Vatican: OK with killing gays

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 4:56 AM GMT
    Sorry for the sensationalist title. Couldn't help myself icon_twisted.gif The title might have been better as: Vatican OK with respecting countries rights to oppress gays




    this week the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations, said the Holy See would oppose a resolution that would protect gays from being killed just because they are gay, because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.


    The French resolution, scheduled to be proposed this week, recommends protecting Gays and Lesbians from being jailed or killed because of their sexual orientation and is being introduced to the UN on behalf of the European Union.

    But Archbishop Celestino Migliore said, if adopted, the resolution would create “new and implacable discriminations," and also said that states which do not recognize same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an objects of pressure.

    However, the French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, says absolutely nothing about gay marriage; it is about ending jail and death penalty sentences gays yet face in more than 85 countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen where you can still be killed for being gay.


    http://lezgetreal.com/2008/12/vatican-opposed-to-united-nations.html


    So. When do we get to hear about the resolution asking the Vatican to kindly pull up stake and head to god's kingdom? I mean it exists right... why can't all the followers just head home? icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:01 AM GMT
    I am holding out for a third Vatican council.

    Until then I poop on the church.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:13 AM GMT
    This is so... just... wrong... I'm not even sure where to start.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:20 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidI am holding out for a third Vatican council.

    Until then I poop on the church.


    The Vatican is a good place ... for me to poop on!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:22 AM GMT
    GwgTrunks saidThis is so... just... wrong... I'm not even sure where to start.



    How about something along the head lines of they're the hell spawn described in the Bibles they carry.



    www.g0ys.org"So standing in God's presence (or at least on His planet), the fundamentalist, glancing over at the NON-REPUBLICAN, (& checking his own posture to make sure his erection was tightly contained) - wrent his best Goodwill-suit-jacket & declared "God have mercy on that sodomite over there! Oh what a wretched man that he is! Who shall deliver him from his body of death...Hmmm - maybe Moses...".



    Little g0y joke, very little.... ( there it goes...) icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:27 AM GMT
    I wonder what the US position is? And will the UN vote happen before or after President Obama's inauguration, when a new US Ambassador to the UN will be appointed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 6:38 AM GMT
    If only those dirty old Cardinals knew what they were missing! icon_redface.gif

    Seriously, that message was totally bullshit and they are playing the fear game, just as Prop 8 did, to win oppression. Nothing like that would happen and it's really sick to see the Catholic Church do exactly what they did centuries ago - playing the politics game. I wish churches would stick to what the actual words of their gospels say instead of reorganize those words into their own personal opinions. It will never end and that's why I believe firmly in the seperation of church and state. For the lies the churches spout alone, they should have no place in government...much less the other benefits as a Democratic society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 7:07 AM GMT
    So, the Catholic Church is saying they can't oppose murdering gays because doing so would risk promoting gay marriage.

    If opposing murderous homophobia and supporting gay marriage rights are really inextricable as they claim, you would think Vatican officials would conclude that it's better to support governments that legalize gay marriage than it is to allow all this violence, since murder is so blatantly immoral and eliminates the victims' chances of obtaining salvation. Surprise! They don't.

    What's interesting is that their own causal theory (opposing these murders leads to increased incidence of gay marriage) undermines their central argument about gay marriage. They say they want only heterosexual marriage legalized because it promotes a better society. Which is the better society, the one with gay marriage and low rates of homophobic violence, or the one with no gay marriage and high rates of homophobic violence?

    edit: Just to add a further inference, it implies that the Catholic Church is willing to have us die to protect *their* beliefs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 7:38 AM GMT
    This is something that I just can't get. I wrote my called my pastor an e-mail yesterday and then talked to him today about it hoping for some clarification; an item left out in the reports that would explain it better. Unfortunately, nothing. I explained how this was going to be viewed and that frankly it would usher in a hefty rip-tide of anti-Catholic discourse, and I am grateful that he understood. Nonetheless, he couldn't defend it either. It is a rather brash move too to be made so publicly moreso now then ever (in the midst of our gay-rights law drama in California, Arizona, and Florida).

    hm...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 7:44 AM GMT
    Good, let the child-molesting, hate-mongering Roman Catholic Church be exposed for what it is. And let it be associated with murdering gays in defense of straight marriage. Evil cannot long be disguised.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 8:16 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidGood, let the child-molesting, hate-mongering Roman Catholic Church be exposed for what it is. And let it be associated with murdering gays in defense of straight marriage. Evil cannot long be disguised.


    Yes, I agree with this completely. The Vatican is a tool for evil, in the strongest secular sense of that word, and even more corrupt than they were before the Reformation. They have been especially evil since John Paul I was murdered by a cadre of conservatives from the Vatican Bank the day before he was to pass some edicts about its reform. Since John Paul II came to power shortly after the murder, he got rid of all the liberal cardinals and replaced them with far right wing supporters. Now that the little Nazi, Ratzinger, is the Pope there is very little chance that any Vatican III council will change a thing.

    If you want to know more about this evil force in our world, here are two books that will spell out the whole story.

    The Power and the Glory, Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II’s Vatican

    And

    In God’s Name, both books by David Yallop

    P.S. I do not use the word Nazi lightly. It is very well known that Ratzinger was a brown shirt during the world war.
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Dec 05, 2008 1:01 PM GMT
    If you want a prototypical example of hypocrisy, look at the Vatican. The so called right to life church is now advocating the permissibility of murder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 2:14 PM GMT
    Worse, it's another example of closeted, self-loathing gays in positions of power oppressing regular gays of the general populace.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 2:53 PM GMT
    Well, let's see you put on one of those darling little frocks without oppressing someone. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 2:55 PM GMT
    well, all i can say is, surprise surprise- the vatican= conservative, and conservative= conservation/preservation of the status quo... and the clinging to outmoded ideals.. the day we see a vatican open to progressive evolution is the day of the second coming lol.

    i'm not bothered by this- the church is a religious force (though weak, spiritually) but was never intended to be a political one, and it's been steadily loosing that undeserved and oft-abused power for 1000 years now. it's on the down and out. i officially don't recognize its ability to officially choose to protect me or not lol.

    its just a big stinking-rich cult desperately trying to preserve age-rotted values and to maintain some vestige of its own former political sway- nothing more. the fact is the only people who care what the church thinks are catholics, and they're many of the hate-mongers we're having to deal with in the first place. its like asking the bogey man to grant official protection from nightmares lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 3:00 PM GMT
    The Cho says it best....

    "How can the Pope be so anti-gay? I mean lookit him in his white dress... livin' up in the Vatican with a hundred men... in a palace filled with the finest antiques in the world? Queen, please!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 3:06 PM GMT
    It's shit like this that made me leave the Catholic Church in disgust. They'll never change their attitude towards gays....EVER. I pent 13 yeas in their schools, and all it did for me spiritually was cause me to believe I was an evil monster. A curse on their house
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 3:11 PM GMT


    As much as we like gay news sites, we also like to research, so here's one from Reuters - Africa - says the same, but with a tidbit from Italy...

    http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL2243948.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 3:15 PM GMT


    This is the same church that took marriage and made it their own after Shakespeare's time, and now claim it was always theirs.

    Too bad we can't separate God from religions like we can church and state. heheh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 4:01 PM GMT
    alexander7 said
    P.S. I do not use the word Nazi lightly. It is very well known that Ratzinger was a brown shirt during the world war.

    Yes, along with the 8 million other Hitler Youth that were legally required to join and then subsequently drafted into the German army. Seriously, get a fucking clue.

    Anyways, to the point. I get it. The Church is very fearful of appearing too progressive, in what can be most simply described as the "if you give a mouse a cookie..." way. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

    On the other hand, I'm a bit taken aback at how blatant the hatred and bashing of the Catholic Church is. I thought tolerance was something that the gay community was trying to support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 4:11 PM GMT
    HotToddy said
    alexander7 said
    P.S. I do not use the word Nazi lightly. It is very well known that Ratzinger was a brown shirt during the world war.

    Yes, along with the 8 million other Hitler Youth that were legally required to join and then subsequently drafted into the German army. Seriously, get a fucking clue.

    Anyways, to the point. I get it. The Church is very fearful of appearing too progressive, in what can be most simply described as the "if you give a mouse a cookie..." way. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

    On the other hand, I'm a bit taken aback at how blatant the hatred and bashing of the Catholic Church is. I thought tolerance was something that the gay community was trying to support.


    Calling Ratzinger a Nazi is wrong. I agree with you there. But why should we tolerate that which does not tolerate us? While the Church does not condemn homosexuals they do not tolerate homosexuality. Why should there be any tolerance for the Church leadership. Catholic organizations were the single largest donators to the porp-8 campaign. Catholic groups routinely fight against gay rights anywhere in the states. The Catholic church has not condemned violence against homosexuals in nations with anti-gay laws. The Catholic church has absolutely failed as a moral leader when it claims supreme moral authority on earth.

    So, can you blame people for being a little hot under the collar?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:11 PM GMT
    HotToddy said
    alexander7 said
    P.S. I do not use the word Nazi lightly. It is very well known that Ratzinger was a brown shirt during the world war.

    Yes, along with the 8 million other Hitler Youth that were legally required to join and then subsequently drafted into the German army. Seriously, get a fucking clue.


    The period of time that he was a Hitler Youth was a very impressionable time for most young men of his age at that time. He must have been permanently influenced because his actions since he became the right hand man of John Paul II are like he still belongs to the Nazi Party. How do you know that he does not belong to at least a comparable group, like Opus Dei, for example.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 5:14 PM GMT
    Calling Pope Rat a Nazi is completely appropriate.

    Further, he no more represents God than a teaspoon of smegma does.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 6:38 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    But why should we tolerate that which does not tolerate us?

    Mostly because I think that hate and intolerance is boring, ignorant, and above all, no possible way to effect real change. So hating people who hate you is just redundant, and will not get anyone anywhere. I actually have some great relationships with some Catholics who are very aware of my homosexuality, and are simply very supportive of it. In that way I try my best to prove to people that disagreement is no reason we can not get along. What's the point in wasting such anger, when it can be put to a much more constructive use?

    alexander7 said
    The period of time that he was a Hitler Youth was a very impressionable time for most young men of his age at that time. He must have been permanently influenced because his actions since he became the right hand man of John Paul II are like he still belongs to the Nazi Party. How do you know that he does not belong to at least a comparable group, like Opus Dei, for example.

    Again, as it was for the 8 million + other Germans who were subjected to Hitler's rule. We see little to no adverse effects from other segments in the German population that are comparable to Ratzinger, so why is it then appropriate to assume that Ratzinger must have sustained some sort of lasting influence from that period of his life? Furthermore, the face of Nazism is not so black and white as you would make it seem. While realistically most people in Germany at that time were technically part of the NSDAP, there was really no alternative. You were either a Nazi, or wearing a fun piece of flair that meant you were soon to be marched off to your imminent death. There were many people living in Germany who were involved with the Nazi party but did not truly believe in the Nazi ideals. For example, Hans & Sophie Scholl were both part of the HJ, but were the leaders of a youth Nazi resistance. Is their resistance not truly valid because they were associated with the Nazi party?

    McGay saidCalling Pope Rat a Nazi is completely appropriate.

    Yes, it's a historically appropriate term. However, making the allegation that because Ratzinger was a part of the NSDAP, he therefore ascribes to Nazi ideologies to this present day is not appropriate.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2008 6:53 PM GMT
    HotToddy said
    MunchingZombie said
    But why should we tolerate that which does not tolerate us?

    Mostly because I think that hate and intolerance is boring, ignorant, and above all, no possible way to effect real change. So hating people who hate you is just redundant, and will not get anyone anywhere. I actually have some great relationships with some Catholics who are very aware of my homosexuality, and are simply very supportive of it. In that way I try my best to prove to people that disagreement is no reason we can not get along. What's the point in wasting such anger, when it can be put to a much more constructive use?



    I'm not sure I would leap from being critical of hostile institutions to being intolerant. I grew up Catholic, my entire family is very Catholic, I don't hate them, nor am I intolerant of them. In the same moment as that, I can find the Church/religion itself to be a crock of steamingly rip puke green shit. Not being vigilant against organizations such as "the Church" and Focus on the Family or whomever is a sure way to danger.