Catholic church oppose gay marriage

[Derek Smith]

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.

Thanks for clarifying the bit about full civil rights of NOK. There's much online about it that is confusing. I read that pensions cannot be kept by a same sex partner.

With regards to why gay couples should want to be 'married' as such then I would agree with Heratic - the same reason others want to.

I have to say that if I had my time over I would not have had a church wedding. There seems to me to be little point.

My understanding is that this not a demand for gay couples to be married in church, just to have the same civil ceremony as hetrosexual couples. If that is right then I think there can be few objections. Far from destructive of moral values, couples bonding for, they hope, life actually builds on that. More destructive I think is the fact that it can be cheaper to live together than to get married.

I'd like to take this one stage further. If a church discriminates against people on the grounds of their sexuality, which on my understanding both the catholic and protestant churches do, then they should stop being given concessionary benefits and powers. Certainly they should not be allowed to run schools, that sort of thing. And they should not benefit from tax concessions.

There are many examples of religious philanthropists changing this country for the better. We do not acknowledge this enough. Despite not being religious I'm a supporter of the Salvation Army and put into their coffers every month after seeing what they do to those who have little. But I think these people do their good works not because they are religious but because they are, in the real sense of the word, good. They should have tax concessions but only if they treat gays exactly as they would the straight.

[MOTORVATOR]

Actually my stance is not one of refusing gays anything they want, it is more a respect of the existing marriages made between one man one woman.

I'm not particularly religious but when I married my moral focus was on the marriage being made as a route to the ensuing procreation being within a sound family environment for life.

So my morals are one of disdain for divorce without the prior effort, unmarried mothers, fathers just shagging anything that moves and clearing off leaving no support, adultery, singe parents except by death, adoptive gays, adoptive celebrities etc.

My marriage was a clear indication to my other half of those morals and hers to me was the same.

This pandering around to minority groups diminshes the value of that and I bloody well want it protected as I have 3 kids that have the same sense of moral purpose that would like the same for themselves.

So I will now refer in future to my marriage as 'Hetero Marriage' and I will continue with my happy life of a loving wife, three kids with a sound upbringing and a functional family unit.

I will always regard it as different to a gay 'marriage' or unmarried family, if that upsets some people well go hang.

Why would anyone want to refuse me that right?

[MOTORVATOR]

Marf said:

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

I need to reverse that at you.

Why do gays feel the need to have their relationship termed marriage when they have exactly the same legal rights already?

[MOTORVATOR]

TheHeretic said:

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.

You don't have to be religious to have morals or indeed go back in time to understand steadfast family values.

The nonsense is gays wanting to 'marry' which is historically a term for hetero and also wanting it in a church that looks down on the relationship. Depite the fact that laws have been passed for them to display in law their love and committment etc etc.

You can want something all you like but it doesn't make the church love you just because someone passed a statute.

[Marf]

MOTORVATOR said:

Marf said:

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

I need to reverse that at you.

Why do gays feel the need to have their relationship termed marriage when they have exactly the same legal rights already?

I'll reverse it right back at you. Child raised and confirmed catholic, grows up to be gay whilst still self identifying as catholic. Wants to get married in the church where he celebrates his faith. Why not?

It's not about the rights, its about the faith they hold dear(totally alien to me but whatever) recognising that they are a couple under god.

I'll say what I think because you've given the same courtesy. I think you're essentially a homophobe.

I think you're so insecure about your own life, circumstances and culture that you feel threatened by people different from you wanting the same thing.

Now, despite me reversing back to you, I have endeavoured to answer your question, will you give me the same courtesy and answer my question above and the one below?

Can you explain why you feel religious gay folk being married in a church dilutes hetero marriage?

Edited by Marf on Monday 5th March 13:42

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MOTORVATOR said:

I'm not particularly religious but when I married my moral focus was on the marriage being made as a route to the ensuing procreation being within a sound family environment for life.

So my morals are one of disdain for divorce without the prior effort, unmarried mothers, fathers just shagging anything that moves and clearing off leaving no support, adultery, singe parents except by death, adoptive gays, adoptive celebrities etc.

My marriage was a clear indication to my other half of those morals and hers to me was the same.

Good for you, I hope you'll both be very happy together. Now STFU and let other people who wish to live a different way get on with it. I'm straight too, married nearly 25 yrs, but have no objection to gays getting married.

As for declining family values, given that I have no desire to molest my own kids (or anyone elses), I won't be taking any lessons form the catholic church.

[Bill]

MOTORVATOR said:

I need to reverse that at you.

Why do gays feel the need to have their relationship termed marriage when they have exactly the same legal rights already?

Because it is marriage.

But I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Anyway, as a married father of three who's doing his best to bring his kids up morally and responsibly I'll stick with the term "marriage" on the grounds that I'm also bringing my kids up to be tolerant

[carmonk]

Derek Smith said:

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.

I'll take it you're just agreeing with me, otherwise there's isn't a whoosh parrot big enough It would need to be a whoosh albatross, or a whoosh pterodactyl.

[MOTORVATOR]

Marf said:

I'll reverse it right back at you. Child raised and confirmed catholic, grows up to be gay whilst still self identifying as catholic. Wants to get married in the church where he celebrates his faith. Why not?

It's not about the rights, its about the faith they hold dear(totally alien to me but whatever) recognising that they are a couple under god.

I'll say what I think because you've given the same courtesy. I think you're essentially a homophobe.

I think you're so insecure about your own life, circumstances and culture that you feel threatened by people different from you wanting the same thing.

Now, despite me reversing back to you, I have endeavoured to answer your question, will you give me the same courtesy and answer my question above and the one below?

Can you explain why you feel religious gay folk being married in a church dilutes hetero marriage?

Edited by Marf on Monday 5th March 13:42

I'll try it another way. Because you or I cannot redefine what 'god' thinks by changing the law.

As I said above I'm not religious but the church is run by people that are and if that is how they feel then as much as you may want to legislate you cannot change their opinion just because it suits you. They have a right to that opinion as much as you or I have a right to our own.

And Ok if understanding the act of procreation takes two halves with the right wholes to work as it should then call me a homophobe it matters little to me.

The only thing that matters to me is that the act which I engaged in some 25 years ago is not just altered on the whim of another piece of PC bks.

Gays have their version of marriage already it is called Civil Partnership. Do you view that as any less an act of love or committment than marriage? And if not, why not revere it as the same and be happy with that?

Tell me what the problem is with there being a difference in name only between the coupling of heteros and gays. There is no need for one to impinge on the other.

[Marf]

You've sidestepped my question about religious gay folk again. Yes, civil partnerships offer the same rights to hetero and homo couples but that is not the point I'm making, nor is it the point of the thread.

This also isnt about suiting me. I'm not religious, so this will never be an issue for me.

I'll ask you once more then give up as it seems you don't want to debate the salient point which is; why should someone raised and confirmed catholic who just happens to grow up to be gay not be allowed to marry in the church where they celebrate their faith?

[Hugo a Gogo]

as I said, make 'church marriage' completely separate from 'legal marriage' - you can do whatever holy water, man in a frock, mumbo-jumbo magic words, witch doctor voodoo dancing around a fire, whatever you want, just you need to sign the official forms afterwards (or before)

we have registry office weddings, which have nothing to do with the church and yet are still called 'marriage', so why don't you want two men or two women to get married there?

[Ari]

MOTORVATOR said:

I'll try it another way. Because you or I cannot redefine what 'god' thinks by changing the law.

As I said above I'm not religious but the church is run by people that are and if that is how they feel then as much as you may want to legislate you cannot change their opinion just because it suits you. They have a right to that opinion as much as you or I have a right to our own.

They have a right to that opinion, but not to expect people not in their club to play by their rules, and to damn them for not doing so. Isn't religion supposed to be about tolerance?

But what leaves a particularly bad taste, is that they've plenty to sort out in their own little club before they start laying judgement on others.

MOTORVATOR said:

And Ok if understanding the act of procreation takes two halves with the right wholes to work as it should then call me a homophobe it matters little to me.

The only thing that matters to me is that the act which I engaged in some 25 years ago is not just altered on the whim of another piece of PC bks.

How is it altered? Would you feel differently about your wife or the commitment you made to her somehow?

MOTORVATOR said:

Gays have their version of marriage already it is called Civil Partnership. Do you view that as any less an act of love or committment than marriage? And if not, why not revere it as the same and be happy with that?

Tell me what the problem is with there being a difference in name only between the coupling of heteros and gays. There is no need for one to impinge on the other.

What's the problem with there not being a difference in name?

[Blue Cat]

The way I look at it is, for churches, it’s their house so it’s their rules in the same way a parent may not want their children sleeping with their boyfriend/girlfriend in their house, should the law be changed here to force it so they can?

There are other ways people can create a legal union, so why are they insisting on the right to a church wedding.

It should also be remembered that the Catholic Church does not allow divorced people to remarry in their church, should this be changed as well?

Their rules are very clear, one man, one woman, marriage for life and that’s it.

[DJRC]

Derek Smith said:

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.

Thanks for clarifying the bit about full civil rights of NOK. There's much online about it that is confusing. I read that pensions cannot be kept by a same sex partner.

With regards to why gay couples should want to be 'married' as such then I would agree with Heratic - the same reason others want to.

I have to say that if I had my time over I would not have had a church wedding. There seems to me to be little point.

My understanding is that this not a demand for gay couples to be married in church, just to have the same civil ceremony as hetrosexual couples. If that is right then I think there can be few objections. Far from destructive of moral values, couples bonding for, they hope, life actually builds on that. More destructive I think is the fact that it can be cheaper to live together than to get married.

I'd like to take this one stage further. If a church discriminates against people on the grounds of their sexuality, which on my understanding both the catholic and protestant churches do, then they should stop being given concessionary benefits and powers. Certainly they should not be allowed to run schools, that sort of thing. And they should not benefit from tax concessions.

There are many examples of religious philanthropists changing this country for the better. We do not acknowledge this enough. Despite not being religious I'm a supporter of the Salvation Army and put into their coffers every month after seeing what they do to those who have little. But I think these people do their good works not because they are religious but because they are, in the real sense of the word, good. They should have tax concessions but only if they treat gays exactly as they would the straight.

Derek I think if you have reached the point where the Sally Army are helping you out in life, whether you are gay or not and cant be married in church, the sight of God or even within sight the magic roundabout of Swindon is quite probably the least of your troubles!

[Derek Smith]

Blue Cat said:

The way I look at it is, for churches, it’s their house so it’s their rules in the same way a parent may not want their children sleeping with their boyfriend/girlfriend in their house, should the law be changed here to force it so they can?

There are other ways people can create a legal union, so why are they insisting on the right to a church wedding.

It should also be remembered that the Catholic Church does not allow divorced people to remarry in their church, should this be changed as well?

Their rules are very clear, one man, one woman, marriage for life and that’s it.

I don't think there is any pressure to have gay marriage in churches.

My feeling is that if they don't treat all people, regardless of sexuality, equally then they should not be allowed concessions, such as running schools, being in the Lords as of right and tax concessions.

[DJRC]

MOTORVATOR said:

I'm not particularly religious but when I married my moral focus was on the marriage being made as a route to the ensuing procreation being within a sound family environment for life.

So my morals are one of disdain for divorce without the prior effort, unmarried mothers, fathers just shagging anything that moves and clearing off leaving no support, adultery, singe parents except by death, adoptive gays, adoptive celebrities etc.

My marriage was a clear indication to my other half of those morals and hers to me was the same.

Er...didnt "cos I love you" come into your reasoning of marriage to your other half?

Im fairly sure if Id have tried your above spiel on my other half come proposal time, talking or morals rather than love would not have gone down positively!

[Hugo a Gogo]

then they shouldn't be allowed to make an official legal contract that applies in the outside world in their 'invisible friend' club

[DJRC]

Hugo a Gogo said:

then they shouldn't be allowed to make an official legal contract that applies in the outside world in their 'invisible friend' club

But they arent. The legal aspects of a Church marriage are exactly the same as a Ship's Captain, local butcher who is also a registrar, etc, etc.

All the Church does is say you got married in a Chuch, according to Church.

[Blue Cat]

Hugo a Gogo said:

then they shouldn't be allowed to make an official legal contract that applies in the outside world in their 'invisible friend' club

If you are talking about the Catholic Church, then you should know that they can't do the legal contract and for Catholic weddings you need to have a legal registar in attendance to do the "legal" part

However I think it is different for Church of England weddings

[Hugo a Gogo]

Blue Cat said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

then they shouldn't be allowed to make an official legal contract that applies in the outside world in their 'invisible friend' club

If you are talking about the Catholic Church, then you should know that they can't do the legal contract and for Catholic weddings you need to have a legal registar in attendance to do the "legal" part

However I think it is different for Church of England weddings

I didn't know that, that's how it should be then

carry on!