Homosexuality is now a culture!

--- THIS BLOG HAS BEEN ABANDONED. OUR NEW HOME IS: THE WEASEL SOAP BOX ---

Or at least it is according to the Vatican.

You see, being the ignorant biased tools of Satan that they are, they decided that they had the authority to decide that they could do whatever the hell they please, and that includes deeming homosexuality to be a life style.

Vatican renews ban on gay priests

Now it's time for my favourite passtime - looking up the meaning of words!

Gay (Gā)
adj. gay·er, gay·est

• Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
  
• Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
  
• Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
  
• Given to social pleasures.
  
• Dissolute; licentious.

As you can see, it isn't defined as a just a lifestyle/culture, contrary to what the Vatican likes to think (oh gee, golly, they're thinking now? Careful, I think I see the apocalypse on the horizon! No, that's just an elephant, and there goes a baby driving a car). Back, a long time ago, it had a different meaning.

Now, onward with my Vatican bashing.

Like other religious freaks of nature, they have this very odd belief that homosexuality is by choice and not natural, and as such, it can be "overcome".

But it treats homosexuality as a "tendency", not an orientation, and says those who have overcome it can begin training to take holy orders.

At least three years must pass between "overcoming [a] transitory problem" and ordination as a deacon, the rules say.

Exactly how does one overcome such problems? I mean, it's not like these people woke up one morning and thought, "you know, I wonder what it's like to be gay?".

If one wanted to overcome those "unnatural" homosexual tendancies, they could always turn to: Hetracil.

Back on topic...

It seems that the Vatican needs a scapegoat to help itself redeem it's "good" name after the slew of allegations of abuse that took place primarily in the US. It seems that the scandal that arose from these was highly damaging. And like with any good lynching mob, they have found their scapegoat, however...

They are the outcome of a review ordered by the late Pope John Paul II following highly damaging abuse scandals in the US in which several men accused priests of having abused them as teenagers.

No link has been established between homosexuality and the abuse of children.

Ouch! That has got to hurt! It seems that there is no link between the molestation of these children and the presence of homosexual priests. That isn't going to stop them of course; why should it?

The Vatican document describes homosexual acts as "grave sins" that cannot be justified under any circumstances.

So, I'm guessing that this means that a man can't give a man mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That would be a homosexual act, because a man is putting his mouth against that of another man. Isn't that kind of like kissing? I wonder what they have to say about that...

"If a candidate practises homosexuality, or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination," it says.

Given that most sexual practices are done in private, how does a candidate necessarily present such tendacies? What does the Vatican do to prove this? Do they take a homosexual guy and a straight woman, put the two in front of the candidate and see how the candidate responds to both?

And what exactly are 'deep-seated tendancies' anyway?

ten·den·cy (tĕnədn-sē)
n. pl. ten·den·cies

• Movement or prevailing movement in a given direction: observed the tendency of the wind; the shoreward tendency of the current.
  
• A characteristic likelihood: fabric that has a tendency to wrinkle.
  
• A predisposition to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way.
  
• 
  
  • An implicit direction or purpose: not openly liberal, but that is the tendency of the book.
    
  • An implicit point of view in written or spoken matter; a bias.

Now, since it's referring to human actions, it can't be a weather pattern, it can't be fabric, so it's got to be the third point about thinking, acting and/or behaving. Since it is predisposed, it was voluntary and not involuntary, due to being born in such a way.

So, it seems that a tendency towards homosexuality is wrong; it would be a sexual orientation because it is the way that someone is from birth, and it can't be changed, even via societal and familial pressures.

"Such persons in fact find themselves in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women."

Ok, that doesn't even make sense! I'm not going to touch this point with a ten foot pole!

I have to wonder, what makes a homosexual man any less deserving of priesthood than a heterosexual or bisexual man? They all share the same kind of pure love for the 'God' that they wish to represent. How does one's orietation necessarily change "God's" message to the masses?

In the same way that it does with a teacher... in no such way at all!