Vatican Incites hatred of homosexuals

AngelofFire

I was appauled at the statement made by the catholic church that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or adopt children. I am not gay myself i just think it is an attack on basic human rights. im criticising the catholic church btw i know my own religion and others have made similar attacks on homosexuals.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0731/vatican.html

popinfresh

Heh, it's all down hill for the catholic church from here on..

bizmark

if a gay person want,s to get married or have a kid let em as long as the child isnt "pushed" to becomeing gay and can chouse their own sexulity whats the harm

BKtje

Once again the small mind view of Religion.

The quote a friend of mine used once comes back to me
'Religion is the root of all evil'

mike65

This latest edict sound to me like the last gasp of JPJ 2, he is truly out of touch with evergreater numbers of those he presumes to lead. (me nither gay nor RC)

Mike.

Borzoi

I don't see any hatred in that press release.

'unnatural, immoral and harmful' is the quote attributed to them. TBH that's a legitimate viewpoint of a church - not mine though, possibly not yours. But there is a huge step before they 'indite hatred of homosexuals'

Really this thread should be titled 'random Catholic church bashing' IMO:D

amp

Good point. Stick to the topic. I'm a little sick of threads being hijacked to discuss the Catholic church's many flaws. Let's just stick to one issue at a time.

Annasopra

According to the Irish Independent today the 12 page document from the vatican called homosexuals evil!

BKtje

Unnatural, immoral and harmful are just other ways of saying they are the spawn of satan imo and therefore evil.

No one would liek to be called 'unnatural or 'harmful'. I know how i'd feel if i was called these things. I'd be very much inclined to hate the church. I always thought it said in the bible love your fellow man. These people are still your fellow man are they not? Not a lot of love in that statement.

-snip- he is truly out of touch -snip-

What do you expect when you have a leader that is that old?
Can't teach an old dog new tricks and all that.

mike65

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d0_en.htm

Mike.

Silent Bob

Yet again the RC church tries to influence politics.

This I wouldn't necessarily count as inciting hatred, but it certainly is an attempt to incite prejudice and discrimination.

And while the Vatican is well within it's bounds to decide whether it wants to approve same-sex marriage from the RC churches point of view, it is well out of order for them to claim they can decide legal policy.

Nevyn

Originally posted by Silent Bob
Yet again the RC church tries to influence politics.

This I wouldn't necessarily count as inciting hatred, but it certainly is an attempt to incite prejudice and discrimination.

And while the Vatican is well within it's bounds to decide whether it wants to approve same-sex marriage from the RC churches point of view, it is well out of order for them to claim they can decide legal policy.

Yes , but old habits die hard.
there are many countires where how to live ur life and most laws were those dictated from Rome. Many countries as in Spain, Belguim are still very catholic but have infact managed a better seperation of cheuch and state then what we are still struggling to achieve.

Yes, the vatican has to uphold it's stance and be seen not to weaken even more so in the last 30 years where there has been a rise in dedigner catholics.

Did anyone really and truely expect them to come out in favour of alterative life styles ? No well then they have thier belives and they can state them as much as they like. People can only hurt you if you allow them to.

bugler

I hope those that attribute the Vatican's current view of homosexuality as being the last bellowings of the current pope don't get their hopes up too high. It's going to be a long time before any pope condones homosexuality my friends. At least there is the consolation of knowing that younger generations will pay as much attention to the Vatican's view of homosexuals as they do to their view on pre-marital sex and contraception. That is to say fu<k all.

swiss

As Thaed pointed out, it's unlikely that the Catholic church will rescind it's position on homosexuality after such a long period of time. Of course, you can argue that it would be more appropriate for the catholic church to look into the sexual shennanigans of it's own staff (i.e the clergy) than dictating to the rest of us what is considered appropriate and inappropriate. However, at the end of the day, the church is not going to stop sticking it's nose into how people live their lives. This is ostensibly their job.

It is up to people to decide whether the teachings of the catholic church is in accordance with their own moral compass (or lack thereof as the case may be). Once that decision is made, you can decide to accept what the chuch is telling you or reject it.

Oh, and as for biblical references to homosexuality, I would like to refer people to the skeptics bible

Catsmokinpot

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Once again the small mind view of Religion.

The quote a friend of mine used once comes back to me
'Religion is the root of all evil'

its not religions fault! its peoples interpretation of it

Silent Bob

The Irish Times reported today that a civil liberties group has warned Roman Catholic priests that if they distribute the Vatican's document they could be liable for suits to be brought against them under the Incitement of Hatred Act. Apparently the wording of the document itself is strong enough to warrant this.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Catsmokinpot
its not religions fault! its peoples interpretation of it

Yeah but that actual RC religion says that homosexuals are sinful.

Not sure why anyone would be surprised by this ... as far as I know it is the possition that RC Church has always held on homosexuality.

sanvean

Originally posted by swiss
Of course, you can argue that it would be more appropriate for the catholic church to look into the sexual shennanigans of it's own staff (i.e the clergy) than dictating to the rest of us what is considered appropriate and inappropriate.

I wouldn't mind so much if they didn't actively accomodate the people responsible for said 'shennanigans' and THEN lecture us on morality and so forth.

BKtje

its not religions fault! its peoples interpretation of it

Religion still causes these interpretations to be made.

Catsmokinpot

Originally posted by Wicknight
Yeah but that actual RC religion says that homosexuals are sinful.

Not sure why anyone would be surprised by this ... as far as I know it is the possition that RC Church has always held on homosexuality.

exactly! roman catholics! that is a group of peoples interpretation of of the bible and saying what is best for others its exactly the same as islam! some people think its a violent religion in which extremists would die for their beliefs but those people have interpreted it in a different way. their are other people in islam who are peace loving, good people.

my point is just because a group of people who belong to a religios group does not mean that the whole of that religion, or even the whole of religion is at fault.

now i am not a catholic i am actually a buddhist but blaming religion is blaming all of those who believe in anything and thats stereotyping and its also wrong

the reason catholicism is an off-shoot of christianity is because it was interpreted in a different way the same as protestantism they are all different interpretations of the same thing made by people each are wrong in their own way. but it still isnt christianitys fault or religions fault

now you can take that as if im talking a load of tosh but thats the way i see it

Catsmokinpot

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
Religion still causes these interpretations to be made.

no its the sheer narrowmindedness of some people that cause these interpretations to be made

[edit]: i am also not sticking up for catholicism just for religion in general

Falkorre

Lilly Savage For Pope!!!

Seriously tho, the vatican *is* inciting hatred with their comments, they are making us (homosexuals) hate their teachings on the subject.

But realistically, there is no chance of change in the forseeable future unfortunately. I grew up with an intense hatred of the RC Church and what it stands for to me, not to mention the oppression and abuses it imposed on this country and others for so so long.

Personally, I think the RC church is a dying entity on its last legs, a huge majority of this generation dont go to church, and have no real interest in its teachings, partly because of the history and everything that has come to light since they were old enough to understand. They see it as an organisation that oppressed and took advantage of people, and one that need either serious reform or to dissolve completely.

B

GuanYin

Like most things, I've always been interestd in various religions and their teachings versus the actual religious institutions.

What amuses me most about the vatican and these proclaimations is we do't know where (or who) they are actually coming from.

Is it a joint comission of cardinals? I know "offically" its from the pope, but having seen the Pope recently I think he has no mental capacity whatsoever (and I think his continued use as a figurehead is bordering on geriatric-abuse).

So if not the pope, who, and how can statements like this be accepted by anyone when faceless men in backrooms are making them?

superconor

i myself am not a homosexual, however i feel that if someone wants to be i will not hold anything against them.
this announcement from the catholic church ripped the last lingering thread of my catholocism.
i think that civil liberty groups should take action against the Vatican, and maybe tell them of the "preferences" of many of their clergy, i.e, young male children.

chill

Yes it was appalling and astonishing and in my view it was indeed inciting hatred.

It just emphasises how out of touch and irrelevant the monolithic and anti democratic Catholic Church (into which I was born) has become.

It it not just the fact that they don't embrace homosexuality, but the vigor with which they demonise it. There is no morality in their stance and their justification based on some unreliable quotations in the Bible is not an acceptable basis for the demonisation of a whole section of humanity.

Considering the detached indifference and facilitation demostrated by the Catholic Church toward it's paedophilic members, it is mind numbingly hypocritical for them to be so vicious toward a section of humanity that wants nothing more than to be allowed to love each other in peace as all other human beings are allowed to do.

The behaviour of the Church and it's leadership is nothing short of shameful.

chill

Originally posted by Catsmokinpot
my point is just because a group of people who belong to a religios group does not mean that the whole of that religion, or even the whole of religion is at fault.

You are right of course.

We must separate the religion from the priesthood, the cardinals and the pope - the administration people.

There are many fine things in Catholicism, but it's biggest flaw is the bunch of power crazed degenerates that administer it. They have managed to seize control over this religion over the centuries and have abused their position and the trust of Catholic people all over the world. They operate as an anti democratic monolith based on the absolute power of each level of power over that below it. and at the top is an absolute ruler who answers to no one.

Only in America are ordinary Catholics prepared to stand up to this monolithic organisation. Only in the US are they willing to go head to head with them and tell them when they have gone too far. We need a taste of good old US 'attitude' here in Europe and around the world.

The current troubles in the Anglican community may be distatestful to those who believe in equality, but they are a shining beacon of how a religious community can discuss and argue different points of view in a democratic and civilised fashion.

canker

How anyone reamins in a church which makes such absurd statements amazes me.

I saw a photo in some paper the other day of a protester with a banner which I thought really summed it up nicely.

NO GOD
ATHEISM IS FREEDOM

chill

How anyone reamins in a church which makes such absurd statements amazes me.

Me too. However the power of the indoctrination process of children from the time they are babies cannot be underestimated. It is a very exceptional person that can escape this indoctrination and come to a point where they can rationally accept or reject their birth religion.

I saw a photo in some paper the other day of a protester with a banner which I thought really summed it up nicely.

NO GOD
ATHEISM IS FREEDOM

Remember - let's not confuse a religion with it's church hierarchy.

canker

Remember - let's not confuse a religion with it's church hierarchy.

You are quite right, I think a lot of people dismiss the religion because of the church's failings, however the view I quoted I believe still holds, as if you ignore modern attatchments to the religion and follow its original and core beliefs supposedly introduced by god it nevertheless removes all manner of freedoms.

chill

Originally posted by canker
You are quite right, I think a lot of people dismiss the religion because of the church's failings, however the view I quoted I believe still holds, as if you ignore modern attatchments to the religion and follow its original and core beliefs supposedly introduced by god it nevertheless removes all manner of freedoms.

Depending on the interpretation applied.

The bigest problem with religious 'scripture' is that most of it is selectively translated, selectively quoted and selectively applied.

DeVore

Who cares.

Bunch of people over there jump up and down and throw poo. *shrug*.

Seriously. If you can see how irrelevant this is I think you need to look again.

Anyone else think a bunch of celebate men in dresses attacking homosexuals is just too funny? I want to see some handbags and nails before I'm going to pay attention.

Oh yeah, please note my new title. Normal DeVore will return soon. Or maybe not. I might kill him and hide him in the garden. I'll see.

DeV.

chill

Originally posted by DeVore
Anyone else think a bunch of celebate men in dresses attacking homosexuals is just too funny? I want to see some handbags and nails before I'm going to pay attention.

While this may be true in principle, the view that the Vatican and Catholic hierarchy take and their latest pronouncements are indeed important because of their implications for how local church people will behave in their communities and how homophobic people and organisations around the globe will use this kind of attitude to bolster their attacks.

DeVore

Thugs for Jesus? Yeah I can see that, I would imagine the average queer-basher would just as quickly bash a priest because, well... they're all kiddie-fiddlers arnt dey... and everyone knows kiddie fiddlers are queers!

The catholic church's declarations are so tainted now, organisations should be lining up to be denounced. Can you imagine if the Church denounced the XBox? Sales would rocket.

DeV.

JustHalf

I think that people don't understand the meaning of the word "tolerance".

I have not heard or read a single example of "the hatred" incited by the Vatican of homosexual people. All I have heard is that they have stated that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to practice homosexual sex.

Anyone who believes they should be tried for a hate-crime because of this cannot honestly claim to be tolerant or free-speech. To do so would be confuse the nature of tolerance and free-speech.

Free-speech doesn't mean you can say what you like so long as public consensus is in your favour. Free-speech means you can say what you like even if everyone else vehemently disagrees with you.

Now, merely to say a certain act, practiced by millions, is wrong is not to be intolerant. To be intolerant is to approach the practioner in a hateful manner.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance. To tolerate something is to endure it, not to enjoy it. Why do people believe that those who disagree with their actions hate them?

To take any formal action against the Catholic church over this is to be intolerant. Claiming it is an action taken to prevent intolerance (as I'm sure it will be labelled) is just plain bizarre.

So, in short, disagree all you like with what the Catholic church has said; but don't display intolerance by trying to punish them for their professed beliefs.

Memnoch

Originally posted by JustHalf
I think that people don't understand the meaning of the word "tolerance".

I have not heard or read a single example of "the hatred" incited by the Vatican of homosexual people. All I have heard is that they have stated that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to practice homosexual sex.

Anyone who believes they should be tried for a hate-crime because of this cannot honestly claim to be tolerant or free-speech. To do so would be confuse the nature of tolerance and free-speech.

Free-speech doesn't mean you can say what you like so long as public consensus is in your favour. Free-speech means you can say what you like even if everyone else vehemently disagrees with you.

Now, merely to say a certain act, practiced by millions, is wrong is not to be intolerant. To be intolerant is to approach the practioner in a hateful manner.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance. To tolerate something is to endure it, not to enjoy it. Why do people believe that those who disagree with their actions hate them?

To take any formal action against the Catholic church over this is to be intolerant. Claiming it is an action taken to prevent intolerance (as I'm sure it will be labelled) is just plain bizarre.

So, in short, disagree all you like with what the Catholic church has said; but don't display intolerance by trying to punish them for their professed beliefs.

In light of the statements made by the catholic church recently. I would say that your post is a case of irony in point.

To elaborate further.. okay so they didn't exactly say "burn all homosexuals"...
but they at the least implied that all homosexuals and homosexual acts are against the will of "god" etc etc etc, further implying thereby that homosexual's will go to hell as thats where "sinner's" go.

P.S. anyone loosing their religion is welcome to join mine...
rule number one - lots of sex
rule number two - errr there isn't one but suggestions are welcome....

benefits of joining my religion? Eat all u want and never gain any weight :P

p.p.s. suggestions for name of religion and appropriate deity references are welcome :P

Clintons Cat

Conclusion

Legal recognition of homosexual unions would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The church cannot fail to defend these values for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

Positions of Catholic politicians with regard to legislation in favour of homosexual unions

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and to vote against it. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is in force, the politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known.

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.

Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race.

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimisation of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. In those situations where homosexual unions have been given the legal status of marriage, emphatic opposition is a duty.

So the pope wants all catholics to emphatically make their opposition to Same Sex Marraige known and for All Catholic Legislators and Politicians to forestall equality legislation and to reverse it where it has been enacted.
Furthermore those in same sex relationships are deviant,evil and a burden on the rest of the human race if not an outright liability on its very survival?
noww where have i heard rhetoric like that b4?

chill

Originally posted by JustHalf
So, in short, disagree all you like with what the Catholic church has said; but don't display intolerance by trying to punish them for their professed beliefs.

I don't agree. If they simply made that simple point - that homosexuality is wrong etc. then fine.

But they did not do that. The language of their pronouncement is aggressive and in my opinion it is inciteful of hatred and potentially violence against homosexual people.

Free spech has it's limits and one limit is incitement to hatred and violence.

DeVore

Originally posted by JustHalf
Anyone who believes they should be tried for a hate-crime because of this cannot honestly claim to be tolerant or free-speech. To do so would be confuse the nature of tolerance and free-speech.

Regarding Free-speech.

I would consider myself reasonably au fait with the nature of this idea. Exactly *which* "Freedom of speech" are you refering to?

Could I have a constitutional reference? Were you talking about the UN Charter of Human Rights (to which we are a signatory)?

I'd like to see where this unbounded "Freedom" is enshrined?


Regarding Tolerance:
I dont think the Catholic church is a particularly "tolerant" organisation now really... bit of an aul glasshouse there really, neh?

DeV.

Memnoch

Originally posted by DeVore
bit of an aul glasshouse there really, neh?

DeV.

/me tosses a few stones and whistles innocently.

freedom of stone tossing it is more like?
:P

JustHalf

Originally posted by chill
I don't agree. If they simply made that simple point - that homosexuality is wrong etc. then fine.

But they did not do that. The language of their pronouncement is aggressive and in my opinion it is inciteful of hatred and potentially violence against homosexual people.

Free spech has it's limits and one limit is incitement to hatred and violence.

How is it agressive, and how is it inciteful of hatred?

Everyone seems to be able to say it is, but I haven't heard anyone give me a decent example.

JustHalf

Originally posted by DeVore
Regarding Free-speech.

I would consider myself reasonably au fait with the nature of this idea. Exactly *which* "Freedom of speech" are you refering to?

Could I have a constitutional reference? Were you talking about the UN Charter of Human Rights (to which we are a signatory)?

I'd like to see where this unbounded "Freedom" is enshrined?

I'm talking about the principle of freedom of speech that many preach but few practice. My arguments do not require a reference, constitutional or otherwise, in legislation.

Originally posted by DeVore
Regarding Tolerance:
I dont think the Catholic church is a particularly "tolerant" organisation now really... bit of an aul glasshouse there really, neh?

I don't understand what you're trying to say, I'm afraid.

Annasopra

Originally posted by JustHalf
How is it agressive, and how is it inciteful of hatred?

Everyone seems to be able to say it is, but I haven't heard anyone give me a decent example.

Just half you do not seem to have read the above post by clintons cat!

DeVore

Justhalf,

I'm saying there is NO SUCH THING as a complete freedom of speech. It doesnt (and *shouldn't*) exist. Hatred and public interference with societies workings shouldnt be given air time.
You dont have to arrest someone or try and shut them up but you CAN point at them and say "you are wrong to say that".
When I hear Combat 18 singing "****** ****** burning bright"... thats what I think. I'm also reminded that there are more subtle ways of inspiring such dislike in others.

Did anyone need reminding that the RC church doesnt agree with Homosexuality? I mean, is this a shock to anyone? Or were they just sticking the boot in again.

Also, why cant they preach it to their flock (what a great word for religious congregations neh?) and leave the rest of us out of it. I mean, the bit I find MOST insideous is the "call to arms" to politicians and civil servants to apply their religious views to their jobs and have a SECOND agenda ahead of their elected positions.

How many gay couples wont get council housing because some religiously-rabid civil servant reads that as "discriminate against gays in your day job, they deserve it"... which to be fair, is exactly what they are calling on them to do!

Thats deeply worrying.


What I'm saying about tolerance is that the RC Church (as an organisation) is not a very tolerant one. I find it kinda ironic that you should be arguing on that point at all. Hence the glasshouse/stone-throwing allusion.


DeV.

DeVore

From the document itself.

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

(my emphasis)

the politicians moral duty (if that phrase has any meaning at all these days) is to represent the will of the people who elected him.
There was a day when it could be safely assumed that that coincided with the will of the bishops. That day is gone.

This is an insideous attempt to sway the course of democracy by short circuiting it at the politician-level.

Its a disgrace and ironically, from what I've read of Jesus' teachings he'd have been ashamed of it.

DeV.

JustHalf

None of those are hateful. They simply extend from the premise that "homosexuality is wrong". If I remember correctly, the document goes out of its way to seperate the practice from the practicioner. It also states that the practioner is to be treated with compassion, not hate.

If it were to say "burn the gays" then you'd have a case. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It says "you should not allow the legal recognition of gay unions" but it does not threaten people.

Originally posted by DeVore
Also, why cant they preach it to their flock (what a great word for religious congregations neh?) and leave the rest of us out of it. I mean, the bit I find MOST insideous is the "call to arms" to politicians and civil servants to apply their religious views to their jobs and have a SECOND agenda ahead of their elected positions.

Everyone votes according to their beliefs (even if that belief is "money here make vote go yes and makes house nicer"). No human is unbiased or impartial. Expecting this of our politicians is bizarre.

On thing to remember, of course, is that very few people are such turbo-Catholics. Certainly not our politicians.

Originally posted by DeVore
How many gay couples wont get council housing because some religiously-rabid civil servant reads that as "discriminate against gays in your day job, they deserve it"... which to be fair, is exactly what they are calling on them to do!

That's the responsibility of the interpreter, not the author of the document. The document must be clear.

This confusion is like people saying the constitution of Ireland requires everyone of us to pray three times a day in a Catholic church.

chill

Originally posted by JustHalf
How is it agressive, and how is it inciteful of hatred?

Everyone seems to be able to say it is, but I haven't heard anyone give me a decent example.

The statement refers to homosexuality as a 'disorder' and as a 'deviant' bahaviour.

How about these quotes ?:
"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil"

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children.."

"To vote in favour of a law [homosexual marriage law]so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

DeVore

Vote with your conscience by all means... but I expect the elected person to abide by the will of their electorate rather then their own opinion. And *especially* not when they are being back-door influenced by any church.

DeV.

JustHalf

I don't see the hate. "Disorder" and "deviant" extend from the principle that homosexuality isn't what God intended (which is what the Catholic church believes).

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil"
I don't see the problem. The RC church thinks that homosexual practices are rooted in evil, because they contravene the natural order.

Some people believe this is hatred. This is a blinkered view, taking one view of the RC church out of context. What about other, similarly expressed views that no-one claims are hatred? If I remember correctly, they still believe the use of condoms (even between married couples) is evil because it contravenes the natural order. I don't see anyone claiming that this is incitement to hatred of married couples using condoms.

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children.."
Again, I don't seem the problem here. It's just as hair-brained as claiming that adopted children of same-sex couples are just as well adjusted as those adopted by opposite-sex couples, because to know either way requires extensive study over a period of at least 15 years to come to any sort of conclusion.

Otherwise, it's just guesses passed off as fact. And the RC church are not the only ones guilty of this.

"To vote in favour of a law [homosexual marriage law]so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
I don't see hatred here either. The RC church has stated that homosexual unions contravene the natural order. They further imply a responsibility of policitian to uphold the natural order. They then bring it back here to say that voting in favour of such a law (and so voting against the natural order) would be immoral.

I think the main root of the problem here is that "their beliefs are different than my beliefs".

I've noticed a trend in modern society to express tolerance and freedom of speech, but to only apply such tolerance and freedom to whatever one picks-and-chooses to tolerate. True tolerance is something different altogether. You have to tolerate those opinions you disagree with, too.

I found a great article on this (bizarrely, on Overclockers.com) here: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00416/

DeVore

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children.."
Again, I don't seem the problem here. It's just as hair-brained as claiming that adopted children of same-sex couples are just as well adjusted as those adopted by opposite-sex couples, because to know either way requires extensive study over a period of at least 15 years to come to any sort of conclusion.

Otherwise, it's just guesses passed off as fact. And the RC church are not the only ones guilty of this.

So thats ok then? *boggle*


I find it amusing that you pick Tolerance as a point to make (ie that people arent being tolerant of the RC's position).... when that very position (and many like it) are completely intolerant.
The ironing is indeed, delicious.

This is a call to politicians (and by extension others) to do what they can in their power to back-door the Churchs views into civil law and thus impose them on society as a whole rather then their dwindling flock.

QED.

DeV.

chill

Originally posted by JustHalf
I don't see the hate. "Disorder" and "deviant" extend from the principle that homosexuality isn't what God intended (which is what the Catholic church believes).

I think the main root of the problem here is that "their beliefs are different than my beliefs".

I don't accept what appears to me to be your deliberately naive interpretation. These statements are clearly incitement to hatred. You don't appear to understand that such incitement doesn't require the world hate in the text or explicit instruction to act aggressively. The characterisation 'evil' and 'disorder' and deviant' are sufficient in my opinion.

Your suggestion of intolerence of different beliefs is comical if it weren't so serious.

JustHalf

Originally posted by DeVore
So thats ok then? *boggle*

No, it's not okay. But they're not the only spouting this nonsense.

Originally posted by DeVore
I find it amusing that you pick Tolerance as a point to make (ie that people arent being tolerant of the RC's position).... when that very position (and many like it) are completely intolerant.

How is it not tolerant? They disagree with you about what should be legal and what shouldn't be.

If it to say that an act is wrong is labelled "intolerant" then the world is all safe and cushioned in a ball of cotton wool. At this point, we have little for fear from questioning. Everything we do is okay, because we say it is.

I don't want a world like this. If people understood it's implications, I don't think others would either.

Disagree with the RC church all you like, but don't call them intolerant because they disagree with you.

Originally posted by DeVore
The ironing is indeed, delicious.

I dunno, I've been just focusing on tying my shoe faces the bite day.

I presume this is a link to my request on the Mod board?

Originally posted by DeVore
This is a call to politicians (and by extension others) to do what they can in their power to back-door the Churchs views into civil law and thus impose them on society as a whole rather then their dwindling flock.

You mean they are lobbying government?

You mean, like those on the other side of the argument?

Originally posted by DeVore
QED.

Typedef?