Pope Defends Traditional Families as Spanish Gays Hold 'Kiss-In'

[Safe-Keeper]

im serious, what - is - the - point?

who cares?

Was that rhetorical, or do you actually fail to understand the point of gay rallies?

"What was the point of African-Americans sitting in the middle of the street during the Civil Rights Movement? What was the deal with those oddball peace protesters burning piles of draft notes? What's up with this inexplicable pride felt by those weirdos who recently have made incredible leaps forward in their fight for tolerance and rights in such a short span of time? Seriously, what's it all about?"

Agreed on the church not having any authority here, but I don't see why a) the public is "not allowed" to express disgust, or b) why this protest should be seen as disgusting.

Because he openly dislikes gays; it's that old "I don't mind them, just so long as they stay in the closet where I don't have to see them" deal. I have strong feelings that he would not find an inter-racial kiss-in or an Atheist Free Hugs Day nearly as irking.

this is the problem with special interest groups.

they want so badly for everyone to know they are "special" that they will do anything to draw attention to themselves.

Did you actually read what you quoted?

"BARCELONA, Spain -- Pope Benedict XVI strongly defended traditional families and the rights of the unborn Sunday, directly attacking Spanish laws that allow gay marriage, fast-track divorce and easier abortions as he dedicated Barcelona's iconic church, the Sagrada Familia."

But sure, it has nothing to do with civil rights, or homosexuals feeling chastised -- they just happened to have a pep rally right when the Pope made a visit.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I find it amusing that the Catholic Church likes to pretend that it is still the 12th Century, and that the word of the pope is universally irresistable. What will they do, reissue the Bull of Ad abolendam and a return of the Albigensian Crusade? Silly. The Vatican is just speaking to be heard and to remind Europe that they are still there.

Precisely

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Was that rhetorical, or do you actually fail to understand the point of gay rallies?

"What was the point of African-Americans sitting in the middle of the street during the Civil Rights Movement? What was the deal with those oddball peace protesters burning piles of draft notes? What's up with this inexplicable pride felt by those weirdos who recently have made incredible leaps forward in their fight for tolerance and rights in such a short span of time? Seriously, what's it all about?"

My point is i think there is a LOT less racism, sexism, and hate than a lot of these groups put on.

If my next door neighbor likes it up the rear thats his problem. What do i care???

If my neighbor is a "God warrior", thats his problem, i dont give a hoot.

i think the thought process by a lot of people - even a lot of people here at subsim is this - if you are a white christian... you hate everyone and want to push your ideals onto them. that couldn't be further from the truth in a lot of people's cases.

if a man wants to rest another mans ball sack on his chin, who cares? as long as children are not being exposed to it or such conduct is not taking place in public, who cares?

If the Catholic church feels the need to defend the "traditional family" with which they are accustomed, who is that hurting? seriously, who gives a rat's anus?

I'm just tired of hearing about everyone's "plight" be it real or imagined.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

If the Catholic church feels the need to defend the "traditional family" with which they are accustomed, who is that hurting? seriously, who gives a rat's anus?

Well, if the Church are attacking the laws defend gay marriage and attempting to influence legislation, then it's hurting gays who want to get married.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, if the Church are attacking the laws defend gay marriage and attempting to influence legislation, then it's hurting gays who want to get married.

Thats what the pope does.

Did it result in the law being changed?

no

will it?

I HIGHLY doubt it.

this isnt the 1300s

im not defending either position, im actually sort of shooting both positions down.

i think they are both equally ridiculous.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The catholic church and all Christianity, is geared toward ensuring your afterlife in heaven, not easing your earthly burdens. That is the reason for self denial and self-inflicted pain amongst certain monks. By suffering on earth you reap the rewards of heaven.

Not my cup of tea, but bearing that in mind allows some understanding of the motives.

Oh, I poerfectly understand their claims of why they do what they do. It's jujst that I never believed them that the church hierarchy meant that honest and serious. It's all abvout power-politics.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Simple really - gay pride exists because gay shame exists. It's a funny version of Newton's Third Law of Motion

Newton'S third law, eh?

Agreed on the church not having any authority here, but I don't see why a) the public is "not allowed" to express disgust, or b) why this protest should be seen as disgusting.

Dare to say something against CSD and nude parades, and be ready to get a public grilling by the media echo and the PC brigade for your "intolerance" and obvious "discrimination". I wonder why so far opposition to CSD and public nudity has not been brandmarked as "racism" - or have I just missed it?

[FIREWALL]

It begs to be asked... How many fruits do we have in the vegetable bin around here ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Because he openly dislikes gays; it's that old "I don't mind them, just so long as they stay in the closet where I don't have to see them" deal. I have strong feelings that he would not find an inter-racial kiss-in or an Atheist Free Hugs Day nearly as irking.

CSD and comparable freak shows give gays a bad name and do them a bad service. And as I repeatedly said in the past, many gays do not wish to be associated with these freak shows at all. As I also repeatedly said, I knew two gay students at university, we learned together sometimes. They both also expressed their disgust for these freaks (they called them freaks themselves, so who am I toban that term from usage). They wanted what you look right down to and find so alienating, apparently: they wanted to not make an issue of their orientation and wanted be left with the freedom and peace to live their private life like they want. Which is no problem for me at all. When I do not like the idea of my sex life being pulled and laid out in all public, why should most gay men or lesbian women be different in that attitude? The only reasons I can imagine are craving for recognition and self-dramatisation.

I also did not get an infectous gay-disease or herpes when those two and me made skin contact by shaking hands, or sharing the same bottle for drinking. All I once got from them was a flu.

Not all gays crave for the public's spotlights and attention beign payed to their narcissistic self-dramatisation or because they take themselves so very important. I dare say that most gay men are not like that. CSD freaks to me are a minority - but a very loud and noisy one that forms the image of them all and gets qa lot of recognition, unfortunately..

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I wonder why so far opposition to CSD and public nudity has not been brandmarked as "racism" - or have I just missed it?

Cat Scratch Disease? Cortical Spreading Depression? Chartered Society of Designers? Communication Service for the Deaf?
WTFH is CSD
It isn't on Wikipedia/Wiktionary


As for why public nudity isn't brandmarked as "racism", it's actually quite simple to understand. You are either born as a gay or not, just like you're born as a black or white or yellow or purple person. You can't help it. But you aren't born as a nudist. You are born nude, yes, but not as a nudist.

[Gerald]

Christopher Street Day,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Street_Day

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

As for why public nudity isn't brandmarked as "racism", it's actually quite simple to understand.

That was not what I - rethorically - asked. I was not about public nudity and racism, but claims of racism being used to gag criticism of public nudity and CSD.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Christopher Street Day,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Street_Day

Ah k... also explains why I didn't know the name:

Only Germany and Switzerland use the term CSD, in other countries, the same kind of event is called Gay Pride or Pride Parade

Originally Posted by Skybird

That was not what I - rethorically - asked. I was not about public nudity and racism, but claims of racism being used to gag criticism of public nudity and CSD.

Hmm so I simply mistook your rhetorical question as a genuine one
Anyway, if criticism of nudity etc. are brandmarked as racism, the ones doing the brandmarking should reread what racism is as they obviously don't understand the word.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

It begs to be asked... How many fruits do we have in the vegetable bin around here ?

I'm neither, but who cares! Let's have a parade and celebrate nude submarine pride.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I wish gay activists would stop with their narcisstic self-dramatisation, and the church would stop claiming powers that it does not deserve.

When a pope talks about protection of family values (I'm all for prioritizing families due to their overwhelming importance for the scoial community's future), he is not so much aboit family interests, but powerinterests of the church and the control it wants to have over people, and the status it claims for itself in society. And when gay activists launch another CSD or a Kiss-in or a nude parade, they are not about civil rights and equality, but their very own little climax of the day, and enjoying to be naughty in public without the public being allowed to express disgust. That's such a kick!

The church and it's orders are not holy. And there is no explicit reason for gay "pride", there is no merit in being gay (or hetero - it is like your skin colour: some have this colour, others have that - what's there to be "proud" of?). Both religion and sexual orientation should be left where it belongs - inside people's private chamber.

So will both of you two freaks, gay activists and church alike, stop annoying the vast majorit of us, please!

And btw, dear Mr. Ratzinger, a figure that still condemns the containing of HIV by using condoms, and still is committed to increasing the biggest crime in human history - pushing global population explosion and all the miserable suffering that it causes by the hundreds of millions every year - has not the smallest moral authority himself to lecture others about moral values.

This.


Nothing against argumenst for family values and communality in western societies. This individuality crap taken to the extremes leads to general deterioration of cohesion in society and these special interest groups forcing their agenda to others.

In Finland the sexual minorities issue is becoming an election theme because the PC media is drumming it up.
Im all for giving the same legal status for sexual minorities concerning forming relationships, inheritence laws etc.

But at the same time there can be no crime in saying that the traditional family concept should be something to be endorsed.
This goes for everyone, the divorce rates for exsample are a sign of the selfishness that is rampant in our societies.

Being gay or transexual is nothing you can choose to be or not, but saying it is not outside the norm would be a case of a giant elephant on the room.

If it makes me a biggot that i dont think it is good for a child to have mother that is nowdays a man who has wife that is also his/her mother then il gladly be a biggot.