The Catholics are at it again

[public school boy]

Main Kampf condemns things as well - does that make it right or is your fairytale more important than Hitler's ?

A good read that contains a lot of sensible ideas

 

[John Bumlick]

Technically it is discriminatory I agree, but there are so many other situation in life that can be construed as such. Single faith schools, single sex hospital wards, single sex sporting events, single sex changing rooms ... this list is endless. If the Catholic Church is democratically against gay/lesbian marriages then the view of that or any other religion should be respected. May be a good compromise would be for the Amex to host such events.

damn it. i'm replying again.

your examples are kind of valid except that they refer either to issues of privacy or areas where competition is segregated but is available to both sexes (single sex teams).

i agree that the views of any church should be respected in the sense that you should respect their right to hold those views but i don't accept that those views should affect or shape public life.

it's the rule of law - we all have to obey a set of agreed upon rules or everything will fall apart. basing those rules on the (differing) views of various different (but similar) religious organisations is not right, in my opinion.

 

[John Bumlick]

i don't know about anyone else but i can't f***ing wait until the football starts...

 

[The Large One]

It is certainly not homophobia. It is a point of view.

Those two comments are not mutually exclusive. It's a homophobic point of view you have.

Playing the homophobia card gives the impression that because those who wish to use it as a defence, have no other way of justifying the use of the homophobia label.

You're only trying to dodge the 'homophobic' label because of its social context today.

It doesn't mean your standpoint isn't homophobic. It is, and it's given further credence by the fact that you haven't, can't or won't say why you are against same-sex marriages. In other words, you haven't rationallised your viewpoint (homophobia being the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality), beyond the contents of a contemporary social textbook of 1,800 years ago.

 

[sten_super]

May be a good compromise would be for the Amex to host such events.

Isn't this the point that we are debating - the Catholic Church is saying that these events shouldn't be held anywhere. I am completely supportive of their right not to have LGBT weddings in their buildings, but not of their desire to stop them from taking place in other locations.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Peter Bone MP

If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same-sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school...

So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons?

Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA [Parent Teacher Association], or from being a governor.

Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for 2,000 years.

In my experience, the easiest way to bring children up to be tolerant is to live next door to a gay couple, who are in a long-term stable relationship, and have pleasant friends.

Half the problem seems to be that there are people like Peter Bone MP who seem to believe that, in real life, there are no gay couples, or that those who are gay need to be treated as if they were perverts.

 

[dingodan]

Marriage is a sacrament of the church. You can't force a priest to administer the sacrament of marriage against their beliefs and the teachings of their religion.

But that does not mean 2 gays cannot be in a relationship. And they can call it what they want. The force being used here is not against gays, it is against the church. And we should reject force. Forcing a priest to administer the sacrament of marriage is just as wrong as forcing gays not to express their sexuality.

Groups don't have rights. Individuals do. There is no such thing as gay rights. Nor are there minority rights. There is no such thing as women's rights. And there are no men's rights.

Men, women, gays, minorities - they all have the same rights, as individuals, not as groups. All people should be treated the same way.

 

[John Bumlick]

Groups don't have rights. Individuals do. There is no such thing as gay rights. Nor are there minority rights. There is no such thing as women's rights. And there are no men's rights.

if that were true there would be no need for the fight for 'gay rights' or 'women's rights'. one day, maybe, but i doubt it.

 

[sten_super]

Marriage is a sacrament of the church. You can't force a priest to administer the sacrament of marriage against their beliefs and the teachings of their religion.

Marriage is not (necessarily) anything to do with the Church. Marriage ceremonies took place in Roman society and there were similar partnerships in both Ancient Greece and China, all of which pre-dates Christianity. No-one (that I've seen/read) is talking about having a religious ceremony to celebrate a 'gay' wedding, but of having a civil marriage ceremony in exactly the same way a man and a woman can.

 

[Don Quixote]

Let them get on with it, why do you care so much?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Marriage is not (necessarily) anything to do with the Church. Marriage ceremonies took place in Roman society and there were similar partnerships in both Ancient Greece and China, all of which pre-dates Christianity. No-one (that I've seen/read) is talking about having a religious ceremony to celebrate a 'gay' wedding, but of having a civil marriage ceremony in exactly the same way a man and a woman can.

I thought nothing pre-dated Christianity - that is what the big book told me (not the yellow pages).

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I thought nothing pre-dated Christianity - that is what the big book told me (not the yellow pages).

You obviously haven't read the 'Big Book' too carefully then as Christianity occurs only with the advent of Christ approx 2/3 of the way through.

Of course if your remark was tongue in cheek then fair enough.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It was tongue in cheek, but none too accurate.

 

[public school boy]

Those two comments are not mutually exclusive. It's a homophobic point of view you have.



You're only trying to dodge the 'homophobic' label because of its social context today.

It doesn't mean your standpoint isn't homophobic. It is, and it's given further credence by the fact that you haven't, can't or won't say why you are against same-sex marriages. In other words, you haven't rationallised your viewpoint (homophobia being the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality), beyond the contents of a contemporary social textbook of 1,800 years ago.

I'm not against same sex relationships / civil partnerships, but for me Weddings should only take place in churches or the equivalent religious building depending on one's faith, between a man and a woman. If people wish to commit themselves to each other for life, why should it matter where the union takes place?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'm not against same sex relationships / civil partnerships, but for me Weddings should only take place in churches or the equivalent religious building depending on one's faith, between a man and a woman. If people wish to commit themselves to each other for life, why should it matter where the union takes place?

So you object to the fact a heterosexual couple can get married at the Royal Pavilion or many hotels ?

 

[aolstudios]

I'm not against same sex relationships / civil partnerships, but for me Weddings should only take place in churches or the equivalent religious building depending on one's faith, between a man and a woman. If people wish to commit themselves to each other for life, why should it matter where the union takes place?

So no weddings in registry offices or equivalent for those of us not bothered with religion then?

 

[sten_super]

I'm not against same sex relationships / civil partnerships, but for me Weddings should only take place in churches or the equivalent religious building depending on one's faith, between a man and a woman. If people wish to commit themselves to each other for life, why should it matter where the union takes place?

I'm afraid this horse bolted long ago. Civil marriages have been legal in this country since 1837.

Besides which, does this mean that you'd also stop atheists and agnostics from getting married?

edit: Beaten to it. Twice!

 

[public school boy]

So you object to the fact a heterosexual couple can get married at the Royal Pavilion or many hotels ?

I only think that real weddings take place in Churches or other religious buildings depending of one's faith. Call me old fashioned if you wish but that is how I view marriage

 

[public school boy]

I'm afraid this horse bolted long ago. Civil marriages have been legal in this country since 1837.

Besides which, does this mean that you'd also stop atheists and agnostics from getting married?

edit: Beaten to it. Twice!

Yes as it would not be a proper marriage.

Orff to the amex now

 

[aolstudios]

I only think that real weddings take place in Churches or other religious buildings depending of one's faith. Call me old fashioned if you wish but that is how I view marriage

so if homosexuals were to legally marry in a registry office you'd be fine with it because in your funny little head it never happened? old fashioned as in soon to be extinct with a bit of luck - nothing personal, just (what I take to be) your type psb