Umm, I seem to recall from Sunday School that yes, yes he does. I think he called them sinners. Whether he his correct is another matter altogether.
I'm neither gay nor religious. Not fulltime, anyway.
Since most against gay (or "gay" as Boxy puts it) stand on moral or religious grounds then surely legally recognised civil unions are a fair compromise. It is 2012.
On a side note...Poupou could go mental in this thread.
That's the interpretation of priests, if God loves all humans I doubt he'd be opposed to people who express their relationships and "tastes", if anything, if "God" represents an all-knowing, kindly being he or she would probably realize that the real "sinners" are the people who attack and slander homosexuals; these people are the ones that deny homosexuals the right to sustain their identity.
Because it is morally wrong. Whats next, people wanting to marry their brother or sister. Why stop there, lets allow the 'other' sickos to marry there pets.
Sometimes political correctness needs to go out the window, and be replaced with a little common sense.
I will probably get flamed for my response but I dont give a f**k. Im a father, an uncle and still believe in traditional family values, ie 1 mother and 1 father.
That isn't common sense, that is plain, brainwashed, prejudiced stupidity.
How is it morally wrong?
Do tell?
I don't want to use this example but why are lesbian couples appreciated in the adult film industry but conversely told they cannot marry by the very same people?
Even then, relationships between homosexual couples are no different to relationships between heterosexual couples in reality.
How is it "political correctness" if they are attacked and denied their right to be who they are simply because of their preferences?
I'd agree with you if the issue was marriage to siblings, pets or children, but they are completely separate issues and the fact you throw them in as similar to homosexual marriages and label them "sickos" is proof enough you are a brainwashed moron.
