Pope Francis meets secretly with Kim Davis on US trip

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

chasin headless chickens
_got luv supa 1st worldees threads_
"but lot words fa suckin eggs"
at a true
! wot? !
dunno notin

anyway

tinku

 

[lambdaboy]

Pope Francis is the PR Pope he is controlled by Ratzi the real pope. It is slightly similar to when we had Three Popes one of them was in France at least from that stupidness we are able to get Chateneuf du Pape a Great wine! Franics is is as disgusting as all the ones before him.

 

[otters]

Pope Francis is the PR Pope he is controlled by Ratzi the real pope. It is slightly similar to when we had Three Popes one of them was in France at least from that stupidness we are able to get Chateneuf du Pape a Great wine! Franics is is as disgusting as all the ones before him.

Like the entire universe, I suppose.

Proof:

 

[Spensed]

Still, the Roman Catholic legislature is a lot more consistent than many other legislatures — the Canon Law is one of the roots of the Common Law, e.g.

LOL, I was attacking hasty and biased critics, and I will do so in any case — I'm not going to be silent

No one suggest that you be silent just that you lapsed in silence once your position fell behind even the Vatican's in recognizing that the meeting is to be regretted.

The Church holds itself up as of a higher authority that "other legislatures". As it happens, legislatures tend to be either pro-gay or anti-gay. They don't generally adopt the Church's essentially contradictory position that gays are good, but the behavior that defines gays sexually is bad.

Even many straight Catholics acknowledge that the Church's position on gays is absurd, as also on contraception, "annulment" but not divorce, women priests, abortion to save the mother's life, etc., etc. Time to wake up and smell the coffee - or at least avoid posting on issues you don't seem to know much about. LOL.

 

[otters]

Time to wake up and smell the coffee - or at least avoid posting on issues you don't seem to know much about. LOL.

LOL, are you really insinuating that I would have less epistemic authority here than you?

 

[Spensed]

^ Happy to let your posts speak for themselves on that issue.

 

[star-warrior]

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

No one suggest that you be silent just that you lapsed in silence once your position fell behind even the Vatican's in recognizing that the meeting is to be regretted.

The Church holds itself up as of a higher authority that "other legislatures". As it happens, legislatures tend to be either pro-gay or anti-gay. They don't generally adopt the Church's essentially contradictory position that gays are good, but the behavior that defines gays sexually is bad.

Even many straight Catholics acknowledge that the Church's position on gays is absurd, as also on contraception, "annulment" but not divorce, women priests, abortion to save the mother's life, etc., etc. Time to wake up and smell the coffee - or at least avoid posting on issues you don't seem to know much about. LOL.

a seasssss a wash ins a word absurd< a eons > anod word absurd but it wude
_popcorn?_
eeeeeeww
" but 1st world public a luv it "

anyway

sorwee insarupts great eye a public
"tink eyepatch wook nice isn green"

sssssh"

tinku

rabbits a landurd
_screaaaaaaaam_

 

[Spensed]

Oh, I had hoped that you were able to perfectly reply to my post #56, but apparently, you don't know what Civil Marriage is
"Comparative Law" would help a lot, ask the SCOTUS

An irrelevant response because the Church's condemnation of gay sex applies to gay sex in all cases and to all marriages.

 

[otters]

Happy to let your posts speak for themselves on that issue.

Look, I drank my lunch [!] coffee meanwhile, but unfortunately, you still haven't replied properly to my post #56:

Why don't you enlightened US Americans just have Civil Marriage nationwide?

(And why do you care what religious bodies of all sizes and shapes (or the clowns in Las Vegas) do and think regarding the topic marriage, if you're so enlightened?)

 

[Spensed]

^ Because, like in a number of other jurisdictions, religious and civil marriage has been intertwined for so long that it would take a complete overhaul to implement a layer of civil marriage applicable to straights and gays that would leave all the rights and obligations, benefits and burdens, registrations, records and status only in the secular civil realm, with those who wanted it also having a separate religious ceremony. Many anti-gay religious and secure organizations stand in opposition to such a structure. Civil marriage for gays alone wouldn't work for the same reason that separate but equal didn't work.

Do some research. LOL.

 

[otters]

^ Because, like in a number of other jurisdictions, religious and civil marriage has been intertwined for so long that it would take a complete overhaul to implement a layer of civil marriage applicable to straights and gays that would leave all the rights and obligations, benefits and burdens, registrations, records and status only in the secular civil realm, with those who wanted it also having a separate religious ceremony. Many anti-gay religious and secure organizations stand in opposition to such a structure. Civil marriage for gays alone wouldn't work for the same reason that separate but equal didn't work.

Do some research. LOL.

Oh, I've done "some" research. Comparative law is an actual field of expertise, even in the USA, you know?

Of course I'd propose that the (enlightened) USA should put forward a final "séparation cordiale".

 

[otters]

Even many straight Catholics acknowledge that the Church's position on gays is absurd, as also on contraception, "annulment" but not divorce, women priests, abortion to save the mother's life, etc., etc.

Spensed: I guess you agree that in the United States those Roman Catholics who're narrow minded (and tend to vote Republicon) refuse the Pontiff's teaching regarding environment and economics e.g., and on the other hand, those Roman Catholics who're open minded (and tend to vote Democratic) ignore the Church's official teaching regarding sexuality. So, where's the actual problem?
— Is there any significant difference compared with Episcopalians, e.g.?

 

[T-Rexx]

Now I'm really flabbergasted. When you follow the concept "what is sinful" — and it's you who is quoting out of context, but one must guess you have read and understood the entire context —, how can you find that illogical, or an injury? It isn't at all, particularly as exactly the same applies regarding hetereosexual people who aren't married to each other.

Apples and oranges. According to the Church, straight folk can get married and thereupon have married sex without sin. Gay folk, on the other hand, have an intrinsic disorder, or whatever the hateful language from the hierarchy is currently, and never get to have sex without sin. Their lot is to lead a blue balled celibate life. It a nonsense to see an equivalency of moral standards in the way the Catholic hierarchy views gays and straights.

Ironically, given the theme of conscience, I suspect that many gay Catholics use the primacy of an informed conscience (as per the Catechism) to ignore the current hierarchy's inconsistent teachings on gays (gays=good/gay sex=bad). Just as many straight Catholics do the same thing with contraception, etc.

Strange that the folk, who attacked the critics of the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis, have now gone silent, when the Vatican distanced the Pope from Kim Davies and effectively indicated that those critics were right.

Spensed has already said it, beautifully.

But let me reiterate. It is absurd to claim that the Catholic Church treats heterosexual and homosexual love equally, since both are required to wait until marriage for consummation. The small fact that gays are NOT allowed to marry in the church and therefore may NEVER, EVER be permitted to love seems to have escaped your attention, otters.

And I say again that there is no more hateful act than excluding someone from the possibility of love. Period.

I'm really flabbergasted regarding that statement, too:
a) Are you US Americans — albeit presumably enlightened — obsessed with a certain religious ceremony?
(And: if there's something metaphysical or "holy", why do they perform, e.g. in Las Vegas apparently, disgusting clowneries?)
b) Is the concept of civil marriage actually unknown in that part of the world where you live?
c) Don't you know that already famous Anti-Catholic Martin Luther declared that marriage "is an external worldly thing"?
So: Why do you care what any religious body or corporation is thinking regarding the topic marriage?

Because marriage is generally inextricably linked with many rights that can only be enjoyed by married couples, e.g. tax treatment as couples, inheritance rights, social security, immigration rights, etc. Some of those can be enjoyed by contractual arrangements, but by no means all.

Then there is are the civil rights and status arguments, now recognized by the US Supreme Court, if not apparently by you. LOL.

As they say, don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Again, Spensed has said it beautifully.

Excluding gays from the economic advantages of marriage is another manifestation of hatred. Denying marriage has significant consequences for the possibility of shelter and the ability of gays to make a living.

 

[dpnice]

[COLOR="#0000FF....................... Civil marriage for gays alone wouldn't work for the same reason that separate but equal didn't work.

....................
[/COLOR]

It seems that I have misunderstood. I thought the new American laws dealing with marriage for everyone was indeed a civil marriage not involving religion unless the participants wanted it and could find a priest willing to celebrate it.

Does that mean gays have to go to the court house get their marriage certificate and then pass in front of an ordained priest before they can be considered married?

 

[T-Rexx]

So: Why do you care what any religious body or corporation is thinking regarding the topic marriage?

(And why do you care what religious bodies of all sizes and shapes (or the clowns in Las Vegas) do and think regarding the topic marriage, if you're so enlightened?)

We DON'T care. Except to the extent that these people seek to impose their views to prevent us from living as human beings, as they did with Prop 8 in California.

The discussion here is the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. The Catholic Church is a "religious body." We cannot discuss their views without considering their "thinking regarding the topic marriage."

 

[bankside]

I'm really flabbergasted regarding that statement, too:
a) Are you US Americans — albeit presumably enlightened — obsessed with a certain religious ceremony?
(And: if there's something metaphysical or "holy", why do they perform, e.g. in Las Vegas apparently, disgusting clowneries?)
b) Is the concept of civil marriage actually unknown in that part of the world where you live?
c) Don't you know that already famous Anti-Catholic Martin Luther declared that marriage "is an external worldly thing"?
So: Why do you care what any religious body or corporation is thinking regarding the topic marriage?

Possibly the current pope's unreasoned intrusion into civil marriage, showing that the church does not truly recognise such a thing as civil marriage, is all the justification anyone outside the church needs to.

It isn't at all, particularly as exactly the same applies regarding hetereosexual people who aren't married to each other.

Ahh good. Egalitarian oppression.

 

[Stardreamer]

b) Is the concept of civil marriage actually unknown in that part of the world where you live?
c) Don't you know that already famous Anti-Catholic Martin Luther declared that marriage "is an external worldly thing"?
So: Why do you care what any religious body or corporation is thinking regarding the topic marriage?

In the US civil marriage and religious marriage are separate. Unfortunately, many people do not understand that as most states allow religious officials to solemnize and sign the paperwork for the civil marriage. This is done as a matter of convenience so that a couple having a church wedding gets it all wrapped up in one ceremony, but it causes a lot of people to not realize that the two are separate I think.

 

[kallipolis]

The small fact that gays are NOT allowed to marry in the church and therefore may NEVER, EVER be permitted to love seems to have escaped your attention, otters.

And I say again that there is no more hateful act than excluding someone from the possibility of love. Period.

One doesn't need to marry another person to be able to love them...

...I love my partner whilst, feeling no need, or desire to marry him...

We can agree that the church sacrament of matrimony needs to be inclusive...permitting same sex couples to participate in this sacrament.

Marriage as a legal contract was originally conceived to grant off spring a safe, and secure enviroment also, ensuring that property, and other material benefits were fairly shared between the two marriage partners, were the marriage to end through divorce, or annulment.

 

[kallipolis]

Possibly the current pope's unreasoned intrusion into civil marriage, showing that the church does not truly recognise such a thing as civil marriage, is all the justification anyone outside the church needs to.

The church understands that civil marriage is the arena of Caesar...whereas, the sacrament of matrimony is church territory.

I also appreciate that in many jurisdictions an ordained minister, or priest executes both ceremonies.