The tolerant Catholic Church

[Nitefly]

People shouldn't feel such strong opinions on these issues. Gay people have arguably no right to be forcing their lifestyle upon a religious institution which has always been traditionally absolutely incompatible. Likewise, the catholic church arguably has no right to condemn people based on quite clearly outdated and unjustified prejudice.

Maybe gay people should just create their own accepting church *shrug*

 

[steve-h]

haha god people. homosexuality is wrong because the bible says god said so!

 

[Robbo]

People shouldn't feel such strong opinions on these issues. Gay people have arguably no right to be forcing their lifestyle upon a religious institution which has always been traditionally absolutely incompatible. Likewise, the catholic church arguably has no right to condemn people based on quite clearly outdated and unjustified prejudice.

Maybe gay people should just create their own accepting church *shrug*

I think the reason gay people get upset by this is the fact that there are a lot of people who will take the church at their word. That doesn't do them much good when they want to be accepted by everyone.

I think they really need to ignore the church in this instance and simply accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree that homosexuality is right or natural.

They will never, ever accept that any biblical teachings are wrong, so why bother trying to convince them.

 

[Fran]

I think the reason gay people get upset by this is the fact that there are a lot of people who will take the church at their word. That doesn't do them much good when they want to be accepted by everyone

Agreed,
the terminology is awkward, saying something is a sin is difficult because in the wider world that's seen as saying someone is wrong, when really it's just shorthand for against the word of God. Now if you don't believe in God in the first place the phrase is meaningless. It's like saying gay sex is 'rhubarb'.
Only for Christians does it have any actual relevance.

They will never, ever accept that any biblical teachings are wrong, so why bother trying to convince them.

Well 'wrong' isn't really fair.
In the context that God made mankind to reproduce and that sex is for reproduction/bonding as part of marriage, being gay isn't really part of that.
I'm not sure they made provision for the modern interpretation of homosexuality and peoples rights to a happy life, but then the church isn't a modern institution.

I'd suggest that gays would find the church unreflective of their own self view and either choose not to be a part of that organisation or to find some compromise between their own belief and what's in the Bible.

I mean the position of women in the church is almost entirely down to what Paul said and Paul never saw Jesus. You can translate parts of the Bible in different ways from the Hebrew and some suggest that the status of women in the church was much higher than suggested by Paul, who frankly was more in favour of abstinence than anything else.
Equally you can say that God made gay people too and it would then be absurd to then say he hated them for having sex.

This is more an issue now because people expect to have unmarried sex, whereas before gay people were either to afraid to meet others or had sham marriages (or brutal confused Victorian marriages). Now they want to be free to have sex in the same way hetro people do and be married in the same way hetro people do. Both actions ride roughshod over what the church expects.

Perhaps if they more more of an issue out of unmarried sex then gays would not feel quite so picked upon. Equally the current Pope might fare better if he did less shouting and was more able to translate his very theological viewpoints into something a bit more accessible. Most people do not understand bible-speak. There is a bit of a chasm between what he thinks the world should be doing and what the world thinks he should be doing.

 

[dowie]

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.

No he isn't - you can already have a non religious wedding now - getting married in a registry office is strictly non religious. Muslims can get married, Hindus can get married - there is nothing exclusively christian about it.

All he's doing is allowing it to also be a same sex partnership if required. No one is forcing the Catholic church to hold gay catholic marriages and there isn't any real reason (aside from the legal definition of marriage) why two gay people can't get married at their local registry office.

 

[Fran]

No he isn't - you can already have a non religious wedding now - getting married in a registry office is strictly non religious. Muslims can get married, Hindus can get married - there is nothing exclusively christian about it.

All he's doing is allowing it to also be a same sex partnership if required. No one is forcing the Catholic church to hold gay catholic marriages and there isn't any real reason (aside from the legal definition of marriage) why two gay people can't get married at their local registry office.

Yes he is, at the moment it's between a man and a woman in line with a Christian viewpoint, now it's going to irrelevant of religion but still called a marriage.
This undermines what marriage has stood for in society for the sake of a few votes. What Muslims or Hindus do regarding marriage is irrelevant because nothing in those religions has influenced this society.
Christianity defines marriage in this country, not the activist wing of the gay rights movement who weren't happy with civil marriage because it wasn't special enough.

It's also going back on what he pretended to stand for last year, not unusual for a politician but still blatant vote chasing.

 

[Angilion]

Yes chum, thx for that.

I am still unsure why civil partnerships are insufficient, given the only difference in that and marriage is changing the definition within the dictionary. So it doesn't contain a reference to man and woman.

What legal difference is there now?

None.

This is supposedly solely about a word but it might be more accurate to say it's about who has the most political power. All talk about rights, from either side, is currently just propaganda.

Though it is possible that it's the next step towards forcing religious organisations to give formal, ritual, religious approval to homosexual marriages whenever anyone demands that they do so. After all, homosexual group advocates aren't going to just disappear (group advocates never do), so they'll have to continue campaigning for something more because that's what group advocacy is about.

 

[Angilion]

If it was meant to be, then trust me, it would be possible by nature. Since it's NOT possible outside then you have to sit back and think why. For starters. A child needs his mother. Two women would be better and strange as it is, certainly better than two fathers, who are probably more interested in nancying around in tight clothing at gay clubs than being a responsible father.

Its a definate no go... The kids will grow up weird and confused.

This will be the start of the end if this ever became common practise.

Nearly all the homosexual people I know are quite boringly normal. No nancying about. Sure, they might wear tight clothing to clubs if they're younger. Which is, obviously, normal.

You're weaving together baseless prejudices and making something you think is reality. That's not how it works.

Any kids who are weird and confused would be so as a result of people like you conditioning them to be, not as a result of having two parents. It's quite common to have two parents. Why care what sex each of them is? What difference does it make, really?

 

[batsy]

If I had the ability to create a universe and a planet-plaything, the numpties would know fine well who was God and what was asked of them.

 

[cheets64]

Not a fan of gay or lesbian people bringing up children unless they adopt, you see these sick people donating certain stuff then raising children like its their own , if you want to breed become man and woman.

Where does it end

Do you want 50 year olds doing this, poster boy for gays

LMAO

The couple have not said which of them is the biological father of the baby, who was born via a surrogate mother in California on Christmas Day.

Equal rights, wait what!

 

[steve-h]

If I had the ability to create a universe and a planet-plaything, the numpties would know fine well who was God and what was asked of them.

I'm no psychologist, but I'd say that says a lot about you as a person

 

[Angilion]

What evidence? If a gay marriage cannot even produce children then I'm afraid there is nothing natural about it no matter how hard you try to twist it.

Well, the evidence is the substantial number of children raised by homosexual couples. It already happens. It works the same way as children raised by heterosexual couples. Because people are people. Weird idea, huh?

As for the "natural" argument, that's a blatantly, ludicrously, insanely ridiculous false appeal to authority. It is far worse than saying "<insert a god here> disapproves" because it's possible, just possible, to make the god argument without being a hypocrite but it's impossible to make the natural argument without being a hypocrite.

You're living an extremely unnatural life, as we all are. What tree do you think your computer grew on? Just one example of many. You wear clothes at least some of the time. That's unnatural. You almost certainly eat cooked food. Unnatural. You almost certainly live in a settlement of more than 150 people. Unnatural. You almost certainly drive a car, or at least use some form of vehicle. Unnatural. You almost certainly live in a house. Unnatural. You make use of unnaturally generated electricity unnaturally distributed to your unnatural house in order to power your unnatural devices that form a part of your unnatural life. If you are ever ill, you probably won't refuse all medical treatment other than herbs on the basis that it's unnatural.

Anyone who makes the "unnatural, therefore wrong" argument is a fake unless they themselves life a natural life. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who lives a completely natural life and they certainly wouldn't be able to post on a forum (since they wouldn't have net access, a computer or electricity).

It's a ridiculous and hypocritical argument that deserves nothing buy contempt and derision. It's also cowardly, as it can only be used by people who lack the integrity to stand behind their own opinions. At least people who make exactly the same argument but with a god or gods instead of nature can be consistent in whatever arbritary set of rules their religion claims have divine authority (although most of them aren't).

 

[thedoc46]

Nearly all the homosexual people I know are quite boringly normal. No nancying about. Sure, they might wear tight clothing to clubs if they're younger. Which is, obviously, normal.

You're weaving together baseless prejudices and making something you think is reality. That's not how it works.

Any kids who are weird and confused would be so as a result of people like you conditioning them to be, not as a result of having two parents. It's quite common to have two parents. Why care what sex each of them is? What difference does it make, really?

What exactly is homosexuality ? It's certainly not normal is it. It's un-natural & its a chemical imbalance somewhere in the brain. DO YOU THINK, these are suitable people to parent? God knows what the kid will be subjected too.

Personally if I know someone is gay, they're staying the hell away from my kids. I do would not trust them. *** Removed ** Why can't people just be normal anymore? I dread to think where humanity will be in a 100yrs.

Try and make you point valid without being offensive.

 

[Angilion]

Marriage has nothing to do with having children and was was never originally a religious matter. Same-sex marriage was never a problem until religion waded in, particularly Christian emperors in the 4th century.

Do you have any examples of same-sex marriage in recorded history prior to the 4th century?

Homosexual sex, sure. That was unremarkable in some cultures. Homosexual relationships, definitely. Not as common, but they were acknowledged in some cultures.

But marriage? A formal, legally recognised arrangement? Other than a Roman emperor or two, I'm not aware of any. They're very bad examples, since they were above the law and in at least one of them was apparently dangerously insane.

 

[Angilion]

What exactly is homosexuality ?

Usually sexual attraction to people of the same sex, although it could be stretched to fit some asexual relationships. There are some grey areas in many definitions.

It's certainly not normal is it.

True. However, since "normal" just means "what happens more often than not", it's irrelevant. It's not normal to build your own computer, for example. Does that mean that it's wrong to do so? I can state with absolutely certainty that you are abnormal in many ways. Just like everyone else.

It's un-natural

Look a couple of posts up for my reply to that idiotic argument from hypocrites who I deride and treat with contempt. Now including you.

& its a chemical imbalance somewhere in the brain.

Yeah, it must be that. Somewhere.

Are you just making it up in order to construct a false appeal to science as an authority as well as nature?

Even if it was as simple as a chemical imbalance (and I bet it isn't), why care?

DO YOU THINK, these are suitable people to parent?

What a stupid question. What kind of wildly irrational lunatic has a single opinion of many millions of people based solely on some irrelevant triviality they have in common?

Oh, I see.

Someone like you.

I'm not like you, so your question makes no sense to me.

God knows what the kid will be subjected too.

People like you will try to make the kids suffer, obviously, in order to manufacture evidence to prop up your irrational beliefs. Which is sad, but only you can stop it.

Personally if I know someone is gay, they're staying the hell away from my kids. I do would not trust them. ****** Why can't people just be normal anymore? I dread to think where humanity will be in a 100yrs.

Hopefully without people like you. Hopefully all people will be able to make rational moral decisions based on harm or lack thereof and not based on whatever irrational ideas flitter through their minds on a whim.

Back in reality, I expect humanity to be in pretty much the same position in 100 years as it is now. The technology should be much better, but people will probably be just the same.

This thread is really getting my goat. Time for a cup of tea and a break from it.

 

[_dogma_]

What exactly is homosexuality ? It's certainly not normal is it. It's un-natural & its a chemical imbalance somewhere in the brain. DO YOU THINK, these are suitable people to parent? God knows what the kid will be subjected too.

Personally if I know someone is gay, they're staying the hell away from my kids. I do would not trust them. This applies to bible bashers too. Another bunch of odd balls. Why can't people just be normal anymore? I dread to think where humanity will be in a 100yrs.

I refer you to an earlier post on page 2 by Art (or my earlier post), there are same sex couples in the animal kingdom too. Read the link. Technically, it is natural.

You wouldn't trust gay people near your kids? You know it has been known for straight people to be child molestors?

The narrow mindedness in this thread is shocking. I dread to think where humanity will be in 100 years.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Christianity defines marriage in this country, not the activist wing of the gay rights movement who weren't happy with civil marriage because it wasn't special enough.

Marriage in this country predates Christianity and it wasn't really until late medieval times that the Christian church succeeded in getting power over marriage, and even that was only temporary. Marriage is once again often areligious in this country.

So no, Christianity doesn't define marriage in this country and only did so for a limited amount of time.

What has always defined marriage in recorded history in this country is a vow. That's what 'wedding' means (O.E. weddian, 'to vow'). It has always been about spouses making vows to each other.

 

[cheets64]

If you are going to get rid of Christianity in this country, so thats Muslims ******

Name me a country on this earth without a religion!

Angilion u seem mad?

 

[steve-h]

Name me a country on this earth without a religion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

The UK is lower than I expected on that list.

 

[Angilion]

Here's my suggestion for a fair solution that probably won't appeal to advocates on either side. Hard luck to them.

There are 3 seperate things that are all lumped under the word "marriage". I think it would be fair and accurate to differentiate between them more by acknowledging that they are different things and giving them different names.

1) Personal. This is the vows the spouses make to each other, the formal commitment to the relationship between them. It's entirely between them. Maybe they want to do it in front of friends and families and make a big celebration of it, maybe they want to do it with just the two of them in a cave or on a boat or whatever, but however it's done, it's a purely personal thing between them.

I suggest 'wedding' as the appropriate word for that, since that's what a wedding actually is (O.E. weddian, meaning 'to vow').

2) Legal. This is the state recognition and approval of the relationship. This is where all of the legal rights and responsibilities rest. It's a contract, essentially. Something to be done in a government building by someone employed by the government to do so, or elsewhere if the government grants a license for that. It's entirely about the legalities and bureaucracy.

I suggest 'civil partnership' as the appropriate words for that, since that's an accurate description of what it is.

3) Religious. This is the religious recognition and approval of the relationship, to be entirely left up to each individual religion and/or sect within that religion. If they withold religious recognition and approval of your relationship because it's homosexual or because either or both of you are divorced or because you're not both devout followers of the religion or because you have hairy toes or because the two of you met on a Tuesday, hard luck on you. Their religion, their rules, whatever they are.

I suggest 'blessing' for that, but that's also entirely up to each religion and/or sect within that religion. If they want to call it 'wibbledoodahdrongo', that's their business.

Fair, accurate, and it avoids the contentious word 'marriage' entirely. It removes the entire argument, so of course it won't happen.