NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, more or less.

(see today's headlines of La Repubblica, www.repubblica.it)

The Vatican has voiced its position AGAINST the proposal at the UN, coming from the French government, asking all UN countries to eliminate prosecution of homosexuality. Rev.Lombardi (spokesman for the pope) says in an interview to La Repubblica that "It [the proposal] would introduce a declaration with political value, which could have impact over laws. That would lead to mark as 'violating human rights' any law that doesn't equate all sexual preferences" (translation mine, sorry for eventual inaccuracies).

It must be noted that in some countries where homosexuality is considered a crime, the death penalty is applied.

Homosexuals can be sentenced:
up to 3 years in jail in Morocco
from 2 months up to 2 years in jail in Algeria, plus a fine
up to 5 years in jail in Egypt, plus a fine
up to 1 year in jail in Lebanon, plus a fine
to death by stoning for married men who have an homosexual intercourse in Saudi Arabia (for bachelors, jail and flogging)
to death for men and to 100 floggings for women in Iran
up to 10 years in jail in Bahrein
to death in Afghanistan (not applied since years, though)
from 2 years to 10 years in jail in Pakistan (though local tribes apply stoning)
to 7 years in jail for homosexuals aged 21 or more, and to 10 years for homosexuals aged 20 or less in Kuwait.
to life in jail for male homosexuals in Uganda
to death by stoning in Mauritania and Nigeria

(just some examples...)

Interestingly enough, isn't the Vatican one of those countries who always blabber about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion? Doesn't the death sentence infringe the "sanctity of life"?

I hope Ratzlinger dies soon.

-snip-

Before I say anything, do you have an English translation of this? The last time I had to read Italian was 9 years ago back in first year high school. And the ink goes to the home page of the paper, not an article.

Though just because it is a crime doesn't mean it has to be crime where capital punishment is instituted, so that last question doesn't mean much.

Also, this isn't about homosexuality but rather the UN attempting to override the laws of sovereign nations without the consent of the government or the people.

I hope Ratzlinger dies soon.

Why do you wish death upon everyone that disagrees with you?

Keeping the gays down is more important that silliness about the sanctity of life.

He's afraid
:P
He's also being evil
:O

All Hail the Roman Emperor!
;p

Why do you wish death upon everyone that disagrees with you?

In this one case? Because he's wishing death upon thousands of people based on who they fuck. That's why.

Interestingly enough, isn't the Vatican one of those countries who always blabber about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion? Doesn't the death sentence infringe the "sanctity of life"?As far as I know, it does condemn the death penalty in general. Ergo, the Vatican isn't being hypocritical because while it opposes decriminalization of homosexuality, it also opposes the death penalty for homosexuality by opposing the death penalty per se.

Not that this means that the Vatican's position is ok, just that it isn't as monstrous as your post can be read to imply it is.

In this one case? Because he's wishing death upon thousands of people based on who they fuck. That's why.Prove it.

Also, this isn't about homosexuality but rather the UN attempting to override the laws of sovereign nations without the consent of the government or the people.

UN has every right to do so. The "Government" or the "people" have to shut up when they become tyrannies by majorities. Rights are more important than "government", "people" or "sovereignty".

In this one case? Because he's wishing death upon thousands of people based on who they fuck. That's why.

Umm no he isn't actually, don't jump to conclusions. According to the OP the vatican was saying that the OP shouldn't be placing a very broad proposal over the laws of sovereign nations.

Prove it.

Death or imprisonment. Same difference.

Death or imprisonment. Same difference.

Eh, no, the two are very different.

Death or imprisonment. Same difference.Again, prove that he's wishing death or imprisonment on anyone.

To be expected from an ex-Nazi Pope.

Death or imprisonment. Same difference.

Wtf?

the only thing that amazes me about this is people keep being surprised by this stance from the catholic church.

To be expected from an ex-Nazi Pope.

Oh yes. Because us Catholics haven't been against homosexuality for centuries :rolleyes:

Wtf?

What? A guy that wants to keep homosexuality criminalized wants others to be punished somehow. As the mass of people that is punished begins to grow, he gets worthy of death wishes, mainly because he wishes for MASSES of people to suffer.

Oh yes. Because us Catholics haven't been against homosexuality for centuries :rolleyes:

That you may have. But the Church only started meddling with state and trying to PUNISH PEOPLE IN PRACTICE for being gay after that horrible monster it unfortunately calls a pope got into it.

UN has every right to do so. The "Government" or the "people" have to shut up when they become tyrannies by majorities. Rights are more important than "government", "people" or "sovereignty".

You are still pretty again tonight, should we go take a deep breath and then come back later. And no the UN or any other foreign organisations or people have the right to rule by tyranny over the sovereignty of other people. Of course Saddam Hussein was a bit of a tyrant though and ruled over the Kurds, perhaps the UN maybe with a strong force should kick him out?

Oh yes. Because us Catholics haven't been against homosexuality for centuries :rolleyes:

Publicly, yes. Privately, we all know just how much priests love a boy's ass so...:rolleyes:

What? A guy that wants to keep homosexuality criminalized wants others to be punished somehow. As the mass of people that is punished begins to grow, he gets worthy of death wishes, mainly because he wishes for MASSES of people to suffer.

Irrelevant.

I was saying 'wtf' to your assertion that there is no difference between death and imprisonment.

Publicly, yes. Privately, we all know just how much priests love a boy's ass so...:rolleyes:

Yes Nantsu because we are all a hive mind :rolleyes:

Publicly, yes. Privately, we all know just how much priests love a boy's ass so...:rolleyes:

Puedo llamar-te "Momo Hinamori"? Puedo? :D

The Catholic Church, who thinks homosexuality is a sin, is against giving equal rights to gays. What's next? Will the vatican say that murder is bad?

Of course the vatican will come out against gays. Just like they will come out against abortion, condoms and war. The Vatican's stance is known and is not going to change anytime soon.

How is that even news?

Publicly, yes. Privately, we all know just how much priests love a boy's ass so...:rolleyes:

Sorry, the point of my post was that this really has nothing to do with the current Pope and whether he may have been in Hitler youth.

Puedo llamar-te "Momo Hinamori"? Puedo? :D

Pero claro que sí!:D

You are still pretty again tonight, should we go take a deep breath and then come back later. And no the UN or any other foreign organisations or people have the right to rule by tyranny over the sovereignty of other people. Of course Saddam Hussein was a bit of a tyrant though and ruled over the Kurds, perhaps the UN maybe with a strong force should kick him out?

The UN might have the right. The US never did. And the comparison still fails, as I'm not calling for the UN to invade and bomb countries with those laws, I'm calling for the UN to kick them out. They can make a League of Sexually Insecure Moronic Countries if they like.

That you may have. But the Church only started meddling with state and trying to PUNISH PEOPLE IN PRACTICE for being gay after that horrible monster it unfortunately calls a pope got into it.

... since the inception of the Catholic Church! Let's not forget medieval times, people.

Yes Nantsu because we are all a hive mind :rolleyes:

Catholics? Of course they are.:tongue:

Irrelevant.

I was saying 'wtf' to your assertion that there is no difference between death and imprisonment.

When it's about MASSES of people, the difference begins to fade.

... since the inception of the Catholic Church! Let's not forget medieval times, people.

Fixing it, it "RE"-started after that monster they call a pope got into power.

When it's about MASSES of people, the difference begins to fade.No.

Publicly, yes. Privately, we all know just how much priests love a boy's ass so...:rolleyes:

Let's not confuse homosexuality and pederastry. It's not about the young boy, it's about the young boy.

Catholics? Of course they are.:tongue:

Alright if you say so

Before I say anything, do you have an English translation of this? The last time I had to read Italian was 9 years ago back in first year high school. And the ink goes to the home page of the paper, not an article.
I'll try to google something out.

here: (googled: vatican homosexuality UN)
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/12/02/africa/OUKWD-UK-VATICAN-HOMOSEXUALS.php (in english)
www.repubblica.it/2008/11/sezioni/esteri/benedetto-xvi-27/vaticano-omosessualita/vaticano-omosessualita.html (in italian)
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5268745.ece (in english)
oknotizie.alice.it/info/104112b1faea4171/vaticano_no_a_depenalizzazione_gay.html (in italian)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1457417/Vatican-joins-Muslims-to-fight-homosexual-partnerships.html (in english)

Also, this isn't about homosexuality but rather the UN attempting to override the laws of sovereign nations without the consent of the government or the people.
Exactly. It's about the definition of "human rights", which UN members are to respect above their own laws.

When it's about MASSES of people, the difference begins to fade.

Not really, no. Infact not at all.

Fixing it, it "RE"-started after that monster they call a pope got into power.

I beg to differ still. They never stopped. Some countries stopped listening but every pope tried to get his way all over europe and the world.

Fixing it, it "RE"-started after that monster they call a pope got into power.

what r u talking about

Alright if you say so

*blows a kiss*:fluffle:

Let's not confuse homosexuality and pederastry. It's not about the young boy, it's about the young boy.

You know as well as I do that it's about both, the young boy and the boy.:wink:

*blows a kiss*:fluffle:

Sorry I'm sure you may have been joking but a few things didn't go well tonight and I also do get a bit defesive when people start banging on Catholics as if we all thing the same and beleive the same things, when in reality it is far from the truth. Forgive? :fluffle:

You know as well as I do that it's about both, the young boy and the boy.:wink:

Only because young girls aren't available. Well, for most, I guess.

Let's not confuse homosexuality and pederastry. It's not about the young boy, it's about the young boy.

I don't think that helps their case. :p

what r u talking about

The fact that Ratzlinger is more of a decrepit conservative than his predecessor.

Sorry I'm sure you may have been joking but a few things didn't go well tonight and I also do get a bit defesive when people start banging on Catholics as if we all thing the same and beleive the same things, when in reality it is far from the truth. Forgive? :fluffle:

No worries. I was raised a Catholic. I just grew cynic.

Of course the vatican will come out against gays. Just like they will come out against abortion, condoms and war. The Vatican's stance is known and is not going to change anytime soon.

How is that even news?

The "news" is that the Vatican, by voting against this proposal, practically gives a green light even to those countries who apply the death sentence for homosexuality.
About death sentence, someone said "Thou shalt not kill", but that is irrelevant when it comes to some kind of christians. Someone else (or the very same) also said "do unto others..." etc.

The fact that Ratzlinger is more of a decrepit conservative than his predecessor.

He's oldschool, wow, do you want a cookie for that one? Fact is, his being Pope doesn't change much from centuries of Church doctrine.

Only because young girls aren't available. Well, for most, I guess.

I don't think the issue is the unavailability of young girls.

I don't think the issue is the unavailability of young girls.

Not at all.

The "news" is that the Vatican, by voting against this proposal, practically gives a green light even to those countries who apply the death sentence for homosexuality.
About death sentence, someone said "Thou shalt not kill", but that is irrelevant when it comes to some kind of christians. Someone else (or the very same) also said "do unto others..." etc.

Isn't this about Catholics though? And as someone said earlier, the Vatican is against the death penalty...

I don't think the issue is the unavailability of young girls.

To be sure, I don't think it matters. o_o

He's oldschool, wow, do you want a cookie for that one? Fact is, his being Pope doesn't change much from centuries of Church doctrine.

Those centuries are also WRONG.

The "news" is that the Vatican, by voting against this proposal, practically gives a green light even to those countries who apply the death sentence for homosexuality.
Ironically, in the list you gave in the OP, their all either Muslim theocracies or heavily influenced by Islam - not Catholicism.
:tongue:

The fact that Ratzlinger is more of a decrepit conservative than his predecessor.

I wouldn't exactly call John Paul II a decrepit conservative.

Isn't this about Catholics though? And as someone said earlier, the Vatican is against the death penalty...

Catholics are a subset of christians. Hence "some christians" is correct.

Also, some non-catholic christians do not like the "thou shalt not kill" thingy.

The fact that Ratzlinger is more of a decrepit conservative than his predecessor.This is a lie. Benedict XVI and John-Paul II held nearly identical ideological positions.
The "news" is that the Vatican, by voting against this proposal, practically gives a green light even to those countries who apply the death sentence for homosexuality.
About death sentence, someone said "Thou shalt not kill", but that is irrelevant when it comes to some kind of christians. Someone else (or the very same) also said "do unto others..." etc.Not exactly. It's giving them a green light to continue legally discriminating against gays.

Ironically, in the list you gave in the OP, their all either Muslim theocracies or heavily influenced by Islam - not Catholicism.
:tongue:

That's the Vatican, showing that bigotry is able to cross religion lines, but respect isn't able to cross "who you fuck" lines.

I wouldn't exactly call John Paul II a decrepit conservative.

He wasn't very conservative; more of a reactionary. Benedict XVI is more conservative.
As for decrepit, certainly JP2 wasn't decrepit when he was elected. One of his first requests was to have a swimmming pool. Also I remember him skiing - which was quite unheard of before.

Those centuries are also WRONG.

So? It doesn't really matter if you think it's wrong, it's the way it is. No point taking it out on the current Pope.

The "news" is that the Vatican, by voting against this proposal, practically gives a green light even to those countries who apply the death sentence for homosexuality.
About death sentence, someone said "Thou shalt not kill", but that is irrelevant when it comes to some kind of christians. Someone else (or the very same) also said "do unto others..." etc.

Sorry does the UN have some overriding veto in the UN. And as Psychotic said all the countries you mentioned are predominantly Muslim countries.

So? It doesn't really matter if you think it's wrong, it's the way it is. No point taking it out on the current Pope.

Yes, there is one, if the current pope wants to KEEP IT THAT WAY.

To be sure, I don't think it matters. o_o

Indeed it doesn't. o_o

The "news" is that the Vatican, by voting against this proposal, practically gives a green light even to those countries who apply the death sentence for homosexuality.
About death sentence, someone said "Thou shalt not kill", but that is irrelevant when it comes to some kind of christians. Someone else (or the very same) also said "do unto others..." etc.

Voting against homosexuality does not mean you want them to die. Just like voting for Bush does not mean you want to invade Irak. You can be both against the death penalty and homosexuality.

I don't see the Vatican saying "Thou shalt not kill, unless he's gay. In which case, kill the bastard!"

Can I ask a quick question?

Is it homosexuality, or sodomy?

Because one only affects male homosexuals.

Catholics are a subset of christians. Hence "some christians" is correct.

Also, some non-catholic christians do not like the "thou shalt not kill" thingy.

What I'm saying is this thread is about Catholics, right? So non-Catholic Christians are irrelevant. The Vatican holds that the death penalty is wrong. End of story.

Indeed it doesn't. o_o

So long as nobody is excusing the acts, I think we're in agreement there.

Yes, there is one, if the current pope wants to KEEP IT THAT WAY.

Well clearly your problem is with the religion of Catholicism... Nothing new. Current Pope is just following in the foot steps of God-knows how many before him.

That's the Vatican, showing that bigotry is able to cross religion lines, but respect is't able to cross "who you fuck" lines.

Sigged!

Well clearly your problem is with the religion of Catholicism... Nothing new. Current Pope is just following in the foot steps of God-knows how many before him.

No, my problem is with wanting to intrude with fantasies about what a book says into a government that may well affect ME. My problem will be with ANYONE who dares to do this, and I will fight against those non-people with all my might. My rights will NOT be decided based on what old mythology says. Neither will the rights of any other people if it's up to me. I REJECT!

So long as nobody is excusing the acts, I think we're in agreement there.

Indeed, because sodomy against young boys, or girls, is unjustifiable.

This is a lie. Benedict XVI and John-Paul II held nearly identical ideological positions. Maybe true, but they're vastly different as for method.
Not exactly. It's giving them a green light to continue legally discriminating against gays.
As the set of the countries who legally discriminate against gays INCLUDES the set of the countries who legally kill them...

No, my problem is with wanting to intrude with fantasies about what a book says into a government that may well affect ME. My problem will be with ANYONE who dares to do this, and I will fight against those non-people with all my might. My rights will NOT be decided based on what old mythology says. Neither will the rights of any other people if it's up to me. I REJECT!

Okay.. Rabble rabble rabble. About all I got from that. Good for you!

Okay.. Rabble rabble rabble. About all I got from that. Good for you!

I don't have a problem with you as a Catholic unless you want to try and include your scripture in my legislature.

No, my problem is with wanting to intrude with fantasies about what a book says into a government that may well affect ME. My problem will be with ANYONE who dares to do this, and I will fight against those non-people with all my might. My rights will NOT be decided based on what old mythology says. Neither will the rights of any other people if it's up to me. I REJECT!

Isn't that the whole point of what the Vatican is against, not having some foreigners interfere with what you want your government to do? You two have more in common than you think. But really what your saying is you are against anyone who has a different set of ideals as you, which is fine but you do want your ideals to be instituted into how the government runs and what it can and cannot deal.

As the set of the countries who legally discriminate against gays INCLUDES the set of the countries who legally kill them...

So now, we should reject whatever the USA is trying to do internationally because they still have the death penalty?

As the set of the countries who legally discriminate against gays INCLUDES the set of the countries who legally kill them...And the Vatican has gone on record that it's opposed to them doing that.

Here's a comparable situation:
Smoking pot is illegal in Examplestan and Metaphoria. In Metaphoria, pot smokers get executed. Examplestan abhors the use of the death penalty and publicly condemns it.

A WA/UN vote on whether or not to decriminalize pot occurs. Both vote against decriminalization. Yet, this does not mean that Examplestan supports the execution of pot smokers.

Isn't that the whole point of what the Vatican is against, not having some foreigners interfere with what you want your government to do? You two have more in common than you think. But really what your saying is you are against anyone who has a different set of ideals as you, which is fine but you do want your ideals to be instituted into how the government runs and what it can and cannot deal.

MY ideas are ased on ethics, logics, and human rights. MY ideas are based on the notion that people can have sex with whom they choose. MY ideas are based on enlightenment. The ideas of the Vatican are based on a stupid passage from a book written two millenia ago.

I don't have a problem with you as a Catholic unless you want to try and include your scripture in my legislature.Peisandros has been criticizing equating certain things. If he wants his scripture legislated, I have seen no evidence thereof in this thread. Where did you see it?

Voting against homosexuality does not mean you want them to die.

Wait. This is not "voting against homosexuality". This is "voting for keeping homosexuality a crime and prosecuting it as such". Which is quite different.

It's not like "I vote against strawberry-flavoured candies because I don't like them". It's "I vote for keeping who eats strawberry-flavoured candies in jail, or to continue to put him to death if your local law says so".


Just like voting for Bush does not mean you want to invade Irak.

If you voted him for the SECOND term, it does mean it.


You can be both against the death penalty and homosexuality.

Yes: but since homosexuality is (or at least should be) a personal choice of individuals regarding their private sphere only, there is NO moral ground for prosecuting it. You can say "do not be homosexual, for God's sake!" - that is perfectly reasonable. You cannot, however, enforce sexual preferences on someone else by law.

I don't see the Vatican saying "Thou shalt not kill, unless he's gay. In which case, kill the bastard!"
No, it's more "I don't give a fuck if they die". Pilatus rules.

I don't have a problem with you as a Catholic unless you want to try and include your scripture in my legislature.

If I was brazilian I would have every right to try and institute my beliefs and ideals into legislature, of course you wouldn't agree with all of them and you would want to get your beliefs and ideals into your legislature which you have every right to do. As I say the Vatican was against this proposal because it could eliminate your right for you to be able to do this, as I say you two have a few things in common whether you want to believe it or not.

Peisandros has been criticizing equating certain things. If he wants his scripture legislated, I have seen no evidence thereof in this thread. Where did you see it?

Never claimed he wants it, hence the "unless".

I don't have a problem with you as a Catholic unless you want to try and include your scripture in my legislature.

Which they don't.... Coming out and saying that they're against homosexuality is nothing new, that's my point. I mean, Catholics tend to view it as a sin, therefore of course they're going to be against the UN proposal. Your anger should be directed at those countries which do persecute homosexuals directly, such as those listed in OP.

Oh and Blou, TG for you.

If I was brazilian I would have every right to try and institute my beliefs and ideals into legislature, of course you wouldn't agree with all of them and you would want to get your beliefs and ideals into your legislature which you have every right to do. As I say the Vatican was against this proposal because it could eliminate your right for you to be able to do this, as I say you two have a few things in common whether you want to believe it or not.

In order to be instituted, beliefs have to be based on logic, not on mythology.

So now, we should reject whatever the USA is trying to do internationally because they still have the death penalty?

No. But sure the US judiciary system isn't aligned with UN standards, because the US apply the death penalty.

Consequence? There are already. Italy cannot extradate murderers to the US, because of the US having the death penalty.

Anyway, we're going off topic here.

In order to be instituted, beliefs have to be based on logic, not on mythology.

Well that is your belief. And not all things in the bible are based on Mythology.

to 7 years in jail for homosexuals aged 21 or more, and to 10 years for homosexuals aged 20 or less in Kuwait.

I've personally seen a great deal of open homosexuality occurring in Kuwait among Indians, Pakistanis and other foreign drivers here. By open homosexuality I mean kissing, and even oral sex once. I've also seen Kuwaiti policemen kiss before and a couple of soldiers in my unit were propositioned by Kuwaiti police.

Do note by kissing I don't mean the friendly sort of kissing Arabs do, I mean full on tongue in mouth kissing.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Kuwaitis don't prosecute such things but I imagine it's used when they can't find something else to charge certain "undesirables" with.

And the Vatican has gone on record that it's opposed to them doing that.

Here's a comparable situation:
Smoking pot is illegal in Examplestan and Metaphoria. In Metaphoria, pot smokers get executed. Examplestan abhors the use of the death penalty and publicly condemns it.

A WA/UN vote on whether or not to decriminalize pot occurs. Both vote against decriminalization. Yet, this does not mean that Examplestan supports the execution of pot smokers.

No, but it would mean that Examplestan refuses to take action against it. It reminds me of another thread, about the atrocities committed by soviet soldiers on german women not being sanctioned by the soviet authorities...

Well that is your belief. And not all things in the bible are based on Mythology.

Is Leviticus based on logic?

Is Leviticus based on logic?

Please.. He blatantly said not all things in the bible are based on mythology. Which does not suggest that the whole bible is based on logic, it just suggests there is a bit of both.

No, but it would mean that Examplestan refuses to take action against it. Against what? Decriminalizing pot, yes.
It reminds me of another thread, about the atrocities committed by soviet soldiers on german women not being sanctioned by the soviet authorities...Not really. There you had Soviet authorities either actively urging or failing to prevent rapes. Here we have a country not voting in favor of something that is in conflict with its position on homosexuality.

Please.. He blatantly said not all things in the bible are based on mythology.

If there is one thing in the Bible based on logic, it will stand without the need of help by the book.

Why do you wish death upon everyone that disagrees with you?
I agree with him. Those people who are in a position of power do not have the right to advocate positions that influence death and destruction.


Also. Linking the entire website does not equal linking the article.

Wait. This is not "voting against homosexuality". This is "voting for keeping homosexuality a crime and prosecuting it as such". Which is quite different.

It's not like "I vote against strawberry-flavoured candies because I don't like them". It's "I vote for keeping who eats strawberry-flavoured candies in jail, or to continue to put him to death if your local law says so".

Voting to keep homosexuality illegal is still not voting to kill them. No matter how much you want to associate the two.

Yes: but since homosexuality is (or at least should be) a personal choice of individuals regarding their private sphere only, there is NO moral ground for prosecuting it. You can say "do not be homosexual, for God's sake!" - that is perfectly reasonable. You cannot, however, enforce sexual preferences on someone else by law.

The Vatican has always been about enforcing their doctrine by law. You may not like it (I certainly don't) but I fail to see how is that different from any other pressure group. Besides, this time, they come out AGAINST enforcing sexuality into law. Basically saying to the UN that they should keep sexuality out of the law and let each nation decides what's best for them.


No, it's more "I don't give a fuck if they die". Pilatus rules.

Hardly since they came out against the death penalty often.

Against what? Decriminalizing pot, yes.
Not really. There you had Soviet authorities either actively urging or failing to prevent rapes. Here we have a country not voting in favor of something that is in conflict with its position on homosexuality.

And in exchange favoring something WAY MORE SERIOUS it is against, namely the death penalty. You will notice that the Vatican DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT, submit a proposition that said that countries shouldn't apply the death penalty to homosexuality.

Voting to keep homosexuality illegal is still not voting to kill them. No matter how much you want to associate the two.

Hmm, yes. This.

Is Leviticus based on logic?

I am sure there are many of the old Jewish laws that are based on logic, even with the God thing hanging over it. But your beliefs are just that beliefs so why should yours be put into law over others that are also based on logic? And yes there can be logic over the interference of government into people's lives. Can I come up with a reasonable reason for the interference? No because it isn't my belief, but what you really mean yo say when saying this is I don't want any beliefs instituted into law which are different from my own, and that is fine, nothing wrong with that.

Voting to keep homosexuality illegal is still not voting to kill them. No matter how much you want to associate the two.

I don't want to associate them. But many countries do.

Btw, reread the OP title. I wrote "keep it a crime". It's about people getting not just killed, but also jailed and flogged for something that's only theirs to choose.

The Vatican has always been about enforcing their doctrine by law. You may not like it (I certainly don't) but I fail to see how is that different from any other pressure group. Besides, this time, they come out AGAINST enforcing sexuality into law.

The statement in bold is false. They come out against STOPPING to enforce sexual behaviours by law.

Hardly since they came out against the death penalty often.Already replied.

And in exchange favoring something WAY MORE SERIOUS it is against, namely the death penalty. No.
You will notice that the Vatican DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT, submit a proposition that said that countries shouldn't apply the death penalty to homosexuality.Proposition? Do you mean an amendment? A resolution?

No. But sure the US judiciary system isn't aligned with UN standards, because the US apply the death penalty.

Consequence? There are already. Italy cannot extradate murderers to the US, because of the US having the death penalty.

Anyway, we're going off topic here.

You say voting to keep homosexuality is like wanting them to die since some places have the death penalty against them.
I say voting in accordance to the USA is like wanting criminals to die since some states have the death penalty against them.

It's an analogy to show how your point is wrong.

*sigh*

Well, nothing new there. The church is urging a political institution to keep or change laws and proposition based in what that church wants.
I can only imagine the outcry if it was the other way around, if a politician had the cheek to ask the church to change something based on what the political party considers right.

All we can hope for is that the pope is being ignored, as would befit the old Z'wiederwurz'n.

And in exchange favoring something WAY MORE SERIOUS it is against, namely the death penalty. You will notice that the Vatican DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT, submit a proposition that said that countries shouldn't apply the death penalty to homosexuality.

Because this isn't against homosexuality it is against the UN overriding the sovereignty of governments, and they already have made clear their thoughts on the death penalty.

I initially agreed with those saying that it wasn't the Vatican saying they approved of the execution of homosexuals, but then I thought about it a little whilst I read the thread, and here's the rub: they did say they wanted it kept illegal. They know that in certain countries it allows the state to murder you, so they are showing support for those states' policies by releasing a statement at all. Further, they did not condemn the executions of homosexuals - why not, if they abhor such practices?

I join those saying that Ratzinger is an intolerant old fool. Here's hoping he goes quickly into that good night.

*sigh*

Well, nothing new there. The church is urging a political institution to keep or change laws and proposition based in what that church wants.
I can only imagine the outcry if it was the other way around, if a politician had the cheek to ask the church to change something based on what the political party considers right.

All we can hope for is that the pope is being ignored, as would befit the old Z'wiederwurz'n.

I'm sorry, but isn't that what we as people who vote in elections do? I mean seriously. You're right about it being nothing new, and it's not just the Catholic Church who does this.

Well, nothing new there. The church is urging a political institution to keep or change laws and proposition based in what that church wants.

And being a sovereign state it has every right to have their say in the UN just like every other sovereign state.

Proposition? Do you mean an amendment? A resolution?

Yup. Given that they didn't include one, I can only assume that they are too stupid to notice the ramifications or simply do not give a fuck.

There seem to be two primary arguments here:

I. The Church is against the decriminalization of homosexuality.

II. By being against the decriminalization of homosexuality, the Church supports the death penalty for homosexuality.

Number II. is simply not true and smacks of hyperbole.

I join those saying that Ratzinger is an intolerant old fool. Here's hoping he goes quickly into that good night.

For him, surely that would be the equivalent of a promotion anyway, wouldn't it? It's a good thing.

Yup. Given that they didn't include one, I can only assume that they are too stupid to notice the ramifications or simply do not give a fuck.Yup what? An amendment? A resolution? Those are two entirely different things.

There seem to be two primary arguments here:

I. The Church is against the decriminalization of homosexuality.

II. By being against the decriminalization of homosexuality, the Church supports the death penalty for homosexuality.

Number II. is simply not true and smacks of hyperbole.

Quoted for truth.

You say voting to keep homosexuality is like wanting them to die since some places have the death penalty against them.
As I already said, it's like don't giving a fuck if they die or live.

I say voting in accordance to the USA is like wanting criminals to die since some states have the death penalty against them.
Certainly, if you vote at the UN to in accordance to the USA on the moratorium on death penalty. If you vote in accordance to the USA about - let's say - cutting property taxes, that's nothing to do with it.

It's an analogy to show how your point is wrong.
It's an analogy that actually shows that my point is right. Thanks!:tongue:

I don't want to associate them. But many countries do.

But the Vatican does not so it's not relevant waht other countries do.

The statement in bold is false. They come out against STOPPING to enforce sexual behaviours by law.

They come out against forcing people to accept sexual behavior if they don't want to. Imagine that, the Vatican letting individual countries make up their own mind about homosexuality.

Yup what? An amendment? A resolution? Those are two entirely different things.

A resolution that would make a statement against death penalty for homosexuality.

There seem to be two primary arguments here:

I. The Church is against the decriminalization of homosexuality.

II. By being against the decriminalization of homosexuality, the Church supports the death penalty for homosexuality.

Number II. is simply not true and smacks of hyperbole.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it supports it.
But I would assume that, by not clarifying the church's position on capital punishment when promoting discriminatory laws against homosexuals, the church silently condones it.

They come out against forcing people to accept sexual behavior if they don't want to. Imagine that, the Vatican letting individual countries make up their own mind about homosexuality.

They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to make up their own minds about something that involves HUMAN RIGHTS!

A resolution that would make a statement against death penalty for homosexuality.You are a liar. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11018)

There seem to be two primary arguments here:

I. The Church is against the decriminalization of homosexuality.

II. By being against the decriminalization of homosexuality, the Church supports the death penalty for homosexuality.

Number II. is simply not true and smacks of hyperbole.

Are you aware of the difference between "not giving a fuck" and "supporting"?

So the argument II is "the Church doesn't give a fuck if people get killed, jailed or flogged, as long as a behaviour they believe it's a sin is prosecuted as a crime". Which is blatantly true.

You are a liar. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11018)

Yes I am. And one of the best ones you'll ever know. Yet the fact remains that being against death penalty in general in 2007 doesn't mean they care about this specific case.

They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to make up their own minds about something that involves HUMAN RIGHTS!

So they should infringe upon other rights, and yes governments do have the right to make and pass laws, other countries do not have the right to dictate sovereign nation's policies. They can protest they can lobby they can blockade but they cannot move in and overrule a government and say no we don't like that we want you to do it this way.

And being a sovereign state it has every right to have their say in the UN just like every other sovereign state.

The Vatican is not in the UN. So no, they don't get to say anything.

Certainly, if you vote at the UN to in accordance to the USA on the moratorium on death penalty. If you vote in accordance to the USA about - let's say - cutting property taxes, that's nothing to do with it.

So based on this logic, the Vatican would be for the death penalty of homosexuals if they voted for a proposition that pushed for the death penalty on criminals and not just keeping homosexuality as a crime.

They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to make up their own minds about something that involves HUMAN RIGHTS!

What the fuck? They can't make up their own minds? C'mon man, now you really do sound stupid.

A resolution that would make a statement against death penalty for homosexuality.

On this proposal? It doesn't have much to do with the proposal, you know it is funny we are all talking about something when none of us have read the article or even know exactly what it is about.

I'm sorry, but isn't that what we as people who vote in elections do? I mean seriously. You're right about it being nothing new, and it's not just the Catholic Church who does this.

Yes, it is. Which is why I said I hope the pope will be ignored.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it supports it.
But I would assume that, by not clarifying the church's position on capital punishment when promoting discriminatory laws against homosexuals, the church silently condones it.The Church's position on capital punishment has been clarified, ergo it doesn't.

What I basically want to say is this: Stop debating whether the Church condones the execution of gays. It doesn't. Instead, let's discuss whether the Vatican is wrong for wanting to keep homosexuality criminalized, without resorting to "but then they're supporting executing gays" type fallacious arguments.

Yes I am. And one of the best ones you'll ever know. Yet the fact remains that being against death penalty in general in 2007 doesn't mean they care about this specific case.That's bullshit.

So they should infringe upon other rights, and yes governments do have the right to make and pass laws, other countries do not have the right to dictate sovereign nation's policies. They can protest they can lobby they can blockade but they cannot move in and overrule a government and say no we don't like that we want you to do it this way.

Then these governments should be lobbied, protested, blockaded, and, yes, kicked out of the UN. Because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in the UN's charter, and if they don't follow it, leave they must!

The Vatican is not in the UN. So no, they don't get to say anything.

So why the fuck does it even matter what they say then? If they have no power what so ever in the UN.

The Vatican is not in the UN. So no, they don't get to say anything.Yes they are. Not as a member, but they are indeed "in" in the strictest sense of the word.

I hope Ratzlinger dies soon.

I hope he dies painfully, but this is to be expected from the Catholic church. Sweep fifty years of their preachers buggering altar boys under the rug but the second someone suggests gays oughtn't be fair game for target practice then they protest.

The Church's position on capital punishment has been clarified, ergo it doesn't.

What I basically want to say is this: Stop debating whether the Church condones the execution of gays. It doesn't. Instead, let's discuss whether the Vatican is wrong for wanting to keep homosexuality criminalized, without resorting to "but then they're supporting executing gays" type fallacious arguments.

Never said they are supporting it, just said they don't give a fuck.

They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to make up their own minds about something that involves HUMAN RIGHTS!

The DO have the RIGHT to make up THIER OWN minds about everything.

Or is independant though illegal too? You might want to rephrase that.

Yes, it is. Which is why I said I hope the pope will be ignored.

Chances are he will be. From what I read, the majority of European countries support the resolution. So, where exactly is the issue then?

Then these governments should be lobbied, protested, blockaded, and, yes, kicked out of the UN. Because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in the UN's charter, and if they don't follow it, leave they must!

Yes but not forced to change their policy simply because a few foreigners disagree.

I hope he dies painfully

Damn! Forgot to add that. And now you go a-stealing my thunder. :p

Never said they are supporting it, just said they don't give a fuck.You're lying again.

The DO have the RIGHT to make up THIER OWN minds about everything.

Or is independant though illegal too? You might want to rephrase that.

So Khmer Rouge was perfectly within their rights to decimate Cambodia? Wiggy.

The DO have the RIGHT to make up THIER OWN minds about everything.

Or is independant though illegal too? You might want to rephrase that.

The "own minds" there was the passing to the action. You know it as well as I do.

But the Vatican does not so it's not relevant waht other countries do.
It seems that we have different ideas about what the UN is for.
UN resolutions (expecially about human rights) are above local laws.


They come out against forcing people to accept sexual behavior if they don't want to. Imagine that, the Vatican letting individual countries make up their own mind about homosexuality.
No, wait. They come out FOR allowing countries to force people to accept a sexual behaviour (eterosexuality) they don't want.
I agree that it's not realistic to expect a little less bigotry from the Vatican, but I don't like bigotry; I prefer human rights for the individuals.

You're lying again.

I USUALLY am, but not this time, no.

The Church's position on capital punishment has been clarified, ergo it doesn't.

What I basically want to say is this: Stop debating whether the Church condones the execution of gays. It doesn't. Instead, let's discuss whether the Vatican is wrong for wanting to keep homosexuality criminalized, without resorting to "but then they're supporting executing gays" type fallacious arguments.

Well, execution is probably the most drastic result of keeping homosexuality criminalised.
But even if we're talking prison sentences or fines, I still think the church is wrong to condone those.
Sins = / = laws, so the church has no basis to demand making anything it considers a sin illegal. Where would that lead us? Prison sentences for condom producers and retailers? Fines for people working on Sundays? Prosecution of non-Catholics?

Yes but not forced to change their policy simply because a few foreigners disagree.

Forced to change it IF they want to keep their asses in the UN, yes. Forced to change at gunpoint, no.

I USUALLY am, but not this time, no.

Well can you prove they don't give a fuck about the death penalty?

Well, execution is probably the most drastic result of keeping homosexuality criminalised.
But even if we're talking prison sentences or fines, I still think the church is wrong to condone those.
Sins = / = laws, so the church has no basis to demand making anything it considers a sin illegal. Where would that lead us? Prison sentences for condom producers and retailers? Fines for people working on Sundays? Prosecution of non-Catholics?

You know as well as I do that the Church would LOVE these if it had power to.

The Vatican is not in the UN. So no, they don't get to say anything.

I hate to correct you, but the Vatican, while not a full-fledged UN member, has a "permanent observer" status iirc. That is, Vatican diplomats are invited to join the work (which includes making statements about proposals), but they cannot vote.

Yes I am. And one of the best ones you'll ever know. Yet the fact remains that being against death penalty in general in 2007 doesn't mean they care about this specific case.

You know, I have seen you come out against the death penalty for homosexuality but I haven't heard a peep from you about the death penalty for theft, vandalism, murder or speeding.

I shall now assume that even though you stated you are against the death penalty, you aren't against it for these specific crimes since you haven't come out against them specifically.

Forced to change it IF they want to keep their asses in the UN, yes. Forced to change at gunpoint, no.

Of course but then that is the choice of the government and is their right to do so.

Yes they are. Not as a member, but they are indeed "in" in the strictest sense of the word.

How so? I consulted wikipedia before posting, to be on the safe side, and saw nothing indicating special membership?

Well can you prove they don't give a fuck about the death penalty?

They're against a resolution that would reduce it because the resolution includes giving rights to gays.

Chances are he will be. From what I read, the majority of European countries support the resolution. So, where exactly is the issue then?

The issue is that there are countries with populations who listen to what this spiteful old man says. Unfortunately.

You know, I have seen you come out against the death penalty for homosexuality but I haven't heard a peep from you about the death penalty for theft, vandalism, murder or speeding.

I shall now assume that even though you stated you are against the death penalty, you aren't against it for these specific crimes since you haven't come out against them specifically.

Then I will just say here and now that I'm against death penalty in general.

Feel free to ask Hitler Jugend Papst the same.

Well, execution is probably the most drastic result of keeping homosexuality criminalised.
But even if we're talking prison sentences or fines, I still think the church is wrong to condone those. As am I.

Chances are he will be. From what I read, the majority of European countries support the resolution. So, where exactly is the issue then?

The issue is that there are countries with populations who listen to what this spiteful old man says. Unfortunately.
And they tend to be the kind of countries who are not above making a minority suffer for what the majority believes.

So Khmer Rouge was perfectly within their rights to decimate Cambodia? Wiggy.

That's not what I said, not even by a long shot.

They're against a resolution that would reduce it because the resolution includes giving rights to gays.

WTF? How does that prove that they are for the death penalty? Dude, sometimes you are way off.

The issue is that there are countries with populations who listen to what this spiteful old man says. Unfortunately.
And they tend to be the kind of countries who are not above making a minority suffer for what the majority believes.

Name a few?

Name a few?

Mexico is one of those countries.

Name a few?

South America is full of them.

Then I will just say here and now that I'm against death penalty in general.

Feel free to ask Hitler Jugend Papst the same.

Yet Lareod has shown you already where they have said this and yet you continue to flog this dead horse, and the fact that he was in his youth a member of a youth group which almost every young boy and girl was is pretty low even for you.

That's not what I said, not even by a long shot.

It was clearly an hyperbole, yet within the context of "universal human rights" that has some kind of pertinence, don't you think so?
The point is: do we think that choosing freely one's own sexual behaviour is a right? The Vatican says nay.

Name a few?Poland, Italy, and Spain generally have an electorally significant population that will listen to what the pope has to say.

That's not what I said, not even by a long shot.

Sure it is. You said the government has the right to make up it's own mind about human rights. Khmer Rouge made up their minds all right. Who are we to judge eh?

It seems that we have different ideas about what the UN is for.
UN resolutions (expecially about human rights) are above local laws.

Yes.
So why are we even discussing why the Vatican is lobbying the UN about a human rights resolution that goes against their stance and their belief? Do they not have the right to argue for their stance?



No, wait. They come out FOR allowing countries to force people to accept a sexual behaviour (eterosexuality) they don't want.
I agree that it's not realistic to expect a little less bigotry from the Vatican, but I don't like bigotry; I prefer human rights for the individuals.

How is that even a surprise? It has been their stance for a while now.
Now if you ask me about their stance, I am against it. I'M all for decriminalizing homosexuality and giving them the same rights as everyone, including marriage.

It was clearly an hyperbole, yet within the context of "universal human rights" that has some kind of pertinence, don't you think so?
The point is: do we think that choosing freely one's own sexual behaviour is a right? The Vatican says nay.

Except they don't choose, hmm. And no the Vatican in this case against the proposal is saying nay to the UN overriding what a sovereign government can and cannot do.

Name a few?

Italy. The parliament (even with the previous centre-left majority) rejected a project of civil unions, because it would have included homosexuals.

South America is full of them.

Okay now Cabra, take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world#South_America

See the amount of 'no's' there? The Pope being against this resolution has absolutely no effect in reality -- other than making it clear that the Catholic Church is against homosexuality.

Poland, Italy, and Spain generally have an electorally significant population that will listen to what the pope has to say.

Not Spain, in the last decade or so the Pope's influence on the country has decreased drastically.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42739-2005Apr10.html

Italy. The parliament (even with the previous centre-left majority) rejected a project of civil unions, because it would have included homosexuals.

So? There are just as many non-Catholic countries who don't have civil unions.

So? There are just as many non-Catholic countries who don't have civil unions.

Like the US, which isn't Catholic but is in truth far scarier.

Except they don't choose, hmm. And no the Vatican in this case against the proposal is saying nay to the UN overriding what a sovereign government can and cannot do.

Oh, I see. And if a vote came in the UN proposing that abortion was to be banned in all countries belonging to it, do you think the Vatican would be against it also?

No?

Then stop pretending this is about sovereignty.

Sure it is. You said the government has the right to make up it's own mind about human rights. Khmer Rouge made up their minds all right. Who are we to judge eh?

Someone says that the vatican cannot make up their mind.
I say they can.
So now, I'm supporting genocide?

Making up their mind =/= acting on it. Besides, there's a chasm of difference between making something illegal and advocating genocide. Or should we allow murder now, since making something illegal is bad?

Poland, Italy, and Spain generally have an electorally significant population that will listen to what the pope has to say.

Sorry my point wasn't quite clear... I agree that the Pope has a massive influence on the people, but I don't think he has too much of an influence on many Governments these days. Hence him saying no to this resolution isn't really a big deal. It just affirms what we know -- the Church ain't a fan of homosexuality.

Yes.
So why are we even discussing why the Vatican is lobbying the UN about a human rights resolution that goes against their stance and their belief? Do they not have the right to argue for their stance?

They aren't being reasonable, that's the point. No one is willing to force anyone to BE homosexual; so, why should someone force anyone to BE eterosexual?

How is that even a surprise? It has been their stance for a while now.
Sadly, yes. It's not a surprise. So please, Vatican, DO surprise us just this once and change your mind about the proposal!

Now if you ask me about their stance, I am against it. I'M all for decriminalizing homosexuality and giving them the same rights as everyone, including marriage.
I'm happy to hear that, but I wasn't criticising your own stance. Btw, you know, you and I don't have exactly the same influence as the Pope about world politics.

Okay now Cabra, take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world#South_America

See the amount of 'no's' there? The Pope being against this resolution has absolutely no effect in reality -- other than making it clear that the Catholic Church is against homosexuality.

Even the Vatican hasn't got laws against homosexuality.

Like the US, which isn't Catholic but is in truth far scarier.

True. But hey, the US is slowly getting there. Well, except for Cali.

Not Spain, in the last decade or so the Pope's influence on the country has decreased drastically.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42739-2005Apr10.html
I never said that a majority listened to the pope, but that a population significantly large enough did.

Someone says that the vatican cannot make up their mind.
I say they can.
So now, I'm supporting genocide?

Making up their mind =/= acting on it. Besides, there's a chasm of difference between making something illegal and advocating genocide. Or should we allow murder now, since making something illegal is bad?

So, Khmer Rouge was perfectly within their rights as a government to dissolve the notion of civil rights, as long as they didn't actually do that?

I'm confused.

Oh, I see. And if a vote came in the UN proposing that abortion was to be banned in all countries belonging to it, do you think the Vatican would be against it also?

No?

Then stop pretending this is about sovereignty.

Perhaps you can stop pretending that it is only about gays and how they want to kill them all.

Then I will just say here and now that I'm against death penalty in general.

Feel free to ask Hitler Jugend Papst the same.

He did say he was against it. In 2007.
You seem to want him to specify it again as far as homosexuality goes.

Why didn't you come out against the death penalty for speeding when I gave you the chance just now?

Even the Vatican hasn't got laws against homosexuality.

Lol, yeah it's legal there.

I never said that a majority listened to the pope, but that a population significantly large enough did.

Not anymore. The old Catholic guard in Spain is dying and young people do not listen to the Pope or what the Church has to say.

So? There are just as many non-Catholic countries who don't have civil unions.

Yes, that's right. But here in Italy it was rejected BECAUSE the Vatican openly opposed it, and many italian catholics vote according to what the Vatican says (both in the centre-left and in the centre-right!).

So, Khmer Rouge was perfectly within their rights as a government to dissolve the notion of civil rights, as long as they didn't actually do that?

I'm confused.I thought what he said was quite clear: They're free to make up their mind about it, but actually implementing it is a completely different story.

Not anymore. The old Catholic guard in Spain is dying and young people do not listen to the Pope or what the Church has to say.You're article implies that the Pope and Church's control is slipping. You're saying it as already slipped.

Yes, that's right. But here in Italy it was rejected BECAUSE the Vatican openly opposed it, and many italian catholics vote according to what the Vatican says (both in the centre-left and in the centre-right!).

Okay... So that's one country. You're going to have to do a little better than that.

Btw... I don't agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality. As a Catholic myself it's not something I take much notice of though.

I thought what he said was quite clear: They're free to make up their mind about it, but actually implementing it is a completely different story.

Actually, in politics the difference between "making up one's mind" and "implementing it" isn't that big after all.

You're article implies that the Pope and Church's control is slipping. You're saying it as already slipped.

It has slipped completely. The government's agenda is highly gender equality oriented. Rodríguez Zapatero's government is pro gay marriage and with strong socialist policies that the Church is totally opposed to.

I linked you to the 2005 article to illustrate a point.

Actually, in politics the difference between "making up one's mind" and "implementing it" isn't that big after all.

? What on earth do you mean. That's bullshit.

Actually, in politics the difference between "making up one's mind" and "implementing it" isn't that big after all.Which is irrelevant, because what Khadgar is trying to do is paint Peisandros as having said the latter, when this was not the case.

Okay... So that's one country. You're going to have to do a little better than that.

Man... do you ask me to know other countries' politics as deeply as I know the politics of my own country?

Which is irrelevant, because what Khadgar is trying to do is paint Peisandros as having said the latter, when this was not the case.

I stand slightly corrected.

I thought what he said was quite clear: They're free to make up their mind about it, but actually implementing it is a completely different story.

So they can think whatever they want but not change the laws? That's odd. So a government can decide they're against, say, Filipinos, but can't outlaw being a Filipino?

Which is irrelevant, because what Khadgar is trying to do is paint Peisandros as having said the latter, when this was not the case.

It was actually East Canuk who said that particular thing.. But thanks anyway dude, heh.

Okay... So that's one country. You're going to have to do a little better than that.

Btw... I don't agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality. As a Catholic myself it's not something I take much notice of though.

Not a lot of Catholics do, though when the Catholic church in Australia was criticising the former government for locking up illegal refugees and not allowing them in the country quite a few took notice and listened. Wait, what? I hear you as, the Catholic church with a left wing bent, never that is impossible they can't it just goes against everything I knew about the church.

It has slipped completely. The government's agenda is highly gender equality oriented. Rodríguez Zapatero's government is pro gay marriage and with strong socialist policies that the Church is totally opposed to.

I linked you to the 2005 article to illustrate a point.There's no one in Spain that will vote as the Pope asks them to? I find that hard to believe.

? What on earth do you mean. That's bullshit.

I mean that in politics, "making up one's mind" means "the government (parliament or cabinet or whatever) has taken this position as the country's official position, by passing a law or whatever". Laws are things that get enforced.

It was actually East Canuk who said that particular thing.. But thanks anyway dude, heh.Nyargh... food deprivation sinking in...

Not a lot of Catholics do, though when the Catholic church in Australia was criticising the former government for locking up illegal refugees and not allowing them in the country quite a few took notice and listened. Wait, what? I hear you as, the Catholic church with a left wing bent, never that is impossible they can't it just goes against everything I knew about the church.

They did? I didn't realise.. But yeah, I get what you mean. Church is seen as just so uber oppressive. All the time.

Nyargh... food deprivation sinking in...

Nearly 330am here... I feel ya. I guess my high involvement in this thread got you confused!

I mean that in politics, "making up one's mind" means "the government (parliament or cabinet or whatever) has taken this position as the country's official position, by passing a law or whatever". Laws are things that get enforced.

I thought what you were saying was that thinking something and the act of doing it wasn't that different, sorry.

There's no one in Spain that will vote as the Pope asks them to? I find that hard to believe.

Think what you will, but since Pope Benedict wanted to get his hands into Spanish politics, this has backfired on him and the Catholic Church's influence in Spain since the institution is against gay rights while the government is pro gay rights. What's more, it has ensured the continued victory of the PSOE since it's insertion of full gay rights in the country, Zapatero's party, over the PP (the PP has a large support from the Church here in Spain) for years to come.

Some small percentage may still listen to the Pope, but not a considerable number. Not enough people to truly affect the government and it's laws.

They did? I didn't realise.. But yeah, I get what you mean. Church is seen as just so uber oppressive. All the time.

I suggest this (http://salt.claretianpubs.org/cstline/tline.html) website. Very insightful into what Catholic social thought really is. You may be surprised.

So, Khmer Rouge was perfectly within their rights as a government to dissolve the notion of civil rights, as long as they didn't actually do that?

I'm confused.

Maybe because the two situation aren't similar at all.
Perhaps because you're trying to use reductio ad absurdum when it doesn't fit.
Or it could be because I never said the Kmer were right to kill.

They did? I didn't realise.. But yeah, I get what you mean. Church is seen as just so uber oppressive. All the time.

Well I wonder how much of it is based on old stereotypes and the like but it is part of the reason why I always find it funny when people say the Catholic church is a conservative right wing church. I suppose that may be why some people on here have a hard time seeing that the church is actually against outside organisations infringing and dictating the laws of governments with their opposition to this UN proposal.

I suggest this (http://salt.claretianpubs.org/cstline/tline.html) website. Very insightful into what Catholic social thought really is. You may be surprised.

Oh, I'm not surprised at all. I had to learn a massive chunk of an encyclical written about Oceania... It was really, really positive stuff.

And here (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20011122_ecclesia-in-oceania_en.html) it is! Scary just reading the title... Had to memorise and study so much of it for a Catholic schools competition. Good fun in the end though lol.

Well I wonder how much of it is based on old stereotypes and the like but it is part of the reason why I always find it funny when people say the Catholic church is a conservative right wing church. I suppose that may be why some people on here have a hard time seeing that the church is actually against outside organisations infringing and dictating the laws of governments with their opposition to this UN proposal.

I've grown up with that church, thank you very much. It's economically leftish, but socially so far right it's wrong again.

Do you honestly believe that its opposition to this proposal is simply down to the fact that the church likes national individualism so much, it doesn't want the bad, evil UN take over and tell governments that their laws are morally questionable?
Remember, the UN has very little power to actually influence a nations laws or government. It can make suggestions, such as asking them to decriminalise homosexuality. And such a suggestion - a mere polite question in the context - has the Vatican so worried it feels the need to step up and defend national sovreignity?

So they can think whatever they want but not change the laws? That's odd. So a government can decide they're against, say, Filipinos, but can't outlaw being a Filipino?

They can think being filipino is bad.
They can outlaw filipino.
They CANNOT go on a killing spree targetting filipinos.

That's the right of states as it stands. And it wasn't that long ago that the third part was implemented. Also note that there's a world of difference between the first part and the second. You need a law to act on your belief, for starters.

Denying the right of the Vatican to lobby against homosexuality is as abhorrent as, say, denying the United States of America the right to lobby against nuclear weapons in Iran. All you can do is fight against the stance using arguments.

Well I wonder how much of it is based on old stereotypes and the like but it is part of the reason why I always find it funny when people say the Catholic church is a conservative right wing church. I suppose that may be why some people on here have a hard time seeing that the church is actually against outside organisations infringing and dictating the laws of governments with their opposition to this UN proposal.

Stereotypes will always be a part of how people perceive religion.. It's just the way it goes and some people find it very hard to shake these stereotypes. Also there is the idea that all follows believe what the leader believes... I mean, that's hardly ever the case in any religion.

I've grown up with that church, thank you very much. It's economically leftish, but socially so far right it's wrong again.

Do you honestly believe that its opposition to this proposal is simply down to the fact that the church likes national individualism so much, it doesn't want the bad, evil UN take over and tell governments that their laws are morally questionable?
Remember, the UN has very little power to actually influence a nations laws or government. It can make suggestions, such as asking them to decriminalise homosexuality. And such a suggestion - a mere polite question in the context - has the Vatican so worried it feels the need to step up and defend national sovreignity?

I certainly don't believe it's all about national sovereignty. But then again, do you honestly believe the church will stand by while their viewpoint is being relegated to history as it should?

I certainly don't believe it's all about national sovereignty. But then again, do you honestly believe the church will stand by while their viewpoint is being relegated to history as it should?

It would be too much to ask of them to show a little dignity, I guess...

Cabra you never responded to my post before... I think I made a pretty good point!

Well I wonder how much of it is based on old stereotypes and the like but it is part of the reason why I always find it funny when people say the Catholic church is a conservative right wing church. I suppose that may be why some people on here have a hard time seeing that the church is actually against outside organisations infringing and dictating the laws of governments with their opposition to this UN proposal.
The word 'catholic' actually means; liberal, all encompassing. With a capital 'C', it stands for the Roman Church.

Sorry, thought that might be relevant. I'm a walking dictionary...

Cabra you never responded to my post before... I think I made a pretty good point!

Which one?

I certainly don't believe it's all about national sovereignty. But then again, do you honestly believe the church will stand by while their viewpoint is being relegated to history as it should?

As seen in some European countries and what Pope Benedict is doing directly to influence politics, definitely not. The Church won't stand idle while it's being tossed and relegated to history. It should, but it won't.

Which one?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266013&postcount=167

As seen in some European countries and what Pope Benedict is doing directly to influence politics, definitely not. The Church won't stand idle while it's being tossed and relegated to history. It should, but it won't.

Sorry, why should it?

Sorry, why should it?

Because of it's refusal to back down from secular affairs and it's refusal to evolve with times.

Pope Benedict (http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/04/pope_benedict_x.html), quoted from his tried interference in Spain regarding gay marriage:

"Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law."

The legislation has been described by the Vatican as "profoundly iniquitous." But the people of Spain has no problem with gay marriage, neither does the government. So, and please, those who are prfoundly Catholic I apologize for the follwoing: Fuck the Pope.

I've grown up with that church, thank you very much. It's economically leftish, but socially so far right it's wrong again.

Well so did I and when I see the parishes in Australia campaigning against human rights abuses by the Australian government and campaign on social issues that are on the left it doesn't surprise me. But then again maybe it shows that not only a Catholics all listening to what the pope says and just does what he say but each individual country/diocese/parish are different from each other and what they believe. I would say my social policies are on the right yet so many of my priests and bishops would hold views on social issues that are on the opposite side to my own.

Do you honestly believe that its opposition to this proposal is simply down to the fact that the church likes national individualism so much, it doesn't want the bad, evil UN take over and tell governments that their laws are morally questionable?
Remember, the UN has very little power to actually influence a nations laws or government. It can make suggestions, such as asking them to decriminalise homosexuality. And such a suggestion - a mere polite question in the context - has the Vatican so worried it feels the need to step up and defend national sovreignity?

I believe that it has something to do with it, I also believe that their opposition to this does not mean that they want all homos killed. Which is similar to saying that because they are against contraceptives they want AIDS to spread around the world. And yet even though the UN has little power in actually doing this, regardless many countries still use the UN to promote their own beliefs and ideals, and being against something even if they can't do anything about also has to deal with principal.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14266013&postcount=167

Oh, hadn't seen that one... good to know that. I always find it very uplifting to see that bigotry isn't as widespread as we are sometimes led to believe. :)

Because of it's refusal to back down from secular affairs and it's refusal to evolve with times.

True, there are quite a few instances were the Church is pretty outdated.. But I would hardly say it refuses to evolve with the times.

Oh, hadn't seen that one... good to know that. I always find it very uplifting to see that bigotry isn't as widespread as we are sometimes led to believe. :)

Indeed.. I was pretty surprised to see all those no's too.
Africa was disheartening though.

Sorry, why should it?

Because of the crap it's trying to pull ALL THE TIME.

Because of the crap it's trying to pull ALL THE TIME.

Great answer. I'm silly for not thinking that myself.. Wow. My bad. :rolleyes:

Because of it's refusal to back down from secular affairs and it's refusal to evolve with times.

Pope Benedict (http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/04/pope_benedict_x.html), quoted from his tried interference in Spain regarding gay marriage:

"Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law."

The legislation has been described by the Vatican as "profoundly iniquitous." But the people of Spain has no problem with gay marriage, neither does the government. So, and please, those who are prfoundly Catholic I apologize for the follwoing: Fuck the Pope.
It takes about 100 years for something as large as the Church to evolve its stance. This coming from my RCIA priest, who described in much better detail than I can, how the stance of the Church involving different subjects has changed.

Also, I remember this one comedian who commented on the Church's apology to some people for their persecution in thr 14-15th century. The comedian said, "They're still in the 1400s. It'll take 'em a while to get around to something that happened soon," or something to that affect.

Because of the crap it's trying to pull ALL THE TIME.

Such as being against the death penalty? Or against ID in science class? Or against war?

For all the outdated social notions the church has, it does have some good social concepts.

Such as being against the death penalty? Or against ID in science class? Or against war?

For all the outdated social notions the church has, it does have some good social concepts.

Then it should apply the GOOD ones.

Because of the crap it's trying to pull ALL THE TIME.

How DARE it, try and give rights to illegak refugees, how DARE it lobby the government to give greater benefits in helping the poor and homeless in order to bring them out of poverty. Tell the Church to get fucked they shouldn't be doing this shit at all.

Then it should apply the GOOD ones.

Man. If we could pick and choose to our own personal ideals, wouldn't the world be a great place?

To be expected from an ex-Nazi Pope.

Since when is Benedict a Nazi? Yes, he was in the Hitler Youth. Along with every other boy in Nazi Germany that didn't end up in the concentration camps. Doesn't mean he was a Nazi.

My Hebrew teacher grew up in Communist Romania, and she had to join the Communist Youth. Does that make her a Communist? No.

/rant

Back on topic, I just thought of something. I agree that the Church has no business in secular politics, but I would argue that the Pope himself does have a right to get involved in secular politics - he is, after all, the secular ruler of Vatican City. The Catholic Church should not make any statements regarding this UN resolution, but the State of the Vatican City has every right to.

Hey, can someone find out what kind of laws regarding homosexuality Vatican City has?

Hey, can someone find out what kind of laws regarding homosexuality Vatican City has?

We looked at that a few pages back -- none. And by none I mean there are no laws against it.

Granted it's only wiki, but here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world#Europe)

Hey, can someone find out what kind of laws regarding homosexuality Vatican City has?

It is perfectly legal they have no laws against homosexuality.

It is perfectly legal they have no laws against homosexuality.

Well spotted by you, btw. I didn't even think to look.

You get my TG?

Well spotted by you, btw. I didn't even think to look.

Yeah well it was just something interesting to look at as well as a few other countries.

You get my TG?

I have now :tongue: and replied.

It is perfectly legal they have no laws against homosexuality.

Interesting - although they have no laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

Interesting - although they have no laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

That is true no laws against discrimination but even homosexual acts are allowed to occur within the country.

Interesting - although they have no laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

Well they do consider homosexual acts to be a sin, so no surprises that there aren't laws against discrimination.

UN has every right to do so. The "Government" or the "people" have to shut up when they become tyrannies by majorities. Rights are more important than "government", "people" or "sovereignty".
I completely disagree with that,true democracy is achieved only through public consensus even though it may be tyranny by majority,who are the UN to tell anybody what is right,wrong or their views on society should be?

Since when is Benedict a Nazi? Yes, he was in the Hitler Youth. Along with every other boy in Nazi Germany that didn't end up in the concentration camps. Doesn't mean he was a Nazi.

My Hebrew teacher grew up in Communist Romania, and she had to join the Communist Youth. Does that make her a Communist? No.

/rant

Mirkana ranted at me.:eek2:

Back on topic, I just thought of something. I agree that the Church has no business in secular politics, but I would argue that the Pope himself does have a right to get involved in secular politics - he is, after all, the secular ruler of Vatican City. The Catholic Church should not make any statements regarding this UN resolution, but the State of the Vatican City has every right to.

I agree with you that the Pope, being the authority in the Vatican City, has every right to get mixed in secular issues that pertain to his city. I agree with you there. However, I don't think he has a right to get involved in how the rest of the governments are managed and how politics and rights are established in the rest of the world.

Hey, can someone find out what kind of laws regarding homosexuality Vatican City has?

Here ya goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Vatican_City

I completely disagree with that,true democracy is achieved only through public consensus even though it may be tyranny by majority,who are the UN to tell anybody what is right,wrong or their views on society should be?

The UN is a body made up by people who know law and who know tyranny by majority screws minorities over. Simple as that.

I agree with you that the Pope, being the authority in the Vatican City, has every right to get mixed in secular issues that pertain to his city. I agree with you there. However, I don't think he has a right to get involved in how the rest of the governments are managed and how politics and rights are established in the rest of the world.

I would agree with you Nanatsu but that has to apply to every other leader of every other sovereign nation.

I would agree with you Nanatsu but that has to apply to every other leader of every other sovereign nation.

Which is true. I don't condone any leader coming to a different country and say how things have to be done and run.

The UN is a body made up by people who know law and who know tyranny by majority screws minorities over. Simple as that.

The UN has also presided over, or allowed, or watched nearly every major massacre in the last 50 years. Aided or abetted in most.

They're also really good with "peacekeepers" who engage in sex with children, running prostitution rings, and smuggling contraband - much better at it than any other military on the planet.

The UN has also presided over, or allowed, or watched nearly every major massacre in the last 50 years. Aided or abetted in most.

They're also really good with "peacekeepers" who engage in sex with children, running prostitution rings, and smuggling contraband - much better at it than any other military on the planet.

1- This is not a thread for you to express your dislike of UN for refusing to be an accomplice in the disaster named Iraq.

2- Are you ACTUALLY claiming countries should have a right to be tyrannies by majorities and still be in the UN because it had issues?

1- This is not a thread for you to express your dislike of UN for refusing to be an accomplice in the disaster named Iraq.

2- Are you ACTUALLY claiming countries should have a right to be tyrannies by majorities and still be in the UN because it had issues?

How quickly you forget Kosovo... and Rwanda... I'm not even thinking about Iraq - but I guess it was ok for Saddam to line up a quarter of a million Shias and shoot them into ditches in the desert. Or gas Kurds. What did the UN do for them?

The UN, if it was actually effective, would be a "tyranny by majority".

How quickly you forget Kosovo... and Rwanda... I'm not even thinking about Iraq - but I guess it was ok for Saddam to line up a quarter of a million Shias and shoot them into ditches in the desert. Or gas Kurds. What did the UN do for them?

The UN, if it was actually effective, would be a "tyranny by majority".

And what's that got to do with the pope condoning punishment for homosexuals?

The UN is a body made up by people who know law and who know tyranny by majority screws minorities over. Simple as that.
Knowing law makes men superior to everyone else?Or does it give them the right to impose their own version of tyranny on unwilling populaces?

How quickly you forget Kosovo... and Rwanda... I'm not even thinking about Iraq - but I guess it was ok for Saddam to line up a quarter of a million Shias and shoot them into ditches in the desert. Or gas Kurds. What did the UN do for them?

The UN, if it was actually effective, would be a "tyranny by majority".

Again: I defend that the UN kicks from itself the nations that criminalize homosexuality or pull such other crap. And no, it wouldn't be a tyranny. They have a declaration of human rights, remember? That matters. Make other thread if you want to complain about UN failing to bend over backwards to your whims.

Knowing law makes men superior to everyone else?Or does it give them the right to impose their own version of tyranny on unwilling populaces?

The absurd notion that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "tyranny" is yours to prove.

Good luck, you're gonna need it.

Good grief, this thread is silly.

The Catholic church's position on this issue is stupid, in my opinion, but it's utterly nonsensical to claim that it supports the death penalty for homosexuals, given that the Church has very vocally and explicitly opposed the death penalty across the board for some time now. It's also stupid, if predictable, to whine about how Benedict was in the Hitler Youth as if that is relevant, given that no matter how much I disagree with Benedict, there is no actual evidence to suggest that he agrees with any Nazi beliefs, and plenty to suggest that he does not. It is furthermore stupid and offensive to make comments about how all Catholic priests really want to screw altar boys. Yes, some priests did reprehensible things, and yes, the Church did a piss-poor job of handling the situation, but that in no way justifies claiming that every priest is a wannabe child rapist, given that most of them are almost certainly fairly nice guys with no interest in raping children. Come on, people. Argue against the Catholic church's position rather than fighting strawmen about capital punishment or effectively making "ad ecclesiam" comments, so to speak.

And what's that got to do with the pope condoning punishment for homosexuals?

Ask heikoku - she brought up the impotent assfart that is the United Nations.

Ask heikoku - she brought up the impotent assfart that is the United Nations.

Assfarts, maybe. Impotent, hardly.