The tolerant Catholic Church

[ringo747]

A man might as well marry his dog as marry another man.

There are civil partnerships in this country. There is no need to bring in Gay marriage.

Well there is a whole new dimension - that means that those weird people who go horse humping will no longer make the news.

Why aren't gays happy with the civil partnership anyways? It is back to the old question. Why have big gay pride events if it is completely normal? I've never heard of a straight pride day. Is it just another example of the minority trying to be heard?

 

[Danthus]

Are you seriously too stupid to not understand the difference between an individual in the Church and the Church itself?

Seriously, because you sound like you might be that stupid.

There was a systemic attempt to cover up the sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests.

So yes, the church does bear some responsibility.

 

[Fran]

In a way it's freedom of speech in another it's just another element of religion and the church show how little it bares relevance to modern society.

It's not the Church's mission to toady to every fad and fashion of modern society, one could say it should do the exact opposite.


Cardinal O'Brien said: "Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.
I agree, regardless of it's ancient origins, the modern idea of marriage is still a religious one and it's held in regard solely because religion once formed the backbone of society, that's why people aren't happy with the term 'civil partnership', because they feel excluded.
Well sorry, as homosexuals they can expect to be excluded from one particular religious ceremony. It is a marriage before God, if that God has clearly stated that an homosexual act is an abomination in his eyes then clearly marriage is not appropriate.
If Cameron redefines 'marriage' to nab a few votes then what will the Church call it's ceremony ? A couple married in a Church are going to see their marriage with some form of spiritual context. If a gay couple also say they are married too, how does that reflect on the first couple ?

The church has gay people as members, as long as they are not practising gays then they are openly welcomed, however the act of marriage before God is not an option.
What right does the state have to tell the church what marriage means, when a few years ago they were all for family values and the church as a significant influence in society.

I'm not against gays and the civil partnership was a sorely needed change in the law, but undermining the religious ceremony of marriage is a step too far, and an unnecessary one at that.

 

[spudbynight]

There was a systemic attempt to cover up the sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests.

So yes, the church does bear some responsibility.

Can you please show me where the sexual abuse of anyone is an official Church teaching please.

It is clear - you ARE that stupid.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Can you please show me where the sexual abuse of anyone is an official Church teaching please.

It is clear - you ARE that stupid.

Nice edit from calling him a moron.

Your post plus sig combo tells me everything I need to know about you.

 

[Castiel]

How would you interpret the mention of a wife in Genesis? Is a wife not simply the partner of her husband? To me wife implies that she is part of a marriage.

The original meaning of the term 'wife' was actually just 'Woman' or contextually 'Female Companion'...it had no specific connection to marriage.....interestingly 'Adam' when translated accurately within context from the hebrew means 'Man' in the collective, rather than the individual sense....so you can see the difficulty with assuming a literal meaning to Genesis just by that simple and rather minor example.

 

[Danthus]

Can you please show me where the sexual abuse of anyone is an official Church teaching please.

It is clear - you ARE that stupid.

It is not taught, I doubt it is even condoned the majority of Roman Catholics, that does not change the fact there was a coverup.

 

[Fran]

Why have big gay pride events if it is completely normal?

There is still the problem of young people coming to terms with their sexuality in a predominately heterosexual world. Personally I don't particularly like them as it's a bit attention seeking in my eyes, but I can see it does has some positive effect.

Interestingly a higher than average number of Catholic priests are homosexual, so sexual confusion, abstinence and not having to field awkward questions about partners may be a factor in their vocation.
On the abuse issue, a comparable number of cases were present in the Protestant community, but society generally only delights in finding fault with the Catholic church and it's inherently slow way of reacting often makes it an easy media target.

 

[_dogma_]

I'm a firm believer in the traditional family unit and the breakdown in society today is probably due to its breakdown - single parent familys are equally are negative.

Would you not say that a single parent family is not ideal/negative?

Absolutely agree... being stuck in an unhappy marriage would be terrible for the children.

So in some situations single parent families are fine then? So why can't it be the same for same sex families?

What about adoption, that's not really natural as such, the child is being brought up by someone not related to them?

Also, you happen to have totally ignored the post by Art about what is natural. Well done!

Are you really so narrow minded that you wouldn't rather see children in happy families and being raised properly regardless of what gender the parents are?

 

[TJM]

Why aren't gays happy with the civil partnership anyways?

There's no gay hive-mind to ask. Why two people want to get married is between them, and denying them the right to do so requires a much stronger reason than 'Ugggh, I feel uncomfortable' or 'My book of choice says it's dirty'.

Why have big gay pride events if it is completely normal?

Because oppressed minorities have to assert themselves?

Can you please show me where the sexual abuse of anyone is an official Church teaching please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Criticisms_of_church_responses

The Church has considered protecting its image and clergy more important than protecting children.

If a gay couple also say they are married too, how does that reflect on the first couple ?

It has nothing to do with them.

 

[Fran]

Because oppressed minorities have to assert themselves?

The main problem gays have to cope with is homophobia, not overt oppression. Although I'd argue that short, fat ugly people suffer more in our society than homosexuals do.

It has nothing to do with them.

Of course it is, what's the point of one group wishing to be recognised for their commitment to the meaning of marriage, while the other group is doing it solely for the social kudos whilst privately saying the other couples intent is meaningless. It is cheapening the whole institution for the sake of yet another PC fad.


An interesting example of the two faced nature of Cameron, the "committed" Christian
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/16/david-cameron-christian-values_n_1153738.html

"he said the New Testament had helped give our country "a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today."
The prime minister said we should "actively stand up and defend" these Christian values.
"The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country," he said. "



Five minutes later he's busy dismantling the same institution for the sake of the ultra minority activist gay vote

 

[Danthus]

Why have big gay pride events if it is completely normal? I've never heard of a straight pride day. Is it just another example of the minority trying to be heard?

Look at this thread and the use of homophobic language, poofter and homo.

Racist language would not be tolerated.

 

[m4rk84]

The subject of marriage is a bit weird, it's hard to deny that religion is in steep decline so why do people get all caught up in wanting to be 'married'?

If someone were to turn around to me and say "Hey you can never get 'married' HA" I wouldn't even bat an eye lid.

It's a pretty interesting subject, why does any of it even matter? I suppose the main reason is whatever lawful unification marriage implies, however I think its a shame that the term has to be called 'marriage' or everyone gets all butt hurt (no pun intended).

Why not just create a new term for the unification of 2 people and be done with it?

 

[Fran]

Look at this thread and the use of homophobic language, poofter and homo.
Racist language would not be tolerated.

Look at all the derogatory comments about religion, 'book of fairy tales' etc and the overwhelming antipathy towards this group on the forum. I think I'd rather be a Muslim carrying a rucksack on the tube.
I've yet to see any of these comments removed.
Personally I think it's OK to mock religion to some extent, certainly Islam, if ever there was a group that took itself too seriously it is them, but the level of bile directed towards people you have probably never met is a bit sad really. The one's I know are generally affable, normal people who like to help others, so the idea that there are people in here who openly hate them and their beliefs is going to be a bit uncomfortable.

The subject of marriage is a bit weird, it's hard to deny that religion is in steep decline so why do people get all caught up in wanting to be 'married'?

They may not be actively Christian but they still identify with a set of values that the church is seen to represent. Atheists may have much the same values but they generally don't publicly state that these are the standards to which they hold themselves accountable.

Why not just create a new term for the unification of 2 people and be done with it?

Well yeh, if they extend the civil partnership to hetros then that would seem to be the sensible idea.

That said I think there is a common aim amongst successive governments to undermine religion, on the one hand to support the values, but on the other hand to dismantle the structures that created those values in the first place. yet they replace them with nothing and leave people to rot in front of TV's and Xbox's. Peculiarly self destructive I think.

 

[JaWalks]

Look at this thread and the use of homophobic language, poofter and homo.

Racist language would not be tolerated.

Didn't realise homo was bad. Thought it was just short for homosexual?

 

[Fran]

Didn't realise homo was bad. Thought it was just short for homosexual?

Depends on context.

Look at all the alternative words for vagina, nearly all are pretty hateful and probably represent the male fear of sex or female genitalia in some way. You'd never say 'gash' in front of a girl, but amongst male friends it's sometimes acceptable as everyone can identify with that common fear, so it's bonding I guess.

 

[Vulcan]

Look at all the derogatory comments about religion, 'book of fairy tales' etc

Well it's certainly not a book of facts.

Didn't realise homo was bad. Thought it was just short for homosexual?

Perhaps 'homo' has become the new short term for Pakistani, where originally it was just a shorter name, but became a derogatory after miss-use.

 

[m4rk84]

snip

In an ideal world we could just use marriage to imply that 2 people are together. However we aren't in an ideal world so if devout Chistians want to lay claim to the term 'marriage' then why bicker about it? Let them have it...

Why not just say that anyone who doesn't feel the need to become Husband and Wife in the presence of god are hereby called 'Sharried' instead and it essentially implies the exact same thing with the same laws and regulations.

Given the choice between the two I would happily go for the non religious option.

 

[dowie]

An interesting example of the two faced nature of Cameron, the "committed" Christian
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/16/david-cameron-christian-values_n_1153738.html

"he said the New Testament had helped give our country "a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today."
The prime minister said we should "actively stand up and defend" these Christian values.
"The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country," he said. "


Five minutes later he's busy dismantling the same institution for the sake of the ultra minority activist gay vote

Since when has marriage been exclusively Christian? I'm not seeing any inconsistency here - he's not forcing churches to marry gay people rather he's allowing gay people to get married. If muslims, hindus or athiests gets married does that have any effect on the values of a Christian marriage?

 

[Fran]

Well it's certainly not a book of facts.

Umm, for a 2,000 year old book it's not bad historically, lots of events tie up with other recordings, although I guess some events have been moved around time-wise. You think of the near impossibility of recording information accurately during that period and it's surprising that we have anything.
Then having to translate that intent over several languages and cultural concepts of the period into modern day understanding is another hurdle. Then having to interpret it's meaning and application from some fairly obscure paragraphs is another cause of dissent, look at all the radically different churches for one thing... Half of those only differ by a few different interpretations.

Since when has marriage been exclusively Christian? I'm not seeing any inconsistency here - he's not forcing churches to marry gay people rather he's allowing gay people to get married. If muslims, hindus or athiests gets married does that have any effect on the values of a Christian marriage?

Marriage in this society has generally been exclusively Christian for millennia, society has generally been built around this institution and forms a core part of who we are.
He's forcing the church to relinquish the exclusive right to hold a religious ceremony and to call that ceremony a marriage, when he could have just combined the civil idea with a registry ceremony. Why should we support obvious vote grabbing by politicians as some great step forward, it's not, it's entirely retrograde and self serving.