New Pope condemns Spain gay bill • Non-Gaming • News and Politics • Eurogamer.net

ssuellid 22 Apr 2005 16:34:17 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

From the BBC

"Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals."

So gay kiddie fiddling priests and turning a blind eye are fine but gay marriage is not?

Edited by ssuellid at 16:40:43 22-04-2005

Deleted user 22 April 2005 16:37:18

Maybe they miscalculated and it's actually this Pope who'll bring around the day of reckoning.

Tek 22 Apr 2005 16:40:12 7 posts
Registered 17 years ago

This is unbelievable.
I'm glad that the catholic church made this guy pope. Good to have such a liberal thinker.
I can't wait to hear his thoughts on Women priests. Sure to be enlightening.

Like I said, Unbelievable!

Tek 22 Apr 2005 16:42:58 7 posts
Registered 17 years ago

cubbymoore wrote:
Maybe they miscalculated and it's actually this Pope who'll bring around the day of reckoning.

Haha. Good point.
I'm sure the 'Right Wing Religious Extremists' couldn't have been happier with this pope.

Anyone else getting REALLY bad vibes from all this?

Edited by Tek at 16:45:53 22-04-2005

CerealKey 22 Apr 2005 16:48:20 2,860 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

otto wrote:
He's basically told any Catholic involved in any way that they should quit their job rather than be party to it - so registrar, caterer, social worker, social security, anyone who might be involved in the paperwork is told to quit rather than help two people live a married life together. Nice.

The Mac/Catholic analogy is breaking down for me I have to say.

Oh, I don't know. Think of the gay stance (Does the Catholic Church have a gay stance - sorry, just wanted to get that one before the rest of you did) as the iPod, doesn't want to work with known other formats and the main church of Apple doesn't want to change it so that it does. And once you're in the iTunes store and decide you want to go a different way then you have to give up your iTunes songs and be cast out.

Sort of.

Tek 22 Apr 2005 16:51:52 7 posts
Registered 17 years ago

CerealKey wrote:

otto wrote:
He's basically told any Catholic involved in any way that they should quit their job rather than be party to it - so registrar, caterer, social worker, social security, anyone who might be involved in the paperwork is told to quit rather than help two people live a married life together. Nice.

The Mac/Catholic analogy is breaking down for me I have to say.

Oh, I don't know. Think of the gay stance (Does the Catholic Church have a gay stance - sorry, just wanted to get that one before the rest of you did) as the iPod, doesn't want to work with known other formats and the main church of Apple doesn't want to change it so that it does. And once you're in the iTunes store and decide you want to go a different way then you have to give up your iTunes songs and be cast out.

Sort of.

I can't help but feel that this mac/catcholic analogy is unimportant in this thread.

Deleted user 22 April 2005 16:54:36

"I can't help but feel that this mac/catcholic analogy is unimportant in this thread."

Until Tiger arrives and we upgrade to Papal Decree v2.0.1 anyway...

CerealKey 22 Apr 2005 16:55:32 2,860 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

What Catholics don't agree with homosexual practice is a surprise? Although I was reading an article about Bush and he had a long meeting with Ratzinger and then Ratzinger issued a statement to US bishops telling them to refuse communion to those who supported certain political parties, like the Democrats.

Besides otto started it.

/points at otto
/sneaks off while everyone is distracted.

CerealKey 22 Apr 2005 17:08:28 2,860 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

MS pull Gay support as an aside and in the wrong thread as I'm about to go out.

Story. Memo it is based on.

ChrisOTR 22 Apr 2005 17:14:51 1,670 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 20 years ago

I skimmed the article and read this out of context:

"Belgium and the Netherlands only allow same-sex marriages."

!!

MikeD 22 Apr 2005 17:23:40 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

ChrisOTR wrote:
I skimmed the article and read this out of context:

"Belgium and the Netherlands only allow same-sex marriages."

hmm, I suppose i'd better emigrate then, if i ever want to get married. :-)

ssuellid 22 Apr 2005 17:25:28 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

MikeD wrote:
hmm, I suppose i'd better emigrate then, if i ever want to get married.

I thought you were already in Holland?

MikeD 22 Apr 2005 17:30:14 10,063 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

Aaargh, I really set myself up for that, didn't I?

Nicely done :-)

countlippe 22 Apr 2005 17:32:01 43 posts
Registered 18 years ago

My only comment is:

I got dogshit on my finger once and it smelled for a week.

maybe thats what the pope is thinking

Shivoa 22 Apr 2005 17:51:48 6,314 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

When it the protestant church next getting together for a chat. They should definitely consider a letter to the new Pope welcoming him to the job:

'Dear Pope,

You're going to hell because...

equal right for women

equal rights for families of all types

etc

...But at least your time on this Earth isn't long now so you will soon be united with Satan.'

Fizzy 22 Apr 2005 18:12:21 929 posts
Registered 20 years ago

Well here is a little interesting story.

The "liberal" Pope John Paul the 2nd had this to say about Indians. "You are living in darkness and must be saved from your ways", not exactly the best thing to say when you are a guest in a country. More than one Indian Catholic shifted uncomfortably (as the gaze of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists descended upon em) in his seat after John said that.

Ratzinger on the other hand is even more of a oddball.

He calls Buddhism as the greatest threat to Catholicism. And says that Buddhism and Hinduism are "autoerotic" religions that "trap their members in a continous cycle of hell with reincranation".

Then they wonder why they have a image problem.

http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm

ssuellid 22 Apr 2005 18:19:28 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Fizzy wrote:

Fizzy link

Not very nice sounding.

Edited by ssuellid at 18:20:05 22-04-2005

Edited by ssuellid at 18:20:39 22-04-2005

Monsta 22 Apr 2005 18:24:19 1,276 posts
Seen 11 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Not wanting to stand out from the crowd but i have to agree with the Ratslinger.

The Bible is very clear on the Gay sex issue and as the bible is the main guide book for all "Christian religions" it is the correct stance to take.

bef 22 Apr 2005 18:25:30 1,766 posts
Seen 55 minutes ago
Registered 18 years ago

ChrisOTR wrote:
I skimmed the article and read this out of context:

"Belgium and the Netherlands only allow same-sex marriages."

!!

Seriously though: Spain has also passed a bill that allows same sex marriages and makes adoption for them possible.

Retroid Moderator 22 Apr 2005 18:53:57 45,464 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

Errol wrote:
The new pope sounds like a complete tosser, tbh.

Same as ever, then.

mugwump 22 Apr 2005 19:05:22 654 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Monsta wrote:
Not wanting to stand out from the crowd but i have to agree with the Ratslinger.

The Bible is very clear on the Gay sex issue and as the bible is the main guide book for all "Christian religions" it is the correct stance to take.

You mean the same bible that prior to its widespread publication was edited and added to countless times by the Catholic Church, to suit their own contemporary ideas of right and wrong. What makes the stories in the Bible any less interchangeable now?

[Slip] 22 Apr 2005 19:10:52 1,027 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

You do realise that you're all talking about an 80 year odd old man

Does anyone know anyone that old that isn't biggoted in some way?

Monsta 22 Apr 2005 19:11:31 1,276 posts
Seen 11 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Even if i has been cahnged many time over the years it has been in its current form for many hundreds of years.

AS this is the version curently used by the Catholic church then they have to be seen to be sticking to the rules that are set out especially in th enew media concious environment.

I have (and i think a lot of people agree) more respect for someone who has there principles and sticks to them as opposed to pandering to everyones wishes, even if i don't agree with them.

So unless the church comes out and say that that part of the bible is false and shouldn't be in there then the pope has to stick by that opinion.

mugwump 22 Apr 2005 19:41:14 654 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Yeah, I'm afraid I was mainly having a stab at organised religion in general there... The fact that the church backs the Bible as the word of God and thus dogma is hypocritical is all.

Regarding sticking to his principles, I see what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't expect a new Pope to make any immediate changes. However, I think the Catholic Church does actually pander to the changing world's wishes, just very, very slowly and very cautiously. It would ruin its integrity if it continually rewrote its ideals to conform to the latest modes of thought. Instead then the church plays it safe by using the "interpretation" card, i.e. if we look at passages in the Bible this new way, new meanings (conveniently) appear. The church just has to give the nod to that and everybody's happy.

I'm just waiting for them to re-interpret the Bible to accept homosexuality. Can't be easy, which is probably why it's taking so long.

Edited by mugwump at 20:05:03 22-04-2005

deem 22 Apr 2005 20:20:41 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago

Post deleted

StixxUK 22 Apr 2005 20:31:25 8,755 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 19 years ago

So loads of people comment on the new Pope, the vast majority (if not all) of whom aren't Catholic, thus it doesn't really affect them.

The thing I find disturbing these days isn't the new Pope, it's the number of people - particularly in the US - that are moving toward fundamentalist religious beliefs. Whether it be Christian or Muslim, more and more people seem to be getting more and more religious (and taking their chosen text completely literally). I hope this is just a phase and that people will start to either think logically or choose a religion that benefits their day-to-day life.

terminalterror 22 Apr 2005 20:36:10 18,932 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

" When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help."

That got spread liberally around the internet a few years back, and then ended up being said (not word for word though) by President Bartlett.

Clive_Dunn 22 Apr 2005 21:09:48 4,862 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

Heh, nice post TT - I haven't seen that before.

I'm quite surprised that no Catholics ( or perhaps just religious people in general ) have shown up trying to defend their religion. Perhaps I'm just being defensive after last weeks pope idol quip though.

Off to eat shellfish and plant two types of herb in my little garden - hell for me.

Sid-Nice 22 Apr 2005 21:49:20 15,848 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

I could understand him condemning Gay Gabriel, but Bill isn't even a Spanish boys name. The best Spanish boys name has to be Ponce, which means born fifth.