Catholic church oppose gay marriage

[MOTORVATOR]

Marf said:

Marf said:

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?

I said:

Because that faith denounces it and you or I have no right to change that faith by legal redefinition in the same way as we have no right to dictate to a muslim / buddhist etc what he should believe or not. The church itself has that ultimate right.

OK then fknuts I'm done with you, you can't even answer a straight question.

Well argued

[MOTORVATOR]

Marf said:

nonsense, you just choose to ignore the answers given to you.

Oh the irony.

[Bill]

MOTORVATOR said:

Now that tells me they see 'marriage' as a higher level than their own civil partnership and it therefore stands to reason that if we equal things up then they are asking me to bring the term down their level.

I say bugger off and invent your own word for your practice and I will support it's use.

And you were doing so well on the whole "I'm not a homophobe, but" bit.

[MOTORVATOR]

Bill said:

And you were doing so well on the whole "I'm not a homophobe, but" bit.

That would indicate I live in fear of 'them' but, that is not the case.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Marf said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Good man.

No-one has yet come up with any answer at all to my question why "marriage" in this new and open-minded form is limited to two people, i.e. 1+1

nonsense, you just choose to ignore the answers given to you.

Remind us, what was your "answer"?

In the meantime you remain an anti-threeway bigot.

[Derek Smith]

MOTORVATOR said:

That would indicate I live in fear of 'them' but, that is not the case.

Not strictly true.

From Wiki:

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear. It is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation."

[Marf]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Marf said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Good man.

No-one has yet come up with any answer at all to my question why "marriage" in this new and open-minded form is limited to two people, i.e. 1+1

nonsense, you just choose to ignore the answers given to you.

Remind us, what was your "answer"?

In the meantime you remain an anti-threeway bigot.

yesterday at 20:55. If you'd read my reply you'd see I dont have anything against a three way marriage

Ozzie Osmond said:

Marf said:

These questions only seek to (intentionally)obfuscate the debate.

Absolutely not. If you have no answers to them then my entirely logical point is proven.

It seems there's a lot of emotion around this subject in certain quarters. So tell me, why can't three people get married?

Marf said:

Why can't they? Societal norms I'd say resulting from a bias towards coupled partnerships in western society leading towards legislation that reflects that bias.

I don't particularly care if people cant enter into a three way marriage since I wouldn't want a polygamous relationship. Do I have anything against it? Not really, assuming all are entering into it consensually that is.

I still don't see that your point is logical in the context of this thread though, which is about the catholic stance on homosexual marriage.

Since the state is responsible for the legal status of marriage, the questions you ask are irrelevant to this thread. Are they a discussion point in general, sure why not.

In relation to this thread?

No.

Edited by Marf on Monday 5th March 19:04

[otolith]

None of the church's business. It can marry or not marry who it likes under its own roof - and if gay people want to get married in a church that won't let them, perhaps it will help them to see what a nonsense religion is.

Also a bizarre assertion that married couples should feel their "status" is somehow eroded by gay couples also being allowed to marry. The only sort I can imagine having a genuine problem are those in Narnia who took a wife as a beard.

[Sticks.]

Agree that's how the term is (mis)used.

According to the OED it's 'an intense aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals'.

[Halb]

So we give this so called 'universal right' to those of all sexual orientation, first task done, then we can set about looking at plural marriage?

[anonymous-user]

MOTORVATOR said:

The problem to the catholic church is the same as it for me.

What this supposed equality legislation is about is forcing people to accept that a gay marriage is the same as a traditional hetero one.

The gay community already have exactly the same rights in law as a married couple through a process known as civil partnership.

Despite what anyone here may think, the rights of a married couple and those in a civil partnership are identical.

The gay community also have the right to have their partnership blessed by any church willing to undertake the process or indeed any other organisation if they so wished.

I support the wishes of those who don't carry in the same way that I don't get my knickers in a twist about halal food or gays unless it is shoved in my face. Live and let live and all that.

They also have the right to invent a word to be used for the partnership if they feel civil partnership does not correctly portray their feelings for what they have entered into.

The term marriage has since the first use of the word been associated with the joining of heterosexual couples and contrary to what has been written here does not necessarily become a legal act. Marriage itself confers no legal standing at all, hence it is quite possible to be married but not legally man and wife.

So the Gays have all the rights already that I and the wife do but still are intent on having the english language redefined for their benefit.

Now that tells me they see 'marriage' as a higher level than their own civil partnership and it therefore stands to reason that if we equal things up then they are asking me to bring the term down their level.

I say bugger off and invent your own word for your practice and I will support it's use.

So by your last sentences there u don't think same sex marriage are equal to you at all...indeed you feel their union/partnership/marriage has a status that is inferior to your hetro marriage?

But you still haven't answered why you feel the certain "factions" are MORE equal? Just that they have equal rights....but not the right to call their union a marriage.

There's also discrimination in that hetro couples cannot enter into a civil partnership either....that is only for same sex couples.....so lets open up civil partnerships to hetro's and simply scrap marriage eh?

[Halb]

MOTORVATOR said:

The nonsense is gays wanting to 'marry' which is historically a term for hetero...

Only since gays were discriminated against. As our society continues to grow it is fitting that old discriminations and prejudices that have no basis in anything other than intolerance be retracted and the older order restored.

It is believed that a same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_u...

[DJRC]

Using ancient Rome isnt a great excuse. For large part of time in the Roman anything went frankly including animals.

[Halb]

DJRC said:

Using ancient Rome isnt a great excuse. For large part of time in the Roman anything went frankly including animals.

GPWM.;)
It is QI to note that the intolerance legislation came in with Christianity though.

[anonymous-user]

DJRC said:

Using ancient Rome isnt a great excuse. For large part of time in the Roman anything went frankly including animals.

or reading on....."it wasn't until the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, that marriage became a part of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Christian Church."

So until the 12th century even the Catholic Church didn't define marriage as a exclusively between a man and a woman.

[MOTORVATOR]

djstevec said:

So by your last sentences there u don't think same sex marriage are equal to you at all...indeed you feel their union/partnership/marriage has a status that is inferior to your hetro marriage?

But you still haven't answered why you feel the certain "factions" are MORE equal? Just that they have equal rights....but not the right to call their union a marriage.

There's also discrimination in that hetro couples cannot enter into a civil partnership either....that is only for same sex couples.....so lets open up civil partnerships to hetro's and simply scrap marriage eh?

Regarding the inferiority bit, why is so important to a gay to have it called marriage when they already have all the rights a married couple have? It can only be because they believe that heteros have something they have not. So the question answers itself.

Discrimination wise I think you misread me. The faction being discriminated against is the church in not being allowed to practise what they believe their god told them. I may not agree with them but I do respect their right to carry out practices under their own roof which accord with their beliefs. So it would seem that the gay community is more equal than the church community.

And civil registration is quite possible for hetero couples as you know but it tends to get called marriage as the definition of the word is bethroyal of man and woman. Gays one gets called partnership because marriage is not the definition.

And what good reason can anyone have for not allowing a hetero couple to have their partnership made distinct from a gay one?

Quite frankly I am against pretty well all the PC cobblers that has happened over the last years as I don't believe it has left us a better society. If anything I think we are somewhat undermined by it all.

It has led to the employ of people that are not worthy of their position, prisoners with rights they have not earned, the general populace being nervous of opening their mouths and a general apathy towards british pride.

Thank christ for PH, the last place you can speak your mind without fear of retribution.

[MOTORVATOR]

Halb said:

Only since gays were discriminated against. As our society continues to grow it is fitting that old discriminations and prejudices that have no basis in anything other than intolerance be retracted and the older order restored.

It is believed that a same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_u...

How clever of Wiki to mix up same sex unions with marriage and you all to ignore the definition of the word or it's origins.

[Halb]

MOTORVATOR said:

How clever of Wiki to mix up same sex unions with marriage and you all to ignore the definition of the word or it's origins.

The unions of men and men and men and women were classed as the same way back when, before that exact term was used. What equates to man and woman marriage before that term was used is as good a definition as any, and by relation therefore are the other unions. Then the nasty intolerant Christians came along!

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.

There may have been, at least among the Romans, marriage between men as evidenced by emperors Nero and Elagabalus who married men, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code,

edit, for clarification there are two clear articles on unions and marriage.

Edited by Halb on Monday 5th March 21:05

[DJRC]

Halb said:

DJRC said:

Using ancient Rome isnt a great excuse. For large part of time in the Roman anything went frankly including animals.

GPWM.;)
It is QI to note that the intolerance legislation came in with Christianity though.

Well they decided the parties were getting a little too out of hand

[blindswelledrat]

MOTORVATOR said:

Regarding the inferiority bit, why is so important to a gay to have it called marriage when they already have all the rights a married couple have? .

For exactly the same reason that us millions of non-religious heterosexuals want to be officially "married" as opposed to civily unionised. No good reason, we just do. People who love each other want to be married. It really is that simple
Im not religious but I chose to marry my wife. Shes the same. There is no logical reason we chose that over any other method but it is just what people do.

To put it another way- your argument is "they shouuldnt be allowed to get married because there is no point to it" which is complete horse st. Who are you or the church to tell anyone what they need or want?