Gay couples are just lifelong friends, says Catholic leader Homosexual couples who want to get married merely enjoy a "profound friendship,"

[pepipop]

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9147559/Gay-couples-are-just-lifelong-friends-says-Catholic-leader.html

*Nick Herbert, the Home Office minister, said the Archbishop had a “sad misunderstanding” of the nature of homosexual relationships. “It is akin to a union between a man and a woman in a heterosexual marriage,” he said. “What is wrong with wanting to show a commitment towards someone?”

He went on: “I don’t seek to dictate to the Archbishop what happens inside his church, what standards he sets and what he seeks to do. It would be quite wrong for me or the state to do so. But equally I wonder why he should seek to dictate the institution of civil marriage outside of his church which is not a matter for the church.”

He said same-sex unions would “strengthen the institution” of marriage.

"There have been enormous strides towards equality in our society in the last few years, but there is more to do. *

All about ‘equality’ and their ‘love’ being akin to a heterosexual relationship. ‘Love’ between two siblings, unaware of each other from birth, who meet up unexpectantly years later - pyschologists have proven through research will have a much stronger attraction and ‘love’, than non-related heterosexual partners. So using the above theory of ‘love’, incest should be legalised too, as obviously morality, natural law and children have disappeared from the equation that was once marriage.

 

[Santi2]

"There have been enormous strides towards equality in our society in the last few years, but there is more to do.

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill: “Right now, faiths shouldn’t be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.”
hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.”
pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/11/religious-civil-partnerships-amendment-tabled-in-lords/

"There is more to do" and “that may change”. And they assure that the proposed legislation is drafted making clear that: “No obligation in this Act…religious organizations (sic) or clergy…if they do not wish to do so”?

 

[pepipop]

"There is more to do" and “that may change”. And they assure that the proposed legislation is drafted making clear that: “No obligation in this Act…religious organizations (sic) or clergy…if they do not wish to do so”?

I genuninely cannot understand the insanity of it all, for 1% of the population - and considering not all will wish to marry, possibly 0.3%? Why are the government even interested at all, and moving to push it forward, it’s hardly going to bring in a lot of votes?

If anything, it may actually cause a homophobic backlash as most of the secular sites, I’ve visited, commenting on the issue (i.e. stating no religion), are not too happy about it, quite a lot of homophobic remarks being made.

 

[Santi2]

I genuninely cannot understand the insanity of it all, for 1% of the population - and considering not all will wish to marry, possibly 0.3%? Why are the government even interested at all, and moving to push it forward, it’s hardly going to bring in a lot of votes?

If anything, it may actually cause a homophobic backlash as most of the secular sites, I’ve visited, commenting on the issue (i.e. stating no religion), are not too happy about it, quite a lot of homophobic remarks being made.

Political arrogance, as well as Government’s ploy to distract from pressing issues…none of which will further their political careers. Especially so, when the Impact Statement regarding financial costs relating to the proposed legislation is made known at grassroots level . Right now, the Government has coyly limited public consultation online.

 

[pepipop]

Political arrogance, as well as Government’s ploy to distract from pressing issues…none of which will further their political careers. Especially so, when the Impact Statement regarding financial costs relating to the proposed legislation is made known at grassroots level . Right now, the Government has coyly limited public consultation online.

I’ve come to the conclusion that governments, worldwide - in an attempt to hide their incompetance of running their respective countries, especially with the dire economic climate, unemployment and so on - bring up ‘emotive issues’ that they know will trigger public debate, so as to take way the emphasis of the real issues that we all want answers too.

 

[ljsedivy]

I genuninely cannot understand the insanity of it all, for 1% of the population - and considering not all will wish to marry, possibly 0.3%? Why are the government even interested at all, and moving to push it forward, it’s hardly going to bring in a lot of votes?

QUOTE]

It’s the agenda of the enemy. Push this issue and keep it in front of people’s eyes. You know the saying, “Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.” ?? Well, this is just part of the enemy’s plan to destroy the family (domestic church). Same as abortion and contraception and all the fruits that come of that.

 

[Jennet]

Since when has marriage been just a commitment between friends?!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Deacon Nick:

If only Archbishop Nichols had said gays are called to profound,life-long and chaste friendships

During a BBC studio debate on government plans to legalise gay marriage Archbishop Nichols said that homosexual couples are not called to marriage but to ‘a very profound and lifelong friendship.’ Unfortunately,the archbishop didn’t mention the one word that is fundamental to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality,and her approach to the pastoral care of persons who are homosexual,‘chastity’.

…

The problem with Archbishop Nichols omission of the word ‘chastity’from his use of the phrase ‘profound and life-long friendship’is that he is ignoring the sad fact that friendship,particularly in the case of homosexual persons,has been explicitly sexualised. For many people in our culture,particularly young people,the use of the word ‘friendship’does not exclude sexual activity.

Why did the archbishop omit the one word that is fundamental to the Church’s teaching on homosexual persons? No doubt he would have been ridiculed and attacked in a public debate for mentioning ‘chastity’,but what does that matter to a man who will become our next cardinal. The essential role of a cardinal is to teach,explain and defend the truth handed down from the apostles. The situation facing the Church in this country,now more than ever,is that we speak the truth in love,the whole truth,not just the parts we think the people are willing to hear.

There is no getting away from the fact that Archbishop Nichols was caught between a rock and a hard place,and that he was right to speak with the understanding and concern of a pastor. Bu the question has to be asked,why the omission of chastity?

protectthepope.com/?p=4870

 

[pepipop]

Since when has marriage been just a commitment between friends?!

Never, that is the point. The church recognises that same sex indivudals can have loving (non-sexual) or profound friendships, but not the love sanctified through the sacrament of marriage.