  Oh, that crazy Vatican. According to CBC News, they now urlLink "fear the blurring line between men and women. " Wow. That makes no sense whatsoever, but they're the Vatican, so I'm sure they're thinking this through rationally. The 37-page document written by one of Pope John Paul II's closest aides, says radical feminists make "homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality. " Um .
. . okay. Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Feminists are making homosexuality and heterosexuality equivalent? What happened to the gay rights activists who used to do stuff like that?
Did they subcontract to the feminists? Sheesh. Lazy gay rights activists. Next the anti-war protestors are going to be outsourcing all of their picketing to feminists in India. Compiled by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the document attacks what it calls the "ideology of gender" Okay, does anybody have any idea what that part means? and stresses that woman "is not a copy of man.
" Yep, you read that right. Women differ from men in some ways. And now, thanks to the Vatican, we finally have a document to prove it! It reaffirms the Church's stand against ordaining women and urges governments to make sure women can be granted appropriate work schedules so that they "do not need to neglect their families if they want to pursue a job. " Okay, so you have to give them credit for going the path of "slightly less sexist than I thought they were going to be. " Instead of "women shouldn't have jobs," it's now, "women shouldn't have full time jobs.
" Come on, admit it; it is a slight improvement. One last thing: The document also deals with same-sex marriage, saying that "God wanted a Christian marriage, a marriage between a man and a woman," and not between people of the same gender. Believe it or not, this quote doesn't bother me at all. Legally, I feel very strongly that marriages of either sexual preference should be equal. In terms of which religious institutions grant same-sex marriages, the government really has no control over that, and I don't really give a shit as long as it doesn't impact legislation on government-recognized gay marriage. So really, the only reason I put that last quote up is because I noticed the last part of it isn't in quotes, and got curious about the actual wording of the document. 
