Gay marriage thread

[amateur51]

Can one of the eminent theologians explain something for me? It's a fact of biology that more than a third of natural conceptions fail to begin development, and are miscarried at a very early stage, even before the potential mother is aware that she has conceived.

However, the sperm has successfully fertilised the egg, and so, if we are to assume that a soul has been miraculously created, where does it go ?

*gets a fresh coffee & settles back* I'm looking forward to some answers to that, Ferret

[Mr Pee]

Well I don't have access to you bewildering array of emoticons, Mr Pee.

Pee-world, where graphics speak louder than words

Try and find some more emoticons then. They would be more worthwhile than the majority of your fatuous and juvenile posts.

[Flosshilde]

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

Re: Hell and Non-procreative Sex
So, giving a husband oral sex and him not finishing in the vagina will send me hell?

[amateur51]

Try and find some more emoticons then. They would be more worthwhile than the majority of your fatuous and juvenile posts.

I wish your posts were juvenile, Mr Pee - I find most young people to have interesting and interested minds, unencumbered by stereotypes and lazy thinking unlike you & me.

You've been stuck on this thread since 21 March Mr Pee. You need to get out more otherwise people will be asking why you're so passionate about gay marriage.

[scottycelt]

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.)

The Church's position is that all sex that does not lead to the possibility of conception is wrong ... hence the opposition to artificial contraception. However, that is not what we are supposed to be discussing here.

My reference to the 'heart of marriage' means that up until recently a marriage meant the union of a man and a woman. A husband and wife. There was no other definition. In the majority of cases children would be a result of that union. Therefore there would be a natural father and mother. Only a man and a woman can produce children and be natural parents. In this regard, Man cannot do without Woman and Woman cannot do without Man. So they become One in Marriage.

Homosexual relationships must be different as there is no possibility of producing children and they will never become natural parents. So they are quite separate from heterosexual partnerships where the possibility, even probability, is taken for granted. This difference is currently recognised by law.

Why therefore change the definition of 'Marriage' but not 'Civil Partnership' ?

Apart from the religious objections, that is clearly discriminatory and displays a distinct lack of 'equality'. Hence the reason that it is not only wrong-headed but also based on a wholly sham argument.

[MrGongGong]

Homosexual relationships must be different as there is no possibility of producing children and they will never become natural parents.

Yeah right matey

The Church's position is that all sex that does not lead to the possibility of conception is wrong

"THE" Church ?

I think you mean "My Sect"

Other fantasies are available (involving poultry cookery or not )

[jean]

The Church's position is that all sex that does not lead to the possibility of conception is wrong ... However, that is not what we are supposed to be discussing here.

you write.

But then what do you do, but go on to discuss it?

My reference to the 'heart of marriage' means that up until recently a marriage meant the union of a man and a woman. A husband and wife. There was no other definition. In the majority of cases children would be a result of that union. Therefore there would be a natural father and mother. Only a man and a woman can produce children and be natural parents.

[Julien Sorel]

Why therefore change the definition of 'Marriage' but not 'Civil Partnership' ?

Apart from the religious objections, that is clearly discriminatory and displays a distinct lack of 'equality'. Hence the reason that it is not only wrong-headed but also based on a wholly sham argument.

But it's you - and I guess the Catholic and other churches / religious groups - who would oppose the extension of Civil Partnerships to different sex couples. Not groups who support same sex marriage (that I've seen). So it's a bit hypocritical of you to raise a bogus equality complaint. No?

If the Church is the Bride of Christ that makes the Church the woman in the marriage. Is that correct?

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

[scottycelt]

you write.

But then what do you do, but go on to discuss it?

I didn't discuss anything about 'venial sins' or anything about 'non-procreative sex' at least in heterosexual terms. You raised that in your post. I swiftly responded to your query in a single sentence. The messageboard link that you supplied seemed to be concentrating on heterosexual matters so I assumed you were too. Apologies if that was not the case.

What I did say ... which was the relevant point ... is that homosexual relationships cannot produce children and therefore by definition must be different from heterosexual relationships which can (produce).

I don't want particularly to get into a lengthy sub-discussion though I realise it is almost impossible not to 'wander' from time to time to make an interesting point!

[MrGongGong]

What I did say ... which was the relevant point ... is that homosexual relationships cannot produce children and therefore by definition must be different from heterosexual relationships which can (produce).

and in evidence I bring you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoEWYJHf0kU

[amateur51]

I didn't discuss anything about 'venial sins' or anything about 'non-procreative sex' at least in heterosexual terms. You raised that in your post. I swiftly responded to your query in a single sentence. The messageboard link that you supplied seemed to be concentrating on heterosexual matters so I assumed you were too. Apologies if that was not the case.

What I did say ... which was the relevant point ... is that homosexual relationships cannot produce children and therefore by definition must be different from heterosexual relationships which can (produce).

I don't want particularly to get into a lengthy sub-discussion though I realise it is almost impossible not to 'wander' from time to time to make an interesting point!

Well clearly lesbian and gay relationships can and do produce children scotty, shocking tho that must be to you.

And what about adoption?

You're struggling here with your objections and it's sad to see

[scottycelt]

But it's you - and I guess the Catholic and other churches / religious groups - who would oppose the extension of Civil Partnerships to different sex couples. Not groups who support same sex marriage (that I've seen). So it's a bit hypocritical of you to raise a bogus equality complaint. No?

If the Church is the Bride of Christ that makes the Church the woman in the marriage. Is that correct?

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Yes, you accused me of being 'opportunistic' about that in a previous post, I remember!

I think it is a valid point to raise the issue of discrimination against heterosexuals regarding CPs. The whole argument in favour of 'gay marriage' is based on 'equality' so that alone proves the argument to be quite false.

I have no personal desire to see CPs extended to include non-gays as they already have Marriage. Which is precisely why I equally believe that Marriage should not be extended to include gays!!

Let each have their own institution with its own rules ... I really cannot imagine anything could be fairer and more respectful to both parties than that!

Sorry, my mind may be yielding to late afternoon weariness but I cannot quite grasp your last point.

[amateur51]

Yes, you accused me of being 'opportunistic' about that in a previous post, I remember!

I think it is a valid point to raise the issue of discrimination against heterosexuals regarding CPs. The whole argument in favour of 'gay marriage' is based on 'equality' so that alone proves the argument to be quite false.

I have no personal desire to see CPs extended to include non-gays as they already have Marriage. Which is precisely why I equally believe that Marriage should not be extended to include gays!!

Let each have their own institution with its own rules ... I really cannot imagine anything could be fairer and more respectful to both parties than that!

Sorry, my mind may be yielding to late afternoon weariness but I cannot quite grasp your last point.

So where do bisexual men and bisexual women fit into your neatly codified little world, each with their own set of rules, scotty?

Catholicism does seem to thrive on bureaucracy, it would seem

[Serial_Apologist]

So where do bisexual men and bisexual women fit into your neatly codified little world, each with their own set of rules, scotty?

By them having the option not to be Catholics, one supposes. After all, it's all about being members of a club and having to agree to the rules, innit!

One thing that puzzles me is, does all this preordainment of marriage to procreation automatically demote infertile heterosexual couples in the Catholic view - or for that matter heterosexual couples choosing to adopt or foster for other reasons - to the level of gay couples (of either gender, natch) choosing to have their own children by means of artificial insemination?

Just interested to know.

[MrGongGong]

So where do bisexual men and bisexual women fit into your neatly codified little world, each with their own set of rules, scotty?

Come off it Am
we all "Know" that people are either one thing or another
there are NO shades in between ......... are there ?

or for that matter couples choosing to adopt or foster for other reasons -

Well we all now know what the Catholic church thinks about children in need of loving families don't we , as it places it's own dogma above those of the most vulnerable.