Gay marriage thread

[Julien Sorel]

Indeed - and, perhaps even more importantly, since it is a tenet of faith as distinct from a scientific possibility

You misunderstand. It's nothing to do with the virgin birth. Unlike all other descendants of Adam and Eve she is conceived without sin, she's free from original sin.

[ahinton]

You misunderstand. It's nothing to do with the virgin birth. Unlike all other descendants of Adam and Eve she is conceived without sin, she's free from original sin.

No, I don't misunderstand but perhaps I did not put it as clearly as I should have done; I'm referring to the notion of anyone being "free from original sin" (assuming that anyone knows what that is in reality) and thereby fundamentally different from all other humans solely by reason of the alleged condition of Immaculate Conception as being "a tenet of faith as distinct from a scientific possibility".

The C# minor Quartet might arguably be an immaculate conception, but that's a different matter, not least on account of it requiring no endorsement from the Church...

[vinteuil]

Another minor observation - the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without sin. It's nothing to do with her status as receptacle.

... surely it's all about her status as 'receptacle'! In order for the theotokos to be able carry the godhead within her it was felt necessary that she herself should be without taint.

But "most of the schoolmen, including St Albert, St Bonaventure, and St Thomas Aquinas, declared against the belief on the grounds that in every natural conception the stain of original sin is transmitted and that, as Mary was conceived in the natural way, she was not exempt from this law." [ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, article Immaculate Conception.] The Dominicans, following St Thomas, were also opponents of the notion of the Immaculate Conception. But of course in the 19th century, fourteen year old peasant girls were wiser

[amateur51]

Homosexual practice in common with certain heterosexual practices are contrary to the moral teaching of the Church and that has been confirmed time and again by various Popes.

As a gay man it is my practice to pay bills as they arrive rather than leave them until they turn red. I don't know what the Catholic Church's view on this is

[Ferretfancy]

Just a small question from a bear of little brain, am I correct in saying that the concept of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary was only decided upon in 1870 or thereabouts?
Then there's the cancellation of Limbo, although there doesn't seem to have been any explanation of where those missing souls have gone. It must be quite a theological challenge for all those experts, making it up as they go along while the rest of us get on with our lives.

[Flosshilde]

what conceivable business this might be to anyone outside the Church I haven't the faintest idea.

I might agree with you here, Scotty, if the Catholic Church didn't feel that it had the right to interfere in the lives of people who aren't members - for example, in opposing same-sex marriage.

Men and women have traditional and different roles within the Church. That of course is not compatible with the modern secular view that men and women must have exactly the same rights and responsibilities in the service of any organisation. They call it 'equality'. The Church takes a rather different view. It readily accepts and indeed constantly promotes that men and women are of equal VALUE but are best performing different roles.

Try substituting 'black' or 'different races' instead of 'men' & 'women' here & see how offensive & stupid it is.

Homosexual practice in common with certain heterosexual practices are contrary to the moral teaching of the Church and that has been confirmed time and again by various Popes. Therefore it's a bit silly to expect it to suddenly accept 'gay marriage'.

I wouldn't say that it was 'silly', so much as being over-optimistic. However, there is no reason for the Catholic Church not to change its 'moral teaching' with regard to homosexuality.

[Flosshilde]

Homosexual practice in common

There's nothing common about my homosexual practice. & I intend to continue practicing until I'm perfect

[ahinton]

... surely it's all about her status as 'receptacle'! In order for the theotokos to be able carry the godhead within her it was felt necessary that she herself should be without taint.

But "most of the schoolmen, including St Albert, St Bonaventure, and St Thomas Aquinas, declared against the belief on the grounds that in every natural conception the stain of original sin is transmitted and that, as Mary was conceived in the natural way, she was not exempt from this law." [ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, article Immaculate Conception.] The Dominicans, following St Thomas, were also opponents of the notion of the Immaculate Conception. But of course in the 19th century, fourteen year old peasant girls were wiser

Someone way upthread - I think it was MrGG - observed (albeit not in so many words) that it was high time that the Church distanced itself once and for all from this mumbo-jumboesque business and, especially since distinguished figures in its history have sought to do just that, it seems timely to consider the impression conveyed by the very notion that "in every natural conception the stain of original sin is transmitted", as though the act of human procreation is by definition "sinful" and "tainted", despite the Church promoting it as the principal justification for opposite-sex marriage! Taken literally (and I'm not sure how else it could be taken, if at all) and taken to heart, it's surely almost enough to make a pregnant woman want an abortion, against which, most inconveniently, the Church frowns, although I suppose that this would be too late to exonerate her from this sin-laden taint! Whatever kind of teaching is this?

[alycidon]

[QUOTE=scottycelt;259225]


I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals. If not, why not just ensure that this happens? There is then no need to be concerned about changes of definition and words like 'husband' and 'wife' and then everybody can lead their own lives as they see fit with the same rights and responsibilities, and neither group encroaches on the other's territory. In other words. Civil Partnerships would remain exclusive to homosexuals and marriage confined to heterosexuals. This would be real 'equality' whilst at the same time respecting the rights of everybody.

Hello scottycelt. We meet again, at long last! As you know, I do not always agree with some of your assertions, but what you say above is absolutely spot-on IMHO.

[scottycelt]

Couldn't agree more. So how come



If it's a secular reality, without meaning in any way to be rude , what conceivable business is it of (any) church (or Church)? And what business has any church etc. continuing to oppose it?

Because society is made of numerous individuals and organisations and the Church has just as much right to be heard as any other. In the end it can't dictate, the State does that which is exactly what is happening at present.

The organisations themselves are of a different nature. The Catholic Church decides it own rules of membership and presumably other organisations do the same.

My wife and I (or more correctly, my wife) decide on what colour to paint the bedrooms ourselves. That's our business. Anybody trying to interfere in our selection would get very short shrift, believe me.

When we stay in somebody else's house we may not like the colour of the bedrooms there. Tough. It's none of our business what colour our hosts choose for their bedrooms, that's their business. We don't interfere.

When it comes to painting the local library we may be invited to express an opinion on the colour to select for painting. The colour chosen by majority view may be anathema to us, and won't change our view on that, but we accept the colour selected as a simple reality.

Are we particularly unusual in this regard ... ?

[scottycelt]

[QUOTE=alycidon;269461]

I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals. If not, why not just ensure that this happens? There is then no need to be concerned about changes of definition and words like 'husband' and 'wife' and then everybody can lead their own lives as they see fit with the same rights and responsibilities, and neither group encroaches on the other's territory. In other words. Civil Partnerships would remain exclusive to homosexuals and marriage confined to heterosexuals. This would be real 'equality' whilst at the same time respecting the rights of everybody.

Hello scottycelt. We meet again, at long last! As you know, I do not always agree with some of your assertions, but what you say above is absolutely spot-on IMHO.

Hello aly!! ... great to hear from you again ... I did wonder where you had got to after the old forum closed. Are you still living in the North East of God's Country? (Or has my memory-box finally disintegrated!)

Best Wishes

Scotty

[Flosshilde]

I've always understood Civil Partnerships confers a similar status to gay couples as does marriage to heterosexuals. If not, why not just ensure that this happens? There is then no need to be concerned about changes of definition and words like 'husband' and 'wife' and then everybody can lead their own lives as they see fit with the same rights and responsibilities, and neither group encroaches on the other's territory. In other words. Civil Partnerships would remain exclusive to homosexuals and marriage confined to heterosexuals. This would be real 'equality' whilst at the same time respecting the rights of everybody.

Hello scottycelt. We meet again, at long last! As you know, I do not always agree with some of your assertions, but what you say above is absolutely spot-on IMHO.

To say that Civil Partnership is 'just as good' as marriage, or 'different but equal' underlines the fact that they are not the same. There are a number of reasons why Civil Partnerships can be seen as 'second class' compared with marriage, some legal & others connected with social attitudes. For example -

Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.

Travel restrictions apply to civil partners but not married couples.
Countries like Sweden, Argentina and Portugal, where same-sex marriage is legal, do not see civil partnerships as marriage. This means UK civil partners living abroad do not enjoy the same rights as same-sex married couples in the 11 countries where equal marriage is legal.
In addition, the marriages of foreign gay couples who travel to the UK are not legally viewed as marriages.

The culture of many countries, including the UK, revolves around marriage as an institution. Though not all straight people do get married, marriage with a loved partner is an option that is legally available to them. Advocates for equal marriage speak of the emotional resonance marriage holds. Marriage represents a form of inclusion within society. It is a way of belonging to a cultural group and buying into values seen as respectable and acceptable.

Currently if a man or woman in a marriage undergo a sex change the couple have to divorce & then enter into a civil partnership. Same-sex marriages would mean they wouldn't have to go through the additional trauma of applying for a divorce & explaining why.

Official forms such as the UK census require a declaration of marital status. This often means that civilly partnered people are forced to state their sexuality, ticking a separate box that says 'civil partnership' rather than 'marriage'.

[Julien Sorel]

Because society is made of numerous individuals and organisations and the Church has just as much right to be heard as any other. In the end it can't dictate, the State does that which is exactly what is happening at present.

The organisations themselves are of a different nature. The Catholic Church decides it own rules of membership and presumably other organisations do the same.

This all seems a bit one sided. The Roman Catholic Church has every right to intervene outside itself, so to speak, when it chooses - but where its own practices are concerned it's nobody's business but its own? Unless the Roman Catholic Church moves to another planet I don't see how that works. (If you and your wife were to paint your bedroom a colour which somehow reacted with the street lighting and gave pedestrians and motorists and cyclists outside a headache then it wouldn't only be your business).

[MrGongGong]

They call it 'equality'. The Church takes a rather different view. It readily accepts and indeed constantly promotes that men and women are of equal VALUE but are best performing different roles. As it happens that largely has been my secular experience as well, but never mind. The Church is often accused of being misogynistic and 'anti-women' which is ridiculous. !

Of course, I get it, the Magdalene Laundries were all made up by militant "secularists" to discredit the church ?
Your church has actively created and developed the Marian cult in order to oppress women by forcing them to have endless pregnancies and denying them many of the things that men have.

[ahinton]

Because society is made of numerous individuals and organisations and the Church has just as much right to be heard as any other. In the end it can't dictate, the State does that which is exactly what is happening at present.

The organisations themselves are of a different nature. The Catholic Church decides it own rules of membership and presumably other organisations do the same.

My wife and I (or more correctly, my wife) decide on what colour to paint the bedrooms ourselves. That's our business. Anybody trying to interfere in our selection would get very short shrift, believe me.

When we stay in somebody else's house we may not like the colour of the bedrooms there. Tough. It's none of our business what colour our hosts choose for their bedrooms, that's their business. We don't interfere.

When it comes to painting the local library we may be invited to express an opinion on the colour to select for painting. The colour chosen by majority view may be anathema to us, and won't change our view on that, but we accept the colour selected as a simple reality.

Are we particularly unusual in this regard ... ?

No - and, broadly speaking, I do not disagree with any of the above in principle. The point that I was making, however, was about the future of a Church which, whilst it is as entitled to be heard and to make up its own rules to apply to its own members (although not to anyone else) as is any other organisation provided that none of those rules is incompatible with current law, maintains stances on homosexuality, on same-sex marriage, on abortion, on women officiating within its organisation and on the rôles in life for which it believes women to be suited and unsuited that clearly indicate a desire to exclude numerous groups of people including homosexual men and women, those who are already married to or wish to marry someone of the same sex, women who find it necessary to undergo an abortion, women who wish to pursue their spiritual calling within a Church by officiating therein and women who do not wish to have their career choices and other rôles in life dictated to by a Church and that, in so doing, it risks becoming ever more sidelined within society as a whole.

That's a lot of people to exclude and, after all, as even those who do not fall into any of those categories already include atheists, agnostics, non-Catholic Christians and those of other faiths, the logical conclusion is that the Catholic Church's following is likely to continue to dwindle unless and until it faces up to all of these issues and considers the stance that it should adopt on each of them in a contemporary society in which it wishes to continue to participate and with which it needs to engage.

It is far from obvious that addressing such issues openly would need to involve compromising what ought to be its basic doctrines as a representative of Christian teachings, particularly since Christ himself would not have turned his back on any of these people but sought to engage with them.