Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on March 09, 2012, 10:36:12 am
-
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict on Friday denounced the "powerful political and cultural currents" seeking to legalize gay marriage in the United States, where Maryland has just become the eighth state to allow it.
The pope's latest comments in opposition to homosexual marriage came in an address to bishops from several Midwestern states on a regular visit to the Vatican.
"Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage," he said.
He added that the traditional family and marriage had to be "defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature" because, he said, whatever injured families injured society.
"In this regard, particular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage (in the United States)," he added in a clear reference to gay marriage.
While I respect your right to hold beliefs and practice your religion, sir, I do not respect your assertion that they should be imposed on others.
-
nuke the site from orbit. its the only way to be sure.
-
nuke the site from orbit. its the only way to be sure.
But you'd hit Rome, one of the most beautifull cities on Earth! (Ranked up there allong with... all those other italian cities!)
-
He tried this in the UK as well, and I don't think we ever forgot that one his cardinals was withdrawn from their UK visit because he said that with the number of ethnic minorities in the UK, it'd be like landing in the third-world.
They're a lovely bunch of live-and-let-live people....
-
this won't change anything. the only people who care what the pope says are Catholics and they don't want gay marriage to exist anyway
not worth writing about
-
Pope opens mouth, que a couple of days of newspaper commentary and internet hell raisers and everything back to normal
-
this won't change anything. the only people who care what the pope says are Catholics and they don't want gay marriage to exist anyway
not worth writing about
Generalization. I know plenty of Catholics who dislike the pope and its institution and think he is crazy. In fact most of the Catholics I know listen to what they think is right before listening to what the pope thinks is right. I also know plenty of Catholics who think gay's should be able to marry whomever they want. I also know some who think gay marriage should be illegal.
-
Pope opens mouth, que a couple of days of newspaper commentary and internet hell raisers and everything back to normal
See, you might be too young to remember, but people actually approved of a lot the stuff that came out of John-Paul II's mouth.
This is one of the reasons I think the Roman Catholic Church needs to elect non-first-world pope, somebody who's got more interest in the whole social-justice aspect of the theology than the bizarre first world interjections in the text.
-
Pope opens mouth, que a couple of days of newspaper commentary and internet hell raisers and everything back to normal
See, you might be too young to remember, but people actually approved of a lot the stuff that came out of John-Paul II's mouth.
This is one of the reasons I think the Roman Catholic Church needs to elect non-first-world pope, somebody who's got more interest in the whole social-justice aspect of the theology than the bizarre first world interjections in the text.
Yer John-Paul didnt have much "to prove" but the current guy is happy at spouting off about traditional values in a by the book manner rather than translating Catholicism to the real world, so my comment still stands
-
But you'd hit Rome, one of the most beautifull cities on Earth!
ok, how about we compromise, neutron bomb.
-
But you'd hit Rome, one of the most beautifull cities on Earth!
ok, how about we compromise, neutron bomb.
that would be acceptable.
-
I'm Catholic, and I strongly disagree with this sentiment, because I fail to see how a civil definition of marriage affects the Catholic sacrament of matrimony either way. Protip: it doesn't.
-
nuke the site from orbit. its the only way to be sure.
But you'd hit Rome, one of the most beautifull cities on Earth! (Ranked up there allong with... all those other italian cities!)
You Sir, can clearly not grasp the true beauty of seeing a city be torn apart at the atomic level via nuclear fission.
-
Pope opens mouth, que a couple of days of newspaper commentary and internet hell raisers and everything back to normal
^ This.
Catholic fail.
-
I'm Catholic, and I strongly disagree with this sentiment, because I fail to see how a civil definition of marriage affects the Catholic sacrament of matrimony either way. Protip: it doesn't.
I actually agree with the church on this one in that government has no right to demand that the church allow same sex marriage. The government offers a civil alternative meaning its a weak human rights argument vs the right of a recognised religion to practice their traditions and religious rights win that one for me.
my pope opens mouth comment was more about the impact his words will have on the general population, particularly the non Christians.
And as for my comparison of the popes it was that John-Paul generally managed to promote the Catholic church in a way that was less controversial to Christian countries. The current guy seems to be in the news a lot more for spouting off on traditional values of the Catholic church which do not work well in modern society, it just strikes me as he is trying to prove himself too much.
-
What he means is that whatever threathens the traditional family and family values ... threathens religious childhood indoctrination and yes that certainly does threathen not just "Christian" society but any religion.
From his perspective... this is of course horrible ;)
-
Marriage was around long before the Christian church, the use of a ring is a throwback to Ancient Greece.
-
I'm Catholic, and I strongly disagree with this sentiment, because I fail to see how a civil definition of marriage affects the Catholic sacrament of matrimony either way. Protip: it doesn't.
Generalization. I know plenty of Catholics who dislike the pope and its institution and think he is crazy. In fact most of the Catholics I know listen to what they think is right before listening to what the pope thinks is right. I also know plenty of Catholics who think gay's should be able to marry whomever they want. I also know some who think gay marriage should be illegal.
And here I thought the definition of a Catholic was someone who believed everything the Pope said. (This is not sarcasm)
-
That hasn't been the case for a long time, if it ever was. The concept of "papal infallibility" only applies when a pope speaks on an issue of faith or morals under certain specific conditions, generally referred to as ex cathedra. Catholics are completely free to disagree with him if he's speaking in a more informal sense, like on this issue.
-
That hasn't been the case for a long time, if it ever was. The concept of "papal infallibility" only applies when a pope speaks on an issue of faith or morals under certain specific conditions, generally referred to as ex cathedra. Catholics are completely free to disagree with him if he's speaking in a more informal sense, like on this issue.
Facinating, thank you!
-
Suppose this has anything to do with the US recently putting the Vatican to it's money-laundering concerns list?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-vatican-laundering-idUSBRE82710J20120308
-
I think it's probably more to do with the fact that the Vatican is an archaic institution that has failed to realize that the very core of humanity is change and adaption, and that clinging onto the 'old ways' is not only impossible, but certainly a case of looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. About 100 years ago, beating your wife and children with a large wooden paddle was 'discipline', rather than assault. The world changes, and our perception of 'right' and 'wrong' is permanently changing with it, the whole idea of there being 'fixed' positions of right and wrong is a fallacy in the first place.
Basically, they realize that the only way to cling to power is to play on the lizard brain fears of people, because they promote a reaction without requiring input from the consciousness.
-
I think it's probably more to do with the fact that the Vatican is an archaic institution that has failed to realize that the very core of humanity is change and adaption, and that clinging onto the 'old ways' is not only impossible, but certainly a case of looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. About 100 years ago, beating your wife and children with a large wooden paddle was 'discipline', rather than assault. The world changes, and our perception of 'right' and 'wrong' is permanently changing with it, the whole idea of there being 'fixed' positions of right and wrong is a fallacy in the first place.
That's actually a really good point against anyone who would stand by an issue because of what's in the bible, Koran, ect.
Thanks for that.
-
I just reread the title of this thread and now I can't get the image of Vader in the Popemobile out of my head. :lol:
-
I'm Catholic, and I strongly disagree with this sentiment, because I fail to see how a civil definition of marriage affects the Catholic sacrament of matrimony either way. Protip: it doesn't.
I actually agree with the church on this one in that government has no right to demand that the church allow same sex marriage. The government offers a civil alternative meaning its a weak human rights argument vs the right of a recognised religion to practice their traditions and religious rights win that one for me.
this is an interesting argument, and for it to be valid in my book then it would have to go both ways. suppose there is a recognized religion who's tenants allow for gay marriage, then does the government have any rights to deny same sex marriage to members of that religion? this could not happen if the government gave 'right of a recognized religion to practice their traditions and religious rights'. im all for the idea that government has no buisness to dictate marriage at all, and that all marriages would be defined exclusively by the church to which the couple belongs. a gay couple wishing to get married would need to find a religious organization which would recognize their marriage.
really the biggest issue i have with gay marriage is that it is an issue at all. there are more important issues to address. its sad that politicians on both side spend so much time flipflopping the marriage laws when we have an entire world left to rape, pilliage, conquer and nuke.
-
I'm Catholic, and I strongly disagree with this sentiment, because I fail to see how a civil definition of marriage affects the Catholic sacrament of matrimony either way. Protip: it doesn't.
I actually agree with the church on this one in that government has no right to demand that the church allow same sex marriage. The government offers a civil alternative meaning its a weak human rights argument vs the right of a recognised religion to practice their traditions and religious rights win that one for me.
this is an interesting argument, and for it to be valid in my book then it would have to go both ways. suppose there is a recognized religion who's tenants allow for gay marriage, then does the government have any rights to deny same sex marriage to members of that religion? this could not happen if the government gave 'right of a recognized religion to practice their traditions and religious rights'.
What you would have is suppose is a marriage recognised in religion but not law. On the other hand its an interesting scenario where a nation is intolerant to the practices of a religion but still recognises it, after all the national idea of morality is in the vast majority of cases dictated or at least informed by the majority religion or the religion of the ruling person(s) at the time the law was passed. and while this is braking down in countries like the UK where the link between religion and the government is separating, the law is still founded on religious teachings.
-
Generalization. I know plenty of Catholics who dislike the pope and its institution and think he is crazy. In fact most of the Catholics I know listen to what they think is right before listening to what the pope thinks is right. I also know plenty of Catholics who think gay's should be able to marry whomever they want. I also know some who think gay marriage should be illegal.
If there are "Cathloics" that hate the pope and its institution, then by definition they aren't Catholic are they :)
-
If there are "Cathloics" that hate the pope and its institution, then by definition they aren't Catholic are they :)
The layity has regarded the whole contraceptives thing as farcical pretty much since it happened. There are a lot of things that the lay Church doesn't agree with that the clerical Church does.
And the only permanent way out is excommunication, genius. Otherwise you can wander around claiming to be a member in good standing and nobody can say boo.
Facinating, thank you!
Also, the infallibility thing has actually been invoked...perhaps twice, perhaps once, depending on who you ask. None of which are actually relevant to the current issues.