Seriously though, if there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual marriage, then why is it important to draw a distinction between gay and straight marriage? You may as well call for seperate terms for male and female doctors...
The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
For goodness sake, the quote from Castiel was in the frame of reference of marriage between straight or gay couples, nothing to do with incest... Why are you constantly talking about incest? And since you are bringing up incest over and over again, Castiel has already provided a perfectly well reasoned argument as to why it is a bad idea, completely aside from the genetic arguments...
Can we just leave the incest thing? You have already said you have no moral objection to gay marriage so drop the "MORALLY WRONG" quotes, please.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
I said mostly impartial, meaning that I can see negative and positive points regarding the Catholic Church culminating in a net 'mostly impartial' view. My point was those defending the Church seem far more defensive, less open and more aggressive in their points than the majority of those who are raising some of those challenges (trolls and ill-educated numpties aside).
It was an observation, nothing more.
The context of the thread denotes the context of the question I asked, it was clearly within the context of homosexual marriage rather than incest.....In any case, I indulged your affectation to avoid the actual question and answered your various questions as they related to incest....I am not sure how I was proven wrong specifically or how your misinterpretation, whether intentional or not, has anything to do with the question I asked, and even went so far as to reword it for you in case you were further confused about the context in which it was asked.
And the question remains, why is homosexual marriage morally wrong?.....not homosexuality itself...but the actual marriage and more specifically why should marriage between heterosexual couples be any different to marriage between homosexual couples, especially in light of your stated stance that homosexuality itself (note: not homosexual marriage) is not morally wrong?
Do I take your increasingly desperate avoidance of the specific question relating to your standpoint on homosexual marriage (note: not homosexuality itself) as you simply do not have any objective justification for your opinion?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Erm didnt i answer that about 10mins ago. I believe marriage is for a MAN & Woman only....
Sorry i morally believe marriage should only be for man & woman.
Whilst "civil partnerships" should remain for homesexual couples. As i believe a distinction should be made.
You are not answering the question...
You believe that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples alone, correct?
You also believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, as implied by the first Statement, correct?
Why should marriage be reserved only for heterosexual couples, I know that your opinion is that it should, but what is your reasoning for that?
And by implication you should therefore be able to answer why homosexual marriage is morally wrong whereas a civil partnership is not?
I'm not saying you are wrong for believing that or making a specific judgement about you because of it, I simply would like to know your rationale for holding such an opinion, especially how it relates to your specific moral code?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
I believe "marriage" should be reserved for straight couples, as thats how mother nature intended it to be. My rationale is that it is "unnatural" and against the laws of nature. Hence why i believe "civil partnerships" should suffice as that will allow a clear distinction to be made between the two.
Happy now
edit: I would be happy for homosexuals to take the term "marriage" as long as hetrosexuals discontinue using the term.
Last edited:
I believe "marriage" should be reserved for straight couples, as thats how mother nature intended it to be. My rationale is that it is "unnatural" and against the laws of nature. Hence why i believe "civil partnerships" should suffice as that will allow a clear distinction to be made between the two.
Happy now
Given that homosexuality is commonplace throughout the animal kingdom, and it has been prevalent in every Human Culture, even revered in many of them, to such an extent that it could be considered a very 'natural' state for the individual, how does that impact on your opinion, if you consider that objectively?
Also, what is your rationale in deciding what is 'unnatural', or do you ascribe to the homosexuality is a 'choice' camp?
Why should the two 'marriages' be refered to separately, using separate terminology if they are equal under the law.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
All ready had this exact debate with romannose, please feel free to go back a few pages if you wish to read my responses.
Briefly, because there are massive differences between the two that deserve to be differentiated. One being one couple can procreate whilst the other cannot, in my opinion this is worth to highlight a difference. (Disregarding any abnormalities a woman and man may face regarding procreating)
Last edited:
So your reasoning is that it is against nature for a man to marry a man, that it is un-natural, but it is not against nature or un-natural for a man to civil-partnership another man?....Craterloads said:
So we're not looking at this from the point of view of the church now, but from mother nature. And mother nature says it is ok for 2 men to live together and commit themselves to one another, but it is against nature for them to specifically marry each other...
Wow, that's strange...
Craterloads said:
Ahhhh, so it's basically down to the fact that you want to discriminate between straight and gay couples. Now i see where you're coming from!
Maybe you could 'quote' the relevant passages in your response, as I have not seen any specific answers to what I was asking.
In particular, how can Homosexual Marriage be immoral because it is unnatural, yet you stated that homosexuality itself is not immoral and I assume from that it follows that it is also not unnatural?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Briefly, because there are massive differences between the two that deserve to be differentiated. One being one couple can procreate whilst the other cannot, in my opinion this is worthy to highlight a difference. (Disregarding any abnormalities a woman and man may face regarding procreating)
Last edited:
So you think that marriage is only reserved for procreation?
Are heterosexual couples who marry, yet have no intention of having children also unnatural and thus immoral?
Should there be a legal and specific differentiation between a married couple with Children and those without?....
And if, with regard to infertility in married couples, it is acceptable for heterosexual couples to use medical means to procreate where in purely 'natural' terms they could not, would it also be acceptable for a homosexual couple to procreate using similar medical techniques and if so, would they then be able to marry as the difference with regard procreation has been negated?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Like i said one reason being.
Why would it be immoral? they at least have the ability to naturaly.
I dont think you can compare something as horibble as infertilty to the plite of homosexual couples. I dont think homosexual couples should be parenting in anyplace. And before you say why not, i believe a child needs both a mother and a father. Single mothers and fathers that have been put in a less than ideal situation due to some misfortune or another, maybe a death of a partner. Purposely placing a child into such a situation is wrong. Foster home children etc is debatable. Not really something i can be bothered debating about right now.
Like i said they are welcomed to marry as long as there is a distinction between the two, hetrosexuals using a different term.
like i said " (Disregarding any abnormalities a woman and man may face regarding procreating)" unnatural means does not bring it on par with natural procreation.
Last edited:
No the law defines marriage - like I already pointed out and you chose to ignore you can get married in a registry office and it is strictly non religious (by law). Muslims get married, Hindus get married, its already not an exclusively Christian affair in this country.
All they're doing is changing the law - it has no effect on 'Christian Marriage' or any other religion's marriage ceremonies should they not chose to allow it - they're not forcing any religions to allow same sex marriage but rather they're changing the legal definition of 'marriage'. This will allow same sex marriage in a registry office and with any religion that might chose to allow it.
Marriage is not a prerequisite for having children, nor is having children in the future a requirement of marriage, so what gives with basing whether or not two people may marry on whether they can procreate? The basis for this discussion is a change in the law to allow two same sex partners to be married. This has nothing to do with mother nature, or the ability, or even the desire, to have children.
Your argument against allowing same sex marriage is basically that gay people don't deserve to use the same term as heterosexual people. Which is discrimination based on sexual preference...
Your argument against allowing same sex marriage is basically that gay people don't deserve to use the same term as heterosexual people. Which is discrimination based on sexual preference...
Why do you believe a child needs a mother and a father? Because that is the normal family unit you've been conditioned to accept? Have you read anything objective that might suggest that same sex parents are harmful in anyway or is it a viewpoint based on your own subjective biases?
My rationale on this (I only posted some stuff earlier about the Church's surprisingly lax teachings on the matter) is that I view marriage as being a covenant (not a contract, but thats another story) between a man and women, with their union being sanctified by God, and with the possible blessings of creating life (a large part of Catholic doctrine on marriage).
To this end, a homosexual couple cannot concieve, and thus breaks what I would consider to be my ideal on marriage. Whilst I am naturally repulsed by homosexual acts (what with being hetrosexual), I am thoroughly of the opinion that it's two people's lives that they are MORE than welcome to do what they want with.
My issue is when children (adoption etc) are bought into this. Sure it's possible to give me hypothetical scenarios about how Jim and Bob are laid back dudes who would raise a child well, versus some druggie mother who is to stupid to use a condom, but that's not the point. I don't believe in using such scenario's to justify my belief: that a child needs a mother as much as it needs a father.
There are fundemental issues in our world that I feel need to be kept sacrosanct, and this is one of them.
So confer all the rights of a married couple to homosexual couples, but please keep the children out of it, and please don't call it marriage.
To this end, a homosexual couple cannot concieve, and thus breaks what I would consider to be my ideal on marriage. Whilst I am naturally repulsed by homosexual acts (what with being hetrosexual), I am thoroughly of the opinion that it's two people's lives that they are MORE than welcome to do what they want with.
My issue is when children (adoption etc) are bought into this. Sure it's possible to give me hypothetical scenarios about how Jim and Bob are laid back dudes who would raise a child well, versus some druggie mother who is to stupid to use a condom, but that's not the point. I don't believe in using such scenario's to justify my belief: that a child needs a mother as much as it needs a father.
There are fundemental issues in our world that I feel need to be kept sacrosanct, and this is one of them.
So confer all the rights of a married couple to homosexual couples, but please keep the children out of it, and please don't call it marriage.
It doesn't need to be your ideal though; It does not involve you.
Why is that exactly? What happens if we call a civil partnership "marriage"?