Catholic Church Against Making Gay Death Penalty Illegal

[RetiredTrotskyite]

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/12/catholic-church-against-making-gay.html

I love how these idiots prate on about "the culture of life"--well, guess we know who's not welcome to participate.

[tblue]

1. Does that include their molesting PRIESTS?

So they want Gays to suffer the same penalty that Jesus suffered. Great. Nice goin', Church. Way to win over new converts.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

3. Yep. Running Out to My Local Catholic Church...

to convert right now--NOT!!!!! The Catholic Church disgusts me more and more as time goes on.

[Jamastiene]

2. They raise holy fucking hell when a serial killer, murderer, child killer,

or any other person is put to death, because they are against the death penalty then? Yet, they say it's ok to kill us in some of the most inhumane horrific, unimaginable ways! Thanks for nothing, fucking assholes.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

4. I'm With You, Jamastiene....

(what a lovely name!:). I was thinking the very same thing as I read the blog entry. I'm no longer Eastern Orthodox, but I sure as hell wouldn't go back to this church if it was the last one on earth!!! If this is "Christian Love", then they can stick it where the sun don't shine!:banghead:

[melody]

5. That is the ultimate travesty

If this doesn't show these bastards for who they are, I don't know what might.

So much for the church of the people.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. There needs to be some serious demonstrating done

These sexually obsessed "people of faith" are out of control.

And they're giving the decent ones a bad name.

--p!

[bluedawg12]

7. The quality of mercy is not strain'd

It is shredded, diced, chopped and mutilated and then lost by these old fools in clerical rags.

[bluedawg12]

8. ......Prada.....

[ropi]

10. you forgot to mention that....

the :evilgrin: wears it to be sure...

[bluedawg12]

11. Indeed!

:evilgrin:

[cboy4]

9. It's total madness. I don't recognize this church any more.

They are so off the charts hateful, that there are no words.

[EFerrari]

12. All the right has are the culture wars and the Church is only too happy

to oblige.

I don't recognize these people either.

[dickthegrouch]

13. for those with audio....

Check out "Homophobes in Robes" here http://romanovskyandphillips.com/flauntitlyrics.htm#homophobes

I've always despised the Catholic Church and am not about to stop.

[tuvor]

14. K/R. Perhaps a few more for visibility?

[judasdisney]

15. Want to get more scared?

http://www.ewtn.com/podcast/index.asp

I suggest any episode of "The World Over" with ultrafascist Catholic host Raymond Arroyo. But any of these podcasts is worth a listen to hear how sick and kamikaze the Catholic Right is.

[OneBlueSky]

16. yet another factor that reaffirms my decision to become a "lapsed" Catholic . . .

their words, not mine . . . to my mind, I have not "lapsed" at all, but have made a very conscious decision based on my disagreement with Catholic dogma . . . I just don't believe the shit they teach anymore . . .

[CreekDog]

17. it's as if they are against the death penalty in all cases, unless the victim is gay

:rant: :banghead:

I just want to scream sometimes. :wtf:

[terrya]

18. Stop and consider how hateful this is.

As it was mentioned in that article, same-sex marriage isn't even mentioned. That resolution would protect gay and lesbian people from being executed in countries where homosexuality is illegal. Like Iran. Like our "friends" the Saudis.

But the sheer hate towards gay and lesbian people (and that's exactly what this is) from the Vatican blinds them to promoting human rights. Not being executed for simply being who you are.

I gasped when I read this. This is one of the most despicable things I've ever read. It's shocking naked in its hate.

I wish...I hope...every gay man and woman would leave the catholic church. It should surely be obvious now that we're not welcome in that church.

[ehrnst]

19. Posted this in breaking news:

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2008/12/02/world/vatican-attacked-for-opposing-gay-decriminalisation.html&template=/news/feeds/story-template-reuters.html

<snip>""If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said.

A strongly worded editorial in Italy's mainstream La Stampa newspaper said the Vatican's reasoning was "grotesque."

Pointing out that homosexuality was still punishable by death in some Islamic countries, the editorial said what the Vatican really feared was a "chain reaction in favour of legally recognised homosexual unions in countries, like Italy, where there is currently no legislation." </snip>

[RobertDevereaux]

20. Utterly appalling!

Moral bankruptcy at the highest level.

God damn these people, please!

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Sick to the core

Ratzinger and his 'church' are inhuman.

[struggle4progress]

22. Vatican Opposes Discrimination Against Homosexuals (Zenit)

ZE08120204 - 2008-12-02
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-24444?l=english
Spokesman Restates Teaching After Holy See Criticized

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 2, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Contrary to the way the media paints the picture, the Holy See is against the discrimination of homosexuals, clarified a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, said this in response to Italian press reports on an interview with Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations. The archbishop told a news agency that the Holy See would not support an expected French proposal for a U.N. resolution to decriminalize homosexuality. The prelate explained that the initiative could include at the same time the imposition of homosexual marriage in national law ...

"Obviously no one wants to defend the death penalty for homosexuals, as some would insinuate," <Father Lombardi> said.

"The well-known principles of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the rejection of all unjust discrimination -- recognized clearly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself -- evidently exclude not only the death penalty, but all violent or discriminatory penal legislations in relation to homosexuals," the spokesman stated ... http://www.zenit.org/article-24444?l=english

UN vote shows growing support of death penalty ban
By JOHN HEILPRIN – Nov 20, 2008

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee voted Thursday for the second year in a row to urge a global moratorium on the death penalty.

The United States sided with countries such as Iran, China and Syria in opposing the resolution ...

The resolution has been spearheaded by Italy and supported by the Vatican, a leading opponent of capital punishment ... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gctwkVjRqRwpJKVM7qWX1ACO7hvQD94J0RD80

The Catholic Church is unlikely to support gay marriage in the foreseeable future -- and will not regard opposition to gay marriage as a form of discrimination. However regressive one considers that stance, it is not the same as supporting persecution through criminal law or advocating the death penalty for homosexuality. Whatever attitude one takes regarding Church positions, there is little point is dishonestly representing those positions: anyone who spends two minutes with a search engine, for example, can discover that the Church's opposition to the death penalty is well-publicized

[Zuiderelle]

23. Is that bullshit in italics at the end yours?

If so, go jump in a lake.

The important part of your first quote is this:

"The archbishop told a news agency that the Holy See would not support an expected French proposal for a U.N. resolution to decriminalize homosexuality."

The Holy See WOULD NOT SUPPORT the French proposal which would PROTECT homosexuals. So, yes, they oppose the death penalty, unless it means protecting homosexuals. In that case, they will just go ahead and turn away from the death penalty as if it doesn't exist as a punishment for homosexuals in some countries.

[struggle4progress]

29. You want, not only your own opinions, but your own facts

The claim in the OP is dishonest

The subsequent outrage, expressed in this thread, regarding the dishonest claim in the OP, is therefore vacuous noise

I find the Church's positions on a number of issues regressive: for example, I consider Church positions on human sexuality to be dogmatic and insensitive to human realities

The Church also takes some stances which I consider progressive: for example, the Church opposes the death penalty (as anyone can discover by a few minutes with a search-engine)

While I myself of course exert no influence over Church positions, I do object to dishonest misrepresentation of Church positions, because that hinders accurate analysis

Had I made inaccurate claims, I should welcome any factual correction -- but you apparently are outraged merely by my insistence upon facts (for which I actually provided links)

[Zuiderelle]

35. Your "correction" is incorrect. CLEARLY the "Church" does not oppose the death penalty enough

to protect homosexuals from suffering by it. Your defense of the "Church" is offensive.

[struggle4progress]

40. The fact that you provide no links, might suggest that your claim is not factually based

I don't understand why the following perspective is so difficult to understand, but I suggest that you may ultimately find it to your benefit to understand it:

You will have good reason to be unhappy with the actual position of the Catholic Church on equal rights for gay people, because that position is not in any sense progressive. But the Church is not refusing to take a stand against executing people for homosexuality, since in fact the Church generally opposes the death penalty, and misrepresenting the actual stance of the Church is unlikely to aid in the political fight, not only because the misrepresentation clouds the analysis but also because it leads to the counter-charge that one is lying

Why you consider that point of view "offensive" and a "defense" of the Church's position, I frankly cannot understand

[cboy4]

44. Yea, you don't understand it because you're an imbecile.

With all due respect of course.

Go away and take your offensive bullshit writings with you.

[struggle4progress]

46. Oooh! Way to go! I ask for links -- so you call me an imbecile

No links though ...

[cboy4]

48. My bad.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imbecile

[struggle4progress]

50. Regarding the question of whether the Church opposes the death penalty, see:

#41, #42, #43, & #45

That was, after all, the question at issue in this subthread, if one sets aside all the diversionary name-calling

[Zuiderelle]

52. It's offensive to pretend that your church's official position of being against the death penalty

is not negated by their opposition of the French resolution that would protect gays from discrimination and ultimately, death. The assholes in your church are hiding behind same-sex marriage to justify HOMICIDE of gays, when same-sex marriage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the resolution. What fucking hypocrites they (and you who support them) are.

And, oh, look... I'm going to humor you with a link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5268745.ece

The Vatican has said it opposes a European Union proposal for a United Nations declaration formally condemning discrimination against homosexuals, which it claims would "de-criminalise" same sex unions.

Monsignor Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer at the UN, said the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church forbade "unjust discrimination" against homosexuals. However outlawing discrimination by means of a UN declaration meant that states which did not recognise same sex marriages would come under pressure to do so.

All countries of the European Union have signed a draft declaration drawn up by France, which currently holds the rotating EU Presidency, condemning "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity". France is due to submit the draft declaration at the UN General Assembly on 10 December, the sixtieth anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights.

Over 80 countries in the world currently outlaw same-sex relations, with punishments range from short prison sentences to life imprisonment and even death by execution. The UN declaration will not be binding, but gay rights movements hope it will lead to a UN resolution. The French minister of human rights and foreign affairs, Rama Yade, said that the EU should also "take the lead in stopping violence against women worldwide."

The Vatican fiercely opposes same sex unions, and has also taken steps to root out active homosexuals from the clergy in the wake of sexual abuse scandals. In October it went further and issued a statement declaring that even chaste gay men should be barred from the priesthood.

The document, "Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood," released by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, reiterated that men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies were unworthy of ordination, and urged seminaries to enlist the aid of psychologists in screening candidates for homosexuality and other "psychic disturbances."

The Catholic Church has been plagued by clergy sexual-abuse scandals since 2002, when allegations of abuse surfaced in Boston and later spread to dioceses. The scandal, in which thousands of victims have alleged they were molested or raped by priests, has cost the church in the US alone more than two billion dollars in legal settlements.

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual "orientation" is not. However Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, head of the Congregation for Catholic Education, said homosexuality was a "deviation," "irregularity" and "wound" that conflicts with the "spiritual paternity" essential to the priesthood.

A 2005 Vatican document said men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies should not be ordained. However those with a "transitory problem" could become priests if they could show they had overcome them for a period of at least three years.

[struggle4progress]

61. First of all, I have made no reference to my own theological positions in this thread, and

the fact, that you assume I must be Catholic, perhaps mainly sheds light on your own prejudices and preconceptions

In the past, I have sometimes attended Catholic services, if the parish was committed to social justice issues, and in such service, I have heard Catholic clergy deliver homilies denouncing homophobia -- though by saying that, I do not claim every Catholic pulpit takes an anti-homophobic stance, since there are (of course) a number of conservative parishes

Actually, I am not a Catholic: I agree with them on some issues (such as the death penalty) but disagree on others

You know nothing about the church I currently attend, nor do you know anything about the people there -- though apparently that does not prevent you from assuming they must be "assholes"

Nothing, that I have posted in this thread, suggests (as far as I can tell) that I "defend" Catholic teachings on sexual orientation

You claim that "the French resolution .. would protect gays from .. death" while posting a rambling and unfocussed commentary that (without actually providing any of the French text) concludes "the UN declaration will not be binding"

I'd probably support the French resolution, though I haven't seen it -- but I find no reason to believe that the French resolution has at present more than a symbolic meaning or the Church's stand indicates a refusal to oppose executing people for homosexuality

[Zuiderelle]

It doesn't really matter whether you are Catholic or not.

What matters is that you ARE defending the position that the Catholic Church took in their opposition of this resolution that would attempt to protect gays from execution, by posting link after link and post after post claiming how anti-death penalty the Catholic church is. Their opposition to this resolution proves that they are indeed not wholly anti-death penalty at all, yet you continue to "defend" them by stating over and over how they have proven that they ARE opposed to the death penalty.

You understand how that is defending them? When the entire subject of this thread is the irony that the Catholic Church who claims to be so anti-death penalty is OPPOSED to a resolution that would work to protect a certain minority group from persecution and ... the in many cases EXECUTION?

And I maintain that the Catholic Church (pointing specifically to its representatives who are opposing this resolution) and anyone who defends the Catholic Church when the context IS their opposition to this resolution, are assholes.

You post is much more rambling than the excerpt I quoted from the article I linked. That's pretty funny.

[struggle4progress]

71. The thought that I was Catholic apparently mattered to you in your prior post

when you were eager to make all manner of dismissive assumptions with rude language

If this thread is any indication of your political style, then you should expect to continue losing political fights indefinitely into the foreseeable future ...

[Zuiderelle]

73. Oh dear, my "rude language"... allow me to go prostrate myself and make confession.

:eyes:

I love it when people make all manner of dismissive posts and then claim that others are being dismissive.

What is your purpose on this thread, if not to defend the Catholic Church? Can you answer that simple question?

[struggle4progress]

86. Fight so you might win or fight so you're guaranteed to lose: it's your choice

[Zuiderelle]

87. Yeah, ok, you too.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

62. Hey, PelosiFan

I can't believe that this individual is so dense that he cannot realise that Vatican opposition to the resolution means that they ipso facto advocate the death penalty for gays in those countries which still have the death penalty for being gay. It's disingenuous to say that the Catholic Church supports non-discrimination against gay people when it's refusal to endorse the resolution prove that assertion to be blatantly untrue.

I LOVE the mental gymnastics gay apologists for the Catholic Church put themselves through. Face it, guys: the Catholic Church doesn't want us unless we agree to be good little girls and boys and remain celibate.

[readmoreoften]

112. Wait? That's the argument FOR the church here? That they are against the DP in general?

Here's a concept for you "TACIT SUPPORT"...

You know, like the position of the Church in German during the Third Reich...





Galileo? Nazi Germany? LGBT people as "The Ideology of Evil"? Maybe the Catholic Church just enjoys being on the wrong side of history.

Not the first time "we're against the death penalty" has clashed with the Church's actual positions on real life issues.

[donco6]

36. That's pretty clear to me, too.

How could anyone with half a brain defend this?

[bluedawg12]

25. Anyone have a link to tha actual UN resolution in question?

I am not finding it at the moment and would like to read it, to see what it actually says, versus, what the Church says it says.

[struggle4progress]

30. I haven't found text: it may still be in draft form and so unavailable to the general public

France apparently plans to submit the draft on Human Rights Day (10 December)

[closeupready]

26. Yawn. Take your shit elsewhere.

We are not interested in your Vatican apologism. :puke:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

32. Actually, yeah it is supporting persecution.

Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?

[struggle4progress]

37. Nope, not playing: my objection is to the claim made in the OP, namely, that

the Church doesn't oppose the death penalty for sexual orientation

I try to choose my words carefully: if you decide to lift one word from my text and reuse it to misrepresent what I say, then that is (of course) your choice, but you will have to forgive me for lacking interest in that particular game

[donco6]

49. Whatever. Keep them blinders on tight. n/t

[Jamastiene]

53. Considering the fact that the criminalization of homosexuality in many countries results

in the death penalty, then by opposing de-criminalization in those countries, the Vatican is, in essence, supporting the death penalty for gay people.

Do not try to obfuscate the subject.

Just because the Vatican opposes the death penalty in ALL other cases, EXCEPT those involving gay people, does not make this ok, nor does it make the Vatican above criticism.

I take offense that you make excuses for the Vatican in this when they are clearly going against their own opposition to the death penalty in ALL other cases, just to support the death penalty for gay people specifically. Face the facts: organized religion is on a crusade against gay people. They make special concessions all the time just for the purpose of demonizing gay people at every turn. This is no different.

Quit making excuses for them. Any other time, they would not support the death penalty. We know that, already, but in our case, they are fine and dandy with countries that put people to death JUST for being gay. It's ridiculous.

[GodlessBiker]

54. What you said.

:headbang:

[RetiredTrotskyite]

63. Then Why The FUCK Is the Catholic Church Opposing the Resolution

[struggle4progress]

67. Did you read the thread? Catholic spokesmen say the Church opposes the resolution

because the Church is worried the resolution will open the way for gay marriage

It's certainly a disgraceful stance against what is probably an anti-discrimination resolution (apparently no text is yet available) -- but it doesn't seem equivalent to We oppose the death penalty except for gays

[Zuiderelle]

68. Why yes, actually it is equivalent to saying "we oppose the death penalty except for gays"

How egregious of them to defend their opposition by saying that it is because they are AFRAID OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE! Aren't you appalled by that? Aren't you appalled that the Catholic church, who claims to be SO opposed to the death penalty, would defend their opposition of a proposition that could protect people FROM the death penalty, because they are afraid of gay marriage?

Oh my god! Gay Marriage, that is obviously a sin worse than murder! I'm sure that Jesus would have taught that if only he had known about it.

[struggle4progress]

75. This is pointless. The resolution text will certainly be available next week

:hi:

[Zuiderelle]

77. Yes, finallly, you see how pointless your posts here were.

Whew.

:hi:

[RetiredTrotskyite]

79. That's What It Boils Down To...

It's just cloaked in different language.

[donco6]

93. I truly believe it DOES seem equivalent.

I'm not trying to be belligerent with you, but I don't see how you can escape the logic of it. The Church opposes an anti-death penalty resolution because it MIGHT give gays the right to marry. They had to make a choice - which is more important? Allowing gays to marry? Saving gays from execution? We can see which side they came down on. Simple.

[struggle4progress]

94. If you have a link to the text of the French resolution, feel free to provide it:

I haven't seen the text, and my best guess at present is that the French are circulating an anti-discrimination resolution, which the Vatican is opposing because the Vatican has panic attacks whenever anyone says anything that suggests "gay marriage"

If that's actually the case, my reaction would be that I would prefer the Vatican address more pressing issues such as poverty and hunger

But I doubt the public will see the resolution until next week. Until then, hyperventilating over various characterizations of the resolution seems silly: I may be wrong, but I rather doubt the Vatican is opposing a resolution which only seeks a stand against criminalizing homosexuality, and I similarly doubt the accuracy of your characterization, that the Vatican is taking a stand against a resolution that simply opposes executing gays

As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, current Vatican thinking is opposed to essentially any application of the death penalty; and I produced a Vatican anti-death-penalty document pointing out that executions under Sharia law disproportionately target powerless populations, with the Vatican explicitly including homosexuals under that heading

I can't keep you from spouting nonsense: if you decide to blame the Vatican for (say) executions of gays in Iran, then you'll blame the Vatican for executions of gays in Iran -- but I myself consider political rhetoric to be more effective when it is factual, logical, and on-point

[donco6]

95. It wouldn't be the first time the Vatican had blood on its hands, now would it?

I mean, who's got history on his side here?

Hell, even La Stampa called the Church's opposition "grotesque".

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said.

A strongly worded editorial in Italy's mainstream La Stampa newspaper said the Vatican's reasoning was "grotesque".

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL2243948.html

Wake the hell up.

[terrya]

33. Then why doesn't the Vatican oppose the death penalty in ALL cases?

Including those of gay and lesbian people in countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who still criminalize homosexuality and who face the death penalty because of their sexual orientation?

[struggle4progress]

41. Declaration of the Holy See to the First World Congress on the death penalty (2001)

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are "cruel and unnecessary". This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that "it is time to abolish the death penalty."

It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.

Strasbourg, 21 June 2001
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

[Zuiderelle]

55. Except for those nasty gay people.

[struggle4progress]

42. Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/dpvatican.shtml

[Zuiderelle]

56. Except for those nasty gay people.

[struggle4progress]

43. Vatican paper condemns death penalty as affront to human dignity (2007)

Feb-7-2007
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity," the Vatican said in a position paper.

The paper was prepared for the Feb. 1-3 World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris and was released Feb. 7 by the Vatican press office.

"The Holy See takes this occasion to welcome and affirm again its support for all initiatives aimed at defending the inherent and inviolable value of all human life from conception to natural death," it said.

Echoing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the paper recognized the obligation of governments to protect their citizens, but it also said that "today it truly is difficult to justify" using the death penalty when other means of protection, including life imprisonment for murderers, are possible ...

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0700736.htm

[Zuiderelle]

57. Except for those nasty gay people.

[struggle4progress]

45. Vatican official: Death penalty support denies basic Christian belief (2008)

Sep-30-2008
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- ... Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers, spoke Sept. 29 at the conference "No Justice Without Life," which gathered representatives from 16 countries in Rome for a daylong meeting.

The conference, sponsored by the Sant'Egidio Community, included government officials from Rwanda, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Kenya, Benin, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Mexico, the Philippines and Kazakhstan.

Archbishop Marchetto said the United Nations' 2007 resolution urging a moratorium on the use of the death penalty was the "first necessary step" to abolishing capital punishment completely ...

"Despite everything, the church has always and will always defend the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death as a universal value," the archbishop said ...

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804956.htm

[Zuiderelle]

58. Except for those nasty gay people.

[GodlessBiker]

38. The Catholic Church has routinely fought against non-discrimination laws.

In my state, the Catholic Church was relentless in its opposition to legislation that would forbid discrimination against the LGBT community. The legislation ultimately passed despite the Church's opposition.

The statement that the "Vatican Opposes Discrimination Against Homosexuals" is a total crock of shit.

[struggle4progress]

47. That, at least, is an on-point and accurate response. Thank you.

[GodlessBiker]

51. I believe those who connect the dots between the Church's limited acceptance of capital punishment

for crimes that are so heinous in the eyes of God and so threatening to the spiritual and physical welfare of the community, and its continual and obsessive position about "the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts," are justified in their concern that the Church really has no concern for members of the LGBT community if they are executed as a result of laws which criminalize homosexuality, which laws the Church now refuses to condemn.

The syllogism really is not that difficult or unreasonable.

[struggle4progress]

59. Your supposed "syllogism" is unsupported by the facts: can you name any

country with a significant Catholic population, that currently executes people for sexual orientation?

In fact, only extreme fundamentalists (such as the "Christian Reconstructionists") hold such views

Even the current Pope, hardly a progressive, wrote (as Cardinal Ratzinger) in his 1986 "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons" (a generally dreadful document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith): It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law

Nor, if you examine the links I posted above, do any suggest that the Church currently supports the death penalty for crimes .. heinous in the eyes of God and .. threatening to the spiritual and physical welfare of the community (to use your words): as far as I can tell, the Catholics do not even seem to teach that abortion (which they regard as a grave sin) should be punishable by death

[GodlessBiker]

60. So, it's only Catholic gay people the Church cares about? Muslim gay people can go to hell?

It is laughable that the reason the Church opposes the declaration condemning the criminalization of the LGBT community is because it will lead to gay marriage. That statement simply cannot be taken seriously.

The Pope says "it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action." It is deplorable that we be spoken ill of, but criminalizing our conduct is okay? Negative speech bad, criminal conviction fine?

The Church clearly is of two mindsets. It bows to modern social pressure in a limited way in occasionally condemning acts of violence against gay people, yet it yearns for the "old days" when its moral pronouncements had the force of law (and sodomy was a crime punishable by death in the Bible).

As far as whether the Church supports the death penalty under limited circumstances, just look at the Catechism.

[struggle4progress]

64. Here's what the Catholic Catechism currently says regarding the death penalty:

2267. Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." <emphasis added>

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

That doesn't really match your prior description

[Zuiderelle]

69. They obviously need to amend it now to "EXCEPT FOR GAYS"

Jesus. I can't believe you keep posting the same shit over and over on this thread and can't get it through your thick noggin that you are actually making the CASE for the ironic hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's position on execution. They are most definitely opposed to the death penalty, they say it over and over, and apparently everywhere imaginable, yet they are ALSO opposed to a resolution that would protect a minority class from persecution and THE DEATH PENALTY.

Give it up.

[closeupready]

78. Exactly. He keeps posting a different version of the same crap,

millions of them, but can't find A SINGLE DECLARATION FROM THE VATICAN CONDEMNING THE EXECUTION OF SPECIFICALLY GAY PEOPLE.

[struggle4progress]

80. Dossier dell'agenzia vaticana "Fides" sulla pena di morte

“Amate i vostri nemici”

CITTA' DEL VATICANO, martedì, 21 agosto 2007 (ZENIT.org).- L'agenzia “Fides”, organo informativo della Congregazione vaticana per l'Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, ha da poco pubblicato un dossier speciale sulla pena di morte dal titolo “Amate i vostri nemici. Come lo Stato toglie la vita” ..

L'agenzia vaticana si domanda se il 2007 sarà l’anno della moratoria delle esecuzioni capitali e afferma che “la pena di morte è crudele e non necessaria”.

Il dossier riporta inoltre la presa di posizione su questo tema della Confrenza dei Vescovi Cattolici degli Stati Uniti, e pubblica una intervista a Mario Marazziti, portavoce della Comunità di Sant'Egidio, movimento cattolico che da anni si batte per l'abolizione della pena di morte.

<Il dossier può essere consultato alla pagina web: http://www.fides.org/ita/documents/dossier_pena_morte_130807.doc >

http://www.zenit.org/article-11620?l=italian

Agenzia FIDES – 13 agosto 2007
DOSSIER FIDES

LA PENA DI MORTE: “Amate i vostri nemici” ...

Come lo Stato toglie la vita ...

Le pietre? Grandi, ma non troppo ...

Sono state almeno 302 nel 2005 le esecuzioni effettuate in 14 paesi a maggioranza musulmana, molte delle quali ordinate da tribunali islamici in base a una stretta applicazione della Sharia ... Il problema è l'interpretazione del Corano:  spesso si rivela un'arma contro le fasce più deboli e meno tutelate, come le donne o gli omosessuali ...

An English version in MSWord form can be obtained via:

Vatican Releases Dossier on the Death Penalty
http://vox-nova.com/2007/08/23/vatican-releases-dossier-on-the-death-penalty/

FIDES Service – 13 August 2007
FIDES DOSSIER

THE DEATH PENALTY: “Love your enemies” ...

How States take lives ...

Stones? Big, but not too big ...

In 2005 in 14 Muslim majority countries there were at least 302 executions ordered by Islamic Courts on the basis of a strict application of the Sharia ... The problem is how the Koran is interpreted:  it often becomes a weapon against the most helpless and less protected people, women and homosexuals ...

[donco6]

82. Except for the nasty gays.

How many times are you going to post this shit? Do you have it in Swedish?

[struggle4progress]

83. Do you read subthreads before responding? #78 asked for an example

of the Vatican specifically condemning execution of gays; earlier in the same subthread, #60 suggested the Vatican was not concerned about Muslims but only about Christians

I address both objections by providing an example, from a Vatican-related site, of a Church document issued last year on the death penalty, that objects to Sharia law executions as being targeted against "the most helpless and less protected people" (specifically including homosexuals)

[donco6]

89. "Objecting" and "Lamenting" are two different things.

The vatican dossier simply laments that homosexuals are killed by stoning. I'm sure they're really, really sorry it happens. But given the choice between MAYBE allowing gay marriage and having another gay guy stoned . . . hey, shit happens.

[struggle4progress]

91. Translation: You didn't actually read any of the documents in question

[donco6]

92. Uh, . . . yes I did.

They really say nothing more than the snippet in English that you posted. In fact, that's the only place I saw the word "homosexual" mentioned.

[Jamastiene]

115. I'm waiting for the Japanese version.

I think I need to brush up a little.

[struggle4progress]

122. L'intervista integrale tradotta in italiano a Mons. Migliore

... © Copyright Vatican - Agence I.MEDIA - 1er décembre 2008 - 5200 signes ...

Pour sa part, la France a l’intention de présenter à l’ONU un projet de déclaration pour demander la dépénalisation de l’homosexualité dans le monde entier, au nom des 25 pays de l’Union européenne. Comment réagissez-vous à cette proposition ?

Tout ce qui est fait en faveur du respect et de la protection des personnes fait partie de notre patrimoine humain et spirituel. Le Catéchisme de l’Eglise catholique affirme, et cela ne date pas d’hier, qu’il faut éviter toute forme injuste de discrimination contre les homosexuels. Mais ce n’est pas là la question. Dans une déclaration ayant une valeur politique et signée par un groupe de pays, il est demandé aux Etats et aux mécanismes internationaux d’application et de contrôle des droits de l’homme d’ajouter de nouvelles catégories devant être protégées contre la discrimination, sans tenir compte que, en cas d’adoption, elles créeront de nouvelles et terribles discriminations. Par exemple, les Etats qui ne reconnaissent pas l’union entre personnes du même sexe comme ‘mariage’ seront mis au pilori et feront l’objet de pressions ...

http://tuespetrus.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/lintervista-integrale-tradotta-in-italiano-a-mons-migliore-da-paparatzinger2-blograffaellablogspotcom/

<Original probably here:> Vatican - Agence I.MEDIA - 1er décembre 2008 - 5200 signes
Inclure l’avortement dans les droits de l’homme serait une ‘barbarie’, selon le Saint-Siège (Interview)
http://www.imedia-info.org/imedia/public_html/

[Jamastiene]

124. That is not Japanese.

[GodlessBiker]

84. It's a limited endorsement of capital punishment. Combine that with the...

Church's vitriol about how utterly sinful, unrepentant, and harmful gay people are to society, and it is not a stretch to think that some Muslim leaders will use (and not unreasonably) the Church's very words against it as they execute people for being gay.

The Church is pure evil on this issue.

[struggle4progress]

88. See post #80

[readmoreoften]

113. Not to mention the Ratzinger's comments that gays are "the ideology of evil" embodied.

If you're all for a limited endorsement of the death penalty, living embodiments of "the ideology of evil" would be a likely group to offer to the hangmen.

[Creideiki]

72. Don't forget the other "Christians"

Especially in Africa.

[Creideiki]

70. I think I sort of agree with you in this sense:

I think the US should get rid of the gay people it doesn't want. Ideally, the government would secure relocation of us to a country that does want us. That way, you get the country you want, and we don't have to get crapped on by people who have made it clear over and over again that they don't want us.

[struggle4progress]

74. ???

Have a lovely day :hi:

[Creideiki]

81. Hey, I just want to support your right

to participate in and support any bigoted religious institution you choose.

[struggle4progress]

85. I'm happy to have been able to provide you with an opportunity to put words in my mouth

that I never said and make groundless accusations about my religious preferences

Have a lovely lovely day :hi:

[donco6]

90. Typical apologist.

All condescension and feigned indignance.

:puke:

[bluedawg12]

24. The UN resolution will be based on the EU resolution.

If any one has the link for the actual UN resolution please post.

This is a link to the the EU resolution, which is apparently what Rome finds too political.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/070428a.html

Text of European Parliament Resolution Condemning "Homophobia"

P6_TA-PROV(2007)0167

Homophobia in Europe
European Parliament resolution of 26 April 2007 on homophobia in Europe

[Zuiderelle]

27. Wow, that paints a pretty bad picture of Poland.

Thanks for the link. Really good language in that. I cannot believe that the Catholic Church opposes any of that language. If you substitute "prostitute" for homosexual, they would probably support it. Why the fuck would they consider homosexuality a worse "sin"* than prostitution? And even if they did, why would ANY Christian consider ANY "sin"* as so unforgivable that the "sinners"* deserve to be murdered and abused? ESPECIALLY Christians who publicly oppose the death penalty. Boggles the mind it does.

*I only use the words "sin" and "sinner" because I know that the Catholic Church considers us to be sinners. Fuck the Holy See and their murderous bloodlust.

[bluedawg12]

28. Apparently Poland is very homophobic politically

and also very Catholic.

This is probably the core of why Rome finds the UN resolution unsupportable, because the EU nailed Polish institutionalized homophobia to the wall and Rome of course wants to defend it.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/070428a.html

F. whereas Parliament has repeatedly asked for the completion of the anti discrimination legislative package based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty, and periodically asks the Commission to propose a directive prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in all sectors,

G. whereas in its above-mentioned resolution of 15 June 2006, Parliament has already expressed its serious concern at the situation in Europe and notably in Poland, condemning the declarations of incitement to hatred and violence by the leaders of the Party of the League of Polish Families and, notably, by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education,

H. whereas in March 2007 the Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education announced draft legislation punishing 'homosexual propaganda' in schools, and illustrated its content, which is to provide for dismissing, fining or imprisoning school heads, teachers and pupils in the event of LGBT rights 'activism' in schools,

I. whereas the Polish Deputy Minister for Education confirmed that the administration is drafting such legislation and declared that 'teachers who reveal their homosexuality will be fired from work'; whereas various members of the Polish Government reacted in different ways, leaving it unclear whether the legislation will in fact be proposed,

J. whereas the Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education has expressed a desire to promote the adoption of similar laws at European level,

K. whereas the proposed legislation received the support of the Polish Prime Minister, who declared that 'promoting a homosexual lifestyle for young people in school as an alternative to normal life goes too far, and that these kinds of initiatives in schools have to be stopped', thus presenting a distorted interpretation of education and tolerance,

L. whereas the Polish Ombudsman for Children has stated that she is preparing a list of jobs for which homosexuals are unfit,

M. whereas in June 2006 the State Prosecutor's office ordered checks on the funding of LGBT organisations in connection with 'criminal movements' and their presence in schools, in order to find traces of criminal activities, without any result,

N. whereas on 8 June 2006 the Polish Government sacked the head of the Centre for Teacher Development and prohibited the distribution of an official Council of Europe anti discrimination manual, and whereas the new head of the Centre stated on 9 October 2006 that 'improper patterns must not be present in schools, because the objective of school is to explain the difference between good and evil, beauty and ugliness… school must explain that homosexual practices lead to drama, emptiness and degeneracy',

O. whereas Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Terry Davis reacted to the events described by stating that 'the Polish Government is free to decide whether it wishes to use Council of Europe material for human rights education, but if the teaching material is optional, the values and principles contained therein are certainly not' and expressed concern about 'some policies promoting homophobia … and homophobic behaviours being accepted by the government',

[Zuiderelle]

34. That's some scary bigoted site, by the way. Apparently they posted the text as a criticism of it.

They use the terms "Homosexualist" and "Abortionist" all over that site. :wtf:

Blech.

[bluedawg12]

96. Yeah, they use the term "Homosexualists" WTF?

But, the EU statement was worth the stench, which brings up why doesn't the dear old church speak out against that purge mentality in Poland?

[GodlessBiker]

39. Damn. It looks like the Soviets are still in control in Poland.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

66. Check Out This Bit of Bullshit From Life Site

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112811.html

A Painful, Disease-Ridden Death Isn’t So Bad if You’re Just a White, Heterosexual Male
The hypocritical claims of “inclusivity” of the Carleton University Student Association

By John Jalsevac

November 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - I had an ethics teacher in high-school of a particularly volatile and appallingly (or delightfully, depending upon your perspective), politically incorrect sort. Indeed, he one day related to our class that while in university he discovered that there existed on his campus a black lesbian club. This my teacher found amusing. It also gave him an idea.

And so, being the roguish fellow that he is, he promptly marched off to one or another administrator’s office and announced his intention to start up a white, heterosexual male club, and could he please get the proper forms and when could he expect to receive his funding and where on campus could he post the signs advertising for membership?

Needless to say, his club never got off the ground (though I’m not sure he would have known what to do if it had).

It was a good story and has always stuck with me as an apt illustration of the broken-mindedness of the politically correct, who too often operate according to the principle that anything … absolutely anything, other than a white, heterosexual male is a good thing.

While it is true that political correctness is often quite harmless, however, and makes for good fun like that my provocateur professor indulged in, it made a more sinister appearance this past week at Carleton University in Ottawa.

In their overeagerness to prove themselves all things tolerant and wonderful and fluffy, it seems the Carleton University Students Association (CUSA) on Wednesday passed a motion to stop funding the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation … because Cystic Fibrosis has been found primarily to afflict white men, and isn’t, therefore, an “inclusive” enough disease. Seriously.

Never mind that CUSA’s science is atrociously wrong, and that the disease is a much more inclusive disease than originally thought, causing the painful and premature deaths of scores of visible minorities, women and people of all sorts of sexual orientations. But whatever the science of the matter, the point is that you just don’t go around saying that a certain disease isn’t all that important because it only afflicts a certain race and sex, I don’t care how diverse you are. Insanely, the motion was passed in a nearly unanimous 17-2 vote.

Not only, however, is the CUSA motion a slap to the face of cystic fibrosis sufferers, but it also throws into stark relief the hypocrisy of the university and its claims to inclusivity: for it is Carleton that has in the past repeatedly denied pro-life clubs status and shut down any debate about abortion. More than any other student association, Carleton’s has proved itself singularly opposed to any other diversity other than its own particular, narrowly-defined sort of pseudo-diversity.

As Susan Martinuk reported in the Calgary Herald, in 2001 the university attempted to cancel an abortion debate and investigated the campus pro-life group for hate-crimes for attempting to do nothing more than bring in a pro-life speaker. In 2004 they banned the Genocide Awareness Project display from campus (the same display that is currently causing a furor at the University of Calgary). And in 2006, as was reported on extensively by LifeSiteNews at the time, the CUSA banned any groups that opposed abortion outright.

“CUSA,” said the 2006 motion banning pro-life clubs, “further affirms that actions such as campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events, etc. that seek to limit or remove a woman's options in the event of pregnancy will not be supported."

Of course, the ban on pro-life groups was eventually overturned because it violated every aspect of free speech, and, besides, the university was receiving all sorts of bad press. And now CUSA is back in the news for once again promoting its own, curious breed of diversity.

But while the members of the CUSA adopt the most asinine policies they can think of in the hope that they will appear to be more in love with diversity than everybody else, they’re really doing nothing at all but cementing their reputation as one of the most narrow-minded, bigoted, and laughable organizations in the country. If students like these are the “future” that our universities are producing, I think most people can agree we don’t have one to speak of.

Unsurprisingly, CUSA has just announced it is now “reconsidering” its nearly unanimous decision, following three days of the worst press it has ever received: a fact that highlights just how far out in left field they are – even the Canadian media won’t have anything to do with their nonsense.

And it does make one wonder, just what are some of the professors at Carleton teaching their students every year that seems to result in these insane actions. That may be where everyone should be taking a much closer and critical look.

These asshats have had society revolve around them for centuries now and they have the NERVE to cry persecuted over bullshit like this?!

[closeupready]

76. It's homophobic not just politically, but socially, too. Don't get me started.

:mad:

[bluedawg12]

97. If the Church is committed to the dignity of gays and against bigotry, Poland would be a good start.

I see them doing nothing but defending them, as witnessed by their resistence to the UN resolution, as it is close to the EU stance where they slam Poland!

[LostinVA]

100. Yup, the "hero" of Solidarity, Walesa, is a raging phobe and anti-semite

[RetiredTrotskyite]

65. Amern to THAT, PelosiFan

The Vatican has made it's opinion of LGBTQ people and LGBTQ rights MORE than obvious. Indeed, fuck the (Un)Holy See and their bloodlust when it comes to us!

[donco6]

98. And yet more great quotes from the Holy See . . .

Human rights groups say homosexuality is still punishable by law in more than 85 countries and by death in a number of them, including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said "no-one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals" but defended Migliore's comments, adding that the Vatican was in the majority on the issue.

"It's not for nothing that fewer than 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to the proposal in question while more than 150 have not adhered. The Holy See is not alone," Lombardi said.

An editorial in Rome's left-leaning La Repubblica newspaper said the Vatican's position "leaves one dumbstruck". Margherita Boniver, a leading member of the Italy's leftist Democratic Party, called it "alarmingly anachronistic".

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL2243948.html


So, the Vatican is officially proud to announce that they are siding with the "majority", which includes these illustrious champions of virtue:

Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Maruitius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, India, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Gaza, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Trinidad, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Guyana

Wow. They must be SO proud.

[bluedawg12]

99. Good call! What a list of allies known for human rights.

:mad:

[struggle4progress]

101. I'd bet the US belongs on your list also. Did you leave it off for a reason?

[mondo joe]

102. Who the fuck cares?

The US has been engaged in torture, and illegal wars.

Has that set us up as some moral leader?

[struggle4progress]

104. If one wants to shepherd a resolution thru UN, member states might be

more relevant than an organization with mere "observer status"

And if, in particular, one is a citizen of a country that refuses to support the resolution one wants, it seems curious to express outrage that the regressive position taken by the "observer" organization apparently coincides with the positions of a number of unattractive states, without noting that one's own country probably takes the same position

After all, the object of political action is to obtain political change, but no one posting in this forum has the slightest prospect of changing the Vatican's position or the position of any of the foreign countries on the prior list -- the best anyone here could hope to achieve is to change the position taken by the US

Targeting US policy would at least make sense, since the US is (in some sense) a UN heavy-weight: the Vatican OTOH has so little influence there, that it cannot even affect the policy of traditionally Catholic France

But perhaps the real point of this thread is the pleasure one can obtain from ineffective noisy outrage directed at a target which probably cannot be pressured ...

[mondo joe]

106. You seem easily distracted from the issue people have with the Vatican

on this.

And you mistake people's sincere, and appropriate, outrage and anger with "pleasure".

Sick.

[struggle4progress]

107. A recent editorial from the Ottawa Citizen suggests resolution text isn't yet finalized, which

(I suppose) accounts for the failure of everyone in this thread to provide any real evidence for the nonsense claim the Vatican supports executing gays and the continued preference here for name-calling rather than facts

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate the only other document that might oviously shed light on this, namely Ramatoulaye Yade-Zimet's September speech at the 61st DPI/NGO Conference

Here, however, are excerpts from the Ottawa Citizen editorial, indicating that the resolution text is still under negotiation:

A persecuted group
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, December 04, 2008

... France, with the support of the rest of the European Union, is preparing a declaration at the United Nations condemning "human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular, the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health."

This is an important declaration, but it doesn't have wide support; even Canada is still considering it. It would be a shame if few countries chose to sign because the declaration is too broad. For example, the sticking point for the United States might be same-sex marriage.

Canada is still in a small global minority in its recognition that same-sex marriage is a rights issue. The more urgent problem is the abuse and criminalization of gay people, particularly gay men. If a consensus could form at the UN about that, it would be a powerful statement.

Canada should work with France to make the declaration one that will inspire broad support.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1028963

[Zuiderelle]

108. Then it's even WORSE that the Catholic Church already opposes something that isn't even finalized.

You think this somehow justifies them saying that they oppose the resolution?

[mondo joe]

111. The fact is the Vatican cares more abrout prohibiting same sex marriage than gay execution.

And that's sad.

[donco6]

120. Then why is the Vatican making official statements?

They're the ones who first expressed oppsition.

[bluedawg12]

116. Shinning a light on bigotry is noisy outrage?

The point if this thread is to educate our selves about our enemies and allies.

Purpose served.

[Creideiki]

103. "Siding with the majority"--the last bastion of bigots and "progress"-types

The majority is usually wrong when it comes to treating the minority well. We've seen this over and over, whether it's the rights of racial minorities, religious minorities, women (technically actually a majority, but minority when it comes to holding power), or sexual orientation minorities.

Now some people might think that the struggle for progress doesn't include racial minorities, religious minorities, women, or those with a different sexual orientation than the majority, but that doesn't make them right. If that's "struggling" for "progress", please don't fight, and just for the record, the goalposts are at the other end of the football field.

[readmoreoften]

114. great post

[bluedawg12]

118. Well said! Power does not concede, does it?

:grr:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. the catholic church is bigoted atleast as much as the mormon church

i cannot abide those who continue to support this church and its practices. its immoral.

ofcourse, i am sure someone is going to cry that i am bashing the catholic church. apparantly truth=bashing when it comes to religion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=8239103

[RetiredTrotskyite]

109. The Cathoic Church Can Persecute Gays, Intervene to Tell Its Members to Vote Against Our Rights...

But God/dess forfend that a word is said against it. This is an intransigently b, homophobic organisation and to belong to it is to tacitly approve of its policies. But the Catholics feel entitled to go with the "persecuted" calls the Church on its bullshit.







2

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. did you see the thread i linked to? not only did the guy call me out

it got locked hours later.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

117. Yes, I Did

[donco6]

121. Just checked that thread.

Ugh - what a total ass. Even worse than the guy on this thread.

[AntiFascist]

119. I just hope Nostradamus was right...

that this is the last Pope and then the Catholic Church will just go away.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

123. Actually....

You may have meant St. Malachi. He supposedly predicted all the Popes down to the present day and by his reckoning, Ratsass is indeed the last. Let's hope there is an end to the nonsense of this church and its homophobic, sexist crap.

[Spryboy]

125. Truly Shameful

Obviously this makes out their entire "pro life" stance to be a complete lie.

The fact that they can condone a death penality simply for being gay is just repugnant.

And to see such idiotic moralizing and grand-standing from the protectors of sexual predators of children is just disgusting.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

126. Hypocrites...

"We oppose abortion and capital punishment...unless it's done against gay people in certain countries."

Makes me SICK.

[sui generis]

127. Just FUCK the catholic church

Not taking prisoners. My in-laws who are as nice as can be have been used by that benign malice in the name of the church, have unwittingly been destructive all the while believing themselves to be saintly. You can be nice as you want to the poor and the underprivileged, but if your church promotes evil to those not of your church, and you still cleave to that dogma and title, then you're evil by association.

I'm not promoting violence or bigotry against anyone for their faith by any means, but openly despise the institution itself.