Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Vatican Upset That LGBT Rights Are Human Rights

8 July 2011
by Bridgette P. LaVictoire

The Vatican is throwing a fit over the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as part of human rights saying that it is part of an agenda that could restrict the Church’s freedom. Achbishop Silvano Tomasi, who heads the Vatican’s Permanent Mission to the UN iin Geneva, told CNA “The resolution marks a change. It is seen as the beginning of a movement within the international community and the United Nations to insert gay rights in the global human rights agenda.”

Of course, any complaint by the Vatican is nothing to be concerned about with regards to the workings of the United Nations since the Vatican is one of the nations that is not a member of the UN. The only thing that the Vatican do is complain about the push to include LGBT rights within the umbrella of human rights. They recently passed a resolution that stressed sexual orientation and gender identity rights as human rights.

Archbishop Tomasi called the resolution as “a beginning of an international norm that will take hold gradually,” and “if norms are established, what provisions will be made for freedom of expression on the part of religious leaders?”

According to DFWCatholic:

He spoke of a “genuine concern” that natural marriages and families “will be socially downgraded with the eventual legislation that puts homosexual “marriage” and the marriage between a man and a woman” on the same level. The Vatican representative also said marriage could be threatened by related measures that would mandate homosexual adoptions and introduce “compulsory sex education at school that clashes with Christian values.”

The Vatican is steadily losing ground to a far more inclusive view of the world. Many people are abandoning religion because it constantly tries to impose a view of the world which is now inconsistent with the knowledge garnered by humans over the last five centuries. In fact, many of the Vatican’s views are inconsistent with reality and were imposed and justified by those who benefitted by gaining power over other people.

Indeed, once people become educated, which is another basic human right, they begin to question religious teachings, and often drift away from them.

The resolution, which was hailed by Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton condemns acts of violence and discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. Archbishop Tomasi had to reiterate that the Vatican does not support violence against those who “engage in homosexual behavior”, nor do they support any ‘attempt by the state to punish an individual simply because of “feelings and thoughts”, he continues to maintain that LGBT people do not deserve equality, thus setting up the ability for groups and individuals to justify violence against LGBT people.

He went on to say, according to the news article:

“I think that violence against homosexual persons is not acceptable and it should be rejected, even though this does not imply an endorsement of their behavior.”

“The terms ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ are not defined in international law,” he noted. “To the extent that they are not external behavior, but feelings and thoughts, they cannot be subjected to punitive laws.”

But “for some people,” he pointed out, “these words are a code phrase for types of conduct.”

Never mind the fact that there are genetic and physical components to that “behavior”, and it is not a choice which is something that one cannot say about religion. Tomasi also compared homosexuality to incest, pedophilia and rape by noting that all societies regulate some sexual practices like those for the common good. What he forgot is that incest has the strong potential of producing unhealthy offspring and often damages the gene pool, especially in small numbers of individuals, pedophilia and rape both involve non-consensual sex as a child is not able to adequately agree to the sexual act and in rape it is flat out forced. True homosexual sex is between two consenting adults of the same-sex.

DFWCatholic.org went on to say:

“There is confusion in some people’s mind,” he noted, “in combining a just respect and protection for every person – including homosexuals – and support for the indispensable role of the family, the parents right to educate their children, the support of the natural family for the common good.”

While the secular West may find this ethos increasingly incomprehensible, the Church will continues to promote it. “The teaching of the Church is not conditioned by political consensus,” the archbishop noted. “At times she is misunderstood and even becomes the target of reprisals and persecution.”

“Reason and natural law, however, support faith-inspired positions,” he stated, “and the convergence of faith and reason is exceptionally fruitful for the progress and well-being of the human family.”

It is always been amazing how religious groups try to coopt and take over the notions of ‘reason’ and ‘natural law’ when, in reality, there is nothing more antithetical to reason that believing in some bearded man in the sky dictating how the world will work, and as for ‘natural law’, nature is rife with animals who exhibit behaviors consistent with same-sex attraction and even transsexual identities.

What this comes down to is the erosion of patriarchal belief systems that the Vatican is desperate to hold on to and keep perpetuating. In reality, the Vatican is whining because they are losing out on their power, which is all they are worried about. This is why they have behaved as if the priest child sexual abuse scandal was just going to go away if ignored. It threatened their power, and they just wanted it to disappear.

Comments

comments

Share This Post

16 Responses to Vatican Upset That LGBT Rights Are Human Rights

  1. Pingback: Wolf in sheep’s clothing: How Gay Marriage opponents are misconstruing secular thought « Reneta Xian

  2. Faith7

    October 18, 2011 at 12:07 am

    Question: Does anyone believe in a higher power here? Does anyone beleive that some day you will die? What will become of you? Where will you go once this life is over? Haven’t you been hearing about how God is comming soon? Are you listening to your last call? A call to Heaven or is it your choice to go to Hell? It’s very interesting how FULL the churches are when catastrophe hits! Are you SURE of YOURSELF? It’s always easy to laugh while you think you are in control… If this post offends you in any way, then please ask yourself WHY? And repent! For the end is at hand!!!

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      October 18, 2011 at 12:23 am

      Faith7…I happen to be a shaman. I believe in a higher power- just not yours.

  3. Pingback: Dear Catholic Church: I Beg To Differ | Philosopher's Haze

  4. Paul Odtaa

    July 11, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    This is a great article.  I worked in a voluntary group for a time providing support for a number of South American projects.  Two thirds of the members were Catholics and were really having difficulty with the Vatican’s rules on contraception to help protect women from having large families and stds from straying husbands.  

    I’m always confused by the Vatican stand point.  At one time it was acceptable for priests to marry.  In fact with the emphasis on family I would have thought it would have been encouraged.  I’m told that the main reason that priests were expected to remain celibrate is more to do with economics, than actually anything in the scriptures.  

    Then we look at Mary.  A recent BBC programme looked into the story.  In that time an unmarried woman who was pregnant would have been stoned to death.  However, it was documented that a village, around 6 miles away was effectively razed to the ground, many people killed and it highly probable that Mary was raped.  

    It would then make sense for her and probably a promised spouse, Joseph, would have moved to somewhere different, Bethlehem, where they could get married without too much hassle and explanation.  

    If the Bible story is true then God fathered a child out of wedlock and then left another man to look after the child.  God also does not appear to have provided for the child.  So a logical way for a Christian man to behave is to sow his wild oats, not get married, and not pay child support.  If I was really cynical I would be setting up a religion based on these ideas and make my fortune. My point here is that marriage is not so respected in the Bible as first appears.  

    Jesus was in his early thirties when he died.  He never married.  This would be quite unusual for that period where most people married in their mid-teens in arranged marriages.  First it suggests that marriage is not as important to religion as they religious establishment suggests and second it suggests he was probably gay – but there again if he was born as the BBC suggests he could be put off marriage by his parents.

    In the UK we’re not so hung up with gay partnership ceremonies.  A deeply religious Registrar decided to make herself a martyr by refusing to marry people of the same sex – this attitude totally confuses me.  We’ve had a few similar problems with gay adoption and a bed and breakfast hotel refusing to allow gay people to stay.  

    Interestingly we had a man and a woman sue the government, and force a change in law to allow them to get married as a civil partnership.  Their reason being that the rights in a civil partnership are different to those in a registered marriage and this was seen as discrimination under European Human Rights.   

    I agree that a religion should be allowed, in their twisted ways, to define marriage as only being allowed between people of the opposite sex, but I can’t see why they get so worked up on what kind of ceremony people not of their religion do.  I feel sympathy for a Catholic or is also gay. 

    Worryingly the religious are getting more vocal and the government is allowing, actually encouraging religious schools.  It has been recorded that there have been recently an upsurge in attacks on gay men – when a few years ago it looked like we had turned a corner. 

    Again thanks for this informed article.  

    Paul 

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      July 11, 2011 at 9:32 pm

      Thank you very much Paul.

    • calbear7

      May 27, 2012 at 2:44 am

      Paul, I suggest you read ‘The DaVinci Code’. The plot may have been fictional, but the research which supports it is weel -established. Jesus was married, (to Mary Magdalene) as all Jews of his time had to be. He fathered children, and he was not a divine being, if such a thing exists. The story about his mother being “Mary” was completely fabricated by the Church to further their own agenda. May I also recommend ‘The Source’ by James Michener, for an excellent view of Jewish life before, during, and immediately after the time of ‘Christ’.

  5. G. Ramirez

    July 10, 2011 at 2:56 am

    Homophobes, you fail to acknowledge the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals, the millions of heterosexual women who have abortions every year, and the countless heterosexuals who “commit adultery” or those who simply marry for money or opportunity. Tsk, tsk.

    Looks like some people need to preach to those within THEIR own group.

    Homophobes: Hypocrisy is DEFINITELY nothing new.

    Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it says that same-sex couples cannot marry. SHOW ME. Prove it…and if you cannot….you are as wrong as a Republican “willfully” giving tax cuts to the poor. PROVE IT HOMOPHOBES. Our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” YOU AND OTHER HOMOPHOBES can push all your religious crap on others ALL YOU WANT, but in my country, your religious viewpoint IS JUST THAT. Sorry, IT’S NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND. This is America where we have religious freedom.

    If you homophobes WANT “forced religion” LEAVE America then. Go to countries which happily force religion on others and persecute their citizens for believing anything different. IT’S MY CHOICE if I want to go to church or not. IT’S MY CHOICE if I want to believe what YOU believe. Religious freedom is a wonderful thing. It’s something we should CHERISH and PROTECT in the USA.

    Polls are showing more and more EVERY YEAR that more people support marriage equality. The laugh is on the homophobes. Life will be oh so very sad for them when marriage equality is the law of the land. I hope they will be able to cope!!! It’s ok. It’s not their fault they don’t understand the United States Constitution.

    Show me where in the Constitution where it says Blacks and Whites can’t marry or where it says same sex couples can’t marry. The only thing stale is YOUR religious argument which holds no water, homophobes.

    Educate yourself on the separation of church and state.

    • Heathcliff

      July 13, 2011 at 6:17 am

      Nice to hear an American who understands this.

    • calbear7

      May 27, 2012 at 2:46 am

      G,

      Great post. Thank you for stating things so clearly.

  6. Ken

    July 9, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Heterosexual marriages and transient heterosexual liaisons consistently produce more children than heterosexuals can handle. If there were no excess children, there would be no children for gays to adopt and no discussion of gay adoption. The very fact that we discuss gay adoption shows its necessity. Since it is necessary for gays to adopt, and since children are best raised in the context of marriage, gay marriage is in the best interest of the children.

  7. Ken

    July 9, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    This does not delegitimize Christianity, because there are Christian denominations that recognize the humanity of gay people. It does delegitimize the Catholic Church. According to the Bible, God created the universe and pronounced it good. Thus empiricism is one of the two canonical sources of truth in Christianity. Any theological premise that pits the Bible against physical reality is in error. Since the Catholic Church holds a theological premise that contradicts reality, it is in error.

    One should note that the Vatican is a country only because of a 1929 agreement between Italy and the Catholic Church, in which Italy considers the Vatican extraterritorial. Thus the status of the Vatican as a country is dependent solely on Italy and increasingly secular Italian politics. If Italy decides the Vatican didn’t keep up their end of the deal, it’s over.

  8. reminascent

    July 9, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Though I do agree on all the things you have written in this article, there is one possible line of argument which could go against homosexual behavior without leaning on morals or theistic dogmas. By adopting a homosexual position ( I used this phrase because it involves choice but is not a very free one) there are two people whose genes will not enter the gene pool and, hence, will diminish its variety. Without implying that homosexual behavior is immoral or contrary to various ethical systems, we can still provide an argument which implies that there are certain evolutionary disadvantages of that particular position.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      July 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm

      It would except for three things- first of all, humans can easily get around that issue through a variety of means including the turkey baster. Secondly, animals get around it all the time by mating long enough with someone of the opposite sex to produce offspring and then return to their same-sex mate. Thirdly, it is not necessarily an evolutionary disadvantage to have mating couples not produce children unless the species is on the brink of extinction. If it is not, then that slows down the rate of population growth and keeps things in balance. On that score, think of homosexuality as evolution’s governor (think cars), so that a species doesn’t overclock.

      Your argument also assumes that sex is for the sole purpose of procreation, which is a fallacy. It is also very important in pair bonding and diminishment of aggressive behaviors.

    • Ken

      July 9, 2011 at 2:11 pm

      FLASH! The cause of homosexuality is heterosexuality. Homosexuality can arise in isolation. Heterosexuals could eliminate homosexuality by not having any children. There is no way of eliminating homosexuality without eliminating the human race. If there were no biological purpose for homosexuality, it would have been bred out of  the species by now. Thus the question is not whether it is natural, but what natural role it plays.

  9. Rich

    July 8, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Like anyone really cares about what an archaic institution that is perpetually stuck in the dark ages has to say about modern society?