It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope slams gay marriage as 'attack' on creation

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Seeker
 


He didnt pass judgement on anyone. He said that gay marriage is an attack on creation. He didnt say Joe and Bill are fruity and are going to rot for being gay. Theres a difference.




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
For all we know he may actually be in favor of gay marriage, but as the pope he cannot possibly say that without the most ludicrous backlash from the Christian community worldwide. Religeous folk are so dam hard headed that he cant say I am in favor of this. His job and the way the church is kinda prevents him from doing so. The church has so many problems that its gonna take small incrememnts. The Pope suporting gay marriage would be a gigantic rumbling. Personally I dont care either way, but I think there would be rioting in lots of places if he were to condone same sex marriage.

In other words, does this pope statement really shock anyone? Cmon people. We all could have spoken this for him whether or not we agree with it.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by spinalremain]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by The_Seeker
 


He didnt pass judgement on anyone. He said that gay marriage is an attack on creation. He didnt say Joe and Bill are fruity and are going to rot for being gay. Theres a difference.


With all due respect, but, sorry I see it as being the same thing. "An attack on creation" to me is still passing judgement.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


:cool -the last holy roman empire just started with the vatican and the EU-----[roman numerals I-IV-X-L-C-D= 666 ]---watch how the false church controls the EU in the comming year--with germany as the head



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Seeker
 


Why tho? A man and a man cannot create a life. To me it's biology being taken the wrong way by people. I honestly don't think he meant to attack anyone. I think he is stating his Christian position that he believes union should be between man and woman for the purpose of sustaining life.

I agree that the church and the world for that matter are completely F ed up. But the US just elected a black president. Change takes time. It's great to be hopeful, but we have to be realistic about it. The human race, based on current situation has to take baby steps. We still have nuclear ICBMs underground around the Earth aimed and ready to go. We have to take things slow. Gay marriage just isn't a priority to change the world. Doing so would create more problems at the moment I think. There has to be an entry. It is starting to happen but it wont overnight. US states rights and Portugal are paving the way for gay people. The Pope will get there eventually. Eventually



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Though virtually no one these days realizes it, gay marriage is a primarily population-specific issue. The religious doctrine/dogma against gays marrying, and homosexuality in general, comes from a time when human population was astronomically, I mean far beyond merely immensely, lower in number than it is now. It would be common sense and universally accepted fact to be against biologically unproductive (non-reproducing) marriages if, and ONLY if, humanity ever again reaches a population level so low that it's approaching endangerment or extinction.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Well it’s true that those lovable guys from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are darn creative!

But the Pope means Creation as in a man and a woman creating new life through copulation that leads to pregnancy, birth and a slew of other very important things like…

Dropping money in the collection plate!

Paying taxes to the various governments that Rome controls (yours, mine, every body’s!)

Fighting in Wars that the Pope makes money off of (every one of them)

Working all your life for paper currency attached to nothing of intrinsic value emblazoned with in G-d We Trust.

The Pontificus Maximus is not just Rome’s High Priest but by treaty between sovereign powers the Vicar of Christ.

He is G-d’s legal representative on Earth by international law no matter whether you agree with it or not he enjoys that distinction and privilege.

When Governments make references to G-d that G-d is the Vicar of Christ, G-d’s legal representative on Earth, and not the G-d presumed and imagined to dwell within the heavens.

Most people have no earthly idea what the Pope really is or the actual extent of the power that he wields and he prefers it that way. Rest assured though Heads of State and Royalty know.

When the Pope talks you and I might not listen but those Heads of State and Royalty do, because they all derive their power by the grace of G-d and that is the Vicar of Christ that in fact secretly rules over us all.

Hail Caesar!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Wait for all religions to be abolished and replaced with simple humanity. It is nobody's job to hate others and get away with it in the name of something we can't even see or touch or have proof of.

The churches and most religions are just tools to keep people in control. Imagine what most religious people would do if they had proof that there was no afterlife or heaven: they'd feel life is pointless. What they would do after that, I don't know, but it wouldn't be good.

The trouble is that the church demonizes pleasurable things and hopes to establish a moral code. How best to do that than to say that "God says so." Oh, right, of course.

If today you said you were hearing the voice of God, you'd be locked away and put on medication. But, apparently if some guys heard the voice of god long ago and wrote about it, it must be true!

This is why religion is just plain stupid and meant for retards who can't cope with the thought of death.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjcord

Originally posted by muzzleflash





No, those who are against nature should be helped to understand it better only.

And yes, it is.

oops, were you not speaking to the board in general? Apologies.



And who are you to say what "natural" is? To catholics "natural" means a man and a woman because that is how their god created it.

Your spiritual veiws obviously differ but that doesnt make them right. And also..I'm not religious but don't discount it because no one in the world has been able to disprove the bible and yet theres so much information (if you choose to look for it) that suggests that it is fact.

My $0.02




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


This planet doesn't have an overpopulation propblem. We instead have a dispersal problem. We choose to cram ourselves like sardines into urban areas that are overpopulated. Phoenix Az. for example has a population density of roughly 3,300 people per square mile. That depressed me enough not to even check into the likes of Tokyo or London.Here's some facts and figures for you my friend.


Earth's Population as of today: 6,795,000,000
/
Total square miles of LAND mass of earth: 57,500,000
[ This represents only 30% of the total mass]

=

118.2 people per square mile

Keep doing the math and you'll find that that equals 5.4 people per acre, or 1 person for every 8,066 square feet. Sorry, but your overpopulation argument doesn't hold much water. As for the "but the arctic is inhabitable" theory, North Dakota is colder than the arctic right now. Deserts? You might be suprised at some of the places people call home. Humans are the most adaptable species on the planet.

My point here is that some people might find my response to your argument is off topic. Well, what does that say about your argument? To argue that homosexuality [ not the homosexual him/herself ] should be accepted because the world is overpopulated just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Do I live in the 1700s? No, I'm firmly grounded in 2010. I don't try to demean you or anyone else when they state their point of view, so I expect at least as much in return. Besides which, what was wrong with the 1700s? The fact that they were less accepting of others that were different ? I admit that people need to be more open minded, but since when does the continual acceptance of different things decade after decade equate to moral,intellectual, and spiritual advancement. Call me a knuckle dragging neanderthal, but I don't get it.

As for the identifying myself as not a homosexual, my bad, I meant to say homophobe [all these different homo's are starting to confuse me]


I just wanted everyone to know that my opinion wasn't biased.



Just my 2 cents. Peace



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dean Goldberry
 


Yeah thats a good point. That and I think it's easier for people to come out so to speak these days. Perhaps the gay community was just as prevalent years ago, but many were too afraid of letting it known.

Today we see many gay people everywhere. I think by the time I die we will see worldwide gay marriage. Its gonna get worse in the next 50 if something isnt done. Could you imagine gay ppl flocking to certain areas just so their marriage can be recognized? Its already becoming a mess.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Why are so many people questioning why the Pope is commenting on this? Has everyone forgotten that marriage is a sacrament? It's his job to comment on these issues. If the pope isnt commenting on religeous sacraments, then whats he supposed to comment on?




No he's commenting on laws that ignore the difference between the sexes...

You know, like the right to own property, vote, work, etc?

He isn't commenting on a sacrament... he's mistaking a law for a sacrament.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
It always amazes me, that men who run around in dresses with big colorful hats want to slam gay people! Frankly, it always makes me laugh!
The Catholic Church was founded on controlling the masses, because they view man as too dumb to handle any truths.
Shouldnt they be more worried about all the pedophiles they have working for their church? It just goes to show their more worried about keeping their cofers full. The Pope is using gay people as their scapegoat, so people wont focus on the real problems coming from the Catholic Church.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I cant do this any longer. People are very sensitive and emotional. best of luck everyone.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by spinalremain]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Sure seems strange that the pope embraced the "Aliens" ET's as brothers, but then says humans don't have the right to be themselves. this comes from a bunch of petifile priests of the roman catholic church.
Some cardinal recently said " Why would men want to be with other men when there are so many children they could have instead". Thats just creepy.






posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Dear Pope,
i am a man. and as a man, i know for a fact, that even if i had every gun on the face of the planet aimed at me, i could not make a conscious decision to be sexually aroused by another man.

so, logically, if anyone tells me it is a choice to be gay or not gay, logically......

they are either lying, or they have at one time or another looked at a person of the same sex and thought "maybe", thus their claim that it is a choice is either based upon their thoughts of "maybe", or they are lying.

Pope,
is it a choice to be gay because you are aroused by same gender?
or are you lying?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by downisreallyup
There are already TOO MANY heterosexuals having babies. If anything, the world needs more homosexuals to help slow this terrible trend. Plus, as a general rule, homosexuals tends to be highly artistic and highly intelligent people, so it wouldn't hurt man's progress either.


Get the homosexuals in gear! Rub those sticks together. I didn't know there was shortage of intelligent artists.

You know if I were a dumbass homosexual I might be highly offended by your comments. But then again I likely wouldn't know enough to be offended. I would know that I was homosexual though. The witty guy in the puffy shirt standing behind me would clue me in. We're good that way.


Virtually every homosexual I know is quite artistic and they usually like to discuss things like politics and other issues that are usually associated with intelligence. Of course I've met some who were not so much that way, but it has been my experience that what I said is true, at least with regards to the areas I have been.

I did not say that heterosexuals are not also artistic or intelligent. You are just hearing what you want to hear and misquoting me.

My point was that homosexuals make many contributions to society and just because they can't add to the already overpopulated earth, that does not make them any less valuable as people.

Why do you people have to be so quick to jump on someone and quick to misjudge what somebody says? Sheeeesh!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
Ok. Let's just agree that way back then .. 2 or 3 thousand years ago ... people were ignorant, incredibly ignorant in many ways
and just because they were
is no sound reason for that same ignorance to be peddled and rammed down people's throats today, posturing as 'God's word' and 'God's Will'


IMHO, a mistake you make and perhaps it colors other opinions you have as well is your view that people of the past were "incredibly ignorant". A collorary of this is the incorrect view that events, schemes, insights, prejudices, longing, desires, hopes, dreams, ambitions etc etc of the past were different than those of the modern day.

Again in IMO as an avid reader of history, you are not correct in your assumption. One need only read diaries or graffiti for example from days when Rome ruled the world, Greece was supreme, or more modernly, the American Civil War and you may be astonished to find -- technology and acess to increased information aside -- people of the Ages were astonshingly similar to ourselves. And there is nothing new that hasn't been said, done, felt, or tried in days gone by.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


This planet doesn't have an overpopulation propblem. We instead have a dispersal problem. We choose to cram ourselves like sardines into urban areas that are overpopulated. Phoenix Az. for example has a population density of roughly 3,300 people per square mile. That depressed me enough not to even check into the likes of Tokyo or London.Here's some facts and figures for you my friend.


Earth's Population as of today: 6,795,000,000
/
Total square miles of LAND mass of earth: 57,500,000
[ This represents only 30% of the total mass]

=

118.2 people per square mile

Keep doing the math and you'll find that that equals 5.4 people per acre, or 1 person for every 8,066 square feet. Sorry, but your overpopulation argument doesn't hold much water. As for the "but the arctic is inhabitable" theory, North Dakota is colder than the arctic right now. Deserts? You might be suprised at some of the places people call home. Humans are the most adaptable species on the planet.

My point here is that some people might find my response to your argument is off topic. Well, what does that say about your argument? To argue that homosexuality [ not the homosexual him/herself ] should be accepted because the world is overpopulated just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Do I live in the 1700s? No, I'm firmly grounded in 2010. I don't try to demean you or anyone else when they state their point of view, so I expect at least as much in return. Besides which, what was wrong with the 1700s? The fact that they were less accepting of others that were different ? I admit that people need to be more open minded, but since when does the continual acceptance of different things decade after decade equate to moral,intellectual, and spiritual advancement. Call me a knuckle dragging neanderthal, but I don't get it.

As for the identifying myself as not a homosexual, my bad, I meant to say homophobe [all these different homo's are starting to confuse me]


I just wanted everyone to know that my opinion wasn't biased.



Just my 2 cents. Peace


Well, I'm sorry for making the statement about the 1700's, and nothing was wrong with that time period... if you were a Christian white straight male. For other people though, well... not as good in many cases.

You can't divide the earth up evenly like that. There are many places that are either flat out uninhabitable or very undesirable. Plus, nearly every square inch of earth is already owned by someone. That is why it is considered over-populated... not because it is technically so, but because it is practically so. People are not machines, and you can't just ignore their wants and desires, otherwise you will surely find out what war is all about.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 

Okay time out, for a return to what the pope said. Whatever one wants to say about the Catholic Church, the last two popes have been consistent in the message of the value of "life".
In sum, life, every life, has great value.
Why? Because man is created in God's image and therefore has intrinsic value.
This is their message.
Now I realize saying this isn't going to settle anything on ATS, but I want to point out the consistency of the Pope's message. He is being consistent when he says that gay marriage is contrary to this view.
More importantly, because of the last two popes focus on the sancity of life, you will never find any quote from them bashing gays. It is the homosexual act that is being condemned (yes, I understand the contradiction with pedophilia scandals.)
Gays are are as precious and intrinsicly valuable as any other human beings.
Just want to clarify what I believe is being missed by some posters.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join