Gay marriage thread

[french frank]

A civil marriage is just that - it is not a religious act at all.

The Quaker quote seemed to refer to a Quaker marriage - a couple marrying needing to be members of the (religious) community, marrying within their own community; or non-members who at least shared the same values as the community.

There is no differentiation, seemingly, made between 'marriage' and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. If there were, what difference would that make to the universal acceptability of 'same-sex marriage' and the use of the term 'marriage'?

[jean]

The Quaker quote seemed to refer to a Quaker marriage - a couple marrying needing to be members of the (religious) community, marrying within their own community; or non-members who at least shared the same values and the community.

I'm afraid I skimmed your link rather quickly and didn't see that bit - and your 'but' made me think the second quote was from somewhere else.

There is no differentiation, seemingly, made between 'marriage' and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I wouldn't expect there to be, for any religious community - except that there are those (does that include Quakers?) who have no concept of a sacrament.

But for secular society and civil marriages or civil partnerships, there is an absolute distinction. If I go through a civil ceremony, that isn't a sacrament, though most (all?) churches will recognise that I am married in some sense, and if I ask them to disregard my civil marriage because it's not the real thing and marry me to someone else instead, they won't. Even if they wanted to, the State won't let them.

I wonder what would happen if a person in a civil partnership decided to get heterosexually married in church without first having their civil partnership dissolved?

I don't think there has been a test case yet.

[ahinton]

The Quaker quote seemed to refer to a Quaker marriage - a couple marrying needing to be members of the (religious) community, marrying within their own community; or non-members who at least shared the same values as the community.

There is no differentiation, seemingly, made between 'marriage' and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. If there were, what difference would that make to the universal acceptability of 'same-sex marriage' and the use of the term 'marriage'?

None, as far as I can tell. that Quaker quote continues
"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests’ or magistrates’; for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord’s work, and we are but witnesses. (George Fox 1669) See http://www.quaker.org.uk/we-are-but-witnesses".
Now whether the sense of "Sacrament" is compatible or even synonymous with their view of marriage as being "God's work", to which the Quakers themselves are "but witnesses" - and indeed whether the Quakers themselves regards it as being so - I cannot say with certainty but, since the entire quote clarifies that "it is God's ordnance", it does rather look that way to me.

[ahinton]

But for secular society and civil marriages or civil partnerships, there is an absolute distinction. If I go through a civil ceremony, that isn't a sacrament, though most (all?) churches will recognise that I am married in some sense, and if I ask them to disregard my civil marriage because it's not the real thing and marry me to someone else instead, they won't. Even if they wanted to, the State won't let them.

No, not unless your civil partnership were officially terminated first but, since I don't think that you could in any case ask anyone to join you in a second civil partnership while a first one still pertained, I don't quite see the significance of your point here.

I wonder what would happen if a person in a civil partnership decided to get heterosexually married in church without first having their civil partnership dissolved?

I don't think there has been a test case yet.

I don't know, but I would certainly expect the Church to take the same line as anyone else that could marry you to the extent of insisting that the civil partnership first be terminated; perhaps someone here with knowledge of matrimonial and civil partnership law might be able to elucidate?...

[jean]

No, not unless your civil partnership were officially terminated first but, since I don't think that you could in any case ask anyone to join you in a second civil partnership while a first one still pertained, I don't quite see the significance of your point here.

The point is that, for some churches, civil partnership ios quite illegitimate. They don't recognise it in the way that they recognise civil marriage. The state does recognise it, and would therefore naturally expect the first to be dissolved before the new one could take place.

There have been cases where the Catholic church has annulled a marriage because one of the parties did not understand the Christian concept of marriage; then you get a situation where the State says a couple are married, but the Church says no marriage took place.

I believe Evelyn Waugh got out of his first marriage that way.

I would certainly expect the Church to take the same line as anyone else that could marry you to the extent of insisting that the civil partnership first be terminated...

But the church isn't the same as 'everyone else' in this matter, is it?

[ahinton]

The point is that, for some churches, civil partnership ios quite illegitimate. They don't recognise it in the way that they recognise civil marriage. The state does recognise it, and would therefore naturally expect the first to be dissolved before the new one could take place.

There have been cases where the Catholic church has annulled a marriage because one of the parties did not understand the Christian concept of marriage; then you get a situation where the State says a couple are married, but the Church says no marriage took place.

Then the Church - whichever Church it might be - needs to recognise that the law is the law; when, for example, the Church of England refuses to accept the legitimacy of a civil partnership, it surely makes itself look sillier than other Churches because its position as the "established" Christian Church in Britain is enshrined in that same country's law, a position that accordingly sounds to me like nothing more nor less than its trying to have its communion bread and eating it.

[scottycelt]

No, scotty - unless by "official child abuse cases" you mean those that have been admitted to by the Church after being discovered and prosecuted (and I shudder to imagine what else could be meant by this expression, since I do not believe that even the Roman Catholic Church carries out child abuse "officially"); at best, therefore, only those cases that have been revealed by the Church or via other official channels and admitted to by the Church and prosecuted by the relevant authorities "are on (Church) record(s) for anyone to examine" and, as has been pointed out several times already, the routine official covering up of some of these cases and of other allegations - not to mention the fear instilled in some victims by certain senior officials of the Church in order to discourage them from even reporting such instances - is in some senses as grave as the abuse itself, ye how many cases of such concealment by the Church are officially reported by the Church and available to be consulted by members of the public?

I think the words 'even the Roman Catholic Church' tend to indicate a certain lack of objectivity here, ahinton ...

The word 'official' was deliberately used as these are the only ones that can be discussed sensibly. The Church is not solely responsible for this 'official' status but the appropriate secular authorities as well.

I'm sure you are right that some child-abuse cases and other crimes go unreported and undetected but I wouldn't have thought this phenomenon is particularly unique to the Catholic community.

To suggest that paedophilia was considered by society in general 30/40 years ago in the same way as it is now is quite false. I doubt many in those days had even heard of the word itself. Times were different. Corporal punishment still existed in schools and teachers smoked in class and much of the public smoked in restaurants. Men generally didn't swear in the company of women. Women didn't sport tattoos. Now women swear just as much as men and also sport tattoos. Anyone suspected of 'interfering' with children was considered 'sad and pathetic' by society in general not just by Catholic authorities. Catholic priests were moved elsewhere whenever they were suspected of such acts. I suspect much the same happened in other institutions.That was the way things were done then.

Attitudes are very different now and rightly so in the case of child-abuse ... and you won't find many people these days arguing about that, and certainly not myself!

[ahinton]

I think the words 'even the Roman Catholic Church' tend to indicate a certain lack of objectivity here, ahinton ...

Less a lack of objectivity than a lack of care not to appear inappropriately frivolous, methinks!

The word 'official' was deliberately used as these are the only ones that can be discussed sensibly. The Church is not solely responsible for this 'official' status but the appropriate secular authorities as well.

Sure - and understood and accepted - but even if the Roman Catholic Church does maintain a roster with detailed information on such cases when they've been proven and admitted by it and even if that list is made readily available for public inspection, it does not cover the allegations that have yet to be proven or those that have not been made for fear of private reprisal on the part of the Church; this is broadly the same as the situation in the music schools where one will have to wait the outcome of official inquiries and any charges brought both for abuse and for wilful official concealment thereof before anything like a true picture emerges.

I'm sure you are right that some child-abuse cases and other crimes go unreported and undetected but I wouldn't have thought this phenomenon is particularly unique to the Catholic community.

Indeed - and I've indicated as much above - but that no more makes the situation any more acceptable than it reveals the true extent of the abuse and its official concealment; only official inquiries might stand some chance of doing that.

To suggest that paedophilia was considered by society in general 30/40 years ago in the same way as it is now is quite false. I doubt many in those days had even heard of the word itself. Times were different. Corporal punishment still existed in schools and teachers smoked in class and much of the public smoked in restaurants. Men generally didn't swear in the company of women. Women didn't sport tattoos. Now women swear just as much as men and also sport tattoos. Anyone suspected of 'interfering' with children was considered 'sad and pathetic' by society in general not just by Catholic authorities.

Times have indeed changed, fortunately - but to your assertions that
[QUOTE=scottycelt;266674]Catholic priests were moved elsewhere whenever they were suspected of such acts. I suspect much the same happened in other institutions.That was the way things were done then{/quote]
I would have to answer by asking you if you have any proof of that and, if so, how much? It doesn't appear as though staff accused of such acts in music schools were "moved elsewhere" in the way that you describe!

Attitudes are very different now and rightly so in the case of child-abuse ... and you won't find many people these days arguing about that, and certainly not myself!

Yes, that's true, but there's still a long way to go and certain official attitudes about covering up such abuse have perhaps changed rather uncomfortably less than have public ones about abuse and its concealment.

[amateur51]

That is utterly absurd.

I've never taken an actual account of how many ad hominem attacks there are on this forum but I humbly suggest that I may have been subjected to rather more of these than the huge majority of members. I'm not complaining, it just makes me all the more determined to deal in FACTS ...

There is no 'fallacy' about facts. I would have thought one might have preferred to have access to some of them before one pronounces judgement on anything.

Suffice to say the number of official child-abuse cases concerning the Church are on record for anyone to examine. Of course there are similar child-abuse cases in other private and state institutions which are also on record for anyone to examine (though some members seem curiously reluctant to do so). That does not excuse child-abuse in either case. It is simply stating a fact. It is also a fact that the huge majority concerning the Catholic Church are of a homosexual nature and I'm surprised that you appear to be keen to brush aside this particular fact. I didn't make up this fact. It is simply a fact. It is also general knowledge (gleaned from official sources) that most child-abuse takes place in the home. I agree that this is a shocking fact but it still appears to be an actual fact.

Don't take my word for it, simply check out all these facts for yourself, Pab ...

Scotty, it is generally accepted that child abuse is not about sex and sexuality but about the aberrant expression of power.

[scottycelt]

Scotty, it is generally accepted that child abuse is not about sex and sexuality but about the aberrant expression of power.

I don't know about it being 'generally accepted' but, in any case, that is merely an opinion, amsey.

Opinions are quite different from facts.

Facts are chiels that winna ding.

[MrGongGong]

I don't know about it being 'generally accepted' but, in any case, that is merely an opinion, amsey.

Opinions are quite different from facts.

Facts are chiels that winna ding.

I (probably like many others) don't think you are a bad person
but constantly defending evil people (to use "biblical" language) really isn't healthy

There's nothing "wrong" with believing in god or God BUT supporting people who have seriously damaged many innocent people is not a good place to go.

[Flosshilde]

I don't think that someone who supports an institution based not on fact but on belief and opinion is well-placed to lecture anyone else on what is or isn't 'fact'.

[amateur51]

I don't know about it being 'generally accepted' but, in any case, that is merely an opinion, amsey.

Opinions are quite different from facts.

Facts are chiels that winna ding.

Now that's choice coming from your faith-based perspective, scotty

[ahinton]

Originally Posted by amateur51 View Post
Scotty, it is generally accepted that child abuse is not about sex and sexuality but about the aberrant expression of power.

I don't know about it being 'generally accepted' but, in any case, that is merely an opinion, amsey.

Does your statement here mean that, whether or not am51's remark is a fact or an opinion, you "disagree" with it" and, if so, on what specific grounds? Has it not occurred to you to think about this kind of activity as sexual predation, wherein by definition its sexually abusive aspect is seen to be an intrinsic constituent of that "aberrant expression of power" to the extent that, in practice, the one cannot realistically be separated from the other?

[scottycelt]

I (probably like many others) don't think you are a bad person

How flatteringly kind of you ....

but constantly defending evil people (to use "biblical" language) really isn't healthy

Ah, so we've suddenly discovered that there is such a thing as 'evil' (to use biblical language). Only a couple of weeks or so ago you and others here were vehemently asserting it (evil) didn't even exist.

Well, that's a step forward, I suppose ...