Gay marriage thread

[Mr Pee]

You are really not making much sense, Flossie ...

You don't say......

[Julien Sorel]

Barring extraordinary self-restraint, virtuoso calculation, or the intervention of God, dramatically falling birthrates among / across Catholic populations throughout Europe over the past 40 years (that's those who have stayed in the Church) suggest that more than individual members have found Catholic "rules" on contraception not only inconvenient: they've ignored them in their numbers.

The rules as you call them aren't set in stone. For several centuries it was permissible to discuss heliocentrism as an hypothesis, not as a fact. The latter was forbidden. That's no longer the case, the Church eventually gave up attempting to sustain the unsustainable. Because - drumroll - they were wrong. On your set in stone basis they should never have changed the rules about that or about anything.

In 1930 Pius XI opposed votes for women in Italy saying participation in politics would distract them from their true vocation as homemakers. Mussolini obviously agreed, since women only got the vote in Italy in 1945. Though the Vatican State remains, of course, a special situation, should Pius XI's attitude to women in politics have remained a constant rule? If not, what's to stop other of these rules changing?

[Flosshilde]

Ah, bit like Stalin and living in Russia ...or China...or North Korea.

You're not the first to make that comparison. & it's not one I would disagree with. But it does create something of a dilemma. If it's acceptable for the Pope to tell his followers what to believe, it must be acceptable for Stalin to have done the same; if it's not acceptable for Stalin to do so, then it's not acceptable for the Pope.

Possibly even Venezuela.....now that emotional outpouring on Chavez's death was scary

More scary than that for Princess Diana? At least Chavez did a huge amount for the poor of Venezuala, and won several elections that were recognised as being properly conducted - ie not sham, one-person affairs.

[Mr Pee]

More scary than that for Princess Diana? At least Chavez did a huge amount for the poor of Venezuala, and won several elections that were recognised as being properly conducted - ie not sham, one-person affairs.

You are joking, aren't you?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/09/opinion/frum-chavez-venezuela

[Richard Barrett]

At least Chavez did a huge amount for the poor of Venezuala

A great deal more, indeed, than the catholic church did.

The comparison of the church's rules with secular laws is a useful one, since it blunders straight into the indisputable fact that homosexuality was banned by those secular laws in the UK until relatively recently, and no longer is.

[Julien Sorel]

You are joking, aren't you?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/09/op...avez-venezuela

"By David Frum, CNN Contributor"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

He's in favour of same sex marriage, though .

[Richard Barrett]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/09/op...avez-venezuela

That article would be by the same David Frum who used to be a speechwriter for George W Bush, right?

[scottycelt]

The comparison of the church's rules with secular laws is a useful one, since it blunders straight into the indisputable fact that homosexuality was banned by those secular laws in the UK until relatively recently, and no longer is.

Yes but so far the secular law does not say that homosexuality is compulsory or that everyone must use artificial contraception. So everyone can believe and are free to act as they like in these matters. That does not apply to where one parks one's car. The analogy was merely to demonstrate that secular society has it's own rules and, unlike the Church, STILL has its 'inquisitions'.

'Gay Marriage' strikes at the very heart of the meaning of the centuries-old institution and basically claims that there is no difference between the sexes, there is no difference between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter what sex you marry, it is irrelevant.

In terms of procreation and survival of the species alone that defies reason and logic. One doesn't have to be in any way religious to see that, and may wonder why we have two sexes in the first place, whether God was shamefully responsible or that the two sexes evolved by natural error.

Under the current law homosexuals are no more discriminated against than heterosexuals. The former have exclusive official partnerships just like the latter. The current law recognises that there is a difference between the sexes and reflects that reality.

It seems to some that moves towards 'gay marriage' are quite unnecessary and blatantly political and simply a price that the Lib Dems exacted from Cameron as part of the Coalition Deal, this time eagerly supported by the Labour Party.

The 'equality' claim is entirely bogus. Some of us are not quite as stupid as Flossie and others blissfully believe.

[Flosshilde]

Under the current law homosexuals are no more discriminated against than heterosexuals.

I did explain why that's not the case some way back.

It seems to some that moves towards 'gay marriage' are quite unnecessary and blatantly political and simply a price that the Lib Dems exacted from Cameron as part of the Coalition Deal, this time eagerly supported by the Labour Party.

I think, although I may be wrong, that Cameron is making this a free vote for the Tories. There are a not inconsiderable number of supporters of it in his party. So it's quite likely that, had it been a Labour, or a Lab-lib, or a Liberal government that introduced it it would still be passed. So hardly 'political'.

[Mr Pee]

That article would be by the same David Frum who used to be a speechwriter for George W Bush, right?

As usual, it's far easier to ridicule the writer than actually address the facts.

[jean]

'Gay Marriage' strikes at the very heart of the meaning of the centuries-old institution...

But what is the 'heart'? Nobody seems able to explain, unless the 'heart' is procreation, nothing else.

That leads straight to the Church's formerly considering all non-procreative sex as at least a venial sin.

(Actually I just discovered this messageboard, which appears to indicate that they still do.)

[Richard Barrett]

As usual, it's far easier to ridicule the writer than actually address the facts.

If you want to have a discussion about Chavez and Venezuela and facts, I'll be happy to take part. All I am wondering at this moment is whether one can realistically trust the views of someone who wrote speeches for the mindless dauber formerly known as President Bush.

[Julien Sorel]

As usual, it's far easier to ridicule the writer than actually address the facts.

You post a link to a piece about Chavez written by a speechwriter for an American President who supported a military coup to oust (the elected) Chavez and you really can't see there might just be something the teensiest bit doubtful about the reliability of said piece?


Are you Homer Simpson, by any chance?

[teamsaint]

You post a link to a piece about Chavez written by a speechwriter for an American President who supported a military coup to oust (the elected) Chavez and you really can't see there might just be something the teensiest bit doubtful about the reliability of said piece?


Are you Homer Simpson, by any chance?

As Joe Jackson pointed out, " They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true"..............

[amateur51]

I've read the Bible twice (many years ago) and yes, it is a wonderful work of literature (in the King James Authorized performing version of the draft score, particularly) but goodness, parts of it are like Moby Dick with all the the lists and tables! The bits in Leviticus that are hostile to gay men and Chinese cuisine are especially dull. (OK for lesbians, as long as they keep away from the bacon butties, it seems!)

And when they're not menstruating of course, ferney