Gay marriage thread

[Pabmusic]

..."Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to members of the Pontifical Academy for Life earlier this year, addressed the issue of married couples struggling with infertility. He said, 'The Church pays great attention to the suffering of couples with infertility, she cares for them and, precisely because of this, encourages medical research.'

But he warned against 'the lure of the technology of artificial insemination,' which is not permitted by Catholic teaching. The Pope said to couples unable to conceive: '[Your] vocation to marriage is no less because of this. Spouses, for their own baptismal and marriage vocation, are called to cooperate with God in the creation of a new humanity. The vocation to love, in fact, is a vocation to the gift of self and this is a possibility that no organic condition can prevent. There, where science has not yet found an answer, the answer that gives light comes from Christ.'"...]

"IVF is intrinsically and extrinsically wrong. For our contemporaries (and even our co-religionists), for whom might makes right, and who love not truth for its own sake but for the power that knowledge can bring, there is little chance of their coming to understand that a child 'has the right to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents' [Donum Vitae, 1987]. If they cannot understand that IVF, as the same Vatican document says, 'is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo', nevertheless they may be brought to their senses when they see its inevitably evil consequences: millions have perished since 1969, when the first short-lived attempt at human fertilisation in vitro was achieved."


"And so, amidst all the positive publicity surrounding IVF, the Church remembers the millions who have perished and prays for the conversion of those parents who have been misled by public opinion into thinking that what they have done is lawful, reminding them that 'marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation.'"...

It is in fact quite chilling, when you read it, JS. Presumably those lucky parents who have benefitted from IVF are in fact sinners, and worthy of punishment because of it. I must read what the bible says about the evils of IVF.

The sentence: 'There, where science has not yet found an answer, the answer that gives light comes from Christ' is telling (though I doubt Pope Benedict meant it this way) since religion shrinks as science explains more and more. So if something is as yet unexplained by science, religion fills the gap with a supernatural answer. The thing is though, that we already understand much about the science of love - the processes that amount to love. But the former pope was not a scientist, of course.

[scottycelt]

Then I shall rephrase - What about someone who's had a hysterectomy or vasectomy who wants to get married?

You mean you acknowledge the answer given and are now asking a completely separate question?

Any form of artificial birth control is wrong in the eyes of the Church (apologies to Mr GG) but if the purpose of the latter is not birth control but due to a condition (eg cancer) it is permissible.

Catholic teaching does not insist on procreation in every marriage for it to be valid (even it hardly has the power to do that) it merely says that no artificial means should be used to prevent it and the possibility of conception should always be present in normal circumstances. Full stop.

It would be almost impossible to see a situation where the Church would sanction a marriage where it knew that either or both persons had deliberately and permanently destroyed any chance of having children as that would be clearly contrary to its teaching. Not to mention quite illogical and absurd.

Of course the happy couple would be perfectly free to form a legal marriage anywhere else ...

[Richard Barrett]

The story so far:

Everyone else: The church and especially the catholic church is an intolerant and anachronistic institution, particularly conflicted and hypocritical where sex and reproduction are concerned, whose centuries-long timelag behind the way people really live and think causes massive unnecessary suffering among those who look to it for guidance and consolation (to which a "leftie" like myself might add, in double inverted commas, "the distorted expression of real needs denied by class society" and so on).

scottycelt: That all happened a long time ago and it's all OK now and actually the onus is on you lefties to prove everything you say while I sit back with my dram and chuckle to myself.

Mr Pee: You're all idiots, and probably filthy immigrants to boot.

ahinton: (continued on page 94)

[Pabmusic]

You mean you acknowledge the answer given and are now asking a completely separate question? ...

No. I am simply not challenging a silly (though very interesting) evasion on your part, Scotty. The answer you gave was based on a highly (highly) unusual case where IVF was used. Julian Sorrel has now posted some interesting facts about the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF (surprise, surprise). So, If you really want an acknowledgement, it is of the fact that you had to rely on an 'illicit' procedure (according to your church) that produced a highly odd result as a way of avoiding having to acknowledge my point. But I forgive you.

[MrGongGong]

The story so far:

Everyone else: The church and especially the catholic church is an intolerant and anachronistic institution, particularly conflicted and hypocritical where sex and reproduction are concerned, whose centuries-long timelag behind the way people really live and think causes massive unnecessary suffering among those who look to it for guidance and consolation (to which a "leftie" like myself might add, in double inverted commas, "the distorted expression of real needs denied by class society" and so on).

scottycelt: That all happened a long time ago and it's all OK now and actually the onus is on you lefties to prove everything you say while I sit back with my dram and chuckle to myself.

Mr Pee: You're all idiots, and probably filthy immigrants to boot.

ahinton: (continued on page 94)

As concise as Webern



but you missed
Simon: Once a week I take a stroll round the estate to see how the minions are getting on with their tasks, I might deign to add the occasional pearl of wisdom before returning to more important academic pursuits.

[amateur51]

"Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to members of the Pontifical Academy for Life

I am so thrilled to learn that such an organisation exists, JS. It reads like a creation of early Tom Sharpe or Swift. I'm sure that scotty is a member and if he isn't I think we should get him in there pronto - he's so clearly well-suited

[amateur51]

The story so far:

Everyone else: The church and especially the catholic church is an intolerant and anachronistic institution, particularly conflicted and hypocritical where sex and reproduction are concerned, whose centuries-long timelag behind the way people really live and think causes massive unnecessary suffering among those who look to it for guidance and consolation (to which a "leftie" like myself might add, in double inverted commas, "the distorted expression of real needs denied by class society" and so on).

scottycelt: That all happened a long time ago and it's all OK now and actually the onus is on you lefties to prove everything you say while I sit back with my dram and chuckle to myself.

Mr Pee: You're all idiots, and probably filthy immigrants to boot.

ahinton: (continued on page 94)

[amateur51]

As concise as Webern



but you missed
Simon: Once a week I take a stroll round the estate to see how the minions are getting on with their tasks, I might deign to add the occasional pearl of wisdom before returning to more important academic pursuits.

near-perfick

Has he had his 00 status removed then?

[scottycelt]

No. I am simply not challenging a silly (though very interesting) evasion on your part, Scotty. The answer you gave was based on a highly (highly) unusual case where IVF was used. Julian Sorrel has now posted some interesting facts about the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF (surprise, surprise). So, If you really want an acknowledgement, it is of the fact that you had to rely on an 'illicit' procedure (according to your church) that produced a highly odd result as a way of avoiding having to acknowledge my point. But I forgive you.

Gee, thanks, Pab ... I feel suitably chastened ...

Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing in that link, and I did put a beside it.

What I really find remarkable is that Julien Sorel and yourself have apparently just discovered the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF. I would have considered that might be common knowledge to anyone who takes an interest in common moral and practical dilemmas.

You describe the Church's stance as 'chilling'. Others might use that very word to describe certain areas of current scientific and medical research which involve aborted foetesus.

The End does not necessarily justify the Means ...

[Pabmusic]

Gee, thanks, Pab ... I feel suitably chastened ...

Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing in that link, and I did put a beside it...

Scotty, I have my tongue firmly in my cheek.

...What I really find remarkable is that Julien Sorel and yourself have apparently just discovered the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF. I would have considered that might be common knowledge to anyone who takes an interest in common moral and practical dilemmas.

You describe the Church's stance as 'chilling'. Others might use that very word to describe certain areas of current scientific and medical research which involve aborted foetesus...

I don't think that IVF raises problems similar to stem-cell research or anything that involves 'aborted foetuses'. Perhaps that's why I was surprised.

[Julien Sorel]

What I really find remarkable is that Julien Sorel and yourself have apparently just discovered the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF. I would have considered that might be common knowledge to anyone who takes an interest in common moral and practical dilemmas.

I hadn't just discovered it. I'll take this really slowly, so whatever you pretend it should be impossible for you to evade the nature of what you do here in your form of argumentation. Then taking Richard Barrett's point I'll leave you to get on with being disingenuous.

Pabmusic asked, if marriage was for procreation, what about the case of two 70 year olds who wished to marry.

You posted a link to a Fox News story showing an Indian woman aged 70 who had conceived and had a son. That was your reply to Pabmusic.

I pointed out that (a) the reason for this remarkable thing happening was IVF. Not some miracle by God whereby unassisted conception was possible. I also pointed out (b) the Catholic Church opposes IVF.

You responded to - refuted - Pabmusic by citing a case of something that happened because of something the Catholic Church teaches (oh why not - 'teaches') is sinful (why not again - 'sinful').

So you were responding duplicitously. To be very clear: I don't think that's because Jesuits taught you or because you are a closet Jesuit or because you are a Catholic. It's what, on here, you always do. You reply misleadingly and then veer off-tack in an equally misleading fashion.

You oppose Civil Partnerships but claim the non-availability of Civil Partnerships to hetero couples shows same sex marriage isn't about equality. When it's pointed out that same sex marriage supporters support universal Civil Partnerships and you (and your Church) don't ... swerve.

You say the laws of the club are non-negotiable. I point out that in Europe and the USA birthrates among Catholics - those left in the Church - have dramatically fallen over the past 40 years. That's not the result of following Catholic instruction on contraception, or the methods the Church permits. It's the result of deciding the rules are individually negotiable. Or, to put it bluntly, ignoring what the Church says. So I presume all Catholics who ignore the Church in that way should do the proper thing and quit the Church. In your view, that is.

[MrGongGong]

The End does not necessarily justify the Means ...

It seems to when you want to kill for political reasons though ...........
Just face it, the Catholic Church is inconsistent, cruel and causes needless suffering whilst preaching things that it doesn't do itself
THEN plays the "oooo but only god is perfect" card which simply is pathetic and wrong

[jean]

I don't think that IVF raises problems similar to stem-cell research or anything that involves 'aborted foetuses'.

The likelihood of failure means that more embryos are created than will ever be expected to become viable human beings. (These links aren't from the UK but the problems are the same.)

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/08/64722?currentPage=all

http://theconversation.com/frozen-in-time-clarifying-laws-on-ivf-embryo-use-and-destruction-11569

[Pabmusic]

The likelihood of failure means that more embryos are created than will ever be expected to become viable human beings...

Oh I see. But nature aborts most foetuses anyway. For every one person born alive, there are probably 15-20 fertilised eggs that never implant, or that, once implanted, spontaneously abort without the mother ever having known she was 'pregnant' (if that's indeed what she was). If each of these 'lives' has a soul, then heaven must be full to overflowing with souls that never had anything like an independent existence, nor could have had. These souls will outnumber those of people who did have independent existences by probably hundreds to one.*

And all this before we consider a surgical technique that helps many otherwise childless couples.

*[Or if the bible is to be believed, they won't - because heaven is empty at the moment, save for a few such as Jesus and Elijah. And Revelation limits the numbers to 144,000 anyway.]

[Flosshilde]

the Pontifical Academy for Life

Like ams I believe that the existence of such a thing adds much to the gaiety of the world. Is it where you go before you are qualified to attend the University of Life?