Talk:Vatican City

Hehheheeheheh :D So funny Karasünger 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, especially for those who believe in God and they are religous. The picturea with the popes and some text such as "pedophilia" etc. are discusting and against the law. Actually we will sue "Uncyclopedia" for such a non-humanity morality.

Go right ahead. --UtarEmpire 07:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then.

it's not against the law feedom of speech 1st amendment obviously something the vatican doesn't support since they start bitching whenever somebody says anything they don't like. The constituition: Better than the Bibble any day at least we know the who are claimed to have written it actually did and taht they actually existed.

A quote from the Embassy of Italy(apparently)

“ Vatican State has its own criminal system based on the former Italian criminal code (called “Zanardelli Code”, issued in 1889). Art 331 (1) of this code provides that the age of consent is set at 12 years old, but according to Art. 331 (2) when there is a relationship of dependence (like teacher/student/ etc.) the age of consent is 15 years.

This law applies to criminal suspects arrested in Vatican City. Whereas, if a sexual offence occurs in Vatican State but the suspect is arrested in Italy, he/she is tried under Italian criminal law, based on Italian Criminal code called “Rocco Code”, issued in 1930. According to article 609 quarter of this code, the age of consent is set at 14 years old or 16 years old if there is a relation of dependence. There is an exception to this rule: having sexual intercourse with a partner aged 13 doesn’t constitutes a sexual offence only if the age difference between the two individuals is not more than 3 years.

Should you need more information, don’t hesitate to contact us.

Best Regards,

Sara Porro Matteo Orlando Consular and Justice Affairs Office Embassy of Italy

”

--Taken from: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/02/red-hot-catholic-love-at-twelve-years-old/190085/ ... I think they might have put it up to 18 recently 2013 maybe, but I'm not sure if they actually did it or not. JFC 12:01. May 23

Anyway

Richard the Dick {A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse! (Richard, Act 5 Scene 4)}, one might assume, "one" being not a fan of the bard, had had a horse (to wit "my horse"), e.g. back at the castle or lying there dead, and the third "my arse" were {(subjunctive(?)} a different animal. But I digress ...
You're right: no footnotes. Thanks. --Brogo13 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)