The tolerant Catholic Church

Castiel · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:12

RDM said:
Why?

Who knows......it is not as if you are going to get confused at the altar and come home with a fella instead, is it?

Craterloads · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:14

RomanNose said:
It wouldn't always need to be used! I don't think you understand this. For example in forms that is actually needed, they would have two boxes for straight marriage and gay marriage. Why would someone object to that? It really wouldn't need to be used elsewhere and even if it is, it would be a whole lot better than "civil partnership".

Why would it be any better, a major point in homosexuals wanting the term "marriage" is to takeaway any differences between the two = equals

If you stick "gay" onto the front of it you will be essentially doing the same thing.

RomanNose · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:16

Craterloads said:
Why would it be any better, a major point in homosexuals wanting the term "marriage" is to takeaway any differences between the two = equals

If you stick "gay" onto the front of it you will be esseantially doing the same thing.

Because it's always used. They have to say they are civil partners and can't say "we are married". In cases they want to say they are married, they can't at the moment. I can't think of many cases that you will have to use the term gay marriage though.

RDM · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:17

Let gay people get married, but in the same legislation put in that religious organisations will not be forced to officiate over them if they do not wish to do so. This gives the Church a legal fallback position yet still allows more moderate religions to officiate if they so desire!

RDM · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:18

Craterloads said:
As one couple has a penis & vagina, whilst the other has either two penises or two vaginas

But why does that need to be obviously diferentiated? Are you afraid you may accidentally marry a man if it isn't made blindingly obvious you are at a gay wedding?

RomanNose · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:19

I agree with RDM, the church of England will probably allow gay marriages. So there won't be an issue with most people who want a church wedding. Gay couples are probably less likely to subscribe to religions who forbid homosexuality anyway.

Craterloads · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:19

RomanNose said:
Because it's always used. They have to say they are civil partners and can't say "we are married". In cases they want to say they are married, they can't at the moment.

Well, thats not the case though is it, quote from earlier

Craterloads said:
If heterosexual couples gave up the term "marriage" and adopted the term "civil partnership" and essentially give homosexual couples exclusive rights to the term "marriage" I’m sure we would still be having this debate...no?. It would be the same thing just in reverse with homosexuals wanting to have the term "civil partnership".

Homosexual couples would want to say were in a "civil partnership"

Craterloads · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:20

RDM said:
But why does that need to be obviously diferentiated? Are you afraid you may accidentally marry a man if it isn't made blindingly obvious you are at a gay wedding?

because there is a difference....

And lol no point what so ever.

RDM · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:22

Craterloads said:
because there is a difference....

And lol no point what so ever.

Should we have black marriage? Asian marriage? Mixed race marriage? Infertile couple marriage? Why do they not need differentiating?

steve-h · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:23

Craterloads said:
A little hyprocritcal considering your last point

I'm not following, can you be more clear towards what you're getting at?

LeJosh · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:23

Some comic relief me thinks.

Craterloads · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:24

RDM said:
Should we have black marriage? Asian marriage? Mixed race marriage? Infertile couple marriage? Why do they not need differentiating?

Irrelevant, we are discussing marriage as being for a man & woman.

RDM · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:27

Craterloads said:
Irrelevant, we are discussing marriage as being for a man & woman.

But the only reason you can come up with for it needing to be called something different is because there is a physical difference. There is a physical difference in all of the cases I previously mentioned so why should they not have a different name too?

Trust me, it wouldn't take long to find someone that finds mixed race marriage as abhorrent as you seem to find same gender marriage...

Craterloads · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:30

Like i said, the discussion is based on marriage being classed as something between a man & woman.

Thats another topic, and is not needed here.

Castiel · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:31

Craterloads said:
Why would it be any better, a major point in homosexuals wanting the term "marriage" is to takeaway any differences between the two = equals

If you stick "gay" onto the front of it you will be essentially doing the same thing.

The point is that they are Equals.

There is no good reason why marriage should be reserved solely for heterosexual couples....the only real issue is whether the State should legislate to force religions to marry homosexual couples.

I think that the Churches should be free to choose for themselves whether they will officiate over them or not and also that civil partnerships be available to all as well. I am sure that there are many couples who would rather a civil partnership than a wedding so why can they not have one simply because they are not homosexuals.

Basically the whole system is confused and discriminatory so I see no good reason why everyone cannot have the same opportunity, the colour of your skin doesn't matter, so neither should the cut of your trousers.

Kotu · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:31

I have mixed feelings on this and honestly I have no rights to decide who is right in this situation, it is a hard subject to come to a conclusion with really. The church doesn't see homosexuals as followers of God since it goes against their beliefs, why should they allow their churches to be used for much marriages? The same should probably be said about allowing atheists to get married in a church, but I guess since its not quite as obvious that they are going against their beliefs they can turn a blind eye to it.

On the other hand, why don't homosexuals see civil partnerships as enough? It's essentially the same thing but I guess its not enough since its not actually called a marriage. Its probably a social thing since a lot of people probably think that 2 people in a civil partnership are not really married.

I don't see how marriage can be used under any law if any people are prevented from getting married, maybe if it were completed removed from law as to leave it as just a spiritual thing (so people getting married also had to get a civil partnership to be covered under law) then homosexuals might not feel as bad about being forced to get a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

From the churches point of view, allowing homosexual marriages might be similar to allowing the baptism of pets, something which could be quite amusing to none religious people but would be looked down on by religious people (or they wouldn't see the point).

RDM · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:32

Craterloads said:
Like i said, the discussion is based on marriage being classed as something between a man & woman.

Thats another topic, and is not needed here.

Indeed I would hate to draw the comparison between a bigotry you feel is acceptable and a bigotry you do not! Obviously there is no connection at all...

Tunney · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:34

The Catholic church used to say the same thing about marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics. Times change and the Catholic church usually lags far behind the rest of society.

Craterloads · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:39

Castiel said:
The point is that they are Equals.

There is no good reason why marriage should be reserved solely for heterosexual couples....the only real issue is whether the State should legislate to force religions to marry homosexual couples.

I think that the Churches should be free to choose for themselves whether they will officiate over them or not and also that civil partnerships be available to all as well. I am sure that there are many couples who would rather a civil partnership than a wedding so why can they not have one simply because they are not homosexuals.

Basically the whole system is confused and discriminatory so I see no good reason why everyone cannot have the same opportunity, the colour of your skin doesn't matter, so neither should the cut of your trousers.

Like i said earlier

Craterloads said:
Can’t really see the issue here, if the Catholic Church is against same sex marriage that’s their prerogative. You can’t force people to change their views or silence their voices just because you disagree with them. The Church is well within its rights to speak up in what it believes in.

Way to jump to conclusions, guess you havent even read what we were discussing here :confused:

RDM said:
Indeed I would hate to draw the comparison between a bigotry you feel is acceptable and a bigotry you do not! Obviously there is no connection at all...

Destination · 5 Mar 2012 at 18:41

Castiel said:
The 'natural' way to raise children is, if we look at humanity over time, in a community driven environment.....where the community at large raise the children rather than the individual biological parents.....the family unit is relatively new to civilisation and is increasingly isolated from the original communal societies which could be thought of as our natural state.

In Native American Indians, raising Children was shared by the community, firstly by the women and then as the children grew their education was taken over by the relevant gender, boys taught how to be Warriors and so on.....the interesting thing for this thread is that homosexuals in most tribes were very revered, especially those who exhibited what we would refer to as 'camp' behaviour.....they were seen as closer to the Gods (due to their being of both sexes so to speak, like God) and were encouraged to help raise the children of the tribe because of this.

As an hilarious aside ( or perhaps not) all that flowery camp upbringing really worked out well for the native americans didn't it