Homosexual protests of Pope Benedict's Remarks
 

Gay groups angry at Pope remarks


Pope Benedict made his remarks in an end-of-year speech

Gay groups and activists have reacted angrily after Pope Benedict XVI said that mankind needed to be saved from a destructive blurring of gender.
Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.
The comments were "irresponsible and unacceptable", the UK's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) said.
Vladimir Luxuria, a transgender former Italian MP, called his words "hurtful".
The row erupted as news emerged that the pontiff is to pay his first visit to the Holy Land in May next year.
'Self-destruction'
Pope Benedict made the comments in an end-of-year speech to senior Vatican staff.
Defending God's creation was not limited to saving the environment, he said, but also about protecting man from himself.

Rainforests deserve, yes, our protection, but the human being ... does not deserve it less


Pope Benedict

Papal address: Key extracts
What Bible says about being gay



It was not "out-of-date metaphysics" to "speak of human nature as 'man' or woman'", he said. It came from the "language of creation, despising which would mean self-destruction for humans".
Gender theories, he said, led to man's "auto-emancipation" from creation and Creator.
"Rain forests deserve, yes, our protection but the human being... does not deserve it less," he said.
LGCM head Rev Sharon Ferguson said the Pope's remarks justified "gay bashing" and bullying.
Mark Dowd, strategist for Christian environmental group Operation Noah, said the comments betrayed "a lack of openness to the complexity of creation".


Derek Munn of the UK based gay rights group Stonewall criticises Pope Benedict XVI's comments

And Ms Luxuria, who recently lost her seat in the Italian parliament, said suggesting people like her were destructive was very hurtful.
"I'm someone who was born as male and has a spiritual and female soul, and it's contradictory that a Pope just thinks of people just made as flesh and not made of a spiritual aspect."
The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.
Earlier this month, the Vatican said that a proposed United Nations resolution decriminalising homosexuality went too far.
"Unjust discrimination" against gay people should be avoided, but the use of wording such as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the text would "create serious uncertainty in the law", it said.

what an idiot fuck, that king of child molesters

when I read this I was thinking, hello, is the pope catholic?

why would homosexual groups NOT expect this kind of rhetoric from the highest Church leader in the world?

also:
An illustration of the division can be seen by what either side might say about the friendship in the Old Testament between David and Jonathan. One verse reads: "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."

PRO-GAY
A pro-gay position might be that this is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

 

ANTI-GAY
An anti-gay opinion might be that the friendship between the two men was exactly that - a very close and loyal allegiance.


I also disagreed with the homosexual interpretation of King David and Jonathon.

I personally love my best friend Andrew as a brother, an equal, and much more so than any romantic relationships I have ever had, and there is absolutely no hint of sexuality to this love for my brother. So why is naive?

the real problem is that people feel the need to prove issues through an out of date archaic book. like the people that try to make borders with the bible

this topic has come up before, the bible is far from archaic, it is a living text which adapts constantly to the needs of its readers.

Pfft, religion blows. Fuck Josef Ratzinger and his band of douchebags.

im pretty sure that its archaic
moses killing a man for carrying wood on a saturday for instance. the problem is those that take it literaly and think that others lives should be afected in what they nelive it.
so even if everyone in the bible agrees that homosxuality is an abomination and whatnot, who cares. it shouldnt be a way ofd deciding laws and whatnot. ...

the Pope's own homosexuality lies dormant, and he doesn't want to reveal it. I understand hiм... God will be mad at him... probably even worse...

Who cares get over it HOMOS!!!

Just because the literal texts of the bible have not been changed does not quite make it archaic, because the meanings, interpretations and translations of these long-standing stories are constantly evolving. The bible is text, which is read by individuals, and individuals change this text with each reading. It therefore far from archaic, an archaic text would be something like
CUSAS 1, 140 (CUNES 50-11-052)

DescriptionAccount of cereal products for town festival
previous | next

Click image to enlarge

 

which as not been popularly read for quite some time..

Yeah, who fucking cares. Is it news that Christians are against homosexuality?

Just let them do their thing while you do your thing for fucks sake.

Who gives a flying fuck what this guy thinks?
What is a pope for anyway?

It isn't a living text when it is read as an absolute.

Exactly. But I think it does have the potential to be adaptive, with intelligent readers.

Then of course, a lot of things have the potential to be instructive for intelligent readers, I guess. This is where things get tricky.

But in regards to the topic, a lot of people do listen to the pope, and for that reason this is a big problem. If the pope were to become more lenient toward homosexuality, so would Christianity in general. Becoming more hostile is not good.

Not that the pope's aggression is going to stop progress, but it's not totally inconsequential.

You remind me so much of Gary Busey. Most of what you say is babble, but every once in a while you have something intelligent to say.

I'm not saying Benjy didn't say something iffy, but he's been ever-so-slightly mis-quoted by the press on this one. Having said that, he does basically think that bum-Lords have got the wrong idea, so... it's troublesome.

yeh some people never stop going on about it either. i dont see it as a living text.

i wish you would stop putting yourself on a pedestal as the authority on religion.

can I get an AYYYYY-MEEENNNN?

only if everyone says it like james brown.

That was my intention.

THE POPE??? AGAINST GAYS?!?! WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAOOOOH

Damn fudgepackers, causing all this drama.

Yeah I was really surprised. . .

That's a generalization. There are quite a few more liberal denominations that are totally OK with homosexuality.

If the bible adapts to th culture that reads it then why havent they found interpertations that include agnosticism of some form, or acknwledge and account for the fact that science is beginning to theorize on things that created the universe without the idea of a god?

I don'tj know if that made sense.

Exactly. Some people are level headed.

I've had awesome homosexual sex all night. Take that, nazi bitch!
RIVERS OF HOMOSEXUAL MALE SPERM.

let me remind that kind of leader of that church : i don't why but Jesus was always surround by 12 men, and there was a lot of moments of privacy between them ( what they have done in those lonely moments, we will never know) - i'm going to hell cause of that? - but the bible is far away from that arcaic matters of this catholic church, the only thing that book promote is love between humans, but humans just promote evol between them!!!
fuck you homos! fuck you straights! fuck you popes! fuck you chikens! fuck you fuckers! fuck the word fuck! fuck!
peace!

actually it has to some sense
There are some who would suggest
that Genesis isn't literal

And there are some that have rationalized that you don't know that God exists, but for whatever reason, you believe God does exist.

IT IS NEVER READ AS AN ABSOLUTE. That is impossible.

This is because Individuals both read and hear readings of the Bible, and these make their own interpretations of the meanings of the text, bringing it into their lives directly in their own personal ways. The bible means a different thing to EVERY individual reader or listener who is its audience. Further, it is not archaic, in the sense that is is read CONSTANTLY, by literally billions of people, EVERY SINGLE DAY, and has been for over a thousand years at least.

What other piece of literature, or any piece of art for that matter, is so fundamentally a part of the universal human experience like that? What ancient text is so elaborately an integral part of the lives of people so far removed from its origins? What other ancient text is so widely translated and updated to reflect the etymological changes of language over time? given the circumstances, I think that nothing in human creation is more the opposite of archaic.

Pope in ridiculous statement shock