The tolerant Catholic Church

elmarko1234 said:
Marriage

"In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage"

It existed before Christianity (according to wiki).

Would it not be easier to just split marriage into different groups, Christian marriage & just marriage?

I do find it amusing that Christians think they hold a monopoly on the term marriage....
Click to expand...

What do you think of the suggestion I made earlier in this thread (currently post number 120):

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21402383&postcount=120

It's not just wikipedia. Marriage before Christianity is very well documented, sometimes with a lot of detail. Pre-Christian Rome, for example, had 4 different types of marriage (counting usus and usus sine manus as two different types). We know the legal status of each, the ceremonies for each (or lack of them - usus marriage didn't need anything other than the word of the spouses), the relative popularity of each form over time, etc.
 
I think a child should have a good father and a good mother. Mind you, some 'role' models can turn out to be terrible parents! I strongly disagree that the same sex should be allowed to marry in a catholic church because i myself think it is not right. Let them go away somewhere and get married in a registry office or portaloo etc etc.
 
Jay794 said:
Well I meant me, I was referring to myself, having never had any interest in men, I consider myself pretty straight, you saying I'm in denial about being gay?
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that if you wanted to have sex with other men then that would indicate that you had been in denial about being gay. The "wanting to have sex with other men" is a key part of the context.
 
Angilion said:
That's not an example, for two reasons. Firstly, the two cars are different. The two marriages aren't
Click to expand...
No, they look the same, it's value is debased by the existence of a valueless one.
The marriages are not the same, one is a commitment to God and society, the other is grabbing the name for it's associated kudos, just like the car example.
Why do people try to copy existing brands rather than make their own.

Ah, I see. So we shouldn't allow Muslims to get married.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant what Muslims do in terms of this society, just as a Christian marriage is irrelevant in one of theirs. However both societies would regard gay marriage as disruptive. The point of marriage is to reinforce social cohesion.

Society is disparate and chaotic. Good job, too, as the only societies that aren't disparate and chaotic are very efficiently totalitarian ones.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, practically everyone is the same, has roughly the same values and roughly the same orientation. If there were no foundations, which in the UK were provided by religion, then it would be chaotic.
 
Angilion said:
No, he's saying that if you wanted to have sex with other men then that would indicate that you had been in denial about being gay. The "wanting to have sex with other men" is a key part of the context.
Click to expand...

Surely you can't say that one fleeting feeling is the result of years of denial? more a curiosity perhaps?
 
Last edited:
ringo747 said:
The code which states what is morally accepted in society or not.
Click to expand...
Careful, your religion is showing. I'm guessing you think there is some universal absolute moral code?

ringo747 said:
If some guy wants to marry his sister what is it that is stopping him?
Click to expand...
It's genetically a bad idea to breed with close relations, look at the history of european royal families.
 
Fran said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Yet when it is or was the Catholic population that was on the back burner, they screamed civil rights, bigotry and intolerance. They didn't just accept that whey were unacceptible, Catholic gay mariage is no different to Catholic civil rights.
 
Fran said:
No, they look the same, it's value is debased by the existence of a valueless one.
The marriages are not the same, one is a commitment to God and society, the other is grabbing the name for it's associated kudos, just like the car example.
Why do people try to copy existing brands rather than make their own.

It's irrelevant what Muslims do in terms of this society, just as a Christian marriage is irrelevant in one of theirs. However both societies would regard gay marriage as disruptive. The point of marriage is to reinforce social cohesion.


No it isn't, practically everyone is the same, has roughly the same values and roughly the same orientation. If there were no foundations, which in the UK were provided by religion, then it would be chaotic.
Click to expand...

Lord Devlin, is that you? :p
 
dave_beast said:
All the worlds problems and conflicts always come from religion, ban the lot.
Click to expand...

Dictatorship I say! scrap religion and follow one leader, there are never any disagreements over who's pie it is

Cut the pie in two....and kill both men!......I'll eat the pie

Problem solved!
 
Please remember this is a family forum, you are entitled to an opinion however potentially offensive comments are to be left outside of the forums.


Andrew Moore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom