johnny9fingers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
johnny9fingers) wrote2010-02-01 05:27 pm
johnny9fingers) wrote2010-02-01 05:27 pm
Ah, Benny
I see Pope Benny has been critical of the UK's modern stance on Homosexual rights:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill
Calling the government's position being 'against natural law': no doubt referencing Aquinas.
I may have mentioned this before, but evidently the good doctor Thomas Aquinas didn't know about homosexuality in the animal world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Natural Law. Hmm. What's that when it's at home? And why do folk who object to homosexuality keep referencing it when all the evidence seems to indicate that the law of nature leads to many many instances of homosexuality in animals. In fact, the behaviour of animals in nature doesn't back up the anti-homosexual rights position at all or in any way.
So pleased about the idea of Papal Infallibility. It makes the rest of the institution quite ridiculous. Bliss bliss bliss. As it happens, in the same speech Benny praises 'Britain's firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all'. To separate LBGT folk from this 'equality' on the basis of some spurious religious prohibition or belief standing in for the guardianship of natural law is a trifle....disingenuous really, isn't it? Especially when nature abounds in gay giraffes, and buggering bison, not to mention sodomitical sheep, queer ducks, poofy penguins, sashaying swans, and the full panoply of nature's innocents engaging in 'unnatural' acts.
Get some sensible advisor to check Benny's speeches from here on in, I reckon. 'Natural Acts' and 'Natural Law' may or may not map upon each other as sets, but to derive a concept of 'Natural Law' which ignores the evidence of 'natural acts' is folly, surely?
Oh dear, have I been nasty about poor Tom? I hope not. He was a clever chap, alas rather ignorant of animal behaviour. Which is not to say I disagree with the idea of natural law, or am a behaviourist or otherwise....just I don't derive the rules that govern my behaviour from the behaviours of animals, nor less from my prejudices about how animals should behave.
.
Benny should have praised the UK's commitment to equality, but then added that of course, according to his theology, gay folk should be denied that equality.
That is, after all, what we need: selective equality based on heterosexuality.
Isn't it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill
Calling the government's position being 'against natural law': no doubt referencing Aquinas.
I may have mentioned this before, but evidently the good doctor Thomas Aquinas didn't know about homosexuality in the animal world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Natural Law. Hmm. What's that when it's at home? And why do folk who object to homosexuality keep referencing it when all the evidence seems to indicate that the law of nature leads to many many instances of homosexuality in animals. In fact, the behaviour of animals in nature doesn't back up the anti-homosexual rights position at all or in any way.
So pleased about the idea of Papal Infallibility. It makes the rest of the institution quite ridiculous. Bliss bliss bliss. As it happens, in the same speech Benny praises 'Britain's firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all'. To separate LBGT folk from this 'equality' on the basis of some spurious religious prohibition or belief standing in for the guardianship of natural law is a trifle....disingenuous really, isn't it? Especially when nature abounds in gay giraffes, and buggering bison, not to mention sodomitical sheep, queer ducks, poofy penguins, sashaying swans, and the full panoply of nature's innocents engaging in 'unnatural' acts.
Get some sensible advisor to check Benny's speeches from here on in, I reckon. 'Natural Acts' and 'Natural Law' may or may not map upon each other as sets, but to derive a concept of 'Natural Law' which ignores the evidence of 'natural acts' is folly, surely?
Oh dear, have I been nasty about poor Tom? I hope not. He was a clever chap, alas rather ignorant of animal behaviour. Which is not to say I disagree with the idea of natural law, or am a behaviourist or otherwise....just I don't derive the rules that govern my behaviour from the behaviours of animals, nor less from my prejudices about how animals should behave.
.
Benny should have praised the UK's commitment to equality, but then added that of course, according to his theology, gay folk should be denied that equality.
That is, after all, what we need: selective equality based on heterosexuality.
Isn't it?