This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Vatican tells U.N. that critics of gays under attack

Vatican tells U.N. that critics of gays under attack - Comments

usukagain1's Avatar Comment 1 by usukagain1

What a hypocritical message. "We can get in your face for being gay and tell you that you are doomed to eternal damnation but don't you dare get in ours. We've got our loving god on our side."

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:23:33 UTC | #606713

ZIwxBeheld's Avatar Comment 2 by ZIwxBeheld

It's not so nice to experience the force of popular opinion once it's not on your side, is it?

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:27:10 UTC | #606715

AxePilot's Avatar Comment 3 by AxePilot

Amen to that comment... usukagain1 My wife says "...The Vatican is complaining that their human right to infringe upon another's human rights, are being infringed upon..." I think I agree??

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:31:07 UTC | #606717

Anthony A Dean's Avatar Comment 4 by Anthony A Dean

What a ginormous twat. Perhaps gays should attack wrinkly old celibates for being sexually unnatural.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:31:49 UTC | #606718

AxePilot's Avatar Comment 5 by AxePilot

...Oh and without all that illegal biblical incest, how could any of us exist to complain about their complaining...???

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:32:51 UTC | #606719

usukagain1's Avatar Comment 6 by usukagain1

Comment 3 by AxePilot :

Amen to that comment... usukagain1 My wife says "...The Vatican is complaining that their human right to infringe upon another's human rights, are being infringed upon..." I think I agree??

The worst part about this, I'm sixteen and I'm able to see the error in this morallity. How can these people not see it? It's scary to think that people like this are in power.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:39:35 UTC | #606721

Lapithes's Avatar Comment 7 by Lapithes

Excuse me while I vomit until the joy of life starts coming back to me.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:40:24 UTC | #606722

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 8 by Neodarwinian

Of course their attacks on gays violate no fundamental human right!! Poor Vatican! I feel my eyes welling up with tears of pity, but I am sure my laughter will be enough to choke off the pity emotion.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:42:47 UTC | #606723

Aflacduck's Avatar Comment 9 by Aflacduck

Let's finally be rid of this damned medieval institution once and for all.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:43:46 UTC | #606725

Net's Avatar Comment 10 by Net

what hypocrisy, indeed! and where do you begin to tear apart his arguments, if arguments they be? for me, the basic argument is, do whatever you like as long as nobody else gets hurt. two same-sex people loving each other, or indeed, making love to each other, just means two more happy people in the world. nobody is getting hurt. nobody is being forced to do anything. the catholics, among others, will actually hurt you if you do it any other way but theirs. the catholic way is life-denying. for them, the more miserable you are the better a person you are. success in life is measured by suffering. and if you are a priest, you get to help people to be "successful" by actually inflicting pain.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:46:41 UTC | #606726

BowDownToGizmo's Avatar Comment 11 by BowDownToGizmo

How dare he compare homosexuality to incest and paedophilia?! What a vile, disgusting man.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:46:46 UTC | #606727

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 12 by Stevehill

People who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.

Well, praise be and thank the lord for that!

Here's to tolerance.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:48:02 UTC | #606728

BowDownToGizmo's Avatar Comment 13 by BowDownToGizmo

I forgot something so I came back for another post...

SPIT

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:49:00 UTC | #606729

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 14 by Steve Zara

I'm rather enjoying this, I have to say. I'm a relatively mild-mannered fellow who sort of muddles through life in a vague way, and now I'm becoming a threat to human rights and a source of evil. It's all rather exciting. I need to think of an evil look. Perhaps I could wear sunglasses indoors or something like that. I have not put as much effort into being evil in the past as I might have.

Perhaps, when me and my partner had a civil partnership ceremony with our families and friends in attendance, we should have played the start of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor with evil laughter rather than Tales from Topographic Oceans as we signed the register. Our small house on the borders of Coventry looks rather meek and harmless. Perhaps we should attach some gargoyles and Satanic symbols. We have a gentle labrador, when perhaps we should have got a white cat to stroke.

It sounds all too much like hard work though. It's comforting to know that just by living a normal life, working, doing housework, walking the dog, cooking, having a meal and then sitting down to watch Fifth Gear at the end of the day, and then going to bed like anyone else, we are a threat to morality.

I do have sympathy for these poor Catholics though. Life is hard enough without them actually having to deal with the fact that men like me, we, you know, we occasionally "do it". The thought must be too horrific. Can't have Catholics fainting in the street at the sign of gay men holding hands. I have a simple suggestion. Just imagine that nothing goes on in our bedrooms. Gay men like to play scrabble, you know. That noise is someone exited about a triple word score.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:52:54 UTC | #606732

lampe43's Avatar Comment 15 by lampe43

You must remember that it is very important for Christians to remind themselves from time to time that they are being unfairly persecuted for their beliefs, (which of course are beyond reproach.) That way they can feel like victims, just like Jesus. (Never mind that they are the most widespread and influential religious groups in the most powerful countries on the planet.) Not to mention the fact that they still think they are being unfairly treated for systematically aiding and abetting, and covering up the crimes of, their pedofile priests. Over and over again. For years. All over the world.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:55:53 UTC | #606734

neilwain's Avatar Comment 16 by neilwain

Rich, coming from the ultimate peddlers of intolerance!

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:56:22 UTC | #606735

blitz442's Avatar Comment 17 by blitz442

I'm not gay, and consequently I have never experienced the religiously-motivated persecution and condemnation that many homosexual individuals have suffered and continue to suffer.

So I guess I must multiply by a factor of 1000 my sense of outrage and anger at the Church's mind-boggling hypocrisy, gross ignorance of its own long history of institutionally supported persecution of homosexuals, and almost psychopathic narcissm (by constantly twisting things to paint themselves as the victim) in order to appreciate what many gay members of this forum must feel when they see the RCC make statements like this.

If the RCC is going to claim that it is a good idea to deny a basic right to a large segment of the population, and has no rational basis for this claim whatsoever, then it should expect to be confronted, attacked, ridiculed and marginalized at the very least.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:59:00 UTC | #606737

lampe43's Avatar Comment 18 by lampe43

"Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviour must be forbidden by law. Paedophilia and incest are two examples."

Apparently this does not apply to priests, who, since they answer to a higher power, don't feel the need to actually obey the law or be held accountable to their victims.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:59:59 UTC | #606738

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 19 by Cartomancer

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples.

I hope they kept the receipt...

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:03:43 UTC | #606741

andy11's Avatar Comment 20 by andy11

, I think there is a culture, greatly encouraged by the state, of super tolerance of minority groups which results in being very intolerant to anyone who dissents. I personally don't think civil partenerships should be allowed, not on religious grounds, but that it is a pointless exercise and more bureaucracy. I don't like the Vatican and I don't think this is what they were getting at, but we have now a state imposed morality which is just as intolerant as when discrimination of gays was ok.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:04:23 UTC | #606743

Zelig's Avatar Comment 21 by Zelig

"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.

"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.

"Fundamental human rights"? Tomasi obviously has a sense of humour. My knowledge of the history of Christendom is admittedly incomplete, but I don't remember the Church affirming these "fundamental human rights" when they had more power. Where are all those eager to combat "hate speech" when you need them? And a silence filled the room . . .

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:06:17 UTC | #606744

Checkmate's Avatar Comment 22 by Checkmate

Before I say this please do not misunderstand me, I am in full support of gay liberation and rights and do not think the vilification of gays is fair or just.

However, and it pains me to say this, each person has the right to free speech and not be stigmatised for doing so. I understand that their position has little if no real reasoning to it but that does not take away from the fact they can not and should not be vilified any more then we should. Of course you can disagree, that's just argumentation, but however lacking in intellect or outrageously unfair a view a person may hold I don't think I nor anyone else has any right to stigmatise them. The rights of free speech count for both the deluded and discriminatory as much as they count for you and I and in the same sense stigmatisation helps no one.

At least that's what I think, even though its tempting not to.

Thanks

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:08:25 UTC | #606745

blitz442's Avatar Comment 23 by blitz442

Comment 20 by andy11

, I think there is a culture, greatly encouraged by the state, of super tolerance of minority groups which results in being very intolerant to anyone who disagrees with such tolerance and respect

If by the minority group you mean homosexuals, then what is wrong with them demanding the same rights to marriage and partnership that are available to heterosexuals? These demands are perfectly reasonable!

This has little to do with tolerance and respect - these are red herrings designed to cover up the fact that the RCC has no sound basis at all for its legal and ethical position. It no more matters that the RCC "deeply believes" that gays should not be extended marriage rights than it would if the KKK said it "deeply believes" that interracial marriage is an abomination and should not be allowed.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:17:15 UTC | #606748

InnerFish2's Avatar Comment 24 by InnerFish2

@ comment 22 However, and it pains me to say this, each person has the right to free speech and not be stigmatised for doing so.

The right to free speech and the right to not be stigmatized are not the same thing. The catholic church or any individual has the right to hold these views, that doesn't mean we should not be just as vocal in our disagreement or criticism of their reasoning. No one here, I'm sure, is denying the right to hold such an opinion and make it known, it is the content of the opinion, and the blatant hypocrisy it entails, that is being criticized.

How are you defining "stigmatized" and what is so wrong with it in this situation?

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:18:48 UTC | #606749

blitz442's Avatar Comment 25 by blitz442

Comment 22 by Checkmate

I understand that their position has little if no real reasoning to it but that does not take away from the fact they can not and should not be vilified any more then we should

Because the Church cannot compete on a level playing field in the battle of ideas, it wants protection from criticism, period.

Whenever you see it complaining about persecution and intolerance, it is really just asking for a free pass.

I see no reason not to verbally abuse and ridicule an institution for holding a position that is harmful and unreasonable. There are times when it is appropriate not to sugar-coat things.

Furthermore, the fact that I support harsh criticism of the RCC does not mean that I would deny them the right make their claims.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:26:48 UTC | #606750

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 26 by Alan4discussion

Archtwitish Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed .........

............ and people at the UN wasted time listening to him!!!!

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:27:36 UTC | #606751

Danish's Avatar Comment 27 by Danish

However, and it pains me to say this, each person has the right to free speech and not be stigmatised for doing so.

First, nobody has a right not to be stigmatised unless you have a strange definition of that term (the dictionary definition is to describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval).

Second, what these bigots want isn't just the right to speak their opinion freely but to enact laws that discriminate against a sexual orientation which does no harm to anybody.

There is no reason to have even the slightest sympathy with these homophobic bigots.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:34:21 UTC | #606753

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 28 by Tyler Durden

Comment 19 by Cartomancer :

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples.

I hope they kept the receipt...

Boom boom - nice one Centurion :)

I thought the RCC was on board with Darwinian evolution by natural selection? Marriage is a man-made concept which has only existed for a few thousands of years; while human sexuality, in all its forms, has been rocking our world for millions.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:35:04 UTC | #606754

RW Millam's Avatar Comment 29 by RW Millam

Comment 22 by Checkmate

.... each person has the right to free speech and not be stigmatised for doing so.

I agree completely. Having said that, let me make two points....

1 - If the RCC minions were to simply express their opposition to gay rights, that would be fine. However, they don't stop -- they insist on sticking their noses into the secular world by insisting that legislation be enacted to deny certain classes of people their human rights. They have the right to free speech -- they do NOT have the right to force their antiquated, bigoted views on those of us who disagree with them.

2 - I don't think they are being stigmatized for exercising their right to free speech. Rather, they are being stigmatized for being so very wrong and so very stupid.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:01:58 UTC | #606757

The Truth, the light's Avatar Comment 30 by The Truth, the light

"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.

"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.

Reverse the audience he is talking about and it makes great sense.

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:08:24 UTC | #606761