Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[Lateralthinking1]

This gets sillier and sillier!

Yes, I've already concluded that the historical truth will not be allowed to impede. There are too many vested interests to water down marriage as an institution. The subject keeps coming up. I did look at the consultation document this morning. Lynne Featherstone is not too bad as they go. I feel that she has got it about right, given the present day context for the debate. I also think there is a strong argument for extending gay marriage to religions which feel that they can accommodate it.

While a couple would humbly ask for fair treatment, and rightly so, the bigwigs will be seeing huge politics in it. The problem with saying "yes if the Quakers want it" is not one for the Catholic Church. It is one for the Church of England which is already a battleground. It would be asked serious questions if it said "no". The politicians' worry is not the C of E per se but its inter linkages with the state. It would look like a step towards disestablishment. All the royals would then really be rattling their jewels.

I really don't understand the Catholic Church's position. I am assuming it is also opposing gay marriage by state, ie civil marriages. If so, this seems to me to be overstepping the mark. The appropriate response would be to state its view but not to campaign against it. Unless that is, it is only opposed to gay marriages in its church. I wonder whether with all of the publicity it is getting it is effectively doing a job for other religions too. By contrast, they seem quiet and very unexpectedly so.

I have to say that I wouldn't like the Catholics to be forced into holding gay marriage ceremonies. It would never work. It also crosses a line just as the Catholic Church crosses a line if it interferes with state affairs. There is some need to acknowledge boundaries and permission is always better than force. The churches do though need to show that they are working hard to comply enthusiastically with the employment legislation and other laws. The tone should be very different so that rather than always being condemning they emphasise how far they can move on humanity grounds. Churches are supposed to be about humanity first.

Some won't be happy until all churches change on gay marriage. That is inevitable. But why would anyone want to join a club if they didn't like its architecture? It seems crackers to me. Never ending debate imprisons all. In fact, it increasingly looks like a tennis match - Yin and Yin Yang versus Yang and Yang Yin - in which if they aren't careful, the really oppositional will end up in each others' courts. A very big cynic might say that in a funny kind of way that is the reason why it will go on until a tie break.

[amateur51]

I really don't understand the Catholic Church's position. I am assuming it is also opposing gay marriage by state, ie civil marriages. If so, this seems to me to be overstepping the mark. The appropriate response would be to state its view but not to campaign against it. Unless that is, it is only opposed to gay marriages in its church. I wonder whether with all of the publicity it is getting it is effectively doing a job for other religions too. By contrast, they seem quiet.

In part the Catholic Church is furious at the thought of having to up-date its precious franchise operation. Your points about property control on the one hand, and reproductive/sexual control of women on the other, is well made, Lat.

Secondly, there's thought control and guilt, the real woo-hoo of power The Catholic Church is secretly (and in Cardinal O'Brien's case no so secretly) furious that the masses may have been invited to think for themselves about the fundamentally taboo realities of life relatively recently, about divorce, abortion, child abuse and now queer marriage - you'd be furious yourself if you'd invested in all those frocks and hats, bells & smells over centuries

And let's be honest, the queer Pope must be spinning like a top as the Mother Church is seen to be unravelling under his watch, as the diplomatic demotic has it currently

[gamba]

During my years as a film lighting cameraman I had as one of my assistants for a while a young man known to be gay. Nothing about his appearance would indicate this, but in his behaviour, oh yes, it certainly did.

Everything relating to the camera & associated equipment was subjected to the most exacting scrutiny for its condition, cleanliness, ease of access etc.. All the many boxes with a variety of lenses, filters & attachments of all kinds were emptied, cleaned & the contents replaced in their correct place within the box. The same applied to full or part-used rolls of film, always a dodgy area, the logging of shots with any comments for printing & editing etc. etc.. He missed nothing ! I had never previously experienced anyone with such a devoted approach before. I was extremely grateful for such devotion & made my feelings known to him. He said he simply loved being tidy. Apparently he was the same at home. Very proud of his kitchen with everything clean, shiny & in it's proper place. I don't suppose I had thought much about 'gays' until then & had no reason to do so. From that moment I have lived with the simple concept of the balance of male/female feelings & behaviour within us being subject to a wide variance & why not ? Let us accept this & in no way deny them what we wish for ourselves.

[scottycelt]

This gets sillier and sillier! ...

Couldn't agree more, Ferret ... what a long-dead Spanish military general and political dictator has to do with a discussion on the intended introduction of 'gay' marriage into 21st century UK is quite beyond me ...

[Lateralthinking1]

Your points about property control on the one hand, and reproductive/sexual control of women on the other, is well made, Lat.

Ams, I think the credit for that goes to ferretfancy. I do agree but for me Catholicism is about more than just religion. Sounds ridiculous to say it. But some of my very best times were spent in North London Catholic pubs and music venues. Great fun. Had I been in Northern Ireland at a certain time, I could easily have voted SDLP.

My uncle worked as a caretaker and labourer for the Church Commissioners (C of E) and I can confirm that they too have, erm, a bit of money. On contraception, yes of course. During the week, I did look at the Catholics' official position on sex within marriage. I really didn't know whether they were only for procreation, only for certain times of the month, or whenever but being very sensible with reference to any relevant cycle. So they have in all areas got a public relations job to do at the very least - currently it's abysmal - and in view of what I discovered. Well, let's just say, Rick Santorum, non-Catholic, a bit unusual as I had thought.

gamba - I think your contribution is very well made. Going back to the years of conscription, any issues were often not issues at all because people just got on with things together. No great fanfares. That applied to class background too.

[amateur51]

Couldn't agree more, Ferret ... what a long-dead Spanish military general and political dictator has to do with a discussion on the intended introduction of 'gay' marriage into 21st century UK is quite beyond me ...

Could it have anything to do with said dictator's view of himself as the defender of Catholic Spain, and the recent frothings of Cardinal O'Brien praps scotty?

[amateur51]

Ams, I think the credit for that goes to ferretfancy.

You're right only in part Lat - and apols to Ferret! - but your msg 27 was a

[Ferretfancy]

scottycelt

You always manage to completely ignore the enormous hypocrisy which lies behind the catholic church's attitude when they stress the sanctity of marriage while disguising almost every kind of child abuse, not just in the history of Spain and Ireland, but in the here and now. Can you explain why fat elderly celibate (?) priests have the right to dictate their terms on sexual relationships of any kind to the rest of society? You joined the club, don't expect the rest of us to pay our subscription.

[Stunsworth]

To me it is straightforward. Marriage can only ever be for heterosexuals not homosexuals it always has been and always should be..

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but it's not unknown for gay people to marry people of the opposite sex for a whole host of reasons. Are you saying they should be forcibly divorced?

[scottycelt]

scottycelt

You always manage to completely ignore the enormous hypocrisy which lies behind the catholic church's attitude when they stress the sanctity of marriage while disguising almost every kind of child abuse, not just in the history of Spain and Ireland, but in the here and now. Can you explain why fat elderly celibate (?) priests have the right to dictate their terms on sexual relationships of any kind to the rest of society? You joined the club, don't expect the rest of us to pay our subscription.

The Church is certainly not alone in the hypocrisy stakes, Ferret, and this thread is supposed to be about 'gay' marriage not undoubted shortcomings within the Catholic Church. There will be (and are) many non-Catholics, including atheists, just as opposed to any change.

However, the Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to express a view on the matter in the same way as any other organisation or individual.

I and countless others didn't join your club either, and which most certainly doesn't constitute 'the rest of us'

[amateur51]

The Church is certainly not alone in the hypocrisy stakes, Ferret, and this thread is supposed to be about 'gay' marriage not undoubted shortcomings within the Catholic Church. There will be (and are) many non-Catholics, including atheists, just as opposed to any change.

However, the Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to express a view on the matter in the same way as any other organisation or individual.

I and countless others didn't join your club either, and which most certainly doesn't constitute 'the rest of us'

The rest of us had to stump up a hooge amount of moolah to protect your CEO (I thought that was in God's job description?) when he popped over to do few gigs for your lot a couple of years ago, scotty!

[scottycelt]

Wasn't it a State Visit, Amsey .?

Unlike Gay Pride marches which no doubt 'the rest of us' contribute towards in one way or another ... not that I would ever be so uncharitable as to mention the ubiquitous human affliction called 'hypocrisy', mind ...

[MrGongGong]

Wasn't it a State Visit, Amsey .?

He is as much a real "head of state" as Paisley is a real "doctor"

What I love about this stuff is that it's the Tories who are making it possible , the same with giving prisoners the right to vote
it's great to see them squirm over it all ....................

[amateur51]

Wasn't it a State Visit, Amsey .?

Unlike Gay Pride marches which no doubt 'the rest of us' contribute towards in one way or another ... not that I would ever be so uncharitable as to mention the ubiquitous human affliction called 'hypocrisy', mind ...

More like the 'In A State' Visit at the time, scotty

[amateur51]

He is as much a real "head of state" as Paisley is a real "doctor"

What I love about this stuff is that it's the Tories who are making it possible , the same with giving prisoners the right to vote
it's great to see them squirm over it all ....................

Well Bliar's all for it, apparently, and he's as real a Catholic as ... scotty is