Britain to legalize gay marriage!

[Mudgely]

Troll

Why say that?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

1. Eventually, many will say, Gay rights groups like GLAAD will sue institutions like the Catholic Church over the right to have Gays marry within it. In the name of “equality.” At the very least, their tax exempt status could be taken away as “punishment” for practicing “discrimination.” The second point is already being proposed by many people here in the US.
2. Catholic adoption agencies will continue to close rather than be forced by the federal government to allow adoptions to gay couples. Gay marriage will further encourage gay couples to demand the “full rights” that heterosexual marriage entails, which include the right to adopt. Most Catholic adoption agencies cannot afford to go private. Therefore, rather than give up their beliefs, they will choose to close.
3. If gay marriage is allowed, what is to stop OTHER forms of “marrige” to be legitimized? How about Polyamorous Marriages? Bigamous Marriages? Polygamous Marriages?

Those are some examples there.

There ya go.

This is what I was going to say. There are already cases in Europe where preachers are being jailed for preaching that homosexuality is wrong and Catholic adoption agencies in Britain were forced to close.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is what I was going to say. There are already cases in Europe where preachers are being jailed for preaching that homosexuality is wrong and Catholic adoption agencies in Britain were forced to close.

Sadly, you’re right.

 

[Mudgely]

This is what I was going to say. There are already cases in Europe where preachers are being jailed for preaching that homosexuality is wrong and Catholic adoption agencies in Britain were forced to close.

Everyone understands that this is a trend which started with the movement to make men and women equivalent in society, right? When there was a legal difference between the roles of men and women in marriage, then a marriage required two genders. Now, there are no distinct gender roles in marriage under the law. Therefore, legally there is no reason to require differing genders to form a marriage.

 

[Hokomai]

There should be no marriages performed, endorsed or recorded by the state. the state should provide for the registration of relationships for the purpose of establishing the rights under law of each party. Then people should be free to have any sort of marriage they like, or not - in a church, or not, with whoever they want. Untangle church and state and all becomes clear!

The Catholic objection to gay marriage is of course nothing other than a continuation under disguise of the real agenda, which is to outlaw gay relationships. In most countries the church has opposed moves to allow homosexuals to have sex with each other without fear of imprisonment,and in past times has supported punishments including torture and death.

Credibility for the church on this issue: very low indeed.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

There should be no marriages performed, endorsed or recorded by the state. the state should provide for the registration of relationships for the purpose of establishing the rights under law of each party. Then people should be free to have any sort of marriage they like, or not - in a church, or not, with whoever they want. Untangle church and state and all becomes clear!

The Catholic objection to gay marriage is of course nothing other than a continuation under disguise of the real agenda, which is to outlaw gay relationships. In most countries the church has opposed moves to allow homosexuals to have sex with each other without fear of imprisonment,and in past times has supported punishments including torture and death.

Credibility for the church on this issue: very low indeed.

As far as I know, the CC is not advocating that consenting adults should go to jail for performing behavior behind the doors of their own homes, Hokomai. It DOES oppose attempts to normalize and legitimize that behavior under the cover of “equal rights under the law,” that behavior going against (as it does) under God’s laws and the Church’s and Western Society’s traditional teachings on the subject. It certainlt opposes the attempt to legalize Gay Marriage, given as it does that it would undermine the whole concept of marriage, undermine (eventually) society, and encourage legitimization of almost EVERYTHING in our society.
Needless to say, you’re wrong about the “true” intentions of the Church.

 

[anp1215]

Like it or not, I give it at most 10 years before gay marriage is legal in the U.S. as well.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

It seems like its time for a Catholic King to come to the throne, take control away from parliament and fix things. The sooner Christendom comes back, the sooner I’ll be happy.

 

[The_Rock]

Everyone understands that this is a trend which started with the movement to make men and women equivalent in society, right? When there was a legal difference between the roles of men and women in marriage, then a marriage required two genders. Now, there are no distinct gender roles in marriage under the law. Therefore, legally there is no reason to require differing genders to form a marriage.

Wow, I guess since we are all so liberated, men will soon be giving birth.

 

[NonServiam]

Remember, the statement that prompted me to jump into this thread was “as “gay rights” expand, religious rights diminish.”

I was asking if anyone could name examples of rights – actual rights – that have been “diminished” in any way by gay marriage (or, as the initial statement suggests, gay rights in general). Let’s see how well you’ve done in meeting this challenge.

The rights of children to a mother and a father.

This isn’t a right that an individual possesses – many children now are raised by a single heterosexual parent or grow up in orphanages.

OrdinaryMelkite:

1. Eventually, many will say, Gay rights groups like GLAAD will sue institutions like the Catholic Church over the right to have Gays marry within it.

First, this is a hypothetical, so it’s not something that’s happening now. And second, even if this were to happen, it wouldn’t be a right that’s being taken away from anyone. It would be a legal action.

Catholic adoption agencies will continue to close rather than be forced by the federal government to allow adoptions to gay couples. Gay marriage will further encourage gay couples to demand the “full rights” that heterosexual marriage entails, which include the right to adopt. Most Catholic adoption agencies cannot afford to go private. Therefore, rather than give up their beliefs, they will choose to close.

There’s no such thing as a right to stay in business when you can’t afford it.

If gay marriage is allowed, what is to stop OTHER forms of “marrige” to be legitimized? How about Polyamorous Marriages? Bigamous Marriages? Polygamous Marriages?

Even if we grant your preposterous slippery-slope premise, legalizing these other forms of marriage would not hamper anyone’s rights either.

Whitacre_Girl:

There are already cases in Europe where preachers are being jailed for preaching that homosexuality is wrong

Well, this is the closest anyone has come to actually meeting the challenge I offered. Free speech is, obviously, a very important right, but 1) Free speech doesn’t extend to hate speech or disorderly public conduct…of course, it’s impossible for us to say whether these cases you speak of are actual examples of unlawful hate speech or trumped up charges, so we can’t really be sure about this point, and 2) As you yourself admit, these are isolated incidents: there are a vast number of public anti-gay sentiments that are heard all the time, on the street, at sports games, in popular music, etc.

I think it would be very, very difficult to make a case that free speech has been substantially affected at all by gays gaining rights. In fact, I think an individual’s rights to publicly express distaste with homosexuality are just as strong as ever – just look at this forum, for example.

 

[Holly3278]

How sickening. Although I am honestly surprised this hasn’t happened already. Just another sign of our world’s plummet further and further into evil.

 

[CMatt25]

sigh what kind of world are we living in

The same one God created with free will in it. One in which because there are many, many different faiths and beliefs among us, as well as non belief, that I pray we strive towards greater civil rights, towards democracies rather than theocracies and dictatorships. Where people can separate their religious law from civil state law. One in which by belief we all are God’s created children. And in which I pray His children can live in greater peace on earth with one another. With good will toward all. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Parliament can redefine marriage as much as it wants to. However, it does not mean we have to accept a farce. I have told my MP that it if he supports this legislation, he might as well write off his political career.

Exactly. Civil government can define the civil laws for their respective lands. Catholic Church governence does not have to accept it within the confines of their churches.

 

[CMatt25]

That is exactly how I feel. To be perfectly honest, if gay marriage was legal here in the states across the board it wouldn’t change my opinion on what marriage is one bit.

As well as it shouldn’t change your opinion if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman within the confines of your faith beliefs. If it was legal in the states across the board, civil marriage licenses could be issued for civil ceremonies or for those faith groups willing to perform them, such as the United Church of Christ among others. And if the Catholic Church and others don’t want to, then not a problem. They don’t have to. Peace.

 

[Hokomai]

As far as I know, the CC is not advocating that consenting adults should go to jail for performing behavior behind the doors of their own homes, Hokomai. It DOES oppose attempts to normalize and legitimize that behavior under the cover of “equal rights under the law,” that behavior going against (as it does) under God’s laws and the Church’s and Western Society’s traditional teachings on the subject. It certainlt opposes the attempt to legalize Gay Marriage, given as it does that it would undermine the whole concept of marriage, undermine (eventually) society, and encourage legitimization of almost EVERYTHING in our society.
Needless to say, you’re wrong about the “true” intentions of the Church.

The Catholic Church in my country did argue for the retention of laws under which homosexuals were jailed for having sex in private. And I am sure it has done so in every jurisdiction in which such laws have been repealed. It does so, it claims, because ‘the law is a teacher’. Unfortunately it is harmless people expressing their love for each other who are sent to prison as teaching resources. Are you telling me that Catholics, given a majority, would not legislate against homosexual acts? I think I am exactly right about what the Church would do, given the power. We have the examples of ‘Catholic’ countries like Ireland as evidence.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Civil government can define the civil laws for their respective lands. Catholic Church governence does not have to accept it within the confines of their churches.

But the Catholic Church, Protestant churches, segments of Jews and Muslims, do not have to “accept” a definition that opposes what they, as citizens, find acceptable within their various civil governments, based on how their faith legitimately informs their civil perspective. “Governance” has nothing to do with it; moral standards have everything to do it, and do relate to how society governs itself. Morality is not apart from governance, nor from societal institutions. Morality is foundational to the main institutions of society (education, marriage, family – and yes, even law). Civil law itself is not divorced from morality; it springs from morality. And competing moralities, when represented by various religions and those with no religion, can attempt to persuade the general public as to the best course of action.

“Church” is not “separate” from State. It is merely that a single religion is not formally identified with (most) States. That is the limit of the separation of “church” from “state.”

 

[CMatt25]

The rights of children to a mother and a father.

It would indeed be quite a miracle if a child was born without a mother and a father. Of course my father died when I was a very young child. Yet I’ve never looked at it as if God took away my right to have a father.

 

[CMatt25]

But the Catholic Church, Protestant churches, segments of Jews and Muslims, do not have to “accept” a definition that opposes what they, as citizens, find acceptable within their various civil governments, based on how their faith legitimately informs their civil perspective. “Governance” has nothing to do with it; moral standards have everything to do it, and do relate to how society governs itself. Morality is not apart from governance, nor from societal institutions. Morality is foundational to the main institutions of society (education, marriage, family – and yes, even law). Civil law itself is not divorced from morality; it springs from morality. And competing moralities, when represented by various religions and those with no religion, can attempt to persuade the general public as to the best course of action.

“Church” is not “separate” from State. It is merely that a single religion is not formally identified with (most) States. That is the limit of the separation of “church” from “state.”

Whatever Elizabeth. No one said competing views can not attempt to persuade the public direction of civil law.

 

[CMatt25]

1. Eventually, many will say, Gay rights groups like GLAAD will sue institutions like the Catholic Church over the right to have Gays marry within it. In the name of “equality.” At the very least, their tax exempt status could be taken away as “punishment” for practicing “discrimination.” The second point is already being proposed by many people here in the US.
2. Catholic adoption agencies will continue to close rather than be forced by the federal government to allow adoptions to gay couples. Gay marriage will further encourage gay couples to demand the “full rights” that heterosexual marriage entails, which include the right to adopt. Most Catholic adoption agencies cannot afford to go private. Therefore, rather than give up their beliefs, they will choose to close.
3. If gay marriage is allowed, what is to stop OTHER forms of “marrige” to be legitimized? How about Polyamorous Marriages? Bigamous Marriages? Polygamous Marriages?

Those are some examples there.

There ya go.

This sounds to me like the Catholic Church wants Her cake and to eat it to. She wants to be a private institution, would not want to be forced to perform gay unions or adoptions. Can’t afford to go private though. And still wants a public tax exemption all at the same time.

 

[CMatt25]

The Catholic Church in my country did argue for the retention of laws under which homosexuals were jailed for having sex in private. And I am sure it has done so in every jurisdiction in which such laws have been repealed. It does so, it claims, because ‘the law is a teacher’. Unfortunately it is harmless people expressing their love for each other who are sent to prison as teaching resources. Are you telling me that Catholics, given a majority, would not legislate against homosexual acts? I think I am exactly right about what the Church would do, given the power. We have the examples of ‘Catholic’ countries like Ireland as evidence.

I find it heartwrenching and sickening that harmless people expressing love for each other would be sent to prison. It’s not like they gunned down somebody on a street corner in the act of a robbery.