Gay Marriage Threatens World Peace

[DoubtingStephen]

The world's richest leader of a faith-based nation state religion, and a former Hitler Youth, Benedict "The Rat" Ratzinger, lovingly known as God's Rotweiler, has declared that gay marriage is a threat to world peace.

I can see his point, here in California we do not quite have gay marriage, but the rather progressive domestic partnership laws have resulted in hundreds of thousands of fatalities already, and that's just here in Palm Springs, population 42,500.

Just last week the City of Palm Springs had to convert 5 former sand plows into corpse removal trucks because of the thousands of victims of domestic partnerships. Oddly all of the victims seemed to have died clutching rosaries, but the coroners office does not believe the deaths were caused directly by the Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God as an act of retribution for the famous tolerance of the local community.

Just here on our own street, only one block long, we are aware of at least 5 other gay or lesbian homeowners. The Air Force may have to be brought in if there is one more commitment ceremony.

Nazi Ratzi went on to compare the threat of gay marriage to nukular proliferation. At least we don't need to bomb Iran, as there are no gays there.

Read more about the pontiff's pontification here (http://www.bgay.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=23).

[Achán hiNidráne]

Any people wonder why I no longer consider myself a Catholic.

[Slimething]

Separated at birth

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/199982.3.png/130px-199982.3.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:199982.3.png) http://www.bgay.com/imnews/Pope_Benedict.jpg

[kmortis]

...and on the other coast, Massachusetts has had to raise extra funds by repealing Prop 2.5 so they could pay for all the decaying bodies left in the public way. "It's a crying shame," proclaimed Matt Amorello, former Chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, "we used to have such a lovely Cape, but now with P-town deserted, no one comes to visit."

Rep. Barney Frank was unavailable for comment as he recuperates from a mysterious disease that has kept him out of the public eye for the last few days.

Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney commented from a campaign stop in Iowa yesterday, "I support the rights of all of our citizens to have whatever life they might want to live, but they must understand that God will have His final word."

[JoeEllison]

If we allow gay marriage to spread, it will be a disaster. Planes will fall out of the sky, cars will stop working, all computer networks will crash, traffic lights will all turn red at once, all of out financial records will be lost... oh, wait, that was Y2K, wasn't it?

Carry on, gay folks!

[kmortis]

Actually, what's really destroying the moral fabric of the modern world is best illustrated by the following picture. Warning: it is not for the feint of heart.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/kmortis/pic29358.jpg

The horror...the horror

[Dancing David]

Yeah the nuclear family is the bais of peace, thanks Big Daddy Wellspoken.

Except for all the times it is a form of homegrown terrorism.

[Autolite]

If we allow gay marriage to spread, it will be a disaster. Planes will fall out of the sky, cars will stop working, all computer networks will crash, traffic lights will all turn red at once, all of our financial records will be lost...

Oh my! That sounds like a bad Bruce Willis / Micheal Bay movie. Gaymagedon!

[Charlie Monoxide]

The pope is right. Gay marriage helps to unify the homophobes and racists (gay inter-racial anyone?) and help prolong their campaign of hate and no tolerance. This in turn leads to world peace unrest.

There are 2 solutions to this "major" problem. The 1st is to be tolerant of the differences of your fellow human beings, and respect the fact that not everyone shares your own world-view.

The other is ...

Charlie (kill all the fags) Monoxide

[Marquis de Carabas]

Homosexuals:

1) Threaten world peace
2) Spread diseases
3) Have been known to die

Now, if y'all would just start despoiling some food, you'd have the Apocalypse covered all by yourselves. Good show!

[Jekyll]

The world's richest leader of a faith-based nation state religion, and a former Hitler Youth, Benedict "The Rat" Ratzinger, lovingly known as God's Rotweiler, has declared that gay marriage is a threat to world peace.

This must be part of some evil atheist plan to destroy the catholic church from within.
As well as the gay marriage lunacy, he's also saying that practising safe sex makes people want to buy heavy weaponry.

WTF

[Darat]

Good to see he's carrying on the good work of that lovely, grandfatherly, soon-to-be saint, dress wearing Pope John Paul II who said that homosexual unions are as evil as Hitler's Nazism. (Presumably the current Pope was able to fill in his predecessor from personal experience about how evil a Nazi could be.)

From John Paul II's book "Memory and Identity" and his comments regarding the EU's position that same sex unions are OK, this is his view of the EU's "ideology of evil":

"I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognise homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

(For context the other "ideologies of evil" he identifies in his book are Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's communism...)

[Belz...]

The world's richest leader of a faith-based nation state religion, and a former Hitler Youth, Benedict "The Rat" Ratzinger, lovingly known as God's Rotweiler, has declared that gay marriage is a threat to world peace.

What a dolt.

[Quinn]

This must be part of some evil atheist plan to destroy the catholic church from within.


Shhh, pipe down! What are you trying to do, blow the cover of our best disinfo agent?

He was only kidding, folks! Nothing to see here!

[Hokulele]

This certainly explains Canada.

[-Fran-]

Actually, what's really destroying the moral fabric of the modern world is best illustrated by the following picture. Warning: it is not for the feint of heart.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/kmortis/pic29358.jpg

The horror...the horror

Animal cruelty :(

[IMST]

Obviously we gays have not been protecting world peace through promiscuity enough. For any of us out there in a commited relationship or, Pope Rat forbid, a marriage: GET OUT THERE AND START FORNICATING WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!
We must stop the evils of gay monogomy. I'll be doing my part this weekend.

[ravdin]

He just doesn't want to admit that the real threat to world peace is 80 year old virgins.

[-Fran-]

Obviously we gays have not been protecting world peace through promiscuity enough. For any of us out there in a commited relationship or, Pope Rat forbid, a marriage: GET OUT THERE AND START FORNICATING WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!
We must stop the evils of gay monogomy. I'll be doing my part this weekend.

:D

[grayman]

You'd think if he was going to criticize gay people, he and his buddies would dress a little less flamboyantly:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/92464762d99fcbcd1.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9727)

[IMST]

You'd think if he was going to criticize gay people, he and his buddies would dress a little less flamboyantly:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/92464762d99fcbcd1.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9727)

Crap! we wore the same dress! Now I have to change...

[Sefarst]

Ah, so someone dusted the Pope off to play dress up and make another round of platitudes and token condemnations. Fortunately, only we non-Catholics seem to the be the ones who pay attention to him anymore. We have to have spoonful of outrage.

A humorous conversation that just took place between myself and a Catholic coworker,

Me: "Did you hear about the Pope's new speech?"
Catholic Coworker: "No, what's it about."
Me: "Gay marriage is a danger to world peace."
Catholic Coworker: "Oh, same 'ole same 'ole then, eh? I wonder if anything bad every happens in the world that's not the gays' fault?"

[joobz]

So Far on the Pope Tour of Crazy.

1.) Revoking evolution
2.) Hating on Islam
3.) Other Churches are not true(TM) christians
4.) Atheists are source of world's problems
5.) global warming-we must wait for more evidence
6.) Gay marriage will kill us


I'm still waiting for him to reinstate the "jews killed christ" claim and possible argue in favor of a flat earth.

[Darat]

You'd think if he was going to criticize gay people, he and his buddies would dress a little less flamboyantly:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/92464762d99fcbcd1.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9727)

Hmmm.... red shoes... where's Dorothy when you need her?

[Marquis de Carabas]

So Far on the Pope Tour of Crazy.

1.) Revoking evolution
2.) Hating on Islam
3.) Other Churches are not true(TM) christians
4.) Atheists are source of world's problems
5.) global warming-we must wait for more evidence
6.) Gay marriage will kill us


I'm still waiting for him to reinstate the "jews killed christ" claim and possible argue in favor of a flat earth.
Maybe he'll get lucky and the gays will make the atheists and muslims and greens and protestants and scientists fight each other to mutual extinction.

[El_Spectre]

[snippity]

I can see his point, here in California we do not quite have gay marriage, but the rather progressive domestic partnership laws have resulted in hundreds of thousands of fatalities already, and that's just here in Palm Springs, population 42,500.

[snip]



Sure, now. Before those progressive laws? Millions :)

[Slimething]

Hmmm.... red shoes... where's Dorothy when you need her?

We don't need no stinkin' Dorothy! This calls for the house!

Scuse me, I gotta call Glinda.

[Tanstaafl]

The world's richest leader of a faith-based nation state religion, and a former Hitler Youth, Benedict "The Rat" Ratzinger, lovingly known as God's Rotweiler, has declared that gay marriage is a threat to world peace.


I don't think I have enough obscenities in my vocabulary to convey my opinion of this idiot.

[kmortis]

I don't think I have enough obscenities in my vocabulary to convey my opinion of this idiot.

HEY! don't denigrate idiots.

[Tanstaafl]

Sorry, it was just the nicest thing I could think of to call him... :o

[kmortis]

Why not a ****wit? Jackass? Moron? Why an idiot? Don't you know that I have feelings?

[IMST]

Why not a ****wit?
I prefer ****tard.

[kmortis]

You say "****tard" I say "****wit"
You say "jackass" I say "moron"
Let's call the whole thing off.

[joobz]

You say "****tard" I say "****wit"
You say "jackass" I say "moron"
Let's call the whole thing off.
I don't remember the parties involved, but didn't someone turn a political pundint's name into a horrifically vile word?

[kmortis]

Well, there are parts of the US where you will get your ass kicked if you mention James K. Polk.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This certainly explains Canada.

We have no uppity gay folks here. They are all downity. :crowded:

[Quinn]

I don't remember the parties involved, but didn't someone turn a political pundint's name into a horrifically vile word?

You might be thinking of "santorum," named after former senator and prizewinning ****tard Rick Santorum. Try putting the word between a "www" and a ".com" to see the definition.

[IMST]

Regarding Rick Santorum, here's the link.
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com

[kmortis]

So...he's the Senatorial version of a Cleavland Steamer?

[joobz]

Regarding Rick Santorum, here's the link.
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com
that's what I was thinking of. we need to come up with a santorum for ratzinger.

[kmortis]

that's what I was thinking of. we need to come up with a santorum for ratzinger.

his name is "rodent taunt" and you think we need to INVENT something?

[joobz]

his name is "rodent taunt" and you think we need to INVENT something?
It does have that old-timey insult feel to it.
what are you. Some kind of no good, ratzinging, rapscallion?

[kmortis]

It does have that old-timey insult feel to it.
what are you. Some kind of no good, ratzinging, rapscallion?

True, but it does miss the real je ne sais qua of somehting like..."rat ***********, boy boffing, pig headed prelate"

[IMST]

that's what I was thinking of. we need to come up with a santorum for ratzinger.

cricifixophilia, maybe? or is that so highly inappropriate that I should get modded for it?

[grayman]

Rathttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/924647635a931cd7f.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9734)inger

[DoubtingStephen]

that's what I was thinking of. we need to come up with a santorum for ratzinger.

I think Nazi Ratzi has a certain charm.

[kmortis]

I think Nazi Ratzi has a certain charm.

It's nice, it rolls off the tongue. But it's lacking a certain something. "Santorum" is a single word, and the moron's last name. I guess we can adopt "Nazi Ratzi" until a better one comes along.

[The Atheist]

Rathttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/924647635a931cd7f.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9734)inger

Mate, that is brilliant. Stolen.

In case of any royalties - talk to my bank manager. He won't know where to find me either.

:bgrin:

[joobz]

To your favor I assume you're Yankees not knowing what they talk about.
Granted, the thread deviated into godwin territory.... But it's hard not to, when the pope continues to go do the path of crazy.
So Far on the Pope Tour of Crazy.

1.) Revoking evolution
2.) Hating on Islam
3.) Other Churches are not true(TM) christians
4.) Atheists are source of world's problems
5.) global warming-we must wait for more evidence
6.) Gay marriage will kill us


I'm still waiting for him to reinstate the "jews killed christ" claim and possible argue in favor of a flat earth.

[Lonewulf]

There are few people I hate.

This pope is becoming one of those few.

[Herzblut]

There are few people I hate.

This pope is becoming one of those few.
Are you getting emotional? That's pretty irrational and unskeptical in nature, isn't it?

Herzblut

[IMST]

Are you getting emotional? That's pretty irrational and unskeptical in nature, isn't it?

Herzblut

If you claim to be free from emotion you are either affected by a brain disorder or lying. I suspect it's the second option.

[shadron]

From John Paul II's book "Memory and Identity" and his comments regarding the EU's position that same sex unions are OK, this is his view of the EU's "ideology of evil":

"I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognise homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

Well, you know, I asked my oneself that just the other day, and after due consideration, I answered myself, "No." Now, as for this problem that you, a Catholic pope, have with human rights...

Oops, sorry, you're dead.

[Lonewulf]

The whole "nazi connection" thing is a red herring anyways...

The claims about gay marriage are nutty. Period.

[Darat]

Well, you know, I asked my oneself that just the other day, and after due consideration, I answered myself, "No." Now, as for this problem that you, a Catholic pope, have with human rights...

Oops, sorry, you're dead.

When (note not if) he becomes a saint you can always send him a question or two in your prayers...

[Herzblut]

The world's richest leader of a faith-based nation state religion, and a former Hitler Youth, Benedict "The Rat" Ratzinger, lovingly known as God's Rotweiler, has declared that gay marriage is a threat to world peace.

Where exactly did he say that?

[Darat]

Where exactly did he say that?

An English translation of his complete statement can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html - it is available in other languages.

ETA: If you don't want to read it all the answer to your question can be found in paragraph 6.

[Herzblut]

An English translation of his complete statement can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html - it is available in other languages.

ETA: If you don't want to read it all the answer to your question can be found in paragraph 6.
Thanks Darat. Yeah, I know that text, but where does he refer to gay marriage? In fact, he doesn't say anything about it.

[DoubtingStephen]

Where exactly did he say that?

Apparently it was in Vatican City, where he wanks as high as any in Wome. At least that is where the comments are attributed (http://www.bgay.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=23) as having been made.

It is his own personal nation/state, where he has his own army to protect over a thousand years of spoils from exploiting those afflicted with religious delusions. Nobody outside of Vatican City knows how many photographs of altar boys are in the Papal collection.

He is widely considered to be the world's wealthiest man who wears a dress and very expensive Prada shoes. And combined with his magical powers, including the ability to transubstantiate mere bread into tasty human flesh, and the cheapest local wine into iron-rich human blood, it is said he dines fairly well.

[CFLarsen]

The world's richest leader of a faith-based nation state religion, and a former Hitler Youth, Benedict "The Rat" Ratzinger, lovingly known as God's Rotweiler, has declared that gay marriage is a threat to world peace.

Good to see he's carrying on the good work of that lovely, grandfatherly, soon-to-be saint, dress wearing Pope John Paul II who said that homosexual unions are as evil as Hitler's Nazism. (Presumably the current Pope was able to fill in his predecessor from personal experience about how evil a Nazi could be.)

Rathttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/924647635a931cd7f.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9734)inger

I think Nazi Ratzi has a certain charm.

It's nice, it rolls off the tongue. But it's lacking a certain something. "Santorum" is a single word, and the moron's last name. I guess we can adopt "Nazi Ratzi" until a better one comes along.

(cough)

I do believe I am seeing a lack of proper skeptical thinking here.

Benny the Rat - yes, I'll go to Hell for that, but I'm stopping by Gitmo anyway - didn't join voluntarily. At that time, it was mandatory. And he did defect in the last days of the war, risking his life.

He may be worth of scorn, for various reasons, but let's not criticize religious people for the wrong reasons.

[Darat]

Thanks Darat. Yeah, I know that text, but where does he refer to gay marriage? In fact, he doesn't say anything about it.

You'd have to read up more about the last couple of Popes' opinions if you want to understand the RCC's stance on gay marriages. I've shown the opinion of the last Pope earlier in this thread (it is also an example of the kinds of views the current Pope has also sought to reiterate e.g. "...The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex,....").

So as a summary gay marriages are a threat to "real" families therefore as per his recent statement they are a now also a threat to world peace i.e. "...Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international,...."

[Herzblut]

You'd have to read up more about the last couple of Popes' opinions if you want to understand the RCC's stance on gay marriages.

But you said before "the answer to your question can be found in paragraph 6", which is not the case obviously.

To summarize, papito actually never explicitely said what you implied he did. It's instead a conclusion you have drawn by combining different sources, correct?

BTW, this dissolution of matrimony quote, where did you find that?

Herzblut

[Darat]

But you said before "the answer to your question can be found in paragraph 6", which is not the case obviously.

...snip...


Sorry I was assuming you would have had knowledge of the RCC's views on same-sex marriage, you are right without that knowledge it is not clear from just that paragraph.


...snip...

BTW, this dissolution of matrimony quote, where did you find that?



From a widely reported speech he gave in 2005 - enter it in a search engine to find many sources.

[Herzblut]

Sorry I was assuming you would have had knowledge of the RCC's views on same-sex marriage, you are right without that knowledge it is not clear from just that paragraph.

Oh, I'm pretty aware of the RCC's condemnation of any non-standard kind of family. I mean, who isn't?

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the OP's statement about what papito allegedly "declared" is wrong. He might have insinuated it, following a reasonable conclusion. But he did not declare it.

Herzblut

[Darat]

You are semantically correct for certain meanings of the word "declared" but not in any meaningful way related to the subject of this thread i.e. your point does not invalidate the contention in the opening post that the Pope holds the view that same-sex marriages are a threat to world peace. In standard use of the English language it would be entirely acceptable to make a statement such as "The pope's latest statement is a declaration that same-sex marriages are a threat to world peace."

[kmortis]

(cough)

I do believe I am seeing a lack of proper skeptical thinking here.

Benny the Rat - yes, I'll go to Hell for that, but I'm stopping by Gitmo anyway - didn't join voluntarily. At that time, it was mandatory. And he did defect in the last days of the war, risking his life.


Oooo... that one I like!

Benny the Rat. Has a nice ring, it's pithy and punchy.

Good one, Claus. Ya know, for a pedantic prat, you can come up with some good from time to time. ;)

He may be worth of scorn, for various reasons, but let's not criticize religious people for the wrong reasons.
True. If you're going to scorn someone, make sure it's for the right reasons. That way the insults hurt more.

[Herzblut]

You are semantically correct for certain meanings of the word "declared" but not in any meaningful way related to the subject of this thread i.e. your point does not invalidate the contention in the opening post that the Pope holds the view that same-sex marriages are a threat to world peace.

I disagree. The OP said "the Pope declared XYZ" instead of "the Pope is of the opinion that XYZ".


In standard use of the English language it would be entirely acceptable to make a statement such as "The pope's latest statement is a declaration that same-sex marriages are a threat to world peace."

In the sense of a value judgement, an interpretation. But the OP claims to make a statement of facts, and this statement is wrong.

Herzblut

[Slimething]

I disagree. The OP said "the Pope declared XYZ" instead of "the Pope is of the opinion that XYZ".


In the sense of a value judgement, an interpretation. But the OP claims to make a statement of facts, and this statement is wrong.

Herzblut

I find it incredible that a human being who can type can be so dense. Here's an excerpt of Point 6, Hezblut. See if you, a clever fellow, can spot where Ratzo infers that anything other than the RCC-sanctioned family is consistent with peace. Here we go. Take all the time you want.


The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women (sic), and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it.


Really, a history student or journalist wouldn't fine it very difficult to discern the fact that poperino believes that any RCC-unsanctioned family is inimical to peace. You can't see it? A shame but no surprise to me. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Oooo... that one I like!

Benny the Rat. Has a nice ring, it's pithy and punchy.

Good one, Claus. Ya know, for a pedantic prat, you can come up with some good from time to time. ;)

Shhh! Don't ruin my rep as a pedantic prat with no sense of humour!

True. If you're going to scorn someone, make sure it's for the right reasons. That way the insults hurt more.

Not only that, it's the only way you can criticize someone.

It makes no difference if you have the best prepared, best articulated, and best reasoned criticizm, if you aren't criticizing people for what they actually say or do. Whatever your point may be, it will - rightfully so - be dismissed, if you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Darat]

I disagree. The OP said "the Pope declared XYZ" instead of "the Pope is of the opinion that XYZ".


In the sense of a value judgement, an interpretation. But the OP claims to make a statement of facts, and this statement is wrong.

Herzblut

As I said yours is semantic criticism that is only correct for certain uses of "declare/declaration" and has no relevance to the actual point brought up in the opening post - it is nothing more than a nitpick with wording rather than contributing anything of substance to the discussion.

[The Atheist]

At that time, it was mandatory. And he did defect in the last days of the war, risking his life.

And yet, there is little doubt that Jesus would have taken the martyrdom route rather than join.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger takes flak for failing to repudiate the memory of Kurt Waldheim, I think a little curry on Ratzinger's tail for being in Hitler Youth is fair game.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Any people wonder why I no longer consider myself a Catholic.Do you think Ratzinger, is worried about the Evangelical competition? If you can't beat them, join them.

[Meadmaker]

Here's what His Ratziness actually said.

everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace.

I have a question. Does anyone actually disagree with that? Seriously. There's a bunch of people here saying how awful his message is, but I'm willing to bet that everyone here agrees with everything in it.

Let's take one clause at a time.

"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman" threatens peace. Surely no one here is suggesting that gay marriage weakens families that are based on the marriage of a man and a woman? Yes, I understand the Pope probably thinks that gay marriage does indeed threaten those marriages. However, you surely are not accepting his premise, are you? I believe that the Pope is right, in what he said, if not necessarily in what he left unsaid. Anything that threatens the family is a threat to peace. Does anyone disagree?

The Pope, me, and other members of this forum might disagree on what constitutes a threat to the family, but he really didn't say anything about that, at least not in this message.

How about standing in the way of the "responsible acceptance of new life". Benedict is probably talking about abortion and contraception, but all he said was "the responsible acceptance of new life". Benedict, me, and the rest of the forum might disagree about just when people are being responsible, but he didn't address that here, did he?



Finally, he said that the family ought to be primarily responsible for the education of children. I think that's a good idea, and interfering with that does indeed constitute a threat to peace. Anyone disagree?

In other words, no one here actually disagrees with what the Pope said, just in the way it applies to specific circumstances.

[CFLarsen]

And yet, there is little doubt that Jesus would have taken the martyrdom route rather than join.

Joining was mandatory. And he was only 14 years old, when he had to enroll.

You demand that a child "take the martyrdom route"?

When Arnold Schwarzenegger takes flak for failing to repudiate the memory of Kurt Waldheim, I think a little curry on Ratzinger's tail for being in Hitler Youth is fair game.

What does Kurt Waldheim and Arnold Schwarzenegger have to do with the Catholic Church?

Are you just blaming Ratzinger, or are you also blaming all other forced to join for failing to "take the martyrdom route"?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's what His Ratziness actually said.



I have a question. Does anyone actually disagree with that? Seriously. There's a bunch of people here saying how awful his message is, but I'm willing to bet that everyone here agrees with everything in it.
....Actually, yes, I disagree. As a woman who raised a wonderful son after his father abandoned us, it pisses me off to hear this garbage about families having to be this or that or the world will disintegrate. Culture evolves over time. Get over it.

If the Pope had a specific family in mind, the fact I view family differently means I disagree. And it offends me! Every time I hear that BS that a kid is somehow warped without a dad it offends me. I can just imagine how much worse it must be to have a family with gay partners.

[Herzblut]

Really, a history student or journalist wouldn't fine it very difficult to discern the fact that poperino believes that any RCC-unsanctioned family is inimical to peace. You can't see it? A shame but no surprise to me. :rolleyes:
What papito actually says here is that family values might inspire social communities in terms of peacefully living together.

I would not know how to not agree to him.

Herzblut

[Herzblut]

"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman" threatens peace. Surely no one here is suggesting that gay marriage weakens families that are based on the marriage of a man and a woman? Yes, I understand the Pope probably thinks that gay marriage does indeed threaten those marriages. However, you surely are not accepting his premise, are you? I believe that the Pope is right, in what he said, if not necessarily in what he left unsaid. Anything that threatens the family is a threat to peace. Does anyone disagree?

The Pope, me, and other members of this forum might disagree on what constitutes a threat to the family, but he really didn't say anything about that, at least not in this message.

How about standing in the way of the "responsible acceptance of new life". Benedict is probably talking about abortion and contraception, but all he said was "the responsible acceptance of new life". Benedict, me, and the rest of the forum might disagree about just when people are being responsible, but he didn't address that here, did he?



Finally, he said that the family ought to be primarily responsible for the education of children. I think that's a good idea, and interfering with that does indeed constitute a threat to peace. Anyone disagree?

Very good analysis! I can hardly disagree to what papi actually said in contrast to what he might have silently implied.

The text under consideration seems to constitute his 2008 new year message. Harsh, explicit criticism to certain groups of the population can hardly be expected in such a message. Its overall tone would be positive, and that's how it sounds to me in general.

Herzblut

[Herzblut]

And it offends me! Every time I hear that BS that a kid is somehow warped without a dad it offends me.
I child needs father and mother. Anything else is suboptimal.

Herzblut

[Skeptic Ginger]

I child needs father and mother. Anything else is BS.

HerzblutNeeds his father for what? The sperm contribution?

So then what is wrong with my son who only saw his father after my son turned 12 and then only a couple of times? And how about kids whose fathers have died and their mothers didn't remarry?

My son is well behaved, smart, in college, never been in trouble, well liked, nice, kind, has lots of friends. So what is your meaning of "needs"?

Take your offensive suboptimal and apply it to a child in a dysfunctional family that has an abusive father. I'd say that was suboptimal!

[Slimething]

What papito actually says here is that family values might inspire social communities in terms of peacefully living together.

I would not know how to not agree to him.

Herzblut

No, that is decidedly not what he said. You've somewhat unskillfully chosen to quote only a portion of what the idiot wrote. Tellingly, the portion that doesn't contain what the OP said.

You are either dense or lying. Which is it?

[Slimething]

Here's what His Ratziness actually said.

<selective quotation snipped>



Sorry. Look at my post (# 68) to see where he inferred that gay marriage would indeed threaten peace. If you can't see it there, you can't read.

[Herzblut]

No, that is decidedly not what he said. You've somewhat unskillfully chosen to quote only a portion of what the idiot wrote.

Which idiot?


You are either dense or lying. Which is it?

Psychic, you have no clue who I am and what I am.

Herzblut

[Slimething]

Which idiot?

You're right. Your entry into this thread does make that term a bit ambiguous.

Psychic, you have no clue who I am and what I am.

Herzblut

Again, a false statement. I may now know whom you are but I certainly know what you are. Among your many undesirable qualities, you don't seem to address questions directly or honestly.

How am I doing?

[Meadmaker]

The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it. The family community, in order to prosper, needs the generous consent of all its members. This realization also needs to become a shared conviction on the part of all those called to form the common human family. We need to say our own “yes” to this vocation which God has inscribed in our very nature. We do not live alongside one another purely by chance; all of us are progressing along a common path as men and women, and thus as brothers and sisters. Consequently, it is essential that we should all be committed to living our lives in an attitude of responsibility before God, acknowledging him as the deepest source of our own existence and that of others. By going back to this supreme principle we are able to perceive the unconditional worth of each human being, and thus to lay the premises for building a humanity at peace. Without this transcendent foundation society is a mere aggregation of neighbours, not a community of brothers and sisters called to form one great family.


I can't read that paragraph and find, "Gay marriage threatens world peace". I guess I'm illiterate.

It is clear that the Pope doesn't much like gay marriage. Indeed, he would say, I'm fairly certain, that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

What he did say is that threats to the family are threats to peace, and on that point, he and I agree. If you go further and say that gay marriage is a threat to the family, then you have accepted his premise. Congratulations. You have been outwitted.

Don't feel bad, though. Joseph Ratzinger is an incredibly intelligent man, as are all the members of the College of Cardinals. You might think they have been duped by a 2000 year old myth, and I think they have, too. However, they aren't stupid.

[fuelair]

Hmmm.... red shoes... where's Dorothy when you need her?
Popin' out on the town in his FMe shoes!!:D

[Slimething]

I can't read that paragraph and find, "Gay marriage threatens world peace". I guess I'm illiterate.

You said it, not me. Let me make it easier for you. I'll edit it so even you can see it.

The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. ..we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, ..

Read that sever times and you'll see that any family that does not begin with a man and a woman is antithetical to peace.


I'm fairly certain, that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

When you claim that gay people cannot enter the state of marriage, as defined by common law, then there is no "oxy" about it. Sorry.


What he did say is that threats to the family are threats to peace, and on that point, he and I agree. If you go further and say that gay marriage is a threat to the family, then you have accepted his premise. Congratulations. You have been outwitted.


The only person here who has been outwitted is you. You're the one who swallowed this cretin's simplistic view that gay people cannot partake in a stable and ethical union. I can think for myself. Gay people entering a marriage poses no threat to me or to world peace. Only to pinheads.

Don't feel bad, though. Joseph Ratzinger is an incredibly intelligent man, as are all the members of the College of Cardinals. However, they aren't stupid.

I know they are not stupid. Intelligent, though? Hardly. Cynical, perhaps, but not intelligent. Or perhaps you can tell me how understanding that the myth is untrue requires something other than intelligence. Please favor the class.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the English translation (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html) straight from the Vatican website for those wanting to skip the news interpretations.5. Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace. (emphasis mine) That sounds like a direct statement to me, gay marriage threatens world peace.

[DoubtingStephen]

That sounds like a direct statement to me, gay marriage threatens world peace.

We were hoping nobody would notice until it was too late. Damn Rat in a Hat let out the Cat!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here's what His Ratziness actually said.



I have a question. Does anyone actually disagree with that? Seriously. There's a bunch of people here saying how awful his message is, but I'm willing to bet that everyone here agrees with everything in it.

Eff yeah I disagree. There are plenty of alternative family models out there. Heck, there was even that one in the thread "A world without marriage" where marriage was non-existent. I don't see how they form a road block to peace.

Let's take one clause at a time.

"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman" threatens peace. Surely no one here is suggesting that gay marriage weakens families that are based on the marriage of a man and a woman? Yes, I understand the Pope probably thinks that gay marriage does indeed threaten those marriages. However, you surely are not accepting his premise, are you? I believe that the Pope is right, in what he said, if not necessarily in what he left unsaid. Anything that threatens the family is a threat to peace. Does anyone disagree?

The Pope, me, and other members of this forum might disagree on what constitutes a threat to the family, but he really didn't say anything about that, at least not in this message.

But that's not what he said. He said anything "that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman" was a threat to peace.

In other words, no one here actually disagrees with what the Pope said, just in the way it applies to specific circumstances.

You did not read everyone's minds, you do not collect 1 million dollars.

[Herzblut]

I may now know whom you are but I certainly know what you are.
But whom who say ye that I am?

[articulett]

Ah yes... Meadmaker is doing his usual apologetics while Herzblut is engaging in cantankerous non sequiturs... it's always delightful to see the people I have on ignore reminding me why I have them on ignore.

But I must note that my fellow skeptics are handling them very well even as they move goal posts and pretend to have moral superiority. I feel your pain. It isn't you. They have the same effect on many.

[Meadmaker]

But that's not what he said. He said anything "that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman" was a threat to peace.


So, does gay marriage weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman?


I've heard opponents of gay marriage say that it does, but the people who advocate gay marriage nearly universally insist that gay marriage does nothing to threaten heterosexual marriage.

Do you think gay marriage weakens "the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman"?

[joobz]

So, does gay marriage weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman?
Gay marriage will have the them effect on heterosexual marriage that
1.) your marriage has on my marriage
2.) Magna carta has on a corn beef sandwich
3.) VH1 has on the moon landing
4.) the atomic weight of cobalt has on my bowel movements.


you get the picture:)

[DoubtingStephen]

Do you think gay marriage weakens "the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman"?

If a gay couple buys a 42" high definition television it does not cause the television owned by their heterosexual neighbors to cease working.

If a gay couple buys a brand new car it does not cause the transmission to fail in the car owned by their heterosexual neighbors.

In exactly the same way, if a gay couple marries it does not cause the dissolution of the marriage of any straight couples driving by the wedding reception.

Gay marriage has been legal for years in Massachusetts, not a single Massachusetts couple has suffered any harm of any kind whatsoever as a result.

If anything, gay marriage strengthens the institution of marriage by increasing the number of married couples, and providing a stable living arrangement for a greater number of citizens.

Gay marriage also creates an increase in business opportunities

Those who wail and whine about the horrors of gay marriage always fail to describe in any degree of detail the imaginary harm they claim to fear. This is because there is no such harm to be described.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, does gay marriage weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman?...No but we all know the people who read the Bible as a document which clarifies their god belief that homosexuality is a sin believe it weakens regular marriage. Do you have any evidence this Pope has a different interpretation than any other religious fundie who claims homosexuality is a threat to hetero marriage?

[Silentknight]

I'm looking over the American Family Association's website (which is good for a laugh any time you're interested) and they have a list of 10 arguments against gay marriage. I still can't post a link, but the arguments can be summed up as follows:

1. It will destroy our culture, because children will have to grow up with large extended families that are unstable and where everyone only looks out for themselves. Never mind that we have yet to establish any causal relationship between gay marriage and immorality, like the kind Paul (a closeted gay) describes in Romans 1.

2. Gay marriage will lead down the slippery slope to legalized polygamy, and a world where people are allowed to marry their pets. Because God knows that WE would take up several wives and engage in bestiality the moment it became legal.

3. Gay marriage will destroy the legal status of marriage set forth by the state, after which anything goes, and anything involving a legal license becomes meaningless. Oh, and did we mention that gay couples would be to blame for divorce among straight couples?

4. Schools would have to teach children that same sex marriage, an abomination to the Lord, is morally and culturally acceptable. If kids start thinking for themselves, there goes our chance to brainwash them, and we can't have that!

5. Children who are adopted by same-sex couples are no better off than children who grow up motherless or fatherless. God forbid if the courts would ever find a loving same sex couple more eligible for adoption than a straight couple that fights all the time.

6. Our children and teenagers will all grow up to be gay, once it's considered acceptable by society.

7. Gay marriage will destroy Social Security with all the new dependents that can be claimed. It's not like our Glorious Christian Leader had anything to do with undermining Social Security.

8. Once the US legalizes gay marriage, all other nations will follow suit like lemmings. After all, you know how much everyone around the world loves America, to the point where they'd immediately imitate everything we do. Also, gay marriage is filth and smut, just like pornography.

9. Fewer traditional families means fewer people to evangelize and spread the word of Jesus Christ (a man who never dated, never married, and hung out with a bunch of single men all the time, according to the literal Synoptic Gospels).

10. And finally, once again, gay marriage will destroy our culture and bring about the Apocalypse. Believe it!

[The Atheist]

Joining was mandatory. And he was only 14 years old, when he had to enroll.

Jeanne d'Arc was only 17, and a female, when she chose to fight.

You demand that a child "take the martyrdom route"?

Only those who go on to become pope. For normal people, it's perfectly normal to choose life. As the fourth ranking entity in christianity, if I were the god one, I'd be demanding that my #1 bloke on earth had considerably more balls. Plenty of martyrs in christianity. They're revered for their martyrdom. If the Nazis had wasted 10 million Aryans instead of 10 million Poles, Jews & others, I doubt Ratzzinger would be pope.

What does Kurt Waldheim and Arnold Schwarzenegger have to do with the Catholic Church?

Absolutely nothing, which is the entire point. Maybe you defend Arnie as well.

Are you just blaming Ratzinger, or are you also blaming all other forced to join for failing to "take the martyrdom route"?

See above - it only applies to those who are so in touch with the ghostly thing and baby Jesus that they have the ability to talk directly to them for advice in cathedra; i.e. the pope. Have you read the frigging bible, Claus? Have you read what the christians' apparent god-thing/bloke, Jesus, thought about violence, oppression and martyrdom?

Or maybe you think the Big J would have been goose-stepping through the streets in his black shorts?

Ratzzinger being made pope is the best thing to ever happen to atheism - an ex-Nazi, hardline anti-contraceptionist, anti-feminist idiot.

[The Atheist]

8. Once the US legalizes gay marriage, all other nations will follow suit like lemmings. After all, you know how much everyone around the world loves America, to the point where they'd immediately imitate everything we do. Also, gay marriage is filth and smut, just like pornography.

While all of your other points are great, this one's a bit late, since most other civilised countries allow at least civil union equal to marriage - and who cares about the term itself? - if the legality's the same, it counts for me.

You may replace #8 with:

If gay marriage is allowed, seeing a truly happy couple may encourage married men to become homos, leaving families short a breadwinner.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So, does gay marriage weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman?


I've heard opponents of gay marriage say that it does, but the people who advocate gay marriage nearly universally insist that gay marriage does nothing to threaten heterosexual marriage.

Do you think gay marriage weakens "the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman"?

It certainly doesn't weaken their marriage. But it must certainly weakens that particularly narrow family model.

[Meadmaker]

It certainly doesn't weaken their marriage. But it must certainly weakens that particularly narrow family model.

Excellent, so you and others here agree that gay marriage does not weaken the marriage between a man and a woman.

If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.

The message of his address was twofold. First, that we must respect the family and live well within our own families in order to live good, contented, peaceful, lives. Second, that we must embrace each other as a community, and make that relationship like a family in order to live peacefully as a world community. With which part of that would anyone like to take issue?


Yes, when it comes to the small family, Benedict undoubtedly thinks that "real' families consist of one man and one woman, monogamous, for life. He also thinks that in order to do that, you have to believe in God and do what God wants. That's well known Roman Catholic doctrine. However, that wasn't what this message was about. To say that this was a message about gay marriage is to demonstrate an extreme degree of self absorption. I found his discussion of economic realities far more interesting and relevant than one peripheral comment that could be taken as a comment about gay marriage.

If the truth be told, I think that one line had more to do with divorce than with gay marriage anyway. Divorce is very much a threat to marriage between a man and a woman, and everyone agrees on that point.

[Herzblut]

So then what is wrong with my son who only saw his father after my son turned 12 and then only a couple of times? And how about kids whose fathers have died and their mothers didn't remarry?

My son is well behaved, smart, in college, never been in trouble, well liked, nice, kind, has lots of friends. So what is your meaning of "needs"?

The meaning is sth like "deserves", "has the right to frequently access".

And you as a skeptigirl will certainly be able to present evidence other than your private anectodes that raising a child is equally well done by mother or father alone compared to a combined effort, correct?


Take your offensive suboptimal and apply it to a child in a dysfunctional family that has an abusive father. I'd say that was suboptimal!

Children have to be protected against family violence committed by whomever. BTW, there's supportive evidence that women commit violent acts against their offspring to the same amount men do. Stepfathers/-mothers are still worse.

[DoubtingStephen]

Excellent, so you and others here agree that gay marriage does not weaken the marriage between a man and a woman.

If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.


The opinions of the persons posting in this thread do not modify in any way what the Rat in a Hat said or did not say.

To claim that the Rat in a Hat did not say something simply because rational humans disagree with him is utterly preposterous.

[Meadmaker]

The opinions of the persons posting in this thread do not modify in any way what the Rat in a Hat said or did not say.

To claim that the Rat in a Hat did not say something simply because rational humans disagree with him is utterly preposterous.

Well then, perhaps you would like to point out where he said it. You can't do it, because it isn't there. He did say that if you weaken the family, which consists of a man, a woman, and their children, you would threaten world peace. Does anyone disagree with "Rat in a Hat"?

You probably disagree with him in his assertion that "family" starts with a man and a woman. You might think that "family" consists of any two adults. Of course, you will find plenty of people who take issue with you if you say that too loudly. It could be one adult and some number of children. It could be multiple adults. It could be whatever the people who are part of that family think it is. In fact, Benedict says it can, and should, consist of the whole darned world. He just says that the world ought to emulate the model provided by a marriage between a man and a woman.

Come to think of it, I think gay marriage advocates almost always say the same thing. They say that families with two men and some babies ought to behave just like a man, a woman, and some babies. Indeed, they say that it is wrong to suggest that it would likely be otherwise. Congratulations. You and Benedict agree yet again.


Here is an excerpt from Benedict's message:

Indeed, in a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters, the role of authority expressed by parents, loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age, mutual help in the necessities of life, readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them. For this reason, the family is the first and indispensable teacher of peace. It is no wonder, therefore, that violence, if perpetrated in the family, is seen as particularly intolerable. Consequently, when it is said that the family is “the primary living cell of society”(6), something essential is being stated. The family is the foundation of society for this reason too: because it enables its members in decisive ways to experience peace. It follows that the human community cannot do without the service provided by the family. Where can young people gradually learn to savour the genuine “taste” of peace better than in the original “nest” which nature prepares for them? The language of the family is a language of peace; we must always draw from it, lest we lose the “vocabulary” of peace. In the inflation of its speech, society cannot cease to refer to that “grammar” which all children learn from the looks and the actions of their mothers and fathers, even before they learn from their words.


That was the content of this message. This wasn't a message about gay marriage, despite the fact that he suggests children live with, dare I say it, mothers and fathers.

[qayak]

And you as a skeptigirl will certainly be able to present evidence other than your private anectodes that raising a child is equally well done by mother or father alone compared to a combined effort, correct?

You forget one very important point . . . children growing up without the benefit of one parent are almost exclusively the fault of heterosexual couples.

I know there are studies that show children from two parent households tend to do better in general but I do not know of any studies that says those two parents have to be a man and a woman.

Children have to be protected against family violence committed by whomever. BTW, there's supportive evidence that women commit violent acts against their offspring to the same amount men do. Stepfathers/-mothers are still worse.

And exactly how is this a bigger issue for same sex couples than it is for hetero couples?

[qayak]

That was the content of this message. This wasn't a message about gay marriage, despite the fact that he suggests children live with, dare I say it, mothers and fathers.

And how does this papal ass **** explain all the wars and genocide before there were these threats to the man woman based family unit? In fact, wasn't his portion of the world family unit responsible for the killing of other sections of the world family unit?

Didn't someone in this thread say the pope and his child molesting cronies were smart? Yeah, right!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Excellent, so you and others here agree that gay marriage does not weaken the marriage between a man and a woman.

If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.

Read my second sentence. He clearly was nay-saying alternative family models to one man and one woman and said that they threaten peace.

The message of his address was twofold. First, that we must respect the family and live well within our own families in order to live good, contented, peaceful, lives. Second, that we must embrace each other as a community, and make that relationship like a family in order to live peacefully as a world community. With which part of that would anyone like to take issue?

Again, he didn't say "family", he he said "family based on the marriage of a man and a woman".

Yes, when it comes to the small family, Benedict undoubtedly thinks that "real' families consist of one man and one woman, monogamous, for life. He also thinks that in order to do that, you have to believe in God and do what God wants. That's well known Roman Catholic doctrine. However, that wasn't what this message was about. To say that this was a message about gay marriage is to demonstrate an extreme degree of self absorption. I found his discussion of economic realities far more interesting and relevant than one peripheral comment that could be taken as a comment about gay marriage.

If the truth be told, I think that one line had more to do with divorce than with gay marriage anyway. Divorce is very much a threat to marriage between a man and a woman, and everyone agrees on that point.

Yes, I am sure it could be interpreted as being against divorce as well, because it is saying that all alternatives to one man and one woman would threaten world peace.

[Herzblut]

You forget one very important point . . . children growing up without the benefit of one parent are almost exclusively the fault of heterosexual couples.

This is obviously so in absolut numbers. But for relative numbers, relative to the respective number of hetero-/homosexual couples, I don't know any statistics. Also, in homo households with a kid, a maximum number of one parent can be present for obvious reasons.


I know there are studies that show children from two parent households tend to do better in general but I do not know of any studies that says those two parents have to be a man and a woman.

I don't need any studies to know that the two parents have to be a man and a woman. :D


And exactly how is this a bigger issue for same sex couples than it is for hetero couples?

Is it? I don't know.

[Herzblut]

Hello TA.
While all of your other points are great, this one's a bit late, since most other civilised countries allow at least civil union equal to marriage - and who cares about the term itself? - if the legality's the same, it counts for me.

But it isn't. In Germany a civil union is legally equal to a matrimony in civil right. Not so in public right.

I'd be interested to see the legal construction of countries permitting gay/lesbian marriages. Obviously, the German constitution needed to be changed to achieve this.

Herzblut

[Roboramma]

I find it incredible that a human being who can type can be so dense. Here's an excerpt of Point 6, Hezblut. See if you, a clever fellow, can spot where Ratzo infers that anything other than the RCC-sanctioned family is consistent with peace. Here we go. Take all the time you want.


Really, a history student or journalist wouldn't fine it very difficult to discern the fact that poperino believes that any RCC-unsanctioned family is inimical to peace. You can't see it? A shame but no surprise to me. :rolleyes:
From the quote that you supplied it seems to me that he's saying that families of the sort that he likes should exist, and that this helps world peac. He doesn't say anything about other types of families not existing.

Mind you, the statement is pretty meaningless - does he think there's any chance of families ceasing to exist? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, you and I can agree that he might want gay marriage not to exist, but it's not implied by the words that he uses (at least in the quote).

[fuelair]

Excellent, so you and others here agree that gay marriage does not weaken the marriage between a man and a woman.

If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.

The message of his address was twofold. First, that we must respect the family and live well within our own families in order to live good, contented, peaceful, lives. Second, that we must embrace each other as a community, and make that relationship like a family in order to live peacefully as a world community. With which part of that would anyone like to take issue?


Yes, when it comes to the small family, Benedict undoubtedly thinks that "real' families consist of one man and one woman, monogamous, for life. He also thinks that in order to do that, you have to believe in God and do what God wants. That's well known Roman Catholic doctrine. However, that wasn't what this message was about. To say that this was a message about gay marriage is to demonstrate an extreme degree of self absorption. I found his discussion of economic realities far more interesting and relevant than one peripheral comment that could be taken as a comment about gay marriage.

If the truth be told, I think that one line had more to do with divorce than with gay marriage anyway. Divorce is very much a threat to marriage between a man and a woman, and everyone agrees on that point.

Good try. Wrong, but good try. If he did not mean to specifically exclude gay marriage, he would not have needed to specify man and woman. If you truly believe what you argue, then his subtlety succeeded with you. It did not with others.

[qayak]

This is obviously so in absolut numbers. But for relative numbers, related to the respective number of hetero-/homosexual couples, I don't know any statistics. Also, in homo households with a kid, a maximum number of one parent can be present for obvious reasons.

I don't need any studies to know that the two parents have to be a man and a woman. :D

Wrong. What you suggest would mean that an adopted child has no parents and is raising themself. In fact, a parent is a mother, or a father, or anyone acting as a mother or father. Same sex marriages result in two parents bringing up a child and two parent families are generally the best way to raise children.

Tell your moral leader to get his head out of his donkey.

Is it? I don't know.

Funny thing is, it doesn't surprise me! It doesn't surprise me that you would bring up issues and then not have any idea as to how they relate to the subject at hand.

[Slimething]

Excellent, so you and others here agree that gay marriage does not weaken the marriage between a man and a woman.

If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.

First, no one here speaks for me. Your question was idiotic. Gay marriage has no correlation between a man/woman marriage.

Second, you must be incapable of thought. You are saying that the meaning of what the poop published depends on our point of view? Are you daft? The text has meaning in and of itself regardless of our beliefs. Too much mead.

The message of his address was twofold. First, that we must respect the family and live well within our own families in order to live good, contented, peaceful, lives. Second, that we must embrace each other as a community, and make that relationship like a family in order to live peacefully as a world community. With which part of that would anyone like to take issue?

You truly are batty. That is part of what the poop said. The part you want it to say. You're leaving out the hatred for a reason. Perhaps you are embarrassed for the jerk or perhaps you are a jerk yourself but feel ashamed. If what is above is what you believe, fine. It is not what the poop wrote.

If the truth be told, I think that one line had more to do with divorce than with gay marriage anyway. Divorce is very much a threat to marriage between a man and a woman, and everyone agrees on that point.

Truth be told, no one is calling for divorce to be made illegal, not even the poop. Can you tell us why? You seem to know what the idior thinks, even when he writes something different.

[Slimething]

From the quote that you supplied it seems to me that he's saying that families of the sort that he likes should exist, and that this helps world peac.

Gee, I might be wrong but I don't think so. I have posted what he wrote in Section 6 twice now. The second time I bolded the operative language such that even Meadmaker no longer claims that's not what he wrote. Skeptigirl posted an even better quote from Seciton 5 which I had not noticed.

Perhaps you are in a more resilient state that Meadmaker. Here, in my words is what the poop wrote:
If the world wants to live in peace, it must honor the family. The family begins exclusively with a man and a woman.

I have absolutely no idea what mental gymnastics you have to pull off to escape the logical inference that any marriage not begun by a man and a woman will lead to the world not living in peace. Could you please run us through it?

He doesn't say anything about other types of families not existing.

What an amazing non-sequitur. Has that heretofore been an issue?

[Herzblut]

Wrong. What you suggest would mean that an adopted child has no parents and is raising themself. In fact, a parent is a mother, or a father, or anyone acting as a mother or father.

In German, the word "parent" isn't even existing.

Same sex marriages result in two parents bringing up a child and two parent families are generally the best way to raise children.

How do "same sex marriages result in two parents bringing up a child"? Adoption? Magic? Who's mother, who's father? If one of the partners is the biological father, will the biological mother's rights towards her child become extint in favor of the other partner?

I'm asking because in most countries, like Germany, same sex marriages are non-existent. Nor are same-sex civil-unions in Germany permitted to adopt a child.

Here, the mother of a child is the woman who's born it. Father is, by default, the guy who has been married with the mother while birth took place. :rolleyes:


Tell your moral leader to get his head out of his donkey.

I told my wife and she smacked me in the face, idiot! :mad:


Funny thing is, it doesn't surprise me! It doesn't surprise me that you would bring up issues and then not have any idea as to how they relate to the subject at hand.

You brought up the issue of "violence in same-sex families" and stupidly imputed I made any negative statement about it.

Why don't you go qayaking while adults are discussing here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The meaning is sth like "deserves", "has the right to frequently access".

And you as a skeptigirl will certainly be able to present evidence other than your private anectodes that raising a child is equally well done by mother or father alone compared to a combined effort, correct?I only need one anecdote in this case. Because one case of a child who has grown up just fine without a dad disproves your claim a father is "needed".

"Deserves" is a value judgment. I challenge you to find empirical evidence for a value judgment.

Has a right to frequent access depends on a number of other factors. Yes, provided that father bothers to come around and isn't a danger or otherwise harmful influence. In this case my son's dad simply decided he didn't want any more kids and left.

And if you want to dig up any 'studies' about kids raised in fatherless homes, let me forewarn you ahead of time. Be prepared to show how all the multiple variables were controlled for in order to show the absence of the father is the one variable that mattered. If you control for economic standards and level of education, the father matters very little. One or more parents matter. One or more caring consistent caregivers matter. But specifically a father, you have no evidence that matters.

Children have to be protected against family violence committed by whomever. BTW, there's supportive evidence that women commit violent acts against their offspring to the same amount men do. Stepfathers/-mothers are still worse.This doesn't support your claim a child "needs" a father at all. Nor does this discredit my statement that an absent father is better than a bad father. Try again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.

The message of his address was twofold. First, that we must respect the family and live well within our own families in order to live good, contented, peaceful, lives. Second, that we must embrace each other as a community, and make that relationship like a family in order to live peacefully as a world community. With which part of that would anyone like to take issue?

Yes, when it comes to the small family, Benedict undoubtedly thinks that "real' families consist of one man and one woman, monogamous, for life. He also thinks that in order to do that, you have to believe in God and do what God wants. That's well known Roman Catholic doctrine. However, that wasn't what this message was about. To say that this was a message about gay marriage is to demonstrate an extreme degree of self absorption. I found his discussion of economic realities far more interesting and relevant than one peripheral comment that could be taken as a comment about gay marriage.

If the truth be told, I think that one line had more to do with divorce than with gay marriage anyway. Divorce is very much a threat to marriage between a man and a woman, and everyone agrees on that point.I hate to break it to you Mead, but it isn't like this Pope has never made his homophobia public before.

2005 (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2005/06/07/pope_says_gay_unions_are_false/)''The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man," he said, speaking at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome....

...Benedict made his remarks at a time when same-sex marriage has become a hotly contested public policy issue in Western societies. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts last year, ... Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, and parts of Canada, and Spain has been moving toward legalization.

... Before he became pope, Benedict -- then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- was the primary explainer of Pope John Paul II's oft-stated opposition to same-sex marriage. In 2003, Ratzinger wrote an important Vatican document outlining the church's opposition to same-sex marriage; the document became controversial because of its assertion that ''Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."

Benedict's opposition to homosexuality is longstanding. In 1986, Ratzinger signed another doctrinal document declaring that ''It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally."

[Skeptic Ginger]

....in homo households with a kid, a maximum number of one parent can be present for obvious reasons.


I don't need any studies to know that the two parents have to be a man and a woman. ....Maybe you should try a refresher course in English. A parent in English is either a mother or a father and nothing in English precludes 2 parents being of the same gender.

Mead tries to say the Pope isn't homophobic, and you are homophobic. Makes for a lovely discussion.

I suggest you grow up and maybe get out a bit more, Herz, the world is passing you by.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I'm asking because in most countries, like Germany, same sex marriages are non-existent. Nor are same-sex civil-unions in Germany permitted to adopt a child....Really? Then what is this about, Lifetime Partnership Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_gay_unions_in_Germany)On 12 October 2004, the Gesetz zur Überarbeitung des Lebenspartnerschaftsrechts (Life Partnership Law (Revision) Act) was passed by the Bundestag, increasing the rights of registered life partners to include, among other things, the possibility of stepchild adoption and simpler alimony and divorce rules, but excluding the same tax benefits as in a marriage. By October 2004, 5,000 couples had registered their partnerships.[1]

In December 2006, a poll conducted by the Angus-Reid Global Monitor, seeking public attitudes on economic, political, and social issues for member-states of the European Union found that Germany ranked seventh supporting Same-Sex Marriage for German citizens, behind The Netherlands (82%), Sweden (71%), Denmark (69%), Belgium (62%), Luxembourg (58%), and Spain (56%); German attitudes on this social issue were above the European Union average of 44%. Tying with Germany was The Czech Republic with 52% in support, and neighboring Austria with 49%, respectively.[2]

Under the current leadership it is difficult to ascertain the future of this issue. However, the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party have both acknowledged their support of the legalization of same-sex marriage. If legalized, Germany would be the first German-speaking nation and the most populous country to recognize same-sex marriage.

[Roboramma]

Gee, I might be wrong but I don't think so. I have posted what he wrote in Section 6 twice now. The second time I bolded the operative language such that even Meadmaker no longer claims that's not what he wrote. Skeptigirl posted an even better quote from Seciton 5 which I had not noticed.

Perhaps you are in a more resilient state that Meadmaker. Here, in my words is what the poop wrote:
If the world wants to live in peace, it must honor the family. The family begins exclusively with a man and a woman. First of all, I opened this thread, and read through it, agreeing with the sentiments in the OP. I read the paragraph that Darat mentioned, and found that it doesn't say what I expected it to say. Maybe you disagree.
But I don't see how the italicized words above say anything about gay marriage.
I also don't agree with them. I'll be straight to my point - saying that we should honour one type of family doesn't mean we shouldn't honour another type.

I have absolutely no idea what mental gymnastics you have to pull off to escape the logical inference that any marriage not begun by a man and a woman will lead to the world not living in peace. Could you please run us through it? Concidering that I don't think that, I see no reason to do so. I've consitently argued for gay marriage and gay rights on this board.
I also don't agree with the quote you gave above. But saying "familiy begun by a man and a woman is good for world peace" is different from saying "family not begun by a man and a woman is bad for world peace". Those are two different statements.



What an amazing non-sequitur. Has that heretofore been an issue? Sorry, poor wording early in the morning. I was saying what I said above - he said that hetrosexual marriage is good, not that homosexual marriage is bad.
Personally I'd like to see a quote saying that because I'm pretty sure he believes it, and it would be nice to be able to show it directly. But I don't see how the quotes given do so.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Marriage must be between a man and a woman" How does that not say marriage must not be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

I really don't get the denial the Pope said it discussion here. Agree, disagree with the Pope or whatever, but trying to rationalize the Pope didn't comment on gay marriage is absurd.

[Herzblut]

Really? Then what is this about, Lifetime Partnership Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_gay_unions_in_Germany)
It's about adoption of a child by an individual. In Germany, individuals and matrimonies can adopt children, other partnerships cannot.

[Herzblut]

Has a right to frequent access depends on a number of other factors. Yes, provided that father bothers to come around and isn't a danger or otherwise harmful influence.

Or the mother makes such visits impossible by all kinds of dirty tricks. Know this one? "Yaya, go visit your dad, kid. But don't bother to ever come back again if you leave alone your loving mother so cold-heartedly. Haven't I done everything for you? Why don't you love me anymore?"


And if you want to dig up any 'studies' about kids raised in fatherless homes, let me forewarn you ahead of time. Be prepared to show how all the multiple variables were controlled for in order to show the absence of the father is the one variable that mattered. If you control for economic standards and level of education, the father matters very little. One or more parents matter. One or more caring consistent caregivers matter. But specifically a father, you have no evidence that matters.

Of course I have. Massive scientific evidence, which you call 'studies', in apostrophes, in order to discredit them altogether because they happen to conflict with your personal believe.

[Darat]

...snip...

...snip...

In other words, no one here actually disagrees with what the Pope said, just in the way it applies to specific circumstances.

Totally and utterly disagree; as I have already said in this thread if you do not know what the RCC doctrine is in regards to what is a threat to the "family" (and by family I mean the only type of union that is sanctioned by the RCC) you may not be able to understand fully what the Pope was saying.

[Darat]

So, does gay marriage weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman?

...snip...

He says it does - reread the sentence you quoted.

[Darat]

Also just to make it clear and unambiguous what is the official RCC position as given by the Pope in regards to whether "gay marriages" would have an affect on marriage as the RCC defines it:

"..Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)..."

Gay marriage in the doctrine of the RCC devalues what they consider the only valid type of union, therefore as the opening post said the RCC and the current Pope all believe that "gay marriage" is a threat to world peace.

ETA: I know quite a few people can't be bothered to read what the RCC actually says so here is another chunk from the document:

...The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties...

...It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

ETA: And because undoubtedly for some squirm room it will be raised that the above is from the days of the last Pope, that document was published with the authority of the previous Pope but was actually co-authored by the current Pope.

[Herzblut]

Totally and utterly disagree; as I have already said in this thread if you do not know what the RCC doctrine is in regards to what is a threat to the "family" (and by family I mean the only type of union that is sanctioned by the RCC) you may not be able to understand fully what the Pope was saying.
You assertion that special background knowledge is required to understand the considered text is fully wrong.

We are discussing the "MESSAGE OF ..papito.. FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 2008"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

addressing its broad audience expicitely right at the beginning by saying

At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world.

Obviously, this message "to the world" cannot and does not request previous study of any kind of catholic scripture to be understandable. It has to be comprehensible in itself. It has to be taken as is.

You are proved wrong.

[Darat]

You assertion that special background knowledge is required to understand the considered text is fully wrong.

We are discussing the "MESSAGE OF ..papito.. FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 2008"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

addressing its broad audience expicitely right at the beginning by saying

At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world.

Obviously, this message "to the world" cannot and does not request that its intended audience does previously study any kind of catholic scripture to be understandable. It has to be comprehensible in itself. It has to be taken as is.

You are proved wrong.

Absolute gibberish.

ETA: Perhaps it does require a slightly longer response.

Your claim is that the message can be read without any further knowledge yet the text you choose to quote (the official Vatican text) demonstrates your claim to be utterly wrong.

For instance in the first paragraph alone it contains a reference link to the entire official documentation of Vatican II (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm) and a link to "DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS" (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html) the Vatican and the Pope obviously do not share your view that no further knowledge is required to understand the Pope's message.

[CFLarsen]

Jeanne d'Arc was only 17, and a female, when she chose to fight.

There's a lot of difference between a 14-year old and a 17-year old.

Let me get this straight: Do you think that young people should die for their faith? Ratzinger is not a good Catholic since he didn't die for his beliefs?

Only those who go on to become pope. For normal people, it's perfectly normal to choose life. As the fourth ranking entity in christianity, if I were the god one, I'd be demanding that my #1 bloke on earth had considerably more balls. Plenty of martyrs in christianity. They're revered for their martyrdom.

You critizice Ratzinger for not refusing to join Hitler Jugend, because he later became pope?? That's bizarre!

If the Nazis had wasted 10 million Aryans instead of 10 million Poles, Jews & others, I doubt Ratzzinger would be pope.

What does his nationality have to do with him being elected as pope?

Absolutely nothing, which is the entire point. Maybe you defend Arnie as well.

Maybe you should not waste people's time with bringing up examples that have nothing to do with the issue.

See above - it only applies to those who are so in touch with the ghostly thing and baby Jesus that they have the ability to talk directly to them for advice in cathedra; i.e. the pope. Have you read the frigging bible, Claus? Have you read what the christians' apparent god-thing/bloke, Jesus, thought about violence, oppression and martyrdom?

I suspect I have read the bible much more closely than most Christians.

Or maybe you think the Big J would have been goose-stepping through the streets in his black shorts?

Shirts. Not shorts.

Ratzzinger being made pope is the best thing to ever happen to atheism - an ex-Nazi, hardline anti-contraceptionist, anti-feminist idiot.

He was never a Nazi.

[Herzblut]

Your claim is that the message can be read without any further knowledge yet the text you choose to quote (the official Vatican text) demonstrates your claim to be utterly wrong.

Rubbish.

The papal message "for the celebration of the world day of peace" is explicitely not directed towards catholics, but to men and women independent from their confession. The message is broadcasted on the 1st of Jan by all kinds of media.

It's a tradition since 1967 where the then papi expressed his concerns about world peace and especially addressed his message to politicians worldwide. It's completely bizarre thinking that anyone would address a note for world peace just to a certain religious group of the world population.

Let's see:

2006 message:
In this traditional Message for the World Day of Peace at the beginning of the New Year, I offer cordial greetings and good wishes to men and women everywhere, especially those who are suffering as a result of violence and armed conflicts.

2007 message:
At the beginning of the new year, I wish to extend prayerful good wishes for peace to Governments, leaders of nations and all men and women of good will. In a special way, I invoke peace upon all those experiencing pain and suffering, those living under the threat of violence and armed aggression, and those who await their human and social emancipation, having had their dignity trampled upon.

2008 message, see above:
At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world.

You're 'argument' is stone-dead.

[Darat]

Rubbish.

The papal message "for the celebration of the world day of peace" is explicitely not directed towards catholics, but to men and women independent from their confession. The message is broadcasted on the 1st of Jan by all kinds of media.

...snip...



All of which has nothing to do with your point that it does not require any knowledge of RCC doctrine to understand the statement.

ETA:

Your arguments tend to be based on nothing more than semantic quibbles rather than anything to do with the subject under discussion, which to remind you is that the RCC holds that "gay marriages" are a threat to world peace.

Do you not have any arguments that actually addresses that point?

[Meadmaker]

Here, the mother of a child is the woman who's born it. Father is, by default, the guy who has been married with the mother while birth took place. :rolleyes:

What barbarians!;)

[Meadmaker]

Obviously, the Pope is against gay marriage. No one disputes that. Almost as obvious is that when he spoke about threats to the family, he wasn't just talking about the economic threats of which he spoke. He had in mind a whole host of social changes dealing with sexuality that have occurred starting in the latter half of the twentieth century. Those changes include gay marriage, as well as easy divorces, widespread acceptance of promiscuity and cohabitation without marriage, contraception and abortion, and a general acceptance of all sorts of variations on human sexual behavior.

But let's simplify the Pontiff's message here:

"In order to live in peace, governments must behave as families behave. Just as a man and a woman come together to create a family, and the children of that union learn justice within that family, governments must learn to treat citizens and each other as family. They must begin by respecting and strengthening families, and they must continue by taking those values taught by families and applying them in all dealings within individual societies and through the whole community of mankind."

And let's simplify the response to that message:

"Pope denounces gay marriage"

[Herzblut]

"Pope denounces gay marriage"
Doesn't he also denounce prostitution? I've heart that lately, but couldn't quite believe it.

[Darat]

Statement 1: Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international....
Statement 2: Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage...

Conclusion: "gay marriage" undermines the peace of a community, of a nation, and of the world.

[Darat]

...snip...

But let's simplify the Pontiff's message here:

"In order to live in peace, governments must behave as families behave. Just as a man and a woman come together to create a family, and the children of that union learn justice within that family, governments must learn to treat citizens and each other as family. They must begin by respecting and strengthening families, and they must continue by taking those values taught by families and applying them in all dealings within individual societies and through the whole community of mankind."

And let's simplify the response to that message:

"Pope denounces gay marriage"

The simplification to the level you are proposing is in fact:

"Pope denounces gay marriage, divorce, remarriage, cohabiting and any other non-RCC endorsed union as a threat to world peace".

Although I'm not happy simplifying it as you do (since the simplicity is only achieved at the expense of accuracy) I do have to admit it really does highlight the stupidity!

[Roboramma]

Also just to make it clear and unambiguous what is the official RCC position as given by the Pope in regards to whether "gay marriages" would have an affect on marriage as the RCC defines it:

"..Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)..."

Gay marriage in the doctrine of the RCC devalues what they consider the only valid type of union, therefore as the opening post said the RCC and the current Pope all believe that "gay marriage" is a threat to world peace.

ETA: I know quite a few people can't be bothered to read what the RCC actually says so here is another chunk from the document:

...The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties...

...It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

ETA: And because undoubtedly for some squirm room it will be raised that the above is from the days of the last Pope, that document was published with the authority of the previous Pope but was actually co-authored by the current Pope.
When you put that with the other quote from the world peace statement, I have to agree with you.

I still happen to think that this context is necessary, but given this context, yeah, I agree, the Pope says that gay marriage threatens world peace. Which, obviously, is more ridiculous even than the other things he said...

[DoubtingStephen]

I agree, the Pope says that gay marriage threatens world peace. Which, obviously, is more ridiculous even than the other things he said...

Thus the OP.

[Meadmaker]

The simplification to the level you are proposing is in fact:

"Pope denounces gay marriage, divorce, remarriage, cohabiting and any other non-RCC endorsed union as a threat to world peace".

Although I'm not happy simplifying it as you do (since the simplicity is only achieved at the expense of accuracy) I do have to admit it really does highlight the stupidity!

The message that the Pope delivered was primarily a message about economics, not sexuality.

This line has been quoted several times in this thread:

This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace.

The very next sentence has not been quoted so much:

The family needs to have a home, employment and a just recognition of the domestic activity of parents, the possibility of schooling for children, and basic health care for all. When society and public policy are not committed to assisting the family in these areas, they deprive themselves of an essential resource in the service of peace



Why didn't anyone start a thread saying, "Pope calls for basic health care for all?" Maybe someone could have said, "Pope calls lack of health care a threat to families."

What drives me nuts about liberals today is that there seems to be an obsession with gay marriage. The Pope here has given a message calling for social justice, for environmental stewardship, for the rule of law as a guiding force within and between nations, for effective demilitarization, for freedom and democracy. All of those topics were dealt with extensively in this address.

Oh, and during that message, when he called for all mankind to live together using the values that guide families, he said that families start when a man and a woman agree to live together, and said that all of us need to give that same conscious agreement to treat each other as members of one family, the family of mankind.

And the part that is picked up on is, "He said man and woman!"

[Belz...]

Here's what His Ratziness actually said.



I have a question. Does anyone actually disagree with that?

Er... yes. I disagree that marriages are exclusively for a man and a woman.

[Belz...]

In German, the word "parent" isn't even existing.

Well, that does it for me!

[Slimething]

The message that the Pope delivered was primarily a message about economics, not sexuality.

And that excuses the vitriol how? :confused:


Why didn't anyone start a thread saying, "Pope calls for basic health care for all?" Maybe someone could have said, "Pope calls lack of health care a threat to families."

Go ahead. That would have been unremarkable, though, because that's his job.

Let me ask you this: if the same text came from Osama, how would you feel about it?

What drives me nuts about liberals today is that there seems to be an obsession with gay marriage.

I guess the poop is one of dem damned libruls, huh? I can't say I'm a liberal. No one can quite classify my thinking yet. I do know when someone's civil rights are being trampled on, though.

[Fiona]

Hello TA.

But it isn't. In Germany a civil union is legally equal to a matrimony in civil right. Not so in public right.

I'd be interested to see the legal construction of countries permitting gay/lesbian marriages. Obviously, the German constitution needed to be changed to achieve this.

Herzblut

In Scotland same sex couples are allowed what is called a civil partnership. It confers the same rights as civil marriage and the differential wording is a sop to the religious. In 2005 unmarried couples were given the right to adopt children (previously the situation was the same as you describe in Germany) and in 2006 the same right was granted in Scotland. It passed in the Scottish parliament in the teeth of furious opposition from various churches. Religious adoption agencies continue to lobby for a special exemption since they appear to see themselves as above the law. So far they have no been granted this though it is by no means over.

[DoubtingStephen]

What drives me nuts about liberals today is that there seems to be an obsession with gay marriage.

Just to help support your very valid comment, here is a partial list of liberal groups and individuals that are obsessed with gay marriage:

Advance America
Alliance Defense Fund
Alliance for Catholic Tradition
Alliance for Marriage
American Family Association
American Vision
Americans for Truth
Beyond Borders
Campaign for Children and Families
Canada Family Action Coalition
Chalcedon Foundation
Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition (CPAC)
Christian Coalition of America
Citizens for Community Values
Concerned Women For America
Cybertip.ca
Dr. Laura
Eagle Forum
Family Policy Network
Family Research Council
Family Research Institute
Focus on the Family
Free Congress Foundation
Free Market Foundation
GayMarriageNO.org!
Jerry Falwell Ministries
Massachusetts Family Institute
Minnesota Family Council
Morality in Media
National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
National Association to Protect Children
National Prayer Network
NoSpecialRights.net
Parents Television Council
Pennsylvania Family Institute
Perverted-Justice.com
RenewAmerica
Republican National Committee
Take Back Maryland
The American Center for Law and Justice
The Dove Foundation
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
The Heritage Foundation
The Oregon Family Council
The Rutherford Institute
The Society For Truth And Light
Traditional Values Coalition
VoteOnMarriage.org
Watchmen on the Walls
Westboro Baptist Church
Young Americans for Freedom

All of these activist groups have sought to modify our state and/or federal legal structure, including laws, ballot measures, and constitutions, because of their obsession with gay marriage. Obviously if these groups were conservative they would not be so quick to meddle with the foundational documents of our Republic. But here they are, pursuing their liberal agenda to pass as many laws, ballot initiatives, and constitutional amendments as they possibly can because of their obsession with gay marriage.

(source 1 (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/antigroup.html))
(source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_purported_hate_groups))

And here is a link (http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/antigay-ballot-initiatives.html) to a list of some of the ballot measures that have been sponsored by liberal groups that are obsessed with gay marriage.

Plus I also found an article (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1999/08/03/NEWS14651.dtl&hw=raises&sn=088&sc=562) dating back to 1999 about money pouring in from liberals obsessed with gay marriage.

It seems like the liberals have hit on an election strategy of obsessively putting anti-gay ballot initiatives into every election in order to increase the Party of Jesus voter turnout. Tricksy liiberals, I bet you hateses 'em.

[skeptifem]

Of course I have. Massive scientific evidence, which you call 'studies', in apostrophes, in order to discredit them altogether because they happen to conflict with your personal believe.


wtf do you not understand how controlling variables is important in any study?? if the study fails to control variables it shouldnt be taken seriously.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or the mother makes such visits impossible by all kinds of dirty tricks. Know this one? "Yaya, go visit your dad, kid. But don't bother to ever come back again if you leave alone your loving mother so cold-heartedly. Haven't I done everything for you? Why don't you love me anymore?"What does this have to do with anything being discussed here?

Of course I have. Massive scientific evidence, which you call 'studies', in apostrophes, in order to discredit them altogether because they happen to conflict with your personal believe.I asked you for studies that controlled for other variables so you could actually evaluate the effect of single mother households.

This reply tells me you cannot find evidence children "NEED" their dads given they have their other needs met in a single mother household.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thus the OP.And why Mead is trying to twist the Pope's words into something else is as close to trolling as one can get.

To Mead,
IE if you aren't simply being a troll Mead, then you have twisted thought processes here.

Do you seriously think you can make your case to anyone but yourself?

There is Herzbut spewing bigotry against anyone who doesn't believe what he believes about families and posting his obvious dismay that German law is moving toward modernity. To this your own sentiments seeped in when you voiced your approval at Herzbut's wishful interpretation of German law.

We know there are many people who can't accept the fact the world changes. There are many who are threatened by people who are different from them. Perhaps you both might want to reflect upon just why it is you have this knee jerk reaction to those who are different from you. There really is no threat there you know. It's an imaginary threat. And, as it is with this Popes' message, it's a misguided fear which takes energy away from the real threats to world peace.

There's terrible irony here in that one real threat to world peace is just this kind of bigotry toward people who are different.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to help support your very valid comment, here is a partial list of liberal groups and individuals that are obsessed with gay marriage:

[snip]
And here is a link (http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/antigay-ballot-initiatives.html) to a list of some of the ballot measures that have been sponsored by liberal groups that are obsessed with gay marriage.

Plus I also found an article (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1999/08/03/NEWS14651.dtl&hw=raises&sn=088&sc=562) dating back to 1999 about money pouring in from liberals obsessed with gay marriage.

It seems like the liberals have hit on an election strategy of obsessively putting anti-gay ballot initiatives into every election in order to increase the Party of Jesus voter turnout. Tricksy liiberals, I bet you hateses 'em.I nominate thee for thy Pith award. :)

[ponderingturtle]

I child needs father and mother. Anything else is suboptimal.

Herzblut

A child needs a large extended family of cousins, aunts and uncles, anything else is suboptimal.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A child needs a large extended family of cousins, aunts and uncles, anything else is suboptimal.

No, they definitely need grandparents to properly spoil them and tell them how difficult things were in the good old days. Anything else is suboptimal.

[DoubtingStephen]

I nominate thee for thy Pith award. :)

Thank you :)

I bet you could tell how pithed off I was.

[Lonewulf]

Just to help support your very valid comment, here is a partial list of liberal groups and individuals that are obsessed with gay marriage:

Advance America
Alliance Defense Fund
Alliance for Catholic Tradition
Alliance for Marriage
American Family Association
American Vision
Americans for Truth
Beyond Borders
Campaign for Children and Families
Canada Family Action Coalition
Chalcedon Foundation
Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition (CPAC)
Christian Coalition of America
Citizens for Community Values
Concerned Women For America
Cybertip.ca
Dr. Laura
Eagle Forum
Family Policy Network
Family Research Council
Family Research Institute
Focus on the Family
Free Congress Foundation
Free Market Foundation
GayMarriageNO.org!
Jerry Falwell Ministries
Massachusetts Family Institute
Minnesota Family Council
Morality in Media
National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
National Association to Protect Children
National Prayer Network
NoSpecialRights.net
Parents Television Council
Pennsylvania Family Institute
Perverted-Justice.com
RenewAmerica
Republican National Committee
Take Back Maryland
The American Center for Law and Justice
The Dove Foundation
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
The Heritage Foundation
The Oregon Family Council
The Rutherford Institute
The Society For Truth And Light
Traditional Values Coalition
VoteOnMarriage.org
Watchmen on the Walls
Westboro Baptist Church
Young Americans for Freedom

All of these activist groups have sought to modify our state and/or federal legal structure, including laws, ballot measures, and constitutions, because of their obsession with gay marriage. Obviously if these groups were conservative they would not be so quick to meddle with the foundational documents of our Republic. But here they are, pursuing their liberal agenda to pass as many laws, ballot initiatives, and constitutional amendments as they possibly can because of their obsession with gay marriage.

(source 1 (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/antigroup.html))
(source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_purported_hate_groups))

And here is a link (http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/antigay-ballot-initiatives.html) to a list of some of the ballot measures that have been sponsored by liberal groups that are obsessed with gay marriage.

Plus I also found an article (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1999/08/03/NEWS14651.dtl&hw=raises&sn=088&sc=562) dating back to 1999 about money pouring in from liberals obsessed with gay marriage.

It seems like the liberals have hit on an election strategy of obsessively putting anti-gay ballot initiatives into every election in order to increase the Party of Jesus voter turnout. Tricksy liiberals, I bet you hateses 'em.
Pwned, bitch.

[ponderingturtle]

Excellent, so you and others here agree that gay marriage does not weaken the marriage between a man and a woman.

If that's the case, then Benedict didn't address gay marriage at all, much less compare it to nuclear proliferation or say it's a threat to world peace.


Wow what a horrible strawman. You realize you can not swap positions different people hold to show that they are not in disagreement.

For example you think that blacks really are human, and thus you really don't take any issue with some racist who bases his position on the idea that they are not human.

[Slimething]

We know there are many people who can't accept the fact the world changes.

Great post, skeptigirl. One question that comes to mind is whether or not the world has actually changed that much. Of course, it has changed in the fact that people are more tolerant now than before because of improved education but has the rate of occurrence of any sociological phenomenon really changed or is it that we're more likely to hear about it now? Seeing that gay people are no longer killed right off the bat, they feel more confident in participating in society (IMHO, to the enrichment of all)? I can't see that the occurences of sexual preference could have radically changed by anything but our perception sure could have been altered by the electronic revolution.

There are many who are threatened by people who are different from them. Perhaps you both might want to reflect upon just why it is you have this knee jerk reaction to those who are different from you. There really is no threat there you know. It's an imaginary threat. And, as it is with this Popes' message, it's a misguided fear which takes energy away from the real threats to world peace.

There's terrible irony here in that one real threat to world peace is just this kind of bigotry toward people who are different.

Word up. I grew up white and suburban and was instilled with all the prejudices that can come therefrom. In every occassion in which these presumptions could be tested, they have been not only disproved but shattered beyond redemption. There is no threat from people different than you. I've found, to my great embarrassment at thinking otherwise, that the poorest and most reviled are the most generous and kind. Or, at least, those individuals whom I've met.

Sexual orientation is a private matter, faith is as well, and skin color is a very thin coat of paint. Anyone who feels threatened by this reality really should get out of their cloister and go meet these people. They don't bite and they would no sooner deprive you of your rights than they would cut off their own hands.

[Darat]

The message that the Pope delivered was primarily a message about economics, not sexuality.

...snip...

Interesting post in a way - but nowt to do with the fact that the RCC position is that gay marriages are a threat to world peace.

[Herzblut]

Statement 1: Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international....
Statement 2: Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage...

Conclusion: "gay marriage" undermines the peace of a community, of a nation, and of the world.
Where did you find Statement 2 now? It's not in the papal message referred to in the OP, so listeners to it won't be able to draw your personal conclusion.

The conclusion is invalid. Would you explain so we can track down your problem?

[Darat]

Where did you find Statement 2 now? It's not in the papal message referred to in the OP, so listeners to it won't be able to draw your personal conclusion.

The conclusion is invalid. Would you explain so we can track down your problem?

Again have you anything to add that is relevant to the subject of this thread?

[Herzblut]

Again have you anything to add that is relevant to the subject of this thread?
Is it irrelevant to check whether your conclusion is correct or not?

[Scot C. Trypal]

You still at this Dave? :)

What drives me nuts about liberals today is that there seems to be an obsession with gay marriage….

…And the part that is picked up on is, "He said man and woman!"

I’m not a liberal, but in reading his quote I do feel threatened, and I do pick up on that. It’s my family he pointedly excludes, after all. Do you think many parents would react much differently if the Pope defined their home out of and as a threat to “the family”?

Why didn't anyone start a thread saying, "Pope calls for basic health care for all?"

He didn’t, right? Wasn’t his “all” referring to “the family?” He wasn’t expressing concern for the “just recognition of the domestic activity of parents” in my home, right? In fact, he speaks out against legal attempts to achieve such.

Personally, I think the pope is clever enough to avoid outright stating he thinks gay couples threaten national security; though that was a useful claim in the early church. Gays were blamed for even plague-carrying rat infestations. He does though say they threaten your family, or “the family,” and a threat to family threatens peace, right?

I get that it can sound nitpicky, and that it’s not a big deal when it’s not your home at which he’s aiming. But he does threaten us, despite the social causes he advocates for others on which we agree. In fact, when the Pope speaks about familial love and social justice it can even put a guy like me more on edge. With the RCC, I can’t help but think of the accounts of confessions being forcefully extracted from “sodomites” by priests, in order to lovingly give them a chance at heaven, before they were “relaxed” into the custody of the executioner. Sure, a long time ago, but if a group could do that with love and justice in their eyes then even their appeals to the same can become unnerving.

[Meadmaker]

And that excuses the vitriol how? :confused:


A man was seeing a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist showed him an inkblot and asked him what it looked like.

"A man and a woman making love," he said.

"And this one?"

"A woman taking off her clothes. Man, she's hot!"

"What about this one?"

"A guy making it with two girls."

"Ok," said the psychiatrist. "I see the problem. You are obsessed with sex."

"What do mean I'm obsessed with sex," said the man. "You're the one with an office full of dirty pictures."

[Slimething]

Thanks for the joke. Do you have any answers, though?

[Meadmaker]

He didn’t, right? Wasn’t his “all” referring to “the family?” He wasn’t expressing concern for the “just recognition of the domestic activity of parents” in my home, right? In fact, he speaks out against legal attempts to achieve such.


Yes, he did. The whole message was about economic and social injustice, and how it was important for world leaders to emulate the family in the need to achieve economic and social justice, which would be what brings about peace.


In other times and in other places, Benedict and the rest of the Church hierarchy have given plenty of reasons why they oppose gay marriage. In this particular message, he spoke extensively of using the family as an inspiration for the values that would bring world peace. It's true that in the course of that message, he referred to families consisting of one man, one woman, and their children. However, if you read this message and see a message about gay marriage, you are really twisting the meaning of the inkblots. Yeah, sure, Benedict doesn't think your family is a "real" family. Some day, he will probably give yet another speech describing his reasons for thinking that. This wasn't it.

[Slimething]

...It's true that in the course of that message, he referred to families consisting of EXCLUSIVELY OF one man, one woman, and their children.

There. Fixed it for you. No charge. :p

[Meadmaker]

There. Fixed it for you. No charge. :p
You didn't fix it for me. You fixed it for the Pope. He didn't say what you inserted.

In another time, and in another place, he probably will. This time, he didn't.

[Herzblut]

Sexual orientation is a private matter, faith is as well, and skin color is a very thin coat of paint.

Faith is. Sexual orientation is slightly different in that it's basically immutable and its practice might possibly be subject to legal restriction, e.g. for pedophilia.


Anyone who feels threatened by this reality really should get out of their cloister and go meet these people. They don't bite and they would no sooner deprive you of your rights than they would cut off their own hands.Please help me understand the american rogue who's trying to give me wise suggestions here.

Have you ever been outside of Arizona or the States? Where? What foreign languages do you speak to communicate with people of other cultures and to understand what they really feel and think? You have alien-born friends? From where? Which countries did you see with predominantly muslim population? You have muslim friends? Gay friends? Lesbian friends? Female friends? Ever been to a communist country? What do the people tell you if you talk to them?

[qayak]

In German, the word "parent" isn't even existing.

Who cares about Germany? The word in the pope's drivel is "parent" if you don't know what that means, invest in an English dictionary.

How do "same sex marriages result in two parents bringing up a child"? Adoption?

Yes, adoption or simply by the two people raising a child together.

Who's mother, who's father?

Who cares? Each is a parent of the child.

If one of the partners is the biological father, will the biological mother's rights towards her child become extint in favor of the other partner?

In the case of adoption, yes. In cases where the mother wants to maintain the relationship with the child then the other person would be a step-parent. You know? Exactly what happens in heterosexual relationships after divorce and remarriage.

I'm asking because in most countries, like Germany, same sex marriages are non-existent. Nor are same-sex civil-unions in Germany permitted to adopt a child.

Well, some countries are still backwards in that regard. I also doubt this is the reason you are asking. the reason you are asking is because you are a homophobic, pope loving, religious freakazoid.

Here, the mother of a child is the woman who's born it. Father is, by default, the guy who has been married with the mother while birth took place. :rolleyes:

And what about when parents divorce and the one with custody remarries, what is their new partner's role in the child's life?

What about in the case of an adoption where neither parent has any biological ties to the child, are they never considered parents? Come on Herzblut, even Germany can't be that backwards!

I told my wife and she smacked me in the face, idiot! :mad:

I guess, if your wife is bigger and meaner than you are, you should be careful what you say around her.

You brought up the issue of "violence in same-sex families" and stupidly imputed I made any negative statement about it.

Wrong again. Skeptigirl brough it up, you responded and brought up other issues which I asked for you to clarify.

Why don't you go qayaking while adults are discussing here?

Not bad Herzy! You have figured out what a qayak is! Too bad you didn't figure out what a parent was before you started shooting off your posts.

You are living proof that age does not equal intelligence.

[Slimething]

You didn't fix it for me. You fixed it for the Pope. He didn't say what you inserted.

In another time, and in another place, he probably will. This time, he didn't.

What time is it, Peanut Gallery? Yup, Direct Quote Time! Today, for Meadmaker, we have that the holey poop wrote:


Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women,


Thanks for playing, mead. Wherever you got your reading skills owes you a refund.

[Slimething]

Faith is. Sexual orientation is slightly different in that it's basically immutable and its practice might possibly be subject to legal restriction, e.g. for pedophilia.

Here we go again. Your language skills are breathgiving. Sexual orientation is a private affair. The practice may be different. So are you agreeing or disagreeing? IOW, what's your point?

Please help me understand the american rogue who's trying to give me wise suggestions here.

Why do you need to understand someone before deciding the worth of their statements? Another excuse for inaction? preservation of ignorance? What's your motivation to NOT get out and mngle with the others of your species?

Have you ever been outside of Arizona or the States? Where? What foreign languages do you speak to communicate with people of other cultures and to understand what they really feel and think? You have alien-born friends? From where? Which countries did you see with predominantly muslim population? You have muslim friends? Gay friends? Lesbian friends? Female friends? Ever been to a communist country? What do the people tell you if you talk to them?

To all the yes/no questions: yes. To the others, it's none of your business.

[Herzblut]

Come on Herzblut, even Germany can't be that backwards!

Who cares?

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Have you ever been outside of Arizona or the States? Where? What foreign languages do you speak to communicate with people of other cultures and to understand what they really feel and think? You have alien-born friends? From where? Which countries did you see with predominantly muslim population? You have muslim friends? Gay friends? Lesbian friends? Female friends? Ever been to a communist country? What do the people tell you if you talk to them?Inquiring minds want to know.

Si, hablo Espanol casi fluentemente. And I have been all over the world and all over this country, and I did so most often on my own with a backpack and a tremendous curiosity about the world and the people in it.

It doesn't matter where we've been or not been, it's obvious from our posts vs your posts that you are intolerant of those you don't accept as holding your values and view of the world. Yet the people you seem intolerant of do not threaten you or world peace.

And BTW, pedophilia is not a relationship between 2 consenting adults.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Great post, skeptigirl. One question that comes to mind is whether or not the world has actually changed that much. Of course, it has changed in the fact that people are more tolerant now ....I was mostly referring to tolerance and acceptance of gay marriages and gay adoptions. I don't think the biology has changed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, he did. The whole message was about economic and social injustice, and how it was important for world leaders to emulate the family in the need to achieve economic and social justice, which would be what brings about peace.

In other times and in other places, Benedict and the rest of the Church hierarchy have given plenty of reasons why they oppose gay marriage. In this particular message, he spoke extensively of using the family as an inspiration for the values that would bring world peace. It's true that in the course of that message, he referred to families consisting of one man, one woman, and their children. However, if you read this message and see a message about gay marriage, you are really twisting the meaning of the inkblots. Yeah, sure, Benedict doesn't think your family is a "real" family. Some day, he will probably give yet another speech describing his reasons for thinking that. This wasn't it.While I understand the point you are making here, you are still ignoring the bigotry in the message. And it is just too blatant to be ignored.

The text of the message (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html) (all bolding is mine)1. ...I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world.... The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family.

2. The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman(2), constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization' for the person and society”

3. Indeed, in a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace

4. The family, since it has the duty of educating its members, is the subject of specific rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represents a landmark of juridic civilization of truly universal value, states that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”(7). For its part, the Holy See sought to acknowledge a special juridic dignity proper to the family by publishing the Charter of the Rights of the Family.

5. Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman,

6. The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. ... Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it. Pointing out that marriage is between a man and a woman occurs here 5 times and an additional reference to the Charter Rights of the Family (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html) document makes specific note of it 2 more times.

Preamble
B. the family is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman

Article 1
c) The spouses, in the natural complementarity which exists between man and woman



Morality is mentioned 6 times with 5 of those specifically pointing out the "natural" basis of the moral norm.

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions.

9. An essential condition for peace within individual families is that they should be built upon the solid foundation of shared spiritual and ethical values. Yet it must be added that the family experiences authentic peace when no one lacks what is needed, and when the family patrimony—the fruit of the labour of some, the savings of others, and the active cooperation of all—is well-managed in a spirit of solidarity, without extravagance and without waste.

10. Something similar must be said for that other family which is humanity as a whole. The human family, which today is increasingly unified as a result of globalization, also needs, in addition to a foundation of shared values, an economy capable of responding effectively to the requirements of a common good which is now planetary in scope. ... Due account must also be taken of the moral obligation to ensure that the economy is not governed solely by the ruthless laws of instant profit, which can prove inhumane.

11. A family lives in peace if all its members submit to a common standard: this is what prevents selfish individualism and brings individuals together, fostering their harmonious coexistence and giving direction to their work

12. The Church has often spoken on the subject of the nature and function of law: the juridic norm, which regulates relationships between individuals, disciplines external conduct and establishes penalties for offenders, has as its criterion the moral norm grounded in nature[/b] itself. Human reason is capable of discerning this moral norm,... The moral norm must be the rule for decisions of conscience and the guide for all human behaviour.... it is necessary to go back to the natural moral norm as the basis of the juridic norm;

13. Knowledge of the natural moral norm is not inaccessible to those who, in reflecting on themselves and their destiny, strive to understand the inner logic of the deepest inclinations present in their being. Albeit not without hesitation and doubt, they are capable of discovering, at least in its essential lines, this common moral law which, over and above cultural differences, enables human beings to come to a common understanding regarding the most important aspects of good and evil, justice and injustice.

14. Humanity today is unfortunately experiencing great division and sharp conflicts which cast dark shadows on its future. Vast areas of the world are caught up in situations of increasing tension, while the danger of an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons causes well-founded apprehension in every responsible person. [Addresses the arms race]

15. Sixty years ago the United Nations Organization solemnly issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948-2008). ... his year also marks the 25th anniversary of the Holy See's adoption of the Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983-2008) and the 40th anniversary of the celebration of the first World Day of Peace (1968-2008). ... I invite every man and woman to have a more lively sense of belonging to the one human family,There are references to human rights and the need to maintain peaceful dialogue between nations and in that sense, the family could be taken as a simple metaphor were that the only way family was referred to.

But that is NOT the message here. Family is NOT stated as a simple metaphor for the 'human family' or simply a building block of the community structure. Rather the focus of the message is that the morality and the Catholic view of what a family is is critical to rest of the message. It isn't simply a side note as you are portraying it.

[Darat]

This thread is really funny - the "defenders of the faith and Pope" in this thread just haven't been able to deal with the stupidity of the RCC position that gay marriages (and all non-RCC unions) are a threat to world peace as exposed in the opening post.

Why is that? Is it because they know that position is totally and utterly stupid and in fact indefensible by any facts, evidence and reason so it is necessary to avoid addressing that position directly?

Quick question is there anyone participating who doesn't think that the RCC's position that all non-RCC sanctioned unions are a threat to world peace is stupid?

[Darat]

Derail regarding paedophilia and Catholic Priests split to: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101547

[Skeptic Ginger]

Boy, Darat, I thought I was hallucinating there. First your post was there, then it wasn't then I see you are moving things to a split thread....I'm dizzy. Anyway, now I see what's going on. No problem, it was OT.

[Herzblut]

This thread is really funny - the "defenders of the faith and Pope" in this thread just haven't been able to deal with the stupidity of the RCC position that gay marriages (and all non-RCC unions) are a threat to world peace as exposed in the opening post.

Accept the fact that I'm not defending "faith and Pope", but rational reasoning. You are implying that refuting arbritrary messages is in any case rationally justified just because of a certain origin. (Fallacy of authority.)


Why is that?

You ignored my question about how you came to your conclusion. (Fallacy of purposely lost memory.):D

But that's OK. Your of way of dispute is unacceptable anyways, s.a., so I will cut it short:

Your claim that RCC doctrines ("opinions") are defined by

- yourself

by means of

- pulling together arbritary RCC related texts and
- deriving arbritrary conclusions from those in an Internet forum

is too preposterous to even consider.

Your argument is stone-dead and will not resurrect anymore, I'm afraid.

[Darat]

Accept the fact that I'm not defending "faith and Pope", but rational reasoning. You are implying that refuting arbritrary messages is in any case rationally justified just because of a certain origin. (Fallacy of authority.)

...snip...

I await your explanation of why the current Pope's words do not represent the official RCC thinking.

[kmortis]

I await your explanation of why the current Pope's words do not represent the official RCC thinking.

Um...is the Pope still the Pontiff Maximus? Yes? Oh, then that's why his words represent the RCC thinking.

Just trying to help our little German friend.

[Worm]

As I read it, the Pope really doesn't seem to be concerned that gay marriage threatens world peace, he seems to be concerned that it threatens the Catholic faith.

There are plenty of ways of being peaceful without being in a family, Catholic, gay, or any of many other things. Religion doesn't have the monopoly on peace, and in fact is often the cause of hatred and war - 'do what I say, not what I do' perhaps?

The idea that there is some 'ideal' way to live is simply laughable. There is no 'perfect' family, there is no 'perfect' person - everyone is different.

[Fiona]

Well to the extent that the religious are inclined to burn those who do not agree with them I think we have to take the possibility of a threat to world peace seriously. :boxedin:

[Meadmaker]

While I understand the point you are making here, you are still ignoring the bigotry in the message. And it is just too blatant to be ignored.
....

But that is NOT the message here. Family is NOT stated as a simple metaphor for the 'human family' or simply a building block of the community structure. Rather the focus of the message is that the morality and the Catholic view of what a family is is critical to rest of the message. It isn't simply a side note as you are portraying it.

Family is certainly not just a metaphor in the Pope's message. His message is that family is the place where values are learned, and that we must then take those values learned in life with our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, and then treat all people with the same values we learned at home in order to achieve world peace. Consequently, anything that threatens our ability to learn those values at home will prevent us from applying those values in the broader community. In order to live in peace, it follows that there must be strong families, and that any threat to families is a threat to peace.

That's my summary of the Pope's message. In it, I referred to mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, just as the Pope did. So, is that discrimination against anyone who lacks one of those family elements, or against anyone who has extras in one of those elements?

I'll put it like this. If I were writing a headline to describe the Pope's message I would probably write something like, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like family." Or, I could write, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like heterosexual family." Technically, the latter is just as correct as the former, but it misses the point of the message by a mile.

It's tempting to start a thread entitled, "Pope Says Polygamy Threatens World Peace" It would be just as accurate as this one.

[Herzblut]

Um...is the Pope still the Pontiff Maximus? Yes? Oh, then that's why his words represent the RCC thinking.
Just trying to help our little German friend.

I apreciate. So, if you might quickly help me out, whose words actually form the following claim: "gay marriage is a threat to world peace"

[ ] Papi
[ ] Darati

I really hope it's papi. If not we had to ask ourselves in how far Darati is authorized
to sell his/her private conclusions as "RCC opinion". Is it her, btw?

[Darat]

I apreciate. So, if you might quickly help me out, whose words actually form the following claim: "gay marriage is a threat to world peace"

[ ] Papi
[ ] Darati

I really hope it's papi. If not we had to ask ourselves in how far Darati is authorized
to sell his/her private conclusions as "RCC opinion". Is it her, btw?

My username is "Darat" by the way, not "Darati" - no ending "i".

And again I'm still waiting to hear you explain why the current Pope's statements do not represent RCC thinking.

[joobz]

Family is certainly not just a metaphor in the Pope's message. His message is that family is the place where values are learned, and that we must then take those values learned in life with our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, and then treat all people with the same values we learned at home in order to achieve world peace. Consequently, anything that threatens our ability to learn those values at home will prevent us from applying those values in the broader community. In order to live in peace, it follows that there must be strong families, and that any threat to families is a threat to peace.

That's my summary of the Pope's message. In it, I referred to mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, just as the Pope did. So, is that discrimination against anyone who lacks one of those family elements, or against anyone who has extras in one of those elements?

I'll put it like this. If I were writing a headline to describe the Pope's message I would probably write something like, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like family." Or, I could write, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like heterosexual family." Technically, the latter is just as correct as the former, but it misses the point of the message by a mile.

It's tempting to start a thread entitled, "Pope Says Polygamy Threatens World Peace" It would be just as accurate as this one.
Meadmaker you are intentionally reading in the statement what could be there, but that wasn't the message.

You had said, quite accurately, that the Pope and cardinals are very intelligent men. They didn't accidentally say, A marriage between a man and a woman. It was a fully intentional seperation between the marriage that the church recognizes and same sex marriages. Nothing was mentioned of polygamy because that isn't a debate point in world politics.

It is quite clear that the Pope intended what was exactly said, we treat eachother like family for world peace, and that comes only from a heterosexual family. It was a slam against gay marriage.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Mead: "This wasn't it."

Fine. Still, if the Pope says, even in two different speeches:

1. X threatens Y.
2. A threat to Y is a threat to Z.

Wouldn’t you think he believes also that X is a threat to Z? At least that most of his followers will make that conclusion?

Of course, I’d not say this was the primary message of this speech, but it is one implication of it.

The Pope doesn’t speak in a random string of words, in ink blots (but it would be interesting if I found an anti-me message in such :)). I have to think he realized the reasoning above. He does, after all, actively campaign against the “recognition of the domestic activity of parents” for some people, and I think it’s fair to conclude he believes X to be a threat to Z.

[Slimething]

And again I'm still waiting to hear you explain why the current Pope's statements do not represent RCC thinking.

Thank you for not succumbing to Herzbluti's Gish Gallop. :)

[Meadmaker]

Mead: "This wasn't it."

Fine. Still, if the Pope says, even in two different speeches:

1. X threatens Y.
2. A threat to Y is a threat to Z.

Wouldn’t you think he believes also that X is a threat to Z? At least that most of his followers will make that conclusion?

Of course, I’d not say this was the primary message of this speech, but it is one implication of it.

The Pope doesn’t speak in a random string of words, in ink blots (but it would be interesting if I found an anti-me message in such :)). I have to think he realized the reasoning above. He does, after all, actively campaign against the “recognition of the domestic activity of parents” for some people, and I think it’s fair to conclude he believes X to be a threat to Z.

In a sense, that's true. I am sure that the Pope thinks that it is more difficult to teach good family values in a family with two males acting as parents.* It is fair to say that he believes gay marriage will lead to more people without those values. It is even fair to say that within this speech his chosen language to describe families gave a tiny hint toward this position, easily recognizable if you happen to also know his and the church's position on gay marriage.

Then, if you recognize that point, you can draw the reasonable inferences from it. If people raised within or around gay marriages are less likely to have the values that lead to world peace(in the opinion of the Pope), it stands to reason that he probably feels that gay marriages are a threat to world peace. An indirect, long term, and not very significant threat, but a threat.

Nevertheless, if you read this message and that's what you get out of it, you've missed the point. You don't have to look through all of his other writings to see what he thinks about the need for health care. You can just read what he wrote. You don't have to know the position of the RCC to see that he feels strongly about the need to protect the environment. It's there in plain text. There are lots of things in this message that you can just read, without having to know the context, or make inferences from other knowledge, or anything else.

If you think this message had anything significant to say about gay marriage, then you're looking at all the parts about health care, nuclear proliferation, education, becoming part of the world community, and affirmatively accepting responsibility for playing a role in that community, and then saying , "Yeah, but what did he say about me?"

*****************************
ETA: I found it interesting that the Pope released the message a little early this year, so that it was available to delegates at the Bali conference. Perhaps someone can explain why he thought they would be interested in a message about gay marriage.

*Actually, I don't think that's a very accurate description of his position on gay marrage, but it's close enough for this discussion.

Also, to be fair, there are plenty of numbskulls within the church that are reading it exactly the same way. "What stuff about peace and justice? He said queers ain't really family!"

[qayak]

In a sense, that's true. I am sure that the Pope thinks that it is more difficult to teach good family values in a family with two males acting as parents.* It is fair to say that he believes gay marriage will lead to more people without those values.

You will have to excuse my ignorance I guess but who exactly decided that what the catholic church teaches are good values? The pope's whole speech is based on a fallacy and is completely infallid. Unless you can demonstrate that the catholic model of sexism, bigotry, racism, criminal activity, lies, deceit, etc., etc., are the best family values.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I read it, the Pope really doesn't seem to be concerned that gay marriage threatens world peace, he seems to be concerned that it threatens the Catholic faith.....For not being concerned gay marriage threatens world peace, he certainly mentioned the man and woman thing enough times.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Family is certainly not just a metaphor in the Pope's message. His message is that family is the place where values are learned, and that we must then take those values learned in life with our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, and then treat all people with the same values we learned at home in order to achieve world peace. Consequently, anything that threatens our ability to learn those values at home will prevent us from applying those values in the broader community. In order to live in peace, it follows that there must be strong families, and that any threat to families is a threat to peace.

That's my summary of the Pope's message. In it, I referred to mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, just as the Pope did. So, is that discrimination against anyone who lacks one of those family elements, or against anyone who has extras in one of those elements?(emphasis mine) The peace depends not on caring and loving and nurturing in a family, but on the values. If he wasn't homophobic, then you could make your case. But he is homophobic and makes a point of saying that is one of the values. You are correct about the rest, but again, ignoring the glaring comments that those values exclude gay partners.

I'll put it like this. If I were writing a headline to describe the Pope's message I would probably write something like, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like family." Or, I could write, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like heterosexual family." Technically, the latter is just as correct as the former, but it misses the point of the message by a mile.

It's tempting to start a thread entitled, "Pope Says Polygamy Threatens World Peace" It would be just as accurate as this one.Had the Pope written ONE man and ONE woman 6 or 8 times, then you could say that. And if we lived in a society where enough people were arguing for polygamous marriages you would even have a valid point.

Like I said, I do (after you have now clarified your thoughts a bit more in the last several posts) understand your point. Maybe there is a tiny thread of truth in it. The headline which might be more appropriate from my point of view would be, "Pope bashes gay marriage yet again." Perhaps the conclusion going from gay bashing to gay marriage threatens world peace is stretching the emphasis of the speech a bit much. But you can't simply ignore all the emphasis on values and morals being key to world peace. And if that is the case, and actually, the Pope says it outright, threaten those values and you threaten world peace, then it is not stretching the facts, it is merely pulling one of many out and focusing on it..

[Skeptic Ginger]

You will have to excuse my ignorance I guess but who exactly decided that what the catholic church teaches are good values? The pope's whole speech is based on a fallacy and is completely infallid. Unless you can demonstrate that the catholic model of sexism, bigotry, racism, criminal activity, lies, deceit, etc., etc., are the best family values.I observe this same fallacy in most Christian faiths.

The church is synonymous with good, charity, altruism, kindness, all that God is love stuff.

In reality, while there are many individuals in the church who do indeed fit these descriptions, the Bible is full of all sorts of condoned cruelty in both the Old and New testaments. The Catholic Church, in addition to the pedophilia and caring more about covering it up than about the victims, and all the history of torture and murder of those who threatened the power of the men at the top of the church, sits on a vast treasury of art and artifacts, some of which is only accessible to the elites in the church, while they collect money every week from the poorest of the poor in churches all over the world. That doctrine on family I quoted speaks of non-discrimination repeatedly while discriminating against anyone not holding the values of the church.

"God is love" is true marketing fiction.

[Meadmaker]

You will have to excuse my ignorance I guess but who exactly decided that what the catholic church teaches are good values?

The Catholic Church.


The pope's whole speech is based on a fallacy and is completely infallid. Unless you can demonstrate that the catholic model of sexism, bigotry, racism, criminal activity, lies, deceit, etc., etc., are the best family values.

I certainly think that the Catholic Church believes some wacky things. I also think that the Church has a history of some pretty bad behavior, as with every other group where power was concentrated in the hands of a few.

If you don't trust the source of this message, there's no reason to take the words of this message seriously. However, the content of this message is that peace can be achieved if and only if we respect our families, and then treat the entire human community as if it were family. If you can overlook the source of the message, it's a pretty good message.




There was something I found very interesting about this message. It's a theme that could have been written about in any century, but it is very different for having been written today, as opposed to a couple of centuries ago. The discussion of the family would have been very different some time ago. This thread has discussed the Pope's description of the constituents of the family, being a man, a woman, and their children. For the Pope, that has remained unchanged since the beginning of time, and he is unwilling to expand that definition to be as inclusive as many would prefer. In that sense, the description of the family could have come from the middle ages.

However, the attributes of the family that the Pope describes are different than would have been described in ancient, or even much more recent times. Pre-enlightenment, a description of the family would have made an analogy between the position of the father, and the position of God. The father was to rule justly over not just his children, but his wife. Today's message emphasized the family as being created by affirmation of both parties, and even by the consent of the children. In ancient times, the ideal father also would have been likened to the position of the King ruling over his domain. Today, the Pope calls for democracy, and described a very egalitarian family model.

The Pope's description of the family may not be sufficiently modern for many people here, but a reasonable reading of this message would show a dramatic shift in attitudes about what constitutes a perfect family, compared to how such a family would have been described in times past.

Of course, on the subject of just who can be a family, the Pope is inflexible. In other words, the Pope is still Catholic. This really shouldn't surprise anyone. Next week, maybe we'll update everyone on the bear situation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...There was something I found very interesting about this message. It's a theme that could have been written about in any century, but it is very different for having been written today, as opposed to a couple of centuries ago. The discussion of the family would have been very different some time ago. This thread has discussed the Pope's description of the constituents of the family, being a man, a woman, and their children. For the Pope, that has remained unchanged since the beginning of time, and he is unwilling to expand that definition to be as inclusive as many would prefer. In that sense, the description of the family could have come from the middle ages.

However, the attributes of the family that the Pope describes are different than would have been described in ancient, or even much more recent times. Pre-enlightenment, a description of the family would have made an analogy between the position of the father, and the position of God. The father was to rule justly over not just his children, but his wife. Today's message emphasized the family as being created by affirmation of both parties, and even by the consent of the children. In ancient times, the ideal father also would have been likened to the position of the King ruling over his domain. Today, the Pope calls for democracy, and described a very egalitarian family model.

The Pope's description of the family may not be sufficiently modern for many people here, but a reasonable reading of this message would show a dramatic shift in attitudes about what constitutes a perfect family, compared to how such a family would have been described in times past.

Of course, on the subject of just who can be a family, the Pope is inflexible. In other words, the Pope is still Catholic. This really shouldn't surprise anyone. Next week, maybe we'll update everyone on the bear situation.While you make an interesting point, you have a bit of an egocentric point of view common in the Western World. That is the view only the Western World counts when describing history. Just add a geographic descriptor to your post and all will be 'kosher'. ;)

But then again, I was looking for a simple citation of examples of families in cultures across the globe when I came upon this very interesting page from religioustolerance.org. (You have to close the ad every time you change pages, click the upper right hand "skip this ad" box. It's annoying but it is a really good web site and more power to them if they can support the site with ads.)

Marriages & families in the Bible - Bible passages describing eight family/marriage types (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm)

[V23]

lol

[V23]

I cant help it.

WHY IN THE @#(( DOES ANYONE CARE WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR SPECIFICALLY THE ROTWEILLER THINKS!

This is the guy, that through his overseeing of interal affairs of the RCC and basicly playing spin doctor, alowed the whole pedofile priest ring to go on for something like 6 years when he was in charge of that office under John Paul II.

This is also the guy that was a member of the Hitler Youth and CURRENTLY dresses more flamboyant than Carl my drag queen friend.

How anyone alows this guy to rent space in their head is totally beyond me . .

[qayak]

However, the content of this message is that peace can be achieved if and only if we respect our families, and then treat the entire human community as if it were family. If you can overlook the source of the message, it's a pretty good message.

It is a good message as long as you are willing to disenfranchise a large portion of the population. Not just gays, anyone with; a "different" family structure, different view of god, non-belief in god, etc.

As with most religious messages, this one is not about inclusion in the world community, it is about exclusion. In fact, except that this message happens to be in print with the Vatican's letterhead, what is the difference between this message and any of the ones spawned by Osama Bin Laden?

The Rat is just another religious zealot which makes him a hell of a lot more dangerous to world peace than any gay parent, or all gay parents for that matter.

[Herzblut]

Thank you for not succumbing to Herzbluti's Gish Gallop. :)
BTW, my name is Herzblut, not Herzbluti. No "i" at the end. That wouldn't make much sense
since Herzblut means sth like heart blood.

[Herzblut]

This is also the guy that was a member of the Hitler Youth
Which he was drafted for by legal obligation. You don't think legal enforcement in Germany was kinda ..loose.. those days, do ya? You can find a few more details in a threat that was split up from this one.

[Herzblut]

And again I'm still waiting to hear you explain why the current Pope's statements do not represent RCC thinking.
"RCC thinking"? What the heck was that again?

[Darat]

"...Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international,...."

"..Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)..."

...The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties...

...It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

[CFLarsen]

I observe this same fallacy in most Christian faiths.

The church is synonymous with good, charity, altruism, kindness, all that God is love stuff.

In reality, while there are many individuals in the church who do indeed fit these descriptions, the Bible is full of all sorts of condoned cruelty in both the Old and New testaments. The Catholic Church, in addition to the pedophilia and caring more about covering it up than about the victims, and all the history of torture and murder of those who threatened the power of the men at the top of the church, sits on a vast treasury of art and artifacts, some of which is only accessible to the elites in the church, while they collect money every week from the poorest of the poor in churches all over the world. That doctrine on family I quoted speaks of non-discrimination repeatedly while discriminating against anyone not holding the values of the church.

"God is love" is true marketing fiction.

When you read the New Testament, you will find many examples of a rather advanced humanistic world view.

E.g. the most famous one - the golden rule - "love your neighbor as you love yourself" - was pretty radical for a time where brutal punishment was the order of the day, from raising the kids to the Roman rule (what did the Romans ever do for us?).

If you want to criticize Christianity, go right ahead. But be damned sure to aim your criticism at the right things. Otherwise, your criticism can rightly be dismissed, because you didn't do your homework - such as reading the Bible in the first place.

[Lonewulf]

When you read the New Testament, you will find many examples of a rather advanced humanistic world view.
Sure, as long as you ignore all the other things.

[Travis]

*SIGH*

I don't know what's worse; the Pope's slide into insanity, the radical believers that eat it up or the sycophantic apologists that try and sell it as being not that bad.

[Darat]

...snip...

If you want to criticize Christianity, go right ahead. But be damned sure to aim your criticism at the right things. Otherwise, your criticism can rightly be dismissed, because you didn't do your homework - such as reading the Bible in the first place.

Since this thread is about the dominate Christian sect - Roman Catholicism -your advice is not very pertinent since it is the RCC that interprets what Christianity is for its followers. Your comments are only pertinent for the Christians sects that are usually grouped together under the term "Protestant".

[Herzblut]

...The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage,
..snip..

Does this refer to the existing models of "civil partnership", "civil union" etc. or just to same sex matrimony giving rights equal to usual matrimonies? In the first case you won't have to "redefine" marriage, would you?


which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children.

So, are legalized same sex partnerships not permitted adoption subject to consideration?

If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, ..snip..
Well, that seddles it, doesn't it? Only fullblown marriages for same sex partners are subject to consideration, correct?


...It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

What's wrong with that now?

Just to make sure, we understand and agree on what we talk about.

[Darat]

I would suggest you direct your questions to the author of the text.

[Lonewulf]

Since this thread is about the dominate Christian sect - Roman Catholicism -your advice is not very pertinent since it is the RCC that interprets what Christianity is for its followers. Your comments are only pertinent for the Christians sects that are usually grouped together under the term "Protestant".

Since when do apologizers need to know the basics of the religion they're defending?

[Herzblut]

Since this thread is about the dominate Christian sect - Roman Catholicism ..schnipple..

Who says catholicism is a sect? How can a model be a sect? Is the RCC a sect? Says who? By what definition of "sect"?

You show lack of knowledge of basic terms related to religion. Why should somebody discuss religious topics with you?

[Herzblut]

I would suggest you direct your questions to the author of the text.
You claim to not have understood the text?

[Herzblut]

Since when do apologizers need to know the basics of the religion they're defending?
That's right. But religion bashers neither feel the need to know anything about what they malign, I'd suspect.

[kmortis]

Who says catholicism is a sect? How can a model be a sect? Is the RCC a sect? Says who? By what definition of "sect"?

You show lack of knowledge of basic terms related to religion. Why should somebody discuss religious topics with you?

Listen, a sect is a religious grouping. In Christianity, the RCC is defiantly a sect, whether you like it being called one or not. Go on, go look it up. I'll wait....


....find it yet? No? It's under "s". "s-e-c-t", no, it doesn't end in "x". Find it yet?


* kmortis checks wristwatch

Do you even know how to use a dictionary?

Ok, since you're having issues, I'll spell it out for you.

sect Look up sect at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "distinctive system of beliefs or observances; party or school within a religion," from O.Fr. secte, from L.L. secta "religious group, sect," from L. secta "manner, mode, following, school of thought," lit. "a way, road," from fem. of sectus, variant pp. of sequi "follow," from PIE *sekw- "to follow" (see sequel). Confused in this sense with L. secta, fem. pp. of secare "to cut" (see section). Meaning "separately organized religious body" is recorded from 1577. Sectarian first recorded 1649, originally applied by Presbyterians to Independents, from M.L. sectarius, from secta.



Main Entry: sect
Pronunciation: \ˈsekt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English secte, from Anglo-French & Late Latin & Latin; Anglo-French, group, faction, from Late Latin secta organized ecclesiastical body, from Latin, course of action, way of life, probably from sectari to pursue, frequentative of sequi to follow — more at sue
Date: 14th century
1 a: a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b: a religious denomination
2archaic : sex 1 <so is all her sect — Shakespeare>
3 a: a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader b: party c: faction

In Darat's usage, definition 3 is the appropriate one.

Ok, any more nitpicky "attacks" you want to lob?

[kmortis]

You claim to not have understood the text?

No, he didn't claim that, Herzbluti. He quoted text, you asked him do answer questions about it. From Darat's previous comments, it's obvious to the most casual observer that he does not agree with said comments and rather than he try to answer for words he did not say, he's suggesting that you go to the source. In this case the Pope.

[kmortis]

That's right. But religion bashers neither feel the need to know anything about what they malign, I'd suspect.

<snicker>


<giggle>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:dl:

[Lonewulf]

That's right. But religion bashers neither feel the need to know anything about what they malign, I'd suspect.

This coming from someone who claims that someone is ignorant because they said Catholicism is a sect. Perhaps you should do as you said, and do some more basic research?

[Herzblut]

Listen, a sect is a religious grouping.

No.

[Lonewulf]

No.

I'm sure you have an in-depth explanation and, maybe, y'know, evidence here, instead of just an empty assertion?

[Herzblut]

This coming from someone who claims that someone is ignorant because they said Catholicism is a sect.
I claim that somebody is simply wrong, where did I say "ignorant"?

My first remark to this nonsense has been that a sect is a group of people in any case whereas catholisism is a belief system.

[Father Dagon]

Not peace = war. Be careful what you ask for. (Not that I'm really scared about a global war against gay marriage. The most homophobic countries are totally craptastic in every other way. And if the U-nderdeveopled countries would attack Europe, the Lateran Treaty of 1929 would tell the Vatican to stay out of the kitchen.)

[Herzblut]

No, he didn't claim that, Herzbluti.
How do you know? You can read his mind?

[Lonewulf]

I claim that somebody is simply wrong, where did I say "ignorant"?

My first remark to this nonsense has been that a sect is a group of people in any case whereas catholisism is a belief system.

You'd have to be pretty short-sighted to not be able to read between the lines with this statement of yours:

You show lack of knowledge of basic terms related to religion. Why should somebody discuss religious topics with you?

But you're right, you didn't call him ignorant. You just said that he lacked basic knowledge of basic terms (without verifying your claim, which you still haven't done I might add), and then suggested that because he doesn't know these basic terms, people shouldn't discuss religious topics with him.

I mean, you're right. Since when did ignorance mean a lack of knowledge...? Oh, right.

the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

You show a lack of knowledge of basic terms related to the English language. Why should somebody discuss anything with you? ;)

[Fiona]

Might I tentatively suggest that it would be wise if you, Herz, did not try to base your argument on the meaning of words in a language which is your second and is first for your interlocuters? Just a thought

[Darat]

Who says catholicism is a sect? How can a model be a sect? Is the RCC a sect? Says who? By what definition of "sect"?


...snip...


The OED.

[Meadmaker]

what is the difference between this message and any of the ones spawned by Osama Bin Laden?


I'm not thoroughly familiar with the works of Osama bin Laden, but the excerpts I have seen have a different tone, and I can't recall any discussion of environmental stewardship in Osama's writings. Perhaps he has been quoted out of context.

[Darat]

How do you know? You can read his mind?

No he or she can read and comprehend my posts.

Again I will ask you do you have any substantive and relevant to the topic under discussion in this thread i..e that the RCC believes that "gay marriages are a threat to world peace?".

[Darat]

I'm not thoroughly familiar with the works of Osama bin Laden, but the excerpts I have seen have a different tone, and I can't recall any discussion of environmental stewardship in Osama's writings. Perhaps he has been quoted out of context.

It is rather off-topic to this thread's topic (i.e. the RCC's connection of a threat to world peace to non-RCC sanctioned families) so I would suggest you start a new thread if you want to discuss Bin Laden v The Pope on the environment.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/09/obl_transcript.php

...snip...

And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.

...snip...

Back to the thread topic - anyone yet want to try and defend the stupidity of the RCC position that gay marriages are a threat to world peace or shall we continue with attempts to try and sweep that rather unfortunate idiocy under the carpet?

[Meadmaker]

While you make an interesting point, you have a bit of an egocentric point of view common in the Western World. That is the view only the Western World counts when describing history. Just add a geographic descriptor to your post and all will be 'kosher'. ;)

Certainly. I was comparing the Pope of today with the Popes of ages past. I was noting the transformation of attitude toward family within Western society, and specifically within the Catholic Church. Other societies would be different.

[Meadmaker]

Back to the thread topic - anyone yet want to try and defend the stupidity of the RCC position that gay marriages area threat to world peace or shall we continue with attempts to try and sweep that rather unfortunate idiocy under the carpet?

Let me ask this. Do you think this was the primary message of Benedict's writings? How do you think Benedict would describe the severity of the threat represented by gay marriage?

One thing to ponder in answering that would be to note that Benedict enumerated specific conditions which he felt constituted threats to families, and gay marriage was not listed among those threats.

[Herzblut]

Might I tentatively suggest that it would be wise if you, Herz, did not try to base your argument on the meaning of words in a language which is your second and is first for your interlocuters? Just a thought
Your thoughts are always appreciated.

But look, coming back to the language argument, I know the meaning and usage of that word in three different languages in all of which I've read a vast amount of related texts.

Wouldn't you say that this does not obstruct, but even facilitate the understanding? I'd like to think so, at least.

Anyways, there's no doubt about improper usage of "sect" in this case. That's why I'm asking "Who says so?", meaning "show me evidence that serious theological/scientifical texts use the word sect in the way you do". Can't be difficult considering the sheer size of the RCC, can it?

As a more general side remark, it is well known that totalitarian groups, like $cientology for instance, create their own language, apply words in highly unusual ways. As you know, that's a perfidious (uncommon word, I assume) method of manipulation.

P.S.: Hey, how you know English is second? Actually, it's not.

P.P.S (later): I know you don't consider a belief system could be a group of people, do you? Catholicism simply cannot be a sect because the two terms live in incompliant categories. That's a matter of logic.

[Darat]

Let me ask this. Do you think this was the primary message of Benedict's writings? How do you think Benedict would describe the severity of the threat represented by gay marriage?

...snip...



Let me ask you a question in return - do you agree with the RCC that "gay marriages" represent a threat to world peace?

[Herzblut]

But you're right, you didn't call him ignorant. You just said that he lacked basic knowledge of basic terms ..schnippel..

No, I didn't.

..schnappel.. and then suggested that because he doesn't know these basic terms, people shouldn't discuss religious topics with him.

No, I didn't.

[Lonewulf]

No, I didn't.

You show lack of knowledge of basic terms related to religion. Why should somebody discuss religious topics with you?

No, I didn't.

You show lack of knowledge of basic terms related to religion. Why should somebody discuss religious topics with you?

Nice to know that you're a liar. Someday, I hope to meet religious freaks or religious apologists that don't rely extensively on dishonesty to achieve their aims.

Back on my ignore list you go.

[Fiona]

Your thoughts are always appreciated.

But look, coming back to the language argument, I know the meaning and usage of that word in three different languages in all of which I've read a vast amount of related texts.

Wouldn't you say that this does not obstruct, but even facilitate the understanding? I'd like to think so, at least.

Well as is obvious I only have one language, though I like to think I use it well. And I do know that other friends who have more than one can sometimes give me insights I would not otherwise have either through the kinds of misunderstanding which arise, or through nuances not actually present in english. So do not think I do not value what you gain from knowledge of more than one language.

Anyways, there's no doubt about improper usage of "sect" in this case. That's why I'm asking "Who says so?", meaning "show me evidence that serious theological/scientifical texts use the word sect in the way you do". Can't be difficult considering the sheer size of the RCC, can it?

Well apart from the dictionary definitions given above. The shorter OED does, actually. I am not sure if it is available online but it says

"Sect (sekt). Late M.E. [-(O)Fr.Secie or L. secta (used as cogn.obj. in sectam sequi follow a certain course of conduct, follow a person's guidance), party faction, school of philosophy, F. older pa. ppl. stem sect- opf sequi follow.] 1. A class or kind (of persons)-1628 b. A religious order-1814 c. Sex. Now only in illiterate or joc. use.late M.E. 2. Body of followers or adherents -1667 3. A religious following; adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith.esp a. A body of persons who unite in holding certain views differing from those of others who are accounted to be of the same religion; a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical. late M.E. b. in mod. usage, commonly applied to a separately organised religious body having its distinctive name and its own places of worship; a "denomination". Also, less widely, one of the bodies separated from the Church. 1577. 4. the system or body of adherents of a particular school of philosophy. late M.E. 5. transf. A school of opinion in politics, science, etc 1605


As a more general side remark, it is well known that totalitarian groups, like $cientology for instance, create their own language, apply words in a highly unusual ways. As you know, that's a perfidious (uncommon word, I assume) method of manipulation.

Indeed they do, and thus I am curious as to why you ask for "show me evidence that serious theological/scientifical texts use the word sect in the way you do". I can only use ordinary english and that is what I think we should all do, for the reason you just gave. If there is a reason for a specialised meaning within a given profession or grouping then ok, but generally I like new words for new meanings so there is less scope for confusion :)

P.S.: Hey, how you know English is second? Actually, it's not.

My apologies. An assumption I made because of some of the things you said earlier. If english is your first language then I would not have expected the problem with the word "parent" to have arisen. Sorry

[Herzblut]

Back on my ignore list you go.
I did not say what you declared I did. Nor did I mean to say that.

[Fiona]

Well Herz, you did say it, really. I am perfectly prepared to accept it did not reflect what you meant to say, but really it is not good to deny words which are there for all to see and have been quoted. We can't get anywhere if we keep revising history, I think

[Herzblut]

Well as is obvious I only have one language, though I like to think I use it well.

You do. And why is it obvious you don't know ..eh.. Gallic, hope the spelling is correct.


Indeed they do, and thus I am curious as to why you ask for "show me evidence that serious theological/scientifical texts use the word sect in the way you do". I can only use ordinary english and that is what I think we should all do, for the reason you just gave.
OK, now that's slightly problematic because ordinary language is what I read in relevant texts. I cannot know how street english uses "sect" or any other terms.

Also, looking thru the list of possible definitions I'd immediately ask myself whether a "Church" can be called a "sect", especially the RCC. I'd check Wikipedia to find here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-sect_typology

that some recent discussion's going on whether "denomination", instead of "Church" of course, should the correct typological definition of the RCC, but clearly "sect" isn't. Therefore the RCC cannot be correctly called "sect". Whoever does so, needs to show legitimicy by mentioning serious evidence. Since no evidence whatsoever will be mentioned here, trust me, we can safely disqualify such a usage, can't we?


My apologies. An assumption I made because of some of the things you said earlier. If english is your first language then I would not have expected the problem with the word "parent" to have arisen. Sorry
English is not my first language...

[Mashuna]

OK, now that's slightly problematic because ordinary language is what I read in relevant texts. I cannot know how street english uses "sect" or any other terms.

Also, looking thru the list of possible definitions I'd immediately ask myself whether a "Church" can be called a "sect", especially the RCC. I'd check Wikipedia to find here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-sect_typology

that some recent discussion's going on whether "denomination", instead of "Church" of course, should the correct typological definition of the RCC, but clearly "sect" isn't. Therefore the RCC cannot be correctly called "sect". Whoever does so, needs to show legitimicy by mentioning serious evidence. Since no evidence whatsoever will be mentioned here, trust me, we can safely disqualify such a usage, can't we?



Is there any particular reason that you are disqualifying the OED as a relevant text, whilst using wikipedia instead?

[Herzblut]

Well Herz, you did say it, really.

No. For instance I said a user "shows lack of knowledge". I qualify what he shows, not what he knows. I mean, how can I know what another user knows? He might e.g. be drunk or express something despite knowing better.

Also, I didn't "propose" who should discuss with whom. I raised a question, no proposition.

I thought that was self-evident.

[Fiona]

Herz, most people who are english speakers don't speak sociology - they speak English. Max Weber, so far as I know, was German and he did not write in English. I studied sociology for two years and gave it up partly because it does not use english and does not have very good reasons not to do so.

I am afraid you are just wrong about this. The OED is a respectable source and reflects standard english, not street english. I can understand if you said you had been misled by the frequency with which sect is used to describe rather less numerous denominations; and in that usage there is often an undertone of disdain, I can see that. But this is not what the word means to native english speakers. So I am afraid I cannot disqualify the way I have always used the word in favour of your idiosyncratic suggestion.

PS. Heheeh. I apologise again if english is your third or fourth or 27th language. I should have realised I have to read what you say with very careful attention to precise meaning. Does the term "implicature" mean anything to you ? LOL

[DoubtingStephen]

Does anyone have a list handy of the wars that have been caused, up to this date, by gay marriage?

Heck, I'd settle for just a regional conflict that has been caused by gay marriage?

Has anyone observed National Guard troops in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire or Vermont firing rounds across the state line into Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal?

Any reports of shore-based invasions of Massachusetts coastal communities by naval forces from Maine or Long Island?

Has George W Bush threatened to invade Canada because he knows where their Weapons of Gay Marriage (WGMs) are?

We might be able to establish the supreme accuracy of the world's most famous infallible man if we had a few references to recent gay marriage-based military activities.

Has Germany invaded Belgium or The Netherlands recently? Any news from the front?

Any hostilities between France and Spain in the last few weeks?

Has the Mexican state of Jalisco begun hostile actions against Mexico City?

Is Namibia threatening to invade South Africa?

I'm trying to build a history of gay-marriage based world wars and regional conflicts, please help me document all of the wars that gay marriage has caused so far.

[Hawk one]

No he or she can read and comprehend my posts.

After this confirmation that KMortis did indeed read and comprehend Darat's post correctly, one would have assumed that an honest person would have apologised for making a snarky comment when it was clear that the only one lacking reading comprehension was said person.

[Herzblut]

No he or she can read and comprehend my posts.

The post I referred to is composed of quotes to other texts. To a 100%.

And I asked a simple question about what your quotes meant. Justified by the fact that you draw a conclusion from those quotes:

"gay marriage is a threat to world peace"

What does your conclusion mean? Does it refer to full-blown same sex matrimonies, realized in only five countries so far, or does it include all those models of a civil union implemented in many other countries worldwide?

[Darat]

The post I referred to is composed of quotes to other texts. To a 100%.

And I asked a simple question about what your quotes meant. Justified by the fact that you draw a conclusion from those quotes:

"gay marriage is a threat to world peace"

What does your conclusion mean? Does it refer to full-blown same sex matrimonies, realized in only five countries so far, or does it include all those models of a civil union implemented in many other countries worldwide?

I use the same definitions as the RCC does for "gay marriage".

[Herzblut]

I use the same definitions as the RCC does for "gay marriage".
Which is?

[Darat]

I've already provided the link to the document co-authored by Ratzinger on the Vatican website that deals with this a couple of times....

[Darth Rotor]

You forget one very important point . . . children growing up without the benefit of one parent are almost exclusively the fault of heterosexual couples. coupling.

There are plenty of cases of "eff 'em and forget 'em" that produces a child that is hardly the work of a couple, but is indeed the outcome of a coupling.

;)

In other cases, yes, a couple has kids, then at some future date, the kids don't have a couple of parents. :( Coupling tends to be involved in that as well.

DR

[Herzblut]

I've already provided the link to the document co-authored by Ratzinger on the Vatican website that deals with this a couple of times....
No, it doesn't. I searched the whole vatican.va site and did not find a single match for the phrase "gay marriage".

I assume because such a term does not describe any aspect of reality, in the eyes of Vatican. :rolleyes: It's a term you are using. RCC officials would hardly say something like "gay marriage does this and that".

So, you claim the RCC's thinking WHAT explicitely?

[Darat]

No, it doesn't. I searched the whole vatican.va site and did not find a single match for the phrase "gay marriage".

I assume because such a term does not describe any aspect of reality, in the eyes of Vatican. :rolleyes: It's a term you are using. RCC officials would hardly say something like "gay marriage does this and that".

So, you claim the RCC's thinking WHAT explicitely?

Do you have anything at all relevant to the matter under discussion?

[Herzblut]

Do you have anything at all relevant to the matter under discussion?
What is your claim in the matter under discussion?

[Darat]

I have stated my opinion on the matter under discussion many times in this thread.

[DoubtingStephen]

Any new invasions based on gay marriage? Maybe a few strafing runs?

Nukular subs stalking the coast of Massachusetts?

[Herzblut]

Does anyone have a list handy of the wars that have been caused, up to this date, by gay marriage?

Of course not, don't be silly.


Has Germany invaded Belgium or The Netherlands recently? Any news from the front?

I'm in Amsterdam quite often: it's not worth it. :D


Any hostilities between France and Spain in the last few weeks?

OK, here's sth I'd like to dig into:

"RCC's stance to gay marriage threatens world peace"

Correct or not? If not, why care at all?

I'm looking at the arguably most catholic country in Europe, Spain, third country in the world (out of five in total) which implemented equal rights gay marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain

I think acceptance in the population is more important than religious faith. With 90% or so of all spanish inhabitants being catholic, gay marriage neverthless enjoys support by 66% of the population.