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).

[Mark A. Siefert]

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 :(

[In My Spare Time]

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)

[In My Spare Time]

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?

[In My Spare Time]

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.

[In My Spare Time]

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 ****ing, boy boffing, pig headed prelate"

[In My Spare Time]

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

[In My Spare Time]

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.

[skeptigirl]

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"?

[skeptigirl]

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

[skeptigirl]

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.

[skeptigirl]

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.

[skeptigirl]

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 shat 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?

[skeptigirl]

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.

[skeptigirl]

....
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."

[skeptigirl]

....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.

[skeptigirl]

...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.

[skeptigirl]

"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.