Gay couple in Colombia under fire for homosexual nativity scene

There are 20 comments on the Dec 17, 2012, New York Daily News story titled Gay couple in Colombia under fire for homosexual nativity scene. In it, New York Daily News reports that:

The country's Catholic Church has labeled the display, in the northern city of Cartagena, as "sacrilege." And thousands of Colombians have taken to social networking sites to slam the pair, with many saying they show "a lack of respect to God and all Christians."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New York Daily News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#2 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ wrote:
They should be under fire. That's so disrespectful, and a slap in the face to all Christians as well as anyone other than HOMOSexuals. It's acts like this that's not going to help their cause. It's called negative attention.
If you had left out the phrase "as well as anyone other than HOMOSexuals," I could agree with you. Believe it or not, these two men in Columbia do not speak or act for gay people everywhere, some of whom are also people of faith.

As written, your post is just as ridiculous and disrespectful as the nativity scene in question. Both are based in falsehood and deliberately aim to offend.

“religion is corrupt-able”

Since: Jul 07

Bloomington, IN

#4 Dec 17, 2012
this is only offensve in a world here heteronormativity reigns...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5 Dec 17, 2012
Just more proof that religion isn't about "freedom" but about "showing proper respect". This couple (nor any couple) is NOT COMPELLED to show respect to gods, or to god-worshippers. Not on Facebook, and certainly not in their own home. There is no "official" nativity, anyone can make one anyway they like. Make one with all animals. Make one with Transformers toys. No one has to "assimilate" to what Christianity dictates.

And NoQ, a "slap in the face"? Seriously?

No, a fast-moving hand making painful contact with a cheek is a "slap in the face". This is a free act by (what should be) free citizens. Don't like it? Don't look. No one lives with a right to never be offended. But religious people don't get to dictate how people decorate their homes (OR their Facebook pages). Expecting a minority to conform to majority religious expression is a LOT worse than a slap in the face; it's a shackle on freedom.

Anyone who believes that this is somehow "wrong", is supporting the idea that we can ONLY decorate our homes according to "approved" religious guidelines. Screw THAT.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#6 Dec 17, 2012
Away with them!! the Catholic Church, I mean.. and all mealy-mouthed hypocrites.. They think nothing of raping little boys but scream to high heaven when anybody else treats their childish fables lightly and without reverence .. Only the ignorant or the mentally disturbed would buy their hogwash..

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#7 Dec 17, 2012
Who cares that they're offended by "a lack of respect to God and all Christians"? I'm offended by the lack of respect gay people having been getting by christians forever. Besides, this is in their own home, not on display at a church in downtown Cartagena.

What's so provocative about the scene anyway? Jesus having two fathers is far more plausible than his mother being a virgin.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#10 Dec 17, 2012
'A Facebook user added,“As much as I support gay rights, this is just stupid on so many levels. If you are a Catholic you have to accept Jesus' parents were Mary and Joseph.”'

You would also have to accept that Jesus was born in the Middle East and was Jewish. Hence displays of Jesus as a blonde Aryan are equally sacriligious if this is sacrilige.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#11 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ:
>You freaks have no respect for anyone else, or anything as a matter of fact, other than something directly benefiting you ...<
You are 100% WRONG. Again.
Have mommy change your pajamas and put you down for your nap now. You're clearly overdue for it.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#12 Dec 17, 2012
fr NoQ:

>You don't want me to get into the way you Fa$$ots like and go after little boys. So you best leave children out of it. I'd say that's a good description of you, mentally disturbed, a product of birth defects. <

Hasn't mommy washed your mouth out YET for lying?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ wrote:
Well said Fa$$ot. That's why I got no respect for you and most Fa$$ots. You freaks have no respect for anyone else, or anything as a matter of fact, other than something directly benefiting you HO:MOS. So why should anyone have any respect for or go along with anything you freaks want. You call others bigots, but you Queers show by example, that you're no different than the ones you accuse.
"Well said".... but you "got no respect"? Contradict much?

Either you agree that people should have the freedom to put up WHATEVER displays they want in their own homes, or you believe that people must toe the religious line. Which is it?

The only "respect" that is called for here is the respect for others to hold their own beliefs, and to decorate for holidays in their own way. Catholics can still do this, regardless of what displays are put up in the homes of gay couples.

But the Catholics in this story are NOT showing the SAME respect. They (and maybe you?) don't WANT people to be free to put up whatever displays they want, not even in their own homes. These Catholics seem to want to be some kind of "religion police", INSISTING that free people decorate their homes in accord with religious demands.

NO ONE has to "bow down" to the demands of religion, and it ISN'T disrespect or bigotry if they don't. It's freedom. The agents of religion here aren't seeking respect, they're demanding conformity and obedience.

Since you've admitted that you're not a Christian, and we know you're not gay, then you don't really have a dog in this fight. You're just here to hate on the gays. Some more. THAT is the definition of bigotry.
disgusted american

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Dec 17, 2012
Hello Voodoo beleivers- its statues.....yep states..innanament objects ......wow, its no onder other western countrys are surpassing us.....
disgusted american

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
My last post to you stands Fa$$ot, so just shut the fk up, Pervert.
just stfu already.....you aint any better then anyone else...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#20 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ wrote:
My last post to you stands Fa$$ot, so just shut the fk up, Pervert.
Demands of conformity and obedience. Christian or not, you'd fit right in.

You're welcome to try to MAKE me shut up.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Dec 17, 2012
What a cute baby, MARY!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#24 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ wrote:
Wow, what courage, hope your shiteating FUDGEPACKING partner sees your post so he'll be proud of you. Maybe leave a little more shit on the end of his d:ck so you'll enjoy it a little more.
LOL, is that all you've got? You ran out of sensible arguments, so you fight like a child? Did you want to tell me that I'm a stinky poopie head, too? Maybe that your dad could beat up my dad? Why not just take your ball, and stomp off home to pout with the other kiddies? This place is for grown-ups who make rational arguments based on logic and reason.
WestCoaster

Los Angeles, CA

#25 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ is an internet turd that needs to be flushed. Bye Bye

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#27 Dec 17, 2012
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
Bigot is synonymous with:
Zealot or fanatic and usually is found within a minority group of people seeking attention and special recognition from big govt.
No, "bigot" is not synonymous with "zealot" or "fanatic". Those words have their own definitions, which deal with obsessive levels of focus.

The word "bigot" deals with hatred of a specific person, based on their inclusion into a particular group. Some bigots might BE zealots or fanatics, but they are not synonymous, no more than "hate" is synonymous with "obsession".

Gay people are NOT seeking "special recognition", this is just buzzword talk from people who... well... are bigoted against gays, and would prefer that we receive NO recognition.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
It never will be enough.
We will never accept second-class citizenship, if that's what you mean.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
Gaydays@disney
Gay people go to Disney parks. Many gay people WORK at Disney parks, making your visits there possible.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
BoyScouts
Many kids in Boy Scouts are gay, and do not deserve to be treated like criminals or pariahs.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
Parenting
Many gay people are parents.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
School indoctrination
No such thing, more right-wing buzztalk. There are kids in schools right now who ARE GAY, and they deserve to be taught that they are OK as human beings, and that they are valued by society.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
subversion, decadence
These are just labels intended to demonize anything that you don't like. Just because YOU may not like something, doesn't mean that you need to make villains out of the people who do.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
staged hate crimes
There HAVE been some staged hate crimes, and I hope those people are served swift justice.

There have also been plenty of REAL hate crimes. Someone may run out today and commit one, because they believed you when you claimed that gay people are seeking special recognition.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
pornography, drug culture.
More things that YOU don't like, so you seem to feel it's your job to restrict them from EVERYONE. Go complain to all the STRAIGHT people who enjoy these things. We didn't invent them.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
They say it's none of your business yet stick it in your face.
No, people like you PULL it into your faces. You make false accusations, so we're forced to reply. You enact oppressive legislation, so we have to fight back. Leave us the hell ALONE, and you won't see so much of this. Stop pretending that you've been appointed to rid society of us, and you'll see us settle in and live our lives quietly. We're not just going to sit still and let you paint us as criminals.

It's in your face BECAUSE you can't let it be none of your business. You MAKE it your business. You're here, right now, doing just that. The internet didn't come pounding on your door, demanding that you read these articles and post about them. You CHOSE to.
Yellow Lipstick wrote:
The worse is yet to come
Worst.

Like what? Any solid predictions, or do you just want everyone to feel generally scared of vague possibilities? If something "bad" happens anywhere in the world, should we just ASSUME that you foresaw it?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#32 Dec 17, 2012
NoQ wrote:
Is that all I have??? That's all I need. You're just another ASSTROLL with a big mouth behind a computer.
And what are you sitting behind, an aardvark? At least I'm making cogent statements that relate to the topic. You waste your time telling people to "shut up". They aren't going to do it, just because you told them to.
NoQ wrote:
Tell me to make you shut up!! You're the puss that started saying shit like that.
BECAUSE you told me to shut up. Were you hoping I would just happily comply? Keep on hoping....
NoQ wrote:
What an ignorant fking ASSTROLL you are. As far as senseable arguments, there is no argument, I was telling what I thought and that's where I stand. Get over it, Fa$$ot.
So, you DO think that people should do whatever they're told by religious "authorities", even in their own homes?

You can either present a rational argument that explains exactly why people should not be able to decorate their homes HOWEVER they want, or you can call names and squirt tears all over your screen in hopes that I'll just "be quiet".

One of these reactions will produce a civil and intelligent discussion. The other will show that you are only here to bitch that gay people exist.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#33 Dec 17, 2012
Homofascism wrote:
Since when does your opinion outweigh a dictionary.
Never....

zeal·ot

noun
1. a person who shows zeal.
(zeal, noun, fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor.)

fa·nat·ic

noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

See, these words just mean "excitement" or "passion". Not "hatred". Meanwhile...

big·ot

noun, a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

This is COMPLETELY different. A person can be "zealous" ABOUT their bigotry, or they can be zealous about Star Trek. Zeal and fanaticism don't have to have anything to do with hatred or intolerance.
Homofascism wrote:
Zealot and fanatic are indeed synonymous with the word bigot. Homosexuality is the zealot and it is fanatical or radical compared to who and what brought you into this world, the structure and institution you wish to degrade and destroy with your follywood decadence and subversion.
Gay people are often "zealous" about pursuing their deserved rights, but that doesn't mean they hate society. No one wishes to degrade or destroy anything, we wish to PARTICIPATE. You might have something wrong with your senses of fellowship and empathy if you seek to bar other citizens from participating in society.
Homofascism wrote:
That IS who is responsible for much that is wrong with America today.
I'm sure you think that all the people you hate are responsible for all the things you THINK are "wrong" with America, but everyone is going to see something DIFFERENT as "wrong", and they're all going to blame someone different for it.

I might say that I think religious overreach is what's "wrong" with this country, or easy-access assault weapons. Someone else will say that fiscal solvency is what's "wrong". Each of these things have different (and complex) causes, and nothing is solved by trying to lay all the nation's problems at the feet of one particular group.

You seem upset that gay people are free to be gay people. I don't know how you think it would make America "right", if we took that freedom AWAY.
Homofascism wrote:
They love you!
Who does?
Chance

Grove City, PA

#35 Dec 17, 2012
This is just stupid. Stupid that they did it; stupid that they got press coverage. Homosexuals should run from this. It is very unflattering for homosexuals to even acknowledge this.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36 Dec 17, 2012
Think about it phenomenologically.

Do the statues have any emotional issues?... No.

Do the people who arranged the statues have any emotional issues?... No.

Where are those negative emotions?

Where are the thoughts engendering those negative emotions?

Who is thinking those thoughts?

..........

THERE'S the problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 44 min The_Box 20,064
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 44 min WasteWater 32,088
News Online Fundraiser For Oregon Bakery Removed Aft... 45 min Cujo 18
News Q&A: What's at stake in Supreme Court gay marri... 45 min Fa-Foxy 20
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 49 min No Surprise 2,857
News Poll: More faiths embracing gay marriage 49 min OccupyThis 40
News Printing co. apologizes for Georgia franchise t... 51 min Fa-Foxy 6
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 1 hr SteveLu 225
Are the mods fair and balanced? 1 hr Rick in Kansas 667
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,138
More from around the web