. Although he knew better, the Church chose to replace but not sanction one of their own. You cannot condemn the priests, but ignore the role of their superiors, who by their inaction, condoned the "inappropriate" actions of others.

This is not Catholic bashing because I believe it exists in other institutions, religious and otherwise. This particular case is well documented.

In Ontario a strange paradox exists. While gays are flocking to get married, there is no mechanism for "gay divorce." Now that gays have finally got official recognition, they are now facing the problems of how to formally terminate a government sanctioned relationship.