• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vatican City rejects French Gay Amb

C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Servant_of_the_One1 said:
I would accept if vaticancity opposed muslim amb. It is their right.

Why cant homosexuals and pro-gay camp accept what vatican city wants ?
Click to expand...

It is not the gay community who selected the ambassador. It is the French government.

I don't even think real governments should be pretending that the Pope is a head of state. There is no more need for an ambassador to the Vatican than an ambassador to the Shia.
Tom
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Servant_of_the_One1 said:
I have no comment on the matter. Just highlighting why Vaticancity would oppose gay.
Click to expand...

The Vatican has no say in the matter. The French government has appointed the French ambassador. The Vatican can choose to ignore him if they want.
But all they are doing is ignoring the ambassador from France. Doubtless he has better things to do than worry about a hypocrite in a $100,000 dress.
Tom
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
columbus said:
It is not the gay community who selected the ambassador. It is the French government.

I don't even think real governments should be pretending that the Pope is a head of state. There is no more need for an ambassador to the Vatican than an ambassador to the Shia.
Tom
Click to expand...
Pretending? Vatican City is a state.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
N

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
columbus said:
Perhaps @Nietzsche has some information concerning the creation of the Vatican city state.
Tom
Click to expand...
Frank is more or less right. Vatican City is nominally independent, but it tends to be treated as a part of Italy except in regards to religious or otherwise reasons. The Pope is after all technically a head of state.It's very easy to mistake as it not being independent. It hasn't had much freedom for a long time.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Nietzsche said:
Frank is more or less right. Vatican City is nominally independent, but it tends to be treated as a part of Italy except in regards to religious or otherwise reasons. The Pope is after all technically a head of state.It's very easy to mistake as it not being independent. It hasn't had much freedom for a long time.
Click to expand...

Why the Vatican and not Hamas?
Tom
 
Jainarayan

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Servant_of_the_One1 said:
I was talking about gays/lesbians that marry with same sex and do unnatural sex(according to bible).
Click to expand...



You-Talkin-to-me.jpg
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
columbus said:
If it weren't for the cozy relationship the RCC developed with WWII fascists like Hitler and especially Mussolini nobody would consider the Vatican more of a state than the Southern Baptist convention.
Tom
Click to expand...
Hitler has nothing to do with it. It was to settle a long-standing dispute between the Vatican and the Kingdom of Italy. It's sort of stupid to compare the Vatican to the SBC because there's very different histories involved there. Vatican City as a state isn't going away, so I don't see the point of bickering over it.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Nietzsche said:
Frank is more or less right. Vatican City is nominally independent, but it tends to be treated as a part of Italy except in regards to religious or otherwise reasons. The Pope is after all technically a head of state.It's very easy to mistake as it not being independent. It hasn't had much freedom for a long time.
Click to expand...
Right. If anything, the Vatican was the real loser when it came to the unification of Italy. The Pope lost his rule over Italy. So the Lateran Treaty was just a little concession that Italy made to the Vatican. It's over now and I'd like to think we can all move on.
 
N

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Saint Frankenstein said:
Right. If anything, the Vatican was the real loser when it came to the unification of Italy. The Pope lost his rule over Italy. So the Lateran Treaty was just a little concession that Italy made to the Vatican. It's over now and I'd like to think we can all move on.
Click to expand...
The Papacy lost Italy centuries before even Napoleon, but this has nothing to do with the thread.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The Catholic Church kept it's wealth and power by staying close to the fascists. If it hadn't they would not still be providing the lavish lifestyle they do to God's Glitterati.
Tom
 
Leftimies

Leftimies

Dwelling in the Principle
I don't know if I at all agree with the decision to flat out reject the ambassador, but on the other hand, I think the French displayed a great deal of intent ignorance by sending a gay ambassador, considering the target country in question. What did they expect, really? The cultural ignorance of sending a gay ambassador to the main christian stronghold pretty much parallels the ignorance of them rejecting the said ambassador.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Leftimies said:
What did they expect, really?
Click to expand...
I think the French are getting exactly what they expected. The public discomfort of the hypocrites who own the Vatican.
The French government is rather aristocratic. True aristocrats are never rude, unintentionally.
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top