The tolerant Catholic Church

[RDM]

Like i said earlier i only view marriage differences in the form of gender.

That didn't answer my question.

 

[koolpc]

You are indeed allowed an opinion, hence I didn't rtm your post. If you want to hold antiquated bigoted views with regards to homosexuality feel free.

Do what you want. Maybe you are the bigot? Nothing wrong with homosexuals. In my eyes it is abnormal. Arent i allowed to say that?

 

[Craterloads]

That didn't answer my question.

Theres nothing to answer, its clearly bait.

 

[RDM]

Do what you want. Maybe you are the bigot? Nothing wrong with homosexuals. In my eyes it is abnormal. Arent i allowed to say that?

You are quite correct, I am indeed bigoted for thinking that people should be treated equally and not discriminated against. Certainly an unusual definition of bigotry!

Why are you asking if you are allowed to say it? I already said that I had no problem with you saying it, Voltaire springs to mind in fact. I certainly disagree with what you say, but that is not unsuprising.

 

[RDM]

Theres nothing to answer, its clearly bait.

I can understand your reluctance to answer because otherwise you would have to admit that certain viewpoints go beyond "just holding opinions". Compartmentalising prejudices into acceptable and unacceptable.

 

[koolpc]

In this day and age, i am sick of people saying 'you cant say that' you mustnt say that' you are a 'racist' 'thats against human rights' etc etc. What is this place coming to when you cant express a view or an opinion without being labelled?

 

[RDM]

In this day and age, i am sick of people saying 'you cant say that' you mustnt say that' you are a 'racist' 'thats against human rights' etc etc.

But no one is saying you can't say it. You seem to be railing against a non-existent problem.

What is this place coming to when you cant express a view or an opinion without being labelled?

Ah, so you want full freedom of speech for yourself but wish to restrict freedom of speech in others! Got it!

 

[koolpc]

But no one is saying you can't say it. You seem to be railing against a non-existent problem.

You started calling me a Bigot though

Ah, so you want full freedom of speech for yourself but wish to restrict freedom of speech in others! Got it!

You seem to think only your way of thinking is right!!

 

[RDM]

I didnt try and stop you from expressing your views.

I did label your views as bigotry. To stop me doing that would mean you would need to restrict my freedom of speech(as far as it exists on a controlled medium). Freedom of speech cuts both ways, you get to say what you like, I get to say what I like about what you said.

If you can give me a convincing argument about why it is right to restrict gays from marrying then I shall change my mind on the subject. So far the arguments have been far from convincing.

 

[koolpc]

Being gay is not normal. So, 'marrying' is a normal practice between a man and a woman. Lets keep gay partnerships as they currently are, civil partnerships.

Whats next then? Transvestites marrying in a church? Sickening at the thought.

 

[RDM]

Being gay is not normal. So, 'marrying' is a normal practice between a man and a woman. Lets keep gay partnerships as they currently are, civil partnerships.

As I said, convincing argument. "They are not normal" isn't really all that convincing.

Whats next then? Transvestites marrying in a church? Sickening at the thought.

I have some bad news for you, there is nothing to stop a transvestite legally getting married in a church (As long as they are marrying someone of the opposite gender). If they can find a church that will agree then job done. There is also nothing to stop a post operative transexual getting married in a church.

Despite this, the world has not ended.

 

[koolpc]

Never heard of a Tranny getting wed in a church yet. Apparently a priest has a right to refuse to this

 

[Fran]

Which is sort of the point. Society changes and so things within it change. Why should marriage be immutable? It obviously hasn't been in the past, so why should it be now?

Religion tends not to change because it still has to be guided by whatever book it considers represents it.
If the Bible ever ran to a second edition then that would be a good time to make your petition

You seem to have a remarkably skewed view of what marriage is in this country. You are aware that somewhere between 65-70% of all UK marriages are not held in a Church?

What a marriage represents is pretty universal, otherwise nobody would bother.

I think allowing the occassional Gay marriage is the least of the Churches problems when it comes to credibility these days.

Non related issues are irrelevant, credibility is not being discussed.

That aside there are already some Christian denominations that are happy to bless civil unions. There are also many churchs that now allow women clergy. Has that discredited the integrity of all churches?

Yes it has, witness the mass decampment of Anglicans to Catholicism for evidence.

I would not suggest that the generally more liberal attitudes to homosexuality are a retrograde step at all. Much like I would not say that the generally more liberal attitudes towards mixed race marriages is a retrograde step. Or the more liberal attitudes towards race, religion and many other things it was acceptable to be bigoted against in times past. Not all change is bad and not all change will lead to moral decay.

Nothing much in the Bible about mixed race marriages though is there, so again not relevant.
This isn't one minority group addressing baseless bigotry, this is one minority group undermining another groups basic beliefs. That in itself is bigotry against Christians.

Which is more important, Christian rights to follow their core beliefs unhindered by the State, or the 1% who don't feel special enough and want a name badge.

I assume then that you consider childless marriages a barran sham too?

I'll assume the fecundity issue was known before hand ?
A somewhat pointless arrangement then.

At the end of the day as a happily married heterosexual man allowing gay couples to marry will have zero impact on me, on how I feel about my wife and how I feel about marriage in general.

It's not about you though, it's the wider issue.

The only thing that will change is we will live in a slightly more fair society that is slightly less bigoted. I see that as a good thing.

Removing one groups rights for the benefit of another isn't exactly advancing the cause.

 

[bam0]

Removing one groups rights for the benefit of another isn't exactly advancing the cause.

What rights do the religious complainers lose? There is nothing in the current proposals about forcing religious bodies to conduct marriages between same sex partners.

 

[Fran]

What rights do the religious complainers lose? There is nothing in the current proposals about forcing religious bodies to conduct marriages between same sex partners.

Perhaps rights is too precise, but I think the church deserves some recognition as the guardian of such an instituon, clearly leaving in the hands of the state has allowed it to be whored out to whichever minority group shouts the loudest.
Secondly, some churches will conduct gay marriages because not all groups follow the same interpretations.

Indeed some are much more subtle with their bigotry.

So you get to call some people bigots without allowing them the right to reply ?
How about quoting the people you consider thus so they can defend themselves.

Otherwise it's a bit like blowing raspberries and then running away.

 

[bam0]

Perhaps rights is too precise, but I think the church deserves some recognition as the guardian of such an instituon, clearly leaving in the hands of the state has allowed it to be whored out to whichever minority group shouts the loudest.
Secondly, some churches will conduct gay marriages because not all groups follow the same interpretations.

The church is not the guardian of marriage, it can define "Christian" marriage as it wishes and enforce those rules as it sees fit on those who choose to accept them. But it has no right or business dictating in general what should and shouldn't be marriage.

 

[Fran]

The church is not the guardian of marriage, it can define "Christian" marriage as it wishes and enforce those rules as it sees fit on those who choose to accept them. But it has no right or business dictating in general what should and shouldn't be marriage.

Really ?
What do you think people think of when they think of a marriage ceremony, a football chant about pie consumption ?
The church has defined what it is and what it stands for for at least a few hundred years in this country and nobody objected before.

 

[[Damien]]

Really ?
What do you think people think of when they think of a marriage ceremony, a football chant about pie consumption ?
The church has defined what it is and what it stands for for at least a few hundred years in this country and nobody objected before.

'what people think of' isn't the standard by which all governmental policy is decided upon. Also people not outwardly objecting as much as they do now because of what repercussions people might have faced from the church and its supporters doesn't mean there's a lack of objection.

The sooner religion stops trying to impose its will on the rest of society the better.

 

[Fran]

'what people think of' isn't the standard by which all governmental policy is decided upon.

Are you saying the government is unconcerned with the culture and history of England ?

Also people not outwardly objecting as much as they do now because of what repercussions people might have faced from the church and its supporters doesn't mean there's a lack of objection.

I think we stopped burning dissenters a while back, I blame the outrageous rise in the cost of kindling.

The sooner religion stops trying to impose its will on the rest of society the better.

Funny that in this case it is the state imposing it's will upon the church, is that OK then ? We are not a press gang, people join us of their own free will and therefore we have a right to have our viewpoint considered.
Besides, it it wasn't for the church a few hundred years ago you'd all have been forced to follow Islam

 

[bam0]

The church has defined what it is and what it stands for for at least a few hundred years in this country and nobody objected before.

They used to object and the monarchy supported the church co-opting marriage, but think of it more as a lease, and now it's being taken back. Tradition is no reason perpetuate discrimination.

Funny that in this case it is the state imposing it's will upon the church, is that OK then ? We are not a press gang, people join us of their own free will and therefore we have a right to have our viewpoint considered.
Besides, it it wasn't for the church a few hundred years ago you'd all have been forced to follow Islam

Nothing is being imposed on the church, they are not being forced to agree that same sex marriage meets their definition of marriage, we're just not allowing the church to dictate the definition of legal marriage anymore. You are perfectly free to have your own rules regarding what you view as marriage and enforce those rules on people who choose to be subject to them.
I wouldn't have thought the crusades were much to crow about, and if Christianity hadn't come to Europe who says we wouldn't be happy polytheists following Norse/Celtic traditions?