Posts by Mrs Skin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Do you accept people having any form of sincere belief in the Divine?
Yes. I think it's weird but I accept that it's genuine. But that's a very different thing than having a sincere belief in a religion. Also I have trouble with sincere belief in Vatican dogma from an apparently otherwise bright and reasoning person.
So there was a specific religious dimension because there was no idea of separation of religion and state.
And as you say, you're with in your rights to lobby for your beliefs - beliefs which would see that separation removed in certain instances.
The Church teaches that "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose."
...
I think marriage is also about putting a penis in a vagina to occasionally make a baby, which when you consider it, is the bloody function of the things.Considering the clitoris is the only organ whose sole function is pleasure, it starts to make being a woman look like teh suck, doesn't it. Or does it mean that because it has no reproductive function, women can masturbate and men can't?
...you can call rocks "fish", or call trees "sky", but it doesn't make it so.
Which is exactly our point, really.
This abuse was done by people that we were supposed to trust, and then we were betrayed by our Bishops who protected the abusers and not the abused children. Of course Catholics are angry.
I've been having an ongoing discussion – for about 12 years – with various friends about behaviour and at what point it stops being 'behaviour' and starts being perceived as an integral part of someone's persona. I think that discussion scales upwards to the Catholic church as well. At what point does the individual behaviour become institutional behaviour?
It isn't a Catholic thing. It isn't a celibacy thing. It's not a religious thing. It's more than just a sexual thing. It's a _power_ thing.
I think it's important here to separate rape, which is a power thing, with paedophilia which apparently isn't. Some years ago I read academic research papers on paedophilia. The papers were working from the position that it's a sexual orientation, but one with harmful consequences as one party to the sexual activity is necessarily a victim. Frankly it must suck to have that kind of sexual orientation, though all my sympathy evaporates the second the orientation is acted on.
And any organisation is prone to abusing power.
The thing is, most of them aren't taking the high moral ground.
Tess I hope you'll forgive me for making a personal observation at this point, but it seems from the combination of things you've said that your beliefs are considerably at odds with those of the Catholic church. You probably won't take that as a compliment, but I mean it as one.
-
Jeremy - nice! Actual laughter. Sorry Gio.
-
Thanks for sorting the link Gio.
That's all rather interesting. And sort of straightforward when you think about it - or at least when I do. It can't, after all, be possible to run a large and complex organisation over a range of centuries and cultures without being inclusive at least some of the time. Adapt or die, sort of thing. Wait...that's evolution...that can't be right.
-
4IC...bummer. It's horrible having too many managers. They've all got their own ideas on how the place should be run, and everyone ends up hating you for trying to implement their conflicting instructions.
-
TBGLs or GTBLs or LGTBs or whatever that is
There's no set rule but I find Large Gin, Bit of Tonic to be a helpful mnemonic. Especially early on a Friday evening.
-
...current Vatican dogma.
...
a series of repressive and intolerant PopesAccording to Martin Pendergast in the Guardian, the Catholic church's position is very recent (in Vatican dogma terms), and kicked off by Ratzinger.
I did rather like that Ratzinger got the top job (or is that the 2IC job?) at least partly on the basis that the Vatican didn't want the next pope hanging around too long this time.
-
Chuck Bird, a 62-year-old former Labour supporter, who turned away from the party because of its support for gay rights.
Gosh, Labour must have been gutted to see him go.
images of Peter Davis hugging another man on election night and passed it on to Investigate magazine as part of his ongoing campaign against social engineering.
Yes, because we all know where hugging another man leads. "It was just a hug yer'Onner, but then my hands...and suddenly I wasn't wearing any clothes and...so I guess his dick slipped or something...and then next thing I know yer'Onner the whole family unit is broken down and I can't lightly punch kids in the face anymore! This social engineering is totally out of hand!"
-
Lightly in the face? You're not for real are you?
Seconded. With extra astonishment that it might need to be said to an adult.
-
One of the pitfalls of a vengeful god perhaps.
-
God will look down your pants? Gee, Mrs Skin seems so boringly Anglo by comparison.