The tolerant Catholic Church

[Castiel]

In our culture (not that of ancient Sumeria or anywhere else) then historically what we know as marriage has been a Christian event. You only need to look at our history to see how this has affected us.

That is not particularly true.....Marriage in our Culture and those Cultures that influenced Britain historically have a largely secular history when it comes to marriage......in most cases it was simply required to make a statement of intent in front of your peers and in feudal society gain the permission of the Noble to which you were bonded, depending on your social status of course......

Church involvement didn't begin until the 12 Century and even then it was simpy to record the marriages in the Parish rather than officiate wedding and also that was not compulsory. Church Involvement in the officiation of weddings was not commonplace until the 15th Century.....much of this has been covered already earlier in thread.

In any case, the question in front of us is not whether the Church should allow gay marriage....but whether the State does, and the State has a responsibilty to promote equality and fairness for all its population, this would logically include allowing gay marriage through the State Licencing of it.....you may argue that civil partnerships enable that right, however they may have equal weight with regard the how the Law deals with them, but they are not equal in application...the very nature of having one system for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals is akin to a form of apartheid......there is no justifiable reason why gay marriage cannot be sanctioned by the State and that very simple demarkation based purely on an individuals sexuality is justification enough to remove it.

I don't support forcing the Church to officiate gay marriage however.....they have to be free to choose for themselves.

 

[bam0]

In our culture (not that of ancient Sumeria or anywhere else) then historically what we know as marriage has been a Christian event. You only need to look at our history to see how this has affected us.

England and Wales have had civil marriages since 1837. You were not aware of this?

 

[spudbynight]

we are a christian country get over it

The fact of the matter is that this is correct.

 

[spudbynight]

England and Wales have had civil marriages since 1837. You were not aware of this?

I was aware of that.

 

[bam0]

I was aware of that.

Then between that and Castiel's post the church only had control over it for roughly 200 years, your assertion fails.

 

[RDM]

The fact of the matter is that this is correct.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that, when I find my views coincide with the BNP I normally need to reasses them and see if the position I am holding is reasonable.

Have a look at the other posts by MortonF, in this thread and in the thread on racism. Now ask yourself the question "Is this the sort of person I want to be seen supporting?".

Much like the deep sense of embarrasment I feel when reading some of bhavv's posts...

 

[hurfdurf]

As i have said previously the rights are in place already with civil partnerships.

Yea, that has never ever been an issue before has it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Marriage is a social construct, as long as there are differences in how we define a relationship, they will be viewed differently. At the moment in this country homosexuals are looked down on by many, removing the separate but equal nonsense goes a step forward in reducing the negative connotations, that largely the previous generation are responsible for, that homosexual relationships have.

Basically what I am saying is you are disgustingly homophobic, despite having "gay friends" on your choir.

 

[hurfdurf]

Putting words into people's mouths is pretty childish don't you think ? I'm not sure I would bother replying either. It's not like he hasn't answered that point several times already

When did I put words in his mouth, I simply said he would probably repeat his nonsense

 

[Castiel]

Yea, that has never ever been an issue before has it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Marriage is a social construct, as long as there are differences in how we define a relationship, they will be viewed differently. At the moment in this country homosexuals are looked down on by many, removing the separate but equal nonsense goes a step forward in reducing the negative connotations, that largely the previous generation are responsible for, that homosexual relationships have.

Basically what I am saying is you are disgustingly homophobic, despite having "gay friends" on your choir.

I think calling people homophobic because they are of the opinon that Marriage is between a Man and Woman is a bit wide of the mark tbh......it doesn't imply they hate homosexuals, only they have a specific idea of what marriage is.

Disagree with that by all means, I do....but calling people homophobes is just rhetoric and is not constructive.

 

[RDM]

I think calling people homophobic because they are of the opinon that Marriage is between a Man and Woman is a bit wide of the mark tbh......it doesn't imply they hate homosexuals, only they have a specific idea of what marriage is.

Disagree with that by all means, I do....but calling people homophobes is just rhetoric and is not constructive.

What about if they call homosexuals unnatural, abnormal and a threat to the fabric of society? Is that just a specific idea of what it means to be natural, normal and supportive of society?

This isn't directed at you Castiel but I have found it quite amusing that when some posters have been decrying the (sometimes justified, sometimes not) abuse directed at the church they have been the same people using abusive terms towards homosexuality. However they seem to be utterly blind to it.

That said, other than the last line of the post you just quoted I do agree with him entirely. Seperate but Equal is something we were rightly ashamed off when it came to race yet we are meant to embrace it when it comes to sexuality? Nah.

 

[spudbynight]

That is not particularly true.....Marriage in our Culture and those Cultures that influenced Britain historically have a largely secular history when it comes to marriage......in most cases it was simply required to make a statement of intent in front of your peers and in feudal society gain the permission of the Noble to which you were bonded, depending on your social status of course......

I think here we might be going off on a bit of a tangent and I think we are probably not agreed on the scope of the definition of our culture. We are no longer a feudal society. Certainly if you look at Ptolomy's Geographia from the 2nd century he lists a number of individual tribes on this island. It wasn't really until the Normans invaded that our current culture began in any meaningful way. The Normans of course were most certainly Christian.

Church involvement didn't begin until the 12 Century and even then it was simpy to record the marriages in the Parish rather than officiate wedding and also that was not compulsory. Church Involvement in the officiation of weddings was not commonplace until the 15th Century.....much of this has been covered already earlier in thread.

It appears we are fairly close in opinions on some of this. I would contend that our culture as it exists today really only began in earnest with Church involvement. As you are about to point out below we are going off tangent.

In any case, the question in front of us is not whether the Church should allow gay marriage....but whether the State does, and the State has a responsibilty to promote equality and fairness for all its population, this would logically include allowing gay marriage through the State Licencing of it.....you may argue that civil partnerships enable that right, however they may have equal weight with regard the how the Law deals with them, but they are not equal in application...the very nature of having one system for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals is akin to a form of apartheid......there is no justifiable reason why gay marriage cannot be sanctioned by the State and that very simple demarkation based purely on an individuals sexuality is justification enough to remove it.

I don't support forcing the Church to officiate gay marriage however.....they have to be free to choose for themselves.

There is an argument to simply open up civil partnerships to all. This would enable marriage to remain the preserve of people of faith with no legal basis. I'm interested in your thoughts on that - I'm not really sure where I sit in that regard.

 

[spudbynight]

Then between that and Castiel's post the church only had control over it for roughly 200 years, your assertion fails.

Roughly 200 years?

 

[spudbynight]

Disagree with that by all means, I do....but calling people homophobes is just rhetoric and is not constructive.

I agree which is why Mr Durf is on my ignore list.

 

[RDM]

There is an argument to simply open up civil partnerships to all. This would enable marriage to remain the preserve of people of faith with no legal basis. I'm interested in your thoughts on that - I'm not really sure where I sit in that regard.

That makes no real sense considering the majority of marriages are not religious and so therefore not the preserve of people of faith at the moment.

 

[Castiel]

What about if they call homosexuals unnatural, abnormal and a threat to the fabric of society? Is that just a specific idea of what it means to be natural, normal and supportive of society?

This isn't directed at you Castiel but I have found it quite amusing that when some posters have been decrying the (sometimes justified, sometimes not) abuse directed at the church they have been the same people using abusive terms towards homosexuality. However they seem to be utterly blind to it.

You make a good point, however that would begin a whole new debate on what is considered 'normal' and whether 'abnormal' or 'unnatural' are always negatives and so on, ad infinitum....I can't see how allowing state sanctioned gay marriage will threaten the fabric of society however...maybe on of those members who thinks it will can explain why?

That said, other than the last line of the post you just quoted I do agree with him entirely. Seperate but Equal is something we were rightly ashamed off when it came to race yet we are meant to embrace it when it comes to sexuality? Nah.

Absolutely...it is the primary reason I am oppposed to homosexually exclusive civil partnerships and in favour of gay weddings......both applications should be freely available to all.......or to none. As I said it is a form of apartheid.

 

[bhavv]

I've heard the argument of opening civil parterships to all and I agree with that one.

There was a straight couple in the news that didnt want to get married, but wanted a civil partnership for the same legal status and rights as a married couple, but they were still denied after many court hearings as the law doesnt allow it.

But then I have to ask, what exactly is the difference between a civil partership and a civil marriage? Neither are religious, both are completely secular, the only issue that intolerant people have is that a couple of the same sex shouldnt be entitled to even use the word 'marriage', which is completely morally wrong.

Religion should not, and does not have a monopoly on marriage, and 3/5 marriages in the UK are secular civil marriages where the word god is not even allowed to be mentioned during the ceremony, so what exactly is wrong with secular civil partnerships being made available for same sex couples?

 

[RDM]

You make a good point, however that would begin a whole new debate on what is considered 'normal' and whether 'abnormal' or 'unnatural' are always negatives and so on, ad infinitum....I can't see how allowing state sanctioned gay marriage will threaten the fabric of society however...maybe on of those members who thinks it will can explain why?

It has been asked repeatedly but with no real reply yet. There seems to be a selective blindness to some posts.

Absolutely...it is the primary reason I am oppposed to homosexually exclusive civil partnerships and in favour of gay weddings......both applications should be freely available to all.......or to none. As I said it is a form of apartheid.

Agreed, even add an opt out clause for those religions that wish to do so. Make it about choice rather than forcing people to take one route or the other.

 

[Castiel]

I think here we might be going off on a bit of a tangent and I think we are probably not agreed on the scope of the definition of our culture. We are no longer a feudal society. Certainly if you look at Ptolomy's Geographia from the 2nd century he lists a number of individual tribes on this island. It wasn't really until the Normans invaded that our current culture began in any meaningful way. The Normans of course were most certainly Christian.

the Normans did not introduce Church officiated Weddings.....There were four conditions that had to be met:

'The partners had to be of equal and free rank and must give their consent.

The woman must be given by her father and dowered.

The marriage must be honored publicly.

The union was completed by sexual consummation.'

The officiation could be held by anyone of social standing in the relevant community, it was simply not the exclusive preserve of the Christian Church.....

In fact the Church position at the time did not even adhere to some of those conditions, in the 12th Century work 'concerning the sacrements of the Christian Religion' it makes the statement:

'"When the man says, ‘I receive you as mine, so that you become my wife and I your husband,’ and when the woman makes the same declaration ... when they do and say this according to existing custom and are in agreement, it is then that I say they are married ... whether by chance they have made it, as they should not, alone, apart, in secret, and with no witnesses present, yet ... they are well and truly married"'

Only the declaration between two consenting individuals is enough.

My point is that Church involvement, and specifically Church authority over marriage is not something I would like to base my argument on...it is far too open to criticism and rather than supporting your argument it can and does in many examples undermine it.

Remember that according to the Nobility marriage was for property rights and inheritance, and there was also concubinage which was another form of marriage union without those rights...it really is not that clear cut and during that period and into the Renaissance marriages was about political and social control, with the Aristocracy and Nobility vying against the emergence of Church Involvement again as a way to influence society and the social order......

A good book to read on the subject of medieval marriage is 'The Knight, The Lady, and the Priest" by Georges Duby.

There is an argument to simply open up civil partnerships to all. This would enable marriage to remain the preserve of people of faith with no legal basis. I'm interested in your thoughts on that - I'm not really sure where I sit in that regard.

That would probably have a significant impact on the establishment of the Anglican Church....removing the legal status of marriage seems counter productive....better to just open civil marriage to everyone....and either abolish or open Civil Partnerships to everyone also.

 

[spudbynight]

My point is that Church involvement, and specifically Church authority over marriage is not something I would like to base my argument on...it is far too open to criticism and rather than supporting your argument it can and does in many examples undermine it.

I wasn't basing my argument on the involvement of the Church - I was trying to point out the Church's role in shaping our culture.

That would probably have a significant impact on the establishment of the Anglican Church....removing the legal status of marriage seems counter productive....better to just open civil marriage to everyone....and either abolish or open Civil Partnerships to everyone also.

What are your concerns regarding its impact on the CofE?

 

[Castiel]

I wasn't basing my argument on the involvement of the Church - I was trying to point out the Church's role in shaping our culture.

without doubt Christianity has shaped our culture, but it is a two way street...the Cultures of Western Europe have equally influenced the Church and by association various interpretations of Christianity. You only need to consider Calvinism and Lutherism for simple examples.

I think that the argument on gay marriage is one about how the State deals with its population...not one of how the Church deals with its congregation and so I think that the issue of allowing gay weddings is a secular one as it is the nominally the 'secular state' that is considering it....no-one is suggesting that any religion is forced to compromise their stance on their definitions of marriage.

What are your concerns regarding its impact on the CofE?

The Anglican Church is part of the State...so it is difficult to remove it's legal association with an instrument of that State without openong the issue of the larger establishment of the Church. It does raise questions about the necessity that any civil gay marriage instument is implicit in it's secularity.....