The tolerant Catholic Church

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.
Click to expand...

What is the current difference in same sex civil ceremonies and marriage in a legal sence currently?
Except the actual term used?
 
ringo747 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I pity the child for only one reason; fame can screw up children's lives, nothing at all to do with sexuality. You could bring a child up gay just as you can teach fish to play guitar.

dave_beast said:
All the worlds problems and conflicts always come from religion, ban the lot.
Click to expand...

The idea of religion is possibly quite sound as a rule-book to life, don't do this or that and mainly moral rules that are a basis for a great deal of modern moral thinking and law.

Where religion go's wrong is in misinterpretation of scriptures and use of of outdated ideas that have no place in modern society. Much of the wrong attributed to religion can just as easily be linked to past society and government in general. When religion had a greater say in the running of states either state or religious factions would tailor each-others views to twist or direct the populous in the direction needed.

All I can say on the whole issue is, :confused:

I do not know how my friend can like men and not women; I cannot imagine being attracted to men. If I was a woman with this mind I would be attracted to other women; there it is, its not a choice, it's simply how the mind is.

Gay; straight, bisexual, transsexual, who cares.

So long as no-one is being hurt or abused it dose not matter.
 
Castiel said:
Why is it actually MORALLY WRONG for two people who love each other to get married?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Can I counter that with a question.

Why is it MORALLY WRONG for a brother and sister who love each other to get married? For that matter what about a father and daughter? I do mean love each other in a fully sexual relationship.

Genuine question.
 
spudbynight said:
Can I counter that with a question.

Why is it MORALLY WRONG for a brother and sister who love each other to get married? For that matter what about a father and daughter? I do mean love each other in a fully sexual relationship.

Genuine question.
Click to expand...

Abuse of trust.

Same reason doctors and teachers can't have relationships with patients and pupils.
 
Haven't read the thread, but I think I have a general idea how it went.

Hitman_Leon said:
...outdated ideas that have no place in modern society.
Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that these 'outdated ideas' may actually be right, and it is we, in the here and now who are wrong?

Those (who are now in the minority) who believe that God is Sovereign, and that His law is the highest law, do not believe that His laws become outdated, or do they need to be updated/changed to suit the times or the desires and lusts of humankind.

If you do not believe in God, and you believe that 'right' and 'wrong' change as time goes on depending on how you feel, then yeah, there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. You can only fear the worst for a society when it is heading down this road.

Hitman_Leon said:
Gay; straight, bisexual, transsexual, who cares.

So long as no-one is being hurt or abused it dose not matter.
Click to expand...

Certain actions are harmful to oneself. Again, if you do not believe you will ever have to account to anyone for anything then I suppose yeah you can do as you please without fear of any consequence.
 
spudbynight said:
Can I counter that with a question.

Why is it MORALLY WRONG for a brother and sister who love each other to get married? For that matter what about a father and daughter? I do mean love each other in a fully sexual relationship.

Genuine question.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
spudbynight said:
Can I counter that with a question.

Why is it MORALLY WRONG for a brother and sister who love each other to get married? For that matter what about a father and daughter? I do mean love each other in a fully sexual relationship.

Genuine question.
Click to expand...

It is wrong because of the very real risk that their progeny will be increasingly inbred and thus suffer from all kinds of genetic abnormalities, the moral aspect derives from that practical one and we can demonstrate that by the way in which many Royal Blood Lines would only inter-marry (including between siblings) and how over time their offspring became weaker and weaker, both in body and mind which is why many ancient Bloodlines are now defunct and the remaining ones married in ever increasing circles to bring new blood into the family, even raising commoners to the aristocracy to bolster the bloodline.
 
Castiel said:
It is wrong because of the very real risk that their progeny will be increasingly inbred and thus suffer from all kinds of genetic abnormalities, the moral aspect derives from that practical one and we can demonstrate that by the way in which many Royal Blood Lines would only inter-marry (including between siblings) and how over time their offspring became weaker and weaker, both in body and mind which is why many ancient Bloodlines are now defunct and the remaining ones married in ever increasing circles to bring new blood into the family, even raising commoners to the aristocracy to bolster the bloodline.
Click to expand...

Yup turns out interbreeding preserves recessive genes... Looking at cosanguinous populations eg ashkenaziJews tells us why interbreeding is bad...
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
What is the current difference in same sex civil ceremonies and marriage in a legal sence currently?
Except the actual term used?
Click to expand...

They are different as they both discriminate against different sections of society....I cannot have a civil partnership with a woman....A homosexual cannot have a marriage with someone of the same sex.

They are to be treated legally as equal, yet in reality they are not, unless you count them as being equally discriminatory.
 
Castiel said:
It is wrong because of the very real risk that their progeny will be increasingly inbred and thus suffer from all kinds of genetic abnormalities, the moral aspect derives from that practical one and we can demonstrate that by the way in which many Royal Blood Lines would only inter-marry (including between siblings) and how over time their offspring became weaker and weaker, both in body and mind which is why many ancient Bloodlines are now defunct and the remaining ones married in ever increasing circles to bring new blood into the family, even raising commoners to the aristocracy to bolster the bloodline.
Click to expand...

Dont think this point holds any water these days considering the advancement in technology. Birth defects and other potential problems can be identified in early pregancy and if anything is detected an abortion can be carried out. The chances of birth defects given the correct, amount of attention, with todays technology would eliminate or minimise the chances of birth defect to a neglible percentage.

Given technology is advancing at such a rapid state sooner rather than later this will not be an issue, not to mention they can mess with the genes of the baby even today.

So given the above points, without the medical or health risks is incest morally wrong or right? given that the two "love each other" as you say...
 
Castiel said:
They are different as they both discriminate against different sections of society....I cannot have a civil partnership with a woman....A homosexual cannot have a marriage with someone of the same sex.

They are to be treated legally as equal, yet in reality they are not, unless you count them as being equally discriminatory.
Click to expand...

iirc civil partnerships don't get some tax or legal protection that marriage does, can't remember what exactly, someone posted it on here though.
 
Craterloads said:
Dont think this point holds any water these days considering the advancement in technology. Birth defects and other potential problems can be identified in early pregancy and if anything is detected an abortion can be carried out. The chances of birth defects given the correct, amount of attention, with todays technology would eliminate or minimise the chances of birth defect to a neglible percentage.

Given technology is advancing at such a rapid state sooner rather than later this will not be an issue, not to mention they can mess with the genes of the baby even today.

So given the above points, without the medical or health risks is incest morally wrong or right? given that the two "love each other" as you say...
Click to expand...


the increase in genetic conditions in the inbreeding immigrant Muslim population disagrees with you.

Also if they're strongly Christian, how can they have an abortion?


not to mention they can mess with the genes of the baby even today.
Click to expand...


not legally iirc.
 
RomanNose said:
Then it's no problem, but with marriage it's kind of expected.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite, what about homosexuals? They can’t have children.

How about the brother & sister or father & daughter adopt as homosexual couples do.

Heck how about brother & brother relationships + adoption.

What is the difference....lol
 
Tefal said:
the increase in genetic conditions in the inbreeding immigrant Muslim population disagrees with you.

Also if they're strongly Christian, how can they have an abortion?

not legally iirc.
Click to expand...

Wow muslim population? i think you mean asian population....

As like the royal family...

Anyhow how about gay brotherly incest.. now what?
 
Tefal said:
Also if they're strongly Christian, how can they have an abortion?
Click to expand...

If they are practising Christians, I doubt they would find themselves in a situation where a brother is married to his sister.

But seriously, can someone who believes we can do 'what we want as long as we are not hurting anyone', answer why they believe a mother and son, or brother and sister, two brothers, two sisters etc cannot marry each other if they are both adults over 25 and both consenting.
 
Castiel said:
It is wrong because of the very real risk that their progeny will be increasingly inbred and thus suffer from all kinds of genetic abnormalities, the moral aspect derives from that practical one and we can demonstrate that by the way in which many Royal Blood Lines would only inter-marry (including between siblings) and how over time their offspring became weaker and weaker, both in body and mind which is why many ancient Bloodlines are now defunct and the remaining ones married in ever increasing circles to bring new blood into the family, even raising commoners to the aristocracy to bolster the bloodline.
Click to expand...

So if they were infertile then you would have no problem with a brother a sister marrying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom