The tolerant Catholic Church

[RDM]

Surely the obligation is on those that want to make the change to prove no harm ?

Civil Partnerships have caused no harm, marriage is the same thing under a different name moving away from a "seperate but equal" position that we would find reprehenisble if applied to other characteristics such as race. Good enough for you?

I think it has been covered already, it's making changes to the historical and social concept of family, the ability to produce children is difficult so such partnerships will not be as stable.

Yes because children make relationships oh so stable. The rising number of single parents attest to that!

Really if I'm objecting as a Christian then it's unfair to expect me to justify it from an Atheists position. I can just say it is wrong according to my beliefs and leave it at that.

Then just object as a matter of faith rather than trying to make up rubbish excuses for it? But the quesiton should then be why should others have to abide by the strictures of your faith? I am not Catholic, why should I have to follow Catholic rules?

That's why I was asking for an actual quote so I could say something, I have no reason to abuse homosexuals and neither does spudbynight

What you will have found were quotes aimed at homosexuality, which is entirely different from saying something about the people themselves, by mixing the two up you are portraying a different picture which is why I asked for proof.

Then all is good because most of the abuse of Catholicism has been aimed at Catholicism rather than Catholics! That makes it alright then doesn't it?

Neither is it a reason to ignore it, Cameron is pretty much the only one who can fix this. Even if he provided asylum to the Iraqi LGBT leader it would help raise awareness, or in fact stop deporting Iraqi gays back to certain torture.
I don't expect politicians to faff about tweaking social laws for the sake of a few thousand people, I expect them to do big things like stop people being killed on a global scale.

Perhaps he too can multitask?

Because unlike you they see it as extremely important ? Don't worry, I'm sure they can multi-task.

And perhaps some people feel that gay marriage is important too?

That works both ways, this being a debate.
I even heard a gay man on the radio commenting that this wasn't a good idea, I guess he must be wrong too ?

And my wife is a Catholic and thinks gay marriage is fine, does that mean she is wrong? Face it your "There are more important things to worry about" line was rubbish. Just because there are more important things to worry about doesn't mean we have to ignore everything else.

Currently we are in a position of "seperate but equal" we would not accept that if the issue was race so why should we accept it if the issue is sexuality?

 

[steve-h]

Evil tbh.

meanwhile in Africa etc...

I think it has been covered already, it's making changes to the historical and social concept of family, the ability to produce children is difficult so such partnerships will not be as stable.

Do you have any stats/studies that suggest no children in a relationship make them less stable?

Also why the hell would you think you have the right to dictate what other people choose to do when they're not hurting anyone else in the slightest?

I can just say it is wrong according to my beliefs and leave it at that.

Which is why you're not taken seriously.

Because unlike you they see it as extremely important ?

Which is hilarious.

 

[Fran]

Obvious homophobes not realizing that they are homophobic

Are you incapable of concious thought ?
Both spudbynight and myself know and work with gay people, exactly why would we be homophobic.

It must be really annoying for you to encounter two Catholics who have gay friends because that's your entire ridiculous world view of religion compromised.

How many homosexual people do you know that complain about how repulsed they are by displays of heterosexual affection, none right?

Why should they, that is what they have been exposed to since birth. Did you have a point to make or was that on your list of obvious things to say to pretend you are saying something ?

Its also very rare to find heterosexual women who find homosexuality repulsive in anyway

Oh dear, shocking ignorance will out
You really have no idea of the prejudice lesbians encounter on a daily basis and the majority of that is actually from heterosexual women. This is all the way through school and into their working life.
Men by and large don't give a fig.

except for a few deeply religious prudes who would more than likely also be repulsed about straight sex.

So you are equating religious women with prudes ?
Oh dear, shocking ignorance once again, I suggest you talk to a few people instead of just making stuff up in your head and pretending it's fact.

In fact a lot of 100% Straight women I knew would often intimately hug and kiss their female friends.

You do know the difference between a lesbian kissing a girl and a straight kissing a girl ? The sort of displays you see in clubs are just there to show off.

No end of gay girls have fallen in love with their best female friends and it almost never comes to anything.


So let's see, currently you are being sniggered at in debates about religion, posts about philosophy and even in your own subject Biology you don't seem to have much of a clue ?
I don't think you talk any more about LGBT issues, it's just another subject that you don't seem to know much about

 

[bhavv]

Are you incapable of concious thought ?
Both spudbynight and myself know and work with gay people, exactly why would we be homophobic.

Are you incapable of realizing that this is the weakest argument in the book? The BNP accept black members, I suppose that makes them not racist.

 

[gigeorge]

Id be interested to learn how the kids from same sex partnerships turn out in life - cant be any worse than having a dysfunctional family where the father gets drunk and beats the wife / kid can it!?
As for the religious aspect in this whole debate, abolish religion and allow whoever to marry whatever within reason (no kids) where they want !

 

[bhavv]

cant be any worse than having a dysfunctional family where the father gets drunk and beats the wife / kid can it!?

Well that describes my family and I turned out fine!

Kids raised by same sex parents must obviously turn out worse than me.... .... ....

 

[Naffa]

It's a non-starter. I have even heard people say that children of same sex couples 'would turn out gay'. As if all the children from heterosexual parents turn out to be straight.

 

[Fran]

Civil Partnerships have caused no harm

Because it was only there to fix a legal quirk, not to explicitly state something different.

Yes because children make relationships oh so stable. The rising number of single parents attest to that!

By that line of reasons children must make relationships unstable, which is silly.

I am not Catholic, why should I have to follow Catholic rules?

You are not following Catholic rules, but in the UK you are expected to be tolerant of race and religion, so if a black man claims discrimination or a Christian claims that their religion is being compromised then both must be considered.

All that's happened is that without a mandate Cameron has decided to do change something at the expense of another group.

We already know in advance that Cameron will ignore anything we say so what kind of representation do we get from this apparent protector of Christian values? Zilch.

Then all is good because most of the abuse of Catholicism has been aimed at Catholicism rather than Catholics! That makes it alright then doesn't it?

No, this is an opposition to a homosexual act, homosexuals are not defined by what they do in bed. The equivalent would be abuse of our condom policy.
What continues to happen is the church and it's clergy have been abused, none of which is pertinent to the thread (unlike homosexuality) and is only done to make sad cases feel like they have said something cool.

Currently we are in a position of "seperate but equal" we would not accept that if the issue was race so why should we accept it if the issue is sexuality?

Because this is based around natural law, anything that is an evolutionary dead end isn't really going to fit.

edit:
removed reply

 

[Naffa]

And I've heard Elvis is works in my chip shop,
does quoting silly people aid your position at all ? Or is it just a waste of two lines of text.

It was an intentionally flippant point, but if I'm being honest, I think both yours, and spudy's position is silly. So it makes no odds.

 

[Fran]

Are you incapable of realizing that this is the weakest argument in the book? The BNP accept black members, I suppose that makes them not racist.

So we are both lying ?

Is that your argument ? "It can't be true, so they must be lying"



@Naffa
noted, comment removed

 

[RDM]

Because it was only there to fix a legal quirk, not to explicitly state something different.

I don't actually understand what you mean by this I am afraid. Would you agree that the current position is "seperate but equal"?

By that line of reasons children must make relationships unstable, which is silly.

Well they can, but they don't necessarily do. Much like they can make a relationship more stable but don't necessarily do. Why does it have to be so black and white, one or the other?

You are not following Catholic rules, but in the UK you are expected to be tolerant of race and religion, so if a black man claims discrimination or a Christian claims that their religion is being compromised then both must be considered.

But as Christians will not be forced to marry homosexuals then their religion is not being compromised. All that is being compromised is their ability to force their religious rules on to others.

All that's happened is that without a mandate Cameron has decided to do change something at the expense of another group.

We already know in advance that Cameron will ignore anything we say so what kind of representation do we get from this apparent protector of Christian values? Zilch.

All that will change is that you will be unable to force others to follow your rules. Seems like a good thing to me.

No, this is an opposition to a homosexual act, homosexuals are not defined by what they do in bed. The equivalent would be abuse of our condom policy.
What continues to happen is the church and it's clergy have been abused, none of which is pertinent to the thread (unlike homosexuality) and is only done to make sad cases feel like they have said something cool.

Catholic attitudes very much have something to do with the thread. But you have pretty much proven my point, criticism of homosexuality is OK, criticism of religion is not. Double standards bordering on hypocrisy. However you seem to be able to justify the double standards to yourself at least.

Because this is based around natural law, anything that is an evolutionary dead end isn't really going to fit.

Remind me again what natural law is? How does it apply, what else does it apply to? Seems to be coming very close to the whole "it's unnatural" line...

I would also be very careful about the "evolutionary dead end" as that may well not be the case. Pretty sure one of our resident genetic experts posted a study a while back how the genes that may be partly responsible for the expression of homosexuality in males when in a woman may well increase fertility.

For an evolutionary dead end it does seem to have hung around for quite a long time.

 

[stefk005]

I don't actually understand what you mean by this I am afraid. Would you agree that the current position is "seperate but equal"?

I wouldn't draw a parallel with apartheid at all. Apartheid discriminates against a human being on the basis of their skin colour. Christianity broadly speaking, or the Catholic Church more particularly in this case, is concerned with preserving the status of marriage as the institution which promotes/raises the status of a lifelong partnership between a man and woman, which itself is ordered not only towards their own good but also and critically to the procreation of offspring.

Remind me again what natural law is? How does it apply, what else does it apply to? Seems to be coming very close to the whole "it's unnatural" line...

Well yes, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally (in the biological sense) have offspring, because the sexual act is biologically designed to function in its purpose of reproduction only between a man and a woman. Therefore the biologically natural parents of a child are only a man and a woman.

 

[bhavv]

So we are both lying ?

Is that your argument ? "It can't be true, so they must be lying"



@Naffa
noted, comment removed

Having gay friends does not imply that someone cannot be homophobic.

 

[Xordium]

I would also be very careful about the "evolutionary dead end" as that may well not be the case. Pretty sure one of our resident genetic experts posted a study a while back how the genes that may be partly responsible for the expression of homosexuality in males when in a woman may well increase fertility.

For an evolutionary dead end it does seem to have hung around for quite a long time.

I am afraid RDM you will have to do with good old layman Xordium until the experts like bhavv can expand on this. I believe what you referring to is a suggested "gene" for sexual attraction to men rather than a sometimes suggested "gene" for homosexuality. Such genes could then predispose men towards homosexuality (with the increased attraction) and women to have sex more often with men and thus have more kids therefore causing such a gene to survive. From recollection this was done in Italy maybe even a decade ago. (edit: was feeling nice so I went looking for it and I think it was this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf)

Also I believe there is evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is more likely to be found in later born boys. So the chance of it occurring increases the more sons the parents have. It is not really that much of a stretch to see how a less-competitive family unit could possibly thrive at the expense of another in a historical sense with isolated family based tribe structures. I seem to remember this being touched upon by Matt Ridley in The Red Queen. (Edit: also demonstrated in the article above)

There is also an argument that we are talking about a gene surviving not the individuals reproducing. Lets says we have gene abc123 and it codes for two things: firstly an increased chance of homosexual tendencies and secondly a socially desirable or advantageous trait. Not only would the second component produce an increased chance of reproduction it could also enable its bearers to even change social aspects of life eg litigation or benefits etc that would further enhance its selection.

As homosexuality is found in so many animals then it is rather wrong to say it is unnatural. Even homosexual behaviour amongst heterosexual men has been frequently historically noted for the purposes of social bonding and cohesion.

 

[Fran]

Having gay friends does not imply that someone cannot be homophobic.

So I hate my friends and the informal groups of gay people that I have contact with ?

uh huh
LOL


Golly, it scares me even to share the internet with someone like you,
the utter lack of self awareness at just how ridiculous you are, that almost everything you ever say is wrong with this being proved again and again by other posters in a variety of subjects. Yet this staggering and hostile self belief in the correctness of what you say which borders on the psychotic.


You are in all but name, an Evangelist...

 

[steve-h]

Well yes, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally (in the biological sense) have offspring, because the sexual act is biologically designed to function in its purpose of reproduction only between a man and a woman. Therefore the biologically natural parents of a child are only a man and a woman.

And this applies to other people's relationships and marriage how? It doesn't effect you, stop trying to control people.

 

[bhavv]

So I hate my friends and the informal groups of gay people that I have contact with ?

I wasnt talking about you personally. A lot of people say blatantly homophobic / racist things, yet when called out on it will immediately defend themselves with 'Im not a homophobe or a racist because I have gay / black friends'.

Theres no difference at all between the two.

that almost everything you ever say is wrong ... correctness of what you say

Almost everything I say is backed up by evidence which proves its validity. People having different opinions despite being given valid evidence yet still deny it without giving any evidence to support their claims are always going to be '100% wrong' to me, because without evidence you only have opinions.

There is no reason to factually believe anything you hear from someone just because they say it is true when it is backed up with nothing, and that applies to anything that I write as well. But most of what I write is factually proven and correct, unless I am making a mockery of something.

 

[stefk005]

And this applies to other people's relationships and marriage how? It doesn't effect you, stop trying to control people.

Lol, is there a competition going on here for daft and irrelevant posts?

I think (I might be wrong) that this thread relates to the Church's position on homosexual marriage. I think (and again I could be wrong) that I tried, however ineffectually, to present the reasoning for that in my above post by outlining why the Church is concerned with marriage. I think (though I hesitate to be certain) that what I said about the Church's understanding and concern with marriage is relevant to anyone seeking to understand it's position vis-a-vis homosexual marriages. Furthermore, a definition of marriage, of which I have outlined one above, is relevant to anyone who has any interest in the role of marriage in society (I would like to think).

Sorry, but is it just me, or are you just randomly trying to put the people whose comments you don't like off this debate? I mean, what I said above is more relevant to this debate than a lot of other posts, given what we've covered. Why don't you have a go at them? Or even why don't you try and engage intelligently?

 

[stefk005]

And this applies to other people's relationships and marriage how? It doesn't effect you, stop trying to control people.

Ok, apologies because I thought you'd quoted the other part of my post, and so my reasoning was working on that basis

The bit you quoted is relevant because I was directly replying to something RDM said, as evidenced by my quoting him. So if what I said was irrelevant, have a go at him, not me

 

[bhavv]

So what I gather from this thread is that is someone is opposed to black people being allowed to marry, they arent racist if they have black friends.

Thank you for the morality lesson.