Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
He explained that defending God's creation was not limited to saving the environment, but also about protecting man from self-destruction.
The Pope was delivering his end-of-year address to senior Vatican staff.
His words, later released to the media, emphasised his rejection of gender theory.
Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict XVI warned that gender theory blurred the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.
Gender theory
Gender theory explores sexual orientation, the roles assigned by society to individuals according to their gender, and how people perceive their biological identity.
Gay and transsexual groups, particularly in the United States, promote it as a key to understanding and tolerance, but the Pope disagreed.
When the Roman Catholic Church defends God's Creation, "it does not only defend the earth, water and the air... but (it) also protects man from his own destruction," he said.
"Rainforests deserve, yes, our protection, but the human being ... does not deserve it less," the pontiff said.
It is not "out-of-date metaphysics" to "speak of human nature as 'man' or woman'", he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's sumptuous Clementine Hall.
"We need something like human ecology, meant in the right way."
The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.
Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of Britain's Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, described the Pope's remarks as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable".
"When you have religious leaders like that making that sort of statement then followers feel they are justified in behaving in an aggressive and violent way," she said.
'Rock festival'
The pope uses his traditional end-of-year speech to offer his Christmas greetings and say a few words about what he considers the important issues of the day.
This year, Pope Benedict also deplored the tendency to depict the Catholic church's World Youth Day, which he attended in Sydney earlier this year, as mere spectacle.
He stressed that the event should not be considered a "variant of modern youth culture, as a kind of ecclesiastical rock festival with the Pope as the star," but as the fruition of a "long exterior and interior path".
Souce: beeb
Clearly we need to start cutting down the gays instead of trees and burn them as a renewable energy source! 
IF WE DO NOT STEM THE TIDE NOW IN A FEW GENERATIONS TIME EVERYONE WILL BE FORNICATING WITH PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN GENDER
and then there will be no more generations
</sarcasm>
seriously though this seems like an entirely unnecessary statement to make
This isn't surprising to me even in the least. Intolerance is a papal prerequisite.
Sounds like someone is worried about the possible lack of young boys taken into Catholic priest's "care"...
The world is facing over-population at unhealthy levels which is causing shortages of food in some parts of the world, jobs and wealth in others and is basically a problem which needs addressing.
The homosexuals, transexuals and those who don't want kids are saviors of the human race right now, not only lowering the numbers of the next generation, but being kind enough to adopt the ones who are parentless.
These heroes, are helping keep the gene-pool healthy, alas, some do not get the message. EY, CATHOLICS. Every sperm is sacred?! PAH! Every sperm chokes the last drops of life out of this planet.
It is not "out-of-date metaphysics" to "speak of human nature as 'man' or woman'", he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's sumptuous Clementine Hall.
Yes it is. Even if the idea of the brain is too complex for these oafs to understand, how about the body. The intersexed disprove such statements. Even biological gender is a complex map rather than binary, with most people being at various positions within 2 regions of that map.
Mr. Hitler Youth is just a bigoted old man propped up by bigoted cardinals to reject the comparatively progressive predecessor and the people humanity must be saved from are those like him. Interesting that he expects others to sacrifice while he was, at best, too much of an unprincipled coward to stand up to nazis, and at worst a nazi himself.
Of course the absurdity of the idea that homosexuality or transsexuality are any kind of danger to humanity is so absurd it's hard to even point out that he isn't backing up that statement in any way.
The world is facing over-population at unhealthy levels which is causing shortages of food in some parts of the world, jobs and wealth in others and is basically a problem which needs addressing.
The homosexuals, transexuals and those who don't want kids are saviors of the human race right now, not only lowering the numbers of the next generation, but being kind enough to adopt the ones who are parentless.
These heroes, are helping keep the gene-pool healthy, alas, some do not get the message. EY, CATHOLICS. Every sperm is sacred?! PAH! Every sperm chokes the last drops of life out of this planet.
Celibacy for you, eh?
Oh my views of the elderly 
Why can't he help us bring homosexuality to less fortunate countries. The ones who really need it.
I'm sure it's already there Acrio, but just like the "civilized" parts of the world the ones teaching them faith are cramming right-wing traditionalist propaganda down their throats till their brains forfeit and accept it.
Now, who was it that dared me to use rightwing, traditionalist, AND propaganda in one sentence in here and where is my reward?
~Rico (wants his cookies)
Although I don't necessarily believe in the whole concept of an 'Anti-Christ', it surprises me that people can point to Obama as a possible candidate for the role of the Anti-Christ when a person like Pope Benedict XVI seems far better suited to that role. 
Obama must be the anti-christ Rish. He DOES use a mac you know.
~Rico
>_>;
Although I don't necessarily believe in the whole concept of an 'Anti-Christ', it surprises me that people can point to Obama as a possible candidate for the role of the Anti-Christ when a person like Pope Benedict XVI seems far better suited to that role.
People only say he's the Anti Christ because he's a popular black guy who happens NOT to be known for atheletics/rapping/acting
And if we put as much enegry to stopping killers, rapers, and theives as much as we do gays, we would be living in a happier world
Although I don't necessarily believe in the whole concept of an 'Anti-Christ', it surprises me that people can point to Obama as a possible candidate for the role of the Anti-Christ when a person like Pope Benedict XVI seems far better suited to that role.
People only say he's the Anti Christ because he's a popular black guy who happens NOT to be known for atheletics/rapping/acting
And if we put as much enegry to stopping killers, rapers, and theives as much as we do gays, we would be living in a happier world
Amen to that!
"People only say he's the Anti Christ because he's a popular black guy who happens NOT to be known for atheletics/rapping/acting" - SonicV2
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with his policies and beliefs than with his skin colour, since he seems to be more popular than others with similar policies, not less. I don't know who's calling him the Anti Christ though.
Anyway, as for the story at hand, the pope doesn't seem to be referring specifically to homosexual or transsexual behaviour so much as more generally to the "blurring" of the distinction between male and female, which can be "blurred" among heterosexuals as well. Now, I don't know much about "gender theory" but if the overall subject is gender in general, I think a more meaningful perspective on gender would come from science, particularily neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. I wouldn't trust an authority on non-science on what the gender differences are, but someone wrapped up in political correctness denying the more scientifically valid gender differences, even if they disagree with the other's gender difference claims as well, isn't necessarily better. I think both sides are more similar than they'd seem, and it seems to me that even thinking about science makes me less susceptible to propaganda than I'd otherwise be with non-science; it's like science is the immune system of thought and non-science is the HIV of thought.
And I find it a bit disturbing that his opposition to blurring the distinction between male and female is based on the assumption that it would "cause" human self-destruction. First off, even if that assumption were legitimate (it probably isn't, and he doesn't even say what he thinks the connection is, but I'm talking more hypothetically) that'd still at best be like opposing the blurring of the distinction between matter and energy because it contributed to the development of nuclear weapons, which had the potential to "cause" human self-destruction. What an idea would be thought to "cause" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the idea. On top of that, who gets to say what an idea would "cause"? How would one know? And aside from that, if their belief system would be so threatened by an idea that he has to "warn people" of it (instead of rebutalling it) then the belief system, not gender theory, is what needs changing.
I don't know who's calling him the Anti Christ though.
Religious fruitcakes.
I don't know who's calling him the Anti Christ though.
Religious fruitcakes.
Which ones though? I think Jeremiah Wright would qualify as a religious fruitcake to some extent, but I don't see him calling Obama the Anti Christ. o.o
UGH matt, no. Just bcuz Obama is a president and the things to judge a president on are his policies does
Not mean all criticism of him has to do with thaayyaat
Isn't destroying the rainforest the same as self destruction? Also when was the last time the rainforest actually did something?
UGH matt, no. Just bcuz Obama is a president and the things to judge a president on are his policies does
Not mean all criticism of him has to do with thaayyaat
o.o It's not just based on those things being things to judge a president on; it's really the impression I get from the criticism of him. To some extent, he's also being judged on personal character and who he associates with, but I think even these criticisms come more so from those who don't like his policies. I doubt his skin colour has much to do with it, at least for his most mainstream critics. EDIT: Also I find it odd that the same guy I associate with the reverse sexism thread made that kind of politically-correct comment...
And stairmaster, since rainforests supply a large percentage of the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere (28% according to Wikipedia; granted that site isn't always accurate but I recall from middle school it being a fairly large percentage) I'd say the last time a rainforest did something was the last time an oxygen molecule was formed in rainforest photosynthesis.
Shifty: Matt, I'm glad you said that because it's exactly what I was thinking.
Shifty: Matt, I'm glad you said that because it's exactly what I was thinking.
o.o What? Are you suggesting that what Shifty meant to say was that he was glad I said what I said? Then why did he say "UGH matt, no"?
"People only say he's the Anti Christ because he's a popular black guy who happens NOT to be known for atheletics/rapping/acting" - SonicV2
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with his policies and beliefs than with his skin colour, since he seems to be more popular than others with similar policies, not less. I don't know who's calling him the Anti Christ though.
So how come previous post-Great Depression Democratic presidents are never claimed to be the Anti-Christ as much as Obama gets?
"People only say he's the Anti Christ because he's a popular black guy who happens NOT to be known for atheletics/rapping/acting" - SonicV2
I doubt it. I think it has more to do with his policies and beliefs than with his skin colour, since he seems to be more popular than others with similar policies, not less. I don't know who's calling him the Anti Christ though.
So how come previous post-Great Depression Democratic presidents are never claimed to be the Anti-Christ as much as Obama gets?
IIRC he's regarded as being further "liberal" than most of those, though for what it's worth I don't think that label is very meaningful. There's probably other factors involved too, such as his popularity, or maybe the nature of religious influence on society works differently recently; I've heard Hillary described similarily in the Penn&Teller episode End Of The World. (It's about 18 minutes in) In any case, it sounds presumptuous to say it's about his skin colour, especially since the kinds of things people complain about are more likely to affect them than his skin colour would.
So how come previous post-Great Depression Democratic presidents are never claimed to be the Anti-Christ as much as Obama gets?
Are you kidding? Clinton got that too. They're nutjobs who call anything they disagree with the antichrist. I suppose that some more might be doing it with Obama, but there's no way to tell how many.
So how come previous post-Great Depression Democratic presidents are never claimed to be the Anti-Christ as much as Obama gets?
Are you kidding? Clinton got that too. They're nutjobs who call anything they disagree with the antichrist. I suppose that some more might be doing it with Obama, but there's no way to tell how many.
Vec is right. The fruitcake religious right-wingers even called Bill Clinton the Anti-Christ in some circles.
Yes I've read that too.
What's a lot funnier is that in his first term before you know what a lot of them were claiming he was gay. 
o.o Rishi if you agreed with SonicV2 why do you agree with Vec now instead?
Oh and Vec, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton got less of it if only because isn't percieved as being as "far-liberal"; I've heard of Ann "we should invade muslim countries and convert them to Christianity" Coulter saying she'd prefer Hillary Clinton to John McCain, I hadn't heard anything similar about Obama vs. McCain afterwards...
o.o Rishi if you agreed with SonicV2 why do you agree with Vec now instead?
Because I'm agreeing on different points with both of them. With Vec, I'm agreeing mainly with his 'Anti-Christ' comments.
Gender theory
Gender theory explores sexual orientation, the roles assigned by society to individuals according to their gender, and how people perceive their biological identity.
Gay and transsexual groups, particularly in the United States, promote it as a key to understanding and tolerance, but the Pope disagreed.
"gender theory means looking at the situation of 
women in the world."
http://www.google.com/sea...+means%22&btnG=Search
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/...l/researchmag/briefs.html
"Gender and Society in Eighteenth Century France....women lacked 
reason but had extreme 
sensibility, yet her place was in the 
home. This created a 
tension with that century's proclamations of universal 
liberty and 
equality...a study of a major 
research university found that more 
lab space went to 
men than 
women...
Study Revelation 13 to begin your Study of Anti-christ Numerology. Thirteen Has a reputation of Being unlucky.
the reverse is True in Yankee america Where we have 13 Stripes on the Flag.
most Christian Theology is Based upon Greek translations. In the Greek the Dangerous Number is 666 which is added to obtain 18.
how Ever 18 Is a Lucky Number for Us because That is When our Children Get to Vote
the Aramaic Version of Revelation Claims that the Dangerous number is 616. Addomg 6 + 1 + 6 = 13 which Is consistent with 13 being unlucky.
how Ever the consistency is 
Stupid
Anti-christ Arguments are Moot. Jesus 
Christ is Safe.
Many religious Wackos Claimed that john Kennedy Was the anti-Christ. their Basic Argument Was that People Worshipped jack Kennedy and That it is Wrong to adore and respect anyone except for Jesus.
extremist Tripe.
IF WE DO NOT STEM THE TIDE NOW IN A FEW GENERATIONS TIME EVERYONE WILL BE FORNICATING WITH PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN GENDER
and then there will be no more generations
</sarcasm>
seriously though this seems like an entirely unnecessary statement to make
fornication 
exaggeration
This isn't surprising to me even in the least. Intolerance is a papal prerequisite.
the Pope is a Cardinal, Chosen By the Cardinals to be Chief of the Cardinals. Cardinals are 
Red.
This isn't surprising to me even in the least. Intolerance is a papal prerequisite.
the Pope is a Cardinal, Chosen By the Cardinals to be Chief of the Cardinals. Cardinals are
the Pope and Other Cardinals Wear a red Skull cap. This is Similar to the Orthodox And conserved Jewish requirement that a Man must Wear a head Covering when Worshipping. when Visiting our Local Orthodox House of Worship i Found a red Kippa cap which was available for Free. i Wore it For a While to Show that 
I am as Good as the most Powerful Roman Catholic officials.
Sounds like someone is worried about the possible lack of young boys taken into Catholic priest's "care"...
Sexual abuse of Children is alleged to destroy People's reputations and Often to throw Harmless People Into Jail.. while There are some Kids who are Victims the Issue has become a Way for Politicians to Lie, for Churches to Lie, and for Youngsters to Lie about Things that Never Happened.
in Other Cultures Children were Trained to accept Sexualitym
As normality.
"Of course the absurdity of the idea that homosexuality or transsexuality are any kind of danger to humanity is so absurd it's hard to even point out that he isn't backing up that statement in any way."
there Is some Danger from Homosexuality particularly for Men. gay Bashers have ridiculed, tortured and Even Murdered. It is logical and intelligent for Parents to encourage Heterosexuality.
lesbians are Safer. Many idiot Guys are turned On by Watching two Women make Love.l
If two Women Love each Other, I ignore it When i Can:
I prefer a Hero Lover. Let me Be your Hero Man.
transsexuality is Also Dangerous. In extreme Cases the Guys who Want to be Women have Sexual Surgery. Similarly some Women Choose to Alter their genital apparatus.
It is Always Dangerous to take anesthesia and to Let the physicians start Cutting. that's Why you Are required to Sign a Waiver.
Some of the People Never wake Up.
the most Frequent Cause of Death is from What the Doctors Do to You. more People Die that Way than from Strokes, or Cancer or Heart disease.
Somebody give abSeamiller a trophy. Not double posting, not triple, not even quadruple--- but nonuple posting!
*Applauds*
Isn't that octuple posting? He posted 8 times consecutively.
I apparently counted your post along with his
It can be dangerous to a person individually but I meant that it is not dangerous to humanity as a species.
Those dangers, of course, are related to our still primitive medical science.
Those dangers, of course, are related to our still primitive medical science.
I'm with you on that one, Vec.
Somebody give abSeamiller a trophy. Not double posting, not triple, not even quadruple--- but nonuple posting!
*Applauds*
Thank 
you
AbSeamiller, your nonchalance is admirable.
Sex is so messy. Is gay sex too messy?
The messier the better, baby.
there Is some Danger from Homosexuality particularly for Men. gay Bashers have ridiculed, tortured and Even Murdered. It is logical and intelligent for Parents to encourage Heterosexuality.
I doubt "encouraging" it is going to make much of a difference. According to my second-semester psychology prof, sexual orientation is genetic, and soon we might be able to identify within the fetus genetic indicators of homosexuality, giving the option of aborting a homosexual fetus. Also, if people are ketting killed over their sexual orientation, it's not the sexual orientation itself that's at fault but that of those who would kill over it.
lesbians are Safer. Many idiot Guys are turned On by Watching two Women make Love.
How does a hormonal response like that make one an "idiot"? And what exactly is wrong with it in the first place?
transsexuality is Also Dangerous.
That's different from homosexuality though. I agree that having a sex change is unnecessary surgery, but when you really think about it, so long as they aren't harming others, it should be up to them what they're doing to themselves, though they should be warned carefully about it. Granted, one could say it would "harm" family members concerned about them or something like that, but rights belong to individuals, not to families. In any case, it's still not dangerous in the same way as rainforest depletion is; by decreasing the atmospheric oxygen concentration, one IS harming others, so that's different still.
the most Frequent Cause of Death is from What the Doctors Do to You. more People Die that Way than from Strokes, or Cancer or Heart disease.
What do you base this on?
I actually read that octuple darwinfail mess of a post spree. I think my prescription just got worse for it. I remember seeing somewhere in there the idea that because something is dangerous parents should encourage the opposite. Granted that idea is not applicable with the process of sexuality as the accepted way THAT is determined is a myriad of things ranging from being hugged at night to the genetic hardwiring in the brain. Not a switch on the back of every kids head.
But lets take something else as I find the idea borderline inane. Lets take like dealing with bullies in school. Say little Jimmy wants to try out for basketball, but his archnemisis bully is also going to. By our new residential... crazy person...'s idea that parents should discourage things that could get a kid "beat up". I as the parent should... not let them play basketball? What if the science teacher makes them lab partners? Or they play the same intrument in band? You see my point.
~Rico
nb4 successful troll is successful
I prefer a Hero Lover. Let me Be your Hero Man.
What the F^$#.
