The Pope and same sex civil unions

[darkeyes]

The Pope's statement about civil unions a couple of days ago should be very heartening to all in the queeriverse. Whether or not he survives the inevitable conservative reaction, and whether the civil unions policy survives his retirement or death, only time will tell. It is however a sign that liberal sexual attitudes are not yet a thing of the past, and that the LGBTQ are still making their mark in changing our world.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/22/pope-francis-same-sex-unions-surprise-gay-people

[Footstep40]

We as a society have a long way to go still. The religious aspect of marriage is honestly where it should stay, it’s the government’s involvement in these matters that need to go away. Am I jaded? Yes. Back in 98 when my ex husband and I wanted to get married finding someone to officiate our marriage wasn’t an issue, making it legal obviously was. I know that there are still a few countries where this is still the case, maybe the pope’s views will cause a few changes, but I’m not holding my breath!

[darkeyes]

Not all marriage is religious, and neither should it be. Civil marriage has existed for over a couple of centuries and religious institutions in the West at least have become subservient to it. The churches had argued that same sex unions cannot be considered marriages but this argument has been on shaky ground since it was first made and while it still continues to be made has been overtaken by events in Europe and elsewhere.

I am an atheist and it is irrelevant to me whether a marriage is religious or secular, considered a marriage or a union of whether they exist and take place or not. What matters is that the participants have choice. Millions of Lgbtq non str8 peeps of faith want that choice and, in part, the Pope has gone part way to recognising their right to choose as have many smaller mainstream churches around the world. Many churches have accepted their right to marriage, some even marrying in their churches, officiated by their ministers.

It isn't that long ago we could seriously hope for any of that. It is thanks to political institutions, pressured by electorates that brought this about.. Electorates of all sexualities which dragged some governments and parliaments with them and some which led their electorates. So I don't go along with u on keeping government out of things.. Many around still have to dragged into the modern age even now, but so long as we organise into societies small and large, rules will be made by governments and parliaments (not always democratic ones) for good and ill. Like it or lump it, that's just how it is.

[Jazminedress]

I think there is a few issues, it assumes people who are NOT straight heterosexual are all liberal and that conservatives just by nature hate everything LGBTQ. Unfortunately, like everything else, it has now become a political tool using the media.

I just read an article on how republicans are at war with LGBTQ and took away medical protections. When you get past the headline, those medical protections, and forgive me if I dont have the wording correct.

"A doctor must treat a trans person by the gender they identify as " The way the rules are written were stupid. A trans male to female will never have a cervix, and a female to male will never have a prostate, its really that simple, and you need to be medically treated based on your actual DNA, NOT how you feel. So what was the consequence, OBGYN's getting sued because they refused to treat a biological male.

We had 8 years of a liberal democrat white house, 2 years with a super majority, a stroke of the pen recognizing civil unions at the federal level, with same recognitions would have forced all states to recognize it, but it never happened or became an issue until it was a talking point against the other side.

As a former Catholic, what this pope is doing and has done is obvious to many of us. The Catholic church needs asses in the pews, as it brings money into the coffers, too many of us, this Pope is a tabloid pople who does and says what ever it takes to get his name in the papers

[void()]

This with his announcement that The Church will accept atheists are large and bold moves. The fear I would have is a "Black Pope" might try assassinating this benevolent Holy See.

Me and wife had a civil union. We held it in her grandfather's church. The judge honored our secular vows.

We were married as we chose and yet still gave the appearance of tradition to our families. I am bisexual, wife is straight. We do not "cheat" as we're openly honest about relationships. Nor do we engage with cheaters as far as we're aware.

She's pagan/Wicca, I'm finally settled as soft agnostic atheist. I don't know any deity exists or doesn't exist, I don't care either. I do not encroach my beliefs or lack of them on others, appreciate theirs not encroached on me. To me that's a private issue. Secular society in my humble view allows equality, fraternity, liberty.

Good seeing you again, Bonny lass. :)

[void()]

"A doctor must treat a trans person by the gender they identify as " The way the rules are written were stupid. A trans male to female will never have a cervix, and a female to male will never have a prostate, its really that simple, and you need to be medically treated based on your actual DNA, NOT how you feel. So what was the consequence, OBGYN's getting sued because they refused to treat a biological male.

I agree that such an issue does infer a great deal of seeming stupidity. On the other hand I can also agree people deserve a fair right to be treated as they desire. Having mixed thoughts on this I will abstain from more discourse on it. Suffice to say I can clearly see both sides of the issue and think both have valid merits.

Yes, I know you cross dress. My apologies but if hypothetically I saw you out in a dress and you appeared as a lady. I would treat you as a lady if you so expressed desire. If instead you desired treated as a gent, I would do that.

Now, if someone is a butterfly person, I'd show them that same respect granted to you. That's simply how I view things. I treat people as people. All equally divine if you want to think along those lines, all deserving of respect.

Again, my apologies. Suppose I was taught and brought up good.

[Jazminedress]

I agree that such an issue does infer a great deal of seeming stupidity. On the other hand I can also agree people deserve a fair right to be treated as they desire. Having mixed thoughts on this I will abstain from more discourse on it. Suffice to say I can clearly see both sides of the issue and think both have valid merits.

Yes, I know you cross dress. My apologies but if hypothetically I saw you out in a dress and you appeared as a lady. I would treat you as a lady if you so expressed desire. If instead you desired treated as a gent, I would do that.

Now, if someone is a butterfly person, I'd show them that same respect granted to you. That's simply how I view things. I treat people as people. All equally divine if you want to think along those lines, all deserving of respect.

Again, my apologies. Suppose I was taught and brought up good.

a polite person, something missing in this world and so nice to see. Many times good and smart ideas get corrupted by sillyness.

[void()]

a polite person, something missing in this world and so nice to see. Many times good and smart ideas get corrupted by sillyness.

Well, I can enjoy a fair share of silliness at times. I'm watching Three Stooges on Airy TV this morning. Marx Brothers they're not but the Stoogies manage some chuckles. :)

Yes, I understand your meaning though. Silliness has its place and time. We definitely should not have it in civil policy. I still think hugs as greetings better than handshakes, that aside, demanding hugs become the standard civil greeting would be wrong and yes silly.

Not that I deign on becoming any form of "leader" what could impress such a demand. Then, here we are at subjectivity too. What defines being a leader? In my humble view the best leader lives creating an example, not "leading" at all. Ah, but then I'm too rounded. *chuckles* I'm obtuse enough you can overlook me.

[KDaddy23]

I read what the Pope had to say about this and my first thought was, "It's about damned time they got in touch with reality!" My second thought was, "I wonder what's really going on with this; the Church has staunchly been against anything that even hints at homosexuality." Not being Catholic, I can't really speak to Vatican politics but it has always seemed to me that when he speaks on something, that's the final word on the matter and if you don't like or agree with it, you just don't. I've seen words here like liberal and conservative and I'm not even sure they apply to the Holy See and as they do in US politics. If the Pope, who is "da man" for all Catholics on the planet, has said that gay folks have the right to be married - and I'm still kinda surprised at this - now it's all about whether or not Catholics, in particular, are going to accept this... verbal change in church doctrine. Anyone, regardless of religion or politics, who doesn't believe that they should be allowed to marry, well, that's what they believe and no one, not even the Pope, is going to change their minds about that. To me, it doesn't matter why he said what he did: He said it and now it's time to sit back and see what happens after the fact.

[tenni]

What the Pope writes or speaks is primarily for Roman Catholics but his edicts seems to affect "non believers". The term "non believers" was used when I was a child attending mass. My mother was Catholic and my father was Protestant. Their marriage was referred to as a "Mixed Marriage". My father had to convert to Catholicism before they could marry in the church. They had to agree to raise any children Catholic. We were educated in a Protestant (public) school but attended weekly Catechism from the age of five. I never felt that I belonged when I would see other Catholic kids chatting after mass. I did not know these kids. The only Catholic kids that I got to know were my Catholic cousins who lived three hours away from my home. I had to say the Protestant "Lord's Prayer" week days at school and the Catholic version at Catechism and Mass. It was a bit confusing. I stopped going to Mass around 15 and my mother let me. I quit when a priest could not give me a good reason why I had to eat fish and non meat on Friday's to my understanding. I was also permitted to "visit" Anglican church with a buddy. A couple of times "the" parish priest would come to our house and try to convince my mother to send us to a Catholic school(it impacted the municipal taxes if you were a Catholic or Public school supporter). Funny thing was that my father was conveniently absent when the priest came. He only went to church at Christmas as you had to maintain your Catholicism by attending church at least once a year.

When the Pope makes such statements, what is above shows how rigid the Church was. I know that some Protestant churches are even more strict about dogma on raising kids and spirituality. This marriage edict by the Pope is a good thing but I don't think that civil marriages have anything to do with a trans person's life unless they are Catholic. Gender is not sexuality. Once a Catholic always a Catholic(deep down). Jewish and Catholic guilt are quite similar. Both inbred guilt into the members of the Church/Synagoge.

[void()]

I know that some Protestant churches are even more strict about dogma on raising kids and spirituality. This marriage edict by the Pope is a good thing but I don't think that civil marriages have anything to do with a trans person's life unless they are Catholic. Gender is not sexuality. Once a Catholic always a Catholic(deep down). Jewish and Catholic guilt are quite similar. Both inbred guilt into the members of the Church/Synagoge.

My grandfather did not attend any church in particular. Though I can point you to the books of Timothy (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Timothy&version=NKJV) in the New Testament as how my Pap was a Christian. My mom attended Baptist church at times with my stepdad's mom.

My mom had her sons go for two weeks each Summer to a Mennonite Bible study (daily) camps. The Mennonite church we attended was called Sunrise Mountain. It was well back in the wood, up on top of fair sized hill. You could indeed bask in sunrises there.

Mom never had us baptized in any faith. While we attended the Mennonite retreat, we would go for a week out to help our sister Amish church. The children went to PA from VA, all with parental consent. The boys helped the men raise barns, houses. The girls and women kept the boys and men fed, with drink.

The Mennonite priest instead of discouraging a young boy from questioning faith encouraged him. "I have no more answers for you. You need to find them yourself. I cannot tell you to stop asking. I cannot say it is against God. No, God has made you ask," he told me. Now, having grown up I come to where I am in my lack of belief.

When I did serve in boot camp, I attended a Catholic Mass but was not allowed sacrament. I also attended what would pass as a Muslim mass. I was welcomed openly, fed well, given company. I witnessed a "brother" achieve the rite of his manhood in the Muslim faith.

I have also studied and attended some Satanic rites. And of course, I've enjoyed Taoism, Buddhism for a while each respectively. Have also delved into some Gnostism.

My point is I like you know of the guilt some religions instill in their followers. I do not agree that any religion holds right to do such. That is possibly my view of governing coming to play. I do not hold to the mentality of slaves, masters, kings, serfs.

Why then by extension would I choose that for religion or spirituality? I would not. That likely explains why I am where I am in that regard.

That does not excuse me though from respecting, or at the least being tolerant of the beliefs of others. At the same time I am not tolerant of others being intolerant, or disrespectful of my belief, or lack of it.

In my respect, I often avoid saying much of beliefs. I don't talk lightly of them. As expressed, yes, I am inclined to be a "polite" person. I blame my Pap, he showed me how to live. :)

I'll leave this here, just something I've come to enjoy. I appreciate this fellow's music and spirit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVztZI-OMUg

It would be very well to see this song be number one.

Ultimately, in my humble opinion, love is love and I see no need of any government, or religion to stop it. Love is a rare virtue. It ought to be left to its own accord. Pardon my borrowing of the Wicca creed but, "an it harm none, so mote it be."

You can disagree with my views. I'll kindly agree to disagree with you. We can then both respectfully "wash our hands" of one another. I'll let you be on your merry as I go mine. Naught a word more will I foist your (you in the general sense, not you specifically tenni.) way.

[tenni]

"My point is I like you know of the guilt some religions instill in their followers. I do not agree that any religion holds right to do such."
Void
My experience is perhaps a little selective. I do think that guilt was used in denying civil marriage and several other things done to control the Catholic. I understand that much of what I experienced is no longer there and that is supported by how the Church now seems willing to accept same sex relationships because of of God's children deserve to be loved. That is a huge change. Francis is special and from the order dealing with the values of St. Francis(I think?) The old guard is there though and ready to cancel his changes if they are not smart. Even Catholics will not be controlled with dogma.

Your experiences with Mennonites matches mine. The mennonites that I encountered for two decades were not the Amish buggy drivers. They used the simplicity of their experience and merged it to contemporary society. They drove cars etc. but had a lovely simplicity towards humanity and love. They also generally had a lot of good laughs including joking about their own foibles. I worked with a lot of them and their values did affect the rest of us as they ended up in a lot of positions of authority. Lovely people and most Catholics held to dogma until recently....not as lovely generally.

PS I think that I heard that in today's Church you would be welcome to take the host in to your hands and then your hands to your mouth. No wine except to select people helping with the mass(could be wrong but I thought I saw that at a high Catholic funeral mass this year)

[void()]

Your experiences with Mennonites matches mine. The mennonites that I encountered for two decades were not the Amish buggy drivers. They used the simplicity of their experience and merged it to contemporary society. They drove cars etc. but had a lovely simplicity towards humanity and love. They also generally had a lot of good laughs including joking about their own foibles. I worked with a lot of them and their values did affect the rest of us as they ended up in a lot of positions of authority. Lovely people and most Catholics held to dogma until recently....not as lovely generally.

Yes, the Mennonites I grew up around drove cars. They preferred simple black cars, seeming a policy. They dressed modestly, jeans, nice clean shirts. And yes, I recall a lot of joking and very much a sense of ease around this generally pastoral people. Whereas the Amish were more beheld to dogma. They did use carts and buggies. Some Mennonites in our area used carts and buggies too.

Around the Shenandoah Valley region is an interesting place as far as various peoples. There's James Madison University and Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg. One teaches from a secular view the other from a religious view. We get a lot of doctors and nurses, lawyers graduating. The nurses also can come from the vocational school. As said, it's a diverse area.

My mom explained that she gave us our own religious freedom. She did want us out of respect to at least give Christianity a go until eighteen. She said, "my house my rule, probably the only hard one I have. Once you get that old, it's up to you." I never felt forced to it, nor did feel indoctrinated.

When I returned from serving, the Mennonites had a big "social" at the church. When the priest gestured for the alter to be "out", I got up and walked to just outside the door jam. The priest hollered out to ask if I could still hear. I nodded. He had his sermon. My best friend asked his aunt "Bonny" why I needed to go outside. She calmly hushed him saying it would be explained.

Sermon over the alter was covered and two "brothers" took up watch. I did not feel disrespected nor encroached on. I knew though had I approached the alter, the brothers would have taken me out of the church. As I explained to my friend, "I broke the Mennonite covenant. I went to fight. Mennonites leave that for God." So in their eyes I was too dirty for the alter, the sacrament.

Again, it comes to being respectful, polite. It was this though, which resolved my view of religion in general. If people can say I'm not fit for any deity then I'm not fit for those people, conversely are they or their deity fit for me? And no, that isn't meant sarcastically or maliciously.


PS I think that I heard that in today's Church you would be welcome to take the host in to your hands and then your hands to your mouth. No wine except to select people helping with the mass(could be wrong but I thought I saw that at a high Catholic funeral mass this year)

*ahem* Pardon, seems awfully white of them. Apologies for a bit of a slur. *shaking my head*

I suppose though you could not eat the Host as you can not be washed in the Blood. And yes, I understand the reservedness. Understanding it and holding to it though, well, ... on my merry thank you. http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png Think you can discern my view, so I'll digress.

You still keeping busy?

[void()]

PS I think that I heard that in today's Church you would be welcome to take the host in to your hands and then your hands to your mouth. No wine except to select people helping with the mass(could be wrong but I thought I saw that at a high Catholic funeral mass this year)

*ahem* Pardon, seems awfully white of them. Apologies for a bit of a slur. *shaking my head*

I suppose though you could not eat the Host as you can not be washed in the Blood. And yes, I understand the reservedness. Understanding it and holding to it though, well, ... on my merry thank you. :) Think you can discern my view, so I'll digress.

You still keeping busy?

[tenni]

Void
NO......you are not suppose to "eat" the host. No teeth marks from eating the host. It was to melt in your mouth with religious overtones of "his body" in to your body. (all with no breakfast...:)

Again, I had no kids to raze and jokes about the nuns and priests with other kids. I strongly believed this! Confession is wild! No taking the host without going to confession first. I think that now you can go take the host without Confession as long as no major sins(mortal sins)..like killing someone)

I'm doing well enough. Good to see you dropping by. I hope that you are well. What was your friend's name(Elian or ?)

[void()]

I'm doing well enough. Good to see you dropping by. I hope that you are well. What was your friend's name(Elian or ?)

Yes, that was him. Me and he have drifted apart. Still have feelings for him. Life as it often does sees people go in different paths. As far as I'm aware he met a nice guy nearer to him. I'm happy he did in all sincerity. We both kind of need someone closer. Not found anyone myself but I think that's likely from me being selective, reserved. *chuckles* Still not exactly a social butterfly.

Been having rounds of highly erotic dreams about another man. We met upon waking up in the same bed. He was about draped over me and entwined. Neither of us asked if anything had happened but we both smiled at each other. I got the impression he wouldn't have cared if anything did happen. It was a hunting trip. I had passed out in the bed. His dad sent him in to bunk with me when he got in for his leave.

When everyone went out for the hunt the next day we got paired up as well. We took a ridge line and knew where each other were positioned. Our "job" was to clear the deer down and out of the ridge for the others. We could have taken deer as well but it seemed we both were keen to be drivers. Difficult to ensure clean shooting when walking in flank of a partner through brush. He was too cute to shoot, well, at least in that way. :oh:

So yes, been waking with dreams of him in my mind of a few mornings of late. I wake almost feeling him draped over me and behind me. It's a rather pleasant way to gradually wake up. :)

[darkeyes]

Most of us have dreams of peeps we waken up to.. I'm no different. I wake up dreaming of more than one but one is my bestest. Me own fault I'm not with her ne more but I am who I am and couldn't help meself..

.. But reading u two is a reminder that I'm ever so glad the bug of religious belief was never rammed down me throat and that I never picked it up!! That isn't to demean what u believed or believe merely glad I don't have ne of it. Not believing was never rammed down me throat either.. I was taught religion and lack of it at home and at school, but never told whether or not ne was true.. Only that religions, agnosticism and atheism are belief systems which millions buy into.. but millions dont, and that I should make up me own mind. Which I had very early in me teens.

Millions believe in a God (or Gods) and millions happen to be Roman Catholics.. Millions of Roman Catholics are gay, bi, trans, intersex and everything else and so what the leader of the largest Christian denomination says is important to those people and by extension to millions of non RC Christians and ultimately to all human beings whether or not all agree with him on the issue.

[CurEUs_Male]

For some reason I remember the battle cry in the 70's that 'those people' could have civil unions, and not marriage. I expected to see that brought up across social media and in news articles once I heard this piece from the pope... my wife seemed to think this was the beset thing ever, and yet I remember some other "separate but equal" laws in the USA that were certainly separate and not at all equal.

The fact that the catholic church treats marriage as a sacrament, and yet the same language is used by the governments, and gives over 1000 legal benefits to those married (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201804/unearned-privilege-1000-laws-benefit-only-married-people)... that you cannot simply separate.

While I am glad the leader of the catholic church is now only about 50 years behind the times, but is catching up... we cannot expect some separate language to provide the same legal coverage, which is key in at least one country.

[Jozyxt]

The Pope's statement about civil unions a couple of days ago should be very heartening to all in the queeriverse. Whether or not he survives the inevitable conservative reaction, and whether the civil unions policy survives his retirement or death, only time will tell. It is however a sign that liberal sexual attitudes are not yet a thing of the past, and that the LGBTQ are still making their mark in changing our world.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/22/pope-francis-same-sex-unions-surprise-gay-people

This is not a reform. The Catholic Church is promoting separate and unequal status for anyone that doesn't fit their narrow minded attitudes. I and doubt they will ever do anything else. The Catholic Church remains a corrupt and regressive force in the world.

[darkeyes]

This is not a reform. The Catholic Church is promoting separate and unequal status for anyone that doesn't fit their narrow minded attitudes. I and doubt they will ever do anything else. The Catholic Church remains a corrupt and regressive force in the world.None of us know for sure what is in the mind of the Pope or how much support he has for his support of civil unions. Trust me I have much sympathy for what u say, but being an optimist, I hope for the best. The Catholic Church is corrupt and regressive but so are many of the other churches around the world..as are many of the various branches of Islam, of Hinduism, Buddism, Judaism among others.. That does not mean that what the Pope says is not important. It is.. It may or may not stand the test of time. Many mainstream western religious institutions are putting their money where their mouth is in varying degrees. Like u I doubt the Roman Catholic Church, but they may yet surprise us just as many other Christian denominations have done. Can the Pope and his church be trusted? Who can tell??? I never thought that the Kirk could be up here but it is showing me something different from what I expected.. Fingers x'd..hope springs eternal..

[void()]

That does not mean that what the Pope says is not important. It is.. I never thought that the Kirk could be up here but it is showing me something different from what I expected.. Fingers x'd..hope springs eternal..

I agree what he says seems of importance as he is in authority over the belief currently. That noted we still wait to see what the kirk will do. Appreciate yer faith in hope, optimism yet remind ye o' Socrates. He said one who expects hope to offer a feast will dine on starvation. He of course, said lot else. I still ply faith to hope meself. :)

[Jozyxt]

I understand your position. The current pope has been a long time supporter of "civil unions" from his days as a cardinal in Argentina. One main problem is that Catholicism has transitioned from being a medieval scholastic European religion to being one with most members in poor nations with very conservative, traditional bigoted values. The commitment to reason that the European church has held since Aquinas seems to have dissipated. I don't hold out much hope that one Pope can change that. Or that this pope can, as his socialist views are completely without reasoned support.

But I do hope your optimism is the way it works out over my pessimism.

[darkeyes]

Not so long ago most Europeans, both ethnic and continental held pretty bigoted ideas about queer peeps.. too many still do, but hardly most. Half a century ago I doubt if many could have seen the progress we have made, whether or not they support lgbti progress. So I am reasonably optimistic that in those poor countries where progress needs to be made, it shall be however things look now.

I'm not sure that the Catholic church was ever committed to reason.. Even now it is bereft of much of what I consider reason.. Pope Francis may be the man to change that.. Is he a socialist? He certainly has socialist sympathies, but whether he can be considered such I have me doubts!! However, simply the fact that he has sympathies means many of his views are reasoned, something in my view confirmed by many of his public utterances, and the fact that he was elected Pontiff demonstrates that he has some support in the church hierarchy because he is able to argue logically and coherently for the things he believes in to bring people with him. Whether enough is open to question.

The Pope's reasoned support btw, I would argue is far more reasoned and has far more substance and thought behind it on many (secular) issues than the insanity and greed of policies pursued by the present non socialist leaders of the US, the UK, India, Brazil, Turkey, Hungary or Poland to name but a few. The policies of China and Russia are a bit bonkers too to name but another 2.

What does the wee Scots tart know? Nowt.. Didn't Socrates say summat about true wisdom is knowing nowt, Voidie? Must come wiv being a Socialist... me mum thinks I'm a know it all an' all. But with does she kno? She is a socialist 2.. lapsed Catholic as well.. she likes the Pope. Thinks he talks much more sense than lil ole me.. talks a lot less an' all...💏

[void()]

Didn't Socrates say summat about true wisdom is knowing nowt, Voidie?

Aye, he did at that. The greatest knowledge lies in knowing you know naught. I too often realize I don't know even half of nothing. *chuckles* World keeps spinning, life keeps living. :)

[JimmyPlays]

Wow! Now there's something you don't see everyday. A whole lot of intellectuals out in the daylight. I'm impressed. So the Pope has moved the rudder and his ship takes a turn. Ok, that's History made. It's amazing to see this can happen in our day and age.

When reading what our biggest brains have said about what the Homosapien's nature is and what it takes to change it. I think the Pope has done just that. My concept says this is something of a deja vu moment. There's not much that will disprove these Sapiens (us) were not into same-sex from their beginning. Back when there was no myth of religion or myth of righteousness but just a curious and cleaver animal, we Sapiens couldn't really know who's child belonged to whom. Mothers knew their child, but Fathers? that would be very unlikely. Women birthed as early as 12 and gave a child 15+ times before her death at ~25. Women gave off the smell from their esters when they're ripe, when their biology said so. Men had no such metric and they still don't. Four men would fuck one woman. And why not, she was driven to procreate by her own biology and she wasn't about to take a chance and miss a pregnancy. Men fuck when women were ready. All of the adult men showed up, every single time. All the animals in that world did the same and so did we humans. How could they not? Men followed the woman's trigger and men also had their own trigger and still do. So without the woman's trigger (she's not in heat), what do the men do with their trigger? (they got to fuck). Ask a Gay man, why do you fuck guys? ans, because it feels so damn good, and it always has. The deja vu here is that this has happened all along.

The Pope is a smart guy. He may have come to the same conclusion, that the Nature of Man can be changed.

Modern man! Who we kidding?

[void()]

All the animals in that world did the same and so did we humans. How could they not? The deja vu here is that this has happened all along.

The Pope is a smart guy. He may have come to the same conclusion, that the Nature of Man can be changed.

Modern man! Who we kidding?

Not sure I would be deemed intellectual. My kidneys don't use parallel processing. :)

Do agree though. Human beings for all their raging against it are as animal as any other animal on Earth. Nature pays no mind to homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality. Animals enjoy each other's company Nature says "so what?" Why should humans be any different?

And yeah, how funny we think ourselves so "modern".