C
cathopologist
Guest
Your comments?
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
A full account of what specific measures are intended by this proposed legislation would help - for not all rights sought would be seen as desirable to grant. Which may explain why the Holy See is not a signatory. The danger for the Holy See is that it may end up on the same side as the countries which persecute & kill homosexuals: that is very bad company to be in.
As to these words as they stand in Minister Verhagen’s speech:“Human rights apply to all people, in all places and at all times. So they apply to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people too,” Verhagen said. “As long as there is a divide between the principle of universality and the practice of everyday life, statements like this are vital.”
- is no more than the truth. I’m all in favour of it, in principle. Homosexuals are abominably treated in some parts of the world, & that is intolerable.
C
cathopologist
Guest
Thanks for your comment and a link to the full article, Gottle. I’m with you concerning human rights, but i am also concerned - Gay lobbyists are already using the UN as a platform to further their agenda. For many years now, gay lobbyists have pushed themselves deeper into the religious and social realm, even re-writing Scripture to suit their needs.
The Holy See knows if it signs this declaration, gay lobbyists could also use it against them. As Arcigay’s president, Aurelio Mancuso said, “the bad choice the Vatican has made as a state, not as a church”. Imagine what they may say next if the Holy See signs the declaration - they attack the state now, they will attack the Church next if the Holy See does not bless same-sex unions. Indeed, the declaration is too broad and dangerous.
The Holy See knows if it signs this declaration, gay lobbyists could also use it against them. As Arcigay’s president, Aurelio Mancuso said, “the bad choice the Vatican has made as a state, not as a church”. Imagine what they may say next if the Holy See signs the declaration - they attack the state now, they will attack the Church next if the Holy See does not bless same-sex unions. Indeed, the declaration is too broad and dangerous.
C
Chancellare
Guest
“Human rights apply to all people, in all places and at all times. So they apply to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people too,” Verhagen said. “As long as there is a divide between the principle of universality and the practice of everyday life, statements like this are vital.”
So what about those who eat whales, dogs, cats, mice, etc? Don’t they have rights to practice their preferences too?
What about the rights of cannibals, necrosexuals and pedophiles? Don’t they have rights too?
What about those who…
Aren’t we discriminating against them? Who will speak for them in the UN?
If we only fight for the rights of gays, aren’t we missing a whole bunch of others? Or is this just a good start?
So what about those who eat whales, dogs, cats, mice, etc? Don’t they have rights to practice their preferences too?
What about the rights of cannibals, necrosexuals and pedophiles? Don’t they have rights too?
What about those who…
Aren’t we discriminating against them? Who will speak for them in the UN?
If we only fight for the rights of gays, aren’t we missing a whole bunch of others? Or is this just a good start?
C
Chancellare
Guest
Please specify which principle applies on which rights…
D
dzheremi
Guest
It would be much better for everyone if the people who put their energies into getting their lifestyle blessed by those who won’t ever accept it (Catholicism, Islam) would instead direct their campaigns towards pressuring those states that murder and torture homosexuals (legally, according to their law codes) to stop doing that. I’m sure some already do, but the logic of asking for a million dollars when you’re short $10 for lunch is really unclear to me.
This would also eliminate the problem (for those who see it as one) of the Church being seen as being in bad company due to its condemnation of homosexuality, because it would refocus the attention on the people who are actually actively persecuting gays, instead of those who oppose them on moral grounds without harming them physically.
This would also eliminate the problem (for those who see it as one) of the Church being seen as being in bad company due to its condemnation of homosexuality, because it would refocus the attention on the people who are actually actively persecuting gays, instead of those who oppose them on moral grounds without harming them physically.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
It comes down once again to the fashion in which the debate has been reframed. The idea of something called “homosexuality” has been promoted as if it were a fact, and proceeding from this idea certain proposals are made.
One of the things the Catholic church (some parts of it at least) has done well is to correctly label the discussion. There is indeed Same Sex Attraction (SSA) and beyond that, there are also homosexual acts, which in the name of decorum I’ll refrain from naming specifically.
The idea that there is some intangible known as homosexuality, which leads to “gay culture”, and a need for protection of “gay rights” etc is incorrect. Individuals can write about SSA and/or homosexual acts but this doesn’t result in the creation of a culture, nor does SSA or participation in homosexual acts merit the creation of a special category of rights.
The idea of heredity vs. learned behaviour, even if SSA is due to heredity (and it may or may not be) has no bearing on the acceptance of homosexual acts, which are subject to the volition of the individual.
Pressure should be brought to bear on nations to punish any unwarranted persecution or attack on an individual or group for whatever reason.
Likewise a person should not be discriminated against because of SSA, although governments do have the authority to criminalize sexual behaviours, including homosexual acts that they feel are not beneficial to society as a whole.
As to whether a specific government should criminalize a specific act, that is a discussion for another thread.
As long as the resolution promotes the muddled idea of “gay people” and “gay rights” it should be avoided and the correct understand promoted using clear language-Benedict XVI had the chance to do that in a recent statement and failed to do so.
A clear statement of this understand, as well as an appeal to support a motion that clearly supports the protection of all people from oppression or persecution would be a great step in the right direction to shift common thinking on the topic.
One of the things the Catholic church (some parts of it at least) has done well is to correctly label the discussion. There is indeed Same Sex Attraction (SSA) and beyond that, there are also homosexual acts, which in the name of decorum I’ll refrain from naming specifically.
The idea that there is some intangible known as homosexuality, which leads to “gay culture”, and a need for protection of “gay rights” etc is incorrect. Individuals can write about SSA and/or homosexual acts but this doesn’t result in the creation of a culture, nor does SSA or participation in homosexual acts merit the creation of a special category of rights.
The idea of heredity vs. learned behaviour, even if SSA is due to heredity (and it may or may not be) has no bearing on the acceptance of homosexual acts, which are subject to the volition of the individual.
Pressure should be brought to bear on nations to punish any unwarranted persecution or attack on an individual or group for whatever reason.
Likewise a person should not be discriminated against because of SSA, although governments do have the authority to criminalize sexual behaviours, including homosexual acts that they feel are not beneficial to society as a whole.
As to whether a specific government should criminalize a specific act, that is a discussion for another thread.
As long as the resolution promotes the muddled idea of “gay people” and “gay rights” it should be avoided and the correct understand promoted using clear language-Benedict XVI had the chance to do that in a recent statement and failed to do so.
A clear statement of this understand, as well as an appeal to support a motion that clearly supports the protection of all people from oppression or persecution would be a great step in the right direction to shift common thinking on the topic.
N
notself
Guest
None of the actions that you list are punishable by death.
In Arab countries, the laws say that gays may be legally executed for being gay. Are you saying you support the killing of gays? Then you must support the killing of adulterers and those who masturbate. Both of these acts are sexual sins just like homosexuality.
Of course to fairly apply capital punishment for sex, about 80% of the world’s population would have to be executed. That one way to stop the overcrowding.
C
Chancellare
Guest
Then let’s also fight for the rights of all those who are punished with death. And that includes all capital punishments in US. Why should we only do it for gays in Muslim countries?.
N
notself
Guest
The Vatican needs to submit a statement condemning punishment by death to the UN. It is a member. Bishops in America should proclaim that Catholics should not vote for any candidate who supports the death penalty. Catholics need to write their elected officials objecting to the use of the death penalty.Then let’s also fight for the rights of all those who are punished with death. And that includes all capital punishments in US. Why should we only do it for gays in Muslim countries?.
Go for it!
L
LRThunder
Guest
Except that the Church doesn’t teach that the death penalty is a sin. While the Church does teach that it should only be used in rare circumstances, Catholics are free to agree or disagree with each other regarding the death penalty.
Homosexuality as a sin, and abortion, on the other hand, are non-negotiables.
N
notself
Guest
Then, it is OK with the Church that sexual sin is punishiable by death in Arab countries? That is what I was talking about.
Since you brought up the fact that the Church supports the death penalty, I’ll comment on that.
Errors in judgment by prosecutors, judges and juries in even well run systems make it impossible for any conviction to be completely accurate. Reviews of convictions in the USA regularly find innocent people wrongly convicted and some of whom are on death row.
innocenceproject.org/#
The idea that the death penalty should be legal and rare is the same argument that some Pro-Choice organizations use about abortion. It should be legal and rare.
The fact that the Church supports the death penalty under any circumstances proves to me that it is not truly pro life but rather clings to the concept of vengeance from the Old Testament. It is a shame.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Punishments up to and including the death penalty are perfectly appropriate means for dealing with same-sex attraction. It must be remembered that those with that condition are potentially dangerous irrespective of past behavior. The culture has a right to be protected from any potential threat to its cohesion and the individual has a right to have his bodily integrity respected. Signing on to this “human rights” declaration would tie the hands of any signatory state and effectively prevent them from protecting those basic rights as befits human dignity.
N
notself
Guest
If one were to look up the word homophobe in the dictionary, would your picture be next to the definition?
G
Gaurdian
Guest
The Vatican said it want’s to eliminate laws that punish those with Sexual Orientation Disorder and by the same token if the majority do not want to institutionalize by law immoral behavior that should be respected as well. We all know that any acting out of SOD actions is disordered and immoral. Don’t we?
N
notself
Guest
Once again since no one seems to be getting the point, are you and the Roman Catholic Church in favor of the death penalty of a sexual based offence?The Vatican said it want’s to eliminate laws that punish those with Sexual Orientation Disorder and by the same token if the majority do not want to institutionalize by law immoral behavior that should be respected as well. We all know that any acting out of SOD actions is disordered and immoral. Don’t we?
G
Gaurdian
Guest
I guess you did not read what the Vatican said about the UN resolution this past week. You really should take time to educate yourself further about their stance. It is what I stated above. But this is what Romas says about SOD.
ROMANS 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.
24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. God delivered them up… Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
C
Chancellare
Guest
So what about those women put to death for having illicit sex? Should we also submit a statement to UN?
Don’t they have rights too?
The universality principle does not support the argument.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Are you capable of coming up with a response that is something other than ad hominem, substance-free drivel?If one were to look up the word homophobe in the dictionary, would your picture be next to the definition?
- Status