Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[Mare Tranquillity]

You mean like the us serviceman who raped a woman in japan? And at the heels of another us serviceman convicted of raping a woman in the philippines and being held in the us embassy rather than a jail?

No wonder people are angry at the us. Your government condones this sort of behavior in the military.

Wait a second, Nums, these are your people, these are heterosexuals, these are the people the Pope approves of, this wasn't done by gay people. Did you run out of silly things to post about gay people and now you're going to start in on Americans in general?

Who's idea is it, then? The doctor's?

YOU posted it, do you expect me to know where your fallacious ideas come from? You probably got it from your religious training. I don't know, Nums, where do wrong ideas come from in your country of origin?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Darn it. I already answered it in the other thread...

Nums is operating under the old Nazi rule:A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH SOON GAINS THE SUBSTANCE OF TRUTH.

 

[numinus]

The Pope's encyclical wasn't religious. Okay.

Did I say the pope's encyclical wasn't religious?

I said the pope's declaration (which is the topic of the thread) is entirely logical and congruent to the principles of the udhr.

I don't think the UDHR is religious and that's why I don't think that it can be interpreted to ban or even suggest banning gay people from having families. If you interpret it so, then I am stating that you are doing so with disingenuous religious intent.

sigh

The udhr enjoins the nations of the world to protect the family.

The restrictions in adoption is found in the RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. If you find it particularly hard to convince the agencies of government to allow you to adopt a child, it is because of the RIGHTS OF THAT CHILD, not about whether you are married or not.

 

[numinus]

Wait a second, Nums, these are your people, these are heterosexuals, these are the people the Pope approves of, this wasn't done by gay people. Did you run out of silly things to post about gay people and now you're going to start in on Americans in general?

Haven't you heard?! The pope is against pre-marital sex.

YOU posted it, do you expect me to know where your fallacious ideas come from? You probably got it from your religious training. I don't know, Nums, where do wrong ideas come from in your country of origin?

You don't know whose decision it is to have a sex-change operation???

Good grief! I'm talking to a bonafide *****!

 

[numinus]

Nums is operating under the old Nazi rule:A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH SOON GAINS THE SUBSTANCE OF TRUTH.

LMAO

Now I'm a nazi as well?! Is it even possible for someone not of the aryan race to be a nazi?!

Have you had your hormone shots today?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Did I say the pope's encyclical wasn't religious?

I said the pope's declaration (which is the topic of the thread) is entirely logical and congruent to the principles of the udhr.
sigh

The udhr enjoins the nations of the world to protect the family.

The restrictions in adoption is found in the RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. If you find it particularly hard to convince the agencies of government to allow you to adopt a child, it is because of the RIGHTS OF THAT CHILD, not about whether you are married or not.

Baloney, not matter how thinly sliced is STILL baloney. Your religious definition of family is not in the UDHR.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Haven't you heard?! The pope is against pre-marital sex.

You don't know whose decision it is to have a sex-change operation???

Good grief! I'm talking to a bonafide *****!

The Pope is not against pre-marital sex! If he was he and his predecessors would have stopped the child-raping priests long ago.

And your second statement, well all I can say is

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LMAO

Now I'm a nazi as well?! Is it even possible for someone not of the aryan race to be a nazi?!

Have you had your hormone shots today?

Take a class in remedial reading, Nums, I said you were operating under and old Nazi rule, doesn't mean you're a Nazi, just that you have taken one of their pleasant techniques to support your own campaign for superiority. Sort of a Master Religion perhaps.

 

[vyo476]

Okay, kids, time to calm down and stop attacking one another. The title at the top of your web browser ought to read "House of Politics," not "Adolescent Sandbox of Petty Personal Attakcs."

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nums,
Vyo is correct, time to sum up and end this charade. Your narrow view of what makes a family is only partly correct, in fact you are the only person I ever met who would deny family rights to families made up of adopted children, but... so be it, you're entitled to your opinion.

I think (just my opinion) that passing judgment on all families outside of your narrow definition is a corner that you backed yourself into because you are so adamant that your gay male friends don't deserve the benefits that you claim for your family. I don't think that's what friends do to friends, but... it's your friends so. My guess is that your refusal to even discuss how your narrow family definition would work with respect to lesbians signals your understanding that even your weird definition of the wording of the UDHR cannot exclude them and you don't want to have to admit that.

Further, it's my opinion that you are omitting your religious perspective because you know it's indefensible, so you dress up your argument with specious logic printed in CAPITALS and BOLDED in order to give it the appearance of authority.

Your disgusting remarks about transgendered people signify an amazing lack of information on your part and an obscenely perverse attitude along with that lack.

In the end nothing substantive has been presented to show that gay people getting married will have any more impact here in the US or wherever you live, than it's had in Canada, Belgium, Spain, or the Scandinavian countries. Jesus taught inclusion, love for one's neighbors, and prohibited judging others.
I'm a big fan of inclusion, I will not support any law that denies rights and privileges to others that I claim for myself.

 

[numinus]

Baloney, not matter how thinly sliced is STILL baloney. Your religious definition of family is not in the UDHR.

I'd post the appropriate article in the udhr again if there was any indication that you can comprehend simple english. It is an exercise in futility from what I gather.

 

[numinus]

The Pope is not against pre-marital sex! If he was he and his predecessors would have stopped the child-raping priests long ago.

And your second statement, well all I can say is

Now you are suggesting giving the catholic heirarchy police powers as well? Is there an end to your nonsense?

 

[numinus]

Take a class in remedial reading, Nums, I said you were operating under and old Nazi rule, doesn't mean you're a Nazi, just that you have taken one of their pleasant techniques to support your own campaign for superiority. Sort of a Master Religion perhaps.

What patent nonsense.

A person who follows the 'nazi rule' is a nazi, in the same way that a person who acts according to homosexual impulses is a homosexual.

Simple logic, no?

 

[numinus]

Nums,
Vyo is correct, time to sum up and end this charade. Your narrow view of what makes a family is only partly correct, in fact you are the only person I ever met who would deny family rights to families made up of adopted children, but... so be it, you're entitled to your opinion.

I think (just my opinion) that passing judgment on all families outside of your narrow definition is a corner that you backed yourself into because you are so adamant that your gay male friends don't deserve the benefits that you claim for your family. I don't think that's what friends do to friends, but... it's your friends so. My guess is that your refusal to even discuss how your narrow family definition would work with respect to lesbians signals your understanding that even your weird definition of the wording of the UDHR cannot exclude them and you don't want to have to admit that.

Further, it's my opinion that you are omitting your religious perspective because you know it's indefensible, so you dress up your argument with specious logic printed in CAPITALS and BOLDED in order to give it the appearance of authority.

Your disgusting remarks about transgendered people signify an amazing lack of information on your part and an obscenely perverse attitude along with that lack.

In the end nothing substantive has been presented to show that gay people getting married will have any more impact here in the US or wherever you live, than it's had in Canada, Belgium, Spain, or the Scandinavian countries. Jesus taught inclusion, love for one's neighbors, and prohibited judging others.
I'm a big fan of inclusion, I will not support any law that denies rights and privileges to others that I claim for myself.

You have been refuted in every absurd twist and turn you wish to proceed in this debate.

It is the height of vanity to even suggest that you can COMPEL the state (and society at large) to attach legal impetus for what is obviously your own personal choice. It is enough that society allows you to exercise that choice.

 

[Coyote]

You have been refuted in every absurd twist and turn you wish to proceed in this debate.

It is the height of vanity to even suggest that you can COMPEL the state (and society at large) to attach legal impetus for what is obviously your own personal choice. It is enough that society allows you to exercise that choice.

That is a rather dismissive statement. It sounds as if you are saying society can not change and homosexuals should simply be glad they aren't being openly persecuted.

Homosexuality - in that small percent of people who are totally homosexual, does not appear to be a "choice" any more than heterosexuality is a "choice".