This is what Cyclowizard fails to understand. By opposing this legislation, the Vatican is in effect, in favor of laws that criminalize and punish people for their sexual orientation. In some countries that punishment can literally mean death. This is a textbook definition of intolerance and bigotry, but don't let me stop you from painting a big giant happy face all over this, Cyclo.
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
And by that logic, if the Vatican supported the EU proposal, the Vatican would ipso facto be promoting a homosexual lifestyle. In fact, neither is true, The Vatican supports all people regardless of orientation, color, etc. But like hate and racism, the Vatican does not support an immoral practice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please refer to the post immediately above this one.
Pope is head of Vatican -> Vatican opposes legislation to stop criminalization and punishment of people for their sexual preference -> Pope is a bigot.
It's one thing to have an opinion on the matter and pontificate on your ignorant beliefs, it's quite another to support the criminalization/punishment of an entire class of people because you are an intolerant fuck.
And I disagree with the Vatican vehemently on this count, which is my right as a Catholic. Oh wait, that can't be true! Religion is for teh brainless zombies who follow in step with their theological overlords!
Speaking of strawmen! :roll:
But seriously, good for you. Look, the pope can say anything he wants, and I'll chalk it up to some crazy religious thing, but actions speak louder than words. It also labels you (as in the pope, and the Vatican, not you personally) as intolerant and bigoted.
Wow, apparently I posted too soon and was overly generous on your behalf. Since you are apparently incapable of making any arguments on your own, or even reading the article in its entirety when posted on another website, I'll help you out:
Unfortunately, idiots like you who don't understand the entire philosophy of the Catholic Church pick and choose the bits that suit their agenda, neglecting the wealth of reasoning behind the decisions. You are free to disagree with the reasoning, but you can't disagree with it when you don't even know what it is. But I'm the "ignorant... intolerant fuck," right?
You are just on patrol, waiting for some two-bit website (like the Daily Mail, for example) to post an obviously biased, poorly written and researched piece that supports your agenda so you can demonize anyone and everyone who could potentially disagree with you. You don't have any idea how I feel about this subject because I've never said how I feel. You simply assume, which makes you an ignorant bigot. You just discriminate on a different basis.What are you going on about now? This was never about you ... it's about the pope, remember? And so let's get back to that.
"Instead, the Vatican said its opposition to the UN proposal was driven by concern that countries that prohibit gay marriage would somehow be targeted."
Okay, so the pope says one thing, the Vatican opposes legislation that would in effect, try to ban criminalization/punishment of gay people, including death, and they issue the above clarification?
WTF does that clarification even mean? That the "...countries that prohibit gay marriage would somehow be targeted."
Why is that even a concern? Of course the countries that criminalize and punish people for being gay would be targeted, that's the entire fucking point!
"Instead, the Vatican said its opposition to the UN proposal was driven by concern that countries that prohibit gay marriage would somehow be targeted."
Okay, so the pope says one thing, the Vatican opposes legislation that would in effect, try to ban criminalization/punishment of gay people, including death, and they issue the above clarification?
WTF does that clarification even mean? That the "...countries that prohibit gay marriage would somehow be targeted."
Why is that even a concern? Of course the countries that criminalize and punish people for being gay would be targeted, that's the entire fucking point!
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Wow, apparently I posted too soon and was overly generous on your behalf. Since you are apparently incapable of making any arguments on your own, or even reading the article in its entirety when posted on another website, I'll help you out:
Unfortunately, idiots like you who don't understand the entire philosophy of the Catholic Church pick and choose the bits that suit their agenda, neglecting the wealth of reasoning behind the decisions. You are free to disagree with the reasoning, but you can't disagree with it when you don't even know what it is. But I'm the "ignorant... intolerant fuck," right?
Oh I see. You think I was calling you a name. Nope. That was directed at the pope. Sorry for the confusion.
You are either a horrible liar or need to learn English. No reasonable person would understand what you claim to have said from that statement. ;cookie;
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,936
- 10,827
- 147
And this puts that sclerotic institution, perhaps unintentionally, on the side of backward bigots and social troglodytes. Or do you disagree? For instance, what is YOUR stance on sex outside of marriage . . . that it is a sin and an abomination which, if unconfessed, will prohibit a person form entry into heaven? :roll:
I'm not condemning the Pope, I'm condemning his actions, the illogical nature of his thinking. Gay sex is every bit the bond for some gay people as it is for some straight people. If he is not saying being gay is a choice, then there is no logical reason to exclude bonding gay sex from bonding straight sex as both are a foundation of loving life long relationship, no reason, that is, except bigoted ones bases on text and tradition. No, the Pope is a bigot, just as I said. I understand where he's coming from, obviously, better than you do. Any minor negative views I have of Catholicism were given to me by Catholics expressing negative views about their own religion. The Pope is arrogant in thinking he has any special gift or knowledge about whose souls need to be saved. He is a mouthpiece for a fundamentalist bigoted tradition. The Church needs to do an about face on homosexuality just like they did on geocentricism.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
If the pope's main beef with gays is that if everyone on the planet became gay then procreation would cease and humanity would end, then he's really got nothing to be worried about.
Homosexuality has always existed as a small portion of the population. Straight men are always going to want straight women, it's a biological imperative. Ultimately science will make sexuality irrelevant as we start growing humans in petri dishes and then embryonic chambers. Why should a woman risk her life giving birth once we advance far enough to render such a procedure barbaric and outdated? Sure it sounds freaky now, but get used to the idea.
And I suppose the Pope should also worry about every male becoming so religious that they want to become a priest, who also can't marry/procreate. Conclusion: Priesthood accelerates the doom of humanity. So, no more priests either?
Homosexuality has always existed as a small portion of the population. Straight men are always going to want straight women, it's a biological imperative. Ultimately science will make sexuality irrelevant as we start growing humans in petri dishes and then embryonic chambers. Why should a woman risk her life giving birth once we advance far enough to render such a procedure barbaric and outdated? Sure it sounds freaky now, but get used to the idea.
And I suppose the Pope should also worry about every male becoming so religious that they want to become a priest, who also can't marry/procreate. Conclusion: Priesthood accelerates the doom of humanity. So, no more priests either?
I'm sure that all of your views are shared by some bigots as well. Does that make you wrong or a bigot? I don't believe so. Let's review the definition of bigot, shall we?
Thus, the fundamental problem here is that you feel morality is an opinion (i.e. relative to the person), whereas the pope does not. Thus, in your mind, anyone who holds any stance on a moral issue is automatically a bigot and there is no reason to even discuss any such issues with you. The pope, on the other hand, believes that morality is more than a matter of opinion. I am inclined to agree with him on that. You can kick and scream and yell "bigot!" until you're blue in the face, but until you can rationalize moral relativism, you have no grounds to do so.
As for my views on sex outside of marriage, they have nothing to do with this thread. I'll just say that it is equally as bad as gay sex.
Mr. Lennon
Diamond Member
- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
And you still don't understand that unity AND (not OR) procreation are the purposes of human sexuality according to the Catholic philosophy. Since you can't (or refuse to) grasp that simple idea, the rest of your pseudo-enlightened hackery is worth less than the photons used to display it for me. You have decided that he's a bigot and will now alter any future statements to that effect rather than thinking it through, then deciding whether or not he's a bigot.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
You don't see any wiggle room here for the Vatican to officially announce that it disapproves of homosexual behavior, considers it immoral and a sin, and yet is not in favor of throwing someone in jail for it?
If you ask the church whether they think someone should be jailed for adultery you don't think their position is that it's a sin but that people shouldn't be locked up for it? Adultery is mentioned a helluva lot more in scripture than dude on dude action. Is the church promoting adulterous lifestyles by not calling for the stoning death of cheaters?
dphantom
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2005
- 4,763
- 327
- 126
Why would the Vatican want someone in jail or stoned to death or whatever for an immoral act like homosexuality or adultery? It seems to me the Vatican is taking a compassionate approach in condemning the act, but recognizing the need for help for people who sin regarding these two acts. Hopefully, the Vatican is working to remove criminality from homosexual behavior between adults while still condemning the immorality of the practice.
Other sins like murder would be appropriate for jail or more severe punishment as the sinner is now harming another against their will.
Working to remove criminality and punishments like the death penalty for being gay would mean the Vatican should support the UN legislation. But they're not doing that, are they? Let me give you a little hint: NO, no they are not.
Let me guess, you haven't read this little piece of legislation have you? Didn't think so. Instead, you're relying on an entertainment website's article that you half-read. Shocker!
Unity and procreation, I see. That unity part is only for straight people with kids. That adds idiocy to the Pope's view as well as bigotry.
How about procreation without unity? Is that another rain forest?
How about procreation without unity? Is that another rain forest?
You seem to mistakenly believe that it's bigoted to point out someone's bigoted behavior. I assure you, it's not. Being a bigot doesn't mean merely disagreeing with someone ... rather, a true bigot is someone who treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. To truly understand what makes something bigoted, you have to look up the word intolerance. And when you do, you find that to treat a group of people with intolerence, you actively discriminate or otherwise treat unequal, a certain class of people.
Merriam-Webster points out that intolerant people are, "...unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights."
I'd argue that the Vatican opposing UN legislation to ban criminal penalties for being gay, is a clear form of intolerance, just as the folks supporting Proposition 8 in California are intolerant, and thus bigoted.
In order for those arguing against the pope to be considered bigoted, we'd have to be advocating unequal or discriminatory practices against the Catholic church. I, and most of the others here (as far as I can tell), are simply condemning the pope and the vatican for their actions, we're by no means asking for the Catholic church to be outlawed or treated in an unfair way.
Frankly, I don't think you get it.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
http://uk.reuters.com/article/.../idUKTRE4BI30Y20081219
According to this article, the vatican is in favor of decriminlization of homosexuality but doesn't want to sign the UN res because it fears it's a backdoor to gay marriage, which is patently ridiculous.
I see you don't know what procreation means, since you assume only people who already have kids can procreate. That would explain a lot of the problems you're having here. If you disagree that procreation is a fundamental purpose of sex, please explain.
Yes, which is why the Church opposes in vitro fertilization and similar methods of artificial conception. Amazing how quickly everything comes into focus when the basic principles are elucidated, huh?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter