A small group of Spanish gay individuals insult the Pope

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/30/AR20100…

From the article:

Benedict has nevertheless come under fire for mismanaging cases of accused pedophiles in the clergy. In 1980, when he was archbishop of Munich, Ratzinger approved the transfer of a German priest and sex offender for therapy. Despite promises to the victim's family that the priest would not work with children again, he was allowed to return to the ministry and molested more children.

Apparently being a kiddy diddler is ok, but consensual sex between two adults isn't. "You want respect, act like you deserve it. This shit is disgusting and disrespectful." I couldn't agree more.

Ah glad to see you are using your pulpit of someone this community respects to promote understanding in the world.

Oh wait...

I give it an hour before you realize how dumb this post was and delete it.

I stand by Louis Ck.

OP IS CLEARLY RACIST!!!!!!!1

Prejudism/sexism/racism etc is the biggest double-standard in America today. It has nothing to do with which side you're on. If some Catholics had booed some gays, it would be a outrage, but gays booing the Pope is ok? Michelle Wie can wine and cry to get on the PGA Tour, but a man can't play on the LPGA Tour?

Political correctness has become a monster that is driving behavior on its own beyond rationality. Some people are so blinded by liberal PCness that they cannot even think about the issue rationally. I have experienced this first-hand, even with school teachers.

On another note, this article further shows how insanely liberal/socialist Spain (among other Euro countries) has become. These guys are on the edge of pure socialism. Look how that's workin out for them.

population control is a 21st century maxim, much like monarchy destruction was in the 20th...proliferation and sanctification of homosexuals is a popular methodology

Look, Anthony. The Church claims to bring God's divine will in Earth to heaven. Literally, "What you hold true on earth I will hold true in Heaven" I believe was along the lines of what JC told Peter when he told him to create the Church. So they're held to higher moral standard. And they've shown, by an act that might be considered the most heinous breach of trust, that they are no more divine than the rest of us schmucks. That's what gets my quote; being literally "holier than thou" when you can't keep your own cloister in order is a bit much.

As far as the bible saying being gay is bad here are a few other gems out of the bible:

Deuteronomy 23:1 No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

God hates testicular cancer apparently.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

I guess about half of our GIs ought to mutilate their girlfriends.

Deuteronomy 21:11,13 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And thou seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and has a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife, Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails....and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

Forced sex slavery of defeated enemies. Nice.

Not to mention the whole story of Job, of how God treated a guy like shit to win a bet with Satan.

And after all this what people take away from a two thousand year old book on manners, whose main point is not to shit on other people, is that butt sex is bad BECAUSE IT WAS MENTIONED ONE TIME. And if you don't think that religion is not incorporated into American law or politics I've got a bridge to sell you.

A fucking "sit-in"? I don't understand? The South is pretty clear about its stance on black people. What was the point of this other than disrespecting tradition?

Everyone has strong beliefs and wants to be heard, but there is this little thing called respect and manners. Sitting in front of white people simply because the South hasn't re-written its laws to end segregation and everything ok doesn't make it right.

Could someone post a link where the South has made a statement hating blacks or otherwise defaming them?

What next? I didn't realize the Stars and Bars could be lobbied and pressured to change. Good thing to know.

You want respect, act like you deserve it. This shit is disgusting and disrespectful.

One thing to keep in mind is that some folks in Spain still might remember when Franco was dictator. There was still a form of the Spanish Inquisition running around curtailing the freedoms of non-Catholics. Many Protestants here in the US still hold a grudge against the Catholic Church for what it did under Franco, but gays probably had it ten times worse.

I would imagine that some of them would regard an attempted Catholic revival in spain with some level of suspicion. I'm not sure I agree with going out of the way to insult the pope, but I'm not sure that a general PDA should necessarily insult anyone.

Super liberal to the rescue. Thanks Drexel.

Segregation was government sponsored. It was eventually stopped and we moved forward. Sitting in, peaceful protests, etc have zero comparison to this. Martin Luther King was about respect.

Let's not forget the Catholic Church is not lynching people or physically intimidating anyone.

What a shit comparison man. You can do better.

no offense but with all the scandals coming to light in the last few years the catholic establishment seems pretty gay friendly to me haha

I'm pretty sure banning gay marriage is also government supported. I'm also pretty sure there is nothing violent about kissing another man, homosexual as it may be. I suppose white and black couples kissing, in clear violation of anti-miscegenation laws, were being similarly disrespectful.

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but Catholic doctrine is not set in stone; have you never heard of Vatican II?

I'm also pretty sure that the Pope would rather these guys kissed in front of him than start their own church when they disagree with his interpretation of doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

Fair enough Anthony. I do think you make valid points, and I definitely know to show restrain in my everyday life!

You can respect that people have a right to believe what they want to believe (legal or otherwise), but I am free to criticize or condemn what it is you actually believe. Hence, staging a kiss-in - which I think is a fairly mild non-violent protest.

I think the idea behind such protest is - as you said - the US, like other Western nations, is secular. As such, we feel that nobody's beliefs are privileged simply because they come from religious scripture or traditions. If I were to think someone were bigoted, they're bigoted no matter where they got the idea. Hence, I would respectfully disagree and say that (merely?) interpreting the bible means nothing to me (and those protesters).

If I were gay and Spanish, would I have done the same? Doubtful. But I don't think what those Spanish people did went beyond the pale.

And for the record, say what you want but I think the Vatican's views on contraception are inexcusable

That's fine that you think it was disrespectful Anthony. I bet the Pope also thinks it was disrespectful. I bet lots of good Catholics also think it was disrespectful. I bet a lot of white Southerners thought what those Northern civil rights boys did in the 1960's was disrespectful as well. That doesn't mean they're not right.

1) Segregation by a government entity and a religious opinion are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. The Pope could say anything he wants about gays, blacks, whatever and end of the day, zero is going to get done. Religious beliefs are very old and deeply held. Offending one of the most revered religious figures because very old religious teachings run afoul of your way of life isn't a great way to be accepted.

How on earth the south enforcing segregation by law and imprisonment and the Pope saying it is a sin can even be compared is beyond me.

News flash to gay people around the world. Many of us sin on a daily basis and no one cares what the Pope thinks.

2) The church is also a lot of things. Big deal. I have zero problem with protesting or whatever. Flagrant disrespect, which I feel was the point of this, is still wrong and should not be accepted.

3) I really don't care how many people are with me or not. This topic deserves to be discussed.

Here are some more disgusting and despicable acts:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/13/islamic-center-defaced-w…

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/04/quran-stuffed-with-bacon-found-on-ste…

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/doll-with-racial-slurs-hun…

"Clearly, a lot of people aren't with you on this one. The reality is that the Pope is a revered figure to Catholics everywhere, but he's not exactly revered by many other people, and there's no law that says that everyone has to hold him in high esteem. The Church's stance on homosexuality - regardless of what you think of it - has vaporized the Pope's respect in the gay community. The whole "he's the Pope so you show some respect" is anathema to people who the Catholic Church believes lead a life of sin."

I am not Catholic and the Pope means nothing to me, yet I still understand his significance and what he means and his religion means to hundreds of millions of people. The Dali Lama also means nothing to me yet I respect him. Same goes for the President.

Just because the Catholic Church has come out and not 100% supported gay marriage does not mean that their leader should be treated like this. I suppose I was raised differently.

If you want to pretend the Pope has zero political influence, you are kidding yourself. If you think segregation was enforced solely by the law, you are kidding yourself. If you think bigotry is enforced solely through prohibition of gay marriage, you are kidding yourself.

Do you really think that when little boys go to church and hear that gays are sinners, it doesn't have any influence on them? That some of those kids don't beat up gay kids after school in part because of it? That some of those kids don't grow up emotionally stunted because they were told they were a sinner every Sunday?

Anthony, you need to get a grip.

Catholics have every right to disagree with homosexuality. I didn't realize that the gay lobby was so powerful that the bible needed to be re-written to make them happy.

You want respect, show it. Gay rights are moving along. Things are happening slowly, but by and large being gay does not have the stigma it did years ago.

If a kid attacks another kid for being gay he is not committing a hate crime. See you in 10 years of max security prison.

Sin and what is lawfully accepted in this country are two different things. A priest tells kids that adultery is wrong, stealing is wrong, incest is wrong, etc. These are sins according to the book that XYZ religion goes by. If gays do not like it they are free not to go to church.

I don't go to Temple because I am not Jewish. Real simple. I eat pork and pay no regard to what Islam says about it. Real simple. Your gay, cool, just don't show up to Sunday mass and you wont be told you are sinning. Real simple.

Holy fuck, I didn't realize that thousand year old beliefs needed to be changed because a group of people doesn't like it. Religious groups are generally against abortion. Should the bible be altered to allow that also?

This is complete bullshit.

Have you been to a movie theater lately? I have to think that is what drove segregation.

OH YEA BECAUSE USING THE BIBLE ON HOW TO LEAD YOUR LIFE IS SUCH A GOOD TOOL

my first example : crusades

All I have to say about the crusades is, "sorry for partying".

I'm a Catholic, here are a few things I think: 1) The Catholic viewpoint on gay marriage isn't incompatible with being charitable, compassionate, and sympathetic to gay people. Many straight marriages are out of compliance with Catholic teaching if they're using contraception or if they end in divorce. 2) The government's allowing or disallowing of gay marriage doesn't really involve the Church, since the Church will still perform or not perform marriages as they see fit. They don't recognize a straight marriage that happens at a courthouse, either.

Most importantly: 3)These people are just being hairpullers. Every cause, viewpoint, agenda, etc. has them and getting worked up about it isn't worth the time of day.

Thanks for posting CPH.

Exactly my friend. Tolerance for everyone, except people who disagree with you.

Let's disrespect Catholics, the Pope and Priests. They are all worthless pedophiles who hate gays and do nothing for this world. Oh wait, I forgot something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities

"Together, with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Relief_Services

"Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is the international humanitarian agency of the Catholic community in the United States. Founded in 1943 by the U.S. bishops, the agency provides assistance to 130 million people in more than 100 countries and territories in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Eastern Europe."

Anthony, you're a bit ridiculous.

Making out in front of the pope is a REACTION to the pope's anti-gay stance. The church thinks gays are sinners. Throwing bacon at Jews is not a reaction to anything, it's an overt act of hate. BEING GAY is not disrespectful to the pope the same way than BEING BLACK is disrespectful to a KKK member, but it's definitely not condemnable. For some reason when drexel made this analogy in 6x sarcastic posts you ignored it, did it fly over your head or do you not give a fuck about logic?

I think it's respectable that you think public officials (president, pope, etc.) should be shown respect. But disagreeing with the pope's policy on an issue isn't disrespectful, and I don't think publicly displaying this disagreement by making out in front of him is crossing the line. If they did downright offensive things like you see in some gay pride parades, I could see where you're coming from. But making out is super-innocuous by comparison.

Also, cph, it's pretty dubious how one can be against gay marriage without being homophobic at some level, but even if you aren't, you're still discriminatory. And yes, when minority groups (whether it's women, blacks, etc) get discriminated against, they feel like it's a hate crime. Legally it's not, but in their eyes, it's a direct attack on their way of life. Yes, kids bully each other for all sorts of shit, like being nerdy or being fat. But gay kids are bullied because society makes some children intolerant towards homosexuality, the same way black kids would get bullied (read: lynched) because society made some children intolerant towards other races. The parallel is near exact except for the body count. Not the same as picking on little johnny because he's a nerdburglar.

What this has to do with liberals being crybabies, I don't know. Gays can bitch about being attacked and attack others, the former doesn't and shouldn't discredit the latter. Teabaggers bitch about being marginalized by "limousine liberals," then bring guns to rallies and stomp on protesters. Getting mud thrown at you and firing back happens across political ideologies.

Being Gay does not involve making out in public in front of a religious leader.

Would you slap your girlfriends ass in front of her dad? I sure as hell wouldn't. You know why. RESPECT.

This whole event was a snide, bitchy way to throw it in the Popes face that people are gay and fuck him. What I do not understand is why people even care what the Pope says.

Could someone explain to me what the point of protesting the Pope on his gay stance is? Do adulteress protest the Pope and demand that he says it is not a sin and all is cool? No, they just do what they want and shut the fuck up about it.

Gay people should focus on changing laws, not on changing religious beliefs.

FYI, I would be just as upset if straight men and their mistresses were making out in front of the Pope.

This act by the gay community in Spain was a huge middle finger to a revered religious figure.

incest is legal in more states than gay marriage. aaaaaaaaaaaaaand... done.

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

In my book when I think incest I think brother and sister. Many of these states have stipulations that genetic counseling has to be performed or it can only be in couples who cannot bear children.

Incest has been around for a long, long time. It used to be a way to keep royalty within a family. Many of these state laws are very old and are holdovers from when the British used to rule. If you look at the chart, the states that allow it are predominantly on the East Coast.

More and more states are allowing Gay Civil Unions. That is perfectly fine. Considering that homosexuality is not a huge % of society I think we are moving pretty fast in adopting protection and rights for this group.

Spoken like someone who has no religious values, no doubt. That is one of the issue a lot of people don't comprehend...and in this case many liberals. If you have no religious base for your moral compass, you tend to go as the wind blows, because there is no reason not to.

The fact is that you can have a moral compass without believing in God and I know a lot of atheists who do have at least as good of one as religious people. They then come back at that claim and say religion is a crutch for naturally immoral people. These days, they will probably start citing certain actions of the clergy and supposedly religious politicians.

My response is that some people need Christianity more than others. And I'm happy to admit I probably need religion a lot more than the average atheist/agnostic. I'm just not as naturally moral as they are. Christianity is a religion for folks who are willing to admit they're terribly immoral and that they need God to bail them out- that there IS a moral compass, but they can never live up to it- at least in this lifetime.

I think the issue is about respect.

Gays need to respect that some people will think they are sinning and religious people need to respect that some people will not care. Everyone has a right to protest, but certain levels of respect should be maintained. Maybe I live in a fantasy world of manners and polite behavior.

Homos are weird.

The golden rule is so fundamental. You want respect, give it.

Exactly. The church has the right to marry whomever they want. They also have a right to say XYZ is a sin. Deal with it. Protesting the church is only causing people who would otherwise support your cause to no be squarely against it.

I dunno, Anthony. I think the problem is when the Church is going around telling folks that you are a heretic or that you are immoral. Especially since up until about 35 years ago in Spain, they'd not only been telling these folks they were immoral for the past 600 years, they were legally persecuting them.

Respect is a two-way street. The pope doesn't have to respect gay people or protestants, but they don't have to return the favor. Thankfully, Catholics made peace with Protestants at Vatican II.

Imagine what the Tea Party crowd would do if the pope was going around saying that the Baptist religion was immoral and working to stop the Baptist church from getting 501(c)3 status. People would be carrying around pictures of Martin Luther, handing out fake indulgences, and some lady dressed as a nun would have the sign "Courteson of Babylon" around her neck. It would be just as rude and obnoxious- perhaps moreso.

If you disagree with folks kissing in front of the pope, you also have to disagree with folks making signs calling Obama a nazi or Che Guevara as being just as rude.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure how I feel about all of this. I think rational people need to be tolerant of both kinds of protests while also saying that they're not sure how much they like the vitriol. The last thing you want to do to angry people is make it feel like you want to take away their right to protest.

civil unions and marriages in the legal right are definitely not the same and i feel that anyone should be awarded the same privileges and and protections under law... if a church doesnt want to marry gay people in the actual cathedral then sure dont do that but otherwise the law should extend the same rights and possibilities to all individuals despite their stance be it sexual orientation, religious creed, class status, etc

Who said I was not against people calling Obama a Nazi? I think that is ridiculous also.

I don't see why people get so offended at being called heretics if for all intents and purposes they don't plan on following the standard they are being judged by in the first place. You don't see me throwing a fit because some people would consider me an infidel, a gentile or what you may.

I think that most people would agree that the action was disrespectful and would not approve of it.

However, titling the thread "Being gay = disrespecting anyone who doesn't agree with you" is also a gross generalization.

In any group / party / religion, etc. you will have more outspoken (and yes, sometimes disrespectful) members that do ridiculous shit to get a response. By pissing you off, you are now talking about it.

Do I agree with what they did - no, i think it is lame (I think most reasonable people would agree with this on some level).

But you could also argue that you are trying to make a broad generalization that the gay community as a whole supports this type of protest -- which in my mind is also not fair / narrow-minded.

Yes, my choice of title was a gross over generalization. Sometimes hyperbole helps move a topic along though.

I realize I'm not addressing any of the points made here, but I just cannot honestly believe that people in the world today still believe in religion. I know that generally you have to respect people's opinions but like, this just makes no sense! Why do people say that blind faith is an acceptable reason for believing? In every other area of your life, this is not how sane people act. You don't just say "I believe that table is made of metal" and then firmly believe it. No, you try to learn about it. That's what science is trying to do.

Religion is not equally valid as atheism because we have no idea how the world got here or why things are the way they are, and atheists admit they don't know whereas religious people make up (literally make up) an explanation and then (insanely) think it's true. That's not how people should operate!

I don't even like the term atheist because it assumes that religion is such a valid thing that there is a title for people who don't subscribe to it...there's no word for people who don't believe in unicorns and those have the same amount of factual support! The bible was written by prophets who "spoke to god", if someone claimed to speak to god today they would be put in an insane asylum. I DONT GET IT!!

@cphbravo

I understand semantically what you're saying but I disagree that religion and science take the same amount of faith. The reason is because the onus is on religion to prove that they know the answers to life, not on atheist who claim they don't know.

The starting point for answering questions like how did the Earth get here or life after death is "I don't know". Claiming that there is no God is equally as invalid as claiming there is a God. However, the most (and only) valid and logical answer is say I don't know - and then what follows should be the pursuit of finding the answer, which is what science does.

Religion makes up an answer and sort of throws in this bet with it because it seems like a nice answer. The problem is there is no other area in life where it's acceptable to do this. Like the point I made before, if you don't know how deep the ocean is, guessing 5 miles and saying "at least I have an answer" isn't reasonable, the only thing you can say is "I don't know" and then try to figure it out by doing things like making a submarine and going down.

@ThaVan

I didn't mean to take an offensive tone, I want to have a thoughtful discussion about it. It just comes off that way because I am so astonished by it that I act that way sometimes even though I shouldn't because it's rude and not the way rational discourse should take place. It just seems so obvious to me that these arguments are always correct on the atheist side and logically flawed on the religion side that I get frustrated.

What I think you are missing is religion is about livings one life in a certain manner, trying to be moral, etc. Science is about fact and laws. Science really doesn't talk about how one should live a virtuous life.

Religion is much more analogous to ethic and philosophy than science.

You can't place the onus of proving itself on religion. The only empirical test would involve bringing someone back from the dead and the main example we have of that potentially happening emphatically advocates for the existence of an afterlife. There will never be any true evidence for or against God's existence since by nature he functions 'outside' of the known universe. But to operate, you have to make some sort of decision about how you feel about it. Traders may "not know" what is going to happen, but they make an educated guess and set themselves up to succeed despite uncertainty. There are plenty of examples of areas where rational thought flies out the window for most people: politics, sports, life-threatening situations, romantic relationships. You can lump in religion with those areas if you want, but just as those areas are central to today's society, so is religion (whether you believe in it or decide not to).

I don't claim to know how the Earth was created, but the idea that a higher power did so doesn't exactly seem to fly in the face of all rational thought. You could ascribe to the view that we are here because of a series of random outcomes, but in that case, we would have to be part of one of a nearly infinite number of parallel universes for the odds to come close to working out (that's Taleb's view). Point is, believing in God doesn't imply you have to shut your brain down. It's unfortunate that most of the people the religious right parade around to prove their points are blubbering idiots (I'm looking at you Ben Stein).

Whenever people become so full of themselves that they think they know everything, something comes along to show them how stupid they really are.

I have no doubt that science has unraveled many mysteries, with many more to come. I think a little humility should be in order. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions, but IMHO, Atheists always come off as very condescending. As if believing in science somehow makes someone super intelligent and rational. Have some humility and realize you are putting your faith in something that itself has not proven everything.

Food for thought.

I don't understand why so many people think science and religion cannot coexist. In fact, learning the wonders of science has always strengthened my belief in religion. The intricacies and perfection of how things work/fit together are unbelievably complex and detailed. Why do these things work like they do? (down to the very bottom level-why?) On it's own, the odds of humans ever evolving were something like 1-100 billion or something absurd. (note: EVER evolving). Shit like this makes me believe there is a God. Why do people think that science contradicts religion? It makes sense to me that all these rules of science were created by an almighty being.

I'm sure lots of criticism comes from written books of religion like the Bible. I don't think these books should be taken literally, but rather as a source of morals/values

Anthony, you're right. A large portion of Atheists are arrogant, and without justification. Mostly, they're probably just frustrated with the global, and historical, violence, ignorance, and arrogance displayed by many religious folk. Well, many of us share in that frustration, but to dismiss religion because of the behavior of its' followers--rather than the idea of religion more broadly--is no intellectual achievement.

Humility is in order. The Large Hadron Collider has recently completed their first "mini Big Bang," and the information they hope to acquire from it is what the universe looked like a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. We haven't even begun to rewind from that moment in time (before the Big Bang), and ask ourselves, "what could be there (what sort of plane of existence), and how was that created?" Which leads to the headache of a topic I brought up earlier, the problem of infinite causality/regress.

I really fundamentally disagree with what you guys are saying.

I am saying as an atheist that I don't know any answers, and the idea of god is equally plausible as the plot of horton hears a who. God may or may or may not exist but the "humble" answer seems to be I don't know.

I just think that we should try to answer these questions in a thoughtful rational way like do for the rest of life. If you want to try to figure out how we got hear why not use science rather than (sorry, not trying to be condescending, but it is) a novel?

It's not a question of "I don't know." If you've ever voted for someone, you know you would like that person to be in office, but you don't actually know he'll be the best man for the job. Humility is an excellent quality but acting as if there is no God isn't any more humble than acting as if there is.

Double post.

1) A lot of religious statements are backed by parallel, secular history. Jesus and the Romans are an example

2) It sound like you are agnostic, not atheistic

3) I really don't think religious individuals care too much about a lot of things scientists are trying to prove. I am much more concerned with finding a cure for a variety diseases or trying to eliminate poverty than I am about proving whether god is real or not. It strikes me as a real petty issue.

Atheism to me is the same as kids in grade school telling other kids that Santa isn't real. Believe in Santa doesn't hurt anyone and you probably should just shut up about it.

Additionally, the day I see atheist relief charities set up to help the starving and poor of the world I will give them equal footing. That day is not here yet. As of now atheists tend to have this elitist mentality while religious folks around the world are trying to do good things.

Mind you I am looking at this from a Christian perspective.