Catholic church oppose gay marriage

[Ari]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Forget the religious stuff. Does a committed heterosexual couple with children REALLY want a couple of gays to share exactly the same status?

I'd always assumed marriage was about love and commitment, not "status".

Silly me...

[TheHeretic]

Ari said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Forget the religious stuff. Does a committed heterosexual couple with children REALLY want a couple of gays to share exactly the same status?

I'd always assumed marriage was about love and commitment, not "status".

Silly me...

I'm sure it is, but there are civil, legal matters that I see no reason a same sex couple should not have, that a heterosexual couple do have.

Taxation, wills, pensions, etc. Why should a gay couple who have been together for 25 years together not have the same benefits?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Ari said:

I'd always assumed marriage was about love and commitment, not "status".

Allow me to clarify. The Dictionary definitions of "status" are,

1. the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something: high rank or social standing.

2. the official classification given to a person, country, or organization, determining their rights or responsibilities.

In my post I intended to use the word in the context of meaning numbered 2; simply "classification" as opposed to "high rank". As such the mere existence of marriage defines a category of people and results in a classification or status.

There is no disagreement between us.

[carmonk]

TheHeretic said:

Ari said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Forget the religious stuff. Does a committed heterosexual couple with children REALLY want a couple of gays to share exactly the same status?

I'd always assumed marriage was about love and commitment, not "status".

Silly me...

I'm sure it is, but there are civil, legal matters that I see no reason a same sex couple should not have, that a heterosexual couple do have.

Taxation, wills, pensions, etc. Why should a gay couple who have been together for 25 years together not have the same benefits?

It's all about arse sex.

I love the slippery slope argument too. Allow two men or two women to marry? Whatever next? Ten men and one woman? Three hermaphrodites and a pair of donkeys? Three shaven monkeys and an effigy of Satan fking a corpse? Dear oh dear, where will it end?

[carmonk]

My mistake, marriage came from Adam and Eve. This character said so (no idea who he is, some washed up 'child star' or something - but just to be clear, he's not a child any more, which might not be obvious from his comments)

"I believe that marriage was defined by God. Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-21101...

[TheHeretic]

Kirk Cameron? Kirk 'Crocoduck' Cameron? Kirk who is joined at the hip to Ray 'Banana man' Comfort, (you know the guy... The banana is perfectly made by god to fit our hands, despite the banana in question being modified by artificial selection).. His opinion counts for what, exactly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY

[carmonk]

TheHeretic said:

Kirk Cameron? Kirk 'Crocoduck' Cameron? Kirk who is joined at the hip to Ray 'Banana man' Comfort, (you know the guy... The banana is perfectly made by god to fit our hands, despite the banana in question being modified by artificial selection).. His opinion counts for what, exactly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY

Oh God, not him. I thought I recognised the aura of idiocy. Seems fitting that a brainless degenerate like Piers Morgan should interview him, I suppose.

[Ari]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Allow me to clarify. The Dictionary definitions of "status" are,

1. the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something: high rank or social standing.

2. the official classification given to a person, country, or organization, determining their rights or responsibilities.

In my post I intended to use the word in the context of meaning numbered 2; simply "classification" as opposed to "high rank". As such the mere existence of marriage defines a category of people and results in a classification or status.

There is no disagreement between us.

Fine. So if you marry your heterosexual partner for reasons of love and commitment, where does "status" come into it if a homosexual couple decide (and are able) to do likewise?

Doesn't affect the Hetro couples marriage or reasons for doing so one jot!

[DJRC]

Ari said:

So to be clear, according to the Catholic church it's ok for men to bugger choirboys, just do long as they don't marry them.

When was it not clear?

Have I missed some great revelation in Catholic dogma or something? I always thought "dont marry other chaps" was fairly standard policy amongst the Papal types.

[Hugo a Gogo]

church marriage should be a completely separate, purely symbolic, ceremonial thing - marriage should be a legal contract between any two people

Ozzie Osmond said:

Forget the religious stuff. Does a committed heterosexual couple with children REALLY want a couple of gays to share exactly the same status?

Anyway, IMO "gay marriage" is obvious nonsense. Once you take away the natural biological parenthood why not let,
a) One bloke and two women all marry into a threesome?
b) Five gay blokes all get married together?
c) A little old lady marry her pet cat?

To my mind it is plain stupid to have laws which permit gay marriage yet send people to prison for bigamy, especially since multi-partner relationships are permitted so long as you DON'T get married.

yes, I REALLY do want them to, why wouldn't you?
and I agree all of those relationships you list SHOULD be allowed to have the same legal status, sharing of property and other rights, who cares if the five blokes are shagging each other, or just some sort of commune?

except maybe the cat

also for example those old people you hear about, two sisters or a brother and sister who share a house into their old age - why can't they have the same status as two unrelated people in the same situation?

nothing at all to do with who's having sex with who, simply a legal contract

[Derek Smith]

carmonk said:

It's all about arse sex.

I love the slippery slope argument too. Allow two men or two women to marry? Whatever next? Ten men and one woman? Three hermaphrodites and a pair of donkeys? Three shaven monkeys and an effigy of Satan fking a corpse? Dear oh dear, where will it end?

Your imagination needs to be curbed, by pills if necessary.

From what I've read, albeit online so not too dependable, two blokes living together for 30 years are not considered next of kin and cannot attain that 'status'. If there is no will then any money goes to someone other than their partner. There are other matters, such as to whom the body belongs, or at least its disposal.

Whilst these matters can be dealt with on a piecemeal basis, why not allow marriage and everything is done for you?

I fail to see the problem with allowing gay marriage. It in essence changes little. It is, after all, just a declaration of committal.

In Brighton there are a considerable number of long term gay relationships that the normal PC on the beat will deal with on a daily basis. The fact that they can't have children is nothing to do with it. A friend of my father had his balls burnt off during a bombing raid. (Honest! That's enough to make anyone anti-war. He had a nickname that was kept from me. Carmonk, don't take the pills yet. Come up with suggestions.)

He was more than willing to show the scars, although it was spared me thankfully. He got married after the war. He adopted two boys and also fostered a Down's Syndrome kid and a girl in a wheelchair. I never knew what was wrong with her. But he couldn't have kids of his own. According to this vicar, he shouldn't have got married as it is all about procreation.

Before I moved to Brighton I would probably not have had an opinion either way about gay marriage but meeting them in their homes and such, as well as dealing with the occasional 'gay-bashing' really does make you sympathetic to their point of view. You do, in a manner of speaking, see things differently. I've worked alongside gay police officers, helped at fires put out by gay firemen and helped gay ambulance crews with casualties.

I'm not a 'new man' sort of type. I once got chatted up by a gay bloke and I got all worried. Instead of a polite rejection I ran away. My kids were cool with it and my wife reckoned it must be nice for me to realise I could still pull.

Gays seem to me to be just like people. The church is sex obsessed.

[MOTORVATOR]

Derek,

They already have the same rights as a married couple inferred by civil partnership. Why should a gay couple want to get 'married'?

In particular in a church under the eyes of an institution that doesn't agree with what they are doing.

The reason is quite simply because they want to make out that it is the same as a hetero marriage and utilse that term.

The solution would seem to be for those to whom it is important to start utilising the term 'Hetero Marriage'.

But how long would it be for the LGBT community to come out and say they want their relationship called that too as it's not fair?

I see it as destructive of the moral family status that has historically been viewed as couple marry > have kids > bring up a family.

Diminishing family values have a lot to answer for in current times.

[Halb]

The bishop reckons marriage is a 'universally accepted human right' but then says it's being subverted? Does that mean gays aren't human? He seems a bit mixed up.

Some thoughts.
Everyone should be allowed to marry, if it's meant to be universal, it is after all a legal status and not a religious one. Multiple partners/marriages if that's what people want.
The house of lords should be scrapped and massive reforms should be brought in (never happen but nice to dream).


edit
Christ/Mohammed onna stick! We wanna be getting rid of the silly bds not bring in more!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...

[Marf]

MOTORVATOR said:

They already have the same rights as a married couple inferred by civil partnership. Why should a gay couple want to get 'married'?

Reference my earlier post, child is raised and confirmed catholic, grows up to be gay, wants marriage in a church, what then?

I can't understand any gay person religious or not wanting to be married in the church of a religion that defines their very being as sinful, but that doesnt change the fact that religious gay people exist and want to be married in a church.

[MOTORVATOR]

Marf said:

MOTORVATOR said:

They already have the same rights as a married couple inferred by civil partnership. Why should a gay couple want to get 'married'?

Reference my earlier post, child is raised and confirmed catholic, grows up to be gay, wants marriage in a church, what then?

I can't understand any gay person religious or not wanting to be married in the church of a religion that defines their very being as sinful, but that doesnt change the fact that religious gay people exist and want to be married in a church.

And what about the rights of the hetero couple who want to get married traditionally in a place that recognises marriage as one man one woman? Let's just take that away because it's unfair.

[Marf]

MOTORVATOR said:

Marf said:

MOTORVATOR said:

They already have the same rights as a married couple inferred by civil partnership. Why should a gay couple want to get 'married'?

Reference my earlier post, child is raised and confirmed catholic, grows up to be gay, wants marriage in a church, what then?

I can't understand any gay person religious or not wanting to be married in the church of a religion that defines their very being as sinful, but that doesnt change the fact that religious gay people exist and want to be married in a church.

And what about the rights of the hetero couple who want to get married traditionally in a place that recognises marriage as one man one woman? Let's just take that away because it's unfair.

How does two men getting married in a church detract from a man and a woman getting married in church? What does it take away?

Why are the rights of hetero catholics more important than the rights of gay catholics?

Edited by Marf on Monday 5th March 11:19

[Hugo a Gogo]

MOTORVATOR said:

I see it as destructive of the moral family status that has historically been viewed as couple marry > have kids > bring up a family.

what restrictions are there on infertile people who want to get married?

what check-ups are made to ensure that only couples who want to have a family get married? can women in their 50s and 60s get married?

[TheHeretic]

MOTORVATOR said:

Derek,

They already have the same rights as a married couple inferred by civil partnership. Why should a gay couple want to get 'married'?

In particular in a church under the eyes of an institution that doesn't agree with what they are doing.

The reason is quite simply because they want to make out that it is the same as a hetero marriage and utilse that term.

The solution would seem to be for those to whom it is important to start utilising the term 'Hetero Marriage'.

But how long would it be for the LGBT community to come out and say they want their relationship called that too as it's not fair?

I see it as destructive of the moral family status that has historically been viewed as couple marry > have kids > bring up a family.

Diminishing family values have a lot to answer for in current times.

Why do they want to get married? Why not? For the same reasons a heterosexual couple may want to? Love, commitment, etc.

How many couples get married in a church that have already been divorced? How many people get married in a church that have had pre-marital sex? How many couples get married in a church when one of them does not believe? How many people get married in a church who have done any number of things that the church does not agree with? Use of condoms? Morning after pills? Working on the Sabbath? Oddly enough, I doubt you will take issue with these people getting married in a church?

It has nothing to do with making out it is the same as hetero couples. Why do you think it is not the same as hetero couples?

No, other terms are not required. Marriage is simple a legal commitment between 2 people. The religious ceremony means absolutely nothing in legal terms.

Do you also see a sterile couple getting married as destructive of the moral family status? Can you explain what is moral about a hetero couple getting married, but immoral about a gay couple doing the same?

As for diminishing family values... Sorry, but if you would like to hop back in time when things were very religious, I doubt very much that you would like to hang around and enjoy their 'steadfast family values'. More nonsense.

[AndrewW-G]

MOTORVATOR said:

I see it as destructive of the moral family status that has historically been viewed as couple marry > have kids > bring up a family.

Diminishing family values have a lot to answer for in current times.

I'd suggest starting with parity for everyone and then concentrate on the people who seem to have mentally disconnected having children, with being in a stable relationship, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

[Bill]

Hugo a Gogo said:

MOTORVATOR said:

I see it as destructive of the moral family status that has historically been viewed as couple marry > have kids > bring up a family.

what restrictions are there on infertile people who want to get married?

what check-ups are made to ensure that only couples who want to have a family get married? can women in their 50s and 60s get married?

I think it's pretty clear, if you haven't procreated within, say, 10 years you're automatically divorced.

The flip side is that we'd also have to make two people who have a child automatically married. But I can't see a logical solution to the problem of a married person having child out of their marriage. They'd become a de facto bigamist