Catholic church oppose gay marriage
Discussion
Halb said:
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,
Ah Wiki / Internet the fount of all knowledge!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,
The point is Halb that however much these Romans may have wanted to be 'married' they would have found it difficult as the word is a middle english word that did not exist in their times.
If of course we wish to redefine all of our historic words we maybe should go with 'Bride' so one of the gay blokes can get in on this act and 'Groom' so that the lezzers don't miss out. If we do those ones first it should make 'Spouse' easier.
Of course I am absolutely lost as to how we are going to deal with widowers and widows but I'm sure PC world can come up with something.
I shall never look at a Dowager in the same way again.
I dont know how to the boxes around certain quotes thing that others can....so have inserted my comments to yours below.
I also hope you treat your wife as your equal in your marriage and haven't resorted to "coverture" as was the way of marriage a couple of hundred years or so ago. As a feme covert (wife) she would have been forced to give up all of her legal rights as a single woman to the husband and in the eyes of the law she barely existed.
Thankfully society has moved on and realised that women are equal to men in marriage.
Allowing same sex civil marriage is removal of another piece of discrimination and I don't see anything wrong with it.
MOTORVATOR said:
djstevec 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? It can only be because they believe that heteros have something they have not. So the question answers itself."
I disagree, the mere fact that same sex couples cannot lawfully call their union a "marriage" belittles that union. Maybe gays and lesbians just want to be called your equal...not different, not greater, not lesser....just equal...and have the same possibilities and access to institutions that you take for granted.
"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. "
No they are not being discriminated against as the redefinition only applies to civil marriage. As previously stated the Government are not forcing Churches to marry same sex couples.
"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."
Again, the Catholic Church are not being forced to marry same sex couples, so the LBGT community are not being treated "more" equally.
"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."
That is crux of the re-definition, the ability of same sex couples to marry in a civil ceremony that may includes religious words/texts/hymns/blessings, if the couple marrying so wish. It does not make that a religious ceremony.
"And what good reason can anyone have for not allowing a hetero couple to have their partnership made distinct from a gay one?"
Or put it another way, why should same sex couple be FORCED to have a different definition?
"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.
"
Some "PC cobblers" has worked, some hasn't, some has gone too far I agree. However, lets not compare the rights of law abiding citizens who just so happen to have a different sexual preference to you, to criminals shall we? Very antagonistic argument.
Nothing you have said so far has had any rational argument to its basis other than "I don't think they should", you have certainly said you feel a same sex union is inferior to your marriage to your wife, which is quite a bigoted stance. I disagree, the mere fact that same sex couples cannot lawfully call their union a "marriage" belittles that union. Maybe gays and lesbians just want to be called your equal...not different, not greater, not lesser....just equal...and have the same possibilities and access to institutions that you take for granted.
"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. "
No they are not being discriminated against as the redefinition only applies to civil marriage. As previously stated the Government are not forcing Churches to marry same sex couples.
"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."
Again, the Catholic Church are not being forced to marry same sex couples, so the LBGT community are not being treated "more" equally.
"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."
That is crux of the re-definition, the ability of same sex couples to marry in a civil ceremony that may includes religious words/texts/hymns/blessings, if the couple marrying so wish. It does not make that a religious ceremony.
"And what good reason can anyone have for not allowing a hetero couple to have their partnership made distinct from a gay one?"
Or put it another way, why should same sex couple be FORCED to have a different definition?
"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.
"Some "PC cobblers" has worked, some hasn't, some has gone too far I agree. However, lets not compare the rights of law abiding citizens who just so happen to have a different sexual preference to you, to criminals shall we? Very antagonistic argument.
I also hope you treat your wife as your equal in your marriage and haven't resorted to "coverture" as was the way of marriage a couple of hundred years or so ago. As a feme covert (wife) she would have been forced to give up all of her legal rights as a single woman to the husband and in the eyes of the law she barely existed.
Thankfully society has moved on and realised that women are equal to men in marriage.
Allowing same sex civil marriage is removal of another piece of discrimination and I don't see anything wrong with it.
blindswelledrat said:
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 simpleIm 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 s
t. Who are you or the church to tell anyone what they need or want?A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
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? 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.
1/ hetros do have something that gays to not: the right to be married.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.
2/ The church is being allowed to do what it wants. It is just not being allowed to limit marriage to those it feels should have it. There is no discrimination against the church. Even if religions were being forced to allow gays to be married in their churches, it would make them treated the same as other businesses. But they are not. They are treated as a special case. They are allowed to discriminate where other businesses are not.
3/ Against PC eh? Like women being able to take out mortgages or being treated as equal to men. Or equal pay. Or not being forced to marry against their will, or mutilation. That bloody PC brigade: what good have they ever done.
MOTORVATOR said:
It's only about expectation BSR. I fully expect when I meet your 'wife' not to have to do the crocodile dundee bit.
A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
Why would either of the gay men in a marriage be called the wife?? They would both be husbands. Likewise in a lesbian marriage, they would be each others wife? A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
So your 1970's expectations would still be intact.
Edited by djstevec on Monday 5th March 21:41
MOTORVATOR said:
Ah Wiki / Internet the fount of all knowledge!
The point is Halb that however much these Romans may have wanted to be 'married' they would have found it difficult as the word is a middle english word that did not exist in their times.
If of course we wish to redefine all of our historic words we maybe should go with 'Bride' so one of the gay blokes can get in on this act and 'Groom' so that the lezzers don't miss out. If we do those ones first it should make 'Spouse' easier.
Of course I am absolutely lost as to how we are going to deal with widowers and widows but I'm sure PC world can come up with something.
I shall never look at a Dowager in the same way again.
Yes, wiki is ace.The point is Halb that however much these Romans may have wanted to be 'married' they would have found it difficult as the word is a middle english word that did not exist in their times.
If of course we wish to redefine all of our historic words we maybe should go with 'Bride' so one of the gay blokes can get in on this act and 'Groom' so that the lezzers don't miss out. If we do those ones first it should make 'Spouse' easier.
Of course I am absolutely lost as to how we are going to deal with widowers and widows but I'm sure PC world can come up with something.
I shall never look at a Dowager in the same way again.
Yes I understood you point about the word being only created at a certain point in time, but the equivalent of mariages took place beforehand, and in those times they were classed as equal. Such as the one below.
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.
The above marriage took place before the middle English word, yet the men were still married.
Even ignoring that, the meanings and spellings of words change all the time and are not set in stone, they change to reflect society.
MOTORVATOR said:
It's only about expectation BSR. I fully expect when I meet your 'wife' not to have to do the crocodile dundee bit.
A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
A marriage has always been husband and wife because we were historically so bigotted against gays that we wouldnt even acknowledge them as valid humans.A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
Fortunately we have now grown up and accept that same sex relationships are valid and hence it is perfectly natural to allow them to marry.
Do you honestly see "Why change that?" as any kind of intelligent argument? Seriously?
Black people have always been slaves- why change that?
Women never had the vote - why change that?
Children have always been hung for thieving - why change that?
The answer to all of those questions including your own is that we are a civilised society and constantly look to change things that are wrong
Can you actually give a reason as to why it is wrong for gay people to be married?
All your reasons so far actually amount to the same "WHy bother?-they dont need it" or similar.
Try and answer it in a snetence with the following format: "I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because of X and because it has Y negative impact on me or others"
All your reasons so far actually amount to the same "WHy bother?-they dont need it" or similar.
Try and answer it in a snetence with the following format: "I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because of X and because it has Y negative impact on me or others"
djstevec said:
MOTORVATOR said:
It's only about expectation BSR. I fully expect when I meet your 'wife' not to have to do the crocodile dundee bit.
A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
Why would either of the gay men in a marriage be called the wife?? They would both be husbands. Likewise in a lesbian marriage, they would be each others wife? A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
What next? One thing's for sure it won't stop here.
blindswelledrat said:
Can you actually give a reason as to why it is wrong for gay people to be married?
All your reasons so far actually amount to the same "WHy bother?-they dont need it" or similar.
Try and answer it in a snetence with the following format: "I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because of X and because it has Y negative impact on me or others"
"I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because the terminology is not appropriate to the act in the same way that the term procreation requires the presence of a male and a female, and because if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"All your reasons so far actually amount to the same "WHy bother?-they dont need it" or similar.
Try and answer it in a snetence with the following format: "I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because of X and because it has Y negative impact on me or others"
Edited by MOTORVATOR on Monday 5th March 22:09
mattnunn said:
MR MOTORVATOR, why not just do us all a favour and tell the truth, this isn't about the meaning of the word marriage, or religion, it's about you fearing the fact you're wrong. Just be honest, mtfu, and admit you've a prblem with gays, so we can tell you how wrong you are.
I know you want me to be homophobic but unfortuately you're barking up the wrong tree. I am however defensive of our existing traditions and don't agree with their destruction to serve a minority.I am also a staunch royalist if that helps your perception.
MOTORVATOR said:
djstevec said:
MOTORVATOR said:
It's only about expectation BSR. I fully expect when I meet your 'wife' not to have to do the crocodile dundee bit.
A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
Why would either of the gay men in a marriage be called the wife?? They would both be husbands. Likewise in a lesbian marriage, they would be each others wife? A wife I expect to be female end of and no amount of crusading by gays is going to change my mind on that.
A marriage has always been husband and wife why change that. Just call it something else to suit the circumstance.
What next? One thing's for sure it won't stop here.
The female would be the wife and the male the husband. It still sits within you narrow gender specific definition.
Marf said:
I don't particularly care if people cant enter into a three way marriage since I wouldn't want a polygamous relationship.
Sounds a lot like, "I don't particularly care if people can't enter into a homosexual marriage since I wouldn't want a homosexual relationship."Maybe we should join a church or something to celebrate!
Ozzie Osmond said:
Marf said:
I don't particularly care if people cant enter into a three way marriage since I wouldn't want a polygamous relationship.
Sounds a lot like, "I don't particularly care if people can't enter into a homosexual marriage since I wouldn't want a homosexual relationship."Maybe we should join a church or something to celebrate!
Would you like to discuss my answer to your question with regards to why three way marriage is illegal? Or perhaps you might like to offer your opinion on why it's not legal?
Edited by Marf on Monday 5th March 22:23
MOTORVATOR said:
blindswelledrat said:
Can you actually give a reason as to why it is wrong for gay people to be married?
All your reasons so far actually amount to the same "WHy bother?-they dont need it" or similar.
Try and answer it in a snetence with the following format: "I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because of X and because it has Y negative impact on me or others"
"I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because the terminology is not appropriate to the act in the same way that the term procreation requires the presence of a male and a female, and because if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"All your reasons so far actually amount to the same "WHy bother?-they dont need it" or similar.
Try and answer it in a snetence with the following format: "I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because of X and because it has Y negative impact on me or others"
Edited by MOTORVATOR on Monday 5th March 22:09
It doesn't require them to be married though does it?
"...if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"
Say what?? Your'e seriously kidding right?? So heterosexual reproduction would cease if same sex couples were allowed to marry.
djstevec said:
Whats the thin end of the wedge?? That the gender terminology for same sex couples would remain the same as hetrosexual marriage??
The female would be the wife and the male the husband. It still sits within you narrow gender specific definition.
Because it all stems from 'unfairness'. Gays see it as unfair that they cannot call their relationship marriage so we change the definition. The female would be the wife and the male the husband. It still sits within you narrow gender specific definition.
Next we have some twonk who decides it's unfair that someone introduced his wife at a party and he had to use the term partner so let's change that definition.
Then we have the mothers meeting which specifically exclude gay adoptees because of the term so we need to allow gays to use the term mother or put a stop to those bigotted mothers.
We've already inferred all the same rights and abilities as their respective hetero couples but that is not enough.
I'm just amazed that no one else sees it for what it is.
Seriously stop the fking bus for a minute...
As we speak there are adolescent kids up and down the country, not to mention fully grown adults, suffering in their lives, commiting suicide in some cases, because they feel society doesn't support and respect their need and desires for love. Simple basic human right to be able to openly express their love for other people on an equal basis.
And the best argument you fkwits can come up with to enforce this social stigma and apartheid system of rights is "Tradition" and argument over the meanings of words.
When the fk will people realise that it's okay not to offend people, you don't have to be a , the sun will rise tomorrow if you're nice to people instead of being a vile hate filled cock, it's okay to say c'est la vie. Let it go, get on with your own boring little lifes and stop tyring to fk with other peoples.
You're wrong about this, you've lost the argument, you lost the argument in 1967, it's just taken 25 years to penetrate your thick fking skull.
king bus for a minute...As we speak there are adolescent kids up and down the country, not to mention fully grown adults, suffering in their lives, commiting suicide in some cases, because they feel society doesn't support and respect their need and desires for love. Simple basic human right to be able to openly express their love for other people on an equal basis.
And the best argument you f
kwits can come up with to enforce this social stigma and apartheid system of rights is "Tradition" and argument over the meanings of words.When the f
k will people realise that it's okay not to offend people, you don't have to be a , the sun will rise tomorrow if you're nice to people instead of being a vile hate filled cock, it's okay to say c'est la vie. Let it go, get on with your own boring little lifes and stop tyring to fk with other peoples.You're wrong about this, you've lost the argument, you lost the argument in 1967, it's just taken 25 years to penetrate your thick f
king skull.djstevec said:
"...the term procreation requires the presence of a male and a female.."
It doesn't require them to be married though does it?
"...if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"
Say what?? Your'e seriously kidding right?? So heterosexual reproduction would cease if same sex couples were allowed to marry.
I only posted that to wind you up. I'm happy that procreation will remain for the time being as a physical impossibility for a gay couple.It doesn't require them to be married though does it?
"...if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"
Say what?? Your'e seriously kidding right?? So heterosexual reproduction would cease if same sex couples were allowed to marry.
Until of course someone determines that as unfair as well and we have to change our legislation to allow genetic research.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff