Pope: Gay marriage is 'evil'

To Linden Labs: Don't Shoot The Messenger this time.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html

Pope: Gay marriage is 'evil'
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Posted: 2:58 AM EST (0758 GMT)


ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in his newly published book.

In "Memory and Identity," the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.

He also reveals that he is convinced the Turkish gunman who shot him in 1981 did not act alone and suggests that the former Communist Bloc may have been behind the plot to kill him.

The 84-year-old Pontiff's book, a highly philosophical and intricate work on the nature of good and evil, is based on conversations with philosopher friends in 1993 and later with some of his aides.

In one section about the role of lawmakers, the Pope takes another swipe at gay marriages when he refers to "pressures" on the European Parliament to allow them.

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.

The Pope's fifth book for mass circulation, issued by Italian publisher Rizzoli, sparked controversy in Germany and elsewhere after Jewish groups protested against leaked excerpts comparing the Holocaust to abortion.

In at least two sections of the book, the Pope talks about the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews and the wholesale slaughter of political opponents by Communist regimes after World War Two.

'Legal extermination'
In following paragraphs he says that legally elected parliaments in formerly totalitarian countries were today allowing what he called new forms of evil and new exterminations.

"There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born," he writes.

"And this time we are talking about an extermination which has been allowed by nothing less than democratically elected parliaments where one normally hears appeals for the civil progress of society and all humanity," he writes.

In Germany, a leader of the country's Central Council of Jews called the comparison unacceptable.

At a news conference presenting the book, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top doctrinal official, dismissed the Jewish charges.

Ratzinger said the Pope "was not trying to put the Holocaust and abortion on the same plane" but only warning that evil lurked everywhere, "even in liberal political systems."

In another section, the Pope describes at length the assassination attempt on May 13, 1981, when Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca shot and nearly killed him in St Peter's Square.

Of Agca, the Pope writes the assassination attempt was "not his initiative, someone else masterminded it and someone else commissioned it."

Two trials in the early 1980s failed to prove prosecutors' suspicions that Bulgaria's secret services had masterminded a plot to kill the Pope on behalf of the Soviet Union.

At the time the Polish Pope was a strong supporter of the Solidarity trade union in his native Poland and the Soviet Union saw Solidarity as a threat to the stability of the communist bloc.

The Pope says the assassination attempt against him was perhaps "the last convulsion" of the ideologies of the 20th century -- a clear reference to the Communist bloc.

A man closed off from the world that has no clue....perhaps the pope is evil

this part confuses me: ""It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man"

The rights of humans are against family and man? Wa wa wee wa?

Well I did what he said, and asked myself, as it was legimate and necessary to. It turned out to sound like a crock of shit to me. Now I'll take five, happy that I did what the pope asked me to.

In the interest of a fair and balanced debate, I submit the following:

http://www.mccaustin.com/homoandbible.htm

fair and balanced -- LOL... If only our LL Masters allowed it. The only freedom of speech that is fair around here is what LL approves of, within their own SanFran guide book. And from experience, its bias.

You think so, Alby? I mean, I notice a lot of stuff that gets sent to here from "General", but that's mainly because people can't seem to figure out that "I LIKE PICKLES" is not a "general" SL topic.

what freedom of speech is being squashed?

Alby - We both know that this topic is destined to devolve into a polarized flame war, a la Sept 04. What is your motivation for posting this information, anyway? If you (and those on "your side of the fence" can engage in a debate without trumpeting a constant drone of "I'm right, you're wrong," then I fully expect that LL will allow this debate to continue. I'll be perfectly honest and state that I'm rather suspicious of your motives.

His freedom to demean gay people!

What a bigot

If the Pope and Muhammad Ali were introduced, do you think they'd ever stop shaking hands?

LMFAO

The freedom to disagree with a lifestyle as being unacceptable. Say anything that is considered "Intolerant" and LL brings down the hammer on your posting access. Yet if somebody says "There is no God", its not seen as being intolerant to those who do believe. As such, LL applies a double standard and is hypocritical on issues which support the minority. They are the evil censors who squelch free speech in order to futher an agenda of what the majority feels is wrong.

Just like LL says below, "We value an open environment in which residents feel free to
express themselves, even when their views may not be popular." I can only wonder who LL is thinking about when they refer to "their views"... Is "their" just as protected on both sides of the issue? Or only the side LL wishes to support? They go on to say "expression that marginalizes, belittles, or defames individuals", yet wouldn't the same be true when somebody says "Your a Jesus Nut"? Which belittles a religious person as if their religion is sub-par with those who have no religion.

I await to see LL actually live up to their own rules without using it as a tool to just target certain people who are unpopular with LL's own mindset.



===
Linden Lab individually investigates the circumstances of every Abuse
Report we receive. Following a careful review of our server records and
logs, we have determined that your recent actions violated the Second Life
Community Standards or Terms of Service.

Violation: Forum Suspension: Intolerance

We value an open environment in which residents feel free to
express themselves, even when their views may not be
popular.

Combatting intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life?s
Community Standards because expression that marginalizes,
belittles, or defames individuals or groups inhibits their
ability to take part in a satisfying exchange of ideas and
diminishes the community as whole.

The use of derogatory or demeaning language in reference to
racial, ethnic, or social groups is never allowed in Second
Life or the Second Life Forums.

That remark is offensive and intolerant to people with Parkinson's disease.
You've been reported to the authorities. Your posting privs should be revoked.

No it's not. It's hysterical


And the Pope's senile.

There's a difference between saying "There is no god" and saying "Followers of organized religions are evil." The latter is hate speech and should not be tolerated.

Only in the eye of the beholder. Saying there is No God is hate speech to me and should be dealt with accordingly. Otherwise, if left unpunished, only proves the point that "The Powers That Be" only enact their own rules when "they" feel a wrong has been comitted. Which by definition makes LL the Judge on Free Speech. And their judgement of what is and isn't hateful is bias towards their own preception of the world.

As such, LL doesn't allow "Free Speech". Go to Rome and say "There is No God" and see how quickly your words will be dub'd Hate Speech.

So if gay marriage is evil....
that would be one item to add to the list of similarities between gay and straight marriages.

In straight marriages, inlaws suck big time.
In gay marriages, inlaws suck big time.

In straight marriage, you give up your freedom in return for less and duller sex.
In gay marriage, you give up your freedom in return for less and duller sex.

yeah what Strangeweather said, Alby. It's not intolerant to say "I don't believe in God" any more than it is to say "I don't believe in homosexuality". The difference, I think, (and I could be wrong here), is that it IS intolerent to say "homosexuals, you are <insert something that marginalizes them>", as it is to say "Religious people <insert same type of thing>".

So, whereas I think the pope's statement is a crock of shit, the only person I'm being intolorent to are him and his co-author, and I dont' mean god, I'm sure he had somebody help write it.

If the pope is currently on Off-Topic forum, I apologize if you feel marginalized, and welcome a healthy debate regarding your bizarro logic.

I think this statement priceless.

As for being a part of an "ideology of evil". That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Look at me. I'm not married and you would be hard pressed to find anyone more evil than me.

So then technically the most offensive thing in the eyes of Alby is the possiblity that God is gay?

Alby, you always do this. You're a solipsist (i linked it so you can look that up), my friend. Saying that there is no god is an opinion on a matter of faith, just as saying "i believe that homosexuality is immoral". That's fine, everyone has the right to an opinion.

What you've done here, however, is painted yourself into a logical corner, and this is where you lose whatever support you might have otherwise had. Here:

"Saying there is no god is hate speech to me" = "That means it must be hate speech, since I consider it such" then leads to "The Lindens tolerate some hate speech, but not other hate speech".

A better point (and I'm shuddering to be helping you along) to be made would be "It is hypocritical of people using this preach tolerence of some activities, and be intolerent of differeing opinions", then cite a couple of examples. Of course, your examples need to be rational, and that's where you might have problems.

You're pushing my daily limit of lucidity, let me know if you're not clear on any of this.

Thanks!

Do we have a sex in heaven?

Are there penises and vaginas in heaven?

Does God have a penis?

Does he know how to use it?

When it rains, is God peeing on us with his penis?

Is it okay to eat God's yellow snow?

Did God have an orgasm when he impregnated Mary? Did Mary?

How did Jesus get such fantastic abs? Is it genetic? Does God have great abs?

So many unanswered questions.

I have been an atheist for 41 years now. The idea of caring what the pope has to say about gayness seems so weird, like asking Mr. Mxyztplk or Bat-Mite what they have to say on the subject.

Bringing in quotes from the pope, wouldn't that be a form of appeal to authority?

To quote Luis Bunuel: "Thank God I'm an atheist"

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/luisbunuel128337.html