:*)
Ask a priest..."two gay priests with aids raping children in Africa" , on second thought , dont
( ,
Sun 11 Mar 2012, 13:36,
archived)
Haha
First thing I see when I log on. It's going to be a good day!
( ,
Sun 11 Mar 2012, 13:39,
archived)
Last time I saw the Pope IRL,
he was outside a notorious Edinburgh "massage parlour".
True story. I have the photo somewhere.
( ,
Sun 11 Mar 2012, 13:42,
archived)
True story. I have the photo somewhere.
I really can't fathom the Catholic Church's stance on this,
conservative as they are, it seems to me the best way to allow "traditional marriage" to continue. The alternative expressed by some [weasel words] is that the way to ensure equality is to force all marriage to become an entirely secular affair. And the Church wouldn't like that at all.
( ,
Sun 11 Mar 2012, 13:55,
archived)
Whilst I agree with the sentiment,
how the fuck has 'ooh! Catholics are rapists' got on the front page?
( ,
Sun 11 Mar 2012, 20:10,
archived)
Because it's a simple cartoon expressing an often-overlooked part of European culture.
( ,
Mon 12 Mar 2012, 0:02,
archived)
Because it's a satire....
On the premise that an institution with deeply questionable ethics delusionally believes it can have any moral authority in today's world.....now that's funny....
( ,
Mon 12 Mar 2012, 10:42,
archived)
That's not really its central point or punchline, though, is it?
It's more about the fact that the church is currently obsessing over gay marriage when it (should be) a trivial issue, and how they are using it to obfuscate much bigger issues, which makes this cartoon pretty topical rather than a dated "LOL paedo catholics" one.
The thing I find scary is that their arguments are not that far from the KKK's arguments against mixed race marriage.. picking and choosing from the bible rather than going "lets look on the countries which already have gay marriage and see what effect it has had".
Ultimately, the Church's arguments all seem to come down to preserving tradition and conservatism, rather than looking at what marriage actually means from a religious viewpoint. To a catholic, marriage is joining two people as one in the eyes of God. Surely, they should just assume that if it is not marriage, then God will not see them as married, no matter what people call it... and see it as a non issue. Do they believe that the Government are more powerful than God?
I don't see many Catholics complaining about non-Catholic or interfaith marriages... which go against their tradition just as much.
Also, don't most people just call civil partnerships "marriage" anyway, in which case their arguments about protecting the word are too late, anyway?
( ,
Mon 12 Mar 2012, 14:17,
archived)
The thing I find scary is that their arguments are not that far from the KKK's arguments against mixed race marriage.. picking and choosing from the bible rather than going "lets look on the countries which already have gay marriage and see what effect it has had".
Ultimately, the Church's arguments all seem to come down to preserving tradition and conservatism, rather than looking at what marriage actually means from a religious viewpoint. To a catholic, marriage is joining two people as one in the eyes of God. Surely, they should just assume that if it is not marriage, then God will not see them as married, no matter what people call it... and see it as a non issue. Do they believe that the Government are more powerful than God?
I don't see many Catholics complaining about non-Catholic or interfaith marriages... which go against their tradition just as much.
Also, don't most people just call civil partnerships "marriage" anyway, in which case their arguments about protecting the word are too late, anyway?
The irony is
If the catholic church had permitted straight, possibly even gay marriage amongst its priesthood then it wouldn't be in the mess it is in today. An organisation which demands celibacy from its new applicants is going to find a disproportionate number of freaks and deviants amongst its ranks. This cult can either change or find itself relegated to irrelevance. Either option suits me. If they stick with their dogma then they deserve to be laughed at really.
( ,
Sun 11 Mar 2012, 20:49,
archived)