Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Fragony]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-signal...134816225.html

Gay marriage shouldn't have to be recognised by the church imho, but to campaign against it is wrong. Yes I know I used to be against it as well and I admit that that was pretty idiotic of me, mea culpa, but at least I fully recognise it when I have been wrong. I know better now and made a u-turn. That the catholic church somehow still manages to claim the role of moral authority after all the sex-scandals and leeching on EU handouts is kinda starting to seriously anger me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If people can campaign for it, why can't people campaign against?

[rajpoot]

Do the Pope and his office even have any serious influence any more?
As a famous public figure he should've probably tried to maintain a more tolerant stance about such an issue, but even if he does not, how much real harm can come of it? I doubt there're many people who are still so devout as to get influenced. A minority maybe, but luckily minorities can be outvoted when their demands are silly.

[Fragony]

If people can campaign for it, why can't people campaign against?

Because they aren't looking for the acknowedgment of the church mostly, those that do tresspass but that's another matter. Gay couples still can'tbenifit from taxcuts that are normal for everybody else

[Ronin]

being wrong is what the church does.
it's kind of a tradition thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If people can campaign for it, why can't people campaign against?

Kill people who disagree with your morals. Great idea frag. I support the Catholic church and agree with them on gay marriage. Again, end the civil institution and keep religion and spirituality out of our government and the compromise is made. We don't have to recognize one type of monogamous sexual relationship as deserving of tax benefits. Keep the dependent breaks in there, allow transfer of benefits to one person of your choosing irrespective of gender or relationship and let that be the end of it. My catholic marriage will not be affected and I won't be forced to recognize n amoral sexual relationship as special, above other types of relationships

[Fragony]

Kill people who disagree with your morals. Great idea frag. I support the Catholic church and agree with them on gay marriage. Again, end the civil institution and keep religion and spirituality out of our government and the compromise is made. We don't have to recognize one type of monogamous sexual relationship as deserving of tax benefits. Keep the dependent breaks in there, allow transfer of benefits to one person of your choosing irrespective of gender or relationship and let that be the end of it. My catholic marriage will not be affected and I won't be forced to recognize n amoral sexual relationship as special, above other types of relationships

You can keep all that. Just don't actively be against it where it doesn't concern you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You can keep all that. Just don't actively be against it where it doesn't concern you.

Of course it concerns me. The core of the issue is tax and entitlement benefits. Am I concerned that Methodists and Anglicans are sanctioning these things? Sure, it is ammoral. Do I have a right to do anything about it? No. Do I lose sleep over it? No.

It is precisely because it does affect me and you that it is a national/western issue. Otherwise they wouldn't require my consent to make it happen. Civil Marriage represents a societal value of a particular type of relationship. It made sense when we all valued it (which is a fantasy as people have always treated it with contempt, just now more than ever). Again, why the government has anything to do with giving me a medal for repeatedly diddling my wife makes no sense to me. Dependant tax breaks? Makes sense. The current existence of marriage in civil code is anachronistic. Single men and women raising children don't get support from the current tax structure. Married couples are now comprised almost universally of 2 income households. It is a tax break that ushers in our complicity in issues that do not concern us from a legal point of view and are an affront to us personally. Spiritually? Yes these things do matter, but I'm, not in favor of enforcing spirituality through secular law, one way or the other.

[Fragony]

You have your opinion on it that's fine with me, I agree that hetero couples should get priority with adoption by the way.

[Beskar]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think we do need to reassess the civil legislation surrounding marriage, since the social structure has changed so drastically in the last few decades. And has been said a big part of this is the fact that nowadays often both partners make large contributions to their combined incomes.

I'm not sure that denying privileges like tax breaks to homosexual couples is discrimination as such, but to be fair, it is pretty unfair towards them. It's not so much that the current system discriminates against them, as that it just doesn't take them into consideration. They are a part of society to.

Although being left out like this isn't so much exclusive to homosexual couples as it is inclusive of everybody who isn't in a heterosexual partnership. Single folk don't get an easy time of it and that's not really fair to them. I swear, under this Tory government if you are under 25, single, and have no kids, they will let you shrivel up and die before they help you out.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Do the Pope and his office even have any serious influence any more?
As a famous public figure he should've probably tried to maintain a more tolerant stance about such an issue, but even if he does not, how much real harm can come of it? I doubt there're many people who are still so devout as to get influenced. A minority maybe, but luckily minorities can be outvoted when their demands are silly.

In Italy? Yes, they do. In fact, the very existence of the Vatican is the concession of that fact by Mussolini -- and the Vatican continues to have an active hand in Italian politics to this day.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think we do need to reassess the civil legislation surrounding marriage, since the social structure has changed so drastically in the last few decades. And has been said a big part of this is the fact that nowadays often both partners make large contributions to their combined incomes.

I'm not sure that denying privileges like tax breaks to homosexual couples is discrimination as such, but to be fair, it is pretty unfair towards them. It's not so much that the current system discriminates against them, as that it just doesn't take them into consideration. They are a part of society to.

Although being left out like this isn't so much exclusive to homosexual couples as it is inclusive of everybody who isn't in a heterosexual partnership. Single folk don't get an easy time of it and that's not really fair to them. I swear, under this Tory government if you are under 25, single, and have no kids, they will let you shrivel up and die before they help you out.

Agreed. They've completely lept over the crux of the modern institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I don't recognize governmental authority over it. I am married in the eyes of government because you are unable to get married in the Catholic Church in the U.S. if you do not have a marriage license with the State. This is a State restriction rather than a Religious restriction. Do I want my wife to maintain our property after my death? collect social security benefits? Absolutely. But if I wasn't married I would want those things to go to my closest relation anyway. Current structure pre-supposes that marriage is the most important social partnership. I agree, but my views that marriage is a spiritual, honor based, between 1 man/1 womna and God, no dissolution possible outside of death and annulment (seperation is not disolution, the church does not prevent couples from living seperately, spouses just cannot commit adultury during the absence) - this has nothing to do with government.

Individuals tell the state which relationships are the most important to them, the state doesn't tell individuals. I do agree that marriage is the most important institution, but when I say "marriage" it has very little to do with your (not yourse per se, nearly everyone elses) definition.

Tiaexz has a much shorter version of my underlying point

[Greyblades]

I think that we should nuke the vatican, just out of principle.

[PanzerJaeger]

Evil incarnate. We've seen this alliance at work in many states across the US. It will fail and these churches will be even more marginalized than they already are for their efforts.

The 85-year-old pope, speaking in the frescoed Clementine Hall of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace, said the family was being threatened by "a false understanding of freedom" and a repudiation of life-long commitment in heterosexual marriage.

"When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child - essential elements of the experience of being human are lost," the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholic said.

Significantly, the pope specifically praised as "profoundly moving" a study by France's chief rabbi, Gilles Bernheim, which has become the subject of heated debate in that country.

Bernheim, also a philosopher, argues that homosexual rights groups "will use gay marriage as a Trojan Horse" in a wider campaign to "deny sexual identity and erase sexual differences" and "undermine the heterosexual fundamentals of our society".

Wow. Not only is he reaffirming that gay marriage is wrong according to Catholic beliefs, but he is endorsing the idea that gay people are actively trying to undermine society through some kind of plot. This is a new and dangerous level of crazy for the institution. There are still a few nuts out there that take him seriously and may see this as some sort of papal Fatwah to save civilization.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Evil incarnate. We've seen this alliance at work in many states across the US. It will fail and these churches will be even more marginalized than they already are for their efforts.



Wow. Not only is he reaffirming that gay marriage is wrong according to Catholic beliefs, but he is endorsing the idea that gay people are actively trying to undermine society through some kind of plot. This is a new and dangerous level of crazy for the institution. There are still a few nuts out there that take him seriously and may see this as some sort of papal Fatwah to save civilization.

Nonsense. Evil must be stopped not with violence, but with greater goodness. Homosexuals are welcomed in church, as are tax cheats, adulterers, sex offenders, theives, mass murderers, violent video game players, bullies, illegal file sharers, torturers, gossips corporate embezzlers, abortionists, gamblers, users of pornography, alchoholics, terrorists. Those people are not defined by their sins unless they allow themselves to be. Their vices are what make them need a better relationship with God and are not celebrated - but those labels are not who they are just because they are driven to do those things. We don't kill these people (myself included, thankfully), we invite them into a more peaceful and understanding relationship with God and the world around them. There are a number of Gay people at Mass with us on Sundays. When my wife and I were living together before we got married we felt equally ashamed. Feeling shame isn't a bad thing, even when it is a result of something that you are driven to do.

My view of government is, of course, different from my spiritual views. I believe that someone can damn themselves for their sins spiritually. It doesn't make them innefective employees or bad neighbors.

[Major Robert Dump]

This is the same idiotic reasoning and idealogy held by the "holdouts" in the military who oppose the repeal of dadt. They literally overstate the effects of one of "them gays" on the overall "morale", they talk like the gay people will bring the overall moral compass of the unit down, which hetero soldiers are perfectly capable of doing without outside help, they talk like its some kind of giant plot to lower standards to make the military more like a civilian club

[lars573]

A nuke would unnecessary for wiping out Il Vaticano. It's so small a pair of laser guided conventional bombs would do the job.

[Kival]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

Indeed. Financial Aid and Support for Children, not for marriage, and all problems are solved. Okay, you also need to give everyone the possibility to name a person, who can decide things in hospital etc. But there should be no marriage needed for that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nonsense. Evil must be stopped not with violence, but with greater goodness. Homosexuals are welcomed in church, as are tax cheats, adulterers, sex offenders, theives, mass murderers, violent video game players, bullies, illegal file sharers, torturers, gossips corporate embezzlers, abortionists, gamblers, users of pornography, alchoholics, terrorists. Those people are not defined by their sins unless they allow themselves to be. Their vices are what make them need a better relationship with God and are not celebrated - but those labels are not who they are just because they are driven to do those things. We don't kill these people (myself included, thankfully), we invite them into a more peaceful and understanding relationship with God and the world around them. There are a number of Gay people at Mass with us on Sundays. When my wife and I were living together before we got married we felt equally ashamed. Feeling shame isn't a bad thing, even when it is a result of something that you are driven to do.

Yes, that has been the standard line for a long time. However, by endorsing Bernheim's theory, the pope has moved firmly into Glenn Beck territory. What he is pushing now is very different than what you stated above. Gays are no longer simply stubborn sinners who refuse to accept god's teachings, but something much more sinister. In his eyes, the movement to normalize gay relationships, be it through marriage or adoption, is not an end in itself, but instead a "trojan horse" in a much larger grand scheme to undermine society as we know it and destroy humanity. That is some weird, wild stuff man, and until recently had been relegated to the more extreme religious elements within Christianity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, that has been the standard line for a long time. However, by endorsing Bernheim's theory, the pope has moved firmly into Glenn Beck territory. What he is pushing now is very different than what you stated above. Gays are no longer simply stubborn sinners who refuse to accept god's teachings, but something much more sinister. In his eyes, the movement to normalize gay relationships, be it through marriage or adoption, is not an end in itself, but instead a "trojan horse" in a much larger grand scheme to undermine society as we know it and destroy humanity. That is some weird, wild stuff man, and until recently had been relegated to the more extreme religious elements within Christianity.

Not it isn't wild. He feels the same way about violence in media, infidelity, abortion, callousness to poverty. Most Christians believe in evil and pervasive threat it presents. Ther is an evil plot to destroy your soul. The book of Revelation discusses how in the last days the Church itself will be corrupted. To a Church that believes in a literal/figurative book of Revelation, this isn't zany stuff. You've just been taken over by the beast. So have I, but by different vices and temptations. But it isn't too late for you to repent. You reject Christ. I've read posts of yours. You don't believe in the church, it's traditions or the truth it represents. Nobody is coming after you for it. The modern church realizes that the outcome is punishment enough.

If you had any understanding of what the teachings of the Church are, you wouldn't find these proclamations to be surprising.

"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect – if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time" - JC Matt 24

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping" 2 Peter

[Greyblades]

What is it with religious nuts thinking gays are evil? The heck they do to you?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is it with religious nuts thinking gays are evil? The heck they do to you?

What is it with religious nuts thinking that God became man and died for our sins?

Gays are not evil. Homosexual sexual activity is evil. Extra-marital heterosexual sexuality is evil. They are considered mortal sins.
There is a conspiracy to foster evil through sinful activity that is highly active in our society, as it has been since the beginning of time. Man doesn't direct it, but man is complicit in it's perpetration. There is also a conspiracy to stop this evil from consuming us.

You guys think traditional Christianity is nuts. I get it. But the Church isn't a vessel on earth to punish, it is here to guide and relay the truth of being and how to be saved. It took a long time for them to figure that out, but they seem to have gotten it. It is most potent when it holds no corporal power. God's Kingdom is not of this world - the punishments for breaking the law are not of this world, although some of the consequences can be felt here as a result of your own action.

Government exists to provide freedoms to individuals so that they may live their lives and make free-will decisions. Temporal laws must exist to free people to do what they will, so long as they don't inhibit the freedom of others with their will. The Church has no such obligation - as a spiritual authority on Earth, it's laws direct which actions are good and which are not good according to God's natural law. They make a mistake when they take away free will or destroy physically transgressors - but they are right to condemn actions and call people to a better way of life.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, that has been the standard line for a long time. However, by endorsing Bernheim's theory, the pope has moved firmly into Glenn Beck territory. What he is pushing now is very different than what you stated above. Gays are no longer simply stubborn sinners who refuse to accept god's teachings, but something much more sinister. In his eyes, the movement to normalize gay relationships, be it through marriage or adoption, is not an end in itself, but instead a "trojan horse" in a much larger grand scheme to undermine society as we know it and destroy humanity. That is some weird, wild stuff man, and until recently had been relegated to the more extreme religious elements within Christianity.

Bernheim's study (I'm basing this purely on the quote you gave) and the Pope's remarks appear to make a distinction between the homosexual rights movement and gay people more generally. To say that the movement has an agenda is not so much conspiratorial as it is simply pointing out the nature of the thing. I don't know how far they want to take the social change, I suppose they have different schools of thought. It's wrong and unhelpful to portray either side in this debate as being necessarily in opposite ideological camps, but the homosexual rights movement's opposition to more traditional views of marriage means that they are naturally more sympathetic to various liberal ideas when it comes to gender and the family.

Gays are not evil. Homosexual sexual activity is evil.

I disagree that it is purely the act that is sinful. If you feel that you have a homosexual orientation then you are on some level still actively rebelling against the way God made you and the life you were designed to lead. To have an attraction to men and refrain from pursuing it is still sinful.

[Greyblades]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

Because the only person you should be intimate with is your wife, if you are intimate with other people then it cheapens your relationship together. As for homosexual couples who want an exclusive relationship together, that distracts them from the heterosexual relationships they should be having. So they could be a happy family with kids that have a mummy and a daddy.

inb4 this is all coming from someone with no experience in any of this. But it is an ideal to me, so I see it the way I see it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

Why is sleeping with someone prior to marriage evil?

Why is prostitution evil? Drug abuse? Suicide? Wrath? Gluttony?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I disagree that it is purely the act that is sinful. If you feel that you have a homosexual orientation then you are on some level still actively rebelling against the way God made you and the life you were designed to lead. To have an attraction to men and refrain from pursuing it is still sinful.

Right, thoughts can be impure, but we are judged by faith and actions. Thoughts are sinful because they lead us to our undoing. All of us are driven by temptations that will destroy us if we let them and all sins have the ability to do it, from murder to degradation of ones spouse to petty theft

[lars573]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

Because the backward desert people who wrote the bible needed everyone breeding.

[Greyblades]

Because the only person you should be intimate with is your wife, if you are intimate with other people then it cheapens your relationship together. As for homosexual couples who want an exclusive relationship together, that distracts them from the heterosexual relationships they should be having. So they could be a happy family with kids that have a mummy and a daddy.

inb4 this is all coming from someone with no experience in any of this. But it is an ideal to me, so I see it the way I see it.

Uh huh.

...Ok I'm too bored for this, I'm going to keep saying "why" until you give up saying "shoulds" and say the bible, with all of it's parts written at latest 1500 years ago, or your priest/pope, a man following said bible who's been told interpriting it the churches way is the only moral and that screwing little boys isnt, told you to. Then I'll laugh at you for living your life both on someone else's standards of morality and on hideously out of date standards. Then I'll pity you for letting yourself act that being part of your religion requires you to detest homosexuality.

Why is sleeping with someone prior to marriage evil?

Why is prostitution evil? Drug abuse? Suicide? Wrath? Gluttony?

They aren't. People partaking in all but drug abuse and wrath usually hurt noone but themselves and when they do its because of the person's personal problems than the "evil". As for drugs that is a case by case thing with the majority being no more evil than a thunder strike, and Wrath is an emotion we're born with, something your god says he gave to you and by association isnt evil or he wouldnt have put it in the human blueprint.