Gay marriage thread

[french frank]

It means anyone who wants to extend their authority to people who do not wish to subscribe to it.

It means that churches which does not wish to marry gay people (which no-one at all has tried to make them do) wants to stop the State from allowing them to contract civil marriage.

Once marriages without any religious component were allowed, the definition of marriage was no longer the property of the churches.

For example, the churches are free to regard marriage as binding until death, and to refuse to remarry divorced people - but it is none of their business if the state disagrees.

I'n not sure how they 'extend their authority to people who do not wish to subscribe to it.' Of the small number of Catholic MPs (mostly Labour) a majority voted in favour of gay marriage. What 'authority, in this case, does it have?

[scottycelt]

It is a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine to suppose that Catholics bow down to or serve the images they make.

Of course it is.

It is quite astonishing that this peculiar idea still lingers in modern times,

It (the peculiar idea) is now mainly confined to the more extreme 'right-wing' Protestant sects.

[Julien Sorel]

If any Government proposed the re-introduction of capital punishment, because the polls showed a majority of the population supported it and the churches opposed it, would you (and Pab) tell the churches to go away and mind their own business?

I'd suggest the difference there is that in the case of same sex marriage the churches are attempting to deny something to individuals on the basis of a system of beliefs that those individuals don't share. Since that system of belief commands nothing like universal (or general) assent today it's an attempt to impose one system of personal conduct on individuals who don't share the belief system that grounds that attempt.

In the case of capital punishment it's something that is general, crosses belief and individual practice. It's not as though people who support capital punishment want to be able as individuals to execute people. It's not their individual life within society that is at issue.

[french frank]

it's an attempt to impose one system of personal conduct on individuals who don't share the belief system that grounds that attempt.

But in what sense are they imposing it? They have no power over the civil legislature - as has been demonstrated in the Commons. They may deny people a church wedding, but why should that bother those 'who don't share the belief system '?

[ahinton]

Of course the Church is entitled to make up its own rules and indeed to try to enforce them as long as they comply with the law and of course they are entitled to speak up about anything, including speaking up against gay marriage, but in this they are no different to any other organisation or grouping; scotty's mention of lobbyists is certainly relevant here. What the church must not do, however, is seek to impose its rules upon those who do not subscribe or no longer subscribe to it - not on government, not on individuals.

Furthermore, of course, like most groups and organisations, the Church is unable to present a 100% front against gay marriage in any case because not every Catholic opposes it and not every Catholic is heterosexual or celibate; a negative position on same-sex marriage might be Church policy but we should not lose sight of the fact that this policy is not representative of the Catholic population as a whole. The same it true about its stance on homosexuality; the extent to which its policy opposes it must be measured against the proportion of Catholics who disagree with it and the proportion of Catholics who are themselves homosexual. Likewise, its policy towards women in terms of their rôles in society is not supported by every Catholic and, although (as has already been pointed out) all of the Catholic Church's rules are made by men and have been for generations, not every male Catholic agrees that women should in principle be denied access to particular rôles. Not every Catholic is against the use of contraception. And so on and so on.

So, although gay marriage is the thread topic, it has to be recognised and appreciated that, where the Catholic Church is concerned, its future is not only dependent upon its policy on gay marriage, since many other policies on which it has long remained inflexible are up for review here (or rather should be). I accept that this thread is not about the future of the Catholic Church (and perhaps those wishing specifically to discuss that ought perhaps to commence a new thread on it), but it seems understandable that so many posts have been devoted to it because that Church has been so obdurate and vociferous about same-sex marriage whilst at the same time reticent about putting other aspects of its own sexual house in order and addressing its proper rôle in 21st century society. The implication that male and female homosexuals (married or not), women who use contraception and men who support its use, women who desire careers in high office and all the rest of it are not welcome as members of the Church seems to me to be thoroughly offensive towards many people who could and undoubtedly would in most other respects conduct themselves as devout Catholics and, if the Church persists in this hardline fundamentalism, it will be seen to cut off its nose to spite its face.

[Julien Sorel]

But in what sense are they imposing it?

They aren't. They're attempting to (which is what I wrote ). I probably didn't put it very clearly: the campaign by several churches to prevent same sex couples marrying in secular services is an attempt to impose on individuals something based on a set of religious beliefs which they may not share, which many people don't share: it isn't, IMV, a matter of general social concern. It's a matter of individual practice being determined by religious beliefs which the individuals whose practice is being determined have no allegiance to. Whereas capital punishment (or the speed limit on motorways) is a general, social concern and doesn't directly affect individuals in the aspect of their individuality. It applies - hopefully - to everyone indiscriminately. Obviously you could oppose capital punishment on the basis that thou shalt not kill overrides an eye for an eye. But that's, again, not an argument that affects individuals as individuals.

Edit: the situation reflects the situation certainly in this country, which is that religious belief doesn't command general assent. That may lead to laments about aggressive secularism (curiously the positive aspects of secularism tend not to get highlighted, positive aspects which include tolerance - unless you are Dawkins - of religious plurality and non-sectarianism, and negative aspects - something called materialism - get emphasised. Presumably dialectical materialism isn't meant, so wanting lots of stuff / possessions I guess is. In most other contexts this seems something the denouncers of aggressive secularism don't seem overly fussed about), but it reflects a reality. Most people at least don't practically believe in God, never mind religious doctrine. And many of those who do, while doubtless opposing same sex marriage, aren't Christians.

[amateur51]

Catholic agencies weren't enforcing their will on anybody it was the other way around!! In the link that I provided Andrew Pierce, who is both gay and a lapsed Catholic himself, talks of the great debt he owes to one such agency and the dedicated people within it. He should know.

Andrew Pierce has a very particular set of experiences that has led him to those views quite understandably and legitimately. The significant factor that you're ignoring scotty is that he has two national platforms in the Daily Mail column and his radio slot on LBC.

The Catholic adoption agencies closed because they chose not to be able to comply with the requirements of local authorities that have legal and financial responsibility for children in care. These regulations should be abandoned on the altar of the religious beliefs? Imagine if Freemasons stepped forward suddenly with their own adoption agencies witha list of things they won't comply with - no thank you.

[jean]

It means anyone who wants to extend their authority to people who do not wish to subscribe to it.

I'm not sure how they 'extend their authority to people who do not wish to subscribe to it.'...

The crucial words from my post are missing in your quote, ff!

[ahinton]

Andrew Pierce has a very particular set of experiences that has led him to those views quite understandably and legitimately. The significant factor that you're ignoring scotty is that he has two national platforms in the Daily Mail column and his radio slot on LBC.

The Catholic adoption agencies closed because they chose not to be able to comply with the requirements of local authorities that have legal and financial responsibility for children in care. These regulations should be abandoned on the altar of the religious beliefs? Imagine if Freemasons stepped forward suddenly with their own adoption agencies with a list of things they won't comply with - no thank you.

That is indeed correct; sad but true, one might say. Scotty is at least correct in pointing out that some of these institutions have carried out good works of undoubted social value, but then it's a pity that the Church sought to prioritise its own inflexible policies above the social value of that work, thereby putting those institutions in so impossible a position that they had little if any alternative but to close their doors. This parlous situation strikes me as just one especially invidious example of the Church seeking to put what it believes to be its own interests before those of people whom it is charged to serve.

[Flosshilde]

I'n not sure how they 'extend their authority to people who do not wish to subscribe to it.' Of the small number of Catholic MPs (mostly Labour) a majority voted in favour of gay marriage. What 'authority, in this case, does it have?

But of the Labour MPs who voted against most came from the West of Scotland. The list I saw (linked to way back in this thread) didn't indicate their religious belief, but I would hazard a guess (based on what I know about the West of Scotland & politicians from there) that they were predominantly Catholic. (of course the irony is that they were voting against something that would have no relevance to their constituents, so they could/should have abstained).

On a wider point, the Catholic Church (& most of the other main sects) might not have much influence over politicians & the state in the UK*, but in the wider world, & especially in Africa it does. It wields a considerable influence over funding for AIDS prevention, for example, & its beliefs about contraception are imposed on those who don't necessarily share them, to their detriment.

*I exclude the C of E as it has bishops sitting in the House of Lords & therefore does have an influence

[amateur51]

On a wider point, the Catholic Church (& most of the other main sects) might not have much influence over politicians & the state in the UK*, but in the wider world, & especially in Africa it does. It wields a considerable influence over funding for AIDS prevention, for example, & its beliefs about contraception are imposed on those who don't necessarily share them, to their detriment.

*I exclude the C of E as it has bishops sitting in the House of Lords & therefore does have an influence

Important points Flossie. As Red Nose Day draws ever closer, you can be certain that the organisers will have received the same pressure from Cathoilc organisations in UK and in Africa as they have done in the past over their funding for contraception, HIV/AIDS prevention and pregancy advice.

[Flosshilde]

Secular organisations 'lobby' the Government all the time that proposed bills shouldn't go ahead and nobody complains.

That's not really true, & I'm sure you know it, Scotty. Green & environmental campaigners protest about lobbying by industries involved in transport & power/energy, for example. There are protests about commercial healhcare providers lobbying the Dept of Health. Agreed that there is a lot of lobbying - but it's just not true that nobody complains about it.

[Flosshilde]

Andrew Pierce, who is both gay and a lapsed Catholic

(the use of the term 'lapsed' is significant; the Catholic church doesn't believe that somebody can decide that they don't want to believe in, or support, Catholicism. 'Lapsed' suggests someone who just hasn't got round to renewing their subscription to a club, but will do eventually, rather than actively resigned.)

[french frank]

That's not really true, & I'm sure you know it, ff.

Eh? Not my comment, Floss.

[Ferretfancy]

scottycelt

I remember in Malta, standing in the street when the Corpus Christie procession passed by, as thousands of people fell on their faces while my friends and I stood there bewildered at what can only be called idolatry. I have also witnessed the queues to place requests on the nearly worn out toe of the statue of St Anthony in Padua, and many other absurdities.

As everywhere in the world, the poor and uneducated are not led by the Church to make any real distinction in their minds between symbol and reality, it is not in the Vatican's interest to discourage superstition, since it reinforces its power over the ignorant.