Vatican calls on UN member states to outlaw homosexuality

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/...haviours.html#

Just to keep in mind the Vatican's efforts of evil extent to the highest political levels. Notice the irony in the Holy See representative uses paedophilia as an example, despite this being a sexual practice the Vatican has protected and enabled.

[♔DARTH LEGO♔]

..just when we thought they were coming right on the whole condom and paedo issues , now they pull this corker.

But honestly how much pull does the Vatican still have? not much i would think it sounds like the usual bluster.

Im a rehabilitated catholic because of them.....and happier for it

I say let em whine, there arent too many people that take them seriously anymore... i'm sure people listen but in the same way that the class clown is politely listened too.

Nice article though...

[Vir Triumphalis]

Italy should send in troops to quell this Vatican hypocrisy The Vatican is inherently heretic and hypocrite. They have just been recently accused of sexual assault on children yet they call on the highest organization to outlaw homosexuality?

[Himster]

As if the church hasn't done enough harm in uganda, now they want to extend it to other countries?

It's sad that they want this and terrifying because they can do it.

It's a sad day for catholics everywhere.

[♔DARTH LEGO♔]

and terrifying because they can do it.

You really think so???

How could they go about influencing a governing body as large as the UN ?

I think its just to take focus off the other 100+ crimes they are trying to cover up.....' kind of like a lets fix the roads before election thing sleight of hand.'

[Himster]

You really think so???

How could they go about influencing a governing body as large as the UN ?

I think its just to take focus off the other 100+ crimes they are trying to cover up.....' kind of like a lets fix the roads before election thing sleight of hand.'

The catholic church is the largest church in the world..........need I say more?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Italy ought to invade with full force and finish what they started. The Vatican has already set back progress against HIV with it's anti condom preaching, effectively ending many lives.

[Bolkonsky]

Italy ought to invade with full force and finish what they started. The Vatican has already set back progress against HIV with it's anti condom preaching, effectively ending many lives.

Learn what you're talking about man. They aren't preaching anti-condom, they're preaching anti-sex outside of marriage.

The Catholic church has had almost no sexual scandals since 200...4(?) I think it is, one of the lowest of any major organization in the world. They spend millions and millions annually to clothe the naked, feed the poor, and provide peace to many many families.

Do you have ANY idea how many more homeless, hungry people there would be without the Catholic Church? Millions. Do you have ANY idea how much work they do in the missions in South America, Africa, and Asia? Millions of people would be scrounging dumps for food.

And then we see all these Italy invading comments... And now people will ignore or blatantly deny this post without and proper sources, because you can't live with someone merely exercising their freedoms. It's all fun and games and human rights when it's your freedoms, but when it's the Church's freedoms, these said freedoms suddenly disappear.

The Church will never call on a ban of homosexuality, that's not the issue. We believe in free will and the freedom to make choices. Our isssues are:

A) Having it taught to children that it's a good thing. (The same issues that you would have if someone was teaching children that your political views were bad - those things should stay out of school period. It's up for the parents to decide.)

B) Destroying the sanctity and definition of marriage by homosexuality. Traditionally a marriage is between one woman and one man, and it should stay that way. That's my completely valid, free, opinion, that I am entitled to without any hostility, as you are yours.

It's not hate-speech, I don't hate homosexuals. I don't call people gay fags, I don't beat up homosexuals.

And the final thing to remember is - we condemn the sinner, not the sin. The Church will always love the sinner, even if they are the greatest sinner that has ever lived. It's the sin that we abhor.

Statements such as "Italy should invade!" and "The catholics are evil and retarded" and "I'm a Catholic but I believe that homosexuality is fine" are full of foolish nonsense, by people who truly know not of what they speak.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Learn what you're talking about man. They aren't preaching anti-condom, they're preaching anti-sex outside of marriage.

Er, no, they're preaching anti-condom. In Africa the CC has been severely criticised for saying condoms do not help prevent the spread of HIV. That is a knowing, evil, dangerous lie. I shudder to think the lives it has cut short or ended unnecessarily.

[Bolkonsky]

Er, no, they're preaching anti-condom. In Africa the CC has been severely criticised for saying condoms do not help prevent the spread of HIV. That is a knowing, evil, dangerous lie. I shudder to think the lives it has cut short or ended unnecessarily.

You're missing the point Ferrets.

They aren't saying "GO HAVE SEX WITH EVERYONE! NO CONDOMS! WOOHHOOO! SPREAD AIDS! SPREAD HIV!"

They're saying, don't have extra-marital sex. Don't use condoms.

When taken out of context, is sounds stupid. Read it in context, and it makes more sense. The answer to the problem isn't to wear condoms. Everyone knows that condoms, especially ones that Africans would get, don't always work. The safer way to avoid the problem is to stay celibate except in marriage, and if your parter or you have HIV, then stay celibate your whole life.

Don't act ignorant. You know full well that they aren't encouraging sex without condoms. They're encouraging celibacy, instead of having sex with condoms.

EDIT: And yeah, sure, you're definitely shuddering.

[ParanoidPhantom]

Maybe they can't influence a governing body as large as the UN but they can still influence a terrifyingly large amount of people.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I certainly think it would be appropriate for the Vatican to be annexed. Incidents like this display how dangerous it is for them to have the rights of a state. Annex them, make them pay taxes on their palaces, invest the resulting revenue in sex education programs and an anti-paedophile vice squad.

[cfmonkey45]

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/...haviours.html#

Just to keep in mind the Vatican's efforts of evil extent to the highest political levels. Notice the irony in the Holy See representative uses paedophilia as an example, despite this being a sexual practice the Vatican has protected and enabled.

Ummm... no it doesn't.

'Mr. President, the Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.

We would also like to make several observations about the debates regarding “sexual orientation”.

First, there has been some unnecessary confusion about the meaning of the term “sexual orientation,” as found in resolutions and other texts adopted within the UN human rights system. The confusion is unnecessary because, in international law, a term must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning, unless the document has given it a different meaning. The ordinary meaning of “sexual orientation” refers to feelings and thoughts, not to behaviour.

Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behaviour, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviours must be forbidden by law. Paedophilia and incest are two examples.

Third, the Holy See wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension : it is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity”. In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual orientations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity. This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience.

And finally, Mr. President, we wish to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted. These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session. The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.'

While the Vatican may obviously dislike homosexuality, they're not asking to ban homosexuality, but rather, pointing out that people on their side of the debate have been "vilified, and prosecuted." Tbh, I really don't care about that bit, or the accuracy of their statements, the only reason why its relevant is that this is yet another thread where news is contorted to fit a particular viewpoint, in this case to vilify the Vatican for reasons not entirely accurate.

The only instance in which they even remotely come close to asking for the "banning" of homosexuality is in the second point, where it basically points out that since states have the power to legislate sexual actions, such as paedophilia and incest, and must have this power, they are in a particularly interesting situation to legislate sexual morality, which seems quite neutral if you ask me. This must be taken in context of their last point that not equal protection is not given to people who do not accept the morality of homosexuality.

It's quote mining, and I think that the title is misleading. If you wish to say something that the Vatican is trying to protect or continuing fostering anti-LGBT opinions, then fine. But it's highly inaccurate to say that they're making demands from nations to ban homosexuality.

[removeduser_487563287433]

they're not asking to ban homosexuality

That's exactly what they're asking for. The have explicitly compared it to incest and paedophilia, in the context that these practices are proscribed by legislation and so should homosexuality.

[Sadreddine]

That's exactly what they're asking for. The have explicitly compared it to incest and paedophilia, in the context that these practices are proscribed by legislation and so should homosexuality.

Having read the article, I can only conclude that they are not asking for a 'ban on homosexuality', in fact just stating their own views about the morality of marriage and sex should be respected and not ridiculed and persecuted as they feel are being. They note that a ban on 'essence' is undesirable (which is what you seemingly take for fact, wonder why) but it is desirable a ban on 'behaviour'. I can only see this as meaning something like they don't want dancing intoxicated nude-seminude homos in the streets.

The Humanist magazine, a site 'for godless people', huh? The agenda is too obvious this time, Ferrets.

[Voodo chile]

Heres my stance. You are allowed to be homosexual, you are allowed to do assisted suicide if you have a terminal illness or are really old. For other cases you should get them councilling but don't deny them the opportunity of euthanasia. I also believe in contraception.

I wouldnt be suprised if the vatican was told to do this by Mcdonalds

[black-dragon]

Wow the Vatican wants to destroy what's left of their priesthood's sex lives

[Stavroforos]

Oh God no, the Vatican has opinions!

[black-dragon]

Yes, it's an absolute outrage that people are persecuting this innocent, open minded organization that just wants harmony and has never hurt or oppressed anyone...

wait...

[Stavroforos]

Yes, it's an absolute outrage that people are persecuting this innocent, open minded organization that just wants harmony and has never hurt or oppressed anyone...

wait...

Let me continue your comment...

"wait...how is the history of the Catholic church from many centuries ago relevant to this discussion?"