<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Living In the Stone Age</title>
	<atom:link href="http://riteturnonly.com/2010/02/03/living-in-the-stone-age/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://riteturnonly.com/2010/02/03/living-in-the-stone-age/</link>
	<description>REBOOTED</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 03:49:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Len</title>
		<link>http://riteturnonly.com/2010/02/03/living-in-the-stone-age/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riteturnonly.com/?p=17#comment-19</guid>
		<description>You&#039;ve given me something to chew on ... I like that. :) I&#039;ll have to ponder this for awhile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;ve given me something to chew on &#8230; I like that. <img src='http://riteturnonly.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  I&#8217;ll have to ponder this for awhile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Savant</title>
		<link>http://riteturnonly.com/2010/02/03/living-in-the-stone-age/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Savant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riteturnonly.com/?p=17#comment-18</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re missing the point though.  The reason that this even looks bad is since people are trying to lump everything into one vague &#039;equal rights&#039; bag.  

Let&#039;s just pick out the most obvious, marriage, so I can indicate how things are already flawed.

Are you married?  Do you recall filling out a marriage application?  (if not, just read on)  In Canada, prior to the &#039;gay marriage&#039; battle, there was never anything stopping a gay person from getting married.  The marriage application had a spot for a man and a woman.  There was no box where you check off your sexual preference.  A gay man could marry a gay woman, and the government wouldn&#039;t have said a word.  Alternately a straight man would be denied the ability to marry another straight man.  So in the end marriage was very much fair and equal to everyone, since anyone could partake if they married someone of the opposite gender.  How is that not equal?  Surely you won&#039;t argue that &#039;love&#039; has a role in determining whether the government allows two people to get married.  The government has never cared what the two people feel for one another.  All they cared was that one was a man and another was a woman.

In any case, as I mentioned, it&#039;s far too easy to lump everything into some behemoth called &#039;equal rights&#039;, and then decry those who object to certain parts of it.  The Catholic church feels that homosexuals who stay celibate have done nothing wrong in the eyes of God.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re missing the point though.  The reason that this even looks bad is since people are trying to lump everything into one vague &#8216;equal rights&#8217; bag.  </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s just pick out the most obvious, marriage, so I can indicate how things are already flawed.</p>
<p>Are you married?  Do you recall filling out a marriage application?  (if not, just read on)  In Canada, prior to the &#8216;gay marriage&#8217; battle, there was never anything stopping a gay person from getting married.  The marriage application had a spot for a man and a woman.  There was no box where you check off your sexual preference.  A gay man could marry a gay woman, and the government wouldn&#8217;t have said a word.  Alternately a straight man would be denied the ability to marry another straight man.  So in the end marriage was very much fair and equal to everyone, since anyone could partake if they married someone of the opposite gender.  How is that not equal?  Surely you won&#8217;t argue that &#8216;love&#8217; has a role in determining whether the government allows two people to get married.  The government has never cared what the two people feel for one another.  All they cared was that one was a man and another was a woman.</p>
<p>In any case, as I mentioned, it&#8217;s far too easy to lump everything into some behemoth called &#8216;equal rights&#8217;, and then decry those who object to certain parts of it.  The Catholic church feels that homosexuals who stay celibate have done nothing wrong in the eyes of God.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Len</title>
		<link>http://riteturnonly.com/2010/02/03/living-in-the-stone-age/comment-page-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riteturnonly.com/?p=17#comment-17</guid>
		<description>Hi Savant and thanks for sharing your views. Political correctness is indeed another pet peeve of mine and one I&#039;ll surely address in due course. However, I&#039;m not so quick to equate &quot;the granting of equal rights to homosexuals&quot; by the Catholic church with succumbing to &quot;political correctness&quot;.

There are many examples of society adhering to particular views which have then changed over time. Is part of the reason PC? I have no doubt. But I think the main reason is simple evolution.

I realize the example I&#039;m about to cite is rather extreme but humour me. At one time it was thought homosexuals should be put to death. Thankfully, that is no longer the case, at least in the &quot;civilized&quot; world. This has nothing to do with PC. It&#039;s just a simple matter of morals and values evolving over time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Savant and thanks for sharing your views. Political correctness is indeed another pet peeve of mine and one I&#8217;ll surely address in due course. However, I&#8217;m not so quick to equate &#8220;the granting of equal rights to homosexuals&#8221; by the Catholic church with succumbing to &#8220;political correctness&#8221;.</p>
<p>There are many examples of society adhering to particular views which have then changed over time. Is part of the reason PC? I have no doubt. But I think the main reason is simple evolution.</p>
<p>I realize the example I&#8217;m about to cite is rather extreme but humour me. At one time it was thought homosexuals should be put to death. Thankfully, that is no longer the case, at least in the &#8220;civilized&#8221; world. This has nothing to do with PC. It&#8217;s just a simple matter of morals and values evolving over time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Savant</title>
		<link>http://riteturnonly.com/2010/02/03/living-in-the-stone-age/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Savant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://riteturnonly.com/?p=17#comment-16</guid>
		<description>The problem with religion is that when you start changing it to suit the politically correct notions of the day, it ceases to become religion.  The Vatican&#039;s objection (with respect to equal homosexual rights) relate to the usual issues like marriage and adoption, as well as being forced to hire and/or ordain gay priests etc.  The Catholic Church has always taken the stance that they feel NO ONE mistreated because of their racial background or sexual preference.  

As one Archbishop noted &quot;The Church, of course, upholds absolutely the equal dignity of every person irrespective of their faith, age, ability and so on.&quot;

The Vatican isn&#039;t saying anything about homosexuality that they haven&#039;t said all along.  Frankly, homosexuals have more rights than a religious person does anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with religion is that when you start changing it to suit the politically correct notions of the day, it ceases to become religion.  The Vatican&#8217;s objection (with respect to equal homosexual rights) relate to the usual issues like marriage and adoption, as well as being forced to hire and/or ordain gay priests etc.  The Catholic Church has always taken the stance that they feel NO ONE mistreated because of their racial background or sexual preference.  </p>
<p>As one Archbishop noted &#8220;The Church, of course, upholds absolutely the equal dignity of every person irrespective of their faith, age, ability and so on.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Vatican isn&#8217;t saying anything about homosexuality that they haven&#8217;t said all along.  Frankly, homosexuals have more rights than a religious person does anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
