I'm not surprised but the Vatican would re-assess its priorities. They'd have their hands full for years if they actually paid as much attention to war, poverty and injustice as they do to sex.

Not at all surprised.

Just a little surprised. As I understand it [and correct me if I'm wrong, but I got this drilled into my head at my Catholic university], the RCC doesn't agree with homosexuality itself, just homosexual acts [like if you're homosexual, you're supposed to be celibate - so no sex, no marriage - because that's a sexual union, among other things]. Decriminalizing homosexuality wouldn't contradict this, and, as Liberty points out, would do some good socially in helping with the AIDS epidemic.

But I guess I can understand why...they don't want to "open the floodgates" by supporting the decriminalization of homosexuality. I really don't think what they're afraid will happen actually will come to pass if they do support it, though - especially because it would support what they believe. I think the Church is trying to [and probably should] stay out of politics, which is understandable.

EDIT: *Doesn't DISAGREE with homosexuality itself!

I really hate that we can't edit comments!

Not surprised at all.

"The United Nations is set to vote on a resolution that would call on all governments to decriminalize homosexuality."

And we take another step towards one world government.

Someday the Catholic Church will elect a pope that will bring change to the church. Now before you comment about how the church does not need to change, nor should it change its doctrines to conform to trends and fads, hold on. I am saying the church will change to embrace the teachings of its founder, the inclusive and loving Jesus.

I'm thinking that since Jesus preached against homosexuality, the church that is founded on his teachings wouldn't change to embrace something he was against.

I'm actually a bit surprised that the Vatican would gone killing someone for what they consider to be a sin. You would think they would leave that up to God and preach confession and turning oneself over to God and living by his rules.

Maybe I'm not as cynical as I thought, but I thought the church was a more positive place then that.

Oops gone = condone

But Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

You're correct, Janne. Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality, much less preached anything against it.

I'm not at all surprised by this; everyone knows how conservative Benedict is. It's sad, but hardly surprising.

nope no one will ever know for sure what Jesus actually thought about homosexuality. but since we are supposed to know him as non judgmentalist and accepting of everyone I would think he would see no harm in it.

and don't say because the bible tells you so. because the bible and what it says jesus believed can be argued for days and days and years and years.

["The United Nations is set to vote on a resolution that would call on all governments to decriminalize homosexuality."

And we take another step towards one world government.]

Right, 'cause homosexuality is wrong and therefore, gays and lesbians should be discriminated against for their personal lives and sent to jail for it. Oh please. If there is any one government that is forcing its will on other countries, it is the America government and its military presence around the world.

Janneth, you must have missed that part in the Bible that goes, "Love thy neighbor...unless he sleepeth with other men and hath an unnatural affection for Cher and Liza Minelli."

All kidding aside, I'm not surprised.

"Right, 'cause homosexuality is wrong and therefore, gays and lesbians should be discriminated against for their personal lives and sent to jail for it."

Actually, having one "body" dictate to the world what is right and wrong is one world government

"Oh please. If there is any one government that is forcing its will on other countries, it is the America government and its military presence around the world."

Actually, If the other countries would step up and help police the trouble areas in the world, the US wouldn't have to do it. Can anyone say Darfur?

I guess I was just naive enough to think that murder trumps homosexuality.

I'm not going to argue whether or not the UN should be enforcing this, cause I don't think that that is what this post is about. I just think it is sad that the church is backing the criminalization of homosexuality, especially considering that so many countries use death as a punishment.

Ok I can't not put my opinion in. Personally I don't think any revolution or change in a country can happen from the outside. I hate that in some countries people die for being gay, women are treated as less or that people don't have free speech, but I don't think you can tell people that they should feel outraged or push the people to action. Now once the people do revolt and gay people in these countries take a stance for equality, I see no problem with the UN or a more powerful ally helping that come in being.

The UN could pass this, but I don't think they have the ability to make it work. If that was the case all crimes against humanity would have stopped a long time ago.

hmmm...
i dont agree with the vatican's suggestion that it would pressure on anyone to legalize gay marriage. it would just be protecting gay people from police abuse and being tortured, fined or jailed.

im not sure this is a good use of the U.N.'s time though. the countries most affected (arab/muslim) don't seem likely to go for it. if anything it would make islamic terrorists angry that the western liberals and their evil sexually suggestive ways are attacking islam. they might start targetting the u.n. i know that many arabs and muslims are liberal and/or well educated and would agree with the u.n.'s proposal, (im not trying to make a blanket statement about the middle east or anything) but i do not think it is the right time for this. it will just be something to argue about. i will be very surprised if the powers of the middle east happily agree with this idea, but pleasantly surprised if i am wrong.

Not at all surprised, i am a proud Catholic but my church really needs to get with the prgram when it comes to sex, sexuality, contraception and the prevention of HIV.

i'm with nyaradzom2001

[Actually, having one "body" dictate to the world what is right and wrong is one world government]

Not exactly when there will always be various levels of government underneath that will trump the global decision, the national decision, the state decision, the region decision, down to the local decision.

[Actually, If the other countries would step up and help police the trouble areas in the world, the US wouldn't have to do it. Can anyone say Darfur?]

Maybe if we start trying to enforce laws that enact some sort of tolerance like the one UN is proposing for other people's differences and curbing the powers-that-be's greedy appetite, we won't see atrocities like Darfur occur.

Im not surprised one bit, this is the same "organization" that opposed contraceptives. I just want to live in a world were love is love no matter who is giving or receiving it. I fight with people all the time about how gay marriage should be legal and called marriage.... I just wish people weren't so damn ignorant and archaic.

I'm not surprised and while I think that this is something that the UN should fight for, I don't think it's a good idea to walk over these countries without having a conversation about it first because once enforced, discrimation won't stop there (not on paper anymore but generally) until these people have been CONVINCED that it's wrong to driscriminate against people based on their sexuality.

Sadly, yes. I understand the Bible is against homosexuality, but in 2008 you'd think the Vatican would consider preaching a better understanding of people and fighting AIDS a priority.

Actually, don't know why I'm surprised.

wow this is disgusting. Im a catholic and I would have never thought someone who believed so truly in God could ever think the way the vatican is thinking. What are the effin thinking? I really am surprised at this.

"Maybe if we start trying to enforce laws that enact some sort of tolerance like the one UN is proposing for other people's differences and curbing the powers-that-be's greedy appetite, we won't see atrocities like Darfur occur."

The problem is the word "we", as in the US. When "we" start "enforcing laws" we are called the bad guys. That's why the rest of the world needs to step up and help "enforce"

I would love to read the word "homesexual" in the bible...does anyone know where I could find it?

And this is why I left the Catholic Church

Absolute Disgusting Bullsh*t. But for my own health I will stay away from this thread.

As a Catholic, this is hard for me to swallow - it does seem from the article that the Church benignly accepts persecution of homosexuals.

But, taking a step back, I am not surprised at the position. First and foremost - yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality.

However, more than anything, the Church views gay marriage as a threat to the traditional family structure. Let me be clear - I do not believe that the Church sees gays families as threatening, rather it views homosexuality in the same way it views birth control - as another reason for people to engage in behavior that trivializes conception/the sanctity of life - which happens between people of the opposite sex. According to the Church, conception, i.e.: sex, should only happen between two people who have made vows before God and their community. The Church's position is that anything that trivializes the sex act is 1. sinful, and 2. bad for society at large.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with this opinion, but that is what the Catholic Church teaches.

As a Catholic, I understand the teaching, but have not come to terms with it. In my heart of hearts, I believe it is wrong to persecute homosexuals acts. I believe the final judgement should be left up to God.

"I'm not surprised but the Vatican would re-assess its priorities. They'd have their hands full for years if they actually paid as much attention to war, poverty and injustice as they do to sex."

steph - the Catholic Church is involved in a lot more things than abuse scandels and condemning homosexual acts.

Did you know that the Catholic Church was one of the first to speak out against the evils of slavery? Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have both been steadfast opponents to war, torture, and poverty. Both have been very vocal critics of Gitmo (there's that whole sanctity of life thing again), and the Church itself is one of the largest (if not the largest) charitable organizations in the world that works directly with the most oppressed and poverty-stricken areas on the planet (Mother Teresa would be an obvious example here).

Look into it before you criticize next time, please.

I've always found the argument for sex being for procreation not recreation to be extremely ironic. I mean down right hilarious. We're supposed to be above animal instincts, right, yet we're one of the few animals that has sex for fun and almost the only animal that has sex all year, on days we're not fertile and even after menopause. Most animals either die or stop having sex once their past child birthing years. When the female isn't fertile she doesn't show or release the chemical signal that says, "come get some" or inspires male arousal. Most animals have sex for a few minutes, no foreplay, and move on. Seriously humans are really sexual deviants if you study reproduction in other mammals. Really if God wanted us to be more puritanical he could have designed us, at least sexually, like every other species he designed.

That was not a critique of you Kranky, you just reminded me of that.
The Catholic Church does do loads of good, but they had to fight this cause after losing Spain to gay marriage. Keeps them angry and in the fighting spirit.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Haha so good. I would actually like to meet a Christian that lived by the Bible and I don't mean this selective bs. No, I mean %100.

OH MY GOSH! Runningesq you just made me spit out my orange juice. LOL!!!!!!!!

Jessie-

No prob! I always appreciate a debate.

Let me be clear - the Catholic Church acknowledges the importance of recreational sex in a healthy marriage. :truestory: My husband and I had to attend a retreat before we could be married in the Catholic Church. A priest as well as Catholic couples did various sessions and I swear we had one on the importance of sex and how to keep things spicy in the bedroom (they recommended specific games, books, and shops) - not at all what I was expecting.

There is a difference between having sex for soley recreational purposes, and having it for recreational purposes but understanding that conception can occur as a result. The Catholic Church is VERY protective of conception, and does not believe that couples should engage in sex without being responsible for any children that might come about.

And runningesq - you bring up some examples of Biblical lore that don't really translate well into the modern world. Being Catholic, I will fully admit that I don't have any defense for what you wrote (we tend to rely on the Church to tell us what's going on, rather than reading the Bible ourselves). However, I do think you are suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bath water on this one. Plus, all of the the examples you gave were Old Testament - God states that he sent Jesus because the OT laws were not translating well to human society.

I will also reiterate (even though you didn't name names), that I have extreme difficultly aligning myself with the Church's teachings on homosexual acts (in fact, I can't bring myself to accept them at all). That does not mean that I give myself carte blanche to throw off all of it's teachings. That is the meaning of being human - we are constantly questioning God.

I am going to post this because I suspect that readers are going to skip my overly-long post:

"And runningesq - you bring up some examples of Biblical lore that don't really translate well into the modern world. Being Catholic, I will fully admit that I don't have any defense for what you wrote (we tend to rely on the Church to tell us what's going on, rather than reading the Bible ourselves). However, I do think you are suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bath water on this one. Plus, all of the the examples you gave were Old Testament - God states that he sent Jesus because the OT laws were not translating well to human society."

Kranky in this economy if you can afford to both have sex recreationally and preserve conception, I give you kudos. Cause as fertile as my mom's side of the family is I would be in the poor house with a million kids if I were married. My mom is 55 and hasn't hit menopause. That is a lot of child bearing years.

Runningesq that was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!