The tolerant Catholic Church

[Angilion]

[..]
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

I can make an entirely theological, internally consistent Christian argument that homosexuality is actually fine and the condemnation of it within Christianity is a mistake and a misinterpretation of holy scripture. I can do the whole chapter and verse of it, purely as a theological argument. In other words, I can show that Cameron is not contradicting himself.

It's a long argument, so I'll only do it if someone expresses an interest.


Although I think that Cameron probably is contradicting himself. He's a politician, so it's much more likely that he's just saying whatever he thinks the audience at that time wants to hear. I doubt if he's aware of the argument I could make, or that he would care.

 

[Angilion]

[..]

Marriage in this society has generally been exclusively Christian for millennia,
[..]

No it hasn't. Even well into the late medieval period, marriage in England was entirely about two people making vows to each other, i.e. the wedding. That's still the defining point of a marriage. People could, and did, get married simply by saying so. If they said they were married and someone witnessed the statement, they were married. The mutual statement of commitment is the marriage - that's exactly what the word 'wedding' means.

Christianity, and any other religion, is an add-on to marriage.

 

[Angilion]

The whole argument over the word is just fighting for the sake of it anyway.

People who accept homosexual formalised civil partnerships will call them marriages anyway, regardless of what the title is on the paperwork.

People who don't accept homosexual formalised civil partnerships won't call them marriages anyway, regardless of what the title is on the paperwork.

So it makes no difference what it's called on the paperwork and matters only to the extent that you want something to fight about for the sake of fighting. Unless, of course, you actually are angling towards forcing religious groups to either disband or be forced into perverting their beliefs by bestowing ritual approval of relationships their religion says are wrong.

 

[ringo747]

If anyone can look at that photo of Elton John and his partner holding 'their' baby and not feel sad or pitiful for the child then I don't hold much hope for the world. Absolutely vile.

Kid in 20 years time.... "So daddies, who's the daddy?".

I don't know why gays aren't happy with civil partnerships. If marriage is being redefined then I'm going to have to expect that my wife won't have any problem with me going in search of a 2nd or 3rd wife.

 

[elmarko]

The Catholic Church don't really do themselves any favours sometimes.

Equal rights under law include the right to get married....I, for one think that marriage should be legal for gay couples, straight couples or group systems such as Polygyny, Group Marriage or Polyandry. Who are we to decide what works for each of us.

I also think that Civil Partnerships should not be limited to Homosexual couples, they should be available to all.

Agree 100% on all counts.

I fail to see why the state should have any power in dictating what kind of love life the people choose, the state has no business getting involved in these affairs (because it's not like anybody is being hurt/taken advantage of/abused.

 

[Robbo]

If anyone can look at that photo of Elton John and his partner holding 'their' baby and not feel sad or pitiful for the child then I don't hold much hope for the world. Absolutely vile.

Kid in 20 years time.... "So daddies, who's the daddy?".

I don't know why gays aren't happy with civil partnerships. If marriage is being redefined then I'm going to have to expect that my wife won't have any problem with me going in search of a 2nd or 3rd wife.

I really only feel sad for the child because it's a 'celebrity baby' and the fact that they are using it to try and get attention (they don't need) is very sad indeed.

Whether I think children need a mother and father is another discussion entirely...

 

[elmarko]

If anyone can look at that photo of Elton John and his partner holding 'their' baby and not feel sad or pitiful for the child then I don't hold much hope for the world. Absolutely vile.

Kid in 20 years time.... "So daddies, who's the daddy?".

I don't know why gays aren't happy with civil partnerships. If marriage is being redefined then I'm going to have to expect that my wife won't have any problem with me going in search of a 2nd or 3rd wife.

Not sure if serious....

I bet that kid is going to have a better life than most.

 

[ringo747]

Not sure if serious....

I bet that kid is going to have a better life than most.

Totally serious. At least it won't be born into poverty. I suppose it will be brought up to be gay and so there might not actually be any problem.

 

[Jay794]

I have no problem with peoples sexual orientation, I have a few gay friends, and although I disagree with allowing them to marry. That guy went the wrong way about it.

Whats wrong with it just being called a Civil Partnership? Isn't the definition of marriage betwen a man and a women? It's a religious thing anyway, and most religions are against marriage, so why does it matter if 2 guys or 2 girls can go into a church and get legally married anyways?

Can't they just buy each other rings and live together without involving the church? The church will never accept gays, so why bother trying?

 

[Robbo]

Totally serious. At least it won't be born into poverty. I suppose it will be brought up to be gay and so there might not actually be any problem.

What makes you assume it will be brought up to be gay? Given the argument that homosexual people make (that it isn't a choice and they are born that 'way'), they would just be shooting themselves in the foot...

If that was the case, that would be pretty disgraceful. You can't assume that will happen though.

 

[Jay794]

Being Gay is totally a choice, it's not in the genes at all, you either like **** or you don't

 

[ringo747]

What makes you assume it will be brought up to be gay? Given the argument that homosexual people make (that it isn't a choice and they are born that 'way'), they would just be shooting themselves in the foot...

If that was the case, that would be pretty disgraceful. You can't assume that will happen though.

Was a sarcy comment!

 

[grumpysculler]

I'm married and I object to the idea that God has anything to do with the union between me and my wife.

Whether a church should be required to conduct gay ceremonies is a useful debate (does protection of religion supercede all other protected groups?) but to ban gay folk from having a civil marriage is wrong.

 

[Jay794]

I'm married and I object to the idea that God has anything to do with the union between me and my wife.

Whether a church should be required to conduct gay ceremonies is a useful debate (does protection of religion supercede all other protected groups?) but to ban gay folk from having a civil marriage is wrong.

You got married in a church didn't you? by a Priest? in which case God had something to do with it. Oh and Civil Partnership is different to Marriage, I think thats what their issue is, they want to be considered as normal as possible by removing "Civil Partnership" and simply referring to it as marriage, I think anyways

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Being Gay is totally a choice, it's not in the genes at all, you either like **** or you don't

I'm sorry but that's a real small minded reason for not understanding human behaviour. Whilst homosexuality is in the minority and may appear different to most people, it doesn't make it wrong. The non-existent fear people have is quite old fashioned and has no place in modern society.

 

[Jay794]

I'm sorry but that's a real small minded reason for not understanding human behaviour. Whilst homosexuality is in the minority and may appear different to most people, it doesn't make it wrong. The non-existent fear people have is quite old fashioned and has no place in modern society.

...I never said it was wrong

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I can make an entirely theological, internally consistent Christian argument that homosexuality is actually fine and the condemnation of it within Christianity is a mistake and a misinterpretation of holy scripture. I can do the whole chapter and verse of it, purely as a theological argument.

Indeed, same here. It can be summarised as thus -

The bible speaks out against any form of sexual relations outside of marriage, be it a man with a women, a man with a man, a women with a women, a dwarf with a horse, etc etc. This has 2 implications.

1) The word 'homosexuality' never appears in the bible, because the term as an appropriation of ones sexual persuasion towards a particular gender is a modern one and has no historical equivalent. When the bible talks about 'homosexual acts', it has more to do with the modern day equivalent of sharking (men surfing for men in toilets) than a committed, two party relationship. Also, it does not distinguish between improper sexual relations as being worse than any other, for example. it does not say having sex outside of marriage between a man and a women, oooo errr thats a bit dodgy, oh well, but gay sex thats an absolute disgrace you are going to hell. Sin is sin, and here the goal posts are quite clear.

2) Marriage is a complex term that spans many strata of society and means many things to many people. In a true Christian context, marriage is a covenant, till death do us part, not a contract, till you cheat on me or otherwise irritate me enough. One is a religious view, the other is a world view. It is also worth mentioning the goal posts of marriage are a social phenomena and constantly shifting. For instance, a cohabiting couple may not be legally wed, but live as if they are 'married'. Conversely, a sham marriage is a legally binding unification for the sake of a Visa, and a married couple may not even cohabit.

It is in my opinion that there should be a single, unifying legal framework that binds and defines partnerships, and i am in agreement that these should include a spectrum of social marital constructs, including multiple partner marriages. So long as it causes no harm, people should, and must, be free to live as they wish. Then, those that wish to add pomp and ceremony can do so, from a contractual agreement with prenups, to a declaration of covenant before God. If the framework is water tight, the optional extras will surely follow.

 

[WantoN]

if a straight married guy is of the opinion that gays should be allowed to marry, then he shouldn't have an issue if his wife came to him and said she was marrying a second husband and would share herself between the two.

You CANNOT be serious? Allowing two loving peope to be married means that you must accept multiple partner marriages as part of your own lifestlyle? Are you an idiot?

The amount of biggotry in this thread is truly mind boggling, and if it's anything more than trolling then I truly worry for the state of the world.

What does your sexuality have to do with your ability as a parent. There are SO many broken homes, terrible, young, selfish et all. parents in the world. A loving couple that has had to work hard to move through the adoption process, having guaranteed a stable living envireonment first, is hardly worse than that. I'd be willing to bet most same sex couples would make better parents than many of you who so vehemently deny their right to adopt.

Ant

 

[ringo747]

I am serious... if marriage is being redefined to include other options then nobody can deny a person the right to involve more than 2 people in marriage. That is where the issue lies. Traditionally marriage is man and woman. If this tradition, pattern, call it what you like is being rewritten, then to make it equal for all preferences then you gotta allow for multiples wifes for example.

 

[ubersonic]

Just because someone believes that homo's should not be parents does not make that person ignorant or narrow minded. There is nothing wrong in believing that it is not a healthy or natural environment for bringing up a child.

Think you'll find there is, bigot.
Come back when you've thought about it more and have started to act like a civilised person.

I will probably get flamed for this, so I would like to point out I am in favour of gay marriage, but:

Homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be caused by "irregularities" in the brain, technically speaking it is not a lifestyle "choice" it is technically a mental illness, and the is nothing particularly bigoted about him being uneasy about the prospect of two mentally ill people bringing up a child.